Find Ancestors

I am helping a friend with her family tree, on SP i have her ancestor, it is an OPR, wording on it says,
: James natural child of James Brown and Margaret Kelly was born 27th November 1850 and baptised on sabbath 9th Feb. 1851 by Revd Wm Gilchrist minister here, : my question, is NATURAL child another way of saying illigitemate, as the only marriage I see for James and Margaret was on 9/11/1851 in Straiton Ayrshire, 1 year after birth of son James.

Thank you for listening, I hope someone can help.
Regards Sandra

As far as I know, 'natural child' is a nicer way of saying 'illegitimate'.

Thanks Beverley, im sure marriage is them in 1851 as the family always stayed in the area.
Sandra :-)

Although the birth was illegitimate, under Scots Law, if the parents were free to marry at the time of the birth, then their subsequent marr makes the child legitimate, and having the same inheritance rights as any legitimately born children of the marr in the event of the parents dying intestate (i.e., without their making wills).

That's interesting to know Mgnv. I have a chappie in my tree born 1904, before his parents married. I was never in any doubt really about who his father was as he was named for his paternal grandfather. His father wasn't named on the original birth registration but was named when his birth was re registered in the 1930s. He was always known by his father's surname. Obviously the second registration still showed that he was born before his parents married as Scottish birth certificates give the date of the parents' marriage. I wonder why they bothered to have the birth re-registered.

Thanks mgnv,I didnt know that, thanks for your help.

Sandra :-)

Rootgatherer, I wonder was your chap going abroad, as I found 1 like your's on my husbands tree, he went to Canada to live for the rest of his life and I wondered if maybe that was why his birth was re registered.

Sandra

I discovered long ago that" Natural "child usually means out of wedlock as opposed to" Lawful" child which means born within the marriage

A way which may confirm,,,,,,,,,,,Ii there were other children to the same parents born after 1855 it will state the parents marriage date on the birth certificate,

Kay - not necessarily for this couple. The parents marr date was omitted from b.certs for 1856-1860 - see:
http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/content/help/index.aspx?r=554&628

I found another 7 children born to this couple, the wife was 36 when she had 1st son James, so I didnt expect to find so many.

Thats why I like this hobby, you can find out new things all the time, and everyone here on this board is so helpful.

Was there a reason mgnv they omitted it off birth certs for those few years ?.

Sandra

Thanks Kay and Glasgow lass I will remember that.

Sandra

Sandra - yes. The first (1855) BMD certs were very detailed, and the registrar's complained abt it, and GROS over-reacted to this, and cut things out - even some that they later reinstated.

My gg grandad d 2/1/1855 - his death is the first in the Aberdour rego. It says how long he's been in the district, where he's buried, and the names and ages of all his kids - my g grandad rego'ed the death, and the kids' names are in the correct order, and the first 4 ages are correct - I think he got a bit fed up then, and just subtracted 2 for the 7 remaining kids - it's abt right. There were only 3 d.certs per double page of the rego.

Thanks for the explanation mgnv, I only wish the English certs contained as much info, all mine are England or Ireland, my husbands are all Scottish and what a difference it makes, I love to go to the Mitchell in Glasgow to the records office, they have records for whole of Scotland.

Sandra