|
Post by Tonkin on Jan 11, 2011 17:30:51 GMT -5
I just just sorting out the children of Thomas and Ann WALLIS and have come across the same problem again. Catherine WALLIS - baptised 9 September 1848 Madron. (Noted as PB). Catherine WALLIS - baptised 2 December 1849 Madron. I thought they had two Catherine's but have not located a death for the first one. Could this be a second you know what. Sure do get myself into trouble.
|
|
|
Post by tonymitch on Jan 11, 2011 19:15:25 GMT -5
The child would be 15mths old at the time of the second 'baptism' so it seems unlikely to have been a repeat. Also, it was in the same parish so I would thnk it very unlikely. Sorry Roy, but I can't catch you. I'm very out of breath as the results of a demographic research project with which I was once involved show. Broken down by age and sex.
|
|
|
Post by Tonkin on Jan 11, 2011 20:52:59 GMT -5
Nothing like a short four mile jog in the morning to get the heart started Tony. I do it every morning ... when I have the time. I'm not a betting man Tony but it sure does look like a " repeat" to me. Hope you are pleased I did not use that word " baptism" in my reply. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 11, 2011 22:03:05 GMT -5
This one is a little more difficult! 1848 Madron September 9th Privately Catherine daughter of Thomas and Ann Wallis of New Mill, miner In extremely faint writing to the left of this entry is a date that is bracketed to show that it pertains to the above entry. As best I can read it after magnification etc. it reads 'Born ?? June? 1846' Looking at FreeBMD Births and the month might actually be 'Jan'. 1846 March Qtr Penzance R.D. Vol 9 Page 235 Catherine WALLIS 1849 September Qtr Penzance R.D. Vol 9 Page 194 Catherine WALLIS I have searched using wildcards for Cat* Wall* and the two births are the only entries for the name from the March Qtr 1846 to December Qtr 1849. The 1849 Baptism has no annotations and simply reads:- Decr. 2nd Catherine dau of Thomas & Ann Wallis of NewMill, miner The 1851 Census I think holds the key. Thomas and Ann are at Bojewyan with their tribe of 10 children and the youngest is daughter Catherine who is age 1. This must be the daughter baptised in 1849 which indicates the probability that she is a 'replacement' child. How about Catherine Wallis of New Mill age 2 buried 12th September 1848 Madron (Courtesy OPC) CT
|
|
|
Post by Tonkin on Jan 11, 2011 23:25:29 GMT -5
As I said Tony - I'm not a betting man ... and now you know why. ;D And yes, I did see the burial for a Catherine WALLIS (aged 2) on the 12 September 1848, but I thought this could not be her because she was born in 1848. If Tony had of told me she was born in 1846 none of this would have happened. Thank you for the good work CT ...... that's another fine mess you got me out of. What else can go wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 12, 2011 3:52:07 GMT -5
I reckon it was more than half an hour after I found the answer and posted my message that I realised something critical to the dilemma faced by the pair of you. At that time I was sitting at the fire station hoping that the rain would stop so I could get out and get some fire extinguishers serviced. Anyway - I realised that I was the only one who had found the note about the birth date for the first Catherine. It cannot be found in the Madron Transcript and is obviously not on the OPC site. And it is not found elsewhere because I seem to be the only one who has recognized the little faint scribble for what it was and been able to get enough out of it to see that the year of birth looked like 1846. I was about to suggest that a look at FreeBMD might have given a clue given there are two birth entries for the same name in 1846 and 1849 with only the latter matching one of the baptisms. But then I realised that the Death Entry is not on FreeBMD under any variation of the name that I used so you were all stymied anyhow! Two things come out of this:- 1. the OPC records are not infallible and things do get missed or mistranscribed. (And I should know 'cos I am one of the Transcribers!!!) 2. FreeBMD also has problems which can be A. incomplete transcriptions (they do indicate what is complete and what is not) B. transcription errors and C. missed entries. How about we throw in another problem! FreeBMD shows FOUR death records in the Penzance District for the name WALLIS in the SEPTEMBER Qtr. Ann Benjamin ELIZA CATHERINE John Davey Anyone wish to discuss the odds that Eliza Catherine might be our Catherine? This is the only reference to Eliza Catherine Wallis for any event type up to September 1848. Now Roy - having laid the blame squarely on Tony's shoulders I think you have good reason to be happy that he is out of condition and has run out of breath before he could catch you! ;D Hmmmmmm - I might have to consider charging you Double Rates if I have to keep digging you out of messes like this!
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Jan 12, 2011 3:54:24 GMT -5
Tony - from my experience I would not consider opening the wallet for a wager on this one! CT
|
|
|
Post by Tonkin on Jan 12, 2011 4:48:12 GMT -5
The way things are going with this Wallis clan it would not surprise me if this Eliza Catherine does turn out to be our Catherine. If she can be recorded twice in the you know what why not through in a second name. I will, however, put my foot down if she has two funerals.
|
|
|
Post by londoner on Jan 12, 2011 4:54:55 GMT -5
Good to see you boys have sorted all that out while I was getting some sleep.
As for Thomas 1837 I think he married Peggy Ellis (age 16) at Pendeen 11 Feb1860
and had three Children: Peggy bapt 16 May 1864 William Thomas 17 Dec 1867 Thomas 3 Jan 1871
this is the family in 1871 :RG10; Piece: 2343; Folio: 71; Page: 7; no baby Thomas but there is a burial 1 Feb 1871 at Pendeen for Thomas age 1. And the Pendeen cleric has replaced the long dropped h making them Wallish
and this is the 1861 RG9; Piece: 1596; Folio: 79; Page: 23; with Peggy's mother But I cannot find them after '71 - perhaps they followed the rest of the family to Australia
|
|
|
Post by londoner on Jan 12, 2011 5:45:44 GMT -5
But then it gets confusing because in 1881 in Wales: RG11; Piece: 5295; Folio: 63; Page: 50; Line
Margaret Wallace 40 b Pendean Cornwall widow Peggy Wallace 14 Pendean William T 11 b Pendean Elizabeth A 6 b Glamorgan Eleanor J (Thomas crossed out) 8 months b Glamorgan
confusing because William T appears to have been buried in Pendeen in 1879 and this William Thomas is born 1870 !
AND because, if this is the same family in 1891, (and I cant find an alternative) Margaret now claims to have been born at St Blazey, Eleanor has gone and two new children - fatherless - have arrived RG12; Piece: 4431; Folio 26; Page 15;
and in 1901:RG13; Piece: 5021; Folio: 20; Page: 2. Eleanor has become Honora and is married - William is enumerated as son of the previous household!
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by tonymitch on Jan 12, 2011 8:22:54 GMT -5
OK Roy, be prepared to put your foot down. I had two funerals for James Mitchell on 17th Feb 1848 (OPC St Buryan) and 17th March 1848 (West Briton). If the West Briton was correct, then the poor begger had been buried by the OPC one month before he actually died. It was a transcription error and resolved easilly.....but, he only died once, couldn't die twice despite clerical errors/double bookeeping. Good Night (for you) ;D
|
|
|
Post by londoner on Jan 12, 2011 9:11:19 GMT -5
in 1891, (and I cant find an alternative) Margaret now claims to have been born at St Blazey, Eleanor has gone and two new children - fatherless - have arrived RG12; Piece: 4431; Folio 26; Page 15; correction I think Anna Jane must be Eleanor ?Honora BMD had Honor Jane - and of course Honor was Peggy Ellis' mother! (nee Curnow married 13 Sep 1832 St Just)
|
|
|
Post by sue on Jan 12, 2011 10:17:26 GMT -5
I knew they sounded familiar! Pay attention Sue!
That would be Peggy Wallish-nee-Ellis 1861 @ Boscaswell St Just with widowed mother Honor Ellis-nee-Curnow - my GGGfather John Curnow's sister.
Honor Curnow bptzd 16 Oct 1808 Towednack to William Curnow & Elizabeth Bolitho; buried Clunes Victoria 8 Aug 1879, having joined children in Australia in the 1860s....
Sue
|
|
|
Post by londoner on Jan 12, 2011 12:27:57 GMT -5
poor Peggy must have been quite a girl - married at 16, born Pendeen, St Blazey or N Cornwall and missing a husband after not sure when. I guess the Welsh enumerator decided to spell the name Wallace and as there was another from St Blazey in the same village just put the same down for her.
|
|
|
Post by Tonkin on Jan 12, 2011 23:37:39 GMT -5
Tony - I have learner a valuable lesson here ... keep my mouth shut. Your like a boomerang - you keep coming back. ;D Gotta go fix this hole in the floor and find me gumboot. Roy ... from down under.
|
|