RootsChat.Com

George Rivis Willoughby (1805-1877) and John Rivis Willoughby (1807-1877)  were brothers ("Rivis" being their mother's maiden name) and both were granted freedom of the City of York in July 1837.  Both applied for freedom on the ground of servitude in that they had served from 1822 seven year apprenticeships with George Willoughby stonemason and builder, almost certainly their father, a builder of that name.

Can anyone help on the following points?

1.  Duplicate applications: George gave notice of his intention to apply for freedom in July 1830, May 1832 and September 1834.  John gave notice of his intention to apply for his freedom in June 1836 and again in March 1837.  Does this mean that the initial applications were rejected?

2. How important were real occupations and residence at the time of admission?  George in his notices described himself as a builder and stonemason; but by 1837 he was primarily an innkeeper in Louth, Lincolnshire, though he later had a established  a practice as an architect and surveyor in Louth.  John in his notices described himself as "Corporation Surveyor"; but it is clear that when he went bankrupt in 1842 he was a builder.

Three Thomas Coltons were active in nineteenth century Louth: TC1 (c 1768-1839), TC2 (c 1793-1886) and TC3 (c 1814-1859).  For all three I have found no records of births/baptisms and the approximate dates of birth come from the stated ages at death.  "Colton" was the early spelling; later spellings were more often "Coulton" or "Coultan".

Between them TC1 and TC2 appear to have commissioned about 35 houses yielding a significant rental income.  On a property basis, the rating and voting records suggest that TC1 was the father of TC2 and probably the grandfather of TC3. 

This view is supported by references in rating lists dated 1823 and 1838 and in voting records to TC2 as "Thomas  Colton junior" and some references to TC1 as "Thomas Colton senior".  However after the death of TC1, TC2 becomes (in two burgess rolls) "senior" and TC3 appears as "junior" in these rolls and also in the 1851 rating list.

How strong is this evidence of father/son relationships?  To put the question another way, does anyone know of Lincolnshire cases in this period when "senior" and "junior" have been used in formal documents without indicating a family relationship?