Beattie Family in 1851 census.....

[Baldy]

I am looking for help with information on the 1851 census.
I have found my BEATTIE mob,but there are 2 people that I have no knowledge about.
1./ Clarence aged 3 son of William (as written on the census)
2./ Jane aged 8 son of William. (as written on the census)
I have searched high & low and cannot a Clarence with my mob
I have looked on the LDS site for Jane,nothing about her at all.
All other members check out OK

The address in the census is/was Barrand (870) House # 2/32

I would welcome any help on these 2 pimpernals.


Thanks in advance
Baldy (au)

[AndrewP]

Hi Baldy,

Jane was listed as a son?

All the best,

AndrewP

[Baldy]

Hi Andrew.
That he was ,that is part of my delima.

baldy (au)

[JustJean]

Hi Ted

Interesting situation isn't it? Looks like you'll have to settle for some "assumptions" with this group. No way to prove it but it is possible to make logical calcuations.

From the BIVRI disks once again these appear to be the logical births to WIlliam BEATTIE and Janet

BEATTIE, Isabella Bir 1835 Scot Kirk Troque
Fa: William BEATTIE
Mo: Janet CALLENDAR
BEATTIE, Mary Bir 1836 Scot Kirk Troque
Fa: William BEATTIE
Mo: Janet CALLENDAR
BEATTIE, Robert Bir 1838 Scot Kirk Troque
Fa: William BEATTIE
Mo: Jannet CALLANDER
BEATTIE, William Bir 1845 Scot Kirk Kirkbe
Fa: William BEATTIE
Mo: Janet CALLENDER
BEATTIE, Ebenezer Bir 1848 Scot Kirk Kirkbe
Fa: William BEATTIE
Mo: Janet CALLAN
BEATTIE, Thomas Bir 1851 Scot Kirk Kirkbe
Fa: William BEATTIE
Mo: Janet CALLANDER

yet from the 1841 census (which I noted had been provided to you on another site ) you know that they also likely had a son James about 1834 and a daughter Janet about 1840. As was also stated hubbie William was likely out of the house working at census time.

1841
Troqueer ED1 page 6
Martingirth

Janet Beattie 30 Y
James 7 Y
Isabella 6 Y
Mary 4 Y
Robert 2 Y
Janet 7m Y

So this list lines up nicely with the index list above except for the two births. So you can only conclude that the OPR or BIVRI records are not complete for this family. Why that is we can't know. The records didn't survive most likely as the family seemed quite "on task" about getting the others christened!

Now to the mysterious:

Clarence b abt 1848
Jane? b abt 1843

From the above you can clearly see there is a wide open spot for a birth to occur in 1843...but you've already got one booked in 1848 ......soooo.....you have to ask the logical questions....is Ebenezer really Clarence and vice/versa?...and there too is where you make the assumption that he might be. As for a son named Jane. No comment. Might be a son. Might be an enumerator error. Is there any prove of survival past 1855 for this Jane person?? If not.....I can see no way of knowing one way or the other.

Some things will just never be proven.....

Best wishes
Jean

[Baldy]

Hi Jean

You are correct,somethings will/may never be proved.

I have made some assumptions on these 2 (pimpernals) & that is
1.Clarence, I have taken him to be Ebenyzer,his parents were William & Janet,so on that fact I "think" that would be correct.

2./ Jane (son ???) I can find nothing at all on her,so I am asumming that it is meant to be James ?

There were 2 other peole who I have located that belong to this family who are not shown on census.

1./ Isabella dob 1835
James dob C:-1843

To be 100% honest I cannot remember the other site

Kindest Regards
Ted (au)

[Baldy]

Hi Jean.
I have received 2 certificates that I have just uploaded for your opinion.
They are 1. Marriage certificate for James Beattie
2. Death certificate for James Beattie.

I would welcome your comment

Kindest Regards
Ted(au)

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... p?pos=-612 (death)
http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... p?pos=-613 (marriage)

<image URL added - LesleyB. Could only see one image waiting fr approval...>
marriage image Gallery URL added later - AndrewP

[JustJean]

Good morning Ted

Just had a peek at your image and there seems to be only one upload that came through and that is of the transcription of the DC for James Beattie. I haven't seen the original digital image so am basing comments on your info as provided. T

This James Beattie died in 1923 at age 88 and a daughter was informant. A close family member is the most reliable type of informant so I'm leaning heavily towards the assumption that the death data is accurate. James would have been born approx 1835. The parents names match perfectly to your William and Janet. This person also matches perfectly with the 7 year old James as enumerated on the 1841 census. I believe this is the same James and his OPR birth record has not survived.

Since I have not seen the details of the actual or transcribed marriage certificate for James I cannot comment on that except to say that his age should be in line with the birth and death dates/ages as already provided. A further point that could be checked is in locating him on all the census records and noting if his place of birth is consistent and fits in with that of the other family members.

Not sure if this helps?

Best wishes
Jean

[Baldy]

Good Morning Jean
I have just checked the uploads and the marriage image did come up.

I am very pleased that in essence you concure with that information.
I still cannot find the "other" site taht you refered to,(at our age 70+ I can hardly remember yesterday).

Again I appreciate your comments & input

Kindest Regards
Ted (au)

[JustJean]

Hi Ted

Yup....you're right! The MC image has magically been added since I posted. It must have been hiding back there!!

Ok....the marriage of James is straightforward enough. No question that he is a son of William and Janet. A parent search on the IGI shows that they named their daughters for their mothers even. If you find James on the 1861 census you'll see that he was a ploughman and was noted as widowed so that ties in with his DC stating he had been married before to an unknown. I'm quite sure it's your James as his place of birth is stated as Irongray. He's found in the parish of Caerlaverock Dumfries.

If you're asking could James be the 8 year old son Jane as found in 1851???.....Well....it's possible...but that would entail not only gettng the name wrong but the age as way wrong too. And there is ample space for a birth of a Jane to fit into the family line up. Perhaps James was visiting or boarding/working elsewhere??? Have you had an all out search in 1851 to try and find him?? If he's not found then it' even more possible that he is the mysterious Jane. Since you've found no evidence of a Jane exisiting past 1851 that futher supports the theory. My first instinct though is that they have the son part wrong and not the name and age.

Rest easy....there's no need to wonder any longer. I found the other site that you had received help on by doing a google search on "Barrand Beattie". I was thinking there was the off chance of finding someone else who was looking for a Jane or Ebenezer......but I only found you

Best wishes
Jean

[Baldy]

Hi Jean
I have looked just about everywhere that is possible from Australia to look
I have had some info back on James's & Maggie's children.

I have found nothing at all on Jane.Have spent quite a sum of money on the Scotland site and found zilch,nothing.

I am though qiute convinced that the person James is correct as you have pointed out.I have put out on a number of board information on Gillespie,but as yet have not had anything back.

Thank you for your assistance & wonderful inputed help.

Kindest Regards
Ted (au)