RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Winjoy on Tuesday 17 February 15 12:47 GMT (UK)
-
Hi, it’s been four years since I asked for help here and your help then was terrific, so if I may I would like to ask another question.
I have been researching a certain “William Charles Asgill” in the British newspaper archives and have discovered something pretty astonishing – this man was not born with that surname – he acquired it in order to swindle merchants, and others, out of large sums of money. His descendants of today have found this extremely hard to deal with, and it would help enormously if I could find out just exactly who William was. The family of today are completely in the dark as to who were the parents of this man, from whom they are now descended. The newspapers suggested he was from a “good family” who had “disowned him” because of his ill-gotten gains. Since William’s descendants believed themselves to be “Asgills” they have spent decades researching the “ancient Asgills” – one of whom turned out to be a one-time Lord Mayor of London. That particular Lord Mayor commissioned the golden coach which is still used today by the Lord Mayor for ceremonial occasions. Today’s “Asgills” were very proud of their ancestry – from which they have now been severed like a felled tree.
In 1823 William portrayed himself as a “nephew” of General Sir Charles Asgill, from whom he expected to inherit the baronetcy. I have found 6 newspaper articles, all saying that he changed his name to “Asgill”. He forged letters purporting to have been signed by the General, thus giving himself apparent credence. His fraudulent activities were carried out during the final 6-8 months of the General’s life. Even after the General had died one swindled merchant contacted the General’s Executors to ask if William was who he claimed to be – and the answer was an emphatic “no”.
Once having changed his name to “Asgill” William stuck with it for the rest of his life. It is doubtful this name change was done by virtue of a deed poll – rather he simply assumed it. His marriage, 3 months after the General died, was in that name. He also shows up on all the census returns through his life as William Asgill. However, no baptism record has ever been found for his birth circa 1800 in Ewell, Surrey, though – which is hardly surprising as no baby by that name was born there then. His mother has never been known – which is of course understandable now. The story William’s wife and children passed down to the present day descendants is that he was the disinherited heir to the General, being the General’s “second son” (this was how he was described in his death announcement in a Lancashire newspaper). That was quite clever since no “second son” would inherit the baronetcy, thus explaining why he was not Sir William Asgill! The transparency of these claims shows up now though, since it stated the General had lived in Regents Park – that was never an address connected with the General, so clearly the family member who entered the death notice was ill-informed of the truth.
It was reported that William had been to a public school – even suggesting he had attended Eton – following on from which he went to Oxford university. These two facts may be true of course – or equally part of the charade he was playing out. I once enquired of Eton whether a William Asgill had ever been a pupil – they replied in the negative of course. But even if William had been to Eton, his surname at that time would be the one he was born with!
The reality is that in 1832 William Asgill was in the Debtors’ Jail applying for release since his debts had apparently been paid off – by whom is not known. It is also not known why he was jailed – either for his crimes of 1823 - or similar, later on. Personally I think it more likely that he got away with his crimes in 1823 because had he been caught then I think it would have made it into the newspapers – all of which were very keen to know who he really was. Some reports speculate that the press knew, but couldn’t say. Others suggested he was known to the police.
William Charles Asgill died intestate and having only £19 to his name. He was buried in a pauper’s grave at a church in Liverpool.
Is there any way at all which will lead me to knowing William Charles’ real surname?
Thank you for reading this far!
P.S. I don't know if it is possible to attach a pdf file, but if someone could advise me on that I might be able to attach a transcription of one of the newspaper articles, should you be interested.
-
Fascinating story Winjoy, I do hope you get to the bottom of it :)
-
Thank you miriamkinga :)
-
Baronet Sir Charles Asgills 1823 Will can be viewed. Makes interesting reading. Most of the estate seems to go to a Sir Charles Ogle, but also provision for his two sisters and his nephews and nieces (children of the sisters).
Mention made of his late wife, Sophia, as he wants to be buried with her.
So, who is Charles Ogle?
Is he a relation from his wife side, as reference is made to something bequeathed from a late Sir Charles Ogle (so an earlier one) to his late wife.
Looks from the will (though I did only skim it so might have missed something) that there were no children.
Maybe William was either a) an illegitimate child who thought he would be acknowledged in the Will or b) thought he may be an illegit child , maybe his mother spun him that yarn, and hoped he would be acknowledged in the Will or c) was a nephew other than those named in the Will and felt hard done by that he was not included or d) something else!
I see by 1851 William is a teacher - seemingly settled in a respectable lifestyle.
-
The General's wife was Jemima Sophia Ogle :)
Brother? the peerage.com has a brother for Jemima - Admiral Sir Charles Ogle 1775 - 1858
-
The General's wife was Jemima Sophia Ogle :)
Thats what I wondered - thanks!!
And I see she died 1819
-
You've all got here before me (!), but I was about to say Thank you lizdb for going to the trouble of looking at the General’s will. It’s long!
Admiral Sir Charles Ogle was his best friend and also his brother-in-law (brother of his wife). He and his wife were buried at St. James’s, Piccadilly – they lived in York Street, just behind the church. The General left his portrait to Charles Ogle, his brother in law, who was also his chief Executor. His portrait was exhibited at The Royal Academy the year before he died – i.e in 1822 - and had been painted by Thomas Phillips. I have tried to find the whereabouts of it now, with no luck. I think it perished in a fire about 100 years ago.
There was an earlier Sir Charles Asgill – the General’s father (he was the Lord Mayor of London I mentioned earlier).
You will have noticed that there is no mention of a William Charles Asgill (or any other William Charles for that matter) in the General’s will.
-
The General's wife was Jemima Sophia Ogle :)
Thats what I wondered - thanks!!
And I see she died 1819
Is that The Jemima Sophia Asgill that died 5 June 1919 Piccadilly?
If so why was she Asgill and not Ogle?
-
Because she was married to Sir Charles Asgill, the baronet.
Ogle was her maiden name. They married in 1790
-
Sorry Liz
I got all confused - must be an age thing
-
"I see by 1851 William is a teacher - seemingly settled in a respectable lifestyle."
Yes, indeed, he set up his own school near Croydon. He had married an illiterate woman who was a Miller's daughter - from Sevenoaks. William, being well educated himself, taught her to read and write and she was, herself, a schoolteacher after his death.
It might be tempting to think that William was an illegitimate son - in fact that was the conclusion of the Asgill family for some time now - but this has now been proved false.
The newspaper articles make it absolutely clear that he was an impostor, out to make a fast buck out of the General.
-
I've found the baptism of one of his daughters (Julia) in Croydon in 1829. She's given the middle name of Ashby - that might be significant. It's a non-conformist baptism so gives a bit more detail. It says her mother Mary was the daughter of William and Mary Luetchford, so not her mother's maiden name.
-
Ancestry has baptism for a Mary Latchford on 1 Nov 1799 at Wesleyan, Sevenoaks, Kent , parents William and Mary. Only a transcription so can't check actual spelling of surname.
I see from 1851 that Mary Asgill was born in Sevenoaks
-
Purely going on what is intimated on the wiki entry, but Jemima seems to have not necessarily been entirely faithful to her husband, so perhaps William Charles could have been a product of a liaison? Not entirely sure how you are going to work out the correct answer to this problem, because in essence you don't have any concrete information - no correct birth date, place of birth or even name. Hmmm, a tricky one!
-
I cannot see how there would be any link between the 1832 case (imprisoned for debt) and the 1823 case (actual fraud, which would land you somewhere other than debtor's prison) - other than perhaps both suggest he had ongoing trouble living within his means.
http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/bankrupts-insolvent-1710-1869.htm
- there is some info from the NA here but unlikely to be helpful in tracing him back further as by 1832 he'd presumably shrugged off his previous identity entirely.
If you are in contact with a direct male-line relative of William Charles, this might be a case where genetic testing (y-dna) could point you in the direction of a surname (with which to search baptisms at Ewell). I would guess that he might have been "William" already, taking "Charles Asgill" from his supposed "uncle".
-
It might be tempting to think that William was an illegitimate son - in fact that was the conclusion of the Asgill family for some time now - but this has now been proved false.
Not sure how it can be proved!!
And we don't know what William's mother told him, or led him to believe, whether it was true or not.... But that is an aside.
When does William first appear anywhere as William Asgill? What is the earliest evidence of him pretending to have some association with Sir Charles Asgill?
How does this all fit in with him starting a school? If he had such a recent criminal record then I am surprised that he was able to set up a school - not that there would have been any CRB checks or equivalent then, but purely because I would doubt anyone would have sent their children along to it! Once his "I'm related to Sir Charles Asgill and he has no heir so give your money to me" stunt had fallen flat, he'd served his time, and he had to re-invent himself as a respectable teacher, one would have thought he would then have changed his name, so his school venture was not sullied by his past. Something doesn't add up there. Well to me anyway!
-
Just looking at Ewell christenings 1799-1802 for William anythings.
All seem to be to couples, none obviously illegit.
Bu then he might have been chr in a neighbouring parish, or not chr at all, or we might be on the wrong track anyway!!
-
LizzieL the possibility of "Ashby" is a good one and it will go to top position to check out. One of the Asgill descendants did a DNA test to compare it with another line down from an illegitimate child of the General. The Asgill member did not match with the other line down (but another person matched that line which, so to speak, confirmed it was correct). It is quite clear now why that is - William had no Asgill blood in his veins! Once this exercise is over and I have, I hope, more than one suggestion to make to the Asgill in question I will ask him to check if there are any "Ashby" names on his DNA matches.
Spidermonkey - I wrote the Wiki article on the General! You are quite right - his wife was not entirely faithful to the General. Nor was the General faithful to his wife! I think they loved each other deeply though, in spite of all this. The theory that William was perhaps the illegitimate child of Sophia Ogle (Asgill) and Lord Lynedoch (with whom she had what appears to be an affair for close to 30 years) has been thrashed around for a long time, but we now think that the reason Sophia and the General did not have any children was because she was barren.
There is little I don't know about this story after 13 years of working on it, but I can assure you all that finding the stories in the press relating to William as "The Swindler" has meant that an awful lot of things which had not hitherto made sense - have now dropped into place with a very loud thud! Much that was previously murky is now crystal clear!
I definitely need to find the surname with which William Charles was born!
Needle in haystack time I guess!
-
Needle in haystack time I guess!
Sorry but in all honesty I think it is probably even worse than that. A real non starter.
If he was no relation to the Asgills, but merely a clever swindler, then in all honesty he could have started life anywhere in the world under any name in the world!
-
For what it is worth, this account of Charles' career suggests he was mostly based in Ireland at around the time William would have been conceived & born:
www.geni.com/people/Charles-Asgill/6000000019252147438
-
Yes, the General did spend a lot of time in Ireland - and his wife was with him there too. However, since William is not their child, but the child of a couple totally unconnected with them, where they were in 1800 probably doesn't matter too much.
William first appeared as William Charles Asgill at his marriage to Mary Leuchford in October 1823. This was the same year as his time as "The Swindler" - during the final months of the General's life. Thereafter he is found in several ways, still retaining this false name.
William's "school" was a very small concern and in all probability was run from home by taking in residential students - in fairly small numbers.
At some point in his life William and his family decamped to Liverpool which was a long way from his birthplace of Ewell and his working life as a teacher in and around Croydon. We can only imagine that he was running away from the prospect of being caught out.
It would be really good to know if it is possible to establish whether he ever faced justice for his crimes of 1823 - and indeed the details of what caused him to go to the Debtor's Jain in and around 1832.
I agree that it is worse than looking for a needle in a haystack!
-
In 1841 he is living next door to the Police!
Living in Beddington, Surrey
In Everton in 1851
-
He's actually just William Asgill on marriage to Mary (9 Oct 1823, St George Hanover Square).
According to the Salisbury Journal article reprinted in the Bath Chronicle on 2 Oct 1823 the (unnamed) "nephew" did not pretend to have been born an Asgill when he emerged in January of that year, but claimed to be honouring his uncle by assuming his name.
He was writing from Aberystwyth when he first impersonated Sir Charles by approaching a clergyman "in this neighbourhood" (Salisbury?) seeking classical instruction for his "nephew" in January 1823. The Salisbury Journal claimed to have traced the swindler to Wales at that time and thus explained his ability also to receive replies from the clergyman and respond to them as though from Sir Charles.
-
Sounds like he was hiding in clear view Liz!! Sometimes that is the best place to hide ;)
I don't know if this will work, or will be too long to post, but the following is a transcription of just one of the 6 newspaper articles.
Salisbury and Winchester Journal Monday 22 September 1823
THE SWINDLER, ASGILL
WE have hitherto abstained from inserting any account of the infamous, though highly accomplished swindler who has been for some time resident within twenty miles of this city, until we could collect our information from the most correct authorities. Last January a letter, bearing date from Aberistwith, and purporting to be written by Sir Chas. Asgill, was addressed to a clergyman in this neighbourhood, who receives pupils. It stated that the Bart had a nephew, a “young man of superior attainments, gentlemanly manners, and amiable disposition,” who had received a highly finished education, but having been in the army for some time, had in a great measure forgotten his classical knowledge. Having a valuable living in Norfolk, Sir Chas. expressed his intention of presenting it to his nephew; and wishing to procure his ordination without the formality of a University education, it became necessary that he should be placed in some such situation as the one to which application was then made. An answer was returned, in which some doubts were expressed as to the probability of a young man, accustomed to the gaieties attending a military life, conforming to the retired habits of a clergyman’s family. This objection, however, was entirely removed by the succeeding letter, in which the clergyman was assured by Sir Charles, that although his nephew was of an age which required his being considered more in the light of a companion than a pupil, yet his disposition was so amiable, that he would be found in every respect willing to conform to the regulations and plans adopted by the family. In the same letter persons of the highest respectability, in Somersetshire, known to the clergyman by reputation, though not personally, were mentioned as having been consulted as to the situation of his residence, by which means no suspicion could be entertained of a fraud; on the contrary, the respectability of the connection seemed unquestionable. Some farther preliminaries were settled through the medium of the post, during which correspondence the worthy uncle made known his intention of personally introducing his nephew to his new place of residence. The interview, however, was cleverly waived by the convenient illness of his friend, Lord --- of ---, Worcestershire; from whose house the excuse was supposed to be sent; and it is a remarkable fact, that the nobleman named was at that time seriously ill; and shortly after died. To trace, step by step, this extraordinary adventure, would be useless; suffice it to say, the dashing nephew arrived – talked largely of his acquaintance – claimed for his cousin a Baronet, whose name he has lately honored by assuming; was quite happy to find his connections so well known, and even informed the family of a lucky change of name and fortune which had lately befallen one of their relatives, which at that time to them was unknown. The farce was kept up by a list of books being ordered, and the embryo of a Divine duly attending in the study every morning. For some weeks every thing answered the flattering description: in all things he was obliging, consistent, and considerate; but suddenly he was seized with an irresistible inclination to visit London for a few days. Preparations were accordingly made, and he himself politely offered to be the bearer of any communication to Sir Charles, to whom a flattering and satisfactory letter was dispatched.
continued in next post.
-
continuation:
In a few days a distressing account arrived from his uncle, in consequence of the military disposition still evinced by his nephew, and which he hoped would have been eradicated by the change in his pursuits and companions. In a postscript, the enraged uncle did not forget to request the clergyman by all means to suit his own convenience in drawing upon him for his payments, which however was declined, until the expiration of the half year, before which time the hopeful pupil had decamped, under a pretended order from the War Office. On his return from London, a strange metamorphose had taken place, an astonishing disposition for expense appearing in every department of his finances – two horses, a stanhope, and manservant were kept. An application from a gun-smith and jeweller respecting the fortune and family of this gentlemen, who had given them large orders, caused no small uneasiness to the clergyman; who, fearing that his pupil’s generous disposition was leading him into expenses, which his income, however respectable, would by no means warrant, returned such answers to these applications as induced these trades-people to decline the honor intended them. It would have been a fortunate circumstance if those who have suffered by his artifice, had adopted the same prudent principle of not supplying goods without making proper enquiry. Had they done so, in all probability this extensive fraud would have been detected in time to have stopped the conduct of the swindler, and have brought him to condign punishment. These circumstances led to many serious conversations with the apparently thoughtless young man, and finally to a confidential correspondence with Sir Charles, who requested that no particular might be concealed from his knowledge. He expressed his fears that all had not been right from the tenor of his nephew’s letters of late; at the same time observing, that his nephew’s income, the pay he received, and an occasional present from himself, were abundantly sufficient to defray any expenses he seemed already to have incurred.
of injustice and villainy seldom occurs. It is hoped that by the united efforts of those he has defrauded, he will eventually be apprehended, and receive from justice the merit of such deserts.
-
second continuaton.
This communication respecting his expenses, had the effect of placing the swindler more on his guard, as from that time he received either in private or at some other house, the goods which he was constantly in the habit of obtaining; nothing but a few of baubles being exhibited to the family.
Fresh causes for disapprobation now began to appear in his conduct, which called forth severe reinoustrances on the one hand and firm assurances of amendment on the other, which were however forgotten as soon as made.
This produced a determination in the clergyman of having an interview with the uncle, but at the time appointed an unlucky fit of the gout rendered it impossible for Sir Charles to travel. Three painful efforts were made by the invalid to write on the subject, which was at last accomplished in a letter almost unintelligible. His gratitude for the kind interest evinced toward his nephew was expressed by most cordial invitation to the family to pass some weeks during the summer in Wales. This invitation was extended by the nephew to many of his friends, and he appeared to enjoy the idea of having so large a party to partake of his hospitality at the manor house of Aberistwith.
-
third continuation.
But a farce cannot hold out forever; and this having existed for almost six months, was necessarily now drawing to a close. One more letter, and that of a most serious import, was written concerning him. It urged his removal to some other situation in consequence of his conduct being such as to defeat the purpose of his benevolent relative. Very shortly after, as might be expected, he took a gracious departure, under the pretence already mentioned.
So well was the fraud carried on, that not the slightest suspicion seems to have arisen in the mind of any individual as to the identity of his person. Even after the death of Sir Charles Asgill, this audacious villain held a correspondence with a most respectable gentleman in the neighbourhood, where he had been playing off so profitable a game. An application being made to the executors of Sir Chas. Asgill for the sum due, as was supposed, from the estate, a polite answer was received, expressing some astonishment as to the person who had been received as a nephew to the Baronet. A hasty journey to London was the effect of this answer, when, to the no small chagrin of the clergyman, he was assured, by those who were best able to judge, that the letters he held so confidently in his hand had no similarity to the writing of Sir Chas. Asgill. The reputed nephew was even unknown to that family, and the most daring fraud had been perpetrated. A coincidence in events appears in every instance to have favored this singular plot. Sir Chas. Asgill’s absence from the opera, according to the public prints, was always well timed with the accounts of his attacks from the gout. His last severe illness and subsequent death were still further corroborations of what had passed and served to lull all parties into the utmost security. And here an opportunity occurs for mentioning the manner in which the correspondence so often alluded to with the supposed Sir Charles was carried on. By an adroit manoeuvre he obtained possession of all the letters, and answered them himself. The first two sent to Aberistwith, he was on the spot to answer, as he has been traced into Wales about that time. Those written after his arrival in this neighbourhood, were directed to a respectable hotel in Bond-street, and these he secured by the following method. A few days previous to his commencing his operations in this disgraceful career, he took up his abode at this hotel, where he lived in style. At his departure, as it were en passant, he informed the master of the hotel that as his uncle Sir Charles intended using his house in the spring, it might happen that an occasional letter would be directed to him there before his arrival. At present he was in the country on a visit to an old acquaintance whom he had not seen since his return from India. But his movements were so uncertain that it would be the better plan always to send these letters under cover to him (the nephew), giving as his direction the residence of the clergyman where he afterwards took up his abode. The hotel-keeper, unsuspicious of his new customer, attended to these instructions, forwarded the letters, which were answered as best suited the purpose, and through some accomplice were put in the London post. As they were not letters which required an immediate answer, the lapse of four or five days was a circumstance unnoticed by the clergyman, particularly when he considered the ill state of Sir Charles’s health. The three specimens which have been traced to be his writing, are so totally different in their character, that no one would imagine them to be the writing of the same person. Unabating exertions have been made for tracing the swindler and his connections. Unfortunately they have failed in discovering his present retreat, and it is much feared he has eluded the grasp of justice. By birth he is bound to be of high respectability, but his extravagance and ill conduct have induced his family for some time to disown him. His abilities are of a superior cast. At an early age he distinguished himself as the head boy of a public school, from which he was removed at the age of sixteen to one of our Universities. We are happy to find that the extent of his frauds are much below what is generally reported, though we are sorry to add that many poor and industrious trades people will suffer severely. The impudent manner in which interludes to this drama were conducted, have already appeared in newspapers. Such a systematic scheme
-
You're right avm228 - this is simply a case of a total stranger to the General deciding to assume the name Asgill for monetary gain. Sad that this was the backdrop to the General's last months of life.
-
avm228 it is a bit confusing (to say the least) that there are two stories surrounding William. The one (mostly fictitious) which he passed down through his children to the present day Asgills - and the other which (for me anyway) has just been revealed in the newspaper finds. All I can say is that now knowing that he was not born an Asgill has answered so many questions which reared their ugly heads in the past. This has been, for me, an exciting revelation.
Unfortunately it has left other questions to be answered which are probably even more difficult to solve that the original "mysteries"!
-
Frustrating also that the Salisbury Journal claimed to have traced his birth family but declined to provide details.
In this respect the Bath Chronicle version shows a slight difference from the transcription you have set out:
"By birth he is found [rather than "bound"] to be of high respectability, but his extravagance and ill conduct have induced his family for some time to disown him."
-
Doesn't make sense - if all this came to light and he was exposed in 1823 as a fraud and a swindler, and not as Asgill at all, then why did he carry on with the "pretence" to the point of convincing his family and neighbours, and more to the point how did he get away with it if the truth were already out that it was a pack of lies?
OK, if he wanted to carry on using the name so be it, but how come his family never learned the truth, if it had been exposed in 1823?
-
I can see how people got away with repeated scams and deception because there wasn't the huge body of info about individuals that there are today. What I do find interesting is that no where is the real name mentioned. When we were doing a Scavenger hunt ages ago about some of Toni's relatives, in their court case write up, there were plenty of "Fred Bloggs, also known as John Doe, alias Ben Dover" type of descriptions.
-
Liz - it is impossible to know what his wife and children knew or didn't know. All I do know is that the present day descendants firstly believed that he was a legitimate disinherited son of the General - that was the story as passed down from William.
After clarification with the College of Arms that the General did die childless, and that it would have required an Act of Parliament to disinherit a legitimate son from inheriting the baronetcy, they had to come to the realisation that William must have been an illegitimate son.
This new information about William being "The Swindler" has hit them hard - in fact I have only let one member of the family know this at this present time. Mainly because it would be fantastic if I could give them "closure" by letting them know who William really was, before dropping the bombshell!
I know, it is unlikely to happen!
-
spidermonkey - it is really maddening that some of the press reports indicated that either the press or the police knew the real identity of The Swindler, yet failed to mention it! If they had I wouldn't be here now!!
-
In 1841 he is living next door to the Police!
Living in Beddington, Surrey
In Everton in 1851
In 1841, his daughter Martha is not with the family. I think it may be her (also in Croydon) as a pupil in a boarding school. Listed by enumerator as Esgall. She is the oldest pupil in the school and is listed as not born in county. Although in 1851 she is recorded as born in Croydon. And also in 1861 by which time she has married William Cliffe. A Martha Asgill is baptised in Croydon on 6 Nov 1824 father William (no Charles in the middle) Asgill schoolmaster and Mary. So if the 1841 census Martha is her, birth county must be an error and it indicates there was enough money to pay for a private education.
-
interesting topic :) bookmarking
xin
-
The witnesses to William and Mary's marriage on 9 Oct 1823 were Richard Banister and Sarah Dabner. The image on Ancestry looks like a BT because all is written in the same hand. There is no note that Mary made her mark, although the following entry of a marriage on the same day by same priest there is a note that several parties made their mark. So I would expect it to be noted if Mary was unable to sign her name. There are five marriages in total on the same day and Richard Banister is also witness at the one just before William and Mary's. Maybe he is a church official, but he doesn't appear on either of the next page or the previous page. So possibly known to both William and Mary and the couple before and the two couples have a connection as well.
The preceding couple are John Castle widower and Ann Oram widow married by licence. Their other witness is Isabel Helme.
Probably all unconnected, but some names might fall into place.
-
Frustrating also that the Salisbury Journal claimed to have traced his birth family but declined to provide details.
In this respect the Bath Chronicle version shows a slight difference from the transcription you have set out:
"By birth he is found [rather than "bound"] to be of high respectability, but his extravagance and ill conduct have induced his family for some time to disown him."
Perhaps it was just a teaser and they didn't really know or not know definitely - otherwise why not say.
-
A few other thoughts..
The names of his children - so far we have
Martha, bapt 6 Nov 1824 Croydon (note in margin that looks like twins)
Mary, bapt 6 Nov 1824 Croydon
Julia Ashby, born 26 Feb 1829, bapt 5 Apr 1829 Croydon
William Joseph,bapt 2 Dec 1832 Beddington
Charles Frederick bapt 3 Dec 1837 Beddington with Wallington
Hannah bapt 24 Oct 1841 Beddington (father occ Private Tutor)
William first claimed he was a nephew of the General, then after his death a disinherited son or second son. So to make the pretence more believable wouldn't he name a daughter after his supposed mother - Jemima Sophia? Perhaps Martha, Julia or Hannah was the name of his real mother.
Maybe middle names of sons are family names.
Hannah was baptised Hannah, but registered Hannah Eliza. Her death was registered in Croydon district Q2 1843.
The family's move to Liverpool area: This must have been between death of Hannah 1843 and marriage of Mary in Evereton on July 7 1850 to Robert Morris Hunt (Esquire) a widower residence Carue? Ireland, son of Thomas Hunt - Lieutenant in the Navy.
On June 12 1866 at Stoke Newington, Charles Frederick Asgill - accountant of Oxton(?) married Eliza Louisa Hunt otp daughter of Robert Morris Hunt - Post (or past) captain in RN.
So Charles married his brother-in-law's daughter by his earlier marriage.
Going back to William Charles "Asgill" and what might be true. He says in 1851 his birthplace is Ewell, as someone mentioned earlier the General would be in Ireland at this time, so if William had done his research he would have pretended he was born in Ireland. So why put Ewell which seems to have no connection to the General, unless it was his real birthplace.
-
Just looking at Ewell christenings 1799-1802 for William anythings.
All seem to be to couples, none obviously illegit.
He could have been the son of a married couple. He must have had a reasonable education. And there was the possibility that someone paid off his debts in 1832. Possibly his real family bailed him out for the sake of his wife and children. This could indicate a respectable, professional family who disowned him (or he cut himself off from them) when he took up his life of crime. But came to his aid in 1832. One of his children was baptised in December 1832, so it looks like mary was pregnant when he was in the debtor's prison.
-
Re the name Ashby.
A John Ashby married Hannah Leutchford at Sevenoaks 5 May 1803. Online trees suggest that Hannah is a sister of William Leutchford who married Mary David at Sevenoaks 20 January 1799 - father of Mary born 1799.
Both Ashbys and Leutchfords seem to have been millers.
-
Good find. So the Ashby name is connected to Mary not William - so another dead end
-
LizzieL and Galium thank you very much for your contributions. So, as you say LissieL, the Ashby name can be ruled out as being the real surname of William. Sadly!
I haven't got a lot of time today to devote to this but I will try my best to reply with some thoughts later on. All I would say is that I think it hugely unlikely that William sent any of his children to private school - he was a teacher and he taught his illiterate wife to read and write. I am sure he would have home-schooled his children too.
Although I do agree there may be some clues in the names of his children to his past - I do nevertheless think he turned his back on his original family - who it is said were a "good family" who "disowned him". I think it might have been sour grapes on his part but he never had anything more to do with them - just my thoughts only.
I think we could all go a bit loopy with the various "possibilities" - but I will try to compile a list of the names which have been suggested. But wont commence with Ashby now!
Does anyone know if it is possible to access police records in relation to The Swindler's crimes of 1823? I mention this because another family connection to this story ended up in a Lunatic Asylum (dementia) and his medical records were found which revealed things which happened during the final week of his life.
If medical records can be found - what about police records?
-
The other possibility with Martha in 1841 is that she was an assistant teacher - she was recorded as 15, but judging from baptism date would be nearer 17.
-
The newspaper article seemed to say he was head boy of a public school and left at 16 to go to Uni.
Do we know which Public School? If so ..... need to contact their archives person to see who was head boy around 1816ish.
(btw - re comments about him probably being child of a couple not illegit. Yes, we have come to that conclusion now, but when I was looking for illegit Williams in Ewell it was when we were still considering the scenario of him being Sir Charles illegit son)
-
"William Charles Asgill died intestate and having only £19 to his name. He was buried in a pauper’s grave at a church in Liverpool."
He can't have been a pauper having £19 when and where was he buried? Perhaps it was a public burial instead ie his estate paid for a single burial rather than buying the entire plot?
Blue
-
Burial
20 Feb 1854
Walton on the Hill, Lancashire
William Charles Asgill of Kirkdale, age 54
Normal burial record.
-
18 Nov 1868
Same churchyard
Mary Asgill of Kirkdale age 71
This is Bishops Transcript, actually maybe the other one was too!
Picture of the Church:
http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Liverpool/Walton/stmary/
-
Blue - I am quoting the Asgill family on this - that is what they told me. Unfortunately I cannot ask one of the present day Asgills to take part in this discussion because the one person I told has taken it all so badly - basically saying that they are "done with it all now" as it were. I am only doing this exercise, as it were, because I would like to know who William was and, if I ever found out, then I think the Asgill family would be interested then. The attitude right now is that they don't give a damn! Rather like Rhett Butler! They are sure that William was buried in a paupers grave at St. Mary's church, in Liverpool, as far as I know.
LizzieL - Yes, about the head boy of a public school round about 1814-1815. It is a research task I will leave to the Asgill family if they want to try that route, but I do agree, but might be quite a long list for possibly little in the way of a definite result. Eton was suggested as the school in question, but that might have emanated from William and his plethora of lies - or it might have been the one true thing he said about himself! But yes - it would be an avenue of research, I agree.
“so if William had done his research he would have pretended he was born in Ireland. So why put Ewell which seems to have no connection to the General, unless it was his real birthplace.” I think William was very sloppy with his research! His death notice states that the General (to whom William says he is the second son) had lived in Regents Park! The General lived just off Piccadilly! But research opportunities back then were not as they are now. LizzieL – you have, in a matter of a few hours, found out everything it has taken the Asgill family to establish over a very long period of time.
“This could indicate a respectable, professional family who disowned him (or he cut himself off from them) when he took up his life of crime. But came to his aid in 1832. One of his children was baptised in December 1832, so it looks like mary was pregnant when he was in the debtor's prison.” LizzieL – you could well be right about his “real family” coming to his aid. I just have a gut feeling that William really did cut himself off from them – after they cut themselves off from him. If he had wanted to be a “Bloggins or a Brown” why did he not revert to his real name after his life of crime as an “Asgill”.
In the course of trying to find the answer to “who was William” I put in a search term of simply “Swindler” to search the newspaper archives. I set myself a too daunting task to complete since the newspaper columns are very long and very tiring on the eyes to read. I saw enough, though, to realise that this particular crime was rife in the first half of the 19th century. The ploy was always the same – portray yourself as a well-to-do or connected to a famous person – get the credit from the traders etc. – then walk off leaving the real person to pay your debts (or not as the case may be) but in any event it was the poor traders etc. who were the losers in the main.
After "talking" to you kind and helpful people for the past day I am really thinking that the task of finding William is slim, to non-existent, unless there is some way to access police archives. What do you think?
-
St Mary's, Walton, Lancashire (now Liverpool) was bombed in WW2. I have some ancestors buried there the churchyard is in a poor state.
Blue
-
This subject is so sensitive given that the present day Asgills actually don't know anything about any of the latest "Swindler" finds. The one person I told is not "Asgill" by name, but that was this person's mother's maiden name.
The present day Asgills mustn't be brought into this, please. I know you are all very clever researchers, but please don't try to find the family. Please.
-
One thing we haven't found out is why he moved from Croydon, where he'd been settled since at least the first children were born, to Liverpool. maybe his past was catching up with him. Croydon electoral register for 1845/6 has him living in North End Croydon, his qualification to vote is the freehold and land at North End. Then he turns up in the 1848 Slater's directory for Liverpool. He is resident in Kensington Terrace, Kirkdale under the listing for Public schools and academies.
So he makes his move in that 2 - 3 year window.
-
To be honest, yes I think "slim" is probably an understatement.
As said before he could have been born anywhere, been called anything.
As far the current family are concerned, my sympathy for them is rather limited.
It is not uncommon to have some sort of family story of being linked to royalty, or to landed gentry, or whatever. In this case, as in most, it doesn't take very much research to find that that is all it is - a story!
If being linked to some illustrious ancestor is so important to them, then some basic research to confirm the link would have a wise idea before letting it become so important to them. Basing all their illusions of grandeur on a family story without checking it out was naïve in the least.
If they are genuinely interested in family history, and who their ancestors were, then it makes no difference if the research turns up a titled baronet or a regular ag lab. They are still the same people now as they were when they thought they were descended from a baronet.
Sorry, but all I sympathise with is the frustration of not being able to find out who "William" was, not with the fact he was never a baronets son/nephew!
If you really are worried about them finding out the truth (though in my view best if truth is known), then you might want a mod to delete this whole thread, as it will come up on a Google search if any of them are randomly googling.
-
It is not uncommon to have some sort of family story of being linked to royalty, or to landed gentry, or whatever. In this case, as in most, it doesn't take very much research to find that that is all it is - a story!
That's one reason why I started to research my family many years ago. Found out we weren't remotely connected to a Duke on the wrong side of the blanket, but did have an an ancestor who rescued a lot of people from a sinking ship off the south coast of England.
-
LizvDB. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, naturally, as you are to yours. The trouble is, for well over a century, the Asgills have felt aggrieved that William was "disinherited". While they have gone to some trouble to find bmd records, they have not been as clever as people here. Nor did they have the internet tools now available. I think their family history, and the attitude adopted by one of the present family should be respected, even if you don't agree with it!
The "family mansion" is called Asgill House and as recently as the 1960s/70s the family were writing to the present owner saying that the house should be theirs!
I am in touch quite regularly with the present owner and he told me that two Australians bowled up the other day claiming much the same thing! However, they don't seem to know that they are descended from another William Charles Asgill who, at 11 years of age, was deported to Australia for 7 years because he stole, I think it was a pair of shoes! Cruel times.
So there are people, all over the place, who simply jump to conclusions.
-
Personally, I think William and has family left Croydon in a hurry to take up residence in Liverpool in order to escape the law. While it would make no difference these days, surely back then it would have been much easier to "hide" away from a crime scene than it would be today?
I think William escaped the law in 1823 and got away with his crimes at that time. I know I have suggested searching police archives (if at all possible that is) but it is only because I am floundering around not really knowing where to turn next.
It would be a shame to ask for this thread to be deleted, but that time may come. Perhaps not just yet though? All I would ask though is that the feelings of the present family be respected. They didn't ask for any of this to happen, or transpire, and are in the main ignorant of the latest developments, and nor did they ask me to ask questions on their behalf. Perhaps it is me who is acting out of turn?
-
I'm going to have to log off for now but will look in later in the day....in the meantime my thanks to you all for all the research you are doing.
-
A couple more snippets. William's son William Joseph died on 24 July 1852 at Callao, South America age 20. Reported in Liverpool Mercury 10 Sep 1852. It says he was son of William Charles Asgill esquire late of Croydon, Surrey. But doesn't give the current residence.
The 1861 census has the Asgill family still in Liverpool area: Mary now widowed, children Mary, Julia and Frederick. The daughter Mary (Hunt) is now widowed and there is a 9 year old grandson Robert C Asgill born in Ireland. But as Mary was married in 1850, the surname might be a mistake and he was legitimate and should be called Robert Hunt.
-
A bit on Asgill House is here.
http://www.richmond.gov.uk/local_history_asgill_house.pdf/
It looks like it was sold after the General's father died. In may 1821, It was advertised for sale and a reference was made to it having been owned by Mrs Osbaldston deceased.
And an odd thing from the newspapers. they reported a lot of movements of the fashionable people and on 31 Oct 1821 it was reported that Sir Charles and lady Asgill were at the York Hotel Dover. But I thought Jemima Sophia died a couple of years before. Was this a mistake and he was on his own, or was there another lady pretending to be his wife. they (or he) were accompanied by their "suite" - presumably servants - for a hotel stay, I would think you would only need a lady's maid and a valet - more would be a trifle ostentatious.
-
LizzieL - just dashing in for a quick word! Simply to mention that the General was Equerry to the Duke of York (the Grand Old Duke of York that is)! Sophia, his wife, was Lady of the Bedchamber to the Duchess of York - which may explain why they traveled in style! They were often in Brighton, at the Pavilion, with the Prince Regent.
You are right, Sophia died in 1819.
There was a mistress in the General's life, even before Sophia died. The woman in question was, concurrently, the mistress of another General (who was Equerry to the King) to whom she bore 6 children. The latter kept the mistress right out of his 'official' life - presumably because he was related to the Duke of Rutland. The General (Asgill) had a son by this same mistress in 1816. I don't think he would have included her in his social life though, any more than the other General did. Although Asgill does mention her in his will. He also spent the final 1-2 years of his life in her house in Chelsea - his final codicil was written from her home. He died in her arms as I like to think of it! The other General, the King's Equerry, was massively generous to the mistress in his will - incredibly so - and to his children. He never married and never had legitimate children - but all this is a whole different story!
I think the newspaper has simply made a mistake. I also think the Hunt daughter, called Asgill, was simply another mistake in the census.
You've got this one on 'speed dial' LizzieL - almost like a dog with a bone! Good on you, and thank you too. I do hope you find a way through all the fog.....
-
More about the mistress on here
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=541814.27
Reading that thread, Winjoy, raises lots of questions too! Again a "story" - this illegit son being fathered by Asgill and christened by a random Catholic priest with a surname that isn't Asgill (nor his mothers) - but then the christening record cant be found? Not wanting to get sidetracked, so if you want to follow up then do so on the other thread and not here, but one asks how do you KNOW who his father was, or about the christening, if there are no facts to back it up?
We all love a family story. And we enjoy digging around to see if there is any truth in it. But unless there is evidence to back it up, it remains just that, a family story.
Forgive me if I have missed something obvious, I did only scan through the other thread to see what light it shone on the mysteries of this thread. And I am not meaning to sound critical (my husband frequently points out that I can be too "direct" cos I say what I think!) but a ground rule of Family History Research is to confirm everything from as many different sources as is possible and never to rely on assumptions.
-
The "family mansion" is called Asgill House and as recently as the 1960s/70s the family were writing to the present owner saying that the house should be theirs!
Nightmare -- Yes, people are entitled to their beliefs but not to distress other people with their (erroneous) beliefs. Personally I would steer well clear of the sort of person who can get so fraught over the idea that they are owed something from 150 years ago.
this illegit son being fathered by Asgill and christened by a random Catholic priest with a surname that isn't Asgill (nor his mothers)
I wonder if that wasn't actually par for the course re illegitimate children of the upper classes - remember Georgiana, the wife of the Duke of Devonshire, had a daughter with Earl Grey, and the daughter was given the name of Eliza Courtney.
-
The 1851 census has Mary Ann Mansell (Annuitant) age 71 with Charles Childs Visitor (Independant) age 34 and his wife and two daughters in Loose in Kent. One of the servants is Charles Ashby!
Coincidence!
I think so, this Charles Ashby was born in Linton Kent, quite some way from Cudham near Sevenoaks where the Ashbys related to the swindler came from. Although they did baptise some children at the Wesleyan chapel in Maidstone.
-
Hello everyone! Well, I'm back again. I have been speaking to the Asgill family member I have referred to earlier (the one aware of the Swindler stories) and this person has said they would join this website and take over from me here! After they have read this thread, though, and assuming they feel that this is the place for them after doing so!
The story is difficult enough without embracing other aspects and I would prefer to bow out, in the main, in the hope that the rightful Asgill person can take over from me in as much as answer the questions being posed. To a large extent the General is irrelevant to this story since he was only swindled in the few months before his death - may not even have been aware of it - and his Executors made it clear after his death that The Swindler was no nephew of his!
I think it is important to try to keep to the main issue of trying to establish if William's true identity is findable. Probably not, but I'm finding it hard to keep up with the alleyways we are going down! I'm too old for this pace!
I won't go away entirely but I will email the Asgill person a link to this thread - but in the interim am having difficulty with my email provider and cannot get the page to load up - there may be a delay until the person has read up here once I can send the link!
Once again, there are some very clever people here and the time they are giving all this is much appreciated. Thank you.
-
Hi Lizdb - just before I go into lurk mode and mainly read with interest what may or may not transpire on this thread, I would just like to clarify one point regarding Charles Childs - the illegitimate son of General Asgill (born to Mary Ann Mansel/Goodchild prior to the last child she had with her 'other' General).
One of the present day descendants of Charles Childs is in possession of a book entitled "Father's Book - Members of the family" which was produced by his sons while Charles Childs was still alive. I do not possess this book myself, but I have photocopies of entries within it. Charles Childs is clearly listed as the son of General Asgill and Mary Ann Mansel (Goodchild). Charles Childs is buried in his mother's grave and they lived together in Loose for many many years prior to her death. I have visited the location in Chelsea where Charles, Mary Ann and the General lived prior to the General's death. The original house was bombed in WWII, but it was exciting to visit the street and see the general area.
I have been to their joint grave and from there went on to view the house in Loose where they lived together. It is absolutely stunning! It suffered in a fire in the early part of the 20th century (it had had three stories, but is now only two) and although it has been extended now, much of the original house is still there. It was very exciting to see inside - and very moving to see their combined grave.
I do quite understand that this book (which is, I suppose, similar to the kind or records some American families list in their family bibles) is not as good a source of information as a baptism record. I have searched high and low for the latter, without success. The book I am referring to says that the Duke of Melfort baptised Charles Childs - the Duke being a Roman Catholic monk who was based at the Vatican (at the time of the christening). The strangest thing about that is that in the 1970s I worked for a relative of that particular monk - years before I had even heard of Charles Childs - so couldn't pick his brains about him then!
When I found the information about the baptism I got in touch with Peter Drummond-Murray - my former boss (the monk's name was Charles Drummond) and asked him if the dates and information appeared legitimate to him. He is a Scottish Herald himself, so I doubt he would have given me a glib response - and he confirmed that the information about Charles Drummond fitted in with family information concerning him. The monk had come to England at the time of the christening to claim his family estate as his elder brother had died.
While I realise my research skills are undoubtedly very inferior to many posters here, my main successes have not been in record offices, but rather finding present day descendants - whether they be Asgills, Childs, Ogles or Colviles. I found over 30 in all - starting from nowhere - and virtually nothing to go on. All of these people have provided me with the most astonishing pieces of the jigsaw puzzle - from portraits I would never otherwise have seen - through to the wonderful information contained in "Father's book - members of the family".
While the chapter on Charles Childs will never be closed until such time as the baptism entry is found, I suspect there is about as much chance now of finding it as there is the true identity of William Charles Asgill.
And on that note I hand the threat back to William - with apologies for highjacking it!
-
P.S. Before anyone points out that a monk is unlikely to perform a baptism, may I correct myself by saying that Peter Drummond-Murray referred to him as a prelate. I hope I have remembered that correctly! Anyway, his name was Charles Drummond D.D.
Sorry William - back to you!
-
A few queries about the Swindler and his actions:
What was his motive in wanting to study with the clergyman in Somerset / Wiltshire (or wherever). He says he wants to enter the church and not to bother with university. Would a few months studying with a country parson get him into the church?
The letters to the clergyman (supposedly from the General) were posted in Aberystwith. Is there any significance there?
Why did he pick the General as his supposed uncle / father? It looks as if he started his swindling activities around 1821, the General doesn't seem to have been in the news any more (probably a good deal less) than other "fashionable" people around that time. Was it random? or had he some personal knowledge of him? Was he a former servant, had he served under him? One letter to the clergyman says he had been in the army.
He seems to have had a good education and could pass for one of the gentry (speech, manners etc) otherwise the merchants he swindled would have seen through him straight away. So what was his background?
He married the illiterate daughter of a miller from Sevenoaks. Wouldn't someone who pretended to be the nephew and heir of a childless widower be looking to marry someone in a higher social class? The first children (twins Mary and Martha) seem to have been born a year after the marriage, so no pressure there.
The newspaper that claimed to know more about him said he had been head boy of a public school at age 16 then went to University. This may be speculation. He would be at least 20 when he finished university. He is also said to have been in the army for several years. Would a university graduate then go on to join the army in those days? Usually they went into the church, politics or teaching.
If his academic record was true, someone would have to have paid for it. Running his own small scale school indicates he was educated but not academically brilliant, so I doubt if he would have won scholarships to support his education.
-
I'm filling in for the Asgill family member until they arrive LizzieL ! My capitalised word Response is only in order to separate my thoughts out from yours LizzieL.
...
What was his motive in wanting to study with the clergyman in Somerset / Wiltshire (or wherever). He says he wants to enter the church and not to bother with university. Would a few months studying with a country parson get him into the church?
RESPONSE - I think highly unlikely. Rather, I think, he was getting his accommodation thrown in and not paying very much for his theological tutoring - I can't remember from the articles if it was clear if the General ended up paying his 'fees' or not - or whether he was getting 'credit' from the clergyman too. However, this story became one of the planks of William's end story (he said he was disinherited by the General because he DIDN'T want to become a clergyman)!!!
The letters to the clergyman (supposedly from the General) were posted in Aberystwith. Is there any significance there?
RESPONSE there is absolutely no connection whatsoever to the General and Aberwystrith - not that has ever been discovered at least.
Why did he pick the General as his supposed uncle / father? It looks as if he started his swindling activities around 1821, the General doesn't seem to have been in the news any more (probably a good deal less) than other "fashionable" people around that time. Was it random? or had he some personal knowledge of him? Was he a former servant, had he served under him? One letter to the clergyman says he had been in the army.
RESPONSE - I cannot throw any light on any of that unfortunately. It was the first question the Asgill member asked when I mentioned the Swindler. I don't actually believe he really was in the army - partly because one of the newspapers said that having an army uniform made (expensive) was one of the ways he swindled - the tailor who made it, that is. Possibly he thought his connection to the General would be more believable if he said he had been in the army - even stating he was in the Guards (the General was in the 1st Foot Guards - the Grenadier Guards as they are known today).
He seems to have had a good education and could pass for one of the gentry (speech, manners etc) otherwise the merchants he swindled would have seen through him straight away. So what was his background?
RESPONSE If only we knew! Was he the head boy at Eton, as was suggested or claimed? He would have been sixteen round about 1814-1816 when it was stated he left school.
He married the illiterate daughter of a miller from Sevenoaks. Wouldn't someone who pretended to be the nephew and heir of a childless widower be looking to marry someone in a higher social class? The first children (twins Mary and Martha) seem to have been born a year after the marriage, so no pressure there.
RESPONSE - he turned that story to his advantage in later life to support his "disinheritance" stating that that was the second reason he was "disinherited" because he had been thrown out of the General's life for marrying an illiterate woman. By the way though, Mary Leuchford was said to be so beautiful they called her "The Rose of Kent". I will try to upload a picture of her brother since I don't have a picture of her. He's good looking and one can imagine a female version of him would be very pretty. Also a picture of the pub, The Halfway House, which was Mary's family home. She herself was a servant girl at Knole House in Sevenoaks.
The newspaper that claimed to know more about him said he had been head boy of a public school at age 16 then went to University. This may be speculation. He would be at least 20 when he finished university. He is also said to have been in the army for several years. Would a university graduate then go on to join the army in those days? Usually they went into the church, politics or teaching.
RESPONSE If going into the army the route for an officer these days would not be university, necessarily, but rather the RMC Sandhurst. I'm not sure if Sandhurst existed at that time. However, a Guards Officer, a full General at that, would be far more likely to have a son enter the army than become an academic or clergyman. That latter profession would be more likely for a "second son", which, ironically, William had magically become in time for his death notice!
If his academic record was true, someone would have to have paid for it. Running his own small scale school indicates he was educated but not academically brilliant, so I doubt if he would have won scholarships to support his education.
RESPONSE - yes, my thoughts too - William was educated - loved money and all that it could bring to his life - but was sloppy in his research - and really no more than a private tutor. His one claim to fame - as I see it anyway - was that in 1854, just prior to his death - he wrote to somebody in the government of the day - proposing we adopt decimalisation - round about 100+ years before that happened! The letter turning his proposal down arrived 4 days before his death. Did this make him a visionary? It could be argued that it did and I think that is how the Asgill family regard it.
-
For what it is worth, using family search, I found all the Williams christened in Ewell between 1795 and 1805 and cross referenced their names with Oxford University Alumni. Unfortunately, I didn't find any good matches :(
-
That is so kind of you spidermonkey - what a fantastic job to have undertaken. The result can only mean that William either (a) wasn't born in Ewell (although I think he was telling the truth about that for some reason) or (b) didn't go to Oxford (much more likely to be the explanation).
The only other thing which might or might not be possible to do (and I'm not volunteering!) is to find out how many "Williams" were head boy at Eton (and every other famous public school of the time) in approximately 1814-1816 - the likely years when William was 16!!!
Some years ago the Asgill family member who I hope will be along here soon - and I - contacted so many public schools, including Eton, to find out if a William Asgill had ever attended (including Westminster, the school attended by the General and the Lord Mayor Asgills). The answer was always negative. But of course we were searching for a non-existent person back then.
As now - as many would say!
-
Just another thought spidermonkey. I don't know how crazy a request this might be - but would it be at all possible to give a list of the surnames of those Williams you found born in Ewell during the years you mentioned?
I only ask because the Asgill person (arriving soon, as I keep hoping) has a few hundred names on their DNA matches - a long shot I know - but if those surnames were known they could search for matches?
I do apologise if this is really stupid - or far too daunting a suggestion.
-
The other thought that I had was that there is a Temple Ewell in Kent (near Dover, I think) - whether it would be worth checking births from there?
-
Just another thought spidermonkey. I don't know how crazy a request this might be - but would it be at all possible to give a list of the surnames of those Williams you found born in Ewell during the years you mentioned?
I only ask because the Asgill person (arriving soon, as I keep hoping) has a few hundred names on their DNA matches - a long shot I know - but if those surnames were known they could search for matches?
I do apologise if this is really stupid - or far too daunting a suggestion.
Nope, not that many. Will list now, with Christening dates.
-
Well, I'm sure almost anything is possible in this story! However, apart from his wife coming from Sevenoaks, I don't think that William had much to do with Kent. He was working in Croydon, not far from Ewell, so I do really think that Ewell may be the only true thing in William's story. If it was true, then his "real" family may well also be from Ewell (very likely in fact). Of course, I could be wrong, but I think Ewell should remain the focus for now.
-
Surnames of Williams christened in Ewell, Surrey between 1795 and 1805:
Balchin (22/3/1801)
Blandford (13/8/1797)
Bliss (17/7/1795)
Bushell (30/10/1803)
Churchill (24//2/1799)
Cobham (13/5/1798)
Furnass (3/1/1802)
Gill (11/8/1805)
Goldsmith (15/2/1804)
Griffin (21/6/1801)
Hall (18/5/1800)
Hall (3/11/1804)
Harman (21/12/1800)
Haseman (25/3/1804)
Hatherall (25/11/1801)
Hibbard (27/9/1799)
Hickson (8/1/1797)
Holebrook (29/8/1802)
Hubherd (17/2/1802)
Lee (8/2/1795)
Lucy (27/11/1796)
Martin 916/9/1803)
Morris (10/9/1797)
Ogbourn (3/8/1800)
Parker (13/6/1802)
Pilgrim (23/12/1804)
Pitt (1/5/1803)
Sanders (21/10/1798)
Sanders (16/4/1799)
Sycamore (17/7/1803)
Stephens (17/1/1802)
Turner (15/1/1804)
Wells (8/5/1796)
Young (13/10/1799)
-
That is really fantastic spidermonkey - thank you so very much. I am going to email that list to the Asgill family member now to give them a hurry up!!
-
Apologies if I have missed the info already in the thread, but have you had a look at the records for Fleet prison (link here if you haven't http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/browse/r/r/C11908?)
-
Not at all spidermonkey. Yet another brilliant suggestions. However, I think I will leave that to the elusive Asgill member to embark upon!!
I would only comment, and perhaps you could give me a steer, is that I have spent years searching the national archives for the simple search term "Asgill" under "all" catalogues. Would any Asgill name, in relation to the Fleet prison, come up in that general search - which brings up a whole lot of pages relating to "Asgill"?
If your answer is yes (and I never found anything about William at the Fleet) then it would suggest that William went to the Fleet under a different name and not as William Asgill (although I think there were one or two other Debtors' prisons weren't there?)
-
Spidermonkey - stupid me! Of course, I've just remembered that it was as William Asgill (possibly William Charles Asgill) that he was applying for release from prison - his debts must have been paid off. So, my question would still stand, though, regarding a general search for William under the "Asgill" search term on the national archives website?
-
I don't think you would find anything with a general search on Asgill. From what I understand of the debtors records, the contents have been catalogued (so you would know which box contained years 1798-1799 for example) but that individual names have not been catalogued. To check whether William Asgill was mentioned (and who repayed his debts etc), you would have to physically check the records (or contract someone to do that for you). In theory, it shouldn't be a huge search, because you know more or less when he went into prison, and when he came out, so once you had a steer on him you could probably find the info quite quickly and easily. In theory........ ;)
-
That is all very interesting Spidermonkey. Unfortunately neither I (nor, I think, the Asgill family member who, from now on, I will refer to as "AM" (!) can get to Kew). However, I could probably get a quote for someone on the staff there to look for me/us. Something for discussion with AM I think! A result from such a search could reveal a lot of valuable subsidiary information and I think this lead should be followed through, so thank you again. :)
-
Good evening everyone,
I am the absentee Asgill Member referred to by Winjoy.
Firstly, may I thank you all for the massive efforts you have put in trying to track down my g-g-grandfather William Charles Asgill. Your help and expertise is much appreciated both by me and Winjoy.
Before I go any further let me clarify a few points. I am sure you will agree that, before the advent of the internet and home computers,serious genealogical research was the province only of those with time, deep pockets and the ability to travel anywhere to peruse parish registers etc., etc. With this in mind I hope you will accept that previous generations of my family had little or no opportunity to verify or refute the lore handed down to them by their parents or grandparents.
My mother's family firmly believed in their descent from Sir Charles Asgill and beyond. This was not a recently concocted idea because someone had read that they held the same name as a famous general but rather a fundamental linchpin of the family's psyche. They did not boast about it but kept it to themselves as they were, and still are, very private and yes, quietly proud, people. The childish 'claim' made by schoolgirls with regard to Asgill House should be seen in this context. Although the story of disinheritance continued to the present it was generally accepted by the more astute amongst them that William was almost certainly illegitimate and that the 'cut off with a shilling' line was used to avoid embarrassment to the Victorian ladies in the family.
Much of the information regarding the post-William generations was well known and documented in the family and my uncle did a certain amount of pre-computer age research into more remote ancestors. I have been fortunate however, retired or semi-retired some fifteen or so years and with access to a computer, to be able to unearth a lot more information including the facts you have mentioned, all the Asgills back to the 16th century and related families, including the French ancestry of the wife of the 1st Sir Charles
Winjoy and I have collaborated for many years on the Asgill saga, focussing mainly on General Asgill (about whom she has written a most thoroughly researched and eminently readable biography) and I have the very greatest respect for her investigative abilities, her intuitiveness and determination however, and I know she will understand this, although everything seems to now point to my ancestor being "The Swindler" I hope that he is not.
Regards,
Staybright
-
Welcome here Staybright - I know the past few weeks have been difficult ones for you, and I therefore greatly appreciate your decision to join this group. As you have said, the members of this forum are clearly well versed in what to do to get to the nub of the matter. It's why I came back myself - people were so helpful in 2011, and have been so again now. Although it has gone eerily quiet, I do hope members will return and thank you, as I do, for your (as usual) most eloquent introduction to yourself and your family.
I think we are all really itching to know (well, I certainly am!) whether there are any surnames on the list of "Williams" born in Ewell between 1795 and 1805, kindly provided by Spidermonkey, which tally with any names on your DNA matches?
The most amazing result would be - "yes, there is one match"!
-
In Australia one of the best resources for wayward ancestors are the Police Gazettes, however ours are very accessible, but those for the UK are a bit more difficult.
Of interest to you would be Part 4 which is held on microfilm at the Somerset Heritage Centre. Here is a list of surviving Gazettes and where they are held:
http://www.ampltd.co.uk/digital_guides/police_gazette_part_4/Publishers-Note.aspx
Part 4 from the Somerset Record Office catalogue:
Repository: Somerset Heritage Centre
Level: Series
Ref No: A\CJK/1
AccNo: M\1788
Title: Microfilms of 'The Police Gazette' Part 4
Description: Positive and negative microfilms.
Date [1811-1856]
Extent: 18
Format: items
Access Status: Open
Ours have a name and subject index in each Gazette but I am not sure if the UK ones do as well, I would think they probably do, which of course would make searching easier.
What you would expect to find relating to the swindling incident is an item which would give a physical description of the offender and his crime, as well as any aliases he was known to use. If no other names are mentioned then you can be pretty well guaranteed that they didn't know.
You have to remember that newspapers back then were just as bad as they are now with embellishing their stories and making things up to make the story more interesting, so it is possible that they didn't actually know anything about his background.
Debra :)
-
Hi, and a warm welcome to Rootschat, Staybright.
This has indeed been a fascinating piece of research to get involved in. Whether or not it ever reaches a satisfactory conclusion remains to be seen, but we hope so.
Regarding continuing the reaearch, I would say most of what can be done on the internet has probably been exhausted. There are a few possible leads that have been mentioned on this thread that would be worth following up, but they arent "quick click of a mouse things", but then Family History research very often needs to go beyond that! In particular I am thinknig of the debtors records at the NA in Kew, and also maybe contacting possible schools to see who was the head boy at the relevant time.
One question I've been meaning to ask - I havent read the newspaper articles in full in which the Swindler is exposed, only the extracts on here, but no where in that does it give the name of William Asgill. Presumably it does somewhere, so we are sure that the person trying on these swindles is actually the William Asgill who appears in later censuses (saying he was bn Ewell) and is your ancestor?
Another thing that I cant quite understand is what happened after the newspaper exposed his actions. Had he actually committed any offence, in which case what was the consequence. Or had he been found out and so it just was a story of interest as to what someone had tried? If the former, then again looking for some records of trial and conviction would be an idea. If it took place in Somerset, then Somerset records office may have something on the case and hopefully it might have his real name.
It is quite legal to call yourself anything you like, without any need for official papers such as deed poll, providing it is not for fraudualent purposes. Williams change of name was intended for fraudulent purposes it seems. Which is why, when those purposes were brought to light by the paper, I cant understand why he continued to use the name William Asgil.
Lots a random thoughts here.
All the best with your research.
.
-
Surnames of Williams christened in Ewell, Surrey between 1795 and 1805:
........
I've found a few of these on censuses - 1851- Pilgrim, Sanders (1798) and Sycamore still living in Ewell, Goldsmith living in Ripley. 1861: Hibbard living in Hammersmith with brother Charles. Although enumerated as Hebard, brother Charles checks out on Ewell baptisms with same parents.
So the list is reduced to:
Balchin (22/3/1801)
Blandford (13/8/1797)
Bliss (17/7/1795)
Bushell (30/10/1803)
Churchill (24//2/1799)
Cobham (13/5/1798)
Furnass (3/1/1802)
Gill (11/8/1805)
Griffin (21/6/1801)
Hall (18/5/1800)
Hall (3/11/1804)
Harman (21/12/1800)
Haseman (25/3/1804)
Hatherall (25/11/1801)
Hickson (8/1/1797)
Holebrook (29/8/1802)
Hubherd (17/2/1802)
Lee (8/2/1795)
Lucy (27/11/1796)
Martin 916/9/1803)
Morris (10/9/1797)
Ogbourn (3/8/1800)
Parker (13/6/1802)
Pitt (1/5/1803)
Sanders (16/4/1799)
Stephens (17/1/1802)
Turner (15/1/1804)
Wells (8/5/1796)
Young (13/10/1799)
-
Welcome to Rootschat, Staybright! I hope we can be of use and help to you.
LizzieL - well done for crossing a few names off the list. I think that that is perhaps the only remaining online thing that can be done - try to hatch, match and dispatch the remaining Williams of Ewell. We are, of course, making assumptions that WCA retained his first name, and that his pob and dob are accurate too.
-
William Balchin dies as an infant in 1801, so he can be crossed off too.
-
Also a William Furniss buried Ewell 17 Nov 1834 age 33, so looks like the William Furnass bapt in Jan 1802.
-
Two more possibilities off the list
From Ewell burial registers on Ancestry.
William Hall buried 27 Oct 1801 son of Francis and Elizabeth
William Hasman buried 9 Oct 1801, son of John and Susanna (I think this must be the 1800 baptism transcribed as Harman.
Up to 1812 burials of children also record parents. The post 1812 records on line (could be BTs) don't give this information but do give age at death. I've been as far as 1837 but only found William Furniss mentioned earlier.
-
And from
http://www.epsomandewellhistoryexplorer.org.uk/StMaryHeadstones.html
A William Hubbard died 1830 age 29 - could be baptism transcribed as Hubherd
-
Hi everyone - I've just spoken to Staybright who is extremely grateful for all the efforts being made on his behalf and is so encouraged by the willing help being offered. You really are a talented and helpful community.
I think he'd be really grateful though for a little break in proceedings while he checks out if there are any DNA matches with the names of Williams born in Ewell. If there are, then I think he'll be firing the starting pistol!
Many many thanks to you all from Staybright and me, too, of course.
-
Thank you all very much for the very warm welcome to the board.
I have tried to utilize the FTDNA Family Finder to the best of my ability but the only people with surnames from the Ewell list, Martin and Parker, are Americans in early 1800's.
It looks as if the Police Gazette, Debtors' Records and public schools may be the only way forward, as you say, if we are to find the elusive Swindler and/or more about William.
Lizdb, there is no mention anywhere in the newspaper articles of a christian name for the Swindler, neither do any of them indicate that he was caught. One report even said that he had continued his activities in Bath.
Lizziel and Spidermonkey, thank you v. much for the efoorts you are taking with Ewell.
-
Oh, no! Gutted! Really thought that route was going to work.
Now William is even more elusive than ever. :'(
-
Lizdb, there is no mention anywhere in the newspaper articles of a christian name for the Swindler, neither do any of them indicate that he was caught. One report even said that he had continued his activities in Bath.
So, how do we know it is this William Asgill?
-
I was just wondering the same thing.
The newspaper article said he changed his name to honour his uncle - did the Swindler just change his surname or did he temporarily call himself Charles Asgill and when it looked like the law would catch up with him, he just changed his name again or reverted to real name and effectively disappeared.
-
Basically LizzieL - because almost every single aspect of the Swindler's fabrications tally with just about everything William passed down as 'family history'. About the only difference being the newspapers said he was calling himself a 'nephew' but the family history had him as a 'son' of the General.
-
That's as maybe - but it seems this whole thing is based on an assumption, which in turn is based on a family story.
Did he tell the family, then, that he wrote fraudulent letters to a clergyman?
-
I cannot quite see him telling his family that he had done anything wrong. He portrayed himself to his family as a wronged man, disinherited from the baronetcy by his father. Disinherited because the General didn't want him to be a clergyman and didn't like him marrying an illiterate woman from Sevenoaks - the latter being proved fact.
If William wasn't the swindler, then his twin was.
-
My apologies - William was supposedly disinherited because he didn't want to become a clergyman rather than the other way round as previously stated by me. The following letter, edited to remove names, was where I began my journey in 2002. I hope it may help to convince people of William's passed-down story:
...
Moderator Comment: Inhalt removed by request of the original poster.
-
I don't quite see that Mary was illiterate. The first marriage record I found looked like the BT (on Ancestry) but FindMyPast has scan of the actual record so has original signatures. Mary signs her own name and it doesn't look like the childish laboured hand which indicates someone not accustomed to writing who has only practised their signature specially for their marriage "lines".
So either she was more educated than you were led to believe or William had given her a lot of lessons before they were married.
-
The Asgill who received this letter is my father’s cousin, whose brother Harold, unmarried and now in New Zealand, is to all intents and purposes, the present Baronet.
My father, fourth in line for the title,
The Baronetcy ceased on Sir Charles death. Didn't it?
Whoever wrote this is under a severe illusion of grandeur!
-
To research the Asgill line thoroughly, one probably needs to spend some hours studying Burkes Peerage
https://burkespeerage.com/search_results.php?results=2
but I know there is no such thing as an "to all intents and purposes baronet" !
-
Quite so Lizdb - but think about it - would you have called your Granny a liar for telling you things which were untrue but which she believed to be true?
William's lies fooled everyone - including me who was stupid enough to believe the story I was told. It is unthinkable that someone newly introduced to the name Asgill would turn around and call them all liars. Well, it is in my book.
First they have had to concede that William was never in line for the baronetcy, because he must have been illegitimate and now they are being asked to consider that he was, in truth, The Swindler and never even born an Asgill.
If you value your family history and value the people who have told it to you it is hard to have to reject it. Much easier if you are a dispassionate researcher.
It would be really good if we could move on on two premises - firstly William fooled everyone, especially his own family, and second we need to feel compassion for people who have had to move many degrees away from their original beliefs.
For goodness sake - the present day Asgills didn't make the story up themselves. They were as much victims as the victims of The Swindler.
-
The pedigree was the first thing I obtained, in hard copy, before I even heard about a present-day Asgill! Imagine my astonishment - and reluctance to call the bunch of them liars.
-
"I don't quite see that Mary was illiterate." I tracked down the Leuchfords of Sevenoaks (well, not there any more, except in the graveyard) and that was what a family member told me. Sadly, that Leuchford moved to Australia and has subsequently died, or else I would be asking him to join this discussion and verify what he told me.
However, that certainly does look like the signature of a literate woman. What can I say - hard proof that yet another platform of William's story was a lie!
-
My granny said her mum was nee Archer and was descended from a Lady Archer.
Research showed her mum to be nee Kemp, but a generation further back her gran was nee Archer. Extensive research has never revealed any hint of aristocracy!!!
That's the way it is. I'm pleased to know who my ancestors were.
The "Lady Archer" story was interesting, but no one ever claimed it to be true (ie I never thought myself as descended from aristocracy)and wouldn't do unless it was proven.
But I wouldn't say I was saying my granny was a liar. She was just passing on some story no doubt she had heard from somewhere. But she kept is as a "story" and never built it up to something it wasn't.
The sadness in the Asgill case as that it that the story has been so instilled into generations as fact, that someone really believes they can be an "to all intents and purposes Baron". And the second sadness is that this "title" is so important to them and they cant just shrug it to one side and say never mind, we are descended from lesser mortals instead! A
As I think I said in an earlier post, they are the same people whoever their ancestors were.
-
"I don't quite see that Mary was illiterate." I tracked down the Leuchfords of Sevenoaks (well, not there any more, except in the graveyard) and that was what a family member told me.
Just hearsay then. You CANNOT base research on "what people say", quoting it as fact. Evidence suggest otherwise.
-
Using the term liar is a bit strong. Plenty of stories get embroidered over the generations.
Remember poor tragic Tess Darbeyfield whose father was told by the local parson of the noble D'Urberville family and remarked on the similarity of the surname. Tess was so convinced they were related she went to visit Alex D'Urberville and his mother and try to claim kinship. Only to find that his family had bought the estate and changed their name to that of the former owners. Of course no DNA in those days to prove it - but there was the phantom coach.....
-
No, Tess was very reluctant to try to claim kinship with Alec D'Urbeville -- it was her father (or both parents?) who pushed her to do so!
-
Another idea/theory -
Did Sir Charles have any siblings? Thus could William actually be a nephew of his? I.e a son of one of Charles's brothers or sisters. Maybe not born with surname Asgill. Maybe illegitimate son of a brother of Charles, or maybe son of a sister of Charles.
Burkes peerage certainly shows the Asgills to have many that did become clergymen. Maybe Williams story IS partially true?
When the baronetcy died out because Sir Charles himself had no legitimate issue (and he never acknowledged the Charles Childs) , this William saw himself as , in his eyes, the deserving male heir? Especially if he was a legit son of a sister of Sir Charles and thus grandson of the previous baronet?
Have the siblings (if any) of Charles, including sisters, been thoroughly researched? Were any in Ewell around 1800? Did any have a son William?
-
I wish I had a video recording of my meeting with the Leuchford family member and his recollections and the documents he showed me - and all the research he had done - I really do! I can see that I'm considered to be a complete fool and pretty much nothing I say now will make any difference to that opinion of me. I am patronised, shouted at and looked down on. So be it.
-
Please dont think that.
We are trying to start with a clean sheet to establish the facts.
It is just getting difficult when more and more of what was initially presented as fact ( dying with only £17, buried in a paupers grave, christened by a monk, mary leutchford being illiterate etc etc) then turns out to be just something someone has said, with no evidence to back it up.
As LizzieL has said, it is nothing unusual for family stories to get embroidered over the years. And it can be interesting and fun to try and sort them out. We all have them in our families.
But to do that there needs to be a clear distinction between what is hearsay ( which may be true, may have an element of truth, or may be completely incorrect) and what has been confirmed through researching as many surviving documents as possible.
-
This may be my final post here so before I say anything further I would like to sincerely thank some of the members here who have been so helpful and given so much of their time to this quandary. Both Staybright and I appreciate your expertise very much indeed. I know that because he and I have talked on the phone together a lot today, but I am afraid I don’t have a certificate to prove it!
The connections between William Charles Asgill and The Swindler are these: the similarities between the reports in the newspapers about the Swindler’s modus operandi and the uncanny similarities in aspects of William’s story as passed down the generations.
For thirteen pages now I have done my best to keep up with the pace of questioning and tried my best to give answers to the best of my ability. I understood that at the outset the genealogists here would want to check out BMDs etc etc to clarify my story. That was totally understandable and I tried to deal with it as well as I could, frustrating though it was at times to be told so much that was already known. Then to be pointed to Burkes Peerage and told I should look into the Asgill family lineage was, frankly, a bridge too far.
I’m now being asked if there are nephews who could have been the Swindler. In short – no – but I can see that my statement, along with the statement in the newspapers that, after his death, the General’s Executors denied that that could be so – well, that’s not enough to avoid having to go down so many alleyways and byways that, to Staybright and me, are, frankly, a waste of time. Of course the General had nieces and nephews – both the children of his sisters and the children of his wife’s siblings. None of them was the Swindler. Sorry if you don't like that statement, but you really don't have to listen to my twitterings any more if you don't want to!
One aspect of the story has certainly been clarified, and I thank LizzieL for bringing to our attention Mary Leuchford’s signature - which certainly strongly suggests that she wasn’t illiterate – that is really incontestable after seeing her signature. I have downloaded the marriage certificate signature and sincerely wish that the lovely Leuchford family member I met, all those years ago, was still alive and that I could send it to him. He would have loved it. All I can do with it now is to file it away in my Leuchford file.
Back in my original post I asked if members here might be able to help to establish that William Charles Asgill and The Swindler were one and the same man (and that the Swindler had no Asgill blood in his veins, although I don’t think I put it quite like that). If there are any members here who would care to try to establish this for sure – difficult though that might be, I agree – then this thread could stay open for that purpose. If this premise is unacceptable to anyone, may I please suggest they stay out of the discussion? Either that, or this thread might as well be closed.
continued in following post:
-
Staybright and I have racked our brains (some would say – what brains?!) to try to make a connection between 1) the General – 2) someone purporting to be related to him – and 3) Ewell. Now that the DNA route has failed, and as you know I was putting a lot of faith in that, there are several possibilities as to why it failed. The first and most obvious one would seem to be that nobody in The Swindler’s family has had their DNA tested. Or possibly there are no survivors of The Swindler’s family, other than Staybright and his cousins. Or William a.k.a. The Swindler was not born in Ewell.
Ewell appears on William Charles Asgill’s census returns and, for no good reason other than a gut feeling, I think it was true that he was born there – ergo, so was The Swindler.
Getting back to a connection with The Swindler’s birth in Ewell and scraping around for a connection with the Asgill family and Ewell – we can only offer up the Glyn family who’s country mansion was in Ewell. Sir Richard Glyn was the next Lord Mayor of London - following on from the General’s father – and the Glyn family would have sent their son to a public school. Sir Richard Glyn was a banker and, as such, it is unthinkable that the two men didn’t know each other. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Richard_Glyn,_1st_Baronet,_of_Ewell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Richard_Glyn,_1st_Baronet,_of_Ewell) I can’t field questions about the Glyns though, as this paragraph is the sum total of my knowledge.
Was The Swindler a Glyn? Did a Glyn family member ‘have it in’ for the Asgills in some way or for some reason? Glyns would certainly have been born in Ewell. The suggestion is being made because we are scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a connection to Ewell, not, and I repeat not, because of any delusions of grandeur on the part of Staybright or his family – all of whom are in the dark about The Swindler – and Staybright would like it to remain that way. Until a time of his choosing that is. I have met Staybright, obviously, and a more unassuming and gentle man you could not hope to meet. He’s charming – and going through a hard time at the moment and hasn’t appreciated the ribaldry at his family’s expense on this thread.
I can completely understand that the vast majority of members will walk away from all this now, all having far better things to do with their time. All I can say, again, is that if you would like to work from our premises and help us, that would be lovely, but please don’t mock and patronise us. If this is no longer for you – just walk away. As I say, I am very close to that point myself. I certainly can’t keep up the pace as it has been for the past day or two. We all have lives to get on with, so a much slower pace would be great! Escargot pace would be best of all!
-
Those of you who have put so much time and effort into this might find the following thread illuminating: http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=541814.msg3954592
Of particular interest are the opening post, reply #23, and reply #27 (skip to para 7).
Actually, don’t bother, I’ll save you the time. Winjoy is a descendant of Charles Childs.
Carol
-
I'm completely mystified Carol. Have I done something wrong - here - or 4 years ago? Have I claimed to be something I'm not? What dirty washing have you found out about me?
Apart from the fact that this thread is not about Charles Childs - I wish I could find the references you mention.
-
This has turned sinister and dark - I've opted not to be notified any more - so clearly no point in directing any queries or barbs to me now.
It will be entirely up to Staybright to field queries etc. if he chooses to do so.
Thank you Spidermonkey. You were so nice in your posts.
-
CarolA3, I can't see your point either. Winjoy is currently researching William Charles ASGILL and I don't think he/she has ever said that they are descended from WCA.
Debra :)
-
Winjoy and Staybright - I do wish you all the best in your endeavours, and I hope you update us as and when you can.
I have to say that this thread kept me awake last night - and as a tired mum of two young boys, not much keeps me awake!
I have been uncomfortable with the tone of some of the posts, and this is the conclusion that I reached: it is not our job to discuss how or why the family believed the story that was passed down to them, it is not our job to discuss whether the family have delusions of grandeur. What is our job, is to ascertain facts and to try to unravel/untangle the mystery of WCA's birth.
In my humble opinion, the next step(s) that Winjoy and Staybright should undertake is to find out whether the records of WCAs time in debtors jail survive, and to see whether WCA was ever prosecuted for his deceptions in the 1820s. These records may well hold other clues - such as who paid off his debts, or other aliases that he might have had.
Good luck, and best wishes.
-
I think that there has been on over-the-top reaction to legitimate questions from the researchers on here, and the statement
'This has turned sinister and dark - I've opted not to be notified any more - so clearly no point in directing any queries or barbs to me now.'
is without foundation.
It is for researchers to look at all the facts, but part of that involves trying to sort out truth from fiction.
Suggestions have been made in good faith so that all routes are investigated, and the response that people are mocking or patronising is false.
Winjoy has put
' to help to establish that William Charles Asgill and The Swindler were one and the same man'
No, research is not used to establish that fact but to work through in detail what are the possibilities.
Sorry, have to go, just wanted to say that I think researchers have been maligned, grandson just arrived for babysitting.
-
Then to be pointed to Burkes Peerage and told I should look into the Asgill family lineage was, frankly, a bridge too far.
I do not understand why exception was taken to this suggestion. It was made in response to the post in which a letter was quoted from in which someone had said they were to all intents and purposes the next baronet and their father was x in line for the title, or words to that effect. So I looked at Burkes peerage, which I thought might be a good resource to establish exactly what the lines of descent were, and shared the linked because it obviously had a lot of info about the Asgill baronetcy in it. Trying to be helpful.
Thank you Chempat for your wise words.
-
Hello Winjoy
This has been an interesting thread. As a completely disinterested party (ie, I have taken no part in the research), can I respectfully suggest that you are misinterpreting some very genuine efforts to help you. Nobody has called you, or any of the Asgills liars, and I see no sign of you being " patronised, shouted at and looked down on," or anything turning "sinister and dark".
Family stories are an important part of the search for ancestors, and establishing how, why and when they may have originated is all part of the process. Like the Asgills (and like many other researchers), I had a supposed illegitimate connection to the aristocracy but this family story melted away like the mist when I discovered the facts. It certainly doesn't make my father or my great aunts liars though! You have a connection to a fascinating person in the Swindler, whoever he was.
You are obviously very close to this story and feel passionate about it, which is great. However the people giving so much of their time and effort to help you are seeing this in a more dispassionate way, which is why the idea of a clean sheet and alternatives (eg possible cousins) are such an important starting point, and why they may be able to get you past the jumble of contradictory stories surrounding this man. I hope your reaction doesn't put them off. I do think it was rather disingenuous to say that you are not part of the Asgill family though, when your previous posts show that this is not in fact the case.
I hope that you do find more out about this fascinating story, but I think you need to take things a little more calmly and accept the fantastic help that is being given here!
Best regards
Mike
-
I fully agree with the posts immediately above.
Win joy asked for help. In the previous thread, Winjoy states that they do not enjoy research. Others here do; but any researcher, in any field, needs to start with the known facts and if these aren't already referenced, needs to reference them. Yes, it can seem s bit tedious to go over old ground, but if the OP doesn't present the references initially, the helpers need to establish them. That is to clarify, not to patronise.
The whole story reads like a Victorian romance and those most closely linked have clearly invested a lot of emotion in it. Sometimes uncovering hard facts can sweep away some aspects of the romance (eg ending up in a pauper's grave- I found the death notice in the local paper so if someone had the cash to pay for that, I doubt that William was given a pauper's burial).
-
Going back a few posts
The Glyns of Ewell and the Asgills would have known each other. Sir Richard Glyn (1st Baronet of Ewell) and Sir Charles Asgill (the General's father) were joint Sherriffs of London 1752. There was also a connection through banking.
http://heritagearchives.rbs.com/people/list/richard-glyn.html
I came across some Glyn BMDS in Ewell, while searching for various Williams.
-
Not sure if it is worth continuing to share thoughts and ideas as to things possibly worth researching, if the OP is no longer receiving notifications.
But why not!
When I was suggesting a few posts ago that it might be worth approaching this from the angle that maybe William actually was some sort of nephew (metamorphosed to "son" in the story over the ensuing years) I had forgotten that Sir Charles had nephews/nieces named in his Will, children of his sisters. So, as Winjoy says, the story goes that after Sir Charles death, William Asgill went to London and approached the executors about his inheritance, to be told there wasn't one. As we saw, he wasn't named in the Will. BUT - the point is, DID Sir Charles have any other nephews, other than those named in his Will? Either another son of either of these sisters, or a son of a third sibling? and thus did this son adopt the name William Asgill etc etc?
Has Sir Charles' siblings and their descendents been researched thoroughly? Were any in Ewell?
OR, another possible scenario, also possibly worth following up. A main beneficiary to Sir Charles estate was the brother of his wife - Charles Ogle. Was William maybe originally some sort of nephew on Jemima Sophia's side? ie did she have brothers or sisters, one of which had a son who later called himself this William Asgill? MAybe hearing the estate was going to someone from his side, thought he should have a share of it?
When it comes to looking at Public schools and head boys thereof, I would suggest starting with Westminster School. This seems to be where the Asgill men were educated (haven't checked the Ogles). William and Mary married in Westminster, although he seemingly was from around Croydon and she from Kent. Maybe, just maybe, the link with the area was that he had been at school there?
OK, all clutching at straws. But possibly a need to follow some of these sorts of ideas through until they can be definitely ruled out.
-
The OP may have stopped receiving notifications, but that does not prevent them from reading the posts whenever they want, surely?
-
Some good ideas there.
I have found another newspaper report from the Durham County Advertiser 20 September 1823, which gives a bit more detail.
The clergyman involved in the affair was from a "town in the neighbourhood of Shaftesbury, in Dorsetshire". The deception started about 8 months prior to the article appearing and was discovered when bills of credit were becoming due. He still kept up the pretence when the General's death was known - dressing himself in mourning clothes. Most of the swindles were perpetrated on tradesmen etc in the local area and Salisbury, but one is mentioned on an army uniform maker in London. The clergyman was asked to write regularly to the General at a hotel in London. These letters were collected by a servant of the General's. So the swindler had an accomplice who was either the General's servant or more likely just pretending to be.
The swindler is described as more of a fop than a gentleman, evidently well educated, smart and agreeable in conversation. In person about middle size, high shouldered, rather well looking with fine dark eyes. He is also described as about five or six and twenty.
The paper says that he may already be known to the police. The only mention of his being at college and in the army comes from the letter the swindler wrote to the clergyman. No mention of his being head boy at a public school at 16 and then on to university.
The fraud started in Feb 1823 and went on until after the General's death (I believe that was in July that year).
We know WC Asgill and Mary married at the end of that same year, but we need to find his whereabouts earlier in the year. If I was a schoolmaster / private tutor, I would be advertising for pupils in local papers - so a search of papers around Croydon might be worth a try.
-
Maybe just a coincidence
Morning post 10 Sep 1822 refers to a case of a Charles Askew and in brackets after the name it says "not Asgill", who was re-examined on the charge of obtaining some diamond jewellery from a Mr Jarman of Piccadilly.
The Morning Chronicle of the same date has the same case and says Askew had obtained the jewellery to sell on commission. It was said a name was mentioned (proposed buyer) but was not disclosed in the paper.
-
At the other end of his life, there is a report in the Liverpool Mercury which mentions William Charles Asgill, assistant to Mr Murdoch, pawnbroker ----
(although he stated he was a teacher in 1851).
-
Thank you LizzieL for filling in some more from the articles.
One thing that I would still like clarifying (this has just been bugging me whilst I was out gardening earlier!) -
It has been said that the story passed down through the descendents of William Asgill (bn 1800 Ewell from censuses) matches that of the un-named Swindler from the newspaper articles.
But, I was under the impression that the main drift of the descendants story was that he was a nephew/son who was disinherited, but by rights should have inherited either the property/title or whatever.
The Swindlers actions all (or mainly, LizzieL's recent post does help put it all in context) took place before Sir Charles death. So the Swindlers actions/story could not have been anything to do with inheritance - he may have suspected he wasn't going to inherit (if he truly was a rellie), or seen the Will (if he was close to Sir Chalres) or if he was just a random Joe Bloggs nothing to do with the family then, at the time of the Swindling, inheritance or not was never an issue.
Rather, the "swindling" seems to be centred around forging Sir Charles name on various letters, in order to obtain presumably credit/money/goods etc.
This could be carried out by a rellie (as I suggested might be worth following up, he may indeed be a nephew of Sir Charles who is using his name and forging his signature) or by someone unrelated, but clearly from the details LizzieL has given, it was someone well "in the know".
Looks like the public school / head boy lead has no future though, in th e light of LizzieL's post!
-
, but clearly from the details LizzieL has given, it was someone well "in the know".
Possibly someone from the household - a clever servant with a talent for mimicking his employers perhaps, or the boyfriend of one of the servants perhaps.
It seems to have been quite a common and well - known fraud in its day, - I even remember an episode of Fawlty Towers with a similar swindler!
-
Hello all,
My last post was a little brief as I needed to get some sleep. I’ll now expand on it.
First of all, I am not involved in any way with any part of the extended Asgill family. However, I do have a good memory for interesting threads, and as parts of this one sounded familiar, I re-read the OP’s previous thread and simply provided a link to the relevant parts of it. Nothing ‘dark and sinister’ about that, surely?
I agree with Mike that it was ‘rather disingenuous’ of the OP to present herself as a helpful outsider instead of an apparently genuine descendant of the General. She has obviously become deeply involved in the whole Asgill/Swindler saga over a long period of time, but we all have to deal with the reality that the proof we want to find does not always exist even when using the amazing skills of the RootsChat community.
We should all look forward to the publication of the proposed book, and hope that the contributions of RootsChatters will be suitably acknowledged.
Carol
-
It would make sense if the accomplice picking up the letters from the London hotel (written by the clergyman) was a real servant of Sir Charles. He would have first hand knowledge and make the story convincing.
I don't see that the swindler and WC Asgill are the same person.
WC Asgill should have been courting his Mary and planning for the forthcoming marriage while the swindler was down in Dorset or Somerset.
Their marriage was by Banns and they were both OTP, so they would have been resident in the parish of St George Hanover square for 3 weeks or so before. I think I have identified one of the witnesses. There is a Sarah Dabner in Croydon, her age is about five years older than W C Asgill. Can't see that she's a relative, probably a family friend.
Maybe WCA read the newspaper reports of the Swindler and what started as a joke in the family that he was related to Sir Charles gradually became part of their family story.
The lack of baptism in Ewell: either he was mistaken about where he was born, I can't see any point in not telling the truth. Or he wasn't baptised there or he wasn't baptised at all. Maybe he was born at his grandmother's house in Ewell and baptised a few weeks later somewhere else when mother and baby were back home with Dad.
-
Before going any further I would like to 'place on record' that I have no interest whatsoever in titles or claims to them but have always been motivated by the desire to trace my ancestors factually wherever the paths lead and have applied this just as assiduously to my own paternal lines. I will admit, however, I am very disappointed at the strong possibility that I may have no connection at all to the 17th and 18th century Asgills (ordinary citizens of London) whom I have spent years researching and of whom I have become very fond.
I have just spoken to Winjoy on the phone and, although she has withdrawn from receiving notifications, she will be looking in on the board from time to time. She pointed out that at no time did she say she was not an Asgill descendant, but that she has no connection with WCA or his branch of the family. She, and I, would like to mention that we have masses of documents, books etc. regarding the Asgills. This side of things is not the problem (I have just about everything on WCA for example and can probably answer any queries you have about him) but the case for or against WCA being The Swindler is why we sought your help.
As it is possible the Glyns could be the Swindler's family I will try and direct my efforts there but would be most grateful for any help.
-
If you look up the Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette of 4 Oct 1823 you will get a new slant on the matter. Tried to send it but no luck!
By the way, Winjoy only discovered the Swindler case a month or so ago.
-
...however, I am very disappointed at the strong possibility that I may have no connection at all to the 17th and 18th century Asgills (ordinary citizens of London) whom I have spent years researching and of whom I have become very fond. ..
Most of us will share your pain there, having had to give up supposed ancestors of whom we had become fond . There's a certain family of sawmill workers and labourers in Shropshire who I really felt I had a bond with, until my error was helpfully pointed out by a genuine descendant. I kept their certificates and still look wistfully at them from time to time!
-
Thanks Mike, much appreciated. Best part of 20 years researching them so it is a bit of a blow.
-
I'm sorry, I can't read right through this from the start ----
Is there any reason at all why William Charles could NOT have been an unacknowledged son of the Baronet? Born illegitimately, brought up with a different name ---
In Winjoy's other thread she writes of a woman who was mistress to more than one man at a time and had several children, most by one man but one (in the middle of the others) by the other (I think the other was Asgill IIRC). Leaving aside the matter of how anyone might know which children were the offspring of which father (only DNA could really tell you that in this situation!) -- what became of the "interspersed" child said to be Asgills?
I do apologise for asking this info again but I am very confused.
(BTW I have access to the BL newspaper archives but the Devizes + Wiltshire gazette of that specific date is not online through that site - so is it available elsewhere where we can access it, if it contains further salient info?)
-
Annie,
In answer to your first question: No. There is no reason why he should not be an illegitimate son.
Second question: I don't quite understand what you mean by 'interspersed' child.
British Newspaper Archive for the papers.
-
Yep, that's where I've looked but it has not come up -- are you sure about that exact date? There are certainly long articles about the situation on other dates in Oct 1823 in a variety of newspapers.
-
Sorry, my mistake. 4 September 1823
-
so he had a "chere amie" at the time --
-
He sure did.
Did you read my earlier amended 19.04 post?
-
This is what I meant by the "interspersed" child (from the 2011 thread previously alluded to)
After she had given birth to Manners' fifth child with her, she then had a child with Asgill - then, about 18 months later - she had her sixth and final child with Manners!
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=541814.27
-
I think you will find it was Winjoy's ancestor.
-
It might be tempting to think that William was an illegitimate son - in fact that was the conclusion of the Asgill family for some time now - but this has now been proved false.
Staybright, re your reply #139 - you will have to take this up with Winjoy in the light of her post I have quoted.
-
“Spidermonkey - I have to say that this thread kept me awake last night - and as a tired mum of two young boys, not much keeps me awake!
I have been uncomfortable with the tone of some of the posts, and this is the conclusion that I reached: it is not our job to discuss how or why the family believed the story that was passed down to them, it is not our job to discuss whether the family have delusions of grandeur. What is our job, is to ascertain facts and to try to unravel/untangle the mystery of WCA's birth.
In my humble opinion, the next step(s) that Winjoy and Staybright should undertake is to find out whether the records of WCAs time in debtors jail survive, and to see whether WCA was ever prosecuted for his deceptions in the 1820s. These records may well hold other clues - such as who paid off his debts, or other aliases that he might have had.”
Thank you so much Spidermonkey. I couldn’t sleep either and was on this board at 4am the following morning – being ‘accused’ of being a descendant of Charles Childs by Carol3A totally and completely floored me. I couldn’t work out what my ‘crime’ had been – other than, of course, trying my utmost to keep Charles Childs out of the conversation since it is one of the alleyways I really wanted to avoid wasting time on – it’s all far far too complicated when his mother was the mistress of two Generals and bore them , altogether, 7 children. I just didn’t want the distraction. Though both Lizdb – who declared early on in this thread that she had found me out in my 2011 post as if she had found a big secret in my past – along with CarolA3, who was clearly very pleased with herself for her ‘find’ too – while at the same time implying that I was a fraud and a liar. Had she not bothered to find out that this thread is about WCA? – she seems to believe I have declared myself connected to him, which I am not. One of the very first things I said in my OP was that I had been here once before and have expressed constant gratitude for the help given then, and now. However, this has been, for me, a seriously unpleasant experience and left me with grave misgivings about even being here now.
I thank you again for your very sensible suggestions about the ‘way forward’ and I feel sure Staybright will be going down those routes.
-
I have transcribed about 20 letters from General Manners to his children – have discovered and read at least a dozen books with stories, mainly of General Asgill – but one glorious reference to General Manners singing Happy Birthday, to the King, so out of tune it was upsetting for those around him!
Absolutely no credence has been given to me for ‘knowing’ what I ‘know’ – having been accused of guesswork and jumping to conclusions.
I have been ‘found out’ to have been ‘wrong’ in taking the advice of a Leuchford who assured me that Mary was illiterate. The family member had spent years consulting - not only a 100 year old aunt who apparently remembered Mary - but had also done diligent research into the whole Leuchford family. Anyway, LizzieL must take the credit for disproving all this with her ‘evidence’ - in the form of a proficient signature of Mary’s. It’s interesting, certainly, but I am not connected to Mary and the man who would have loved this is now dead. It’s therefore of little consequence really and certainly doesn’t nullify William’s ‘contention’ that he was ‘disinherited’ because the General considered he had married beneath his station. Mary still remains a miller’s daughter. And the fact is they married after the General had died anyway.
I erroneously referred to the man who baptized Charles Childs (referred to in Father’s Book, Members of the Family) as a ‘monk’ and am still again accused on that score, even though my very next post said ‘stupid me - before someone jumps on me let me say I should have used the term ‘prelate’.
-
“the response that people are mocking or patronising is false.”
Please have a word with Spidermonkey who has declared herself to have been very discomforted by the tone used by some posters. It gave her a sleepless night - and me several sleepless nights.
-
“I do not understand why exception was taken to this suggestion. It was made in response to the post in which a letter was quoted from in which someone had said they were to all intents and purposes the next baronet and their father was x in line for the title, or words to that effect.”
Firstly, that letter was written by a young person, near to fifty years ago – long before more was known. It had never, ever, been my intention to post a letter written by someone else from whom I have not had permission to reproduce it. Such was my frustration that people weren’t bothering to read a thing I wrote, that I was driven, in desperation, to doing so. It has been the source of continued derision towards the Asgill family.
Had Lizdb bothered to read Saybright’s initial post she would have read that I have written General Asgill’s biography (it hasn’t been published but it has been distributed to those who would be interested, mainly family members). It would therefore follow that I might, just might, be familiar with all information from Burkes on the subject of the Asgill lineage. I furthermore answered that point earlier by saying that the pedigree was the first item I obtained, back in 2002, in hard copy.
-
“I see no sign of you being " patronised, shouted at and looked down on," or anything turning "sinister and dark".
I understand that on the internet capitalised letters mean shouting! Look back and you will see what I mean. Being referred to Burke’s Peerage is insulting and patronizing. Carol3A ‘accusing’ me of being a descendant of Charles Childs in a fashion which appeared to indicate I had been lying was deeply worrying. Like Spidermonkey, I couldn’t sleep.
“You have a connection to a fascinating person in the Swindler, whoever he was.” As is now known by all, I am descended from Charles Childs, therefore not really ‘connected’ to the Swindler at all. Doesn’t make me any less keen to find him though – but that is mainly because of my deep friendship with Staybright, and great fascination with the wider Asgill story.
“I hope your reaction doesn't put them off.” That’s quite funny really – anyway, it gave me a laugh.
“accept the fantastic help that is being given here!” I don’t think there is a post of mine which doesn’t express gratitude and thanks. There were occasions when I had to hold my tongue though.
-
“if the OP doesn't present the references initially, the helpers need to establish them. That is to clarify, not to patronise.”
I explained at length that I understood that initially people were going to be going over ground covered by me years ago – simply to clarify the position for themselves. I have learnt nothing yet that I didn’t know already – other than that Mary Leuchford does not appear to have been illiterate. I have groaning shelves full of all the work done on this subject and cannot possibly give references for everything. I also have 3 GB on my computer relating to the whole subject – Asgills, Manners, Ogles, Colviles etc. etc. There are two documents which I said I still needed, back in 2011 and still now, and that is Charles Child’s baptism certificate and that of William Charles Asgill as well.
The latter will now be very much complicated because, if the newspapers are to be believed, he was not born with that name. It is the opinion, only, of the Slains Pursuviant of Arms to the Early of Erol, Peter Drummond Murray, that in all probability, his relative, the Duke of Melfort, not based in the UK, but at the Vatican at the time, probably didn’t register the baptism (done privately, at home, because the baby Charles Childs was dying) and that his mind was full of his personal business in England at the time – his elder brother had died and he was here to claim the tiltle. He also didn’t speak English, so may have been a little hampered. He was called urgently to a dying baby and the formalities required in a country he did not live in may have escaped him. This is only PDM’s opinion though, and cannot be verified with hard certified certificates. If anybody is able to locate the baptism certificate it would be truly wonderful. I have singularly failed in this attempt.
“I found the death notice in the local paper so if someone had the cash to pay for that, I doubt that William was given a pauper's burial).” Staybright would need to be the one to answer that question, should he wish to expand on it.
-
“The Glyns of Ewell and the Asgills would have known each other. Sir Richard Glyn (1st Baronet of Ewell) and Sir Charles Asgill (the General's father) were joint Sherriffs of London 1752. There was also a connection through banking.”
Without going back a few pages to my original suggestion I think my words were something along the lines of it would be inconceivable that they didn’t know each other and I gave a link to the Wiki article on the Lord Mayor Glyn. Both families had sons at Westminster, so there is a school, banking and civic connection.
Do you see what I mean about people not appearing to read what I write?
-
“the story goes that after Sir Charles death, William Asgill went to London and approached the executors about his inheritance, to be told there wasn't one”
I’m afraid I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that the Swindler newspaper articles (of which I found 6 but only uploaded one transcription here) stated that after the General’s death his Executors were approached about the man masquerading as his nephew. The Executors apparently gave the enquirer confirmation that no such person existed. None of his nephews had the surname Asgill.
“DID Sir Charles have any other nephews, other than those named in his Will? Either another son of either of these sisters, or a son of a third sibling? and thus did this son adopt the name William Asgill etc etc?”
I cannot imagine why any of his Ogle, Colvile, Legge nephews and nieces would be in any way wishing to ditch their father’s surname. Those families were all well-to-do and no child was going without. The Swindler, on the other hand, had been “disowned” by his family and was, therefore, probably short of a penny or two.
-
“So the swindler had an accomplice who was either the General's servant or more likely just pretending to be.” One of the six newspaper articles I found stated that his accomplice was his chere ami – so possibly Mary Leuchford, since he married her so soon afterwards. I certainly don’t think the General’s servant would have been involved in these activities.
“No mention of his being head boy at a public school at 16 and then on to university.” All six newspaper articles would need to be read to gain all the information contained within their pages. Each paper divulges just one extra little snippet. But everything you seem to think you have found, and I am unaware of, has been incorporated within one or other of my posts here.
“I would be advertising for pupils in local papers - so a search of papers around Croydon might be worth a try. “ One of the Asgill family members provided me with one of William’s advertisements, produced once he had set up his school in Beddington, near Croydon. Other than being proficient in just about every subject likely to be taught, maths, science, languages etc. we learn nothing from it.
-
“At the other end of his life, there is a report in the Liverpool Mercury which mentions William Charles Asgill, assistant to Mr Murdoch, pawnbroker ----” Thank you, yes I have that one too, along with another article saying that Major and Mrs Asgill had attended some well-to-do fashionable function or other. I suspect that William was putting his newly-made (yet unearned) army uniform to the test – and took Mary along with him!
“But, I was under the impression that the main drift of the descendants story was that he was a nephew/son who was disinherited, but by rights should have inherited either the property/title or whatever.” William Charles Asgill drew upon elements of the Swindler’s story and moulded them to suit his purpose. This is how the Swindler was described as a “nephew” but William changed this, for his family story, to “son”. The clergyman came into WCA’s story – “disowned by his family” became “disinherited by his family”. The whole Swindler story, once all six newspapers are read, reveal just one more element of WCA’s story.
“if he was just a random Joe Bloggs nothing to do with the family then, at the time of the Swindling, inheritance or not was never an issue”. Indeed, as I say, William’s story became embellished over the years and possibly suffered from Chinese Whispers down the generations. Most elements of his story can be seen in that of the Swindler.
“Looks like the public school / head boy lead has no future though, in th e light of LizzieL's post!” That is because I have not transcribed all 6 newspaper articles and, therefore, it has been disbelieved because all I did was tell you that it was in one of the newspapers – without transcribing the paper in which it was stated.
-
“It seems to have been quite a common and well - known fraud in its day,”
If you have access to the newspaper archives and search for “swindler” in the first half of the 19th century you will find that there are hundreds of examples of this. The modus operandi was exactly the same in each and every case. Connection to a supposed wealthy relative - giving the swindler access to 'credit' he would not have had on his own.
-
“I agree with Mike that it was ‘rather disingenuous’ of the OP to present herself as a helpful outsider instead of an apparently genuine descendant of the General.”. You obviously didn’t read my post, several pages back, where I was given no option but to discuss Charles Childs, although pointing out at the time that I really wanted to keep him out since this thread is supposed to be about WCA. The story being far too complicated without adding an unnecessary element. My OP mentions that I have been here before, four years ago. I am not trying to make any secret of anything – nor being disingenuous – simply wanting to keep on topic. “We should all look forward to the publication of the proposed book, and hope that the contributions of RootsChatters will be suitably acknowledged.” Firstly I have not been successful in getting my book published. Not everyone is! But I didn’t come here to play the part of a failed author. While there were several extra pages added as a result of the wonderful help I received back in 2011, there is only one extra item of knowledge from all these 17 pages – the fact that Mary Leuchford was not illiterate. I will ensure that when I add that information, if I ever bother to do so that is, that I credit it to LizzieL.
As a 5 star poster, CarolA3, there is a hell of a lot of sarcasm in your post and your earlier one prevented me from sleep since I appeared to be being accused of God only knows what. I lay awake all night trying to figure out what my crime had been. It is now revealed to have been lack of acknowledgement here, on a thread about WCA, that I am indeed descended from Charles Childs. Since the Swindler has been revealed to have come from “a good family” who “disowned him” and according to the newspaper, so did General Asgill's Executors, I think I can claim to have no biological ties to WCA a.k.a. The Swindler.
-
“W C Asgill should have been courting his Mary and planning for the forthcoming marriage while the swindler was down in Dorset or Somerset.” Had you read all six newspapers (my apologies for not transcribing all six and uploading them here) you would have seen that one of the papers said that the Swindlers girlfriend was his accomplice. As already stated, I said that many pages back, but failed to transcribe a massively long article for the benefit of posters here. I had not realised that not a word I say would be believed.
“Maybe he was born at his grandmother's house in Ewell” The General’s mother, the dowager Lady Asgill, lived in London and Sophia Ogle’s parents lived in Martyr Worthy. The General lived in London - but I have never studied Sophia's siblings in sufficient detail (although Barbarina Brand has a very interesting life and a dark secret) (and a cousin of hers married Richard Brinsley Sheridan) to know where they all lived. Sophia's brother, Charles Ogle, was in the Navy so was often at sea.
None of the Asgills or Ogles lived in Ewell. That was why I made the tentative suggestion that maybe, just maybe, the Swindler was related to the Lord Mayor of London, Sir Richard Glyn. His family seat was in Ewell.
“I can't see any point in not telling the truth [about being born in Ewell].”
I totally agree – why lie about your place of birth.
-
”Is there any reason at all why William Charles could NOT have been an unacknowledged son of the Baronet? Born illegitimately, brought up with a different name ---” Once general acceptance within the present day Asgill family that WCA’s ‘story’ of being a legitimate son, sadly disinherited, was untrue, it became pretty much accepted that he was, therefore, illegitimate. Whether anybody cares to join me in my belief that WCA was the Swindler, and therefore in no way connected to the Asgills, is their business. Those of us who have studied the story for, in my case at least, since 2002, are of the belief that this is the case. I cannot force anyone to join me in that opinion. I came here in the hope that you would all help me prove this as right – or alternatively prove that it is wrong. Nobody has proved anything yet, any more than I have proof of my beliefs.
With regard to the General having an illegitimate son with a name not being Asgill – he had one of those too, and his name was Charles Childs. Pretty odd that he did not allow him to be an Asgill, if he allowed his first illegitimate son (a.k.a. the Swindler) to take his name – which would be extraordinary in itself – almost unknown. How could he have done that circa 1800 when he had a beautiful wife (from newspaper articles and portraits found), whom he apparently loved (from the General’s will), to see an Asgill swanning round town?
“(in the middle of the others) by the other (I think the other was Asgill IIRC)” Mary Ann, the mistress to two Generals gave birth to 6 “Mansel” children and 1 “Childs” son. This so desperately complicates WCA’s story that it is the reason I didn’t pick up my 2011 thread and continue on there. This thread is supposed to be about WCA. Since you insist on talking about it – General Manners acknowledged all six children – none given his name, Manners, all christened in London with the name Mansel, and he provided for their mother and the six offspring so generously in his will that the ‘other General’ Asgill, had no need to provide for Mary Ann - who was comfortably ensconced in her house in Chelsea. General Asgill acknowledges her in his will but leaves nothing to their son, Charles Childs. As I have gone to great lengths earlier in this thread to explain, Charles Childs sons produced a book in which all the births, christenings, movements etc. etc. were notated and Charles Childs is buried in his mother’s grave in Loose, Kent. I have explained all this already.
“the Devizes + Wiltshire gazette of that specific date is not online through that site -” It is 3am and I have been at this for hours so I am afraid you will have to accept that Staybright and I have obtained that newspaper from the British newspaper archives online (is that different to those available through the BL)? I am simply too tired to go back and get more details from it.
P.S. Since writing this off-line I see that Staybright made an error with the date of the publication and as already explained, I was just too tired to search the downloaded papers to clarify the situation regarding this.
-
“I don't quite understand what you mean by 'interspersed' child.”
Staybright – you are naturally not as well versed in the Charles Childs story as I am, but Mary Ann gave birth to 5 Mansel children, the offspring of General Manners, then gave birth to Charles Childs, the son of General Asgill, then had a final Mansel child with General Manners.
That youngest Mansel child was left General Asgill’s horse in his will! Odd, but he must have got to know him well and be fond of him during the latter part of his life when he was living with Mary Ann.
-
“It might be tempting to think that William was an illegitimate son - in fact that was the conclusion of the Asgill family for some time now - but this has now been proved false.” You are absolutely right, LizzieL, it is most remiss of me to have used the word “proved” – quite unforgivable in fact. I am convinced that is the case, all the same – the proof is what I came here for.
I certainly didn’t come here to have to say the same things over and over again – to be disbelieved on every count – and 17 pages later to have learnt nothing (other than the famous signature of Mary Leuchford which disproves the Leuchford belief that she was illiterate) but that fact barely impinges on the bigger story – Mary was still ostensibly a bride who would have been unacceptable to the General for his only child – only son – etc. etc. etc. As we all know – General Asgill and his wife Sophia Ogle had no children at all – much less a sole son and heir.
This is, seriously my last post now.
Whether I read in future or not is something only time will tell. But all this is not what I came here to achieve - having to endlessly defend myself - repeat myself - and exhaust myself.
Nobody is prepared to help me prove the connection with WCA and the Swindler. Everybody is telling me endlessly of things already known.
Goodbye to you all.
-
Winjoy,
You may think this is a good place to mark your thread as "completed"
As your thread is more than 24 hours old, this is the way to mark as "Completed"
(There is another way for threads less than 24 hours old.)
Use the "Report to Moderator" button on the topic and send a message stating the board name and indicate you wish it "Completed".
Sue
-
Hi Sparrett,
You may not have noticed a new button which appears at the bottom of every topic page, 'Topic Completed'.
Members can use this to alert the Moderation Team that they consider their topic completed or otherwise resolved. Using this button adds a green tick mark in the topic list on the relevant board.
Spades
-
I think Winjoy does not realise how difficult it is for someone new to the 'mystery' to remember all the facts that have been supplied and not question various parts of the story.
Winjoy has been working on the research since 2002 (or before) and so has the knowledge at the tips of her fingers, we do not.
More than a decade of information is going to need more than a quick week of rootschat suggestions and discussions
If Winjoy read other postings on rootschat then perhaps she would have noticed that that is what happens, and in any research we go over and over old ground to make sure that we have not missed anything. (I am talking here about scientific research as much as genealogical).
Winjoy thinks that not a word that she has said has been believed. No. Every word that she has said might need to be questionned, but that is not because it is not believed, but in an attempt to get to the truth.
“I see no sign of you being " patronised, shouted at and looked down on," or anything turning "sinister and dark".
I understand that on the internet capitalised letters mean shouting! Look back and you will see what I mean.
As that was my quote that I did not believe Winjoy had been patronised, I have looked back. I stand by my assertion.
It is sad that the rootschat researchers have been so misunderstood when they are just trying to get to the truth.
-
Good grief!
-
Hi Sparrett,
You may not have noticed a new button which appears at the bottom of every topic page, 'Topic Completed'.
Members can use this to alert the Moderation Team that they consider their topic completed or otherwise resolved. Using this button adds a green tick mark in the topic list on the relevant board.
Spades
Indeed, I hadn't spotted the new device ;D
Thanks for the tip. It's now stored for future reference!
Sue
-
accusation --- disbeleived ---mocking -- insmnia -- crimes ---
Good grief, has this been a thread where some people have tried to help with a difficult problem, or a court of law?!
Clearly some people see things differently and take things unnecessarily to heart.
It would seem a good idea for this thread to go for a lie down in a dark room. I'm sorry that we weren't able to help (though not for lack of trying!) and I'm sorry that Winjoy has clearly chosen to interpret those efforts in such a negative light.
That's all from me on this thread. No point in trying any more.