RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => Bedfordshire => England => Bedfordshire Lookup Requests => Topic started by: wdurham on Friday 16 July 10 14:27 BST (UK)
-
Another Armstrong stray!
The Cople Armstrongs arrived in 1766, in the person of cordwainer's apprentice (thanks, JohnP!) William Armstrong b 1754 in Wilstead. He married Mary Robins in 1799 and they had 6 children in Cople. Mary died in 1801. He then had a liaison (and got as far as calling the banns in 1802!) with Mary Tatman, which produced a son Henry in 1803, who was baptised as an adult in Cople in 1826, according to the IGI extraction, under the name of "Henry Tatman or Armstrong".
I've now been contacted by the descendants of a Hannah Armstrong, b 1806 in Cople according to census returns, who believe Hannah to be the sister of Henry. I've managed to locate her and her husband John Bassett in the census returns, and have identified the baptisms of their Beds-born children on the IGI in Cardington: George in 1828, Thomas in 1830 and Benjamin in 1832. (Member entries, sadly, rather than extractions, but full dates are given, so plausible....) There should also have been a Mary in about 1835, but she seems to be missing, not baptised or of no interest to the church member doing the lookups! In the census returns, the birthplace of John and the above Beds-born children is given as Fenlake, less than spitting distance from Cardington.
I cannot find a baptism for Hannah in Cople on the IGI under Armstrong or Tatman. I even checked all the Hannahs in the IGI batches for Cople, on the assumption that William may have taken up with another lady....no luck. Nor can I find a marriage for any Hannah Armstrong (or Tatman) with any John Bassett anywhere - much less in Bedfordshire - on the IGI. I've tried other sources available on Ancestry and The Genealogist as well without luck.
But though I can find no evidence, this looks like another of those circumstantial Armstrong things... There were only two Armstrongs baptising children during the late 1700s-early 1800s in Cople - William Armstrong and his two Marys, and - a little later - Henry Tatman/Armstrong. If Hannah WAS born in Cople, there is only one father she could have belonged to, and her birth date suggests she's either a full sister to Henry Tatman/Armstrong or perhaps a half-sister if old William had found another ladyfriend!
There's a naming pattern, too - Henry Tatman/Armstrong and his putative sister Hannah both named sons George and Benjamin, and Henry named his eldest daughter Hannah. These do not seem to have been family names from earlier Armstrong generations. George is a common enough name, but Benjamin only crops up again once in our huge Armstrong tree, in Thurleigh many years later. Hannah only crops up in this branch once more too, again in Thurleigh and again, many years later, daughter of Charles Armstrong and Sophia Partridge.
Can anyone help, or give me any clues on where to look next? I have more or less run out of ideas....
Wendy
-
.... the birthplace of John and the above Beds-born children is given as Fenlake, less than spitting distance from Cardington.
Fenlake was a hamlet of Cardington
.... He married Mary Robins in 1799 and they had 6 children in Cople. Mary died in 1801
That's going it! Six children in two years??
If Henry wasn't baptised until he did it himself at the age of 23, then there's every chance that Hannah, if they were full or half siblings, wasn't baptised as an infant either. Where did she marry Mr Bassett? Cardington? In which case I'd be checking Cardington parish register
David
-
Doh!
I meant 1779, David!
I don't know when or where Hannah married John Bassett. Given the family history one can't even be sure that she did. Bedfordshire Armstrongs were dab hands at extra-marital jiggery-pokery, whether they were the posh lot or the church mice.
I have asked my correspondent for more information but nothing heard as yet. As he doesn't have info on the marriage, I am assuming he got her maiden name from the birth cert of one of the post-1837 children.
Looks like Cardington is the best bet.
Thanks for the input!
-
hi wdurham,
I have checked Cardington Parish register which is up to 1812 and no baptism for Hannah under name of Armstrong or Tatman, also checked Cople Willington and Great Barford as all same area and nothing there either, all end in 1812, have also checked Cotton End Congregation and Baptist from 1806-37 as people from Eastcotts are in this register but nothing, so maybe an adult baptism after all? Looks like a records office job !!!
Hope this helps
Bunnygirl
-
Many thanks, Bunnygirl -
I suspect Hannah simply wasn't baptised at all, like Henry - but it's good to have confirmation that she certainly wasn't baptised at birth! Or not in Cople and surrounding area anyway. And as the Cople records from 1813 to 1865 are on the IGI, she doesn't seem to have been baptised there as an adult, either.
The only Armstrong baptisms in Cople are children of William and his wife Mary Robins, Henry in 1826 as an adult, children of Henry and his wife Maria Cambers, and John Nottingham Armstrong, the illegitimate son of Henry's daughter Hannah.
The only readily available record of Hannah's birthplace and year is in the 1851 census, where it is written as "Copal". In 1861 she only admits to Bedford, and is living with son George whilst her husband John Bassett is a boarder in Kent! I've lost them after that as the family moved around so much - children born in Fenlake/Cardington, Birmingham, Liverpool, Buckinghamshire etc etc! Then in 1851 (and Hannah in 1861) they are in Portland, Dorset.
Interestingly, and possibly unconnected, there is also a Cople burial in the NBI of a Samuel Armstrong, infant, on 18 Jan 1814. There's no baptism for him on the IGI, either. It looks possible that there were several unbaptised children born to William and his ladyfriend? In 1814, old William would have been 60, but if Mary Tatman were even 10 years younger, an 1814 child is quite possible, as well as several in between!
-
It doesn't look to me as though Mary Tatman ever (re)married, as there's a burial in Cardington on 26 Nov 1828 of Mary Tatman age 57. Could she have been the wife/widow of Thomas Tatman? They baptised a daughter Mary in Cople in 1796, and this Mary married Joseph Hartop in Cople in 1817.
I now see that the marriage to William Armstrong couldn't take place because "Mary Tatman has a husband living at Gt Staughton Hunts"! Perhaps he was the Thomas Tatman age 59 buried at Lt Staughton on 13 Aug 1825.
But though William and Mary couldn't marry because she was already married, it wouldn't have stopped them having further children together.
If Mary really was 57 at burial, giving a birth of c1771, she could still have been the mother of Samuel buried 1814, when she would have been 43.
David
-
Hmmm. Thanks, David!
I had found that burial of Mary Tatman some time ago, but disregarded it because it was in Cardington. That was before I fully realised how close Cople and Cardington were to each other! And of course, at that time I wasn't looking for further children between her and William Armstrong and trying to work out how old she was - LOL!
William died in February of 1828. Did Mary move to Cardington after his death? If she was William's common-law wife, it's quite possible she got turfed out of the family home in Cople on his death...William had two sons who had both made their homes elsewhere by then, but perhaps wanted their "inheritance"? If the property was rented or a tied cottage, it would have been even more likely that she would have been evicted.
Hannah had married John Bassett, a Cardington/Fenlake man, prior to 1828 - their eldest son George was baptised on 10 August 1828 in Cardington. Perhaps Mary went to live with her daughter after the death of William? If she is the right Mary, there is every possibility that she was the mother of Henry, Hannah and poor little Samuel.
However, the point at issue is who did Hannah belong to? She stated on a child's birth certificate after 1837 that her maiden name was Armstrong. She was born around 1806, probably in Cople, according to the census returns, but definitely in Beds. If that is correct, she can only have belonged to William - there is no other putative Armstrong father in Cople. There were no other Hannahs of any other surname baptised in Cople around 1806. In which case her mother was probably Mary Tatman - and she did name her first daughter Mary (though it's a common name!). She named two sons George and Benjamin, as did her putative brother Henry. And Henry named his first daughter Hannah. Then a Mary Tatman died in Cardington whilst Hannah was living there with husband John Bassett.
Circumstantial evidence is very heavy. A Cardington marriage around 1826-1828 between a Hannah Armstrong/Tatman and a John Bassett would just round it all off neatly!
I will advise my distant "cousin" accordingly - a visit to the records office is a must.
Thanks for everyone's help on his behalf!
-
I agree Wendy, that all of the Armstrongs/Tatmen were probably children of William Armstrong and Mary Tatman. Interesting that there's a Thomas Tatman aged 24 buried on 19 March 1813 at Cardington, whose baptism I can't find. Thomas and Mary were possibly the marriage at Northill on 6 Jan 1792 Thomas Tatman of Blunham and Mary Crawley by licence.
Mary Tatman the younger also lived in Cardington, where Joseph Hartop, her husband, was born. It's equally possible Mary senior went to live with this daughter after William died.
David
-
Hello Wendy
Just been to Beds Archives & I'm going to type in my many various findings & I'll leave it to you (& David) to sort it all out....
The 6 DEC 1826 baptism at Cople states he is the illegitimate son of William Armstong, labourer & Mary Tatman, lacemaker. I could not find a late baptism for Hannah (Tatman or Armstrong) at both Cople or Cardington up to her marriage in 1827.
Cardington parish records has the banns on 18/11/1827, 25/11/1827 & 2/12/1827 for John Bassett, bach & Hannah Armstrong, spinster, both of this parish
It also has their marriage on 25 DEC 1827 - witnesses Joseph HARTOP & Joseph White (who is on lots of other marriage entries)
From the Cople marriage on 19 JAN 1817 of Joseph Hartop, bach of Cardington to Mary Tatman spinster of Cople, we have witnesses John Armstrong & Sarah Cox
Could this John be William & Mary's son christened 24 APR 1796 ?
Baptisms at Cardington, children of Thomas & Ann Bassett, labourer of Fenlake
1 OCT 1826 Eliza Christina age 19&half years
8 OCT 1826 Samuel age 8 years
8 OCT 1826 Joseph age 5 years
8 OCT 1826 John age 18 years
Baptisms at Cardington of children of John & Hannah Basset, labourer
10 AUG 1828 George - abode Cardington
17 JAN 1830 Thomas - abode Fenlake
25 MAR 1832 Benjamin - abode Fenlake
No baptism found for Mary - but there is a Cardington burial of an unbaptized child of John & Hannah Bassett of Fenlake on 8 MAR 1832 - no age given
Also a Cardington burial of Thomas Basset of Fenlake on 134 Jan 1832 age 2 years
Thomas Basset of Fenlake buried at Cardington on 11 SEP 1828 age 55
Mary Tatman of Fenlake buried Cardington on 26 AUG 1828 age 57
Thomas Tatman of Cardington age 24 buried there on 19 MAR 1813
For the Northill marriage, from marriage licence Thomas Tatman, labourer of Moggerhanger to Mary Crawley of Northill, age 21&over; surety given by Willian Linnell, farmer of Northill
Think that's all of it..
cheers John
-
JohnP -
You are a bl@@dy marvel. I knew that already, of course, and have had many causes to thank you in the past, but this is above and beyond the call of duty as it were!
Thank you SO MUCH.
Some untangling required, but I am sure my "distant cousin" will be utterly delighted.
-
John -
Have now had a chance to look in detail at the info you dug up, bits David found, and stuff I dug out myself and it seems to pan out like this:
Thomas Tatman, bap 27 Jul 1766, Blunham
Mary Crawley, bap 1 Jul 1770, Cople
Married: 6 Jan 1792, Northill - by licence
Children:
Mary Tatman, born 11 Feb 1792 (!), bap 15 May 1796, Cople
also possible: Thomas Tatman (or Crawley?), b about 1789, no baptism found, buried Cardington 19 Mar 1813 aged 24.
The marriage broke down - not surprisingly, as it seems to have been a shotgun wedding the the first place! They only just made it to the altar before Mary Jnr was born. By 1802, Mary Tatman is in Cople attempting to marry William Armstrong, a widower with existing family. Notably two sons, John and George. Her husband is living in Gt. Staughton.
A Thomas Tatman was buried in Lt Staughton on 13 Aug 1825, aged 59. (A perfect fit with the above baptism in Blunham).
Mary Tatman and William Armstrong had an illegitimate son, Henry, b 1803, who was baptised as an adult on 6 Dec 1826 in Cople.
They almost certainly also had an illegitimate daughter who was not baptised at all. Hannah, b 1806 in Cople, according to later census returns. There may have been a son as well, Samuel, born and buried in 1814, and others who have not yet surfaced.
Mary Tatman Jnr, daughter of Mary Snr and Thomas Tatman, married Joseph Hartop in Cople on 19 Jan 1817. One of her witnesses was her half-brother John Armstrong.
Henry Tatman Armstrong married Maria Cambers in Cople in 1826.
Hannah Armstrong married John Bassett in Cardington on 25 Dec 1827. One of her witnesses was Joseph Hartop, her half-brother-in-law. Joseph would have been her only male relative in the immediate area - her half-brothers John and George Armstrong had both moved away by then to Blunham and Eaton Socon.
William Armstrong was buried in Cople on 11 Feb 1828.
Mary Tatman moved to Cardington, to live with one or the other of her daughters. She died and was buried 26 Nov 1828 aged 57, a perfect fit with the above baptism for Mary Crawley in Cople.
Now, of course, it MIGHT not have been like that...but it all looks to be beyond any reasonable doubt...
Thanks very much, John and David, for helping me piece it together.
NB All IGI info is extractions - member entries (some highly spurious!) have been ignored.
-
Hi Wendy
Have you seen http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/BEDFORD/2010-08/1281877367
David
-
Thanks, David - I hadn't seen that.
The originator of that thread is one of the Hannah Armstrong descendants I am in touch with - on whose behalf you and John were so helpful!
-
Thought she might have been!
-
I am another very grateful Hannah Armstrong descendant. I wanted to put a couple of questions to the contributors to this thread about a possible maternal line from Hannah, given some of the Bedfordshire names that are cropping up.
There are detailed family aggregates on the IGI which give the mother of Mary as Margaret Merrill (born about 1745). Her marriage, but not her birth-point, are verified in the Cople parish record. I wonder if those with Merrill/ Crawley family connections have spotted any other records referring to Margaret.
For starters I see there is an IGI aggregate of a large Merrill family in nearby Kempston, father William, mother Sarah Cooper, but no Margaret. The situation has a resonance with Hannah in that Sarah Cooper dies in 1748 and William remarries to have at least one more child according to the parish record.
Many thanks,
Richard
-
Hi Richard
Welcome to Rootschat
My mother is a Beds Merrill, originally from Potton in the late 1600s (her ancestors, not her!). A few years ago when trying to find out where they were from I tried to pull together all the Merrills from mid/north Beds. A dismal failure. I don't think I managed to link any of the families from around that area. The odd non-conformist didn't help either
The Cople Merrills seem to have died out 100 years before the marriage, so I don't think Margaret was from there. The marriage entry, 14 Sept 1766, gives Thomas Crawley as of Willington, but Margaret was otp. She was buried at Cople on 25 Feb 1825 age 85, and Thomas Crawley age 88 on 25 Aug 1826. Burial ages can be unreliable, particularly the older they got.
With no baptism in Beds of a Margaret, and given the number of Merrills around, it will be a difficult task to prove that she was from Kempston, or from any other parish for that matter.
Thomas Tatman of Blunham married Mary Crawley by licence at Northill on 6 Jan 1792. Have you found any other evidence that Mary was the one from Cople, other than their daughter Mary was baptised there in 1796 (born 11 Feb 1792)?
David
-
There are lots of Merrills in the IGI christening batch for Cople, up to and including 1667 - then nothing.
Same with the Marriages batch - the last marriage is in 1663.
So they clearly went somewhere!
In the Kempston christening batch there is just one family in the mid-1700s - the William Merrill you mention, married to a Sarah in 1745 when Thomas was christened, and to an Anne by 1750 when Robert was christened, plus five other earlier children. Only the father's name is recorded at the christening of these five. There are no recorded marriages in the relevant marriage batch.
New Familysearch turns up a family in Potton and another in Little Staughton, but no sign of a Margaret anywhere.
I've also checked the various christening and marriage records available on Ancestry, The Genealogist and Find My Past without any luck.
So thus far, no luck with Margaret - sorry!
PS I was going to ask you about the marriage record of Thomas and Margaret, but see David has already confirmed it!
-
There's a Thomas Crawley, son of William and Sarah, baptised at Cople on 4 Oct 1741, which would make his burial age of 88 in 1826 reasonably accurate. If Margaret's age was similarly accurate, it would give a birth of c1740
The Kempston marriage of William Merrill, miller, and Sarah Cooper spinster was much earlier than 1745, on 15 July 1722. Sarah was buried on 17 June 1748. William and Sarah baptised their children pretty promptly, although there's a big gap between 1738 and 1745. Unfortunately William doesn't seem to have left a will. It's pure speculation to link Margaret to this family
David
-
Just a couple of thoughts on the Kempston family, David -
There is indeed a big gap in their baptisms between 1738 and 1745. I wonder if they lived elsewhere for a brief period of years, before returning to Kempston? There's still no Margaret Merrill born about the right time on the whole IGI, though.
And
Is there a possibility that Margaret was not actually a Merrill by birth, but was the daughter of William's second wife Ann from a first marriage? If she was born about 1740-1745, she would still have been quite young when her mother married William, and might simply have taken the new family name.
The IGI has a marriage for William Merrill and Ann Walker on 06 June 1749 in Kempston.
There is also a marriage for John Walker and Ann Wingrave on 11 Jun 1735 in Kempston.
Probable children: John 1736, Mary 1738, Lucy 1739, William 1741, all children of John Walker, with no mother's name given.
I've lost my access to the NBI, but there are three John Walkers buried in Bedfordshire in the right timeframe between 1747 and 1749. I know its a common name, but one of them might fit the bill.
However - still no Margaret. :(
-
David, You are right to point out that I should be firming up the evidence that Mary Crawley, married in Northill, is Mary Tatman of Cople.
Aside from the various findings which have been pointed out in this thread I don't think there is anything further. The close coincidence of birth dates, the baptism link to Cople, and the non-marriage of Mary to William Armstrong, due the existence of a Hunts. man, probably Thomas Tatman, who died in Lt Staughton.
Your comment about the sheer number of Merrills in Bedfordshire is telling. This is also true of the Crawley surname; there are almost 700 entries in IGI for a Thomas Crawley in Bedfordshire! Tatman is relatively rare lending a little support to Mary's identification.
The link to the family of William Merrill is a speculation, supported only by proximity. I now appreciate the difficulties with this sort of approach. Some problems just seem to be easier if you have a way of guessing the answer (in fact this is the essence of the mathematical dilemma NP != P).
-
I had a look at the possibility that Mary Tatman (nee Crawley) was just a chance match to our Mary, but looking at the Tatman marriages on the IGI records, there are very few fits for that time period.
The other big coincidence I missed is the birth point for Thomas Tatman, bap 27 Jul 1766, Blunham, and the burial of Thomas Tatman in Lt Staughton on 13 Aug 1825, aged 59. Where did you find that last piece of info Wendy?
Given that this is an untypical situation (probably not that unusual), what is the definitive data that would be required to settle the origins of Mary Tatman?
-
Hi, Richard -
I didn't find Thomas's burial, as I ended my sub to Find My Past and have lost access to the NBI. I shall have to buy the CDs!
But David DID find it - see his post on 19 July.
As for Mary Tatman's positive identity, I am not sure that there is ANY definitive data that would prove or disprove that she was Mary Crawley. In those days, marriage entries were pretty bald - how much information was included beyond the basic names and date was pretty much up to the cleric making the entry. You might get lucky and have a witness with the appropriate family name which would add weight, or in some cases even find a comment in the margin about some unusual aspect of the marriage.
You usually have to work on balance of probability. I believe that Mary Tatman was *probably* Mary Crawley - because:
1. There are no other fits from the data available. Though this can be deeply misleading, as data can be missing altogether, unavailable, missed out of transcriptions, or wrong in Bishops Transcripts etc etc ad nauseam. However, we do know that Bedfordshire is reasonably well covered.
2. The places in which Mary and Thomas lived, worked and married are all in pretty close proximity to each other.
3. The marriage was by licence, implying haste, at a time when most people of this status simply waited the required three weeks to be married by banns. Either that, or Mary wasn't going to be resident in Northhill for long enough for banns to be called, though she is described as "of Northill".
4. Mary Tatman Jnr was born in Cople within five weeks of the marriage. There's a possible implication here that Mary was sent away from her home village to have her child out of sight of the gossips, but having married the father, she was allowed to come home. I did explore the possibility that she was sent to a relative in Northill, but this seems unlikely. I can't find any relationship between her and the William Linnell of Northill who stood for the marriage bond. (Pity his name wasn't Tom, Dick or Harry Crawley!) Another theory might be that she left Cople briefly to be married out of sight of the village gossips, so as not to draw still more scandalised attention to her burgeoning belly at the altar! Or perhaps she had to run away briefly to marry Thomas, as her parents were opposed, even given her pregnancy? Or perhaps the vicar in Cople just wouldn't marry her because she was a naughty girl? Remember there is a slim possibility that she had already had one illegitimate child with Thomas Tatman - the young man who died in Cardington in 1814.
Any way up, I think there's a strong probability that the Mary who married Thomas Tatman in Northhill in 1792 was Mary Crawley baptised in Cople 1770.
As for proof, I would say that it is highly unlikely to be forthcoming. :(
-
I agree with Wendy. I was playing devil's advocate when I asked if there was any evidence that Mary Crawley was the one from Cople. I think she probably was, given all the circumstantial evidence, but we know from the Armstrong thread of a couple of years ago that it can be disastrous to make assumptions based on the two out of three ain't bad scenario - the name and date are right and even though the place is wrong it must be the right person. In that situation all other possibilities need to be eliminated - was the person buried or is there another possible marriage, both of which need to be checked out (I'd done this and couldn't see any other Mary Crawley) - before you can safely assume that you have the right person
David
-
I remember that one well, David! The elusive William Armstrong of Ravensden/Upper Gravenhurst...
Our body of circumstantial evidence for the real identity of William, though, even without a baptism, was more-or-less proven to be correct as there is a spot-on DNA match between male descendants of the Thurleigh Armstrong family founded by William and the Cople branch. And we are 99% confident from the paper trail that the Cople and Ravensden Armstrongs had the same origin.
I still haven't given up on my theory that the Upper Gravenhurst family are also part of the mix. I am convinced that Thomas Snr, who lived until the 1841 census, was an unbaptised brother of William and John of Wilstead who moved as boys to Maulden with their parents, and thence- once orphaned - to Cople and Ravensden. There's a Samuel, too, who "arrived" and started baptising children at about the same time in Elstow. Both Samuel and Thomas named their first daughters Edith. Coincidence? Possibly, maybe even probably, but still....
I have been pondering whether DNA testing of modern male descendants could help Richard with identifying Mary Crawley as Mary Tatman, but I don't think so, as the commonly used route is via the direct male line, and Mary was female.
We'll just have to stick with the balance of probability!
-
I am very interested in the work on the Armstrong DNA (and pleased to be a part of it!). I like how the ancient origins of the Armstrongs as evidenced in the Y-DNA tell us something about the origins of the people of Bedfordshire. There is a Y-DNA posted for the Armstrongs of Riseley. I wondered if this was the same Y-line.
There is an mtDNA branch to the Armstrong project (I haven't checked for the Crawleys). If there happened to be a maternal line descendant from a sister of Mary Crawley then we could have that supporting evidence.
Descendants of Mary Cople, the younger, also a possibility.
-
Hi Richhoo - I take it you're aware of the work of Bob Armstrong ...
http://www.rootschat.com/links/09o4/
cheers John
-
That's a great article. So tell us, Bob, why did they?!
-
The Armstrongs' arrival in Riseley is still a subject of much concjecture, Richard. Y-DNA shows I share a common ancestor at some point, probably in the 15th to 17th centuries, with two descendants of Sir Thomas Armstrong of Rye House Plot fame. (Sir Thomas was hung,drawn & quartered on the orders of Judge Jefferies, then posthumously pardoned!). Sir Thomas was a friend of Lord Russell, a son of the Earl of Bedford, who was also executed. It may be that my Armstrong ancestor came south from Cumbria with Sir Thomas' entourage. The Rye House Plot was centred on Hoddesdon, Herts. I'm awaiting further DNA evidence which should help narrow down a little more precisely when we interlink.
I have lots of links to Scots-Irish Armstrongs, & know of many who went from the Borders to Ulster, & then headed south to Co Offaly etc. Some then crossed to Bedfordshire.
Another thought was that we arrived in Beds due to the Earl of Bedford. In the 1560s, Elizabeth I sent the Earl to the Borders as a Warden of the Marches. He came into contact with Armstrongs when there. The first Armstrong christened in Beds was in 1586 at Woburn - seat of the now Dukes.
It may also be that an ancestor was a Covenanter prisoner, & worked on the Fens. An Earl of Bedford was partly responsible for organising/funding Fenland drainage etc.
There are a few other less likely possibilities, but I won't bore you to tears!
Re DNA: As you know, Y-DNA is solely father-to-father, so ideal for standard same-surname genealogy. mtDNA is mother-to-mother, so a less focused approach involving numerous surnames!
I'm also trying to prove our pre-surname origins. The most likely options are Brythonic Celt, Anglo-Danish or Norman. I've seen documents mentioning Armstrongs working alongside Normans in Cumbria in the 1230s.
Cheers,
Bob
-
Hello,
Thank you to all for the information you have published here, I will need to go through it all properly in order to put it with my ancestoral tree I am doing.
I am the decendant of Benjamin Bassett, whom going through this information is Hannah Armstrongs son. Who immigrated to Kyneton, Victoria, Australia in the 1850's and did very well for himself and his LARGE family. One of the first pioneers and gold miners of the area and very prominent in the Kyneton area during his time.
Again thank you for information.
Vanessa.
-
Hello, Vanessa -
Glad it has helped you - it was two of your Antipodean "cousins" (one a descendant of Mary and the other of Benjamin) who contacted me initially through Genes Reunited and set me off on the track of Hannah. It's been fun, because we didn't even know she existed!
And as always, when the ever-helpful David and JohnP join in, we usually get a result of some kind, even if it's only to decide - as in this case - that a theory can't be absolutely proven, but is probably correct...
-
Well I am glad that they did contact you and also the wonderful help of David and JohnP.
Up until 6 months ago, I knew nothing of the Bassetts, now I have been able to find so much and a great trip south to Kyneton to see where it all began from Australia with them.
Thank you.
-
In the intervening years, Y-DNA shows the Armstrongs of Bedfordshire are part of the Armstrong mainstream descent cluster. The DNA suggests ancient Scottish roots via the Beaker Folk who entered north-east Scotland.