Assumptions

[Chris Paton]

Hi Wanda,

A few suggestions here that might help.

The IGI entry if it says "about 1779" basically means that whoever submitted that entry probably took a guess from the census cert or monumental inscription, or some other record - so don't count it as fact, just a possibility.

Secondly, the 1841 census often rounded ages down to the nearest 5 for adults over 15, so you could have a five year range to choose from.

I've had a few brick walls that I've gone around by thinking slightly more laterally. Rather than trying to work back through your ancestor, why not take the possible parents and try and trace forward on some possible siblings? You could look for witnesses to their weddings in the OPR entries, informants to deaths who may be listed as a niece, nephew or sibling, or a house or farm name that may connect to one mentioned in your line. Also, have you tried to find a pre-1855 burial register perhaps with your local authority, or mort cloth records (they are at GROS, just not indexed yet)? And it might be worth checking the free online will and testament index at Scotland's People if you haven't done so yet.

Good luck!

Chris

[trish1]

Hi Wanda

Your "assumption" almost scored another tick from the naming patterns but missed on the father's name. Looking at the names of the children if the naming patterns were followed John would be the child of a Matthew and Jean, with wife Jean being the child of William and Janet. The third son is called John which does follow the pattern. Daughter Agnes is third, presumably because the wife and John's mother have the same given name ??

Looking at what Chris has suggested, Agnes and David could well be siblings of either one of the couple. If you have traced the next couple of generations, you could check if the name Matthew appears again.

All of this, of course, is making another assumption - the use of the naming patterns. I have assumed that you have listed the children in order - if perchance William was the oldest son, the William and Jean would start to look very good.

Trish

[killearnan]

I can see you are more optimistic by nature than I am, Mary-- my file is called "probably unrelated"
Regards,
Sarah

I have a possibly/probably related file -- and a former ancestors file. You know, for the ones I was pretty sure about, until a new piece of information came to light. I do keep the files handy, to add more data to as I find it, so that I don't accidentally add a piece of information to someone I am looking for.

I'd second the advice to look around for siblings and other relatives, as well as trying to mine the OPR entries for more details like occupations and residences. And don't forget to see if there there's a monumental inscription that confirms or rules someone out (that's the source type that has sent several otherwise highly likely candidates into my former ancestor file...........)

The other thing I've done, when I've located a likely candidate, is to work forward: can I find a marriage or death record or other source on the candidate that provides informationn that precludes that person connecting the way I want to my tree?

BJ

[Guest]

BJ [killearnan]

By my calculations, you would appear to be the 2000th member of TalkingScot

Thought it worth a mention.

Dave Sloan

The Very First Member of TalkingScot.

[SarahND]

Hi BJ and welcome to Talking Scot!!
#2000 Wow...
I was born in the Philadelphia area and my sister teaches in a Quaker school there. So... small world! Hope you enjoy the forum.
All the best,
Sarah

[Wanda Stevenson]

Trish;

Thanks for your reply, yes the children are in birth order Matthew seems to pop up alot, in fact my grandfathers name was matthew, so it survived a long time. I do know that William was the Father-in-law to John (his wifes Jean's father) I checked for births for a Matthew and didn't find any, but will check again, I think you're right tho, Matthew seems to pop up ALOT. In fact my grandfather had an older brother named Matthew before he died, so I'm assuming the name was pretty inportant if they named a second child that (there I go, assuming again:)
Oh well, thanks for the help all.
Wanda

[Lizzie]

Watching this discussion with great interest and assumption being my worst problem! Children's ages, particularly the 1841 census.
I followed a family for years as parents are correct, the child in question is aged 10.
In the IGI she has a twin who is never heard of again, presumably died. I found most events in the life of the other one, who according to marriage and death, was b. 1834. In the 1851 census she is in an Infirmary in Aberdeen age 17.
I can understand the IGI being off, my problem is the OPR birth and a child of 7 could hardly be mistaken for age 10 as is 1841.

Sorry for the rambling,

Lizzie

[emanday]

Watching this discussion with great interest and assumption being my worst problem! Children's ages, particularly the 1841 census.
I followed a family for years as parents are correct, the child in question is aged 10.
In the IGI she has a twin who is never heard of again, presumably died. I found most events in the life of the other one, who according to marriage and death, was b. 1834. In the 1851 census she is in an Infirmary in Aberdeen age 17.
I can understand the IGI being off, my problem is the OPR birth and a child of 7 could hardly be mistaken for age 10 as is 1841.

Sorry for the rambling,

I'm sure someone has mentioned this before, but haven't there been some examples where enumerators, instead of only rounding up/down to the the nearest 5 with adults, sometimes did it with children as well?

I could be wrong

By the way - ramble away; We're all ears

[trish1]

Hi Wanda

Probably unrelated - but the names are again "almost" right
- there is a Matthew Stevenson married Agnes Miller at Montrose, Angus on 3 Apr 1774 - an extracted IGI entry.

Trish

[Wanda Stevenson]

Trish;

Thanks for the info, I am making another "assumption" that for the most part my family wasn't very adventuresome, and stayed in Lanark (unless they got VERY much so, and moved to Canada)
Thanks anyway.
Wanda