Allan Grant born 1812 Edinburgh Transported 1827

[thetowers]

There are no other Allan Grants of that age in Edinburgh at that time.

On the face of it,   that seems to be a remarkably extravagant claim !   Is there some authoritative census of Edinburgh at this time,   that nobody knows about ?

I was hoping for the muster information as it recorded family

I don't know why you would think this.   

Very little of the convict information available,  records anything at all about the families of convicts.     That's one of the things which makes working back from descendants of convicts in Australia,  back to their families of origin,  so difficult.    Of course, there are exceptions.   Some convict's families subsequently migrated to Australia to join them.   

But the standard muster and indent records contain nothing about families.

Unless they had an exceptionally unusual name,   or their "native place" recorded was very specific and distinctive,  or an original newspaper account of their trial happens to contain information about their family, it's difficult.

[Turnips]

There are no other Allan Grants of that age in Edinburgh at that time.

On the face of it,   that seems to be a remarkably extravagant claim !   Is there some authoritative census of Edinburgh at this time,   that nobody knows about ?

I was hoping for the muster information as it recorded family

I don't know why you would think this.   

The Edinburgh parish records are pretty complete in assessment to the 1841 census - I have been researching in the city for 15 years and I would say I normally have a 80%-90% hit rate in finding a baptism record.  The reason for my post was to find corroboration - not to make a "remarkably extravagant claim".

Allan Grant is not that common a name in Scotland. In fact there are only 62 recorded as baptised between 1538 - 1854.

   

I was hoping for the muster information as it recorded family

I don't know why you would think this.   

Probably becasue the website I quoted said the information taken included "FAMILY" now that may mean children or spouse - it does not state as much, hence me having a "hope" rather than an expectation.

[thetowers]

Liverpool is a town 15 miles from Sydney,  one of the original four or five towns established in places where food could be grown.   Like many of the early towns in Australia,  it was named after somewhere in Britain.

It is likely ( although not definite ),  that the two apparent records of a person by that name being buried there,  are two different references to the same event.   To be sure ( or more sure ),  you would need to look up both of those records  and check those burials were on the same day.

[thetowers]

Allan Grant is not that common a name in Scotland.

They have been breeding remarkably quickly since then.  I know four of them myself.

[majm]

Found a possible connection

Bound Indentures 1827 Champion
No. 120
GRANT  Allen, nephew to 121  (JM notes see below for those details)
Aged 18, can read, died at Sydney 25th October 1831, protestant, single, a native of Edinboro, Errand boy, pick pockets, tried Edinboro 5 March 1827, sentenced to Life,  3 previous convictions,   4 ft 10 ½ inches tall,   Ruddy complexion,  brown hair, hazel eyes, a very slight horizontal scar over left eye and scar on left cheek, back broken

No. 121
GLASGOW Alexr C41/1484,  36/18  (these are NSW references to T o L and CF, explanations to follow)
Aged 16,  Read and Write, protestant, single, a native of Edinboro, Blacksmith boy,  tried Edinboro 15 March 1827,  14 years, 3 previous, 5 ft 2 in, ruddy/fair complexion, light brown hair, hazel eyes.


JM NOTES :

T o L = Ticket of Leave

C F = Certificate of Freedom.   

So C41/1484 is ‘shorthand’ for Certificate of Freedom issued in 1841 and numbered 1484
 36/18 is ‘shorthand’ for Ticket of Leave number 18 of 1836

So, go back to the convict index and look up Alexander GLASGOW. 

Cheers, and happy hunting,

JM

[majm]

Hi there,

May I please mention that the NSW BDM online index (which is freely available, free to search)  allows you to restrict the search to specific dates, so I am happy to confirm that both those NSW BDM registrations refer to the ONE event, a burial 25 Oct 1831.

It is likely ( although not definite ),  that the two apparent records of a person by that name being buried there,  are two different references to the same event.   To be sure ( or more sure ),  you would need to look up both of those records  and check those burials were on the same day.

I am not seeking to cause any quarrel,  but I am concerned that the NSW BDM Early Church Records holdings may be mis-understood.   I am quite sure that the NSW General Orders issued back in Sept 1810 cause many apparent duplications.   I am also quite sure that there was NO requirement to include family history information on burial records.

Cheers,  JM

[thetowers]

Probably becasue the website I quoted said the information taken included "FAMILY" now that may mean children or spouse - it does not state as much, hence me having a "hope" rather than an expectation.

So,  your villainous fifteen-year-old male hunchback also has a wife and children to take to Australia ?

That makes no sense.

People convicted and sentenced to transportation to Australia,  did not take their families with them.  Women with young babies might be allowed to take them,   a male with a young baby would not.

[majm]

Probably becasue the website I quoted said the information taken included "FAMILY" now that may mean children or spouse - it does not state as much, hence me having a "hope" rather than an expectation.

So,  your villainous fifteen-year-old male hunchback also has a wife and children to take to Australia ?

That makes no sense.

People convicted and sentenced to transportation to Australia,  did not take their families with them.  Women with young babies might be allowed to take them,   a male with a young baby would not.

Please, please note family can include nephew !

Found a possible connection

Bound Indentures 1827 Champion
No. 120
GRANT  Allen, nephew to 121 (JM notes see below for those details)

[thetowers]

I am not seeking to cause any quarrel,  but I am concerned that the NSW BDM Early Church Records holdings may be mis-understood.   I am quite sure that the NSW General Orders issued back in Sept 1810 cause many apparent duplications.   I am also quite sure that there was NO requirement to include family history information on burial records.

I entirely agree.    The OP is unfamiliar with Australia,   and Australian records and their quirks and points of difference from British ones.   I was trying to make it clear for them.

The OP's expectations of family information,  seemed to me to be related to the convict muster,  not to the burial.