Archiver > ABERDEEN > 2010-06 > 1277335807

From: "goldie and Lido Doratti" <>
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] illegitimate children
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 2010 16:30:07 -0700
References: <mailman.49.1277245255.3855.aberdeen@rootsweb.com><4C21D958.7020402@kinhelp.co.uk><24766D8031994B89BE6B8B478BCBF509@computer><AANLkTinrwvkVRXrdhHrAU6C6I9_sUKfoLintVjecdtY_@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Ray, I didn't intend to open a can of worms here. I know there are
reasons and good ones, for someone taking in a child. These families were
from the Grange area, BAN, and both seemed to be doing ok. I say that
'tongue in cheek' because I wasn't there, but having done some reaseach on
the Grange Kirk Session records and looking at the films of the OPR's for
Grange, it appears (question mark?) that the both families had their own
crofts, and the mother was needed on her families croft, and the father of
the little girl was needed on his families croft. This I can understand
when it was a case of 'all hands on deck' to make a living. It just seems
odd to me that the little girl who obviously grew up and married, 'seemed'
to belong to her father's family, and was not (if any) much a part of her
mother's family. I only brought this up when the conversation was on
'illegitimate children', thinking it would maybe give another insight to the
thread. I know from the research I do, that many of the 'illegitimate'
children were well taken care of. What I have read leads me to believe that
the Scots wouldn't see a child abandoned anywhere. They were taken care of,
and likely as well taken care of as their own children.
I just had a querie on another family who ties into our Innes family asking
if I knew who a child belonged to. The folks (from Scotland) seemed to
insist she belonged to the Innes extended family. I'll take her, was my
thought. But then I began to search census info and the like and it turns
out someone had made a mistake and although the Innes girl who married the
Lobban raised her (she shows on census info) she was in fact not a child of
I don't know if someone thinks I am trying to argue, or if I have missed the
point here. It's just nice if you can in fact, find the parents of a child
who you can't tie into a tree, but who seems to fit in there.
Another one......born in Grange, mother is Jean McGregor, father is
supposedly a McLeod......documented on this girls 50th wedding anniversay;
writeup in the BAN paper, and also on her death cert. Who is she? I worked
this one to death and paid for info, and I still don't know who she belonged
to. Sometimes the trail seems to have no end... maybe it's just been
covered over. Point being, illegitimate children are not always what they
seem to be, or who others say they are. So keep an open mind when searching
them out. I rest my case........Goldie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Hennessy" <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] illegitimate children

> On 23 June 2010 17:06, goldie and Lido Doratti <> wrote:
> The mother to the female child lived with her parents on their croft, and
>> her parents were witnesses to baby's baptism. She was raised by her
>> father's parents......he lived and worked at their croft. I suspect both
>> were needed by their families to work on their own crofts. But what
>> surprises me is that the little girl spent her childhood with the
>> paternal
>> grandparents. It is as if she existed and the maternal grandparents
>> recognized that by being witnesses to the baptism......yet it looks like
>> she
>> didn't really belong to them. Just odd how things turn out.
> ============================================
> Hi Goldie
> Your final statement "... it looks like she didn't really belong to them
> ..." is possibly a bit extreme. There are many possible reasons for such
> an
> arrangement. The paternal grandparents may have had more room [room was
> always at a premium], they may have had more help in the home [domestic
> servant?]. Perhaps the maternal grandparents were physically unable to
> look
> after a baby. Were they much older? infirm? penurious? unhoused?
> Any of these possibilities would modify your assumption. Our experience
> of
> such children is that the extended family rallied round and made
> arrangements in the best interest of all concerned. Some examples:
> 1. A girl, whose (married) mother died before the child was in her teens,
> was defined as "imbecile" on a census. She lived with her father and two
> later step mothers and was then cared for by several of her many step
> sisters. She was born in 1821 and died aged 69 when her death certificate
> was signed by her step sister's husband.
> 2. An unmarried girl had her child, born in 1884, living with and
> eventually
> "adopted" by her married sister as her husband had a good job and a house
> in
> Aberdeen [round the corner from ANESFHS]. I say "adopted" because his
> surname was changed to the uncle's in the 1901 Census although formal
> adoption wasn't made [or possible?].
> 3. A child born out of wedlock in 1868 lived with her father and his
> family
> until the father married the mother's niece! So the familial
> relationships
> were obviously very close even if the mother's family took - apparently -
> no
> part in the child's upbringing.
> 4. A man was widowed in Longside and several neighbours each adopted one
> of
> his many children as he was not of an age when remarrying was feasible.
> He
> obviously had to work to keep himself and the remaining children were of
> working age. [early 20th century, details unknown.]
> 5. A son born "in fornincation with his servant girl" in 1787 stayed with
> the father [aged 17 at the time] and grandfather but we are unable to
> discover what happened to the mother. Both the son and his father were
> hauled before the Kirk Session at the same time around 1810 so the family
> tradition seemed to continue!
> These little vignettes from one tree show that there may be a vast number
> of
> reasons possible for the many family situations we discover in the bare
> bones of the OPR and Census records.
> --
> Best wishes
> Ray
> **********************************************************
>>From Ray Hennessy
> Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net
> Preferred Email address:
> Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP
> **********************************************************
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: