Writing assistance

[jorghes]

I was looking for some assistance with some writing. I visited a section of my tree, which of course then prompted a mass of new hints. One was an Edinburgh Cemetery register from 1850 which included one Mary Peat.

I wanted to know if anyone could help me decipher the words I can't quite figure out due to the handwriting!

So far I have:
Peat - Mary Peat, spouse of James Forbes, ?, who died on the 11th was interred here from 36 St John Hill on the 14th July (?) ???? McCartney?? tomb (?) 49 years, decay

I have to say I'm particularly interested in what I presume is James Forbes's occupation, he's a bit of a brick wall (so is Mary Peat) and I have been unsuccessful in discovering much information on them.

Others may remember when a Leeds newspaper from a stranger and this forum helped me remove a brick wall to discover these two, but all records so far suggest to me that I am missing a large number of their family which I can't find. The three children I know of were born in 1825, 1827 and 1829. Mary and James were in their late 30s to early 40s at this time, which suggests it is somewhat likely that they could have married in their 20s, and there are more family members to discover. [Mary Peat 1785-1850; James 1786-1838]

 

[peter]

Not completely sure about the occupation but probably tailor. The other bit you can't read is the position of the grave, which is 36 1/2 feet N from E division rail of Mccartney tomb

 

[jorghes]

Not completely sure about the occupation but probably tailor. The other bit you can't read is the position of the grave, which is 36 1/2 feet N from E division rail of Mccartney tomb

Thanks - I can see "tailor" just.

Makes you wonder if the McCartney tomb is still there so that you could see if the grave (probably unmarked) is still there.

 

[Helen7]

James Forbes, ?, who died on the 11th was interred here from 36 St John Hill on the 14th July (?)

I agree the occupation is tailor, but I think the interment date is 14th Inst, i.e. this month, the same month as the 11th previously mentioned.

 

[Stuart]

I read the occupation as 'fowler' - compare the 'Fo' with 'Forbes', the 'w' with 'who', and the 'l' with 'lies' (next line). For the rest I agree with Helen7 and Peter, adding the word 'lies' before 36 1/2 feet.

 

[Helen7]

I read the occupation as 'fowler' - compare the 'Fo' with 'Forbes', the 'w' with 'who', and the 'l' with 'lies' (next line). For the rest I agree with Helen7 and Peter, adding the word 'lies' before 36 1/2 feet.

To me, the first letter of the occupation looks like the T of Tomb in the line above, the second letter resembles the 'a' of James and the last two letters look like 'or' rather than 'er'. So it looks like Tailor to me.

 

[Tim]

I agree with Tailor, maybe you can share the link?

 

[peter]

I think the interment date is 14th Inst

I agree - sorry, I forgot to mention it.

 

[canadianbeth]

My initial impression was Fowler. I Googled that and it was an occupation in the past.

 

[Stuart]

Having peered even more closely at that, I'd say it's a definite maybe. So in the absence of further records (which is what you really want in any case) 'tailor' is probably the better bet, as you'd be more likely to find one of those in Edinburgh. Or even better, allow it to be either for now.

 

[jorghes]

With thanks for all the discussion - tailor would make sense, I think they were some in the family and at one point his son was listed as a regimental tailor (although for much of his life he was private in the Cameron Highlanders).

As for the link to the original record, you can find it here. I'm just hoping to find a similar cemetery entry for her husband, James, who died in 1838.

 

[Heather]

Thanks for the link jorghes, searching for a James Forbes burial in 1838 from the Edinburgh Scotland Cemetery Registers 1771- 1935, there is a James Forbes burial 16 January 1838, age 52 years, this would make him much older than Mary. Do you know why she has a different surname to her husband, or am I missing something ??

 

[peter]

Do you know why she has a different surname to her husband, or am I missing something ??

In Scotland woman kept their maiden name when they married.

 

[Helen7]

there is a James Forbes burial 16 January 1838, age 52 years, this would make him much older than Mary.

In Mary Peat's burial record in jorghes' first post, could Mary's age be 69 years rather than 49 years? I'm comparing the 4/6 with the 4 of 14th Inst and the 6 of 36 1/2 feet on the same line. That would make her slightly older than the James Forbes buried in 1838 and be more in keeping with the dates given for Mary by jorghes in post #1. And also make her death by 'Decay' more logical. Just a thought.

EDIT: And looking at the whole page via jorghes' link, and having seen the various examples of 4 and 6, I'm favouring 69 over 49 even more.

 

[Helen7]

In Scotland woman kept their maiden name when they married.

And their children often carried both surnames.

 

[Pauline]

And looking at the whole page via jorghes' link, and having seen the various examples of 4 and 6, I'm favouring 69 over 49 even more.

I'd agree with this - although there is a dot on the page confusing the issue, the general shape is definitely that of a 6 not a 4.

 

[peter]

I'd agree with this - although there is a dot on the page confusing the issue, the general shape is definitely that of a 6 not a 4.

I can see why you both favour 6 - it doesn't look like any of the other 4s. However when you consider how a 6 would have been written, it's impossible to account for the descender - so I think it has to be a 4.

 

[Stuart]

I can see why you both favour 6 - it doesn't look like any of the other 4s. However when you consider how a 6 would have been written, it's impossible to account for the descender - so I think it has to be a 4.

On the other hand, when zoomed right in it looks more like a distinct dot than a continuous line from the figure. That, combined with the complete lack of a point where the line reverses at the bottom left, means it must be a '6'!

 

[JoyNor]

Married women in Scotland took their husbands surname in life but have always been buried under their maiden name. When I first visited a Scottish graveyard, for the burial of my father who had died in the village my parents retired to, I was taken aback by how many couples had apparently been living "over the brush". The funeral director explained this was the norm for the woman's maiden name to be on her memorial. My mother's death certificate is in her married name, but as said she was not Scottish so I don't know if this was unusual. Despite my parents not being Scottish I agreed to follow the local custom when having their headstone inscribed. It does make for useful information when you are researching Scottish ancestors, along with their very informative marriage certificates. My parents death certificates each had to show their own respective parents names, including maiden names of both my grandmothers and occupations of my grandfathers and I had to produce my parents birth certifcates to the Registrar. What a bonus for genealogists.

I would also agree that her age looks more like 69 - I likewise would use the term "decay" as an indicator she was quite elderly

 

[Susan48]

In the Scottish death indexes married women are listed twice, under their maiden name and also under their married name.