"Supposed" great aunt Catherine McNeil Sinclair

[Dleewilson]

Hello there! New to the boards here so let me know if I get out of line.
I was just recently informed that my grandmother was named after her sister her died in infancy the year before grandmother was born. I have searched a few places, and can find no birth of death records of the great aunt. Here is some (slightly coincidental, if you ask me) info:
Catherine McNeil born 23 Mar 1908 died before 1909.
Catherine Sinclair born 20 Mar 1909 died 1992.
Both born Larkhall, Lanarkshire, Scotland. Assuming first one died there since all the children were born there. Parents David Sinclair and Agnes McNeil. I hope someone here can tell me where to look. One lady from National Records Scotland said there is no record of birth for the first one anywhere in Scotland. The family members who insist she existed say there are but don't know where. Any insight? Thanks in advance!

[paddyscar]

Hi DleeWilson, and a warm welcome

Sounds like everyone's family - somebody knows with certainty, but can't provide a document, but 'the family members who insist she existed say there are but don't know where.'

It is not unusual for one child (sometimes even more) to be named after a deceased sibling.

You included 'Catherine McNeil born 23 Mar 1908 died before 1909.
Catherine Sinclair born 20 Mar 1909 died 1992.' and for my money, it looks like a notation I myself would have jotted down just as someone's comment.

I looked at this family on FamilySearch.org https://familysearch.org/search/tree/re ... e%3Amcneil~

There is one Catherine 1909 included and several other children. Perhaps you could have a look at the births and ages and see if there is actually room for two births in the time frame you seek. Even in looking through this one family you will see that according to the information they were not all born in Larkhall, but they were all born in Lanark. So you see that what's fact is often open to other 'facts'.

It is always best to do as you are, exploring other options and deciding what you can prove and leave notations to yourself of other 'options' to explore down the road.

Best wishes,
Frances

[Dleewilson]

Thanks for the quick reply! Yes the 1909 Catherine is my grandmother. Q . Assuming the other Catherine died early on there would be enough room. I just cannot find Any record of her birth or her death...even though some p 92nd put her in with a birth date. What's weird is grandma's birth record is there...

,

[WilmaM]

Find the 1911 census record for the family - that will give not only the family's names and ages at the time but will also give you the information as to how many children the mother had had, and how many were still living.

I found my Grandmother had a younger sister who died in infancy from that census.

[Dleewilson]

Thank you! I looked at it. She is not listed. According to my cousin There were supposedly 14 children. Tthree sets of twins died either still or shortly after birth. Supposedly 14 children, but only 12 showing in family tree on familysearch.org. Evidently a set of twins is not listed there. In any case, the census showed 9 being born, 4 still living. It listed the deceased names, but hers was not there. Maybe she did NOT exist. Whoever added her to the children (in familysearch) gave her the birth date of 23 March....which is the marriage date of the parents! I guess I will just keep trying to find her info...and if I don't, assume she never existed?? I found one, born 1906, but wrong parents. Thanks for the help...

[rossm]

Hi,

This might be stating the obvious, but if she's called Catherine McNeil and someone has given her the birth date which is the same as the marriage of David Sinclair and Agnes McNeil, then the chances are that she's not David Sinclair's daughter and that whoever has recorded this information may have entered the birth date as 'before 23rd March 1908'. I know when I put 'before' into my Family Tree software, then export it out for uploading to websites, the 'before' gets dropped and it ends up just using the date. I've managed to confuse myself a few times looking at my own tree on Ancestry and wondering why its got the wrong dates in.

So, a quick search in ScotlandsPeople returns 14 Catherine McNeils born in Lanark between 1905 and 1908. Widening your search parameters might be the way forward.

Ross

[Dleewilson]

She would have been born Catherine McNeil SINCLAIR but I will go look again. A woman from National records Scotland said she could not find ANy one born any where in Scotland by that name. I'm suspecting my aunt "created" her based on stories my grandmother told her...and just picked a birth date...although her son claims the birth record was found, but can't remember where and his mum passed a few months ago. Seems if she were born anywhere between 1900 and 1910 she would be on the 1911 census...dead or alive, as all the other children are listed.

[Dleewilson]

I guess I am confused. The census did NOT list the deceased names It only told me 9 children born alive, 4 were still living, and the names of those four. Back to square one...

[rossm]

Ah, apologies, I misunderstood what you were saying about dates.

Cross-checking between the information on the 1911 census which implies 5 infant deaths, and the tree on familysearch which only lists 4 infant deaths before the date of the 1911 census. This certainly does imply that there is one more child waiting to be found.

I know how frustrating this kind of thing can be. My great-gran's entry in the 1911 census says 4 children born, 2 alive. After 3 years of searching I've only been able to track down one of the two missing children. My Mum keeps telling me that my Gran also said there were twins somewhere in the family, but there's no record of that either, which did leave me wondering if one twin was a still-birth which was never registered. I believe the registration of still-born children didn't become a legal requirment until 1939.

Keep plugging away though...

Ross

[Dleewilson]

Does anyone know if they recorded stillbirths back then?