The Swindler Asgill

[Annie65115]

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

[Staybright]

I think you will find it was Winjoy's ancestor.

[lizdb]

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.

[Winjoy]

“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.

[Winjoy]

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’. 

[Winjoy]

“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.

[Winjoy]

“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.

[Winjoy]

“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.

[Winjoy]

“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.