Hi Louise, I'd not really expected to find it....!! But I'd guess that the two couples were very likely Friends - or at least 2 of the 4 were - for it seems strange for two couples to turn up on the same day without having witnesses with them, and to use each other for the purpose. (OK, a fair number WOULD so arrive, but they'd be more likely to have the Parish Clerk (perhaps with his wife) as their witnesses, rather than 'total' strangers. I can think of two sorts of Puddler, both of which could probably be found in that area: a) in the steel-making trade (although what they actually DID I don't know); and b) in canal-building and repairing, where 'puddle' was the watertight clay lining of the canal bed and sides. [There were a LOT of Canals in the area...]. In view of the *Other* Couple's family occupations, I'd tend to suspect that (b) might be the more likely. You mentioned in your first posting that Edwin and his father were Painters. Do you have 'several' reports of them in that trade? For I take your point that there could've been a misdescription - or mistranscription - in the Other Records. Again, for such things as Censuses, 'Occupation' was taken as being "What were you employed at Last Week?" rather than "What were you 'trained' to do?" - which can produce some anomalous results at times. With Edwin signing his name with some confidence, I'd imagine he'd also be able to read his (and his father's) occupation as it was shown on the Certificate, and could well have commented that it was wrong. Free-wheeling thinking here :-) Gus ----- Original Message ----- From: Louise Reynolds <louise@planetlighting.com> To: John Tysoe <gtysoe@jtysoe.fsnet.co.uk>; <ENG-WORCESTER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:57 AM Subject: EDWARDS/PLANT > Hello Gus, > > Thankyou so much. Great news that the reg. was at WHC. I had also been > wondering about Benjamin Hall and Ann Dunn - as far as I can tell, not > related to either side. My GRO Certificate lists Minister's last name as > Browne, although the initials are hard to decipher. No wonder we have so > many problems in this great hobby of ours. > > However, your news that the Puddler occupation is correct is bad news. > Alas! Will post a general query to list regarding this. > > Many thanks again, > > Louise > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Tysoe" <gtysoe@jtysoe.fsnet.co.uk> > To: <ENG-WORCESTER-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:05 PM > Subject: Re: [WOR] New Lister - EDWARDS/PLANT > > > > Hi Louise, > > > > To my Sue-Per-Late-Ive Surprise, WorcHistCent DOES hold the (or at least > > some of the) Registers of Dudley St James... > > > > And that Marriage entry was more surprising than most! > > > > > > Dudley St James - Marriages Register > > Page 19; Number 37 - 1871 Jan 17 [the first of 2 marriages that day] > > By Banns; by I E C BOURNE > > [very dubious transcription, this - his signature was almost illegible!] > > Edwin EDWARDS, 21, Bachelor, Puddler, Dudley > > s/o John, Puddler > > Elizabeth Hickman PLANT, Spinster, -, Dudley > > d/o Joseph, Clerk > > Witnesses: Benjamin HALL & Ann DUNN > > [All 4 signed] > > > > The intriguing bit was the *second* marriage the same day... > > > > Page 19; Number 38 - 1871 Jan 17 > > By Banns; by I E C BOURNE [etc...] > > Benjamin HALL , 21, Bachelor, Bridge Stocker, Dudley > > s/o Joseph, Bridge Stocker > > Ann DUNN, 20, Spinster, -, > > d/o Noah, Boat Loader > > Witnesses: Edwin EDWARDS & Elizabeth Hickman PLANT [All 4 signed] > > - Elizabeth - although married by then - signed her maiden name... > > > > Were they Relatives - or were the two couples 'just friends' ??? > > > > > > The Occupations were as your certificate - very clearly written. > > The only Doubtful Part was the name of the Minister... > > > > Gus > > > > > > > > > > ==== ENG-WORCESTER Mailing List ==== > > Transcribers wanted for Worcestershire FreeREG > > for more information see http://freereg.rootsweb.com > > UK Census on-line > > http://freecen.rootsweb.com/ > > > > > > >

G'day Gus & Louise A "puddler" is in the iron smelting business. Who's job it was to "puddle" the iron to allow some of the carbon present in the mixture to 'burn-off" in the air to make "wrought iron". This was not as brittle as "cast iron". We use "iron" & "steel" interchangeably today, but they are in fact two distinct metals ! Cheers Col ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Tysoe" <gtysoe@jtysoe.fsnet.co.uk> To: <ENG-WORCESTER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 9:26 PM Subject: [WOR] Re: EDWARDS/PLANT > Hi Louise, > > I'd not really expected to find it....!! > > But I'd guess that the two couples were very likely Friends - or at least > 2 > of the 4 were - for it seems strange for two couples to turn up on the > same > day without having witnesses with them, and to use each other for the > purpose. (OK, a fair number WOULD so arrive, but they'd be more likely to > have the Parish Clerk (perhaps with his wife) as their witnesses, rather > than 'total' strangers. > > > I can think of two sorts of Puddler, both of which could probably be found > in that area: > a) in the steel-making trade (although what they actually DID I don't > know); and > b) in canal-building and repairing, where 'puddle' was the watertight > clay > lining of the canal bed and sides. [There were a LOT of Canals in the > area...]. > > In view of the *Other* Couple's family occupations, I'd tend to suspect > that > (b) might be the more likely. > > > You mentioned in your first posting that Edwin and his father were > Painters. > Do you have 'several' reports of them in that trade? For I take your point > that there could've been a misdescription - or mistranscription - in the > Other Records. > > Again, for such things as Censuses, 'Occupation' was taken as being "What > were you employed at Last Week?" rather than "What were you 'trained' to > do?" - which can produce some anomalous results at times. With Edwin > signing > his name with some confidence, I'd imagine he'd also be able to read his > (and his father's) occupation as it was shown on the Certificate, and > could > well have commented that it was wrong. > > Free-wheeling thinking here :-) > > Gus > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Louise Reynolds <louise@planetlighting.com> > To: John Tysoe <gtysoe@jtysoe.fsnet.co.uk>; <ENG-WORCESTER-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 8:57 AM > Subject: EDWARDS/PLANT > > >> Hello Gus, >> >> Thankyou so much. Great news that the reg. was at WHC. I had also been >> wondering about Benjamin Hall and Ann Dunn - as far as I can tell, not >> related to either side. My GRO Certificate lists Minister's last name as >> Browne, although the initials are hard to decipher. No wonder we have so >> many problems in this great hobby of ours. >> >> However, your news that the Puddler occupation is correct is bad news. >> Alas! Will post a general query to list regarding this. >> >> Many thanks again, >> >> Louise >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "John Tysoe" <gtysoe@jtysoe.fsnet.co.uk> >> To: <ENG-WORCESTER-L@rootsweb.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 04, 2005 4:05 PM >> Subject: Re: [WOR] New Lister - EDWARDS/PLANT >> >> >> > Hi Louise, >> > >> > To my Sue-Per-Late-Ive Surprise, WorcHistCent DOES hold the (or at >> > least >> > some of the) Registers of Dudley St James... >> > >> > And that Marriage entry was more surprising than most! >> > >> > >> > Dudley St James - Marriages Register >> > Page 19; Number 37 - 1871 Jan 17 [the first of 2 marriages that day] >> > By Banns; by I E C BOURNE >> > [very dubious transcription, this - his signature was almost >> > illegible!] >> > Edwin EDWARDS, 21, Bachelor, Puddler, Dudley >> > s/o John, Puddler >> > Elizabeth Hickman PLANT, Spinster, -, Dudley >> > d/o Joseph, Clerk >> > Witnesses: Benjamin HALL & Ann DUNN >> > [All 4 signed] >> > >> > The intriguing bit was the *second* marriage the same day... >> > >> > Page 19; Number 38 - 1871 Jan 17 >> > By Banns; by I E C BOURNE [etc...] >> > Benjamin HALL , 21, Bachelor, Bridge Stocker, Dudley >> > s/o Joseph, Bridge Stocker >> > Ann DUNN, 20, Spinster, -, >> > d/o Noah, Boat Loader >> > Witnesses: Edwin EDWARDS & Elizabeth Hickman PLANT [All 4 signed] >> > - Elizabeth - although married by then - signed her maiden name... >> > >> > Were they Relatives - or were the two couples 'just friends' ??? >> > >> > >> > The Occupations were as your certificate - very clearly written. >> > The only Doubtful Part was the name of the Minister... >> > >> > Gus >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ==== ENG-WORCESTER Mailing List ==== >> > Transcribers wanted for Worcestershire FreeREG >> > for more information see http://freereg.rootsweb.com >> > UK Census on-line >> > http://freecen.rootsweb.com/ >> > >> > >> >> >> > > > ==== ENG-WORCESTER Mailing List ==== > Transcribers wanted for Worcestershire FreeREG > for more information see http://freereg.rootsweb.com > UK Census on-line > http://freecen.rootsweb.com/ > > > __________ NOD32 1.1240 (20051003) Information __________ > > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. > http://www.eset.com > >

an on-line autobiography of Mr Bessemer, has this description of puddling: ============ In 1854 I took out a patent for puddling iron by means of steam. Many of my readers may not know that cast iron is converted into malleable iron by the process called puddling. The iron, while in a molten state, is violently stirred and agitated by a stiff iron rod, having its end bent like a hoe or flattened hook, by which every portion of the molten metal is exposed to the oxygen of the air, and the supercharge of carbon which the cast iron contains is thus burnt out. When this is effectually done the iron becomes malleable and weldable. This state of the iron is indicated by a general loss of fluidity, accompanied by a tendency to gather together in globular masses. The puddler, by his dexterous use of the rabbling-bar, puts the masses together, and, in fact, welds the new-born particles into puddle-balls of about three-quarter cwt. each. These are successively removed from the pool of the puddling furnace, and subjected to the energetic blows of the steam-hammer, which drives out all the scoriae lurking within the spongy puddle-balls, and thus welds them into compact masses of malleable iron. When re-heated to a welding heat, they are rolled out into flat bars or round rods, in a variety of sizes so as to be suitable for the consumer. The manual and physical labour of the puddler is tedious, fatiguing, and unhealthy. The process of puddling occupies about an hour's violent labour, and only robust young men can stand the fatigue and violent heat. I had frequent opportunities of observing the labour and unhealthiness of the process, as well as the great loss of time required to bring it to a conclusion. It occurred to me that much of this could be avoided by employing some other means of getting rid of the superfluous carbon, and bringing the molten cast iron into a malleable condition. Eric MILLWARD. I added NO attachments to this message. My virus-free Family Tree at http://genman.worldonline.co.uk/FamilyHistory.html (updated 01 August) takes 40 sec to load narrowband. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.9/118 - Release Date: 03/10/2005