RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Cheshire => Topic started by: craven481 on Sunday 16 April 17 15:51 BST (UK)
-
Daniel Craven, my three times great grandfather, was born in Cheshire c1794 based on his age listed in the 1841 census in Eaton, Tarporley. I’m thinking he was the son of Thomas and Martha, baptised in 1794 at Tarporley but cannot prove this. (See my Cheshire Craven Tree on Ancestry)
My problem is in finding Daniel’s death. The most likely candidate is the one buried at Whitegate on 22 January 1848, aged 53 but there is a Daniel listed in the Tarporley Polling District – Hundred of Eddisbury on Find My Past for the years 1845 to 1851 inclusive. These are in the Bunbury township and list:
Voters Name, Daniel Craven, abode Eaton, nature of qualification leasehold house, name of tenant George Brookes. (I read this as Daniel was renting from George Brookes but how could he me eligible to vote for three years after he had died? There wasn’t a son named Daniel.)
I can only find one Daniel (my Daniel) in Eaton in the 1841 census, and none at all in the Tarporley area in the 1851 census. Nor can I find any other likely death in the area.
I have not yet obtained the death certificate of the one buried in 1848 as I am not sure this is him based on the voters lists which suggest he was still alive in 1851!
Any ideas please would be welcome.
-
So your Daniel is the 45 in 1841 married to 50 year old Elizabeth?
Looks like daughter Martha is still at home with possibly her baby Henry aged 4 months.
Have you found her in 1851,is she described as widowed?
-
Have you found her in 1851,is she described as widowed?
I can't see Elizabeth on the 1851 census but there is a possible burial for her...
21 April 1845 Eaton,Tarporley aged 48
-
Voters Name, Daniel Craven, abode Eaton, nature of qualification leasehold house, name of tenant George Brookes. (I read this as Daniel was renting from George Brookes but how could he me eligible to vote for three years after he had died? There wasn’t a son named Daniel.)
I'm reading this as George Brookes as the tenant and Daniel owning the freehold of the property.
Not that it helps because I don't know why it would still be in his name if he had died. ::)
Edit. I mistakenly posted freehold rather than leasehold.
-
Two things occur to me:
1. I am not clear on the mechanism for keeping that Electoral Register up to date. In other words, it could be a mistake. No logging onto an internet service to report a death to umpteen people.
2. It could be that what is really meant was "The Estate of Daniel Craven" - although I can't see why that would appear in the ER either! "Estate of ..." is a formula I've often seen in land records because until the inheritance is sorted, that is who owns the property. But Electoral Registers????
There is certainly a distinct shortage of deaths of a Daniel Craven in Cheshire in the 1800s - in fact, there aren't that many of that name in Cheshire at all. Given that, sending for that DC is probably the only way to resolve whether it's him or not.
-
Many thanks for all your comments/suggestions.
Roinora: The property was leasehold so I think Brookes had the property and let it out to Daniel. Daniel was always described as a labourer so unlikely he would own a property.
I would agree that the 1845 burial for Elizabeth looks right.
Adrian: Forgot to mention that in the burial register for Daniel in 1848 at Whitegate it says
"abode Marton". Research shows his son Thomas (born Eaton 1821) got married at St Marys, Whitegate in 1845 and was living in Foxwis Green, Marton on the 1851 census so this points to the burial being the right one
Regarding the Electoral Roll - maybe like you suggest it was simply a mistake - nobody bothered to update the register!
Thanks again everyone for your input. Much appreciated.
Ken
-
...
The property was leasehold so I think Brookes had the property and let it out to Daniel. Daniel was always described as a labourer so unlikely he would own a property. ...
But the format seems quite clear to me - if you look at the column heading, the only format that fits is that George Brookes is the occupying tenant. Could it be after all that this elector is not your chap?
-
I see it as Daniel abode Eaton, qualifies to vote as he owns the lease of a property in bunbury, lockup house, which is where George Brookes is living in 1841.
Does not explain why he is still listed after his death, but I doubt very much if the voters list was updated very often, most likely is it was only revised when an election was imminent.
It must have been a property worth more than £10 a year in rent
Mike
-
Now I see a Daniel Craven in 1796 Cheshire land tax assessments in spurstow, near bunbury, is this your Daniels father, or a different Daniel?
Mike
-
I wonder why Daniel was buried at Whitegate when is wife Elizabeth who we think d1845, daughter Martha d1847 and grandson Henry d1843 were all buried at Eaton.
It is of course possible that Daniel was living with is son Thomas at the time of his death in 1848 but
you would need his death cert to be completely certain that you have the right chap.
-
Rionora - Yes, I think I'll send for the certificate as I'm fairly confident it's the right one.
Mike - I agree with your interpretation but the Bunbury property will need further investigation I think.
Regarding parentage - I couldn't find a Daniel son of Daniel in the right timeframe, only the one I mentioned in my original post, son of Thomas and Martha which seems right as Dan had children named Thomas and Martha. The other possibility is Daniel son of Robert and Mary baptised at Acton by Nantwich in 1791 but the name Robert doesn't appear in my family.
Cheers
Ken
-
Just to point out that Martha was buried in Nantwich on 5 July 1847, aged 30. Abode given as Union Workhouse, from township of Eaton. But I can't see anything, in the available Workhouse records, for Martha.
-
Just to point out that Martha was buried in Nantwich on 5 July 1847, aged 30. Abode given as Union Workhouse, from township of Eaton. But I can't see anything, in the available Workhouse records, for Martha.
Thanks BumbleB. Added info to my tree.
-
Yes, the Dead can and do vote even today, and it can be legal. In 1976 I arranged a postal vote for an elector who used it (I posted it for him, having witnessed his signature) on the day of the election I attended his funeral, an hour later I attended the postal vote opening as a scrutineer, and saw his vote opened and the Identity checked, the second envelope containing his ballot was then put in the pile to be included in the count. Legally if you think about it, there is no difference between this, and getting hit by a truck on the way home from voting. Must happen in every election where absent voting is allowed.
-
Redroger
Thanks for your input. I bet when you posted it you didn't expect a General Election in 6 weeks time!
Ken
-
No Ken, But as they say "Bring it on!" If this election is confined to Brexit, it will be the first single issue election in history; that's why we have referenda, and calling an election could well be a big mistake. All the best,
Roger
-
Finally got a copy of the death certificate of the Daniel who died in 1848 and it is definitely my ancestor as the informant was Thomas Craven of Marton, which was his son. So I suppose his name was just left on the electoral register for a couple of years after until the list was updated.
Many thanks everyone for your input on this one.
Regards
Ken
-
It's always good to know how something panned out. ;)
Thank you for letting us know. :)
-
Yes - thanks for that - worth bearing in mind that it can happen.
-
Hello, im wondering if you could give me a clue as to my Daniel Craven and your Daniel Craven. My Daniel Craven had a baby boy Peter Wood with my x4 great grandmother Jane Wood. Peter was born around 1796. In the Baptism records it shows (at Tarporley Church, Cheshire) that Peter Wood was baptised as the Bastard son of Daniel Craven. It's always been a family mystery. One i would love to solve. Jane's grandfather Hugh wood of Tarporley. So Eaton (as still living in the area today) would be fitting as its in our tree and within Tarporley itself. Reading other threads, could my Daniel have been giving his marching orders by his wife and so lived with his son? Im a complete novice but any ideas welcome
-
Further to my previous replies, I am certain that in the 1974 February election John Prescott was elected by dead men's votes. It is normal for merchant seamen and servicemen to have proxy votes cast by their nominee, often their spouse or parent. Earlier in February that year two Hull trawlers had been posted as missing while fishing in the Arctic. By the nature of his Hull constituency it is as certain as can be without a very thorough check of records (if they still exist) that many of these proxies came from that constituency and by political affiliation that many of them were cast in his favour. There it would have been very unlikely to affect the outcome, but in other circumstances (a marginal seat) such a situation undoubtedly could. As I said in an earlier posting legally, there is no difference between voting at a polling station and getting killed in a road accident on the way home.
-
Welcome to Rootschat Woodofchester.
Just bring this up again so someone may be able to help you :)
-
Woodofchester - Sorry I didn't pick up you post sooner. I haven't got a Peter Wood on my tree and cannot see a baptism circa 1796 in Tarporley on Ancestry, FindMyPast or FamilySearch, unless I'm missing something. You go on to say you have a Daniel, son of Daniel Craven but you don't give any dates or indication which one was the father of Peter Wood. It all sounds very interesting, but to link anything you have with my Craven Tree would need more data.
-
Bookmarking for future ref :)