ABERDEEN-L ArchivesArchiver > ABERDEEN > 2012-02 > 1328614636
From: John Simpson <>
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] ABERDEEN Digest, Vol 7, Issue 36
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 11:37:16 +0000 (GMT)
Without knowing all the documents involved, could it be that the mother was being referred to by her unmarried surname, and was not using the surname of her husband?
I understand this was common practice in many parts of Scotland, and I certainly have some in my own tree where the OPR shows both surnames of the parents, even though they were married?
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 09:27:46 -0800
From: "Goldie & Lido Doratti" <>
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] GARTLY PARISH RECORDS/MI's
And while I have you on line, Gavin, something I would like to ask. When I
was at ANESFHS several years ago, a lady there told me Robert born 1754
shows a mother of Christine Innisie (or something similar.) But the OPR's
show "begotten with his lawful spouse". Should I attribute that first
comment to be a mistake on the part of the LDS folks? Most of the 5 sons
have no spouse recorded as the mother, but John 1747 has Pirie as does
George 1745. Roberts looks like it says "Begotten with his lawful" no
spouse written or name. So I wondered where this Innise info came from.
|Re: [ABERDEEN] ABERDEEN Digest, Vol 7, Issue 36 by John Simpson <>|