Help me before I go mad!

GeorgiaL · Post by **GeorgiaL** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 2:44 pm

I was pretty confident that I had got all the right people in the right places. But when I shared a particular story about g-grandparents my sister told me what I had found wasn't possible. So I went back over all my careful research and now find - I might have been wrong after all. Is it possible that there are two separate families with identical names?

Here's the problem.

Archibald McKay, a shipwright or carpenter, born around 1835 in Antrim. Moves to Greenock in Scotland. Marries Catherine Whiteford 1873. Their children are Jane (my grandmother) born 1874, Bertha (no sign of birth), John, Matthew, Daniel and Isabella.

Archibald dies (i originally thought) in Greenock in December 1885. His widow Catherine remarried in 1897 to a James Luckham. James dies in 1902. Catherine dies in 1935. In the 1901 census Catherine and James are shown as living with her children from her marriage to Archibald, and they are named as step-sons and step-daughters.

when I told my sister that our granny Jane had had a step-father as her mother had got remarried, my sister thought it was impossible - but she has no evidence only that this has never ever been mentioned in the family that g-granny remarried.

So I went back to the drawingboard today - and I'm now convinced there are two sets of families with the same names. there are several Archibald McKays. And their death date is AFTER Catherine's remarriage.

Och it's just got far too complicated. I think I'm going to forget about this for a few months and clear my head. I'm away to lie down in a darkened room.

Post by **Ina** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:14 pm

Hi Georgia,

Does Catherines death record list two husbands?

Ina

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:18 pm

Hi Georgia,
Do the details you have match your grandmother's birth certificate regarding her father's occupation?
Rae

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:24 pm

Found them in 1891 census.
Catherine and Archd Mckay, Carpenter, were living at 12 Murdiesto Street, Greenock. Your grandmother was 17.
Rae

Rach · Post by **Rach** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:41 pm

On S.P an Archibald M*cKay born 1834 died in Greenock in 1865. That would tally with Catherine marrying again in 1897 but that is only a hunch on my part! You would have to have a look at the cert.
Also, my family had no idea that my grandmother was the half sister of all her brothers and sisters. I don't think they talked about things like in those days!
Rae

GeorgiaL · Post by **GeorgiaL** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:49 pm

Yes, Catherine's death certificate lists the two husbands. But I don't know if she is "my" Catherine. Funny how sometimes everything goes swimmingly and other times you just get bogged down in confusion. Now isone of those times.

GeorgiaL · Post by **GeorgiaL** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 4:51 pm

Rach wrote:Found them in 1891 census.
Catherine and Archd Mckay, Carpenter, were living at 12 Murdiesto Street, Greenock. Your grandmother was 17.
Rae

But I have Archd as dieing in 1885. Maybe I have the wrong Archd.

Montrose Budie · Post by **Montrose Budie** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:11 pm

Hi Rae

See family members

See if I had a pound for every time someone says "that didnae happen!" or "nobody told me about that!" I'd be more than a wee bit richer.

OK, let's critically examine the records.

Catherine WHITEFORD's 1935 death record, informant son John, living at the same address as his mother, shows her as the widow of 1st Archibald McKAY, Shipwright (Journeyman) and 2nd James LUCKHAM, Shipmaster; parents John WHITEHOUSE, Sugarhouse Labourer and Jane WHITEFORD MS McGINTY.

The 1899 marriage to James LUCKHAM, 69, Seaman, shows her age as 44 and parents as John WHITEFORD, Stevedore, and Helen WHITEFORD MS McKINNEY, so a slight glitch there in terms of her mother's given and surnames!..... but nothing that would worry me when everything else is a perfect fit.

The 1873 marriage to Archibald McKAY, 38, Shipwright, shows her age as 21 and parents as John WHITEFORD, Sugarhouse Labourer, and Jane WHITEFORD MS McGINTY,

21 + 26 (the difference between 1899 and 1873) is 47, a wee bit different from the age of 44 given in 1899, but that doesn't worry me in the least.

The 1901 census entry shows, -

James LUCKHAM 71 Ship Captain b. England
Catherine LUCKHAM 45 b. Greenock
John McKAY StepSon 21 Railway Servant b. Greenock
Bertha McKAY 19 StepDaur 19 b. Greenock
Daniel McKAY StepSon 17 Railway Servant b. Greenock
Matthew McKAY StepSon [age unreadable] Scholar b. Greenock

So clearly, the 4 wains are from a previous marriage of Catherine to a Mr. McKAY, n'est ce pa?

If these records don't refer to the same Catherine then (a) I'm a chinaman [actually I am in terms of the nickname for inhabitants of where I live, but Ah wisnae born here, so I'm not really

] and (b) I'll eat any hat on offer.

But hing oan a meenut, but, we hivnae killed off Erchie, - he turns out to have died in 1895, Journeyman Shipwright, married to Catherine WHITEFORD, 61 (cf 38 in 1873), parents John McKAY and Isabella McKAY MS McMOYLE, exactly matching those shown on the 1873 marriage register entry to Catherine WHITEFORD!

And........ just to quadruple check, the 1891 census entry shows -

Arch<sup>d</sup> McKAY 54 Carpenter b. Ireland
Catherine McKAY 39 b. Greenock
Jane McKAY Daughter 17 b. Greenock
Bertha McKAY Daughter 9 b. Greenock
John McKAY, Son, 11, Scholar, b. Greenock
Daniel McKAY Son 7 Scholar b. Greenock
Matthew McKAY Son 4 mo[nth]s b. Greenock

As the Latin tag goes, QED, ken

So, if your sister continues to maintain that Catherine's remarriage ain't possible, just point her in my direction

via my website at

Orraverybest

mb

Website address removed
by marilyn

GeorgiaL · Post by **GeorgiaL** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:14 pm

Thank you very much Montrose! I have been vindicated. But oh! those date and age discrepancies can trip you up so many times.
Much appreciated.

Montrose Budie · Post by **Montrose Budie** » Wed Mar 11, 2009 5:21 pm

GeorgiaL wrote:Thank you very much Montrose! I have been vindicated. But oh! those date and age discrepancies can trip you up so many times.
Much appreciated.

Nae prob at 'a, at a', - I like a wee puzzle now and then !

Not to find discrepancies is rare; the critical aspect is how well all the jigsaw pieces fit together, assuming that there are enough pieces, despite any such discrepancies, and how readily discrepancies can be explained, e.g. McKINNEY for McGINTY doesn't worry me since the latter could easily, and must have?!, been heard as the former.

Plus, I have the great advantage that I come into the situation without any preconceptions or assumptions

Orraverybest

mb