RootsChat.Com
Scotland (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Scotland => Topic started by: Rose224 on Tuesday 10 January 06 01:38 GMT (UK)
-
The people in the Durham boards were so helpful and I learned much from them. However, when I tried to pick up the trail in Scotland, I am striking out. Would someone help me get going again with finding anything I can on the following:
Joseph Fadzen, born 1822 in Scotland (not sure which area)
and
Jane Fadzen, born 1822 in Wigtonshire Scotland.
I would appreciate your pointing me in the right direction if you can.
-
Hi Rose
I think you might have a problem researching the name 'Fadzen' in Scotland. Maybe something has been lost in the translation! There are only 2 entries coming up on IGI for the entire British Isles at any time (one marriage and one birth).
A possible variant of the name might be McFadden (and alternative spellings). I am getting one IGI entry for a Jane McFadden b.1830 in Kirkcowan, Wigtown (submitted record so treat with caution) who went on to marry a William Millar in Wigtown. Unfortunately, no luck with Joseph using McFadden.
Regards.
Monica
-
Hi there,
Other versions of the name may be Fadyen or McFadyen (or alternative spellings of those too).
I am guessing (hopefully another rootschatter will put me right on this if I am wrong! :)), but from looking at the spelling, this name would originally have had a letter called a 'yogh' rather than a z in it. This letter was used in old English and Scots, but died out. the same problem appears in names like Dalziel and Menzies which would not have had a z in them originally. The yogh tends to be substituted for a z or a y (although I can't think of a 'y' example off the top of my head). You can get more info on it here... http://www.scottishhandwriting.com/content/default.asp?page=s4_3_15
I hope you can track them down.
Cheers,
Clare
-
There are no fadzens listed in the 1851 index for lanarkshire County area but there are 85 individuals listed with 10 variations on the spelling (including Mcfadzen)
-
Are any of the 85 variations Joseph? How can I pull up that census and look at the names? I am a world member of Ancestry.com but I don't think I have mastered it yet. The people on the Durham boards give me information that I can't pull up yet. I guess I am still too new at this.
-
Ancestry don't have any of the Scottish Census records (although they may have the transcribed version of the 1881 from the LDS)
There are 3 Josephs
Joseph McFadden aged 8 born in England (son of John & Judith)
Joseph McFadgeon age 46 born in Ireland
Joseph Mcfadgeon age 11 born in Ayrshire (father and son)
Scottish records can be accessed on the pay site http://www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk
-
The age is not right on any of those three. My Joseph would have been 29 in 1851. But I will try the pay site. Thank you so much.
-
Hope you don't mind me butting in, Rose ;)
According to the 1861 when they are in Durham, the family should look like this in 1851:
Joseph Fadzen age 29
Jane (wife) age 29
Jane (daughter) age 9
John (son) age 3
Janet (daughter) age 0
Tanja :)
-
Please - butt in all you want. I am floundering here. Your information on the Durham board was so helpful.
-
I have just checked the surname search on Scotlands People for fadzen between 1800 and 1955 it shows ZERO records either BMD or census records on that name.
Census 1861 0
Census 1871 0
Census 1881 0
Census 1891 0
Census 1901 0
Old Parish Records Births & Christenings 1800 - 1854 0
Old Parish Records Banns & Marriages 1800 - 1854 0
Statutory Register Births 1855 - 1905 0
Statutory Register Marriages / Banns 1855 - 1930 0
Statutory Register Deaths 1855 - 1955 0
Wills & Testaments 1800 - 1901 0
-
Is it possible that Joseph could have been born in Ireland but lied on the 1861 English census and said Scotland because of some real or perceived prejudice that may have existed toward the Irish back then by the English?
I am not up to speed on my political and religious history yet for this time period.
-
It is possible ... Wigtownshire where Jane is listed as from was one of the major areas for Irish settlers.
As to bigotry .. it is also possible as my own family as late as the 1920's changed the spelling of our name to make it less Irish.
-
Hi Rose,
Hope you don't mind, I've put a message on the talking scot forum as I'm intreigued as to where your family were! Hopefully they should get back to us soon.
All the best
Legs
xxxxx
-
Thanks Alllegs, I don't mind at all. I am very grateful to everyone for being so helpful.
-
Cool,
I'll get back to you as soon as I know anything more.
Good Luck!
Love
Legs
xxxx
-
Hi Rose,
Your Fadzen's are not in Wigtownshire in the 1851 census. Mabye try the www.dumgal.gov.uk website for other variations of the name.
Hopefully someone esle can find them somewhere else.
Legs
xxxx
-
Thank you. The Wigtownshire reference was to Joseph's wife birthplace so she would presumably have had a different maiden name.
-
Hiya Rose,
I think we've hit the jackpot!!!!
They are definately in Scotland in 1851.....
Search for Joseph McFazdean, he is in Penninghame with wife Jane and children Jane and John, Janet must not have been born until after the census was taken.
Address 9 Gorbals,
Occ Agricultural labourer
born Mochrum, Wigstown
Jane is a sewer (not as in the place where the teenage mutant turtles live but a person who sews!)
There are a few other McFadzeans in the same area too
search www.dumgal.gov.uk/historicalindexes/census.aspx
All the best
Legs
xxxx
-
I am so excited. I can't wait to check all this out. Thank you once again!!!
-
No problems Rose,
Glad I could help. You have to search for each name seperately though but they all give their relation to Joseph.
-
I get so frustrated with this stuff. I used the link you provided, entered all the criteria you game me, including the variation in spelling, and when I hit search it comes up with 0 results.
HELP!!!!
-
Have tried it too - seems to work when you spell it McFadzean (no space between Mc and Fadzean)
Tanja :)
PS. I see I made a mistake when I said daughter Jane should be 9 - sorry everyone :P : she should be age 7 - and SHE IS!! They really look like the same family. Also John is 13 on the 1861 census but 25 in 1871 so John being 5 in 1851 also ties in.
-
If you enter Mcfadzean in the surname field and Gorbals in the address field you will be taken straight to the entry for Joseph and family as well as a Jean McFadzean living at number 29.
Nice find, allegs.
-
It's working now. It is a GREAT find allegs. I'll paw around tonight and try to take it further, although I suspect I won't get anywhere and will be back for more help. . . heavy sigh!!!
-
Rose,
From the IGI, this is possibly the marriage of Joseph and Jane.
MCFAZZIAN Joseph married LITTERICK Jane, 22 Oct 1841, Mochrum Wigtown
JAP
PS: I found this by looking up the Mochrum batch numbers on the excellent Hugh Wallis site at:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~hughwallis/IGIBatchNumbers.htm
Then, in the IGI at:
http://www.familysearch.org
I entered the relevant batch number (M118924) in the batch box, selected British Isles as the region (nothing else), and entered Joseph in the first name box (no surname) and Jane in the spouse (forename) box (no surname).
-
Hi again Rose,
Another find from the IGI - a christening which seems to confirm the above!
MCFADYEAN Janet, bap 9 Nov 1851, Penninghame Wigtown, parents Joseph MCFADYEAN and Jane LITTERICK.
JAP
PS: The following might also be relevant but ...
MCFADYEN Mary, bap 25 Apr 1847, Mochrum Wigtown, parents John MCFADYEN and Jane LITTERICK.
PPS: Unfortunately the 1841 census for Mochrum is not yet online at FreeCEN but when it does come online it could be very useful. Or you could request an 1841 lookup on the Wigtown board?
-
Wow. If this is them, it is a great deal of additional information. Is it common to have so many different spellings of the same last name?
We now have Fadzen, McFadzean, McFazzian, McFadyen and McFadyean. The Janet birthdate certainly fits.
How do I verify this information and then use it to go back another generation?
-
Rose,
If they were mine, I would be more than confident that we were looking at the right people!
It would seem to be too much of a coincidence to find (and I note that you mentioned that Jane FADZEN was born in Wigtonshire - I don't know the source of this. Now I see that it is from the 1881 Bellfieldside census where Jane is transcribed on FamilySearch as FADYEN though from the image it could well say FADZEN - a 60 yo widow b Wigtonshire, with unmarried children Mary 25 and Robert 22 both b Durham):
* Joseph McFAZZIAN marrying Jane LITTERICK in Mochrum Wigtonshire in 1841
* Joseph McFADZEAN (30), wife Jane (32), and children Jane (7), and John (5) in Penninghame (all of them born Mochrum) in the 1851 census (31 Mar 1851)
* Janet MCFADYEN, daughter of Joseph McF and Jane LITTERICK, christened in Nov 1851 in Penninghame
*Joseph FADZEN (might be FADYEN though it looks like a 'z' to me i.e. it is different from the enumerator's 'y' - 39), Jane (39), Jane (17), John (13), Janet (10) all born Scotland - plus Mary and Eliz (both 6) and Robert (3) - in Durham in 1861
*Jane FADGEN (49 and widowed), John (25), Jannet (18), all born Scotland - plus Mary (15) and Robert (13) - in Durham in 1871.
I guess the obvious way to verify that Jane FADZEN/FADGEN's maiden name was LITTERICK is to purchase a birth certificate for one of the children born in Durham.
Then perhaps wait until you can get 1841 census details (when it comes online at FreeCEN, or at ScotlandsPeople which is promised soon, or via a request on the Wigtonshire board) from which you might find (if Joseph and Jane were with their parents - note that they didn't marry until October and the 1841 census was 7 Jun) the forenames of the parents of Joseph and Jane. Also some info about the birthplaces of the parents though the 1841 was fairly limited in the information provided - in the county, elsewhere in Scotland, or in England, Ireland, or Foreign.
If you get this information, you will then be able to search for them - in the IGI, on ScotlandsPeople, etc.
If the parents were considerate enough to remain alive until the time of Statutory Registration in Scotland (it began in 1855) a Scottish death certificate usually holds a wealth of information.
Good luck,
JAP
PS: I wouldn't give a moment's thought to the variability in spelling - you'll probably find many more versions! Though I must admit that MCFAZZIAN is quite a creative spelling - it's the only one in the IGI/ScotlandsPeople.
One of the names I am researching (a one-name study) occurs in both 'Mc' versions and versions without a 'Mc' - and I'm up to over 90 variant spellings to date and still counting.
Incidentally, don't forget that LITTERICK also might be variably spelled e.g. LITTRICK, LETTERICK, etc ...
-
Jap - I will indeed do all of the above. Thank you.
I feel like the little bird that everyone is teaching how to fly so I can leave the nest. I would love to post on the Wigtownshire board to what else I might learn but I am afraid that at some point people will get mad and think I am just sitting back and letting everyone else do my work. Do you folks ever get to that point or can I continue to search AND ask for all the help I can get?
-
Rose,
We are all just mad would-be puzzle solvers and are delighted to have something to worry at!
It can't hurt to ask on the Wigton board - if people can't answer (or even if they don't wish to) then no harm's done! But do mention this thread so they aren't duplicating things which have already been found.
And don't ever hesitate to ask HOW things have been found.
I've just glanced at the FreeBMD coverage for births in the years when twins Mary & Eliz (ca 1855) and little Robert (ca 1858) were born - unfortunately it is really poor (look on the main FreeBMD page (just enter FreeBMD in Google and it will be the top hit) and click on 'Information'); and there's only partial coverage of images of the actual books. So you might need to go to the pay site 1837online to find a reference in order to purchase a birth cert - unless someone can help from another source.
Good luck,
JAP
-
Thank you. I will.
-
Hi Rose,
What a break through, I also found the marriage of Jane and Joseph and Janet's birth but obviously Jap beat me to it!! Went out to brother in laws birthday meal last night and missed everything here!!! Oh dear!!
Hope you've been able to digest everything!
Best wishes
Legs
xxxx
-
Legs: It is a breakthrough, but I must say - I feel so incredibly dumb. I am a college degreed corporate executive but I just sit here with my jaw hanging open at how fast you guys find this stuff. Please don't laught but I just figured out last night how to print the 1861 Durham census - and that was only because Tati/Tanja gave me specific instructions and the RG, Folio and Page numbers to put in. However she also gave me the information for the 1871 census and I cannot get that one to come up!!
Before I pay to ordered certain documents would someone be able to tell me if the records I downloaded from Family Search (Gencom files) are copies of the actual certificates or just a transcribed version. If they are actual copies of "real" records, can someone tell me what I have to buy or download to view the Gencom files?
-
I'm sorry if I made yet another mistake when I gave you 1871 references, Rose :P
RG10/4957 72 69
They are down as 'Fadgen'.
(Rest of post edited by myself)
Tanja :)
-
Hi Tanya. No mistake, those were the numbers but when I put them in I don't know what I am doing wrong but it tells me no records! I will try again with the broader search * and cross my fingers.
-
I just wanted everyone to know that someone found the info from the 1841 census. It is:
"I found Joseph and Jane on the 1841 census - see below
Mochrum Litterick Agnes 1 Wig 1,10 Landberrick 6
Mochrum Litterick Hugh 22 Wig 1,10 Landberrick 6
Mochrum Litterick James 37 farmer Wig 1,10 Landberrick 6
Mochrum Litterick Jane 34 Wig 1,10 Landberrick 6
Mochrum Litterick Jane 35 Wig 1,10 Landberrick 6
Mochrum Litterick Jannet 10 Wig 1,10 Landberrick 6
Mochrum Litterick John 5 Wig 1,10 Landberrick 6
Mochrum Litterick Robert 1 Wig 1,10 Landberrick 6
Mochrum McFadzen Joseph 20 male servant Ire 1,10 Landberrick 6
I saw the 2 Janes aged 34 and 35 and checked the Index booklets to make sure there should be two entries incase this was a mistake but there were indeed two Jane's so close together according to the census booklet. I assume one would have been James' sister and the other his wife."
It looks like I am now going hunting in Ireland. My preliminary searches are failing when I search for Joseph. If anyone else has any luck, please let me know. I have ordered Jane and Joseph's marriage cert. Maybe that will identify a county to start searching.
-
Rose,
Some thoughts/comments.
1. Joseph and Jane were married in 1841 - but Statutory Registration did not begin in Scotland until 1855. So you will not get a 'marriage certificate' but merely a copy of the entry in the church register (OPR). It might have further snippets of information but be aware that it might say nothing more than is recorded in the IGI (i.e. there might be no further information at all).
2. I note that Joseph of the 1841 census is listed as born in Ireland whereas in the 1851 (in Penninghame, Wigtonshire) he is listed as born in Mochrum, Wigtonshire and in the 1861 (in Durham) as born in Scotland. Assuming that it is the same person (which seems more than likely) it might be that the 1841 is an error? Perhaps Joseph's parents were Irish so farmer James LITTERICK just assumed that Joseph too had been born there. In 1851 and 1861 however, it was probably Joseph himself who was providing the information so one might normally expect it to be more reliable (though, of course, it's always possible that he might have given incorrect information).
3. A pity that the Jane LITTERICK who married Joseph has not yet been found in the 1841; Jane would have been ca 20. It would be good if she were found with her parents - though, at that age, she may well have been working away from home.
4. Unfortunately relationships are not specified in the 1841 census. It is tempting to think that James and one Jane are husband and wife, that Jannet, John and Robert & Agnes are their children, and that the other Jane and Hugh might be siblings of James - but that is just guesswork. There is, in the IGI, the marriage of a James LITTERICK to a Jane SINCLAIR in Mochrum in 1830 which is a possibility.
5. Incidentally, ages of people over 15 were supposed to be rounded down to the nearest 5 in 1841 - fortunately for us (as in this case) not all enumerators obeyed the rules!
6. You can find Landberrick if you are interested by searching for it on Streetmap UK. It is also on Multimap but not indexed - you'd need to search for Mochrum, zoom to a 1:25,000 scale, and then look south easterly of Mochrum. I couldn't check out old-maps.co.uk as it was down for maintenance.
JAP
-
PS: A Google for
Litterick + Landberrick
found at:
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~leighann/wfp/deaths/27.html
the following:
"SINCLAIR/LITTERICK, Jane - D12/12/1883 - At Landberrick, on the 12th inst., Jane Sinclair, relict of James Litterick, aged 78 years."
You might be interested in the rest of those Wigtonshire pages - lots of photos and also some images of entries in the OPRs.
JAP
-
JAP: What a wealth of information. I just was able to read your last two posts. I am extremely glad to hear you thought the 1841 Ireland info might be a mistake because I cannot find much of anything in Ireland. I am going to immediately work on your other suggestions and let you know!!!!
THANK YOU!!!!
Rose