John and Mary Watkins of Bristol

John Watkins and Mary Barrett lived in Bristol in the UK. They were my 4th great-grandparents.

John was born in Bristol in 1769. Mary was born in 1770, also in Bristol. It is likely that both families had lived in the Somerset and Gloucestershire  area for many generations. Working class people did not move very much before the industrial revolution! John and Mary were both baptised at St George, Bristol and that is also where they were married in 1791. Mary was 20 and John was 21.

John and Mary had three children born between 1791 and 1795. Ann was born in 1791, Thomas in 1793 and John in 1795. All were baptised at St George Bristol.

The eldest child, Ann, died in March 1797 aged five. Only four months later Mary also died. She was only 26. John was left a widower with two small boys aged one and four. It is possible that he remarried, but there is not enough evidence to be sure (there were several people named John Watkins in Bristol at the time).

John died in 1807 aged 38. The two remaining children were orphaned, but at 11 and 14 they were both probably already working, so may have been able to look after themselves. One or both of their mother's parents were still living in Bristol, so they boys may have had a home there.

The eldest boy, Thomas worked as a carter in Bristol until 1814 when he was arrested and charged with stealing a horse. He was convicted of the charge and sentenced to death, but the sentence was later commuted to transportation to New South Wales for life. Thomas' story will feature in a future post.

The youngest child John Jr worked as a labourer, carrier, fish trader and fruiterer. He lived in Calne, Wiltshire where he raised a family of five children with his common-law wife, Elizabeth Gee.

John and Mary Watkins were baptised, married and buried in the St George parish in Bristol, but none of their descendants remained in the area. 

Searching for Henry Parry's origins

Tracking my Parry ancestors led me back to Griffith William Parry, a convict who arrived in New South Wales in 1820.  It was easy to track down Griffith's baptism to the slums of London in 1799 and this revealed that his parents were Henry and Catharine Parry, who lived in Primrose Street in Shoreditch, an inner suburb of London. The Parish Registers at St Leonard's, Shoreditch also contained the details of Griffith's siblings and the record of his parent's marriage. Henry Richards Parry married Catherine Smith in 1795. They were both said to be over 21, meaning they were probably born before 1774.

My next step was to look for other information on the couple. I found that Henry died in 1824. The burial register said he was 58 when he died, so he was born somewhere around 1766 (although age at death is not very reliable).  Catharine died in 1849 aged 75. This would place her birth around 1774. I also found the 1841 census record for Catherine and her family. 

As is my normal practice, I started looking for potential baptisms for both parents in the area where they lived as adults. It quickly became clear that there were literally hundreds of potential baptisms for Catharine. Not only was Catharine (or Catherine) a common name, but Smith was probably the most common surname in London! Henry was not so bad, but still no clear options.

The next step was to go back over the information that I had to see what else I could glean from the records. I spotted that Catharine used a slightly unusual spelling of her name, but the name could have been 'Catharine' or 'Catharina' and did not prove all that helpful in the long run. 

The breakthrough in Henry's case came from the marriage register. One of the witnesses who signed the register was Griffith Parry - and the couple named a child Griffith, so that was possibly an important clue. Then I noticed that Griffith had signed his name 'Griffith Parry', then crossed it out and rewrote it as 'Griffith Richards Parry'. That was the same middle name as Henry was using, so that was also an important clue.

Some family trees assumed that Griffith must have been Henry's father. But when Griffith Richards Parry was buried in 1830, his age was given as 60, meaning he was born somewhere around 1770, so he could not have been Henry's father - more likely a contemporary, such as a brother or other close relative.

The other information I had was the names of Henry and Catherine's children (I did not find a marriage for Henry's brother, although that would have been helpful if he had children). It was common for families to use the paternal grandfather's name for the first son. Henry and Catherine's first son was Richard - so Richard or Richards may be particularly important. Other children were named Henry, Griffith, Morris, Jane and Catherine. Only Griffith was given a middle name, William, so that might also be important.

My next search was a complicated one. I first searched for baptisms in the UK of  children named Henry Parry baptised around 1766 (plus or minus five years). There were 76 exact name matches although some were listed multiple times. I did the same for a Griffith Parry baptised around 1770. There were only 20 matching baptisms, which dwindled to just 10 once I removed duplicates and other irrelevant records.. Importantly, all the Griffith Parrys were Welsh! Not that surprising because both Griffith and Parry are traditionally Welsh names.

I went back to the Henry Parry list and updated it to just Wales,  list came down to 50. Then I looked for matching places. Despite the difficult Welsh names, I found only two places where boys named both Henry and Griffith had been baptised in the target periods - Llandrog in Caernarvonshire and Llanfrothen in Merionethshire. The last step was then to look at the names of the parents in each baptism. The Henry and Griffith Parry baptised in Llandrog had different parents.

There were two Henry Parrys baptised in Llanfrothen in the search period, but one baptised in 1866 had the same parents as the Griffith Parry baptised in 1770. The parents were Richard and Jane Parry. This was the sort of result I was hoping for. There were now three points supporting a theory that Richard and Jane Parry were the parents of the Henry Parry who later married Catharine Smith in London:

1. The birth dates of the two brothers were within two years of what was predicted from their age when they died.
2. There was only one family in the whole of the UK where brothers named Henry and Griffith Parry were baptised within that timeframe.
3. Henry seemingly followed tradition in naming his first son after his own father, Richard.

Encouraged, I pushed on with the research. I discovered that Richard and Jane had two other children baptised at Llanfrothen, a son William the year before Henry and a daughter Jane in 1767, between Henry and Griffith. Widening the area a little, it looked like there were two earlier children born at Trawsfynydd, a village about 15 miles from  Llanfrothen. Richard Parry had married Jane Richard at  Trawsfynydd in 1749. The name similarities were stacking up!

Richard Parry was baptised in Llanfrothen in 1730, the son of Morris Parry, no mother was given. He buried at Trawsfynydd in 1771, the year after his son Griffith was born.  

Having extracted all that I could from the archives, I was satisfied that I had solved the puzzle to a 95% probability. In addition to the minimum three supporting points above, I could now add:

• The mother's maiden name was Richard (or more likely Richards) which explains the middle name used by Henry and Griffith.
• As well as naming his first son after his father, Henry gave his third son the names of his two brothers, Griffith and William.
• Henry also named his daughter Jane after his mother, and his last son Morris after his (Henry's) grandfather.

The evidence supporting this theory is strong, but not unbreakable. It is possible that there were records that have been lost in the 250 years that have passed since Henry Parry was born. It is also possible that there were other brothers who were not baptised in the same place, or that Henry and Griffith were cousins, not brothers. 

It is doubtful that there could be further proof, although a DNA link is a possibility. This would rely on identifying a DNA connection with descendants of one of Henry's siblings. Given that this is seven generations from me, I am told that this right at the limits of where DNA evidence is useful. Given I have not had my DNA tested, this is unlikely to happen, although evidence may emerge from one of the other Parry descendants - there are some alive who are at least one generation closer to Henry Parry than me!

I have written this post to show the value of digging deeper into the records available. I used two different family history sites to do this work, and the sort of searching I did was only possible on one. Some of the records were also only available on one system. Had I followed the hints on my main family history service (the one you see advertised), I would not have found this information. Their coverage of Wales is not very good!

How long did it take? It was several years ago now, but I think it was an hour here and an hour there over several weeks. I repeated the steps in writing this post and it took me less than 2 hours. Importantly, I came up with the same answer, even though I was careful not to skip forward.

Was it worth it? I have to be honest and say that a thrill pass through my body several times during this process. I particularly recall a quiet 'YES' escaped me when the name 'Morris Parry' came up in the search for Richard's father. Those thrills are few and far between, but like with a gambling addict, those brief thrills are what makes family history research addictive. You have been warned.

Does in matter? No, not really. Knowing who my 5th-great-grandparents were means nothing really. It will not gain me access to any exclusive club or get me any financial benefits. I do it because I find it interesting, and I like solving puzzles!

Postscript

After posting this item, I continued to check the details I had on the Parry family in Wales. I discovered that the records on which I based the birth of Richard Parry were not complete. I based my search on the marriage of Richard and Jane in 1749. If they were 20 when they married, then they would have been born in about 1729. The problem is that the Parish records for Trawsfynydd that I have been using only start in 1730, Even though I found a matching baptism for Richard Parry, the absence of earlier records does not give me any confidence that there were not other possibilities. As a result, I don't have a lot of confidence that Morris Parry was our Richard's father. This does not change the basic proof thet Richard was Henry Parry's father.

I also discovered that there is possibly a gap in the parish records at Trawsfynydd. This might explain the 10-year gap between the last child born at Trawsfynydd and the next child baptised at Llanfrothen. I would normally expect there to be at least two more children in that period. This could be significant if the family was following the British naming convention, as the names of children  give an important clue to the names of the previous generation.

Henry and Catherine Parry - butcher, baker, candlestick maker?

 Henry and Catherine Parry lived out their lives in the UK. 

Henry Richards Parry was a Welshman who moved to London some time after he was orphaned at 13 years old. He had a  younger brother named Griffith and they both lived out their adult lives in London. Henry was born in Llanfrothen, Wales in 1764, the son of Richard Parry and Jane Richard. He married Catherine Smith in London in 1795, with his brother as a witness to the marriage. Catherine's origins are not clear - the name Smith is probably the most common surname in London, and Catherine was also a very popular name at the time, so there are too many options and no basis to decide which one is likely to be her.

Henry and Catherine Parry both worked as 'tallow chandlers', making and selling candles (made from tallow). It was a messy and smelly trade, but the couple did well and built up a good business. They had seven children  born between 1796 and 1808. The children were Richard born in 1796, Griffith 1799, Henry 1801 (died 1803), Jane 1803, Henry 1805, Catherine 1807 and Morris 1808.

Henry Sr was a well educated man and made sure his children received a good schooling. At least three of the boys followed their parents into the tallow chandler's trade, including Griffith (named after Henry's brother), Henry Jr and Morris.

It must have been a huge blow to the family in 1820 when their second child, Griffith, was convicted of theft and sentenced to transportation for life. They would never see him again. 

Henry Sr died just four years later in 1824, aged 60. Catherine carried on the family business with Henry Jr and Morris.

The eldest daughter, Jane, married William Robbins in 1826. William was a butcher. They had four children.

The eldest son, Richard, died in 1834. He does not seem to have married.

Catherine Jr, the second daughter, married John Negus in 1837.  They had five children. John was a baker. 

I cannot help but observe that Catherine's marriage  completed the family business coverage of 'butcher, baker and candle-stick maker'! (Poetic license - assuming a candlestick maker made candles and not the apparatus used to hold candles.)

Catherine lived to 80 years-of-age and died in 1849. Her sons Henry jr and Morris carried on the family business and became prosperous men in the process. As the need for candles declined, they diversified into soaps, lubricants and inks. Their business employed eight people. Neither Henry Jr or Morris had children and the company vanished after Morris died in 1883.

Henry and Catherine Parry gave their children a good education and I like to think that once settled in Australia, their son Griffith remained in contact by letter. It would have been nice for Catherine to know that her son eventually prospered in the far flung British colony and became a respected citizen. It is poignant that the only descendants known to carry the Parry surname are in Australia. Griffith was the only one of the five sons known to have children. 

Henry' and Catherine's names were passed down the family in the names of subsequent generations and Henry's name in particular will remain in Gosford for many years to come in the name of an important street - Henry Parry Drive. It was named after the Henry's great-great-grandson, Henry William Parry.

But what does it mean?

Tracing back through the family tree can be a difficult and sometimes frustrating task, particularly in early colonial Australia when record keeping was patchy and many records have been lost over the years. In addition, you have to be careful when interpreting language as the meanings of some words have changed.

A good case in point is James Lewis, the father of Sarah Lewis.

To put Sarah in context, she was one of Lena Parry's great-grandmothers on her father's side. Sarah married Thomas Watkins. Their daughter Sarah Jane Watkins married Griffith Parry and their son William Henry Parry was Lena's father.

We can trace Sarah back to her baptism in Sydney in 1802 and the record of baptism gives her father's name as James Lewis. (Her mother's name is given as Catherine Conway, but that is a  different puzzle - maybe next week?). 

It is likely that James Lewis was a convict who arrived on the Hillsborough in July 1799. I cannot be certain that this is Sarah's father, but I think it is better than 50% likely. There was an earlier James Lewis on the Third Fleet, but he had died by the time Sarah was born, so the Hillsborough James is the more likely. There are no records of soldiers or free settlers names James Lewis before this time, but that is another possibility of course. 

The James Lewis on the Hillsborough is listed in the convict records with an alias 'James Druce'. There is no explanation what this means and it is easy to jump to the conclusion that it was a criminal alias, which is how we usually use the term today. But alias literally means 'alternative name' and in historical records it was often used in ways other than the criminal sense. One use I have seen in census records is where a couple were not married and their children might be given both names. A case in point is the family of Sarah Lewis' brother-in-law, John Watkins who was listed in the 1851 census in Calne, Wiltshire:

1851 Census listing for John Watkins, Elizabeth Gee and their children. the 'do do' after george and Thomas' names means 'ditto ditto' - so 'Gee alias Watkins'.

John Watkins is shown as Head of the household, unmarried, 52 and is a Fish Dealer. He is living with Elizabeth Gee and three children. The three children (young adults) are listed with the surname 'Gee alias Watkins'! Elizabeth Gee's entry is confusing, but I read it that she was married to a labourer who was not John Watkins, but the children were John's children. (Elizabeth is listed as John's wife in the 1841 and 1861 census but there is no record of a marriage).

This is a good illustration of the dangers of applying a modern meaning to words like 'alias'. The court and prison records may have used 'James Lewis Alias Druce' because his surname was unclear. If we used the above census example, Jame's mother would have been named Lewis and his father Druce.

I asked myself where would the alias come from? It does not seem lileky that someone would give their name willingly as "Lewis alias Druce'!  So it is more likely from the criminal records, or from someone who knew him. There is nothing that I can find in the criminal records, but there was someone who knew him!

The constable who testified at the Old Bailey trial said 'I am certain of his person, because I knew him before'. So perhaps by giving his name as 'alias Druce' he was implying something else entirely. 'Not only is he a thief, but also a bastard'. It is not at all unusual for people to carry the stigma of being illegitimate for their whole life! 

The reference to an alias has sent some family historians off on a tangent looking at the activities of 'James Druce' There was one such convict who was a notorious character who was constantly escaping and causing mayhem.

There is no evidence that our James Lewis ever used the alias in the colony and there is good circumstantial evidence that he was well-behaved and trusted by the authorities. In 1806 he was sent to Hobart as an overseer of the goal gang and while there he married Susan Shadwick, a woman with whom he had been linked in Sydney (she may be Sarah's mother). 

After being in Hobart, James returned to Sydney and worked at various times as a seaman and a carrier. He also worked for former convict and Sydney entrepreneur, Simoen Lord. 

The final chapter in James' life begins in April 1823 when he sails aboard Fame bound for Port Stephens, north of Newcastle. Employed by entrepreneur and former convict Simeon Lord, James was a member of a 25-man timber-cutting party sent to cut cedar. Shortly after arrival at Port Stephens, James Lewis was appointed a special constable on Pelican Island, a small island today marked on maps as Dowardee Island. Some correspondence survives about instances of smuggling of alcohol on the Island, and James was asked to seize the contraband and prevent any boats from leaving until the Commandant at Newcastle contacted him.

The following year in February 1824, 11 men appeared in Newcastle and were taken before the Court for being at large in the settlement in defiance of regulations. They claimed that they had fled Pelican Island after one of their party had been killed by the natives and their huts had been ransacked. The man who had been killed was James Lewis.  He was 47 years old. We will never know whether James was killed by the indigenous people, or whether this was just a tale to cover up his murder by the smugglers.

So was the James Lewis who died in 1823 my 4th great-grandfather? I think he probably was, but the evidence falls just a bit short of my standard for stating it as fact. Perhaps one day DNA evidence will emerge that will prove it one way or another, but at seven generations from me, it is towards the extremes of current DNA technology. Proof would also require tracing back at least one further generation.