Hi everyone, Thanks to Jack Mills I have mostly solved my elusive FERGUSON/MURRAY line in the 1851 Greenock census. Firstly, SP has them very poorly and elusively indexed. Secondly, the scanned image is of low quality, thus SP is not allowing it to be viewed. In the 1851, Thomas MURRAY, the Head of Household, is recorded as 39 years of age therefore born c.1811/12 in Greenock. The IGI and SP has two Thomas Murray born in Greenock to exactly the same parents, James Murray and Elis(z)abeth Ewing; one on 23/12/1812, the other on 28/02/1814. These two births to the same parents suggest that the first Thomas born in 1812 died in infancy before his nominal successor was born in 1814. Who was the Thomas in the 1851 census? Was he the first Thomas, born in 1812 as his enumerated age of 39 suggests? If so, why should his parents name another child Thomas in 1814? Is this a mistake? Any suggestions? Angus
Hi Angus: I would suggest that the Thomas of 1812 died in infancy and in 1814, a new son was given the name of Thomas. I have also found that the ages given in a census, particularly the early ones, are not always correct. Cheers, Bobbie ----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus Ferguson" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, July 21, 2006 1:54 PM Subject: [Renfrew] MURRAY/Greenock: Birth date conundrum > Hi everyone, > > Thanks to Jack Mills I have mostly solved my elusive FERGUSON/MURRAY line > in > the 1851 Greenock census. Firstly, SP has them very poorly and elusively > indexed. Secondly, the scanned image is of low quality, thus SP is not > allowing it to be viewed. > > In the 1851, Thomas MURRAY, the Head of Household, is recorded as 39 years > of age therefore born c.1811/12 in Greenock. The IGI and SP has two Thomas > Murray born in Greenock to exactly the same parents, James Murray and > Elis(z)abeth Ewing; one on 23/12/1812, the other on 28/02/1814. These two > births to the same parents suggest that the first Thomas born in 1812 died > in infancy before his nominal successor was born in 1814. Who was the > Thomas > in the 1851 census? Was he the first Thomas, born in 1812 as his > enumerated > age of 39 suggests? If so, why should his parents name another child > Thomas > in 1814? Is this a mistake? Any suggestions? > > Angus > > >