Genealogy Chat

In 19th C Scotland it would have been unthinkable not to have a child baptised, even if illegitimate, and baptisms were normally carried out at home before witnesses who were often relatives.

There was no fee to baptise children under the Scottish system (and prior to 1855 the only Scottish records are for baptisms). There was, however, a fee to have the baptism recorded in the register.

There is a good chance of obtaining more information about illegitimate births from Scottish Kirk Session Registers, which are often far more detailed than baptismal registers. These are available to personal researchers at the National Archives of Scotland in Edinburgh and over the coming months they will also be accessible from local archives search rooms throughout Scotland.

'Milliner' (rather than 'dressmaker') seems to have been a euphemism for prostitutes in English towns and cities, but unless you have any firm proof to the contrary, you should take the occupation of 'dressmaker' at face value.

www.genegenie-scotland.co.uk

There was usually a fee to baptise children, in one parish I have heard of them having a kind of special offer for either free or cheaper baptisms and poorer families making the most of it and baptising several children in one go where they probably wouldn't have normally done so.

It's often not uncommon for some families to baptise their children all together later on, or in batches! It's always worth checking some years after just to be sure.

Although there wasn't a fee to register a birth, for the first ten years of Civil Registration - in England & Wales - there was no obligation to notify the registrar of a child's birth and if it was not registered within six months it could not be included in the records. There was often confusion whether you had to register a birth if you had already had the child baptised.

In 1874 fines were introduced for non-notification.

It is estimated that there may be as many as 15% of the births missing from 1837 - 1847.

And as for the Dressmaker / Prostitute thing - there had to at least be some actual dressmakers or no women would have had any dresses to wear! I'm sure most prostitutes never actually wanted to state their profession and probably said occupations like Dressmaker or Domestic Servant instead. Who is to know what was true or not.

Could it be that there was a fee to baptise a child? On some of the PR originals, the occupation for the father is given as *pauper* and a summary page of events officiated at, and income. Pauper then suggesting that no child would be turned away, but there would be the expectation of payment if the parents could afford it.

If anyone can find evidence either to confirm or disprove, it would be interesting to know.

Official birth registration came into practice in Scotland in 1855.

Prior to this, it is only baptism records you will find and if the people you are looking for were not baptised .. and a lot of illigitimate children were not, you will not find them.

Or, as has already been mentioned, they were baptised in one of the non conformist churches and their records are not so easily found.

I would be more inclined to think they were not baptised.

I don't think any charge is made for registering a birth - it is the certificate that is paid for. I would think that a lot of poor families would just register the birth and not bother to get the cert.

Dawn, have you searched for the births under both the father and the mother's surname?

Prostitutes regularly gave their occupation as Dressmaker, throughout the 1800's, and not just in Scotland. However, it didn't automatically follow that all Dressmakers were prostitutes.....!

Also, as far as I am aware there has never been a fee for registering a birth at any time since registration began.

Hello Contrary Mary :)

Have you considered that your Scottish family were baptised elsewhere? Perhaps they were non conformists and their records aren't showing online yet?

Dawn

One of my Scottish lot married in 1830, had at least 8 children that I know of (because they are on the various censuses), and didn't register or baptise one single one of them - and that wasn't uncommon.

They had to pay to have them baptised/registered and you know the common myth about the Scottish being a bit mean with their money don't you! LOL

Mary

I have checked the Parish records but cant find any of them which leads me to believe that because they were illigitimate they werent registered. It was just a thought that she could of been as she would of fitted the title, i think so anyway. Thankyou for replying.xx

If she had 4 children with the same man, I'd find it hard to believe she was a prostitute.

There were thousands of dressmakers at the time as it was a cottage industry. Not everyone of them would have been a prostitute.

Registration didn't start in Scotland until 1855. Have you tried parish records?

Ozi

I heard a while back that in the 1841 Scottish census particulaly, if your relative was down on the census as a dressmaker/seamstress then she could be covering up for being a 'woman of ill repute', or prostitute. My 5x great grandmother was down as a seamstress in 1841 and she had 4 illigitimate children with the same man but they never married each other, he married a different woman in 1860. I cannot find a birth record for the 4 illigitimate children (one being my 4x grandfather) but the fathers name is down on their death certificates. Also if this is true would it of been common not to register the 4 illigitimate childrens births?
Can anyone shed any light on this please.
Thanks
Dawn