New Post
Search
Help
ArchivesRe: Ossiann
in reply to a message by Telfalathiel
There are all kinds of crazy discrepancies like that in vital records. I come across them a lot doing geneology research, and sometimes it's because the person who wrote it down heard wrong or they weren't familiar with it so they just made up a spelling or whoever transcribed it later couldn't read the writing (or is just bad at reading).
Anyway, getting around to my point is I searched your ancestor on ancestry.com and found some stuff, some of which you could already know. But if you're not on ancestry I can PM you the stuff in case there's some you don't know. I found a picture of one of her daughters, for example. But man... she and her family were sure good at evading the census! Lame. (ETA: Aha, found them in the 1860 census!)
And back to Ossian's likeliness as a name, it's possible that was what her name really was since it's a place name, even though it's a masculine name. I've seen some people named some stuff in that time period! But her marriage record says her name was Ocean, so I'd take that to be most likely correct. If I just search for people named Ossian born around 1835, there are plenty of male ones.
Anyway, getting around to my point is I searched your ancestor on ancestry.com and found some stuff, some of which you could already know. But if you're not on ancestry I can PM you the stuff in case there's some you don't know. I found a picture of one of her daughters, for example. But man... she and her family were sure good at evading the census! Lame. (ETA: Aha, found them in the 1860 census!)
And back to Ossian's likeliness as a name, it's possible that was what her name really was since it's a place name, even though it's a masculine name. I've seen some people named some stuff in that time period! But her marriage record says her name was Ocean, so I'd take that to be most likely correct. If I just search for people named Ossian born around 1835, there are plenty of male ones.
This message was edited 11/6/2011, 12:22 PM
1
Replies
I don't have a paid subscription to Ancestry, so I can't see pictures or other people's trees. I use Ancestry Library Edition at my library, which allows me access to census records, etc. I have a copy of her marriage record and the 1860 census that she's on. If you could send me anything else you have on her that would be great! If you can't send a picture via PM, my e-mail is listed on my profile. By the way, is the picture of Frances Lydia "Fannie" by any chance? She's the one I'm descended from, though I know Ocean/Ossiann had three daughters in total. TIA!
1
Yep, it's of her. I don't think ancestry has anything you wouldn't have seen then. That sucks it's so hard to track down who her parents were! I'll email you what I can get from this lady who has her family tree all put up, who must be some distant (or maybe not so distant) relative of yours. (ETA: just saw your email address... she has the same last name as you--which btw is an awesome name--so you probably know who she is.) :)
I don't actually have a subscription to ancestry either, but my mom's cousin does and she lets me use her account. I am sooo thankful she does because I have gotten so much research done! It's such a great website.
I don't actually have a subscription to ancestry either, but my mom's cousin does and she lets me use her account. I am sooo thankful she does because I have gotten so much research done! It's such a great website.
This message was edited 11/7/2011, 2:18 PM
1