RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: Eidde on Thursday 13 March 25 02:13 GMT (UK)
-
Hi all
I've been tracing a Clutterbuck family and I've got back as far as a Richard Clutterbuck who married Mary Woodward in Frampton on Severn in 1762. While looking around for Richard's parents, I came across a Richard Clutterbuck baptised in Eastington, Gloucestershire, in 1769. These locations are a few miles apart but this Richard could still be a possibility, I feel. His baptism date is given as 18th May, 1869. However, there's another record written in the same hand which shows a James Clutterbuck being baptised on that date. I think that James's record is a bishop's transcript - some earlier entries are labelled as copies, they're on long, separate pieces of paper year by year, and have been folded (presumably to be sent off). Richard's record is in a bound register.
The question is, which name to believe? Is 'James' likely to be a mistranscription or a correction?
Thanks
Eddie
-
I think that the "James" record is the Bishop's Transcript. A few pages back you can see the note "this is a true copy witness our hand ..." (page 291 of 475 on Ancestry)
-
Not sure if he is "yours" though - There is a Richard CLUTTERBUCK buried at Eastington 4 Nov 1832 aged 63. :-\ Where did Richard and Mary baptise their children? Have you any other records placing him?
-
I'm not too sure either. And I realise I've made a mistake in my original post - it was John Clutterbuck who married Mary Woodward in Frampton on Severn in 1762. These are the people I suspect may be the parents of 'my' Richard. Sorry about that.
The trail for the Richard I'm interested in starts in Stepney, London, in the 1851 and 1841 censuses. His place of birth is given as Gloucestershire - no town mentioned, annoyingly. From the 1851 census I calculated his dob as 1771. Also, I found a Richard Clutterbuck who died in the Stepney workhouse in March 1857 at age 89, so I figure that could well be him. I looked for a Richard C in Gloucestershire born around 1770 and found one baptised in Eastington in May 1769 (the one noted above) which fits quite neatly with the death in March 1857. However, I see that your Richard fits too.
John and Mary had five children, all baptised in Eastington at 2 year intervals.
I agree that James's record is from the bishop's transcript, but I'm more inclined to believe the parish register for the name of the boy baptised on the 18th May.
-
No connection but just wondering if this is the family of the Clutterbucks who built Frampton Court.
-
Not sure, but it's an interesting tip for me to follow up
Eddie
-
FindMyPast has a transcript only record for John Church (17th), James Clutterback (18th) and William Davies (25th), all bap Eastington and Alkerton.
There is no record for a Richard, bap 18th.
-
Was your guy a servant to Peter Everitt Mestaer?
Richard Clutterbuck, servant, of 28 New Broad Street was a witness to his will, dated 1809
Will of Peter Everitt Mestaer, Ship Builder of New Broad Street, City of London
Proved 20 February 1819
https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/D228640
Mestaer was at one time the owner of Oak Hall in Wanstead, Essex. Richard and Mary Clutterbuck had three children baptised in Wanstead, 1804-1810, starting with son John
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HT-66B9-PHF
-
FindMyPast burial (transcript only)
Richard Clutterbuck, bur 4 Nov 1832, age 63 (calc YoB 1769), St Michael All Angels, Eastington (near Stonehouse)
Cannot spot a Richard Clutterbuck baptism that fits, but (again transcript only) did spot a-
Rich'd Buck, bap 15 Mar 1769, Stroud, mother Hannah Buck (no father's name). If you have access to original wondered if you could confirm transcript?
-
The burial in 1832 was given in reply #3. You can see the image of Richard's baptism in the opening post. :D
-
Thanks to all for your contributions. I was especially interested in the will (thanks, jonwarm) which possibly gives Richard a job in Wanstead, where three of his children were born. Richard is described as a coachman in 1812 and 1816, so that could fit.
-
Is 'James' likely to be a mistranscription or a correction?
Your image looks to me as though 'James' is clearly in the original hand but 'Richard' is a later alteration in a slightly different one ?
-
I think you're right, Andrew. Some of the letters in 'Richard' are quite different to others on the page: the h and d in particular. I've attached another 'Richard' from a later page for comparison. Also, 'Richard' seems to be not quite on the same line as the following words and there's a suspicious smudgy area around the name.
However, the 'Richard' document is the original and 'James' is the copy. This means that 'James' was put on the original first, which was then copied and sent off, and 'Richard' was a later correction.
So, this could still be the Richard I'm looking for (although maddys52's earlier caveat is noted).
-
Well spotted, I hadn't noticed the different hands in the script. Curiouser and curiouser.
-
Have you looked at the will of Ricahrd CLUTTERBUCK of Eastington proved 10 Nov 1778? I don't quite understand it all, but he mentions a Richard CLUTTERBUCK of Frampton upon Severn. Not suggesting he is yours, too young, but possibly worth investigating.
-
Just back to the Richard CLUTTERBUCK baptised in Eastington in 1769, there is a Richard CLUTTERBUCK married Ann HOLBROW at Eastington in 1792 (Pallot's Index).
Then there is at least this baptism at Eastington
1793 Harriett (dau of Richard and Ann)
and maybe these (of Richard and Hannah)
1797 Charles
1798 Charlotte
1800 Hannah
1801 Thomas
1804 Anne
1806 James
1808 Matilda
1812 Edwin
-
Yes, I think the Richard you found is more likely to be the one baptised in Eastington in May 1769. After all, there's no evidence that my Richard was born in Eastington - the census just says Gloucestershire. It was just that the dates seemed to fit.
-
However, the 'Richard' document is the original and 'James' is the copy. This means that 'James' was put on the original first, which was then copied and sent off, and 'Richard' was a later correction.
That is the logical sequence of events - the change was made after the bishop's transcript had been forwarded, and the sender either forgot (or intended not) to report the change, or the recipient decided it didn't matter ?
Looking again at the lower line in the pair of images, an 'e' seems to have been added to Ann at the very end of one. Maybe the whole document has been 'edited' - perhaps by the Rev'd gentleman being married ?
-
I think that the original and the copy were made by the churchwarden Thomas Evans. Compare his signature from the transcript with 'Thos Church' in the entry above Richard's. The slightly larger picture also shows that the reverend gentleman in the line below Richard, William Davies, is indeed the minister of the church. I suspect he's the one who added 'born and baptised on the same day' in Latin to his son's entry and added 'his wife' after 'Anne', presumably in case there was any doubt. There's not much to go on but he may also have made the alteration from 'James' to 'Richard'.