Inherited Sailing Ships from whom?

[esdel]

Can you please help me clear up my notes on these ships and people:-:
William Bouch born 1779 Thursby inherited a share in "The Crosby" and "The Grace" from his Uncle Thomas Bouch of Allonby who died 1815
But when I look up Thomas of Allonby in my notes it says
Sailor will ref 1860/11
Born 8 May 1791 St Giles Gt Orton
Died 1860 Allonby (a more plausible date) and his Father was NOT a Thomas and died 1803

Unfortunately/Fortunately I also have:-
Thomas Bouch of Allonby will ref 1816/450 buried 11 Dec 1815
Father of Anne Bouch born 1868 10 Jan Maryport

There were 3 Bouch brothers of Allonby of unknown parentage:-
Richard (abt 1742-1803) who married Mary Barwise (3 sons)
Thomas (abt 1734-1815) who married Ann Dover (dau Anne)
John (abt 1739-1807) who married Mary Barwise (0ne son)

The Mary Barwise marriages I have:-
to Richard 1 May 1763 at Bromfield, sons William 1779 at Thursby, Joseph 1781, Thomas 1791 at Orton
to John 23 Aug 1764 at Wigton, one son John born 1765

So while the ships were shared the Barwise were not! :)
|help|

[HelenVSmith]

Hi

They may not have inherited a share in the actual ship but may have inherited a share in the profits from a voyage of the ship.

Regards
Helen

[Pam Downes]

Oh esdel, what are we going to do with you?



William Bouch born 1779 Thursby inherited a share in "The Crosby" and "The Grace" from his Uncle Thomas Bouch of Allonby who died 1815

But when I look up Thomas of Allonby in my notes it says
Sailor will ref 1860/11
Born 8 May 1791 St Giles Gt Orton
Died 1860 Allonby (a more plausible date) and his Father was NOT a Thomas and died 1803
But you're talking about two different Thomases - aren't you?
According to what you've written later in your message the Thomas who died in 1815 is the one born about 1734 and who married Ann Dover.
He is also brother to Richard who married Mary Barwise, who had a son William born 1779 in Thursby. Therefore Thomas 1734-1815 is uncle to William.

Meanwhile this Thomas
"Sailor will ref 1860/11
Born 8 May 1791 St Giles Gt Orton
Died 1860 Allonby (a more plausible date) and his Father was NOT a Thomas and died 1803"
is the brother of William the inheriter born 1779.


Unfortunately/Fortunately I also have:-
Thomas Bouch of Allonby will ref 1816/450 buried 11 Dec 1815
Father of Anne Bouch born 1868 10 Jan Maryport
Do I understand this to mean that this Thomas is the father of Ann? If so, you definitely need to chuck your notes out of the window and start again. :) I don't think medical science was so far advanced in the 1800s for someone to become a father fifty-three years after he'd died.


There were 3 Bouch brothers of Allonby of unknown parentage:-
Richard (abt 1742-1803) who married Mary Barwise (3 sons)
Thomas (abt 1734-1815) who married Ann Dover (dau Anne)
John (abt 1739-1807) who married Mary Barwise (0ne son)

The Mary Barwise marriages I have:-
to Richard 1 May 1763 at Bromfield, sons William 1779 at Thursby, Joseph 1781, Thomas 1791 at Orton
to John 23 Aug 1764 at Wigton, one son John born 1765

So while the ships were shared the Barwise were not! :)
|help|
Pam

[JAP1]

esdel, I said on another thread that I was bailing out.
But just another comment.
I would suggest that you get a genealogical program on your computer and enter all your "notes" into it.

At the very least such a program should throw up warnings when you try to enter (and yes, I am referring to material which you have posted) such things as:
- a child born in 1868 to a father who had died in 1815
- a person who had died in 1747 marrying in 1764 and having a son in 1765
- a person who was born in 1883 marrying in 1816
- etc.

I would also suggest that you reverse directions and try to follow the basic principle of genealogy of working backwards into the past from known facts - rather than the opposite.

Everyone is obviously trying to help but it really doesn't seem to be possible.

To anyone coming new to this thread, I'd just mention some other threads which refer to the BOUCH family:
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45959
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50429
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51602

Regards,

JAP

[esdel]

Hi

They may not have inherited a share in the actual ship but may have inherited a share in the profits from a voyage of the ship.

Regards
Helen

Helen, that is a good suggestion which I shall look into.
But would a share in the proceeds of a ships vovages be mentioned in a will under the name of the ship - without specifying, for example, "the voyage to China of (given date)"
esdel

[esdel]

Hi

They may not have inherited a share in the actual ship but may have inherited a share in the profits from a voyage of the ship.

Regards
Helen


Oh esdel, what are we going to do with you?


But you're talking about two different Thomases - aren't you?
According to what you've written later in your message the Thomas who died in 1815 is the one born about 1734 and who married Ann Dover.
He is also brother to Richard who married Mary Barwise, who had a son William born 1779 in Thursby. Therefore Thomas 1734-1815 is uncle to William.

Meanwhile this Thomas
"Sailor will ref 1860/11
Born 8 May 1791 St Giles Gt Orton
Died 1860 Allonby (a more plausible date) and his Father was NOT a Thomas and died 1803"
is the brother of William the inheriter born 1779.


Do I understand this to mean that this Thomas is the father of Ann? If so, you definitely need to chuck your notes out of the window and start again. :) I don't think medical science was so far advanced in the 1800s for someone to become a father fifty-three years after he'd died.


Pam

Thanks Pam
Can I plead old age?
My typing is one finger and my proof reading leaves things to be desired.
As my school reports used to say "Must try harder"

I am reading all your wise comments and will reply if/when/maybe I sort things out a bit
There are transcription errors between my notes and what you say I wrote! Ah well, never give up, eh!
esdel

[esdel]

esdel, I said on another thread that I was bailing out.
But just another comment.
I would suggest that you get a genealogical program on your computer and enter all your "notes" into it.

At the very least such a program should throw up warnings when you try to enter (and yes, I am referring to material which you have posted) such things as:
- a child born in 1868 to a father who had died in 1815
- a person who had died in 1747 marrying in 1764 and having a son in 1765
- a person who was born in 1883 marrying in 1816
- etc.

I would also suggest that you reverse directions and try to follow the basic principle of genealogy of working backwards into the past from known facts - rather than the opposite.

Everyone is obviously trying to help but it really doesn't seem to be possible.

To anyone coming new to this thread, I'd just mention some other threads which refer to the BOUCH family:
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=45959
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50429
http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51602

Regards,

JAP

Thanks Jap for trying to help despite all my typos.
It must be even more of a challenge your end of my messages than mine! :D
Yes I have several trees on "Generations" and am now finding it useful to colour-code each piece of info according to its consistency with known biological science and the number of OTHER things it either totally or partially contradicts. It gets VERY interesting. It is like doing a jigsaw where some pieces are damaged, many are missing and some belong to another puzzle.

Dead fathers having children decades after are simply my finger landing on the wrong key when writing to you.
My observed error rate is about 20% of which visual scans correct 75% - giving a "your end" reliability per digit of 95%.
(Unfortunately my messages are hundreds of digits long!)

To reduce the errors in my original data is a real challenge - not made easier by my transcription errors.
Your efforts deserve high praise and thank you! :)
esdel

[JAP1]

esdel,

Much and all as I would like to help, obviously I can't given various things like:
- your typos on dates; perhaps you could type up your posts in Word or Notepad or some such and then very carefully check and proofread (more than once) before copying and pasting into a B-G response
- your assumptions of relationships (without citing sources)
- and (most especially) that you seem to working the "wrong" way round.

I can only repeat:

I would also suggest that you reverse directions and try to follow the basic principle of genealogy of working backwards into the past from known facts - rather than the opposite.

That would really give us something to get our teeth into!

Also, re your response to Pam Downes, from where I stand age-wise I have to admit that I find it a bit hard to accept "old age" as an 'excuse'. :D

I truly do wish you the very best of luck,

JAP

[esdel]

Oh esdel, what are we going to do with you?


Chuck me away wrapped in my notes, eh? :D



Do I understand this to mean that this Thomas is the father of Ann? If so, you definitely need to chuck your notes out of the window and start again. :) I don't think medical science was so far advanced in the 1800s for someone to become a father fifty-three years after he'd died.
Pam

Thomas Bouch born about 1734 married Ann Dover on 6 June 1761 and their daughter Anne was born 1768 on 10 Jan at Maryport Cumberland (no other children known to me)

Slowly catchee typo monkey! WELL DONE!
esdel

[Pam Downes]

Chuck me away wrapped in my notes, eh? :D
Thomas Bouch born about 1734 married Ann Dover on 6 June 1761 and their daughter Anne was born 1768 on 10 Jan at Maryport Cumberland (no other children known to me)

Slowly catchee typo monkey! WELL DONE!
esdel
No esdel, it doesn't work like that.
Whenever anyone makes a typo it just means that we waste our time looking for an answer that will never be found. (Admittedly in this case I didn't waste my time looking for an answer, only in typing a comment.)
Everyone makes a typo at some time (I stand guilty as charged) but continual typos are unforgiveable.
Your colour-coded notes currently seem to be as useful as a chocolate teapot, so treat them as you would the teapot - for ornament only.

A couple of years ago I decided that I would start to add the outer branches to my tree, and started with 2xgreat granny's siblings. Everything went very well with one brother and I managed to find his wife, children, bring them forward on the census, and in some instances find the wives and children of the children. Things got slightly complicated when brother number two married and had children - naming them after his brother's children. So I then had to amend my spreadsheet notes to read Smith John (js&mj) meaning that John's parents were John Smith and Mary Jones, while another John was labelled (ws&eb). Ditto for the third brother who also decided to give his children similar names.
I'm pretty certain (minimum 90%) I have them all listed correctly, and the correct details (including an instance where a daughter Frances became wife number one, had children, died, and hubby then married another Frances) for everyone. But in the last two years more records have become available, and I have more knowledge about searching, confirming records, and avoiding pitfalls. So I'm going to re-work those branches again. If I get all the same answers I'll probably think 'huh, that was a waste of time' but I'll know that the tree is correct.

Here endeth the lesson.
Pam

[JAP1]

Hi Pam, I love your idea of esdel's Chocolate Teapot!!

Hi esdel, Listen on up (as the saying goes).

So do please take note, as I said earlier:



I would also suggest that you reverse directions and try to follow the basic principle of genealogy of working backwards into the past from known facts - rather than the opposite.

Very very best regards,

JAP

[esdel]

Hi Pam, I love your idea of edsel's Chocolate Teapot!!

Hi edsel, Listen on up (as the saying goes).

So do please take note, as I said earlier:
Start from something you are sure of and work back to earlier times


Very very best regards,

JAP

OK, Pam and Jap

Sir Thomas Bouch existed and his brother - both very famous railway engineers. William was the better engineer, designer of many locomotives.
Who were their parents and grandparents?


Here is some info on William:
1851 census Shildon, Durham
age 39 born Thursby
Raliway contractor
living with wife Jane age 42 born 1808 St Murther, Cumberland
and brother in law Benjamin Sproule age 43 born Whitehaven
and sister in law Ann Francis Sproule age 32 born Caldbeck
Inherited Jackson's estate in Thursby and Whinnow Croft
Living in Shields, 1860

1861 census Shildon
Overseer of engine works

1871 census Shildon
Locomotive superintendant
born 1813 Thursby

Locomotive engineer of the Stockton & Darlington Railway, Wil!iam Bouch in 1860 designed the first true British 4-4-0 type locomotives. About the same year he designed a feedwater heater known as 'Bouch's coffee can', in which the water was warmed in a sleeve around the chimney.

Many thanks
esdel

[Pam Downes]

OK, Pam and Jap

Sir Thomas Bouch existed and his brother - both very famous railway engineers. William was the better engineer, designer of many locomotives.
Who were their parents and grandparents?

I think you've missed out a few details in your message.
Such as where you've already looked for this information.
If I were you I'd start with the numerous threads about the Bouch family and its branches as I'm sure the information is in there somewhere. :) Then go carefully through all your infamous notebooks and all the jottings other family members have given you.
And after that you're still on your own, because I have no access to Cumberland records, don't even live anywhere near the Record Office to do a look-up as a favour, so (to quote a phrase) I'm out.
And apart from the first eight words and last two words of the previous paragraph, the other words apply even more so to JAP. :)

Also, if you were asking this as an original question in addition to saying where you're already looked, you would also say something along the lines of 'William is blah blah blah relation to me' and say how that relationship has been proven.

Trust me, JAP, myself, and everyone else who has contributed to your threads is trying to help you, but you just seem to blithely ignore all our advice. I know I'm not a perfect researcher. I know there are times when I miss the obvious and only find it after repeated 'looks'. I know I made many mistakes when I first began hunting. But.......I've listened to other, far more knowledgeable, people than me; I've read lots of other peoples' queries and the answers they've received; and both my research and recording skills are vastly improved. (Even this week I've been improving my database. :) )
Please, please, listen to what you're being told about starting all over again, proving every link along the way, and carefully noting where you found the information. (And getting a basic genealogy programme which will draw you a family tree. :))
Pam

[JAP1]

OK esdel,

Perhaps you have a provable connexion to these people or perhaps you don't - that's not my problem though it might be valuable to you yourself to prove any such connexion before you start trying to work backwards from them.

But let's start with the people you now mention.

You say that the notorious Sir Thomas BOUCH of Tay Bridge disaster# 'fame' and a William BOUCH were brothers (and that William was also a railway engineer).

Next step:
Proof of the births and parents of each (with dates and sources).

Once that's forthcoming we might, perhaps, be able to proceed further back.

Regards,

JAP
# http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bouch
# http://www.mcgonagall-online.org.uk/poems/pgdisaster.htm

[Pam Downes]

One very final question esdel -
In view of this

I am looking for the parents and grandparents of Sir Thomas Bouch and his famous railway brother William

Will dated 22 Apr 1832, proved ref 1838/19, William Bouch:
Their father William was considerably wealthy and left bequests to his children William, Thomas, Richard, James, and Ann and to his wife Elizabeth Sanderson
from your latest thread (http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51653)

why were you asking earlier in this thread


Sir Thomas Bouch existed and his brother - both very famous railway engineers. William was the better engineer, designer of many locomotives.
Who were their parents and grandparents? ?
Pam

[esdel]

Dear Pam
I was following the traditional Genealogy method.
The fact that Sir Thomas and his brother existed is beyond doubt
The will is a mere document, of earlier date, for which I seek confirmation.
All kinds of errors can arise in a document: Sir Thomas's existence is a matter of history, multiply verified.
Many thanks. It is kind of you to help one whose approach differs from your own.
esdel

[esdel]

1.- a child born in 1868 to a father who had died in 1815
2.- a person who had died in 1747 marrying in 1764 and having a son in 1765
3.- a person who was born in 1883 marrying in 1816
JAP

Corrections:

1. daughter born 1768
Anne Bouch 10 Jan 1768 to
father Thomas Bouch b abt 1734 died 11 Dec 1815, Allonby
mother Ann Dover abt 1741 at Allonby to 27 July1824 Allonby

2. John Bouch born abt 1739 died 6 Apr 1807 married
Mary Barwise born abt 1747 at Oulton died 1810
Marriage took place on 23 Aug 1764 at Wigton Cumberland and gave son John Bouch chr 21 Nov 1765 who died on
27 Apr 1781 at Wigton Cumberland

3. Abraham Bouch born abt 1790 married Sarah Ferguson on
25 Jan 1816 at Durham Cumberland

3. William Bouch born abt 1770 died 16 Jan 1838 both at Thursby married Elizabeth Sanderson born 1783 at Hayton on 28 April 1816 at Thursby

[JAP1]

esdel,

I remain willing to try to help you.

But it is impossible for me (or, I guess, anyone else) to do so while you insist on making unconnected statements/assertions and on providing no details whatsoever of sources for your statements.

Do you, or don't you, know the names of the parents of Thomas BOUCH (if you do, what are their names and what is the source of the information please).

I note that Thomas BOUCH married Margaret Ferrie NELSON in 1853 (unfortunately before the start of Statutory Registration in Scotland); there are entries (banns?) in July 1853 in Glasgow and in Edinburgh Parish (extracted entries from the IGI). In the Edinburgh entry, Margaret's father is given as Thomas NELSON.

Thomas and Margaret and their children (Fanny, Elizabeth Ann, and William) appear in the 1861 and (transcribed by Ancestry as BARCH) in the 1871 Scotland censuses.

Have you downloaded Thomas's death certificate from ScotlandsPeople (there is a fee)?

Scottish death certificates contain a wealth of information - depending on the knowledge of the informant, the dc should include the name and occupation of his father and the name and maiden surname of his mother.

JAP
PS: only limited information from the Scotland censuses is available on Ancestry however the images can be downloaded from ScotlandsPeople (for a fee).

[Sue Mackay]

Do you, or don't you, know the names of the parents of Thomas BOUCH (if you do, what are their names and what is the source of the information please).



This is the problem with having so many threads on basically the same subject. I found Thomas Bouch's death certificate on Scotlandspeople and also the obituary for his brother William in the newspaper database. See posts 51-58 on http://www.british-genealogy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=50429&page=2. (oh, and Pam Downes proved on yet another of esdel's threads that the Wisbech marriage between William Bouch and Sarah Jane Beattey in 1835 was not the right one, so my supposition in post 58 seems the most likely, but this needs to be checked in the Cumbria parish registers)

I am still unclear as to how these two relate to Benjamin Sproule and Ann Frances Bouch and how esdel descends from any of them :confused:

[esdel]

esdel,

I remain willing to try to help you.

Do you, or don't you, know the names of the parents of Thomas BOUCH (if you do, what are their names and what is the source of the information please).

I note that Thomas BOUCH married Margaret Ferrie NELSON in 1853 (unfortunately before the start of Statutory Registration in Scotland); there are entries (banns?) in July 1853 in Glasgow and in Edinburgh Parish (extracted entries from the IGI). In the Edinburgh entry, Margaret's father is given as Thomas NELSON.

Thomas and Margaret and their children (Fanny, Elizabeth Ann, and William) appear in the 1861 and (transcribed by Ancestry as BARCH) in the 1871 Scotland censuses.

Have you downloaded Thomas's death certificate from ScotlandsPeople (there is a fee)?

Scottish death certificates contain a wealth of information - depending on the knowledge of the informant, the dc should include the name and occupation of his father and the name and maiden surname of his mother.

JAP
PS: only limited information from the Scotland censuses is available on Ancestry however the images can be downloaded from ScotlandsPeople (for a fee).

Thanks Jap, that is a great help

OK, yes, you are talking of Sir Thomas Bouch born 22 Feb 1822 at Thursby died 30 Oct 1880 at Moffatt

My notes from family sources tell me (and this has never been contradicted) that his father is:
Captain William Bouch who died at Thursby 16 Jan 1838
and Sir Thomas's mother is Mary Barwise
Little is known of THIS Mary Barwise, but the family records have Captain William Bouch as the son of:
Richard Bouch of Alonby born abt 1742 buried 11 Jun !803 at Wigton and he left a will 1803/373 which may help disbelievers. There is also a plaque on the door of the"The Ship" pub Thursby that says Richard was the father (may be wrong - trouble is everyone COPIES the same error once made!)

The father of this Richard of Alonby Bouch is not known even to my family records!
But he had three sons (at least!):
Richard died 1803, Thomas died 1815, John died 1807

I hope this helps answer your question about Sir Thomas Bouch

The reason this thread has a title with SHIPS in it is a VITAL link to the fortune made by Sir Thomas's father Capt William is WHERE did the ships he captained annd traded in "for his own account" COME FROM. The answer is "from his uncle Thomas Bouch of Alonby"
Their names were "The Crosby" and "The Grace"

From the point of view of anyone who might be able to help us, it is a shame that in answering "ownership of ships" questions I have been forced to give answers that mention the name Bouch. The name SPROULE is equally relevant!

I am at a loss how to correct this at this "too late" stage
Ideally the "ships" thead should be about ships, and whoever owned shares in them. This would leave Bouch and Sproule genealogical research easier to identify in the threads

Thanks so much for staying with me JAP!
esdel

[esdel]

This is the problem with having so many threads on basically the same subject.

Thanks Sue for your tremendous help and staying through my barrage of typos!

I am now trying to get this thread back on track - that is to say discussing ships captained/owned by Sproule and Bouch and their chain of ownership/captaincy/inheritance

This info interests "ship people" quite apart from helping us find the correct entries in the Bouch and Sproule Family Trees
(The Sproule may have owned, or even BUILT, some of these ships and Benjamin worked as servant then apprentice then importer/exporter in a Bouch household - then married a Bouch: more of that NOT in this "ships" thread!)



SHIPS:

The Eliza: Captain Bouch
Barque Eliza 9 July 1833
Lading sundries
Passengers Mr T D Edwards, Mr R Brownlow and Mr Farling
From Shipping Intelligence ARRIVALS (Australia)
ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2212852

The Eliza: Captain Bouch
Barque Eliza 17 Oct 1833
Cleared at the Customs house for London
Cargo:
29 bales of wool, 69 bundles kangaroo skins,38 Casks of oil, 7 casks hides, one bundle of opossum skins
Shipped by Kerr, Alexander & Co: 19 bales of wool & 25 bundles kangaroo skins
From Trade & Shipping (Australia)
ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2214410

The Freak: Captain Bouch
Brig Freak 30 Apr 1835 - 14 Dec 1835
Cargo: merchandise
Passengers: none
From Shipping Intelligence ARRIVALS (Australia)
ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2198001

[Sue Mackay]

OK, yes, you are talking of Sir Thomas Bouch born 22 Feb 1822 at Thursby died 30 Oct 1880 at Moffatt

My notes from family sources tell me (and this has never been contradicted) that his father is:
Captain William Bouch who died at Thursby 16 Jan 1838
and Sir Thomas's mother is Mary Barwise



Well it has been contradicted now ;) I don't know if the above is another typo on your part, but I have the Scottish death certificate of Sir Thomas Bouch in front of me, and it clearly says that his parents were

William Bouch, Farmer (deceased) and Elizabeth Bouch M.S. Sanderson (deceased)

William Bouch Senior may well have taken to farming after being a sea captain, but I don't see how Elizabeth Sanderson can become Mary Barwise, and you yourself told me on your other thread that Elizabeth Sanderson was the mother of Sir Thomas Bouch!

I am totally confused now :confused:

[Sue Mackay]

I don't know where you live in the UK esdel. Can you get to London or to a larger library wher you could consult Lloyds Register of Shipping? That seems to be what you need. Or have a look here (http://www.mariners-l.co.uk/UKPages.htm).

[esdel]

Well it has been contradicted now ;) I don't know if the above is another typo on your part, but I have the Scottish death certificate of Sir Thomas Bouch in front of me, and it clearly says that his parents were

William Bouch, Farmer (deceased) and Elizabeth Bouch M.S. Sanderson (deceased)

William Bouch Senior may well have taken to farming after being a sea captain, but I don't see how Elizabeth Sanderson can become Mary Barwise, and you yourself told me on your other thread that Elizabeth Sanderson was the mother of Sir Thomas Bouch!

I am totally confused now :confused:

Don't let me confuse you
It is of course Sir Thomas's GRANDmother who is this mysterious Barwise lady
And his Grandfather is the Richard Bouch who left the will 1803/373

The father of Sir Thomas is Captain William Bouch who married Elizabeth Sanderson and inherited the Ships "The Crosby" and "The Grace" from his Uncle Thomas Bouch of Alonby who died 1815 (or a share in said ships)

My apologies
esdel

I was aware of the partial conflict between Farmer and Sea Captain. It seems that his wealth was invested in farms by the time he retired - certainly his family became landowners:-
For example his wife Elizabeth Sanderson:
1841 census in Thursby
Elizabeth BOUCH, 50, Publican
Ann, 20
Thomas, 15, Land surveyor ap
James, 15
James SANDERSON, 40, MS
Nancy GASH, 20, FS
All were born in Cumberland

1851 census in Thursby
Elizabeth BOUCH, head, W, 67, Landed proprietor farming 28 acres and employing 2 labour, b Cumberland Hayton
Ann, daur, U, 33, b Cumberland, Thursby
James SANDERSON, Brother, U, 54, Ag Lab, b Cumberland, Hayton.

Another example: his son William:
1851 census Shildon, Durham
age 39 born Thursby
Raliway contractor
living with wife Jane age 42 born 1808 St Murther, Cumberland
and brother in law Benjamin Sproule age 43 born Whitehaven
and sister in law Ann Francis Sproule age 32 born Caldbeck
Inherited Jackson's estate in Thursby and Whinnow Croft
Living in Shields, 1860

A 3rd example: his son Richard:
Inherited Ship Inn and Garth Gardens Cottages, Thursby


As for Captain William (Farmer)
An undefined Captain Bouch commanded the ship "Eliza" leaving Australia for London Oct 1833 and the ship "Freak" arriving Australia April 1835 so if that is "our" William Bouch his retirement as "farmer" was but 3 years (yet he may have been a farm OWNER for decades.).

[Sue Mackay]

SHIPS:

The Eliza: Captain Bouch
Barque Eliza 9 July 1833
Lading sundries
Passengers Mr T D Edwards, Mr R Brownlow and Mr Farling
From Shipping Intelligence ARRIVALS (Australia)
ndpbeta.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2212852



Liverpool Mercury October 26 1832

EMIGRATION FOR HOBART'S TOWN, VAN DIEMEN'S LAND & SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
With passengers, to sail from Liverpool in early November, the beautiful coppered and armed barque Eliza, Richard Bouch, Commander; burthen 380 tons. This vessel will be found on inspection to be a very superior conveyance for passengers, being upwards of six feet high between decks, sails remarkably fast, and carries an experienced Surgeon. For particulars of freight or passage money apply personally or by letter (post paid) to William Bell, 1 King Street, Liverpool.

[esdel]

Liverpool Mercury October 26 1832

EMIGRATION FOR HOBART'S TOWN, VAN DIEMEN'S LAND & SYDNEY, NEW SOUTH WALES
With passengers, to sail from Liverpool in early November, the beautiful coppered and armed barque Eliza, Richard Bouch, Commander; burthen 380 tons. This vessel will be found on inspection to be a very superior conveyance for passengers, being upwards of six feet high between decks, sails remarkably fast, and carries an experienced Surgeon. For particulars of freight or passage money apply personally or by letter (post paid) to William Bell, 1 King Street, Liverpool.

BRILLIANT! Sue.
I bet they were ALL sea captains - each with a share of ships!
Running some kind of family consortium with the Sproule (who started in import/export)

This RICHARD you have found can't be the Richard christened 9 Oct 1816 at Thursby (it was probably not an adult christening as his parents were only married that April)

My notes do have a Richard, son of Thomas Bouch and Jane, born 3 Jan 1773 Maryport Cumberland.
He would be old enough to captain a ship. My notes add nothing else about him.
esdel

[esdel]

I don't know where you live in the UK esdel. Can you get to London or to a larger library wher you could consult Lloyds Register of Shipping? That seems to be what you need. Or have a look here (http://www.mariners-l.co.uk/UKPages.htm).

Looks like a good source, Sue: many thanks; I will investigate

I visited the British Library in person and they said "Bouch - Sea captain - never heard of any such person ever"!
This rather torpedoed my idea that he was associated with "The East India Company" - the only private company that ruled part of the British empire (and did other praiseworthy things like Getting the Chinese addicted to Indian opium)

[AdeleE]

This rather torpedoed my idea that he was associated with "The East India Company" - the only private company that ruled part of the British empire (and did other praiseworthy things like Getting the Chinese addicted to Indian opium)

Not the only company. Please see this wikipedia article on the Hudson's Bay Company here in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company

Adele

[esdel]

I am still unclear as to how these two relate to Benjamin Sproule and Ann Frances Bouch and how esdel descends from any of them :confused:

Dear Sue
Your question “How am I related”
I will now try to cover this here in this thread “about ships” rather than elsewhere.
There is a special reason.
Some living members of my family prefer NOT to know and NOT to discuss.
I do not wish to alarm them by mentioning names.
Bouch and Sproule and possibly Hissey is Ok – far enough away not to get them upset.
What they do NOT wish to hear is that any ancestor of THEIRS was akin to a “Wife in another port” or anything like that! Goodness me, whatever next!
Hence the names given to some of my threads.
So please bear with my evasions for the sake of family harmony
esdel

[esdel]

Not the only company. Please see this wikipedia article on the Hudson's Bay Company here in Canada:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company

Adele

WOW! Yes Adle there WAS one voyage of a "Captain Bouch" from Ireland to Canada!
Probably more.
I will look into it!
Thanks
esdel

[Sue Mackay]

You may be interested to read The Navigation Laws of Great Britain (http://www.archive.org/details/navigationlawsg00allegoog) (1848) available for free download or to read on line. Pages 193-196 contain evidence of a Thomas Bouch (not 'Sir' Thomas) concerning the Bouch shipping interests.

[esdel]

You may be interested to read The Navigation Laws of Great Britain (http://www.archive.org/details/navigationlawsg00allegoog) (1848) available for free download or to read on line. Pages 193-196 contain evidence of a Thomas Bouch (not 'Sir' Thomas) concerning the Bouch shipping interests.

Very Interesting
Makes History come alive!
Yes definitely NOT Sir Thomas but one "From Liverpool" who says "My company" active since 1808
So which candidates do my notes have for THIS Thomas Bouch:-
Thomas chr 24 June 1813 Aspatria, son of Jonathan (1778-1845) and Matilda Douglas (born abt 1780)
They had hoardes of children 7 sons, 3 daughters. Would their names and births help?

Unfortunately I have 13 other Thomas Bouch candidates with births ranging from 1750 to 1815
One of these is Thomas Bouch of Alonby born 1791 died 1860
Sailor will ref 1860/11
Born 8 May 1791 St Giles Gt Orton
died Allonby
This Thomas Bouch was the son of the Richard who died 1803
will 1803/373 and the mysterious Mary Barwise, married on 1 May 1763 at Bromfield, Cumberland.

Also SOME "uncle of Captain William named Thomas" DID leave shares in the ships "The Cosby" and "The Grace"

The other 12 candidates will just confuse things.

many thanks
esdel

[JAP1]

... I am still unclear as to how these two relate to Benjamin Sproule and Ann Frances Bouch and how esdel descends from any of them :confused:


Dear Sue
Your question “How am I related”
I will now try to cover this here in this thread “about ships” rather than elsewhere.
There is a special reason.
Some living members of my family prefer NOT to know and NOT to discuss.
I do not wish to alarm them by mentioning names.
Bouch and Sproule and possibly Hissey is Ok – far enough away not to get them upset.
What they do NOT wish to hear is that any ancestor of THEIRS was akin to a “Wife in another port” or anything like that! Goodness me, whatever next!
Hence the names given to some of my threads.
So please bear with my evasions for the sake of family harmony
esdel

esdel,

I apologise to everybody for addressing this matter now and for the length of this response.

But this really does seem to need to be put to rest once and for all.

esdel, the whole suspicion of a ' "Wife in another port" or anything like that!' (see your post quoted above) and of 'Hanky Panky' (on another thread) seems to have been a 'house of cards' entirely of your own making, does it not?

Surely, in all fairness, you owe it to those living members of your own family who have been unnecessarily worried to let them know that you were mistaken - and thus set their minds at rest?

You raised those baseless suspicions in your thread misleadingly titled "Hanky Panky in the Sproule Family?" (Hanky Panky!!) where you erroneously stated:
"There are 4 Sproule sons, all of whom arrived suddenly as fully grown mariners and were said to be born "in the China Seas":
They are:
Benjamin C Sproule 1841
Richard P Sproule 1840
Henry F Sproule 1848
William B Sproule 1850"

Helpful B-G members undertook standard genealogical research using well-known research procedures - as it would have been prudent for you to do - such as BDM records (e.g. FreeBMD) and censuses (available online on subscription sites and, often, able to be consulted at no charge at local libraries).

B-G members found (as you would have done) the following:
- in the 1851 census, Richard (10, birthplace Valparaiso) and Benjamin (9, birthplace Cheshire) at boarding school in County Durham - hardly sudden appearances back home of fully grown mariners and no mention of the China seas
- in the 1861 census, Richard (20, b Valparaiso), Benjamin (19, b Wallasey, Cheshire), and also Henry (12, b at sea, Chinese waters - at last one born in the China seas but a scholar, not a fully grown mariner), William (10, b Shildon, Co Durham)
- in the BDM records, the births of Benjamin Charles SPROULE in 1841 in Wirral, Cheshire and of William Bouch SPROULE in 1851 in Auckland, Durham.
- and a daughter, Ellen Jane, born Whitehaven in 1846, in boarding school in Oxton Birkenhead in 1861.

The straightforward and obvious explanation was that Ann Frances BOUCH, the legal wife of Captain Benjamin SPROULE (they married in 1839 - as you have been advised, that is a certificate which surely should be purchased) had accompanied her husband on some of his voyages and thus two of their children had been born out of the UK (Richard in Valparaiso ca 1841 and Henry in the China Seas ca 1849).

Your original post/hypothesis about 4 SPROULE sons being born in the China Seas and arriving back home as fully grown mariners was now completely dead in the water (if you'll excuse the expression).

But apparently, despite the facts carefully researched by B-G members - and which you could, and surely should, have already checked out yourself - it seems that you could not let go of the story you had constructed. So you wrote:
'But for example, who was the Mother of the chap born in Valparaiso.
Were the "on board" wives of ship owners often the "back in England" ones?
I know wives were treated bad those days but did they have to accept "sudden appeareacs back home of already grown up sons"?
Maybe life today really IS better!
Or perhaps not- the same!'

Why still refer to (non-existent) sudden appearances back home of already grown up sons? This despite the proven fact that only two of the four sons had been born outside the UK. And despite the already proven facts about the ages of those two (not four) sons who been born out of the UK when they first appeared in the UK.. Namely that the son Richard (born in Valparaiso) was in boarding school in Co Durham when he was aged only 10. And that the son Henry (born in the China seas) was with his parents and siblings in the 1861 census when he was aged only 12. Most definitely no sudden appearance of already grown up sons.

A couple of posts later, B-G researchers showed that Henry (born in the China seas) was actually back in the UK when he was aged only 2! He was with his parents and his siblings Ellen 5 and William 2 months (1851 census, Oxton Birkenhead).

As I said at the start, wouldn't it only be fair to let your concerned living relatives know that you have misled them and that, on this count, they have nothing to worry about.

Indeed, it's even possible that they could be more worried about attempts to connect them to Thomas BOUCH who was found, by the official Court of Inquiry - and this is a fact, whether or not you agree with the findings - to be virtually single-handedly responsible for the Tay Bridge disaster ...

JAP

[esdel]

esdel,

I apologise to everybody for addressing this matter now and for the length of this response.

But this really does seem to need to be put to rest once and for all.
JAP

Dear Jap

There are two factions
One KNOWS we are related: the other prefers not to ask (especially how: they simply rest secure in their knowledge they are not related to any descendant of any of the people mentioned in our threads).

Let's keep it that way!

I seek only the ANCESTORS of Sir Thomas Bouch, not to know or identify his descendants.
What those ancestors got up to is simply irrelevant as regards how it can impinge on the feelings or beliefs of anyone alive today. They have never heard of the name Bouch or Sproule. There is no way they could, would or would wish to make any connection to themselves.

Many thousands alive today are descendants of William the Conqueror.Yet the number who are even aware or care is very few. So a thread that hinted he was maybe illegitimate is doing them no harm. They do not care that he was.

I am sorry, Jap, that you seem to interpret my questions about Bouch ancestors a somehow an attempt to get facts "misrepresented". They are mere questions, posed in the hope that evidence will emerge. If it turns out that ALL his ancestors never flouted then-current conventions, I will be surprised.

And thanks for your HELP - which has been invaluable.
Especially your continued support over my "typos"
esdel