James Cecil

[wjough]

I have a problem with a James Cecil born at Westminster about 1640. He married Margaret Manners 1 Oct 1661 and seemed a nice guy, but another James Cecil crops up also married to Margaret, same dates, but he was born in Salisbury and his ancestors can be traced back to the twelth century.
I don't believe all these Earls and Lords are my ancestors but how can I determine which is the genuine James ?.
All this information has been obtained from Familysearch.org.

[dawnsh]

Hi wjough

Please be aware that there are 2 types of records on the IGI (family search)

Extracted are taken from the actual parish records and on the whole are fairly accurate although there are ommisions where writing can't be deciphered, pages damaged & missing etc

Submitted entries (the 1661 marriage for example) should be treated with extreme caution, they are often someone's best guess, nothing more.

You need to verify all the entries you have found on the IGI by actually looking at the registers or copies on microfilm etc.

Westminster registers have been deposited at the City of Westminster Archives.

http://westminster.gov.uk/services/libraries/archives/

Other London parishes have deposited there registers at the London Metropolitan Archives, these registers are in the process of being digitised and what has been done so far is now indexed and online at Ancestry and available by subscription or at your local library if they subscribe to Ancestry Library Edition.

Due to copyright & licensing terms and conditions, you may not ask for look-ups from the LMA/Ancestry dataset.

[groom]

Hi

If you have access to Ancestry, there is a tree on there which has this family ie James Cecil/Margaret Manners going back to Philp Cecil in 1441. I don't know how well sourced it is. If you don't already subscribe Ancestry often have 14 day free trial offers.

Jan

[wjough]

Thanks Jan ,
I have no trouble going back with this family to the early twelth century. My difficulty is extending them forward to tie up with Mary Cecil born 1790 in Bethnal Green. I have Thomas born 1754 in Bethnal Green and Sarah Waterlow,Charles born 1718 in Bethnal Green and Judith Madelaine Raby,Charles born 1694 in Westminster and Elizabeth Lumley,Robert born 1670 and Elizabeth Meynel, and then James born 1640 in Westminster and Margaret Manners.
I feel that two families have been crossed over some where, or has there been some skulduggery ?. I think that the clue is the change from Bethnal Green to Westminster.

[pacemaker]

I have only recently come across the Cecil family, when I decided to extend my research further with my maternal side of the family. Starting with Sarah Elizabeth Cecil b.1834 I followed the Cecil line back, admittedly using the Ancestry Website, and was astounded by what I uncovered. I always suspected that I had Huguenot ancestors and I had this confirmed.

When my search took me into the realms of the aristocracy, I became sceptical, as I think all genealogical researchers should be, but the overwhelming amount of information regarding this family of the Cecils and the number of  people involved in the search left me in little doubt that most of us were, in general ,on the right track.

With regard to the question of the origin of James Cecil 1646-1683. We should be viewing the area of Bethnal Green as it was in the 1600s, not as it became 200 years later.with vast brickfields and Victorian rookeries. You would have to go back into land ownership of the past and ascertain if the birth was recorded in more than one parish record, owing to the multiple residences that were used by the family. I am willing to believe that only one James Cecil is important to this line, mainly owing to the fact that all other persons before and after, such as Charles 1619 and Robert with his wife Elizabeth Meynell fall into place.

My search began with my grandmother Elizabeth Stump 1879 and finished on the Isle of Anglesea in the 900s with a few very big surprises on the way.

Does anyone else have a similar experience. Pacemaker

[richarde1979]

The ancestry trees appear fine to me but only up to Charles Cecil, who married the Huguenot decendant  Judith Madelaine Raby. The only information recorded about him on their marriage was he was of Bethnal Green and a Weaver. His burial record only gives a name, no age, and no age recorded on the marriage either, so no evidence appears to exist, which would allow an approximate guess at his age or the  year he was born. I can find no possible baptism for him in any case, even allowing for a wide margin of error for possible birth dates.

None of the online trees have any evidence or explanation how it has been proved he was the son of Charles Cecil and Elizabeth Lumley. (I wouldn't take the fact so many researchers have this as testament to its credibility, unfortunately online trees, and mistakes there on, tend to be copied ad finitum on Ancestry and other websites). I'm not saying they neccesarily are wrong, but it seems a huge leap of faith would be needed to accept them as they are, I would be very cautious of going further back without seeing evidence of that link, particularly if that family were not even in the Bethnal Green area, or the same side of London, but over in Westminster.

Regards

Richard

[richarde1979]

I have found these records of him on 'London Lives'.


http://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?id=BBBRMG20206_n1095-1&div=BBBRMG20206MG202060084#highlight

http://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?id=BBBRMG20206_n1095-5&div=BBBRMG20206MG202060084#highlight

http://www.londonlives.org/browse.jsp?id=BBBRMG20206_n1343-4&div=BBBRMG20206MG202060113#highlight

This shows he was apprenticed as a Silk Weaver at the Bridewell Royal Hospital, which at that time was near the River Fleet in the west of the city of London, (so not far from Westminster at all), from 1730 to 1738, and at the finish went to set up shop in St John Street, Spitalfields (the parish neighbouring Bethnal Green), where they continued to support him with charity payments. Boys were usually apprenticed aged 10- 14, so his birth date would very likely be around 1716-20.

The Bridewell Royal Hospital  was in it's own words 'a school, hospital and prison established as a place of correction, reformation and employment of idle and vagrant poor"

http://www.londonlives.org/static/Bridewell.jsp


Some records of the institute still exist and are held at a number or places see below.

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/nra/searches/subjectView.asp?ID=O26776

They may possibly provide evidence as to his parents.

[richarde1979]

Hello again Pacemaker

I found this interesting page:


http://genforum.genealogy.com/cecil/messages/949.html

This suggests most of the work done on the family was by a professional researcher Charles A. Isetts, Ph.D. 25 years ago.

It's interesting that he does not link Charles to these aristocratic lines, it was added on later, almost certainly very spuriously on shaky IGI 'guess work'. The ladys letter at the bottom (dated 2000) totally dismisses it, and I tend to agree, looks like bunkum to me, as seen above Charles was bought up in an approved school for poor vagrant children. Chances of him being related to aristocracy that near, are  fantastically small. It's an extraordinary claim, which would require extraordinary evidence to substantiate it and there appears to be none at all.

I did also notice a couple of small errors in Mr Isetts own research. He states that St Dunstan's Stepney was a favoured church for the Huguenots. This is not true. They had no particular favour for it, it just happened to be the parish church for Bethnal Green (before 1743) and Spitalfields (before 1729) where a great deal of East London's Huguenots lived, especially those in the Silk Trade. It had no greater significance for them besides being their parish church, and none at all for the many Huguenots living outside the parish in other parts of London.

He also states that the couple had seven children. They in fact had ten:

Charles Daniel Cecil baptised 18 May 1740 St Jeans Huguenot Chapel, Spitalfields
Judith Cecil baptised 23 Aug 1741 St Leonard Shoreditch
Charles Cecil  baptised 17 Jul 1743  St Leonard Shoreditch
Henry Cecil baptised 26 May 1745 St Leonard Shoreditch
Sarah Cecil baptised 17 June 1747 St Matthews Bethnal Green
George Cecil baptised 6 June 1750 St Matthews Bethnal Green
William Cecil baptised 8 July 1752 St Matthews Bethnal Green
Thomas Cecil baptised 17 April 1754 St Matthews Bethnal Green
Daniel Cecil baptised 20 Aug 1756 St Matthews Bethnal Green
Samuel Cecil baptised 14 Jan 1761 St Matthews Bethnal Green

This is important because most family pedigrees, including Mr Issetts, seem to be traced foward through first son Charles Daniel, who was baptised in the French Chapel on St John Street, (the same street Charles had his business premesis on, which straddled the Spitalfields/Bethnal Green border), but this is incorrect too, Charles Daniel died a month old and was buried at St Dunstans Stepney:

"Charles Daniel Cecil, son of Charles Cecil, weaver of Bethnal Green buried 10 June 1740."

So the decendants should in fact be tracing their lines through his brother Charles baptised 1743 at Shoreditch, (who later married Elizabeth Archer).

William Cecil, also died as a child and was  buried 16 May 1753     St Matthew, Bethnal Green.

Not a single tree on Ancestry has these detail correct, so displays how very cautious to be accepting them on the basis they all agree. I'd personally discount any ancestors further back than Charles and try and get hold of his pupil records at the Bridewell, and with luck, trace this family back further through these.

Regards

Richard

[wjough]

It seems I opened a can of worms when I started this thread.
As a matter of interest, I continued the Cecil line and found a Welsh line going back to beyond 100 BC.
I'm sure my original thoughts were correct, that this illustrious line could not be mine.
I  must now end my tree at Charles 1718 until some other evidence turns up.
Thank you all for the interesting points made.
W.Jough.