Help required tracing Robert Forrest in 1851 or 1861 census or elsewhere.

[daval57]

I can't find Robert FORREST in 1851 or 1861 census records.
Can anyone assist in locating him.
It's been eluding me for years and I keep coming back to it.  Very frustrating.

Apart from the birth record, surname is FORREST in all other records.  He is a Millwright on 1854 marriage and on every document thereafter.

I have the following.

OPR for Birth: 25 March 1833 Glasgow to Elphinstone FOREST and Agnes Young.

1841 census: Glasgow St Thomas; ED: 6; Page: 2; Line: 1200; Year: 1841

1851 census: Glasgow St John; ED: 25; Page: 20; Line: 13; Roll: CSSCT1851_161; Year: 1851
(This is his parents and siblings, but Robert is not there)

OPR for Marriage: 29 Dec 1854 Glasgow to Agnes Mcallister

1861 census: Glasgow Glasgow St John; ED: 6; Page: 9; Line: 16; Roll: CSSCT1861_100
(His wife, Agnes with her parents, and her and Robert's children. Robert not there)

Robert is present with family from 1871 onward.

1871 census: Glasgow Barony; ED: 105; Page: 4; Line: 22; Roll: CSSCT1871_127
1881 census: Glasgow St John; ED: 19; Page: 26; Line: 5; Roll: cssct1881_217
1891 census: Glasgow Townhead; ED: 69; Page: 20; Line: 17; Roll: CSSCT1891_251
1901 census: Old Monkland Western District; ED: 11; Page: 2; Line: 2; Roll: CSSCT1901_345

Agnes dies 22 Oct 1902

Robert remarries 8 June 1904 Glasgow to Margaret Thomson

Robert dies 26 March 1911 Uddingston


This is my gg grandfather and I have every other BDM and census record for the family line through to me, apart from those 2.
Where was he in 1851 and 1861?    
Any help would be REALLY appreciated.

Cheers,
Dave

[loobylooayr]

Hi Dave,

Obviously if you've spent years researching this perhaps you will already have considered my suggestions  .
But as you are looking for unput -
I have looked on Freecen at the Forrest family 1841 and 1851 - there are 2 other sons James aged 14 and Andrew aged 10 on 1841 who are not on 1851 with family. Do you know where they are on 1851? I realise they could be dead, but if not could the brothers be all working away from home together.
Same applies to sister Janet aged 12 - if she is married could Robert be lodging with her?
I assume by you post,  you have checked out all  the Robert Forrest/Forests and ruled them out

Have you checked out thus 16year old on English 1851 - https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:SGXW-RQZ

Looby

[daval57]

Always worth making suggestions.
Sometimes one misses the obvious.
I'm loathe to say, "you cant see the wood for the trees" when researching the name Forrest. 

I don't appear to have Andrew in 51 or 61.  He married in 66 and I have him after that.
James I dont have in 51, but he married in 52 and I have him after that.
Janet I've never found after 41.

Yes, I've tried all sorts of spelling variations, even using wildcards such as *rest or *ist.  No luck.
I've also viewed all the other Robert Forests/Forrests with no success.

I'll go back and try Andrew and James, but I suspect that's repetition.

I'm stumped.

Hoping a fresh eye might produce something.

Cheers
Dave

[loobylooayr]

There is an Andrew Forrest Apprentice Mill Wright - Nephew to the Householder James Dick at 1 High Street Carluke age 15 born Carluke 
Wrong age and wrong P.O.B  I know but when are all the facts right on a Census ? 

Sometimes for what ever reason folk just seem to be left out!! Maybe he was working away from home and quite properly nor recorded with family but missed out at wherever he was boarding. I've see A Stranger written down on a Census (or words to that affect).

Anyway sorry I couldn't  help your family tree flourish with a Forrest or two.

Good luck,
Looby

Added the Census mentioned above was 1851 Scottish

[daval57]

I'll have a look at that Andrew but there are thousands of 'Carluke' Forrests  - I've never found a link to them yet - my lot were from W Stirlingshire/E Dunbartonshire and later Glasgow.

I'll plod on. 

One of these days.......

Thanks for the input.
Dave

[MonicaL]

Hi Dave

Will leave this now....see this is the entry you have for wife Agnes, which you mentioned (and I missed) above

For 1861, with Agnes' maiden name McAllister, I wondered about this entry:

Robert Mcalister 55
Agnes Mcalister 48
Agnes Forrest 26 daughter b. Bothwell, Lanark
Jennet Forrest 22 (? https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/2:2:SYCP-D6C)
William Forrest 20
John Forrest 17
Marion Forrest 14
Helen Forrest 12
Agnes Forrest 6 grandchild https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQDD-7WY
Jennet Forrest 4 grandchild https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQDJ-8YY
Robert Forrest 2 grandchild https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQQZ-1RP

Address: 30 Soho St, Bridgeton, Glasgow

Possibility that from Jennet aged 22 to Helen aged 12, the surname should read as McAllister rather than Forrest, children to Robert and Agnes (Baird?) McAllister.

Monica 

Added: Gap from son's Robert's birth in 1858 until the next birth in 1862 https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:FQ36-MRF ...wondering if he was outside of Scotland? All the children's births post marriage in late 1854 seem to be every two years, except between 1858 and 1862 

[daval57]

Thanks for that Monica.

The McAllisters have been a nightmare to research because of the numerous spelling variations of the name. 

I'd need to go back over the info I have but I believe the Jennet McAllister you point out that was born in 1839 went on to marry a Thomas Wood and died in 1905.  Not the same Janet Forrest. 

The other links you post, I have (actually have the docs from SP).

It's really just Robert Forrest 1833 that concerns me just now.

Dave

[MonicaL]

Dave, you are the Scottish Bible to the Forrests  If you haven't found Robert (pity really given the direct line  ) sure there is a problem. Just been looking at migration (excluding UK movements, although nothing obvious in England for him in 1861) also nothing jumping out. Ireland...we have lost him then  , Wales, will check...

Monica

Added: Nothing obvious in Wales for 1861...

[daval57]

LOL.
Thanks for the compliment, but hardly.

I've considered emigration before, but it's odd he's there in 41, missing 51, back in 54 and missing again in 61.

I suppose it's possible that as a millwright, essentially an engineer, that he was on a ships crew or similar.

Just don't know.

As you say, because it's the direct line, it's even more frustrating.

Dave