| Notes |
- The this John Frederick's parents' names are given as John George and Catherine, the obvious candidates for his parents are John George and Mary Ann Slauenwhite, who could easily have been Maria Anna Catharina. The drawback to this theory is that they were not married until 1832, but the counter to that is that first children in this era were very often “premature”.
There are three other possibilities. First, his father could be George Henry, b. 01 Mar 1805. He m. Ann Elizabeth SLAUENWHITE (who also could easily have been Anna Elizabetha Catharina) in 1828 at St. Paul's. His first daughter, Julia Ann is bp. St. Pauls in 1829, and we know his next child, Mary b. 1833 or so, is baptised Anglican as she is conditionally baptised at OLMC in 1857. But John Fred b. Apr 1830 is a tight squeeze in this birth order. Plus, if his father were named John George Henry, that would probably mean that the John was an honorific and I doubt he would have been known by it.
The second possibility is that John George could have previously been married to an otherwise unknown Catherine.
Finally, his parents could have been John Frederick and Catherine (Glover) SLAUENWHITE. Her name matches, just like John George's name matches. Second, like John George and Mary Ann, they are the right age and in the right place. Third, John Fred and Catherine have no other sons named John Fred or Fred anything, which is somewhat surprising; but more importantly, the naming tradition was to name the first-born son after the father's father, and Grandpa was named John Fred. The drawbacks here are first, that John Fred and Catherine who were married 28 Nov 1832 do have a “premature” daughter--Margaret, b. 20 Apr 1831, and you usually see only one of these.
On balance, I tend to believe that John George was first married to a wife named Catherine, sine all other scenarios have too many drawbacks. [Bob H]
- The this John Frederick's parents' names are given as John George and Catherine, the obvious candidates for his parents are John George and Mary Ann Slauenwhite, who could easily have been Maria Anna Catharina. The drawback to this theory is that they were not married until 1832, but the counter to that is that first children in this era were very often “premature”.
There are three other possibilities. First, his father could be George Henry, b. 01 Mar 1805. He m. Ann Elizabeth SLAUENWHITE (who also could easily have been Anna Elizabetha Catharina) in 1828 at St. Paul's. His first daughter, Julia Ann is bp. St. Pauls in 1829, and we know his next child, Mary b. 1833 or so, is baptised Anglican as she is conditionally baptised at OLMC in 1857. But John Fred b. Apr 1830 is a tight squeeze in this birth order. Plus, if his father were named John George Henry, that would probably mean that the John was an honorific and I doubt he would have been known by it.
The second possibility is that John George could have previously been married to an otherwise unknown Catherine.
Finally, his parents could have been John Frederick and Catherine (Glover) SLAUENWHITE. Her name matches, just like John George's name matches. Second, like John George and Mary Ann, they are the right age and in the right place. Third, John Fred and Catherine have no other sons named John Fred or Fred anything, which is somewhat surprising; but more importantly, the naming tradition was to name the first-born son after the father's father, and Grandpa was named John Fred. The drawbacks here are first, that John Fred and Catherine who were married 28 Nov 1832 do have a “premature” daughter--Margaret, b. 20 Apr 1831, and you usually see only one of these.
On balance, I tend to believe that John George was first married to a wife named Catherine, sine all other scenarios have too many drawbacks. [Bob H]
|
1830 - Yes, date unknown
[1]