A quiet day in Moonzie Parish...again

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 5:08 pm

Hi Anne
That is some quote Anne!

Just goes to show how potentially dangerous that shifting meaning of words can be!

Best wishes
Lesley

sheilajim · Post by **sheilajim** » Fri Jun 01, 2007 7:45 pm

Hi All

Those Kirk Elders seemed to be running something of a Religious Police State.

They probably liked their power, most people do. Maybe too, the community thought that it was all for the best.

As David pointed out, their power must have been greatly diminished by the middle of the 19th century. It certainly didn't stop my GGGrandfather cohabiting with a women younger than two of his children in Fife.

This affair started somewhere between 1851 and 1861. She is listed on the census as his wife, but his real wife, my GGGrandmother was still alive and living in Stirling at the time. Even after my GGGrandmother died, there is no record of a marriage between my GGGrandfather and the "other" woman. It didn't stop my GGrandfather from marrying a Roman Catholic and converting to that religion.

As Anne pointed out it didn't stop illegitimate births either. Sometimes the more things are "Forbidden", the more exciting they are.

I love that answer that the elder gave to the Queen.

Lesley, I suppose that if one really wanted to get away, they would have to emigrate, but if they went to the USA, at least in the 18th and early 19th centuries, they would have to mind their P's and Q's over there as well. I am not as certain about Canada or Australia.

Regards

PS. The Kirk might have been hard on the people of the day, but it is a great source of information for their descendants

Post by **joette** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 3:16 pm

Maybe that's why we can't find so many elusive ancestors-they ran away in disgrace changed their names & gave fictious birth places.I'm sure that must have happened.
I have read a rambling account which I think was in with the Bortriphinie OPRs.It was a bit difficult to read but it seemed to be a woman defending herself from charges of "immoral" behaviour with a claim of rape.It made my blood run cold as it seemed there were witnesess to this event-male & female who did nothing to interfere although they both said she "seemed" to be less than cooperative.At the least she was coerced into it & at the most forced against her will,not assisted when she tried to resist & then punished for what had happened to her.The account was not a full one but is about three pages long.However I could still see similiar things happening today we have not changed all that much if the statistics are true.

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Mon Jun 04, 2007 5:06 pm

Hi Joette

Maybe that's why we can't find so many elusive ancestors-they ran away in disgrace changed their names & gave fictious birth places.I'm sure that must have happened.

Not so easy to to in the 1600s and early 1700s. Perhaps more likely you'd get away with it later on. I certainly know of one chap who ran off due to the murder he had taken part in, though not directly, he just happened to be there at the time. He had been living quite far away from where it all happened, but was picked up years later, initially only because he had not attended church. One thing led to another and he was subsequenlty brought to trail and executed. If he had just stayed indoors that Sunday he might have gone on to live a full life....

...it seemed to be a woman defending herself from charges of "immoral" behaviour with a claim of rape.....& then punished for what had happened to her.

Back then it seemed rape was regarded as a woman's fault in many cases. I've read a good number of accounts of women being punished for being pregnant as a result of rape - the severity of the attitude seemed to vary a little with different Kirk Sessions. In most cases the rapist is not found because the woman cannot name him, often not knowing who it was who attacked her, and is therefore not brought to justice. It certainly was not a fair system in that respect, but then the representation on the Kirk Session was not exaclty fair either as it did not relfect the male /female mix of parishoners; it was definately an all male concern.

Best wishes
Lesley

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:09 am

The more things change over time, the more they remain the same!

sheilajim · Post by **sheilajim** » Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:18 pm

Hi StewL

That is an old French saying. "The more things change, the more they remain the same. "

I guess the reason for that is that Human Nature remains the same, no matter what country, religion or culture.

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 4:08 am

Hi Shiela

I knew I heard it somewhere, but typically got it wrong

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 10:48 am

Hi all
More tales from Moonzie...

Back in 1727, a case came before the session: a summary of this case was that a William Alan, a married man, had been seen rather a lot around the house of one Helen Oswald, a widow. (She claimed he had only been around at her place "threshing her corn" which had me in stiches!!

) Anyway, as the couple denied any wrongdoing, witnessess were called and all said he had been seen at her house regularly and all thought there was something up... the case dragged on.

Next thing we know, in 1728, it is reported in the minutes that William Alan has left his wife, children and service.... and that Helen Oswald, who was contracted in marriage by this time to one Robert Inglis and the banns had been read, is also missing. It is "thought they have gone off together". Having been reported to the Presbytery, they are stated as now being outlaws.

I had considered this was probably the last we'd be hearing about them... however...

1739! A whole 12 years later!!
The session received "a letter from W Sommervaill, Pastor of a dissenting congregation in Newcastle asking about William Allan and Helen Oswald".
They agree to send a copy of the minutes relating to the case to Mr Somervaill.

No rest for the wicked, huh?
I was surprised by this - that the couple were not outwith the "net" even in England, and that the person writing to the session is clearly not Church of Scotland. Cooperation in the system seems to be accepted more widely than I had previously understood.

Best wishes
Lesley

Alison Plenderleith · Post by **Alison Plenderleith** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 1:56 pm

Lesleyb wrote:

She claimed he had only been around at her place "threshing her corn"

Never heard it called that before

Kind regards,

Alison

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sat Jun 09, 2007 5:48 pm

Hi Allison
I'm sure there was not even a hint of any double entendre intended in Helen's original statement. I think that any attempt at humour or amusing metaphors would have been completely over the heads of Moonzie Kirk Session anyway (!) - they are a dour bunch, and it would only have made your crime even worse in their eyes - it just appealed to my more "modern" sense of humour!

Best wishes
Lesley