George Family Research
Also see: George Family Research Update November 2007
Here is an explanation of how I have traced William George and his family.
1891 census – Birthplace Wigton, Cumberland abt 1827
age 64 Occupation: Postman Retired Address: Pikes Hill
1881 census – Birthplace: Wigton, Cumberland abt 1827
Age 54 Occupation: Letter Carrier Address: PikesHill
1871 census – Birthplace: Wigton, Cumberland about 1827
Age 44 Occupation Letter Carrier and Chelsea Pensioner Address: Pikes Hill
Other William George: 1831 Wigton Cumberland – Road labourer
1861 census – Birthplace: Wigton, Cumberland about 1826
Age: 35 Occupation: Letter Carrier and Army pensioner Pikes Hill, Pembroke Cottages
Other William Georges in the 1861 census: b. 1832 Wigton Cumberland – occupation: Ag Lab & b. 1839 Cumberland – Warehouseman
1851 census – Birthplace Carlisle, Cumberland about 1826
Age: 25 Occupation: Letter Carrier Yew tree cottages
1841 census – Birthplace Ireland abt 1826
Age: 15 Occupation: labourer Church Street, St Mary’s, Caldewgate, Carlisle
Other William George in the 1841 census: b. 1839 Wigton father John George (Tailor), mother Martha
John Georges in the 1841 census:
John George b. 1816 Cumberland – Tailor - wife Martha
John George b. 1796 Cumberland – Ship Wright - wife Sarah
John George b. abt 1811 Ireland – labourer - wife Jane
Marriage Certificate of 2x Great Grandfather: William George and Louisa Scott 1851, Trinity District Church, Newington
Father: John George, FarmerWitnesses: James and Eliza Coldman - brother and sister, lived in Woodcote, Epsom (source 1841 census)
The census records agree William George was born in 1826/27. From his marriage certificate, we know his father’s name was John and that he was a farmer. We know William was an army pensioner and postman and was living in Epsom at the age of 25, this means he was discharged from the army before 1851 and before he was 25.
The only William Georges in the IGI born in Cumberland were:
Born 1821 with father John and mother Sarah - this John George was a shipwright so this is not the right William’s birth record.
Born 1839 with father John and mother Martha – this John was a Tailor, so is not the right record and would be too young to be discharged from the army before 1851.
Only John George the labourer born 1811 matches the father of William as his children’s birthplace, puts him in Wigton between 1828 and 1832. Wigton had farms on the outskirts. Also, William claimed he was born in Wigton. The only Georges born in Wigton around 1826 were John and Jane George’s children born after 1828.
Looking for information about Georges born in Ireland, I found the discharge papers for William George, born Bangor County Down in 1826. He joined the 50th Foot Regiment in 1844 aged 18 and was discharged at Chatham, Kent in September 1848 aged 22. This coincides with Great Great Grandfather moving to Epsom and becoming a Postman by April 1851. The discharge papers state William was a labourer as does the 1841 census. The papers also have Carlisle written on the first page and this is a connection with Great Great Grandfather who grew up in Carlisle and doubtless joined the army at Carlisle Barracks where he was then taken to Newcastle where he was formally signed up. Also, it was mentioned in a book titled the Reminiscences of Epsom that Great Great Grandfather, William George, fought in the 1845/46 Sikh war and the battles of Ailwal and Sobraon that were mentioned in the discharge papers, were the final battles in the First Sikh war. This confirms that the papers were those for Great Great Grandfather.
Only other William George discharged before he was 25 was:
WILLIAM GEORGE
Born WADDESDEN, Buckinghamshire
Served in 5th Foot Regiment
Discharged aged 23
This does not accord with the facts we have about Great Great Grandfather as he definitely didn’t come from Buckinghamshire.
Looking at John George born in Ireland before 1811 in the 1841 census, we can then find James and Samuel George also in the 1841 census and both born in Ireland and living in Cumberland.
Marriage Record for Samuel George who married Elizabeth Andrew:
Name:
Samuel George
Year of Registration:
1838
Quarter of Registration:
Jan-Feb-Mar
District:
Whitehaven
County:
Cumbria, Cumberland
Volume:
25
Page:
119 (click to see others on page)
We know Samuel married Elizabeth Andrew because he can be found in 1841 census living with Elizabeth and two sons and in 1851 living with Jenny Andrew, listed as Mother. Jenny should actually be Janey and she was Scottish. Elizabeth’s father Peter Andrew was Irish – no doubt another Ulster Scot.
Samuel’s marriage certificate shows that his father was Samuel George, a soldier. His discharge papers on National Archives web site are as follows:
1813
Scope and content SAMUEL GEORGE
Born SAUL, Down
Served in 45th Foot Regiment; 58th Foot Regiment
Discharged aged 47 after 19 years 5 months of service
Access conditions Normal Closure before FOI Act: 30 years
Closure status Open Document, Open Description
Held by The National Archives, Kew
Born 1766
This Samuel George was most likely this Samuel listed in the IGI:
SAMUEL GEORGE
Christening: 26 MAY 1769 Downpatrick, Down, Ireland
Parents:
Father: SAMUEL GEORGE Family
Mother: SARAH
Saul is two miles outside Downpatrick.
Samuel had three brothers John b. 1764 Downpartrick, William and Charles both also born in Downpatrick.
In Ireland the tradition for naming children followed a particular pattern:
Sons
Daughters
1st
Named after the father’s father
1st
Named after the mother’s mother
2nd
Named after the mother’s father
2nd
Named after the father’s mother
3rd
Named after the father
3rd
Named after the mother
4th
Named after the father’s eldest brother
4th
Named after the mother’s eldest sister
5th
Named after the mother’s elder brother
5th
Named after the father’s eldest sister
(Source Family Tree Magazine, October 2006)
If you follow this for the first son’s names of James and John’s children – James’ father’s name was John and John’s father’s name was William. As we know John’s son William was born in County Down from the discharge papers, this does place John in County Down, so could it be that the James, John and Samuel all found in Cumberland at the time of the 1841 census were first cousins?
There certainly seems to be a connection between James and John:
James was married to Hannah Connolly in 1829 in St Mary’s, Wigton Parish Church:
http://www.visitcumbria.com/wc/chw14.htm
John’s two daughters, Margaret and Mary Ann were also Christened in this Church in 1830 and 1832, respectively.
James and Hannah’s daughter Catherine, named after Hannah’s mother, was born in Carlisle in 1836. Their son John was also born in Carlisle in 1841 and both James and his family and John and his family can be found living in Carlisle in 1841 census, only a few roads away from each other – James in Duke Street, Caldewgate and John in Church Street, Caldewgate:
http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=54.8928&lon=-2.9476&scale=5000&icon=x
Both James’ son John and John’s son William later became Letter Carriers.
Looking at the Georges in Ireland John George born 1764 in Downpatrick married an Ann and these children are listed in the IGI:
SAMUEL GEORGE
Christening: 26 SEP 1815 Downpatrick, Down, Ireland
Parents:
Father: JOHN GEORGE
Mother: ANN
No further trace of this Samuel can be found.
ELLEN GEORGE
Christening: 30 JUL 1809 Downpatrick, Down, Ireland
Parents:
Father: JOHN GEORGE Family
Mother: ANN
No further trace of Ellen.
ELIZA GEORGE
Christening: 26 JUL 1811 Downpatrick, Down, Ireland
Father: JOHN GEORGE Family
Mother: ANN
Married William Graham in 1831 in Downpatrick. By 1851 census both Eliza and William can be found living in Hull, England with son Allen McDonald Graham. Proving the Downpatrick Georges did leave Ireland for England.
Further research led to my finding the Freeholders documents on:
http://www.proni.gov.uk/freeholders/intro.asp
John George of Downptrick (b. 1764) was a freeholder of land in Downpatrick, Landlord W. Hawthorne* date 1789
*William Hawthorne leased property in Downpatrick from Lord Clifford 1786 Source: Rootsweb.com:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Erosdavies/SURNAMES/H/Hawthorn.htm
1783 Ravara Landlord W. Jordan? (this must be same John George who may have been in charge of a number of farms)
1813 Downpatrick Landlord Edward S. Ruthven Esq.* Lives: Maria and Charles Trotter and John George April 26th 1813
*Edward Southwell Trotter Ruthven was the son of Rev Edward Trotter of Downpatrick and changed his name to Ruthven in 1801. Ruthven was a Scottish Clan of Perthshire. Source:
http://www.perthshire-scotland.co.uk/clans-ruthven.htm
Maria and Charles Trotter were the children of William Trotter Esq., a Presbyterian who was a Catholic sympathiser. The fact the John George is mentioned with Maria and Charles Trotter, suggests a connection between the two families.
Sources:
Trotter: http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Erosdavies/SURNAMES/T/Tr.htm
July 19th 1813 Ravara Earl Londonderry (Lotte his wife) Robert Stewart 1st Earl of Londonderry 1739-1821
1818 Ravarra Thomas Adam and Hugh George – John, William and James George – Landlord = John George
1783 John George of Ravara
It is said that the ‘lives’ named in the lease were often related to the freeholder. Source:
http://globalgenealogy.com/globalgazette/gazkb/gazkb68.htm
This suggests that Charles and Maria Trotter were related to John George. John originally leased his land from William Hawthorne whom, I believe, could have been the father of Margaret Hawthorne, the mother of Charles and Maria – so was John somehow connected to the Hawthorne family?
The question is if John George or Ravara is the same one and if the lives named are his sons John, William and James? Therefore who are Hugh, Adam and Thomas – these could be his brother William’s children – hence why the lives mentioned are John’s children and not the freeholders themselves.
John was a 40 shilling freeholder – the 40-shilling freehold was property worth 40 shillings a year above the rent, and either owned outright or leased during the lives of named individuals. I believe John was a Farmer. The fact that John was able to vote in 1789 means he was a Protestant as Catholics with a 40-shilling freehold were not able to vote until 1793. In fact, we know John George, the freeholder, was a member of the first Presbyterian Church in Saintfield – source:
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Erosdavies/SURNAMES/G/Ge.htm
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/%7Erosdavies/PHOTOSwords/SaintfieldAll.htm#1pres
Also mentioned mentioned as Freeholders were Thomas, Hugh and Adam George all of Ravara, County Down with John George as Landlord and John, James and William George named as the ‘lives’ in the lease, meaning the lease was for as long as the lives of those named. Thomas, Hugh and Adam must be connected to our Georges.
I need to find out:
- Was the John George who leased land in Ravara, the John George born in Downpatrick in 1764?
- Who were Thomas, Hugh and Adam George?
- What was John George’s connection to the Trotter children?
Here are some definitions from Irish History Modules for Students to explain more about the role of the freeholder:
Pre Famine Rural Society
Early nineteenth century Ireland was a predominantly rural society. Over two-thirds of the population lived on the land, working in agriculture or in agriculture-related occupations. Within this rural population standards of living, levels of income and social attitudes varied widely. At its very simplest, rural society was divided into three major classes - landlords(those who owned their own land) at the top, followed by tenant farmers who rented from the landlord, and, at the end of the scale, the agricultural labourers who had relatively little access to land except to work on it for someone else. However, despite the attractive simplicity of this three-fold division, the actual situation was far more complex. Some landlords were themselves tenants, many tenants could more accurately be described as ‘mini-landlords’, and while labourers were a very numerous group, the vast majority of them were not, strictly speaking, landless.
LANDLORDS
These were at the top of the rural hierarchy. Few enough in numbers, that is, less than 10,000 in all, they were seen as the ‘big house’ society, a distinct group within rural society. Many of them were related by blood or marriage. A great number (though not all) belonged to the Protestant faith and so were divided from the majority population by religion. Many also had different political affiliations from the population as a whole, supporting Ireland’s continued links with Great Britain under the Act of Union. Even those landlords who were roman catholic or who shared some of the political attitudes of the population as a whole were clearly separated from the common people and linked with their own landlord class by common social aspirations and experiences. They moved in the same social circles (the hunt, clubs, agricultural societies); from their ranks came most members of parliament (though often on different sides of the political divide), and their sons (and, in a different way, their daughters) were educated to continue their position as the natural leaders of society into the future. Yet, in spite of all these common factors, the term ‘landlord’ hides as much as it reveals. It is really an umbrella term which covers a wide variety of social grades. There were, of course, the really great landlords who each held several properties and large estates in both Ireland and Britain. They sub-let to lesser Landlords, a sub-proprietor or a middleman or agent.
Long leases were granted to these middlemen, particularly from 1778 onwards when a law popularly known as Saville’s Relief Act made it easier than heretofore to grant leases to roman Catholics. These middlemen were required to improve the estate and to provide livestock and seed for substantial tenants, and they were to be responsible for the collection of rent. They were, above all, the pivot in a complicated set of relationships. Because they held land on lease from the head landlord, they were themselves tenants, but since they in turn let it to sub-tenants, they were also landlords.
FARMERS
As in the case of landlords, the term ‘farmer’ is an umbrella one and definitions are made more difficult by the fact that different criteria can be used to decide who was a farmer and who was not. Firstly, the size of land holding must obviously be taken into account. This could vary widely by locality. Indeed, although the average size of a farmer’s holding was somewhere between20 and 80 acres, there were many examples where holdings were considerably smaller or larger than this average. Secondly, farmers worked full-time on the land, cultivating it not only with the aid of their immediate family but also with that of hired labourers. Thirdly, farmers were distinguished from those below them on the social scale by their status and were considered to be ‘respectable’. This term was one of the most frequently used in the nineteenth century when commentators wished to distinguish between the lower and the ‘better’ classes of working people. It is now almost impossible to define precisely, but in the case of the farming class it had a great deal to do with economic circumstances and was interchangeable with terms like ‘strong’ and ‘comfortable’. One observer in the 1840s described the farming class as having ‘very comfortable and independent circumstances... they settle their sons well and give large portions [dowries] to their daughters on their marriage’. Obviously, such criteria varied considerably from one case tot he next but were largely dependant on the size and land quality of the farm along with such complex matters as family and what might simply be described as luck.
Cottiers or tied labourers
These worked for a farmer or landlord but also had access to a small plot of land which they farmed themselves. As one commentator put it in 1847, labourers ‘are hardly a recognised class in the rural districts if we except several boys residing with farmers’. Thus, the Irish labouring class ranged from the landless ‘servant boy’ to what might more correctly be termed the cottier – that is, the man who depended for a large portion of his income on wage labour but who was also a small-holder (usually very small!) in his own right. This matter of access to land is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to draw a clear distinction between the really small farmer and the labourer in nineteenth century Ireland. The size of plot to which the average cottier had access in pre-famine Ireland varied between one and five acres, though it could sometimes be larger than this because the 1841 census which gives us much of our information on land-holding, does not include bogland when calculating the size of individual holdings.
When restrictions on the voting rights of Catholics were modified in the late eighteenth century, especially by the 1793Relief Act, a large number of catholic forty shilling freeholders and leaseholders for life (another category of land-holding)were given the vote. This measure did, of course, give to some smaller tenants political rights which they had heretofore been denied. But those who benefited most from the extension of the vote were landlords - both large and of the middle rank – who were involved in politics. The more of his tenants were given the vote, the more power the individual landlord or agent had at election time, since it was accepted practice that a tenant would vote according to the landlord’s wishes. Now that forty shilling freeholders and leaseholders had the vote, it was very tempting for a landlord or his agent to create more of these tenancies on his estate to further increase his political power. As a result of this political strategy, along with the overall rise of population we have already discussed, from the early 1790s onwards the number of small-holders on many Irish estates increased steadily. We must also realise that humanitarian attitudes also played their part in the multiplication of sub-tenancies. There were certainly some particularly hard-hearted individuals in landlord and popular memory, whether in the records of the Irish Folklore Commission compiled after independence or in still living oral tradition, is very slow to forgive them. Yet, neither landlords nor middlemen should be automatically branded as harsh and totally self-interested. They were painfully aware that for the rising population lack of access to land meant destitution. Thus, middlemen, in particular, were frequently willing to allow tenants to sub-divide their holdings among their children who, on marriage, would then build a make-shift cabin on a small plot of ground. After a few decades, as a result of this galloping sub-division, many estates had a huge number of poor small-holders. Some tenants could be relatively well-off. Others were extremely poor, and survived precariously when weather and harvests were good and when there was a high demand for their labour. But they were extremely vulnerable in times of bad weather, crop failure or if changes in agricultural methods made their labour redundant. Thus, the multiplication of small tenancies could be the result of either:. subdivision of existing holdings, or. of movement into marginal land. Either way, survival on these increasingly uneconomic plots was made more possible by the increased cultivation of that versatile root-crop - the potato.
A further source of interest about the Freeholders:
http://www2.cddc.vt.edu/gutenberg/1/4/5/6/14562/14562-h/14562-h.htm