Genealogy Chat

There's a fine 1855 example of spin on illegitimacy in Scotland by the RG at:
http://www.histpop.org/

"A minute examination ... would probably ... show that the true explanation was, that while the Counties in which Illegitimacy was at a low ebb abounded in improvident Marriages, the superior educational acquirements, and consequent more thoughtful habits engendered thereby, prevented these improvident Marriages in the Counties where Illegitimacy was high, but that, unfortunately, the moral training had not been carried so far as to enable them to master their natural passions."

Here are illeg. rates in the SCT's 3 most illeg counties, and the country wide pc's, and also % who signed marr rego by mark, in 1855.

%illeg %X-M %X-F
BAN 13.6 3.5 12.1
DFS 13.5 3.0 8.6
ABD 13.1 2.2 10.5
SCT 7.8 11.4 22.8
ENG 6.4 23.7 41.2

Sources:
First detailed annual report of registrar-general of births, deaths and marriages, Scotland pp xiv,xv,xxi
Eighteenth annual report of the registrar-general pp v,xi

Thank you all for taking the time to reply and enlightening me. Illegitimacy didn't seem to have caused as much bother in the 17th century as in the 20th century.

Regards

Olivia

"Why would it put the name of the father and not the mother if he was illegitimate?"

Because the mother didn't count.

Of course, this was the 1600s, and things are different now, e.g., a kid born in the 1970s of British parents is British (but only because the father was British - the mother stil didn't count - however, the law's changed now for more recent births).

I looked up your guy (once I figured out 1929=1629), and then clicked on the IGI source #. It seems to me that there are 2 sets of records - the OPRs held in Durham and the (bishop's?) transcripts of these held in Newcastle (at least held at those places when filmed by LDS). The source # matches more closely with the transcript film #, so I guess this is what the IGI extracted. (I think maybe "extracted" has some special meaning in genealogical jargon - I would have used the less ambiguous "abstracted".)

I wouldn't assume the entries were really different - I think Jacob(us) is the Latin form of James. See:
http://www.whatsinaname.net/

I think the father is named in a baptism cert only if he was the actual dad. He'd only baptise the child if it was his child.

If the father was known he would have been named, at not considered important enough to include in the baptism register.

Jennifer

Thanks a lot for the info.

It's similar to the CSA lol It's a warrant or Bond for payment for the child.
I have one dated 1808 and it gives lots of useful information...ie fathers occupation and assumed address

Thank you Devon Dweller. That means that although Edward was illegitimate, everyone knew who the father was. I still can't see why his mother's name wasn't mentioned at the baptism. I have other illegitimates but it was always the mother who baptised the child even though one entry had mentioned the name of " the supposed father".

Another perhaps stupid question but what was a "bastardy bond"?

Olivia

With the 1629 record there is a good chance there will be a bastardy bond (if it still survives) at the local office which should give you quite a bit of information. Many of the old records only list the mans name.

Extracted information is just someone at the LDS matching up information...and not always the right way....be very wary

I've just looked up a baptism on the Durham Records Online site and I've found Edward Carr, illegitimate son of James Carr, baptised in 1629, Chester le Street, Durham.

Why would it put the name of the father and not the mother if he was illegitimate?

On the LDS site, there's an extracted record for Edward Carr in 1929 in Chester le Street, son of Jacob Carr and it says the record was taken from another entry. I don't understand that bit either.

Can anyone enlighten me please?

Olivia