Hi Goldie That's better. [see below] Why do you assume that Jemima WALKER married John DUTHIE? Scotland's People shows one marriage of John DUTHIE to a female WALKER in Cruden in the 1893 but it is NOT Jemima nor [unsurprisingly] is it the much younger Elizabeth. So it would presumably be another WALKER sister. My credits have expired on ScP otherwise I would have looked at the hit list but I'll leave that to you. There is one death of a female DUTHIE a.k.a WALKER in 1900 in Cruden which is almost certainly John's wife and the missing sister of J & E, and mother of the girls, Barbara, Christine and Jane. Q.E.D. You didn't notify Jemima's or Elizabeth's or John's marital statuses. I'd guess John was "W" and the women were "U". Panic not! -- Best wishes Ray ********************************************************** >From Ray Hennessy Forenames website: www.whatsinaname.net Preferred Email address: ray@whatsinaname.net Hints for Scotland's People at http://bit.ly/WIAN-SCP ********************************************************** --------------------------------------------------------------------- 2009/11/27 goldie and Lido Doratti <lidogold2@shaw.ca>: > Thanks Ray, here is what I have....... > 1901 Census Cruden ABD address 19 Harbour St > Duthie John head, age 32 abt 1869 b Cruden Abd Cooper > Walker Elizabeth sister in law age 18 abt 1883 b Peterhead Abd Domestic > Housekeeping > Duthie Barbara A dau age 7 abt 1894 Cruden Abd Scholar > Duthie Jane dau age 2 abat 1899 b Peterhead Abd > **** > 1901 Census Scotland Peterhead Abd Low Street No 13 > Walker George head age 58 abut 1843 b Peterhead Abd, fisherman > Walker Barbara wife age 58 abt 1843 b Peterhead, Abd > Walker Jemima dau age 25 b abt 1876 b Peterhead, Abd,Domestic servant > Duthie Christine granddau age 4 abt 1897 b Cruden, Abd > **** > For a fact I know that Elizabeth and Jemima are daughters of George and > Barbara Walker, but I don't understand this.......why is she still a Walker > if she was married to Duthie.......Out of the Walker family Jemima is the > only likely candidate......others are dead, or too young. > I can't get this thru my thick skull, I'm missing something and not thinking > outside the box here. I know I can go to SP and get the answer but I've > blown so many $$ doing this, I thought maybe someone could see something I > can't.  And DON'T anyone spend money on this on my behalf........it can stay > the way it is.  It just struck me as odd..  Thanks for the input, Goldie > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ray Hennessy" <ray7033@googlemail.com> > To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 5:03 PM > Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... > > > Hi Goldie > > I'm not clear about the relationships in this scenario. > There seem to be two possibilities: > > 1.  If John was married to a sister - now deceased - of Elizabeth & > Jemima, then the relationships all work:  Elizabeth is housekeeping > for her sister's widower and one of his daughters is staying with the > grandparents on Census night. > > 2.  You haven't given us the declared married status of John, > Elizabeth or Jemima.  Are you saying that Jemima is married to John > DUTHIE? [do you *know* this?] If this is the point of the query then > it is likely that the father, when making the return, either > habitually used Jemima's maiden name or didn't put a name in.  If he > just wrote [or said] "daughter" the enumerator might easily have > assumed her surname to be the same as the father's.  Also, it would be > quite possible for Elizabeth to be housekeeping at her sister's - > probably because three children can be a handful and they might need > extra help to bring in income, depending on John's occupation. > > As they say, "there's many a slip..." and enumerators were probably > not very well paid and did everything in a hurry while also having a > day job. > > HTH > > Ray