Help needed.....

thomsos · Post by **thomsos** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 4:06 pm

Please help,I have been having no problems finding my ancestors who came from Ayrshire and Stirlingshire and have found out quite a lot, but I am have terrible bother finding my ancestors from Bridgeton/Dennistoun area of Glasgow. they have all got so common names. I am never sure I have the correct ones. I even bought the Vital Records and 1881 census discs, to see if this would help, sometimes I feel like giving up, but don't want to.
I have already had help from TalkingScot.com with some of the Thomson's, but I am now struggling with the Williamsons.
e.g. I have a George Williamson born about 1827,occupation -woollen weaver, married Jane Peel born abt 1842.I think she was married twice, ? Mclaren
I think he has at least 2 sons,
George born abt 1859,I think married twice, one Elizabeth Anderson born1866, married 1890
and second son William 1861
now I think this sounds like quite a lot of info, so why am I getting nowhere or lost
Can someone give me some advice to try to make it a bid easier. and where I might be going wrong
I have also spent a fortune on SP web site too
Thank-you
thomsos

momat · Post by **momat** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 12:39 am

Hi Thomsos,

I had a look at the IGI www.familysearch.org site and I found a
JANE PEEL marriage to DANIEL McLAREN 1870 BRIDGETON GLASGOW
and a Birth for a DANIEL MCLAREN 1872 BRIDGETON

Have a look on the site.

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 4:16 am

Hi folks

Building on what Maureen discovered and being creditless I've managed to piece together several interesting observations.

There is a death of a Jane Williamson Peel (using maiden surname search) on SP that was born in the year 1842 and died in the year 1904 and died in Dennistoun district of Glasgow. If you haven't viewed this one I suggest you do. It's got to be your Jane minus any mention of yet another surname....McLaren!

Now knowing there was a marriage in 1870 to Daniel McLaren but not knowing if that Jane Peel was the same person as the Jane Peel married to George Williamson but knowing that Jane Peel I think lived until 1904 I looked for her in 1881.

And I think this might be her....

Dwelling: 93 Dale St
Census Place: Barony, Lanark, Scotland
Source: FHL Film 0203630 GRO Ref Volume 644-1 EnumDist 52 Page 18
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
Jane MC LAREN 42 F Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Boarder (Head)
Occ: Mill Worker
Jane MC LAREN 6 F Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Boarder (Dau)

Unfortunately it does not state if Jane is married or widowed!!!!

and notice at the same address is a George and family....except the child named as his "step son" I suspect just might be his half brother???? Isn't this possible????

Dwelling: 93 Dale St
Census Place: Barony, Lanark, Scotland
Source: FHL Film 0203630 GRO Ref Volume 644-1 EnumDist 52 Page 18
Marr Age Sex Birthplace
George WILLIAMSON M 24 M Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Head
Occ: Lamplighter
Annie WILLIAMSON M 22 F Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Wife
Andrew WILLIAMSON 3 M Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Son
David MC LAREN (WILLIAMSON) 10 M Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland
Rel: Step Son
Occ: Scholar

There are no Daniel McLarens coming up of any age that make sense so either Jane's hubbie is dead or flown the coop and their son Daniel too.

But from the age of George and his wife Annie and their son Andrew you have to assume they've not been married long......soooooo

I searched again for a marriage and have narrowed up to a possibility of a George Williamson to a Ann ANYBODY in 1880 Dennistoun Glasgow. If you search and view this you'll know if you've found the first marriage of your George by the parents names he states. You might also attempt searching for the birth of their son Andrew but if this is their marriage it appears it might have occured after his birth...so not certain what surname his birth might be registered under.

As you can see it's very possible to come to some real good prospects and not spend a dime........of course it's time now to buy some views and see if what we think is right...is really right

Best wishes
Jean

thomsos · Post by **thomsos** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 5:09 pm

I do apologise, I really thought I was of average intelligence, but I'm not so sure, every time I read your replies, I think oh right, now I get it..............
but guess what? stuck again.
I did find Jane's death 1904 Dennistoun, and
George Williamson and Ann Major Marriage 1880
now the problem is finding the death of Geo,1827 (not sure that's right) I assume he died before 1870, that when Jane married Daniel Mclaren and after 1861 when his son William was born
and the death of Geo. 1857, he appears to still be around in 1916, when his son William was married, but again I seem to loose money on SP looking for these.
What does confuse me a bit I why is it sometime the county of Lanark, district Bridgeton, or county Glasgow, district Bridgeton, are these not the same? and also you can get -county Lanark with district Glasgow, a bit confusing for my little brain. this is where I found searching my Ayrshire, and Stirlingshire ancestors easier, it was straight forward, Ayrshire/Dailly, or Stirling/Polmont
I really appreciate all your help, I might have to send you all Christmas presents at this rate
thomsos

Post by **AndrewP** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:12 pm

thomsos wrote:What does confuse me a bit I why is it sometime the county of Lanark, district Bridgeton, or county Glasgow, district Bridgeton, are these not the same? and also you can get -county Lanark with district Glasgow, a bit confusing for my little brain. this is where I found searching my Ayrshire, and Stirlingshire ancestors easier, it was straight forward, Ayrshire/Dailly, or Stirling/Polmont

The city registration districts all appear as in the city and in the county that contains the city. So this this case, Glasgow city is in Lanarkshire, and Bridgeton is in Glasgow, and hence is also in Lanarkshire.

If you do a search for a particular name in all Glasgow districts, and then do the same search in all Lanarkshire districts, then all the Glasgow results should appear there, plus those in Lanarkshire outside Glasgow.

I hope I have explained it in a way that clears that mystery up for you.

All the best,

AndrewP

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 7:57 pm

Hi thomsos

Well.....you have a confirmed mystery.

I can't find a logical death for George Williamson either....George the first Williamson that is as I haven't even tried finding George the second

Your reasoning is perfect in trying to narrow up the time frame he could have died in. He is enumerated on the 1861 census and is right there with Jane and George age 3 and William 9 mos. There seems to be no further activity where you can catch him until Jane remarries in 1870 and clearly states herself as a widow and uses the Williamson name. George the second further confirms this fact when he marries in 1880 and states clearly that his father was George and he was deceased by then. The only interesting facts I've uncovered is a death for baby William in 1861 and father George was not the informant...but his brother (uncle to the baby) John was. So where was George?????

This happening just a few short months after the 1861 census but George is not listed as deceased on the baby's death!! And then just one more tiny bothersome thing....a death for a John Williamson at the poorhouse in 1875 single no parent info stated but whose age matches perfectly to be George the first. This John's death occcured after 1870 though. So perhaps this fellow was a brother to George?....the same brother who acted as informant on the death of baby William? Or perhaps it was really George the first with a wrong first name? Wild guesses that can never be proven!!!!!! Don't feel badly either as we all have at least one death certificate that should be there but just can't be found....at least I sure do

Oh and one other observation....I haven't done an all out search but if there are no more births to George and Jane after William then odds are George the first was not around after 1861.

Not much help....but at least you're not alone in not finding!!!

Best wishes
Jean

thomsos · Post by **thomsos** » Fri Jun 23, 2006 9:44 pm

thanks Jean,
At least I'm on the right track and not going mad, but does this mean I won't be able to find out George the firsts parents?

thomsos

thomsos · Post by **thomsos** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 12:39 pm

I have found a Geo. and Jane Williamson on the 1861 census for Calton, with Geo. 3 and William 9mths, this looks like this could be my family, but Jane's age does not match with her death, according to her death she was 62 when she died in 1904, which would make her birth 1842, but on the 1861 census, it says she is 30, which makes the birth 1831, it also makes Geo and Jane about the same age
What anyone's opinion on this?
thomsos

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:00 pm

Hi thomsos

Tough question

After a quick look about I would have to say no. Your odds of finding the parents names are very poor. There are further observations to be made though....for example....note the place of birth of George on the one census you have him on. Based on that he should be in Glasgow for the past 31 years. So go search for a George Williamson in 1841 or 1851. I didn't see one that looked logical....occupations not fitting! Ok....so now it's time to test whether Jane was truthful....go search for her in the earlier census with parents names you've acquired from her MC to Daniel McLaren. With a Dad's name of Isaac Peel...(what a blessing that is!)...only one in each year and you don't even have to narrow it down!! Soooo....looks like Jane was telling the truth she was born and raised in Glasgow! (and she's still at home in 1851 and unmarried so you know she wasn't with George then. Look over the whole census page and take a special note that there is a widower named John Williamson lodger living two doors down.....he's born Ireland and a weaver! Wow...maybe he's the brother to George !!! So now you start assuming that George was fibbing on the 1861 census. I bet he was from Ireland and came to live with his brother and met Jane and the rest is history! If he and Jane married just before 1855 which looks eminently possible then very possible their marriage might not be found. I can't at the moment explain why the children's births are not found. I wonder if they may have had more kids than just the two and they died young?

So there is my scenario for you.....nothing concrete except for Jane's history. You could attempt to track John Williamson forward and see if he ever remarries in Scotland as that would give you parent names perhaps. On the other hand..... even though the ages do not align.... he could be the poor chap dying at the Barnhill with no info given.

I've no good news for you today.....sorry

Best wises
Jean

thomsos · Post by **thomsos** » Sat Jun 24, 2006 1:07 pm

Thanks jean, you're a god send, I will explore further and I dare say I will be back.
thomsos