RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Midlothian => Topic started by: woiiftm on Monday 30 June 25 15:14 BST (UK)
-
Hello,
Looking for some help in clarifying some details please.
Elizabeth Holmes Black 1867-1941 and her daughter Elsie Holmes Black 1901-1979
Daughters marriage cert states mother Eliz H Black (afterwards married to John Bruce)
and witnessed by mother Eliz H Black or Bruce. cert No/644/84469
Mothers death cert lists her as single (not married or widowed).
cert 685/733
Marriage also witnessed by a Kathleen Black or Colombo. We have no record thus far of a Kathleen anywhere in our lists.
Elsie birth cert states Illegitimate, born to an Assurance Company Manager cert 685/3 1215
We also have the 1921 census showing mother and daughter living together.
Cannot find a marriage cert for Elizabeth to a John Bruce
Can anyone explain for us please the apparent discrepancy in information re Elizabeth on the certificates, and why can we not find Kathleen?
Many Thanks
-
I notice Elsie only married in 1939 by which time Elizabeth was 72.
Was she Elizabeth Black in 1921.
-
She is shown as Mrs Elizabeth Holmes Bruce on the ER for Shaws Street Edinburgh - 1907/1908
-
Elsie H Bruce & Mrs Elizabeth Bruce are at Cairnlea Drive Glasgow on the ER 1933/34
-
Hi, and thanks for the interest.
Yes she is listed as Elizabeth in the 1921 Census living in St Vincent St Edinburgh.
Sorry, but take it the ER is Electoral Register?
So from your post re Shaws St, she did get married, yet I can't find it.
Could this be one of those "irregular marriages" I've read about and if so, would using the other name be recognised for any legal purpose?
Yet she is listed as single on death cert.
Sorry still a little confused
-
Who is the informant on mother’s death certificate that gives her status as single?
-
Kathleen Black Colombo died in 1943.
Have you looked at her death certificate for information?
-
Son in Law William McAinsh is listed as informant, not the daughter
-
Son in Law William McAinsh is listed as informant, not the daughter
He may not be correct in his knowledge of her marital status.
-
There is birth you might consider investigating -
Kathleen Black COWPER in 1913 Morningside, mother BLACK
She married Colombo in 1939.
-
COLOMBO
WILLIAM E
COWPER
KATHLEEN BLACK
1939
685 / 4 / 1695
St Giles
------------
COWPER
KATHLEEN BLACK
mmn BLACK
F
1913
685 / 6 / 727
Morningside
Parents Robert Cowper & Annie Cowper nee' Black.
SS
-
Kathleen Black Colombo died in 1943.
Have you looked at her death certificate for information?
Hello,
No hadn't found her yet. Given her probable date of birth she might be a niece of Elizabeth. I'd need to do a bit more searching into siblings.
Cheers
-
COLOMBO
WILLIAM E
COWPER
KATHLEEN BLACK
1939
685 / 4 / 1695
St Giles
------------
COWPER
KATHLEEN BLACK
mmn BLACK
F
1913
685 / 6 / 727
Morningside
Parents Robert Cowper & Annie Cowper nee' Black.
SS
Hi thanks for this, I'll check Annie as I couldn't find a marriage for the one I have as Elizabeths' sister
-
Annie Black married Robert Cowper 9th September 1905, Edinburgh. Robert was a Piano Tuner.
SS
-
Annie Black married Robert Cowper 9th September 1905, Edinburgh. Robert was a Piano Tuner.
SS
Hi, and thanks. This is the last sibling for Elizabeth that I had no info on, other than birth year.
Cheers
-
So can I now assume that Elizabeth was never legally married, and that they were merely living together or have I missed something?
-
Can anyone explain for us please the apparent discrepancy in information re Elizabeth on the certificates?
If Elsie's birth certificate says she was illegitimate, and Elizabeth's death certificate says she was single, it looks as if on her marriage certificate Elsie was being economical with the truth. This is not at all unusual.
-
Even though not married to him, have you considered that John Bruce may not be completely fictitious.
Could he have been the Assurance Company Manager, and Elsie's father?
In 1901 (in the directories) there is a John Bruce, Insurance Superintendent, at Comely Bank House, Strathmore Street, Perth.
-
Could this be one of those "irregular marriages" I've read about and if so, would using the other name be recognised for any legal purpose?
Small can of worms here.
An irregular marriage was (usually) contracted by the couple declaring themselves to be married in the presence of two witnesses. This was a perfectly legal marriage in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the kirk, which would, given half a chance, admonish and fine the offenders.
After the start of civil registration in 1855 and until the law was changed in ?1939 you could still get married by declaration, but you then had to get the marriage registered by going to the Sheriff with your witnesses and making a statement that you had married this way, backed up by the witnesses. You then got a warrant that you took to the Registrar authorising him to make a record of it in his register of marriages.
So the expression 'irregular marriage' used by the kirk ceased to have any real meaning after 1855, when marriages that the kirk would have regarded as 'irregular' were entered in the civil registers. No doubt the kirk continued to fulminate against such marriages, but in vain.
Your Elizabeth's dates are well after 1855, so I very much doubt that an 'irregular' marriage comes into it at all, unless she and John Bruce declared themselves married in front of witnesses and then neglected to get a sheriff's warrant and have the marriage properly registered.
As for legal recognition of the second surname, I doubt it.
But all this is generalisation, and I'm sure people will be able to come up with specific cases to contradict the foregoing.
-
Could this be one of those "irregular marriages" I've read about and if so, would using the other name be recognised for any legal purpose?
Small can of worms here.
An irregular marriage was (usually) contracted by the couple declaring themselves to be married in the presence of two witnesses. This was a perfectly legal marriage in the eyes of the law, but not in the eyes of the kirk, which would, given half a chance, admonish and fine the offenders.
After the start of civil registration in 1855 and until the law was changed in ?1939 you could still get married by declaration, but you then had to get the marriage registered by going to the Sheriff with your witnesses and making a statement that you had married this way, backed up by the witnesses. You then got a warrant that you took to the Registrar authorising him to make a record of it in his register of marriages.
So the expression 'irregular marriage' used by the kirk ceased to have any real meaning after 1855, when marriages that the kirk would have regarded as 'irregular' were entered in the civil registers. No doubt the kirk continued to fulminate against such marriages, but in vain.
Your Elizabeth's dates are well after 1855, so I very much doubt that an 'irregular' marriage comes into it at all, unless she and John Bruce declared themselves married in front of witnesses and then neglected to get a sheriff's warrant and have the marriage properly registered.
As for legal recognition of the second surname, I doubt it.
But all this is generalisation, and I'm sure people will be able to come up with specific cases to contradict the foregoing.
Many thanks for this explanation, much apprerciated.
-
Even though not married to him, have you considered that John Bruce may not be completely fictitious.
Could he have been the Assurance Company Manager, and Elsie's father?
In 1901 (in the directories) there is a John Bruce, Insurance Superintendent, at Comely Bank House, Strathmore Street, Perth.
Thanks for this little titbit, food for thought indeed but sadly no way to confirm.
Thanks again.
-
Elsie birth cert states Illegitimate, born to an Assurance Company Manager
Who is described as Assurance Company Manager on her birth certificate?
-
Hello,
Just a thanks to everyone who has given their time to try clarify this for us.
Cheers