Completed My Visit to Cambridgeshire County Record Office - will do simple Look-ups

[wdurham]

No hurry, Keith - whenever you have the time and leisure will be wonderful!

For your interest, I have now found a third child of John Watson in 1851, living also  in Browns Yard, Cambridge. (H)Anna Watson, correct age, is a lodger just a few doors down.

All circumstantial, but points more strongly to William Watson's birth having been mistranscribed from 1837 to 1832.

What a pity he was not born just a few months later, then I could have got his birth certificate which would solve all my problems!

All of which still begs the question as to where on earth was John Watson in 1841 whilst his family were in the Chesterton Union Workhouse as paupers?

[bedfordshire boy]

Excuse me butting in on this thread (re Watson not the puns!), but what if there is a simpler explanation than transcription errors.....

there were two William Watsons? 

The burial index on the Cambs FHS site shows a William Watson buried in Cherry Hinton in 1833 aged 14 months ie the one baptised in 1832 (this one is also on the IGI dated 8 Apr 1832, so it would have taken 2 transcription errors, one by the LDS and another by Cambs FHS. Unlikely.) Just a case of Keith checking the burial register to make sure the 1833 burial is William son of John and Rebecca. They then had another son c1837 and named him William too (not William two)

I don't know if the baptism index covers the whole of 1837 or terminates at the start of civil registration, but if the latter then the second William's baptism might have not been covered by the Index  or...there is also another William Watson, son of John and Rebecca on the IGI  (both controlled extracts, not Airy Fairy member submissions) baptised 31 Jan 1858 at Cherry Hinton. Might this have been an adult baptism of the William born 1837? I think this is more likely the case as Cherry Hinton parish register appears to have been extracted for the period in question. Another one for Keith when he toils wearily up the hill!

I've just checked the BVRI and these Cherry Hinton christenings are on it - but there's no age mentioned for William in 1858 - normally if there's an age quoted in the parish register it's mentioned on the BVRI

Regards

Holmes

[Keith Sherwood]

Sherlock,
I'll bear all this in mind when I take my own personal deerstalker, pipe and large magnifying glass to CCRO...
Moriarty ( or am I getting mixed up with the Goons, now - not the One-name study organisation, but those comedians of yore).

[bedfordshire boy]

Hi Moriarty

My ex says you've made a typo. It should be Shylock, not Sherlock (in fact I've no locks worth speaking of)

Bloodnok (Major)

[wdurham]

A very good point, Holmes - I wonder how I made such an elementary mistake?

Seriously, it didn't occur to me that there could have been two Williams, because I only found one - although this has cropped up often in my tree. William was John's grandfather's name, so the double attempt to have a son called William makes sense.

William baptised 1858 as an adult is a fair assumption. He  disappears after 1851, so it is possible that he died between 1851 and 1861, and was quickly baptised first.  A William Watson DID die in June 1859 in Chesterton, although he was living in St Andrew the Less in 1851. Another death certificate to send off for! I am already awaiting those for Rebecca Watson d. 1846 and Francis Watson d. 1842.

Thanks so much for the help!

Wendy Durham
(nee Watson - honestly!)

[bedfordshire boy]

Hi Wendy

And Cherry Hinton is in Chesterton registration district. Might just be coincidence of course!

Can't see an obvious John in 1841 though

David

[wdurham]

No, nor can I, David.

He could of course have been dead. There is a living-in farm labourer of the right age (tho' age is always suspect in 1841!) at Wolvey Holes, but that seems some distance away.

Which is why I am anxious to see whether John 1851 in Browns Yard, with his 14 year old William, and James and (H)Anna living nearby, both of the correct age, could be the right family. There are lots of circumstantial links, but no proof yet.

If John wasn't dead, where on earth could he have been in 1841? Army? Prison?  Does anyone know under what circumstances Rebecca and her children might have been sent to the Chesterton Union workhouse?

[bedfordshire boy]

Hi Wendy

I've just had a look at the original census pages for 1841.

There's no way of knowing in the workhouse which is a family unit -  males are in descending order of age, followed by females likewise.

Included in males though is Wm Watson 35 pauper born in county.

Whilst I didn't buy your transcription error theory, I'm quite capable of believing my own enumeration error hypotheses! With ages over 15 being rounded down to the nearest 5 below Wm's 35 would have given a birth 7 Jun 1801- 6 Jun 1806, which is consistent with John's age 47 in 1851 and the 1806 baptism in Cherry Hinton. And it makes more sense that the whole family was in the workhouse, particularly with John disappearing off the face of Cambs.

Perhaps the workhouse records may shed some light on this, or alternatively the parish chest records.

Regards

David

[wdurham]

I have just ploughed through the same Workhouse pages, looking to see if John had been mistranscribed.  I read that possible Wm Watson as a name beginning with N? My trusty magnifying glass can't see a trace of the second up-stroke for a "W". If you scan around him there are other "W"s and they are different to his first letter. But I agree the age is right. One other thing - against each person there is a number. I have no idea what it means, but Rebecca, James, Hannah and Francis are all numbered 23. Wm Wotsit (Nilson, Nelson?)  is 14. It could be a block or dormitory number?

Though having said that, I have read that male and female children were separated from each other and from their parents. so perhaps not a dormitory - maybe an admission number? The workhouse was quite new at the time.

Census returns are nightmares for enumerator errors. When you think that the book pages we see were already copied from the handwritten returns, many of which were made on behalf of people who could not read or write, and then have been transcribed by a third party, it's a wonder that there aren't more errors.