Author Topic: Cetus ??  (Read 3037 times)

Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Cetus ??
« Reply #9 on: Wednesday 01 October 08 22:01 BST (UK) »
I have a bit more for you. In 1886 a F.Williams is living in No 1, but the landlord of the Whale Inn was Thomas Garland. The 1881 census may make interesting reading.
I think it is likely that No.1 became 80, Medgbury Road based on the way places tend to get numbered. If not, it became 91.
Down stairs the house was divided into 2 rooms both 11' 5'' wide. The front room was 11'  deep and the kitchen at the rear was 8'.It had a sink under the window and in one corner was what was referred to as a copper - a built in boiling unit. One entered the front room directly from the street. In the front room was something between a ladder and stairs to the upper floor where there were 2 bedrooms.
There were 6 privies at the each end of the block.
   These details came from no.81. Houses 6 & 7 were a little   larger than the rest which were identical in size.
Hope this gives you some idea. Toby.


RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Cetus ??
« Reply #10 on: Wednesday 01 October 08 22:25 BST (UK) »
Between 1871 and 1886 2 John Hoopers died in the Highworth district. One aged 86 is recorded in March Quarter 1874 and the other , which seems the more likely and which your census would confirm, was 44 in Sept Q. 1874. I have also found a marriage to a Thomas Garland in June Q 1876 but her name is given as Angelina Hooper Thorne. Does that make sense to you?
Toby.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Gaie

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,887
  • CenInf Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Cetus ??
« Reply #11 on: Wednesday 01 October 08 22:36 BST (UK) »
Hi Wexdor & Toby

How wonderful to have such a description of a dwelling from that time!

Unfortunately the census images do not show the Hoopers at No.1 Cetus Buildings.  I think you've mistaken Do (for ditto) in the address column, or the downward stroke in the next column which shows an inhabited house.  But they are shown somewhere amongst Cetus Buildings.

RG10 piece 1883 folio 114 page 29-32
Page 29 starts with Cow Lane, and then has two households in Cetus Buildings, the first one being The Whale Inn.
Page 30 has five households.
Page 31 has four households, with the Hoopers in the fourth household.
Page 32 has two households.  Then it becomes East**** Farm.

So the Hoopers were possibly at Number 3 or 11, depending on which way the numbering went.

Do you reckon it was two households per privy?!!

Kind regards
Gaie
Sussex, Burwash/Somerset/South London: PANKHURST/FABLING/GREEN/KING/PARROT/POPE/PEMBROKE
Notts/Leics/London: POLLARD/BELAND/FELLS/MORRISON/MARYSON/CLARKE
Northants: MARRIOT/T
Suffolk: LINGLY/LINGLEY/LINDLY/LINDLEY/ SEAGER /SIGGER/SEGGAR/VINCE
Gloucs: WINDOW Glamorgan: JENKINS Cardiganshire: JONES
Poland: OZIEMKIEWICZ France: LINETTE

Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Cetus ??
« Reply #12 on: Wednesday 01 October 08 22:51 BST (UK) »
    That's very helpful, Gaie. I don't remember The Whale pub very well but by deduction from the 1952 Swindon Directory , the Whale Inn  was number 92 so that fits in well . I suppose that means the Hoopers lived in No.3.That was the same size as No.1
    There were 2 x 6 privies but whether each was  exclusively for one house, I couldn't say.
Toby.

Offline WexDor

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 112
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Cetus ??
« Reply #13 on: Thursday 02 October 08 18:22 BST (UK) »
Toby........thank you SO very much for this information :)    I have been puzzling how Thomas Garland came onto the scene and I had wondered about John Hooper.   The description of Cetus Building is extremely interesting........thanks also to Gaia for the numbering information.   I did find the census detail rather difficult to read (my eyes were beginning to play tricks I think!).   I know where I am going with this now - I would love to see a picture of this building if one were available.   Thanks again!
Wilshere - Devizes, GWR (Swindon)
Garland - Overmoigne
Osment of Folke
Ridout - Folke
Jenkins -Swansea
Coombes - Bath

Keopky -   Swansea
Bow - Semley, Wilts.
Hedges - Croydon & Alton (Hampshire)

Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Cetus ??
« Reply #14 on: Thursday 02 October 08 22:33 BST (UK) »
I'm afraid I haven't been able to find a photograph and since I found one of Falcon Terrace it is possible that I have confused the two but only as far as a photograph is concerned. The dimensions certainly apply to Cetus  houses.
I would be very surprised if the Swindon Record Office had not got a photograph. They have a considerable collection.
Toby. 

Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Cetus ??
« Reply #15 on: Thursday 02 October 08 23:30 BST (UK) »
This is a sketch done in 1962 and is the best I can do for now.
Toby.

Offline toby webb

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 873
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.natio
    • View Profile
Re: Cetus ??
« Reply #16 on: Thursday 19 July 18 11:37 BST (UK) »
Sorry not to have added this when the photo was found. Better late than never, I suppose. T