Davison Brothers

[larkspur]

I need a fresh set of eyes, as these boys are driving me insane 
Nathaniel Davison baptised Hoveringham 23rd Feb 1838
Matthew Davison born C 1839. No baptism found.
William Davison baptised 11 Nov 1832 in Hoveringham
They are the sons of Samuel Davison and Ann Wright who married 18th Oct 1821 in Hoveringham, nine children were born to this couple.
1841 census The family are in Hoveringham, William aged 8, Nathanyal aged 3, no sign of Matthew.
1851 census still in Hoveringham William aged 18, Nathaniel aged 12, no Matthew.
1861 census Matthew Davidson aged 22 lodger  with his sister Mary in Patriot St Nottingham
1871 census Nathaniel Davidson aged 30 lodging with the  Twells family in Newcastle street Nottingham.
Now the only sign of Matthew is on the 1861 census, could this be an error and that is in fact Nathaniel? I cannot trace a Nathaniel on this census. Nor what became of him after the 1871.I cannot find William after the 1861 census.
Any help at all would be most welcome. With thanks in advance.

[cire]

Hi
Everyone else seems confused as well!!!!
There is a possible William Davison who died in the March Qtr. of 1871 in the Bramley district, which isn't far from Nottingham. He seems to be the only death which might be your William, I saw after 1861 up to 1915 or so.

There doesn't seem to be a birth registered for Matthew Davison around 1839. I saw Matthew was a lodger in 1861 and thought whoever was in when the enumerator called wasn't sure of their lodger's name, but then I realised he was living with his sister Mary, and she wasn't likely to have made that mistake!!!

I think that Matthew and Nathaniel must be the same person. I presume the enumerator would have written the names directly into the form and not copied them up later, but he could have written the wrong name down because he didn't hear it clearly, or was losing concentration  after going from house to house all day!!!!!
Not a lot of help I'm afraid but a bit of support for the view that Matthew and Nathaniel were one and the same!!!!

regards

Eric

[larkspur]

Thank you for your boost Eric. I also assume everyone else is struggling with them, as an answer is usually forthcoming by now 
I think Matthew is a non person, error etc- no baptism even though the rest of the children are all methodically baptised.
I will check into the death of William at Bramley as his age is a close fit. Thank you for that one.
The surname is also spelled many ways but I have checked out all of those and even done census searches with no surname entered.
This will feature on my tree along with Great Great grandmother Mary who was never baptised and had no parents, and great great grandfather William who, despite being born in 1797 never died or was buried 

[Annie65115]

I thought I had put a response here, dunno where it went!

Oh well.

I had a look and can't see a baptism or a death for Matthew. Whilst there are a handful of marriages for Matthew Davisons in the county, without a baptism or death it seems unlikely that you'd be able to pin them definitively onto your Matthew.

I'm very much inclined to think that Matthew is an enumerator error and he was actually Nathaniel.

[larkspur]

"I had a look and can't see a baptism or a death for Matthew."
Annie the only sign of him is the 1861 census...


Maybe the householder said "oh our NAT lives here too" with a good Nottinghamshire accent it could sound like MAT  Grasping at straws here 

[cire]

We are on the same wave length there!!!!!

I thought his sister would not be likely to call him Nathaniel, it would be shortened to Nathan, or as in "Home and Away" or "Neighbours"  --- one of them has a character called Nate!!!!

My wife thought I had gone round the bend yesterday as I was going round saying "NATT" and then "MATTew" !!!!!!

Eric

[larkspur]