IsabellaTaylor - duaghter in law to Thomas Taylor

[Mancunian194]

Hi,

The 1871 census for Thomas Taylor (born Haddington on 14th February 1829) and married to Isabella Dempster (15th June 1860) has entries I don't understand.

There is an Isabella Taylor (aged 9) described as Thomas' daughter-in-law and her spouse is William Taylor (aged , son of Thomas. Not possible!

In 1881 a James Taylor, aged 1, grandson to Thomas appears. He could be Isabella's son or William's son.

In 1891 Isabella Forrest, niece to Thomas, appears but I can't find any details on her - parent(s) etc.

Can anyone unravel these mysteries for me!?

Thanks

[osprey]

have you checked the original of the census on Scotlandspeople'? Or are you relying on someone's transcription?

Isabella was certainly registered as daughter of Thomas & Isabella

https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XYR9-V6P

[iolaus]

step daughter is sometimes recorded as daughter in law

or I suppose could mean adopted daughter

[Mancunian194]

Osprey - my data is from proper census records return by Ancestry although I've only seen transcribed records, not the originals.

Iolaus - she may be a step daughter or adopted (but Osprey's reply sort of debunks that theory - and doesn't help when Isabella is described as d-in-l!) but how do you account for the census data giving her a spouse at the age of 9?

[Mabel Bagshawe]

Transcriptions aren't always accurate or even with any brain applied (e.g. listing as married at age 9!).

There's a tree online that has an Isabella Dempster Forrest b Haddington c1884 marrying Alexander Allean in Australia in 1906. No parents named, but I guess related to Isabella the mother

[giggsycat]

Hi

If you are referring to the High Street, Haddington 1871 Census, then Genes Reunited has Isabella and William transcribed as daughter and son respectively.

Regards
Giggsy

[iolaus]

but how do you account for the census data giving her a spouse at the age of 9?

On ancestry we only see the transcription don't we?  (at least when I tried looking) - if they have a daughter in law and then on the line below a son - with the same surname it's not a huge leap of faith for the transcriber to assume they are married - ignoring the age and the fact that the man would usually be listed above the wife, and the fact he is the family member and applying 21st century logic to the phrase 'in law'

[iolaus]

that said as she would be born in 1862 it's unlikely that she would be born before their marriage, coupled with the mention with them as her parents on family search, suggests the transcription of 'in law' is wrong and she is their actual daughter

[heywood]

As giggsy points out it is a mistranscription. They are a daughter and son.