Edinburgh, Virginia and Aberdeenshire

[livingstonrg]

Hello there

I have recently had my DNA tested, and my closest matches are a family descended from John Livingston of Virginia (married Mary Carvin in 1791 in Alabama) and a descendant of James Livingston of Aberdeenshire (born 1699). However, my most distant verified ancestor is John Livingston, born in 1822/23 in Edinburgh (probably the Canongate). He married Mary Anne Whitehead in Haddington in 1841 and died in Leith North in 1891. His and his brother’s (Charles 1826/27 – 1863) mother was a daughter (probably Elizabeth) of William Dunbar and Catherine Paterson of Haddington. I am uncertain as to who their father might have been.

Some of my ancestors moved to Aberdeen in the 1860s and 70s, and others emigrated to Iowa and New York in the 1880s and 1900s, but I am unaware if there was any family history which contributed to these moves and believe they are all accounted for.

I have exchanged information with John’s family and James’ descendant, but we have not yet identified any common ancestor. I should be very grateful for any suggested leads which might help to refine my search.

Kind regards

Roderick Livingston

[Canadian Livingstone]

Hello Roderick,
Welcome to the Clan Maclea Livingstone Society Forum. Im off for the weekend but I just wanted to check first of all if this is your ancestor John Livingston and his wife Mary Ann in the 1851 Scottish census?

1851 Scottish Census Haddington, East Lothian Court Street
John Livingston age 28 born Edinburgh, Midlothian hand loom weaver
Mary Livingston age 27 born Haddington, Hadingtonshire
John Livingston age 8 born Haddington
Mary age 5 born Haddington
Hugh age 3 born Haddington
Elizabeth age 5 months born Haddington

I can probably find out lot more but I like to make certain for starters that this is the correct John Livingston circa the 1851 Census that was your ancestor.

regards,

Donald (Livingstone) Clink
Clan Maclea Livingstone Society
Historian

[livingstonrg]

Donald

Thank you for your interest.

Yes, these are indeed my ancestors. They had eleven children and I am reasonably clear on their immediate descendants, and on Mary Anne's and John's mother's immediate ancestors. However, I am uncertain about who John's father might have been. Any suggestions of how I might proceed would be very welcome.

Roderick

[jmlivingstone]

Roderick,

I had a look in Scotlands People, and found the following;

1. John Livingstone, d. 10 feb. 1891, cause of death, chronic bronchitis.
Residence, 4, Trafalgar Lane, Leith. death registered by his son-in-law, David ?????.
John was married to Mary Ann Whitehead, occupation general labourer.
Johns parents, ???? Livingstone & Catherine Dunbar

2. Charles Dunbar Livingstone, d. 20 June 1863, occ. tailor, m. Margaret Henderson
Residence, 4, Summer (Sp?) Place, Edinburgh.
Cause of death, consumption.
Charles parents, John Livingstone, occ. general labourer & Mary Dunbar.
Death registered by Isaac ????? (brother-in-law)
Resident, Raes Close, Tranent.

I spent quite a bit of time looking at East Lothian, these are the only John & Charles I can find, where the dates tie in, is it possible, John & Charles were cousins, not brothers ?

John

[livingstonrg]

John

Thanks. Your, and Donald’s, questions prompt me to re-examine my evidence in a fresh light.

It is not impossible that John and Charles were cousins, but it does seem quite a coincidence that two Livingstons should partner two Dunbars. Similarly, unlike their other cousins, they are referred to together as grandsons of William Dunbar in the Haddington Heritors’ Minute Book, and they are living together in the 1841 Census.

The informant (Isaac Westwood) of Charles’ death was his wife’s sister’s (Mary) husband, and probably not too familiar with family relationships that were not that relevant to him. William Dunbar had eight known children (none Mary), but there are gaps about 1794 and 1801 when a Mary could have been born, probably in the Canongate. The informant (David Wright) of John’s death had only married John’s youngest child less than three years earlier, so may not have known much about someone who died sixty years earlier. He was similarly inaccurate when informing on Mary Anne’s death four years later. William Dunbar did have a child Catherine, but she died in 1808.

I was drawn to William’s daughter Elizabeth as the mother of John and Charles largely because John and Mary Anne’s male children reflected the naming pattern, and female children would follow it to such an extent that when their Elizabeth Sarah died they named another daughter Elizabeth Catherine. Charles’ wife already had children so the naming pattern was disrupted, but his third daughter was named Elizabeth.

Roderick

[jmlivingstone]

Roderick,

Another one I came across, a marriage certificate for William & Catherine, my wording is as close as possible to the OPR original wording;

04 Oct. 1785.

William, occ. shoemaker, & Catherine Paterson, irregularly married at Edinburgh, June 3rd. last, appeared before the session, and after paying the dues and being selected by the Modr. ( Moderator ?, as in the head of the Church of Scotland ) were declared married persons.

NB. Fined 2/6d. ( probably about $0.20c.US in modern money) but no doubt a lot of money at the time.

I have no idea what being ''irregularly married'' means.

If you would like copies of these OPR's, let me know, I'll put them on Ancestry if you want, or forward your email address to me,

John

[Kyle MacLea]

From Wikipedia:

"Under earlier Scots law, there were three forms of "irregular marriage" which can be summarised as the agreement of the couple to be married and some form of witnessing or evidence of such. An irregular marriage could result from mutual agreement, by a public promise followed by consummation, or by cohabitation and repute.[2] All but the last of these were abolished by the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1939, from 1 January 1940. Prior to this act, any citizen was able to witness a public promise. The tradition of eloping English couples searching for blacksmiths resulted legally from the fact that blacksmiths were necessarily citizens and could often be recognised by strangers by their presence at their forge.
A marriage by "cohabitation with repute" as it was known in Scots Law could still be formed; popularly described as "by habit and repute", with repute being the crucial element to be proved. In 2006, Scotland was the last European jurisdiction to abolish this old style common-law marriage or "marriage by cohabitation with repute", by the passing of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 2006.[3]"

[livingstonrg]

John

Yes, Kyle has it. Although these marriages were legal and could be registered in the sheriff court, banns were not required and they were frowned upon by the Church: the Kirk Session could rebuke and fine the couple and their witnesses. The Minister who performed an irregular marriage for another of my ancestors, and for many others, was eventually jailed and then banished for life.

A Moderator is chairman of the Kirk Session, Presbytery or General Assembly and is usually a parish minister.

Thanks for the offer, but I have my Dunbars’ records. It is my eighteenth century Livingstons where I am short of leads.

Roderick