Diane,
I note you say you have done the math and the wife must be Eliza. I’d be inclined to verify that by looking at the death certificate. The place of death and perhaps the informant should tell you whether you have the right one.
If David Dickson’s first child was born in 1837 then you are looking for a marriage around 1836. So, based on the lack of early records in the churches in the area, there’s a fair chance that the record doesn't exist. Marriage records pre 1845 don’t usually contain much information anyway eg no parents names, so even if you found it, it might not tell you very much beyond the date.
There’s a Hugh Dickson marriage on 27.2.1869 to Ellen Forsythe. Registered Banbridge. The father’s name, occupation and the townland may help you decide whether it’s a member of your family. You can view the original certificate on-line on the GRONI website, using the “search registrations” option:
https://geni.nidirect.gov.uk
You will need to open an account and buy some credits. It costs £2.50 (sterling) to a view a certificate.
I can only see one child to that couple. That was Mary Dickson born Reilly St, Banbridge on 19.9.1870. Father’s occupation was Mill Worker. There could be many reasons why the couple had no further children, but one might be that they left Ireland soon after 1870. You might want to compare the information with the couple you have found in Scotland to see if it’s the same one.
Thousands of people moved from Ireland to Scotland in the 1800s as the employment prospects there were much greater, so it wouldn’t be too surprising if this couple were amongst them.
In answer to your query re naming patterns, there was a tradition in Scotland and Ireland of naming children according to the following rules:
The 1st son was usually named after the father's father
The 2nd son was usually named after the mother's father
The 3rd son was usually named after the father
The 4th son was usually named after the father's eldest brother
The 5th son was usually named after the mother's eldest brother
The 1st daughter was usually named after the mother's mother
The 2nd daughter was usually named after the father's mother
The 3rd daughter was usually named after the mother
The 4th daughter was usually named after the mother's eldest sister
The 5th daughter was usually named after the father's eldest sister
The problem with relying too heavily on naming patterns is that, apart from the fact that not all families followed it, there are lots of things that can upset it. Common ones that I have encountered are:
- when the father and either of the grandparents have the same name. So you obviously can’t really have two or even three sons all with the same name, so a different name is usually needed though some families did actually use the same name again on the birth certificate, but differentiated with another more informal name for day to day use. So if you had two Georges (as per birth certs) you just called one of them something else eg Simon;
- if a child dies young, then it was common practice to re-use the name for the next birth. And if you don’t know about the death, your analysis of who they were named after could be completely wrong;
- Or if a close relative had just died and their name was used out of respect.
- I have also noticed that many families liked to name the odd child after the local Minister/Priest, schoolteacher or a relative with no children of their own.
- Sometimes people were christened with one name, but went by a different one (and would appear in censuses and other records by that alternative name), eg Henry & Harry or Ann & Nancy.
So for all these reasons, whilst tradition says, for example, that the 4th son was named after the father's eldest brother, it isn’t always so.
