jelly or chille Galbraith/galbreath.....

Birth, Marriage, Death

Moderator: Global Moderators

maggie
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:50 pm

jelly or chille Galbraith/galbreath.....

Post by maggie » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:05 am

hello
can anyone give me their thoughts on how they would search for a death cert using the following christian name
Julia/Jelly/Chilles/Gilly/jully
now for the surname galbreath/galbraith
and the ms surname of Mctaggart/Mciintagairt/mcintagart
she was alive in 1851 census in North knapdale argyll age given as 61
on the 1841 i think i have got her on freecen age 55 and down as Chilles.
i know she could have died between the 1851 and the 1855 registration which will be just my luck
kind regards maggie

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Re: jelly or chille Galbraith/galbreath

Post by DavidWW » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:16 am

maggie wrote:hello
can anyone give me their thoughts on how they would search for a death cert using the following christian name
Julia/Jelly/Chilles/Gilly/jully
now for the surname galbreath/galbraith
and the ms surname of Mctaggart/Mciintagairt/mcintagart
she was alive in 1851 census in North knapdale argyll age given as 61
on the 1841 i think i have got her on freecen age 55 and down as Chilles.
i know she could have died between the 1851 and the 1855 registration which will be just my luck
kind regards maggie
Maggie

Interesting :!: :!:

My first reaction is that I'd search on the basis of the combination of the surnames G?LBR*H and M*cT*T ..........

However, in the period of a few years from 1856 onwards, only the surname as reported was indexed, so my next reaction is that I'd search for the surname only, G?LBR*H, - "?" to cover "I" or "A", in Argyll only, female only, with the year of birth specified as 1790 +/- various options, depending on the numbers of hits.

If that didn't work, then I'd revert to her maiden surname ...............

And if all that fails, then the chances are that she died in 1854 or earlier, but then there are MIs ...........

David

maggie
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:50 pm

Post by maggie » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:21 am

Hello David
thankyou for replying to my message i will give it a try now using the methods you suggest wish me luck :lol:
kind regards maggie

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Post by DavidWW » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:33 pm

maggie wrote:Hello David
thankyou for replying to my message i will give it a try now using the methods you suggest wish me luck :lol:
kind regards maggie
Best of luck :!:

You know where to find me if the wildcards don't work :wink:

If you need to dip into Argyll MIs memory tells me that a good number of them have been recorded, - try first the Glasgow & West of Scotland FHS site, - see the Societies section on this site.

David

maggie
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:50 pm

Post by maggie » Wed Mar 22, 2006 12:59 pm

hello David
using G?LBR*H female argyll 1790 range5 till 1955
gives 17 results and nope she's not there
there's 1 Agnes
3 Catherines
1 christina
1 flora
1 Isabella
1 janet
3 margarets
1 martha
4 mary's
and last but not least 1 sarah

widening the search to range 10 gives 32 results and no sign i have also tried the M*cT*T 34 results no sign .i think i will accept that she has been a bit inconsiderate and popped off this mortal life sometime in that 4 year period as i can't see anything even in the wider search of all areas.
I will explore the MI avenue next.thankyou once again
kind regards maggie

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Post by DavidWW » Wed Mar 22, 2006 2:36 pm

maggie wrote:hello David
using G?LBR*H female argyll 1790 range5 till 1955
gives 17 results and nope she's not there
there's 1 Agnes
3 Catherines
1 christina
1 flora
1 Isabella
1 janet
3 margarets
1 martha
4 mary's
and last but not least 1 sarah

widening the search to range 10 gives 32 results and no sign i have also tried the M*cT*T 34 results no sign .i think i will accept that she has been a bit inconsiderate and popped off this mortal life sometime in that 4 year period as i can't see anything even in the wider search of all areas.
I will explore the MI avenue next.thankyou once again
kind regards maggie
A death prior to 1855 looks to be ever more probable !!

David

maggie
Posts: 448
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:50 pm

Post by maggie » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:21 pm

Hello David
i have just picked up my ordered copy of the brilliant genealogy magazine that i get each month (i don't know if i am allowed to name it or not :roll: )and lo & behold was i surprised to find the very surname that you kindly helped me with earlier on today .G?LBR*TH :lol:
what a co-incidence :!:
Well done on yet another informative article =D>
i just wish that i could now find a connection to greenock
kind regards maggie

Edit
GREENOCK connection
all be it that i have just found one of" my "Galbraiths having married in the town :lol:
i went looking for Julia/Gilly/Jelly/Chillie 's son Archibalds death he was age 22 in the 1851 census i got 3 hits the first "obvious" one in Kilberry :roll: nope not him the 2nd one was in Greenock and the 3rd in Ross&Cromarty (which i have no idea as to where it even is :oops: )
so i just had to look at the 1892 one in Greenock ,which gave the father as Archibald but the mother as Flora ?and he was a widower .
next stop :!: a marriage search only one hit and bingo there it was father Archibald dec and mother Julia Mctaggart and there is no record of her being DEAD :roll: :shock: that i can see the brides parents are both recorded as being dead.
Flora is a sister of Archibald's so i think his son the informant on DC prehaps got granny's name wrong.I just hope the registrar got it right and that she was still on this mortal earth in 1856 the search goes on.... edit Thursday

the search has come to an abrupt end :oops: :oops: i strike yet again!!
on Mary's 2nd marriage in 1855 the parents are recorded as both deceased :roll: i am a right twit!!

DavidWW
Posts: 5057
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm

Post by DavidWW » Thu Mar 23, 2006 12:14 pm

maggie wrote:Hello David
i have just picked up my ordered copy of the brilliant genealogy magazine that i get each month (i don't know if i am allowed to name it or not :roll: )and lo & behold was i surprised to find the very surname that you kindly helped me with earlier on today .G?LBR*TH :lol:
what a co-incidence :!:
Well done on yet another informative article =D>
i just wish that i could now find a connection to greenock
kind regards maggie
Glad you liked the article. :lol: I was particularly pleased by the presentation in this "brilliant genealogy magazine".

The case study was an object lesson for me in terms of yet again relearning the lesson of never assuming that you've seen all the possible spelling variants, and the reason that I was able to suggest a fuller range of GALBRAITH variants than otherwise would have been the case in relation to this thread.

David