Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2011 18:09:16 GMT -5
Hello CT
Just a peer review when you have a moment.
For quite some time I have had a 10 year old Charles Glasson in my census spreadsheet for 1861. Recently I have had cause to relook at this Charles to see if he is, or was, the 85 year old Charles Glasson who died in 1939 in NZ, husband of Mary Ann Fitzpatrick, married 1872 in Thames, NZ.
The census entry for 1861 is for a widower, 63 year old John Craze, living at Camborne with his unmarried daughter Jemima Craze, and grandson Charles Glasson. John Craze, was the husband of Priscilla Glasson (1802 - 1859), the daughter of Charles Glasson and Joanna nee Williams.
Given that the only Charles Glasson born around 1850 and recorded in FreeBMD is Charles Thomas (from Calstock), is it fair for me to assume that the 10 year old is Charles Glasson CRAZE?
Lannanta
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2011 18:42:51 GMT -5
Actually have probably answered my own question after finding them in the 1851 census - 6 month old Charles Craze - listed as a son but most likely the grandson referred to in 1861.
Lannanta
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 15, 2011 21:36:51 GMT -5
And moving the research along a little bit it gets quite confusing just who the Charles Glasson was that arrived in NZ. The previously mentioned Charles Thomas Glasson went to Victoria in 1862 on the ship Orwell, with mother and sister, and died there in 1924 or so. Charles Carkeek Glasson who was of 1847 or so vintage ended up in the USA with Miss Toy and he died there. Which really only leaves a certain Charles Glasson, son of Charles and Mary nee Seymour, born around 1854 at Gwennap as the candidate. Most of this family emigrated to Australia. The following entry is available in NZ: Charles Glasson on the ship - City of Auckland (how appropriate) Departed London on 31st May 1872 Arrived Auckland 3rd September 1872 20 years of age From Cornwall Born Cornwall Engaged as a Brogden recruit: Falmouth, England Occupation labourer Saying that he would have to have been a fast mover, which being a cousin jack he may well have been, because the marriage to Mary Ann Fitzpatrick in Thames was on the 27th October 1872. Lannanta PS: Brogden recruits were about 2,000 men, generally from Southern England, who were recruited to New Zealand by Mr Brogden, to work as railway navvies.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 16, 2011 7:15:32 GMT -5
Lannanta - in answer to your first post I would agree with your second and add that Charles Craze was registered in the December Qtr of 1850. For your mysteryCharles Glasson in NZ - NFI. Your Gwennap man might be the one but I can't even find him or his family in the 1861 Census so I have absolutely no hope at the moment of being able to offer anything sensible. I take that back! Just tried a search for anyone named Cha* born at Gwennap nin 1853 +/-2 and found Charles GlassoM with mother Mary! His age then was 18 and, of course, the 'estimated birth year' is 1871 minus 18 which equals 1853 ............. RUBBISH!!!The 1871 Census was taken on April 2nd so there is three quarters of 1872 in which he could have been (and probably was) born! So that provides a fairly good match for your man on the City of Auckland in 1872. CT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 16, 2011 16:44:47 GMT -5
Yes I agree. I cannot find another suitable candidate, having eliminated all those around him. Given that he was born in Cornwall, from Cornwall when he left, I would have expected to have found him in the census, or FreeBMD or the like.
One small connnection between him and the family I have put together in New Zealand is the common use of the name Susan.
Lannanta
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Apr 16, 2011 21:27:47 GMT -5
A small link but probably enough to support your conclusions. Once all other possibilities have been eliminated and you are left with just one then odds are that must be the correct solution. Sometimes that solution still does not look quite right but until something is found to suggest otherwise then it must be right.
|
|