Further to Sandy's message, Eva, At the risk of providing superfluous information, I would add that, since the entry you wish to see is already known, the costs would be limited to pounds sterling 1.20 to access and download the original record. (That's six units at 20 p per unit, i.e. 1 unit to locate the record you want, and 5 to view and download it. This applies to most records on Scotland's People, including OPRs prior to 1855, statutory registration of BMDs from 1855, and the census records Sandy mentions. The typed up 1881 costs only 1 unit to view. Wills and the register of corrected entries are accessible too, the latter at a cost of 2 units per entry. These entries often add a little information following on a inquest or similar retake on the circumstances for example.) Your thought that Lean McKinlay could be a mistranscription on Ancestry is an understandable one. And, besides, my experience is that our Scottish Jane and Janet ancestors may appear as Jane, Jean, Jessie, Janet or Jess, varying from record to record and from Jean to Lean is but a tiny step. Even the age gap is not impossible, given the...er...idiosyncrasies of Ancestry transcriptions. It's a pity - though merely one of the fun challenges our family history poses us - that Jane McKinlay seems to have been born a year or two ahead of statutory registration. From what else you know of the family, are you aware of siblings to Jane who might have been born - or even died - in 1855? Statutory records from 1855 should give a mine of information not recorded in any other year. By the end of that first year, economic cuts dictated a return to the basics because the extensive records cost too much time and manpower. This is borne out by the relative illegibility of the 1855 pages, but the information is there and you can generally work out what the handwriting says. Happy hunting, Katie de Haan The Netherlands ----- Original Message ----- From: "a.stevenson" <alistairandsandy@bigpond.com> To: <sct-renfrew@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 1:57 AM Subject: Re: [SCT-RENFREW] Scotland 1861 census - entry for JANE HALL > You may not be aware but you can look at the actual census record on > Scotland's People. 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1891 1901. The 1881 is > actually > a typed copy of the entry. > > Sandy (Tasmania) > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eva Mitchell" <evamitch@shaw.ca> > To: "SCT-RENFREW List" <SCT-RENFREW-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:16 AM > Subject: [SCT-RENFREW] Scotland 1861 census - entry for JANE HALL > > >> Could someone with access to actual records of the 1861 Scotland census >> do >> a lookup for me please. I am looking for a JANE HALL, born abt. 1843 >> possibly in Beith, Ayrshire to Edward McKinlay and Jane McCuaig McKinlay. >> Edward later remarried Mary Weir and moved to Greenock and worked as a >> sugarhouse labourer. >> I have located an entry at Ancestry.com which lists: >> Lean McKinlay age 8 child of Edward McKinlay living at 15 Clarence >> Street, >> Greenock West and am wondering if the name Lean McKinlay has been >> mistranscribed and should in fact read Jane McKinlay. Registration No. >> is >> 564/3, Registration District Greenock West, ED 36, Household No. 39, Line >> 5, Roll CSSCT:1861_77. >> Eva Vancouver, BC, Canada >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SCT-RENFREW-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SCT-RENFREW-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Regarding the 1881 census, I've read that they will be adding the original census forms to Scotland's People. Sandy (Tasmania) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Katie de Haan" <gallorosso@home.nl> To: <sct-renfrew@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 7:29 PM Subject: Re: [SCT-RENFREW] Scotland 1861 census - entry for JANE HALL > Further to Sandy's message, Eva, > > At the risk of providing superfluous information, I would add that, since > the entry you wish to see is already known, the costs would be limited to > pounds sterling 1.20 to access and download the original record. > > (That's six units at 20 p per unit, i.e. 1 unit to locate the record you > want, and 5 to view and download it. This applies to most records on > Scotland's People, including OPRs prior to 1855, statutory registration of > BMDs from 1855, and the census records Sandy mentions. The typed up 1881 > costs only 1 unit to view. Wills and the register of corrected entries are > accessible too, the latter at a cost of 2 units per entry. These entries > often add a little information following on a inquest or similar retake on > the circumstances for example.) > > Your thought that Lean McKinlay could be a mistranscription on Ancestry is > an understandable one. And, besides, my experience is that our Scottish > Jane and Janet ancestors may appear as Jane, Jean, Jessie, Janet or Jess, > varying from record to record and from Jean to Lean is but a tiny step. > Even the age gap is not impossible, given the...er...idiosyncrasies of > Ancestry transcriptions. > > It's a pity - though merely one of the fun challenges our family history > poses us - that Jane McKinlay seems to have been born a year or two ahead > of > statutory registration. From what else you know of the family, are you > aware of siblings to Jane who might have been born - or even died - in > 1855? > Statutory records from 1855 should give a mine of information not recorded > in any other year. By the end of that first year, economic cuts dictated > a > return to the basics because the extensive records cost too much time and > manpower. This is borne out by the relative illegibility of the 1855 > pages, > but the information is there and you can generally work out what the > handwriting says. > > Happy hunting, > Katie de Haan > The Netherlands > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "a.stevenson" <alistairandsandy@bigpond.com> > To: <sct-renfrew@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 1:57 AM > Subject: Re: [SCT-RENFREW] Scotland 1861 census - entry for JANE HALL > > >> You may not be aware but you can look at the actual census record on >> Scotland's People. 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1891 1901. The 1881 is >> actually >> a typed copy of the entry. >> >> Sandy (Tasmania) >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Eva Mitchell" <evamitch@shaw.ca> >> To: "SCT-RENFREW List" <SCT-RENFREW-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2008 11:16 AM >> Subject: [SCT-RENFREW] Scotland 1861 census - entry for JANE HALL >> >> >>> Could someone with access to actual records of the 1861 Scotland census >>> do >>> a lookup for me please. I am looking for a JANE HALL, born abt. 1843 >>> possibly in Beith, Ayrshire to Edward McKinlay and Jane McCuaig >>> McKinlay. >>> Edward later remarried Mary Weir and moved to Greenock and worked as a >>> sugarhouse labourer. >>> I have located an entry at Ancestry.com which lists: >>> Lean McKinlay age 8 child of Edward McKinlay living at 15 Clarence >>> Street, >>> Greenock West and am wondering if the name Lean McKinlay has been >>> mistranscribed and should in fact read Jane McKinlay. Registration No. >>> is >>> 564/3, Registration District Greenock West, ED 36, Household No. 39, >>> Line >>> 5, Roll CSSCT:1861_77. >>> Eva Vancouver, BC, Canada >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >>> SCT-RENFREW-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >>> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >>> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SCT-RENFREW-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SCT-RENFREW-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message