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 - scotmum

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 450
1
You may not have a marriage for George and Janet, but  having Williamina staying with them in 1881 has been a good bonus, as through her you can link George beyond, I would say, doubt, to the Applegarth family group.

It can often prove to be very worthwhile following up on relatives/visitors living with families in a census.

2
Someone on MyHeritage also seems to have George as having been the one in Applegarth born c1832:

https://www.myheritage.com/names/georgina_davidson

3
Possible parents for the 1868 born Wilhelmina/Williamina:

LITTLE
James

DAVIDSON
Mary

marriage
1859
813/A 4
Applegarth

and could fit with being the 3yr old Mary in 1841 census at Applegrath.

4
Ok! Was that usual? Not come across that before, interesting

Some helpful reading for you on the subject:   https://academic.oup.com/jsh/article/47/2/507/1325355

5
Have you tried following through on the niece living with George and Janet in 1881? She was also born Scotland. Her mother may have been a sibling of George or Janet.

Four possible births in Scotland using 1865-1870 and with the various spellings, narrowed by female and Wil*.

Added:

Having now seen looby's post above, this one in particular may be of interest:

LITTLE
WILLIAMINA SCOT
F
1868
813/A 8
Applegarth


6
They may have had an Irregular Marriage/Marriage by Declaration, and simply not gone on to have it formalised by a Sheriff's warrant, so couldn't have it  registered.

7
Not seeing any obvious marriage in the Lang collection of Gretna marriages. Only George Davidson entry there is a later date

George Davidson 21 Oct 1878 to Sarah McDonald

8
Canada / Re: Looking for Stanwicks Harwood in 1911
« on: Yesterday at 12:35 »
Alice Gertrude Harwood nee Tyler apparently died 3/10/1955.

Picture of Stanwick:

https://vitacollections.ca/brightonarchives/3301502/data?dis=ex

9
Quote
.
I have looked and looked but I can't find a Sarah Eccleston anywhere in London on the 1861 census. Not one  ???     

Not an easy task when you can't be certain if she was using Ecclestone or Laurance, compounded by the possibility that if, for any reason, she was still alive but happened to be in an institution at the time (eg hospital, prison), then she may have only been recorded under her initials, so SE or SL.

Quote
.  I also find it interesting how Benjamin & Elizabeth listed Laurie under his birth name on the 1861 census rather than as a Hobbs as he would become by 1871. Did they think Sarah might come back? I wonder when Laurie assumed the Hobbs surname and became their 'son' rather than their 'nephew.' 

Sarah may have left Laurance behind for any number of reasons, willingly or unwillingly, and the Hobbs took him on. For the census, it may have been easier to say he was a 'nephew' rather than to explain why he was living with them, yet not their son. As time went on, and Laurance remained living with them and would obviously be more aware than when younger of a name difference, a gradual change to using their surname, before he started asking questions, may have seemed best, hence the 1871 entry as 'son'. It is quite possible ne was too young to remember his mum and genuinely believed the Hobbs were his parents.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 450