Research was a lot, lot different back in the 1980s when I started the fascinating project of tracing my PARSONS forebears from Horsington, Somerset.
Searching for birth/marriage/death certificates meant visiting the General Register Office search room at St. Catherine's House in the Kingsway, London. Here professional genealogists, amateur family historians and ordinary members of the public could be found rubbing shoulders with one another.
The indexes were kept in huge, heavy tomes which had to be man (or woman) handled off the shelves onto high reading tables. Once the volumes were opened up each researcher needed at least a metre of space for themselves - and that was without allowing extra room for a notepad. Congestion could always be expected in the aisle covering marriage indexes from the 1890s to 1920s.
Whenever the smallest space was left empty another researcher would creep in and balance their volume on its spine. Then, when the person next to them turned around to replace their volume and retrieve the next the interloper would fling their volume open and take over the space.
The result was usually an outburst of "Researcher Rage".
Having found possible entries in the indexes it was then a matter of applying for certificates to see whether they could indeed be linked to the family. So often buying a certificate proved to be exasperating because some tiny bit of information proved that this person could not possibly be a member of the family. So another trip had to be made to St. Catherine's House and the searching started all over again.
A similar system operated along the road at Somerset House where the Probate Calendars (indexes of Wills) dating back to 1858 were kept. Although, it has to be said, that this resource was less known and the search room itself was rarely crowded. It was the staff who were the main characters here. It was if they had leapt straight out of the pages of a Charles Dickens novel. The Accounts Office was outside the search room and along a corridor. This was manned by elderly gentlemen with starched white collars who took their work very seriously - and never seemed to have any change.
The officer in charge of the search room had probably worked his way up from humble clerk for he knew the regulations inside out. Woe betide any researcher who had not filled in the application form correctly or who had failed to provide the original index volume for checking.
"What about census returns?" I hear you ask. Well, these were held at The Census Room of the Public Record Office in Chancery Lane. Here researchers came head to head with modern technology because the census returns were held on microfilm. This meant learning mind boggling techniques of threading film through a series of rollers and glass plates onto a take-up reel. Then negotiating a series of switches and knobs to get the film to roll through and adjust focus. In this repository it was the machines which caused "Researcher Rage". "The image is upside down!"; "The image on the screen is so dim I can't read it!"; "Why oh why can't I get the film onto the take-up reel?".
These are just a few of the most common remarks being uttered though clenched teeth by the elderly clientele. Of course, prior to getting the necessary roll of microfilm you first had to negotiate a complicated array of index volumes and then place an order at the Customer Service Desk. All very time consuming - but oh so rewarding when, after spending hours trawling through metres and metres of microfilm, one suddenly "fell across" a familiar name and familiar family. There were many of these eureka moments and gradually the family tree began to take shape. A few unconnected twigs were attached to branches and the branches slowly grew into a tree.
How very, very tame and uninteresting today's system of tapping a few details into a computer or tablet at home seems in comparison. Don't get me wrong - I believe the digitisation of records is a wonderful step forward. But in today's "instant" world researchers seem to forget that indexes are just that - they are indexes and will rarely give enough information to justify an identification in themselves.
Back in the day it was only the most dedicated of family historians who perservered but having conquered these differing systems euphoria began to take over. What other sources might be available? How about newspapers at the British Library Newspaper Library; Tithe returns at The Public Record Office (now The National Archives); Parish Registers and Deeds at County Record Offices - the number of sources was limitless and would take a lifetime to get through. But well worth making a start. A visit to a new repository meant learning how to negotiate a new catalogue; new finding aids; differing types of microfilm readers. However, the results revealed all sorts of fascinating original documents - ancient deeds and wills stuffed full of minute detail which could throw light on much sought after family relationships.
I have already mentioned the dangers of forming a family tree from information obtained from the national birth/marriage/death indexes. These indexes do not give enough detail to enable us to come to correct conclusions and buying relevant certificates is essential. 18th. century parish registers are even more of a minefield. Yes, baptism registers do show names of parents - but the parish would often have several families with the same surname and several couples with the same combination of first names. So which "William and Mary SMITH" do you attribute a child to? There is no way of knowing. Marriage registers are just as unhelpful because prior to 1812 they do not show the father's name and occupation. A quick look at family trees on, for example, Ancestry (other family history sites are available) quickly show how easy it is to be led astray. All it takes is for one person to enter a piece of incorrect information and within days that error can be copied to hundreds of other trees worldwide. No checking has been done, no certificates obtained - much of it is assumption.
Now, after many paragraphs of waffle it is time to get into the story of Thomas PARSONS of Horsington.
My grandmother Agnes Kate PARSONS was the youngest of nine children born to Edwin PARSONS and Louisa HODDINOTT. From the 1930s to the 1960s grandmother lived at Lower Lodge, Horsington and I fondly remember the few trips we made down to Somerset when I was a child. Attending a fete in the grounds of Horsington House where Gran bought me a wooden eggcup.
Of braving the ant's nests on the village cross to have my photo taken.
Of standing on the verandah of Lower Lodge in the afternoon to watch the cows as they made their way through the village to be milked.
Having traced my line back from Dad to Grandmother to Edwin PARSONS & Louisa HODDINOTT, to Charles PARSONS & Rachel COOMBES to Thomas PARSONS & Ann HAZARD I knew that each generation were Agricultural Labourers. They were very definitely working class and never owned property or land. In 1841 Thomas and Ann were living in South Cheriton with their three youngest children - a mile or so from the parish church of St. John the Baptist in Horsington.
Thomas died of dropsy on 22nd. July 1843 and was buried on 26th. July. His age on both the death certificate and in the burial register is given as 66 making his year of birth c. 1777. {Thomas' age on the 1841 census is shown as being 60 but it is a matter of fact that the 1841 census rounded ages of adults up or down to 0 or 5 - and not necessarily to the nearest 0 or 5!!}. It is worth mentioning here that the death indexes have four possible entries for a Thomas PARSONS dying within the Wincanton Registration district in the 1840s and it was only by purchasing certificates that I was able to identify which was the correct one.
Despite going back and searching baptisms for the years prior to 1777 I could find no other entries relating to Thomas PARSONS. This left me in a dilemma. The 1778 baptism would have fitted in very nicely with "my" Thomas who had died in 1843. However, a 1783 baptism left me with a six year variance and to my mind this was stretching things a little too far for comfort. All I could do was pencil in Moses as a possible but unlikely father. Perhaps all would become clear as I progressed the research into this line.
Well, the more I found about Moses and his children the more unlikely it seemed that I could be descended from this line. Moses was a Yeoman - a man who cultivated his own land. His sons migrated to nearby parishes - Templecombe, Maperton and Stalbridge - and became yeomen in their own right. His daughters all made very good marriages and again moved away from Horsington.
The deciding point in separating myself from this line of PARSONS was a few years ago when I deciphered an indenture dated 25th. March 1834 where the children of Moses PARSONS (the elder) sold a parcel of land known as Sheeps Close in Horsington to their cousin, Charles CHISLETT, for £550. Here is an extract from the first page of that document:
This indenture made the Twenty Fifth day of March one thousand eight hundred and thirty four between James Parsons of Horsington in the County of Somerset, Yeoman, of the First Part,
Moses Parsons of Temple Coombe in the same County, Yeoman
Meshach Parsons of Hatherley within the parish of Maperton in the said County, Yeoman
Thomas Parsons of North Cadbury in the said County, Yeoman
George Parsons of Stalbridge in the County of Dorset, Dairyman
William Longman of Stowel in the said County of Somerset, Yeoman and Lydia his wife
heretofore Lydia Parsons, Spinster
Gideon Guyer of North Cheriton in the said County of Somerset, Yeoman and Maria his wife
heretofore Maria Parsons, Spinster
George Cooper of Clapham in the County of Surrey, Gardener and Mary his wife
heretofore Mary Parsons, Spinster
John Antell of Stalbridge aforesaid, Yeoman and Ann his wife
heretofore Ann Parsons, Spinster
Moses Parsons being the eldest son and heir at law of Moses Parsons the deceased Testator hereinafter named and the said Meshach Parsons, Thomas Parsons, George Parsons, Lydia Longman, Maria Guyer, Mary Cooper and Ann Antell being others of the children of the said Moses Parsons the deceased testator of the Second Part
and Charles Chislett of Upper Thames Street in the City of London Gentleman of the Third Part
{Research note: James PARSONS of the First Part was the son of James PARSONS (the elder) who was the brother of Moses PARSONS (the elder)}
This indenture very clearly shows that Thomas PARSONS, son of Moses, was a Yeoman of North Cadbury. Further research showed that a Thomas PARSONS had died in December 1834 and been buried in South Cadbury. In his will this Thomas left his property in North Cadbury to his wife and children. In my mind this is a far more likely identification for Thomas son of Moses as it compares with details shown on the 1834 indenture.
"My" Thomas who had married Ann HAZARD in 1805 had very definitely spent his adult life in the parish of Horsington. The baptismal entries for his 10 children between 1806 and 1828 always describe him as Agricultural Labourer. The 1841 census describes him as Labourer and his death certificate shows him as Labourer.
I will leave it to other to decide whether they wish to extract their Thomas PARSONS line from the prestigious line of Moses PARSONS. But to my mind it just has to be done.
I hope that this research will prove useful to others. If you would like to include the story on your Ancestry Tree or elsewhere PLEASE include a link back to this Blog Post where my contact details are available. The research has taken 37 years and is, of course, ongoing.
I am now working on the family of my Great Great Grandmother Rachel COOMBES which appears to lead back to the candle makers of Wincanton.
The medical side of family research is also interesting. Rachel died of breast cancer, whilst my aunts (her great grand daughters) died of breast cancer and liver cancer. I hope those genes skip my generation and that I have a few more years before joining Dad, Gran and the Ancestors in that little cemetery in Horsington.
0 comments:
Post a Comment