Author Topic: A Montgomerie dilemma  (Read 1968 times)

Offline blamcca

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
A Montgomerie dilemma
« on: Sunday 15 June 14 09:24 BST (UK) »
Hi all,

I am a descendant of Margaret Harvie (nee Gilmour) born 1820 at Beith, the daughter of John Gilmour and Margaret Montgomerie of Beith, Ayrshire. I am having some confusion with Margaret Montgomerie's family.

I believe she is the youngest child of James Montgomerie and Janet Shedden. Born the 17 July 1799 at Beith. James and Janet also had these children:
William 1772
Mary 1777
Mary 1780
Margaret 1781
Agnes 1787
Janet 1788
Agnes 1790
Janet 1792
Robert 1794
Jean 1796
and my Margaret in 1799

However then the only marriage I can find that fits this couple is the 23 Dec 1763 in Dalry. Any ideas/opinions??
https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XTK1-BXJ (link to marriage transcript)
I don't think this could work because the first child is only recorded in 1772. And since they kept having kids until 1799 I don't think there could be unrecorded baptisms. Also that is over 30 years of having children, which with my maths doesn't work. That is presuming Janet Shedden got married at a child-bearing age and couldn't have any kids after about 40-45 years of age.

Is it possible that the marriage may have happened when she was younger, hence not having children for nearly 10 years. Has anyone seen or heard of instances of this happening? Or is this record I found maybe a 'promise of marriage' or an arranged marriage that was recorded in the parish book? I'm not exactly sure how marriage worked in the 1700's.

Thanks for any help in advance :)

Blake

Offline Craclyn

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,462
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Montgomerie dilemma
« Reply #1 on: Sunday 15 June 14 11:22 BST (UK) »
What is the basis for your theory that Margaret Montgomerie“s parents were James Montgomerie and Janet Shedden? There are other Margaret Montgomerie/Montgomery births in the right timeframe in Ayrshire. Have you identified the actual birth record on www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk?
Crackett, Cracket, Webb, Turner, Henderson, Murray, Carr, Stavers, Thornton, Oliver, Davis, Hall, Anderson, Atknin, Austin, Bainbridge, Beach, Bullman, Charlton, Chator, Corbett, Corsall, Coxon, Davis, Dinnin, Dow, Farside, Fitton, Garden, Geddes, Gowans, Harmsworth, Hedderweek, Heron, Hedley, Hunter, Ironside, Jameson, Johnson, Laidler, Leck, Mason, Miller, Milne, Nesbitt, Newton, Parkinson, Piery, Prudow, Reay, Reed, Read, Reid, Robinson, Ruddiman, Smith, Tait, Thompson, Watson, Wilson, Youn

Offline partoon_researcher

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 64
  • Researching the Partoon Surname WorldWide
    • View Profile
Re: A Montgomerie dilemma
« Reply #2 on: Sunday 15 June 14 12:32 BST (UK) »
Hi Blake

A couple of ideas for Possible explanations
The marriage year could be mistranscribed maybe 1768
or maybe the couple moved out of the area after marrying and did have other children before returning to Ayrshire,
maybe James was away from home working or fighting for the first few years of their marriage


If this is Janets birth then she was 51 when margaret was born.
Galston Ayrshire
Church of Scotland Parish Church
DateOfBirth 11 Oct 1747
BaptismDate 18 Oct 1747
Forename Janet
Sex F
FatherForename James
FatherSurname SHEDDEN
Abode Town
Partoon, Gordon, Cooper,Kendrick, Salt, Lane, Brandrick, Bayliss, Hughes,

Offline blamcca

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Montgomerie dilemma
« Reply #3 on: Sunday 15 June 14 23:19 BST (UK) »
Cracalyn I don't have definite evidence but it is the only baptism in Beith. It is also the only one with Montgomerie not Montgomery. Also some of the other baptisms have parents with distinctive names that you would think to find in subsequent generations, but I do not. Also I have a book where someone did a bit of research into the Harvie/Gilmour families, but they only got as far as saying Margaret Montgomerie was born in 1799 and that they had no time to further research the family.

partoon_researcher they could all be valid reasons. However I still find it unlikely that Janet was having children into her 50s. In my experience women wouldn't have children past the age of 40 or at latest about 45/46. (However I guess there can be exceptions).

Also just noticing that Galston is about 20 miles away from Dalry and Beith. A fair distance in those days. There may be other baptisms from looking at the rest of my family in the Beith area I have noticed that Shedden is a fairly common name.

Blake


Offline Craclyn

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,462
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Montgomerie dilemma
« Reply #4 on: Sunday 15 June 14 23:23 BST (UK) »
I woudn't get too hung up in whether it was Montgomerie or Montgomery. They were not too particular about the spelling of names in those days.
Crackett, Cracket, Webb, Turner, Henderson, Murray, Carr, Stavers, Thornton, Oliver, Davis, Hall, Anderson, Atknin, Austin, Bainbridge, Beach, Bullman, Charlton, Chator, Corbett, Corsall, Coxon, Davis, Dinnin, Dow, Farside, Fitton, Garden, Geddes, Gowans, Harmsworth, Hedderweek, Heron, Hedley, Hunter, Ironside, Jameson, Johnson, Laidler, Leck, Mason, Miller, Milne, Nesbitt, Newton, Parkinson, Piery, Prudow, Reay, Reed, Read, Reid, Robinson, Ruddiman, Smith, Tait, Thompson, Watson, Wilson, Youn

Offline Craclyn

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,462
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Montgomerie dilemma
« Reply #5 on: Sunday 15 June 14 23:27 BST (UK) »
Another thought about the concept of women having children into their 50s. In some cases a grandchild might be claimed by the grandparents to spare a single daughter's shame. I have couple of cases of young children being shown on censuses as belonging to an older couple when in fact they were the offspring of an unmarried daughter still living at home.
Crackett, Cracket, Webb, Turner, Henderson, Murray, Carr, Stavers, Thornton, Oliver, Davis, Hall, Anderson, Atknin, Austin, Bainbridge, Beach, Bullman, Charlton, Chator, Corbett, Corsall, Coxon, Davis, Dinnin, Dow, Farside, Fitton, Garden, Geddes, Gowans, Harmsworth, Hedderweek, Heron, Hedley, Hunter, Ironside, Jameson, Johnson, Laidler, Leck, Mason, Miller, Milne, Nesbitt, Newton, Parkinson, Piery, Prudow, Reay, Reed, Read, Reid, Robinson, Ruddiman, Smith, Tait, Thompson, Watson, Wilson, Youn

Offline blamcca

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Montgomerie dilemma
« Reply #6 on: Monday 16 June 14 08:48 BST (UK) »
Actually now that you mention it, I have seen cases of that as well. I have a particularly interesting case of that happening anyway with a Cornish ancestor. But nevertheless this doesn't seem likely since there were other children born in the last decade.

Also I thought I should mention there is no way of telling who definitely were her parents via a death certificate either, she died before the 1841 census  :-\

Offline blamcca

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 301
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: A Montgomerie dilemma
« Reply #7 on: Wednesday 18 June 14 07:40 BST (UK) »
Here is a copy of the actual marriage, doesn't reveal much but it is definitely 1763. It's the last entry.

James was of Beith and Janet was from Dalry as far as I can tell  :-\

Blake