Illegitimate children not with mother

[MonicaL]

As Colin mentioned earlier, there looks to be a surname variant between Whitton and Whittet. So maybe some connection within that family line explains why John could show as a boarder in that household for 1861.

Hard to say more really as it is all speculative.

Monica

[Mabel Bagshawe]

Here are Andrew and Euphemia with their parents in Kilspindie, Perthshire in 1841. At first glance Wiliam could be Jean Buick Whitton's brother, however there's a William baptised to David Whittot and Margaret Sinclair in Kilspindie in 1816 who would fit better

Wm Whittet    25
Isabella Whittet   30
Andrew Whittet   10
Euph Whittet   8
Elis Whittet   6
Mary Whittet   3

Plus, I'm not sure the John Robertson on 1861 with the Stalkers is the one we're looking for, given this baptism

Name    John Robertson Whittet
Birth    27 Feb 1855    Dundee
Mother    Euphemia Whittet

[birdboot]

Thanks for your comments.  I too thought John Robertson at Dunkeld might be a possibility, but the find of John Robertson Whittet makes it unlikely.  Also, with Jean and Margaret in Dundee, why would John be living so far away?  There is no connection that I can see between William, Andrew and Euphemia Whittet and my Whitton family.  Although Jean's father and siblings were called Whittet, all were known as Whitton by 1841.  For information, my 'Whittets' were originally from Pitkindie and, earlier, from Kinnaird.

I have looked for John in 1861 under surname Robertson, Whitton or Johnston, but there is nothing that looks right.  I suppose he may have been with another family and his surname wrongly transcribed as theirs.  Also, we don't even know if he was originally known as John, as his birth registration had no first name!

I am pleased that by returning to this ancestor after a number of years, I have found with your help everything that was missing except for John's whereabouts in 1861.  (There is still the question of what happened to Margaret after Jean's death in 1904, but I will start another thread on that ! 

[birdboot]

One possibility for Margaret in 1861:

Elizabeth Mcgavin 45 Head widow
Wm Mcgavin 20 seaman b. Dundee
Jean Mcgavin 18 weaver b. Dundee
Jessie Mcgavin 13 b. Dundee
Ann Mcgavin 7 b. Fife??
Margt Robertson 3 b. Fife??

Address Ireland's Lane, Dundee

I think this is one of those entries that you are best checking the original image for. Possibility for mistranscriptions.

Monica

I have found this record indexed on Ancestry but I can't find the original image on SP using McGavin or Robertson. 

As an aside, I am finding SP's indexing quite unreliable.  I only found Jean's 1861 image after finding the index on Ancestry, then going back to SP I found that I had missed it in the past because they had her age as 58 instead of 38.

[birdboot]

Ignore the message above, I have now found the record on SP.

[Forfarian]

As an aside, I am finding SP's indexing quite unreliable.  I only found Jean's 1861 image after finding the index on Ancestry, then going back to SP I found that I had missed it in the past because they had her age as 58 instead of 38.

When you find errors of any kind in the indexing or transcriptions on SP, or if an image is poor or illegible, please use the orange "Report an issue" button above right on the image page to tell them about it so that it can be corrected or, in the case of images that are hard to decipher, re-scanned.

Unlike some other sites I could name, SP are very keen that all the information there should be accurate, and feedback from users is an important part of that.

[birdboot]

Yes, thanks Forfarian, I have notified SP.

[Forfarian]

[birdboot]

Yes, good advice.  I do try always to verify/corroborate anything I find from other people.  There is some rubbish on Ancestry trees, like people listing an ancestor's marriage when they would be only 10 years old.  If anything doesn't look or sound right, it needs further investigation.