ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2002-11 > 1037583827


From: "Noel Clark" <>
Subject: FW: Any ideas?
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 12:44:13 +1100


The 1861 census index for Wethersfield can't help with Alice of course,
but it can for Henry.

Film RG9/1113, page 71, residing Wethersfield.

Henry METSON, aged 6;
Mary Ann METSON, aged 4;
Thomas METSON, aged 1.

No adult METSONs on page 71, but on page 70 we have:
Robert METSON, aged 33;
Mary Ann METSON, aged 34;
Charles METSON , aged 10;
James METSON, aged 8.

It is possible that the enumerator continued the family from one page to
the next - the sequence of ages of the children suggest this - so it
would be worth checking the film.

The index does not give relationships or birthplaces.

FreeBMD shows an Alice METSON being registered in the Braintree
District, Dec quarter 1861, so this is probably the Alice you want.

Free BMD does not show any METSON marriages Henry to Alice in either
1879 or 1899.]

There are plenty of METSON entries in both the census and on FreeBMD.

By the way, "living in sin" was very popular in the past, as it is
today. What's "sin" anyway? Goodness, the churches don't have a good
track record on sexual matters. I read somewhere that it has been
estimated that up to a third of all partnerships were not actually
marriages prior to the Marriage Act of 1754.

Regards,
Noel



-----Original Message-----
From: Steve [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, 17 November 2002 21:48
To:
Subject: Any ideas?

Hi Listers
I have a problem in that I have a choice of guesses. May I ask SKS if
they can trace an ALICE METSON being born in WETHERSFIELD in 1861/1862.
I bet you dont find her.

From the IGI, I have HENRY METSON marrying ALICE METSON [same surname]
in Deptford in 1899. On the 1881 census two people with the same names
and birthdates re shown living there with a 4m old daughter. He 26 and
she 19.

Both are listed as being born in WETHERSFIELD, Henry in 1854 and Alice
in 1862. This is on IGI and 1881 census.

Do you think it could most likely be:
1. A transcription error by LDS that should read 1879 and not 1899. My
favourite guess.
2. Coincidence that two Metson cousins married.
3. They were living in sin, not all that common in those days.
4. They are 2 pairs of totally different people [not all that likely]

If the IGI is correct then 2 Metsons married. It could be tha 2 cousins
or a widow of a family member married, hence the later marriage date. Or
could they have married 'twice' and a reaffirmation of vows was entered
as a wedding? If 1881 census is right then her surname is different.

I would be glad of any informed comments. I know I will have to go to
FRC to search for the marriage entry, but am not able to at present for
health reasons.

Many thanks to all
Steve


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.410 / Virus Database: 231 - Release Date: 31/10/02

______________________________


This thread: