2. IMPLICATIONS
Thoughts on our current three candidate soldier-boys:
(a) TD born Derwin/Reathen -- WO97/522/174 (JL Reply 48)
As discussed in the foregoing post, we seem to be agreed that this must be the man who is listed as b. Derwen in TNA's catalogue with a different ref. I note that the attestation aged 37 relates to when he signed up again in 1807, after a period out of the army (and take it that no DoB info survives from his first attestation or his 1815 discharge papers).
Obviously that age of 37 gives us a rough DoB of 1770, a full decade too early for him to be the future miller. But because of that nice Derwen connection I do hate having to count him out completely; I suppose that my last graspable straw would be the chance that "37" was at some point misheard/miscopied for "27" -- which, of course, would land him right on the miller's estimated birth year.
The occupation "cordwainer" in 1807(?) is clearly less than ideal. But he would not be the first chap to change career after a long period away in the wars -- and Jane could always turn out to have been a miller's pretty daughter.
*(b) TD born Ruthien -- WO97/517/25 (JL Reply 49, Candidate 1)
Another cordwainer.
DoB implied by his age 37 at discharge:
-- if in 1815, 1777-78;
-- if in 1817, 1779-80.
So if discharged 1817, a good fit with the future miller.
You evidently feel the discharge date could go either way, per the image. Presumably the volunteer cataloguers for TNA's version were working from the originals, perhaps with benefit of UV light, so it is probably worth noting that they went for a "covering date" span ending in
1817.
(c) TD born Denbigh -- WO97/261/15 (JL Reply 49, Candidate 2)
A "taylor".
DoB implied by his age 37 at discharge: 1777-78.
Age and place a bit adrift -- but not really out of range.
So ................ None of them truly excludable, but no "clunk-click" fit emerges. If forced to bet, for now I am about 80% sold on the man-in-a-ditch being the right fellow -- died of exposure, inquest, matching name, area and date.
Big coincidence if it is not him.
Assuming it is, I come out about 70% confident that the unqualified word
pensioner in the paper was intended to mean Chelsea or Greenwich pensioner: what sensible rival meanings would be conveyed to a reader at that date? (Someone be devil's advocate!)
But between the three candidate soldiers, it is not easy at all. I would put it as most probably (a) or (b), with (b) ahead -- on the basis of age-match alone. But then there remains Greenwich . . .
To prove more, my first-thought next step would be pension payment records at TNA, especially to discover how long the pensions remained in payment. But not had time to go prowling on the website to see whether any suitable documents survive. Fingers crossed someone has alternative/better tactics to propose.
Rol
* Valentine's Day afterthought: And if the pair happen to have met in 1823 (which might not be much adrift from the reality), it would indeed have been the perfect life-imitates-art year in which to woo a
schöne Müllerin.
The sad endings come a bit too close for comfort, although -- if strictly compared -- life in Gwyddelwern probably yielded some much happier times in the middle.
