Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - lmfamilyresearch

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 30
1
The Common Room / Re: Surname question: why a baby maintain birth surname even though mother married
« on: Sunday 10 April 22 19:10 BST (UK)  »
Thanks everyone for sharing information.  I've got a lot to look into.  Hopefully I can figure it out but this may simply remain of my family history mysteries.

2
The Common Room / Re: Surname question: why a baby maintain birth surname even though mother married
« on: Sunday 27 March 22 22:08 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: John915 on Sunday 27 March 22 22:04 BST (UK)
Good evening,

Normally if parents divorce and mother remarries the children retain the fathers name as on their birth certificates. If the new husband legally adopts the children then they take his name. I don't know if the same applied as far back as the early 1800s.

John915

Thanks.  In this case, James' parents were not married as he's listed as the "natural son" (and not lawful son) on his baptism record.

3
The Common Room / Re: Surname question: why a baby maintain birth surname even though mother married
« on: Sunday 27 March 22 22:07 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: MonicaL on Sunday 27 March 22 19:49 BST (UK)

You will have this but just adding here James's death in 1905 in Iowa with father named as Alexander McMurchy www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:QP2F-S5G9

Monica

Yes I do have this.  I know that his father is listed as Alexander McMurchy but I'm not sure how m much I can trust this record given that the information was provided by and filled out by the undertaker and not James' wife.  However, it is something to look into.  Donald (James' father) did have a brother named Alexander.

4
The Common Room / Re: Surname question: why a baby maintain birth surname even though mother married
« on: Sunday 27 March 22 22:00 BST (UK)  »
These are all interesting and I'll definitely look in everything.  James' baptism record says that Margaret is from Ballyvianan. 

5
The Common Room / Re: Surname question: why a baby maintain birth surname even though mother married
« on: Sunday 27 March 22 18:18 BST (UK)  »
Margaret having died is not a scenario that I had considered.  If that's the case, I'm wondering why James wouldn't have gone to his father.  After all, he had children by two wives and James (who was the "natural" son of his father).

6
The Common Room / Re: Surname question: why a baby maintain birth surname even though mother married
« on: Sunday 27 March 22 16:03 BST (UK)  »
Unfortunately I can't find anything on his mother.  The only reason I know his mother's name is because it's on his birth entry in the Old Parish Records.  I don't even know if he actually stayed with his birth mother or if he was raised by another family.  I've often wondered if it was possible for him to have been given to another family to raise, maybe one of his father's siblings/cousins/aunts...?

I have no clue who his birth mother married, nor can I trace their entry into Canada.  His mother Margaret McShenoig isn't in the Dictionary of Scottish Immigrants (to Canada Pre-Confederation), neither is James.  I can only find one marriage entry for a Margaret McShenoig on Scotland's People but that marriage takes place in 1828 (before James birth) so the timing of things just seems very off.  I just can't see Margaret getting married in 1828, having an affair and resulting in a boy in 1831 and her husband being happy about that.  Plus, McShenoig is a very common name in Scotland (or so I've been told).

I do know that James was aware of his siblings on his father's side but they didn't appear to be in contact (or it was very minimal contact).  This comes from some letters I've seen (where James questions which of his siblings the letter writer married).

This whole branch is a mystery.  Unfortunately, James didn't have any children.

7
The Common Room / Surname question: why a baby maintain birth surname even though mother married
« on: Sunday 27 March 22 13:43 BST (UK)  »
Good morning,

I'm hoping that some light can be shed on a question of mine.  I have an indirect ancestor James McMurchy (b. 1831 in Southend (or Campbeltown) Argyll, Scotland) to his mother Margaret McShenoig who was not married to his father (Donald McMurchy).  In an obituary for James, it said he moved with his parents to Canada at aged 2 (in 1833).  Now, I know that James' father Donald McMurchy didn't move because he went on to marry and have other children in Southend after 1832 and he died in Southend in 1836.  So, Margaret McShenoig obviously married (or partnered) with someone else and moved to Canada.  James' obituary also indicated that he moved with his parents to the USA at age 16 and that he has a sister in Joliet, Illinois (no name was given).  So, how is it possible that James went by his surname (birth surname) for all the records that I can find in the USA (I can't find any records in Canada)?  James apparently stayed with his mother but never seemed to go by his stepfather's surname even though he would have been a baby when the stepfather came into his life.

Thanks.

8
The Common Room / Re: Ancestry half price membership until 4th January.
« on: Tuesday 28 December 21 13:43 GMT (UK)  »
Does anyone know if there's a Canadian version (for Ancestry.ca).  I've been waiting for the email to show up in for me and so far nothing.  I don't have an active subscription for the express purpose of waiting for the half off discount.

Thanks.

9
Ayrshire / Re: Armour family
« on: Saturday 02 October 21 14:43 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: brigidmac on Thursday 27 May 21 18:46 BST (UK)
We also have DNA matches to many well established Canadian
From Alexander ARMOUR 1814-1886 from Argyll m Mary MILLOY 9 children mostly born Canada

Hi Brigidmac,

Here's the Find A Grave link for the family: https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/76646969/john-milloy-armour

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 30