1851 Census Lookup Please!

[kpnut]

Thanks Monica

Happy New Year to you, hope your party was good.  We had quite a quiet one really, our boys were out clubbing, but me and hubby (being fully of colds), just chilled at home.

I've been on this morning and tried to check out some other info, and I've found on FS, three other children for Alexander Cruickshank and Anne Millar, as follows:

Agnes born 1800
Ann born 1802
Thomas born 1804

The details for Jean show her born in 1806 and a baptism date (as with the other siblings), however on her death details it shows her as dying in 1868 aged 58 - making her born in 1810.  I know the ages aren't always correct on death details, but I just hope we're not going down the wrong route.

Yes I did see the details of Elizabeth with her mother Mary and her brothers.  What do you think however of the spelling as "Sieg".

On my Ancestry tree I have now listed Margaret, Helen and Elizabeth ALL as Mary's children (especially as Thomas didn't marry Jean/Jane until 1854) and Elizabeth being the youngest was born c1849.

Can you just clarify - are we saying that Alexander born 1829 (10/3) and John born 1829 (11/3) TWINS, and also James born 1835 (23/8), are all also children of Thomas and Mary?  I seemed to remember that you mentioned that they may have died young.

Also, if Thomas married Jean/Jane AFTER he married Mary, then why would Thomas's details about his death say "Widower of Mary Gillespie" (with NO mention of Jean/Jane who would have been his "latter" wife).  A bit of a mystery.

If this is the case, I wonder if there are other children in between James in 1835 and then Margaret being born in 1842.

What do you think?

Regards
Karen

[MonicaL]

Hi Karen

Hope colds are better  Lots of them around this Xmas. Thankfully for us we had it the week before Xmas, so apart from tired (wiped out) at least my lot were in better health for the actual days.

When you are looking at FS entries or better still original OPRs on SP, you need to remember that (if you are lucky to find any at all), often there may be some children's births or christening entries but there can be lots of gaps in the registers for lots of reason.  Luck will always have it that the particular enty you need may not show    HOWEVER....for Jean, there is an entry showing for 1806. We are working off her death cert in 1868 which listed her parents and widower Thomas reported. Ages out less of an issue really,  on either her DC or the census entries. Also, remember, particularly for Scotland with important names/naming pattern, a daughter Jean b. 1806 may have died and name resued later...hard to say really. I do think you have her line to at least her parents' details.

Mary Gillespie needs more work really. A girl born in Dunfermiline around 1810, give or take. Might be worth having a general look around to see what shows for someone with that name around that time. We had the marriage ealier from FS (can't remember now, 1827/8?). Her death we have now narrowed down as we mentioned in one of the recent posts. The 1851 census entry with family as "SEIG" is a pain. Tried doing some general searches on SP for 1851 index and got nowhere today. Regarding the names of the early sons for Thomas and Mary and who shows on FS and then 1841, very likely more work is needed to flesh all that out I would suggest.

Jean Cruickshanks not showing on Thomas' DC...one of those things really. We have that Feb 1854 entry from the OPRs (you might want to check the image for that at some point to see whether you might be lucky and some additonal info included there...all a matter of luck on the OPRs  ).

With your Elizabeth...am I right in seeing she married for a third time in the 1890s? Young surname?

Monica 

[kpnut]

Hi Monica

Yes you are right.  Elizabeth married for a third time on 31st October 1892 to a Hugh Young in South Shields.

I will send you an email to your email address and list all the info I have from the furthest back coming forward, and perhaps you would be good enough to have a look and see if I've missed anything.

Hope you don't mind.
Karen

[kpnut]

Hi again Monica

Haven't got around to emailing you yet, (but I will), as I went on to find more info about Helen Dye and her husband James Veitch (namely censuses with his parents and siblings etc).

However, just wanted to ask you something.

On reply no. 39 listing the children - Helen Dey, Janet Day, Alexander Dey and another Alexander Dey, the mother's names are all showing "different" variations and the surname as Reid.

On the Death paperwork that you sent me, it lists Thomas's father as Alexander Dye and his mother as Magdalene Reid.  Therefore I am of the opinion that the different variations of the mother's name are all short for Magdalene.

Also I found two marriage references for the same date:  One for a Maud Reid marrying an Alexander Dey 13.03.1795 and one for a Maus Reid (same spouse and date of marriage).

I also found a baptism record for a Maysie Reid born 09.09.1774 and baptised on 11.09.1774 (Dunfermline).

What do you think?

Regards
Karen

[MonicaL]

Hi Karen

That entry you have found in 1774 looks promising https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XTFV-ZMN

Thomas' mum, Maisie wife of Alexander. Wow, never mind the Day surname. Variants for her first name are so, so many. I normally use this site to pick up on first name variants www.whatsinaname.net ...but they haven't got this one so far on their database in a way that works for us here (you might want to email the site owner on this name at some point...for him, it has been a labour of love...he has built an enourmously powerful and relevant database over the years).

Re marriage entries and dates you have found, likely some may be for reading of the banns (normally read over three weeks before the marriage event).

How exciting for you. Do think this is your family lines 

Monica

[MonicaL]

Just with the names you have added for Maisie...there is this link online:

Maysie Diey (born Reid)
Maysie Diey (born Reid) married Alexander Diey.
Alexander was born circa 1780.
They had one daughter: Margaret Pullen (born Diey).
Maysie passed away.
www.myheritage.com/names/maysie_reid

Not much more info without joining something etc...

However, interested to see the name Pullen there...given the name we have had for a granddaughter with Alexander and Maisie in later years on the censuses 

Monica

[jennywren001]

Happy New Year everyone!

I've had a look on F_M_P and they transcribe the family Monica found in 1851 living at 2 Giles Street as "Dieg" a bit better I think. 
Jen

[kpnut]

Hi Monica and Jen

I'm getting a bit confused now about what you mean about emailing the site owner, and about the "enormous powerful database" he has.

How do I actually go about emailing a site owner, and I'm not sure where I'm supposed to be actually looking.  Am I missing something?  Can you point me in the right direction please.

Yeah the Dieg bit does sound more promising, because the "g" could have been mistakenly transcribed and actually been a "y" (which would make it more like the name we're tracing).

However, on Thomas's death it certainly shows his parents as Alexander Dye and Magdalene Reid (do we think that Maysie, etc. etc. is Magdalene)?

Any thoughts?

Karen

[ecksdochter]

Monica, Karen etc,
     Happy New Year to you & all Rootschatters. Here's to successful ancestry hunting.
     Well done Monica with that 1851 Census re: Mary & Elizabeth. Using place, age etc. from your information, I had a fiddle around on ScotlandsPeople this afternoon & think this is the same family.
          1851 Scotland Census. Leith, Midlothian.
     Found a match for Mary Dieg, age 40, second person John. Also a match for John Dieg, 22 second person, Mary, but no match using Alexander, James or Elizabeth as second person along with Mary or John.
     However, found a match for Elizabeth Dieg, age 1, second person Alexander, then second person James. But no match with Mary or John.
     Same result with Alexander age 27 & James age 12. Match with each other & Elizabeth but not with Mary or John. The family may be split between 2 pages on Census Return rather than different households.
     Sieg is likely a transcription error for Dieg. Writing could be difficult to read and although ScotlandsPeople, where you view original Scotland Census Returns, not transcriptions, is usually accurate, I do wonder if they have transcribed Diey as Dieg in their Index. Only viewing will tell.
     Good luck with your search.
               Regards,     Dod.