RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: scottishlad on Tuesday 30 January 24 15:06 GMT (UK)
-
I've run into a bit of snag. I've been working on the siblings and nieces/nephews of my main tree for quite some time, however one brother in particular is really giving me some trouble. I'll try to keep this as succinct as possible:
I have documentation for a William McKenzie tinsmith married to a Mary McMillan in Aberdeen in February in 1851, and another William McKenzie tinsmith married to a Mary McMillan in Aberdeen in February in 1862.
I believe my William to be the one who was married in 1862, however, I have a John born 1865 in Dysart with parent's marriage listed as 1862 (same date on the marriage certificate I have), however I also have a David and a Mary born 1858 and 1860 in Dysart, both to William McKenzie tinsmith's married to a Mary McMillan. So is this just one big coincidence? They just happened to pass through the same town a few years apart? Otherwise wouldn't David and Mary be listed as illegitimate?
I know they're two different people based on the different year listed on some of these birth certificates, but all of the names (aside from David) are common family names. The other children in question are George and Isaac. I know these aren't unique names, but just seems funny that there would be two William McKenzie tinsmiths both married to Mary McMillans both naming their kids the same names as every other family in my tree.
My thought is perhaps the older William is an uncle to the younger William. Just a thread to go down at a later date, but anyway I guess I'm just confused at the similarities and don't really know how to proceed.
I guess the simplest answer is yes it's just a coincidence, John is my William's child because the exact marriage date is listed on his birth certificate, and the other two (who do not contain a marriage date) were just coincidentally born there a few years prior to parents with the exact same name and trade.
-
Have you downloaded both marriage certs to determine their respective parents?
-
Have you downloaded both marriage certs to determine their respective parents?
I can’t find the marriage cert for the 1851 couple unfortunately
-
Because of the Scottish naming system
It's quite common for 2 brothers I've David and John to name first son after their father William and second daughter after their mother Mary + third son after themselves
So 2 cousins could easily have same name William and same profession as it's passed down from grandfather & may name one son after their own fathers David or John or afte their mutual gfather William or them self & one daughter after their gmother it doesn't surprise me
-
Could 2 McKenzie cousins have married 2 McMillan cousins ?
Do keep us informed when you unravel it
-
Could 2 McKenzie cousins have married 2 McMillan cousins ?
Do keep us informed when you unravel it
That’s another possibility I’ll look into, thank you! I do have one occurrence of a pair of brothers marrying a pair of sisters so it has happened in my tree before.
-
Have you found the family in the censuses? If I have my matchsticks lined up correctly in 1871 the family are in Wemyss, Fife but there seem to be more children namely William, Rachel and Robert. William Junior is a tinsmith and Rachel is a hawker. She was born in Banffshire. Robert is aged 2 and said to have been born in Kilsyth ( SP has birth with mmn McMillan which matches).
As far as I can see the family are in Dysart in 1861. Another son, Alexander, is recorded aged 9 b Glasgow. In 1881 and 1891 they seem to be in Lochee, Dundee.
In these censuses William's place of birth does seem to vary but Mary's is consistently showing as Ayrshire but I do feel that they are all showing the correct family.
Have you found a death for William and Mary after 1891?
I cannot see the Isaac you refer to in your original post. ( There is a James showing in the 1881 census). Yes they moved about a lot but do wonder why they would marry in Aberdeen. I would not rule out their being just one couple.
William
-
Have you found the family in the censuses? If I have my matchsticks lined up correctly in 1871 the family are in Wemyss, Fife but there seem to be more children namely William, Rachel and Robert. William Junior is a tinsmith and Rachel is a hawker. She was born in Banffshire. Robert is aged 2 and said to have been born in Kilsyth ( SP has birth with mmn McMillan which matches).
As far as I can see the family are in Dysart in 1861. Another son, Alexander, is recorded aged 9 b Glasgow. In 1881 and 1891 they seem to be in Lochee, Dundee.
In these censuses William's place of birth does seem to vary but Mary's is consistently showing as Ayrshire but I do feel that they are all showing the correct family.
Have you found a death for William and Mary after 1891?
I cannot see the Isaac you refer to in your original post. ( There is a James showing in the 1881 census). Yes they moved about a lot but do wonder why they would marry in Aberdeen. I would not rule out their being just one couple.
William
The William I believe to be my William's marriage certificate is 21 Feb 1862 in Aberdeen. Parents recorded as George (tinsmith) and Betsy m.s. Townsley. The death certificate that I believe to be for my William is 13 Dec 1903 in Edinburgh. Parents listed as George (tinsmith) and Bridget m.s. Townsley. 67 years old in 1903 puts him at about 1836 birth. The 1862 marriage certificate has him as 29 (although it looks like 27 had originally been written) which puts him at about 1833-1835 birth. If the 1851 marriage listed on some of these children's birth certificates is to be believed, then "my" William would have been about 15 at the time of his marriage (depending on which age you think is more accurate).
The children in question are:
David b. 1858 Dysart, Fife
Mary b. 1860 Dysart, Fife
George b. 1863 Markinch, Fife
John b. 1865 Dysart, Fife
James b. 1867 Cadder, Lanarkshire
Robert b. 1869 Kilsyth, Stirling
Isaac b. 1873 Lochee, Dundee
I didn't question any of them because the parents were William (tinsmith) and Mary McMillan and the years all seemed to line up. That was until I noticed, for example, George's 'when and where parents married' is "February 1851 Aberdeen". John is "1862 February 21 Aberdeen". Robert (in 1869) is "about 19 years ago Aberdeen". Isaac is "1862 February 21st Aberdeen"...etc.
So I said ok there are clearly two different people here. Two different sets of William McKenzie and Mary McMillan's. I haven't looked into census records for them yet, but will have to do that in order to sort this out. It's just odd because George and Robert and Mary are family names my ancestors used repeatedly. Which is why I think there must be some sort of connection here. Perhaps the older William is a younger brother of "my" William's father George?
They were travelling tinsmiths which makes identifying people based on location next to impossible because they were always on the move. I suppose census records would be best bet at distinguishing the two groups.
Also intersting you see a William, son. I have a William in my tree, but he is "blank" as I haven't been able to find any information on him. The only reason I know he existed is because William's death certificate is signed for by a son named William.
-
In the absence of any record in the OPRs for the 1851 marriage, I would consider that William and Mary may have made this up and the early children born in the late 1850s were indeed born when the parents were not yet married. Remember, there were no detailed checks made by the Registrars when taking and recording details on the registers at this time.
I couldn't see a couple with these names in the 1851 census either, but also haven't yet found William by himself yet!
From what you have mentioned, would this be William's family in 1851? www.freecen.org.uk/search_records/5a1510d2f4040b9d6e1bfe07/bridget-mckenzie-1851-lanarkshire-gorbals-1801-?locale=en
From someone's family tree, this looks to be Bridget's death reg (if you don't have it already):
-
In the absence of any record in the OPRs for the 1851 marriage, I would consider that William and Mary may have made this up and the early children born in the late 1850s were indeed born when the parents were not yet married. Remember, there were no detailed checks made by the Registrars when taking and recording details on the registers at this time.
I couldn't see a couple with these names in the 1851 census either, but also haven't yet found William by himself yet!
From what you have mentioned, would this be William's family in 1851? www.freecen.org.uk/search_records/5a1510d2f4040b9d6e1bfe07/bridget-mckenzie-1851-lanarkshire-gorbals-1801-?locale=en
From someone's family tree, this looks to be Bridget's death reg (if you don't have it already):
Yes I do have that record and yes that is his family on that census. I’m just not sure what to make of David. That name is found nowhere else in my tree. They used the same 7 male names for 200+ years. Just seems odd for there to be a random David. So far in my research whenever I find a name outside of those 7 it always turns out to be incorrect and not part of my tree after all. I will look into it more though thank you for your response
-
In the absence of any record in the OPRs for the 1851 marriage, I would consider that William and Mary may have made this up and the early children born in the late 1850s were indeed born when the parents were not yet married. Remember, there were no detailed checks made by the Registrars when taking and recording details on the registers at this time.
I couldn't see a couple with these names in the 1851 census either, but also haven't yet found William by himself yet!
From what you have mentioned, would this be William's family in 1851? www.freecen.org.uk/search_records/5a1510d2f4040b9d6e1bfe07/bridget-mckenzie-1851-lanarkshire-gorbals-1801-?locale=en
From someone's family tree, this looks to be Bridget's death reg (if you don't have it already):
I still am unable to find a second William McKenzie via marriage certificate circa 1851. I would tend to agree perhaps they lied, however assuming that to be true for example, why would the two different marriage dates alternate? You would think if the child were illegitimate and you were trying to hide that, any child born pre 1862 would have the 1851 marriage date, and anybody born after would have the “correct” 1862 date. However we don’t see that. John has 1862 and then 4 years later Robert has “about 19 years ago…”. There would be no reason to continue the lie now in 1869 since they are legally married. And I wouldn’t chalk that up to uncertainty because there’s a big difference between 7 and 19. They wouldn’t have been wrong about their marriage length by 12 years.
They must be different people I just can’t prove it. Regarding my tree however, I suppose I will just take out anybody that explicitly states the 1851 marriage date and anybody born pre 1862 pending further research.
Edit: interesting tidbit, the birth certificates I have list birthplaces as follows: Dysart, Fife (John), Cadder, Lanarkshire (James), Kilsyth, Stirling (Robert), however on this census all three are listed as Stirlintshire for birth place.
-
Is it only George's birth certificate that states the 1851 date?
If so, it is not impossible that it's an error. They seem to have been fairly consistent with the other birth certificates. What about James' birth certificate?
Have you seen David's and Mary's birth certificates?
IMO the simplest explanation is that they are all one family, David and Mary being born before the parents' marriage and legitimated by the subsequent marriage, and that the 1851 on George's certificate is a clerical error.
Was William able to sign his own name? If so have you compared the signatures on the various birth certificates?
-
Is it only George's birth certificate that states the 1851 date?
If so, it is not impossible that it's an error. They seem to have been fairly consistent with the other birth certificates. Whar about James' birth certificate?
Have you seen David's and Mary's birth certificates?
IMO the simplest explanation is that they are all one family, David and Mary being born before the parents' marriage and legitimated by the subsequent marriage, and that the 1851 on George's certificate is a clerical error.
Was William able to sign his own name? If so have you compared the signatures on the various birth certificates?
Yes I have seen them however there is no signature just their mark so tough to make a legitimate comparison.
George b. 1863 lists 1851
John b. 1865 lists 1862
James b. 1867 lists 1862
Robert b. 1869 lists “about 19 years ago” ie 1851
Isaac b. 1873 lists 1862
If it was a one off error I’d attribute it to clerical error, but especially with the wording of 19 years ago. That’s a huge difference from 7 years ago (which it should have been).
-
Ok I think I solved the case thanks to Rachel. Rachel, born 1856, she is included on the 1881 census with the three boys posted previously ^ who’s ages match up perfectly with the certificates I have, as well as the David in question, her parents William and Mary McMillan, father William listed as a “rag collector” which is the same profession on the 1862 marriage certificate that I have that lists the parents George and Bridget Townsley. Still not sure why that would be the only instance. Seems odd he’s a rag collector in 1856 and 1862 marriage certificate, but Tinsmith everywhere else. I know rag and bone men was sort of just a scavenger and was common amongst tinsmiths to dabble, but just odd the two seemingly random occurrences.
So I guess they did lie about their marriage to hide their illegitimacy? Still doesn’t explain why Robert born 1869 was given the “false” marriage date of 1851 even though they were already legally married then. Still some questions, but I think it’s safe to say at the very least they are in fact one and the same.
-
The census confirms that they are all one family.
1861 Census: Coalgate, Dysart. William McKenzie, 30, born Sorbie; wife Margaret, 30, born Ayrshire; Alexander, 9, born Glasgow; William, 7, born Pathhead; Rachael, 5, born Portsoy; David, 3, born Gallatown; Mary, 6 months, born Dysart.
1871 Census: Coalgate, Dysart. William, 39, born England; Margaret, 39, born Dalry; William, 17, born Pathhead; Rachel, 14, born Portsoy; David 11, born Dysart; Mary, 9, born Dysart; George, 7, born Markinch; John, 5, born Dysart; Robert, 2, born Kilsyth.
1881 Census: Lochee, Angus. William, 48, born Wigtownshire; Mary, 48 born Ayrshire; David, 23, born Galston, Fife; George, 17, born Dysart; John, 15; James, 13, Robert, 11, all born Stirlingshire; Rachel, 23, born Morayshire; Mary, 19, born Dysart.
You should look at the originals of all these censuses because I think some of the transcriptions are more than a little suspect. For example, it looks as if Galston could be a misreading of Gallatown.
-
The census confirms that they are all one family.
1861 Census: Coalgate, Dysart. William McKenzie, 30, born Sorbie; wife Margaret, 30, born Ayrshire; Alexander, 9, born Glasgow; William, 7, born Pathhead; Rachael, 5 born Portsoy; David, 3, born Gallatown; Mary, 6 months, born Dysart.
1871 Census: Coalgate, Dysart. William, 39, born England; Margaret, 39, born Dalry; William, 17, born Pathhead; Rachel, 14, born Portsoy; David 11, born Dysart; Mary, 9, born Dysart; George, 7, born Markinch; John, 5, born Dysart; Robert, 2, born Kilsyth.
1881 Census: Lochee, Angus. William, 48, born Wigtownshire; Mary, 48 born Ayrshire; David, 23, born Galston, Fife; George, 17, born Dysart; John, 15; James, 13, Robert, 11, all born Stirlingshire; Rachel, 23, born Morayshire; Mary, 19, born Dysart.
You should look at the originals of all these censuses because I think some of the transcriptions are more than a little suspect. For example, it looks as if Galston could be a misreading of Gallatown.
Thank you! Yes I believe they are all the same family now as well. Still some questions, but I think safe to say they are all one and the same. Rachel’s birth certificate was the key at least linking the 1862 William (who’s parents were George and Bridget Townsley) to the 1881 census which includes David and the other children.
-
I will also say, there is another instance in my tree of a couple having illegitimate children, who are marked as such on their birth certificates with both parents listed, and then a marriage certificate at a later date. Is it possible William and Mary were married some other less official way (if that was even a thing)? Or perhaps married in 1851 via a different denomination and then in 1862 remarried through the Church of Scotland? Is that something somebody would have done back then? Something happened in 1851. There’s no way the two mentions of it are just clerical errors. Just something to ponder I guess
-
It's evident that they were Travelling People and in the 19th century would have been described as Tinkers (the word is derived from tin, because tinsmithing was a common occupation among Travellers). These days the word Tinker is considered pejorative and offensive.
I wonder whether perhaps they were married in 1851 by a rite peculiar to Travellers, and then in 1862, believing that not to have been a legal marriage, they were married again in a more conventional rite?
There is a RootsChat forum specifically for Travelling People https://www.rootschat.com/forum/travellers/ - someone there may know about the marriage customs of Travellers in Scotland in the 19th century.
-
It's evident that they were Travelling People and in the 19th century would have been described as Tinkers (the word is derived from tin, because tinsmithing was a common occupation among Travellers). These days the word Tinker is considered pejorative and offensive.
I wonder whether perhaps they were married in 1851 by a rite peculiar to Travellers, and then in 1862, believing that not to have been a legal marriage, they were married again in a more conventional rite?
There is a RootsChat forum specifically for Travelling People https://www.rootschat.com/forum/travellers/ - someone there may know about the marriage customs of Travellers in Scotland in the 19th century.
Thank you! Yes that is what I’m thinking as well. Must have been something along those lines.
-
I will also say, there is another instance in my tree of a couple having illegitimate children, who are marked as such on their birth certificates with both parents listed, and then a marriage certificate at a later date.
That is the normal procedure.
Is it possible William and Mary were married some other less official way (if that was even a thing)? Or perhaps married in 1851 via a different denomination and then in 1862 remarried through the Church of Scotland? Is that something somebody would have done back then?
All that was needed to make a marriage valid in the eyes of the law was for the couple to declare themselves to be married in the presence of two witnesses. No religious ceremony was required by the law.
Naturally the kirk frowned upon such irregular marriages, and the Kirk Session minutes quite often record a couple being forced to confess and repent of an irregular marriage, mostly because until they had repented and done penance, and of course paid a fine, the kirk could decline to baptise their children.