Anyone up for a wee puzzle??? .....

Post by **HeatherH** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 12:59 am

Anyone have an answer to this?I have the birth of Elizabeth Torrance District of Paisley, County of Renfrew 14 Feb 1898.Parents Wilson Torrance general Labourer and Mary Torrance MS Thompson 1898 November 15th Co. Antrim , Ireland. This is registered on the 22 Feb 1898 at Paisley .Assuming the year 1898 had the months in the same order as other years with Feb( the second month of the year) 1898 coming before Nov(the 11th month of the year) 1898. How did they enter on their daughters birth register that they had married 9 months before it had happened?
Totally Perplexed!!!
HeatherK

Post by **paddyscar** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:52 am

Hi HeatherK:

A clerical or transcription error?

Perhaps date of Marriage was November 1886 rather than 1888? Is the copy of the birth registration clear enough for there to be no doubt about the year?

If they were married in Ireland in November 1886, then they would have emigrated to Scotland between then and Feb. 1888. Do you have a confirmed date of arrival in Scotland?

Frances

Post by **HeatherH** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 4:04 am

Hi paddyscar,
The cert is quite clear.I guess the assistant Reg was dipping into his private stock of single malt to ward of a chill perhaps.
HK

Post by **paddyscar** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:27 am

You may be on to something there - a fuzzy mind, not a fuzzy number

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 5:43 am

Hi Heather,

I had a similar problem a while back and it seems that the date of the child's birth was registered incorrectly. It was admittedly a new year and the date of registration was January or February 1869. The child's birthdate was written as December 1869 when it should have been 1868. The registrar had made an error which was never picked up until I saw it. So sometimes clerical errors do slip through!

Nina

Post by **AndrewP** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:32 am

Hi Heather,

My first instinct is to guess that the marriage date has been a mistake. The registrar may have written the correct date and month and mistakenly written the current year instead of the marriage year. To try and confirm this, if the marriage in Ireland is unable to be traced, then did the child have any siblings born n Scotland? If so, then check the marriage date(s) given on the sibling's birth certificate(s). My feeling is that this may produce the same date, but in an earlier year.

As February is given in both the birth date and the registration date, it is unlikely to be wrong. To confirm the February birth, a look-up in New Register House would be the easiest method. To check on the microfiche that this February birth is amongst the other February births in that Registration District. My best guess is that one of the Paisley RDs would produce about a thousand births in a year. By that idea, the certificate would be between numbers 80 and 200. What is the certificate number?

All the best,

AndrewP

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 7:41 am

Andrew's on the right track.

Don't focus in on the individual register entry.

Instead have a look for other records for the family concerned.

In this case, I started with the 1901 census, which shows that Elizabeth has 8 (eight) older siblings, the birth register entry for one of whom shows the day and month of the marriage as 13th November, but a very different year, such that, when you review that 1898 entry, you'll see that the third digit of the year is not a "9"

, instead it's the number that is most frequently confused with a "9", not always helped by the way that this other number is sometimes written.

So the registrar didn't make an error.

One earlier registration also gives a much more precise place of marriage.

David

Post by **HeatherH** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 1:46 pm

Ok so the marriage is 1878 in Ireland.That makes more sense.She has 9 older siblings on the 1901 census however...
Mary 21 Ireland
Sarah 19 Ieland
Martha 17 Lanark
Margaret 14 Lanark
Barbara 12 Lanark
Wilson 11 Lanark
Jessie 8 Lanark
Thomas 5 Lanark
Agnes 4 Lanark
Elizabeth 3 Lanark

The children are not in order and I believe both Thomas and Elizabeth have Paisley as place of birth but it has been striked out and replaced with "do".Am I reading the information correctly now?
Thanks,
HK

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:20 pm

HeatherK wrote:Ok so the marriage is 1878 in Ireland.That makes more sense.She has 9 older siblings on the 1901 census however...
Mary 21 Ireland
Sarah 19 Ieland
Martha 17 Lanark
Margaret 14 Lanark
Barbara 12 Lanark
Wilson 11 Lanark
Jessie 8 Lanark
Thomas 5 Lanark
Agnes 4 Lanark
Elizabeth 3 Lanark

The children are not in order and I believe both Thomas and Elizabeth have Paisley as place of birth but it has been striked out and replaced with "do".Am I reading the information correctly now?
Thanks,
HK

1878 is correct

The best interpretation that I can make of the places of birth for Thomas and Elizabeth is that Thomas' was originally shown as Renfrewshire, Paisley, scored out, and replaced with do do, meaning Lanarkshire, Motherwell; while Elizabeth's was originally do do, then scored out (at least the first do .....), and replaced with Renfrewshire, Paisley ................

David

Post by **HeatherH** » Tue Jul 04, 2006 2:25 pm

Thanks Davie,
I have had her birth and the 1901 census for quite a while now.1 problem I had was I had listed it as a 1891 census so was really getting conflicting info.The Paisley birth for Elizabeth on the 1901 census fits with the info on her birth as you have no doubt seen.So now I have a new bunch of Irish rellies to dig up should I ever get to the Emerald Isle.

Thanks Again,
HeatherK