SP & IGI

[sheilajim]

Hi David

In that case, here is to the Scots. I am a fervent believer in the separation between Church and State, for the benefit of both.

Cheers

Sheila

[DavidWW]

Hi David

In that case, here is to the Scots. I am a fervent believer in the separation between Church and State, for the benefit of both.

Cheers

Sheila

Whit can Ah say but

David

[sheilajim]

Hi David

One other thing I could ask. Maybe I should put this on a separate post.

Am I correct in assuming that though there were many breakaway churches, the large majority of the people went to the Established Church?
And if this is correct, is it possible that the people who were not members of the Established Church might have taken their children to another town not far away to be baptized?
For instance Couple A might live in Town X, but their church is in Town Y. Their children could be born in Town X, but their baptism is recorded in Town Y.

Sheila

[DavidWW]

Hi David

One other thing I could ask. Maybe I should put this on a separate post.

Am I correct in assuming that though there were many breakaway churches, the large majority of the people went to the Established Church?

No !, - many did, but equally many didn't, and even more didn't from 1843 onwards!

But that's not to say that a substantial proportion on Secession Church members didn't ensure that baptisms and marriages were also registered in the records of the Auld Kirk.

As far as marriages are concerned, it can be useful to check if the name of the minister, if mentioned!, is that of the Established Church of Scotland minister at the date involved, - see Fasti Ecclesianae Scoticanae, the records of the ministers of the Auld Kirk.

If not, then maybe this is a Secession Kirk record recorded in the Established Church of Scotland OPR records.

And if this is correct, is it possible that the people who were not members of the Established Church might have taken their children to another town not far away to be baptized?

Possible, and always worth checking !

David

[Russell]

Hi Sheila

Earlier you suggested that the clerk may have had one too many when recording the births. Keep in mind that there was no such thing as 'correct' spelling back then and many documents have variations in the spelling of the same word within the same document.

I have a marriage certificate with four different ways of spelling the same surname and that was in the 1800's.

That's why wildcards are so useful in searches. We tend to think in present day terms about language, both spelling and grammar. In the 1700's many people were still using Scots or Lallans everday and used words which have been completely lost now other than in Scots dictionaries.

Russell

[sheilajim]

Hi Haymarky

You can be sure that I am going to request copies of those birth certs. As you say, they might not say much, but then, who knows, I could get lucky.

Hi Russell,
I am beginning to appreciate, (if that is the right word to use )the different spellings of names, but if they were all baptized on the same day, they should, I would think have the same spellings, unless as I said earlier the clerk had one too many.
The different spellings of Scottish names is enough to drive anyone interested in Genealogy to drink.
I am beginning to wonder if a training course in the various spellings and probably pronunciations of names is a requirement for anyone interested in Genealogy.

All in all, it is amazing how much I am learning about Scotland. I now realize that when I started looking up my ancestors, I knew very little about Scotland even though my mother was born there. Now I am researching small towns, finding out about 19th and 18th religious upheavals, the everyday living of the times. I wouldn't have missed this for anything.

Cheers

Sheila

[SarahND]

but if they were all baptized on the same day, they should, I would think have the same spellings, unless as I said earlier the clerk had one too many.

Hi Sheila,
I didn't mean they were baptized on the same day... after all, the records say they were baptized in 1774, 1780, 1787, 1789, 1797, 1800, right? What I meant was that some of the later ones particularly, might not have been infants when they were baptized. So, for instance, although William was baptized in 1800, he might have been born earlier, and thus the age differences might not be as great as they look from the christening dates. I guess you could get a better idea of their ages from checking their ages in the censuses if they lived that long.
Regards,
Sarah

[Caroline]

Hi Sheila,

Just to say that there's an interesting description of the membership of the different churches in Balfron in the 1790s to be found in the Statistical Account for Balfron 1791-99(p534). You'll find the link in the Sources section above - I would post the direct line here, but it's too long!

I also have ancestors who lived in Balfron in the 1790s working in the mills there and I found the Account when I was looking for some background info.

I don't know if your Duns stayed around in Balfron or moved on, but I know Stirling Council Archives www.stirling.gov.uk/index/access-info/archives have a book on burials in Balfron from 1800 to 1900 which also might be useful to you.

Caroline

[Russell]

Hi Sheila
Just because they might be registered on the same day did not neccessarliy mean that the name would consistently have the same spelling

I described a single marriage certificate (i.e. after 1855) where the bride's name was McGilvray; her fathers name was written as
McGilvaray; her mother's name was McGilvarray and her brother, who was a witness ended up with McGilivray. This was in the District of Kelvin, Glasgow in 1875.
In genealogy before about 1880 don't assume that spelling mattered and that consistency reigned.

Like you we presumed that on this occasion they would all have the name recorded the same way. We now have about 11 different spellings of the McGilvray name on a variety of different certificates.
Further back in the family it is down as McGilvra.

Happy hunting
Russell

[sheilajim]

Hi Sarah & Russell

Now I see what you mean Sarah. I hope that when I get transcripts for these baptisms it will shed some light on the subject. I am getting used to gaps between births. There seems to be many of them in my ancestry. There could have been births that weren't recorded or that were recorded and lost.

I am going to try and trace this family, even though it may not be my family at all. Janet Dunn's grandson gave the names of his grandmother's parents as Janet, not Catherine, Edmond, and John Dunn. Janet Dunn was also consistent in giving her birth place as Fintry on every census between 1841 through 1881. k The only problem is that the Catherine Edmond and John Dun family in Balfron, fit so well.

Russell, that was an eyeopener on different spellings even on the same date.

Caroline, you are right, it would help to have a list of burials for Balfron.

I am off to check out every census, and Edina. It will keep me busy for awhile.

Thanks to all of you for your help,


Sheila