RootsChat.Com

Anne Clark is related to me, she being d/o my 5xgtgdparents James Clark & Elspet Andrew.
I had the same problem as you - no sign of his death.

I did note that perhaps this was due to a mis-indexing either in the register index itself or in ScotlandsPeople's own indexation - you'd have to wade through first every register index (not so onerous because I've done it with the real registers at the Banff Registration Office - although I'm not sure how/whether these indexes have been digitised) and then every register entry (very onerous! only sensibly feasible 'onsite').

One other possibility to consider is that the entire family of his eldest son James Taylor 'disappears' after 1851 with his son William (born 1840) possibly turning up in New Zealand (where a William Taylor died 19-3-1924 age 84 in Auckland, he was said born in Banffshire, he married an Elizabeth Cowan in 1869 in Auckland).

He's too distant a relative for me to warrant me pursuing any further. Hope this turns out to be helpful!

Gadget,

Just to check that I read correctly the first time;  You say in your first post:

Quote

I know my 2xgtgdfather with certainty. It's my 2xgtgdmother that's the issue. The records (rightly or wrongly) show he had three wives. My gtgdmother could be the daughter of wife two or three (despite her 1853 birth record recording her as dau of wife one [and despite her having died three years earlier] and later records recording her as dau of wife three).

So, are you suggesting or have proof that these are his descendants too?  If so, then they would be related.

My gtgdmother (Hannah Preston) is dau of my 2xgtgdfather (James Sibbald Preston). That's settled.
He had one child by wife #1 - in 1843 - that's settled.
He had six children by wife #3 - from 1855-1868 - that's all settled.
My gtgdmother (Hannah Preston) was born 1853, said to be by his wife#1, at the house of wife#3 (who, in 1855, said it wasn't hers), with the status of wife#2 after 1851 being unknown except that she might be the person who had an illeg child in 1856 father unknown.

So my question was: which of those three wives is the mother of my gtgdmother? (Indeed, could her mother be a fourth person?)

But you have said:

Quote

There's no hint of 'cross-pollination' neither in surnames in common or places in common. Paths simply do not cross. To me, that's a fair basis to say that they are not related (in any practical or useful sense).

When you say they 'must' be related, where's the evidence? They 'might' be related, that's true; they 'could' be related that's also true, but 'must'? In my opinion, the chances of them actually being related are so small that one's real-life conclusion can only be that they are not related. I chose my triangulation comparisons not because they might be related but because it was so totally unlikely that they were related.

add - so if there is no proof, so far, that they are descended from your 2x grt grandfather then I would suggest that you should look for other possibles via both methods.

In my case, mentioned previously, as well as contacting some of the matches I constructed trees for the matches from usual sources. They were scattered - US, South Africa and England (Midlands, London and South West).  It took quite a while, but as I had been looking for  this ancestor since I was 8, it was worth it.

I have contacted the matches and all our trees have been constructed in the conventional way, and all are accurate. I've been looking for 20 years and I'm somewhat more than 28 so you have the edge on duration! Trying the DNA route has been a last resort. I thought I had a breakthrough when I identified one and only one really good candidate for so-called wife#2 - and there was an Ancestry tree with DNA markers. Tantalisingly close but so far no paper proof and my DNA match with putative wife#2's descendant is, at best, inconclusive, no better and no worse than my connection with wife#3's relative, and indeed worse than their matches with my 4th cousin who has nothing whatsoever to do with them.

Coming to a commonsense conclusion that I have no relation with either putative wife#2 and wife#3, either wife#2 isn't the candidate I had found (which wouldn't surprise me in the least) or there is a fourth person involved (and that wouldn't surprise me either). Whether I have a relation with wife#1 is a moot point. So far, I haven't been able to make contact with any descendant of wife#1 (or indeed anyone on a collateral line on her side). So my next step will be to redouble my efforts in that direction.

I've got a posting on the Lanarkshire list right now which is, I think, my last 'paper-trail' possibility. Here's hoping!

Gadget, I'm sorry you think my diagram is very confused. On the contrary I think my diagram is very clear so I'm unable to see how to make it clearer. You may have misread my original query, the clue being in the subject line of my posting. I did say it was complicated!

phil57, thanks for your insight. The paucity of known DNA matches means I don't have any more to match apart from a couple more on the Banffshire side which don't bring anything extra to the party. I've pretty well hit the buffers on the paper-trail side. As far as I know the Lair Registers for Southern Necropolis for pre 1850 or so haven't survived. There's nothing in any of the relevant Kirk Sessions (that I can find).

I think I'm going to have write off the findings from these DNA matches as, at best, inconclusive. And hope a hitherto unknown record source leaps into existence.

"Bur 25-7-1850 : Elizabeth Ogilvie age 29 : Friend of Peter Baxter : 9 Hill St [Garnethill]"
"Bur 15-12-1850 : James Preston age 7m: Cousin of Peter Baxter : 7 Wallace St [Gorbals]"
I believe the addresses are those of the deceased not of the 'Proprietor' of the Lair.
It is likely Peter Baxter was living at 39 Warwick St Gorbals at the time (he was there with wife and family in 1951).
Am I right that the named Proprietor would have paid the fees?

After extensive searches, Elizabeth Ogilvie can only be the wife of James Sibbald Preston (who was very much alive); and James Preston can only be the son of James Sibbald Preston (but there is a smidgeon of doubt whether Elizabeth Ogilvie was the mother - there is no record of his birth).

And after more extensive searches, nothing can be found to connect James Sibbald Preston (who was an engine fitter born Haddington, East Lothian - Elizabeth Ogilvie was born there too) and Peter Baxter (who was a joiner born Kilfinan, Argyl). And no reason why there should be other than living reasonably nearby each other.

It's the 'Cousin' that's bothersome. 'Friend' turns up frequently enough in the Interment Registers, as do other relationships like 'Uncle' or 'Father'. Is it safe to take the term 'Cousin' literally or could it be a euphemism? A euphemism for what?!
 
I'm trying to understand what the Internment Register is telling me vis-a-vis Peter Baxter.

This is part of ongoing research to explain why James Sibbald Preston turns up in 1851 at 9 Drury St, Blythswood married to a Helen from Stirlingshire (with no record of that marriage) and has a child in Sep 1853 where he names the mother as Elizabeth Ogilvie. And yet more complexity in that possibly the same Helen seemingly turns up in 1855 at 39 Warwick St as a MacFarlane tenant/occupier, and in 1856 at 9 Warwick St as Helen MacFarlane (who records herself as unmarried in three later censuses).

I've attached a diagram - I do hope makes things clearer!

Gadget said "it would help if Fordyce has the shared cMs between  the 'cousins'".
I'm not sure I understand this. There is no possible way the three cousins are related in any way - none could possibly share a mother or a father. Perhaps I should have said "..a max shared Cm length of.."?

I'm inclined to agree your view, phil57, so I'm not disappointed. I'm coming to the view that not only can relationships not be proved with DNA alone but they cannot be disproved either. Which is not a lot of use to man nor beast and which brings me back to square one.

I had run out of options paper-trail-wise. But one last avenue has surfaced from this exercise from the Southern Necropolis Burial records, but has nothing to do with DNA, so you might find a question on the Lanarkshire Board in a while!