Author Topic: ogilvie, elgin  (Read 1737 times)

Offline COLINBALLINGALL

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
ogilvie, elgin
« on: Thursday 04 April 19 18:27 BST (UK) »
I am interested in the Ogilvie family from Elgin, particularly three brothers William Ogilvie born 1778. James born 1782 and Alexander born 1785, all at Birnie, sons of James Ogilvie and Jannet Adams, married at Birnie 1773, my line is through Alexander who married Margaret Grant in 1811. William and James are proving very elusive, does anyone these two as ancestors?

Colin

Offline ColC

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,589
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: ogilvie, elgin
« Reply #1 on: Thursday 04 April 19 19:27 BST (UK) »
I note that there are a couple of marriages on www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

OGILVIE   WILLIAM   JEAN SHANKS   13/05/1799   Birnie

OGILVIE   JAMES   JEAN GOW/   17/02/1801   Birnie

Colin
Clarke, Trickett, Orton, Lawless, Norton, Detheridge, Kirby, Goodfellow, Wagstaff, Lowe, etc.

Offline COLINBALLINGALL

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: ogilvie, elgin
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 04 April 19 22:13 BST (UK) »
Hi Colin

Thank you, I had found William and Jean, and was hopeful, but found them on an Ancestry tree with Williams parents named as George Ogilvie and Isabella Kay.

 James and  Jean Gow are promising, I have found a James aged 60 on the 1841 census with a Jane Ogilvie aged 45, his year of birth with would be spot on,  I cant find him on any other census, or a death for him, he is listed as a carter, for occupation, I found a death on the moray libindex for a mrs Ogilvie widow of James Ogilvie Carrier, in 1848, who could be the right one, but have no way to confirm it.

Colin

Offline ColC

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,589
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: ogilvie, elgin
« Reply #3 on: Friday 05 April 19 10:41 BST (UK) »
It does seem likely that George was the father of William born 1772.

I cannot find another suitable marriage in Scotland for William 1778, none of the census returns in Scotland seem appropriate but he may have moved on. There is one death record on SP but no detail.

WILLIAM OGILVIE death  26/12/1802 Birnie

JAMES OGILVIE/JEAN GOW seems more likely, children born Elgin

ELSPETH 1802, ALEXANDER 1804, JEAN 1806, JAMES 1809, WILLIAM 1811,
ANN 1813 & MARGARET 1816

Colin
Clarke, Trickett, Orton, Lawless, Norton, Detheridge, Kirby, Goodfellow, Wagstaff, Lowe, etc.


Online Forfarian

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,972
  • http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ruz/
    • View Profile
Re: ogilvie, elgin
« Reply #4 on: Friday 05 April 19 12:14 BST (UK) »
James and  Jean Gow are promising, I have found a James aged 60 on the 1841 census with a Jane Ogilvie aged 45
Adults' ages in the 1841 census were supposed to be rounded down to the nearest 5 years, and the census date was 7 June 1841.  If Jane Ogilvie said in 1841 that she was between 45 and 49 years old, and assuming that she was correct, she would have been born between 8 June 1791 and 7 June 1796. Therefore she cannot be Jean Gow who married in 1801, as even if she was born in 1791 she was not old enough to marry in 1801 or to bear a child in 1802.

So either the census is wrong (you did check the original census on SP, didn't you, to ensure that it isn't a transcription error?) or this Jane Ogilvie isn't Jean Gow.
Never trust anything you find online (especially submitted trees and transcriptions on Ancestry, MyHeritage, FindMyPast and other commercial web sites) unless it's an image of an original document - and even then be wary because errors can and do occur.

Offline COLINBALLINGALL

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: ogilvie, elgin
« Reply #5 on: Friday 05 April 19 12:29 BST (UK) »
I did check the original census, she states her age as 45, james as 60 , his birth date   at aged 60 is 1781, so a year out, I wondered at the age difference, the trouble with the 1841 census it doesn't give a relationship . it could be the correct James, but she might not be his wife.

Offline COLINBALLINGALL

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: ogilvie, elgin
« Reply #6 on: Friday 05 April 19 13:00 BST (UK) »
The only other possibility is its james Ogilvie and janet ker married in 1819, janet/jane? on the 1841 census there is a john Ogilvie aged 15 so born c 1826.... there is a son john born to this couple but in feb 1820. so this census entry could be them, but im still not sure if this is the james im looking for.

Offline ColC

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,589
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: ogilvie, elgin
« Reply #7 on: Friday 05 April 19 13:04 BST (UK) »

With James age 60 & Jean age 45 is John noted as age 15, his record below.

OGILVIE   JOHN   JAMES OGILVIE/JEAN GOW   03/05/1823   Elgin

Two x Jean records. Eldest daughter name Elspeth.

GOW   JEAN   JAMES GOW/ELSPET BATCHIN   F   25/07/1784   135/   40 394   Elgin
GOW   JEAN   JAMES GOW/ELSPET BATCHIE   F   06/10/1776   135/   40 288   Elgin

Colin
Clarke, Trickett, Orton, Lawless, Norton, Detheridge, Kirby, Goodfellow, Wagstaff, Lowe, etc.

Offline COLINBALLINGALL

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 42
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: ogilvie, elgin
« Reply #8 on: Friday 05 April 19 13:47 BST (UK) »
Hi Colin

I found the younger Jean Gow born 1776 died 3 nov 1779 aged 1 month according to the moray index, it must be 3years 1 month old.

anyway the Jean born 1784 would be a good match for James born 1782, the only thing that worries me is the census age, it clearly says 45 but that could well be a mistake. and you have shown that the young John is more of  the age to the census.

Colin