ARMSTRONGS of Ravensden

[wdurham]

Great job, JohnP!

So for William 1792, all we are missing is a baptism - which doesn't seem to exist. I believe there is enough evidence now to make the assumption that William is an unbaptised child of John and Sarah of Ravensden, and is NOT the son of Thomas and Phoebe of Upper Gravenhurst.

So my ggg-grandfather John Armstrong b about 1800 and your ancestor William b 1792 were brothers.

Ravensden:

The Ravensden account book shows an Armstrong birth in late 1801/early 1802 followed by a "doing for" (laying out?) and a burial. We don't know how quickly the overseers made payments, so accurate timing isn't possible.

The birth could have been John, bap Nov 1802 - although he was allegedly 7 mths old at baptism. But I haven't found an Armstrong burial in Ravensden in 1801-1802. If the entries all referred to the same child, then that's another mystery!

One thing's clear - the Armstrongs were pretty poor, and seem to have been a charge on the parish at that time.

Wilden

I have the burial for the first Elizabeth, but found no baptism. There is however a baptism for a Sarah in 1817 - she would have been two at the date of the burial of the second Elizabeth. Was she actually Sarah Elizabeth? (e.g. I was christened Christine Wendy, but have always been known as Wendy.) Or did they perhaps change their minds after she was baptised, and call her after her mother instead of her grandmother?

Other Armstrongs

I have made a lot of progress on them, will post separately!

[wdurham]

John/David -

I believe I have made a link between the Riseley/Wilstead Armstrongs and the Ravensden family. It's a bit tenuous and supported only by probable burials and extracted IGI baptisms - though David has proved a few of the links from parish records. But the line runs as follows:

John Armstrong and Sarah of Riseley - b about 1675 - origin unknown.

In Riseley from 1700 onwards. Had 8 children, most of whom died and were buried in Riseley. Survivors were Sarah 1700 who married a Wm Tomes in 1731 and William 1701, who married a Sarah about 1729 and had one child in Riseley.

John was buried in Riseley in 1727, and Sarah in 1746.

William 1701 and Sarah - Riseley and Wilstead

First child, John 1729, bap Riseley. Married Edith (perhaps Edy Grange of Houghton Conquest, 1753).

First tenuous link: The only possible burials for William and Sarah are in Wilstead in 1765 and 1752 respectively. They were certainly not buried in Riseley.

Second child: Thomas 1734, bap Wilstead. Married Christian Fiddes 1766. Thomas and Christian had two sons: Thomas b 1766 and William b 1769. Thomas became a wealthy farmer in Icklelford and Holwell. William became a farmer in Wilstead and founded Methodism in the village.

John 1729 and Edith - Wilstead and Maulden

John and Edith/Eddey were buried in Maulden in 1773 and 1770 respectively. PRs say Eddey was John's wife. These are the only possible burials for the couple.

William bap 17 Mar 1754, Wilstead.
Apprenticed by Maulden overseers to Wm Batterson of Cople - Cordwainer. Settled in Cople and raised a family.
Married Mary Robins in Cople in 1779.
William buried in Cople 1828 aged 76. Mary wife of William buried in Cople 1801.

John bap 6 Sep 1761, Wilstead.

Second tenuous link: The only possible burial in the NBI for John 1761 is in Ravensden in 1826 aged 66.

John married a Sarah and produced the Ravensden family. From whom both JohnP and I descend - me from John 1802 and John from William 1792.

The Houghton Conquest/Ampthill Armstrongs were "posh" - the earliest one seems to have married into the nobility. They were farmers and local worthies, JPs etc. I have found in other people's trees some evidence that they came from Ireland. I have not found a link between them and "our" Armstrongs.

Nor have I found a possible origin for Thomas of Upper Gravenhurst.

They are probably all related one way or the other - just a matter of finding the links!

Feel free to shoot any or all of the above down in flames.....

[bedfordshire boy]

Hi Wendy

Have you checked with BLARS to see if there are any wills? (if you have already covered this I apologise - the thread's getting a bit long and I may have missed it!)

Do we know what John's occupation in Ravensden was? Could he have been apprenticed out by Maulden as well, which would explain his presence in Ravensden?

I have an inbuilt prejudice against mobility of people at that time, probably because from 1450 onwards my main line stayed in the adjoining villages of Henlow and Arlesey. Other people say that our ancestors were much more mobile than we realise. There obviously was movement but I always ask why if it involved a move of more than 5 miles.

So... why would William and Sarah have moved from Riseley to Wilstead. Baptism and burial evidence, both positive and negative (ie they weren't buried in Riseley), fits.

Often where movement is involved it boils down to the balance of probabilities, and circumstantial evidence. On that basis your scenario looks good.

So far as the UG family goes it must be possible that they were from another county, although both give Beds as their birthplace in 1841. In 1851 though, Phoebe has N.K. so perhaps Beds wasn't right. Whilst neither 1841 nor burial ages are very reliable, Thomas's age is consistent at c1756, and there's nothing in the IGI for either Beds or Herts. Possibly the overseers accounts might throw up a hint - has the marriage entry been checked by the way? My marriages are always otp, but other people's often seem to give a parish of residence!

Must dash, a visitor from Beds arrives on Thursday and the house is a tip!

Regards

David

[wdurham]

Hi David -

The best info I have on John 1760's occupation is just plain labourer, listed as such in 1803 on the Ravensden National Defence Volunteers list, found by JohnP last week.

http://www.ravensden.org.uk/csscontentshi.htm

The same site gives a list in 1803 of those who owned waggons, horses, carts etc in case of emergencies - John wasn't amongst them.

JP's discoveries in the Overseers account book indicate that he was "on the parish" for at least some of the time in the early 1800's.

His son John b 1802 was an Ag Lab in 1841 and 1851

And John's only son William b 1837 was also an Ag Lab in 1861. He eventually left the village, presumably looking for work, and went to Derbyshire (labourer 1871) and Walsall (railway labourer 1881).

I haven't come up with anything yet to suggest WHY the moves were made, except that of William of Wilstead/Maulden being apprenticed to Cople in 1766.  But the burials and baptisms do seem to show that they did move about - I am currently exploring settlement orders to see if there is anything relevant.

Thanks so much for all the help. And JohnP too!

I feel I am getting somewhere....

[bedfordshire boy]

I'm intrigued by the marriage of William Armstrong and Sarah Prudden on 24 August 1729 at Puddington (Podington), which is only 5 miles from Riseley. Unfortunately the first child, John, was christened a moth earlier, on 28 July 1729, at Riseley.

It might be worth checking the original PRs to see if there is any possibility of an error in either of the entries which would make the chronology work

David

[wdurham]

LOL - I came up with that one too - but didn't put it in because it's a bit dubious.

There is, of course, a possibility that the naughty Sarah Prudden and William 1701 actually did have a child before their marriage while she was working away from home in Riseley, perhaps as a servant or even a labourer on a farm.

Then they did a quick nip back to her home the following month to get married once the nasty evidence of their misbehaviour had been delivered (and probably left behind with its granny in Riseley whilst they tied the knot) .....

[bedfordshire boy]

If they weren't married I think the PR would have him as John Prudden bastard son of Sarah, but the dates and places look too close to be coincidence, and there are no other children baptised to William and Sarah

Worth a closer look at the PRs I think

Regards

David

[johnP-bedford]

Hello,   David, hope everything is spik & span at home.

I have Riseley PR transcript to hand & will be checking up later.
I can confirm the baptism on July 28 1729 is John, son of William & Sarah Armstrong. 
I also have another survivor of John & Sarah Armstrong. Daughter Mary baptised Jan 9 1707, could have married William Dawson on May 29 1732.
I can not find a burial for her.  For info, 1st John buried 1712 died of comsumption, & 2nd John & sister Rebecca buried 1716 died of smallpox

John   

[wdurham]

Not sure, David. 

Provided William was prepared to acknowledge his fatherhood, the child may well have been baptised as his.  I have a few such instances in my own tree, as some of my ancestors - especially my Cambs ag labs - were very naughty!

I have drawn a complete blank on Thomas 1756 of Upper Gravenhurst, and his wife Phoebe. There are a few Wisson/Wissen/Whisson folk in Beds, but no Phoebe. The only record of their "births" in the IGI are member entries extrapolated backwards by 25 and 20 years respectively from their marriage entry - totally unreliable in my experience. There are also Wissons in Cambs, but still no Phoebe.

One thought, which I have looked at briefly without success is that Thomas was at least 10 years older than Phoebe. Her birth, according to 1851 census, was about 1770, some 14 years after his apparent birth of 1756 calculated from 1841 and the NBI death record. Was she a second marriage?  No matter really, I guess, because even so, I can't find him! LOL.

I hate to say it, but more and more he is looking as if he fits between William born 1754 and John born 1761/2 in Wilstead to John and Edith. Especially as he named his eldest daughter Edith.

JohnP - I also have Mary as the other surviving child of John and Sarah, but couldn't see a marriage or a burial for her.  I tried to be brief with my outlining of the family earlier.

But oh, dear, consumption and smallpox. What privileged lives we lead these days by comparison.

I think I will stick these "unproven" Armstrongs on my website so you can both look at what I have found in detail, rather than trying to explain it here. I daren't hook them into my tree proper on G-R or whatever, as god knows what errors it could bring about if it's not correct!

Now that John and I do seem almost 99% sure to be related, I have opened my G-R tree for John to look at all my horrible Armstrong descendants!