LaPalme, LaPan b. QUEBEC ca 1840 to Bayfield, Ontario Canada

[TPM123]

Thank you, also, Lilybell, for your help! I think from this point on (irg...) we'd better "assume" my Julia was born in Quebec and NOT Ontario (thanks to J.J. we now know this!) about 1840 and W. Meth...(listed as such on the 1861 Stanley Twp census as well as marriage certificate and possibly death--not sure...but there seems to be consistency with regard to W. Meth not Catholic) but appreciate you posting nonetheless...

[polarbear]

This certainly is a complicated family.

A few notes ....

Re: the 1861 Census ... from the image

Canada West would mean Ontario (I believe J.J. indicated that 'L' Canada w/b Quebec). This is where the family of Alex and Delilah with the July are living. Both parents are listed as being born in 'L' Canada which w/b Quebec. All children are listed as being born in 'U' Canada which in those days would also have meant Ontario (Canada did not become a united country until 1867).

July is listed as being absent from the household. This may be significant with respect to the Juley living with the Rutledge family although it is quite a distance from Hastings County to Bayfield. The 'L' beside the birth place of Juley appears to be smudged whereas nothing else is, as in perhaps an erasure was attempted. Very hard to say for sure.

As an aside, Alex and Delilah and family were living in a log home!

Re: the 1871 Census ... from the image

Julia the wife of John Madonald age 30 gives her POB as Ontario and her religion as W Meth which is the same as that given for the Juley with the Rutledge family. John is down as being Presbyterian.

Continiung ...

[polarbear]

Continuing ....

The marriage record for Julia and John indicates that the place of residence for Julia was Bayfield. This does not necessarily mean that she was born there. She could have ben born anywhere and moved there at some time prior to her marriage.

It is very difficult to say for sure at this point whether Hastings July and Bayfield Juley are one and the same although not beyond the realm of possibility. And there is no way really to prove that the 'absent' Hastings July is the same one living with the Rutledges in Bayfield in 1861. Not at this point, anyway.

That's about it for my musings.

PB

[TPM123]

Irg--this is getting too complicated for my small brain to handle! So...we're back to Julia definitely being born in ONTARIO and not Quebec...and W. Meth not R.Catholic...

[polarbear]

That is how things appear to be at this point.

I think at this point you would be wise to sit back and try to digest everything that has been posted and put it all into some sort of perspective, making notes as you go along.

PB
 

[lilybell]

Hello again.

Another piece of information. On the Ontario Vital Statistics Project  checked on John and Julia's marriage

says her parents were unknown and both her and John living Bayfield. There is a question mark behind the surname of Julia.

Here is a thought with her saying her parents were unknown maybe she was a orphan or she may have been estranged from her family.

Just a thought .


Lilybell

[J.J.]

It also wouldn't be unheard of if she was born R.C. and then switched because she liked another religion...There are all kinds of circumstances that you may never know unless a family bible or some family history comes to light with a true story... More convoluted than complicated.
She's not on the list of Wesleyan Methodist baptisms for Ont. that I can see...although no list is ever complete.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wjmartin/wm-l_16.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wjmartin/wm-l.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wjmartin/wm-l_27.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wjmartin/wm-l_38.htm

[Jacquie in Canada]

I too thought that the  death for William Meldman McDonald said 9 mo 3 days  but it actually says 0 Months +3 days.Thought how could

But if one looks at the record closely and reads the first record that comes up it definately says 0 months.Some handwriting is quite difficult to decipher.

If you compare how the person prints the number "9" on other parts of the page they are the same as the number printed for William's age at death - with the tail of the "9" going below the line:

Here is a thought with her saying her parents were unknown maybe she was a orphan or she may have been estranged from her family.

I think it's more likely the information simply wasn't included. They were married before the start of statutory registration and the amount of information (such as parents' names) is pretty hit and miss in parish records.

Jacquie