John Glasson and Lavinia Thomas

[Deleted]

CT

A wee teaser.

William John Glasson married Sarah Hannah Jones at Bathurst in May 1886. Williams parents are listed as John Glasson and Lavinia Thomas.

William's age of 21 suggests he was born around 1865 in Cornwall (also given).

In the 1871 and 1881 census the only William John that makes sense is the one living with his grandmother Elizabeth at Gwennap making Elizabeth the widow of Charles.

If I am right so far then John (b 1834), son of Charles and Elizabeth is the husband of Lavinia and the father of William. John is found in the 1841 and 1851 census but not 1861.

In FreeBMD there is a marriage for a Lavinia Thomas in the Redruth district in June 1865 but there is a male missing in the records, and of course no John Glasson.

So where is the John that married Lavinia?

Lannanta

[londoner]

however in Sept 1865 Redruth 5c 577 is a solitary John Glasson in a page of Wellington Somerset entries - the image looks more like 377 which is only a turn of the page from Lavinia!

[sue]

As a sometime transcriber, There but for the Grace of Go I....!

In the O-o-olden days ;D, good systems required double keying of data, to catch such errors before processing (it does look like that's what we probably have here). But No More! Volunteer or Commercial....

Sue

[Cornish Terrier]

I have just spent more than ONE AND A HALF HOURS working through and solving this problem and as soon as I hit the 'Post' button .................................... I LOST THE HOLE !#$&#%$#$%^ LOT!!!!!!!

I have been having problems with Proboards since yesterday when it showed up as a problem with the Server that hosts this Forum.

And now I need to take a deep breath and try to repeat my work but this time I will have to dispense with the 'usual threatrics'! of exactly how I went about every part of the solution.

Results in my next.

CT

[Cornish Terrier]

Being most unhappy with what just happened I am going to do this reply in stages.

I won't be able to properly reproduce my 'educational' spiel on how I came to my conclusions and it is possible I may inadvertantly come across as Rude to someone.

If that happens then I apologise right now!

Lannanta - I believe you have fallen for the 'three-card trick' that has been the bane of many of our discussions around Marriage Certificates - you have believed exactly what was written!

And that has therefore clouded your vision when you had a look at the 1871 Census.

I admit right now that the 1871 is the only Census I have taken into account here.

Londoner - you have found an entry in FreeBMD that suggests that William John Glasson was quite correct in naming his parents as John GLASSON and Lavinia THOMAS.

i.e. - the errant John Glasson amongst the Somerset records.

BUT - the only thing that I can see that is actually correct from the initial posts on this query is the fact that William John Glasson was the grandson of Charles and Elizabeth as suggested by Lannanta!

EXHIBIT ONE - 1871 Census

Busveal, St Day, Gwennap
Elizabeth GLASSON, head, widow, 62, charwoman, Gwennap
Lavinia do., daur, Unmarried, mine girl, Gwennap
William do., grandson, 7, Gwennap

EXHIBIT TWO Redruth R.D. 1865 - JUNE Qtr (Marriage)
Volume 5c Page 75
BENNETT, Mary
BENNETTS, James
THOMAS, Lavinia

As Londoner pointed out it is a male name missing here.

EXHIBIT THREE (Sorry Londoner)

SEPTEMBER Qtr 1865 (Marriage)
BOWDAGE, Emanuel Wellington, Som 5c 577
GLASSON, John Redruth 5c 577 (quite rightly pointed out as 377)
GUPPY, Mary Wellington, Som 5c 577
WHEELER, George Wellington, Som 5c 577
WHEELLER, George Wellington, Som 5c 577

There are a couple of things of note here.
1. This marriage was SEPTEMBER whereas the Lavinia Thomas marriage was JUNE
2. The name of George WHEELER appears twice - it appears the transcriber could not decipher whether there was one 'L' or two in the surname.
3. A look at the original image shows clearly that John Glasson was Volume 5c Page 377 and not 577
4. There being two George Wheelers means that it is a FEMALE name that is missing and not a male.

The above now eliminates the possibility of the proposed marriage between John GLASSON and Lavinia THOMAS and casts just a little doubt on what appeared on William John Glasson's marriage certificate.

EXHIBIT FOUR

I think this is the one that will prove absolutely that John GlASSON and Lavinia THOMAS were not married.

This search of FreeBMD was performed without using any names in the search.
I merely searched for:-
Registration District - REDRUTH
Year - 1865
Qtr - SEPTEMBER
Volume - 5c
Page - 377

The results:-

DAVIES, Elizabeth Ann
SAMPSON, William
WARREN, Mary Jane

That is it, and that is all folks!!!

One Male name missing ................. and guess who it will be ............. John GLASSON would be my guess!

My CONCLUSION and I believe the solution to the problem is that William John GLASSON was the ILLEGITIMATE son of Lavinia Glasson who in turn was the daughter of Charles and Elizabeth.

The marriage details as recorded for William John Glasson are just a little shy of being correct.

CT

[londoner]

Good deduction, they dont call you the TERRIER without good reason!
So all we now need is a John Glasson with wife either Mary Jane or Elizabeth Ann, and a husband for Lavinia Thomas.

(and I promise not to say anything about the cricket)

[londoner]

How about:
RG10; Piece: 2321; Folio: 70; Page: 17; Illogan
Jno Glasson 28
Mary Jane 29
Fanny Jane, 15 (should this be 5 there is a birth in 1866 Redruth dist)
Eliz 3
Caroline 3
Fanny 65 mother

A* transcription has the children as Bury - name of the previous
household!
And in 1871 RG10; Piece: 2324; Folio: 26; Page: 43
James Bennetts
Lavinia Bennetts and 3 children...

[Cornish Terrier]

Conversely - we could look for a William Sampson with wife Mary Jane or Elizabeth Ann!

But from what you have displayed here I would think the John Glasson was the son of John Glasson and Frances Willoughby who married at Illogan 6th August 1832.

And you are correct - daughter Fanny Jane is 5 years old and not 15.

The error has occurred because the the enumerator wanted to be sure that anyone reading his handywork would be able to very easily identify his '9' and his '7'.

In this case Mary Jane is age 29 but the 'tail' of the '9' runs all the way down to within a micron of the next line which makes it appear like a '1' before the 5 recorded for Fanny's age.

If you look at the original and go down a couple of lines you will find someone whose age is 27 ... and the '7' extends 2.5 lines down!!!

CT

[londoner]

and I suspect that the idea of Lavina Thomas came from her (unrecorded elsewhere) middle name because:

GLASSON Charles: bachelor to Elizabeth THOMAS: spinster 28 May 1828 witnesses Henry Bodilly &James Whitburn
(from Gwennap opc site)

[Cornish Terrier]

Quite correct Londoner.

That item is one of possibly several that did not survive the loss of my first message!

I distinctly remember making that note but on reading the information that 'made it to print' I notice that it was missed.

So thankyou for adding it here.

William John said that he was the son of John Glasson ( ) and Lavinia THOMAS and I would say this is far from the first time that I have seen a grandmother's name 'used in vain'.

[Deleted]

CT and Londoner

Very good outcome but would you put everything you had on it being correct? Could it be different - could William John's assertion be correct? Could William John have been illegitimate and his parents not married for example? If I have learnt one thing over the last few years it is that you ignore information clearly supplied at your peril and until somebody shows me his birth entry I will treat this as work in hand - and I am not mentioning the cricket either CT??

Many thanks for the good work.

Lannanta

[Cornish Terrier]

Lannanta - I appreciate your caution given the experiences you and I have shared with the Quick family for a start!

But I have to say that I also really appreciate the way you HEDGE YOUR BETS!

Could William John have been illegitimate and his parents not married for example?

My friend - this one has to go down as THE Clasic Line out of everything that has been presented to this Forum since we 'opened for business'!!! ;D ;D ;D ;D

I am not really a betting man but I think there is quite enough evidence so far to say that the provided outcome is probably correct.

There is most certainly sufficient evidence to suggest that William John was illegitimate!!

1871 Census makes for a good start I reckon.

Widowed Elizabeth Glasson whose maiden name just happens to have been THOMAS.

Unmarried daughter living at home and her name 'just happens' to have been LAVINIA.

Grandson named William age 7 is the only other person living at home with the poor old widder.

We probably have to track down what happened to son John to really satisfy all your criteria but while thinking about that I should perhaps remind you that:-

The John Glasson married in 1865 now appears certainly to have married Mary Jane and the Census shows he was most likely the son of John Glasson and Frances Willoughby. (A dead giveaway that his widowed mother is with him in the 1871 Census and her name is 'Fanny'!)

The marriage of Lavinia Thomas in 1865 just happens to be in a different Quarter also puts a bit of a dampener on the potential marriage.

And that might leave you wondering just which of them got the date wrong! ;D

No - I would like to know what happened to John Glasson but I have to say that I am quite confident that he was not the father of William John Tlasson although he was the Uncle given his sister was the Mother!

And if you want me to start quoting BMD Certificates just let me know.

We could start with Mr Quick who said his father was George but he was really William.

Or we could go to the Trewella child whose parents as recorded on the Birth Certificate are actually the parents of the daughter whose illegitimate child this really was! (Perhaps a bit of a giveaway on this one was the fact that 'mother' was I think well gone 50 at the time of birth and probably closer to 60.)

I'm starting to get a little cheeky now I think so perhaps I should desist!

I am not saying that William John Glasson was a liar .............. merely that he didn't tell the truth!

BTW - What did happen in the Fifth Test? 'cos to be honest I really don't know.

It might be good when we get to play the Poms though. But it seems with all those multitudes of millions of people (in London alone) they just can't come up with an English side the poor buggers!

[sue]

As one UK national newspaper put it:

Would you rather win the cricket, or have a reasonably healthy national economy?



Answers on a postcard (beautiful pictures of Cornwall, obviously)

Sue

[londoner]

Well I'm sure the Barmy Army have contributed more than adequately to the Australian economy and if CT really thinks the Ashes series was LOST to anyone but England there is little hope for him.
I know I said I wouldn't mention it but there are times.....

PS what do you call an Aussie who holds a catch - a fisherman!

[Deleted]

CT

Could William John have been illegitimate and his parents not married for example?

Fair cop but I was trying to say that the parents seemingly did not get married after the birth of William John.

I certainly agree with your findings as being the most likely but I do not see the points you raise as strong evidence. For example, given that there is a daughter at home, Lavinia Glasson, and given that grandmother was a Thomas - once upon a time - suggests that there could easily have been a real Lavinia Thomas about the place.

I agree with the certificate issue, but I well remember the Belinda Pearce saga where the certificate didn't seem to make any sense and was considered in error for a long time, but in the end it proved to be correct.

So hold your bets, there is work to be done yet.

Lannanta