293 Canongate, Edinburgh and Cranston Street

[BassinghamTerrier]

Now that's interesting, Stan.
I can't access the earlier 1854 map as I need to subscribe to see it in any kind of detail, but the 1945-6 map allows me to clearly see that it would appear to be on the ground used by the Church.

I am also very interested to see that the house numbers extended BACKWARDS down the closes. This may very well prove the point then that 293 Canongate WAS INDEED down Mid Common Close - is that a Close between the red balloon and numbers 289/291? - although with the church being 217 NOW perhaps the properties were indeed renumbered, as Ruskie suggests.

It's all very confusing and annoying! 

MT

[MonicaL]

This website is a treasure trove of all things Edinburgh www.edinphoto.org.uk 

Old map of Royal Mile including Canongate here www.edinphoto.org.uk/PP_D/pp_hay_wj_leaflet_royal_mile_map_large.htm

Too late likely for what you need from early 1800s. There are older maps on the site that you could check.

There are also the PO Directories. In later years they included both an alpha list of surnames and an alpha listing of streets (useful for mapping as they showed where streets interjected). www.nls.uk/family-history/directories/post-office/index.cfm?place=Edinburgh

Monica

[Forfarian]

Anyway, my rellie Alexander Ross was married to Jane Swanson at Canongate Kirk on 5th June 1812.

Does the original marriage record state specifically that they were married in the kirk building?

Because until the late 19th century it was the norm for a wedding to be held in the bride's home. Weddings in the church itself were very unusual indeed.

So it's far more likely that the wedding was celebrated in 293 Canongate.

[BassinghamTerrier]

Anyway, my rellie Alexander Ross was married to Jane Swanson at Canongate Kirk on 5th June 1812.

Does the original marriage record state specifically that they were married in the kirk building?

Because until the late 19th century it was the norm for a wedding to be held in the bride's home. Weddings in the church itself were very unusual indeed.

So it's far more likely that the wedding was celebrated in 293 Canongate.

You've got me worried now; I'll have a look and get back to you later ...

MonicaL - thanks for that; I'll check it out!

MT

[BassinghamTerrier]

... Because until the late 19th century it was the norm for a wedding to be held in the bride's home. Weddings in the church itself were very unusual indeed.
So it's far more likely that the wedding was celebrated in 293 Canongate.

You may well be right. The only info I have doesn't look as though it specifies the Kirk itself.


MT

[Forfarian]

Hmmm. I wonder whether Jane actually lived in Edinburgh at all, given that her father was in Reay in Caithness. Maybe she came to Edinburgh to get married, and just lodged at 293 Canongate?

If I could work out how to search the online directories at http://digital.nls.uk/directories/ by street, I would look and see what the Edinburgh one tells me.

I can confirm that the 1811-1812 edition does not list Mr Swanson anywhere in Edinburgh, but that isn't definitive as not everyone is listed.

[IanB]

A couple of sites seem to show 269 - 293 as Tenement/Shops
http://www.scotlandsplaces.gov.uk/record/rcahms/198488/edinburgh-269-293-canongate/rcahms

[stanmapstone]

Now that's interesting, Stan.
I can't access the earlier 1854 map as I need to subscribe to see it in any kind of detail, but the 1945-6 map allows me to clearly see that it would appear to be on the ground used by the Church.

I am also very interested to see that the house numbers extended BACKWARDS down the closes. This may very well prove the point then that 293 Canongate WAS INDEED down Mid Common Close - is that a Close between the red balloon and numbers 289/291? - although with the church being 217 NOW perhaps the properties were indeed renumbered, as Ruskie suggests.

It's all very confusing and annoying! 

MT

I just gave a link to the map as showing the image could be a breach of copyright, and RootsChat policy. RootsChat has its own policy which is that anything that appears to be cut and paste from other websites or programs is removed. I have been advised in the past that to avoid any problems just add the link to wherever you have seen an image, rather than posting the image itself.

Stan

[BassinghamTerrier]

Point taken, Stan, and offending attachments taken down before official reprimands are forthcoming!


MT