LOOKUP REQUEST

[JustJean]

And James death register entry is now easy to find, given the fix on the years that must be involved, and the most likely place, - which gives his parents. - now, I wonder if they turn up on familysearch.org ..........

....snipped..........

David

Nothing that I can see, but given the 1854 marriage in that Mull o' Galloway port, it should come as no surprise that there's a magnificently informative 1855 birth register entry, with connections across the North Channel which could well explain the lack of familysearch.org info ...........

I can't see any later records on familysearch.org for wains of James McCREADIE and Agnes McQUATER, but I suspect that this is due to spelling variants that even the FamilySearch search engine is not covering for paw and/or maw ..............

BTW the 1855 dochter, married and survived to a reasonable age, and departed this mortal coil in the registration district of Rankinston , - full circle

Now, here's the challenge , - who can find the family in the 1861 census

David

Ah'm a wee bit worrit so had to step in oan this ane. The big guy is quoting his own quotes like he's chatting up a storm wi hisself or sumthin

So here's my offical response to said challenge. Can't tell you what SP might file them under but ancestry's got the mum down as....

Agnes M Quates ******* (that would be 1 letter per asterisk on the last name and it disnae start wi a M )

on the 1861 census. The hint is that at least they hadn't left the shire.................

Best wishes
Jean

[AnneM]

Found 'em. Now can't resist a look at that 1855 cert to see where they got young Sarah from!!

Anne

[DavidWW]

Given this thread so far, I should have expected this in the 1861 census.

I thought first that we had a classic case of the space between the "Mc" and the rest of the name leading to the "Mc" and the rest being treated as separate parts of the name, i.e. John McDonald, for example, shown as "John Mc...Donald", and indexed as "Donald", but, no, we have a different classic, - the elision of the "Mc"

But, another puzzle now, - wee Sarah's age of 12 raises a question as to her parents, - based on this info her maw and paw would have been 14 and 12 !

David

[AnneM]

Hi

I guess that Dad massaged his age a bit or just got it wrong and that he was married before. Sarah was his from a first marriage or an unmarried relationship entered into very young, as the 1855 states that Margaret is Agnes's first child. Alternatively maybe she is a younger sister and the enumerator just got it all wrong. Sarah's DC the next stop if she did not return to Ireland. Bet your bottom dollar it gives her parents as James and Agnes however unlikely.

Anne

[q98]

I lost it at my previous entry, up to which point I was keeping up.

[DavidWW]

I lost it at my previous entry, up to which point I was keeping up.

Not surprising as this has been a classic in terms of the effect of handwriting interpretation and spelling variation.

Firstly there was the distinctly unusual surname of McQUHATERS, or McWATERS, each with their own variations, and then there's McCREADIE and, while I haven't counted them, I wouldn't be surprised if we're approaching 10 variations to date.

All this meant that records which would have otherwise been straightforward to find were problematic, - wildcards are great, but it's not always straightaway that the optimum search term can be formulated.

With great assistance from a number of folk, we got there, eventually

And, along the way, found a marriage in Portpatrick in 1854, and, - the Scottish researcher's dream, - an 1855 birth register entry.

But that still left the 1861 census entry missing, and, once again, it proved not to be the effect, but someone, most probably the enumerator, missing out the "Mc" when transcribing the info from the household schedule into the enumeration book.

But then that raised an interesting question, as the 27 year old James and 24 year old Agnes are shown in 1861 as having a 12 year old daughter, Sarah.

Biologically not impossible, but unlikely I'd argue, as would James having been married previously. The 1855 birth register entry for Margaret clearly shows her as her mother's first child. One drawback of 1855 birth register entries is that they don't show the marital condition, i.e. bachelor etc., as do later entries.

However, I'd think it much more likely that Sarah was James' younger sister.......

The situation is also a neat example of the movement of Irish immigrants. In this case, first across the North Channel to the Mull of Galloway, then up to Maybole in S Ayrshire, then back to Portpatrick, then, later, up to the Dalmellington area, and Rankinson. And wasn't there a side trip to the county of Stirling at some point?, this latter and the Dalmellington locations linked to mining as an occupation.

David

[q98]

I've got an 1855 BC for one of my own line which allowed me to trace back to Co. Mayo. In order that I may relay the info to my friend, who has never seen an 1855 Certificate and would be amazed at its contents, may I ask who the 1855 BC is for and what geographical location in Ayrshire? Or indeed, is it even Ayrshire?

[DavidWW]

I've got an 1855 BC for one of my own line which allowed me to trace back to Co. Mayo. In order that I may relay the info to my friend, who has never seen an 1855 Certificate and would be amazed at its contents, may I ask who the 1855 BC is for and what geographical location in Ayrshire? Or indeed, is it even Ayrshire?

Margaret Johnston McCREADIE b. Portpatrick, but sadly the place of birth of the parents is a plain "Ireland" but at least there are the ages of the parents.

David

[q98]

MANY, MANY thanks David et al. Spelling of surnames - don't start me. If I have located one spelling of McCreadie, I have located five AND they are all of my line - McCreadie, McCredie, McReadie, McCreddie, MacCreadie (where did the "Mac" spring from?). The rest is up to my friend now. He should have sufficient for a solid start when combined with his Australian data.
Thanks again EVERYONE!