"Supposed" great aunt Catherine McNeil Sinclair

[Dleewilson]

Does anyone know if they recorded stillbirths back then?

mmm...I posted this before I read the other post. Sorry. So IF she were a still birth, I wonder where my aunt would have gotten the birth date of 23 Mar 1908? (Assuming they didn't record still births). Did not record the death of that "birth"?? So hard to understand where the info came from if it were never recorded to begin with. Aunt's son (my cousin) has now told me that because Agnes had a child every year (according to family search) and because she believed there to be another child, she "inserted" her into the year 1908 because there were no children that year. OH BROTHER. He also said that because my grandma "thought" her middle name was McNeil, and then discovered it was not...there MUST be another child whom she was named after. I think I will give up on this one. Too many inconsistencies and no proof! My grandma made a recording stating there were 14 children total, and that she was the 9th pregnancy...making Catherine McNeil the 8th pregnancy...IF she even existed. Anyone want to figure this one out?

[Dleewilson]

One more question. Is there anywhere (besides family search) that I can research the children born (dead or alive) to David Shaw Sinclair and Agnes McNeil? Maybe I could find her that way. Just don't know where to look. Thanks for everyone's input!

[StewL]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2808697/
this article will be able to answer your question, but briefly they were not registered/entered until 1939

[AndrewP]

One more question. Is there anywhere (besides family search) that I can research the children born (dead or alive) to David Shaw Sinclair and Agnes McNeil? Maybe I could find her that way. Just don't know where to look. Thanks for everyone's input!

The data on the FamilySearch website transcribed from the Scottish registers stops at 1874 for births and 1875 for marriages. There is some later information submitted to FamilySearch from the research of individuals. For any of that data, a parent search can be done (input the parents' names to find the names of the children born to that couple).

The full index of statutory registrations is on the ScotlandsPeople website on a pay per view basis, with the original records available for download up to prescribed cut-off dates (100 years ago for births). Unfortunately the index does not hold the parent names, so there is no parent search available there.

All the best,

AndrewP

[Dleewilson]

Thanks to you both! I have been to (and paid for views) Scotland's people. I downloaded several images....but unfortunately none helped much. The 1911 census helped me figure out that five had died, and there is a 6th missing. I'm thinking she was still born. This leads me to believe that whoever added her to family search just picked a date for the birthdate.

I've also been doing a lot of searching on Family Search. She is listed there, but someone added her as a child of David and Agnes Sinclair. However, I cannot believe all the errors that are in that site. If you ask me, FS needs some kind of verification of "facts" error checker. For example, I have Ancestry Quest (I think that's what its called) that lets you go to family search and download your family tree into it. Once downloaded, the program will run a consistency check and give you a report. On my dad's line alone, there were 1600+ records that were incorrect. Some of the examples were women giving birth at the age of 8...dying several years before you were born...being married after you died, etc.

I guess Ill just have to accept it. Whatever "proof" they have of her, I cannot find...

[paddyscar]

...

I've also been doing a lot of searching on Family Search. She is listed there, but someone added her as a child of David and Agnes Sinclair. However, I cannot believe all the errors that are in that site. If you ask me, FS needs some kind of verification of "facts" error checker. ...

Although official databases record the information as it originally existed, those are the most likely to be correct. There is always the need to verify through your own viewing of the original records. This is even more importants as the 'facts' as presented in databases which include any additional information supplied from non-official records tend to stray with each re-telling.

Transcribers of original records included such practices as adding 'optional' spellings, work done by volunteers not familiar with local handwriting, language or names. Additionally errors and loose checking of facts also sully a lot of connections and records. Judgement and notations of variances are helpful in confirming or rejecting what you find out there.

Frances

[Dleewilson]

Yes...I've been noting differences in family search. I even found an image of a marriage certificate that had several errors on it, including the name of this Catherine (who died in infancy) It has caused other people ( who also have a different ancestor with same name) to think she was married to my grandfather! What a mess. The name was actually my grandmother...so it is said that she "thought" that was her name til she sent for her bc from Scotland. Crazy...huh??

[AndrewP]

I can see the first 10 children to this couple (9 born before the 1911 census)

Code: Select all

                                     born    died
1 Margaret McNeill Sinclair          1900    1900
2 Flora McNeill Sinclair             1900    1900
3 Margaret Shaw Morrison Sinclair    1901    ....  (age 9 in the 1911 census)
4 John McNeill Sinclair              1903    1903
5 David Sinclair                     1903    1903
6 Isabella Sinclair                  1904    ....  (age 6 in the 1911 census)
7 William Sinclair                   1906    1906
8 John Sinclair                      1907    ....  (age 3 in the 1911 census)
9 Catherine Sinclair                 1909    ....  (age 2 in the 1911 census)
10 David                             1911    1911  (born after the 1911 census)

That certainly accounts for the 1911 census statement of 9 born and 4 surviving at that time. It also implies that there was not an additional child born around 1908 (Catherine or any other name). I looked at the birth certificates of John (1907) and Catherine (1909) and there were only 15 months between them, so I wouldn't be expecting to find another birth to this couple between these dates.

All the best,

AndrewP

[Dleewilson]

Wow!!! Wheeler did you see these names? I only saw the living children's names...

[Dleewilson]

Where...not wheeler. On phone, fat thumbs and spell check.