Hi,
Background:
My ancestor, Charles Burley, born in about 1742/43 was a 'tyler and plaisterer' in Marylebone in 1780. He served his apprenticeship with William Thrall in St James, Bristol (Charles' family was from Berkeley, Gloucestershire) from 1757 and at some point afterwards moved to London, where he lived in Marylebone and then Southwark, where he is living in 1781 and 1784 when listed in the Bristol Poll Books of those years; Charles had become a burgess of Bristol in 1781 by virtue of his apprenticeship under the above-mentioned William Thrall, a tyler and plaisterer of St James, Bristol.
In the 'UK, Register of Duties Paid for Apprentices' Indentures, 1710-1811' found on Ancestry, a Charles Burley is listed as an apprentice to William Charles Diddear 'a citizen and plaisterer of London' in 1781. It seems that this is the Charles Burley named as a nephew in the 1821 will of Arabella (née Dunn) Diddear, William Charles Diddear's wife and so is not the Charles Burley in my tree, and anyway my Charles was 38 in 1781; however, my Charles had a son Charles who was born in 1775 and would have been 6 by this date and I am wondering if it might be he who was apprenticed (surely 6 was too young? I have read about London rules which state a child should ideally be aged 14 to 21 when apprenticed). The name Charles Burley and the trade of tiler and plasterer are not common and so a combination of the two linked to the date 1781, when Charles Burley, a tiler and plasterer of Southwark, Surrey, appears in the Bristol Poll Book and the year in which he is made a burgess of Bristol. I currently have a date of death of 1777 for Charles b1775, so this unlikely connection between my tree and the 1781 apprenticeship is probably simply another coincidence.
Charles Burley born in about 1742 in Berkely, Gloucestershire, and a burgess of Bristol, appears to have had problems finding settlement in Marylebone: when son William was born in the British Laying in Hospital, Holborn, in 1780, Charles' settlement was said to be St James, Bristol (his trade of plasterer convinces me I have the correct person). Two children are then born in Southwark. In 1787, Charles' wife Elizabeth is subjected to a Pauper examination at St Clement Danes, a parish close to St Marylebone and is removed back to Marylebone; husband Charles was said to be in St Bartholomew's hospital at that time and was apparently unable to support his family. A 1791 birth of an unnamed child of Charles (a plasterer) and Elizabeth Burley at The British Laying In Hospital finally gives Charles' settlement as Marylebone.
The point:
Phew. After all that and just to be sure, I researched William Charles Diddear only to discover he was an apothecary and chymist, not a plasterer (there are no other William Charles Diddears in the records anywhere): he appears in several trade directories as such (1776-1780 in Wakefield's, for example) and is said to be an apothecary in his 1787 will. I am wondering if William Charles Diddear tried to help Charles Burley to obtain a settlement by taking him on as an apprentice - even though Charles was 38 at the time - and said he (i.e. William Charles Diddear) was a master 'plaisterer' simply because that was Charles' trade. Would someone do such a thing to help another at that time? William Charles and Arabella Diddear were not of the 'stuff' from which plasterers were made; their wills show connections to the higher echelons of society and widow Arabella left thousands of pounds (possibly as much as a million in todays money) to family members. Arabella obtained the licence for the couple's 1777 marriage in her own name, something I have never seen before, the man being the 1st named on every other licence I have come across. Is this as rare as I believe? I am currently attempting to untangle Arabella's will, to place the many nieces and nephews she names (amongst them Charles Burley and his children Thomas and Mary: my Charles had a child called Mary, but then so did almost everyone!), in the hope that will allow me to put William Charles Diddear and his apothecary/plaisterer records to rest.
It could simply be the case that the entry in the apprentices' register is wrong. It seems highly likely that William Charles' Diddear's nephew Charles Burley would have been apprenticed as a chymist/apothecary, not a plaisterer - if indeed it is his nephew who appears in that record and not my Charles Burley, a plasterer hoping to find a settlement.
Oops, I rambled there in an attempt to explain the background and to explain also as to why my head is spinning. Does anyone have any thoughts? Have I missed something blindingly obvious? And where can the original apprentice indenture records be viewed?
Thanks for your time,
Al
