Gordon Blair - Mystery? or Not!

[Ruskie]

Thanks Isobel. I'd forgotten about that signature.

There's no doubt then is there with the fistinctive D in thd middle if Gordon and the flourish on the r?

It only goes to show that even pillars of the community are apt to fib and have secrets they want to keep hidden.

[OZScot]

I have finally received an answer from one of the churches.▼

'We do have the original Marriage Register from 1876 and the marriage of Gordon Blair and Julia Droughton is recorded on 7 July 1876.
The date would be correct as the entries are in chronological order.
 
There is no other information about an earlier marriage.
If they were married earlier as you say in Ipswich it is possible they later found out the marriage was not registered or undertaken by an official registrar so they tied the knot properly at Ann Street.  At that time marriages were performed in the manse and not the church building so there is nothing strange about that.'
 
We do have the signature of Gordon Blair and that of Julia Droughton on the register.
If you would like an electronic copy that can be arranged.

Blessings
Dianne.

[majm]

I have finally received an answer from one of the churches.▼

'We do have the original Marriage Register from 1876 and the marriage of Gordon Blair and Julia Droughton is recorded on 7 July 1876.
The date would be correct as the entries are in chronological order.
 
There is no other information about an earlier marriage.
If they were married earlier as you say in Ipswich it is possible they later found out the marriage was not registered or undertaken by an official registrar so they tied the knot properly at Ann Street.  At that time marriages were performed in the manse and not the church building so there is nothing strange about that.'
 
We do have the signature of Gordon Blair and that of Julia Droughton on the register.
If you would like an electronic copy that can be arranged.

Blessings
Dianne.

   

Yes, as the email response suggests,  it is possible that an 1860s marriage may not have been conducted in or at least not registered in accordance with the then statute Queensland law, and that on discovering this civil flaw that Gordon and Julia overcame that impediment by marrying in 1876.   

So, I do not find this explanation from 'Dianne' at all unusual.   There was a long running dispute (from mid 1840s to at least 1895) in NSW between 'Church' and 'State' re the recording/registering of marriages, and it is possible that similar dispute may have impacted onto Queensland, particularly in the early 1860s, considering Qld was hived off from NSW in 1859.    The info supplied by the bride and the groom to the clergy for the 1876 registration, is relevant to an earlier 1860s marriage.   

JM

[OZScot]

Agreed.

No answer from the other church so I won't hold my breath any longer.

Thanks for everyone's support and efforts. It was a difficult Ancestry with so many twists & turns and ambiguous at times, names and dates, either by mistake or intention.

There were so many clever people with great input.

Thanks everyone. ♥♥♥

[Fryga55]

Sir James Blair death

Sir James died on 18/11/1944 in Brisbane at the age of 74.

Regards
Di

[Rosinish]

Sir James Blair death

Sir James died on 18/11/1944 in Brisbane at the age of 74.

Hi Di & welcome to Rootschat 

This thread is now 11 pages long & the info. you've posted is already known & posted here on page 2...Reply #86

However, I'm sure anyone connected to this family would be interested in any additional info. you have to contribute.

Annie

[Forfarian]

Sorry if this point has already been dealt with .....

I am not sure the image of the form you posted Falkyrn is actually showing  a signature.
Isn't the form completed by the registrar?

It all seems to be in the same hand, and I would have thought it the hand of said registrar??

Sue

The hand does look quite similar but there are slight differences in some of the lettering which possibly indicates a genuine signature. The section does claim that it is a space for the signature.

The procedure was that the Registrar entered all the particulars in his register, and got the informant to sign (assuming that the informant could write).

Then the Registrar copied all the information from this book into a second book, which involved copying out the name as signed.

At the end of the year the Registrar sent one book to the Registrar General in Edinburgh, and kept the other. Sometimes it was the register with the original signatures that was sent off, and sometimes it was the copy.

The scans on Scotland's People are from the Edinburgh copies of the registers. So if the book sent to Edinburgh was the copy, the SP document doesn't have the original signature.

[Forfarian]

No disputing that "a" Gordon Blair did marry Jane Norval and that they did have a child together.
Although one point that Isobel picked up in her excellent research was that Gordon and Jane were married by a minister from the Free Church. The Free church was formed from the secessionist churches and many of their records are not available online, this might explain the difficulty in finding proof of birth.

The Free Church of Scotland was formed by a schism in the Church of Scotland in 1843, so it cannot have had anything to do with Gordon's baptism being missing.

It is true that there were many dissenting/secession denominations long before the Free Church of Scotland was formed, and that some of these later joined the Free Church. It is also true that the registers of many dissenting/secession denominations have not survived. Most of those that do survive are in the 'other churches' section of the church records on SP, along with the post-1843 ones.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Church_of_Scotland_(1843%E2%80%931900)#/media/File:Reformed_Scots_Church_Denominations.svg

[Forfarian]

I've had a look at the 1800 Glasgow birth and the 1810 St Ninians baptism for Jean Blair. 1800 provides the information that John Blair's occupation was Change keeper, whatever that was and the witnesses were John Ferguson and Hugh Cameron. 1810 baptism was witnessed by the congregation but place of residence of John and Jean is given as Glasgow. I think this may well be the same child in both records.

I disagree.

If there were witnesses, they witnessed the baptism. It was not customary unheard of for (apparently) unrelated males to witness the birth of a baby, but it was the rule that at least two people should witness its baptism.

The Glasgow parish register is unusual in that it often gives the date of birth but not the date of baptism.

I think these are two different children of the same parents, the elder one having died and the new one having been given the same name.