Hi all,
Some time back I had a friend look for me on her 1861 index for my James McCormick and his family. She found the following:
Living in Calton, Glasgow - 644/4
James McCormick - 26 b England
Catherine - 24 b Ireland
Helen - 16 b England (sister???)
Mary J - 3 b England
Catherine - 1 b Glasgow
And she added "This is the only James with a Catherine I found on the 1861 LKS census in Glasgow. Bear in mind that this index gives no relationships or occupations."
Tonight I wanted to double check this on SP, and I have wasted a LOT of credits because I can't FIND THEM!!!!
Grrrrr!
Now my friend couldn't have made it up, since I didn't know about this man's daughters Mary Jane and Catherine at the time, nor did I expect that James would be born in England or his wife Catherine in Ireland (they were). I have since found out so much my head is spinning, but I just wanted to double check that a son James they had in 1860 wasn't with them on that census (that's another story...I can't find him after his birth!!! Not on 1861 or 1871 with family and not dead!!!)
I am confused. Why could she find it on her index, but it isn't on SP? I have checked every McCorm*ck in Calton and even wider, and none of the ages fit anywhere.
HELP!!
Nina
Can't find my family!!! .....
Moderator: Global Moderators
-
ninatoo
- Posts: 1231
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Australia
-
Andy
- Posts: 735
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:06 am
- Location: Gourock
I tried as well and couldn't match any of the names and specific ages given except a Mary 3 and Catherine 1 on Iona not yours.
I used M*Corm*
Think you may have to wait until Jack can check this out, If he can find them then something is missing on Scotland's People.
I used M*Corm*
Think you may have to wait until Jack can check this out, If he can find them then something is missing on Scotland's People.
Searching for Keogh, Kelly, Fitzgerald, Riddell, Stewart, Wilson, McQuilkin, Lynch, Boyle, Cairney, Ross, King, McIlravey, McCurdy, Drennan and Woods (to name but a few).
Also looking for any information on Rathlin Island, County Antrim, Ireland.
Also looking for any information on Rathlin Island, County Antrim, Ireland.
-
Jack
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:34 pm
- Location: Paisley
Re Can't find my family!!!
Hi Nina,
You have it right as on the CD index, and there's no wee James mentioned.
Unless Catherine abt 1, was meant to say James?
But i'd need to check the film roll to see if the family ARE there.
--
1861 cens 644-4 Ed 15 pp 11-12
James McCORMICK, 26, b England
Catherine McCORMICK, 24, b Ireland
Helen McCORMICK, 16, b England
Mary J. McCORMICK, 3, b England
Catherine McCORMICK, abt 1, b Glasgow
--
Jack
ps, what does it say for the family in later censuses?
You have it right as on the CD index, and there's no wee James mentioned.
Unless Catherine abt 1, was meant to say James?
But i'd need to check the film roll to see if the family ARE there.
--
1861 cens 644-4 Ed 15 pp 11-12
James McCORMICK, 26, b England
Catherine McCORMICK, 24, b Ireland
Helen McCORMICK, 16, b England
Mary J. McCORMICK, 3, b England
Catherine McCORMICK, abt 1, b Glasgow
--
Jack
ps, what does it say for the family in later censuses?
Last edited by Jack on Mon Feb 13, 2006 1:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
DavidWW
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm
Hi Nina
I'm confused too !!
Firstly, just to confirm, - the records are there on the Des Garrity 1861 CD, 644-4, ED 25, page 11, lines 25 & 26, and page 12, lines 1, 2, & 3 ......
Sooo...... either there was a mistranscription that resulted in the CD record, - less likely as it was Scots who did the data extraction, or there's an error in the SP version ..............
I'd strongly recommend that you submit a contact form to SP very politely pointing out the apparant SP 1861 omission, and, if it does turn put to be an error on the part of GROS/SP very politely requesting a refund of your wasted credits !!
David
PS Having just read Jack's post, hold fire until Jack checks the microfilm, and, if the family are where Des Garrity says they are, then you can politely demand a refund of your wasted credits ................
dww
I'm confused too !!
Firstly, just to confirm, - the records are there on the Des Garrity 1861 CD, 644-4, ED 25, page 11, lines 25 & 26, and page 12, lines 1, 2, & 3 ......
Sooo...... either there was a mistranscription that resulted in the CD record, - less likely as it was Scots who did the data extraction, or there's an error in the SP version ..............
I'd strongly recommend that you submit a contact form to SP very politely pointing out the apparant SP 1861 omission, and, if it does turn put to be an error on the part of GROS/SP very politely requesting a refund of your wasted credits !!
David
PS Having just read Jack's post, hold fire until Jack checks the microfilm, and, if the family are where Des Garrity says they are, then you can politely demand a refund of your wasted credits ................
dww
-
sporran
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:40 pm
- Location: Leominster, Herefordshire, UK
Re: missing family
Hello Nina,
I checked for other families and none showed up as being in Enumeration District (ED) 15. I have sent an e-mail to SP asking if the whole of ED 15 has been omitted.
Regards,
John
I checked for other families and none showed up as being in Enumeration District (ED) 15. I have sent an e-mail to SP asking if the whole of ED 15 has been omitted.
Regards,
John
-
Jack
- Posts: 1808
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 5:34 pm
- Location: Paisley
Re: missing family
Hi John,
According to the 1861 Cd - ED 15 has 18 pages.
So seems quite a few folk will be missing!
Jack
ps, the 1st is, Ed 15 p 1 line 1
Thomas MACKIE, 39
and last is, Ed 15 p 18 line 9
Margaret GREER, 46
--
According to the 1861 Cd - ED 15 has 18 pages.
So seems quite a few folk will be missing!
Jack
ps, the 1st is, Ed 15 p 1 line 1
Thomas MACKIE, 39
and last is, Ed 15 p 18 line 9
Margaret GREER, 46
--
-
ninatoo
- Posts: 1231
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Australia
So...I am still holding fire before I write Jack?
I am glad to see others can find the family on the disk, and I know my friend has always given me wonderful assistance in the past, so I knew the error was NOT with her. This one entry she sent was what began my journey with this branch of my tree, which I am very grateful for. and I think there are at least three other families she has found for me, too.
The fact that my folk (and apparently others) are on the index disk but not at SP is an error on the part of SP/GRO is it not? I did check the site and it says to let them know if something seems to be missing...and I have had some doubts before, but this seems to be a case where I can back up my claim that an omission has been made. I will write if Jack gives me the go ahead....
As for young James McCormick, the child I was searching for. He was born in February 13 1860 in Anderston Glasgow. I have his birth certificate, but he does not appear on the above mentioned 1861 census (disk) with the family nor with them on the 1871, 1881, 1891 or 1901. I have his mother's and father's poorhouse applications (thanks Nelmit) and he is not mentioned on them either. I have had a few transcriptions of poorhouse reciords given to me, and when children are not mentioned it usually means they have died - but I know it isn't always the case.
Also he had a sister born January 1 1867 in Clyde, (I have her birth too) Helen, and I can't find her on anything either. AND......NO DEATH registration for either child in the assumed periods of 1861-1871 for James, or 1867-1871 for Helen. I have searched for longer time intervals, but I can't recall offhand how far I went. Both children just disappear!
For all searches mentioned above, I have used wildcards: McCorm*ck, McCorm*c*, M*cCorm*ck, et etc although I know at this time period the name was mostly recorded as McCormick. It later changed to McCormack.
Any help is appreciated, and thanks everyone for time put into this post already,
Nina
I am glad to see others can find the family on the disk, and I know my friend has always given me wonderful assistance in the past, so I knew the error was NOT with her. This one entry she sent was what began my journey with this branch of my tree, which I am very grateful for. and I think there are at least three other families she has found for me, too.
The fact that my folk (and apparently others) are on the index disk but not at SP is an error on the part of SP/GRO is it not? I did check the site and it says to let them know if something seems to be missing...and I have had some doubts before, but this seems to be a case where I can back up my claim that an omission has been made. I will write if Jack gives me the go ahead....
As for young James McCormick, the child I was searching for. He was born in February 13 1860 in Anderston Glasgow. I have his birth certificate, but he does not appear on the above mentioned 1861 census (disk) with the family nor with them on the 1871, 1881, 1891 or 1901. I have his mother's and father's poorhouse applications (thanks Nelmit) and he is not mentioned on them either. I have had a few transcriptions of poorhouse reciords given to me, and when children are not mentioned it usually means they have died - but I know it isn't always the case.
Also he had a sister born January 1 1867 in Clyde, (I have her birth too) Helen, and I can't find her on anything either. AND......NO DEATH registration for either child in the assumed periods of 1861-1871 for James, or 1867-1871 for Helen. I have searched for longer time intervals, but I can't recall offhand how far I went. Both children just disappear!
For all searches mentioned above, I have used wildcards: McCorm*ck, McCorm*c*, M*cCorm*ck, et etc although I know at this time period the name was mostly recorded as McCormick. It later changed to McCormack.
Any help is appreciated, and thanks everyone for time put into this post already,
Nina
-
sporran
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:40 pm
- Location: Leominster, Herefordshire, UK
Re: 1861 census Calton
Hello Nina,
SP are currently looking into this problem since all of ED15 may be missing. They will e-mail me as soon as they have news and I will post here again. Please bear with them: they are working on other issues as well.
Regards,
John
SP are currently looking into this problem since all of ED15 may be missing. They will e-mail me as soon as they have news and I will post here again. Please bear with them: they are working on other issues as well.
Regards,
John
-
ninatoo
- Posts: 1231
- Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2005 10:42 am
- Location: Australia
-
sporran
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 11:40 pm
- Location: Leominster, Herefordshire, UK
Re: 644/4 ED15 in 1861
Hello Nina,
SP e-mailed me earlier to state that they are almost certain that ED15 has been missed entirely. SOL were contacting GROS to follow up on this matter.
In the meantime, SP apologises for causing this problem and has forwarded the 2 pages and header for your family. If you e-mail me (my address is in personal details) I will send them to you.
If you feel that you have wasted more credits in futile searches, please fill out a contact form to SP and I am sure that you will have credits and time refunded.
I have not sure how anyone else unable to find relatives in Calton will be treated at present: it is probably best to wait until the problem has been corrected and you can prove your case. Bear in mind that SP have a record of all your searches.
Regards,
John
SP e-mailed me earlier to state that they are almost certain that ED15 has been missed entirely. SOL were contacting GROS to follow up on this matter.
In the meantime, SP apologises for causing this problem and has forwarded the 2 pages and header for your family. If you e-mail me (my address is in personal details) I will send them to you.
If you feel that you have wasted more credits in futile searches, please fill out a contact form to SP and I am sure that you will have credits and time refunded.
I have not sure how anyone else unable to find relatives in Calton will be treated at present: it is probably best to wait until the problem has been corrected and you can prove your case. Bear in mind that SP have a record of all your searches.
Regards,
John