Bigamist or not.....

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:30 am

Well....after a good nights sleep

I woke up troubled

s Why was it the wildcard index search that finally threw up John and Eliza CONNACHE (which truly looks like it has an R on the end in the image! ) didn't throw up any of their children's names

I mean I've spent some hours here and even bought the whole country worth of George C*N*CH* and also looked for Charles that way too. So why aren't they in the SP index???? I mean the image is dreadfully difficult to read but at least Charles can be made out. Then it occurs to me to look under SWAN as that is written clear as a bell and has been tacked on the end of Mary Connacher's name with all her brothers and sisters listed chronologically below. Nope....they aren't under SWAN either

k ....(Even tried looking under DO

) After a few more attempts I try the *WAN and bingo!

1851 MCSWAN ALEXANDER M 10 CUMBERNAULD /DUNBARTON 495/00 006/00 009 VIEW (PAID) ORDER
2 1851 MCSWAN CHARLES M 7 CUMBERNAULD /DUNBARTON 495/00 006/00 009 VIEW (PAID) ORDER
3 1851 MCSWAN DAVID M 18 CUMBERNAULD /DUNBARTON 495/00 006/00 009 VIEW (PAID) ORDER
4 1851 MCSWAN GEORGE M 4 CUMBERNAULD /DUNBARTON 495/00 006/00 009 VIEW (PAID) ORDER
5 1851 MCSWAN JEAN F 0 CUMBERNAULD /DUNBARTON 495/00 006/00 009 VIEW (PAID) ORDER
6 1851 MCSWAN JEAN F 14 CUMBERNAULD /DUNBARTON 495/00 006/00 009 VIEW (PAID) ORDER
7 1851 MCSWAN MARY F 11 CUMBERNAULD /DUNBARTON 495/00 006/00 009 VIEW (PAID) ORDER
8 1851 MCSWAN THOMAS M 9 CUMBERNAULD /DUNBARTON 495/00 006/00 009 VIEW (PAID) ORDER

What a dreadful case of mis-indexing!!!! [-X Mary's age is wrong...surname is wrong Jean s/b Helen, still haven't found John Jr.....

John I hope your wee lie doon has refreshed you enough to pick up this tale and keep going. You have a wonderfully interesting line that should keep you entertained (and challenged

) for some time to come.

Very best wishes
Jean

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:55 pm

Hi Jean,
That nightcap (only one?) was very well deserved.

Hope "waking up troubled" didnae mean a "hangover"...

and you're right, John is as CONNACHER with an "R".

The mis-indexing is probably because daur Mary 21 is as "Mary do SWAN"; the "do" for CONNACHER.
Though it seems that someone has taken this "do" meant "Mc", and as Mary's surname was SWAN,
we have from David downwards as McSWAN.

It should've been noticed that Mary was as married, and her name alone was SWAN, and that all were children of John.
But as David was as "David do" below Mary, and if someone had "gone by the book",
then he should've been indexed as David Connacher SWAN.
[likewise with the other children having their forenames & Connacher Swan]

So yes Jean, dreadful mis-indexing no matter what; you could've understood if it was for eg,
"David do SWAN" meaning "David Connacher SWAN", but never as David McSWAN.
And of course the error was continued on the rest of the children.
So this below is what was intended.
--
1851 cens 495 (398) Ed 6 p 9 (Cumbernauld)
Wynd.
John CONNACHER, head, marr, 44, master tailor, b Cumbernauld, DNB
Eliza CONNACHER, wife, marr, 41, domestic affairs, b Bay of Biscay, British Subject
Mary Connacher SWAN, daur, marr, 21, domestic affairs, b Dublin, Ireland
David CONNACHER, son, u/m 18, tailor j/man, b Fowlis, western, PER
Ellen CONNACHER, 14, at home, b Smithiehaugh, PER
Alexander CONNACHER, son, 11, tailor (apprentice), b Smithiehaugh, PER
Thomas CONNACHER, son, 9, at home, b Smithiehaugh, PER
Charles CONNACHER, son, 7, at home, b Smithiehaugh, PER
George CONNACHER, son, 4, -------------b Banton? Kilsyth, STI
Jean CONNACHER, daur, 7mos, ---------b Cumbernauld, DNB
[there is/was? a Smithyhaugh on Ruthven water, abt 2 miles? east of Auchterarder]
--
Jack
ps, the film was fairly clear to read - only the birthplaces slightly "squashed up".

JustJean · Post by **JustJean** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:58 pm

Ah Jack you're a pure ray of sunshine!

And no ah'm no usually bothered when I jist put the nightcap oan mah heid.....

I was pretty sure of all the entries save for the places of birth which as you state were a wee bit squashed.... but your transcription is perfect (as usual =D> )

I worry that John (aka Skene) has gone silent on us!

I do hope we've not stolen all his thunder for figuring this puzzle out for himself!

I think I'll be submitting this one to GROS for some index re-adjustment

It will undoubtedly take some time but at least it can be added to the action list.

Best wishes
Jean

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 7:29 pm

Hi Jean,
It's yersel that should have a big =D> !
My guess that John might be in Stirlingshire 1851 was also wrong - i'm good at doing that!
But i should've minded that Dunbartonshire borders Stirlingshire,

and taken note that on John's web page brother Thomas was still in Cumbernauld 1851.
And so always the possibility that John had returned "home" for a bit,
but as he did a fair bit of travelling he could've been almost anywhere.

Cheers, Jack
--
ps, John, i hope you won't be too upset now that you know for sure there's a bigamist in the family...

my GG-aunt married one, and had 6 children to him! He got 3mos in jail for his sins 12yrs after their "marriage".

Skene Dhu · Post by **Skene Dhu** » Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:23 pm

Jack & Jean,

Many thanks for your much apprieciated investigations, Jean I have`nt disappeared in a clap of thunder, its just that medical problems keep me away from the site for long periods, I`ll have to digest all this info.
I think it was you Jean that had a ? mark about a birth in Kilsyth, but I`ve noticed on my own tree that Kilsyth seems to figure, like a magnet in a lot of marriages, perhaps its got some magical pull on the Connacher family!!.

Again, many thanks

John