1855 Birth

Eileen · Post by **Eileen** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:22 pm

Hi
I have an 1855 BC it says 2 boys living 1girl deceased, not clear number of children she had.

Think it says 3.

My question is do they include the child just born in the above info

Eileen

Post by **AnneM** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:31 pm

I'm pretty sure not. The 3 children, i.e. the 2 living boys and one dead girl would be previous children.

Anne

Eileen · Post by **Eileen** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:38 pm

Hi Anne
That would mean I have another child to find.

I'l have to check marriage I now have 3 different locations, Cupar & Markinch from IGI Wemyss from BC, the good thing is the year is the same on all

Thanks Ann

No doubt I'll be back soon

Eileen

Post by **AndrewP** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:38 pm

Hi Eileen,

In an example given in the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1854, it shows under the father's details - 1 boy and 1 girl living; 1 boy deceased. Under the mother's details it says her 4th child. I take that to mean that the details in the father's information refer to previously born children, but the mother's includes the new-born one on that registration form.

All the best,

AndrewP

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 10:54 pm

Hi Eileen
I certainly have a certificate from 1855 (my McNicols) where the child being registered is included in the children mentioned as having been born to the couple. To begin with , in this particular case, I didn't realise this and went off on a rather long and convoluted goose chase, believing there must be another child somewhere that I had missed...but I'm now convinced there was not.

I think, like a lot of things, (e.g. the census data) what was written perhaps depended on how the registar had interpreted the instructions of what he was to record: it may vary from area to area and registrar to registrar.

Best wishes
Lesley

Eileen · Post by **Eileen** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:01 pm

Hi Lesley

Just been to SP.

Only 2 children show 1842, 1844,

Marriage is the same as IGI Cupar & Markinch.

My only thought now is what happened between 1844 & 1855 no children or at least not alive and not registered

Eileen

Post by **AndrewP** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:04 pm

Hi Eileen,

Does the family group show up as you would expect in the 1851 census?

All the best,

AndrewP

Eileen · Post by **Eileen** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:06 pm

Hi Andrew

Yes there is only William 16/12/1844, no Mary, so it fits with what is on BC

Eileen

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:12 pm

Hi Eileen

I have an 1855 BC it says 2 boys living 1girl deceased, not clear number of children she had.

So you can account for two of the mentioned children? The girl should be quite straightforward (well, OK, maybe not, as death is pre-1855 by the looks of things). As for the boys, being two of them may make it more difficult to work out - is the 1855 birth a boy?

My thoughts would be to keep an open mind on this one and just try to find out what you can. 1844 - 1855 with no children does seem a big gap, as you noted... what was the father's occupation? Could it have been something which kept him away from home for long periods? Other thought, if he was likely to be at home may be that there were perhpas miscarriages or maybe still births during that period. What is happening on the census returns for 1851 and 61 children-wise with this family?

Good to see you are still working away at it!!

Best wishes
Lesley

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Mon Mar 31, 2008 11:13 pm

Crikes!!!! I took so long to type that there are a couple of posts appeared in the meantime!