The Budds of Quainton – close but no cigar!

Well, I really thought I’d solved it – see earlier post “William Budd – lineage solved?”

Tying up William, Thomas and Samuel, all players in the trail that will eventually lead us to William’s lineage, seemed very convincing.

So I got the underlying transcripts this week from the wonderful Buckinghamshire Family History Society (so fast, accurate and helpful, thank you!) and have spent a quiet Sunday morning ticking and bashing through them.

It didn’t take long for my theory to unravel.

The Thomas Budd of Quainton who I suggested was the signatory to WH Budd’s marriage in 1798 actually died an infant of probably 3 months in Quainton in Feb 1744.

The William Budd of Quainton who I suggested was our William, also died a one month old infant there in Feb 1745 (bless them, the William and Eleanor of Quainton had a series of infant deaths).

The Samuel Budd of St Olave’s Southwark whom I suggested was a relative of our William, and still could be, whilst having parents whose names were John and Mary, I can find no link to a similarly named couple of Quainton (which I needed to in order to get a link between this Samuel and our William).

For the record, in case in the future someone else is working on this hypothesis, and to complete the public dismantling of my theory, I attach the facts:

Screen Shot 2015-09-06 at 06.18.28Screen Shot 2015-09-06 at 06.18.14

This will perhaps teach me not to get excited too soon and put these things out there, but I suppose it does chart the ups and downs of this wonderful project.

We keep going…

William Budd – lineage solved?

I first started my Budd Family history in 2007.  That’s approaching 9 years of research.  All along, where William Budd came from has been a total mystery.

I think I’ve solved it.

As always, the small but focused community of researchers have helped enormously.  I was particularly intrigued by a theory put forward by the authoritative Margaret Rose, who posited that the witness to William Hayward Budd’s marriage (William H was William snr’s eldest son), Thomas Budd, was not WH’s brother (Thomas Hayward), but possibly William Snr’s brother.  Margaret’s rationale was that the signature of the witness did not match that of TH Budd.  That takes some spotting, given the flowery signatures that were so common at that time (1798), and to me, frankly, all look to be by the same hand.

That got me thinking.

My own contribution to the puzzle (see earlier post on William Budd’s lineage 15 Aug 2015) was that when William married Ann Hayward, they were first to be found in the London borough of Southwark.  Their first child, predictably called William, sadly died an infant and was buried there aged 5 months in July 1776.  My theory was that it was no coincidence that there was a Samuel Budd (married to Anne Dredge) in the same parish at that time.  Seemed too good to be coincidental – so here was another relative, perhaps a brother or a cousin?

To cut a long story short, it would appear that both theories are correct.  Through building a number of ‘what might be’ family trees, eventually the connections can be made.  What makes it hard, and therefore explains why it’s been so elusive until now, is that the common connection between Thomas (signatory to William Hayward’s wedding), Samuel (in Southwark at the time of the birth of William and Ann’s first child) and William himself can only be determined by tracing back 2 earlier generations – to their commonly shared Grandparents.

Here’s how it looks:

Screen Shot 2015-08-31 at 06.56.28

And here’s that all-important signature of ‘Uncle Thomas’.

Screen Shot 2015-08-31 at 07.08.28

I have to admit I’m just a little excited so I’m dashing this off perhaps sooner than I should.  For those who will be keen to fact-check (and I hope you will!), the common thread is Quainton, Buckinghamshire.  That’s where the Budd’s came from – about 35 miles North West of Uxbridge.

By reference to the chart above, you can see Samuel, living in Southwark when the sick infant William Hayward was born, is William’s cousin, and that Thomas, as Margaret Rose suspected, is William’s brother and witnesses (the second-born William Hayward) William Hayward’s marriage, as WH’s uncle.

It works.  Perfectly.

I need to get the records, but I think we have it.

Readers, let me know what you think.

William Budd’s lineage

With William Budd’s death now pretty much resolved (see my earlier Blog on this topic), I have turned my attention to William’s birth and his immediate family.  This seems to be a little harder to pin down.

One lead appears to be that when William and Ann had their first son, William Hayward in the parish of George the Martyr, Southwark in early 1776, there was another Budd, Samuel, living in the same parish (he and his wife Ann Dredge had five children in that parish from 1776 – 1787).  It seems significant that two Budds were living in the same parish – that they were related seems to be a hypothesis worth exploring.  I haven’t had any luck to date!

Interestingly, William and Ann’s marriage certificate cites him as being from the Diocese of London, and says that he was also a widower.  Again, no further clues unearthed on this thread to date.

That William came from London and had his first child there makes me think that he was a Londoner and was perhaps born there (as opposed to Gloucester, where he married Ann in her parish, and Wiltshire, where so many of his children ended up living out their years, and where I believe he lived in the latter part of his life from 1801 until his death in 1821, again, see my previous blog on this).

Margaret ROSE has commented elsewhere on this Blog that there’s a witness to William Hayward Budd’s marriage to Mary Packer called Thomas Budd.  Margaret’s view is that the signature is not that of WHB’s brother Thomas Hayward Budd, and her hypothesis is that this could be an uncle – William Budd Snr’s brother.

Interestingly, there is a William (b 1744, 2 years adrift from the believed birth date of our William Snr) and a Thomas, both with the same parents (William and Eleanor Budd) born in Quainton, Bucks – so this could be a lead worth following up.

To date, nothing definitive…any clues welcome!

William Budd – closing in on his final years

William Hayward Budd is an enigma.  No doubt about it. Patriarch of a large family that was seemingly born into relatively humble circumstances, his children went on to great things. William, having married a vicar’s daughter, Ann Hayward in 1774, was an Inn Keeper (of some repute and standing), but it appears that the significant capital outlay required to refurbish the Crown Inn at Uxbridge in the early 1790s was too much for him and he was declared bankrupt in 1794.  Despite this setback, William was a social networker of his time and used any and all connections he had to secure patronage and advancement for his children.

Of the twelve children that can be traced, a brief summary of their lives is as follows:

Ann (eldest daughter)   Married Benedict John Angell, joining a wealthy family of landowners

Elizabeth Hayward       Married Charles Barrington who went on to establish a place named after him in Nova Scotia, Canada

Thomas Hayward          Married Marie Ann Reinagle, daughter of a Royal Academician and became a wealthy solicitor in London

Hopewell Hayward        Joined Royal Navy and became a protege of Sir Sidney Smith (a peer of Nelson), retired a Commander

Henry Hayward             Ditto

George Hayward            Joined the Madras Native Infantry, sponsored by George Thelusson, a Director of The East India Company

Edward Hayward           Sponsored into the War Office by William Wyndham, Secretary of War, went on to become one of the best known cricketers of his generation

Charles Hayward           Became a Land Agent in London

Richard Hayward          Became a Vet and emigrated to America

Samuel Hayward           Gained a commission in Dillon’s Regiment

William Hayward          Perhaps most like his father, Postman, then Waggoner, also declared bankrupt

These children were no slouches!  Due to their status, much can be found in public records about their lives (and their tombs are invariably impressive, bearing testament to their standing). It’s clear that William worked Georgian patronage relentlessly.

But what’s also interesting is that his patronage seems much diminished from 1800 (George entered the Madras Native Infantry not through his father’s connections, but his bother’s, Thomas) – one cannot help making the connection with his Bankruptcy, declared in late 1799.

William’s later life can be pieced together as follows:

1799.  August – Declared bankrupt.  Sale of the Crown and Cushion, the Inn he leased from the Evans family – comprising ‘thirty two good sleeping rooms, seven dining rooms, an elegant spacious assembly room…stabling for one hundred horses…meadow land nearby adjoining…fifty two acres of meadowland…household furniture, plate, linen, china, horses…’

1800.  Still a tenant of Mrs Evans.  We know that from the Uxbridge Tax records that Crown and Cushion is demolished by 1804.

Here’s where the story can only, at this stage, be a hypothesis.

1801.  William Budd is recorded in the Salisbury and Wiltshire Journal as being a licensed Gamekeeper to BJ Angell (Husband of William’s eldest daughter Ann), in Studley, Calne. These records persist, on and off, until 1812 (at this stage, William would be 65 years old, if you believe how this hypothesis ends).

The next mention of William Budd in Studley is also in the Salisbury and Wilts Journal, citing the death of a William Budd, of Rumsey Cottage, Calne, on 20 Jan 1821 ‘aged 75 years after a long illness which he bore with christian fortitude.’

I think that the chances of this not being our William are very slim – this appears to be a cottage on the Angell estate and my belief is that Ann installed her aged father there for the final years of his life.  I expect he lived there from 1801 but cannot prove that at this stage.  Being a recent bankrupt, my theory is that she supported him by installing him on the estate in 1801 (and the last definitive record of him in Uxbridge is as a tenant of Mrs Davies in 1800).

We should remember that he still had four dependent children at that time – George (14), Charles (12), Richard (10), and Samuel (9).  When Samuel applied to re-enter Army service (having retired on half-pay in 1815), he cites his place of residence for the last five years as Rumsey House, Calne.  So I think that Samuel grew up there from the age of 9 and returned there once he left the Army in 1815, where his father was still living.

Interestingly, there are references to Budds living in Uxbridge from 1805 to 1812, with a William Budd cited as owning and living in property 1809 and 1810.  I believe these references to be related to William Hayward Budd, William’s son (and not William snr), who married Mary Packer and had eight children over the period 1801-1813, all of whom were baptised at St Mary’s Church, Uxbridge.

Credit must go to Tim Wilkinson for his research into William’s death in Studley and sharing that with me.