Author Topic: Those Cravens again COMPLETED THANKS (Read 2105 times)

lydiaann · « **on:** Sunday 29 July 12 11:34 BST (UK) »

Thanks to several people, I have now almost completed the family of John and Elizabeth (Lindores) Craven. All of their children were baptized in Alnwick, and parish records show the burials of the infants that died. However, on the 1841 census for Alnwick, there is a John aged 15 recorded. This would give a birth date of approximately 1822 to 1826, yet baptismal records (Diocese of Durham Transcripts) show nothing from 1820 to 1827. As the 1841 census does not show relationships, there is no confirmation that John is their son. Any ideas where I should look next?

lydiaann

Craclyn · « **Reply #1 on:** Sunday 29 July 12 11:36 BST (UK) »

Have you looked for this John in 1851?

lydiaann · « **Reply #2 on:** Sunday 29 July 12 11:48 BST (UK) »

Yes, can't find him. It's a fairly common name so rather difficult. I have also tried searching for a death for 1841-51, but no luck. Frustrating!!

lydiaann

horse000 · « **Reply #3 on:** Saturday 04 August 12 18:34 BST (UK) »

Hi

Not sure if this is helpful...

FreeBMD, Death reg:

Q4 1847 Craven John, Alnwick. V 25, P 182.

Geoff

lydiaann · « **Reply #4 on:** Sunday 05 August 12 18:09 BST (UK) »

Thanks for that input, Geoff, and for trying to help. Actually, that is the registration of John Sr's death - I also have the Parish Register entry showing that he was 71 at the time of his burial in 1847. Because every other person in that nuclear family (John, Elizabeth and 9 kids) was registered in some way or another in Alnwick (starting with the parents' marriage), it seems strange that John Jr. has nothing. Perhaps it is a case of a famed 'gooseberry bush' (under which I totally believed I was found until I was disabused of that notion in the schoolyard!!). Thank you for trying anyway!

lydiaann

horse000 · « **Reply #5 on:** Monday 06 August 12 02:08 BST (UK) »

Hi

Certainly a puzzle...

It's unlikely that they would have called a 2nd son, John, especially since John Hugh was still living.

That said, there are maybe only 4 possibilities left: the son of a relative visiting at time of census; living with them for a valid reason, i.e. parents died; or John Sr/Elizabeth inadvertently or otherwise put John on the form instead of say, Thomas (bap. 1824); enumerator error.

Geoff

lydiaann · « **Reply #6 on:** Monday 06 August 12 15:39 BST (UK) »

You know what, Geoff - I believe you could well be right. I never thought about that...I was puzzled that we couldn't find Thomas in the 1841 census, as he is there, bright as a button, in the 1851 census. And the age of 15 would then be correct, allowing for the strange decision to round down to the 5 below for those over 15 for the '41 edition. Gold star to you for that theory! And many thanks indeed.

lydiaann

RootsChat.Com