Alexander Luke family in Coldstream 1851 census

[MonicaL]

Hi Julie and Tricia

Not sure if this entry on the Will & Testaments section at Scotlands People is connected. There is no death entry showing for 1855 (this Alexander looks to have died before the start of official registration in 1855 so hard to check for age at death):

Luke   Alexander, 01/03/1855,   Feuar in Coldstream, I and Mutual Disposition and Settlement, at Duns Sheriff Court Inventories   GROS REF: SC60/41/15

Monica 

[luke family]

Monica and Tricia:
thanks again for all the help and info.
My research partner, Jan, went on the site and paid for some credits and found the 1841 census with name as Alexander Luke, not Leslie..so you were correct Tricia...it is our family
Also Jan notes that ages 15 and older were usually rounded down up to 5 years so the girls Margaret and  Elspeth probably were not twins. Could have been up to 10 years old.
We did not know either if Alexander the father came to America..
but with the Will and Testament note it seems either he did not got to America or this could be his son as well I guess.
julie

[luke family]

We found the 7 children of Alexander and Isabella Luke as:
Elspath b April 1826
Esther b Nov 1827
Geo b April 1829
Thomas b Feb 1831
Isabella b Jan 1833
must have died soon after birth
Isabella b May 1834
Alex b March 1836

we have full dates for births and baptisms
so thanks again for all of the clues

the father is listed as a seafaring man and Captain several times in birth recrods.
He is a merchant grocer in one census, so maybe he didn't actually run a store (as we had thought) but went to sea to purchase goods...

also the Margaret in 1841 census does have a note by her name FS which we now feel means Female Servant since she is not listed as a child.

any thoughts from you on these points??


julie

[MonicaL]

Julie

Just as background to the 1841 census. Ages for everyone over the age of 15 were supposed to be rounded down to the nearest 5 yrs. So, daughters Elspeth and Margaret would have been aged anywhere between 15-19. Margaret showing as FS (female servant) is to be expected. Children under the age of 15 were supposed to be noted down with their actual age.

Monica

[luke family]

Monica
thanks for clearing up age info on census
we are pretty new to this...though I know US census records backwards and forwards...
Margaret does not appear on list of children so we assume she was a servant only, not a daughter. Just wanted to be clear that that was your understanding too. (You said "as to be expected").
Are you in UK or US?
julie

[MonicaL]

Hi Julie

Unfortunately, the 1841 census is limited in terms of information. As you have seen with ages, the other main characteristic of the 1841 census is that relationships were not shown within a household. Just because Margaret does not show on the OPRs as daughter to Alexander and Isabella, it does not mean she wasn't a daughter (as you may have found already, not all births/christenings show on the Old Parish Registers).

Alexander and Isabella married in April 1825. Alexander would have been c. 44 years of age - have you ever considered he may also have been married previously, simply by his age of marriage to Isabella?

My point on Margaret Luke showing as a female servant was simply that at her age, it is not unusual to find that she was already working.

Monica 

[luke family]

Monica
I've had a chance to see the record now and noticed that Margaret was listed after the other children, essentially out of order for age.
Would that have any significnce? Such as a child from a previous marriage or the fact she was a niece or actual servant?

If she were a servant in their home, her correct last name would be listed though, correct? She would not just take on the last name of the household she was in?

Questions raised because I am not familiar with the census or the ways of the time...

julie

[MonicaL]

Hi Julie

It's always hard with the 1841 census because it is so limited in terms of info. By 1851, new fields were added which were/are more useful.

The transcript of the index I am looking at tends to jumble up the entries in the way they are showing, so you can't ever tell how it was actually written up. One of the reasons why, once you have found a correct entry, it is always worthwhile looking at the original image to see what it actually says, and as you have seen, the order of the household.

I can't tell you what relationship Margaret Luke had to the household unfortunately. If she was a servant to the household with a different surname, this other surname would be the one showing but she shows as Luke.

There are no OPR entries for her birth or christening showing for her as a daughter to Alexander. Hard to know what to make of her 

Monica 

[Willow 4873]

Hiya Julie and Monica

Welcome to Rootschat Julie

I have found a coulple of time on other English census that there was sometime some one listed as FS who was actually related to the household

I wonder if this is the case as Margaret has the same surname?

You often seem to find younger nieces/cousins listed as servants in a household. I think they usually were just a home help as their own home was overcrowded and they moved in with a relative to help with younger children and household duties probably not receiving a wage just board and lodgings

It might be worth looking sideways and see if you can find out who Margarets parents were - her father might be a brother to Alexander

Willow x