Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Challenge

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • A Challenge

    I have looked on the internet for information about these occupations, but I am so confused with them all so I am calling on experts who may know if these occupations were or could of been the same, or even if they could of drifted between the occupations if they were similar.

    Ultimately I am trying to find a baptism record of a William Henry Cox, there is a record for a William Cox who is part of the family I have mentioned below, but I am still very much undecided whether he is my ancestor or not. He does seem to be the closest I have found, but with the omission of the middle name of Henry it makes me not sure.

    In 1907 on his son’s marriage certificate in London, the occupation was Silversmith.

    His wife was stated as a widow on the 1901 census living in London with their son (she owned a confectioner shop), the son was a mechanical engineer.

    In 1891 his wife, him (age 50) and family were in Brighton, occupation Silver Plater and Gilder Gold Master, born in Birmingham stated as William Hy J Cox.

    In 1884 son was born on his birth certificate, occupation of father was Electro Plater

    In 1881 his wife, him (age 43) and family were in Devon, occupation was stated as being – Electro Metallurgist (Plated Ware), born in Birmingham, also he stated as William Hy J Cox.

    In 1877 he married in Bristol, according to the marriage certificate his father's name was Thomas Cox a jeweller.

    I have found a family on the 1841 census this Thomas Cox has his occupation as a Plater.

    On the birth certificate of his son George in 1841, his occupation is of a Plater and on his baptism record in 1844 it also says Plater.

    On the 1851 census Thomas is a Silver Plater (employ 1 man and 3 boys) his son William is also a Silver Plater.

    On the 1861 thomas is a Silver Plater, William is not at home.

    I think the marriage certificate of William Henry Cox stating that he and his dad were both jewellers is throwing me, when all the other records I have (if indeed it is them) refer to Platers etc.

    I have found a census from 1861 where there is a William Cox (Silver Plater) born in Birmingham aged 37 living in Marylebone Middlesex he is lodging with 2other chaps both born in Birmingham who are electroplate workers.

    On the 1871 census there is a William Cox as a visitor with the Hazelton family in Sutton Coldfield, his birthplace is stated as Birmingham he is 28 and his occupation is a jeweller as is the head of the household.

    The other alternative is, if it is of the opinion that these occupations are not classed as the same, I go back to 'bare bones' and start the search again and that would be with minimal details-

    On his marriage certificate his father was named as Thomas and his occupation was of a jeweller. On the 1881 he was aged 43 and on the 1891 he was 50.

    Over the years I have collected 3 birth certificates from Birmingham all of a William Henry Cox -

    1839 William father a gilder, mother Charlotte, 1845 Charles father a brass founder, mother Letitia, 1845 no father mentioned, mother Caroline Cox.

    There are a number of William Henry Cox on the IGI but the father not being a Thomas Cox, perhaps his father was not called Thomas as per his marriage certificate in 1877, or Thomas came along later in William's life and he knew him as his father, I don't know.

    I just need that shred of evidence to confirm whether this is my ancestor or not, is there a kind person/s out there who could spend a bit of time and try and unravel this mystery for me, and give me any hints and tips as to what to do next, I would be so grateful to them.

    All the best

    Ewen

  • #2
    I have a very similar situation with my Charles Gloster, who is in the same industry.

    I'm at work at the minute so can't give you exact details but his occupation varies wildly from plater to gilder to silversmith. I think on the 1881 he's something obscure like Silver Harness Plater.

    Fortunately due to the unusual surname i"m pretty sure it's him all the time.

    What I'm trying to as is don't get too hung up on the specifics of the occupation. As the industry changed so did the areas your man would have specialised in in order to keep earning.

    My Charles has a very similar tale to yours in the he left Birmingham in the 1850s and headed to London so I guess there was a need for silver workers in London and they had the opportunity to make more money than they had been in the Midlands
    Zoe in London

    Cio che Dio vuole, io voglio ~ What God wills, I will

    Comment


    • #3
      As far as I understand it, electro plating was how silver was put onto base metals creating what we know as EPNS silver items at lower cost than solid silver. I suppose a jeweller would likely be skilled in this type of work if he was creating items for wearing as opposed to cutlery, sugar bowls etc which could be made of EPNS silver.
      I agree with samesizedfeet that the occupational descriptions are not necessarily that important unless there was a substantial difference such as miner to doctor!
      I would look at the other details around this ancestor to confirm or otherwise the connection.
      Margaret
      Last edited by margaretmarch; 28-12-08, 12:03.

      Comment


      • #4
        I agree. The occupations are all very similar and if everything else is equal, I wouldn't have any doubt they are the same people.

        It was very common for people to big up the professions of their fathers on their marriage certs. My grandmother's marriage cert states that her father is a "Master Jeweller". He was in fact, a pawnbroker's shopman!

        OC

        Comment


        • #5
          I find myself echoing what the others have said. The occupations are all interrelated, so he could easily switch from one to the other as need/demand arose... and the "bigging up" thing is certainly likely.

          Christine
          Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

          Comment


          • #6
            isnt there a directory or some sort for silversmiths and goldsmiths? I seem to remember that there is a record of them.. but I dont know where..

            he would have served an apprenticeship? to be a master guilder?

            sorry if I'm rambling, just trying to get my head around/out of this lurgy I have had..

            Julie
            They're coming to take me away haha hee hee..........

            .......I find dead people

            Comment


            • #7
              I agree with what has been said so far. Electroplating is a way of producing "silver" and "gold" items much more cheaply. Describing someone as a silversmith or jeweller is simply "bigging-up" the occupation. There can be just as much skill in producing the copper or other base metal object prior to plating as there is in producing something out of pure silver or gold.
              Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

              Comment


              • #8
                A big thank you to you all for your contributions. Judging by your comments it does seem likely that the occupations of silversmith, plater and jeweller can all come under one umbrella, so that has made that bit a bit clearer to me.

                Margaret, if you read this can you just clarify what else I could look at to confirm or otherwise the connection please.

                As I mentioned above the family with the father's name being a Thomas on the 1841 census is the closest that I have seen to my ancestor's family, but .................. I am still unsure about the name of the person whom I believe is my ancestor.

                On the census for 1841 there is Jane who I have not been able to locate a baptism for, an Eliza baptised Birmingham September 1836 and William baptised Birmingham 1834. There is also a younger child, George who was baptised in 1844 and who I have the birth certificate for. I have seen the baptism record for William, who I believe may possibly be my ancestor, and there is no mention of a middle name at all. In fact none of the baptism/birth records contain a middle name (parents being a Thomas and Sarah Cox, except for George when it was Hannah Cox).

                I might add that Thomas' wife died and George was born to a different woman to the other children.

                I need some expert advice again please, can this William that I have a baptism record for and whose family on the 1841, and 1851 that I know off, be the same William that called himself William Henry Cox on the following documents:

                In 1907 on his son’s marriage certificate in London, the occupation was Silversmith.

                In 1891 his wife, him (age 50) and family were in Brighton, occupation Silver Plater and Gilder Gold Master, born in Birmingham stated as William Hy J Cox.

                In 1884 son was born on his birth certificate, occupation of father was Electro Plater

                In 1881 his wife, him (age 43) and family were in Devon, occupation was stated as being – Electro Metallurgist (Plated Ware), born in Birmingham, also he stated as William Hy J Cox.

                In 1877 he married in Bristol, according to the marriage certificate his father's name was Thomas Cox a jeweller.

                Basically, should I be looking for a baptism of a William Henry Cox or do you think it made up the bit about the Henry middle name?

                Any help or guidance greatly received.
                Ewen

                Comment


                • #9
                  Sorry to muddy the water, but don't forget the 1841 does not show relationships, so he isn't necessarily a child of the head of the household, although the order of names is often a fairly good guide.

                  OC

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    My grandmother was born Alice in 1887 - not sure about baptised name - was clearly "Harris" in 1901 - was Roma Alice by the time she died.

                    People change their names for all sorts of reasons. So long as there's no fraudulent intent, then that isn't a problem - legally, anyway - it's a pain in the neck for genealogists, of course! The might acquire a name in honour of someone, as a condition of inheriting something, to shed a name they don't like, to acquire a name they do like, to appear more/less foreign...

                    Christine
                    Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I can only agree that occupations can change a bit - even the same job can be described differently.

                      Names are also a bit fluid. I have found Emily Kezia Mullins married as plain Emily Mullins; Rose Hart bigged herself up to Rosanna Hart when she married; Kate became Katie and Annie became Elizabeth Anne!

                      You have to weigh it up and go with the balance of probabilities.
                      ~ with love from Little Nell~
                      Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Thank you all for all your latest comments, a lot to think about, I agree names of occupations can change a bit along with names. Don't you wish you had a crystal ball sometimes.

                        Ewen

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Replying to your post No8 I was referring to the various census and certificates you may have that show the people you think are your ancestors, which creates a trail you follow from the present day backwards. If you have done this bit carefully then it's as has already been said a question of judging things on the balance of probability taking account of all the evidence you have.
                          Margaret

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Ewen, I see the 1891 census entry is Meeting House Lane in Brighton, (next address is the Meeting House) I'll be in that area of Brighton some time in February & can take a photo if you like.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by margaretmarch View Post
                              Replying to your post No8 I was referring to the various census and certificates you may have that show the people you think are your ancestors, which creates a trail you follow from the present day backwards. If you have done this bit carefully then it's as has already been said a question of judging things on the balance of probability taking account of all the evidence you have.
                              Margaret

                              Thank you for your reply Margaret, I see what you mean now. Unfortunately the only concrete evidence I have is from 1907 to 1877. After that the waters are muddy, due to the common surname and the names of occupations differing, I am finding it hard to verify this family.

                              Jill, if it is no trouble for you I would love to have a photograph of this address, many thanks

                              Ewen

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Just to say a big thank you to Jill for getting me the photograph as she offered to.;)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X