Catherine Loveless and the blacksmith

Discussion in 'Dorset' started by mugwortismy cat, Jul 2, 2013.

  1. MollyMay

    MollyMay Knows where to find the answers!

    Offline
    Messages:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    10,911
    Location:
    Middlesex
    Ancestry have the orginial register and Elison is not re-baptised as Elizabeth, though hard to read they have it transcribed as Elisins, so Elison it was.
     
    Ma-dotcom and mugwortismy cat like this.
  2. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    My tree is private but I'm not a Cross Lady!

    Yes, I have followed some of Catherine's children, that's part of the story too ...


    Elison BUDDEN married Charles Collis in Leigh on 5 Aug 1889, father Edwin George BUDDEN blacksmith (Ellen BUDDEN was a witness)

    Edmund George LOVELESS married Elizabeth Vozey in Leigh on 8 Nov 1892, father George BUDDEN blacksmith (Witnesses: Elsie & Charles COLLIS)

    Robert BUDDEN married Rosina Bishop in Sandford Orcas on 20 Nov 1899, father George BUDDEN blacksmith

    (sorry though I haven't done Ellen)​

    At first I thought Elison got confused (she obviously meant Edmund George) and used her brothers name as her father's name. Then I decided to use it as a clue ... and there was a further clue, in that when I'd looked on FreeBMD to trace Elison I'd discovered that there were two of them!

    Births Sep 1867
    Budden Elison Sherborne 5a 363

    Marriages Jun 1885
    Budden Elison Honiton 5b 43

    Marriages Sep 1889
    BUDDEN Elison Sherborne 5a 645

    or more likely three!

    Marriages Jun 1860
    Budden Ellison Poole 5a 527

    I thought to myself an Elison and an Edmund have got to be easier to find than a George. Do I need to look in the area of Honiton or Poole? I started in Dorset, and assumed that 'George' hadn't lied about his father.

    Well, you know what I found, MollyMay has told you.

    So are Edmund and George, one and the same? that is my theory. I think it 'has legs'. Do you?

    That will have to be explored in the next post. I need a cup of tea ...
     
  3. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    MollyMay, you marvel -- I should have looked there myself, but hadn't done so yet 8(:-) (that's me doing the happy dance)
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  4. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    Before I go off for a short rest I thought I should tell you the second verse of the song "Blacksmith"

    Strange news has come to town, strange news is carried,​
    Strange news flies up and down, my love has married​
    O I wish them both joy, much joy though they don't hear me​
    And may God reward him well for his slighting of me​
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  5. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    Let's go back to the 1851 census that MollyMay found ..

    So father is Robert and a carpenter, that fits (also one of the children is Robert), and there's an Elison ... hmmm, there's also an Elinor in there, and Catherine's youngest is Ellen ... can this just be coincidence?

    Great Canford, Poole (a place full of Buddens) is in the extreme South-eastern section of Dorset; Leigh, is near Sherborne (where Buddens seem scarce), in the north-west; if Edmund and George are one and the same, it looks as though he ran as far as possible without leaving the county.

    My first thought, like MollyMay's was that our George was actually baptised as Edmund George, but that isn't so:

    Bap 19 Jan 1834, Canford Magna (Great Canford)
    Edmund, son of Robert and Matilda BUDDEN, of Canford, Labourer

    Here's the family in 1841:

    Robert Budden 35 Sawyer
    Matilda Budden 25
    Samuel Budden 9
    Edmen Budden 7
    Alfred Budden 5
    Ellen Budden 2

    HO107; Piece: 287; Book: 3; Civil Parish: Canford Magna; County: Dorset; Enumeration District: 1; Folio: 5; Page: 4; Line: 22

    I cannot find Edmund in 1861 or 1871. In 1881 there is this:

    Edmund Budden 46 Head, Married, Blacksmith, Canford
    Sarah Budden 48 Wife, _, Kinson
    Flora Budden 7 Daughter, scholar, Kinson

    RG11; Piece: 2094; Folio: 56; Page: 44

    Baptism for Flora:

    bap 4 July 1873 Great Canford
    Flora, daughter of Edmund and Sarah BUDDEN, of Kinson, Blacksmith

    So, had 'George' left Catherine and returned to an original wife, or had he merely married someone else, or taken up with someone else? However, if this is right then perhaps this answers the query I had over Ellen's birth year making it 1872 rather than 1874.

    BUT I cannot find a marriage that looks right, either before 1861 when 'George' takes up with Catherine; or after 1871.

    So, I tried looking for the wife Sarah in 1861:

    Joseph Rabbits 56 Head, Married, Ag Lab, Witchampton
    Ann Rabbits 52 Wife, Married, _, Playford, Hants
    Elizabeth Rabbits 16 Daughter, Unmarried, _, Kinson
    James Rabbits 10 Son, _, _, Kinson
    Fanny Rabbits 9 Daughter, _, _, Kinson
    Emma Rabbits 6 Daughter, _, _, Kinson
    Sarah Budden 31 Daughter, Married, Charwoman, Kinson
    John Budden 5 Grandson, _, _, Kinson

    RG 9; Piece: 1339; Folio: 48; Page: 32

    and in 1871:

    Sarah Budden 37 Head, Married, Laundress, Kinson
    John Rabbits 15 Son, Unmarried, Labourer, Wallian Down (?)
    Lot Wareham 40 Boarder, Unmarried, Labourer, Wimborne

    RG10; Piece: 1986; Folio: 36; Page: 3

    So it seems John was illegitimate? Indeed, bapt. 11 Nov 1855 in Canford Magna, John son of Sarah Rabbits, single woman.

    Even knowing, Sarah's maiden name, still can't find a marriage ...

    And, we still can't show that Edmund and George are the same, just that Edmund and George are visible at different times.

    Come on, you've kept me up so late (silly o'clock), tell me, what do you think?
     
  6. Half Hour

    Half Hour Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    7,214
    Location:
    Owen Sound, Ontario
    I think you are doing a marvellous job and I am lost because I have been busy and haven't had a chance to put all this down to sort it out. Go To Bed...maybe the answer will come in a dream. :confused:
     
    mugwortismy cat likes this.
  7. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Offline
    Messages:
    6,167
    Likes Received:
    15,716
    Location:
    South Australia
    I think you've been a very busy Lass, & have just about sorted them. Just think what you can do later after a well deserved restful SLEEP!
     
    mugwortismy cat likes this.
  8. MollyMay

    MollyMay Knows where to find the answers!

    Offline
    Messages:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    10,911
    Location:
    Middlesex
    Well how about this marriage
    June qtr 1859 - in Hampshire - Christchurch 2b 818

    Sarah Rabbets and on the same page..........
    Edmund Budden
     
    mugwortismy cat likes this.
  9. Londoner

    Londoner Will always roll up her sleeves and dig around

    Offline
    Messages:
    649
    Likes Received:
    2,571
    Location:
    Cornwall
    I wish I had time to get involved in this hunt - I am really enjoying following it unfold. Can't wait for the next instalment:)
     
    Half Hour and mugwortismy cat like this.
  10. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    MollyMay

    What would I do without you!? I could swear I did a countrywide search when I couldn't find the marriage in Dorset. And Christchurch is really right next to Poole ...

    i could kiss you! But I'll do another happy dance 8(:-)
     
  11. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    I see why I missed it; first of all it was late and I was tired, and then again on FreeBMD and Ancestry it's like this

    Marriages Jun 1859
    Budden Edmund Christchurch 2b 878

    Marriages Jun 1859
    Burt Joseph Christchurch 2b 818
    Moyle Eliza Christchurch 2b 818
    Rabbas Sarah Christchurch 2b 818
    Rabbets Sarah Christchurch 2b 818

    I have submitted a correction on FreeBMD
     
  12. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    I wish there was a next installment but I am all out!

    I have felt for a long time that Edmund and George are the same person -- but how to prove it?

    I feel a little closer now that MollyMay has found Edmund & Sarah's marriage; but essentially all I have are a load of coincidences, and the whole thing would fall apart if I suddenly managed to find Edmund in 1861 and 1871.
     
  13. MollyMay

    MollyMay Knows where to find the answers!

    Offline
    Messages:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    10,911
    Location:
    Middlesex
    I can claim no credit - but thanks anyway. I just put what we knew into FMP and up it came.
    I have been out today and was hoping you had some other snippets for us. Must do some jobs but will get back to it later on - we just have have to solve it - for Catherine's sake.
     
    mugwortismy cat likes this.
  14. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    Yes, for Catherine's sake, that's how I feel.

    The only other snippet I have, and it may be totally irrelevant, is the baptism of a George BUDDEN in Canford Magna on 4 Nov 1834 to a Luke and Elizabeth. A cousin to Edmund? The family appear to be in the Channel Islands in 1841

    (Robert and Matilda (Edmund's parents) also had a George bap. 9 Nov 1851.)

    I suppose I have to fight off my headache and follow the George son of Luke to completely rule him out.

    Even if this George is a candidate as Catherine's husband, that doesn't mean Edmund didn't abandon his wife Sarah for ~20 years!
     
  15. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    I think we can rule out George son of Luke

    1841 Alderney
    1851 Alderney -- father has remarried
    1861 his father has likely died, his stepmother is in Guernsey with her 3 children, I am fairly certain George is a Coachman in Jersey, lodging in the household of William Serwin also a coachman
    1871 George, a carman, born Poole, in Camberwell, married to Mary A, 3 children
    1881 George, a carman, born Poole, in Rotherhithe, married to Mary A, 5 children

    sorry I forgot to write down the references.
     
  16. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    I also forgot to say last night that Edmund died in 1886. He was buried 18 Nov in Talbot Village near Poole.

    this is his widow in Kinson in 1891;
    Sarah Budden 59 Head, Widow, Care Woman, Kingson
    Flower Budden 18 Daughter, unmarried, _. Kingson
    Edmond G Budden 13 Grandson, in the status column it actually says 13m,_, Kingson
    Thomas G Lockyer 24 Lodger, illegible, Labourer, Rossmoor

    RG12; Piece: 1637; Folio: 162; Page: 70
     
  17. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    Now I'm thinking if Edmund had a son and a grandson called EDMUND GEORGE maybe he was known as/called Edmund George even though it's not on any record that I have found ...
     
  18. MollyMay

    MollyMay Knows where to find the answers!

    Offline
    Messages:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    10,911
    Location:
    Middlesex
    Well done eliminating George s/o Luke.

    If you look for Sarah in 1901 she is living with Flora, who is now married with 2 further children and her illegitimate son Edmund is now called........George!
    RG13/1977/63/22
     
  19. MollyMay

    MollyMay Knows where to find the answers!

    Offline
    Messages:
    4,264
    Likes Received:
    10,911
    Location:
    Middlesex
    Back to the marriage of George and Catherine, 7/4/1866
    Joshua Loveless died March qtr 1866, so did Catherine wait for him to die before she was able to marry 'George'?
     
  20. mugwortismy cat

    mugwortismy cat Tenacious to the End!

    Offline
    Messages:
    3,225
    Likes Received:
    5,348
    Location:
    London, England
    thank you, I'd seen the census in search results during the course of today's investigations and noted Flora was married but hadn't looked into it any further (was going to go back later, honest) so I'd missed that interesting use of the name George!

    Well, I am toying with scenarios:

    1. Catherine knew George/Edmund was already married and didn't want to hurt or shame her father more than necessary, so waited until he died to spare him. She didn't have to wait, she was old enough to marry without his permission.

    2. Joshua didn't approve of George/Edmund and made it clear (maybe he knew of the previous marriage, maybe he just didn't like him), so again Catherine waited in order to spare him.

    3. George/Edmund knew that Joshua disapproved and kept putting Catherine off with excuses, until Joshua died and George/Edmund felt less judged.

    I think it is significant that they had also recently lost their baby Elison Budden Loveless (she was buried 11 Feb 1866) perhaps these losses of Catherine's made George feel he should marry her after all. Goodness, knows how distraught she must have been, 3 of her 4 babies are dead, her father dies, she's not even married.

    I also think it very significant that she didn't name her father in the marriage register. Not sure exactly how to interpret that, but I figure she didn't want to associate Joshua (ex-parish clerk) with something he had disapproved of.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice