GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2000-09 > 0968735039


From: Charles Ellson< >
Subject: Re: Fornication - Kirk Sessions
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 05:03:59 GMT


On Tuesday, in article <>
"CONNIE WORMALD" wrote:

> Can anyone translate the "apud acta" in the Kirk Sessions below:
>
> "Fenwick 2 January 1843
> Compeared Andrew Young and Elizabeth Gemmell confessing themselves to
> have been guilty of antenuptial fornication and professing their
> penitence, and having been rebuked and solemnly admonished by the
> Moderator were cited apud acta to appear before the Session and
> congregation on Sabbath first and be absolved from the scandal."
>
> I am uncertain if I have the same Andrew YOUNG and Elizabeth GEMMELL, as
> the couple I thought was mine were married July 1842 in Fenwick, Ayr.
> Their first child I can find is Margaret Gilmour YOUNG who I have an Old
> Parochial Register copy of her birth August 15, 1843. With these dates
> I cannot see what their admonishment was for!
>
> Can anyone tell me if I might have two different couples mixed up or any
> other wisdom SKS could impart.
-The antenuptial fornication was not necessarily productive, although an
apparently "short" gestation period was the usual giveaway. A guilty
conscience could be the reason for the Kirk Session finding out.
-Have you checked for a child born to Elizabeth before the marriage? It
may have been originally recorded with no father identified, but her
new husband later admitting it was his.
-Recording of births and baptisms wasn't always perfect, so a child could
have been baptised without record; OTOH a child may not have survived
until baptism. A following census will often reveal unrecorded children.
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson:E-mail charlesATellson.demon.co.uk | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

This thread: