Martin Casley 1834

[allan1962]

I have Martin Casley baptised 17 Dec 1834 the son of Martin & Jane.
I have shown him as the child of Martin Casley & Jane Jacca who married on 12 Jan 1834.
1841 census. Martin 30 & Jane 25. Son Martin 6.
1851 census. Martin 42 & Jane 37. Son Martin 16.
1861 census. Martin 53 & Jane 47. Son Martin 26.
I then had son Martin married to Catharine Jane White on 30 Oct 1864.
1871 census. Martin, head, 35, Catherine J, wife, 28, Catherine J, daughter, 3.
All of the above appears to be correct.
BUT THEN I FOUND ANOTHER 1871 CENSUS:-
1871 census. Martin 64 & Jane 56. Son Martin, unm, 37.
Thank you in advance for any comments,
Allan.

[Cornish Terrier]

Allan - if you take another look at the 1871 Census you will find that there are two Martin Casleys close to the same age. One is unmarried Martin age 37 living at Carallack with parents Martin and Jane and several siblings.

And then at Green Lane St Just there is Martin Casley, tin miner, age 35 with wife Catherine J age 28 and daughter Catherine J age 3.

The marriage record states that this last Martin was the son of Martin Casley, tin miner, so it seems to me there must be either 1. another Martin Casley or 2. there is an error in the marriage record with Martin possibly entered incorrectly as the father.

What is not very helpful is that the OPC database has just one Martin Casley baptism in the 1830s and that is the first man above son of Martin and Jane. Ih ave not yet checked FamilySearch but I have checked the RG4 Non-conformist records and there is no other baptism there.

So .............

The 1851 and 1861 Census indicate there is but one Martin Casley born in the 1830s as does 1841 so do we add a third option - did the husband of Catherine have two forenames (e.g. John Martin)?

I am not finding anything that is at all helpful at the moment and it seems to get worse when I progress to the 1881 Census where the only Martin Casley featured is the now widowed husband of Jane born around 1808/9!

After looking at the marriage record again I am inclined to think that the two younger Martin Casleys above might be one and the same man. According to the marriage record Martin was living at Carrallack at the time of marriage, he states his age as 28 (birth around 1836) and gives his father's name as Martin. Despite the possibilities raised above it is the abode of 'Carrallack' that is the giveaway given that was the residence of the elder Martin in 1871.

My opinion is that the younger Martin was enumerated twice - once with his parents and again with his wife and daughter. But why he was recorded as 'unmarried' in the one record or why he was recorded with his parents at all is a question I cannot answer.

CT