I have the father of my Charles (c1805-1851) as William Henry Worth Newenham who died in 1824. Charles and his sister Elizabeth had a dispute with their inheritance-their brother Henry died and they were trying to get the money: https://csorp.nationalarchives.ie/search/index.php?browse=true&category=27&subcategory=188&offset=1160&browseresults=true
WHW Newenham was named in the will of his son Charles.
I have set up a family tree of just this line on Ancestry and will send you the link. I would be interesting in seeing your tree and where the might meet on your tree if that is ok. I will send a PM. Thanks so much!
I think that the father named in the petition and in Charles' Canterbury Court will (
https://www.ancestry.com/imageviewer/collections/5111/images/40611_309748-00056?pId=13277) was William Worth Newenham. The petition states that their father left the three younger children 2,500 charged on the estate of William Henry Worth Newenham, who is not described as their father.
Given that William Worth Newenham is described in the petition as 'of Coolmore', he and William Henry Worth Newenham were obviously the father and son with those names described in Burke.
William Worth Newenham of Coolmore b 5 Feb 1761, m 1783, Louisa 4th daughter of Henry Sandford and sister of 1st Baron Mount Sandford ... and d 1 Dec 1814 having had issue
1 William Henry Worth (of whom presently)
2 Thomas b 4 Oct 1788; d 1799
3 George b 1792; dsp 7 Dec 1815
1 Mary b 12 Aug, d Oct 1786
The eldest son
William Henry Worth Newenham of Coolmore, b 10 June 1785, m 25 July 1807 Catherine (d Feb 1858) only dau of Robert Sterne Tighe ... and dsp 4 Sept 1842 when he was s in Coolmore by his cousin
The Rev Thomas Newenham rector of Kilworth b 14 Oct 1784 and dunm April 1849 when he was s by his nephew
The Rev Edward Henry Newenham MA of Coolmore JP ...
The facts presented in the petition (dated 22 July 1824) suggest that William Worth Newenham left his estate to his eldest son William Henry Worth Newenham subject to a legacy of £2,500 charged against the estate and left in trust for his three minor children. By 1824 one of them, Henry, had died and the other two, having attained majority, applied for his share which had been forfeit to the Crown. (William Worth Newenham may have made other arrangements for his son George who was also alive when his father died, but had already reached majority.)
This implies that Burke omitted the three minor children, Charles, Henry and Elizabeth, which is conceivable, but it doesn't explain how Charles and Elizabeth were overlooked in favour of a cousin when their brother William Henry Worth Newenham died in 1842, and then again when the cousin died in 1849, given that Charles lived until 1851.
I really can't explain this.
Alan