Leeds Mason is a several-great uncle who made the way easier for my several-great g'father.
Not exactly a common name.
Leeds apprenticed in 1746 to become a fishmonger.
He was admitted to the Freedom of the Company 5 Apr 1754. He eventually becomes Prime Warden.
I have never found a marriage for him, but his will (which has its own hiccups) mentions that his daughter is his sole surviving family member.
Ancestry's recent additions of marriage allegations & bonds has them for Leeds Mason! About the right timeframe. If I don't look at the details too closely, then I'm happy. But I did.
The Bond says "Leeds Mason of the Parish of Saint Mary Somerset London Sugar Baker..." Uh, oh - he wasn't a Sugar Baker. I looked that up. The actual workers had a very unpleasant job, and they were Irish or Germans for the most part. I suppose he could have owned the business? But he was a fishmonger???
There are copies of his signature:
1746 - Apprenticeship record
1755 - Witness to his sister's marriage
1757 - Allegation
The latter two are quite similar, the first varies mostly in the formation of the "M" - the first uses sharp points at the top of the M, the latter two are soft hills. Seems like he could have changed the way he wrote "M" over 9 years?
So, do you think a fishmonger would have been labelled a sugar baker?
Would you think this is the same person?
thanks
sarah
Not exactly a common name.
Leeds apprenticed in 1746 to become a fishmonger.
He was admitted to the Freedom of the Company 5 Apr 1754. He eventually becomes Prime Warden.
I have never found a marriage for him, but his will (which has its own hiccups) mentions that his daughter is his sole surviving family member.
Ancestry's recent additions of marriage allegations & bonds has them for Leeds Mason! About the right timeframe. If I don't look at the details too closely, then I'm happy. But I did.
The Bond says "Leeds Mason of the Parish of Saint Mary Somerset London Sugar Baker..." Uh, oh - he wasn't a Sugar Baker. I looked that up. The actual workers had a very unpleasant job, and they were Irish or Germans for the most part. I suppose he could have owned the business? But he was a fishmonger???
There are copies of his signature:
1746 - Apprenticeship record
1755 - Witness to his sister's marriage
1757 - Allegation
The latter two are quite similar, the first varies mostly in the formation of the "M" - the first uses sharp points at the top of the M, the latter two are soft hills. Seems like he could have changed the way he wrote "M" over 9 years?
So, do you think a fishmonger would have been labelled a sugar baker?
Would you think this is the same person?
thanks
sarah
Comment