Name Not Known - Missing mothers in Scottish christening records

Started by Private User on Saturday, April 30, 2022
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Showing all 3 posts

This is one in a whole series of “NAME NOT KNOWN” Scottish mothers. Who the father was, or at least who in the eyes of the law claimed to be the father, was a matter of moral and legal interest. Parentage from a socio-economic perspective: EVERYONE at the time KNEW who gave birth, that was quite obvious to all living at the time and was never conceived of as potentially coming into question. The issue of WHO was the actual father (or WHO was willing to claim male parentage) was a matter of legal interest. We must also remember that inheritance and everything else hinged on the male line, not the female. It is only us, many centuries later who are uncertain about mothers, and frankly even care. The addition of “unknown” mothers in records such as this is an unnecessary complication and expectation of the historical source documents, and falsely reading a historical confusion over maternity when NONE existed at the time, it was simply not considered to be an important point to record at the time, and even redundant. Hopefully, the records will catch up to this and eliminate these ghost mothers. Here I am starting a discussion on what is the best practice for listing parentage when the preserved records ONLY provide the fathers. The current practice of injecting a mythical unknown mother and claiming that the known mother is a stepmother is problematic.

It's not actually adding a mythic unknown mother (since we know that whatever person who was the child did indeed have a mother), if we have a profile that says "name unknown" - or "NN," an abbreviation that has long been used by genealogists, for "nomen nescio" ("I do not know the name.") Or, just "Unknown," which is also a legitimate alternative.

It is very useful both for delineating relationships where the person is not named, and, specifically on Geni, for keeping the field filled, since users often add unsourced names found in web trees.

I like it especially in the Welsh tree (I use N.N. myself). because the Welsh trees did very often include women, so it's useful to know the instances where they didn't.

This isn't anything new, at any rate. It's long been common in genealogy.

It is also useful when a known man has several children, not all from the same mother. It is a place holder where we can attach the children that, for whatever reason, where from a mother who was not the wife, or perhaps the known wife, of that man. An all to common occurrence in the Welsh lines.

Showing all 3 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion