Author Topic: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited  (Read 29571 times)

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,199
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited
« Reply #180 on: Sunday 12 May 13 01:01 BST (UK) »
Some interesting articles in The Gentleman's Magazine, Septemeber 1826, but the other titles mentioned are proving difficult to pin down as no mention of authors.

Offline Jo A

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited
« Reply #181 on: Sunday 12 May 13 22:48 BST (UK) »
Oddly enough I'd just made a rare excursion to the theatre to see 'The Important of Being Earnest' when I found the cutting in the scrapbook. I think Nat would have agreed with the sentiment of the title if not the play itself!  Let's see what else he got up to..

'I've only ever known one game in my life and that's chess.  I never won more than a farthing a game at it.

In the old days we never went out feasting much.  Except at Christmas.  We might go out then.

And women kept to their homes.  To see a drunken woman was a rarity, a curiosity.

Now the drinking among women seems terrible to old men like me.  But the men are better - there have been so many teetotallers spring up among them.'
'The past is a foreign country - they do things differently there.'

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,199
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited
« Reply #182 on: Monday 13 May 13 05:21 BST (UK) »
Righto - I don't recall Nathaniel playing chess in 1846. Does anyone else remember if he made any mention of this? It could easily be something he picked up later in life.

Agree that Nathaniel didn't go out feasting. He always seemed to eat at home, though he did go very regularly to coffeee shops.

Love his mention of men/women drinkers.  :) He did have an occassional tipple in 1846.  ;)

Offline Jo A

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 21
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited
« Reply #183 on: Monday 13 May 13 21:16 BST (UK) »
And we now come to the section subheaded

THE VIRTUES OF SMALLPOX

'See these smallpox marks on my face?  They were very common seventy years ago.  No one thought anything of them.  No one was so much afraid of smallpox.

It was looked on as a kill or cure disease.

My grandmother, who had eleven children, used to say 'If one has it, let them all associate and sleep together and catch it and get it over.'  She did that with hers, but they wouldn't all take it, no matter what she did.

We thought it an impious act to vaccinate.  Religious people generally did.'
'The past is a foreign country - they do things differently there.'


Offline alpinecottage

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,167
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited
« Reply #184 on: Monday 13 May 13 21:59 BST (UK) »
Now that entry is interesting.  I used to work at the Jenner Museum, which is in the house where  Edward Jenner, who pioneered vaccination used to live.  Before vaccination, which uses the cowpox virus, people used to innoculate ie use live smallpox virus.  As long as you didn't die of the disease, you did become immune to catching smallpox in the future.  Nathaniel's grandma was obviously thinking along the same lines.  There was opposition in the early days of vaccination because many people thought it was unnatural for people to catch or be given an animal disease.  What they didn't realise was that people were catching smallpox and god knows what else from animals all the time.

PS I too have been reading this thread "invisibly"
Perrins - Manchester and Staffs
Honan - Manchester and Ireland
Hogg - Manchester 19 cent
Anderson - Newcastle mid 19 cent
Boullen - London then Carlisle then Manchester
Comer - Manchester and Galway

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,199
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited
« Reply #185 on: Tuesday 14 May 13 01:03 BST (UK) »
I suppose it was like when we were younger and the 'childhood diseases' such as mumps, measles or chicken pox were doing the rounds, all the local kids were encouraged to mix so they would catch it to "get it over with". Now there are vaccinations for everything.

In "The Diaries of Sarah Hurst 1759-1762", her younger brother and sister are sent off to the "innoculating house" where they receive the smallpox vaccination. The stay there for a couple of weeks, presumably to check their reactions to the virus. Her father also has "the smallpox" - he must have been very ill because they drew up his will.  ;D

It must be Granny Sheppard who he refers to as having 11 children. In 1846 Nathaniel only had one known grandmother - unless he later discovered his real parentage and his Granny White?

Can anyone find any more than two children for Granny Sheppard? Nine missing birth/baptisms is an awful lot. Keep in mind that Mary Lea (Granny Sheppard) married John Sheppard 10 May 1796 St Andrew by the Wardrobe. Mary Sheppard (Nat's mother) was born 27 Jun 1797, John Sheppard (Uncle John) was born 9 Jun 1803. So there could be a child in between Mary and John ( who were given the names of their parents so possibly first born daughter and son?). So any further children were obviously born later than 1803. Nathaniel never mentions any other Aunts or Uncles in his diary.

A mystery ....

Offline MaryA

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 9,309
  • St Chads, Kirkby
    • View Profile
Re: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited
« Reply #186 on: Tuesday 14 May 13 08:59 BST (UK) »
Would he have known about any born but who died?  the Mary and John we know about might have been named after an earlier baby.

St Pancras Old Church, Camden
27th June, 1796/23rd July, 1796 Mary daughter of John and Mary Shepard

St Mary Le Strand, Middlesex
18th July, 1801/19th August, 1801 Susanna Amy Shephard daughter of John and Mary

Same church
17 Nov 1803/18 Dec 1803 John Barton Shephard son of John and Mary

St James, Clerkenwell, Middlesex
10 October 1809/29 Oct 1809 Maria Roseland daughter of John and Mary Shephard

St Botolph, Aldgate, London
27 September/29 Oct 1797 John Wilkins Shepherd son of John and Mary, Queen Street, Tower Hill

Nice of them to give an address ;D

There are a number of other baptisms, however I don't know whether they would be applicable because of where they were, if anybody is able to suggest which might be appropriate then I'd be pleased to list what there is later on today.

St George, Hanover Square, Middlesex
St Luke, Chelsea, Middlesex
St James, Clerkenwell, Middlesex
St James, Piccadilly, Middlesex
St Martin in the Fields, Middlesex
St Marylebone, Middlesex
St Mary, Whitechapel, Middlesex
St Pancras Old Church, Middlesex



Census Information is Crown Copyright, from The National Archives <br />Lunt (Wavertree/West Derby), Forshaw (West Derby), Richardson (Knowsley), Kent (Cheshire), <br />Cain (Hertfordshire, London), Larkins (Bedfordshire, London), Nunn (London), Lenton, Hillyard (Bedfordshire), <br />Parle, Lambert, Furlong, Wafer (Wexford)<br />Special separate interest in Longford (Blackrock, Dublin)

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,199
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited
« Reply #187 on: Tuesday 14 May 13 10:36 BST (UK) »
I do remember seeing several of those in my searches MaryA. But how can we know if this couple are the right John and Mary?

I put them aside due to the different places of baptisms, though this doesn't mean they aren't ours. I think I even saw one possibility prior to 1796. Without an address or occupation it's hard to make that connection.

We have mother Mary and Uncle John's births due to Nat mentioning them in his diary. Both were christened St Pancras Old Church, but of course the parents could have moved around/changed churches after christening their (possible) first two children ....  :-\

Offline MaryA

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 9,309
  • St Chads, Kirkby
    • View Profile
Re: The Diary of Nathaniel Bryceson Revisited
« Reply #188 on: Tuesday 14 May 13 14:22 BST (UK) »
Based on your comments I think the only one we could make assumptions about is
St Pancras Old Church
John, Son of John and Mary Sheppherd 24th March/12th May 1799.

The others are all in different churches.
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from The National Archives <br />Lunt (Wavertree/West Derby), Forshaw (West Derby), Richardson (Knowsley), Kent (Cheshire), <br />Cain (Hertfordshire, London), Larkins (Bedfordshire, London), Nunn (London), Lenton, Hillyard (Bedfordshire), <br />Parle, Lambert, Furlong, Wafer (Wexford)<br />Special separate interest in Longford (Blackrock, Dublin)