Hi, I am not really sure where to post this as it's a bit of a weird one, hence posting it in the Common Room. It is a bit long-winded to explain but it really is bizarre so please stick with me if you can!
My ancestor William Billing Sloggett (born 13 July 1850, St. Austell, Cornwall, England bapt. 4 August 1850, married Ellen Angove 13 November 1875 at Redruth, Cornwall, occupation 'Tin Miner' while for the first census at working age in 1871 he is stated a 'Mine Labourer'. His death certificate (died 2 May 1880, Camborne, Cornwall) again states him as a 'Mine Labourer'. All of this fits, as his own father was a Labourer and it was a thoroughly working-class family.
His eldest daughter, Catherine Hague Sloggett (born 29 December 1875, Illogan, Cornwall) married William John Winn of Helston, Cornwall on 7 July 1894 at the Register Office in Helston, and this is where it gets confusing; I have a copy of the marriage certificate where someone in the office filled in the columns themselves after the certificate had been ordered, and and a more recent order of the same certificate where this time it is a scan of the original. I ordered the same certificate again as the first one was seemingly almost laughably wrong on Catherine's side. But looking at the scan of the actual original it does say exactly what the person who wrote up their own one put. They say the same and both are so wrong: Catherine's name is given as Catherine Heage Billin David Clockett. 'Heage' is obviously Hague, her actual middle name, while 'Billin' must be in reference to her father William Billing Sloggett, who in turn is in reference to his grandmother, Priscilla Billing. Similarly, 'David' must be in reference to her grandmother Catherine Hague Davey. Yet neither of these were ever recorded as part of her name anywhere else, including her birth certificate. She was just Catherine Hague Sloggett.
But the bigger issue is on the marriage certificate her father is not stated as the William Billing Sloggett aforementioned; rather, a 'William Henry Clockett'. The 'Clockett' can be excused as someone mishearing the unusual name Sloggett, but he was never called William Henry anything, and it does not sound remotely like Billing either. Even more bizarre is this 'William Henry Clockett's occupation is given as an Oculist (!) Now we really are miles off the actual father William Billing Sloggett the Mine Labourer. How on earth can it be so wrong?
The final twist is for years I have thought this Oculist detail was just plain wrong and that there couldn't be any truth behind it. There still isn't really, but I have found something which gives it a tiny bit of explanation. I found a newspaper entry after his death (as aforementioned died 2 May 1880) from The Cornishman on 13 May 1880 announcing his death which reads "SLOGGETT - May 2nd, at North-road, Camborne, Mr. William Sloggett, a married man, aged 30. - One who (it is testified to by a good many) has done a great deal of good to sight-injured miners".
Which creates a bizarre connection between the two worlds of Miner and Oculist. So in light of all this conflicting evidence, three questions arise:
- Why/how was the marriage certificate so wrong on Catherine's side, conflicting with the other records on pretty much every detail?
- Given the overwhelming evidence William Billing Sloggett was a Miner and not an Oculist, how on earth was he able to do "a great deal of good to sight-injured miners"?
- Related to the last one, if he actually was an Oculist of some sort/had some skill in that area, why was he a Miner by trade? Surely much harder work, a lot less pay, far more dangerous etc.
Thank you for reading and I would be very grateful for any suggestions to any of these mysteries!
