Trainor 1861 Census, Glasgow Springburn

[aghadowey]

This is the problem with basing research on transcriptions rather than looking at actual records when available.

IF the name is indeed 'Vina' then Lavinia/Lavina/Levina is most likely.
However, if Bernard's wife was Catherine then Ina is more likely.

[loobylooayr]

Vina Trainor is recorded on the Census as married. As is Bernard. Francis is unmarried.

This is the problem with basing research on transcriptions rather than looking at actual records when available.

   

I forgot to say in my post, that curiosity had got the better of me and I used some of my SP credits    (no wonder I'm skint  ) to look at original. In my opinion the census does have the name Vina recorded.  I've hopefully attached a snippet.

Looby

[Leigh1]

Thank you so much Looby for that additional information.  Many apologies for not responding sooner - I haven't revisited the thread in a while as I got side-tracked by another branch of the family!  I feel very guilty that you invested some of your hard earned credits on my behalf    I will have a look at the marriage & births you have uncovered.
Thanks again.

[loobylooayr]

Thank you so much Looby for that additional information.  Many apologies for not responding sooner - I haven't revisited the thread in a while as I got side-tracked by another branch of the family!  I feel very guilty that you invested some of your hard earned credits on my behalf    I will have a look at the marriage & births you have uncovered.
Thanks again.

No bother. Happy researching !

Looby

[Leigh1]

Had a look Loopy!  A bit confused really as Bernard & Catherine were married in Sept 1861 but the census (when Bernard was listed as married) was conducted in April 1861.  Problem is there were so many Trainers about at the time, I'm very wary of latching on to the wrong one!     I'll keep digging & thanks again.

[Forfarian]

A bit confused really as Bernard & Catherine were married in Sept 1861 but the census (when Bernard was listed as married) was conducted in April 1861. 

They might not be the first or last couple to have anticipated the ceremony!

[loobylooayr]

Hi Leigh,

You're confused  ? You must be cos my user name is Looby not Loopy    although to be fair there are days when I am a bit Loopy    .

I agree with Forfarian , the couple may have been calling themselves married or already consider themselves married before the actual wedding.

Looby   

[Leigh1]

Yes - that would account for the extremely premature baby!!  Thanks Forfarian & LooBy