Author Topic: 1851 census look up BURDEN (Corfe Mullen area)  (Read 999 times)

Offline melia

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
1851 census look up BURDEN (Corfe Mullen area)
« on: Friday 23 September 05 16:15 BST (UK) »
Hi
I have found an entry for the family on the dorset opc page but wondered if someone could take a look at the actual image as some names seem a bit unusual.
I have (Cogdean)Uptown, Corfe Mullen HO107/619/30 and 31

Mary Burden 47 b Hants
Mary Ann 23 b canford
Casmus 10 b Canford
Dumon 8           "
Mary 6            "
John 87   b Woolbridge

Would be grateful if someone could confirm if the names are right or not.
Amelia

Offline shoko

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: 1851 census look up BURDEN (Corfe Mullen area)
« Reply #1 on: Wednesday 28 September 05 17:39 BST (UK) »
Hi Amelia
1851 Census Corfe Mullen (HO107/1854 fol.619 is the correct reference) -
Uptown
Mary BURDEN                M 47                                Hant. Southampt.
Maryan BURDEN    Dau  U 23  Seamstress            Dorset Canford
Cosmas BURDEN   Son  U 10  Scholar                   Dorset Canford
Damon BURDEN     Son  U  ?10/8  Scholar            Dorset Canford
Mary BURDEN        Dau  U  6  Scholar                   Dorset Canford
John BURDEN    Visitor Wid U 87  Annuitant        Dorset Woolbridge

The saints Cosmas & Damian (the correct spelling) were twins and are the patron saints of pharmacists and physicians. The ages of the two Burden children are difficult to read, and it is possible that they were twins too and perhap their correct age is 10 - if you can find their baptisms you could check this. The saints had brothers called Anthimius, Leontius and Euprepius, so if the Burdens had more sons .....   ;D

Shoko
Dibble, Hoddinott, Huntley (Somerset/Dorset); Holmes (Hull); Samuel (Hull & Belfast); Gilbert, Roberts, Talbot (Coastguards)

Offline melia

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: 1851 census look up BURDEN (Corfe Mullen area)
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 29 September 05 15:58 BST (UK) »
Hi
Thank you so much for that. There were other children born before these but none had unusual names which is why i wondered if they had been transcribed wrong, but obviously not.
The twin thing could be a possibility as i haven't found anyone by those names in the 1861 census so a big probability they died. Unusual though as they reached the age of 10ish.
Will do some more looking
Amelia