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

[flst]

Have you considered that his birth/christening may not have been recorded or that the OPR's are incomplete? Have you managed to identify witnesses to any of his children's christenings? Sometimes, if you're lucky addresses & occupations are recorded which may help you find uncles etc. What about the headstones? Sometimes adjoining graves may be linked. Were there any other people buried in the same plot? Are there lair records available to see who purchased them?
Just some of my immediate thoughts...
flst

[daval57]

Thanks Forfarian and flst,
Agree completely that it's feasible the birth was never recorded at all, records incomplete, or transcribed so badly that even with the use of wildcards it doesn't show up in searches. 
Only recently I found one Forrest (not my line) that was recorded as Sherriff!!! (verified from OPR in the other parish in which the marriage was recorded)  Not relevant to this particular thread other than as a point of interest but see attachment - believe it or not, the highlighted name is alexr Forrest. 

flst, your comment re witnesses is valid, but as I think you can tell, I've tried to be very thorough.  That was a consideration when I was researching and nothing came from that - with of course the exception of the witness from Elphinstone.

The witnesses to 'my' James' children have either been identified, or are of no additional help.

MIs have been checked as much as is possible with nothing coming from that either.  I am looking at trying to check MIs in the Lothians but I'm not too hopeful at this stage.  Even if there are stones, given that they weren't an affluent family as far as I know, and the earlier dates that will be involved any stones wont have much detail and may also be eroded.  Being a bit pessimistic on this point ... or is it realistic

I'm not going to have much time to revisit this as suggested initially by Ruskie until early next week now, but I'll keep you informed.

As I've said already in the thread, I appreciate all the comments and suggestions, and welcome any more.

Dave

 

[Forfarian]

Only recently I found one Forrest (not my line) that was recorded as Sherriff!!! (verified from OPR in the other parish in which the marriage was recorded)  Not relevant to this particular thread other than as a point of interest but see attachment - believe it or not, the highlighted name is alexr Forrest. 

I would have read that as Forrest from the word go - looks like late 1600s or early 1700s? Where was it 'recorded' as Sheriff?

[daval57]

Surprisingly it was on SP.  1686. 
Memory slipped.  It was actually transcribed as SHIRREFF

The other OPR was in the name of Elizabeth Diddup and Alexander Forrest.

Had it not for being recorded in 2 different parishes, it's unlikely a researcher relying on SP only would ever have found it (if they didn't have wife's name).

D

[Forfarian]

Surprisingly it was on SP.  1686. 

In other words, it's not a record, it's an incorrect index entry.

SP are very good about correcting indexing errors. If I were you I would contact them about this one.

[daval57]

A bit pedantic. 

Sadly, I've not had any success with SP with 2 previous requests to amend details on 2 of my direct ancestors.  Because of the rigmarole they put me through and eventually didn't even amend their entries, I gave up.  This particular one, I was doing for someone else so am even less inclined to waste my time with them.

It's a pity.  If they had been more amenable, I'd have been more inclined to report it. 

In their favour, they did reimburse me for wasted credits and in one case gave me an extra 30 credits.

[Forfarian]

A bit pedantic. 

Yes, maybe.

But unfortunately a lot of people think that what they find on Ancestry and in the IGI on Family Search are 'records', when in fact they are not records but transcriptions or indexes. So they don't take the trouble to check with the actual genuine records, and thus, in many cases, perpetuate mistranscriptions or errors. So I happen to think that there is a very important distinction to be made between records, that is, original documents, and information extracted from them in whatever secondary form.

This case of yours is a perfect example of why you need to view the originals - just imagine, if you were someone researching Sherriff and you took that index entry as authoritative, your entire tree would trace back to someone else's misreading of Forrest.

[daval57]

Oh, I knew where you were coming from.  However, we've had enough dealings in the past, and the research I've shown to have done on this post alone, for that distinction to be pointed out to me.

In fact, in my post to which you apparently responded , I used the words "transcribed" abbreviation "OPR" and "recorded" all in the correct context.

I was therefor a bit surprised at you coming out with your comment "In other words, it's not a record, it's an incorrect index entry."

Anyway, semantics... I've got better things to do.  Like move on with revisiting those records I do have and possibly obtaining others.

Thanks for your previous comments.  They were appreciated.   

D





 

[Forfarian]

Oh, I knew where you were coming from. 

I know you don't need the distinction to be pointed out, but there are plenty of others who will read this thread and do need to understand it.