Opinions invited. I THINK I've got over a brick wall.

[daval57]

Thanks for your comments too Looby.
The Elphinstone forename in my family has been key to a lot of my research of cousins.  It's great having such an unusual forename in the family.  Off the top of my head, I think there have been 20 Elphinstone Forrests in the family since the 1st in 1798.  That doesn't include Elphinstones from the female lines who of course have different surnames.

I always felt there might be a connection to Elphinstone in East Lothian, but this recent find is the first time I've found anything concrete (albeit still wet). 

I agree re Hew / Matthew, but I'm drawn to the idea, simply because it adds weight to my findings. 

Dave

[daval57]

Hi Ruskie.
Not too simplistic at all.

I'd need to check back my archived searches on SP but if memory serves, I searched the whole of Scotland 20 years either side of 1750 and there were around 120? 

Initially, I restricted my searches to Stirlingshire / Dunbartonshire.  There were very few as I recall.  I then expanded to include Lanarkshire and I think there were about 50?

Over the years, I obtained the actual GROS records for the majority* of them, others were easily ruled out for various reasons, exactly what those reasons escapes me for now.

Eventually, I expanded to the whole of Scotland and did the same.

I also used wildcards extensively, although initially I was quite specific in my searches.

When the Catholic returns were added, I checked them too.. just in case.

Main reason I kept coming back to the one in Dalkeith were the forenames of the parents, and the proximity of the date of birth to the one I was researching.

Hope that answers your question. 

Dave


Edited. perhaps stretching it to say *majority, but certainly all the ones I hadn't ruled out for whatever reason.



 

[Ruskie]

If all your evidence consistently points to him being born around 1750, then you seem to have been thorough by searching so broadly.

Not sure if you want to revisit it again, but if you narrow down all James Forrests to 5 years (or even less) +/- 1750, and attempt to trace each one of those James Forrests through their lives (hopefully there won't be too many of them), this should give you a good overview of all of their lives, and add more certainty to the 1750 James being yours.
(I read a report by a 'professional' genealogist who a distant cousin hired to trace a branch of our common family, and this is one of the techniques they used - process of elimination ... not foolproof of course ....  )

[daval57]

That's an excellent suggestion Ruskie, and I'm pretty sure thinking back, it is how I ruled out a lot of them, ie, by finding a marriage or childs birth.

The main evidence I have of his date of birth is the OPR for his death, and to a lesser extent, the age of his wife.

Having said that, it wont do any harm to revisit.  After all, I'm a bit more experienced now, and of course there's always human error.... many a positive result I have found after a tumbler or two of whisky.  I'm sure the whisky could easily have impaired my thought process too.

I think I'll embark on that again over the next couple of days.  Certainly can't do any harm.

Yes, nice suggestion and it shouldn't cost too much on SP having obtained many of the records previously.

Thanks Ruskie.

Dave

[Ruskie]

Hope something worthwhile comes of it Dave. 

[daval57]

Well, if nothing else, it'll give me a reason to crack open a bottle. 

I was going to do that to celebrate this 'find' anyway.  Had to put it off as I've been unwell this week.

D

[Ruskie]

Illness is nature's way of telling you to keep off the booze. 
Hope you are feeling better soon.

Back to the subject in hand, have you had any other help with this family in the past from rootschatters? It would be nice to get the opinions of as many experienced Scottish researchers as possible.

[daval57]

Just a bad stomach bug since the weekend.  Ate a reasonable meal today for the first time without feeling queasy, so definitely on the mend.

Yes, I've had some help over the years, particularly when I was starting out.  I certainly have at least one, if not more, threads relating to this particular search, but never with just as much detail as this one. 

Indeed, I think you quite possibly contributed somewhere along the line.  Ann (apanderson) has been of immense help with MIs, especially Stirlingshire.  Many others, too many to mention have had a dabble.

I agree it's nice to get the opinions of other experienced researchers, and indeed, why I started this particular thread.

One final note before I log out for now.

Using J*s F*r*t in the whole of Scotland for 1745 to 1755, there are only 45 hits.
Will check when I come back to it just how many of them I haven't paid for the copy records.

Initially, I'll check FS for any of them I didn't obtain.  FS will throw up Forresters too, although consistently, apart from the odd Forist / Forrist, all the results I've had in my family have been Forest or, and most often Forrest.

So, not a huge task to go over them again.

D

[Forfarian]

The advice to investigate possible alternatives is very sound. I have recently established by elimination the identity of someone in my tree (born 1859, and an uncommon combination of names, so it was not as challenging as Dave's James Forrest).

Dave has already investigated very thoroughly and has some pieces of corroborating evidence which I think is pretty strong, even disregarding Hew/Matthew.

I think the only reason I would retain a slight caveat is that it is always possible that there was another James Forrest whose birth/baptism was never recorded (or, if recorded, the record was lost), born about the same time.