Author Topic: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS  (Read 1201 times)

Offline Dean St 1799

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS
« Reply #9 on: Thursday 25 April 19 13:56 BST (UK) »
Thank you Donches. The jeweller Humphrey Tomkison would have had to be born by circa 1740 if he was established and having children in London by the early 1760s. I see there was also a Tomkison family in Brewood, Staffordshire, using the name Humphrey - maybe descended too from the Gnosall Humphrey of 1593? The first wife of jeweller Humphrey died in 1775 and was buried in Bunhill Fields so there must have been a nonconforming element in the family. Humphrey went on to marry another Mary, Mary Core, in 1780 and had several children by her. He is not on record with the Goldsmiths’ Company, so I presume he was a ‘toyman’ selling finished products rather than a manufacturing silversmith (no marks recorded either). The London Gazette documents his bankruptcy, sadly, in the 1780s.
Thomas, his son, became a keen collector of Turner and several fine watercolours are known to have passed through his hands, so there is no reason to doubt that they knew each other from early days in Maiden Lane. If you are interested and have access to JSOR, there is an article on Thomas Tomkison including various bits of information on Humphrey in the 2014 edition of the Galpin Society Journal.

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Donches

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 25 April 19 15:19 BST (UK) »
Many thanks again Dean - interessting comments. The anecdote about Turner and his father mentions a set of silver chargers engraved with a coat of arms, which I assume Humphrey had engraved. I had hoped to find a record of his apprenticeship which would have named his father, but I can't find one.
I'm attaching a descendants register for Humphrey which I've put together, if you are inerested. It does of course contain the inevitable guesses.

Don

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Dean St 1799

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS
« Reply #11 on: Friday 26 April 19 13:53 BST (UK) »
Thanks for sharing the comprehensive Register. Your link with Humphrey the jeweller and Vestry Clerk seems very credible.
It would of course be nice to find a record of his marriage and apprenticeship (if any).  There is an extant letter of Dr Samuel Johnson to him, which might  add to our impression that he was a tradesman of some standing.
I can only add that the will of Mary Tomkison (formerly Mary Core), proved 15 August 1811, bequeaths ‘unto Mr Thomas Tomkison Son of my late Husband five Guineas for a Ring’, which is further evidence of Thomas being the son of Humphrey: in addition to the Cooks’ Company Apprentice binding of 1778 (the spelling there is Tompkinson, which meant I was a long time tracking it down).
I have quite a lot of further details on the Dollings and the descendants of Thomas’ daughters Mary Dolling Tomkison and Emily Boughey Pinto Tomkison, should you require them.

Offline Donches

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS
« Reply #12 on: Saturday 27 April 19 12:09 BST (UK) »
Dean - Many thanks again for the additional information. The letter from Dr Johnson is fascinating. It would be interesting to know the contents, There is the record of a Faculty Office Marriage Licence of a Humphr'y Tomkison to Eliz'th Watford 12 Oct 1751, but no location is given. It's 10 years before the birth of Humphrey's first son, and the children  are listed with Mary as mother. Was Humphrey married 3 times?
There was actually another Tomkinson familyof pianoforte makers in London in the 19th century, who didn't have any near connection with the Tomkisons. Guessing from their family names they probably came from another line in Cheshire.
I would be interested in details of any of Humphrey's offspring. His children by Mary Core have rather more flowery(?) names. Have you any connection to the families? I've been delving into all Tomkinsons (my family) for many years now and have come to the conclusion that they are all descended from one family in Staffordshire, who took the name in the 14th century, The first written record is of a John Tmkynson, a member of a gang of housebreakers!

Don

Offline Dean St 1799

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS
« Reply #13 on: Saturday 27 April 19 19:55 BST (UK) »
The 12 October 1751 marriage licence allegation is for a Humphrey Tomkison of the parish of Beckenham, Kent, aged 24 (according to my note which I think was taken in the Society of Genealogists). For the reasons you give I didn’t think it likely at the time that this was Humphrey the jeweller, but I have not gone as far as trawling the Beckenham records to see where there is any other incidence of the family there.  I dare say that the name Humphrey would imply some collection with the line in your Register. And perhaps a third marriage is not to be totally ruled out.

The Dr Johnson letter is sadly not that illuminating in its content.  It is dated 1 October 1783, addressed to ‘Mr Tomkison in Southampton Street, Covent Garden’ (so we know it is our Humphrey), and must be a response to an enquiry about a character reference for a Mr Lowe:  ‘Sir, I have known Mr Lowe very familiarly a great while. I consider him as a man of very clear and vigorous understanding, and conceive his principles to be such, that whatever you transact with him, you have nothing to expect of him unbecoming a gentleman.  I am, Sir, your humble servant, Sam Johnson.

I will look to see what I have on Humphrey’s children. I’m not connected in any way to these families; my interest in the Tomkisons arose from curiosity about Thomas’ meteoric rise to the status of Prince of Wales’ piano maker. There are also references to other London-based Tomkisons and Tomkissons in the 18thC for whom I could not see any connection to Humphrey the jeweller: would you be interested in these?



Offline Dean St 1799

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS
« Reply #14 on: Sunday 28 April 19 17:16 BST (UK) »
Don - of the children born to jeweller Humphrey and his first wife Mary, Mary (baptised 23 December 1785) was married on 20 March 1792 at St Andrew’s Holborn, to John Palmer, an Inspector of Franks at the General Post Office.  Martha (baptised 12 February 1767) married Joseph Johnson at St George’s Hanover Square on 20 March 1796.  Harriet (baptised 2 March 1774) married Robert Mann at St George’s Bloomsbury on 14 October 1800.  Another daughter, presumably Anne or Elizabeth, became a Mrs Allen (‘daughter of my late husband’ in the second Mary Tomkison’s will).

It does not look as if the two Humphreys or George survived into adulthood as I can find no record nor are they mentioned in the second Mary Tomkison’s will.  The same seems to be true for the three sons of the second marriage:  we know that Henry Frederick and Alfred Stuart died young, and Octavius Lambert Simpson is not mentioned in the second Mary Tomkison’s will either.  The daughter Eleanor Milliora married James Clelan at St Mary Lambeth on 17 July 1802.

It has just struck me that the name ‘Simpson’ may perhaps come from Barker Simpson, to whom Thomas was apprenticed in 1778. He was prominent in the Cook’s Company and was presumably a friend of Humphrey’s, since no binding fee was paid for the apprenticeship.

Offline Donches

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 77
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS
« Reply #15 on: Monday 29 April 19 15:49 BST (UK) »
Dean - Many thanks again for the additional information. I think the marriage allegation for a Humphrey Tomkison to Elizabeth Watford in 1751, must be our jeweller, as Beckenham  is in London and I don't think any other Humphrey Tomkison was around at the time. I'm not too sure what a marriage allegation implied, other than it was used to get married without banns. Is it possible the marriage was called off? I haven't found a burial for an Elizabeth Tomkison. The age of 24 given for the Humphrey would give a birth date close to the baptism in Shifnall in 1729, although not exact. Humphrey seemed to be unlucky with his male children except Thomas. Looking at the children by his second wife only Eleanor Milliora seems to have lasted long. I was side-tracked in following the story of her son Henry, who became a clergyman and married into a family connected to well-heeled clergymen. However he doesn't seem to have produced any offspring and died quite young.

Presumably Barker Simpson was a piano maker? Was the Cooks' Company a general company, other than its name would imply?

Don

Offline Dean St 1799

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS
« Reply #16 on: Monday 29 April 19 20:45 BST (UK) »
Well, it’s possible to imagine a scenario in which our Humphrey wants to get married quickly, perhaps because one set of parents do not approve, and though Beckenham was then in Kent, it isn’t inconveniently far from London. If we find that neither Humphrey nor Elizabeth Watford appear to belong to established families in Beckenham, that would help the hypothesis - though not explaining what happened to Elizabeth. As you say, there may be no record of the marriage actually having taken place.

I didn’t know about Eleanor’s son marrying into well-connected clergy.  Curiously, Thomas did the same; Mary Dolling was the daughter of the Vicar of Aldenham and Clerk of Vine Street, Westminster, and sister of the Rector of Magheralin in Co. Down who left a landed estate there.

Barker Simpson was certainly a cook and not a piano maker. In 1767 he had a plate stolen from him; ‘I keep a cook’s shop in Salisbury-court’ (Old Bailey Proceedings). In 1789 he was Master of the Eating House in Salisbury Square, and he became Warden of the Cook’s Company a couple of times. He was born in 1729 so would have been of an age with Humphrey, and my sense is that they were friends, with Barker willing to give Thomas a leg up in the City. Barker’s marriage in 1753 is in a Mayfair nonconformist record and could this have been another connection, with the first Mary Tomkison being buried in Bunhill Fields? I am sure that Thomas was only nominally apprenticed a cook and must have had his real training elsewhere. 
The Guild system was on the verge of breaking up by this time, and I remember seeing that the Longman of the Longman & Broderip instrument dynasty was apprenticed a Spectacle Maker.




Offline Dean St 1799

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 12
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: OCCUPATION 1861 CENSUS
« Reply #17 on: Monday 29 April 19 21:05 BST (UK) »
PS I notice, rereading your excellent Register, that poor Octavius Tomkison was buried in Chertsey, Surrey.  There may have been some Core connection with those parts to explain why he was there, but just for the record, Barker Simpson was born in Chertsey.

Where you have question marks for the witnesses at Thomas’ wedding to Mary Dolling, I read ‘Arthur Boughey William Dolling’, who was Mary’s brother.