Deciphering help please .....

[alysone]

Hi Everyone,
I have just uploaded a 1955 DC for Mary Darling Crookston. (Not sure how to link it from here?) She was the widow of Robert Crookston & the daughter of Andrew Scougall (dec'd), retired postman and Isabella Melrose (dec'd)! Somehow, I thought that might get your attention?!

http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1224

Night All! Rosalie

Gallery URL added - AndrewP

[pinkshoes]

Alysone - Ever decreasing circles - I think we may fall into a black hole soon

Andrew - What you say re 1827 makes sense but I'm still a wee bit lost here. Is the record for Andrew Scougal saying he is the son of Andrew Scougal and Margaret (end of record) OR is he the sone of Andrew Scougal and Margaret Wilson OR is the Wilson reference nothing to do with Scougal AND where does Kilgour come in? Could that be missing off the image after Margaret? There must be some mention somewhere, otherwise how could SP pick it up?

As I dropped off to sleep this morning (yes!) it occurred to me that the 1827 reference was probably an amendment to the 1825 entry and that it would go along the lines of ... this should actually read Kilgour and not Wilson and the Margaret Kilgour we refer to was the daughter of so and so who married such and her brother in law was the son of that one's uncle and above all let it be known that Isabella Ormiston was the daughter of that woman and the milkman and there you have it. But apparently it doesn't say that at all

Best wishes
Pinkshoes

[AndrewP]

Andrew - What you say re 1827 makes sense but I'm still a wee bit lost here. Is the record for Andrew Scougal saying he is the son of Andrew Scougal and Margaret (end of record) OR is he the sone of Andrew Scougal and Margaret Wilson OR is the Wilson reference nothing to do with Scougal AND where does Kilgour come in? Could that be missing off the image after Margaret? There must be some mention somewhere, otherwise how could SP pick it up?

Hi Pinkshoes,

As far as I can see the Wilson remark as nothing to do with the Scougal entry on the page. It is just placed in the margin as that is the column with the surnames, and the only part with space on the page.

The word Margaret is completed on the following line, hence it reads Margaret Kilgour. Andrew Scougal is the lawful son of Andrew Scougal and Margaret Kilgour.

All the best,

Andrew

[pinkshoes]

Ah! Sometimes my dense-ness is stunning! I see it now. The second line contains a hyphen and the "et" to finish off Margaret. I read it as "at ... somewhere I couldn't read beginning with K or H" - duh!

Thanks Andrew.

Now I need to see Andrew and Margaret's marriage entry which should be on the same day

Best wishes
Pinkshoes

[Jack]

Hi Pinkshoes and Rosalie,
I know nothing of what Midlothian Poor Law records have survived.

But it might be worth contacting Local Studies at Loanhead to see if they hold any Poor Relief records for Inveresk?
(see Sources link at top of TS page - Poor Houses in Scotland)

Re the Ormistons & Scougals - they seem rather intertwined !
Jack

[pinkshoes]

Thanks for the hint Jack - I'll do that now, once I'm clear about what I'm asking them - I may be some time As for the marriage entry for Andrew and Margaret, the banns were called in both Newbattle and Borthwick parishes but neither yielded anything of interest. I was rather hoping the kirk would have had something to say about them marrying the day their child was baptised, but perhaps they thought better late than never

Intertwined - I'll say But then, all my Lothian lot were rather fond of each other to say the least. Is it any wonder I'm the way I am

Best wishes
Pinkshoes

Later : I knew Loanhead was familiar - checked old emails and found reply to an earlier enquiry I made, which says they don't have any Poor Relief records, but suggest NAS or the Edinburgh Room - I've tried the Edinburgh room before with no success, but perhaps NAS might have something.

[AndrewP]

Hi Pinkshoes,

During local government re-organisation in 1975, Inveresk parish transferred from Midlothian to East Lothian. It may be worth your while to contact East Lothian Archives in Haddington.

http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/content/0 ... 34,00.html

All the best,

AndrewP

[pinkshoes]

Thanks Andrew - done. We'll see what that brings

Best wishes
Pinkshoes

[alysone]

Hi Everyone,
It certainly would be worthwhile if we could access information on the Poorhouse in Haddington from that period.
I have been coming at our Mary Darling lot from another angle today. I went over what we actually do know about her children. Two of her sons married Howdens; I assume sisters? David Crookston, b. 1839 married Agnes. William Peacock Crookston, b. 1837 married Elizabeth. They were born in Salton. Tracking the likeliest family (based on ages & future naming patterns of their offspring) we come upon more "paupers". In 1841 Janet was married to John Howden, ag. worker. By 1851, he seems to have died and she is registered as:
HOWDEN Janet Head W F 44 Pauper Formerly House Servant Midlothian - Edinburgh Salton
And just for fun, William and Elizabeth had a son, Robert, b. 1860 who could have been the RC who married Mary Darling Scougall? I am off to see about that! alysone

[pinkshoes]

No good news re poor relief Haddington. Received very prompt reply saying the records for Inveresk, they believe, are at NAS. They hope to obtain the records when they move into their new history centre in 2010. Which in itself is good news I suppose, as no doubt we'll still be in the thick of this.

I have just uploaded a 1955 DC for Mary Darling Crookston. (Not sure how to link it from here?) She was the widow of Robert Crookston & the daughter of Andrew Scougall (dec'd), retired postman and Isabella Melrose (dec'd)!

Alysone, I've searched for the marriage of Robert and Mary without success. I've been as inventive as I can with wildcards, still nothing. I have the death cert for Robert in 1934, the informant was his cousin Thomas Crookston. The informant on Mary's is her niece, MD Philip. Maybe they didn't have any children. At least the two informants are consistent, but if they ever did actually marry, it must have been after 1901 as Mary's with parents in Melrose at census.
Perhaps they never bothered with the formalities? I've a feeling though it's more likely we're just not finding the certificate (yet).

I do hate loose ends