GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2001-07 > 0994075932


From: Seth and/or BJ Hinshaw <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] Wells Surname DNA Project
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001 08:12:12 -0400
References: <2449F3F867FBD211936600C04F68569EA3C392@smhrimsx.mhri.med.u mich.edu> <3.0.6.32.20010702090456.007a1b80@pop.nbnet.nb.ca>


"Peter A. Kincaid" wrote:

> At 11:49 PM 7/1/01 -0700, you wrote:
> >At 01:59 AM 7/2/01 -0400, Bonner, Gregg wrote:
> >
> >>I would like to know how one knows there is a non-paternity event arising
> >in the 1500s.<<
> >
> >If records exist, sometimes this is revealed in the Parish records. I have
> >seen this.
>
> There are lots of references in Scottish records to them (ie. precepts
> of legitimation to x, bastard; of echeat of x, bastard). From my
> perspective,
> the things seemed to go in cycles like fashions. The early-mid 1500s were
> looser than the 1600s which were stricter than the 1700s (for that matter
> perhaps all time) which were looser than the Victorian 1800s, which carried
> forward a bit in the 1900s. And then there is now.

And even within a time period there can be differences. For example, in the mill
towns of lowland Scotland (with lots of young women working in the mills, away
from families) in the late 19th century, there were a much larger number of
illegitimate births than in the highlands or even the larger cities like
Edinburgh or Glasgow. I've read a fair number of the records for Galashiels from
the 1860s and 1870s, and I would guess that the rate of births recorded as
illegitimate was in the 10-15% range, and it may have been higher some years. Not
what most people would expect from the Victorian era.......

I'm hoping that I'll someday be able to use DNA evidence to track down the father
of my greatgrandmother, listed in her 1864 birth record as 'illegimate' instead
of with his name.....

BJ

This thread: