Hi Jacquie, Thank you for helping and recent suggestions. I thought it was a mis-transcription too. The 2 does look like a 3 - as you say it's 23 But if she was 26 at marriage in 1900 then it should read 27. Robert is correct at 31 and son Robert is 2mths. I have that 1901 census from ScotlandsPeople. I also have Maggie's death cert, Jacquie. She died 1965 Western General Hospital, Edinburgh,Midlothian,Scotland. Parents: William WILSON ,insurance agent and Margaret WILSON, ms-blank. Cause of death, 1a,general neglect & hypothermia, 1b,senility. The informant is her son Robert (above), my late uncle. She is down as age 86, but I think this age was guessed at by my uncle, as there wasn't a lot of contact between them at this time. That would then make her birth 1879. I think it should have said 91 making birth 1874. I'm was tempted by the WILSON -MILLS family etc., but their Margaret WILSON was born 1878 South Leith, Midlothian, Scotland. It would be too easy a solution to go for them. I did this twice before on my WARE line who turned out the wrong families. I've now spent about £12 on ScotlandsPeople, looking mostly at Maggie/Margaret WILSON s, but not sure which one to pick. I was hoping perhaps some WILSONs out there might make a connection. I'll keep looking though. Kind Regards, Brian. Jacquie <jjjcmj@mts.net> wrote: 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