The last time I looked into the financial woes of my ancestor George Wreford, I wanted a simple explanation into the change in bankruptcy laws in 1861. I’ve since learned the key to understanding is knowing the difference between bankruptcy and insolvency.

Bankruptcy or Insolvency?

Whether a person was declared bankrupt or insolvent, was dependent on the profession of the debtor.

Only traders could apply for bankruptcy and have access to some kind of relief – an ‘Order of Discharge’ – which would effectively clear the debt, and allow them to rebuild their business or finances. Any money earned after bankruptcy was theirs to keep.

Non-traders were not able to do this, and would be liable for their debts forever. Any future assets or inheritance could be seized by creditors to pay off old debts, and they could be kept in gaol indefinitely.

Why was this case?

It was a long-held belief that financial failure in commerce was a natural risk of business (think: ‘market fluctuations’), whereas failure in private life was a moral or personal failing (think: ‘extravagant lifestyles’). Debtor’s prisons were seen as a punitive measure to discourage living beyond one’s means.

What changed in 1861?

After the new Bankruptcy Act (effective October 1861), non-traders could also apply for bankruptcy – an ‘Order of Discharge’ – so that they, too, could have their debts cleared.

Unfortunately for George, he became insolvent in March 1861 while still under the old laws.

So why would George be considered a non-trader?

The answer seems to lie in the fact that as well as being an innkeeper, butcher, and journeyman butcher, George was also described as a farmer.

Farmers were excluded from bankruptcy because their livelihood depended on the ‘labour of the soil’ and the ‘uncertainty of the seasons’, NOT commercial trade.

So although George was a butcher and innkeeper, his farming defined his primary legal status. This meant the courts viewed his capital as being tied up in land and livestock reared by himself, rather than goods bought and sold. The meat he sold was likely butchered from his own animals rather than animals bought from someone else.

Being a ‘journeyman butcher’ also suggested that he was an employee rather than a business owner, and therefore could not declare bankruptcy.

The Petition

This notice in the London Gazette tells us that George voluntarily declared insolvency. He would have recognised he was in serious financial trouble and filed his own petition, giving over all his assets to the court to pay off his debts. Had he not done this, a creditor could have had George sent to prison and controlled whether he was released.

The ‘Benefit of the Act’

The post Bankrupt or Insolvent? appeared first on Geneageek.

It is unclear when the property entered Wreford hands but the estate was mentioned in the Domesday Book as ‘Schipebroc’ (Sheepbrook), and apparently even earlier in a charter of 930 AD.

The estate passed from Matthew Wreford (1712-1752) to his eldest son Matthew (1741-1821) and (it seems) subsequently to his son John (1765-1845).

Matthew (junior) had to wait until he turned 24 before inheriting – he was only 11 when his father died. (Matthew senior died at the age 40, and eleven years before his own father Matthew Wreford ‘of Middlecott’ (1682-1763).

In 1822, Lower Shobrooke was put up for auction “to be SOLD for the Life of the Owner, Mr. JOHN WREFORD, now aged about 56 years…”

However, it is unclear whether the property sold as his wife, Betty (nee Hosegood), was described as ‘of Lower Shobrooke’ when she was buried in 1829.

In the 1841 census, three families were living at ‘Shobrook’, including the family of John Wreford (1817-1892). (He was the great grandson of Matthew Sr’s brother William Wreford (1717-1763). This John Wreford was recorded at ‘Higher Shobrooke’ in the 1851 census.

In the 1851 census, two families were recorded at ‘Lower Shobrooke’, named Mann and Warren. The heads were recorded as agricultural labourers so would not have owned the property.

My ancestry

Matthew Wreford (1712-1752) was my 7th great-grandfather.

Links related to Lower Shobrooke:

Location on modern map

Location on c1904 map

Location on c1886 map

Location on c1809 map

Shobrooke Farmstead on Heritage Gateway (Devon & Dartmoore HER)

Real estate catalogue

Lower Shobrooke, Wreford Name Study wikitree category – lists profiles of Wrefords connected with the property

The post Lower Shobrooke appeared first on Geneageek.

Way back in the mid 18th century, my 6th great-grandparents, Sarah Wreford and John Wreford, married. Sarah and John were 1st cousins – their fathers were brothers.

This kind of situation leads to what is known as ‘pedigree collapse’.

A typical pedigree assumes each set of parents are unrelated to each other and each generation doubles (since each person has 2 parents).

Pedigree collapse occurs when two people who share ancestors reproduce.  

This is demonstrated in the pedigree of Sarah and John’s son (and my 5th great-grandfather), John Wreford:

Instead of having four distinct sets of great-grandparents, Sarah and John’s children had only three.

Their children had only 6 great-parents instead of 8; 12 second great-grandparents instead of 16; 24 third great-grandparents instead of 32; and so on. (The number of ancestors lost each generation doubles: 8 -2; 16 -4; 32 -8; etc.)

This got me wondering. What knock on effect would 2 less ancestors have on my overall ancestor count?

My pedigree is typical until the 11th generation, where I lose 2 8x great grandparents. So instead of 1024 8xGGP, I have 1022; instead of 2048 9xGGP, I have 2044 ; instead of 4096 10xGGP, I have 4088; and so on.

My ancestor count (so far) looks like this:

Further calculations will need to be made if/when I find more kissing cousins.

The post Pedigree Collapse appeared first on Geneageek.

William and Ann had a daughter named Elizabeth Ann Wreford born in Tiverton, Devon. While ’rounding out’ her story, I found her in the 1851 census in London. Elizabeth was in the home of ‘Aeneas B. Reid’ and his wife ‘Anne Maunder Reid’, recorded as a sister-in-law. Obviously the name Maunder jumped out at me. Mrs Reid’s age also tied in with the details for Ann and George Maunder’s daughter Ann (her baptism record can be seen in the earlier post).

Luckily, I could access the image of the marriage Ann Maunder (jr) to Aeneas Barkley Reid a couple years earlier in 1849. It confirmed her father’s name was George Maunder and also held the signatures of two witnesses: William Wreford and Mary Wreford.

(I believe these witnesses are likely to be Ann’s step sibling (son of William Wreford to his first wife) and his wife, who also lived in London at the time.)

After this discovery, everything has started tumbling into place. Another half sibling, Mary Anna, who I was previously unable to pin down, shows up in the census record with the Reids in 1861.

She also appears to have been buried in the family plot of Elizabeth Ann, who had married Alexander Small in 1853.

Mary Anna and Aeneas Barkley Reid also show up as witnesses to that marriage,

and the Small’s son is recorded with Elizabeth Ann’s brother Willliam in the 1861 census.

What tops it off for me, is seeing that my direct ancestor William Wreford was also buried in the Small family plot (4029).

All of this ‘coming together’ is very satisfying, and gives me an insight into how much the siblings lives were entwined with each other.

And of course, I’m now pretty confident William Wreford’s wife Ann Maunder was born Ann Anstey.

The post Maunder Thursday appeared first on Geneageek.

The grave stone is so worn, only the name ‘Alfred Wreford’ can be made out.

Fortunately, there was a list of burials inside the church which quickly gave me Alfred’s death date and the fact he was only 8 years old when he died.

Of course, I wanted to know more. I was unable to find any mention of Alfred’s death in the newspaper, which indicates he was likely to have died from some kind of illness rather than a tragic accident. To know for sure, I’d have to order his death certificate. But if I ordered every certificate that took my fancy, I wouldn’t have enough money to eat, so that will have to remain a mystery for now.

But I’ve still been able to find some details about Alfred’s life.

Alfred was baptised at Morchard Bishop on 25 May 1863, the son of agricultural labourer Matthew Wreford and his wife, Mary Drew.  This was the second marriage for both his parents, and although Alfred would be the only child his parents would have together, he had 7 older half-siblings combined. At the time of his baptism, the family were residing on The Street in Morchard Bishop. 

In the 1871 census, Alfred can be found with his parents and 14-year-old half sister, living at ‘Sidbury’ (or Sidborough) which is part of the village of Oldborough (just south of Morchard Bishop).

I was able to find photographs of the house but it looks a lot grander today than it would have done in the 1870s. (Historic England states it was formerly a small farmhouse and adjoining cottage.)

Alfred would die only a few months after the census was taken, and be buried next to the church building, where I would discover him 153 years later.

But since I have a theory that I am related to every Wreford buried in Morchard Bishop, I wanted to find out how this boy was related to me.

Turns out, Alfred was my fourth cousin, once removed, and two sets of his 3rd great grandparents were also my 7th great grandparents:

Set one – William Wreford (1717-1763) and Thomasin Manley (1719 – 1794)
Set two – Matthew Wreford (1712-1752) and Sarah James (1717 – 1763)

William and Matthew were brothers – the children of Matthew Wreford (1682 – 1763) and Elizabeth Manley (1684 – 1757) – and two of Matthew’s children grew up to marry two of William’s children.

Nice to have ‘met’ you, cousin Alfred.

The post Alfred Wreford appeared first on Geneageek.

I’d already found the location of the farm, but now, using the 1841 tithe maps and apportionments on the Devon County Council website, I’ve been able to establish the exact land that William farmed!

Tithes were a kind of tax where one tenth of all agricultural produce was paid annually to support the local church and clergy. The Tithe Commutation Act was passed in 1836 to convert this to monetary payments. A tithe survey was carried out in each parish to value the land, discover what tithes were payable and calculate each landowner’s liability.

In the survey conducted in 1841, William was recorded as the occupier of Withleigh Goodman in the Priors district of the parish of Tiverton. At this time, the farm consisted of 21 plots, which came to a total of 54 acres, 3 roods, and 12 perches. This works out to 221, 879 square metres (about 22 hectares).

William did not own the land he farmed. In 1841, the landowner of Withleigh Goodman was Richard Morrish ‘as Trustee for George Brook Maunder’. 

These tithe records have triggered a new set of questions.

• What was the Maunder link?
• Who was George Brook Maunder? And why did he need a trustee?
• Who was Robert Morrish?

What was the Maunder link?

Maunder was the previous surname of William’s wife, Ann. It was also the surname of two other inhabitants of the house, Ann Maunder (20, female servant) and George Maunder (15, apprentice).

I’d long thought of Maunder as being Ann’s maiden name but it’s possible that Maunder was a married name, and the young Maunders are actually Ann’s children. William and Ann’s marital status was not noted on their marriage record, but I know William was widowed so Ann could have been too. 1841 census ages are ‘iffy’, but other records show Ann was actually about 45 years old – old enough to be the mother of children aged 20 and 15.

Who was George Brook Maunder?

The only records for George Brook Maunder that I could find, suggest he was baptised in 1825 at Puddington (about 5 miles from Withleigh). He was the son of a George and Ann, who resided at Coombe.

This couple also had a daughter named Ann, baptised in 1820.

This ties in with the ages of the George and Ann Maunder at Withleigh Goodman in 1841.

Why would George Brook Maunder need a trustee?

George Maunder, a yeoman of Coombe, died in 1826. It appears that he bequeathed the land to his eldest (and only living) son, George Brook Maunder. A trustee would have been appointed since his son was not of age. The will should be consulted to prove this theory.

Although not proven, it’s looking a lot like William’s wife, Ann, was the widow of George Maunder. This would mean that the Maunders recorded on the 1841 census were her children from this previous marriage, and her son George was the legal owner of the property that William Wreford was farming.

Next Steps:

• obtain a copy of George Maunder’s 1826 will

The post Good Tithings appeared first on Geneageek.

For some reason, bad transcription I guess, I was unable to find Ann on the 1871 census through name & town alone.  Using the find my past address search function, I was able to finally locate Broad Lane on 1871 census and there she was – married to a James Maunder and nearly 50 years younger than the Ann Maunder I expected/hoped her to be.

Ann’s maiden name was Bowden and she married James in 1851.

At least I’ve cleared that up for myself.  In other news, I’ve ordered Grace’s son, Edward STILING’s death certificate. Will Ann Maunder appear as witness there too?

The post Wonder No Maunder appeared first on Geneageek.

I knew from the 1871 census that mother and son were living together in Ashley Cottage so I was expecting to find mention of a local tragedy or even an inquest in the newspapers but… nope.  I ordered Grace’s death certificate (since she was my direct ancestor) and presumed I’d find some clue there but again… nope.

The death certificate records Grace’s cause of death as  ‘Valvular disease of the Heart – Bronchitis’.  Obviously, the son’s certificate will need to be viewed next if I’m to solve this mystery.
Note: The newspaper incorrectly stated that Grace was the widow of ‘E. Styling’ – it was in fact, J. Stiling (who died 10 years previously in 1862).

However, this death certificate did throw up a new puzzle for me to solve…

The death was registered 2 days after by Ann Maunder of Broad Lane, Tiverton who was present at the death.

Is this the same Ann Maunder who married wrestling star, William WREFORD after his first wife, Drusilla died? The relationship between the two women on ancestry is ‘wife of father-in-law of daughter’. Confused yet? I had to make up a mini tree to try and get it straight.

So Ann’s stepson was married to Grace’s daughter and therefore very likely they knew each other.  Perhaps these two women had a kind of friendship.  But why use her maiden name MAUNDER and not her married name of WREFORD?

Next Steps:

• Find whether my Ann Maunder ever lived in Broad Lane, Tiverton

The post Double Death appeared first on Geneageek.

Before Harriotte STILING married George WREFORD, she was living in Tiverton with Thomas & Sarah LEAMAN.  As she was recorded in the 1841 census as a female servant (‘F.S.’), I presumed she was the LEAMAN’s live-in maid.  This may still be true but somehow suspected there was more to this relationship.

(I can’t remember exactly how this suspicion came about but I recently rediscovered a note on my ancestry ‘TO DO’ list to investigate the relationship.)

It turns out that Mrs LEAMAN was actually Harriotte’s sister, Sarah STILING who married the widower, Thomas LEAMAN, Esquire (!) in 1840.

My reasons for accepting this:

1. John Stiling, yeoman is recorded as father (same as Harriotte’s marriage certificate in 1845)
2. Edward & Charlotte STILING are witnesses at the marriage – her siblings’ names
3. A Sarah Stiling was born to John & Grace of West Barton in Tiverton, yeoman (West Barton was Stiling residence for 60 years)

Sadly, the marriage was very short – Thomas died only 3 years later.  I was unable to find the couple on the 1851 census but instead came across a mention in The Gentleman’s Magazine that Thomas died June 15, 1843 and had also been the mayor of Tiverton!

Strangely, I have not yet found any other information about this man, other than a note in the next volume of The Gentleman’s Magazine that his sister’s son would change his name as heir of Thomas’ apparent fortune:

I had learnt via the works of Jane Austen that women usually didn’t inherit from their husbands – but it still seemed a little harsh for this young bride.  Sarah managed to get back on her feet with a later marriage to Richard BRANSCOMBE in 1849 and was visiting her mother and brother on the night of the 1871 census (retired farmer’s wife). It’s always nice to find evidence that families stayed in each other’s lives.

Next Steps: 

• Find out more about Mayor Thomas Leaman and his premature death

The post Mayoral Connections appeared first on Geneageek.

The marriage of George WREFORD and Harriet STILING (for which I have both the original parish entry AND official copy of entry, as well as the record of banns) was recorded twice in the registers – same parish, church, year and even volume – within pages of each other.

At first I thought it may be a different George Wreford since Wrefords abound in Devonshire, but Harriet is mentioned in both entries (albeit with different spelling).

Perhaps the clue lies with the only other name from both entries – Elizabeth Galliford recorded as marrying George Marley/George Manby.  Perhaps it was just recorded twice to clear up the spelling mistakes but that also doesn’t make sense as the parish records show both marriages actually took place in the April Quarter.

I have tried searching for a second ceremony in the Tiverton area via the Devon Parish Registers on findmypast but there doesn’t appear to be any.

Why would the marriage which took place in May be initially recorded in the previous quarter?  I guess the next step is to order the record from page 407 although I don’t want to spend more money just to get the exact same copy sent to me.

Notes:

1. I will now begin spelling Miss Stiling’s name as Harriotte as that is how she signed the register herself.
2. I found out while researching this that Phillip Chave, who appears in both entries as witness and several times in the Cove registers was actually the assistant to Mr William North Row of Cove House – magistrate for Devon.  I presume this meant he often ‘sat in’ as witness for these smaller ceremonies where required.  I had originally thought he may have been a friend or relative.

Next Steps:

• Order Jan qtr marriage certificate
• Revisit Harriet STILING to find connection to Cove area

The post Double Marriage Entry appeared first on Geneageek.