RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: Countryquine on Wednesday 07 September 22 02:34 BST (UK)
-
I can think of two instances in my family tree where a child has been illegitimate, registered with the mothers surname, and no indication of the father. Later when both appeared in the next census, they came under their fathers surnames, and they named their fathers on their marriage certificates. Births were 1855 and 1873.
Was it normal for children to take on their alleged fathers surnames as they grew up?
-
Was it normal for children to take on their alleged fathers surnames as they grew up?
Yes.
-
Was it normal for children to take on their alleged fathers surnames as they grew up?
Yes.
Thanks.
I have always been a bit wary of accepting the alleged fathers as such, since they were not named on the birth certificates. One father was, according to the family story, killed in an accident before the birth of his child, while the other was alive and went on some years later to marry someone else.
I would assume then, that when registering a birth in that period, if the parents were not married, then the registrar would only enter the mothers name, and the fathers name would not come into the equation, irrespective of whether the father accepted paternity or was indeed around to dispute it.
I am aware that illegitimacy was an accepted fact in NE Scotland around this time, despite the disapproval of the Church (there is a book by Prof Marjory Harper on this subject, which I think I will track down and re-read).
Thanks
-
I would assume then, that when registering a birth in that period, if the parents were not married, then the registrar would only enter the mothers name, and the fathers name would not come into the equation, irrespective of whether the father accepted paternity or was indeed around to dispute it.
Spot on.
The regulations stipulated that the name of the father of an illegitimate child could only be recorded on the child's birth certificate if the father accompanied the mother when she went to register the birth and signed the certificate alongside her.
-
Spot on.
The regulations stipulated that the name of the father of an illegitimate child could only be recorded on the child's birth certificate if the father accompanied the mother when she went to register the birth and signed the certificate alongside her.
Only from 1875
Cheers
Guy
-
If the minutes of the kirk session for the parish are available, it is always worth looking there for fathers of illegitimate children. Newspapers/court records can mention names too if litigation was necessary to get maintenance.
-
I've found fathers' details in Sherrif Court paternity decrees, in Ayrshire; and also in Ayrshire, fathers' details in Catholic baptisms. The births were registered under the mothers' maiden names.
-
Spot on.
The regulations stipulated that the name of the father of an illegitimate child could only be recorded on the child's birth certificate if the father accompanied the mother when she went to register the birth and signed the certificate alongside her.
Only from 1875
Cheers
Guy
I always assumed that it was from 1855 here in Scotland? Can you tell me where you found the 1875 ruling please Guy?
Thanks
Lodger.
-
It may come down too if they knew who their Fathers were and had contact with them.
-
I always assumed that it was from 1855 here in Scotland? Can you tell me where you found the 1875 ruling please Guy?
Thanks
Lodger.
Yes my mistake the 1875 legislation only covered England and Wales.
The problem with marriages in Scotland was/is that in Scotland marriage only requires consent.
As stated by Sir Patrick Ford in this extract.:-
"In Scotland, marriage is purely a contract by consent between the parties. It requires nothing else but that consent and that must be de presenti; that is to say, not in the future, but here and now, for all time they say, "We are man and wife"; and for the protection of the female it is also provided that a promise of marriage subsequente copula, on the strength of the promise, if the girl can prove that promise before the act took place, also constitutes marriage. I think that is only fair to all parties. The only difficulty is the proof and the Scottish law is very extraordinary with regard to that. We know that besides a statement made before witnesses if the parties are by "habit and repute" living as man and wife that constitutes marriage, but there is an even more extreme case that I would like to quote because it always remains in my mind as a very interesting instance of the extremes to which Scottish law presses its principles."
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01rtn/
-
Spot on.
The regulations stipulated that the name of the father of an illegitimate child could only be recorded on the child's birth certificate if the father accompanied the mother when she went to register the birth and signed the certificate alongside her.
Only from 1875
Not so.
That may have been the case in England and Wales, but the following is an extract from the text of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1854: XXXV. In the Case of an illegitimate Child it shall not be lawful for the Registrar to enter the Name of any Person as the Father of such Child, unless at the joint Request of the Mother and of the Person acknowledging himself to be the Father of such Child, and who shall in such Case sign the Register as Informant along with the Mother ....
-
Spot on.
The regulations stipulated that the name of the father of an illegitimate child could only be recorded on the child's birth certificate if the father accompanied the mother when she went to register the birth and signed the certificate alongside her.
Only from 1875
Not so.
That may have been the case in England and Wales, but the following is an extract from the text of the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1854: XXXV. In the Case of an illegitimate Child it shall not be lawful for the Registrar to enter the Name of any Person as the Father of such Child, unless at the joint Request of the Mother and of the Person acknowledging himself to be the Father of such Child, and who shall in such Case sign the Register as Informant along with the Mother ....
Yes as I previously conceded (in answer to Lodger) I had made an error.
However how did the Scottish Registrar know if the couple was married as the was no necessity in law for the couple to have gone through any ceremony.
As Sir Patrick Ford said on the matter "The only difficulty is the proof and the Scottish law is very extraordinary with regard to that."
See also http://www.rootschat.com/links/01rtn/
Cheers
Guy
-
However how did the Scottish Registrar know if the couple was married as the was no necessity in law for the couple to have gone through any ceremony.
I think declaration before witnesses could be construed as being a ceremony.
And even if you don't choose to regard it as a ceremony, there was a procedure to be followed from 1855 onwards in order to have the marriage registered. This involved the couple and their witnesses appearing before a sheriff and testifying to the fact that the parents had declared themselves married, and the sheriff then issued a warrant to authorise the Registrar to issue a marriage certificate.
The specific question in this thread relates to the surnames of children whose parents did not claim to be married when the birth was registered, so the question of how and when they were married does not arise, and any comments relating to the legality of the parents' marriage are irrelevant.
-
The specific question in this thread relates to the surnames of children whose parents did not claim to be married when the birth was registered, so the question of how and when they were married does not arise, and any comments relating to the legality of the parents' marriage are irrelevant.
That specific question was also covered in the link I gave, I had tried to add the exact paragraph by time given but for some reason I could not make any changes to the post or indeed access any Rootschat lists until I had rebooted my computer, for which I apologise.
However if you open the link and scroll to Sir Patrick Ford’s extract timed as 12.30 p.m. you will see no witnesses to a statement of being married was required. Scottish law was very relaxed in that matter.
See http://www.rootschat.com/links/01rtn/ Sir Patrick Ford 12.30 p.m. 4th paragraph
“I remember a professor of Scottish law pointing out that there was actually a case with regard to inheritance which some Members seem to think does not matter, but it is, after all, an important point. There was an elderly spinster who lived in one parish and a minister of the Established Church or of the Free Church of Scotland who lived in another. They met at a tea party, and there they certainly did not get married, but they were attracted by each other. They never met again, but from their separate parishes they conducted a correspondence, and that correspondence developed so that it was obvious that they regarded themselves as man and wife. When he died, she put forward her claim as widow under the Scottish law, and, although there was nothing definite in that correspondence to show at what precise date they first recognised themselves as man and wife, it was decided, taking the whole gist of that correspondence over that period of years, that long before the death of the minister this lady was his wife, and she made good her claim to her part of his estate. I give that as an illustration of the peculiar difficulties which we have with regard to proof as to whether there was a state of matrimony or not.”
In the above example there was no witness to a statement that they were man and wife but the gist of the correspondence between them lead to a court finding they were man and wife and allowed her claim to part of his estate. Thereby adding another example to the tombs of case law that may be used to aid a court to coming to a decision.
Cheers
Guy
-
Nevertheless all these links remain irrelevant to the original question in this thread, which was clearly phrased to exclude the situation in which the parents claimed to be married.
-
Nevertheless all these links remain irrelevant to the original question in this thread, which was clearly phrased to exclude the situation in which the parents claimed to be married.
Nevertheless all these links remain irrelevant to the original question in this thread, which was clearly phrased to exclude the situation in which the parents claimed to be married.
Threads develop.
Cheers
Guy
-
My grandfather had a cousin born illegitimately and registered as such. A couple of years later his mother had his paternity proved at the Sheriff`s Court (now would have 2 names).
His marriage registration shows his birth name, and that of his stepfather who his mother married when he was 20.
I have entered him on my tree with his uncorrected birth name, but added notes to show the use of the different names.
-
Thanks all for interesting information surrounding illegitimacy.
I now feel justified in keeping the fathers name in the tree, and accepting them as such. (Which is just as well as the illegitimate offspring were in both cases male and therefore were responsible for the name those branches of the family tree took).
I did search for kirk session records for one case but found none.
-
It`s a funny old game !!
I have a branch where a male was born illegitimately (in England), early 1800s and baptised with the mother`s surname, although both parents were named.
The parents eventually married but the child continued to use his mother`s surname, which continues to this day