Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Scottish Dressmaker/seamstress rumours help??
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Dawn | Report | 11 Dec 2010 20:42 |
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? |
|||
|
Ozibird | Report | 11 Dec 2010 21:03 |
If she had 4 children with the same man, I'd find it hard to believe she was a prostitute. |
|||
|
Dawn | Report | 11 Dec 2010 21:47 |
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 |
|||
|
Contrary Mary | Report | 11 Dec 2010 21:59 |
|
|||
|
~~~Secret Red ^^ Squirrel~~~ **007 1/2** | Report | 12 Dec 2010 10:33 |
Hello Contrary Mary :) |
|||
|
InspectorGreenPen | Report | 12 Dec 2010 10:52 |
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.....! |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 12 Dec 2010 11:27 |
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. |
|||
|
Helen | Report | 12 Dec 2010 14:16 |
Official birth registration came into practice in Scotland in 1855. |
|||
|
+++DetEcTive+++ | Report | 12 Dec 2010 17:37 |
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. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
FamilyFogey | Report | 12 Dec 2010 18:10 |
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. |
|||
|
Alison | Report | 12 Dec 2010 18:51 |
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. |
|||
|
Dawn | Report | 12 Dec 2010 20:14 |
Thankyou all for replying. I have only looked for baptisms before 1855 for the 4 illigitimate children but as someone above said they may have been baptised at a later date so i am going to have a look in a minute and see what i can find. My 5x grandmother who had the 4 children out of wedlock never married the childrens father but i have noticed that she used his surname for herself on a couple of the childrens marriage certificates, do you think this would of been because she would of been embaressed to be down as a unmarried mother on the certificate so she used his surname to make it look like she was married? |
|||
|
Dawn | Report | 12 Dec 2010 20:57 |
Just had a look on SP website at births after 1855 but none of the children are there unfortunately. I dont think she registered any of them for some reason which makes my job harder. I had a look on the catholic registers as well but again nothing, i also looked under the mothers surname but still the same so back to the gringstone for me again unless anyone can think of somewhere i havent looked?:-) |
|||
|
Foggy | Report | 12 Dec 2010 21:11 |
Dawn, |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 13 Dec 2010 12:01 |
Dawn, |
|||
|
Dawn | Report | 15 Dec 2010 19:39 |
Thanks Foggy i will check that website out. |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 16 Dec 2010 11:07 |
So this is the family in 1851 - odd that she gives her surname as Thorborn and the children as Heatlie: |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 16 Dec 2010 11:56 |
Did Andrew marry after Jessie died? Have you found Andrew on any census? |
|||
|
Thelma | Report | 16 Dec 2010 12:32 |
Jessie may say that she is the mother in 1851 but is there proof? |
|||
|
Potty | Report | 16 Dec 2010 12:45 |
I think Dawn said previously that she is mentioned on one of the children's marriage certs. |