NICHOLAS TAPSON OF WOOLWICH, MASTER TAILOR
The marriage of Nicholas to Emma Clay was registered in 1866, Q1 (Islington R.D.). The birth of their first child was registered at Hackney:
12 Dec 1866 Mark, son of Nicholas Tapson, Tailor Master, & Emma Tapson, formerly Clay, 4 Romsey Terrace, South Hackney
The birth of an Emma Tapson was registered in 1868, Q3 (Woolwich R.D.); although, to establish with certainty whether she was another child of Nicholas and Emma, her birth certificate would be needed, her name suggests that she probably was, especially since it is known that Nicholas and Emma were living in Woolwich by 1887, when Nicholas was listed in Kelly’s Post Office Directory for Kent:
Tapson N. Herbert road, Woolwich
Emma’s death was registered in 1876, Q3 (Woolwich R.D.); her age was given as 7.
Both Nicholas and his wife were included in Kelly’s 1888 Post Office Directoiy for
London, Southern Suburbs:
Tapson Nicholas, tailor, 143 Herbert road, Woolwich
Tapson Emma (Mrs), dressma, 143 Herbert road, Woolwich
and they were shown at the same address in the 1891 census for Plumstead (PRO RG12/536 Fo. 88):
143 Herbert Rd
Nicholas Tapson Head Mar 50 Tailor Devon, Stowford
Emma Tapson Wife Mar 53 Dressmaker Middlesex, Hanks (?)
Nicholas’s age given here establishes that he was the eldest son of John and Elizabeth, bom very nearly 50 years earlier.
Nicholas was actually bom at Marystow; his mistake in the census about his place of birth was no doubt due to the fact that his parents moved to Broadwoodwidger when he was still a small child, but had settled in Stowford by the time he was 9 years old.
Nicholas’s name does not appear in Kelly’s 1894 Post Office Directory for London,
Southern Suburbs, though his wife is still listed:
Tapson Emma (Mrs), dresma, 204 Herbert rd, Woolwich
Nicholas’s death was registered in 1913, Q4 (Woolwich R.D.), when his age was correctly given as 72.
The Emma Tapson, Aged 82 whose death was registered in 1918, Q2 (Wandsworth R.D.), was probably his widow, though her age, to be consistent with that given in the 1891 census, should have been recorded as 80 or 81.