Pickstock

[AdrianB38]

Charlotte at the RMA
Now, you may remember that Peter Goble, transcriber of the Royal Military Asylum admissions register, had both Charlotte's parents alive at her admission on 6 January 1815 - which doesn't match the idea that Isaac died in October of the previous year. Having examined the Admissions Register myself (WO 143/24), it turns out that Charlotte's entry is a little odd. I can't blame Peter for reading both parents as alive but I had a bit more time to spend on just one entry than he did.

The relevant column in the Admissions Register has the names of both parents - father on the left, mother on the right. Above each parental name is the word "alive" or "dead". Except it's not quite like that. The top entry on the page has the words in full ("Dead Alive" on this page for the topmost set of parents). Thereafter, ditto marks are used except when the word is to change.

Oddity number 1 for Charlotte's entry is that it has the single word "alive" across the column of both names. I saw no other entry like that. What was it supposed to mean? Were both alive, as Peter Goble concluded?

If we assume that it was supposed to mean that her mother, Sarah, was alive, then the sequence of entries reading down the mothers' names reads (starting with Sarah) "alive", two dittoes, "alive". Hang on - that makes no sense. Why isn't that second "alive" just a ditto? Why write the word in when a ditto mark would do? Alternative conclusion - the "alive" didn't apply to Sarah after all, and she was dead at Charlotte's admission.

So maybe the "alive" applied to Isaac? (Which doesn't match his Army records, of course). If it did, then we have a sequence reading "alive", several dittoes, "alive". Same argument. Why is that second "alive" written in when a ditto mark would do? Same conclusion  - the "alive" didn't apply to Isaac either, and he was dead at Charlotte's admission, as per his Army records.

Which leaves us with the word "alive" making no sense. I think that the explanation is that "alive" is a later correction - I can convince myself that the pen-nib and ink are just slightly different. I think that maybe when Richard and Frances asked for Charlotte to join them in 1819/20, then the clerk altered the original entry (which was "ditto ditto" meaning "dead dead") to read "alive" to signify that she had living (albeit adoptive) parents. Or, of course, the original entry for Sarah as dead was incorrect, and was corrected at some time.

And that is just about that for Charlotte. I have looked at most of the RMA correspondence books and they either don't refer to children at all or don't refer to her.

[rhoosesue]

Adrian, thank you so much for taking the trouble to track all this stuff down. The Val that you mention in #25 was the friend for whom I started this query, now sadly deceased. She would have been over the moon with all this new information. Interesting that there is now a possibility that Charlotte was indeed Richard's granddaughter, as family legend has maintained in South Africa.

[ASlab]

I am a direct descendent of Charlotte Pickstock and used to help Val with her research for her book many years ago. I am sorry to hear she has died. My mom used to have all these family stories about Charlotte that you have corroborated. I can't tell you how excited I am to share your research with her. Would you be so kind as to clarify the relationship between Charlotte's parents and Richard Pickstock with whom she came to South Africa in 1820.

[ASlab]

I found on Find My past website: England Devon Parish Register 1538-1912 Entry #530
Isaac Pickstock of 2 Royal Veteran Battalion marries Sarah Williams (of this parish) on 6 June 1809 in Stoke Dameral, Devon, England. Are these Charlotte's parents?

[AdrianB38]

Audrey - that's the correct marriage for Charlotte's parents, yes.

My personal belief is that Isaac Pickstock (Charlotte's father) is the son of Richard Pickstock, who took Charlotte out to South Africa. However, the only evidence for this is the statements out in South Africa that Richard is Charlotte's grandfather. Since so many of the stories (Madeira, etc.) are consistent with what we now know to be reality, I see no reason to doubt that there is at the very least a close connection. There is no reason for Richard to go and collect Charlotte from the RMA school / home unless she was related to him.  I can't find any direct evidence linking Isaac to Richard but the details of Richard's children are a muddle, split between Manchester (both CofE and non-conformist) and St. Helen church at Witton, Cheshire. The first daughter named Margaret, for instance, is only known by her burial at Witton. It is easy to believe there is at least one missing. There isn't even a baptism for Richard himself (his parents are Isaac Pickstock and Ann / Nancy Carr) but the baptism of Richard's first known daughter (Ann / Nancy) at Witton is in an era when there are lots of details in Witton's registers, including the child's grandparents.

I guess there is a chance that Isaac could be a child of one of Richard's siblings, rather than Richard himself. However, Richard is the eldest and the others seem too young if Isaac is born about 1790.

[ASlab]

Thanks so much for explanation. I again, am extremely grateful for the thorough research you have done into this.