RootsChat.Com

Pinetrees, I think I just replied to you PM.  The Own World Tree entry I mentioned is

https://www.familysearch.org/tree/person/details/MSLC-V9W

I admit to being confused.  BUT I agree there must be a connection. I am going to start from the beginning, so you should not have to refer to any earlier posts from me in this thread.

I have James BAXTER  married to Pheobe BROCK 14th Jan 1814. I am comfortable he is the father of Frances 1815-1877, Harriet 1820-1895 and Emma 1826-1905.  I am also comfortable he was the convict (c1828) who died in Sydney 1842.  There are no hints in Australian records that he married or had children in AU.

In the marriage record, the groom is from WINGFIELD.

James' birth/Chr is not confirmed to link.  To marry in 1814 he had to have been born before 1796 (an arbitrary idea of mine that 18 is as young as a groom would be. I know it was legal to marry younger than this, but I would expect at least a note in passing on a marriage entry if this was the case). 


I have one reference to age in his convict records, and this gives a YOB as 1791.  I have another reference to age. James' burial in Sydney, where he was 56 (making YOB 1786), but I would not put too much faith in an age on a death record where the person died without any family present.

In summary, he is unlikely to have been born much before 1791.

I have chosen as the Chr 21st Nov 1791 in Cratfield. (reasoning below). The Parish register says James was named 'BAXTER or PHILPOT.  This Chr occurred 8 years BEFORE Ann married Samuel PHILPOT, and I have not found any other children named similarly, but the inclusion of the name Samuel PHILPOT must mean his father was known to the Parson.

My reasoning to link James the groom to the james who was Chr is based on age, and location -- but note I have not found any Mary BAXTER linked to him.

The only other James BAXTER Chr around 1791 in the area was 26th Jan 1791 in Bury St Edmunds, Parents Robert and Susan ALDRIDGE.

AND ruminating on possible siblings named BAXTER, I make the following - unconnected - statements.

1.  There is plenty of time between James' birth as BAXTER, and when Ann BAXTER married Samuel PHILPOT for siblings named BAXTER to have been born.

2.  Samuel PHILPOT was named as James' father by the parson in the PR.  Then 8 years later Ann married Samuel PHILPOT.  This indicates to me they had an ongoing relationship during the intervening years.

3.  After the 1799 marriage, Ann had 4 children in the next 9 years.  Meaning that both she and Samuel were fertile.

4. If the ongoing relationship mentioned in (2) was physical, then you would expect the stork to have visited.

5. I note that Samuel and Ann were buried by the Independent Congregationalists.  It is possible that for religious reasons, an earlier marriage between Ann and Samuel was NOT recorded in the CofE church records, and/or births to Ann and Samuel after James and before an 'official CofE' marriage were also not reported to the CofE parson.

Please do note that (5) is pure speculation, made to give suggestions on where to look.

Leaving aside that speculation - as your Mary BAXTER was older than James, but Ann would have been about 20 when Mary was born, so could have been her mother.  Are you sure the Chr you have is the right one for the bride in the marriage witnessed by James and Pheobe? If yes, then she is not the illegitimate d of Ann.  She could be Ann's sister?  I do not have Ann's birth or parents.

Ann and Samuel are my 5GGP, with James the convict being my 4GGF. 

BTW I have a DNA test on Ancestry which has been uploaded on other sites.  It is a few years since I played around with DNA, but if you have also tested I will be glad to work with you on results.

You AND I had the wrong death. It was only your hint re the census that showed this up. So thanks....

All responders - John PURCELL is my umpteenth great grandfather.  He was born in Co Mayo, Ireland in 1782.  I have DNA matches to other people who are descended from one generation earlier than John (most in USA NOW).  I won't give chapter and verse regarding provenance as this will make this note far too long, but if you look him up in Family Seach's One World Tree it is all there.

I do not know why nor how he came to be in Great Yarmouth when he married Priscilla PAGE in 1799. Yes that is quite young, but I have done a LOT of work on this man. Supporting evidence of his age abounds. I have a theory regarding an uprising in Co Mayo, with John being sent 'away' to keep him out of trouble, but I have absolutely no proof.

Priscilla died in Jan 1808. No children recorded that I can find.

John joined the army in Yarmouth 28th Nov 1813. The Northamptonshire Regiment (48th Foot) was recruiting all over England. I have read his enlistment papers.

The army records are not complete, but a John PURCELL was with the 48th in Fermoy (Ireland) Dec 1816, then in New South Wales in 1817.  He and Ann sailed (waltzed?) to NSW on the Matilda.

I have not clearly identified the Ann who was married to John by the time the regiment left for garrison duty in Australia.  This was the first regiment who were allowed (or encouraged) to take the wives of the lesser ranks to the colonies.  One theory regarding his marriage is that he married Ann in order to have a wife in the colonies - ie not long before the regiment left Ireland.  They were certainly married, as I am CERTAIN the army would not have been transporting de facto partners.

The 2 Australian children were born (I believe) in George Town (northern Tasmania) whilst John was stationed there. John was the pay clerk for George Town. There are a couple of newspaper ads regarding financial stuff where he is named.

Elizabeth died at the age of 6 in India, and William (my ancestor) and John and Ann were back in Yarmouth shortly after that.

One more child was born after they returned to Yarmouth, George or George William in 1825. In 1841 William was in the lock up in Yarmouth (14 days for debt) clearly showing a birthplace of New South Wales.

Yet another theory follows, but I need to explain first that (1) I was born and lived in Yarmouth for my first 10 years (2) I keep in contact with other close relatives from this branch who still live there, two of whom are also researching the family (3) I understand the local Yarmouth Dialect.

My theory regarding the name change is that John well knew his name was PURCELL, but no other people with that name lived in Yarmouth. A few people named POSTLE did though.  In the Norfolk dialect, POSTLE and PURCELL would sound almost the same. Hence over time the name simply became POSTLE.  To support my linguistic theory, one memorable marriage certificate has the bride named as PARCEL.  Also a word that would sound remarkably similar to the other 2 when drawled out by a Yarmouth citizen.

I will gladly answer all queries.