RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Wiltshire => Topic started by: dtcoulson on Wednesday 14 December 16 12:29 GMT (UK)
-
Hi people,
Charles Woodham born in Easton Royal, Sept 13 1829, married in 1854 (Truro) and migrated to NZ 1860. There is no evidence of him anywhere in 1841 & 1851. However there are records of a Charles Woodham in prison through these years (1849-50 I think).
But the mystery does not stop there. His stepbrother Nelson Woodham (formerly Nelson Whitebread, born 1825) disappears, as does his natural brother James (b. 1833) and his parents William Woodham (b. 1808) and Elizabeth (formerly Elizabeth Whitebread, born 1809). They all vanish.
I'd rather like to know what became of this family. I'm inclined to speculate that there was some family catastrophe before 1837. But if so, how did Charles survive unseen for so many years?
Any help welcome.
Cheers
David C
-
Could this be father William in 1851, with a much younger wife?
HO107; Piece: 1511; Folio: 300; Page: 17
St Clement Danes, Middlesex
William Woodham 42 House Agent Wiltshire
Jane Woodham 27 Gloucesershire
Eliza Woodham 5 Westminster
Maria Woodham 3 Westminster
Henry Woodham 1 Westminster
Jane Woodham 1 Mo Westminster
-
Hi Groom
I can't rule it out but it doesn't ring true and raises more questions than it answers.
Charles's Dad was a labourer in 1829 when Charles was born.
Thanks
DC
-
Have you got his wife to be in 1851? Just in case they were in the same area.
Who did he marry Susan or Eliza?
What was his address on the marriage certificate?
-
Charles Woodham married Susan Wilkins, June quarter 1854, Truro Cornwall.
Sailed for NZ late 1859 (October I think).
Charles's birth in Easton Royal Wiltshire, Sept 13 1829 (via FreeReg) identifies parents as William & Elizabeth Woodham.
This appears to be William Woodham & Elizabeth Whitebread, since one of their grandchildren has 'Whitebread' as a middle name. Marriage Oct 21 1828, Easton Royal, Wiltshire.
Some time ago I picked up birth dates for them as 1808 & 1809, though I can't now remember where I saw that. These dates therefore should be considered tentative. That being said I could not find alternative parents for Charles.
Elizabeth had a child out of wedlock in 1825, Nelson Whitebread.
She would have been 16 if her birth date is 1809.
Charles was born in 1829 and then James was born in 1833.
James's birth record (via FreeReg) had this to say: "husband transported, not father of child".
Don't know what transported means.
A Charles Woodham was imprisoned for creating a disturbance at a poorhouse in 1845.
If this was our boy he would have been 16.
There is a Charles Woodham who was imprisoned for 3 months in Middlesex in 1849.
No other detail known. He was in prison again in 1850.
There is a Charles Woodham in Cheltenham, Gloucestershire in 1851, a stable hand. He is the right age but I think I found evidence of another CW born in this area, so the match is not certain.
That's all I can give you except for details of Charles's life in NZ which is not relevant here.
>>>> Just wondering if TRANSPORTED could mean something as dire as 'transported to the colonies' ??
-DC
-
"husband transported, not father of child".
I think, you are right and that it means he was transported to Australia and therefore couldn't have been James's father. If that was the case, he must have been transported between Sept 1829 and a least 9 months before James's birth.
-
I wonder? There is a William Woodham who was granted permission to marry in 1829 in New South Wales. His bride was 19. He had been sentenced to 7 years transportation.
William Woodham
Age: 31
Birth Year: Abt 1798
Spouse: Ellen McAloone
Request Status: Granted
Date of Permission/Refusal: 27 Nov 1829
Might be worth asking on the Australian board if they can help as they may have access to convict records. Link it back to this thread.
-
We are thinking in the same direction, Groom. I just posted the question of 'transportation' to the Australian page, making reference back to this conversation in Wiltshire though not literally linking it back (not sure how to do that).
Was "transportation" the common name for booting convicts down to Australia in those days?
It's not a usage of the word I have seen before.
That word, BTW, was found on a birth transcript from Easton Royal.
http://www.wiltshire-opc.org.uk/Items/Easton%20Royal/Easton%20Royal%20-%20Baptisms%201801-1837.pdf
-DC
-
Was "transportation" the common name for booting convicts down to Australia in those days?
It's not a usage of the word I have seen before.
Yes, fairly sure it was. I see you have an answer on there already that looks good!
-
oh yes and while we're discussing it,
ANCESTRY showed me evidence of a William Woodham from Wiltshire who was sent as a convict to NSW Australia in 1799, arriving the next year. There are two applications for convict marriage bearing the name William Woodham that could be the same or different men. One is the case you have discovered. I don't have a date for the other.
I am inclined to think that the William you discovered is the man sent down south in 1799.
If he were to be my William then we are faced with the predicament of a man convicted and transported and applying for marriage all within the 11 months since his son was conceived.
OTOH if it is the man sent to Aus in 1799, then he is considerably older than his Australian wife (thirty years or so).
-DC
-
"husband transported, not father of child".
I think, you are right and that it means he was transported to Australia and therefore couldn't have been James's father. If that was the case, he must have been transported between Sept 1829 and a least 9 months before James's birth.
Elizabeth seems to be having a relationship with another man after William was transported, maybe she lived with him as his wife and the family assumed his surname.
-
oh yes and while we're discussing it,
ANCESTRY showed me evidence of a William Woodham from Wiltshire who was sent as a convict to NSW Australia in 1799, arriving the next year. There are two applications for convict marriage bearing the name William Woodham that could be the same or different men. One is the case you have discovered. I don't have a date for the other.
I am inclined to think that the William you discovered is the man sent down south in 1799.
If he were to be my William then we are faced with the predicament of a man convicted and transported and applying for marriage all within the 11 months since his son was conceived.
OTOH if it is the man sent to Aus in 1799, then he is considerably older than his Australian wife (thirty years or so).
-DC
Can't be as the man marrying in 1829 was only born in 1798!
-
Well done, Groom. Somehow I didn't catch that when I read the earlier entries.
Familysearch gives a number of suitable births for William Woodham in 1798 or close, none in Wiltshire.
I am scratching my head and wondering where I got the birth year of 1809 from.
If I let this go and assume he was born elsewhere in 1798 and moved to Easton Royal, then the story ties together nicely.
-DC
-
[1]
William Westley Woodham
b 24 May 1797 bapt 9 Sep 1798 The Old Meeting House, Presbyterian, Haverhill, Suffolk
son of William & Ann Woodham
[2]
William Woodham
bpt 18 Nov 1798 St Phillip and St Jacob, Bristol, Gloucester
son of Samuel & Ann Woodham
I suppose the thing to do now is see which of these fellows appears in the 1841 census.
-DC
-
I just noticed in Familysearch that the William Woodham born in Cholderton 1809 appears in the 1851 census with a family of his own. This rules out 1809 as the birth year for my William Woodham who seems ever more likely to be the man sent to Australia, born in 1798.
-DC
-
Re : William WOODHAM and the Application to Marry and further info
The image shows the application was dated in 1842. The application was granted. They married 21st March 1842. The groom’s age was 23, and the bride’s age was 24.
Re William's bride : Her name was recorded as Bridget McGRATH. She had arrived per the ship Margaret in 1839, under a sentence.
Re William
He had arrived per the ship Hope.
They were married at St John's C of E, Parramatta, Rev H H Bobart. William WOODHAM was a bachelor, and he signed his name. Bridget McGrath was a widow and she made her mark.
The bride’s 27 July 1845 Certificate of Freedom shows as wife of William WOODHAM her living with her husband, in King St, Sydney, NSW.
The municipal electoral rolls for King Street, Sydney for 1845 show William WOODHAM in King Street Sydney.
http://www.bda-online.org.au/
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=369703.0
JM :) I will post same on your thread on the Australia Board.
-
I'm going to try and summarise what we have so far, regarding William Woodham.
Born 1798, as indicated by Australian records as well as prison record.
The latter suggested he was born in Wiltshire.
(The birth in 1808 was a red herring).
Married in Easton Royal in 1828 as indicated on FamilySearch.
An adjacent record appears to have a spelling mistake,
William Bircham, and suggests a different location.
Served time in prison, 1819 & 1828-1830, separate occasions.
Probably though not necessarily transported to NSW 1829,
as indicated by comment in OPC, Wiltshire.
(realise this clashes partially with the prison story)
Possibly married there in 1829.
This all seems to happen in a very narrow period of time,
which I personally find a bit of a challenge to accept,
but it works better than any alternatives.
That leaves us to ponder the life of William's English wife, thought to be Elizabeth Whitebread on the basis that her surname is carried down into the grandchildren generation.
Such a person was born in Wiltshire in 1809 according to FindMyPast but not in Easton Royal according to the OPC. The OPC contains several births within the local tribe of Whitebreads but Elizabeth is not one of them. I think I saw it on FamilySearch that she was born in 'Grey Easton', presumably not far from Easton Royal.
However I just saw on FindMyPast an Elizabeth Woodham who lived 1810-1826, dying in Wiltshire.
I am thinking that this is the Elizabeth Whitebread said to be born in Wiltshire in 1809, in which case we may be looking for an entirely different person.
Doing a search in GRO's new database I found an Elizabeth Woodham born 1800 who dies in Risbridge Union in 1847. A quick lookup on Google revealed that Risbridge Union is (or contains) a poorhouse in Suffolk, a place I can imagine the wife of a transported convict to end up.
However this is all a matter of weaving a story through some convenient data.
I may be looking at data from two or three Elizabeths.
I'd be interested in your opinions and suggestions.
-DC
-
...
Probably though not necessarily transported to NSW 1829,
as indicated by comment in OPC, Wiltshire.
(realise this clashes partially with the prison story)
Possibly married there in 1829. ....
NO record of any convict arrival for a William WOODHAM to NSW in the 'right' timeframe.
NO record of any marriage for a William WOODHAM in NSW in 1829.
The William WOODHAM from Wiltshire who was transported to NSW and who arrived in NSW in came of the second transport voyage of the Royal Admiral arriving Sydney 22 November 1800. His records are digitised and freely available at NSW Archives. From the online INDEX he was aged 45 years at the time of that trial. The date on the index for that trial is 09/03/1799. He received a sentence of 7 years beyond the seas. He MAY HAVE received an Absolute Pardon (ie was free to return to Britain) on 1 Mar 1804. There were TWO chaps named William WOODHAM at that time. The other was from Surrey. ** See Below
http://www.bdm.nsw.gov.au/Pages/family-history/registry-records.aspx
https://familysearch.org/search/collection/location/1927080?region=Australia
https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/
https://www.records.nsw.gov.au/archives/collections-and-research/guides-and-indexes/convict-indents-digitised-index
** The William WOODHAM tried Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey had an alias : William GLASTON. His sentence was for Life, and trial date was 20 March 1797. He arrived per Hillsborough 29 July 1799. See INDEX http://www.bda-online.org.au/
I have not yet found a William WOODHAM marrying Ellen McALOONE in 1829 as per
I wonder? There is a William Woodham who was granted permission to marry in 1829 in New South Wales. His bride was 19. He had been sentenced to 7 years transportation.
William Woodham
Age: 31
Birth Year: Abt 1798
Spouse: Ellen McAloone
Request Status: Granted
Date of Permission/Refusal: 27 Nov 1829
Might be worth asking on the Australian board if they can help as they may have access to convict records. Link it back to this thread.
JM mentions that it is sinply a mis-read by Ancestry.
According to NSW State Archives INDEX , Ellen McALOONE's 1829 application to marry was for a marriage with William WOODHOUSE. It was at St Johns C of E, Parramatta. Ancestry have uploaded the parish register for St Johns. The Rev Marsden conducted the marriage. The register shows William WOODHOUSE. The signature is a bit of a scrawl towards the end of the surname but MAY at a push be mis-read as WOODHOUS, and at a greater "need new specs" push as WOODHAM. The register shows the groom arrived on the Earl St Vincent and was 30 years of age.
On Ellen McALOONE's Certificate of Freedom (issued in 1833, #147) she is noted as the wife of William WOODHOUSE.
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XTCY-Q6T WOODHOUSE = MCALOONE 1829.
JM
-
Absolutely stunning piece of research, JM. You have thoroughly convinced me against the opinion I held right up to the moment I started reading your post!
Clearly I've been picking up mistaken data, and there is no question that checking original documents is essential.
The info I had on the birth of William Woodham in Wiltshire in 1798 also turned out to be a misread: William Woodman.
So... one last question before I completely give up on the Australia theory:
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? In other words, are the records of convicts arriving in Australia complete so that we can be sure that everyone has been accounted for? I thought that the records had gaps, as is the case with just about all archives we look at.
If we let the Australia theory go, and it looks as though that is the proper thing to do, then we are right back at the beginning.
Anyway, thanks for being very thorough on this Australia matter, JM.
It's important to me that we get the story right.
-DC
-
Well done, JM on ruling out that William "Woodham" the dates did seem a bit tight.
-
You could check IF he was transported to Van Diemen's Land :
https://www.linc.tas.gov.au/family-history/Pages/Convict-life.aspx
and of course
RChat's own resources board for Tasmania (formerly the penal colony of Van Diemen's Land) :
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/australia-resources-offers/
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=369953.0
JM
-
So... one last question before I completely give up on the Australia theory:
Is absence of evidence evidence of absence? In other words, are the records of convicts arriving in Australia complete so that we can be sure that everyone has been accounted for? I thought that the records had gaps, as is the case with just about all archives we look at.
.....
It's important to me that we get the story right.
Yes and Yes. If your chap was transported to the penal colony of New South Wales 1825-1835 he was NOT using the name William WOODHAM. Ancestry and Find My Past have commercial partnerships with NSW State Archives and are uploading digitised images of SOME of the Archives. HOWEVER, NSW State Archives online indexes have decades of quality volunteering with old fashioned teams of experienced transcribers checking and double checking and at times checking five and six times before releasing any particular index, and when still in doubt it will be indexed under ALL possible interpretations.
I have no first hand knowledge of how the Tasmanian indexes were prepared. I have both first hand knowledge as a volunteer and second hand knowledge as a sibling and as a cousin to Archivists re how NSW State Archives indexes work.
JM
-
(I've been dipping in and out of this topic as I found it interesting) - I would just like to say what excellent thorough sleuthing JM. Great stuff!
-
Got that, JM.
Just having a look now. The name index does not have a William Woodham.
Cheers
-DC
-
That pretty much nails it, then, JM.
William Woodham did not go to Australia
(unless... extraordinary effort made to hide himself etc etc which is all improbable).
BTW I was not questioning the skill and dedication of the transcribers (who I 'm sure are all wonderful people) but rather asking whether records from that period in history had failed to survive to the present day. Sounds like you folks could show the Americans a thing or two about quality control in their election. ;)
The only clue that suggested a journey to Australia was the word 'transported' on the birth record of a relative. It's time to re-evaluate what that could mean.
[1]
The phrase "husband transported,not father of child" appears on the birth record of James Woodham March 10 1833 in Easton Royal, Wiltshire. Mother listed as Elizabeth Woodham, father listed as William Woodham. So is William the husband or the father? The remark implies he cannot be both. Maybe we are wrong in reading this to mean that William was the one transported.
[2]
'Transported' could simply mean 'taken away'.
There is that evidence that he was imprisoned for a year in 1829.
However, that makes it a little hard to see how he could have fathered a child in the same year.
Did we get the precise date on which he was imprisoned?
And did that prison statement state his age?
There was that suggestion that he was born in 1798. But did that come from the prison record?
I will have to look back through these notes.
Your continued support is welcome.
Cheers
David C
-
Re 'transportation' and also
......
If 'transportation' did indeed occur then departure must have been between Jan 1829 and March 1833. Is there a list of ships for this period? It might be worth reading the logs of these journeys, if they exist.
The Antipodes penal colonies were NOT the only destinations for transporting those on sentences 'beyond the seas' .... :) I had mentioned on the other thread Bermuda.
We need to remember that Britain also sent convicts to Bermuda. :)
http://convictvoyages.org/expert-essays/convicts-in-Bermuda
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=531876.0
http://sydneylivingmuseums.com.au/stories/convict-hulks
-
Am I wrong in thinking that some prisoners who were sentenced to transportation, were sometimes not actually transported but spent time in the UK in prison or prison hulks? If this was the case with William, could he have been recorded as transported on the baptism from information given to the vicar by his wife or just as common knowledge, as they believed that was what was going to happen? He then wouldn't appear on any lists would he, apart from court ones here?
-
Am I wrong in thinking that some prisoners who were sentenced to transportation, were sometimes not actually transported but spent time in the UK in prison or prison hulks? If this was the case with William, could he have been recorded as transported on the baptism from information given to the vicar by his wife or just as common knowledge, as they believed that was what was going to happen? He then wouldn't appear on any lists would he, apart from court ones here?
From a live link I quoted earlier on this thread (reply # 25, which was a quote from reply #8 of the Australian thread)
Once tried and sentenced convicts were sent to a receiving hulk for four to six days, where they were washed, inspected and issued with clothing, blankets, mess mugs and plates. They were then sent to a convict hulk, assigned to a mess and allocated to a work gang. They spent 10 to 12 hours a day working on river cleaning projects, stone collecting, timber cutting, embankment and dockyard work while they waited for a convict transport to become available. In some cases convicts sentenced to transportation spent their entire sentence (up to seven years) on board the hulks and were never sent overseas.
I would expect TNA records would include the details of prisoners on the Hulks, including IF/WHEN they were transferred to another vessel to be transported to ANY of the British penal settlements beyond the seas or if they were transferred back to a land based prison, or if they had completed their sentence on the Hulks, or had died in custody or had met any other fate. Mr Google has many live links including : https://www.digitalpanopticon.org/?page_id=272
JM
-
At the Lent Assizes 1829, County of Wilts
William WOODHAM, Larceny, 12 months Imprisonment. Others on same page received 7 years transportation.
A sentence of 12 months would NOT result in transportation to any of the penal colonies in the Antipodes. This was in the era of sailing ships, not steam ships. In the late 1820s it took around four to five months to get from Plymouth, England to Port Jackson. New South Wales.
JM I will post same message on Australia Board thread.
-
The following should help with local searching for William in Wiltshire: (I think it likely he was one of nine convicted of a minor offence !)
Date/Location for William WOODHAM’s trial :
March 11, 1829, at Salisbury
Comparing two sources :
1. The Reading Mercury and Oxford Gazette, etc (Reading, England), Monday, March 16, 1829; pg. 3; Issue 5636.
Wiltshire Assizes .
“Salisbury, March 11 ……………………… (JM notes many paragraphs, then finally !)
“Transportation for Seven Years. John Trapp for robbing L Ball of 5s; Wm Gibbs for stealing a watch; Jos. White and Wm Daniels, for fowl stealing; Wm Jeffery for ditto; Jack Handcock for stealing clothes at Trowbridge; G Newman, for stealing a coat; Chas. Burgess, for stealing four sacks of potatoes; and Chas. Jennings, for destroying game at Clarendon Park.
There were nine others for offences against the game laws, four of whom were acquitted; one was sentenced to twelve months, and others to various periods of imprisonment.
Nine were convicted of minor offences, and sentenced to different periods of imprisonment…….”[/ [/color]
2. Details from an image of one of the pages of the Criminal Register Wiltshire, Lent Assizes 1829:
William DANIELS, Larceny, 7 years
William JEFFERY, Larceny 7 years
Charles BURGESS, Larceny, 7 years
Richard AMER, Larceny, 7 years
Thomas LARKING, Larceny, 18 months
William WOODHAM, Larceny, 12 months
John HUNT, Larceny, 12 months
Thomas COOPER, Larceny, 12 months
Richard SHEPPARD, Larceny, 3 months
James WEBB, Larceny, 3 months
John SHELL, Larceny, 3 months
Thomas WILLIS, Larceny, 3 months, not whipped
William COLE, Larceny, 1 month
John CROCKER, Larceny, fined 6/-
Samuel BARNES, Larceny, not guilty
Charles KICK, Larceny, not guilty
John WATERMAN, Larceny, not guilty
JM
-
I agree with JM that the 1829 sentence was for imprisonment, not transportation, which is why I made this suggestion (Reply #13 on the other thread):
It's probable that the information on James' baptism record (re William, the husband, having been 'transported') would have been supplied by the child's mother or have been known by the minister; possibly the fact that William had been convicted, imprisoned and (perhaps) not returned to Easton led to a belief that he had been transported rather than imprisoned in England.
Judith
-
Is this the death in New Zealand of your Charles WOODHAM?
BDM NZ death
WOODHAM Charles 56yrs 1884 / 4148
-
The later life of Charles Woodham in NZ has been pretty thoroughly researched and is not under investigation. I have actually visited the gravesite a few years ago and had a picture taken there.
-DC
-
Hi people,
Charles Woodham born in Easton Royal, Sept 13 1829, married in 1854 (Truro) and migrated to NZ 1860. There is no evidence of him anywhere in 1841 & 1851. However there are records of a Charles Woodham in prison through these years (1849-50 I think).
1841 census for Easton, Wilts
William Whitbread 84 Ag Lab
Mary Whitbread 77
Lucy Smith 49 Visitor (crossed out)
Charles Waddam (sic) 11 do (implying also visitor and has also been crossed out)
all born in county
Piece: 1180 Book: 9 Folio: 6 Page Number: 5
There are various children baptised by William and Mary Whit(e)bread in Easton in late 1790's and early 1800's but have not found Elizabeth among them.
Might be connected.
-
I think you might be on to something there, LizzieL.
I will review that info in the morning.
Cheers
-DC
-
William and Mary Whitebread had a daughter Lucy bapt in Easton Royal on 26 May 1793, now to see if Lucy married a Mr Smith and could be their married or widowed daughter visiting them.
-
Looks like Roostchat had some outage over the last few days and may even have lost one or two postings here.
Abyway, I reviewed our data and fund this posting from Cati on the Australia thread that suddenly has more significance in light of William Woodham's 12-month sentence. I will copy-paste the remark here:
Find My Past (uk) has three possible entries for William Woodham - none of which has a link to the original image. The are all transcription of entries in the Wiltshire Quarter Sessions Calendar, the first dated 28 April 1829, the second dated 20 October 1829 and the third 12 January 1830. All refer to Devizes New Prison and read "Destination: upon orders".
[end quote]
It is interesting that the three dates stretch well beyond 12 months. Was William's sentence extended while he was inside?
-DC
-
Not sure if anyone is still following this thread.
Nevertheless I have found a James Woodham sent to prison in 1842.
His case is described somewhat in the newspapers.
Hoping someone can shed more light on that and see if this could be our James Woodham born Easton Wilts 1833.
There are also references in the newspapers to a James Woodham who died following an assault in 1846.
<<ALSO>>
A william Woodham was 'removed' in 1799 according to the Wiltshire Removal Orders as shown in Findmypast. There is a brief explanation of what 'removal' means but I would like someone with a bit more knowledge to explain it if they can. For example, would removal of a male imply that he was a full-grown man with no wife and kids? Were children removed from their parents?
Merry Christmas/Happy holidays, everyone.
(Oh yes and happy new year).
-DC
-
Could you transcribe the information on the Removal Order, please.
The Act of Settlement and Removal (1662) established the need to prove entitlement to poor relief by the issuing of Settlement Certificates. The certificates proved which parish a family belonged to and therefore which parish had the legal responsibility to provide poor relief if needed. The certificate gave the right of a person to live and receive welfare in their parish of legal settlement. A removal order was made when a person seeking poor relief was deemed to be "settled" in another parish and that the other parish was, therefore, liable to provide for them.
This article gives a good summary of the conditions for settlement with in a parish.
https://www.genguide.co.uk/source/settlement-certificatesexaminations-and-removal-orders-parish-amp-poor-law/173/
Rootschat also has some interesting comments on Removal orders. Bear in mind, though, that the order may not have been enforced.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,134847
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,233639
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,249433
One of the difficulties with your search is the common occurrence in that area of the surname, as well as the forenames being popular at the time.
It's possible that there are further relevant records held at the Wiltshire and Swindon History Centre, which someone may be able to access. Parish records of Easton are held there.
Perhaps the Wiltshire Family History group may be able to help.
http://wiltshirefhs.co.uk/
Where are the Removal records that are on FindMyPast actually held? I am thinking there just may be some record for Elizabeth WOODHAM when James was born in 1833 - was she 'on the parish' or possibly there was a bastadry order, or was the father of james looking after her and her children?
Judith
-
There is a William Woodham listed in the Wilshire Removals, from Frome, Somerset to Chippenham. The year of the removal probably disqualifies him from our search, though I would still like to get some more information on this man in case of a connection.
-DC
-
BTW I have sent a query off to the Wiltshire Family History Society but not yet received a response. I presume that this is because of the holiday season.
Other things:
[]
That claim I made earlier about a James Woodham in Devizes prison does not take into account his age. If born in 1833 he would have been just 9 years old.
[]
Today I found an Elizabeth Woodham who ran away from a poorhouse in Brokenborough, Wilts.
The newspaper passage is dated Dec 3 1842:
[start]
....Elizabeth Woodham, 1 m., leaving the workhouse, at Brokenborough, with the union clothing;.... December 3, 1842 - Salisbury and Winchester Journal - Salisbury, Wiltshire, England
[end]
This appears to be a sentence of 1 month in a detention centre somewhere for her 'crime' of leaving the poorhouse with union clothing.
QUESTION:
How likely is it that someone in a poorhouse would appear in the 1841 census?
-DC
-
1841 census has a full list of those at the Malmsbury Union Workhouse, Brokenborough, (about 130) including an Elizabeth WOODHAM, aged 15, born in Wiltshire.
Not much info on the Removal transcription. :( As that chap was moved from Frome to Chippenham he doesn't seem to be too near to Easton. :-\
Judith
-
Thanks for clarifying, on both counts.
-DC
-
There are also references in the newspapers to a James Woodham who died following an assault in 1846.
This James Woodham died in St Georges Hospital. The newspaper report was early December 1846, so I checked death registrations in that quarter and area. The closest is James Woodhams reg Q4 1846, St George Hanover square - age 31, so would be born abt 1815
-
Thanks for checking, Lizzie. I was pretty sure that this man could not be the James Woodham I have been looking for.
last night, looking through the newspapers on FindMyPast I think I found a few references to William Woodham appearing before the courts in the 1840s (1842 & 1849 I think). I was unable to note them down and investigate the at the time.
-DC
-
Hello all,
PROGRESS, at least on a new front!
I have found the connection between William & Mary Whitbread and young Charles Waddam (Woodham) in the 1841 census. (please note LizzieL's posting from a long time back).
Charles's mother = Elizabeth Whitebread (maiden name), thought to be born 1809 Easton Royal
Elizabeth's father = James Whitebread (1788-1848), born Easton Royal, died Pewsey.
James's father = John Whitebread (1751-1831), born Shelbourne, died Pewsey.
John's brother = William Whitebread (1757-1846), born Pewsey, died Easton Royal.
William's wife = Mary Kimber (maiden name) (1763-1857), born & died Easton Royal.
Therefore Charles 'Waddam' (Woodham) was with his great grandfather's brother & wife!
The ages match the 1841 census data.
Amazingly, despite the number of generations crossed, these people were all alive at the same time.
Charles was 12 years old, and the Whit(e)breads were nearly 90.
What I want to do now is investigate why our young Charles ended up with relatives so far removed from himself. Why was Charles staying with these people instead of his own uncles or grandparents? Does this shed any light on what happened to the Woodham family in the 1830s?
-DC
-
Remember that a census only shows where a person was on that particular night, it doesn't mean he was living there, he may just have been visiting for the night.
-
To save chasing it again, LizzieL's posting was Reply #33 and gave this census info:
1841 census for Easton, Wilts
William Whitbread 84 Ag Lab
Mary Whitbread 77
Lucy Smith 49 Visitor (crossed out)
Charles Waddam (sic) 11 do (implying also visitor and has also been crossed out)
all born in county
There are two others listed just below these and I can't quite work out whether they are a separate household or with the others. They also have "visitor" crossed out.
Jane LANFEAR?, 18, not born in county
James HEDGES or HEDGER, 1, not born in county
Oh my - yet another diversion on this search - LizzieL suggested that Lucy SMITH may have been the married daughter of William and Mary WHIT(E)BREAD. The child James HEDGES is with with Thomas and Lucy SMITH in 1851 and Lucy is shown as born Easton so it would seem that LizzieL is correct. Perhaps James HEDGES is their grandson. :-\
Kintbury, Berkshire, 1851
Thomas Smith 58, shepherd, b Whey Hill (sic), Hampshire
Lucy Smith 60, wife, b Easton, Wilts
James Hedges 11, visitor, scholar, b Kintbury, Berkshire
HO107/1686/41 p 42
Probable birth for James HEDGES, Dec qr 1840, reg Hungerford, Vol 6, p183
As groom has said, Charles may have been visiting the WHIT(E)BREADs or perhaps he had been taken in by them if his own family had disintegrated as seems possible given the troubles in the 1830s, or the WHIT(E)BREADs may have had a bit more room.
A bit peripheral to your WOODHAM search. ::)
Judith
-
Thanks all for coming back on board after the holidays.
I agree with Groom that young Charles may have simply been an overnight stayer. I did not know that the 1841 census distinguished visitors from the other residents. A quick look at the transcription on Familysearch does not show 'visitor' status. Do I understand it correctly that this information is recorded on the actual 1841 image?
Be that as it may, what is important from this is that young Charles was in the care, however briefly, of his Whit(e)bread relatives while his mother and siblings are nowhere to be seen. It implies a close relationship within the Whit(e)bread clan, spanning many generations.
I agree also that trying to get some context for the Whit(e)bread family may be peripheral, but I have often found that peripheral info throws up interesting and unexpected data relevant to the primary goal. In this case I am wondering whether a network of Whitebread families lived in close proximity, possibly all farm labourers associated with the same farm. That would make it easy for young Charles to know his great-grandfather's brother and maybe move from house to house. How this pays off in the overarching search for Elizabeth Woodham and her other kids is not clear but I am hopeful that something will turn up.
I had a quick look at sites describing Bermuda convicts but could not see lists of prisoner names.
There is a William Woodham in the newspapers in 1842, sent to prison for three months for not taking care of his family and leaving them to rely on the community (at least that is how I interpret it).
I did see a comment somewhere about people in the prison system "no older than ten". I wonder, did boys under ten really get sent to prison in Wiltshire? If so, there is a James Woodham in prison in 1842 who may be our boy, aged 9.
-DC
-
Yes DC, the 1841 image shows the word 'visitor' for Lucy Smith, Charles Waddam (sic), Jane LANFEAR?, and James HEDGES. The word has been crossed out in all cases, however crossing out is sometimes done by the enumerator as he counts up so it may not mean that there is a change of record.
I am sure you are correct in saying that there is a network of the WHIT(E)BREAD family in this village. Looking quickly at the 1841 Easton census, the household listed next to William and Mary WHITBREAD
is
William WHITBREAD, 30 ag lab
Elizabeth WHITBREAD, 50
and next to them is
William WAIT, 60, ag lab with his wife Sarah, 50 and James 20, Jane 15, and Thomas 12. This Sarah WAIT was nee WHITBREAD
Further on there is
Robert KEW 67 ag lab, wife Mary 65, Mary 19, William 14.
This Mary KEW was nee WHITBREAD
(As an aside - it's unlikely that the boy William aged 14 is the child of Mary 65 given Mary's age, so, possibly, another case of children living with relatives other than their parents)
So at the census William and Mary WHITBREAD had three of their daughters also in Easton that night.
Judith
-
Cheers all. I will have to get down to the library to browse through the 1841 census, Easton.
I just browsed through GRO's new database to gauge the number of Whit(e)breads born & died in Pewsey, apparently the region that encompasses Easton. Quite a few, including people who died young. Perhaps children raised by grandparents and uncles/aunties was commonplace in that region in those days, as you say.
.... that actually does drop the hint of possibility that the rest of the Woodham family might be staying with Whitbread relatives of a different surname. Not confident in this though as I think we would have found them by now.
Very few Whitbreads but many Whitebreads. Oh yes, and sometimes the name is spelt Whitebred.
-
Well done finding those 'Whitbreads' in the immediate vicinity.
This must surely be a small subset of the Whitbreads in and around Easton, because if young Charles is in contact with a great grand uncle there will be many descendants of the old man around them.
I am going to speculate now that *maybe* Charles's brother Nelson Whitebread (illegitimate birth 1825) was adopted into one of these families, but a family in which Whitbread was a maiden name. He would be with relatives, perhaps close relatives even, but re-surnamed accordingly.
Perhaps a quick survey of the 16-year-old men in 1841 born in Easton, first name Nelson?
-DC
-
1841
Southcott?, Pewsey shown as being in the same household
Wm MILES, 16 ag lab
Nelson TUCKER (LUCKER?), 16, ag lab
This seems to be the only Nelson I could see in the appropriate area.
Judith
-
Nelson Tucker: hard to verify one way or the other.
I would like to look at this myself when I get to the library.
Might be possible to get more specific info on the man from a later census, like the 1851 (for example, birthplace).
You did a cracking good job of locating this. Thanks.
I spent a bit of time on the question earlier and got lost in the possibilities.
NEW QUESTION
I just had a thought about Charles Woodham (b. 1829) who is my direct ancestor.
We know that someone by that name served time in (Marlborough) prison in 1849 and again in 1850, and without any further data to look at it is easy to speculate it is my ancestor. It occurred to me today that a fellow imprisoned on (say) a 12-month term in the middle of 1850 might well go unseen in the 1851 census. Is there some way we can check (a) the date of imprisonment, (b) the term of confinement (c) an age for the fellow or anything else that might show we have the right fellow?
Cheers
DC
-
Hmmm...
Nelson Tucker becomes more interesting upon inspection.
He was not born, so far as any database will tell me, and he did not die, so far as any database will tell me. He did not appear in any censuses other than the 1841, (so far as I can see) where he lives in Pewsey. Pewsey according to Google Maps is just 3.5 miles from Easton and is the region where some of our Whit(e)breads are found.
-DC