Shame, that would have been a
great story to have in the Family annals!
SHIELLS was a fairly prominent name in East and Mid-Lothian - no doubt a lot of them are related (you could add a One name study to your bow!)
But these look like yours......
IGI:John SHIELL and Mary NISBET, dau of
John George NISBET
married in extracted records:
13 OCT 1822 Westruther, Berwickshire and 13 Oct 1822 Channelkirk, Berwick *
Children: (all on IGI except for Elizabeth?)
Alison SHIELS chr 1 Jun 1823 Crichton MDL
Andrew SHIELS chr 16 May 1825 Crichton MDL
George SHIELS chr 6 Aug 1827 Chrichton MDL
John SHIELL chr 6 Apr 1830 Crichton MDL
Elizabeth SHEILLS b abt 1835 Crichton MDL (not on IGI)
Census (from FREECEN):http://freecen.rootsweb.com/cgi/search.pl1841: Myles Farm, Tranent,East Lothianparish 722, ED 11 Folio 8, pg 5
John SHEILLS 45, Farmer - N
Alison SHEILLS 15, - N
Andrew SHEILLS 15, - N
Elizabeth SHEILLS 6, - N
Joan CURRIE 20, F. S. - Y
Mary CARMICHAEL 15, F.S. - Y
Missing from 1841 are sons George age abt 13, and John age abt 11
Looks like them here, possibly with family members:
1841: Longfaugh Mains , Crichton , MidlothianParish 681, ED 4, Folio 4, pg 1
George SHIELS 13 - Y
John SHIELS 11 - Y
Geo SUDESORF 20, Ag Lab - Y
James HUNTER 25, Ag Lab - N
Mary CLEUGH 74, Ind - N
Marg't BATHGATE 25 F.S. - N
This is the order it has been transcribed on FREECEN - I wonder about the position of Mary CLEUGH, as it looks to me as if she should be the "header" person of the house?
Not finding Any of them in 1861 (I just discovered FREECEN has 100% of East Lothian Census on line too, as well as same for 1841 and 1851).
In 1871, Farm of Myles is apparently owned by a James STENHOUSE age 36, Farmer Employing 13 men 1 Boy and 116 Women
[116 Women !?]
Cheers
AMBLY
Note on Banns
** (2 entries are because Banns were called in both the parish of the bride and the groom. Sometimes you will find each has a different date. Usually the later dates will be where the actual marriage was eventually recorded. Banns - notice of intent to marry, were recorded in the registers - and were read out: I think for 3 consecutive Sundays or something....This gave the Parishioners a chance to speak up with information as to why the marriage should not be permitted to take place....When the actual marriage took place (traditionally in the bride's Parish) the record was added to accordingly. Sometimes, a couple did not go ahead with marriage - it was called off for various reasons, but the Parish record of the banns remained 'on the books'. So when sometimes one finds a marriage on the IGI , yet cannot find the supposed couple or any children - it could be for that reason......
.....I do recall reading about such a case - where it was eventually discovered the bride to be found out (or someone did!) that her intended had already gotten another lassie withchild, and in the end he was made to marry the pregnant girl....
Another thing is, a couple who have the same address on a marriage cert - it doesn't mean they were necessarily 'living together' before they married - it may mean that, to avoid fuss and bother they listed themselves as being of the same Parish to avoid have to have Banns recorded and read out in 2 seperate parishes.
