Mary M(a)cDonald - where are you?

[emanday]

As a result of Jack's sterling assistance, I now know the my Grandmother, Margaret MacDonald m.s. Crichton, wasn't one of two female children! She actually had two other sisters!

One, named as Jeanie on the Poor Relief application, turned out to be Jane McKillop MacDonald born 6 January 1892. She was named after her father's mother.

However, Mary born 20 February 1895 according to the PR application, cannot be found in the SRI Birth search on SP.

While I already knew of Mary's existence as grandaughter of Margaret's father, as noted in the 1901 census of his household, I hadn't actually connected her as being my Gran's sister. I thought she was just a wee visitor!

Mary is supposed to have been born at 82 Mansion Street Barony, but Barony isn't on the list of parishes in the SRI search! There is a Mansion Street currently in Cambuslang and the Valuation Rolls have a Mansion Street but the area is given simply as Glasgow!

I've even searched for her as Marion, her mother's sister's name, but no luck there either. Not that this helps a lot as my Gran's (known) sister was named Georgina and I have no idea where THAT came from, (never found any George rellies in this line either).

Any suggestions what to try next would be appreciated

[AndrewP]

Hi Mary,

Barony was an ecclesiastical parish that could be loosely described as the landward areas of Glasgow (outside the burgh). In the cities, the registration districts varied quite a lot from the ecclesiastical parishes, and were prone to change as the cities expanded.

In 1901, the following list should be considered for Barony parish.

622/1 - Maryhill
622/2 - Shettleston
644/1 - Bridgeton
644/2 - Camlachie
644/4 - Calton
644/7 - Blythswood
644/8 - Milton
644/10 - Anderston

The first two were still outside the city at that time and were still considered as divisions of Barony. The other registration districts were considered as being within Glasgow by that time, but may have still been referred to as parts of Barony parish (which they were within at the time of the 1851 census).

There may be others to consider too. Wait and see if any of the Glasgow area people can advise you better on that matter.

All the best,

AndrewP

[Jack]

Hi Mary,
There was, and still is, another Mansion Street in Glasgow - in the Possilpark area.
It runs east from Balmore Street (nowadays Road), and was two streets south of the Saracen Foundry.
This one would, i'm sure, come under Barony in 1895.
The 1st on Andrew's list, 622-1 Maryhill, might be best?
--
NLS Maps -
http://www.nls.uk/maps/townplans/townplans.html
--
Select Glasgow [1892-4]
Select the top middle box (north centre)
Select V.3.16. (2nd from right - 4th up)
Mansion Street runs left to right near the top left corner.
(just point your mouse on any area & left click to zoom in)
The western end of the street is on VI.2.20. (3rd from right - 4th up)
--
For today try a search for Mansion Street on MultiMap -
http://www.multimap.com/map/home.cgi?cl ... anced=true
--
Jack

[emanday]

Those map links were helpful, Jack. I might still not be able to find her BC, but I am grateful, at least, that the Poor Relief application does give her date & address of birth.

Would the inspector have required to see the children's birth certificates as proof that they did belong to Margaret?

[Jack]

Hi Mary,
The inspector probably would want to see the BCs - and marriage lines too.
And if unavailable he'd get details from the various Registration Offices.
I've seen a few applications that has "lines seen", or notes the BC districts & numbers, but not all do.

Different parishes and eras had different questions etc. - also info needed.
Main thing, apart from deciding if it was a deserving case, was to find out which parish was responsible for the cost.
Birthplace could be an important factor in deciding - and how long living in the parish where application is made.
That's why you often see a list of previous addresses - and which parish they were in. Plus how long living there.

I dare say there were standard procedures, but seems not always strictly adhered to.
Suppose just like people today - some are sticklers for correctness; others less so.
Jack

[emanday]

Right enough, Margaret's 1898 PR application doesn't mention that her MC or the children's BC's had been seen, whereas her father's 1901 application does state the his MC was seen. Same parish, but different time and inspector!

That said, I'm very obliged to him for getting the girls' birthdates. Both of these PR applications are real treasure troves of information and I'm so grateful for them.