George Marquis Cumming and Margaret McHenry

[veryoldgal]

Thank you to everyone who has been checking into this for me.  I have a copy of the 1841 Census and I know that George and Margaret are living as man and wife, but I also have a copy of their marriage certificate and the date is after the census.  Most of the records of the childrens' births were kindly given to me by a member of Scotland's People.  The Mother is recorded as Catherine Graham.
A lot of the other information was collected was from the I.G.I. batches which oddly enough do not seem to exist anymore.  This was at the beginning of my research, so, my record keeping was not very good.  I am pretty sure that the Birth/Baptism records were in  A455358  which I now believe was a file attached to a L.D.S. member and the information was considered to be unreliable.

I have a record of 9th July 1840 Liverpool for William Kirk Cumming, but I am not going to buy anymore certificates.  It is just getting too expensive.

I have three different birth dates for George Cumming [the younger] all gathered from different sources.
28 July 1838 - from passenger lists I have a copy of the original list and their last name is record as Cummins.
17 July 1839 - IGI Batch A455360 Lanark, Scotland
17 July 1835 - Also from familysearch and Scotland's People - The last two records have parents as George Marquis Cumming and Catherine Graham.
I will go back and check my other records and let you know what I find.

[judb]

One of the public trees has a transcription of a birth certificate for William.  This transcription certainly seems to 'look correct' - proper wording etc.

It states:
Births in Islington, Liverpool, County of Lancaster, 1840 9 June 1840 -
26 London Road,
William Kirk, son of George Cummin, joiner and Margaret formerly McHenry
X mark of Margaret Cummin mother
Registered 22 June 1840 by William Foulker, Registrar

Liverpool, 1840 Q2, vol XX p 391

So it would seem that George and Margaret were the parents of William, and that he was born before their marriage which Cando found.

The same tree shows the marriage for George and Catherine GRAHAM to have been 4 November 1828.  So it seems that the next documented sighting of George is as a father to William in Liverpool 1840, although we know from the census that George jnr was born in Scotland.  Whether he is the son of Catherine or Margaret is not yet clear.

Judith

[judb]

Perhaps a query on the Scotland Board may be helpful?

Judith

Just as an aside I find the new FamilySearch almost impossible to use, so it's nice to knw I'm not alone!

[veryoldgal]

I know that findmypast says that they have a copy of the record for William Kirk Cummin, but I gave up my subscription to that site because it was providing information that I had found at other sights gave for free.
I have the birth of William Kirk Cumming as 9 July 1840.  I got that date from the immigration record to Australia.

It looks like I was wrong about William's Mother.  I was 100% certain I had found the record that his Mother was Catherine Graham.  I cannot find it anymore.  As I said before this was many years ago when I didn't even have a computer, so I was taking notes down from the computer at the library.
Now that I am a little bit more experienced I will save the information that you have provided for me.

I was a member of Ancestry and also a member of findmypast and I was also buying a lot of certificates, but it just became far too expensive to continue doing all of this.  I really did think that I had gone as far back in time that was possible.

With a bit of luck Ancestry or findmypast will be offering a couple of free days in the not too distant future, when I can go back and check my sources.

[veryoldgal]

I wonder what the chances are that there are two George Cummings who married a woman named Margaret McHenry and named their children George and William.

If William Kirk Cummin was recorded as the son of George Cummin and Margaret formerly McHenry then, surely they must have already been married during or before 1840 - because by law, wouldn't she have to record the Birth as William Kirk Cummin McHenry.  The marriage certificate that I have is 16 August 1841.

It is getting even more confusing as I go on.

[sparrett]

One of the public trees has a transcription of a birth certificate for William.  This transcription certainly seems to 'look correct' - proper wording etc.

It states:
Births in Islington, Liverpool, County of Lancaster, 1840 9 June 1840 -
26 London Road,
William Kirk, son of George Cummin, joiner and Margaret formerly McHenry
X mark of Margaret Cummin mother
Registered 22 June 1840 by William Foulker, Registrar

Liverpool, 1840 Q2, vol XX p 391

 

 Judith

Hi Judith,
Can you link the tree with the transcribed birth of William.
I can't find it.

Wonder why a scan of the original was not put into the tree's sources. Would have been persuasive evidence

Sue

[cando]

I wonder what the chances are that there are two George Cummings who married a woman named Margaret McHenry and named their children George and William.

If William Kirk Cummin was recorded as the son of George Cummin and Margaret formerly McHenry then, surely they must have already been married during or before 1840 - because by law, wouldn't she have to record the Birth as William Kirk Cummin McHenry.  The marriage certificate that I have is 16 August 1841.

It is getting even more confusing as I go on.

It isn't confusing.
 

1841 Census HO107/564/14
Living at Liverplace/Back Bond Street
CUMMING George  30 years  Joiner  Born Scotland
CUMMING Margaret  25 years Born Scotland
CUMMING George  2 years  Born Scotland
CUMMING William  1 years  Born County

George and Margaret were living together before they married and had Wm.  I note that Margaret was born in Scotland. Perhaps they were together in Scotland.

The mandatory civil registration of births, marriages, and deaths in England and Wales was introduced on 1 July 1837. Initially the onus lay on registrars to discover and record events, so parents only had to supply information if and when asked.  I doubt they would have offered the information we aren't married when Wm was registered. Information about when and where the parents' marriage occurred was not required for English birth registrations. 

Cando

[judb]

Exactly right Cando - when we registered our son in Oxford in 1969 we were not asked to supply any form of documentation to say who we really were. 

My husband and I were not married at the time but I had changed my surname to the same as his by deed poll - the birth certificate says I was Judith XYXY  at the time of the birth, formerly Judith XXXXX.  No marriage details were asked for.  Anyone looking at that birth certificate does not know whether we were married at the time of registering our son's birth

Also you can legally call yourself anything you want to (although nowadays you need documentary evidence of change of name for many functions) so there was no legal onus on Margaret to use her birth surname.

i'm assuming that in 1840 the circumstances were the same.  Margaret and George were almost certainly living together as man and wife although not legally married.

[veryoldgal]

Thank you,  you have opened my eyes.  I had no idea that the system was so "relaxed" in those days.  I had it in my head that one had to prove this and had to prove that before anything of a legal nature could be done.  eg. had to prove they were baptized before they could marry, that sort of thing.  George and Margaret were of the Presbyterian faith, so it is possible that the rules differed between faiths.

I know that at the time my Sister got married 1960's in a church in Brisbane Queensland, I think it was Anglican, she and her husband had to show that they had been baptized.

I have been looking for the death record of Catherine Cumming in Lancashire.  I shall start looking in Scotland and see what I can find.