Closest to Kippen?

[apanderson]

McCann - this was the only Mary to die in Kippen, that's why I though it would be too much of a co-incidence not to be the right one.

Where was she stated as living and who was the informant on her DC - any clues there?

Anne

[kimby392]

hi,  I done a couple of census searched for you and this is what i found dont know if they are of any use:

1841

Mary McFarlane age 45 born 1796 lanark census lanark parish
John McFarlane age 40 born 1801 lanark
Alex McFarlane age 15 born 1826 England
Elizabeth McFarlane age 15 born 1826 Lanark
Mary McFarlane age 9 born 1832 Lanark

1851

Mary McFarlane age 55 born 1796 Lanark Census Kippen
Jannet Johnston age 14 born 1827 greatgrandchild born buchlyvie

1861

Mary McFarlane age 64 born 1797 Lanark Census Kippen
Alexander McLean 10 born 1851 Kippen Grandson
Mary McLean age 6 born 1855 Kippen granddaughter

1861

John McLean age 9 born 1852 Kippen son
Janet McLean age 44 born 1817 Aberfoyle
Alexander McLean age 42 born 1819 Balfron

1851

Alexander McLean age 32 born 1819 Balforn
Alexander McLean age 1 born 1850 Buchlyvie son
James McLean age 3 born 1848 Stirling son
Jannet McLean age 36 born 1815 Aberfoyle wife
Peter McLean age 6 born 1845 Buchlyvie son

1861

Jannet McLean age 44 born 1817 Aberfoyle Wife
Alexander McLean age 42 born 1819 Balfron Head
John McLean age 9 born 1852 Kippen son

1881

Jannet McLean age 67 born 1814 Aberfoyle Mother
Alexander McLean age 30 born 1851 Kippen Head
Annie McLean age 30 born 1851 Abernethy Wife

Kim

[McCann]

Elaine:
Its so nice to hear from you.  I hope you are well.
Actually, I have that Alexander and Jane had the following children - Peter 1845, James 1848, Alexander 1840, John 1852 and Mary 1854.  This information is from 1851 and 1861 census information (I think maybe supplied by Ambly - I'm not certain without looking).
Once again, I'm a little confused and have to look into it all further.  As always, I appreciate your interest and information.
Let me know about that McLean witness.  We'll figure it our one day.
All the best!
McCann

[McCann]

Anne:
I know.  You're right.  It sounds like it should definitely be her.  When I ordered the entry it was listed as Balfron, but the entry was as I wrote.
Anyway, I dont have a birth or death entry for her, and in James McAthurs' death entry he was listed as unmarried.  What I do have are census entries: 1841 @ Buchlyvie, Kippen - Mary McFarlen, 50, not born Stirling.  1851 @ Kippen - Mary McFarlane, 55, born Glasgow.  1861 - Mary McFarlane, 64, born Glasgow.  (Again, these were all provided by an RC member).  I assumed that she died in Kippen because of the history of census entries and that she had grandchildren living with her each year.
And that's all I have thus far.   Perhaps I should order one or all of these years to verify and maybe see if there is more information to be had...
Thanks again, Anne.

[McCann]

Kim:
Thank you so much for all of that information!  I really appreciate all of the time and effort.
I'll go through it all and see what we have here.  First, I see a problem with my 1841 census information. I have Mary McFarlen at age 50 (your 45 makes more sense with following census info).  However, my 1841 census has her with Janet Johnston, age 4, who also appears in your 1851 census. Hmmm.  This may take a little thought.  I'll get back to you once I take a closer look.
Thanks again, Kim.
All the best!
McCann

[McCann]

Kim:
In the 1841 census, by any chance does it list relationships?
It appears to suggest that Mary McFarlane, 45, and John McFarlane, 40, are married.
That throws another monkey wrench into the picture.  Still looking...

[McCann]

All the rest of the census information seems to match what I have.  Its that 1841 census that confuses me.  I dont know what to go by.  The names in the 1841 census you provided match names further down in the family.  But then there is the 1841 census with Janet Johnston who appears again in the 1851.  And if I order the entry fro SP - what do I order and how do I know which is correct?  Any suggestions?
Regards.
McCann

[kimby392]

hi,

no it did list relationships in the 1841 census.  it does look as if they were married. i will keep looking for you .

kim

[kimby392]

hi i ment to say it did not list the relationships sorry.

Kim