Thomas or James Graham, born c1815/19

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:32 pm

Well the 1851 is re-inforcing Anderston Glasgow for Margt's birthplace....

Name: Margt Arthur
Age: 28
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1823
Relationship: Wife
Spouse's Name: David
Gender: Female
Where born: Anderston, Lanarkshire
Parish Number: 622
Civil Parish: Calton
County: Lanarkshire
Address: 17 Green Street
ED: 20
Page: 9 (click to see others on page)
Household schedule number: 33
Line: 2
Roll: CSSCT1851_146
Household Members: Name Age
David Arthur 29
Margt Arthur 28
Margt Arthur 11
John Arthur 2
Margt Arthur 18

and here's her hubbie

Name: David Arthur
Age: 29
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1822
Relationship: Head
Spouse's Name: Margt
Gender: Male
Where born: Bonell, Linlithgowshire
Parish Number: 622
Civil Parish: Calton
County: Lanarkshire
Address: 17 Green Street
Occupation: Black Smith

A peek at family search to see how many weans they had turns up six easily

1. JAMES EDISTON ARTHUR - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Birth: 26 MAY 1855 Anderston, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland

2. ANN ARTHUR - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Birth: 02 JUN 1862 Anderston, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland

3. DAVID ARTHUR - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Birth: 20 APR 1859 Anderston, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland

4. MARY ARTHUR - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Birth: 21 JAN 1857 Anderston, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland

5. JANE DICK ARTHUR - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Female Birth: 26 JUN 1865 Anderston, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland

6. JOHN ARTHUR - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Birth: 03 FEB 1861 Anderston, Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland

but a further peek at the 1855 record of young James Ediston Arthur reveals they've got 4 boys and 1 girl all deceased and 2 boys and 1 girl all living. I'm never certain if the include the newborn in the tally or not as they seem to vary on the interpretation of that but in total that would be a maximum of possibly 9 weans by 1855. Clearly there are a few unaccounted for!! Oh and I was hoping for a possible other place of birth listed for Margaret on this 1855 record but nope...sticking with the plain old Glasgow this time. I guess she was really born there!!

Still chipping away on this....

Best wishes
Jean

nelmit · Post by **nelmit** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:55 pm

Rantskew wrote:Just (in) Jean from the town

Read it twice, will print off and scribble notes to digest,
brilliant work Jean, your as off beat as me. Skrew lateral thinking

Will be back later. Wooo

thanks again Jean.
Rantskrew

Just noticed you stay at Glasgow. Have you ever checked out The Mitchell baptisms or poorhouse applications for clues?

Regards,
Annette

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 7:56 pm

So now I did a little tracking on Ann Haddow and am pretty sure she died in Hamilton Poorhouse in 1883. She was a widow of John Graham. Too bad but the governer was the informant but he did give parent names for her of James HADDOW occ Gardener and Jane HADDOW mn BROWNLIE. I'm not immediately seeing births to them on the IGI though. So I then looked for a marriage of Ann HADDOW to John GRAHAM and there are two OPR records like so:

08/12/1833 GRAHAM JOHN ANN HADDOW/FR4413 M Barony GLASGOW CITY/LANARK 622/ 0170 0015
08/12/1833 GRAHAM JOHN ANNE HADDOW/FR360 M Dalserf /LANARK 638/ 0020 0416

Don't waste credits trying to view the Barony one because it links to the wrong page!!!! UGH!! I hate it when that happens!! I'll send a note to GROS on this one. I'm sure they'll supply you with the correct image so bear with me on this. The Dalserf one just confirms that Ann was of Dalserf parish and John was of Barony parish.

So now to see if I can find out what happened to Elizabeth!

Best wishes
Jean

Rantskew · Post by **Rantskew** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 8:04 pm

Gawd Jean, your going at some speed, hopefully can settle down after nine and get to grips and catch up

thanks a million. Rantskrew

nelmit · Post by **nelmit** » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:14 pm

JustJean wrote:Well the 1851 is re-inforcing Anderston Glasgow for Margt's birthplace....

Best wishes
Jean

Records of which can be found at The Mitchell Library.

Regards,
Annette

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:33 am

I've found what I believe to be Ann Haddow/Graham through the census years and it appears that she was on her own. Haven't figured out if the younger children survived. Since John sounded like an up and coming merchant I had a peek at the will indexes on SP and if I were you I'd be racing over there to make an investment in these ones.....

Graham John 05/10/1846 spirit dealer, residing in 39 Main Street, Anderston; 1st wife is Ann Dalton, 2nd wife is Ann Haddow Deed of Settlement Glasgow Sheriff Court Wills SC36/51/22

Graham John 05/10/1846 spirit dealer in Anderston I Glasgow Sheriff Court Inventories SC36/48/32

Best wishes
Jean

Montrose Budie · Post by **Montrose Budie** » Thu Jan 29, 2009 2:44 am

JustJean wrote:..............snipped.........but a further peek at the 1855 record of young James Ediston Arthur reveals they've got 4 boys and 1 girl all deceased and 2 boys and 1 girl all living. I'm never certain if the include the newborn in the tally or not as they seem to vary on the interpretation of that but in total that would be a maximum of possibly 9 weans by 1855. Clearly there are a few unaccounted for!! Oh and I was hoping for a possible other place of birth listed for Margaret on this 1855 record but nope...sticking with the plain old Glasgow this time. I guess she was really born there!!

Still chipping away on this....

Best wishes
Jean

The detailed instructions to registrars was that the new born wain shouldn't be included, but some registrars misinterpreted the instruction, taking it to mean all the wains including the new born should be included.

Several registrars contacted the RG in Embra for clarification, but then the system was reformed from 01Jan1856 to the format that we are more familiar with.

In other words, most often the total doesn't include the new born wain, but every so often it does, just to keep us on our toes.

The only way to tell is either to have full info on the marriage and all the pre 1855 births, and that depends on the OPRs and we all know how unreliable thay can be following the 1843 Disruption up to 1854; or to be able to track forward every child in censuses and death records, not always possible on an unambiguous and comprehensive basis.

Unless that's possible, there's always at least a degree of uncertainty; never mind a slip of the memory on the part of the informant when a family was already large, perhaps forgetting a child who had died shortly after childbirth 20 years previously.

(I can here mutterings in the background regarding situations where the info is solid in terms of the date of the marriage and births at 18 months intervals: to which my response is, firstly, what about multiple births where 1 or more died in infancy before 1855?; and, secondly, how should births to the couple before marriage be treated?, - in Scots law automatically legitimated by the marriage as long as the couple had been free to marry at the time of the conception, but should these be included?)

The reason for the ambiguity or misinterpretation, is that part of the column heading is "Issue: living and deceased" ................

Had 1855 style birth registration continued this could well have been changed to "Previous Issue: living and deceased" except that that this would also have had to be altered to "Previous Issue: This marriage: living and deceased" as that's another area of occasional error, when, sometimes, wains from a previous marriage of the mother were included, - well it doesn't say they shouldn't be !

The bill that led to the statutory registration Act in 1854 wasn't the first one, but something like the 7th or 8th, all the others having failed at various stages for different reasons. I believe that one earlier Bill, or it's accompanying schedule, would have had the names of the previous wains recorded, but it was decided that this was too much of a burden on the registrar!

I have a vague memory from somewhere that one of the Australian states or NZ, or possibly a Canadian province, did require such info, - perhaps someone across there or down there can comment.

But let this be a warning! At your peril, in terms of time and money, get involved in this level of detail; but then I've always argued that to understand the document, you need to understand the process that led to its creation!

Witness the fact that this post started off with the intention of being just a couple of paras!

This situation is a perfect example of the benefit of a clearer understanding of the ambiguities that could exist; and, if you think that this is the only one .....................

mb

Rantskew · Post by **Rantskew** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:11 am

Once again Jean thank you, have digested (I think)

all that you have posted.

Only thing that I am unsure about is how John was a 'Cow Feeder' according to Thomas's DC and then becomes a successful 'Spirit Dealer'? or was it fairly easy in those days to sell spirits?? just a thought.

Will start chasing some certs. on SP to see if any other clues.

thanks again. Rantskew

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:16 pm

Excellent question/comment you have there......which I assume is in response to my original question... " So now tell me is she a sister and have I found your rellies?.....or have I simply found the couple that married in Carlisle?....... "

Since you have a copy of the DC and I don't then it's input like this that is critical for making a determination if this is truly your family or simply the couple from Carlisle that you want to be your family. I was hoping the will might contain some clues ... like if John Graham had heirs other than his surviving spouse??

Of course you have to weigh the fact that Thomas/James was not the person giving the DC data since he was dead

......was the informant a reliable one??

Would love to see you solve this one once and for all!

Best wishes
Jean

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Fri Jan 30, 2009 12:37 pm

Don't forget that that spirit dealer was called a "grocer" on the death of his daughter Margaret. Based on that evidence the only census entry that fits for his widow in 1851 is the following one:

Name: Anne Haddon
Age: 45
Estimated Birth Year: abt 1806
Relationship: Head
Gender: Female
Where born: Hamilton, Lanark
Parish Number: 622
Civil Parish: Barony
County: Lanarkshire
Address: 146 Main Street
Occupation: Victualler
ED: 30A
Page: 2 (click to see others on page)
Household schedule number: 11
Line: 16
Roll: CSSCT1851_142
Household Members: Name Age
Anne Haddon 45
Marys Bayd 48
Joan McLerie 16

The other household members are listed as a sister and Joan is a lodger. I've looked at the original image on SP and I believe the original hand could be actually Anne Haddow and Mary Boyd. Both ladies are born in Hamilton as is the place of birth for Ann throughout all the census years until her death. She is listed as "Mar" in 1851 but from the will index we know that she was actually a widow by then. The next door family unit is an Agnes Campbell who is a grocer...same Street address of 146 Main. I guess this one should be proven through trying to track a death for Mary Boyd and see who her parents were. After 1851 Ann resorts to taking in boarders and is generally a housekeeper.

Best wishes
Jean