James Burchatt RAGGETT

[heywood]

No, he is with parents George and Elizabeth and siblings in 1851 and 1861 in Woking.

[Greaves]

As far as I can ascertain, his mother was Harriett HILL (1815-1907), who married William RAGGETT (1819-1858) in 1843. These dates are not conclusive as I took them off an Ancestry tree. I wonder if either of them had previous marriages?

PS I have just downloaded James Burckett's naval record from the NA and it appears that his mother was named Ann.

[jonw65]

Marriage was 26 Oct 1841, St Mary Lambeth
William Raggett junr, Baker
+
Harriet Hill
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QSQ-G9X7-XF88

1851 in Godalming
piece 1594 piece 686 page 23
Rayyatt on ancestry
Missing on findmypast, familysearch? Nightmare new search on FamilySearch!

The 1858 William Raggett death on the trees is actually a 12 year old who was buried in MIlford.
Burial, 22 March 1861, Stoke next Guildford
William Raggett, age 42

RAGGETT, WILLIAM       
Age at Death (in years): 42 
GRO Reference: 1861  M Quarter in GUILDFORD  Volume 02A  Page 42

[heywood]

No, he is with parents George and Elizabeth and siblings in 1851 and 1861 in Woking.

That was the wrong family anyway. There is George Burchett and Elizabeth Gray.
Then George Burchett and Ann Nolgrove. There are similarly named children in these families.


There are several Burchett families around the area and you would think there was a connection somehow.

[Greaves]

This is proving difficult. In my experience, a middle name like Barchatt/Burchett indicates either a family surname from a previous generation, often from the maternal line, or else the name of an absent father. Given the number of Barchatt/Burchett families in the area, there has to be some connection, though it isn't obvious.

There is a James RACKHAM born in 1851 to a mother named Hill, but that birth was registered in Suffolk [Q4 1851 Plomesgate 12 393]!

if he was born late 1851 or early 1852, as the census returns suggest, then obviously he would not be on the 1851 census found above. But as both the 1851 and 1861 censuses prove, he was not the illegitimate child of a previous liaison, before the parents married. So he really should appear in the registers as James RAGGETT (MMN HILL). His absence is puzzling and I can't see any entries, not even ones with a blatantly wrong spelling.

[heywood]

If he was taken into the family, rather than born into it, that could have happened any time during that 10 years or so period.

[heywood]

Do we have this?
They are in a separate household to the Stevenson family above in the census.

1871 811/57/13
Drummond Road, Stoke

James B Reigate 19 yrs Son Printer
Mary Ann Reigate 15 yrs Daughter
Albert Reigate 13 yrs Son

[Greaves]

No we don't. Looks promising.

Comparing to children on 1861 census:

James B (19) - James (9)
Mary Ann (15) - Mary Jane (5)
Albert (13) - Albert (3)

So definitely the same family.

[heywood]

I don’t think they are related to the Stevensons although on Ancestry, they are linked to them in transcription.
Harriet Raggett is at 1871 826/108/22 with relatives.