Missing Birth - Jane Ferrier

[PK-KTK]

Hi everyone, I hope I'm posting this in the right area, apologies if I'm not.

I'm trying to find the birth of my great-great-great-grandmother, Jane (or Jean) FERRIER.
Her death registration from 1902, gives her name as Jane, and states that her father was William FERRIER and Elizabeth STOTT, although the quality of the image is poor and the STOTT surname may have been mis-interpreted but is based on handwriting comparisons within the three death entries on the page.

Her age given at death is listed as 79, putting her birth around 1823, and her age in the census transcriptions I've found match with that approximate birth year.
The census transcriptions imply that she was using the name Jean some years, but Jane in other years, but do give a consistent birthplace of Brechin.

I have found a marriage record for those who I believe to be her parents, William FERRIER and Elizabeth STOT in 1816 in Brechin, and have also found two children Isabel (1816) & Alexander (1818), both born Brechin, but have not found a birth record for Jane (or for a Jean)

Jane FERRIER was married to Robert McDONALD about 1843 (although I have yet to find the marriage record) and they had 10 children, one of whom was the informant at her death, her husband Robert having pre-deceased her in 1890.

Sources already searched include Ancestry, Scotland's People, Family Search, Google (and results from). I don't have access to Find My Past though.

Does anyone have any suggestions or tips on where else I can look to find some evidence of Jane's birth, or have any knowledge of this family themselves?

Many thanks

[killearnan]

Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but..... the record may not exist Pre-1855, most 'birth' records in Scotland are actually baptismal records, and the availability of those varies widely.

The baptism may not have been recorded. The minister may have been bad at record keeping. At points, there were fees for recording a baptism, and the family may have been too poor or frugal to pay the fee.

If it was recorded, the record book may have burned, or been covered in mildew, or otherwise not be extant

If the baptism was recorded, it may have been in a church other than the established Church of Scotland. If the family was Catholic, Anglican/Church of England, or affiliated with a non-established Presbyterian church, the record may exist but not be on-line. I've not really done much research in/for that part of Scotland, but someone here may be able to tell you what other churches are likely in that area at that time and where any records are.

The record may be on-line but missed when indexed or misindexed.

Have you looked at the original records for Isabel and Alexander? If not, likely worth the money ~ sometimes there will be clues about to belonging to an associate or relief congregation, for example.

If you are near a Family History Center (usually located in LDS {Mormon} churches), it may be worth ordering the microfilm for the Brechin records, as that can tell you a fair bit, and it's lots cheaper than paying for multiple pages through Scotlandspeople.... was the record misindexed? Were the records well-kept or haphazard?

Have you found Jane/Jean and her family in the 1841 census? If so, are there other children who might also have birth records that you haven't found yet?

You said that you haven't found a marriage record for Jane/Jean and Robert. What about pre-1855 baptisms for their children? Again ~ these likely won't provide any definitive answers, but might have hints of where to look further....

Oh, and did one of their children happen to arrive in 1855? If so, that birth registration is worth paying for. Should list how many children she'd given birth to at that point (and how many were still living), as well as their marriage date/place.

Hope this helps!
BJ

[garibaldired]

This might be useful:

https://familysearch.org/learn/wiki/en/ ... ,_Scotland

Have you seen this?

http://canmore.rcahms.gov.uk/en/details/837861/

Or this?

http://www.ancestor.abel.co.uk/list5.html

Not sure how helpful these are but a Google search gives quite a few hits for Ferriers in Brechin.

Best wishes,
Meg

[WilmaM]

What Census records do you have for the family?

You can search on FreeCen [for Free] at http://www.freecen.org.uk/
It's not complete by any means but the Angus area in 1841 seems to be there.

Looking for Jean herself, her parents, siblings or husband may give you some clues.

[PK-KTK]

Thanks BJ - I use "birth" when I mean "birth or baptism" as it's quicker to type and I understand that it may not exist, won't stop me searching though, been doing this a few years now, not likely to stop anytime soon
I'm not sure how best to search for a mis-indexed record, but I'll have another look for alternative surname spellings in case it's there.
My closest LDS centers are closed on the one day of the week I am able to do research outside of my home, so no luck there.
Jane appears to be living alone in in Forfar at the time of the 1841 census, and I havent yet definitely found her parents or the siblings, still looking for them in the census.
Jane & Robert's children are born 1844 to 1868 in Oathlaw and then in Tannadice, one in 1855, but with my direct line being born 1859 (why I havent got his birth certificate/registration yet I don't know ) (it would have details on there that would help??)

Thanks Meg - I have seen the ancestor.abel.co.uk site and have sent an email to the owner, but have had no reply as yet. I've also seen the FamilySearch page a while ago now, but it's worth re-reading in case of new info, thanks. the canmore.rcahms site is new to me though, so I'll check that out - thanks

WilmaM - I think I have all the correct census records for Jane after she's married (ie. 1851 to 1901), and I am 95% sure I have her in 1841, but I havent found anything confirmed as her parents or siblings at all.

[PK-KTK]

Just went and got the Statutory Birth registration for my 1859 direct line, no mention of previous kids or a marriage date, but it did give me (yet another) variation for Jane Ferrier - Janet Ferrar, so I'll search for that for marriage & her birth.

Then went searching for the very early January birth for my 1855 *uncle, to find nothing, went back a year to 1854, found him born in Nov 1854 - the 1855 date is his baptism, so again, no help there for marriage date for parents.
But I did get a bonus - the same page as my 1854 birth/1855 baptism has another *uncle born & baptised in 1852 =D>

[killearnan]

Thanks BJ - I use "birth" when I mean "birth or baptism" as it's quicker to type and I understand that it may not exist, won't stop me searching though, been doing this a few years now, not likely to stop anytime soon

You'd be surprised how many people don't understand the difference between birth and baptismal records ~ or that not every birth/baptism was recorded in a waterproof/fireproof register Figure it's better to say it directly than have someone confused....

I'm not sure how best to search for a mis-indexed record, but I'll have another look for alternative surname spellings in case it's there.

Wildcards can help if it's a minor misindexing, as can trying to guess what other letters the first letter of the name could have been mistaken for Is she indexed as Terrier instead of Ferrier, for example ~ many genealogical search engines either don't allow wildcards for the first letter or place extra weight on the first letter, it appears, as does the Soundex system. Oh ~ and figuring out which fields can be left blank in a search. Different websites have search features configured different ways. For example ~ can you skip the surname altogether if you have enough other details (or are willing to wade through lots of false positives)? Or do you need to enter at least two letters of a surname?

That's also why I suggested the FHC's microfilm ~ browsing the actual records can sometimes bring up patterns [or other information, like a parent being a sponsor for another couple's child's baptism and having a residence detail listed that was missed in their own children's baptismal record, even if the minister's handwriting appears to be the same for both baptismal records ~ yes, I've seen that happen ]

Jane & Robert's children are born 1844 to 1868 in Oathlaw and then in Tannadice, one in 1855, but with my direct line being born 1859 (why I havent got his birth certificate/registration yet I don't know ) (it would have details on there that would help??)

In 1855, the first year for the new civil registration system, the registrar asked for more information than in later years. Parents' birthplaces and the number of the mother's previously born children are the two prime examples, if my memory hasn't deserted me completely But I have a couple cases in my family where there are additional details written down as the registrars learned their new jobs.... for example, in one case that turned out to not be the woman I was looking for, the 1855 certificate listed the church as well as the city where the couple married, while all the later birth certificates for later siblings just listed the city ~ and that detail set me on the trail so that eventually I figured out that another woman with the same name was the right one, instead of her.

So, having had that sort of thing happen more than once, I really encourage people to get copies of 1855 certificates whenever an event pops up that would have generated one. Yes, getting an extra certificate occasionally costs a bit more and there's no guarantee it will have relevant information, but I think I've at least broken even in the long run with either confirming what I guessed or ruling out what would have been the wrong line

[PK-KTK]

... not every birth/baptism was recorded in a waterproof/fireproof register

You're kidding right? Surely they could see the future and know we'd be looking for them right?

Seriously though - all totally understood - just a tad disappointed that my 1855 turned out to be an 1854. Wondering if my 1857 would have the extra info though, or how I might best search the 1855 births for a possible unknown.

[killearnan]

Just went and got the Statutory Birth registration for my 1859 direct line, no mention of previous kids or a marriage date, but it did give me (yet another) variation for Jane Ferrier - Janet Ferrar, so I'll search for that for marriage & her birth.>

With Scotlandspeople, a * can stand for zero or more letters, while a ? stands for one and only one letter.

So, instead of having to search on Ferrier and Ferrar and a dozen other variations (which tend to be in the vowels or in whether a letter is duplicated, although not always....), search on F*r*r will bring up both of those, as well as Ferier, Farrier, and many others ~ sometimes too many others

Lots more details on Scotlandspeople's particular system are at http://scotlandspeople.gov.uk/content/h ... ?r=551&663. Other websites have different ways of dealing with the issue ~ some allow only exact matches (so you do have to plod through all the variants), others only allow one option of wildcard, some only use Soundex, and so on

Even with a wildcard option, I still sometimes cycle through the most common variants ~ just to be on the safe side

[killearnan]

... not every birth/baptism was recorded in a waterproof/fireproof register

You're kidding right? Surely they could see the future and know we'd be looking for them right?

I wish I were..... was over at the state library today, and had to explain to someone (normally don't butt in on such conversations in public places, but he was quite vocal in his confusion.....) that late 19th century birth records in Maine and Massachusetts (one line per child, with up to 40 or so per page; minimal details beyond name, birth date, parents' names and birthplaces) were not going to look just like his 1950s New York State birth certificate (one per page, listing exact time of day and birth weight and so on).

Seriously ~ it took pulling up several birth registers from Massachusetts before he believed me that it wasn't just one lazy town clerk

I volunteer at a local historical society, which has copies of the town's birth records (most New England states did registrations by town, especially early on). A couple reference books give a start date for when the town's first records are from.... but the first 75 or 100 or more years, not everyone registered a birth or marriage. But about a good 15% or 20% of the people who come in say a variation of "the big reference book says records start in 1805; why isn't Great-Great-Granddaddy's 1848 birth listed?" when I can't find a record for them.... The hodgepodge of records that went into the published pre-1850 vital records in Massachusetts? Off topic for here, but people just don't get it....town records, bible records collected for the project, cemetery/gravestone records ~ all were culled for the 'tan books' for some towns. So a careful researcher flips to the front of the book to check what the source of the record was. Simple concept, or so it seems ~ but lots of people just don't get it