Hannah Armstrong of Cople

[wdurham]

Just a couple of thoughts on the Kempston family, David -

There is indeed a big gap in their baptisms between 1738 and 1745. I wonder if they lived elsewhere for a brief period of years, before returning to Kempston? There's still no Margaret Merrill born about the right time on the whole IGI, though.

And

Is there a possibility that Margaret was not actually a Merrill by birth, but was the daughter of William's second wife Ann from a first marriage?  If she was born about 1740-1745, she would still have been quite young when her mother married William, and might simply have taken the new family name.

The IGI has a marriage for William Merrill and Ann Walker on 06 June 1749 in Kempston.

There is also a marriage for John Walker and Ann Wingrave on 11 Jun 1735 in Kempston.

Probable children:  John 1736, Mary 1738, Lucy 1739, William 1741, all children of John Walker, with no mother's name given.

I've lost my access to the NBI, but there are three John Walkers buried in Bedfordshire in the right timeframe between 1747 and 1749. I know its a common name, but one of them might fit the bill.

However - still no Margaret.

[Richhoo]

David, You are right to point out that I should be firming up the evidence that Mary Crawley, married in Northill, is Mary Tatman of Cople.

Aside from the various findings which have been pointed out in this thread I don't think there is anything further. The close coincidence of birth dates, the baptism link to Cople, and the non-marriage of Mary to William Armstrong, due the existence of a Hunts. man, probably Thomas Tatman, who died in Lt Staughton.

Your comment about the sheer number of Merrills in Bedfordshire is telling. This is also true of the Crawley surname; there are almost 700 entries in IGI for a Thomas Crawley in Bedfordshire! Tatman is relatively rare lending a little support to Mary's identification.

The link to the family of William Merrill is a speculation, supported only by proximity. I now appreciate the difficulties with this sort of approach. Some problems just seem to be easier if you have a way of guessing the answer (in fact this is the essence of the mathematical dilemma NP != P).

[Richhoo]

I had a look at the possibility that Mary Tatman (nee Crawley) was just a chance match to our Mary, but looking at the Tatman marriages on the IGI records, there are very few fits for that time period.

The other big coincidence I missed is the birth point for Thomas Tatman, bap 27 Jul 1766, Blunham, and the burial of Thomas Tatman in Lt Staughton on 13 Aug 1825, aged 59. Where did you find that last piece of info Wendy?

Given that this is an untypical situation (probably not that unusual), what is the definitive data that would be required to settle the origins of Mary Tatman?

[wdurham]

Hi, Richard -

I didn't find Thomas's burial, as I ended my sub to Find My Past and have lost access to the NBI. I shall have to buy the CDs!

But David DID find it - see his post on 19 July.

As for Mary Tatman's positive identity, I am not sure that there is ANY definitive data that would prove or disprove that she was Mary Crawley.  In those days, marriage entries were pretty bald - how much information was included beyond the basic names and date was pretty much up to the cleric making the entry. You might get lucky and have a witness with the appropriate family name which would add weight, or in some cases even find a comment in the margin about some unusual aspect of the marriage.

You usually have to work on balance of probability.  I believe that Mary Tatman was *probably* Mary Crawley - because:

1. There are no other fits from the data available. Though this can be deeply misleading, as data can be missing altogether, unavailable, missed out of transcriptions, or wrong in Bishops Transcripts etc etc ad nauseam. However, we do know that Bedfordshire is reasonably well covered.

2. The places in which Mary and Thomas lived, worked and married are all in pretty close proximity to each other.

3. The marriage was by licence, implying haste, at a time when most people of this status simply waited the required three weeks to be married by banns. Either that, or Mary wasn't going to be resident in Northhill for long enough for banns to be called, though she is described as "of Northill".

4. Mary Tatman Jnr was born in Cople within five weeks of the marriage. There's a possible implication here that Mary was sent away from her home village to have her child out of sight of the gossips, but having married  the father, she was allowed to come home. I did explore the possibility that she was sent to a relative in Northill, but this seems unlikely. I can't find any relationship between her and the William Linnell of Northill who stood for the marriage bond. (Pity his name wasn't Tom, Dick or Harry Crawley!) Another theory might be that she left Cople briefly to be married out of sight of the village gossips, so as not to draw still more scandalised attention to her burgeoning belly at the altar! Or perhaps she had to run away briefly to marry Thomas, as her parents were opposed, even given her pregnancy? Or perhaps the vicar in Cople just wouldn't marry her because she was a naughty girl? Remember there is a slim possibility that she had already had one illegitimate child with Thomas Tatman - the young man who died in Cardington in 1814.

Any way up, I think there's a strong probability that the Mary who married Thomas Tatman in Northhill in 1792 was Mary Crawley baptised in Cople 1770.

As for proof, I would say that it is highly unlikely to be forthcoming. 

[bedfordshire boy]

I agree with Wendy. I was playing devil's advocate when I asked if there was any evidence that Mary Crawley was the one from Cople. I think she probably was, given all the circumstantial evidence, but we know from the Armstrong thread of a couple of years ago that it can be disastrous to make assumptions based on the two out of three ain't bad scenario - the name and date are right and even though the place is wrong it must be the right person. In that situation all other possibilities need to be eliminated - was the person buried or is there another possible marriage, both of which need to be checked out (I'd done this and couldn't see any other Mary Crawley) - before you can safely assume that you have the right person

David

[wdurham]

I remember that one well, David! The elusive William Armstrong of Ravensden/Upper Gravenhurst...

Our body of circumstantial evidence for the real identity of William, though, even without a baptism, was more-or-less proven to be correct as there is a spot-on DNA match between male descendants of the Thurleigh Armstrong family founded by William and the Cople branch. And we are 99% confident from the paper trail that the Cople and Ravensden Armstrongs had the same origin.

I still haven't given up on my theory that the Upper Gravenhurst family are also part of the mix. I am convinced that Thomas Snr, who lived until the 1841 census, was an unbaptised brother of William and John of Wilstead who moved as boys to Maulden with their parents, and thence-  once orphaned - to Cople and Ravensden. There's a Samuel, too, who "arrived" and started baptising children at about the same time in Elstow. Both Samuel and Thomas named their first daughters Edith. Coincidence? Possibly, maybe even probably, but still....

I have been pondering whether DNA testing of modern male descendants could help Richard with identifying Mary Crawley as Mary Tatman, but I don't think so, as the commonly used route is via the direct male line, and Mary was female. 

We'll just have to stick with the balance of probability!

[Richhoo]

I am very interested in the work on the Armstrong DNA (and pleased to be a part of it!). I like how the ancient origins of the Armstrongs as evidenced in the Y-DNA tell us something about the origins of the people of Bedfordshire. There is a Y-DNA posted for the Armstrongs of Riseley. I wondered if this was the same Y-line.

There is an mtDNA branch to the Armstrong project (I haven't checked for the Crawleys). If there happened to be a maternal line descendant from a sister of Mary Crawley then we could have that supporting evidence.

Descendants of Mary Cople, the younger, also a possibility.

[johnP-bedford]

Hi Richhoo - I take it you're aware of the work of Bob Armstrong ...

http://www.rootschat.com/links/09o4/

cheers John

[Richhoo]

That's a great article. So tell us, Bob, why did they?!