Introduction
As discussed earlier, although we succeeded in resolving the matter of the immediate derivation of Sarah Jermy, we could not say with any certainty just how her grandfather, John Jermy, the Worsted Weaver of St John de Sepulchre, may have related to the landed Jermy family and in particular to William Jermy of Bayfield. Of course, we discovered that we had the most fortunate advantage in this regard when it was realised that one of the claimants to William's estate was in fact the younger Jonathan Jermy of St John, also a Worsted Weaver and, most conveniently, our Sarah's brother. All we needed to do, therefore, was to trace out his origins back to William, as provided by Jonathan in his Court submission (held at the Public Record Office) and we'd have our answer.
Unfortunately, certain features in the pedigree submitted by Jonathan proved inconsistent with aspects of the known Bayfield pedigree. This made his family's claimed derivation rather uncertain. (He lost his case, although not on this basis but due to the Statute of Limitations.) However, with one or two minor adjustments, some such connection would appear to have been quite feasible. This, and three other such 'theories', are detailed below in our final attempt to achieve our ultimate objective - to establish that there was a connection - via Sarah Jermy - between the Spurgeons and the (landed) Jermys of Norfolk. Or, if this was not possible, to at least establish the basis for there having been such a strong belief in this connection. Our first two theories have a north Norfolk orientation:
1. The Bayfield Theory
We begin by re-considering the basis of Jonathan's claim. As set out by Jonathan, or his lawyers, his claimed pedigree showed himself, wrongly, in the same generation as William of Bayfield - i.e. both were shown as 4 generations after their alleged common ancestor - Robert Jermy (the elder) of Bayfield (see pedigree below). Moreover, it appears to have confused the birth order of this Robert's two sons; his eldest son - whose line led directly to William - was not Robert Jnr but John. There was a Robert Jnr, but he was the younger, second son. If we place him at the beginning of Jonathan's line, but without removing the earlier of the two Johns, we would correct both errors - including the generation misalignment between William and Jonathan Jnr. That is:
2. The Gunton Theory
As explained, James's letter provided a reasonable basis for us to consider that the link between the St John Jermys and William of Bayfield could well proceed through the Gunton line. In this linkage, the common ancestor would be one generation earlier than depicted in the 'Bayfield' conception - as advanced by Jonathan (with or without our slight revision). Thus, while the Bayfield line leading to William began with the elder Robert, the Gunton line began with this Robert's elder brother Francis Jermy. Both had been prominent republicans in Norfolk during the civil war. They were the sons of an earlier John Jermy who had been the chief legal counsellor (barrister) to the Diocese of Norwich. That is:
But, as explained earlier, we have no evidence that this John of Gunton ever married or had issue - including a son John (bn c 1693, say) - although such a situation was not at all unlikely. Had there been such a 1693-born John who later had issue in St John with a wife Sarah (e.g. Ann in 1722 and Jonathan Snr in 1724), we might expect to find evidence of their marriage - by about 1720, say - somewhere in north Norfolk, especially as they did not marry in Norwich itself, which had been thoroughly checked. It may have been in Gunton, of course, but just as with his suggested father (Rev. Anthony's son John), there was no register surviving to verify this. And in the neighbouring parishes of Hanworth and Suffield, often used by those of Gunton, there were pages suspiciously cut out of the registers covering the crucial years. This served to maintain our view that the missing link could well have been through the Gunton family, especially recalling James Spurgeon's letter. As a consequence, one wasn't overly persistent in searching elsewhere for evidence of the marriage between John Jermy, the Worsted Weaver of St John, and a Sarah of unknown surname - especially anywhere in the south of the county - so far from the Gunton Jermys' spheres of influence. (This same logic applied to the equally suitable John Jermy (also of the Gunton family) born in 1692 in Gt Yarmouth to John Snr - although there was no evidence that he was trained as a Weaver.)
Nevertheless, one had continued to seek out such a John--Sarah marriage, from time to time, but despite the commonness of both these forenames amongst the many county-wide Jermys and Jermyns, etc, such a marriage could not be found that fitted the period concerned - i.e. around 1715-'20, say - a few years before they appear for the first time in Norwich. For this would give them time to have had the usual namesake children (John and Sarah) before such as Ann, Jonathan and Elizabeth - whom we know they did have in Norwich - in the 1720s and '30s. In fact, in his court submission, Jonathan indicated that his grandfather did have a daughter Sarah, and one called Susan, although oddly no son John was mentioned by him.
However, eventually just such a marriage was finally located. Its details were in fact amongst old notes one had possessed for some time! But, because of the reasons given above, the category they were filed under (viz Jermyns of south Norfolk) was not considered particularly relevant. Discovery of this marriage and other evidence to which it led prompted our final two theories which, this time, do have a south Norfolk orientation. But first we may consider the evidence which pointed us in this new direction.
A New Focus: Wymondham and Attleborough
The marriage concerned was that between 'John Jermine and Sarah Clark' and took place in Attleborough, a little south of Wymondham, on 28 May 1715 - a date that fitted our requirements perfectly. Moreover, this couple then had as their first two children a Susan and a Sarah! They ware baptised in Attleborough on 3 Apr 1717 and 7 Sept 1719, respectively. This couple strongly appeared to be those we were seeking. John's status in 1715 was as a widower which would probably place his year of birth somewhat earlier than previous estimates. But this would provide scope for one or more earlier children, including a son John, as suggested, since none of that name was born to John and Sarah later - in either Attleborough or Norwich. [Although, there may have been time for John to have a second such son - ca 1715 (see below).]
The Attleborough register was examined further and two relevant entries immediately noted: Firstly, that for the burial of a John Jermine, son of John and Anne Jermine - on 23 Feb 1709. His age at death was not given, nor was his baptism noted in that parish. And then, on 3 Mar 1714/15, another burial was found - for 'Anna Jermine, wife of John Jermine'. This was about 3 months before the above marriage of John (as widower) to Sarah Clark - also in Attleborough. This would certainly appear to represent our John's first wife and the son John we felt he would have had. There were no other Jermy(n)s then active in Attleborough.
Having sought and found many marriage details for John 'Jermy(n)s' over the years, it was not difficult to locate one involving an Anne in tbe appropriate period and area. This turned out to be that between John Jermine, single man of Wymondham and Anne Gall, single woman of Shropham, which took place at Wymondham on 17 June 1700. Shropham is situated next to Attleborough and thus supports the idea that this was the same John and Anne who later lived in Attleborough (c1709 or before). But first, in Wymondham, John and Anne were the parents of a daughter baptised 'Joanna Jarmy' on 8 Oct 1705 and then of the son John as predicted, baptised there on 7 Dec 1707 as 'John Jermyn'. They would seen to have then moved to Attleborough - possibly to be nearer Anne's parents. An Anna Gall was baptised in Attleborough on 22 Dec 1680, with parents Nathaniel & Jane. There were other Galls in Attleborough (not a common name). Following the loss there of both his son John and his wife Anne, John then met and soon married Sarah Clark - in Attleborough.
After having Susan and Sarah there, no further baptisms to this latter couple occur in Attleborough - i.e. in the 1720s. [However, we may note that as they appeared to be a fertile couple and they married rather in haste after the death of John's first wife, there was time for them to have had a namesake son, also christened John, in about Dec 1715. If so (but where baptised?), and after growing up in Norwich, did he head for Oxfordshire??] After having Susan and Sarah in 1717 and 1719 in Attleborough, we find that a couple of these same names begin (and only then) to have issue in St. John de Sepulchre, Norwich - including of course Jonathan Jermy in 1724. There is no evidence anywhere that they do not represent the same couple and considerable evidence that they do. Some of this has already been stated and even more unfolds below.
John's first marriage in 1700 places his year of birth (c1675) somewhat earlier than formerly suggested (c1693). This further reduces the possibility that our Gunton theory can be maintained; Rev Anthony's son John was born too late to have been this John's father as was the John Jermy of Yarmouth. Who was his father, therefore? Where did he live and where did he marry? One marriage entry stood out as a most probable focus for this next direction in our search. This was one between 'John Jermin and Hannah Gay, both single and, significantly, 'of Wymondham' which took place by licence at All Saints church, Norwich on 8 Oct 1670. This John was also a Worsted Weaver. Did he and Hannah return to Wymondham, there to have, amongst others, a son John? Indeed, they did (having had none in Norwich where they simply married):
When the Wymondham register was examined it revealed that on 23 Mar 1670/1 a Mary Jermye was baptised there - born to John Jermye, although the mother's name was not given. Then, on 12 Apr 1674, this same man seemingly was the father of twins christened Mary and John Jermye. Again, the mother's name was not recorded. The earlier born Mary apparently died in infancy (later confirmed). This latter John Jermye's year of birth fitted the requirements for our Wymondham John 'who later married (for the first time) in 1700.
Our interest re-focused on the origin of this John's father - who appeared to be the Worsted Weaver of Wymondham who had married Hannah Gay in 1670. In particular, one wondered, was he of the Jermy or of the Jermyn family? Following the baptisms of John and twin sister Mary - born in Wymondham to John Jermye Snr in 1674, there were 7 other children baptised with this same surname spelling, at least up to 1700. Four were born to John Snr: namely, Robert (7 Jan 1682/3), Thomas (27 Apr 1684), Edmond (21 June 1685) and Sarah (25 Nov 1694). The other three, all girls, were born to a Robert Jermye: Bridget (3 Oct 1680), Elizabeth (24 May 1685) and Mary (10 June 1688). In none of these cases were the mothers' names recorded. On the face of it, it would seem likely that John and Robert were brothers. The register also showed that a John Jermye was buried there in 1714 and this would appear to be our John (Snr) the Worstead Weaver. Most usefully, he left a Will - under the name 'John Jermyn, Worsted Weaver of Wymondham'. It was written the 5th Oct 1704 and proved in 1714. Its main points were as follows:
1. I give to Hannah - my well beloved wife - all my Real property in Wymondham - for her natural life.
2. I give also to Hannah - all my Personal property for her lifetime - or 40 shillings per year for life if she re-marries - when the management of my estate shall transfer to a Supervisor (to be named) for the benefit of my children - John, Robert, Thomas, Edmond, Ann, Hannah, Elizabeth, and Sarah - who shall share equally the proceeds of the sale of all my property.
3. I give to Mary Balding - my daughter - £5 within one year after she has received her last legacy as given her by the last Will of her grandfather Robert Jermyne.
4. I give to Thomas and Edmond my sons each a Loom with Weaving Tonge - at the end of their apprenticeships.
5. I nominate & appoint John King the elder as Supervisor...
6. I nominate & appoint Hannah my wife as Sole Executrix...
The witnesses were Francis Gooch, John Bankes and E. Marsh.
This Will was clearly that of the John Jermy(n) who married Hannah Gay in 1670 and had (with her, we may now conclude) the above 4 sons baptised between 1674 and 1685, including the John Jermyn who later married Ann Gall (in 1700) and Sarah Clark (in 1715) - before settling in Norwich. We were most fortunate in our quest for the origins of this line to find reference in John Snr's Will to his own father 'Robert Jermyne' and to the latter's Will - with its reference to John's eldest daughter Mary (who could well have been named after his mother - i.e. Robert's wife).
This latter Will was soon located and provided further useful information. Its main points were:
1. Written on 18 Sept 1678 by 'Robert Jermy, Taylor of 'Silfield Shift', Wymondham'. (Silfield was one of 6 'divisions' of Wymondham - one of the largest parishes in Norfolk; Silfield Shift was a hamlet within this division situated about 2 miles south-east of the town centre. Intiguingly, Stanfield Hall and Farm fell within this same division). The Will was proved on ... (to be found)
Its main features were: 1. ... 2. To my wife Mary - all my Real property in Wymondham for her natural life - and then to my son John Jermy and his heirs forever - he paying such legacies as hereafter mentioned.
3. All my Chattels, etc. also to Mary my wife - for her lifetime - and then to my son Robert Jermy (thus confirming the suggestion that the only two male Jermy(n)s having issue in Wymondham in the period 1670 -1700 were brothers John and Robert - with John the probable elder).
4. Also to my son Robert Jermy - £60 - at £5 per year - to commence the year after my wife Mary dies - providing the said Robert does live the 12 years needed to receive this total. (This amount was probably intended to match or largely match the annual value to John of the Real property he (and his heirs) inherited by being the elder son.)
5. I give unto Mary Jermy my grandchild (then just 4 years old), daughter of my son John, £10. Of this sum, £5 to go to her 13 years after the death of my wife Mary and the remaining £5 the following year. (Hence the reference by John in his 1704 Will (which confirms these relationships) that Mary was to receive a further £5 from himself (after he died) - one year after the 2nd of the two £5 legacies from her grandfather).
6. I appoint Robert Jermy my son as my sole Executor.
The witnesses were: Peter Porter, Francis Parke & Thomas Gostling.
This Will was signed - 'Robert Jermyn' - which seems odd in that all other mention of the surname in the Will was as 'Jermy' - as it was in the Wymondham register for all of his sons' children's baptisms. It does at least suggest that this Robert had some education, literacy and property.
Before considering Robert's possible origins, we can first examine the post-1700 Wymondham register for any other information pertaining to this family. Firstly, after 1700, we find that John's brother Robert had one further child (in 1704) - a 2nd daughter named Sarah. The first one (born 1692) presumably dying in the interval (later confirmed). In the case of the later girl - baptised on the 28 Aug 1704 as Sarah - the mother's name Mary was also included.
Within 6 months, another Robert Jermye had a daughter baptised in Wymondham, but this time with wife Elizabeth. She was christened Hannah Jermye on 2 Feb 1704/5. This proved to be the first of several children born in Wymondham to the sons of John and Hannah - i.e to John (later to go to Norwich, via Attleborough), Robert and Edmond; the 4th son Thomas appears to have settled elsewhere. Thus, after this latter, younger Robert had his first daughter (named after his mother), his elder brother John, with first wife Anna (Gall), had their first child, Joanna Jarmy (John + Anna?), baptised in Wymondham - on 8 Oct 1705.
The marriage register showed that after John married Anna Gall (in 1700), his brother Robert married Elizabeth Cushines - on 29 May 1704. Their second daughter was christened Elizabeth Jermye on 8 Apr 1706. The following year John and Anna had their first son - John - baptised in Wymondham on 7 Dec 1707 (he later to die in Attleborough in 1709). Both Edmond (who married Elizabeth Watts on 28 June 1708) and Robert were also to have sons they named John (after their father) - in 1712 and 1717, respectively. [They provide further possibilities for a John Jermy to later settle in Oxfordshire.] By 1732, these 3 sons of John and Hannah were to have 25 children, including 20 sons, between then! The eldest of these to survive would seem to have been Jonathan Jermy - born in 1724 to John (Jnr) and his second wife Sarah (Clark) in St John de Sepulchre - father of the claimant Jonathan Jermy Jnr. Another son, born to Robert and Elizabeth in 1719, received the rather unusual name of 'Zachary'. His significance is discussed later.
In St John in 1733, John Jnr (then a Worstead Weaver like his father) was the Bondsman for one Matthew Mortimer - a Husbandman from Kimberley (next to Wymondham) - when the latter married (in St John) a Sarah Jermy, also 'of Kimberley' - aged 24+. As John's own daughter Sarah was not born until 1718 and his sister Sarah in 1694, this Sarah would seen to have been the one born in 1704 to John's brother Robert. This man also left a Will - in the name of 'Robert Jarmy of Wymondham', dated 4 Oct 1714 and proved shortly after his burial there on 30 Mar 1716. Its details were:
1. To my daughter Bridget Hassell (and her husband Robert Hassell of Rockland All Saints)
- all my Copyhold estate in which I now live in Wattlesfield (another 'division' of Wymondham) - unless they die before me without heirs, when it shall go
2. To my daughter Elizabeth Aldice (and her husband John Aldice, a Husbandman of Aybrough (Alburgh?), Norf.) They also to have £30.
3. To Mary my wife - all my messuage in Courtyard Green, Wymondham and after her decease - to my daughter Sarah. (This would likely be the aforementioned Sarah who, some years later, was to marry Matthew Mortimer of Kimberley, the Bondsman being John Jermy (Jnr) - Weaver of St John.) If her mother died ca 1725 -'30, she would have this.
4. To Mary Jarmy - my daughter - all my Chattels, Cattle, etc. and a spot of land in Clack Carr, Wymondham.
5. I appoint Robert Hassell, Linnen Weaver, my sole Executor.
Signed: Robert Jarmy, his mark. The witnesses were John King Snr (seemingly the same man named as Supervisor by John Jermy (Robert's brother) in 1704), Robert Browne and James Greenvill.
It would thus appear that Robert used some of the £60 legacy received from his father Robert to purchase some property - thereby placing himself into a similar situation to his brother John who had inherited the family's property. His occupation was not given but he may have been a small Yeoman farmer in Wattlesfield - on the outskirts of Wymondham - or some kind of Weaver. He appears to have married a Mary Goodwin in Hedenham in 1678.
Our next concern was to discover when and where the brothers John and Robert Jermy were born - to a Robert Jermy Snr and wife Mary. Hopefully, this might provide a clue to the origin of Robert himself. Firstly, the earlier Wymondham registers were examined. Between about 1662 and 1670 (ie after the Restoration), they were kept quite normally but showed no Jermy or Jermyn events. After the civil war, the only Jermy(n)s using the Wymondham church up to 1715 were those of this one family as presently discussed. During the civil war/commonwealth years (c1642 -1660), entries in the Wymondham registers become increasingly sparse as one proceeds backwards through the 1650s and then '40s. There seemed little chance of finding baptismal entries in Wymondham for either John or Robert during this, the probable period of their births ca 1640-'50. But, quite amazingly, the following entry was found for John:
During normal times, there were about 10 to 15 baptisms every month in the large parish of Wymondham. Throughout all of 1644, there were only 3 for the entire year! Incredibly, that for John was one of these. (Note that January 1644 would be shown as 1645 now.) Nothing was found for his brother Robert, however, who would seem to have been 3 or 4 years younger, if we can go by his slightly later date of marriage. As there were no other children mentioned by Robert Snr in his Will, it would seem that he and Mary would have married about a year prior to John's birth -i.e. in early to mid-1644. This may have been in Wymondham itself but unfortunately the register was totally vacant throughout 1643 and very sparse in 1644 - at the height of the civil war. However, prior to 1642, the register was kept in its usual thorough manner - going right back to the early 1600s. But, significantly, there were no Jermy or Jermyn entries in Wymondham whatsoever prior to John's baptism there in 1644/45. This could indicate that Robert's family was not of this town much before these troubled times.
Before embarking on a search for the origins of Robert Jermy, however, we may profitably examine just how our Wymondham family data now accords with the information given by Jonathan Jermy in his claim of 1818. Jonathan, we recall, stated that his father, also Jonathan, was born to a John Jermy - who had died 31 Jan 1739 (which we had confirmed - in St John de Sepulchre). And that this John, his grandfather, was the eldest son of an earlier John Jermy - who was one of two sons of a Robert Jermy. The other, Robert Jnr, was said to lead to William. That is:
However, in Jonathan's conception, the link with the Bayfield Jermys was said to be through John Snr's elder brother Robert. We can now see that this Robert had no sons from whom William of Bayfield could have descended. Moreover, it is also clear that neither he nor his father Robert Snr were in fact of the Bayfield line. Finally, the younger Robert does not appear to have been the elder son, but the younger and thus the senior line of the family was unlikely to have proceeded from him. As knowledge of his brother John's birth year (1644) does appear to have come down the family, the apparent lack of any such objective (or subjective) information about Robert's could thus lend itself to their (wrongly held) view that he may have been the elder son and so the progenitor of the Bayfield line. Such uncritical assumptions and wishful thinking were not at all uncommon in the 19th century. The connection was clearly not by way of either the Gunton or Bayfield branches of the family.
It was now time to consider the first of our two south Norfolk theories concerning the basis of the Spurgeon-Jermy link and of Jonathan's claim of being, in 1791, the nearest related to William Jermy. This has come down to seeking the origin of Robert Jermy of Silfield in Wymondham.
3. The Marlingford Theory
Remarkably, there was still one avenue available to link our Sarah Jermy (and her brother Jonathan) with the true Jermy family - via this Robert. For there was an earlier branch of the family settled just to the north-west of Wymondham - at Marlingford - from 1560 to about 1675. If the Marlingford connection could be established, it could still support the idea of Jonathan being 'nearest in blood' to William Jermy - given that no other claimants had been able to show a more direct connection through the (still distant) Bayfield or Gunton branches. The Marlingford derivation would simply proceed through an earlier great-grandfather of William. This line began when Thomas Jermy, an uncle of John Jermy the Norwich barrister, married Constance Phippes of Marlingford in 1560. It was this latter John Jermy whose two sons began the Gunton and Bayfield lines (see * to left below). That is: (Note: most events occurred at Marlingford)
The Marlingford branch of the Jermy family had never owned this Manor outright, nor held it by Copyhold, but by Leasehold only. It was so held by them originally of the Paston family - from 1560 to about 1630 - but the Pastons then sold it to John Jermy the barrister (1555-1630), then the head of the senior Norfolk branch of the family, and his eldest son Francis of Gunton (160-1647). On the latter's death it was inherited by his eldest son John (1630-1662) who in turn left it to the use of his wife Ann (nee Castleton). By his Will (1662), she was to receive the rental from it (from the Marlingford Jermys initially), an amount that was due to increase considerably when the Lease was re-negotiated in about 1675. However, it seems to have been sold at about that time - when the last of the Marlingford Jermys had already settled elsewhere nearby.
Because Robert Jermy of Silfield named his first son John, it argued quite strongly that this might be his own father's name - especially as he named his only other son after himself. Most fittingly, there was one male Jermy available with this name locally. He was John Jermy of Marlingford - born at just about the right time - in Jan 1604/5. This was virtually the latest possible date which would still allow him to father our Robert around 1624 - so that he, in turn, could father John in Jan 1644/5. We might of course wonder why the Marlingford John would name what would be his first son Robert, rather than either Clement (his father's name) or John - after himself. This man did have a younger brother named Robert (bn 1614) who, at one point, one considered a possible candidate for our Robert (the Tailor) himself. But he had died in 1634, aged 20 years, when still at college in Cambridge. But, could John have named his first son after this brother ?
What is known about this John Jermy of Marlingford? It seems likely that he too had a college education for he was admitted to Greys Inn in 1624 (or possibly 1634 but this would make him a rather atypical 30 years then). It doesn't necessarily follow that he ever became an active lawyer or if he did that he was successful at it. The next reference to him is in his mother's Will. She was Margaret Jermy (nee Robinson) and wrote her Will on 29 Oct 1649, her husband Clement Snr having died some years before, in 1626. Their eldest son - Edmond (bn 1600) had also died young, sometime before 1649, as he isn't mentioned in her Will. In it, she makes no reference to any property, which would seem to have gone via her husband's earlier Will to either Edmond (before he died) or to their second (and now eldest) son John after. She left 20 shillings to the Church and the same to the poor of Marlingford. Her chattels were to be sold and after her debts paid the remainder was to be divided equally between her only other then living son Clement and her daughter Constance. John was to be her Executor. The Will was proved on his oath on 21 May 1659.
[Note: The landed family of Sebright held property here and in Oxfordshire]
Although the Jermys held the Manor of Marlingford (with its property extending to several parishes nearby) only by Leasehold, they apparently acquired, over the years, various other smaller pieces of Free and Copyhold property in Marlingford itself - from which a modest rental income was likely derived. This was probably shared out amongst the surviving children after 1659 - i.e. John, Clement, Maria and Constance, plus another Clement - the surviving son of John's deceased elder brother Edmond. He lived in nearby Bawburgh and seems to have outlived the others by a few years. Some of the property held by these four is mentioned in a Chancery bill dated 22 June 1659 - just one month after Margaret's Will was proved. In it, Clement (of Marlingford) and his sister Constance (of Fundenhall) complain that John, their brother, owed then some money arising from his sale or mortgage of a family property in Marlingford called 'The Guild House' which his mother had transferred to him “and his heirs” by an Indenture dated 29 Oct 1649 (the same date she signed her Will). Were 'his heirs' his children, if any, or his siblings and nephew?
We next hear about John two years later, in 1661 when, as 'John Jermy, Gent', he (seemingly) is recorded in a Hearth Tax return for Wymondham as 'promising to pay a £1 tax', then outstanding. This could suggest be was not that well off by this time and thus if he did have a son (Robert) who was required to enter an apprenticeship, this would not be that surprising. John's residence then in Wymondham (there being no other John Jermys of this status locally) fuels our speculation even more. Then, in 1663, an Indenture is recorded, dated 2 April that year between Augustine Cullyer of Norwich, Gent and Clement Jermy of Bawburgh, Gent. Augustine was the son of John Cullyer aid Marie nee Jermy (one of John's sisters) and had been the Executor of the Will of Clement Jermy, formerly of Marlingford but now of Fundenhall, Gent, which was dated 15 July 1662 (and seemingly proved shortly after as Clement had died before 8 Aug 1662 (see below)). He would seem to have moved in with Constance around 1661 and was apparently unmarried. In his Will, this Clement left all his property in Marlingford, both free and copyhold, now in the possession of John Newman, to Augustine from which he was to pay to Clement Jermy of Bawburgh £200 from the rents and profits from his property called Thorpe Heath.
This transaction was also recorded in the Marlingford Manor Court Book - dated 8 Aug 1662 - in which reference is made to “Clement Jermy, Gent - recently died”. The Indenture of 26 Oct 1649 was also mentioned there. This Court Book also records, on 20 Oct 1665, that John Jenny, Gent, formerly a Copyhold tenant of this Manor, did surrender a piece of land next to The Guild House - a house of the said John Jermy - through the Lord of the Manor (who was unnamed but was probably then Ann Jermy (nee Castleton), the widow since June 1662 of John Jermy of Gunton - who had inherited Marlingford in 1647). Otherwise, it may have been this John and Ann's eldest son Francis of Gunton, who had become of age in 1675. The surrender was 'to the use of Clement Jermy, Gent - brother of John (of Marlingford) - in the form of a Mortgage of £20, such surrender to be null & void only if John repaid the £20 before Michaelmas, 1665 - which In hadn't'. As a result, Clement Jermy of Bawburgh did 'prayeth the favour of the Court to be admitted Copyhold tenant of the said premises which John had acquired for himself and his heirs on the surrender of same by Margaret Jermy, widow at a Court held 9 Jan 1651. This seems to imply that because John (and his heirs) had surrendered this land to Clement his brother, who had since died, that it should now go to himself - Clement of Bawburgh.
In any case, this would suggest that John Jermy, possibly still resident in Wymondham (unless he moved in with Constance, in neighbouring Fundenhall, after Clement had died), was still in need of money and unable to repay this loan against some of his former property. There is then a final reference to this John Jermy in a Court held in 1675, which referred to an earlier Court held in 1673, which states that “John Jermy, deceased some years past, the nephew of Clement Jermy of Bawburgh...”. This would indicate that John died around 1668-'70, say. His place of burial has not been located (the Marlingford register was not kept for some 12 years (c1646-1669) unfortunately - in the event he wished to be buried near his forebears) nor does he seem to have left a Will. This, and any Will written by Clement of Bawburgh (who likely died about 1675-80), are still being sought. There was a John Jermy who paid tax for two hearths in nearby Mulbarton in 1668. If he was not actually a Jermyn, he could represent the John formerly of Marlingford and Wymondhan. This remains to be followed up.
The lack of a Will for John Jermy of Marlingford is most unfortunate in that it would resolve our uncertainty regarding the paternity of Robert at a stroke. Without it, we must remain pessimistic about a Jermy derivation of Robert and his line. John's date of baptism (Jan 1604/5) - which one assumes equates closely with that of his birth - is probably just that year or two too late to reasonably allow him to have married in time to father our Robert by c1624, at the latest. If so, it wasn't in Marlingford itself - where the register was being kept at this time. It is just possible (with the baptism registered elsewhere), but neither John - if he did train in the 1aw - nor Robert, who would have been in an apprenticeship, would likely be free to marry before aged 21 or so. This would require the John who was baptised in Jan 1644/5 to have not been born until nearer 1647.
We may observe also that in his Will, Robert makes no reference to any property or connection with Marlingford. If it were John's son, some such reference might have been expected. In all other respects, everything was quite suitable for this derivation. Although Robert of Silfield was not a 'Gent' - living off rent or investments - but a skilled tradesman, he did own some property - as did many of this status, as evidenced in their many Wills. Indeed, John Jermy himself seems to have been in just the kind of situation where he had little to offer any son - other than such an apprenticeship. It may even be the case that if, as seems quite possible, Robert derived instead from the other nearby possibility - that is, from the skilled artisan class of the large Jermyn family originating in Hempnall, that he was, ironically, even more likely to have been given this type of secure foundation for his later career. It is to this final possibility - the Hempnall theory - that we must turn next.
4. The Hempnall Theory
In 1504, a William Germyn of Hempnall left a Will in which he left considerable property to his son Ralph. Hempnall was about 6 miles sout-east of Wymondham - a large, fertile parish with many successful Yeomen, Weavers, Tailors, etc. Property transactions record the name Germyn there as early as 1305. Interestingly, similar documents refer to the name Germy, and to that of Sturmy, just 3 miles way at Tharston and Forncett at this same period. Members of these latter families often had their names depicted as Germyn and Sturmyn then as well. This could imply that the Hempnall and Forncett families had a common root earlier in the 1200s, say, but this must remain speculation and is, I believe, more likely not to be the case. The Germys of Forncett were the same family who were later seated at Metfield in Suffolk (from 1325) and from whom the Norfolk branches of the family (in Norwich, Gunton, Bayfield and Marlingford) descended much later - utimately as Jermy.
Ralph Jermyn, son of the above William, left his Will in 1556 - naming 4 sons: Thomas, John, Robert and Edmond - born around 1520-'35. From these 4 men descended literally l00s of those with the name Jermyn which, as they spread like ripples on a pond from Hempnall - in all directions - was often later recorded and spelt as Jermy, particularly after 1700, but by no means were they all so registered. The christian names of these descendents were dominated by the names Ralph, John, Robert and Edmond. (See pedigree below)
In the period 1610 to 1625, there were just two Robert Jermyns baptised in the area - both in Hempnall itself. One, born to Christopher Jermyn, was baptised on 9 Dec 1618. The other, born only a few weeks later to a Ralph Jermyn, was baptised on 13 Apr 1619. One of these Roberts married an Alice around 1646 (although not in Hempnall). The other, if married, would likely have done so in this same decade - when any early issue would be baptised. But, just as in Wymondham, the Register was (virtually) unkept during this civil war period - from 1642 to 1660. The 'virtual' qualification here is very important. For, again, there were, amazingly, just four Jermyn entries in it over all those years. And these concerned the baptisms of issue born only to these two Robert Jermyns! (There would have been about a dozen other Jermyn couples in their child-bearing years in Hempnall at that time.)
Two of the entries occurred in 1647:
1. 'Robert Jermyn - baptised on 8 Oct 1647 - the son of Robert Jermyn and his wife Alice.'
2. 'Robert Jermyn - baptised on 30 Nov 1647 - the son of Robert Jermyn the Tailor.' No wife named.
These were followed by just two more - in 1649 and 1652:
3. 'Alice Jermyn - baptised on 11 June 1649 - the daughter of Robert Jermyn and his wife Alice.'
4. 'Mary Jermyn - baptised on 2 July 1652 - the daughter of Robert Jermyn.' Again, no wife was named.
As stated, these were the only Jermyn entries in the Hempnall register over an 18 year period.
One of the last entries before the war was in respect of the marriage between Edward Sporle, Gent, one of the town's chief citizens, and Etheldreda Jermyn - who would seem to have been a sister of one of the Roberts (who were probably cousins). This was dated the 6 July 1641. It was during 1644 that the local Rector - the Rev. William Barwick - was ejected from his living at Hempnall for speaking out so forcefully against Cromwell's authority and the Puritan ascendancy . After 1660, a note was entered in the Hempnall register saying that “this register was 'kept away' by the churchwarden Edward Sporle Snr from 1642 until his death in 1659”. However, as we have seen, it was used - on those four Jermyn occasions and for a few other families - seemingly relatives or friends of Edward Sporle, although by what 'Minister' is not clear. In neighbouring Saxlingham Nethergate, a note appears in the register saying that during the war “various Ministers baptised babies here, but the names were not always recorded”.
Now, we know that Robert the Tailor of Silfield had a son Robert who we believe was born a few years after his brother John (bn 1644/5) but whose place of baptism was lacking. The Robert born to 'Robert Jermyn the Tailor' and baptised in Hempnall in Nov 1647 must represent a strong candidate for this Robert, which points seriously to Hempnall as the place of origin of his father. It would thus appear that Robert the Tailor had come back on two occasions to his home parish - from Wymodham, where no baptisms were being offered or registered - to ensure (with the aid of his friend or relative Edward Sporle) that this son's christening was registered. He thus showed the same determination as he had in respect of the baptism of his first son John in 1644/5 in Wymondham - being one of only three baptisms performed there all year. Such consistency adds to our confidence. That on both occasions in Hempnall, his wife's name was not recorded, while that of the other Robert's wife Alice was, could indicate that she was not as well known to any temporary officiating Ministers, since she did not live locally. The other Robert (with wife Alice) lived on at Hempnall (as a Yeoman) - where he was buried in 1714, aged 96; his wife Alice would have been much better known there.
As both fathers (Robert the Yeoman and Robert the Tailor) named their 1st sons after themselves (rather than after their fathers), this pattern might be expected in respect of their 1st daughters. Indeed we see that Robert the Yeoman's daughter was named Alice - his wife's name - and then Robert the Tailor named his daughter Mary. And, as we known, this was the name of the wife of Robert Jermy(n) - the Tailor of Silfield/Wymondham. Finally, we may observe that Robert and Alice later had a daughter baptised Audrey (possibly some years after her birth). This was the name of this Robert's mother - the wife of Ralph Jermyn. Robert the Tailor's daughter Mary probably died in infancy as she is not mentioned in his Will. No burial registrations were recorded in the Wymondham register at the time.
Because Rev Barwick, a notorious opponent of Cromwell and the puritans, had been removed in 1642, the local Hempnall couples wishing to marry in the traditional manner - in the established church - had to seek out a cooperative Cleric somewhere else. The marriage between Robert Jermyn (the Yeoman to be) and Alice - probably around 1645/6 - has yet to be located, but one was very fortunate to discover the following entry for Robert the Tailor - in the parish register of Brockdish, some miles to the south of Hempnall:
Having not long concluded that our Robert originated within the Jermyn family of Hempnall, despite the name often appearing in later years and generations as Jermy - which family for a long time one considered he was indeed a member of - it seemed ironical that at his marriage, and at this early date, it was already being shown in this latter form. No other early Hempnall Jermyns were thus depicted. In any case, it is significant that there were no other Jermys (or Jermyns) in or near Brockdish at this period; nor were there any Olletts nearby. On the contrary, there were Olletts (e.g. Edwards Snr and Jnr) and Jermyns in Hempnall itself then. Both Robert and Mary would thus appear to have come to Brockdish from Hempnall just for the day. Short of any contradicting evidence arising, it seems most reasonable to accept that this does represent the marriage of Robert the Tailor and Mary. There is also the negative evidence that we have no evidence of any other Robert and Mary (Ollett) settling, having issue or dying anywhere else, nor of any other Robert and Mary marrying and settling in Wymondham, and having a son John there. Only this couple. Their first child was likely just on its way.
(It was at about 12 noon on May 2nd 1989, when reviewing some old notes on the Jermyns of Hempnall (originally collected in 1985 when searching for the ancestors of one Bruce Jermy of New Zealand), that the name 'Robert Jermyn the Tailor' was 'rediscovered'. This was in connection with the four exceptional Jermyn baptisms recorded in Hempnall during the civil war. With his own baptism - ca 1620 - and subsequent marriage - ca 1644 also being re-found quite quickly, and his wife's name proving to be, as required, Mary - our long quest that had begun about 7 years earlier seemed finally to be over.)
As stated before, the naming of his first son John would normally suggest that Robert's father would also have this name. There were earlier John Jermyns in Hempnall, but none had a son baptised Robert during the relevant period. The Robert born to Christopher Jermyn and baptised on 9 Dec 1618 would seem to have survived childhood - there being burial entries for a Robert in this period - and in all respects fits the requirements for our Robert. His close contemporary, born a few weeks later, could in theory also represent our Robert (instead), but his mother's name (Audrey) points strongly to him becoming the long-lived Yeoman of Hempnall. It may be significant that of the 3 sons of Christopher Jermyn, none named any son Christopher (a unique name there) - almost as though he specifically requested that they didn't. He seems to have died during the interregnum when no burials were registered in Hempnall. No Will has been located for him unfortunately. It is of course possible that he died quite young and that Robert named his first son after a grandfather or uncle.
It would be most useful if one could find a Will for Mary Ollett's father - thought to be one of the Edward Olletts of Hempnall. For, just as Robert Jermyn's second son Robert referred in his Will to each of his daughters - by their married names - so might this father of Mary. This would hopefully confirm her residence in Silfield and Robert's even more probable origin in Hempnall. (Wills were subsequently found for both Edward Ollett Snr who died in 1667 - a Linen Weaver of Hempnall - and for his son Edward Ollett Jnr, also a Linen Weaver, who died the previous year. The elder man had several sons to whom he left various legacies and property but made no reference to any of his daughters. However, his son Edward referred in his Will to his wife Sarah. It was later discovered that on the same day that Mary Ollett married Robert Jermy(n) in Brockdish (July 11 1644), Edward Ollett married a Sarah Pierce there. This strongly indicates that Edward and Mary Ollett were brother and sister and that it was a double wedding of two couples from Hempnall.
If we take it therefore that Robert's father was Christopher Jermyn of Hempnall, we may now set out his earlier Hempnall pedigree back to the earliest known 'Jermyn' in this area (bar the one referred to in a Hempnall land transaction of 1305) - namely William Germyn of the 1504 Will - who speaks therein of “my Curate John More...”. This could imply that William was a Rector or simply that be was a chief landholder in Hempnall who used this possessive term ('my') in a somewhat casual way. The following pedigree of the Jermyns of Hempnall shows only some of the more relevant lines and individuals:
The relationships in the above pedigree have been established with the aid of both the Hempnall parish registers and the many Wills left by members of this extended Jermyn family. Unfortunately, there were two lengthy gaps in the registers (c1602-1614 and 1642-1660) and many of the Wills refer to people of the same christian names - as Edmond, Ralph, Robert and John. These two factors make it difficult to be absolutely certain of all relationships (and many others to numerous to show in one pedigree) but the foregoing appears to be quite well established. The aforementioned Bruce Jermy of New Zealand derived from the Jermys of the Wroxham and Salhouse area (where the name was also spelt as Jermyn, Jarmany, Germany, etc. It also seems likely that many other contemporary families using the name Jermy derived similarly from this same branch of the Jermyns of Hempnall.
The basis of Jonathan Jermy's misconception about his particular ancestry could well relate to the odd coincidence that his forebear Robert Jermy, Tailor of Silfield (in Wymondham), lived barely a mile from Stanfield Hall which, amazingly, was itself in the same Silfield division of Wymondham. This had come into the Jermy family in 1735 on the marriage of Willian Jermy of Bayfield to Elizabeth Richardson, the heiress of that estate. Jonathan's grandfather John (then in Norwich) may have heard about this from friends or relatives still in the area (the common surname considered significant) and related this information to his wife or children - in conjunction with references about his own father and grandfather (with their names, as his own, generally depicted as Jermy) having lived in this same district. Jonathan would have heard some of this - but not directly from either his grandfather or his own father. It was thus probably quite distorted by the early years of the next century, when he made his claim around 1817. This was many years before any Stanfield Hall publicity so what provoked his interest at this particular time is uncertain. The Jermys of Oxfordshire had apparently instigated some legal preliminaries around 1810 or so (it is believed) but these were not pursued due to lack of funds. [However, we have seen that there may well have been contacts between the two families from 1797 - based on even older communalities - ie from the 1730s!] That Jonathan's claims were directed at the contemporary occupants of Bayfield itself, rather than those of Stanfield, may have reflected an influence of the lawyers engaged by him, as described earlier. In any case, we can see now that he had no valid basis for claiming either estate, being unrelated to the landed Jermys. The same would of course apply equally to any such thoughts that James Spurgeon or his descendants may have had. However, this still leaves us with the mystery of why James believed that Sarah Jermy was “a native of Gunton”. Possibly when he first read or heard the few facts he knew about her, he misapplied information about the origin of James Blogg to Sarah his wife, there having been several Bloggs - apparently now coincidentally - in Gunton then.
A contributing factor to Jonathan's confusion may have been the presence in both lines of several Roberts and Johns. Indeed, if Robert the Tailor's father had been John Jermy of Marlingford (bn 1604), he would bear the exact relationship in time to Robert Jermy of Bayfield (bn c 1602) from whom William descended, as described by Jonathan. That is, the latter would have derived, as Jonathan had claimed, from the older of these two (and hence the senior line) while his own line would proceed from the younger man. However, these two contemporary Jermys were not brothers but distant cousins. But, when coupled with Jonathan's possibly vague understanding of the geography of his own 'Jermy' forebears , which seemed to coincide quite reasonably with those of both the Marlingford and Stanfield/Bayfield Jermys, he may have wrongly assumed certain inter-relationships - with no clear conception of the number of generations or family branches actually involved.
Whatever the precise reasons for Jonathan's misunderstanding, it would seem to follow that his sister Sarah, or her children, would have adopted the same view which then came down to Mary Castle and her Spurgeon descendants. The Stanfield Hall events of 1848 and consequent publicity later that century probably re-kindled interest in the family's earlier convictions. Even more distorted, it finally made its way to my wife's family in the present century. And now, after a great deal of time and effort, the full story has finally been told. Through three generations of the female line: Mary Castle, Sarah Blogg and Sarah Jermy, the Spurgeons did connect back - but not to the Jermys, as originally understood, but to the Jermyns - of Wymondham, Silfield and ultimately Hempnall. Our final 'theory' has thus turned out to be the probable reality. An outline pedigree showing our long sought after 'final link' may be depicted thus:
