Mysteries.....

[AnneM]

Well now. Had what I thought was a brainwave and decided that Margaret had originally named George David ?after his father so decided to look for the birth of a David Lonie. No sign. Came to the conclusion he was never born but then in desperation decided to look at every Lonie birth in Glasgow in the relevant period and this is what appeared.

Michael Lonie born 23rd July 1859, 184 Gallowgate, Glasgow, illegitimate son of Margaret Lonie, domestic servant. Registered by Margaret.

I think we have to ask ourselves just how many women called Margaret Lonie were producing illegitimate sons in the Gallowgate in 1859.

Could this poor child have had three names in his life and is it possible that a child born Michael Lonie could end up being called George Campbell. Why would Margaret name her child Michael if his father was a David or John Campbell. Are there no limits to what this lot will do??

Query number 2. If George Campbell (who may or may not also have been Michael/David Lonie or Irvine) married Annie in 1883 why was their first child born only in 1889 and registered as illegitimate. I suppose being a ship's steward George could have been away for a while but 6 years??
Also his mother is not aware of or admitting his whereaboots in 1884. I'm beginning to suspect he was in the Bar-L, a guest of Her Majesty.

You really could not make this up!

Anne

BTW that is definitely the right Margaret in 1861 as Mary Cassy/Cassie was born Mary Lonie and young Margaret born in Edinburgh in 1855. As to where Rob the Rivetter as opposed to Bob the Builder is, who knows or can even begin to guess.

[isobelc]

Hi,

Here is the 1881 census entry for this couple. They were living at the same address as Margaret Lonie/Irvine.

Dwelling: 125 Maclean St
Census Place: Govan, Lanark, Scotland
Source: FHL Film 0203684 GRO Ref Volume 646-1 EnumDist 7A Page 7
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Thomas E. HULLEY M 30 M England
Rel: Head
Occ: Tinsmith
Margaret HULLEY M 27 F Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland
Rel: Wife
George HULLEY 9 M Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Son
Occ: Scholar
Thomas E. HULLEY 7 M Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Son
Occ: Scholar
Margaret L. HULLEY 5 F Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Daur
Occ: Scholar
Robert J. HULLEY 2 M Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Son
Mary Ann HULLEY 8 m F Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Daur

Thomas and Margaret married in 1870 in Glasgow. She is given as aged 18. Parents are John Campbell, Railway Platelayer dec'd and Margaret Irvine, previously Campbell ms Lonie. Her occupation was a Confectioners Lozenge Cutter.

Regards,
Isobel(Edinburgh)

[JimM]

Thomas and Margaret married in 1870 in Glasgow. She is given as aged 18. Parents are John Campbell, Railway Platelayer dec'd and Margaret Irvine, previously Campbell ms Lonie. Her occupation was a Confectioners Lozenge Cutter.

Regards,
Isobel(Edinburgh)

Interesting... k k
That means that Margaret Lonie (who was born in Edinburgh) and John Campbell had a daughter Margaret in 1852 born in Edinburgh.
Margaret then moves to Glasgow c1856 where she marries to Robert Irvine

Three years later Margaret Irvine gives birth to another child by John Campbell.... this time in Glasgow
Eighteen months later Margaret Irvine has her first child by her husband Robert Irvine

Is there any proof of the existence of John Campbell?? or was he invented by Margaret later to "legitimise" her children?

Why was it not assumed that our George (aka David or Michael) was fathered by Margaret's husband Robert Irvine?..they had only been married a few years!
There must have been compelling evidence to the contrary (my god I'm thinking like a lawyer)

What was this evidence?.... was Margaret caught "in flagrante" with another man?..... was Robert away working.... or had the couple temporarily separated and Margaret gone back to John Campbell? ...... I rest my case

Anne this is a cracker... better than the Da Vinci code any day

Jim

[joette]

Yes I agree & despite the fact that some children born today with AID&Surrogacy & what not will have fun sorting out their ancestors I still think our forebears could give us a run for our money in the "it's a wise man who knows his Father" stakes.
I have been reading this puzzler & I think the most obvious explination is
Hubby is away at sea or biding in with some other woman.He knows the child is not his as does she & in a fit of honesty Registers the child as her "fancy man's".
They have a reconciliation & have other children.I wonder if the Cousin aspect comes into it? Protecting the family name from notoriety but why then register the child as illegitimate? A real whodun what to who & I am sure Anne could write a tale about it!

[SarahND]

Every time I read over this post (and my head starts spinning each time) I wonder whether or not the marriage was annulled because they were first cousins... is this a possibility? They stayed together, but the children were "illegitimate".

Well, it's a guess!

Sarah

[isobelc]

Hi,

I'm intrigued about why Annie Campbell lied about her parents names on her marriage cert. in 1883. She was still living with them in 1881, so could hardly have forgotten who they were.

The 'cousin german' on the marriage cert. is also odd. This suggests that their Cambell fathers were brothers - but both men appear to have been called John.

And that 1861 census - all the relationships are to a Head of Household (Robert Irvine) who appears not to be there.

This one really is a mystery!

Isobel

[JimM]

Hi Isobel
I had also noticed that Annie's mother had changed names (I wondered if it was a typo?)
Annie's father is given as David.... so i supposed they could be cousins

Jim

[AnneM]

Hi folks

Well I suppose you won't be surprised to hear that I can't find Michael Lonie born 1859 on the 1861 census nor is there a death for him. This makes it look increasingly likely that Michael Lonie is David Irvine is George Campbell. Do I get the prize for finding the man with the most names throughout his life????

One big puzzle, as Isobel says, is why are Annie's parents given wrongly on her MC to George? Is it the same Annie? Unlikely not to be. Her real father's name is John and her mother was Christina Young not Fraser. Father's occupation is correct. Now it also seems that George thinks his father was a John Campbell as does Margaret his big sister BUT Annie and George are stated to be cousins which would make their fathers brothers and it seems unlikely that there were 2 brothers John Campbell and certainly on the 1841 census John's brothers are Donald, William and Andrew....not even a David!!

I suppose that Annie could have known for some reason that her marriage was a nullity and truthfully registered her children as illegitimate but what would have made it invalid? Could George have been already married to someone else? That's an NRH job given the number of George Campbells around in the time scale. Fortunately Annie was born in Inverness in 1861 and George in Glasgow in 1859 so the worst case scenario also seems unlikely!!

Still the original mystery remains..what happened to George??

Yours in total bafflement

Anne

[pinkshoes]

This is better than Dallas I can't wait for the next bit! Maybe David took a shower and came out as George Sorry I've nothing constructive to add to the conversation, but it does make intruiging reading, and the process is very educational. Hope you get to the bottom of it Anne - I've every confidence that the sleuths will dig 'em out.

Best wishes
Pinkshoes

[JimM]

One big puzzle, as Isobel says, is why are Annie's parents given wrongly on her MC to George? Is it the same Annie?

Hi Anne
Just out of interest...
What names does Annie give for parents on her second marriage?
Do the same names appear on her DC?

Jim