Can anybody solve this puzzle?

keewik · Post by **keewik** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 5:48 pm

Hello, all! This is my first post, so I hope I'm putting it in the right place.

I've come up against a real mystery and wonder if anybody can offer a suggestion.

From Scotlandspeople OPR I downloaded an ancestor's marriage in Canongate, Edinburgh on 4th July, 1812. The entry reads ...
James Bralley, Labourer in Queensferry, and Eilspeth Fraser, Couls Close, Canongate, Daughter of the late Andrew Fraser, Farmer in Fearn, gave up their names for marriage. Certified by Daniel McLeod, Labourer in Canongate, and Samuel Moore, Labourer in Queensferry.

There are 5 entries on the page, and as I glanced down, I realised the entry for 6th July, reads ...
Samuel Moore, Labourer in Queensferry, and Elizabeth Fraser, Couls Close, Canongate, Daughter of the late Andrew Fraser, Farmer in Fearn, gave up their names for marriage. Certified by James Bralley, Labourer in Queensferry, and Daniel McLeod, Labourer in Canongate.

From this it appears she married one man with 2 witnesses, then 2 days later she married one of the witnesses with the first husband now as a witness.

I don't see how the entries can be a mistake because the whole page is written in the same very neat hand - wouldn't you think the writer would have spotted if he was making a mistake - there are only 2 days between the entries?

I'm totally flumoxed by this. Any suggestions?

Post by **SarahND** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 6:37 pm

Hi Keewik,
Welcome to Talking Scot! [talkingscot]

Sounds like either Elizabeth changed her mind 2 days later and decided to marry the best man

or that the recorder put the names wrong the first time. Do you have any idea who she actually married? These look like they could be notices of putting up the banns, rather than the final marriage, so she might have gone onto marrying either one (or neither!).

All the best,
Sarah

WilmaM · Post by **WilmaM** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:19 pm

Now that's a bit odd, given the details are both identical.

Perhaps it was a sister of her's who married the other man and they got the 2 daughter's names muddled

Did the couple you are interested in go on to have a family?

As Sarah said, these would just be the calling of the Banns - the notification of the intention to marry, not the actual marriage - so they may not actually marry in the end.

I wonder if there is an explanation out there......

Post by **AndrewP** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 7:48 pm

I see two options there.

(1) She was keeping her options open

(banns called for two possible grooms)

(2) Eilspeth and Elizabeth were sisters, both planning to marry around the same time in the same parish.

I think the second one is more likely. Saying that, I only see a birth for Elizabeth in the OPRs.

All the best,

AndrewP

keewik · Post by **keewik** » Sat Aug 30, 2008 11:07 pm

She married the first one ... or, to be more exact, she had a child by the name of the first one. I had a bit of trouble over the name which became Burleigh or Birrell (daughter used both). I had their names from their daughter's death entry, in which the mother's name's given as Elspeth Fraser. Since Elspeth and Elizabeth are the same, I would doubt it was 2 sisters - I, too, can only find the birth of Elizabeth.
I'm a bit suspicious of this line of the family, so I'm open to believe anything!

Wouldn't it be great to be a time traveller and find out the truth?

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:29 am

Hi Keewik

Since Elspeth and Elizabeth are the same

I'm not 100% convinced by that one. Although the names are related, I reckon an Elspeth and an Elizabeth could be two different persons.

wouldn't you think the writer would have spotted if he was making a mistake

Depends how busy /hassled he was or how many glasses of claret he had imbibed....

I've certainly come across a child in an OPR who appears to be attributed to the wrong father (of two brothers) but as everything else is in order, (wording suggests nothing out of the ordinary.."his spouse" etc. ) it would seem it was just a mistake on the part of the session clerk.

Best wishes
Lesley

keewik · Post by **keewik** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 10:45 am

Thanks for these suggestions. I've always assumed Elspeth and Elizabeth to be sufficiently alike that there wouldn't be two siblings with these names.

As regards the possibility of a clerical error, do you know whether the book would be written up there and then while the people were in front of him, or whether there would be another piece of paper which he would later transcribe into the book?

I've trawled about for the deaths of these 1/2 women with every permutation and combination of names, but no luck - probably she/they were dead by 1855.

I suppose I'll never know.

speleobat2 · Post by **speleobat2** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 11:52 am

Hi Keewik,

Do you know where the family might have been buried? If so, you might be able to locate a gravestone and the gravestones sometimes have lots of information on them. I'm not familiar with the Edinburgh area, but I'm sure someone else on TS can give you some ideas on where to search for the gravesites.

Carol

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 12:51 pm

Hi Keewik
I gather (though I can't remember where I read it for now!) that the books were often written up later, from notes taken at the time. It would be easy for mistakes to creep in under those circumstances, especially if, say, someone came to the door, or he needed to find another pen or some more ink, when half way down the page.

It certainly seems an odd set of circumstances, but I think, as with all family history puzzles, an open mind has to be kept..anytime I make assumptions or draw conclusions on things, real life usually turns out to have been more convoluted than I could possibly have imagined!

It may have been something along the lines of:
1. The names are jotted down on a scrap of paper at the time
2. The session clerk settles at his desk to write down the week's events
3. The minister requires to speak to the session clerk when he is half way down "your" page...
4. ...later, the session clerk resumes his work, but whatever the minister was needing to talk to him about (developments in the latest scandal brought before the kirk session!?) is still very much in his head, in addition, his notekeeping is such and with his mind not really on the job, he re-enters the names and gets the same group of names in the wrong order.
5. He does not read through his work, as the business with the minister has made him late for his dinner, and anyway, he congratulates himself on a neat looking page.....

OK, it's a rather eloborate story... but who knows??
Maybe one day you'll get to the bottom of it. Have you looked at the Kirk Session records, just to see if there are any references to any of the named persons?

Best wishes
Lesley

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Sun Aug 31, 2008 1:06 pm

Later:
There seem to be some extracts from Canongate Kirk Session here, but from an earlier period than that of the "problem page"
http://mysite.verizon.net/loganfalls/Kirk.htm

There seems to be a summary of what records are available for Canongate here:
https://wiki.familysearch.org/en/Canong ... ,_Scotland

And some Canongate burials 1820 -1851 here:
http://www.scotsfind.org/canongateburia ... urials.pdf
This one looks like it may be connected:
Dec 31st 1821, Janet Fraser, dau of Alexander Fraser, labourer, Coulls close, hooping cough. I'm sure there may be more connections in there too.....probably worth a good rummage. There's the housework on hold again....