Baby William Sinclair

William Begot in Fornication

1769, 13 August. James Sinclair of Latheron had a child baptised who was begot in fornication. Named William. Witnesses James Aulach and Dond Miller in Latheron.

Unfortunately the name of the mother was not recorded. It is possible that baby William’s mother was Elspet McKenzie who was brought before the elders on 16 April 1769.

 

If Sinclair had married the mother – but clearly he did not – the child would still have been seen to have been begotten in fornication. 

 

Died Without Issue

Furthermore, even though Sinclair admitted paternity of his son William and had the child baptised this did not give the male child any inheritance rights.

In the History of Caithness by J. T. Calder Appendix 5 re James Sinclair of Latheron, the elder, it states that James Sinclair of Latheron, the younger, his only son, died without issue.

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/  Latheron kirk session, Minutes (1764-1766) Baptisms Pg 139

 

Elspet McKenzie Next Victim

 

Elspet McKenzie next victim

 

1769, April 16

The session met and constitute. Modr and Elders compeared Elspet McKenzie and gave Mr Sinclair of Latheron as father to her pregnancy. Being asked whether she could condesiend upon any time. She said she could not as she was still employed by him. She was required to attend next Lord’s Day.

So here is another example of James Sinclair of Latheron taking advantage of his  servants. Elspet McKenzie was clearly in a vulnerable situation, as being employed by Sinclair and not under the constant supervision of her parents it was easy enough for him to take advantage of her. 

Land of Heather

  

And with the power differential of her being a servant and he being the master it would have been difficult for her to fend him off. As well, resistance on her part would put her employment at risk. She didn’t even want to state a time she got pregnant because she was still employed by him. There was never any chance of marriage to Sinclair of course. Sinclair effectively treated her like a concubine but with no-one to look after her interests.

I did not locate a birth record of the baby of Elspet McKenzie. It is possibly the baby William – see next blog.

1770 It appears that the funds due to the Session since the last distribution are as follows:

Mr Sinclair of Latheron Scots £12.0.0.

There were about 14 items listed as being due to the Session for distribution and expenses (including £75 for a new velvet mortcloth) demonstrating that while the moral character of the parish and punishing law breakers was important, the Session was really about money.

Land of Heather

 

As was generally the case, no money was given to Elspet or her family even though raising an illegitimate child would need support. Sinclair’s fine (if they got the money) went exclusively to the Session funds for distribution.

https://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/virtual-volumes/ Latheron kirk session, Minutes. Pages 257-276

The Land of Heather by Clifton Johnson