In some cases, an ancestor's past can be reconstructed quite easily with little doubt as to the details of their origin story. In others, such as with John Cook, it can take a siginificant amount of research, deductive reasoning, and even a bit of guesswork and luck to cobble together a coherent picture. And yet still, certainty about the facts is never quite achieved.
John Cook/Cockie was baptised 26 July 1816 in the Old Machar Parish of Aberdeen, and the official baptism record can be found in the "Archive" page of this website. Here is a transcription of what that record says:
"Alexander Cockie, a wright from Ruthrieston and his spouse Marjory Forbes had a son born named John. Baptized by the Reverend Bishop Skinner of Aberdeen. Witnessed by Alexander Donald and William Henderson." An internet search reveals that a "wright" was a builder or repairer, such as a shipwright. A wright was a skilled worker in various trades, but most often a skilled woodworker. And Ruthrieston, where John's parents Alexander and Marjory were from, was an area located within the city of Aberdeen. It should also be noted that Reverend Skinner was Bishop of Aberdeen in the Episcopal Church of Scotland.
The baptism record does not identify the church where the baptism took place. According to email correspondence from Ms. Sandy Riddell, the Archivist for St. Machar's Cathedral in Aberdeen, it was common practice during this time period for baptisms in the Church of Scotland to occur within the home of the child's parents. And while Ms. Riddell could not say if this practice also applied to the Episcopal Church, it's possible that John Cockie was baptized at home. Also, while John's birth date is not stated along with the baptism date, a study cited by the genealogical website Familysearch.org says that the typical interval between birth and baptism during the early 1800s for Scotland was 64 days, which if applied in John's case would indicate he was likely born in mid-to-late May of 1816.
The Scots are great record keepers. While the information contained in the archives is not flawless and certainly contains errors, there is nevertheless a wealth of personal details that helps piece together the lives of those who lived in the past, even though they may be absent from family lore and memory. It is this extensive source of offical records and documentation which leads to the conclusion that John Cook was actually born as John "Cockie." Unfortunately, what may never be known, is why at some point later in life he changed his name.
A key source of information were the Census returns. Beginning in 1841 and occurring every 10 years susbequently, a national census would be conducted and record the name, age, address, marital status, occupation, and other data about every man, woman, and child living in Scotland. This information is invaluable when used in conjunction with details contained in other civil and church documents including birth, baptism, death, and marriage records. Much like a puzzle, when pieced all together an image of the person emerges. Sometimes the image is blurred at the edges or a bit out of focus, but a distinct person can still be seen nonetheless. Such is the case with John Cook/Cockie.
The transformation of John Cockie to John Cook can be found in two official documents: his marriage to Janet Lumsden in 1839, and the baptism of their daughter Barbara in 1842. Both records clearly state the words "John Cook or Cockie," officially recognizing that John Cook and John Cockie are one in the same person. Interestingly, both of these records are church documents. When it comes to the censuses, however, which are civil records, only the name John Cook is mentioned. It would seem that from a civil, non-religious perspective the transformation from John Cockie seems to John Cook was complete. Here is Barbara Cook's baptism record which clearly shows the wording "John Cook or Cockie" in two different places.
Now for a little detailed discussion and analysis of exactly which year John Cook/Cockie was born. While it is reasonably certain based on the aforementioned baptism records that he was born in 1816, the three key censuses involving John Cook (1841, 1851, and 1861) at first glance appear to inconsistent regarding his brith year. Further analysis, however, will show that this is not the case. Both the 1851 and 1861 censuses say that John Cook was born in 1817, and this makes sense based on his age given in those censuses: 34 in 1851, and 44 in 1861. Subtracting 34 from 1851 and 44 from 1861 both result in a birth year of 1817. In seeming contradiction, however, the 1841 census states that he was 25 years old and born in 1816. But there is a rather straight-forward explanation for this apparent disconnect in dates and ages.
Per the National Records of Scotland, the 1841 Census was conducted on 6 June, while the 1851 Census was on 30 March and the 1861 Census on 7 April (all Sundays). Although the two month difference in the time of year may not seem significant between when the 1841 Census was conducted (June) and the 1851 and 1861 Censuses (March/April) were conducted, if someone were born between those months then their age would appear to be off by a year. For example, as noted in the paragraphs above, John Cook/Cockie was likely born in mid-to-late May. So when the census takers came around on 6 June of 1841 and asked him how old he was, if born in 1816 (as we presume) he would have said "25" because he would have already had his birthday in May. As a result, the census taker would have entered 1816 as his birth year (1841 minus 25 equals 1816). But then fast-forward to 1851 with the census taking place on 30 March, when asked by the census taker how old he was John Cook would have answered "34" because he did not yet have his birthday in May. As a result, the census taker would have entered his birth year as 1817 (1851 minus 34 equals 1817). The same thing would have resulted for the 1861 census which also took place prior to his likely birthday in May. In summary, the censuses in which John Cook appear accurately reflect his birth year of 1816 as stated in his baptismal record.
John and Janet Cook had seven children, six of whom survived childbirth. Barbara was the second oldest child, born 25 April 1842, and her siblings were as follows: John, born 21 July 1840 in Nigg, Kincardine; Jemima, born 3 August 1844 in Nigg, Kincardine; an unnamed boy (thus probably stillborn, was christened 24 October 1849 in Nigg, Kincardine; Alexander, born 20 April 1852 in Nigg, Kincardine; Mary Ann, born 13 September 1855 in Old Machar parish, Aberdeen; and Christina Panton, born 18 October 1860 in St. Nicholas parish, Aberdeen. It appears that sometime between the birth of Alexander in 1852 and Mary Ann in 1855 the family moved from Nigg Kincardine to Aberdeen proper.
John Cook can be found in the 1861 census for Nigg, Kincardine as a lodger at a "Salmon Bothy." Bothies were a basic form of accommodation for groups of workers such as fishermen, gardeners, and other types of workers, sometimes associated with an estate. A bothy was a simple building that provided protection from the elements and a place to sleep. Most bothies had a fireplace, were near a natural source of potable water, and provided a spade for burying excrement. In this census John Cook was listed as married, 44 years old, and born 1817 in Old Machar, Aberdeenshire.
For more information about a typical Salmon Bothy in Scotland during the 1800s, please go to this link:
Salmon Bothy
Meanwhile, the rest of John's family, including his wife Janet and five of their children (Barbara was living and working elsewhere), were recorded in the 1861 Census as living at Park Street in the St. Nicholas Parish of Aberdeen.
John Cook/Cockie had an older brother, William Cockie, who was baptised on 11 April 1811 to Alexander and Marjory Cockie in the Old Machar Parish of Aberdeen, the same place where John was baptised five years later.
No comments:
Post a Comment