Posted by George Frewin on 21 December , 2002 at 13:36:58:
In Reply to: A Leicester Frewin posted by Lawrence Frewin on 19 December , 2002 at 10:16:26:
Thankyou for your comments, I am going down to Oxford Centre of Studies (COS) on Monday to see if I can trace William the Plumbers birth info and from that his parents Thomas and ??????????.
On a side note I went down to Henley myself about a month ago to visit St Marys and the Holy Trinity churches to see if I could find any Frewin grave stones. I found only one in the Holy Trinity church.
Have a good xmas
: Hi George,
As far as I have been able to make out from the parish records and census's, I think that Henry and William Henry are the same person.
The baptism record for St Mary's Parish, Henley shows William Henry, but other records show just Henry, and even more confusingly he seems to have adopted the nickname Harry later in life.
William Henry/Henry/Harry has been very difficult to untangle, but that is the best understanding I have so far.
Reubin Frewin I am now fairly sure is NOT part of this family, so he has been detached.
Your main point was about the first Thomas though.
I have re-checked the parish records for St Mary, Henley, and the only possible candidate for your Thomas Frewin was baptised 25 November 1831, but his parents are listed as Barnett & Marianne Frewin, but I believe the more common spelling of the fathers Christian name was Bennett. There isn't a previous Thomas listed for Richard & Elizabeth Frewin.
There are several explanations as to how this Thomas has appeared on their records:
The most likely reason is that they have found a record for a Thomas aged nine in the 1841 census (ie b. 1832), and another for a Thomas aged sixteen in the 1851 census (ie b. 1835), and assumed that there must have been two Thomas's (the different ages are listed in the data we have for Thomas Henry)
I have assumed that these two Thomas's are the same person, despite the age difference, because:
1) There are huge disparities between the data (particularly ages given) in the 1841 census and later census's.
A three or four year age gap between the 1841 and 1851 census is not uncommon, even for children. It appears that many of the ages given in the early census's were simply rough estimates.
2) There might be a case to suggest that Richard and Elizabeth has a son called Thomas in 1832 who died as an infant and that they named their next son Thomas (a very common practice) in 1835.
I don't think that is the case here because there is no baptism or burial of another Thomas for Richard and Elizabeth in St Mary's parish in that period. If it happened then it must have happened in another parish.
3) There are no census records showing two Thomas's for this family.
4) It would be very unusual (but not entirely unknown) to have two surviving children with the same chrstian name in the same family at the same time.
I guess you pays your money and takes your choice here though.
It may be worth your while re-checking all of the census's we have listed for Richard and Elizabeth just in case.
Post a Followup