Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2011 13:59:08 GMT -5
CT and Sue - Part 2
Joanna Richards, wife of Samuel Richards of Camborne said that I am the mother of Charles Glasson whose wife and children are now chargeable to the parish of Camborne - my son was born in lawful wedlock and is my son by my first husband Charles Glasson deceased. My said son is about 38 years of age and when he was about a year and a half old my late deceased husband Charles Glasson took the estate of Landrine in the parish of Ladock in the said County of the late Matthew Vivian esquire at rent for a term of fourteen years. He agreed to pay Matthew Vivian as the yearly rent for the same estate the sum of eighty pounds. He entered on the said estate and held it for four years and a half and I and my family including my son Charles resided with my husband at Landrine for all the time he held it. In the month of June 1830 my said sons wife Anna Maria together with their two children James and Sarah were removed by an order of two magistrates acting in and for the East Division of teh Hundred of Penwith from the parish of Camborne to the parish of Ladock aforesaaid. My said son has done no act to acquire a settlement in his own right.
The mark of Joanna Richards.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 26, 2011 21:43:24 GMT -5
Unfortunately Joanna says nothing about the (then) current whereabouts of said son!  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 28, 2011 16:41:33 GMT -5
CT and Sue
Lilly was the illegitimate daughter of Mary Glasson, born 19th September 1873 at Busveal, the informant being Elizabeth Glasson, the occupier at Busveal.
So I guess that is Mary Thomas the mother and Elizabeth the grandmother.
Lannanta
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 28, 2011 22:11:57 GMT -5
Great - yet another piece of the wall comes down!  But there is still the question of the remainder of the Collins family and what happened to them.  CT |
|
|
|
Post by sue on Jan 29, 2011 7:41:39 GMT -5
Ooh dear: So Lillie's birth was apparently registered x 2, as CT suspected. Once by grannie Elizabeth Glasson of Busweal during the Dec Q 1873 presumably within the 6-weeks-of-birth legal deadline, and granny said Lillie was daughter of Mary Glasson, Lillie born Busweal doubtless out of the sight of gossiping neighbours of husband Henry Collins' family. Then a 2nd time by someone else I'd guess mother Mary in turmoil as to how the future was going to pan out, during Q Mar 1874 under the name Lillie Collins which is legally correct as the mother's surname was Collins. I've looked for possible birth registrations for illegitimate children under the mother's or father's surname before. Now I shall have to bear this possibility in mind in future scenarios, that a married mother may have a child registered at birth under her maiden name  ...... hopefully only when there had been mischief afoot! My poor brain!! Sue |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 29, 2011 8:03:10 GMT -5
Sue - to have any idea of the 'whys and wherefores' here I really think we need to know what happened to both Henry Collins and Mary. This would be a bit like facing a Jeff Thompson bouncer - I really don't fancy getting on the front foot!  Come to think of it - I remember watching a lot of Thommo bowling and it was not real comfortable being a back foot player either especially when he got the 'sandshoe crusher' going! CT |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2014 1:50:27 GMT -5
CT et al
CT as a group we sort of decided that maybe James and Jane were siblings and that due to Jane's age they could not be the children of Charles Glasson and Anna Maria nee Clarke. Well I am really not that sure and I would love to know from any Connecticut connections if Jane and Mr Pope had any children, and if they did what were their names. Also I am not at all convinced that James cannot be the son of Charles and Anna Maria. The first child of James Glasson and Lavinia nee Matthews, born in Connecticut in 1848 or so, was Francis Charles Glasson. Lavinia was the daughter of Francis Matthews.... so it could so easily be that the middle name of the first son, Charles, was the name of the other father - Charles Glasson.
I believe that Lavinia's mother was Dorothy Jelbart, married to Francis Matthews in Madron in 1824. The fly in the ointment with the use of the name Charles, is that the father of Francis Matthews is likely to be Charles Matthews - sadly....
The clincher, if it was accessible, would be the marriage entry for James and Lavinia in Bristol, Connecticut.
Lannanta
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on May 7, 2014 6:01:03 GMT -5
As soon as I read this my first thought was 'Do you really think so?'  And from there I went to the Barbour Collection of pre-1870 Connecticut Marriages on Ancestry:- James GLASSON married Lavinia MATTHEWS, b. of Bristol, formerly of England, Jan. 30, 1848, by Rev. William H. Goodrich (Vol. 3 Page 37) Jane GLASSON married David POPE, Apr. 14, 1850, by Rev. William H. Goodrich (Vol. 3 Page 49) I cannot find any birth records in Connecticut and also no David Pope in Connecticut in 1860. The only family I can find that 'could' be the right one in 1860 is the following at Morrisania, Westchester, New York (now part of the Bronx):- David Pope, 43, born Ireland Jane, 40, born England Cath, 9, born New York Mary, 7, born New York Sarah, 6, born New York Geo, 3, born New York David, 1, born New York Back in 1850 what appears to be the same David Pope is at West Farms, Westchester, New York. This Census was taken 15th October 1850, about 6 months after the marriage, so it does look like it might be Jane Glasson. David was then age 27 and Jane 21 and they were living in what appears may have been a small lodging house. The ages are out by quite a bit but it does appear to be the same couple. Forward to 1870 and the family is still at Morrisania:- David Pope, 54, Ireland Jane Pope, 52, England Kate, 20, New York Mary, 17, New York Sarah, 15, New York George E, 13, New York David, 12, New York Charles, 9, New York Edmund, 7, New York Fanny, 4, New York Frederick, 2, New York In 1880 the family is in New York City with David and Jane age 62 and 60 respectively. The three eldest daughters are missing, David is now 'David H', Charles now 'Charles F' and Edward is now 'Edwin', and there are two additional children - Caroline age 9 and James age 7. By 1900 David Pope was dead but Jane was still living in the Bronx with her younger children. This census provides us with a few pieces of information that might be of help.  1. Jane states she was born in England in May 1820 2. She had been married for 50 years and was the mother of 11 children with 10 still living 3. Emigrated to the US in 1834 and had been resident for 66 years All details match with the Census information above and and the marriage details are consistent with the 1850 Connecticut marriage. Hope that might be of some help. CT PS - Just checked 1910 and Jane was still alive with three children living at home - Edmond (Edwin), 46, Frederick, 40 and James, 38 with only 9 of her 11 children still living. The only difference is that this time she stated she arrived in the US in 1832. From the New York Death Index 1862-1948:- David H Pope age 36 died 7th November 1895 Manhattan David Pope age 69 died 13th January 1893 Manhattan Jane Pope age 95 died 1st January 1917 Bronx |
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on May 7, 2014 6:33:02 GMT -5
Based on the 1900 and 1910 Census information about Jane Pope's arrival in America I have looked back at some earlier Census records.
In 1840 there was a Charles F Glasson in Boston. Information from this census is basically statistical showing those in the household as follows:-
Males age 20-30 - 1
Males age 15-20 - 1
Males under 5 - 1
Females age 60-70 - 1
Females age 20-30 - 1
Unfortunately that indicates Jane was not here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2015 18:00:01 GMT -5
Well well CT.. on line someone has posted a scan of the death certificate for Jane Pope and it states all the things that you worked out preventing her being our Jane - age.. arrival in the USA etc. But on the 1s January 1917 in New York it was recorded that Jane was born in England as were both her parents and they were Charles Glasson and Anna Clark..... so for me that seals t after all this time.
Lannanta
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 12, 2015 4:49:22 GMT -5
A most useful and enlightening pickup old mate!  Always nice to find something that ties things together so if you could point me in the right direction I will add a copy of that record to my own collection. CT |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2015 7:36:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 12, 2015 23:56:48 GMT -5
Thanks Lannanta. It is unfortunate that some people seem to be able to gather such valuable and enlightening information but they still manage to make a total mess of the Family Tree they place online for everyone to see AND COPY!!! This tree shows that Jane was baptized at Camborne in 1818 to parents Charles Glasson and Mary Dunstone of Crowan when in fact she was baptized at Camborne in 1832 to Charles Glasson and Anna Maria Clarke!! The tree then goes on to show Jane having her last child at the age of 55! In saying that I do have to concede that the Death Certificate is little better in regards to Jane's birth. The birthdate in that document states Jane was born 10th May 1821 which once again is totally incorrect yet that same person seemed to have good knowledge of Jane's parents! Seems to me there must have been a lot of confusion about Jane. I don't know if you have read the Newspaper Article about New York pensioners which is also attached to this tree. This article appeared in 1915 and states that Jane Pope was then age 98 and I have to say that if the photo attached to the article was contemporary then Jane certainly held her age extremely well! I reckon that photo was probably taken when Jane was in her 40s! Ah, the joys of genealogy! CT |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 2:35:16 GMT -5
CT
The closest she got to her age being correct was the 1850 Federal US Census taken one month after her marriage where she said she was 21. After that she was 10 years older for some reason so maybe the husband was giving the ages on census night and her older age became accepted over the decades. The death certificate was a great find by someone as it really put some people in their places including the James Glasson who married Lavinia Matthews.
Lannanta
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2015 5:21:28 GMT -5
CT
We know that in the 1841 census Charles Glasson and wife Anna Maria formerly Clarke were to be found at Gas Street in Camborne with 5 children: James (14), Sarah (11), Jane (9), Charles (7), and William (2). We also know that in 1836/37 a son William died aged 7 weeks of fits and in 1839 a daughter Anna Maria died of a chest inflammation.
We also know that Charles Glasson is said to have deserted his wife around the beginning of 1842 and while giving an oath on the 3rd May 1842 Anna Maria stated that she had Sarah (12), Jane (10), Charles (8), and William (2) left with her.
In 1844 Anna Maria was charged with stealing meat, while drunk, from Mr Trewhella and sentenced to four months hard labour - no mention of her children.
Anna Maria died on the 16th October 1848 at the Union Workhouse in Tavistock, Devonshire. She died of Marasmus from Scrofula - many months.... essentially she starved to death.
We now believe that eldest son James married Lavinia Matthews in Connecticut in 1848 and Lavinia at least returned to Tavistock to have a daughter Emma Dorothy Jane Glasson in 1850.
Daughter Sarah married Edward Bennetts in Beer Ferris, Devon in 1847 - maybe explaining why Anna Maria was living close by at the time of her death in 1848.
Jane we now know married David B. Pope in Connecticut in 1850. We also know that she did not emigrate in the 1830s, in fact it was some time after 1842.
Sons Charles and William are unaccounted for.
So why did the children go to the USA in the 1840s??? And who paid to get them there.. drunken old Mum could not even afford to feed herself let alone provide money for the fare. I still think that it is likely they went to see their father.... and he paid..... maybe time will tell once again.....
Lannanta
|
|
...... hopefully only when there had been mischief afoot!
And from there I went to the Barbour Collection of pre-1870 Connecticut Marriages on Ancestry:-
