Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic: The Elusive William McRoskell  (Read 23443 times)

Offline Spidermonkey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,737
  • https://www.apigintime.net/blog
    • View Profile
Re: The Elusive William McRoskell
« Reply #27 on: Wednesday 17 June 20 16:00 BST (UK) »
Weirdly, there is a Rose Clayson, bn abt 1866 in Faversham (wife of Henry Clayson) that I got excited about for being the death in 1898.

Then I realised that I had just found her on the 1901 census  ::)

Offline Spidermonkey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,737
  • https://www.apigintime.net/blog
    • View Profile
Re: The Elusive William McRoskell
« Reply #28 on: Wednesday 17 June 20 16:45 BST (UK) »
Quote from: johnhood on Wednesday 17 June 20 13:48 BST (UK)
The mystery is Rose Ellen. She marries Arthur John Clayson and has at least 4 children with him mmn Mcroskell between 1890-1896. They then appear on 1891 census in Woolwich & 1901 census in Suffolk. Husband Arthur John Clayson dies 1903. Cannot find a remarriage or death pre 1911 for Rose Ellen. The only fitting death I have found is Rose Ellen Clayson aged 32 in 1898 in Faversham, but how would she then appear in 1901?? or is Arthur living with another Rose in 1901? Answers on a postcard!!

John

Am I being really daft?  Is the Henry Clayson on the 1901 census the same person as Arthur John Clayson?  RG13; Piece: 1776; Folio: 188; Page: 5

Offline softly softly

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,122
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Elusive William McRoskell
« Reply #29 on: Wednesday 17 June 20 16:49 BST (UK) »

Am I being really daft?  Is the Henry Clayson on the 1901 census the same person as Arthur John Clayson?  RG13; Piece: 1776; Folio: 188; Page: 5

Same birthplace, same occupation age is also correct. Mabel the daughter is also consistent on census.

It must be US now and not just me!!

John

Offline Spidermonkey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,737
  • https://www.apigintime.net/blog
    • View Profile
Re: The Elusive William McRoskell
« Reply #30 on: Wednesday 17 June 20 16:54 BST (UK) »
Quote from: johnhood on Wednesday 17 June 20 16:49 BST (UK)

Am I being really daft?  Is the Henry Clayson on the 1901 census the same person as Arthur John Clayson?  RG13; Piece: 1776; Folio: 188; Page: 5

Same birthplace, same occupation age is also correct. Mabel the daughter is also consistent on census.

It must be US now and not just me!!

John

And a random 5th child called Harold?!

Offline Spidermonkey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,737
  • https://www.apigintime.net/blog
    • View Profile
Re: The Elusive William McRoskell
« Reply #31 on: Wednesday 17 June 20 17:05 BST (UK) »
I think I have found Arthur/Henry's service record on FindMyPast (81st Field Battn, RA, Shoeing smith) RA number 42778.  Not a military buff, but it looks like a move from regular army to reserve.  Ending regular army engagement on 22 May 1896, and becoming a reservist on 11 Sept 1896.

He's 5ft 6, sallow complexion, blue eyes, fair hair, and has a scar on the back of his head.  He confirms that he is married.

Offline Spidermonkey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,737
  • https://www.apigintime.net/blog
    • View Profile
Re: The Elusive William McRoskell
« Reply #32 on: Wednesday 17 June 20 17:16 BST (UK) »
Just found his first attestation papers.

Signs up as Henry Clayson at Chatham in May 1884.  Signs his name as Henry Clayson.  Does note his children (with the mysterious 5th child!!)

Offline softly softly

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,122
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Elusive William McRoskell
« Reply #33 on: Wednesday 17 June 20 18:11 BST (UK) »
Well done. It becomes even more complicated though. Harold Saward appears to have been born with surname Nichols in 1899 in Hackney with mmn Saward. Possible parents Frederick William Nichols & Rosa Saward who married 1898.

Ah! did Frederick William Nichols die aged 36 in 1900 and Arthur John/ Henry Crowley then got together with Rosa/Rose and they then appear in 1901 with a mix of children?

Added: that would make the death of Rose Ellen in 1898 a safer bet.

John

Offline Spidermonkey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,737
  • https://www.apigintime.net/blog
    • View Profile
Re: The Elusive William McRoskell
« Reply #34 on: Wednesday 17 June 20 18:15 BST (UK) »
That would certainly make sense via the Rose/Rosa issue!!

Offline softly softly

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,122
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Elusive William McRoskell
« Reply #35 on: Wednesday 17 June 20 18:23 BST (UK) »
Forget it. Frederick & Rosa appear on 1911 census. Teach me to take my time.

John
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6