I mentioned in my previous post that I’d like to know more about Arthur BUCHAN’s next marriage as their children are mentioned in Roy Buchan’s book ‘From Peterhead to Passchendaele’. He had married his first wife, Christian BUCHAN in 1857 who had died by the 1861 census.
Marriage of Arthur BUCHAN and Christian BUCHAN 1857
I located Arthur and his sons on the 1871 census who were now living with Arthur’s new wife, Mary and their new half siblings – Andrew, Mary and Elspet.
Arthur & sons with new family on 1871 census
A search of the IGI located a marriage between Arthur and Mary BRUCE in 1864 which I then downloaded. Strangely, Mary’s parents are not listed.
Marriage of Arthur BUCHAN and Mary BRUCE 1864
I would say there’s a whole new story there.A further search of the IGI uncovered the births of their children, Isabella and Peter. This Peter is ‘Uncle Peter’ who Roy refers to as “a shadowy figure who followed the family to New Zealand, arriving in about 1910”. Auntie Isa was also mentioned in letters written by Roy’s father and uncles during World War I. “a rotter who deserted his wife and children” (Buchan, R., From Peterhead to Passchendaele, 2003, p145).
I’m still reading Roy Buchan’s fabulous ‘From Peterhead to Passchendaele’ which has thrown up some more avenues of research but have been wondering about Jessie’s husband who was also a BUCHAN. John’s parents, Arthur and Christian BUCHAN sounded familiar but the same names do keep cropping up in these fishing villages. How closely related were they?
The first step was to download their marriage certificate to prove the parents of John.
Marriage of John BUCHAN and Jessie BUCHAN (8 Nov 1883 – 4 Port Henry Lane, Peterhead (bride’s home))
Then I located the family on the 1861 census. Christian was deceased and 2 of her sisters were living with Arthur – most likely helping with the 2 young children.
Arthur BUCHAN and his young sons, John and Arthur on the 1861 census at 21 West Row, St Combs
I suspected she died during childbirth but she actually died shortly before the census was taken of consumption and pneumonia.
Death of Christian BUCHAN – 2 Mar 1861
I then looked to the transcribed 1851 census. Christian and her sisters were there and again appeared in 1841 with their other siblings. Which I will soon look closer at as a study of the village of St Combs.
Roy lists other children of Arthur and Christian but mentions that he believes some are half brothers and sisters and therefore children of another union after Christian died. Before I look further into the BUCHAN – BUCHAN connection, I’d like to find out more about this second union.
I had mentioned in ‘Desperately Seeking John’ that there was one BUCHAN who didn’t emigrate to New Zealand on the Rimutaka with the rest of the family. In Roy Buchan’s book ‘From Peterhead to Passchendaele’ he mentions that “there is thought to be at least one other who stayed behind.”.
Feeling inspired, I wanted to find out more about Charles BUCHAN (junior) – ‘the one that stayed behind’. He had appeared on all the census records between 1871 and 1891 – odd that he didn’t go with them. I wondered why he had stayed and considered whether his descendants were still living in the Peterhead area?
I downloaded Charles’ birth certificate:
Birth Certificate of Charles BUCHAN born 27 November 1865
After a search of marriages on the IGI, I was unable to find a likely match so I checked deaths. I hoped this would give me the name of his wife if he had at all married. Unfortunately, he hadn’t.
Poor Charles died at 26 years of age in 1892 – about a year and a half before the family moved to New Zealand. He died from consumption of the lungs (phthisis pulmonaris). His father, Charles (b.1830), was present at his death and registered the event three days later.Now we know Charles had no option BUT to stay behind.
Death Certificate of Charles BUCHAN – Died 30 July 1892
In case brother John DID refer to brother-in-law John, I decided to check for deaths before embarking on a costly census trawl. There were a few likely entries but since John hadn’t appeared on any of the censuses, I chose one of the infant deaths first and sure enough there he was:Poor little tyke only lived 12 days – cause unknown.
I think it’s safe to say that the John present at Alexander BUCHAN’s death is his sister Jessie’s (born 1860) husband. They had married back in Peterhead and emigrated with Jessie’s parents and siblings.
A couple of months ago, I found out via an 1896 newspaper article that my ancestor, Alexander Ritchie BUCHAN, had a brother called John. John was there when Alex died pulling in a fishing net but where was he all those other years?
Charles BUCHAN and his wife Jessie (Janet RITCHIE) migrated to New Zealand on the Rimutaka in 1893. All their children (except Charles), some of whom had begun their own families went too. Peter, Jessie (married to John BUCHAN), Alex and William all arrived on the Rimutaka. John had never appeared with the family on the censuses and so I hadn’t realised he was missing.
A little bit of research proved that John was actually twin brother of William – born 11th July 1868 in Peterhead. Was it just coincidence that he was away from home all those census nights? Did he stay in Scotland or
A search of shipping lists from 1890 don’t seem to show John’s arrival in New Zealand so it seems likely that he migrated before the rest of the family.
A search of the IGI comes up with 9 other John BUCHANs born in Scotland in 1868 alone. I have scribbled down these parents names to avoid confusion as the long census search begins…
Edited to add: Just reread an excerpt from Roy BUCHANs book about the family:
The Buchan family settled in Carey’s Bay, a mile from Port Chalmers. They fished in the comparative calm of the inner Otago Harbour instead of the hazardous and stormy North Sea. The main breadwinners were Jack, his brother-in-law Alexander and father-in-law Dade [Charles]. The younger two men would fish from an open boat in the harbour and Dade would sell the fish.
Could brother John actually refer to his brother-in-law John (married to Jessie)? The newspaper article mentions that Charles also gave evidence at the hearing which means he was probably also there (as the excerpt suggests).
