Jeanie Fraser GRAY.....

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 10:57 am

JustJean wrote:
DavidWW wrote: Herewith a completely "clean" copy in the sense of downloaded from SP, uploaded to TS/Gallery, nothing else done to it ...........

http://www.talkingscot.com/gallery/albu ... 201901.tif

Any better?

Davie
Speaking for myself...it's now PERFECT!! Thank you David!!! Can zoom it to my heart's content!! Don't understand why everyone can't view it...hmmmmmm

Jean

Now all we have to do is to solve why some people still can't access the images.

Davie

MaryE · Post by **MaryE** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:18 am

The one is in Sutherlandshire but I can't quite make out where. Could be something like Lochmar but I can't find anywhere on the map to match. Could also start with a T or F?

Alexander's looks like Glasg with a squiggle at the end.

Mary

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 11:34 am

Thanks to Andrew's crop I can now begin to "see" the possibility of Alexanders' pob being Blantyre. What I haven't let on before is that he had at least 7 siblings, 6 of whom were born in Old Monkland as shown in the 1881 census, but it could also see a very badly scrawled Glasgow, - see Robert 2 lines above.......

Assuming that this is the same family, and there still has to be some doubt, even tho' there is a lot of evidence, Jane wasn't born anywhere near Tollcross, but in the parish of Creich in Sutherland, where she married Thomas Sim in 1872, her address being
Invercas[s]ley, Rosehall. From there to the west coast the geography means that the easiest place to get to on the coast was Lochinver, which is what the place of birth may be!, but then why was the birth of Mary J FRASER or SIM registered in Shttleston on 21st March 1892, the date of birth being 29th February?

Davie

WilmaM · Post by **WilmaM** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:06 pm

but then why was the birth of Mary J FRASER or SIM registered in Shttleston on 21st March 1892, the date of birth being 29th February?

Davie

Thanks Davie , that confirms that we've at least got the right wee lassie

The only concrete fact I had on her was, that she was a leap year baby

MaryE - The one is in Sutherlandshire

That was my husbands best guess too.

Maybe we'll get to the bottom of this eventually?

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 2:16 pm

WilmaM wrote:.......snipped.........Thanks Davie , that confirms that we've at least got the right wee lassie
The only concrete fact I had on her was, that she was a leap year baby

Didn't let on you knew that, did yae

Orraverybest

Davie

WilmaM · Post by **WilmaM** » Fri Jan 14, 2005 5:36 pm

DavidWW wrote:Didn't let on you knew that, did yae

The trouble with keeping an open mind is ....

sometimes the brains fall out

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Sat Jan 15, 2005 8:37 pm

Hi Folks,

I'd a look at all the pages of Ed 23 written by the enumerator (James McMillan). He's not a bad writer- well i suppose he is in a way, but i've seen much worse.

Anyway, i "think" that Alexander's pob could well be Glasgow, but i'm 97% sure that it did start with a "G", and if it is Glasgow, then that was the only time he never finished the word off - his writing actually seemed to get a wee bit clearer as he went on.
But his "B"s were quite consistent throughout - like the "B" in Baillieston on line above, only clearer.

Couldn't disagree with Lochinver - that black line really does obliterate.

Jack

JimM · Post by **JimM** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 12:04 pm

Alexander Gray is the first name on the second schedule for 29 Dunlop street. Why is he "Son" not the "Head"?
Is it possible that the enumerator put the dividing line at the wrong place.. as he done further down the page.
Confusing isn't it

Jim

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:34 pm

JimM wrote:Alexander Gray is the first name on the second schedule for 29 Dunlop street. Why is he "Son" not the "Head"?
Is it possible that the enumerator put the dividing line at the wrong place.. as he done further down the page.
Confusing isn't it
Jim

Jim

Wha kens !

If it was defined as a separate household, and therefore, as recorded, a separate schedule, then Alexander should indeed have been shown as "Head"..............

The fact that he is shown as "Son" of Jessie, the "Head" in schedule 1 infers that the enumerator decided, for whatever reason, to split the "Grey" return into two schedules, as I have difficulty in believing that Alexander, had he submitted a separate schedule would not have described himself as "Head".

The fact that the enumerator has chosen in schedule 4 to draw a line under each of the 3 individuals in the same schedule tends to support my belief that this enumerator was far from sure how to handle such situations..........

It would be interesting to see what the enumerator did in the other pages in this enumeration book !!

Davie