Occupation - 'Teamsman on Farm'

[Maggie1895]

All thoughts much appreciated...   I've been searching a line which is also fully 'documented' in on-line family trees - but as far as I can tell it could be a lot of genuine information about different people being pulled together with nothing to prove there's any link between them, and that's where I need your help.   

My man, William, not uncommon surname, first definitely surfaces at his wedding in 1866 but left his father's name blank on the marriage certificate. Others have attributed a birth in 1847 to him, and that's a fair possibility based on the approximate age and place of birth he gives later in life.    The name of the father on the birth certificate is John.   There's no proven link though because neither they or I have any sight of William in the intervening years between birth 1843-47 and the marriage in 1866.    I was OK with the conclusion that we can be sure nothing prior to his marriage, but the birth might well be him.

Then I noticed one on-line tree has the Will of a man in 1891 with the right name for the birth father from 1847, John,  and roughly the right area.  This man leaves his money to his son William described as a 'Team Owner'.   

I'm not convinced, because John, the father on the birth certificate in 1847, is a Blacksmith.  On the on-line trees he then shows once as a labourer on the docks on a census,  then pops up again in this Will years later as boiler maker.  I'm not convinced these records relate the same person, big gaps for such a leap of faith and an erratic record of changes of occupation.    In the 1891 Will the son who inherits £121 is described as a Team Owner.  I'm not sure what that means.

'My' William, in all records after his marriage in 1866, is always listed as an Ag Lab.  Then in 1901, 10 years after the boilermaker's death he gives himself as 'teamsman on farm'.   

I need your opinions because of coincidence of the word 'teams'.  I had assumed that teamsman on a farm basically meant a ploughman who would take care of and lead the ploughing horses - team.   Not necessarily owning the horses.  I could be quite wrong.   

• If the son knew who his father was and had enough of a relationship to eventually inherit his money, why wouldn't give his name on his marriage certificate?
  
• Even if the son was an Ag Lab who then, theoretically, used the money his father left him to buy a pair of horses to become a team owner - if that's what a team owner means? -  why would the father describe him as an owner before that had happened?
  

Any thoughts anyone?   I'm wondering if I'm now so pedantic about not accepting anything until I've proved it myself that I'm refusing to believe something stuck under my nose!

p.s. ' a pair of horses' not houses!  Thanks for the correction!

[John915]

Good evening,

Most ploughing would be done by one man with a team of horses, he may have had a boy to help with menial tasks. My grandfather used two but three or even four could be used depending on the ground.

Wagon driving would also usually be done by one man with a boy to walk by the back wheel with the brake block on hills.

The thing that did always require a team man was oxen. They could be very awkward when they wanted to be and had to be cajoled and urged on by long hazel withies. It was a very skilled job for the "teamsmen" but payed off in the long run. Oxen could pull far heavier loads than horses and would go to their knees and still pull. Teams of six, eight or ten were common, in South Africa teams of up to twelve or fourteen were used on the veldt.

John915

[stanmapstone]

Teamer, teamsman, teamster; a carter who drives a team of horses attached to a heavy dray, wain or timber cart, drawing a heavy load "A Dictionary of Occupational Terms"

Stan

[pinefamily]

Have you posted William's details on here, in case any of the wonderful sleuths in the Rootschat community can find him in the census records?
Also, I wouldn't have thought it's too much of a stretch to go from blacksmith to boilermaker. And a blacksmith was quite often a fairly wealthy man, especially if he worked for himself.

[Greensleeves]

I was going to say the same thing as Pinefamily: if you post William's details, I bet the researchers on here will find all sorts of things.  I have always been amazed at how clever people are on RC at finding things that I can't!

[Maggie1895]

Thank you all!   John, that's fascinating and as ever Stan has the definitive answer.

I know only too well that this is the home of probably the greatest family history researchers ever!  It's just that this isn't my tree or my family and I don't think that the person I'm helping would want the details on the www.     I have everything in pink string and sealing wax from the 1866 marriage on until his death.  No gaps of any sort and all confirmed.

I can only find one birth in 1847 that would appear to fit, but would need at the least an 1851 and 1861 census entry to establish the  link and confirm they are one and the same man.  The on-line trees have no links between the 2 events either, they've just taken a leap of faith and if I've learnt anything on my time on here it's that if you can't prove a link- it's not proved.  It's very frustrating because I know this is the place to ask, but it's not my history.

Thank you all so much - and having been off line for quite a while, may I say it's lovely to be back!