Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Forfarian

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 880
That seems a bit bizarre.

This description only makes some sort of sense if the author wrote 'Port Blair on Loch Shieldaig' when he actually meant 'Port Lair on Loch Torridon'. But even then it's confusing.

There are two Loch Shieldaigs - one just a mile or two from Badachro in the parish of Gairloch, and one at the west end of Loch Torridon opposite Diabaig. He obviously can't have meant the one in Applecross, because you could only walk from Gairloch to there by going round the head of Loch Torridon.

The first edition of the Ordnance Survey map, surveyed in 1875, does not show a path south across the moorland from Badachro. See The obvious land route from Badachro to Diabaig is by the path that roughly follows the coast.

The Gairloch Loch Shieldaig is east-south-east, not south, of Badachro, and therefore in the opposite direction from the path to Diabaig if you are starting from Badachro.

There is a path south from the Gairloch Loch Shieldaig, but it peters out in the moorland south of Loch Gaineamhach.

Do any of the censuses describe anyone residing at Port Lair as a ferryman?

BTW I have found my copy of Dixon's 'Gairloch', published in 1886. The map shows the coastal path to Diabaig, but no path over the moor. It does not show Port Lair, or mention or indicate any ferry across Loch Torridon (though that isn't conclusive because that would be outside the parish of Gairloch, and the book concentrates on the parish).

It's quite likely that the author of the guide had never been to most of the places he was describing and therefore didn't really know what he was talking about.

Midlothian / Re: looking fo Peter McGhie
« on: Yesterday at 09:35 »
His name on his birth certificate is Peter McGhee, not McGhie, and he was born on 20 March 1868. Therefore on the day of the 1911 census he would have been 43.

There are three Peter McGhees and one Peter McGhie in the index to the 1911 census of Scotland. One is aged 41, two are 44 and one is 45.

The 44-year-old in Greenock and the 41-year-old in Govan can be dismissed because there are a 34-year-old in Greenock and a 31-year-old in Govan in 1901.

A 32-year-old in Bathgate in 1901 would match a 22-year-old in New Monkland in 1891, but does not appear in 1911.

That leaves two 45-year-olds in 1911, one in Peterhead in Aberdeenshire and one in Blantyre. Either or both could have come in from Ireland, or one of them could be your Peter with his age 2 years out.

Scotland / Re: Marriage Contract 1652
« on: Yesterday at 08:59 »
It isn't 'wrong' to name someone as Anna in one document and Anne in another.  But it would be an error to confuse Anna/e with Elizabeth.

Scotland's Places lists Earlsides in the counties of Dumfries, Lanark, Peebles and Roxburgh.

If you are looking for a marriage contract, unless you are very lucky it could be a long search. As GR2 says, you would have to go to the Historical Search Room in Edinburgh (or hire a professional searcher there). Marriage contracts are not usually in the Register of Deeds for the year of the marriage, because they may not be registered until something happens to make it necessary to register it, for example the death of one of the couple.

There are (mostly handwritten) indexes to the Registers of Deeds for some years, but I cannot tell you offhand which years in the 17th century have been indexed.

If you have checked all the available indexes and still not found the one you are looking for, you then have to look through all the deeds for the missing years. These are recorded chronologically by date of registration, and each clerk kept his own register so for many years there are two or even three volumes to go through.

There is always the possibility that the marriage contract was not registered at all, or that it has found its way to some other place than the National Records of Scotland, such as a local or a university archive.

(I have been looking sporadically, and so far unsuccessfully, for about 10 years for a deed which I know was dated 14 June 1725, because it is referred to in the testament of David Wyllie who died in 1757, and as an eik dated 1 June 1757 to the testament of his brother James Wyllie who died in 1744. Therefore the deed had not been registered by 1744, but it was registered by 1757. There are no indexes to the Registers of Deeds for most of these years, and there were three clerks at the time so there are three sets of volumes to plough through.)

Scotland / Re: searching for two graves
« on: Yesterday at 08:36 »

Midlothian / Re: looking fo Peter McGhie
« on: Yesterday at 08:35 »
For the prevention of duplication of effort, this is a previous thread on the same family

Scotland / Re: searching for two graves
« on: Sunday 15 July 18 22:59 BST (UK)  »
I wonder why they didnt put the burial place on the death cert
They did in the 1850s but this detail was dropped about 1860. Probably because you needed the death certificate first so that you could arrange the funeral.

Midlothian / Re: Vanishing Elizabeth McLuckie or Deas
« on: Sunday 15 July 18 20:01 BST (UK)  »
Thank you - looks very likely.

Midlothian / Re: Vanishing Elizabeth McLuckie or Deas
« on: Saturday 14 July 18 22:27 BST (UK)  »
Thank you for that. A sad story indeed. They do seem to have been an unfortunate family.

Midlothian / Re: Vanishing Elizabeth McLuckie or Deas
« on: Saturday 14 July 18 18:37 BST (UK)  »
Thanks, nzsearcher, that is interesting. I have not been pursuing the relatives of Elizabeth McLuckie, because it is her husband John Deas who is my relative.

On her marriage certificate Elizabeth's mother's name is shown as Elizabeth Gunn, which is where I got it from. However her birth says Ellen.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 880