Gordon Blair - Mystery? or Not!

[Skoosh]

Barristers in England, Advocates in Scotland. Most solicitor's/writer's were neither. "Writer's to the Signet," fancy Edinburgh lawyers! have a website & presumably a members list.

Skoosh.

[OZScot]

I don't believe there ever was a 'James Gordon Blair'. He was just 'Gordon Blair' and he didn't change it for any deception at all and it's only to my knowledge and recollection used on two occasions. It may have been reprinted several times. It was a big 'initial' mistake by the Registrar.

His name was ?icol MacDougall. He was the registrar on the 1856 BC who has accidently in the absence of the father Gordon and only Jane Blair mother present, wrote the childs name Blair on top, James Gordon underneath correct. Filled in date & where born & time and went onto the father and wrote James Gordon on top and Blair underneath. Still had the name on his mind.

Then comes the slight blunder by either Jane herself or Mr.MacDougall. Could Jane read or write?? as one of them has started with a capital 'N'? maybe? and rewrote Blair over it. Maybe I now think the registrar, as he had just written Norvel as his last word in that column and went up to the next line next column.

14 Months later they're back again to register Thomas Gordon Blair. This time Gordon is present and when it comes to writing the father's name he remembers them or Jane from the previous birth, as he also remembers things didn't go well as young James Gordon Blair died after a month and he was most probably the registrar for that event. [no evidence, supposition by me] .... because now Mr.MacDougall is still the registrar.

It appears to me when the father has to sign on Thomas' BC he signed Gordon Blair because that was his name. Later the registrar then most likely saw what Gordon had written and instead of making a complete mess of the document and or not be embarrassed squeezed in a 'J' as there is no room for 'James' which he thought was his name anyway as he had written it as he knew it at least twice before.

If your name was James Gordon, why would you call yourself Gordon and sign Gordon.
This is the only time I have seen him as 'James Gordon Blair' on Mr.MacDougall's 2 BC of his son's.

In 1855 on daughter Jane's BC he is Gordon Blair and signs Gordon Blair ... different registrar!! and earlier, but they're living close by in the same area 18 months earlier.

I'll stand corrected if someone can come up with a James Gordon Blair connected with the children of Jane Norval or anything else. There are 147 James Blair and 4 with Gordon with another forename and Blair on SP between 1820-1840. No James Gordon or Gordon James even.

The Blairs' certainly tried to call 2 children James only because of a death. Jane had a brother James who was a witness at the birth of Georgina Lorimer Blair. Maybe the James came from her side.
Look at their male children's names - they all had 'Gordon' in them. When Gordon married Julia Droughton the 1st male was Henry Gordon and then James William.

Distinct lack of any 'John' by Gordon which has him as his father on Gordon's DC. Maybe didn't get on with him. ?

[isobelw]

Wonder if this is relevant - Glasgow Free Press 14th July 1860

[majm]

I don't believe there ever was a 'James Gordon Blair'. He was just 'Gordon Blair' and he didn't change it for any deception at all and it's only to my knowledge and recollection used on two occasions. It may have been reprinted several times. It was a big 'initial' mistake by the Registrar.
...........

And then - may I contrast - a week or so ago you wrote

..... His name is either Gordon Blair [most used] or James Gordon Blair used often, but I haven't yet seen Gordon James Blair. .......

Please may I ask our OP to consider going through his two opening posts to re-check and possibly consider sorting out if there's any further changes to be made to those statements.  (Add, understanding that we have already sorted out James William BLAIR did NOT die before his Dad).

JM

[majm]

Some info about the Presbyterian Church in Ipswich .... I notice the leading churchmen include

Prominent members of the Established Church of Scotland at that time were Arthur Macalister, later Premier of Queensland, John Pettigrew, William Hendren, William Craies and Hugh Nelson (later Sir Hugh). The church took on the name of St Stephens in 1862. This early church proved to have faulty foundations, and had to be replaced.

The present St Stephen's church was erected during the time of the Reverend Samuel Wilson, who arrived in 1863, also the year that the twelve independent Presbyterian Church of Scotland congregations united into the one Presbyterian Church of Queensland, with the Rev. Wilson being appointed the first moderator of the united church.

The foundation stone for the new church was laid by the Hon Arthur Macalister in August 1865

So there's mention of  Arthur MACALISTER and William HENDREN  .... Macalister as in Gordon Blair's first Ipswich employer and Hendren as BDM registrar for Ipswich .... and that the 12 independent congregations united into one under Rev WILSON .... so perhaps the 'impediment' causing Gordon and Julia to marry in 1876 according to Presbyterian rites is simply tied up in an ecclesiastical matter re the status of the celebrant back in 1860s when they were independent congregations.  (Perhaps even an irregular Scottish marriage as mentioned many pages ago and accepted by the congregation). 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Stephen%27s_Church,_Ipswich

JM

[OZScot]

I earlier stated that I had 'seen' those names used with reference to a Gordon Blair.

Why do I see a shadow over head following me all the time.

[loobylooayr]

Wonder if this is relevant - Glasgow Free Press 14th July 1860

That is very intriguing Isobel !
Could be a huge co-incidence but also could be a man hiding his true identity swapping names about or could be the press printed names wrong way round. I wonder if Flora's house was one of a dubious repute? 
Holm Street is in the Anderston area. Wish they had printed his wife's name !

Looby

[sparrett]

Reply#274

Some info about the Presbyterian Church in Ipswich .... I notice the leading churchmen include

Prominent members of the Established Church of Scotland at that time were Arthur Macalister, later Premier of Queensland, John Pettigrew, William Hendren, William Craies and Hugh Nelson (later Sir Hugh). The church took on the name of St Stephens in 1862. This early church proved to have faulty foundations, and had to be replaced.

The present St Stephen's church was erected during the time of the Reverend Samuel Wilson, who arrived in 1863, also the year that the twelve independent Presbyterian Church of Scotland congregations united into the one Presbyterian Church of Queensland, with the Rev. Wilson being appointed the first moderator of the united church.

The foundation stone for the new church was laid by the Hon Arthur Macalister in August 1865

So there's mention of  Arthur MACALISTER and William HENDREN  .... Macalister as in Gordon Blair's first Ipswich employer and Hendren as BDM registrar for Ipswich .... and that the 12 independent congregations united into one under Rev WILSON .... so perhaps the 'impediment' causing Gordon and Julia to marry in 1876 according to Presbyterian rites is simply tied up in an ecclesiastical matter re the status of the celebrant back in 1860s when they were independent congregations.  (Perhaps even an irregular Scottish marriage as mentioned many pages ago and accepted by the congregation). 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St_Stephen%27s_Church,_Ipswich

JM

Your reply #275

Why do I see a shadow over head following me all the time.

I am wondering OZScot  how you intend this remark.

One would hope it is not to imply that the help of those more experienced than yourself is not welcome unless it agrees with your own viewpoint.

If you are satisfied that your own expansive view of the circumstances and life of Gordon BLAIR is the correct one, then it is a simple matter to mark your thread as complete.

Meantime, I am personally amazed with the extraordinary resources and breadth of knowledge brought to this topic.
Sue

[OZScot]

Sue,
The remark was that I feel the moment I say anything, JM is hovering overhead waiting to swoop and disagree and even bring up things that aren't relevant like the J.M.Blair mistake which I said that I had the wrong dates posts ago and put my hand up for ... so you can keep bring it up forever.??!!! Who does that ??!!! Not the 1st time either.

I put forward a proposition of why he maybe used or was called James as his name, as none were born in that time period. I didn't say it was gospel. It was a proposed 'find'.

I don't care if people make mistakes. It's not a perfect science. I thought we were all working towards a common goal of what actually happened. After all it was a long time ago and things are hard to find. That's why I asked for help in solving it and the response from most people has been exceptional and I'm amazed at the talent and very pleased and I've also thanked everyone when they help.

It was nothing more than that. I think some people are spoiling for a fight. Why?
I was looking forward to a conclusion but it looks as though I will have to bring it to a halt.

All because of people's nonsense and ego's ? I haven't said anything to upset anyone.

I didn't think that you would take it the wrong way Sue. One of the last I thought.
What did I 'ever' say to put anyone offside?

If I get a few people to post and say close it down I will.

I thought everyone was enjoying it and the challenge.
Show me one initiated derogatory remark towards anyone and I'll close it now.