RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Lanarkshire => Topic started by: Leigh1 on Wednesday 15 May 19 15:03 BST (UK)
-
If anyone has access to the 1861 census, I would be glad of your help. I have three Trainors listed as lodgers at 130 Garngad Road, Glasgow Springburn (householders Patrick and Agnes Madden). I only have the transcript which names the Trainors as Bernard, Francis and VINA (female). This seems such an unusual name that I am wondering if it is a misreading of the original. Can anyone suggest what the name could/should be from looking at the original?
Many thanks.
-
@ Leigh, could be off Davina, I knew of a Vina Pollock in auld Springburn so not that rare? rhymed with Ina. ;D
Skoosh.
-
Thanks for replying so quickly Skoosh. The family were Irish so I can't really see Davina fitting in, but I guess anything's possible! I'm thinking it's probably something more common, just badly written and then mis-transcribed.
???
-
Hi according to the index at Scotlands People it is Vina you can check the original your self from Scotlands People
-
Thanks Wendy - I'm not registered with them so will do that.
-
Have just replied to your other post- if she was Irish most likely Lavinia or Levina.
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=812961.msg6734971
-
I agree with Aghadowey, I'd say Lavina.
-
Hi,
Vina Trainor is recorded on the Census as married. As is Bernard. Francis is unmarried.
I would assume therefore that Bernard and Vina are a married couple.
Looby :)
-
There is a Bernard Trainor (recorded as a bachelor) of 126 Garngad Road marries a Catherine Plunket in Sept 1861 ???
Catherine is also on the 1861 Census- further along Garngad Road.
So is Vina, Catherine, recorded twice?
Bernard and Catherine have a child Mary Jane Trainer on 1st Dec 1861 - just three months after their marriage.
Looby :)
-
This is the problem with basing research on transcriptions rather than looking at actual records when available.
IF the name is indeed 'Vina' then Lavinia/Lavina/Levina is most likely.
However, if Bernard's wife was Catherine then Ina is more likely.
-
Vina Trainor is recorded on the Census as married. As is Bernard. Francis is unmarried.
This is the problem with basing research on transcriptions rather than looking at actual records when available.
I forgot to say in my post, that curiosity had got the better of me and I used some of my SP credits ::) (no wonder I'm skint ;D) to look at original. In my opinion the census does have the name Vina recorded. I've hopefully attached a snippet.
Looby :)
-
Thank you so much Looby for that additional information. Many apologies for not responding sooner - I haven't revisited the thread in a while as I got side-tracked by another branch of the family! I feel very guilty that you invested some of your hard earned credits on my behalf :-[ I will have a look at the marriage & births you have uncovered.
Thanks again.
-
Thank you so much Looby for that additional information. Many apologies for not responding sooner - I haven't revisited the thread in a while as I got side-tracked by another branch of the family! I feel very guilty that you invested some of your hard earned credits on my behalf :-[ I will have a look at the marriage & births you have uncovered.
Thanks again.
No bother. Happy researching !
Looby :)
-
Had a look Loopy! A bit confused really as Bernard & Catherine were married in Sept 1861 but the census (when Bernard was listed as married) was conducted in April 1861. Problem is there were so many Trainers about at the time, I'm very wary of latching on to the wrong one! :-\ I'll keep digging & thanks again.
-
A bit confused really as Bernard & Catherine were married in Sept 1861 but the census (when Bernard was listed as married) was conducted in April 1861.
They might not be the first or last couple to have anticipated the ceremony!
-
Hi Leigh,
You're confused ;D ? You must be cos my user name is Looby not Loopy ;D ;D although to be fair there are days when I am a bit Loopy :P .
I agree with Forfarian , the couple may have been calling themselves married or already consider themselves married before the actual wedding.
Looby :)
-
Yes - that would account for the extremely premature baby!! Thanks Forfarian & LooBy ;D