Maj Charles Bromhead . |
Peter Ewart
|
Graham
Consistent evidence from the census returns shows the Victorians as being very imprecise in their descriptions of family relationships. Just as we might call someone an in-law or an uncle/aunt or a cousin when the connection is less precise, so did the Victorians - but they frequently (although inadvertently!) led the future incautious researcher astray when using the terms nephew, niece or step-daughter/son as well. Trying to verify these relationships from alternative contemporary sources often reveals a slightly different picture, even when no attempt to deceive was intended. You certainly haven't read anything wrongly in the 1891 census return and I agree it does purport to throw a spanner in the works, given that the family at Parkstone appears straight forward but clashed with the 1876 marriage names (whose reference I checked). I thought the most likely reason would be one of the following: (a) an error on the part of the enumerator, (b) a change of surname of Bromhead's apparent in-laws (rather late in life, so perhaps in accordance with the legacy in a will - not uncommon), (c) a typically loose Victorian description of the relationship (but not easily evident here), (d) an incidence of illegitimacy at some time in the past, or (e) a second marriage at some time. All would have been perfectly routine reasons for the apparent discrepancy. I've now had a little dig and it appears to be a combination of (c) and (e), although more digging would clarify further. In the end, no major discrepancy in the census return has occurred at all! You'll see that in 1881 the family looks just the same, ten years younger (of course!) but the residence and relationships identically described. In 1871, in Kensington, Richard Hawksworth Barnes and his wife Cecilia appear, both born Colombo, Ceylon, Br. subjects, but this time daughter Alice Maria has the surname of Freckleton and is describe as a step-daughter - and remember this relationship refers to her connection with the head of the household, so she is Richard's step-daughter but probably Cecilia's daughter. This makes it perfectly possible for Bromhead to have married Alice Maria Freckleton, at least one of the Barnes couple being correctly later described as his in-law and (in a round about way) the other one too. In actual fact, Cecilia was his in-law but RHB was his step-in-law. In 1861, in Liverpool, Cecila Freckleton was 30, head of household, and a widowed mother of her two children (one of whom was Alice, both born Ceylon.) Clearly, R H Barnes was to be her second husband. In 1851 she'd have been in Ceylon of course, so not in the census. It was not strictly correct in 1881 and 1891 to describe Major (& Col) Bromhead as the son-in-law of RHB, nor Maria as daughter, but they were the correct relationship to Cecilia, just as the grandson (whose names, I believe, were Richard Gonville Freckleton Bromhead) was exactly that to Cecilia. Your tentative statement that Maria was the daughter of a Thomas Freckleton remains possible if Cecilia's first husband was a Thomas. I think that should sort you out Graham. Meanwhile, I had meant to come back to you by now on the Pte Scaplehorne conundrum but will do so in the next day or so. Peter P.S. There goes my 2008 Resolution already. (Trying to keep rdvc postings just a little shorter!!!) |
||||||||||||
|
Thanks |
Sapper Mason
|
,
Dear Peter , Nice to see you back " on-line " and to read your " brief " response to my query ! , i look forward to the LONG ones Peter ! . The census returns for Maj Bromhead as described can be a trilfe confusing because it does at first glance ( 1891 census ) look as if the Barnes are indeed the inlaws of Maj Bromhead . I agree with your conclusions and the points ( c ) and ( e ) as described in your reply . I do prefer when the enumerator does indicate step - son / daughter on a return , makes life so much easier for the likes of me ! . Most people do tend to go for Gonville Bromhead VC but i am sure his brother is just as fascinating as far as research purposes go . Do you have any data at all on Maj William R B Chamberlin 2 / 24 th , i don`t currently have his service papers but the only information i seem to have is his reference ( ? ) if it is him ?born in the June Qtr of 1838 Radford Notts , i will do another check but have not pinned him down as yet . I hope we cross bayonets again and hopefully one of these places will be at Chatham this year , all the best for 2008 and thank you for your response , " Sapper " . |
||||||||||||
|
Martin Everett
|
Dear Graham,
Instead of going to Chatham - or as well! Go to Kew. Try TNA WO25/861/III for Chamberlin - I think this is now on microfilm. While you are at Kew sit down at one of terminals - and access ARCHIVE TIMES - all entries in The Times paper from 1680(?) to 1986 have been indexed - so you can pick up births, deaths, marriages, army promotions. |
||||||||||||
_________________ Martin Everett Brecon, Powys |
Thanks. |
Sapper Mason
|
,
Dear Martin , i hope you and all your staff had a lovely Christmas and New Year, let`s hope 2008 will bring many visitors to the Museum . I will try my best to get to both Chatham & Kew but being one of those not in employment savagely curbs my ability to get to these places more often , including Brecon. Thank you for that reference and i will certainly look it up when next at Kew which will be ???? . I still have much to learn on the research front and if i am ever lucky enough to move South again i shall hopefully gain further knowledge as the years roll by . I am sure you are aware of the 1891 census which indicates the in laws of Maj Bromhead as BARNES ( ? ) . My eternal thanks to Peter Ewart for his response on this inquiry and also to you for this reference , all the best to you , Celia and all your staff , " Sapper " |
||||||||||||
|
Maj Charles Bromhead . |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.