RootsChat.Com

England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Cumberland => England => Cumberland Lookup Requests => Topic started by: myfamilyang on Sunday 10 August 14 22:26 BST (UK)

Title: Requesting LOOK UP ST. MARYS, ROCKCLIFFE, MATTHEW IRWIN/Irving b. Abt 1761
Post by: myfamilyang on Sunday 10 August 14 22:26 BST (UK)
Requesting parentage and marriage  of MATTHEW IRWIN b. Abt 1861, St Mary's , Rockcliffe, Cumberland, married RUTH DODD Abt 1785. ( maybe IRVING when married ?)
Thank you in advance .
Angela ( Irving)
Title: Re: Requesting LOOK UP ST. MARYS, ROCKCLIFFE, MATTHEW IRWIN/Irving b. Abt 1761
Post by: clearly on Sunday 14 September 14 18:37 BST (UK)
Can we have confirmation of the dates. either 1861 or 1785 is wrong. Have checked marriages 1837 to 1890 and only thing remotely similar was a Ruth Irving (father Matthew Irving, farmer) who married a Stephen Thorburn on 22 July 1841. Presumably it is 1761.
Title: Re: Requesting LOOK UP ST. MARYS, ROCKCLIFFE, MATTHEW IRWIN/Irving b. Abt 1761
Post by: *Sandra* on Sunday 14 September 14 19:21 BST (UK)
Presume the poster means born 1761 and married 1785 - There is a baptism of a son Matthew Irwin 6 March 1785 Rockcliffe Cumberland to Matthew Irwin and Ruth.

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/JMT9-J9P

2nd child - Anne -   3 Feb 1788 Rockcliffe Cumberland - Parents Matthew and Ruth.

https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/JMT9-VB9

Another researcher :-  http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/g/r/e/Joan-Green-ON/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0590.html

Sandra
Title: Re: Requesting LOOK UP ST. MARYS, ROCKCLIFFE, MATTHEW IRWIN/Irving b. Abt 1761
Post by: *Sandra* on Sunday 14 September 14 19:38 BST (UK)
This is probably the obituary notice - November 9th 1839 - Matthew Irving aged 78 years of Rockcliffe.  Year of birth would be 1761.

http://www.longtown19.co.uk/obituaries_1830___1839.63.html#Obituaries 1830 - 1839

Sandra
Title: Re: Requesting LOOK UP ST. MARYS, ROCKCLIFFE, MATTHEW IRWIN/Irving b. Abt 1761
Post by: myfamilyang on Sunday 14 September 14 23:49 BST (UK)
Whoops, sorry, I did not realize that the 1861 should have read 1761. Thank you to the people that replied. I will now peruse the information, many thanks once again.