|
Post by zibetha on Nov 16, 2017 20:49:38 GMT -5
Spike,
I think you are right about the Henry who lived in Canada. I took another look at things, and also, the Henry Hocking who voyaged on the Forest King arrived in New York on March 27th,1851. Henry son of William and Sarah was enumerated with his family in the 1851 Census which I believe was taken March 30th. That would indicate that he was not the Forest King passenger, but he could still be the Henry c/o William in Michigan in 1861. Too bad it doesn't list relationships.
Zib
|
|
|
Post by spikeharwood on Nov 16, 2017 21:10:46 GMT -5
Henry's parents and the rest of his family were in South Australia by the end of 1858. He has to be somewhere and with William is as good a place as any. I'm keen to marry him off to this Catherine Erb. The DNA is pointing in that direction, the paper trail is proving somewhat elusive.
|
|
|
Post by zibetha on Nov 16, 2017 21:44:26 GMT -5
Sorry-- my browser froze up and crashed. I don't see any further sign of Henry in Michigan. Peru is two states away from the UP in the upper part of Illinois. Much farmland in between! I wonder if Henry might have served in the Civil War?
Just a thought.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 17, 2017 4:07:02 GMT -5
I am going to try and unconfused myself! After reading through some of the more recent posts regarding Henry Hocking I have discovered that I was overlapping information about three different Henry Hockings in my brain and thus becoming a little confused when trying to respond to the latest posts. Now that I have managed to get the brain into some sort of order I propose to build up some more of the background of Henry and his elder illegitimate brother William. Hopefully this will make it easier to distinguish between the various Henrys and ultimately solve the problem posed in your query. I don't think I have seen any reference to the death of William (Johns) Hocking apart from Spike's mention of burials at Republic so after checking for some indication of when he and his wife died I have now located their death certificates in Seeking Michigan. William Hocking died at Republic 21st February 1907 at the age of 79 years 4 months and 9 days and he was buried at Republic three days later on February 24th. Catherine (recorded and indexed as Catarina) Hocking died at Republic 26th April 1903 age 69 years 4 months and 3 days - her age being in error by about 3 years!! She was buried at Republic on April 29th. I now know that William Hocking and Catherine Moore were married at Redruth in the March Qtr of 1852. I don't have any further details but my earlier work on the Redruth Indexes shows that the marriage certainly took place at the Parish Church of Redruth St Uny. The death certificate for Catherine shows her parents as Nicholas Moore and Mary Carnall but in fact this also is incorrect. Her parents were Nicholas Moore and Mary CURNOW who married at Gwennap 30th June 1821. Mary's identity can be confirmed by the signiature of her brother Thomas who was a witness to the marriage. Thomas was married to Joanna Johns at Redruth 1st February 1824 and images for that period can be found on FamilySearch allowing the signiatures to be compared. Thomas and Mary were children of Thomas Curnow and Mary Francis (nee Bawden) who married at Gwennap in 1796. I have not yet positively identified Thomas Curnow senior but I believe he is the Thomas baptized at Towednack in 1773 to Thomas and Catherine Curnow. Mary Bawden was born about 1774 (probably at Gwennap) and was first married to Richard Francis at Gwennap in 1792. Returning to Catherine Moore - in the 1841 Census she was age 11 and living at Gwennap with her parents and siblings. If that age is correct then she was born about 1829 or 1830 and so would have been about 72 or 73 when she died. Catherine daughter of Nicholas and Mary Moor of South Downs was baptized at Redruth 24th February 1830. Another interesting observation after having just looked at the death certificate again - it is recorded that Catarina Hocking was age 69 years 4 months 3 days when she died 26th April 1903 and this should give us a birthdate of 21st January 1834. On the very next line and immediately under the age it is recorded on this same death certificate that Catherine was born 23rd December 1823!!!!! - go figure! (Would someone please tell me again that you should believe everything that is recorded in an official document!! ) Anyway, apart from some confusion in the names, ages and number of children born to William and Catherine I think I can now move along and see if I can find anything more about brother Henry after his appearance at Houghton in 1860. (There was a daughter Catherine baptized at Redruth 5th September 1852 and then a son William who was age 2 in 1860. I presume Catherine died before 1860, possibly even before the family left England, and this William probably died soon after the Census given the 1870 and 1880 Census indicate another William born about 1861. Also son Albert appears to have been recorded as Alfred when he was born at Eagle River in 1868.) CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 17, 2017 4:43:22 GMT -5
If it has not been done before then I think I can now solve this particular issue. The 1901 Canadian Census records that Henry Hocking was born 17th July 1829 in England and Spike says that when he crossed into the USA after being widowed he stated he had been born in St Austell. Therefore he is probably:-
Henry son of John and Elizabeth Hockin of Fore Downs, miner, was baptized at St Austell 4th October 1829
I can find no other obvious children for this couple and nor can I determine a marriage but more frustrating is the fact that I cannot find them in 1841. There is a baptism for a Mary Ann Hocking at St Austell Wesleyan Circuit in 1827 who might belong but that does still not help identify the marriage.
CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 17, 2017 5:07:12 GMT -5
Process of elimination now suggests the possibility that the Henry you are looking for is indeed the man who married Catherine Erb but the thing that concerns me most about this is the fact that from 1870 onwards Henry consistently suggests he was born in 1840/1. Henry son of William and Sarah (baptized as William Henry Hocking) was baptized in February 1832 and in 1860 his age (29) was consistent with that so why should he suddenly drop 8 or 9 years from his age and maintain that illusion right up until his death in 1907??
CT
|
|
|
Post by spikeharwood on Nov 17, 2017 5:23:07 GMT -5
I wondered whether he might have reduced his age to more closely match that of his wife's. But then surely she would have noticed old age creeping over her. I'm quite liking where this is heading. But it is Friday night and I probably shouldn't be drinking and posting. Hic.
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Nov 17, 2017 16:03:49 GMT -5
Process of elimination now suggests the possibility that the Henry you are looking for is indeed the man who married Catherine Erb but the thing that concerns me most about this is the fact that from 1870 onwards Henry consistently suggests he was born in 1840/1. Henry son of William and Sarah (baptized as William Henry Hocking) was baptized in February 1832 and in 1860 his age (29) was consistent with that so why should he suddenly drop 8 or 9 years from his age and maintain that illusion right up until his death in 1907?? CT My two cents worth... CT, if the age is the "only" factor that is the concern then you may well be looking at the same person. I recently had some success sorting out a person whose descendants had found impossible to figure out - mainly because his claimed birthplace was in the wrong country and his claimed year of birth was around 12 years younger than he should have been. What eventually solved the problem (despite numerous name changes) was that he did consistently name the correct parents. Of relevance to the the discussion at hand was the fact that on moving from New Zealand to Australia in his forties, he dropped that twelve years from his age, and in almost every record in Australia over the following thirty years that includes an age he appears to be 12 years younger than his true age (curiously only his burial has the correct age).
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 17, 2017 16:20:16 GMT -5
We really need to find the marriage and death records for Henry and hope that they might contain something to help identify him. According to a couple of Ancestry trees the marriage took place at Peru, La Salle, Illinois 13th August 1864 but all indexes and other records for the period that I have been able to find have so far not contained any record of the event.
CT
|
|
|
Post by spikeharwood on Nov 17, 2017 16:39:48 GMT -5
We have the dates of marriage and death but no records. This is the tree I'm following www.ancestry.com.au/family-tree/tree/79765601Most of the tree from Henry down stacks up, he just has the wrong parents. It probably doesn't help at all, but I have been told that Catherine changed her name from Erb to Hocking(s) - not sure if it was before they married, but there would seem no point doing it after (or really before, for that matter!) Edit....ignore that last bit, I think it might have been Catherine who added the s on the end.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 17, 2017 16:44:59 GMT -5
Gandolf - there is one other item that would suggest Henry was the son of William Hocking and Sarah Johns but it is only a transcript on FamilySearch. In the collection 'Illinois, County Marriages, 1810-1940' there are several transcripts of the marriage of 'Samuel Hockings' who states his parents as 'Henry Wm Hockings' and Catherine Erb. This is interesting because 'Henry Hocking' was actually christened 'William Henry Hocking'at Redruth 8th February 1832.
The issue I have with the age is that because the variation is almost 10 years there is nothing else 'concrete' that would support linking Henry as the son of William Hocking and Sarah Johns. With that much difference and the fact that it remains consistent right to his death I am reluctant to make the identification especially considering his age recorded in 1860 (29) was quite accurate if you allow that he was born maybe a couple of months prior to being baptized.
CT
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Nov 18, 2017 16:47:10 GMT -5
CT
I agree caution is always in order, and following the paper trail (however thin) is - as you know and apply - the correct way to got. As I haven't been closely following this particular research problem, I will leave it up to your judgement as to where Henry might or might not fit.
My point was that, particularly in that time frame before identification documents, there was nothing to stop a person calling themselves any name or age that they wanted to. Particularly if they moved to an area where no one else knew them. If, after extensive checking and elimination of alternate possibilities, you have some clues pointing to a particular scenario and the only real blocker was an age discrepancy, then it is worth considering the recorded age might be wrong - deliberately or otherwise. Especially if the person in question has moved away from his birth area and thus from people or family who might have known the true age.
While in my experience those of English and Scottish origin seem far less likely to get persistently 'careless' with their age versus true age, it does happen. If it is a significant difference, then it is usually deliberate in these cases, and often to hide something in their background.
Now if we were talking someone from Ireland, then all bets are off. Having spent a lot of time on Irish research recently, I have come to the conclusion that for a significant portion of the Irish during the 1800s, your age was whatever you wanted it to be. I have found countless instances of recorded ages for adults being off by up to a decade or more, when compared to known events such as baptisms. No doubt much of this was due to the much lower level of literacy in the population at the time, though other factors may also have been in play.
For that matter once civil registration started in 1864 in Ireland, due to fines being levied for late registration, it appears that as many as one in four birth registrations prior to 1900 are likely to have an 'official' birth date that is days, weeks or even months after the child was actually baptised, with the 'birth' date being adjusted to be no more than four weeks prior to the registration date. Since for Catholics the baptism usually occurred with a day or two of the birth, baptismal dates are generally considered to be the more reliable indicator of an Irish birth date in the 1800s and in the absence of other evidence used by many researchers as being the birth date.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 19, 2017 1:41:59 GMT -5
No great problem with that argument but it still does not prove satisfactorily that we have the right man. Another thing to consider is that if the husband of Catherine Erb had indeed altered his age he could have been anything from 1 to 10 (or more) years older than he stated in 1870. Certainly it looks promising that Henry was the son of William and Sarah but there are still too many variables for my liking and I really would like to have something else that could help with the identification.
Perhaps the DNA trail Spike is working on might prove fruitful.
CT
|
|
|
Post by zibetha on Nov 19, 2017 1:56:21 GMT -5
DNA doesn't lie; some results might be distant and questionable, but when you see multiple shared matches, there's a "conversation" going on Zib
|
|
|
Post by spikeharwood on Nov 19, 2017 2:41:19 GMT -5
And these results aren't even distant. All these people either have Henry and Catherine as ancestors or all roads lead to them. Matches with me Jeanne: 70cM's across 3 segments Suzie: 36 cM's across 2 segments xeno: 27.6 cM's across 2 segments bbill: 6.3cM's across one segment These people are around the 4th cousin relationship with me (William and Sarah are my 3xggrandparents). The expected range for fourth cousins is 0 to 127cM's with the average being 35. Several of my confirmed Australian Hocking cousins also have DNA matches with the first three of the above.
Woohoo! My 200th post. I've become a Cres!!
|
|