Misidentified illegitimate children or just a coincidence?

[scottishlad]

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

[scottishlad]

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.

[Forfarian]

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?

[scottishlad]

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).

[scottishlad]

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.

[Forfarian]

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.

[scottishlad]

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.

[scottishlad]

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

[Forfarian]

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.