Cross-overs between two lines?

I am used to getting messages via Ancestry so was not at all surprised to be asked what relationship Joseph Spiers married to an Esther was to me, but foolishly no dates were provided. That would not ordinarily be a problem for me even with some five Joseph Spiers' in my Tree, but none were shown married to an Esther. So I asked for more detail.

The response was surprising in that I was told that they had viewed my Public Tree in Ancestry and there was a Joseph & Esther and this time a date was provided 1768. EXCEPT they did not exist in my main Spiers-Adams Tree. Then a thought struck - I have 4 Trees, two alive and active and 2 now more or less redundant. The second active Tree was my wife's Willmott-Ainge line so I went into that and there they were; Joseph Spiers 1768 married to an Esther Ainge 1766 - Ainge being my wife's maternal line.

A second though struck and so I checked in my TribalPages data base where I store all my notes and details and sure enough recalled the excitement at finding a potential cross-over between our two, quite separate lines, and then the later disillusionment that followed at being unable to tie in my own line with the Spiers line that married into my wife's line.

For a start the Ainge/Spiers were from Clifford Chambers Gloucestershire whilst my own were Worcestershire and Warwickshire. But then I noticed how close the Gloucestershire parish of Clifford Chambers was to the Warwickshire border. Indeed Clifford Chambers was a parish within Stratford on Avon which was in Warwickshire. Whilst far fewer of my own Spiers/Adams were from Wawickshire -in the main from Worcestershire - and those that were, were from Leamington and a stones throw from one another. Perhaps a little more distant than now with horse and carts.

There is little more to add to this story at this time because by now I have two fellow researchers working in tandem to see if there is a cross-over. (The person who made contact put me in touch with another). I still cannot say there will be a cross-over as nice as that might be, but it will not be for the want of trying.

I wonder if similar has happened to others, give or take of course that had it been a Smith or Jones and the like, I dare say it would be commonplace. But more to the point has a cross-over been confirmed. That is the question.

 

I have heard from other researchers who have discovered they are distantly related to their spouse but the closest I have got to this kind of "cross-over" is discovering the possibility that my parents, although not related to each other (as I far as I know), may have relatives in common in Australia. There are trees at Ancestry which show this as a given, but on close inspection I discovered a flawed link on my father's side. Nevertheless there is a reasonable chance of a genuine link to my father's ancestors a few generations further back, but this is as yet unproven.

I have Ainges in my ancestry, but I guess it's not so uncommon a surname.

 

There is a possible link between my husband's family and mine. My husband's g.g.grandmother was Harriet VANT nee GOODSALL, born 1833 Tenterden, Kent. My maternal g.g.grandmother was Ellen MOORE nee STOAKES, born 1844 Stanford, Kent. Harriet had a niece, Ellen E GOODSALL, born 1869, Tenterden. There is record of a marriage of Archibald STOAKES to Ellen Emma GOODSELL(sic) on 30 August 1892, parish of Woodchurch, district of Tenterden. I am trying to identify Archibald (several on FreeBDM) to see if he is "mine". I felt sure that I had an Archibald connected to g.g.grandmother Ellen but can't locate my notes .
As a matter of interest, the VANT family emigrated to Australia in 1854 and had a large family. None of the sons had offspring so the name has died out. Harriet and her husband William VANT are buried in Tamworth, NSW, cemetery and it was an amazing experience to discover their grave.

 

If they hailed from the East midlands, say Leicestershire or Northamptonshire with a little Warwickshire thrown in could be the same strain as those areas cover the majority of my wife's Ainge ancestry. Mind having said that look at the problem I have in connecting 'Spiers' from roughly the same 25 mile radius of the country.

 

Thing is, I'm not sure where my Ainges hailed from. One of my 2xgt grandmothers was an Emma Ainge, born 1827 in Holborn. Her father, William Ainge, is one of those annoying ancestors who apparently wasn't born and didn't die, though I do have his marriage in 1821 at St Martin in the Fields. William vanished some time between August 1840 and the 1841 census so I have no idea when or where he might have been born.

I do have a bastardy order from Stratford-upon-Avon, dated 1817, against a William Ainge who could just possibly be mine. If so, he is given first as being of Alcester, then a few months later, of Redditch, apparently having defaulted on maintenance payments - leaving open the possibility that he absconded to London and started a new life there.

So a little Warwickshire may be involved, but no Leicestershire or Northamptonshire that I know of.

 

That's an interesting thought - maybe my William Ainge will turn up in Tasmania. In his case he seems not to have left his wife and children destitute enough for the workhouse, but I have been further hampered in my investigations by being unable to find the wife and most of the children - including the ones who were by then adult - in the 1851 census. In 1861 the wife described herself as a widow, and whilst that may not necessarily mean William was dead, it does suggest she wasn't expecting him back.

 

Yes, Pauline, it would be well worthwhile checking out the convict records to Australia. My husband's g.g.grandfather was transported leaving a wife and child and she described herself as a widow. (When he married a fellow convict a few years later he described himself as a bachelor!)

 

When I first discovered my great (x2) grand uncle George Frederick Westbury (1821) from Birmingham had been sentenced to transportation in 1844 for stealing with others some tortoise shell combs, I was quite taken back to realise we had a Felon in the family. Over time and in communication with many other researchers who had similar transgressors in their Tree, I realised just how commonplace it was to have at least one ancestor sentenced (often for the most trivial of crimes) to transportation to the Colonies.

I read about his trial in the Birmingham Journal of 1844 and his sentencing of 10 years transportation. He landed in Port Phillip, NSW in November 1844 and from there was further shipped to serve out his sentence in (what was then) Van Diemen's land (later Tasmania). After completing his sentence he settled in Victoria, had more than one wife (some I believe bigamously) and all told was the father of 8 children. He became a Fishmonger in the coastal resort (and at that time a Port) in Warrnambool. Later also a prominent landowner. He lived to the age of 77 and is buried in Cobden Cemetery in Victoria.

In 2000 my wife and I visited my sister in Victoria and we went on an excursion along the Great Ocean road and stayed overnight in Warrnambool (now with city status) which is at the western end of the road. In 2004 we toured Tasmania and out of interest visited Port Arthur Convict Prison, Tasmania although I do not believe George served any time there as I understand he served his sentence carrying out assigned labour.

I have a deal of information about George but have kept the information fairly general for this posting. One thing for sure is at the end of the day and despite the ignominy of being sentenced to transportation to the colonies, he ended up doing quite well for himself. He became Patriarch of a large Australian branch of the family but, as it often the way, none of this was known until uncovered by my research, and which is still on-going; albeit on the back burner.

 

Yes Bob, that was certainly the case with my husband's g.g.grandfather.

The current family members were amazed with my research and I gather that previous generations had gone to a great deal of trouble to cover up their "stain". It made for some amazing anecdotal stories, though.

 

As a matter of fact no Alexander not at the time I actually researched my gt x 2 grand uncle. However now might be a good time to pick up where I left off. I am sure I am perfectly capable of Googling for the prison camp records but if you can provide a link that would be much appreciated. Thanks.

 

Thank you very much Alexander for the Tasmanian Government website. My great aunt married the son of a convict and although I was sent all the vital family info about him years ago by a contact in Oz, I had never seen the original documents before. Mind you, I hadn't looked for them either because he always seemed rather remote (in more ways than one), being the first of g.aunt's three husbands.
For background to the lives of convicts - everyone, not just Alexander! - try The Fatal Shore by Robert Hughes (if you haven't already). What an eye-opener.

 

Very useful indeed as was Googling for the ship Maitland in 1844 even though I found totally conflicting evidence of dates of arrival and indeed year of arrival (Nov 1844/Oct 1846 )causing me to believe the same ship but different sailings and then there was the matter of Port of Arrival (see next).

Port Philip, NSW and Port Philip, Victoria I thought were different places until I found this note:

Arrivals to Port Phillip were included with New South Wales arrivals for many years because Victoria only separated from New South Wales in 1853 when it attained self-government.

That little matter had bugged me in my original searches and would have continued had I not found that little snippet of information. I now know to concentrate on Port Philip, NSW even though I know full well it is (now) a crucial part of Victoria and indeed Melbourne. I am not even sure my sister knows it was once associated with NSW. I must save that to drop into my conversation on Skype and await her reaction.

 

I read a fascinating story in the March edition of The Midland Ancestor Magazine (a Journal of the BMSGH -Birmingham and Midlands Society for Genealogy & Heraldry- of which I am a member) entitled Eliza Craythorne (a Child Convict). The author Patricia Simpson has given me permission to quote as I wish from the story, but I intend only to concentrate on the part after Eliza has been charged and is awaiting a trial. It is a sorry tale of how justice was administered in Victorian England.

Eliza was born in 1833 and aged 13 (c1846) was employed as a nurse girl in Birmingham. After a few months into her employment she was accused by her employers of stealing ‘one frock and other articles’ belonging to (the parents of) her 2 year old charge. She spent some months in prison awaiting trial and it was not until June 1847 (whilst aged 14) that she, along with 81 other prisoners were brought to trial at Birmingham Quarter Sessions. Because it had been 7 weeks since the last sessions the prisoner number was high and the Learned Recorder was behind in his Calendar. So after swearing in the Grand Jury he addressed them saying he did not think it prudent to detain them with any lengthy observations and asks them to retire to their rooms, and the bills (of indictment) would be sent to them. He told them it was not their duty to try the guilt or innocence of the prisoners, but to ascertain whether there was sufficient evidence against them to call for an answer to the charge. He further explained that after being tried in the Court every prisoner would have a full and complete opportunity of disproving the charges against them.

The trials were carried out continuously throughout the Saturday and the court adjourned until the Monday and carried over to the Tuesday. Charges ranged from stealing two tons of iron to a man accused of stealing a handkerchief, the property of a person unknown (unbelievable). By the end of Tuesday all cases had been heard and NO ONE was acquitted. ALL received either a prison sentence or transportation. The court sentenced Eliza to be transport to Van Diemen’s Land for a term of 7 years.

The judicial process can be said to occur in 3 stages. The first stage is awaiting trial and often in solitary confinement. If found guilty and sentenced to transportation the prisoner returns to gaol to await the order of the Secretary of State for them to be removed to a Port facility.

The second stage (in this case relating to Eliza) she is removed to Milbank prison where the authorities examine the records of all the prisoners and take account of previous records and behaviour whilst in detention. They have the power to overturn transportation and order the prisoner to serve out their sentence in England.

(But the authorities at the time were discouraged from interfering with transportation of young girls and women as- apart from the obvious, ridding themselves of criminals (and many of the women were so called ‘ladies of the night’ )- it was considered a good way of populating the colonies).

By virtue of her gender the authorities did not wish to intervene and Eliza’s sentence was upheld. In the interval whilst awaiting a prison ship she is put to work with others in Milbank turning the crank, picking oakum (picking apart old tarred ropes), making shoes and stitching mail bags. After about 6 months of this work Eliza was medically examined and passed fit for transportation. She is not yet 15 years old.

Stage three is embarkation and Eliza -one of 170 female prisoners – sails on the ‘Elizabeth & Henry’ (a converted navy warship) in February 1848. The vessel was at sea for 138 days stopping once to pick up provisions in South Africa and lands in Hobart, Van Diemen’s Lane in June 1848.

The story goes on to cover her time aboard ship and the awful conditions encountered – relieved it is said by virtue of the ship having a good ships Surgeon – but quite appalling nevertheless. The point I wanted to get across was the judicial process at the time which I sum up as ‘Heads you’re guilty or Tails you can’t be innocent’. Go to jail or await transportation. Period.

The author promises part two of Eliza’s story (to be published in the June edition of the Magazine) will about how she fares in Van Diemen’s land, how girls get chosen for marriage and about her married life in Australia. I can’t wait to read it.

 

That sounds like a book for my wife and as I see it is available for Kindle will suggest she downloads same to her Kindle Fire and then given the subject matter, I can also read it on my Kindle reader (the beauty of Kindle is they can be shared across devices).

 

Good on yer, Bob. You won't regret it I promise you. One warning - it's over 600 pages, but I found it unputdownable.