Births not registered - Alexander Family - Temple/Peebles...

[Jo G]

Hello Everyone

I wonder if someone could point me in the right direction with my query please...

My ggg grandparents were Thomas Alexander (born c 1816, Temple, MLN) and Margaret Borthwick (b 1819 Inveresk). I've found Thomas on the 1871 and 1881 Census (he was a grain merchant in Perth) giving his birth place as Temple and the year works out as 1816 but I can't find a birth registration for him.

His parents according to his death cert were James Alexander and Janet Nivison/Nevison/Neveson/Niveson. I found an entry in the OPR's for their marriage 9 May 1813 in Temple. Janet was from Newlands, Peebles. Janet died at Mitchellhills, Newlands in 1860 and James continued to farm there, along with (in 1861) dau Agnes 29, son John 27, dau Jane (sp? writing dubious) 23 - all born Newlands. In 1871 James was still at Newlands with Agnes and John who were both unmarried.

I got a copy of Thomas's will (died 1884) and it mentions another brother, Alexander Alexander who was a grain merchant in Edinburgh (I've found him on various census too - lodging in Edinburgh and unmarried, birth place also Temple) as well as sister Agnes and brother John who he had a share in a farm with at Easter Deanshouses, Peebles.

If Thomas, Alexander, John, Agnes and Jane were not Church of Scotland, would they be registered elsewhere, if at all? Could it be that their mother's name Nivison (or similar) has been transcribed as something else? Would it have been likely that the parents just didn't bother registering the childrens' births?

Any assistance gratefully received!!!

Jo

PS: Extra hour in bed

[LesleyB]

Hi Jo
Welcome to Talking Scot - glad you decided to join us!
I'm still no further forward with this one, but working on it. I'm sure there'll be others pitching in soon!

best wishes
Lesley

[DavidWW]

If Thomas, Alexander, John, Agnes and Jane were not Church of Scotland, would they be registered elsewhere, if at all? Could it be that their mother's name Nivison (or similar) has been transcribed as something else? Would it have been likely that the parents just didn't bother registering the childrens' births?

Any assistance gratefully received!!!

Jo

PS: Extra hour in bed

Welcome on board Jo!

There's several possibilities here.....

Spelling variations in the surname.

Recorded in the Church of Scotland, but the OPR has not survived.

Recorded in a secession or other church record, - many but not all of the former are at National Archives of Scotland.

Or not recorded at all. In the first half of the 19th century, in the inner cities, it's known that anything up to 50% of births went unrecorded !

David

[LesleyB]

Hi Jo

A quick check at GRO
http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files/li ... 4to701.pdf
reveals that there there is a gap in Temple OPRs for the period you are interested in which might account for one or two missing persons (a bit later than you thought Thomas was born, but...):

700. TEMPLE
700/1 B 1688-1780 M - D -
700/2 B 1781-1819 M - D - but then a gap until 1821 - could there have been 3 children born in this gap? Seems pretty close together....
700/3 B - M 1688-1819 D -
700/4 B - M - D 1697-1815
700/5 B 1821-54 M 1819-54 D -

best wishes
Lesley

[Jo G]

Thanks for the input, David & Lesley

I knew the OPR's weren't complete, but you never think it's going to happen to you!

Thomas was born c 1816, Alexander was born c 1819 (calculated from census info). Agnes 1831, John 1835 and Jane (if Jane was her name to make things even worse - a recent find) 1838. That's a rather worrying gap in between 2 batches of children - perhaps I've got two families muddled. Mother Janet died in 1860 but maybe I shouldn't discount James marrying twice. Hmm.

Even more confused!

Glad the Pairty went with a bang

Jo