rorkesdriftvc.com Forum Index


rorkesdriftvc.com
Discussions related to the Anglo-Zulu War of 1879
Reply to topic
Destination / Army Births / Married Qtrs .
Sapper Mason


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 333
Location: ANGLESEY
Reply with quote
Cool ,
Greetings Forum , i have a nice puzzle here i`d like comment on please. A lot of researchers when looking up the 24 th often " forget " or have not done any research on those men who did not fight at Isandlwana or Rorke's Drift , there is a rich vein of material here which i am discovering at this time . An example is the following man and his circumstances , hence the three part question i am raising .

This concerns QUARTERMASTER Sgt ( Staff ) 868 George Davison 1/24th . He was taken onto the married roll on the 11 th Oct 1878 some FIVE years after he got married , he had 2 children by this time , eventually having 6 in total. George was discharged in 1882 and died in 1921 . George married one Margaret ??? c 1873 ( an army marriage ) and the amazing fact about his wife was the fact she was born c 1855 aboard HM Ship " Tamar " , their first child was born in King Williamstown ( Bks ) c 1874 .

As the FRC will effectively be shuting in a couple of days i need to find out just what desination the TAMAR was heading for during 1855 when Margaret ??? was born aboard ship . By doing the sums this Margaret ??? was abroad a long time until at least 1879 when another child was born in Gosport .

Does anyone know which regiment would have been on board this ship c 1855 and to which destination ? . By the same token i also need to know if a passenger list would be available to track down Margaret ??? to see if indeed she was born as my source indicates aboard the TAMAR c 1855 .

I know i will have to source army births to try and locate this Margaret but am curious to see if anyone out there can assist at this stage ? . I am also intrigued as to where the wife and ( at the time ) two children of George Davison would have been billeted for up to 5 years before being put on the married roll ( ? ) .

After a span of some 5 years marriage he was taken on the register of marriages , does this mean housing was then available or accomodation for George and his family ? . Was it not the practice to put a man on the marriage roster unless some from of accomodation WAS at hand ? . I have been told that in those heady days the " fate " of married women in the army was quite scary to use my words and would a married man at that time, especially with children get any help from the regiment before he was taken on strength ? .

As i was researching this particular individual, this was the reason i posed a three parter question , help on this one would be much appreciated , thanks , " Sapper " Wink
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Sapper

Researching passenger lists, both at this end and in S Africa, is a notoriously long task. Many have been indexed and published (incl. online) but these are drop in the ocean (no pun intended!) compared with the whole. It is also important to bear in mind that some of the names of vessels were remarkably enduring, so that the Tamar on which Margaret was born in c1855 may not be the same Tamar which carried troops to and from the AZW in 1879.

In the shipping and other columns of The Times of 1855, the Tamar appears regularly and is described as a "West India packet" and, at other times, a vessel of the Royal Mail Company, even though it certainly carried troops at times. In Dec 1854 it took the 17th Foot and an artillery company to the Crimea, returning via Marseilles. In March it sailed for Kurracheo and at the end of April was involved in collecting horses from Sardinia, presumably for the Crimea again? In July it was back in England from Constantinople and in September it sailed for the West Indies, returning with mail from there and Mexico, and sailed for Brazil and the River Plate in October (no troops mentioned among the passengers). One can never be absolutely certain there weren't two Tamars at the same time, but one can be sure that more than one vessel is likely to have carried the same name at different times.

If you've obtained some of your info from the census you'll see that in 1891 Margaret claimed a birth on the Tamar but that in 1881, while in Colchester camp, she gave Scotland as her birthplace, although I think the enumerator may have confused some of the birthplaces in the family, including the children. It looks likely that George may have remarried by 1901, by which time he'd been in Manchester for nearly 20 years.

Do you know if he married first time in this country or overseas?

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
In Gratitude .
Sapper Mason


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 333
Location: ANGLESEY
Reply with quote
Very Happy ,
It never ceases to amaze me just how much knowledge there is amongst our members , i would like at this point to thank both Graham Alexander & Peter Ewart . The data re the KROOMEN was greatly appreciated Alexander and yes i was a little puzzled at first about the non show of the two pictures but they came through OK in the second mail .

Thanks to Peter on his response to my latest query , as far as i am aware if George Davison got married again his first marriage was certainly an army one c 1873 , i will have to source this at either Kew or the FRC which is an state of turmoil at the time due to big changes which will affect many a researcher in the years to come , the strain on the system with people now having to go to Kew for family records AND SERVICE RECORDS can only be imagined ! . Then we have the 1911 census to contend with soon ! .

On top of all this Peter you tell me that one or more ships went by the name of " TAMAR " . I can only assume that Margaret ??? was a daughter of a serving soldier and that the TAMAR was enroute to some military destination in 1855 when according to the records she was born on this vessel . People often make the mistake of thinking enumerators record details correct 100% of the time which is not the case of course .

I have " GEORGE DAVISON " as a widower in 1901 back in London where he was born in 1845 , living with his sister , Jane Wood and Nephew , Albert Davison . Just when i will be able to track down the ship , " Tamar " during a voyage c 1855 and find out just who Margaret ??? is i am not sure , as it was an army marriage a visit to the FRC or KEW ( BOTH ? ) is on the cards , however at this point my thanks again to both gents for their depth of knowledge and their assistance , " Sapper " Wink
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Sapper

I wonder if you have chosen the correct George Davison in the 1901 census? The other day I found the chap whom I think to be the right man in Manchester, not in London, and his family fitted well with the details of previous censuses.

Just briefly, for example:

In 1881 your George & Margaret are found billetted in married quarters at Infantry Camp No 2, Colchester. He is described as a soldier, born London, and Margaret born Scotland. This birthplace of Margaret looks rather awkward at first, with identification of the couple therefore uncertain. However, his children were "Lilly Jane" aged 7, also born Scotland; Hansergilleah[?], 3, bn Cape of Good Hope and Margaret Rose, 8 months, born Gosport.

In 1891, this family was found at 25 Cardiff St., Harpurphey, Manchester. The ages of the couple again fit, Geoge being a pensioner (no doubt of the Chelsea variety!) and a solicitor's clerk, suggesting he benefited from the traditionally excellent discharge reference valued by time expired NCOs. This time Margaret gives her birthplace as "on HM ship Tamar" and Lillian, 17, as King William's Town Barracks, S Africa, and is employed in the fur trade. Hann V[?] aged 12 was now the one supposed to have been born at Gosport Barracks. Margaret R., bn Manchester was followed by James H., Geoge G and Edward E, all born locally.

In 1901 we see them in 11 Baslow St., , parish of Bradford with Beswick, north Manchester. He is still a solicitor's clerk, age fitting well, but wife is now Mary V[?] aged 59 and born Harpurphey. "Hann V", 22, was once more a native of South Africa(!) and employed as a brewer's book-keeper, and Margaret R was born Gosport Bks - no sign of Lillian now. Two of the other three sons present were now also employed.

This is clearly the same family enumerated in the earlier census returns and, provided you have identified the right family in WO97 and on the muster rolls or wherever, not only the names but the birth on the Tamar of wife number one, and in S Africa for at least one child, would appear to corroborate the overall picture. So the London household you have in 1901 is of another family.

I didn't post these details the other day as I had assumed some of your knowledge of the family may have come from the census as well as army records. Anyway, hope it helps.

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Beards / Data
Sapper Mason


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 333
Location: ANGLESEY
Reply with quote
Cool ,
Mail to Peter Ewart . Dear Peter , Thank you for the data on BEARDS and also of George Davison, i do have the data when they were living at Cardiff St , Manchester but may have erred on the 1901 census as i have a George Davison as a Compositor b 1845 in Westminster and as a Widower , i shall obtain the correct 1901 census and add it to my records , thank you , " Sapper " Wink
View user's profileSend private message
Data 2
Sapper Mason


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 333
Location: ANGLESEY
Reply with quote
Laughing,
Dear Peter EWART , I describe myself as a plank sometimes ! , i have checked again on the 1881 & 1901 census and it`s the compiler of both census returns who have made a pigs ear of the place of birth of the DAVISON family , hence my error in getting the incorrect data of the Davison family in 1901 . As the wife of George Davison is shown as Mary V ??? in 1901 this would suggest George had re-married after the death ( ? ) of Elizabeth . What do you think ? . " Sapper " Mr. Green
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Sapper

Information in the census returns is only as good as (a) the details conveyed - or thought to be conveyed - by the informant, which may have been verbally to the enumerator on the doorstep or by completing and handing in the questionnaire; (b) the enumerator's transcription of the details on the forms into his books; (c) the accuracy of his supervisor's checking and amendments; (d) the survival rate of the returns into the days of microfilm; (e) the eventual quality of the mocrofilm itself and, perhaps especially for researchers of the internet generation, (f) the standard of transcription preparatory to indexing and digitising, thereby providing access to the schedules online.

All of these stages of recording the data are susceptible to error, so that by the time you look at the microfilm - and especially if you use the online version - you are looking at data several times removed from the original version. A historian's nightmare! As you probably know, census details are traditionally very inaccurate anyway or, at best, approximate. Giving different places of birth every ten years was not at all uncommon.

Unfortunately, when the government authorised the National Archives to produce an online version of the 1901 census as well as the usual m/film variety, the government agency employed to organise the task - QinetiQ - engaged (perhaps for cost reasons) transcribers with little knowledge of British placenames and not much more knowledge of our surnames. 78% of the work was farmed out to Sri Lanka and the other 22% to "guests" of Her Majesty in the UK. Hence the total balls-up of the whole project. When the forms came back and 1 in 10 samples were examined, the results were seen to be horrific but there was no time to do anything before the project was rolled out. And so we are left with the results - for example, many English families named Ditto living in Eng & Wales in 1901!!!

So, it depends whom you mean by the compiler - I certainly wouldn't blame the enumerator of 1901! The Davison family you had earmarked in London in 1901, however, didn't look like a possibility to me, as the Manchester family clearly tied up well, the obvious birthplace mix-ups notwithstanding.

Yes, I agree it looks as if Mary V. is probably a second wife.

Peter.
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
Martin Everett


Joined: 01 Sep 2005
Posts: 786
Location: Brecon
Reply with quote
Graham,

To support Peter's explanations. If you look at the census for the Barracks Brecon on 3 April 1881, the first name is Major Russell Upcher - recently returned from the AZW. His name does not appear on the on-line indices - just because the name is unreadable - but it is obvious if you have access to the regimental records. Just just have to take mis-spellings and missing entries in your stride - nothing is prefect even though you would like it to be.

_________________
Martin Everett
Brecon, Powys
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Thanks .
Sapper Mason


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 333
Location: ANGLESEY
Reply with quote
Very Happy ,
Dear Peter & Martin ,
Thank you for your input with regard to my last query concerning George Davison , i now have the relevant census for both 1881 and 1901 and i can also disregard the George Davison a widower living in London as it is quite clearly the Manchester man who is the pertinent individual. What makes this intriguing is if you compare both census returns you will see my point , the compilers are both different of course but it is the place of birth of this individual and his family which seem all over the place . I am still on a learning curve and admit to still making mistakes but yes Martin it would be ideal if the facts recorded were perfect but if that were the case then research would be bland and uninteresting to say the least . I strive towards perfection and accuracy but am humble enough to seek and take advice from those with greater knowledge in these matters than i.

I am still unaware of the timings or if indeed the ceremony regarding William Jones VC has been held . Again i ask were the likes of the extended family invited to take their place at this ceremony , were the Museum asked etc . Those who claim to be related to a Zulu War ancestor and especially the Rorke's Drift defenders should i feel present their claims to those who have suffcient knowledge in confirming if indeed they are descended from these brave men , especially those who have won the coveted VC for actions on Jan 22 1879 .

I do find it hard to accept in this case people like the remainder of the family i have mentioned were not apparently invited along to take part in honouring William Jones VC , if they were not invited can i ask why ? , thank you , " Sapper " Mr. Green


Last edited by Sapper Mason on Wed Nov 07, 2007 8:38 pm; edited 1 time in total
View user's profileSend private message
Peter Ewart


Joined: 31 Aug 2005
Posts: 1797
Location: Near Canterbury, Kent, England.
Reply with quote
Sapper

In census returns nothing should surprise you! In fact, it is worth bearing in mind at all times that no source in which the names of these people appear were ever compiled or retained with future family history research in mind.

If someone knew for certain where they'd been born (and many didn't) then we have a better chance of an accurate birthplace being stated, but even then it is by no means a certainty. Given that George was an NCO and then a solicitor's clerk, one might imagine his having little difficulty in completing the census form. But if his wife did so, it introduces the possibility of error, as does the possibility of conveying the details verbally to the enumerator on the doorstep, let alone a third party in the barracks becoming involved before handing in the forms to the enumerator.

Although Margaret is not likely to have forgotten the birthplace of her own children, it is perfectly possible that she may not have wanted to - or even realised she could - state a ship for her birthplace. If her parents were Scots or she grew up in Scotland, that may have been considered good enough. Her daughter may well have been born there c1873/4 just before George or the 1st Bn embarked, unless you know from military sources that the birth took place in KWT, which I think you might. "Dittoing" (in careless error) a birthplace from the entry immediately above is very common in census returns. Hans...[?] was clearly born out there, and Mary's birth in around Jly/Aug 1880 at Gosport Bks sounds fine, and perhaps matches with the 1st Bn's or George's known movements?

Discrepancies with birthplaces may puzzle someone 120 years later, but remember this will have been the first time that either George or Margaret were required to provide details for the census, and it may have been of no consequence to them at all what they entered on the form, even if I'd obviously expect an NCO to complete the forms well.

So I see nothing at all unusual or untoward in the 1881 answers, even if they do turn out to be inaccurate.

The 1891 birthplaces have been "scrambled" - very easily done, and quite common - it may have been a "pig's ear" on their form or a misunderstanding between family & enumerator, or an error in form-filling by the enumerator - very minor and extremely common in censuses. And now the Tamar birth is recorded anyway, so that's an improvement.

In 1901 the birthplaces are largely the same as in 1881, so really only the 1891 details are inconsistent, and then only between children, suggesting a little mix-up by the enumerator. Remember, if he got one wrong, he's going to get at least one other wrong if he's reversing their details. Margaret, of course, is likely to have spent at least some, if not nearly all, of her life between birth and 1881 in the UK, even if a child of a soldier at birth, which is likely but - at present - not certain.

Like all potential historical sources, these records were compiled for reasons quite different to those for which you search them. They were usually telling somebody something else altogether, but we just happen to find them useful for other reasons and must take into consideration all sorts of things, such as the conditions in which they were compiled. It all looks lovely and neat in an alphabetical list on a computer screen, but that's not what the primary source looks like at all.

The apparent minor discrepancies in these three census returns are absolutely routine. You're doing OK - keep going & good luck!

Peter
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mail
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
John Hayward, the numismatic specialist, coined a phrase:
"Medals were not named for the benefit of medal collectors."

Perhaps a variation would be:
"Census records were not transcribed for the benefit of genealogists."

Peter
View user's profileSend private message
Alan
Site Admin

Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 1530
Location: Wales
Reply with quote
To save everyone else looking it up in the dictionary, numastics is the science of medals and coins.

_________________
View user's profileSend private messageSend e-mailVisit poster's website
Sapper Mason


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 333
Location: ANGLESEY
Reply with quote
Wink ,
Dear Peter , census records are there to be checked and ratified , when " someone " asks you to check them you ( as i always do ) do your level best to make sure what you present someone with a bushel of facts that these facts are as near 100% as can possibly be . Just look at the differences with George Davison and his family , one minute we are led to believe his wife was born on a ship called the " Tamar " and in the next it is indicated she was born in Scotland ! , that is not for my benefit as a budding researcher but to get to the truth as best i can and make people aware i am doing my level best to ensure data put at their door is as close as can be as much as i can find out THE TRUTH at 100 % as i can , " Sapper " . I have a long way to go in this field but be assured i will strive for as full accuracy as i can Wink
View user's profileSend private message
peterw


Joined: 30 Aug 2005
Posts: 865
Location: UK
Reply with quote
Graham

The point I was making was that the census taking served a purpose at the time and little thought was given to how such records might be used in the future - it is a reflection of how things were done then rather than a comment on those seeking information now.

Peter
View user's profileSend private message
Census
Sapper Mason


Joined: 05 Sep 2005
Posts: 333
Location: ANGLESEY
Reply with quote
Cool ,
Dear Peter ( Weedon ) , Point taken and no offence taken my friend , the census returns up to 1901 were largely " forgotten " as soon as they were published back then , it is a modern idiom that so many now look into such data to trace roots and confirm family details Mr. Green etc . In some quarters i guess i am classified as an" anorak " with regard research matters . The census returns are a tool in my on-going research into not only soldiers of the 24 th but all servicemen of the Victorian period . How sad so many service papers were lost at Isandlwana on that fateful day , however i am making inroads to many of those that had fallen on that day . I am sure Peter Ewart will agree the case of George Davison is one in particular where the eneumerator / compiler has really mixed up the place of birth of this family , one census shows the wife of George Davison as Scotland while another has her being born aboard the " Tamar " circa 1855 ! , it`s the finding out of this data i find fascinating and i thank you for your comments on this subject , " Sapper " .

PS : It is QM Sgt 868 ( 1 /24th ) George Davison the person in question i am talking about by the way , thank you , Mr. Green
View user's profileSend private message
Destination / Army Births / Married Qtrs .
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All times are GMT  
Page 1 of 1  

  
  
 Reply to topic