Down the Mine???

[teapotty]

Hi, I was wondering about my Pearce family of miners. In the 51 census I have Emma and husband Simon with some children but in the 61 census Emma is marked as married but as head of family, husband Simon is not there and there are some older children not mentioned in the 51. I was thinking that they were possibly Night Shift at the local mine. How do I find out please?

[Cornish Terrier]

First thing is to give us a little more information so we know exactly who we are dealing with.

I suspect you mean Simon Pearce and Emma Rodda who married at St Erth 26th February 1842?

If you can confirm this and the list of children you have then I will see what I can find.

CT

[teapotty]

Yes you are right, this is the right Simon b c 1819) and Emma (b c 1921) . I was getting a bit muddled up with the children though, it was two of the younger ones that are missing in the 51 census. It doesn't take much to confuse me

I have for the 1851 census:
William J 8
Henry 7
Simon 2
Alfred 1

In 1861 I have:
William J 18
Henry 17
Edwin 15 * not on previous census )
Emma 14 * not on previous census ) Obviously too young to have been "night shift" last time
Symon 12
Alfred 10
Elizabeth 5
Richard 3

In 1871 - Emma now states widowed
There is Ann who is 3, so obviously Simon was still around at the 1861 census

[donne]

That's an interesting point about the night shift, teapotty, which I had never really considered before. The rules for completing the 1851 census stated that the household should include all those at home on the night of the census. However I understand that for night workers there was an exception which said that they should be included if they returned home the next day. There must be plenty of scope for error there!

[Jo]

It may also be that the husband may have been working away. I also have miner husbands missing from Census records.

One wife was listed as 'Gold miner's wife' so I assume that the husband was overseas somewhere at the time the census was taken, although I have not been able to locate where. He did return and was listed in the next Census.

Another absent miner husband (one of my gt gt grandfathers) I finally tracked down to Butte, Montana, USA, he travelled out alone in 1875. He never returned to his wife and daughters in Gwinear, dying in Butte in 1904.

[Jo]

In 1851 is Edwin with his grandparents, Simon and Alice at Kirthenwood?

[Cornish Terrier]

One wife was listed as 'Gold miner's wife' so I assume that the husband was overseas somewhere

Not necessarily! Were you aware that there was gold mining in Wales?

CT

[Cornish Terrier]

In 1851 Emma Pearce, daughter of Simon and Emma, was at Tuckers Downs, St Erth with her grandparents Anthony and Grace Rodda.

Also:-

In 1871 - Emma now states widowed
There is Ann who is 3, so obviously Simon was still around at the 1861 census

No - in 1871 Anne was age 8 and it was grandson Edwin Pearce who was age 3.

CT

[Cornish Terrier]

This family gets a little more confusing and it appears obvious that some of the information in the Census is incorrect!

For example:-
1871 Census Sithney
Emma PEARCE, head, widow, 49, housekeeper, St Hilary, Deaf
William John do., widower, 28, tin and copper miner, St Erth
Edwin do., son, unm, 25, tin and copper miner, St Erth
Alfred do., son, unm, 22, tin and copper miner, Illogan
Elizabeth Anne do., daur, unm, 15, mine labourer at surface, Breage
Richard do., son, unm, 13, mine labourer at surface, Breage
Anne do., daur, 8, scholar, Sithney
Edwin PEARCE, g'son, 3, scholar, Helston

Unusual to have a daughter named Elizabeth Anne as well as a daughter named Ann!

But it gets a little more confusing when checking birth/baptism records.

William John bp. 19th June 1842 St Erth - residence Kirton Wood
Henry bp. 11th April 1844 Crowan - residence Crowan

Although Edwin was apparently born at St Erth it seems likely he was baptised at Illogan where the next three children (Emma, Simon and Alfred) were born. I don't have records for Illogan for that period but then these children are not really the problem.

It is these baptisms at Sithney that are creating the dilemma:-

Thomas James bp. 5th June 1863 Sithney
Richard bp. 5th June 1863 Sithney age 5 years
Mary Elizabeth bp. 5th June 1863 Sithney
Elizabeth Ann bp. 5th June 1863 Sithney

All are recorded as child of Simon and Emma Pearce of Church Town but it is interesting/strange that Richard is the only one to whom an age is affixed especially when the 1861 and 1871 Census show that Elizabeth Ann was born about 1855 or 1856.

Thomas James was buried at Sithney just a couple of weeks later on June 21st 1863 at the age of 1 and FreeBMD shows his birth was registered in the September Qtr of 1862.

Elizabeth was age 5 in 1861 and then in 1861 is recorded as Elizabeth Ann age 15 which would indicate that 'Ann' is probably Mary Elizabeth.
But also confusing is that Mary Elizabeth appears to have been possibly registered as Elizabeth Mary. And as Emma appears to be gone before 1881 there is no family group to refer to which makes it a little difficult to find this child and verify her name.

CT

[teapotty]

1871 census Stithians, should that read Tuckingmill. I have them living in Dolcoath Row, Tuckingmill.

I have a possible death for Emma. There is a record of Emma Pearce dying Redruth 1887.

As William John is a widower in 71 census, could Anne actually belong to him do you think? I know she is down as daughter but there could have easily been a mistake here

[teapotty]

Have now found a marriage at Stithians, 22 Nov 1863. (IGI) (The same year that Ann was born?) For William J Pearce to Mary Ann Pearce, sof if the mothers name was Mary Ann, then quite likely that Ann would be chosen for the child.

You say that Mary Elizabeth and Elizabeth Ann are down under Simon and Emma, but might this make things easier all round to claim the child as Simon and Emmas when having the Christening? Especially if the mother had just died? Have you the records for Sithney or are they online somewhere? Did Mary Ann die in 1863?

[Cornish Terrier]

1871 Census - Yes, it should be Dolcoath Row, Tuckingmill. Not sure how I must have had Sithney on the brain!

As William John is a widower in 71 census, could Anne actually belong to him do you think? I know she is down as daughter but there could have easily been a mistake here

The response here should also answer the query in your last message.

No, Anne does not appear likely to have been a child of William. It seems more likely that Anne was written by mistake and the child is probably Mary Elizabeth.

William John Pearce married Mary Ann Rowe at Sithney 22nd November 1863 at which time William was a resident of Helston.
There appear to have been only two children from this marriage with both baptised on the same day:-

Laura bp. 1st July 1868 Helston
Edwin bp. 1st July 1868 Helston

Edwin was age 3 in the 1871 Census and so probably born soon before he was baptised but Laura is a completely different story!

The baptism register shows that Laura was born 9th May 1863 which makes her definitely illegitimate given the marriage did not take place until six months later!
It looks like the birth was not registered until the December Qtr of 1863 as Laura Rowe.

Now then - I was just wondering if Anne might possibly be Laura instead. The age and birthplace would be right except that I just ran into one slight hurdle!

In 1871 Laura Pearce age 7, birthplace Helston, was with her grandparents Nicholas and Ann Rowe at White Hill, Helston!

Mary Ann Rowe was baptised at Kenwyn 15th May 1842 daughter of Nicholas and Ann Rowe of New Mills.

Nicholas Rowe married Ann Hill at Sithney 9th February 1832. He was a miller and seemed to move around a little with children born in more than one Parish.

Mary Ann was buried at Helston 19th August 1869 age 27.

That should answer all the questions from your last couple of notes.

CT

[Jo]

Apr 5, 2012 17:45:35 GMT -5 Cornish Terrier said:

One wife was listed as 'Gold miner's wife' so I assume that the husband was overseas somewhere

Not necessarily! Were you aware that there was gold mining in Wales?

CT

Wales is overseas from Cornwall, well over the Tamar anyway!! ;D ;D
Could not find him there, although it does not mean he was not there - just not recorded!