RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Peeblesshire => Topic started by: ChrisScott on Tuesday 03 April 12 03:16 BST (UK)
-
Hi all,
I am working on extensive research on my family tree and have just traced an ancestor to Peebles, Peebleshire in 1818. I notice that this board specifically mentions the dates 1851 - 1901 however I am hoping someone will be able to point me in the right direction for the questions I have regarding records I recently found in the OPR records for Peebles at scotlandspeople.gov.uk from 1816-1818
In my searches, I initially located a record for a John Mitchell from 1818 that references the birth in 1816 and baptism in 1818. Unfortunately, I cannot easily read the handwriting on this record however from what I could read, it made me think the birth was out of wedlock as the only mention of the family name Mitchell was when it referenced the father and the baby was listed as John Mash (possibly mis-transcibed and could be Nash)
I then found another record from 1816 for the same child however scotlandspeople.gov.uk do not have an online image so I have ordered the extract for 12 pounds. The basic information that is listed on the website states "FRANCIS MITCHELL/MARY MASH FRCH2 FOUND IN 1818"
These are my questions:
1. Does "Found in 1818" mean that the baby John may have gone to a foundling home?
2. Where would I be able to find more information on children with "found" on their records from this region?
3. Do copyright laws allow me to post all or part of the record (image) from 1818 for assistance with an accurate transcription?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
-
I answered question 3 myself once I found the handwriting recognition section and have posted the document there. I only joined this site today so I am still finding my way through all the different areas.
-
Haven't seen your other post, but it is not unusual for baptisms to be recorded later than they actually took place. As it was not compulsory, it was often neglected at the time. Sometimes, often when a later child was baptised, the earlier baptism was recorded with that of the younger sibling. In 1854 a huge number of earlier baptisms were recorded just before statutory registration was introduced.
-
Thanks for the reply.
I'm mostly confused about what "Found in 1818" means on the birth record which is dated 1816. I know found / foundling can mean that they were put into an orphanage or the parents couldnt look after the child but I have also read somewhere that there wasnt many (if any) foundling homes in Scotland in that era so I'm not sure of the meaning and how to confirm further details on this.
Would scotlandspeople.gov.uk be able to provide more information on what "found" means in this context?
-
Found refers to the record, not the child. If the child were a foundling, the parents would not be known or mentioned. In such a case the kirk session would sponsor the baptism.
Have you considered the possibility that there are two children here. The first John died and the name was given to a later sibling? That was very common.
You need to see the original records to be certain.
-
Hi Chris :)
The freeCEN website has -
John Mash age 80 shoemaker , High Street Peebles-shire , born Peebles-shire
also this transcription -
http://www.maxwellancestry.com/census/41transcript.aspx?houseid=76803017
ev
Added - "Mary Mash, daughter of John Mash, Shoemaker in Peebles"
-
Ahh thanks heaps. I'm obviously confusing myself whein thinking that "found" may have been a shortened version of "foundling". Your answer makes total sense that it was the record that was found and not the child.
I am pretty sure its the same child as the 1818 record states the birth and baptism dates with the birth date iin 1816 and baptism in 1818. The 1816 record unfortunately has no online image available so I will have to wait until the extract is shipped to me in Australia to see the actual document.
-
Hi Chris :)
The freeCEN website has -
John Mash age 80 shoemaker , High Street Peebles-shire , born Peebles-shire
also this transcription -
http://www.maxwellancestry.com/census/41transcript.aspx?houseid=76803017
ev
Fantastic, thanks for that. That must be the grandfather of John Mitchell that is listed on the 1818 document. That also clears up some confusion about whether the name was Mash or Nash as the handwriting was very hard to read.
I must say, this is a great forum, filled with extremely helpful people. I will be posting questions about some other Scottish ancestors very soon.
-
You might also want to check a Mary Mash marriage to an Alexander Anslie in 1828
father given as John Mash(IGI)
http://www.maxwellancestry.com/census/41transcript.aspx?houseid=76803010
ev