ABERDEEN-L Archives

Archiver > ABERDEEN > 2010-06 > 1277366737


From: Gavin Bell <>
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] illegitimate children
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 09:05:37 +0100
References: <mailman.49.1277245255.3855.aberdeen@rootsweb.com> <4C21D958.7020402@kinhelp.co.uk> <24766D8031994B89BE6B8B478BCBF509@computer> <AANLkTinrwvkVRXrdhHrAU6C6I9_sUKfoLintVjecdtY_@mail.gmail.com><B59F59730D744C4DBC884D86A88E2769@computer>
In-Reply-To: <B59F59730D744C4DBC884D86A88E2769@computer>


goldie and Lido Doratti wrote:

> ...
> 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,

That hardly represents great wealth! The may have "had" their crofts,
but they will have rented them, not owned them. And while it may sound
cosy, a "croft" was often a fairly small patch of poor land,
insufficient to support even a single family.

> ... 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.

What basis have you for thinking this? If you are deducing this from
Census entries, then I fear you are in danger of running ahead of what
the data actually tells us. The Census is a snapshot recording where
people actually were on Census night (that is, on just one night out of
3650!) not where they perhaps "belonged" or resided regularly.

And as the Census is taken on the night between Saturday and Sunday it
can often record people who were not "normally resident". If the family
was split, the child may well have spent time - may even have lived
principally - with her mother's family, but may have gone to her
father's family at weekends. When I was small, spending a night at my
grandparents' was a regular treat.

> 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 fear that is a bit "rose-tinted". Many families did rally round to
look after orphaned and semi-orphaned children, but there were
exceptions. If you doubt that try reading some of the Poor Law records
(I read something like 10,000 while indexing the Banffshire ones).


Gavin Bell

This thread: