Joined: Jan 17, 2009
Wed Nov 30, 2016 12:04 pm
I suspect the difficulty lies with many people unable to spell themselves, and a relatively unusual surname being presented to officialdom.
John McCrohan, or McCrohon, who WAS literate, was born in Caherciveen arounf 1808 (will we listing all the spellings of that town here - spell check no good, just suggests "Carcinogen" which is not kind). He spelled, or had his name spelt, both ways.
In 1938 his London Metropolitan police has him as "McCrohon".
In 1839 in his application to join Birmingham Police he signes as "McCrohan".
In 1841 census in Birmingham he appears as "Mc Crohan"
In 1841 his police record card has him down as "McCrohon"
In 1851 the census entry is ambiguous, could be either - and looks a bit like "McCrohen"
In the 1861 census he is "McCrohan"
On his death certificate it reads "McCrohon"
In the book “Policing Hereford and Leominster” by Gordon Forest and Ted Hadley (1989) a comments on page 85 and 86 refer to him as "McCrohon"
His son, Eugene (1838-1928), who moved to and died in Texas, maintained the name "McCrohan" as have his descendants.
However, his son Charles (1842-1877) was christened as a McCrohon, and this stays consistent.
His son Daniel (1843-1893) was a McCrohan! on his birth certificate, McCrohon on the 1871 census and Daniel Mack on the 1891 census! I do not have 1881.
Back to John - I think it is shaded as "McCrohon" on points, but I guess he was a McCrohan in Ireland, but have no records at all to prove it one way or another.