MY BRICK WALL

[Montrose Budie]

Kay

Finding discrepancies and sorting them out is just part of the fun.

I've just completed research on a tree where the subject's father gave misleading details on his 1881 marriage register entry.

Instead of giving his mother's maiden surname his father gave the surname from his granny's second marriage. OK, that was her correct surname at the date of the marriage. In addition he also gave a different given name from all the other records involved, - that may be correct, being the name she then went by.

Untangling the three marriages of his father's grandmother on this side was complicated by there being an additional 'S' on the end of her maiden surname for two of the marriages, leading to a variant of this surname that I'd never come across before.

mb

[Andy]

Kay

Finding discrepancies and sorting them out is just part of the fun.

Like MB, I've just "completed" a report for a friend's wife (on a very limitted budget and deadline). I was assured that the mother's side would be a breeze but the father's more of a problem.

I started out with the father. Within about a day I was back 6 generations with provenance, plus many dozens of great-great uncles and aunts and cousins in America, Canada and Oz that took a further couple of days to ratify.

Although I had information from the mother's marriage it took a full three weeks to find out WITHOUT A SHADOW OF DOUBT that she wasn't born a MacKenzie but a MacLean!!!!! It only got worse from there! It was only possible, within the time, to add a proven Great Grandmother with NO male lines whatsoever!

An open mind is required in this game! With the help of a respected researcher from North Uist the father's "difficult" line currently goes back 8 generations (to my rigours of evidence) with over 900 folk in the "Tree". The "Easy" Mother's side has THREE!

[rubeaz]

Thanks MB and Andy for your reply to my post. I'm glad I'm not the only one with such a muddled ancestry.

Not too sure about it being 'fun' - I find it frustrating

Have spent a small fortune on SP and Ancestry subscription.

I think I will have a rest for a week and go back to it with fresh eyes

We're all lucky to at least have a fairly good idea of our ancestry.

The 'future' with many diverse family situations and IVF I think it will be an even bigger challenge to research, so I should not be toooooo frustrated

Kind regards to you all

Kay - PS I will keep you posted on my results.

[rubeaz]

To Leslie,

I'm sorry I overlooked your reply to my post

The IGI for Mary Ann Hunt or Hunter is wrong. IBecause of this error I have been on the wrong path for soooooo long.

I have a MC1850 for Thomas Hunt 35th Regiment of Foot to Margaret Duke. Father of Margaret is listed as James Elliot ( a shoemaker)

Mary Ann Hunt did marry William Buchanan in Glasgow 1863. Parents listed as Thomas Hunt and Margaret Elliot.

Mary Ann Hunt/Buchanan died in Glasgow 1905 and parents stated as Thomas Hunt and Margaret Duke

On one of the census I have Mary Ann's birth is listed as Belturbet, so I found a BC1845 for her born at Belturbet Barracks to parents William Duke and Margaret Duke.

William Duke (Barrack Sergeant) died in 1849 at Belturbet Barracks.

As you see my Ancestor Margaret Elliot was married at least 3 times She did not stay 'single' for very long

1st husband WILLIAM HAMILTON (44th Regiment of Foot) Have just about given up on knowing what happened to him....
2nd husband WILLIAM DUKE (Barrack Sergeant) Not sure what his occupation means!
3rd husband THOMAS HUNT (35th Regiment of Foot)

Margaret HUNT died 1874 Glasgow (only William Hamilton dec. and Thomas Hunt dec listed on her DC.

My maternal grandmother's name was Elizabeth-Duke Robertson CAMPBELL I at least now know where the 'Duke' in her name came from.

PS Leslie you helped me alot in tracing my Campbells previously -

Merry Christmas and a Happy 2012 to you and all other members who have helped me at TS

[Currie]

Hello Kay, and a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too.

Belturbet Barracks in the late 1840s was like a game of musical chairs. There were soldiers moving in and soldiers moving out. There were the 14th, 46th, 60th and 79th Regiments of Foot at various times. They were always only the depot companies and never the full regiment. Regiments that were overseas had depot companies that were responsible for recruitment and training and supply of replacement soldiers.

Who looks after the place while all this is going on? What prevents a departing regiment or its depot from leaving the place in a mess or clearing off with everything that wasn’t nailed down? It seems it was the Barrack Master and the Barrack Sergeant, who was part of the Barrack Department, and who stopped anything untoward. That probably explains why your fellow was there in 1845 and still there in 1849.

In the Australian Almanac, 1867, page 117, there’s listed the establishment of a large barracks in Sydney. You can see from that how the Barrack Department fits into the picture and is separate from the Regiments of Foot. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=UhA ... 22&f=false

All the best,
Alan