GEORGE HOWIE

[jjlmary312]

hI,
George Howie married Mary **** He was a steel dresser and she was a dress maker. They married in *** Scotland. He died in 19** at the age of 69. How can I find out where he was born?. If he had any siblings and details of his paretnage?

Edited by Frances, in keeping with guidelines dealing with possible living persons. Although George has died, there may be family that may be affected by this posting.

Please see our guidelines viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6601

[StewL]

Hi jjlmary

Based on his age at death he was born around 1887.
Checking the 1901 Census, there are two George Howie's who pop up in Lanark.

1901 Census Maryhill. 21, Campbell Street.
Alexander Howie head, mar.46 – Stationers Assistant. Fifeshire, Coupor
Agnes Howie wife, 36, Ayrshire, Irvine.
Willie Howie son 17, Pattern Maker. Lanarkshire, Maryhill.
George Howie son 13, Scholar, Lanarkshire, Maryhill.
John Howie, son 8, Scholar, Lanarkshire, Maryhill.
Annie Howie, daur, Scholar, Lanarkshire, Maryhill.
Agnes Howie, 1 Lanarkshire, Maryhill.

1901 Census Cambuslang 2 East Park Street.
Robert Howie head, Steel Worker, Steel Dresser b Lanarkshire, Hamilton
Janet Howie wife, 34 Lanarkshire, Blantyre.
Thomas Howie, son, 16, Lanarkshire, Blantyre
George Howie, 14, Steel worker apprentice, Lanarkshire, Blantyre
Janet Howie, 8, Scholar, Lanarkshire, Cambuslang
Robert Howie, 6, Scholar, Lanarkshire, Cambuslang
Jeanie Howie, 4mths, Lanarkshire, Cambuslang.

Assuming he was taken into the steel industry by his father, I would think that Robert Howie, is the father of the George you are interested in.

[Montrose Budie]

From the 1956 death record and the 1921 marriage record the Robert Howie head, Steel Worker, Steel Dresser b Lanarkshire, Hamilton Janet Howie wife, 34 Lanarkshire, Blantyre 1901 census entry look like the correct one.

This is confirmed by George's 1886 birth in Cambuslang.

mb

[Montrose Budie]

.....snipped..........
George Howie married Mary **** He was a steel dresser and she was a dress maker. They married in *** Scotland. He died in 19** at the age of 69. How can I find out where he was born?. If he had any siblings and details of his paretnage?

Edited by Frances, in keeping with guidelines dealing with possible living persons. Although George has died, there may be family that may be affected by this posting.

Please see our guidelines viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6601

The guidance post referred to at viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6601
simply states that the allowable years are as follows, -

» Births up 1910
» Marriages up to 1935
» Deaths up to 1960
- regardless of country.


There is nothing about an additional restriction on the basis of possibly living family being affected by such posts.

If that’s to be the case, then some major, quite severe revisions of the above dates are required.

In fact, since I’m a living relative of my great-greatparents, I now expect to see no dates posted regarding their names or dates of their BMDs !

The death of George HOWIE was in 1956, 4 years before the above 1960 restriction, shows his parents as Robert HOWIE and Janet McQUAIR. In very strict observance of the above very clear guideline I'll omit the name of his spouse, as he was shown as "married to ......", so that there is just a chance that she may still be alive, even altho she was 28 in 1921. Never mind their various children and grandchildren. If George's spouse is still alive then she'll be a leading contender for the oldest UK resident.

George HOWIE married Mary ******** ******* ****, in 1921, 14 years before the above limit date. Again In very strict observance of the above very clear guidelines I'll omit the name of his spouse. The parents names are shown as Robert HOWIE and Janet HOWIE MS McNAIR; and Robert JOHN REID [is that surname allowed, as it discloses the surname of George HOWIE's wife ?] and Mary Thorburn [sp?] REID MS McNICOL. As George was 34 and Mary 28 in 1921, self-evidently, the parents cannot possibly still be alive.

I'd suggest that the effect of the above restrictions as regards pre-1960 death record spouses' names, and pre-1935 marriage record parents' names is made clearer in revised guidelines.

In addition, for someone born in 1910 or earlier, siblings could well still be alive, so that births up to at least 25 years later could come into question, so that I assume that such a pre-1910 birth record should not be referred to?

mb

[Montrose Budie]

And then, thinking about it, 1. guidance is needed on how to treat the names of informants on pre-1910 and pre-1960 B and D records, as well as the names of witnesses on pre-1935 marriage records.

and 2. don't the three limit years of 1910, 1935 and 1960 need to be updated to reflect the SP updates as of 1Jan2012?

mb

[Alan SHARP]

Greetings.

I think I prefer the [old] village way of life, where every one knew every one, and the citizens thereof held their head high, [or low in shame,] and got on with life in the community of the real world. In most cases being constructive and supportive for the common good.

Public records were public records, and it was a lot harder to be lost in the masses, and feel free to get up to hi-jinks, without fear of the consequences, and public rebuke.

Alan SHARP.

[jjlmary312]

Hi,

Thanks for all your help. I can confirm these are the records for my gran dad that I was looking for and his family.

[Hibee]

Hi George

The Howies were big in the Covenanter movement. Have you pursued that line of enquiry?

Hibee

[Currie]

I really don’t know the logic for the TS cut off dates, or why they are being so stubbornly clung to. I’ve never seen a sensible argument in support of them. Surely the discussion should be to drop them completely and start anew, not to tinker around the edges, or try to interpret them as though they had been brought down from the mountaintop.

To base the dates on those set by GROS for certificate access by internet, but then ban information outside of those dates that is legitimately available from other countries, is utter hypocrisy. Scotland, where anybody can get anybody’s certificate no matter when, must have the slackest security of probably any country on this earth.

Several times recently people have misinterpreted TalkingScot’s policy, and have left important and perfectly valid bits of information out of posts. Whenever this happens there is not a murmur from Admin to correct the misunderstanding. Yet whenever there is a perceived transgression of the rules there’s always someone ready to jump in with the censor’s pen. Sometimes they just remove the offending dates of birth, but, strangely, leave the name in place.

I think that TS Admin should come into the real world of international forums and review their policy. Perhaps they could bring it into line with other forums and just have a policy not to discuss the living or the potentially living, and not have this ridiculous reference to a death date of two generations ago and a marriage date of much longer.

All the best,
Alan

[Montrose Budie]

I really don’t know the logic for the TS cut off dates, or why they are being so stubbornly clung to. I’ve never seen a sensible argument in support of them. Surely the discussion should be to drop them completely and start anew, not to tinker around the edges, or try to interpret them as though they had been brought down from the mountaintop.

Hi Alan

I believe that the logic is based on the cut-off dates on ScotlandsPeople for on-line images of 50/75/100 years for DMB records images.

To base the dates on those set by GROS for certificate access by internet, but then ban information outside of those dates that is legitimately available from other countries, is utter hypocrisy. Scotland, where anybody can get anybody’s certificate no matter when, must have the slackest security of probably any country on this earth.

The option of obtaining any Scottish BMD certificate, or 'extract' as it is known, is only possible by going to GROS Edinburgh or one of an ever increasing number of local authority/registrars' offices around Scotland that can access the system in Edinburgh.

The Edinburgh access is enshrined in legislation going back to 1854, but I have to confess to being a tad nervous that the same level of access is becoming easily possible at an ever increasing number of local authority/registrars' offices around Scotland.

In other words, previously, if someone wanted to commit a linked fraud, then they've always had the possibility of travelling through to Edinburgh, interrogating the indexes and purchasing whichever certificates/'extracts' that they want.

Several times recently people have misinterpreted TalkingScot’s policy, and have left important and perfectly valid bits of information out of posts. Whenever this happens there is not a murmur from Admin to correct the misunderstanding.

Quite

Yet whenever there is a perceived transgression of the rules there’s always someone ready to jump in with the censor’s pen.

Quite , and not even, as here, a transgression of the rules, as the dates of the death and marriage concerned were well within the year limits.

Very much agreed re "perceived transgression".

To state that possibly living relatives could be concerned is a complete nonsense, as far as I'm concerned.

For how many generations does that apply ?

I have absolutely no problem with info contained in records involving the 50/75/100 year limits being excluded where this involves the info relating to, for example, the witnesses on marriage register entries, or the name of the informant on a death register entry, or any of the other several situatuions that I'm sure that I haven't covered.

Sometimes they just remove the offending dates of birth, but, strangely, leave the name in place.

Indeed !, - 'strangely' ........

I think that TS Admin should come into the real world of international forums and review their policy. Perhaps they could bring it into line with other forums and just have a policy not to discuss the living or the potentially living, and not have this ridiculous reference to a death date of two generations ago and a marriage date of much longer.

I couldn't agree more.

But this will require a few more words of guidance other than the simple current post listing regarding the limit dates.


The alternative is to ban posts that could potentially refer to living persons, be that via the info on the spouse of a deceased person, the witnesses on a marriage register entry, the informant on a death register entry, etc., etc.

In fact, I can make a very goodcase for banning the reference to an 1880 birth if said wain was the eldest of a family where the youngest child wasn't born until 25 years later, so could easily still be alive today, and upset and/or disturbed by mention of their family details on TalkingScot.


But, as regards "living and potentially living" it needs to be stated clearly what the age cut-off limit is, - 100 years old, 105, 110, or what ?

mb