Hang on, the Ancestry index for 1901 has Maggie WARE aged 35, born c1866. Is that a mistranscription? It doesnt fit with the marriage lines obviously and provides fewer possibles in the censuses. Judy

I noticed that too,Judy. I think her age should be 27. Arthur is right at 31. (Unless Maggie lied about her age at marriage in 1900?). Their son, my uncle Robert was b.Feb 1901 in Edinburgh. I have Robert's birth cert, parents Arthur & Maggie Ware (nee Wilson), married 19 Feb Birmingham. Arthur was also hotel porter at Robert's birth. So I would say they are the same family. Also, my aunt Evelyn b.1905 Edinburgh and father William b.1911 Blackpool, have parents Arthur & Maggie Ware (nee Wilson),married 19 Feb Birmingham. Perhaps the 1911 census will say where they are. Is it available yet?. Regards Brian. judy olsen <copywriter@tesco.net> wrote: Hang on, the Ancestry index for 1901 has Maggie WARE aged 35, born c1866. Is that a mistranscription? It doesnt fit with the marriage lines obviously and provides fewer possibles in the censuses. Judy ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SCT-EDINBURGH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The Ancestry entry for the 1901 census is a mistranscription. I did a search for Ware at ScotlandsPeople and there were three that showed up in the results with the GROS data information: Arthur Ware, age 31, Maggie Ware, age 23 and Robert Ware, age 0. Maggie being 23 matches up exactly with the 1881 and 1891 census information that Judy and I provided. The 1911 census won't be available for another 3 years or so I believe. Have you tried ordering a copy of Margaret Ware's death registration from ScotlandsPeople. Unless the informant didn't know the names of her parents, they should be listed on it. Jacquie Winnipeg, MB Canada -----Original Message----- From: sct-edinburgh-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sct-edinburgh-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of brian ware Sent: November 11, 2008 4:54 AM To: sct-edinburgh@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SCT-EDINBURGH] Margaret WILSON I think her age should be 27. Arthur is right at 31. (Unless Maggie lied about her age at marriage in 1900?). Perhaps the 1911 census will say where they are. Is it available yet?. Regards Brian.