Writing assistance

[Stuart]

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

The instructions for indexing asked for even more than that: "married women and widows are indexed under all the maiden names and surnames with which, on the face of the entries, they may have been identified". That could, in theory, be all of her husbands' names, her father's name, and if not legitimate her mother's name, her putative father's name, and any subsequent husbands' names of her mother!

But I've never seen an actual index, and I don't think images of them are available. Only one bound copy of each volume was made, to be kept in Register House. Obviously it was a true index - for finding registration records with - and not intended to be normative.

 

[Stuart]

One thing that puzzles me about Mary Peat's entry is the use of "spouse of" when her husband is believed to have died. I would expect one of these two ways of naming a widow's ex-husband, both of which occur in that two-page image:
entry 16: Violet Fairgrieve, Relict of the late Thomas Barrowman
entry 24: Sarah Anderson, Widow of ______ Wood.

Relict is an old lawyer's term, and its use I suspect is a marker of social class. Mr Wood's missing name is a reminder that these records can only contain what the cemetery staff were told. James Forbes having died might not have been communicated, or whoever made the entries may not have been as formal and consistent as later registrars. (He was certainly better than earlier parish clerks!) But is does suggest James might, in fact, have been still living.

 

[jorghes]

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 ??

I have to say, a Scottish woman keeping her married name is extremely useful and makes it much easier to track them. That record you discovered probably is her husband James. Shame it doesn't have the same wealth of information.

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.

Sixty is much more likely than 40. I have her birth date as approximately 1785. Still looking for a marriage and older children.

One thing that puzzles me about Mary Peat's entry is the use of "spouse of" when her husband is believed to have died. I would expect one of these two ways of naming a widow's ex-husband, both of which occur in that two-page image:
entry 16: Violet Fairgrieve, Relict of the late Thomas Barrowman
entry 24: Sarah Anderson, Widow of ______ Wood.

Relict is an old lawyer's term, and its use I suspect is a marker of social class. Mr Wood's missing name is a reminder that these records can only contain what the cemetery staff were told. James Forbes having died might not have been communicated, or whoever made the entries may not have been as formal and consistent as later registrars. (He was certainly better than earlier parish clerks!) But is does suggest James might, in fact, have been still living.

The reason I'm fairly sure that James is deceased is that Mary is on the 1841 census as "widow Forbes" in St John's Hill with what I think is her three youngest children -Frederick, Henry and Euphemia.

 

[Susan48]

The instructions for indexing asked for even more than that: "married women and widows are indexed under all the maiden names and surnames with which, on the face of the entries, they may have been identified". That could, in theory, be all of her husbands' names, her father's name, and if not legitimate her mother's name, her putative father's name, and any subsequent husbands' names of her mother!

But I've never seen an actual index, and I don't think images of them are available. Only one bound copy of each volume was made, to be kept in Register House. Obviously it was a true index - for finding registration records with - and not intended to be normative.

I used these indexes in New Register House when I started researching my Scottish grandmother's family 35 years ago while we were living in Edinburgh. You need strong arms for using them as they are weighty tomes.

 

[peter]

You need strong arms for using them as they are weighty tomes.

Like the GRO indexes at the Family Records Centre and its predecessors.