Thomas and Mary Rumbold

Thomas and Mary Rumbold were probably my 4 x great-grandparents. I say probably, because it will probably never be proved or disproved conclusively. There are quite a few interesting points about this couple, and they are a good illustration of some of the likely pitfalls in family history research.

I found Thomas and Mary while searching for the origins of their son Joseph. By Joseph's time, the family name had morphed into Rumble. The evidence connecting our family to Joseph Rumble is very strong. There are multiple points of collaboration for the connection, In particular, he is named on the marriage certificate of his daughter, Susan Rumble when she married in Australia. The connection is also confirmed by the 1841 England Census when Susan is listed with her parents and siblings at Barkway in Hertfordshire. She is still with her father and brother in the 1851 Census, but they were then living a few miles away at  Little Chishall in Essex.

We can follow Joseph Rumble through the 1861 and 1871 Census as well. The Census records reveal that he was born in Little Chishall around 1803–1805. That is where the trail seemingly disappears. There is no Joseph Rumble baptised in Little Chishall or the surrounding parishes around that time and it was before the datime when civil registration of births was required. I finally discovered Thomas and Mary by a process of elimination.

The name 'Rumble' often appears in the old records as 'Rumbold', 'Rumbald', 'Rumpole', 'Rumball' and quite a few other variations. In those times, spelling was not an exact science. Very few people could write and the spelling of a name would depend on how the vicar interpreted what he heard people say. Most would probably look back at the older entries in the register, but sometimes the name was new to a parish, and sometimes the vicar was probably lazy, or could not read the old vicar's writing.

Thomas and Mary Rumbold were married at Great Chishall in January 1803. There are no children baptised until their son Thomas was baptised at Little Chishall in October 1805. Then in 1816, Rebekah  (aged 9), James (7), Mary (4), Lucy (2) and John (presumably newborn) were all baptised at Great Chishall on the same day. Thomas and Mary were the only couple with a name like 'Rumble' who were having children in the area around Great Chishall at the time that Joseph was born. By deduction, Thomas and Mary were probably his parents. Based on the later regular births, Thomas and Mary were clearly a fertile couple, and there is room for another child before Thomas Jr was baptised. In fact, you would normally expect the first child to be born in the first year of marriage. It is possible that Joseph was not baptised, or that his baptism was not recorded. He would have been of working age by the time of the mass baptism in 1816, so that might explain why he was not included in the mass family baptism.

I often have a look to see what else I can find out about the other family members, as sometimes I find that there are often extra snippets of useful information. In this case I was looking at the Census records Thomas and Mary's son James, and noticed that he had a lodger named 'Joseph Evennitt'. This name rang a bell. There was a family connection - Joesph Evennitt had married a Rebecca Rumble at Great Chishall in 1848, One of the witnesses at the marriage was William Rumble. This Rebecca was our Joseph's daughter (Susan Rubble's older sister).  Rebecca died soon after the marriage, but here hey widowed husband was lodging with his wife's uncle. This could be a coincidence, but in my mind added a small tick to the theory that James, William and Joseph Rumble were brothers, and that Thomas and Mary were their parents. This small tick raised the theory from 50:50 to likely in my view at least.

Thomas Rumbold was born in Great Chishall, Essex in July 1799 and baptised at St Swithins Church .  His parents were John Rumbold and Mary Pitty. Both Rumbold and Pitty families had been in the area for at leas 100 years.

Our only knowledge of Mary's origins come from the banns and marriage register at the church. Her family name, has variously been transcribed as ‘Dousehead’ or ‘Douchead’. In my mind that name does not have a pleasant sound - it almost sounds like an insult! My personal idea is that the vicar took a dislike to poor Mary and took a liberty in recording her name. Given that most people could not read, she may not heave realised what he had done, but perhaps someone told her and that is why she did not return to the church until well after that vicar had left! That would explain the mass baptism in 1816. There is no evidence that a surname like 'Dousehead' has ever been used in England and Mary's name was more likely something like ‘Dowsett'. The marriage register said she was from the Parish and based on her age when she died, she was born in about 1782. But Mary's ancestry is a dead end.

Mary died in 1836 and was buried at Barley, a village just a mile or so from Great Chishall. 

After Mary's death, Thomas lived with his daughter, also named Mary, who by that time married with a family of her own. Thomas was buried at Barley in Hertfordshire in 1844.