Birth of James George 1775

Parish Records and other sources

Moderator: Global Moderators

Lizzie
Posts: 169
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 1:51 pm
Location: Newmarket, Ontario

Birth of James George 1775

Post by Lizzie » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:19 pm

This is the second time of writing this post, the previous must have disappeared into space!

I asked for the Birth of James George, which is in the IGI with parents Charles George and Jean Russel. The parents are my interest as I can find no marriage for them. Maybe there is a clue I discovered with the image I uploaded in the Gallery. Here is Charles George and Jean's children. The spelling of Russel? The IGI does not recognise this old English spelling? Unable to find their marriage is my brick wall!

Elizabeth

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1503
Uploaded by Frances

joette
Global Moderator
Posts: 1974
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2005 5:13 pm
Location: Clydebank

Post by joette » Mon Mar 17, 2008 1:30 pm

When we get back as far as the 1700's a lot of what was recorded doesn't survive or was never recorded in the first place.

Have you read the original birth entry on the OPR ??
If the birth is recorded there with no attonation eg base born etc then it's a pretty sure bet they were actually married-just no record made or survived.
Researching:SCOTT,Taylor,Young,VEITCH LINLEY,MIDLOTHIAN
WADDELL,ROSS,TORRANCE,GOVAN/DALMUIR/Clackmanannshire
CARR/LEITCH-Scotland,Ireland(County Donegal)
LINLEY/VEITCH-SASK.Canada
ALSO BROWN,MCKIMMIE,MCDOWALL,FRASER.
Greer/Grier,Jenkins/Jankins

SarahND
Site Admin
Posts: 5647
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:47 am
Location: France

Post by SarahND » Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:29 pm

Hi Elizabeth,

How convenient for you that all the children are on the same page! :D They are all "lawful" so the parents were married. No sign of a record, however, so Joette is probably right that it doesn't survive.

Regards,
Sarah

paddyscar
Site Admin
Posts: 2418
Joined: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:56 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Post by paddyscar » Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:16 pm

Hi Lizzie:

Sorry, got called away, so I'm back with my observation of the record.

The record page is headed: Keith, 28 September 1783 which is 10 years after the first baptism. All the children are listed one after another, so I'm thinking that this is not the original register - perhaps a re-do of the original register due to fire or flood. The handwriting is the same throughout the list as well, which is unusual for 10 years worth of records.

Most of the register pages posted here seem to show the baptisms in the order they were performed and this one is in order of surname, then date, from first to last.

Frances