PDA

View Full Version : Who was John Wilton?


anne fraser
10-02-17, 17:10
I was browsing idly through a local history web site when I came across a very nice picture of John Wilton Carter of Bitton. Gloucestershire.http://www.bathintime.co.uk/image/1098358/portrait-of-john-wilton-of-bitton-by-m-holnes-1845. I think I am related to most of the Wiltons' living in the area but I can't place John. Can anyone help. I would love to claim that picture.

kiterunner
10-02-17, 17:13
Before I have a try, it says he was a carrier, rather than a carter.

kiterunner
10-02-17, 17:17
There is a John Wilton in Bitton on the 1841 and 1851 censuses but he is an ag lab on both.

anne fraser
10-02-17, 17:18
Thanks, does that mean he carried people rather than goods.

anne fraser
10-02-17, 17:20
I think he looks about 40 in the picture so born before 1820 depending when the picture was painted.

kiterunner
10-02-17, 17:21
There is a John Wilton in Bitton on the 1861 census who is a carrier but he is only 32. I thought the date of 1845 on the website was the date of the portrait? Maybe not.
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/8767/SOMRG9_1698_1702-0065/19242699?backurl=&ssrc=&backlabel=Return

Bitton Village
John Wilton Head Mar 32 Carrier Somerset Kilmeston
Eleanor Do Wife Mar 29 Wilts Wilton
Frederick Do Son 6 Gloucestersh Bitton
Elizabeth Do Daur 4 Do Do
Herbert Do Son 2 Do Do
Henry Do Son 4 mo Do Do

Is he one of yours?

kiterunner
10-02-17, 17:24
Thanks, does that mean he carried people rather than goods.

There is some information on here:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/framland/carriers.htm

anne fraser
10-02-17, 17:41
I have the later John who was my great grandfather's brother on my tree but I discounted him as being too young. The 1841 census John seems to have been born about 1790 which would tie in with the painting. But I wish I was better at dating clothes. I think 1845 was the date the book was published. I would like John's father to have a brother Thomas. It sounds as though you could be an ag labourer and a carter/carrier.

kiterunner
10-02-17, 18:14
Google Books says that Illustrations of Bitton by Henry Thomas Ellacombe was published in 1820 but they don't know who published it. Everything else on Google just seems to say "in the early 19th century" which doesn't really help!

Ah, "Libraries West" says "Publication Date
1850 1849 1848 1847 1846".

I can't find anything about M Holnes to try to narrow down when he was working. I wonder whether it is supposed to be Holmes?

Yes, you could be an ag lab and a carter, but we need to find something to confirm that the John Wilton who was an ag lab was the man in the picture as it doesn't say anything about him being a carter or carrier in the census.

kiterunner
10-02-17, 18:17
Henry Thomas Ellacombe has a Wikipedia page but it doesn't include Illustrations of Bitton, although it does say his works were privately printed.

kiterunner
10-02-17, 18:24
Here is a John Wilton who is a carrier in 1841, age 45, at Arlington, Bibury, but not very close to Bitton.
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/8978/GLSHO107_351_352-0320/1910771?backurl=&ssrc=&backlabel=Return

kiterunner
10-02-17, 18:28
There is a John Wilton baptised 31 Jan 1794 at Bitton, parents William and Jane, if that's any help with figuring out who the ag lab is.

kiterunner
10-02-17, 18:41
The 1842 Pigot's Directory says "There is no regular conveyance connected with Bitton and Kingswood, other than by the Great Western Railway", where other towns or villages have carriers listed.

Merry
10-02-17, 20:39
I think Kate is right about the artist being Holmes not Holnes:

Marcus Henry Holmes (1803-1854) was a professional artist active in the Bristol area and was a member of the Old Society of Watercolour Artists.


He was living in Westbury on Trym in 1851.

anne fraser
10-02-17, 20:40
Thanks Kite. Rev. Ellacombe was the vicar of Bitton until 1850. He published a history of Bitton and has a couple of roads named after him locally. I had not come across that picture before but he would have known his parishioners. I am trying to link John to Joseph Wilton born 1805 Swinford, (the next village) son of Thomas Wilton and Esther Hopes my ancestor. Swineford was the next village. The Wiltons called most of the boys William, Joseph, James or John which does not help. My direct ancestors moved just over the Somerset border to Kelston. I think John looks a bit of a dandy. Merry that narrows the date for the picture. Do we think he looks about 40 or 50 in it?

Merry
11-02-17, 07:26
I think nearer to 40 than 50, but we don't know how much artistic licence was used!

We can't know how fashionable a man he was, but certainly ordinary middle aged men would not be running ahead of fashion, at least in their clothing, if not in other ways:

Moustaches were 'out' until the mid-1830s.

By the 1830s most of the colour in men's dress came from the waistcoat.

He's wearing a single breasted frock coat which doesn't much help with dating. Hs trousers, stockings and shoes are confusing me as I'm not sure why the trousers appear to change colour at the knee. The lower parts don't look like gaiters as they don't come right down to his shoes. Shoes look standard for any part of the first half of the 19th C. Dark stockings would be normal for a working man. By the 1850s coloured waistcoats were 'out' and light coloured trousers were switching to darker shades.

Given the book was first published in 1846, I would date the painting 1835-1845.

anne fraser
11-02-17, 08:54
Thanks Merry. This one kept me up to 1.30 this morning. The family seem to have been property speculators a fact which does not appear on any census. I have traced them back to John Wilton born 1710. I found the assignment of a lease he took out on number 5 Royal crescent Bath to his eldest son Joseph my ancestor but he also mentions a younger son William, a possible father for our John. I suppose I will never know. Joseph also had a son John born 1810 baptised North Stoke Somerset but I think he is too young to be the John in the painting. People near Bath might have been more fashionable than most.