THE GENEALOGY OF THE JERMY-LARNER FAMILY

Contents

                     1. Introduction and Background.                                                12. The Senior Jermy Line: 1.
                     2. Enter John Larner.                                                                  13. The Senior Jermy Line: 2.
                     3. The Siege of Stanfield Hall - September 1838.                      14. The 3rd Jermy Line of Descent.
                     4. Who was John Larner of London ?                                         15. On Thomas Jermy - Claimant.
                     5. John Larner's Family.                                                             16. Two Southern Branches of the Jermy Family.
                     6. On the Origin of John Larner and his Claim - 1.                   17. A Northern Branch of the Jermy Family.
                     7. The Murders at Stanfield Hall - November 1848.                  18. The 4th Jermy Line of Descent.
                     8. The Pearce Family                                                                    19. The 5th Jermy Line of Descent.
                     9. On the Origin of John Larner and his Claim - 2.                     20.The 6th Jermy Line of Descent: The Jermy - Larner Link.
                     10. A Perspective on John Larner's Antecedents                      21. John Larner(s) in the Militia.
                     11. The Family in Oxfordshire                                                     22. On the Origin of Thomas Garlick.

23. The Later Larners of London.

[The foregoing topics, some with pedigrees, are best read in continuity, but may be called up separately by Clicking on
same as required. Note that the text should always take precedence over the pedigrees which are more awkward to update as new data emerges.]

Introduction and Background.

       The major branches of the landed Jermy family residing in Norfolk and Suffolk were apparently extinct by the early 1800s. One line of the Suffolk branch continued in London - ending with the death in 1810 of an unmarried Anne Jermy - possibly in Bath or Surrey. She was buried in an in-laws' vault in the parish church of Islington in north-central London. The Norfolk branch may have had a parallel female survivor, born Elizabeth Jermy, dying around this same time, as mentioned further below. The detail concerning these individuals and others is more fully described in the various sections devoted to the Genealogy of the Jermy Family (essentially of East Anglia) - elsewhere on this website. The present section concerns a 'Jermy' family settled considerably beyond East Anglia, one member of whom happened to marry into a family named Larner. Their activities would bear significantly on the Jermy story although there was never a family with the hyphenated surname shown above; it simply serves a useful shorthand here to encompass this part of our account - which involves both families equally. It was because of claims advanced within (parts of) these two families that some doubt arose as to whether the Jermy family of East Anglia had indeed become extinct as early as indicated above.

       Those landed Jermys remaining in Norfolk by the mid-1700s derived primarily from two branches of the family settled earlier in the north of that county - at Gunton and Bayfield. The latter, more junior branch, died out first with the death without issue in 1752 of William Jermy, Esq, an only son born in 1714; his father John Jermy Esq, also an only son, having died in 1744. Those deriving from the senior, Gunton branch descended from two brothers born in the same generation as the latter John's father (also a John) - namely Francis Jermy (born 1655) and his younger brother, yet another John Jermy (born 1658). (They had cousins of these same two names who also resided in or near Gunton, but from whom no later Jermys descend.)

       After having to sell his heavily mortgaged estate at Gunton, the elder son of Gunton - Francis Jermy - settled for a time at Norwich and nearby Haynford where he had only surviving daughters. Around 1702, he left this family (having argued with his father-in-law) and established a second (irregular) one in London where he would have three sons and a daughter before dying there in 1723, leaving no real property. The two younger boys and the daughter died in mid-century leaving no issue while the eldest son, another Francis Jermy (Jnr), died in 1781 in Leghorn, Italy, unmarried. He may thus have been the last male of the ancient landed family of Jermy, outliving William Jermy of the Bayfield line by almost 30 years. [However, a survivor from an earlier, less landed, branch of the Norfolk family, one Thomas Jermy, lived until 1792 - dying in Gt Yarmouth - while his twice-married aunt, born Elizabeth Jermy, may have matched the 1810 survival date of her distant Suffolk cousin Anne Jermy, as mentioned above. Neither had any subsequent Jermy heirs. These aspects are described more fully in the section on the Jermys of Norwich and Happing Hundred).] In any case, this younger Francis Jermy, descended of the Gunton branch, had accumulated some wealth in Leghorn as a banker or factor but left most of this to business colleagues in Italy and a little to his neice Elizabrth, the only child of his already deceased younger brother Capt John Jermy, RN, she apparently dying without issue later that same decade - as Mrs Elizabeth Denn.

       The younger brother of Francis Jermy (the elder) of Gunton (later of Haynford and London) - John Jermy (born 1658) - received very little from the Gunton estate and was subsequently set to a craft apprenticeship in Gt Yarmouth where he had two known surviving sons born about the same time as were his elder brother Francis's daughters in Haynford, nr Norwich. The seeming eldest son, Jeremiah (born Gt Yarmouth 1688), also apprenticed, became a Shipwright, married in 1718, but had no known surviving issue. He died in late 1754; his wife Mary Ann being described by him in his Will (1754/55) as his 'sole heir'.

The younger son, John Jermy Jnr (born 1692), received no skilled training and was later referred to as an 'illiterate day labourer'. It is not known if he ever married or had issue but there is some circumstantial evidence that he may have, although it is not very convincing.

[Note: It was to introduce this latter man - 'John Jermy, the day labourer of Gt Yarmouth' - that the present brief resume of the two main branches of the Norfolk Jermy family has been presented here - at the beginning of our account of the so-called Jermy-Larner family. For he was the alleged link with the landed Norfolk family claimed later by those 'Jermys', as mentioned, settled far from East Anglia - one of whom apparently married a Larner.]

       This younger John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth had inherited the tenancy of his father's house in Yarmouth in 1740 (by the latter's Will) and was described as still being of that town in 1751 when left a small bequest in the Will of the above-mentioned William Jermy Esq - of the cousin line of Jermys of Bayfield. With his brother Jeremiah, the younger John voted in the Yarmouth elections in April 1754, the same year he was also described in a PRO document as still being of that town when, in September, he allegedly sold for a mere £20 any rights he (and possibly any heirs) may ever have to William Jermy's extensive Norfolk estates - in the Bayfield and Wymondham areas. Oddly, there was no reference in that Will to John's elder brother Jeremiah, who was still living in 1751. Why not ?

       However, that alleged sales document may well have been a forgery and if so, then the last valid record we have of this younger John Jermy is his voting record in Yarmouth - in April 1754. There was long thought to be no subsequent burial record for him in the Yarmouth register and that a John 'Jermy' buried in 1766 in Haynford (possibly staying with his cousins ?) may have been him. There was, however, another 'Jermy' family (really Jermyn?) already in that neighbourhood about then and this Haynford John's identity thus remained uncertain. But, more recently, it was discovered in Gt Yarmouth register transcripts (the originals being destroyed in 1942 by German raids) that a John Jermy was indeed buried there at an equally relevant time - on 30 May 1768; he would appear much more likely to be the man of present concern, who would the have been an appropriate 76. [We may point out that in his Will dated 1737, his father John Jermy Snr (who also lived to a good age) referred to this son John as his 'youngest' (vs younger) son; could this imply that he had had a first and surviving son before Jeremiah - born about 1683, say, whose baptism has remained lacking - or was it just a loose usage of the term 'youngest', when 'younger' was meant ? If the former, we might not be too surprised if such an eldest son may also have been given an old testament name - as eg Abraham (non-conformism being popular in Yarmouth at the time). This could have relevance later in this account when further reference to this particular forename and suggestion may be made.]

       If the younger John Jermy of Yarmouth ever did marry and have issue, it would be around the same time as William Jermy (later 'of Bayfield, Esq) was born - that is, around 1714 to 1716, say. Any son born to that younger John, who would be a close contemporay of William would very likely be called John himself - this being both his own and his father's name. But we may recall that in his Will of 1751, William Jermy made reference to and left his small bequest to only one the 'John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth' - his contemorary's fathet. Had that John any son himself (of whatever name), we might well have expected some reference to him in William's Will - as well - for he'd be the next heir in that line. But there was no such reference. And as William's father (a John Jermy, Esq) was often involved in Yarmouth matters (he had held the important position of Steward there), he would surely be aware of any such son of their Jermy 'cousin' and have mentioned him to William; he would have been more expected to benefit from such a bequest - further into the future than his elderly father.

      Moreover, no issue was baptised in the Gt Yarmouth area born to a John Jermy in any case(however spelt) over that relevant period of ca 1712 to 1740s, not accounted for otherwise. There was one marriage in Gt Yarmouth (amongst several involving Jermy(n)s) between a John Jar...(?) (the entry being illegible) and an Ann Palmer in 1716 - which could be kept in mind. It is also possible that the younger John Jermy of Yarmouth mayn have had such a son born elsewhere in Norfolk, but no reason is apparent as to why he and/or his wife would have moved, apparently temporarily, away from his hometown - where his parents and siblings still lived - up to and beyond 1735. [Unless his wife wished to return home (if raised elsewhere) to have her son; but one can see no John Jermy born elsewhere in Norfolk or Suffolk at that time that is not accounted for.] We might (finally) consider the possibility that such a son was born prior to any such marriage and so baptised with his mother's maiden name (eg around 1714-15) - if we were aware of what it was; Palmer could be tried.] There was also a later marriage in Yarmouth between a John Jermy and Murial Waters, widow, in 1739 from which again no issue is apparent. John's elder brother Jeremiah, oddly also not mentioned in William's Will though still living that year, had a son of that same name I believe who died young (possibly in Bungay in 1734?), as did their daughter Mary Ann, leaving as mentioned only his wife as named 'sole heir' in 1754.

[We may add here that the Thomas Jermy who died in Yarmouth in 1792 (touched on above) was not of this same, Gunton-derived, family but apparently descended from an earlier cousin line - of Marlingford. His later residence in Yarmouth (by way of east Broadland parishes for his father and grandfather) appears to have been a mere coincidence; there was no known earlier interaction whatsoever between that family and the Gunton/Yarmouth Jermys of present concern.]

       In any case, William's large estate was to go initially to his second wife Frances (nee Preston) whom he had only recently married (allegedly), but for her lifetime only, and then to certain named Preston relations of hers and/or their issue, but failing the latter, only then 'to the male person nearest related to William with the name Jermy' (and, I believe, his heirs). But Frances, who died in 1791, outlived those named Preston relations who, in any case, had no issue. All male Jermys who had descended from the senior Gunton lines had also died (the last being Francis Jnr in Italy in 1781), as seemingly had most of those of the junior line born in Gt Yarmouth. But any son born to the youngest of that line - ie to John Jermy the day labourer, around 1714-16, say (assuming he had married) - could themselves have married about 1735-40 and then have a son in turn shortly after. Such a man would thus be about 50 or so in 1791 when Frances (nee Preston) died and could thus have been correctly described as 'the male Jermy nearest in blood to William' as of that year (assuming his own father, who would then be about 75 or so, say, had already died).

       However, if such a Gunton-derived male Jermy did exist then, he seems not to have been aware of his possible rights in this regard and so another of the Preston family quickly stepped in and, on dubious legal grounds, assumed unchallenged ownership of the estates - centred then on Stanfield Hall, Wymondham in south Norfolk - with its many rent-producing farms in other parishes as well. [If the Thomas Jermy who died in Yarmouth in 1792 was indeed descended from the landed Norfolk family, his death that year (at just 32) proves oddly convenient to the then Preston family.]

       That latter Preston inheritor of Stanfield (then livging in King's Lynn) lived only 5 years (to 1796) and then, by his own Will, left it all to his Preston heir and younger brother - the Rev George Preston - who subsequently lived at Stanfield Hall relatively undisturbed for the next 40 years - until his own death thetre in 1837 when his elder son Isaac Preston, a local Barrister, inherited. The undisturbed nature of Rev Preston's long occupation of Stanfield Hall is qualified here by the term 'relatively' in that he may or may not have been made aware of two and possibly three legal enquiries and/or potential actions pertaining to the former Jermy estate during his tenure there - in those early years of the 19th century. Firstly (although possibly secondly; see below) in 1817, an action was brought to court in London by one Jonathan Jermy, a Norwich weaver, in respect of Bayfield Hall at least (which he claimed), a property formerly part of William's combined estates.

      However, this had been sold in the 1760s - to satisfy a requirement of William's Will - to provide a very large £5000 benefit for his alleged widow Frances. She had soon re-married and was now Mrs Frances Michell, wife of an M.P., and resided mostly in St James in London. The later owners of Bayfield eventually pleaded a Statute of Limitations in answer to Jonathan's action, which was upheld. But in any case, Jonathan Jermy's case would otherwise have relied on proving his claimed Jermy descent from an earlier Bayfield ancestor, one Col Robert Jermy, whom Jonathan claimed was common to himself and William Jermy. This was not analysed in the court case however but my own efforts in that regard concluded that this perception was most probably based upon an unusual similarity in their respective pedigrees - as to the sequence of their Jermy forenames Robert and John and to several dates at least - if not to the north Norfolk locations. But Jonathan's pedigree in fact eventually led back, via Wymondham, to Hempnall in south Norfolk and to an earlier Robert 'Jermy' who clearly derived from the Jermyn family of Hempnall, with no Bayfield or true Jermy connections whatsoever. The details of this analysis are shown fully in another section on this website - regarding the Spurgeon family of Norfolk.

       It would seem rather improbable that this humble Norwich weaver, Jonathan Jermy, would have had any family evidence/stories/traditions pertaining to the landed Jermy estates of the 18th century, whether factual or based on wishful thinking; for there was nothing in the public domain in this regard between 1750 and 1817 to suggest or motivate same.

     However, there were two or three court cases in London involving claims against an earlier Isaac Preston (William Jermy's solicitor and seeming brother-in-law), which the local legal profession in Norfolk would likely become aware of later in the 18th century. It is possible therefore that some solicitor [whose name should be sought], realising there was some doubt about the legitimacy of the inheritance of the Jermy estates, and learning of Jonathan's similar-sounding Jermy ancestry in Silfield in Wymondham (very near Stanfield Hall, at least), developed the case for him (based on his own motivation) , hoping he might make a reasonable fee. If Rev Preston was ever aware of this action in regard to Bayfield of 1817-19, he may or may not have been concerned. [It is not known why the action was not directed to himself or to the remaining Stanfield parts of the estate also. [Might Jonathan or his lawyers have learnt of initial claims or overtures by other Jermys a few years before (ca 1810-12), say ? This is addressed later.] These other action(s) or intended action(s), with respect to George Preston's occupation of Stanfield Hall, may have concerned him a touch more, and are also discussed later. We may note here that as early as Dec 8 1799, he decided to christen his youngest son 'William Jermy Preston (at Ketteringham church, on his estate's northern boundary). And, a few years later (1821), his eldest son Isaac would name his eldest son in turn Isaac Jermy Preston. In both cases, one may wonder why such naming transpired at these relatively early dates - ie long before the later publicized claims on the estate. What might have been 'in the air' at that particular time (ca 1800-20), or just before, and why ??

.

Enter John Larner.

       Following the death of his Reverend father in 1837, Isaac Preston (then the Recorder (and chief judge) of Norwich) decided to re-furbish Stanfield Hall before moving in with his family. Hence, on the 18th June 1838, he advertised in the local press an auction to be held on the 26th and 27th of that month of much of the Hall's former contents, including an old library of books that had belonged to William Jermy. During the second day of the auction, Isaac Preston was informed that two men had appeared one of whom declared that he was the rightful owner of Stanfield Hall, that William Jermy's Will had stipulated that his library was never to be sold and that anyone inheriting his estate should have changed their name to and borne the arms of 'Jermy'. The man's name was John Larner. Isaac Preston asked if the man accompanying him, one Daniel Wingfield, was his attorney. He said he was not, just an 'adviser'. Preston then had them escorted off the property saying that if they had any such claims (often best made when there is a change of occupier) they should proceed through the courts in the more usual way.        But courts and lawyers were expensive and John Larner would appear to have been a man of limited means. Instead, he would press his claim in other ways and in so doing make life very awkward for Isaac Preston, and for his estate Bailiff, over the ensuing three months of that summer of 1838. Other than the advertisement for the auction, the above details concerning the visit by these two men on June 27 and some of their subsequent activities, were quite unknown by the general public until they were revealed in local newspaper reports later that same year, as described further below; these would usefully provide us with some retrospective information about this matter and of the principals now being considered.

       Despite dismissing Larner and friend, Preston must have been impressed with Larner's knowledge of the Will and its reference to the fact that none of William Jermy's library was ever to be sold, as well as the requirement that any inheritor of the estate should have changed their name to Jermy (which neither he nor his father George Preston had done, although as mentioned, the latter man had included Jermy as a middle name at least to his last-born son (ca 1799), as did Isaac when naming his own son in 1821 - as Isaac Jermy Preston). 'Impressed', because (1) he immediately stopped the auction (this from Stewart Valdar who had Isaac's auction catalogue marked only to that point of the sale); (2) set in motion straight away the procedure to have his and family's actual surname changed to Jermy - completed remarkably quickly (by August that same summer) and (3) apparently decided that as he may not have legal title to the estate, he would sell it almost immediately (for a fraction of its worth) to his then Bailiff - one J.B. Rush - in about July that year. He seems to have realized that Rush couldn't handle money and would likely be happy to sell it back to him for this same small amount just a year or two later - with the title possibly then considered 'safe'. However, these events can be interpreted otherwise, as also discussed further below.

.

The Siege of Stanfield Hall - September 1838.

       But first, during August of 1838, Rush soon advertised his newly purchased Hall to rent, as well as the sale of certain materials and glasshouses from the estate. This angered Larner who soon issued some Handbills in the area (on 22 August) again proclaiming his right to the estate. On these, he usefully gave his address in London (see below). Two weeks later (on Sept 11) he and 8 friends and relatives (this latter term mentioned in only one of the several local papers later reporting these events) tried to physically occupy the Hall and did so for about 3 or 4 hours before being expelled by Rush and others. The next day, he tried another ancient method to press home one's claim - by having someone chop down a large tree on the estate. Rush had two Constables arrest the man who was fined, Larner paying the fine. He then distributed more Handbills, tried to occupy the Hall again (again with too few men) on about September 20 and finally, hearing that Preston had now officially changed his name to Jermy, decided to do so a third time - on September 24 - with over 20 relations and about 50 other 'friends', including again Wingfield from London. They actually forced the front door and placed the new tenants and their furniture onto the lawn. They were again ejected (after a considerable time) with the help of a detachment of the 4th Dragood Guards and over 60 of the intruders were then taken to Norwich prison. A few days later the existence of John Larner and his claim to Stanfield Hall (and the Jermy estate generally) finally entered the wider public domain - through the coverage of these events - by early October 1838 - in the local papers (see below).

      In April, 1839 a postponed court case ensued by which Larner and Wingfield were sent to jail for 3 months with the threat of transportation if they ever repeated such actions. Isaac Preston and family (now called 'Jermy') finally moved into the Hall in about 1840 (the census the next year showing Isaac's presence as such there) while Larner, whoever he was, had presumably returned to London - to keep a low profile and, we may presume, never to be heard of again; an apparent mystery man. The initial newspaper accounts at the time were vague as to the identity of John Larner or the basis of his surprising claim. [To be added here: the first report appearing in the Norwich Chronicle and/or Mercury of ca 29 Sept 1838.] A report also appeared on 3 Oct 1838 in the Bury St Edmund Post (copied on 10 Oct by the Norwich papers) entitled 'Attack On Stanfield Hall By Mob' - which, it said, had occurred on the previous Monday, September 24.

The article described the background to the incident as from the auction in June earlier that summer (as touched on in the introduction above). Isaac Preston had, said the article, been informed (in the afternoon of the second day of the auction - 27 June) that two men had entered the house and were in an upstairs room (probably examining the library of books to be auctioned) one of whom said he had come to take possession of the Hall and its estates. Preston then went to the room with the auctioneer Mr John Culley and asked them their business. The man named Wingfield said that "this gentleman is the true heir-at-law of this estate and has come to take possession of it". Asked if he was a lawyer, he reply 'No' and so Preston said (as mentioned above) they should proceed through the court as he was now in possession himself. He asked them to leave but they refused so he sent for a Constable to come from the nearby town of Wymondham who later escorted them off the estate. Apparently at this point Preston didn't even know the name of the claimant - only learnt later to be one 'John Larner'. Reference was then made in the article about the Handbills that had been subsequently distributed by Larner on Aug 22 - quoting it in full - viz:

     "To Workmen, Labourers and others:- 'Whereas Isaac Preston, Recorder of the City of Norwich (recently styled I. Jermy), having publickly acknowledged that he has no right or title to the Stanfield estates, Mansions or Manors but naked possession only, workmen, labourers and others are therefore duly cautioned not to aid and assist the said Isaac in attempting to prevent the Heir-at-Law, John Larner, from taking possession of his family residence, Stanfield Hall - otherwise they will be prosecuted for a Breach of the Peace. JOHN LARNER - Cross Street, City Road, London - 22 Aug 1838. Witness: Daniel Wingfield."

       The article continued by describing how on Tuesday Sept 11, a "party of 8 or 9 'persons' then violently entered the Hall, occupied by a new tenant Mrs Sims, and with the assistance of a Blacksmith (probably Robert Pearce), proceeded to fasten up the outer doors, demanded the keys of the house and insisted that Mrs Sims should leave." Constables were again called and escorted the men off the property. "The next day, Larner and several men returned and went to the tree plantation called 'The Drive' where they felled an Ash tree and carried it way, Larner later admitting he paid the man who did it, so was guilty of aiding and abetting and so paid the fine. On Friday, the 20th, Larner and the Blacksmith again entered the premises but left after a large force of men arrived from Wymondham, headed by Rush, and threatened to take them into custody; they left without resistance. On Saturday, Handbills signed by Larner were again distributed in the area.

      On the following Monday, September 24th, Larner appeared yet again - with a very large 'party of men' assembled from different parishes.... about 80 in number ...went to the kitchen door and demanded admittance of Mrs Sims and on her refusal, 'Larner took a crow bar and forced the door and the party entered the house...'. (He) carried Mrs Sims and a Miss Blomfield out of the house as well as all their furniture and then barricaded the doors and windows." Mr Preston then arrived and read the riot Act. Two other Magistrates (Rev Wilson and W.R. Cann) arrived at about 4 o'clock and after again reading the Riot Act and some violent confrontations, the Army was called for and arrived just before 6 pm. The men surrendered and 63 were taken to Norwich prison; the others told to appear there the next morning which they all did before four Magistrates charged with committing a felony. The next day, further inquiries were held when Wingfield questioned various witnesses and requested any hearing be postponed to allow them time to obtain professional advice. It was thus set to be heard at the Spring assizes the following March or April (1839). About half the men were illiterate labourers but half were small tradesmen from such as Shotesham and Stoke Holy Cross who could read and/or write'. [We may note here that a 'Thomas 'Jermy', Gardener of Tooting, south London' (who is referred to later) was not involved in any of the events of 1838, nor was he present or ever referred to; his existence was completely unknown to the general public of Norfolk at that time nor indeed to any of the principals involved.

       The foregoing article (slightly paraphrased and condensed here) was presumably based upon interviews made by the reporter with whomever he could contact who had any knowledge of these events. Someone who read it (one Thomas Garlick) felt that it did not properly represent the situation as seen from John Larner's point of view. He therefore wrote to the same Bury paper who printed his account in their next issue the following week (Oct 10 1838) entitled 'Alleged Riot at Stanfield Hall'. (It was, I believe, also repeated a few days later in the Norwich papers.) It is again paraphrased here:

       "Mr Thomas Garlick has sent us a statement of this extraordinary occurrence which puts so different a complexion upon the affair from that which was given to it by (our previous account) that ...we feel it is our duty to insert the principle allegations. At the same time, we must observe that while it appears by this statement that the claimant Larner had acted under the impression of having a legal title to the estate, that (does not mean) he was warranted in taking the law into his own hands and seizing the mansion by force". (There follows firstly a resume provided by Mr Garlick of the Will of William Jermy (d 1751) whereby, on the eventual death of his wife second Frances (nee Preston) in 1791, with her two Preston relatives named as the next inheritors having pre-deceased her without heirs, the estate was supposed then to go to 'William's nearest male blood relative' with the name Jermy, but that it had gone instead to another Preston. The Will, said Garlick, also stipulated that the Library was not to be sold and that the person inheriting should take the name and arms of Jermy or forfeit their possession.)

       He continues in more detail (our own comments in square brackets]: "It appears by the line of descent of this ancient branch of the Bayfield Jermy family that the present claimant (Larner)'s uncle, who was entitled to the Stanfield and other estates immediately after the death of the testator's widow, was at the time living in 'the west of England' - about 155 miles from Stanfield in indigent circumstances', and had not the opportunity of hearing of the deaths of the two initial remainder men - Jacob and Thomas Preston - as named in the testator's Will. Rather, he had always understood that one of them had succeeded the widow as per the Will and did not discover to the contrary for several years (ie until about 1805) - when he was informed that they had both died before her and that a nephew of the half-blood of Thomas Preston - one Isaac Preston [he previously of King's Lynn] - had in fact entered (by 1792) and disseized the family of their just rights at that time - by representing that he was then next heir in succession.

This man had continued in possession only 5 years - until his death in 1796 when he devised the estates to his brother the Rev George Preston but this was not discovered until several years after he had been in possession [eg around 1805 or so probably] after which he was proceeded against by legal process at various periods - even as late as 1835 through Mr Francis, solicitor of Norwich. But the present claimant [ie John Larner], being in very indigent circumstances himself, was unable then to prosecute his claim."

[Apparently in the Norwich copy of Garlick's letter, or in a similar report on the siege in that edition, it was stated that Larner described his (unnamed) mother as a 'whole-blood niece of William Jermy' himself; this would imply that she was a daughter of William's bother or sister, say, although in fact he had no such siblings. (This should be verified as it seems a most unlikely claim.) If she was thought to be a 'niece' of anyone, it would be of her father's brother (of whose existence, if any, we were still quite unaware; he certainly wasn't William Jermy of Bayfield. But, in any case, John Larner appeared at this point (1838) to be the sole claimant - with no reference then to any others - as for example any cousin(s).]

       The lengthy article(letter) continues: "On the 12 June last, Larner was informed (by whom?) that Isaac Preston, Recorder of Norwich, son of the late Rev George Preston, had advertised to sell the whole of the furniture, including the valuable library of books which were by the testator's Will to pass as heir-looms, in consequence of which Mr Larner served formal notices upon Isaac Preston and the auctioneer Mr Culley not to sell the testator's property. Larner, nearly at the close of the sale, arrived from London with a friend and first called upon the Magistrate, Mr (?W.R.) Cann of Wymondham, for his advice, informing him that he was the heir-at-law of Stanfield Hall and that he had come from London to take possession. Mr Cann most politely inspected the testator's Will and the family pedigree which he said appeared very correct (my italics). Larner then requested the protection of the police if Isaac Preston should cause the peace to be broken. Mr Cann said he would come and render his assistance if necessary and at the same time assured Larner that he would never have a better opportunity of taking possession than at the present time - when a sale was taking place.

       A short time later (ie some days after the sale), Larner received a letter informing him that in consequence of Mr Preston not having a marketable title to the mansion [on which his father had apparently spent upwards of £16,000 for improvements some years earlier], he sold it for the small sum of £1000 to his agent, Mr James B. Rush, who purchased it for the alleged purpose of pulling it down and selling the materials at auction. The greenhouses have already been thus sold." [Rush later claimed that he only bought it because Preston 'had himself threatened to tear it down'.]

       " This conduct so exasperated Larner that he was induced to again take possession (in September) in order to prevent the magnificent Hall being destroyed, and took with him 8 of his relations and 2 friends and, the door being open, entered and had peaceful possession for about 8 hours. Preston's agent Rush then arrived from Wymondham with 200 men (plied with drink and given bludgeons, etc) and demanded admittance. Mr Larner, in his usual mild manner, spoke to the men and said that to avoid bloodshed, they would vacate the premises peacefully. The following day [Larner had a man chop down the Ash tree to more formally claim his rights] and so was brought before Mr Cann in Wymondham later that day, who dismissed the charge, presuming Larner to be the heir-at-law, but placed the other man in the clink until the following day when Mr Preston, sitting now as a Magistrate himself, with Mr Cann and another Magistrate, convicted the poor man of trespass and fined him £2.17.6 - which Larner paid]".

       "On the 24 September, Larner then discovered through the 'London Gazette', issued earlier that month, that Isaac Preston had, as of Aug 21, obtained Royal license to take the name and arms of Jermy in lieu of his own name [and thereby appear to have descended from one of the remainder men mentioned in the Will of William Jermy who were required so to do]. This so provoked Larner that he determined once again to take possession and accordingly his relations to the number of about 20 and a great number of friends (small tradesmen) joined him and proceeded to the Hall without weapons but were refused admittance. Larner forced the kitchen door and all the men entered orderly and with decorum." [The remainder of this account is essentially as described already but with Larner and the other men shown as behaving rather more reasonably before surrendering and being taken to Norwich Castle as rioters].

       The article then continues as a more normal report of the subsequent events the next day when an inquiry into the charges was held before County Magistrates Rev R. Wilson and W.R. Cann, when 14 of the men including Larner and Wingfield and 12 others (including 4 or 5 men named Pearce (a surname of kater significance) were committed to take their trials at the next Assizes charged basically with 'riot and tumult'. The others were liberated after posting sureties to ensure their attendance at the Assizes to answer any indictments as well. Possibly after seeing that Larner's situation was not going to be successful, W.R. Cann wrote a letter to the Bury Post (of ca Oct 15) denying having had any dealings with John Larner (reproduced in the Norwich papers some days later). There were several Canns in Wymondham, however, and Garlick may have confused one for another. There was, I believe, an attorney or comparable professional named S.J. Cann there as well. [Yes, he was a young Solicitor - possibly son or nephew of W.R. Cann.]

-- -- -- -- -- --

       From the foregoing, we at least learn a little about the basis of John Larner's claim. Namely, that it was his unnamed uncle who was believed to be the male Jermy nearest related to William at the time of Frances' death in 1791 (as we had suggested previously), this would presumably be the man we described as being a grandson of John Jermy, the day labourer of Gt Yarmouth (1692-1768). That grandson would be born about 1735-40, say, to John the labourer's assumed son (possibly named John himself - concluded to be born about 1714-16 - although where and to whom was unknown. This grandson would thus be aged about 50 or so in 1791 (as we had suggested), when he apparently lived about 155 miles from Stanfield - somewhere in the 'west of England'. He had likely died (possibly there) before about 1820, say, thus leaving John Larner (if so related) as the next heir.

       As John Larner's uncle, one must assume that he was a brother of John's mother - also then of unknown Christian name, but seemingly of a maiden surname such as Jermy/Jermany/Germany (or similar). What we did't know (at this point) is where John the Yarmouth labourer married (or even if he had) and had any such son John 'Jermy' - and where and when that son in turn did likewise a generation later - probably in the mid- to late-1730s.

       Somewhere 155 miles south-west of Stanfield is about 170 miles south-west of Gt Yarmouth and thus a very long way in those days for any of the labouring class to migrate, particularly diagonally cross-country against the flow of trasffic. And for what possible reason? A check on the map shows that this distance brings us generally to an area somewhere within Wiltshire or Gloucestershire and would require any such 'traveller' to cross the country from north-east Anglia towards the south-west - against the few main thoroughfares which invariably proceeded from the north east and midlands south-eastly to London. There were thus no easy, direct or efficient routes to connect such diagonally disparate areas, nor any obvious social or economic reasons to do so.

       Whomever Thomas Garlick was, he clearly had a good grasp of John Larner's case and must have become very familiar with the Will of William Jermy. It seems odd therefore that he was so vague about the names of those key individuals through whom the claim depended. One would assume that as he knew that much about it all, he would have know these facts as well - including where the principals lived. While Daniel Wingfield wasn't a lawyer but just a literate friend and adviser, we may enquire whether Mr Garlick may have been such as a solicitor or attorney? Odd too that on receiving his letter, the editor of the newspaper hadn't contacted him to ask about and thus reveal to its readers his particular connection with John Larner, nor show from what part of the country he or the letter came. And, most crucially, had he not seen the pedigree clearly referred to ?

       No more is then heard about the claim or siege until after the Assize hearings the following April 1839 when the local papers again cover the story and its outcome. On 13 April that year, both the Norwich Chronicle and Mercury reported that if the two principal prisoners, Larner and Wingfield, agreed never to make their forceful claims again (something which Isaac Preston no doubt was very keen never to recur), they could admit to the lesser charge of 'simple riot', which they did (with Larner pleading in addition a 'Plea of Right' which presumably related to his claim), and hence they received relatively short sentences of 3 months each, albeit of hard labour. [We may note here that a Thomas 'Jermy', Gardener of Tooting, was never a part of these proceedings of 1838/39 (or before), nor was his name or that of any other comparable 'Jermy' (or simialr) mentioned to that point. Larner referred only to wanting to take possession of his (own) property - seemingly claimed through his unnamed ?Jermy mother and uncle.] The editions of 20 April provided a little more information as did one in The Times of that week, I believe: [these to be added here, if any new information so arises.]

       In addition, we have some useful information from a Public Record Office document (ASSI 36/3) which reports on: "The Examination of John Larner of the parish of Shoreditch, Middx, Baker - taken before 2 J.P.s: Robt Wilson and W.R. Cann on Oct 1 1838 in Norwich at which, on being charged with a Riot and a Felony, did voluntarily state as follows: "All I have to say is that I was taking possession of my own property". This was signed with 'his mark' when, the report states, John Larner claimed (not very convincingly) that "...I cannot see to write (his name) without my glasses." Also examined (first - on Sept 29) before the same J.P.s, was Daniel Wingfield of the parish of St Leonard's, Shoreditch, an 'Oil and Colour Man', who voluntarily stated: "I leave my case in the hands of my Attorney, Mr Wortley". Signed: D. Wingfield. Also examined were the Pearces who said in each case "I have nothing to say". Robert Pearce Snr and Jnr were both Blacksmiths living south of Norwich, the younger one having aided Larner in one of the 'break-ins', as witnessed by the Stanfield Cook, John Carr. There was also a Richard, a James and a William Pearce. Isaac Preston also made two statements - about speaking with Larner on the day of the auction and regarding a counter advertisement Larner tried to place in the same paper in which he had advertised the Hall for rent, warning people not to rent 'his' property, but the editor had refused it. [As mentioned, no Thomas Jermy was similarly examined at those Assizes nor involved in any way with the events of 1838 or 1839.]

       As discussed above, Preston later re-purchased the Hall from Rush (ca 1839) for the same £1000 figure and he and his family moved in by 1840. After serving their sentences, John Larner and Daniel Wingfield would have returned to London by that time - presumably to keep a low profile for most of that next decade. The Larner claim to the former Jermy estate at Stanfield Hall and its uncertain basis would, we assume, then recede into obscurity, possibly for ever, as far as anyone was then aware. However, the determination and focus of John Larner hadn't receded that soon after his imprisonment for we find that by about mid-1839 (seemingly) he had convinced a certain L.J. Clancy - apparently of Norwich - to continue to pursue the matter of his Claim. A letter written by this man was indexed as part of the archived documents of a Norwich family named Carleton - to one member of whom (a ?solicitor) it was apparently sent.

   In my copy, it begins "Dear Sir - I am induced to lay (before you) what I consider a Case of the utmost hardship. Enclosed I send you a letter addressed to the Editor of the 'London True Sun' in which you will see the means that have been adopted by the parties concerned to oppress and harrass the lawful heir {[Mr John Larner] to these estates [which were presumably identified within the letter to that Editor, a copy of which sadly is not included with the archived copy obtained.] There is thus (as implied in the letter to the Editor) "no chance ...for him to have justice done in this 'priest-ridden' City [ie Norwich) and I know that when I lay a Statement of facts before you that you will with your accustomed love of justice endeavor to aid right against might. I have [thus] conversed with Mr Larner and at his request take the liberty of laying his case before you". He goes on to say that the present illegal occupier of the estate was one Isaac Preston/Jermy who has bought off every Lawyer that Larner has sought to employ - in amounts of £10,000 to £15,000 and more', such moneys obtained by selling off the timber on the estate; these lawyers include Simons & Elliot of Lambeth, Sutcliffe & Birch of Bridge St, Blackfriars and Weston's of St James Square. He notes that Larner "possesses the Will (of William Jermy) and every other essential proof as Claimant...". He thus seemed convinced of Larner's bona fides and feels that if this unnamed person would take the case on (or arrange for it to be taken on?), he would very likely win it - providing any lawyer so employed was not got at by Preston. Mr Larner was, he says, willing to meet him either in Norwich where he will remain a week more hoping to receive an answer or in London to where he will then return. He closes by giving Larner's London address - as '18 Cross St, Wenlock Road - near the Standard Tavern'."

       We don't know if anything transpired in response to this overture nor do we know very much yet about exactly who John Larner was or about his origins.. We may however try to imagine what anyone at the time may have done if curious to learn more about this matter and the claim (short of interviewing the principals directly) - that is, by seeking out any documentary evidence - as we at least can do today with our greater access to archival material. Just who were the individuals concerned and what was the basis of the claim ?

.

Who was John Larner of London ?

       Because he put his London address - at 18 Cross Street - on the Handbills he distributed in 1838 (which has been confirmed in the above letter from Mr Clancy of 1839), we have for example the opportunity to seek any information on John Larner as provided in the forthcoming Census of 1841 - the first one that would show some personal information (assuming he hadn't moved in the meantime). It would be useful for instance if we could discover where and when he was born. Was it in or outside London, for example? To whom and where was he married ? And where did they live when any children were born ? What was his occupation ? There were several Cross Streets in London at the time and two of these were in Islington but on neither did a Larner family reside in 1841. There was another one, however, in Hoxton near the City Sawmills area of St Leonard's, Shoreditch, close to Regent Canal and the eastern end of City Road. Here, at No. 18 we do find John Larner, a Baker, aged 55(+), his wife Mary, also shown as 55(+), with their son Thomas Larner, aged 9. [This Cross Street ran between Shepherdess Walk and Wenlock Road, crossing a James Street between these two, with a short section off Shepherdess Walk called Ashley Terrace (of some relevance later) occurring where it meets that latter street. Just across from there a Shaftesbury Street is almost a continuation of Cross Street. This small if crowded area had St Luke's Workhouse at it southern edge (near City Road) and the City Saw Mills at its northern edge (near Regent Canal.]

       Ages in that first Census for adults were rounded down to the nearest 5 year point below actual age. John and Mary were thus born around 1785-1789, say - with John likely the elder. Son Thomas would be born about 1831 if approaching age 10. Unless the age given for Mary was a little out, we might assume that young Thomas would be her last-born - when she was about 42, say. Any older children (born in the 1820s) may have been residing elsewhere - as with aunts or uncles - or already independent. While the next Census for 1851 and all later ones (at 10 year intervals) typically give the parish and county of birth, that for 1841 shows only whether or not the person listed was born in their present county of residence. Thus, all three of these Larners were shown in 1841 as born 'in Middlesex' - ie essentially in London. Next door, at No. 17, there was another Larner family - headed by a William Larner, aged 40+, a Greengrocer and his wife Anne, 50+, both shown as born in Middlesex as well. Might he have been one of John's younger brothers therefore or just a coincidence ? We can't say at this point. [Later concluded that he was his brother.]

       So, we haven't learned very much about John Larner's origins, nor the basis of his claim to the Jermy estates. Knowing his approximate age tells us that he likely married Mary around 1810, say, and that his mother (assumed to be a Jermy' or similar) was probably born about 1765-70, say, being a considerably younger sister of Larner's uncle - the former alleged 'remainder man' apparently, whom we've calculated would be born rather earlier - around 1735-40. Possibly she was born to a second marriage of their mutual father - suggested to be a John 'Jermy' - born about 1714-16. All this is based on estimates of course; they could be 5 or more years out in which case any errors would be further amplified over succeeding generations.

       We may also enquire about Daniel Wingfield. Who was he and what was his connection with John Larner ? We see from the Assize report at the PRO that he lived near John Larner in Shoreditch and was an Oil and Colour Man (of which in those days there was one or more situated at every other street corner in London providing coal, fuel oil, paint, varnish, etc. Helpfully, we find that Pigot's Commercial Directory for 1836 has an entry for him: 'Wingfield, Daniel - Shopkeeper, 33 Ashley Crescent, nr City Saw Mills, City Road'. In Robson's Directory for 1838, he is still shown at this same address, now described as an Oil Man. The IGI shows a Daniel Wingfield of Shoreditch married 'about 1840' to a Martha; this could be the same man or a namesake son. By the 1841 Census however, a different Shopkeeper is now shown at No. 33. It thus appears that Wingfield was simply a local shopkeeper known by John Larner who lived around the corner from Cross Street and could provide the basic literacy and advice needed to advance his cause. Less likely but still possible, Wingfield could have originated in the same district as Larner (whether elsewhere in London or even in some other county) and thus account both for Larner moving to live near such a friend, and the latter's interest and knowledge about the claim.

       We may describe here another letter noted in the archived papers of the Carleton family of Norwich - dated 22 April 1841 - very near the time of the 1841 census just described. It was sent from London in reply to a letter from: 'Mr Carlton of St Giles Hill, Norwich' and signed 'Mary Larner'. It was addressed: "Dear Friend" and in it she expresses her satisfaction that he had met with a 'Mr Dix' - seemingly to sort out some problem regarding the ownership, sale or ?return of a Cart. She mentions a 'Mr Pearce' to whom she owed money as well as a 'Mr Holoway Jnr' and 'Mr Garlick' but the gist of the matter as expressed is very obscure. 'Mr Larner' is also referred to as was 'Mr Garlick' who was hoping to see a 'Mr Weston' about the opinion to be given by Counsel next Monday (ca April 27, say) and so learn what Orders Mr Weston (a magistrate?) will make. Mr Garlick "saw the writings" and has now 'more faith in the matter and in better spirits than ever before'. [A verbatim transcription of this letter will hopefully be placed in an Appendix.] One recalls that a descendent of the Larners remembers hearing that his gt grandmother went in a Cart to see the riot at the Hall in 1838. If others helping Larner went by that means too but they were later all taken to the prison, possibly the Cart was retained at the Hall and Mary was now still trying to regain legal possession of it ? It would have had a fairly significant value to her family.

       In any case, we may now consider the next Census - for 1851 - which should show the age and actual parish of birth for John Larner - and for his wife Mary. But sadly they were no longer in the same house on Cross Street nor even in that immediate district at this later date, so this avenue was blocked - for the time being at least - as far as learning any more about their respective origins. [This applies equally to the origin of his possible brother William who was also no longer in that same area by 1851 (usefully indexed by the East London Family History Society). He had either died or moved to another area.] We may recall however that in (just) one of the newspaper accounts about the 1838 siege, it was mentioned that besides many 'friends' helping him, there were several relatives as well. As the court cases and local papers listed all 80 odd of those involved and gave their parishes, we could see that none came from beyond south Norfolk (as from London, say). Who were these local 'relatives, therefore? There were a few Larners in Norfolk but not in the south of the county* and none named amongst the rioters were of that surname in any case. More likley, they would be 'in-laws' therefore - that is, relatives of Larner's wife Mary.

[*Note: Many years after this was written, one (only) Larner entry was in fact belatedly noted as then (1841) residing in the south of the county. It was a John Larner(!) but he was only 5+ years old - living with an older couple - William, 60+ and Hannah, 55+ 'Funn' in, of all places, the same Division of Wymondham (Silfield) as Stanfield Hall. The older couple's surname was however much more likely to be 'Bunn' (quite common in Norfolk). Thus, by 1851, there was no entry for a couple named 'Funn' but Hannah Bunn was still in Wymondham, but living now in the house of the young Solicitor J.S Cann on Market St(!?) Her husband William Bunn had died in 1843 and there was no longer any John Larner with her, who would then be about 16 or so, or elsewhere in the area. Who was he ? [This is addressed further below.]

      The usual indexes show no marriage locally (in Norfolk) for our John Larner - ca 1805-20. And why would he, a London man apparently, be in Norfolk so early in the century in nay case - to meet and marry such a rurally-based wife ? Or did she go to the London area then (but why?) and somehow meet Larner there ? This also seems fairly unlikely (at least based on the information we have at this point). And when the usual London area indexes were first examined, we again found no marriage in the relevant period between a John Larner and a Mary there (with or without a Norfolk name).

.

John Larner's Family.

       However, the more usual indexes did provide our next clues at least. For several interesting baptisms were found for issue born to John and Mary Larner on the City edge of east London. And we know that the couple concerned was indeed very likely the relevant one - as is revealed in the forenames of two of the following baptisms for them shown below:

Name                                    Date & Place Baptised                                    Date & Place Buried

    1.    Eliza Larner                          1 Mar 1812, All Hallows the Great                30 July 1812 (as Larmer), All Hallows
    2.    Charles Jermy Larner              8 Nov 1812, All Hallows the Great              23 Jan 1814 (as Larmar), All Hallows
    3.     James Larner                ;        30 Oct 1814, All Hallows the Great          17 June 1832, St Mary Lambeth, age 18.
    4.    Ann Eliza Larner                   19 Aug 1817, St Mary Somerset                            17 Jan 1819, St Mary Somerset

                             5.    Martha Susan Larner             17 Oct 1824, St Mary Lambeth
                             6.    George Larner                      18 July 1827, St Martin-in-the-Fields
                             7.    Mary Eliza Larner                    9 Oct 1829, St Mary Lambeth
                             8.    Mary Ann Larner                  20 June 1830, St Martin-in-the-Fields
                             9.    Thomas Jermy Larmar            2 Nov 1831, St Mary Lambeth
                           10.    John Alexander Larner          17 Aug 1834, St Mary Lambeth

       The inclusion of the middle name Jermy for two of the above sons (the first seemingly spelt as Jarmy in the register) certainly supports the view that this couple were indeed those later settled in the Hoxton area from at least 1838 and into the 1840s - with the John Larner concerned being the one who appeared at Stanfield Hall that year claiming the estate. The Thomas Jermy Larner born in 1831 would thus likely be the Thomas noted on Cross Street in 1841, aged 9. That Mary had another child, John, in 1834 - suggests that she was probably born nearer 1788 than 1785 and was likely about 44 or 45 that year at most. John Snr himself was probably just 2 or 3 years older and so born about 1786/87, say. But where, and who was his mother - seemingly born as a Miss 'Jermy' (or similar) - but to whom and where ? And where was youngest son John Larner (b 1834) in 1841 - when that Census shows only son Thomas at home with them, aged 9, on Cross Street ?

       The young John Larner, aged 5+ noted in Wymondham in 1841 living with the Bunns could well represent that latter son. We might assume that when his father was incarcerated in Norwich in early 1839, someone had arranged John's placement in the area so that Mary had less expense back in London. That someone might have been the Wymondham Solicitor J.S. Cann - to whose home John's now widowed foster mother Hannah would move after losing her husband William Bunn in 1843.

       We should note that all City churches were supposed to start new registers on 1 Jan 1813 - because the previous ones had (in general) been so badly kept. The first two baptisms above were ostensibly recorded in the last year of the old register but this appeared to be transcriptions, in a neat, orderly hand, taken from more temporary 'rough registers' (according to the Guildhall Library's 'Calendar of City Parishes'). This system of transcribing from earlier rough notes appears to have applied both before and after the 1 Jan 1813 'change over'. The rough registers, some of which survive in microfilm form, sometimes included other information not always fully transcribed into the final registers. I believe I examined these, where they existed, and combined any such information with that from the final transcribed version although may not have noted the actual years concerned - relying on the transcribed versions for same. Usefully, these provide the dates for both births and baptisms, as well as the names of witnesses, addresses of the parents, the fathers' occupations and the names of the often different Curate performing the ceremony.

      The apparent first-born, Eliza, was thus shown as born on 24 Feb 1812 and second-born Charles on 12 Oct that same year! That these first two children are shown as born (not baptised) only 7 months apart within the same year would seem to indicate transcription errors were indeed made between completing the rough and final registers - possibly complicated by the need to begin completely new registers on January 1st that year. For reasons that are elaborated later, it could be the case that certain events (baptisms and burials) shown as occuring in 1812 and 1813 actually transpired in 1813 and 1814. [These registers (as microfilms) are to be re-examined to determine if and where any such errors may have occurred.] John Larner was shown as a Brewery Porter living at 25 Dowgate Hill in 1813 (a street in the City still there today, just above the Thames and not that far from the Tower of London).

       If Mary was born about 1789 and John ca 1786/87, they may well have married around 1810 and have had a first born (?son) later that year or the next. One could reasonably suggest that such a first son would likely be called John, with only a second one named (rather unaccountably) as Charles or whatever. But where they married and had such a first born (if they did) we were initially unaware - possibly due to that very inadequacy in register-keeping around those years. [But we have more recently located a most probable marriage for them - in the very year suggested, and in Stepney, east London - not far from the area near the Tower. This marriage was later found to concern a John Larney, however (fittingly to a Mary Pearce), and his identity thus remains uncertain but compelling.] Such a first son likely died in infancy (not shown as baptised or buried in Stepney) as they would not (re-)use this namesake name (of John) for many years - until 1834. The choice of Charles is not immediately understandable however nor, at this point, is James (shown as born 1 Oct 1814). By 1817, the family lived a little further west - on Old Fish Street Hill in the parish of St Mary Somerset (below St Paul's Cathedral) when John was described as a Labourer. We might have expected another child born to them in the period 1820-25 (as a second Charles or even John, say?) but if so, his baptism wasn't at a church covered by the IGI. [A Charles Larner born about that time died in Shoreditch in 1860, shown as aged 36, a Policeman; his 1851 Census entry could be sought.]

       By 1826, they had moved further west again, and south (of the river) to Saville Place, just off Lambeth High Street, when John is still shown as a Labourer. They would have three other children while living at that address - between 1826 and 1834 - although they appear to have moved between there and St Martins near Charing Cross (north of the river again) two or three times during that period when John held various positions in two Breweries nearby. Thus, at the baptism of their son George Larner, they resided on Villiers Street just below the Strand near present day Charing Cross station. John was now listed as a Horsekeeper. Two years later, around 1828, they had return to Saville Place, Lambeth for the baptism of Mary Eliza, with John now an 'Intermediate Brewer'. They then re-appear across the river again - living on Castle Street (today Charing Cross Road) at the baptism of next child Mary Ann (Mary Eliza possibly dying in the interim) when John is shown as a 'Brewer' (possibly at Combe, Delafield & Co - Porter Brewers of Castle Street). Thomas Jermy Larner was born next (1831), back in Lambeth, with John again listed as an 'Intermediate Brewer' of Saville Place. And finally, still in Lambeth, they have their last child - John Alexander Larner in August 1834, when John is again shown as a 'Brewer'. (Because of the unusual middle name, this entry was twice re-checked on the actual register; it was indeed Alexander. It may be mentioned here that just the month before, a Charles Larner was born 20 July 1834 to an Alexander Charles Larner and baptised (8 August) in Woolwich. Might the latter man be a younger brother of John Larner - born ca 1800-05 - and so account for this unexpected naming of John's last son - and both possibly reflecting the surname of an earlier employer of the Larners (as suggested by BL)?

-- -- -- -- -- --

       It would appear that John and family then moved northward to the City Saw Mills area of Shoreditch, in north-central London, within the next 2 or 3 years (about 1836) - possibly because he obtained a job as a Baker in that area (or was his brother William already there - as a Greengrocer ?). Soon after this, he then appears with his near neighbour Daniel Wingfield at the auction in Wymondham, Norfolk - in June 1838. We must presume that because of the earlier claims (ca ?1815) made by his family in that same matter (as indicated by Thomas Garlick), Larner must already have been in contact with someone in Norfolk who informed him (via a literate intermediary) of that upcoming auction - as advertised in the Norwich papers earlier in June. This could have been some solicitor (as Mr Francis of Norwich) or just one of his apparent in-laws who resided in the general area. After their consequent activities there that summer and their subsequent spell in prison in 1839, they return to Shoreditch and, one might reasonably presume, never to be heard of again. We may nevertheless still ask: 'On what was the claim by this London-domiciled family (ca 1810-1840+) possibly based' ? And where were they really from (if not from London as indicated by the 1841 Census) ?

.

On the Origin of John Larner and his Claim - 1.

       So, we now have a picture of John Larner (of whom we have asked: 'who was he?') as someone employed as a Labourer and Brewery Worker living for some decades in crowded Thames-side parishes of pre-Victorian London. He was already married and having issue regularly between about 1812/13 and 1834, with his wife Mary - as they moved gradually westward from the more eastern part of the City of London (or even from Stepney in east London itself) - towards Westminster and Lambeth. [Note: John appears to have been in the Militia prior to 1812 which could account for his initial presence in or near east London at that time; there were Militia barracks within the Tower of London and Militiamen with wives were allowed to live in lodgings nearby, as in Stepney, etc (see later).] By the late 1830s, as Victoria ascended the throne, they'd settled further north near Regent Canal in Shoreditch - an area that was still lower working class. He was illiterate but had gained the support of a local shopkeeper to help argue his case which we understand (from Garlick) he would have learned about from his mother and uncle (neither yet identified by name) earlier that century, one or both having apparently lived somewhere in 'the west of England' - although just where and for how long we were still unaware. They were probably now, by the mid-1830s, both dead. [Yes; this at least later confirmed; see later.]

    We also don't know when, where and to whom John Larner married (other than to a 'Mary') - probably around 1810 (when our later information regarding such a marriage would, appropriately, place them slightly further east in London and thus prove consistent with their gradual move westward from there, over the following 20 year period). We do know that he had relatives in south Norfolk and if these were, as suspected, 'in-laws' (there were, as far as we know, no relevant Larner or 'Jermy' relations in Norfolk helping him in 1838), they could well have been his wife Mary's people - still of unknown surname. However, as we would normally assume until shown otherwise that his claimed descent would be from the landed Jermy family - presumably of Norfolk ultimately (despite having had an uncle who was alleged to have lived, possibly for a time only(?), somewhere in 'the west country' - decades earlier), we would quite reasonably assume that his own blood relations would, ultimately, be of some local Norfolk family - if some time in the past. Indeed, how else would he have come to meet and marry a local Norfolk girl around 1810 (as it appears he did), or claim descent from the Jermy family of that county ?

       Finally, and crucially, we know that John Larner included the name Jermy as a middle name for at least two of his sons. He did this not that long after Rev George Preston had done the very same thing (and his son in turn would do shortly after). It seems most unlikely however that Larner would have known about these latter name choices by the Prestons - whether through examining church registers or otherwise. He must have felt it important, quite independently, to commemorate his own 'Jermy' roots in his children's names - from ca 1812 - quite likely because he was convinced either by his wife and/or by his mother and uncle about this. Did this imply that they were, somehow, also aware of the contents of William's Will from about that time (ca 1810-12), and possibly earlier - as was Rev George Preston apparently ? Larner's friend Thomas Garlick was (if later) clearly familiar with the Will also. Indeed, it would require someone like that - an intelligent and literate man - in order to become aware of such a document and the significance of its contents. How and when did this first come about we may ask ? By about 1815-20 or so, we would assume. But where and why ?

       The foregoing on its own thus provides no clues that can help us (or the then contemporay public) to discover if and how the John Larner of London as then traced in the public records and newspaper accounts, from about 1812 to 1841, say, may have had any legitimate claim on the Jermy estate in Norfolk. The specific rationale of that claim (at this point) thus remained a complete mystery. If we were alive at the time, we would however eventually acquire some useful additional clues - but not until near the end of that next decade of the 1840s. For the matter wasn't, after all, going to just fade away for eternity as suggested. Some of these clues began to emerge from about 1847 onwards, but would not enter the public domain (and so available to 'us', the public) until after the significant night of November 28, 1848. Again, it would be the subsequent newspaper reports - this time both local and national - from which such information would finally come into public view and, after that, from books written over ensuing years about these same remarkable events, often adding further clues about the earlier events of 1838 as well, not always made explicit at that time. For, on the evening in question, both Isaac Preston of Stanfield Hall, Esq and his son of the same name (whose surnames had, as described, been cynically changed 10 years earlier...to 'Jermy'), were murdered - in the front porch and hall of their controversial Norfolk Hall!

.

The Murders at Stanfield Hall - November 1848.

       Isaac and his son were murdered by his bailiff and agent James Blomfield Rush whom we first became aware of 10 years earlier when Larner was seeking to occupy the Hall. This man, born in late Dec 1799 or early Jan 1800 in nearby Tacolneston to an unwed Mary Bloomfield, daughter of a tenant farmer/miller/baker James Bloomfield, was brought up by her and her eventual husband John Rush, another local farmer, whose surname he soon took. (James' putative father, the son of a gentleman farmer resident in another local Hall, rented from the knighted Boileau family, allegedly promised marriage but failed to honor this, was taken to court and found guilty. By 1840, that Hall was occupied by one Thomas Howes, a possible half-brother to James?)

     From his late teens, James was engaged in farming himself and, like his step-father, was eventually a tenant of the Rev George Preston of a farm some distance north - at Felmingham (ironically, an ancient Jermy possession). This tenancy would in fact account for the tragic linkage between the two families. Later, James acquired the farm next to Stanfield Hall called Potash farm with money advanced by George's barrister son Isaac Preston, about the time of the 1838 events. Rush also farmed the home farm of Stanfield Hall itself. He was married and had several children. In the early 1830s, Rush was fined for arson and damaging farm machinery owned by Sir Jacob Astley when he farmed in Wood Dalling, north-west of Aylsham.(*) And during the 1840s, his father, mother and wife had all died, at least two and possibly all three in suspicious circumstances, with James benefiting financially but avoiding any proven charges. He had also been found guilty of several breach of promise actions before his eventual marriage. He later took on the services of a 'secretary' and managed to seduce her as well, with similar promises. There is little doubt that today he would be classed as a conscience-free, self-justifying psychopath.

      (*) In 'the reminiscences of Lady Dorothy Neville' (edited by her son Ralph Neville), she recalls a visit by Isaac Preston to her father at their home (in Smallburgh or Sloley) in this same district - shortly after Isaac had changed his name to 'Jermy' (ie ca 1839); it was only some years later when she read about his murder by Rush that she realised that she and her sister used to drive in their pony cart past Rush's house in their very village (ca 1830s) and often stop there for a present of sweets. She remembered Rush perfectly - as "a somewhat common but good-natured sort of man". [This snippet from BL] This was likely a year or more after his difficulties with Sir Jacob Astley nearby.

       Rush's considerable debts to Isaac Preston were due for re-payment in late 1848, about the time of the murders and so, after forging a number of bogus agreements and bills of sale that summer, he encouraged Larner and a cousin of his (about whom he would have first learned when re-making contact with Larner in about 1847/48 we may assume) to come up to Norfolk that autumn (knowing from the 1838 events of at least Larner's interest and sense of injustice) in order that they be seen to be interested in their (now jointly) claimed lands again. [We may assume that in the interval between the siege and the murders Larner became aware (if he wasn't already) that this cousin had precedence in the claim on the estate.] Rush then put on an unconvincing disguise that November evening, dropped some notes in Stanfield's grounds allegedly written and signed by that cousin demanding his property back (designed to throw suspicion onto him; however, that cousin it was later revealed, was actually illiterate and couldn't have written or signed such notes), and then shot the two Prestons (now called Jermy) with a shot gun at close range in the Hall's dark porch and outer hall when they came out to investigate the earlier shots.

       A trial ensued and Rush was found guilty of the murders (followed avidly in the national press) and sentenced to be hung at Norwich prison, which he was, in April 1849. The younger Preston had died minutes after his father and thus in law inherited the estate briefly which on his death moments later, then passed almost immediately to his infant daughter who eventually took it in marriage to another family of Norfolk gentry, the Gwyns. After including the name Jermy when naming several of their sons and grandsons (as insurance?) the estate was eventually sold by the Gwyns piecemeal by the 1930s. But earlier, in the Norfolk Chronicle of 21 Apr 1849, a short piece appeared which stated that"...in the past few days, a new claimant has sprung up - a man named Godfrey living in Gt Yarmouth - who has written to Mr J S Cann (Wymondham solicitor) asserting that he is the true heir of the Stanfield estate and intends employing Mr Cann to recover the property...". More on this unusual story will hopefully appear in another section of this website (one day).

       From the newspaper accounts of the murders and associated events of 1848 and '49, and the later books written about it, we also learn more of the background of both John Larner and now this cousin - who is finally revealed (in the newspaper accounts of the 1848 murders) as one 'Thomas Jermy' - (never mentioned previously - when Larner initially indicated he was the sole claimant) - as they became unwitting pawns in Rush's schemes before the murders. From this new background material, we may possibly gain more insight into the basis of Larner's earlier claims on the estate (and now of Thomas Jermy's apparent joint claim) via the alleged but unexplained link with the Yarmouth/Gunton Jermys. This is our primary interest although one could expand upon the preceding, highly-condensed paragraphs about the colourful murder aspects per se almost ad infinitum (as many have in fact already done), but we shall resist this. It isn't that germane to our quest. We could just mention that the local papers at the time described Recorder Isaac Preston/Jermy as brusque in manner and while not overly capable as a judge, was thought to be an honourable and methodical man. [Lady Neville had found him 'a most pleasant companion'.]

       One of the post-murder sources mentioned that at the time of the murders (late 1848), John Larner now lived on Ashley Terrace in the Hoxton area of Shoreditch. This was in the same basic district in which he had lived (on Cross Street) around 1838-41. Before locating him on that latter street, in that Census year, I had come across this nearby small street and while there was no Larner family listed there, I did note that one of the families then living there had a surname that seemed vaguely familiar, but not enough to consider further at the time. This time, I checked this street for the 1851 Census for the Larner family and noted that, while John Larner and family may well have resided there just two or three years before, he again wasn't there for that next Census. Quite maddening. But the family I'd vaguely recalled living there in 1841, was still there, but this time I'd recalled why the name seemed familiar. I show the entries for this family below - firstly for 1841, followed by that for 1851:

.

The Pearce Family

No. 18 Ashley Terrace (Hoxton)    -    1841 Census

Name                 Status               Age             Occupation       Born Middx?

James Pearce             Head                47                      Baker                    No
Rachel Pearce           wife                   40                          -                       No
Caroline    "               dau                    8                                                   No
James     "                 son                    6                                                   No
Henry     "                   son                    2 mos                                        * 'No'

Mary Pearce               Visitor                50+                      Indep.                No
Mary Roberts              Visitor                50+                      Indep.                 No

__________________________________________________________________________________________

(* This should have shown Yes; Henry was baptised 30 May 1841 at St John the Baptist, Shoreditch - just 2 weeks before the Census)

No. 18 Ashley Terrace (Hoxton)    -    1851 Census

Name                       Status                    Age                 Occupation                 Place of Birth

James Pearce                 Head                      57                   Baker              Swainsthorpe, Norfolk
Rachel Pearce                 wife                        50                    -               Stratton St Michael, Norfolk
Caroline    "                   dau                       17                                                 Lambeth, Surrey
James     "                      son                       15                                  Stoke (Holy Cross), Norfolk

...........Aldis                     servant                                                             Stratton St Michael, Norfolk
..........Bertram                   servant                                                                        Dickleburgh, Norfolk

Pamela Browse              visitor                                                                          Norwich, Norfolk __________________________________________________________________________________________

       The surname Pearce had been noted in the Norwich papers at the time of the 1838 riots - there being 6 of this one surname amongst the 80-odd 'friends and relations' aiding Larner, more than any other, and including a James Pearce. The 1851 Census further pointed to this being a family known by Larner when we note that James Pearce was born in Swainsthorpe, Norfolk, as had been one of the Pearces arrested with Larner in 1838. Others came from neighbouring Stoke Holy Cross where the younger James Pearce was born - in 1835 - although actually baptised in Swainsthorpe church that year. (Robert Pearce, one of the main rioters, was shown in White's 'Norfolk' for 1845 as living in Stoke Holy Cross, being the publican there at 'The Lion', as well as the village Blacksmith.) And, most significantly, James' daughter Caroline was seemingly born two years earlier - in 1833 or '34 - but in Lambeth in London - as had been John Larner's last born! The two families clearly both resided there at that time. They appear to have left there for Hoxton around 1836, with Rachel possibly going home to Norfolk to have James.

      The two families would therefore seem to have lived together or very near one another in two or more areas in London for almost 20 years - from about 1830 until 1849 or so. It was later found that James and Rachel Pearce had a daughter Rachel Ann and their son James baptised on 20 June 1830 at St Martin-in-the-Fields. This was the very day that John Larner's daughter Mary Ann was also baptised in that same church. Both families are shown as then living on Castle Street in that parish. And then we find that James and Rachel had another Rachel - as Rachel Caroline (later known as Caroline Rachel apparently) baptised 19 May 1833 at St Mary's, Lambeth, the mother shown as Rachel Ann Pearce. (They'd had an even earlier Rachel baptised in Stoke Holy Cross in 1827, who died in infancy.) We may recall that Larner's last-born son John Alexander was also baptised in that same Lambeth church - in 1834.

       One's next port of call was thus to check the baptism register for Swainsthorpe, Norfolk and nearby. It strongly appeared that the common link between Larner and the Pearces was Larner's wife Mary. Was she born Mary Pearce - and thus a sister to such as Robert and James Pearce of Swainsthorpe? The following was found:

From the Parish Register    -    Swainsthorpe, Norfolk    -    born to William Pearce and wife Mary (nee Browse):

Name                                       Date of baptism

1. William Pearce                                2 Aug 1778
2. Ann Pearce                                  5 Mar 1780
3. John Pearce                                 12 Mar 1783
4. Susanna Pearce                              30 Jan 1785
5. Martha Pearce                               11 Feb 1787
6. Mary Pearce                                11 Apr 1790
7. (Robert Pearce)                                (ca 1793)
8. Richard Pearce                              12 Feb 1795
9. James Pearce                                5 Aug 1798
10. Charles Pearce                               12 Apr 1801

_________________________________________________________

       (I was surprised not to find a Robert Pearce born to this family and baptised in Swainsthorpe. However, there was a 'slot' available for such a birth ca 1792-94 and a later search of the 1851 Census for Stoke Holy Cross showed that the Robert Pearce, Blacksmith, living there then, aged 57, was born in Swainsthorpe - in about 1793, as estimated; significantly, William Snr and Mary were the only Pearces having issue there at that time. This Robert was the elder of the two Robert Pearces assisting Larner in 1838. The younger one, also a blacksmith, was his son, born in 1816. William, John, James and Richard Pearce were others of the family involved. It may be noted that both Robert and James give their ages in 1851 as '57'. Were they twins, one of whose baptism was delayed for some time - if one or other had been in difficulties at birth? And would this relate to Robert's missing baptism - he or both placed with relatives in a nearby village for a time if their mother had post-partum problems?)

[Note: I have gratefully heard (2013) from an Australian descendent of Robert Pearce (by way of Robert's son Joshua) - one Jan Wooder of Brisbane - who has also concluded that Robert must have been born in mid-1793 in Swainsethorpe - to William and Mary Pearce. For Robert gave such information himself in various documents examined and also showed his father's name as William Pearce when he married secondly in 1860.]

       Of greater interest in our present search however is the presence in this family of a Mary Pearce, baptised in early 1790 (and conceivably born late in 1789, as estimated above). She would appear to be the perfect answer to our quest for the wife of John Larner - whom she may well have married around 1810 as suggested - and accounted for them later living in London with or near her brother James Pearce's family. While the various inter-related relatives who assisted Larner in 1838 (with surnames like Pearce, Wright, Browse, Roberts, Aldred, etc) were found to have married over the preceding decades in several villages of the area, there appears to be no such local union recorded in respect of John Larner and Mary Pearce.

       On the face of it, this might seem surprising. After all, our understanding was that John's mother was of a Norfolk-derived Jermy family herself and there were Larners in Norfolk as well (although not many and none seemingly in the south of the county, where the Pearces lived. There was even a later Jeremiah Jermy in Norwich whose unusual name recalled that of John Jermy of Yarmouth's elder brother. Might Larner's mother (still of unknown Christian name) have been born to some unknown rural offshoot of such a man or even of John Jermy himself - settled near Swainsthorpe or nearby, say - where she met and married the son of a local Larner family ca 1810?

       But there is no known baptism or subsequent marriage in that area for those of either of these names! And how did they come to settle in London so early (1810-12, say) ? Or had Mary gone herself to London earlier - to find work as a servant, (ca 1808) - and meet John there ? After all, his 1841 Census showed him to be in born in Middlesex around 1787 and so our idea of Mary marrying a local Norfolk Larner is to that extent further unsupported (assuming the validity of the 1841 enumerator's 'Y's (for Yes) when he asked if the person was born in the same county then resided in). And a London locale for John and even his Jermy mother earlier at least proves consistent with what was now to be described about his Jermy cousin Thomas (see below) - said also to be 'of London' - where latterly he was a Gardener of Tooting (in south London). But then we recall that Larner's uncle at least (seemingly his mother's brother and so quite possibly the said Thomas's father), had resided - around the turn of the century seemingly - ie 'in the west of England'. But for how long? Was he born in that distant region or had he too lived in London and simply gone there for a temporary period in the 1790s ? Was the family not settled (after Norfolk) essentially in London throughout the 19th century, therefore, as certainly appeared the case on most of the evidence then before us ?

       We should comment here on the presence in the Pearce household in Hoxton of a Mary Pearce, aged 50+. Could this not be James Pearce's sister Mary whom we assumed had became John Larner's wife (living just around the corner that year (1841) many years before? This proved a worry until I learned from a descendent of the Pearces (a Mr Smith) that Richard Pearce, James' brother, had married a Mary Dye (born 1791) who was a nurse who often visited her brother-in-law James in London (ie as Mrs Mary Pearce) - possibly to help Rachel with childbirth. Moreover, that couple (Richard and Mary) had a daughter Lydia (my correspondent's gt gt grandmother) who used to refer to her 'Uncle Larner' to whom she was taken to visit in London as a girl (he being her Aunt Mary (nee Pearce)'s husband) - ie John Larner.

.

On the Origin of John Larner and his Claim - 2.

       It would clearly help us if we could find the 1851 Census entry for John Larner and wife Mary. In one fell swoop it should give us his place of birth and so we could seek evidence there about his 'Jermy' mother and uncle (and likely about any other claimant(s) as well), and it would further confirm our ideas about Mary's origins also. Well, a beginning in this quest was made when I sought and found John's death certificate. He died on 7 Sept 1870 when living not that far from his former Hoxton area - on a street in Islington called Britannia Row. His age was given as a remarkable 85 (possibly an estimate), pointing to a birth around 1785-87, say, as previously concluded. Sadly, his death that year meant that he would not be entered in the very near Census of March 1871 at that address (and thereby learn his birth place). So I first checked for the 1861 Census of almost 10 years earlier - on the basis that he may well have already lived there those few years before. And he was - at No. 48 Britannia Row. The entry read as follows:

48 Brittania Row, Islington    -     1861 Census

Name               Status               Age               Occupation               Place of Birth

John Larner          Head                 74                     Baker                 Ringwood, Hants
Elizabeth Larner         wife               61                                                               Norfolk

Eliza Longhurst          Lodger          40    (unmarried)                                         Islington

                                                        (There were two other families living in the house: Phipps and Farnant)

              Next door, lived a Master Baker - William Rudd who came from near Ipswich - for whom John may well have worked.

       John's death certificate of 1870 would also described him as a Baker; the informant being an Elizabeth Larner. Seemingly his first wife Mary had died some years before. Her death certificate was thus sought and she was indeed found to have already died - on 7 Dec 1847 - as Mary Larner, wife of John Larner, Baker, when either residing or visiting someone at 3 Waterloo Street, near City Road in St Luke's (Shoreditch). Her age was given as 56 by the informant - one Elizabeth Wilson (or ?Nelson), also of 3 Waterloo Street - and thus Mary was born about 1790, as earlier estimated. Sadly, this early death meant that she wouldn't be found in any Census for 1851, when her place of birth could usefully have been confirmed. [BL later noted a marriage between John Larner and an Elizabeth Nelson at St Leonards, Shoreditch on 11 August 1856. Reference may be made to the fact that Larner's new 'wife' (presumably this Elizabeth) asked Read as early as Oct 1848 not to let Larner know (eg via Rush) that his son (either Thomas or John Jnr) came home from Norfolk quite ill; if they hadn't yet married, it was likely assumed by their friends that they had.

       The 1871 Census for the Britannia Row house finds John's widow still there with her place of birth shown as Reepham, Norfolk ca 1798 (surname Rudd apparently). A daughter Emily 'Larner', shown as aged 16, born Islington, is also present. If that age was correct, she would have been born (locally) about 1855. However, she was not listed as part of the Larner household on Britannia Row at the previous (1861) census year, when she'd have been aged just 6. But, wherever Emily was that night, Elizabeth would have been too old (at 57 in 1855) to be her natural mother. However, BL notes that an Emily Nelson was born to an Elizabeth Nelson (no father listed) and baptised rather earlier - in St George in the East, Stepney - on 11 Apr 1849 - making her nearer 22 in 1871 than 16 (possibly as estimate) if this was the same girl. And If actually born a year or two earlier, Elizabeth could be her natural mother. She appears to have married a Mr ?Nelson in 1825 (source?) and was quite possibly the informant at the death of Mary in 1847 - as Elizabeth Nelson (rather that Wilson). By 1881, Elizabeth (as Mary Eliza??) is an inmate of a Battersea Workhouse, aged 83 - born 'Ruffham', Norfolk - dying there in 1886. Where was Emily ?]

       But more to the point, we now have a place of birth listed for John Larner homself. That it wasn't after all in Middlesex suggests that the enumerator for Cross Street in 1841 was probably rather slipshod; it was noticed at the time that he used the abbreviation 'Y' (for Yes) in the column regarding whether or not one was born in the present county of residence (ie Middx) almost exclusively, whereas most other enumerators in that same general area showed, more realistically, a great many individuals as born elsewhere - signified by ample use of the abbreviation 'N', for No. [This could imply that his then neighbour, the Greengrocer William Larner, a probable brother born about 1797, was likely also not correctly shown with a 'Y' - as'born in Middx'; his place of birth as shown for him in the 1851 Census, if ever found, could to this extent prove useful as confirmation.] And we may note that Ringwood in Hampshire may be included in an arc that is just about 155 miles from Stanfield Hall (maybe a bit more), which runs from there north and west through Wiltshire and Gloucestershire. It could just about be described as somewhere 'in the west of England' (although rather a little too far south to south-west maybe).

However, when we check the Ringwood parish register (and those for all parishes nearby) for the period 1750 to 1800, we find a complete absence of any entries for the surnames Larner or Jermy (however spelt). This was most disheartening. All one could imagine was that possibly John Larner's father was in the Militia or some Army regiment who passed through this area, with his wife travelling as many did with the regiment, and she happened to give birth there (as a one off), but had her son baptised elsewhere (almost anywhere), some time later. We see that the 1861 Census gives John's age then as 74, and so his age at death in 1870 was nearer 83 rather than 85 - indicating a birth year of about 1787 - near enough to our earlier estimates.

       It was felt that it would be useful if we could at least confirm this place and year of birth by finding John's earlier, 1851 Census entry as well (and that of his possible brother William) which had eluded us when first sought in the Saw Mills area. Did he already live at 48 Brittania Row 10 years before the 1861 Census ? This was soon checked but sadly no Larner household was found at or near that same address then. Nor was there any in or near the Waterloo Street or Ashley Terrace areas in 1851. [Note that when these searches were first done, there was not the fuller index coverage of all Censuses as there is today.] In the meantime, one could at least consider any further information arising from the coverage of the 1848 murders in Norfolk and/or from any later sources addressing the issue of the origin of Larner and/or his cousin Thomas Jermy and their mysterious claim (and that of Larner's unnamed mother and uncle some years earlier).

       Thus, the Norfolk Chronicle of Apr 21 1849 included the following: "It is alleged by friends of Thomas Jermy and John Larner, the claimants to the property, that James Jermy, Larner's uncle [and hence possibly Thomas's father(?), or uncle(?), also], then living in the west of England in indigent circumstances, was (ie had been) the rightful heir to the estate" [ie in 1791]. It goes on to explain that when he eventually learnt that Rev George Preston had, in 1796, inherited the estate from the wrongful usurper, this James, or possibly his son of this same name, sought to have him ejected on several occasions (ca 1810-15 seemingly) - that is, up to within two years of his own death (in 1817), but had not the funds to see such actions through the courts. [Interestingly, it was in that same latter year that Jonathan Jermy's action with respect to Batfield was first brought.] They were then re-commenced by Larner as of 1838, just after Rev Preston's death [and possibly from ca 1835, before his death; see other reference - to a Mr Henry Francis, solicitor in Norwich - being consulted by John Larner about then.]

       Another useful source of information based on many sources and the trial itself relating to events both before and after the murders is found in a book entitled 'The Trial of J. Blomfield Rush' - edited by W. Teignmouth Shore in the Notable British Trial Series (1928: William Hodge & Co. Ltd., Edinburgh and London) - a grateful gift from Stewart Valdar. In this, it is pointed out that Rush was Isaac Preston's tenant in the three farms at Potash, Stanfield and Felmingham and that by the mid 1840s he was in arrears on the rent due on them all, as well as on a mortgage pertaining to Potash farm. By October 1847, he was living at the farm house of Stanfield Hall farm but was ejected from this due to his rent arrears so went to live at Potash which he was ostensibly buying with money borrowed from his landlord Isaac Preston. He was also in arrears for Felminham and at the Lent assizes of 1848 at Norwich, Isaac brought an action against Rush for breach of contract in respect of all three farms. Preston won this action which apparently sent Rush into a fury and in response he quickly published a lengthy two-part pamphlet by late April that spring entitled: 'Report and Comments on a Trial at Norwich Assizes of March 1848 for Breaches of Covenant said to be committed by J.B. Rush... and...A 'Case': - Jermy v. Jermy or 'Who is the Rightful Owner of Stanfield Hall and the Felmingham estates?'.

       Shore points out that despite the rancorous tone of much of this pamphlet, Preston surprisingly did not take any further action against Rush after its publication. Rush quotes one passage thus: "This fellow 'Jermy' (ie Isaac Preston) has no right to the Stanfield property; he knows it and he knows that I know is as well. His whole conduct in keeping possession and taking the name of 'Jermy', and his behaviour to those poor people who have a right to it has been most villainous and disgraceful for any man who can have any pretension to respectability, and which I should be most happy to prove when called on to do so. [Note: the 'poor people' referred to (my italics) would appear to be the first reference in the public domain (6 months before the report of the murders, etc) to any claimants beyond Larner himself (thus implying someone such as Thomas Jermy, although still not so named at that point.] All of this need never have been brought to light, says Rush, "...if this fellow had only acted with common honesty - for I should not have taken the trouble to have gone over the multiplicity of papers that have been put in my hands on this subject. But I have now done so and [later in the present pamphlet, have drawn up a 'Case'] so as to show who is the real owner of the Stanfield estate, and the means by which this fellow (Preston) has taken to keep him out of possession." He then suggests that as that real owner (still not specified, if it was someone beyond John Larner) has not the financial means to bring the case to court, he hopes someone will come forward and take the case up. Shortly after, on 28 April, Rush wrote from London to his son James in Norfolk saying "I have at last got 'Jermy' (ie Preston) in a fix and the rogue and villain knows it as well. ...He knows if he ruins me, I can him...".

       The 'Case' drawn up by Rush would strongly appear to have been prepared for him by someone of legal training although that person is not identified. It covers a wealth of material in great detail and one suspects that it was being prepared some time during 1847 before the early Assizes of 1848 or the murders of Nov 1848. A key element in it is the revelation that it was only through the publication in the London Gazette on 7 Sept 1838 of the basis on which Isaac Preston claimed the right to change his name to Jermy, that any such lawyer acting on behalf of the real owner(s) of the estate was able to discover the underlying facts of how the Prestons fraudulently acquired the estate, including two pamphlets arising in connection with earlier actions taken against Isaac's grandfather, also an Isaac Preston, in 1758. Amazingly, these were said to be a part of William Jermy's library being auction at Stanfield hall in June 1838. Who would have placed them therein - presumably during the period 1760 to 1800, say ? And were they read by those examining the library the day or morning before the auction ? In any case, it was thus claimed that no Statute of Limitations could apply while any fraud pertaining to a relevant Will remained concealed; such a period (typically 20 years) could only apply as from June 1838 therefore - when the fraud was thus discovered - quoting the relevant Act of III-IV William IV (Sections 3 and 20). To quote the 'Case' in Rush's pamphlet:

    "These two 'books' gave the claimant the first hints of this curious and concealed fraud; for, on the 7th Sept 1838, a notice appeared in the 'London Gazette' by Royal authority for Isaac Preston to use, assume and bear the name and Arms of Jermy in lieu of Preston; and in consequence of that notice, a copy of the petition and Royal warrant was obtained from the Herald's Office in London [the year this was obtained is not stated; it could have been some years after 1838]; and if it had not been for the said petition to her Majesty, it would have been impossible for the claimant or any person on his behalf [as Larner or Garlick?] to have traced out or discovered by any means or diligence how or in what way or manner, or under what title and authority, the Prestons first obtained possession of the estates under the Will of the said testator, William Jermy. After a great deal of trouble, anxiety, researches and expense, the two deeds of transfer of that estate, dated 1754 - from Francis and John Jermy (if and when one or other became entitled to same) to the earlier Isaac Preston, were discovered (probably in the mid-1840s), as well as the pamphlets ('Books') referred to, all of which, it is assumed, decidedly establishes the concealed fraud and conspiracy; and therefore, if the statute could run at all, it could only commence from the year 1838."

      Hence the Statute of Limitations could not be applied, stated Rush (or his lawyer) "...against the party now claiming - viz: Thomas Jermy.." - he now being the male {assumed to be] nearest to William Jermy in blood with the name Jermy [ie as of ca 1838-48] - that is, the proper 'remainder man', as per the last limitation of William's Will - this person having formerly been his uncle James Jermy, from 1791 to 1817 (when he died), with possibly one or two others during the 1820s/30s, if any intermediaries had also died by then. We may note that at the time of the 1838 events by Larner, there had been no reference anywhere to the claim or rights of any particular named Jermy (as Thomas), or of anyone else, to the estate other than John Larner. This information concerning other (Jermy) members of Larner's family of relevance to the claim only entered the public domain by about the summer of 1848, via Rush's two-part pamphlet. Quite conceivably, Garlick or any solicitor he and Larner retained, would have gone into Larner's claim - by seeking out evidence and by interviews with relevant persons (around 1845-47, say), and thereby determined that Thomas Jermy, then of Tooting, was apparently the senior heir-at-law of his uncle and thus the proper claimant and'remainder man' - as well as learning more of the background than Larner had revealed.

       Thus, in a section of his 'Case' entitled 'Further Queries for Counsel', Rush suggests two relevant questions be addressed by any such Counsel (out of several others he lists) which are of more concern to us - namely: 'Whether James Jermy [Jnr] (through whom his cousin [ie Thomas Jermy] now claims, having broughtan action of ejectment against Rev George Preston just after the passing of the Statute of Limitations of the 4th of William III, c. 27 was not entitled to 5 further years according to section 15 of that Act ...?" and: "Whether the evidence of Mr Larner would be admissible in this case - viz: that he has frequently heard the youngest daughter of John Jermy, viz - Dinah, and other members of the family, say on various occasions that John Jermy, their grandfather, could not read and write?". This pertained to the fact that Isaac's grandfather, allegedly having purchased the latter John Jermy's rights to the estate for a mere £20, had concealed the purported indenture of that sale (with that man's signature allegedly affixed thereto), in a sworn answer to the Bill brought in 1758 by Mr and Mrs Michell - thus supporting the implication arising from Larner's evidence that the sale document was a corrupt forgery (ie John Jermy could never have signed it) - and was concealed for that reason. The period of the Statute shouldn't have commenced therefore until this concealment was recently revealed.

     Oddly, the place of origin of neither John Jermy (the father or grandfather) - ie Gt Yarmouth possibly - is ever mentioned in any published documents at the time. Seemingly, only those familiar with the Will would know this (and maybe not even then). The 'Case' also asks counsel "whether the pedigree of the claimant is fully made out and established". One would presume that this point wouldn't have been put, seemingly with confidence, had those promoting the Case not known that such a pedigree did indeed exist and had been so made out and established. How we would love to examine the portion of same that covers the assumed marriage and offspring of the younger John Jermy of Yarmouth (if it indeed did)! [Why was this crucial element not elaborated as part of 'the Case' ??] Significantly, the Case also asks counsel to enquire whether the alleged purchases (for just £20) by Isaac Preston in 1754 from either Francis or John Jermy should not be set aside (assuming they were ever legally made or signed) on the ground that in any case - they had no power vested in themselves to agree to such a Sale (ie on behalf of those descendents (as James or Thomas) who may well have fulfilled the definition of bring the alleged remainder man some uncertain time in the future)?

.

A Perspective on John Larner's Antecedents

       It would seem from the foregoing (which we, the public, would only become fully aware of after such information was eventually published in accounts of the murders, trial and their antecedents) that a John Jermy (of somewhere) had, allegedly, a son of that same forename who, in turn, had amongst others a daughter Dinah and a son James 'Jermy' Snr as revealed in the Norfolk Chronicle of Apr 1849. He was the father of the James Jermy Jnr, Thomas's cousin, who had apparently sought to bring actions of ejectment against Rev George Preston, but a little too late - ie presumably after more than 20 years from when (in 1791) his father James Snr allegedly first became entitled. But the phrase used to describe this is so ambiguous as to lend itself to several interpretations. As generally understood, the claimant should have made his claim before 1812 - but given the extra 5 years, it might have been successful up to 1817, say - given acceptance of a retrospective interpretation of an Act of a Statute of Limitations apparently passed some years later (ca 1833). Thus, he may have sought to do so around 1815 at the earliest but couldn't see it through before he died in 1817. We may leave it for now and focus on the fact that we have at least learned some relevant names - if not their exact ages or abodes.

       If John Larner heard Dinah speak about her 'grandfather John Jermy', we may now reasonably ask whether she may have been John Larner's mother - born Dinah 'Jermy' (or similar) - who had married his father, a Mr Larner of unknown forename? If so, then it meant that Thomas Jermy was born to one of Dinah's brothers - as was the above James Jnr (he to the eldest brother, James Snr). However, this younger James was himself described as a cousin (not the brother) of Thomas and thus Thomas would not be a son of James Snr but of one of his younger brothers). Thomas and James Jnr were thus Dinah's nephews and her presumed son John's first cousins (from different uncles). The father of Dinah and of her brothers, including James Snr, would thus be the assumed John Jermy (or similar) described as son of an elder John Jermy - of un certain origin (as far as the local Norfolk papers or 'the Case' as read by the general public was concerned). He would be their illiterate grandfather, as so described, and thus the great-grandfather of both Thomas Jermy and John Larner - not their 'grandfather' as often erroneously assumed and described. We may now construct a draft pedigree to represent these apparent but still largely unverified relationships:

       We may recall that at the time of the events of 1838, John Larner claimed through his uncle (apparently his mother's eldest brother - whose name we did not then know) who was assumed to be a grandson of an elder John Jermy of Norfolk (born in the 1690s) - and thus a son of that man's assumed son, also a John Jermy (or similar) - presumably born in Norfolk also - in about 1715. This uncle (now assumed to be James Snr) would be about 50 or so in 1791 and was said to then live 155 miles from Stanfield 'in indigant circumstances' - initially unaware of his entitlement. His son, James Jermy Jnr, must have become aware of that assumed entitlement by about 1812 or so for he had apparently tried to bring actions of ejectment against Rev Preston some years later - by about 1815, as estimated.

      If these two James Jermys (ie of the senior line of that family) had both died before the 1830s, say, as likely had Thomas Jermy's father (of unknown name) also, then Thomas could well have become the next claimant (nearest in blood) - by the 1830s/40s (unless he had a senior 'cousin') - and through whom John Larner, his first cousin in turn, apparently then based his claim. John was likely granted equal rights by Thomas - if he would prosecute the claim for him, with the help of some attorney or educated 'adviser'. At least, this (as mentioned) would be the case if there were no other, more senior (and more eligible), male members of the Jermy family of concern still living by those decades. [Note: This comment has recently (Sept 2007) become rather pertinent following some new indexd Census data reported by fellow Jermy researcher Colin Jermy; see below.] We may again note that the relevant uncle through whom they claimed following his decease in 1817 wasn't Thomas's father, but an elder brother of that latter man - being the eldest Jermy 'uncle' (ie James Snr) of both Larner and Thomas [then known about] and Dinah's eldest brother. Any older (or younger) cousin descended therefrom would also take precedence.

       As far as I am aware, there was also no reference in any of the newspaper reports of the 1840s concerning the factors behind the siege or the murders at Stanfield Hall (or in later books about same) which touched on the specific area in the country where any of the above claimants' families actually resided or originated, save John Larner and (eventually) Thomas Jermy - both then simply 'of London' in early Victorian times, and their then uncertain uncle said to be living in indigent circumstances somewhere (possibly for a time only) 'in the west of England', two generations earlier. There was thus nothing (even in Garlick's full letter) that would give one a clue as to any possible basis, nor where, of the claimed relationships other than a bald assertion devoid of evidence.

       When, some years after I first noted the rather unexpected place of birth of John Larner shown in the 1861 Census - as Ringwood, Hampshire - where there was in fact no evidence of his birth (nor of any nearby Larners or Jermys, etc), I later re-checked the 1851 Census for the same street (which previously gave a negative result for that Census) but this time I happened to proceed from lowest numbers on Brittania Row (on earlier pages of the microfilm) towards the higher numbers (as No. 48 where he was to live a decade later) on much later pages. I must have done so in the opposite direction previously and stopped when he was not again found at or near that 1861 abode. But on this second occasion, I spotted an entry for John Larner at one of these much lower numbers - namely, at No. 5. That is, he had left the City Mills area and was already living on Brittania Row, Islington by 1851, as hoped, but in a quite different house. But this time the entry read:

5 Brittania Row, Islington    -    1851 Census

Name               Status               Age               Occupation               Place of Birth

John Larner              Head              62                  Chandler                     Oxfordshire
Elizabeth Larner            'wife'               49                                                 Reepham, Norfolk

John Larner                 son                   16             Cheesemonger's Porter     Lambeth, Surrey

[There was a second unrelated family sharing this same house.]

       We thus find that the younger John (Alexander) Larner (born 1834) was now in the parental home, whereas he had been absent in the Census of 1841, when aged just 6 ten years earlier - possibly staying nearby with a friend or uncle that night (as one then surmised). [However, we later learned, thanks to the diligence of his direct descendent Bronwyn Larner, that he was in fact miles away that spring - staying in Norfolk! He was noted by Bronwyn in an 1841 Census staying with apparent friends of his parents close to Stanfield Hall. He likely returned home to London by the mid-1840s.] His slightly older brother Thomas (aged 20 in 1851) was however now the one 'not at home' - but living independently by this time - having married earlier that very year. Knowing that Mary Larner had died in 1847, allowed John's second 'wife' Elizabeth (first noted in 1861) to also appear by this earlier Census. However, the word 'wife' was entered on the form but later crossed out by the enumerator and the column showing marital status, while still having an 'M' for John himself (for 'married', rather than a 'W', for widower, which may have been expected), then showed a 'U' (for Unmarried) - for both Elizabeth (whom he seems to have eventually married - in 1856) and for the son John Jnr.

       And while Elizabeth's actual village was now shown (but wasn't in 1861), that for John Larner himself, which was shown in that later Census year - as Ringwood, Hampshire - is now restricted to a county, but crucially not to Hampshire - but, significantly, to Oxfordshire! His year of birth now equates to about 1788. What were we to believe - Oxfordshire (as given by him firstly - in 1851) or Hampshire (as given by him, we assume, in 1861) ? Were both valid records of what he actually stated, if inconsistently, to the respective enumerators ten years apart, or was one an administrative error - made when one of the latter was writing up their data onto official forms later on Census day ? Is so, which one was valid ? Well, we had already checked the Hampshire area and found no Larners or Jermys there whatsoever. What might we find in our new focus of Oxfordshire ?

-- -- -- -- --

       [Before we answer this important point, it may be salutary to record another 1851 Census entry noted. This was on Regent Street in Camberwell (an area that would be relevant to the Larners a little later (see below). The entry read: John Larner, Head, 37, a Cap Maker, born New Cross, south London (ie ca 1813/14 - but to whom? see below); Elizabeth Larner, wife, 39, born Southampton (ie nr Ringwood?); Dinah Larner, daughter, 17, a Servant, born Kennington, Southwark (near Lambeth) ca 1834 (the same year our John's apparently last child was born there); there were also sons William, John and James in the household all born in intervening Camberwell. As the eldest child, one could reasonably assume that Dinah (not that common a name; ditto Larner) was named after this John's mother (or even grandmother, if brought up by her). Could this John be the son of our John's brother (eg William, Stephen or James), say ? Other hypotheses raced around one's mind. (It was later found that this John Larner was in fact the son of a John Larner (and (?1st) wife Elizabeth) who appear to have married in about 1808 (but where?) and then had at least 3 children: Elizabeth, Susannah and the above John - baptised in 1809, 1812 and Jan 1814, respectively - all in St Paul's church, New Cross (Deptford) - but when actually born ? The basis for the choice of Dinah as the name of this ?other John Larner's first daughter is thus not apparent; might it have been the name of his mother? This father John, described consistently as a labourer, was a suspiciously near contemporary to our John Larner (whose mother was of course a Dinah) but the births of our John's daughter Eliza and son Charles (just across the river) closely approximate that for this younger John. However, could our John Larner have married firstly an Elizabeth - who died young when bearing that John ca 1813 - the year of such confused baptism entry dates across the river just after he apparently married Mary Pearce - for whom no marriage entry had at this point yrt been located?) [But a very compelling marriage was later noted - between a John Larney and Mary Pearce in Stepney in 1810, when John was shown as a widower! Could he actually have had two wives on the go at once - eventually deserting the New Cross family?   Or was the New Cross born John Larner and family a cousin line of 'our' John Larner ? [Possible refence here to the Larner in Woolwich ?]

       But, to return to our major question: 'What might we find in Oxfordshire ?': What we find is that, unlike the Hampshire possibility, there were indeed both Larners/Learners and Jermanys/Jarmonys/Jermys (variously spelt) in the south-east of that county (ie Oxfordshire) - through much of the 18th century! And nowhere else in that general area, other than in nearby border areas. We would seem to have finally located the general area we have been seeking.

-- -- -- -- -- --

       From the early 1980s, after visits to various record offices and much correspondence with descendents of both families, many facts were uncovered, some by myself, some by others, about these families in that county. It is well nigh impossible now to lay out this material in the same order as it was discovered, nor by whom. I do recall that I was much aided by receiving a large pedigree drafted out by a descendent of the Oxfordshire family of concern (Maureen Braithwaite) who had moved into Reading in Berkshire. She was unaware of the Stanfield Hall claims or the murders there but was simply seeking her own family history. And for a long period, we were unsure who was the father of John Larner's cousin - the claimant Thomas Jermy - or just where he came from other than, as only now appreciated - somewhere in Oxfordshire, presumably, as had Larner's family as well. From the newspaper articles of 1849 (and the later book by Shore) describing the trial, we knew only that Thomas had been a Gardener living in Tooting, south London in the late 1840s. Stewart Valdar had (by the 1960/70s, I believe) sought out any Jermy entries for the 1851 Tooting census - but finding only that for his apparent widow Mary Jermy - still living there. With Mary a widow, he would have sought next confirmation of Thomas's burial and death details locally. THis revealed that he had indeed recently died and was buried there - in 1850 - sadly just too early to reveal or even confirm (in the 1851 Census) his precise place of birth.

       The 1851 Census for Thomas's wife, Mary, still living in the area, indicated that she was then aged 79 and born in Gt Cheverell, Wiltshire - ie about 177 1/2 therefore. At this point, Stewart wouldn't have known her maiden name nor when and where she and Thomas had married. He must have checked the Gt Cheverall baptism register for any Marys baptised there at the appropriate time and apparently deduced that she must have been the daughter of a John and Mary Hobbs - who was baptised there in 1771. As mentioned further below, Stewart eventually then concluded that a Thomas Jermer of Pewsey, nr Wilcot - also in Wiltshire (and fittingly as he believed, about 155 miles from Stanfield Hall) in the English 'west country' was most likely Thomas Jermy's father or uncle. He gave me a copy of the pedigree he had drafted out on this assumption. In about 1984 or so, however, I found that there were in fact a number of other Jermers (consistently so named) living in that area but no one whatsoever with the names Jermy, Jermany, Germany etc and decided this was unlikely to be the location of the family we were seeking.

       The surnames of concern were however found consistently spelt in many Oxfordshire, Berkshire and Buckingham records of baptism, marriage and burial as Jermany, Jarmony, Germany, etc - for all members of the one large family settled there throughout most of the 18th century - on literally dozens if not hundreds of occasions - although never as 'Jermy' (or similar) itself - until near 1800; the possible reasons for the sudden change can only be guessed at. [Awkwardly, there were members of a slightly later family named Jermaine in one specific location nearby whose name was generally spelt in that manner who can usually be differentiated from the Jarmonys/Jermanys/Germanys/ of present interest - except with respect to one earlier Abraham 'Germany' whose presence, if not as a member of that Jermaine family (which spelling was used for him and for a granddaughter on just one occasion, otherwise much more typically as Germany), does prove a slight exception. Interestingly, the earlier variations of the name - as Germany and Jarmony, etc (or as Jermy) - does not occur in Oxfordshire or nearby prior to the early 18th century. How may we account for this ? This too is discussed further below - where that one qualification only is described.]

.

The Families in Oxfordshire

[Including: 1. The Origin and Identity of John Larner and Thomas Jermy - in Summary and: 2. The Greater Detail and Evidence Regarding these Families.]

       As the crow flies, the area of Oxfordshire where these eventually discovered 'Germanys, Jarmonys', etc (and the Larners) were settled in 1791 (and for two generation or more before that significant year) was not 155 miles from Stanfield Hall - in the 'west of England' (as described by Thomas Garlick in his 1838 letter) - as that distance would bring one much further west - to such as Marlborough or beyond in Wiltshire. [And hence the interest shown by Stewart Valdar for a time in a 'west country' Thomas 'Jermer' - of Wilcot, nr Pewsey, Wilts - as a possible father or uncle of Thomas Jermy, the eventual joint claimant with John Larner, whose 'uncle' this man was for a time wrongly thought to be.] Stewart had also noted (via IGI?) that a Thomas Jermy, Stone Sawyer, had issue with a wife Mary in Gloucester considerably later which, also being 'west county' seemed to him to again point to this same Thomas (Jermer). It turned out (eventually) that this Stone Sawyer was indeed a member of the correct Oxfordshire-derived 'Jermy' family - although was never related to the man from Wilcot (or that family) nor had his actual origins (in Oxfordshire) yet been discovered (although would be much later). His likely son James was also noted in this same trade - but later in Stafforshire - where he eventually married and died.

       But rather than being as 'west' as these findings sugggested, it was eventually concluded (as described above) that Oxfordshire was the area on which to focus. The relevant centre of interest was in fact found to be only 110 miles distant - near Benson in south-west Oxfordshire; more 'south midlands' or 'middle south England' than 'west country'. The main towns and villages of relevance initially in the area were: Wallingford, Ewelme, Swyncombe, Benson, Berrick Salome, Chalgrove, Watlington and Britwell Salome. It was a flatish, rolling, highly agricultural district lying just to the west of the Chilterns and north of the river Thames. Interestingly, the Icknield Way, an ancient drover's track still used to move sheep in the 18th century, ran from just south of Wymondham, Norfolk through Newmarket and Luton, virtually to Watlington and Swyncombe, Oxfordshire. There was I believe evidence of the names Jermyn/German/Jarman/Germany, etc along this route in several relevant counties - possibly for some centuries; see IGI and BMD indexes. Did they originate therefore from the same Wymonham area gene pool as the Jermyns/Jermys from whom Jonathan Jermy the claimant of 1817 descended ? It may or may not be relevant that the distance from Wymondham to London (100 miles and two days by coach in the 18th century) and thence, by a second leg, to Wallingford (nr Berrick Salome) by same (about 55 miles and a 14 hour journey) does bring us to the above indicated figure. Was it to this (non-crow) journey that Garlick was actually referring ? A map of this area is shown below:

       A short time later, I discovered that one Thomas Germany, at least, was described as being 'of Swyncombe' in Oxfordshire - in a PRO record of the local Volunteers ca 1804-07 - seemingly born there to a David Germany - one of those shown on the pedigree given me by the lady from Reading (which significantly also showed his younger sister as a Dinah!). These facts and his age pointed to this man probably being John Larner's cousin, Thomas Jermy the Gardener and joint Claimant who, many years later, would settle in Tooting, south London. He was long thought to have been, earlier in his career, the Stone Sawyer mentioned above. However, he wasn't. There would be 3 Thomas Jermys born about that same time - all cousins of John Laner - one of which would prove to the the Tooting Gardener.

Note: The reader now has a choice of proceeding with the continued analysis of the several branches of the 'Jermy' family of Oxfordshire - now shown in sub-section 2 below - or, to 'cut to the chase' as it were, by proceeding more directly in resolving the identity and origin of John Larner and of his cousin Thomas Jermy - in the immediately following sub-section 1.

1. The origins of John Larner and Thomas Jermy (in brief summary)..

       We were led in our earlier coverage to believe that John Larner's mother was likely a Dinah Jermy - who had married John's father of unknown name. It was this union between the two families that gave Larner, as he believed, his rights to inherit the Stanfield Hall estates - ie through his mother initially and, thence through her eldest brother and/or father and grandfather. We thus began by seeking to locate a Dinah Jermy or equivalent within the Oxfordshire Jermy family (as now confirmed and fully delineated in the detailed coverage in section 2. below). The surname, as noted, was typically not yet spelt as Jermy in Oxfordshire - for two or more further generations. The earliest male discovered in that family was, promisingly, a John (the name suggested as likely for any son born to the John Jermy, the assumed crucial link with the landed Jermy family of Norfolk. His name was thus registered as John Germany in the register of Chalgrove parish church at his first marriage - in Aug 1736 - to one Ann Hester - with both parties said to be of the neighbouring parish of Berrick Salome (about 2 miles south), not far from the larger village of Benson. Berrick Salome had its own chapel but its marriages were typically registered in the Chalgrove register at that time, even if perfomed in Berrick itself for those who resided there.

       The date of this first known marriage of a member of the family of interest in this area points to his birth around 1712-16 which fits quite well for our suspected son of John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth. And the fact that there is no evidence of a birth of such a man around that time in that local area further supports that interpretation. Indeed there appears to be no evidence of anyone of the names of concern born there or thereabouts prior to the 1730s. The family descended from this man and his several subsequent sons appears therefore to have no earlier roots in Oxfordshire or nearby. But, equally, there is no evidence of a John Germany (or similar) born in Norfolk to a John of any such comparable surname (including Jermy itself) at that time. And the expectation that anyone of their station at such a young age would move cross-country then (against the flow of traffic or econo0mic attraction) seems very slight.

      With Ann Hester, John Germany had only 2 certain children - James (1738) and Elizabeth (1742) before Ann died and John soon re-married - in 1746 in Berrick - to a Mary Savage. With her, he had several more children, including significantly a late-born daughter Dinah Germany in 1762. From the several children of John's two unions (who survived childhood), a number of branches of the family would descend in nearby parishes (mostly as Jermany, Jarmony or, later, Jermy)- as depicted in greater detail in sub-section 2 below. But our interest here is to focus on the future of 'Dinah Germany' and her issue, as well as on that of her nephew Thomas Jermy, her son John's cousin and joint claimant.

      Dinah's mother Mary died in 1763 when still quite young. Her father John appears not to have re-married again and his children were likely raised by himself and his elsest daughter Elizabeth. Besides eldest half-brother James (b 1738), Dinah had two other surviving younger full brothers - William (b 1746) and David (b 1749). Being nearer her own age, William and David married shortly before Dinah and, like her, did so nearer Watlington and that south-east portion of the area of our present concern (where her mother seems to have originated) whereas James remained near to Benson (in that north-west corner) where his mother had lived. James had married there in 1758 - where his first son James Jnr was born in 1759 and his second son William (by a different wife) in 1765. We shall refer to this latter, younger William, and his son Thomas (b 1784), later.

      It was shortly discovered that Dinah married in Benson on 17 June 1784 to one John Learner but they soon moved, seemingly to be nearer her full brothers and their mother's family, and so settled in the village of Britwell Salome (near Watlington) - where they had several children baptised in the 1780s and 90s. Their first son was the John Larner - he of our prime interest - born in 1787 (as expected). Her brother David had already settled in nearby Swyncombe in the 1770s where he had a son Thomas in 1783 - whom we once believed may have been the cousin of John Larner through whom he would jointly claim the Stanfield estate.

     However, Dinah's and David's slightly older full brother William Jarmany (born 1746) had also settled nearby - just across the border in Fingest, Bucks. - where he too had a son Thomas - born in 1781 - who was of course also John's cousin. This Thomas (as Jermmy or Jermny) married firstly in 1808 to a Dianah Trendall in Cookham, Berks nearby, but had no issue by her before she died there in 1819. He soon re-married - in 1821, again in Cookham, to a Mary Hobbs (born Wiltshire) with whom he would also have no children. Thomas appears to have been a farm labourer all his life until he moved with her to Tooting in outer south London, probably in the 1830s, where he worked as a garden labourer until his death there in 1850. It was this cousin Thomas who would become the joint claimant with John Larner - eventually. But, we should note, his father was not of the senior line of our assumed Oxfordshire progenitor - John Germany of Berrick.

      There is indeed no evidence that Thomas Jermy (the garden labourer) was ever aware of or concerned with any possibility that he may have been an heir or claimant of an estate in Norfolk - before being contacted in that regard (only latterly) by John Larner - in about 1847 or '48 - as touched on earlier. John seems to have assumed that it was this cousin Thomas that would be the next heir to the disputed estate. It appears that Larner, with little knowledge of his mother's eldest half-brother James Snr (and his son James Jnr), other than that they had both died in 1817, had wrongly assumed that on his mother's death in 1833 (buried in Britwell Salome), the proper heir would indeed now be her older brother William's son Thomas Jermy (b 1781 in Fingest) who had become the garden labourer of Tooting. He must have been little aware of James Snr's second son William Jermy of that senior line (born 1765) - or his issue - including yet another 'cousin' Thomas Jermy - born in 1784 (albeit a second cousin in this case), nor indeed of any other more senior possible heirs arising from his mother's eldest sibling.

      While James Snr's second son William (born 1765) was younger than Dinah's brother of this same name (born 1746) - that former and younger William would nevertheless takr precedence in any inheritance - by the rules of primogeniture. He would be comparable to Prince Charles' second son Harry who would become King if his brother William pre-deceased him (after Charles's death) rather than any son that Charles' younger brothers Andrew or Edward may have had, even earlier. However, it would strongly appear that this other William and his descendents, including this 1784-born son Thomas, were equally oblivious of any conceivable inheritance of a Norfolk estate - whether during the 1830s (or before) or the 1840s.

      This younger William's son Thomas (b Benson 1784) would become the Stone Sawyer referred to earlier and settle in London (by 1805) and later in Gloucester - knowing nothing about Stanfield Hall apparently. His father William would join him back in London by 1851, after losing his wife Mary in Benson in 1847. He would himself die in 1851 in London. He would thus appear to be the alleged 'remainder man'- to that point - albeit oblivious of that status.

      The evidence, such as it is, points to awareness of the existence of the Stanfield estate (amongst anyone of the Oxforshire family) arising only after John Larner's marriage to a girl from Norfolk in 1810 (in East London). This girl - Mary Pearce - had a brother James Pearce who appears to have joined the same Militia regiment that John Larner (and his father) had joined - thus accounting for John's presence in London in 1810 and his introduction to Mary). On learning the surname of John's mother, Mary and/or James Pearce must have later recalled the publicity attending claims made by a Jonathan Jermy in Norfolk ca 1815-17 for part of the same Jermy estate near which the Pearces lived. On subsequently returning to his home area on some occasion, John seems to have solicited the advice of a local man of some education (Thomas Garlick) who sought out what he could about the Jermys/Germanys presence in Oxfordshire and, after locating the 1751 Will of William Jermy Esq of Norfolk, must have helped John make out his case. We have already related how the Pearces and others subsequently assisted John Larner in pressing that case at Stanfield Hall in 1838. Only by 1848 was Thomas Jermy of Tooting brought into the picture as well - before Rush murdered Isaac Preston and his son - for quite unrelated reasons. We may complete this brief Summary by noting that John Larner's 'case' for his and his cousin Thomas's claimed rights to the Stanfield estate were never confirmed by the production of any verified pedigree that could establish the dubious claimed connection between the Yarmouth and Oxfordshrie 'Jermy' families. Thomas would shortly die (without issue) in 1850 while John Larner would return to Islington in north London to live another 20 years - with no further repetitions of his or their claim. His sons and grandsons would be interviewed by the press many years later when they clained that some lawyer had lost all the important documents of the case. Many Victorian 'cases', whose principals desperately sought a rise in society, would be conveniently wrapped up by descendents issuing this frequently expressed rationale - often passed down and never verified.

-- -- -- -- -- --

      After covering next, in sub-section 2, a general intoduction to the various branches of the Jermy/Germany/Jarmony family in Oxfordshire (with some inevitable repetition of facts just summarised in sub-section 1. above), we then describe them in greater detail in the following major sections before covering the careers of John Larner and his fatherin the Oxfordshire Militia during the early 1800s and how that resulted in John Larner (and his new bride) settling firstly in Thames-side London (ca 1812-1830s) before moving to the City Road area by about 1835 - not long before his sudden appearance at Stanfield Hall in 1838.

      After some instability in their lives during the years of the Napoleonic Wars when they were likely moving about with the Militia (ca 1800-1815), John's parents seem to have returned to Britwell Salome where they likely lived through the 1820s before both died and were buried there - in the 1830s - just before their son began to prosecute his claim with such vigour and determination in Norfolk.

2. Introduction to the Several Branches of the Jermy and Larner Families of Oxfordshire.

       Having described more directly the connection between the Oxfordshire Jermys and Larners of major concern in the above Summary (in particular as it pertained to the identity and origins of John Larner and of (his 3 cousins named) Thomas 'Jermy', wereturn now to the detailed analysis and evidence concerning the relevant families generally (from which the facts concerning those two principals were gradually unearthed).

      Before their origins had finally been confirmed, I was in early correspondence with Isabelle Charlton (from ca 1984), another keen 'Jermy searcher', who had been searching records for central-west London (Westminster, Chelsea and Kensington) regarding her gt-gt-grandmother Frances Harris (nee Jermy). Frances' earlier residence somewhere in that area had presumably been spoken about by members of Isobelle's family in her native Australia - who seem to have believed that she may have descended from the landed Jermys - apparently by way of the family in 'the west country'. She would likely have had copies of Stewart Valdar's book and tentative early pedigrees in this respect. These had restricted Thomas Jermy the Gardener to Tooting (and possibly Wiltshire and Gloucestershire later) with no reference to Oxfordshire whatsoever - showing him as a 'grandson' of John Jermy of Yarmouth (rather than as the gt-grandson he would have to have been, if valid, as later concluded) - by way of that man's unnamed and uncertain son.

       Thomas of Tooting's assumed cousin John Larner is also shown in that early pedigree by Stewart as another 'grandson' of the elder Yarmouth man - by way of an unnamed sister of Thomas's unnamed father. These latter two siblings would however, if parents of that descent, not be children of the Yarmouth John but his grandchildren and thus Thomas and John Larner would in fact be his great-grandsons; One generation was lacking. [We may recall that John Jermy inherited his father's house in Yarmouth in 1740, was named by William Jermy as being of Yamouth in 1751, voted there in 1754 and (allegedly) signed the sale of his rights to any large Jermy estate later that same year, when again described as still being'of Gt Yarmouth'. There was no awareness expressed by anyone at that time of any members of the family to consider who might reside concurrently in distant Oxfordshire - as labourers, through that same mid-18th century period.]

      Isabelle would I imagine have sought to find a link between her ancestor Frances (nee Jermy) of west-central London and some Jermy connected with the Gardener of Tooting, as described by Valdar. Just when and how she made any connections herself with the actual Oxfordshire family itself, I can't now recall (other than after seeing Maureen's pedigree which I had sent her quite early on). Her cousin 'Rory' informed me more recently that the 1871 Census for St Lukes, Chelsea (but not that for 1861) had eventually and significantly shown Frances Harris, aged 58, a Laundress - to have been born in Benson, Oxfordshire! She, then a widow, was then Head of household at 3 Cottage Place, Chelsea, with sons Thomas (28) and William Harris (16). But this confirmatory information was only discovered and reported on in more recent years by Rory. At some point also, Isabelle had also found a William Jermy baptised in St Pancras in 1813 - where it was assumed initially he was born. But it was eventually discovered that he too was actually born in Oxfordshire - within the same family.

      Indeed, the local parish registers of south-east Oxfordshire, and nearby Buckinghamshire and Berkshire, record many events from the mid-1730s onward (but not before) for Germanys, Jarmonys, etc, if not for Jermy per se, for many decades, and a few for Larners and Learners. This new pool of information was soon examined avidly in an attempt to identify the relevant relationships pertaining to our story of Stanfield Hall's claimed ownership.

      We began by noting the first event that appeared to be relevant to our quest (that is, to determine just who were John Larner and Thomas Jermy, and how they might conceivably be valid Claimants to an estate in distant Norfolk - seemingly by way of some descendent of the Gunton Jermys of Yarmouth). This was the marriage on 30 Aug 1736 (as now already summarised in section 1. above) between a John Germany and Ann Hester registered in Chalgrove, Oxfordshire - with both parties said to be of the neighbouring parish of Berrick Salome (about 2 miles south), immediately next to Benson. I don't believe it showed if they were both single. But Ann appears to have been baptised on 20 Jan 1716, the daughter of Robert and Mary Hester of neighbouring Benson. There is however no evidence of this John Germany (or similar) born locally a generation before (eg around 1712-16, say). Berrick had its own church/chapel (St Helen's) and thus we didn't understand initially why this couple, shown as residents of Berrick, apparently married in the neighbouring parish's church. The same Vicar may well have served both parishes.

[Yes, St Helen's was originally a Chapelry of Chalgrove church and a note in the transcriptions of its register later informed us that some events actually performed in Berrick were indeed only recorded in the Chalgrove register. This could well be the case here.] We might reasonably estimate that this John would be at least 21 or so - and thus born about 1715 or earlier. This fits quite well with an assumed son of John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth (possibly with a wife Ann Palmer, although this remains speculation). But we have no record of a birth of such a son - whether in Yarmouth or anywhere else in Norfolk. [Nor, significantly, of any other issue born to this assumedly fertile couple - anywhere.] This Oxfordshire John Germany, wherever he was from, had likely lived in Berrick for a time, most probably as an agricultural labourer, before meeeting and marrying Ann Hester - ie from at least ca 1734/35, say.

    So, how did he, likely still a teenager, come to be there then (early 1700s), in this small village of rural Oxfordshire - so far from an eastern port town of Great Yarmouth - with no direct routes between the two ?? We should probably emphasise that there appear to be no other members of this family in that area of Oxfordshire, Berkshire or Buckinghamshire prior to this John Germany (with the possibly significant exception of an Abraham Germany and family to be described below). We may recall that (on this tentative interpretation) John's assumed father and grandfather back in Gt Yarmouth were both still alive at this time (1720s and '30s). Did any of them have any experience as agricultural labourers in this totally urban port environment ? It seems most improbable.

       [The foregoing point is also discussed in the section on the Jermys of Gunton (1) where it is suggested that it also seems very unlikely that a John Jermy who in 1712 married a Ruth Lock in Syleham, Suffolk (on the Norfok-Suffolk borders 35 miles from Yarmouth) and then had a first son that same year in nearby Needham, Norfolk named William Jermy, before having only a second son there, in 1715, named John, would have been the John Jermy of the Yarmouth family. For the latter's own name and that of his father (John) would surely have been given to any first not second son, especially as there were no Williams in that Yarmouth family. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Oxford John Germany had named a daughter Ruth as would reasonably be expected (if that 1715-born John had somehow ventured cross country to distant Oxfordshire). There were in fact several 'Jermy' families living on this Suffolk-Norfolk border area in the early 1700s - seemingly descended from the wide-spread family named 'Jermyn' long settled a few miles north-west whose names were gradually being spelt as often as 'Jermy' as their original Jermyn in that area (albeit where the original Jermy family were settled very much earlier). Had there been only a 'one-off' Jermy fathering first a William and only then a John there at that period, we may have had to give this idea slightly more attention.]

       As mentioned, we should also point out that just 7 years earlier, also in Chalgrove, another Germany (an Ann), apparently of that neighbouring parish, was married - to a Richard Hayward - on 2 July 1729. And she was baptised there 16 Nov 1705, the daughter of Abraham and Ann Germany, who'd also had a son Edward Germany there 2 years before this - baptised 19 Sept 1703 - as well as two other daughters - Elizabeth and Sarah Germany - in 1707 and 1709, respectively (with Sarah buried there, again as Germany, that same year). How confusing it would have been, therefore, if in the immediate neighbouring parish of Berrick Salome (a Chapelry of Chalgrove), Abraham had also had a second son he named 'John Germany' just a little later - about 1710-12, say! A subsequent marriage by him in Berrick (registered in Chalgrove) - like that of Ann Germany in 1729 - would have caused us virtually no doubt whateoever as to origins, identities or provenance. We would quite reasonably take it that they were all of this one (and only) local Oxfordshire family so named (as Germany) - headed then by one Abraham Germany. Moreover, according to one abstract of the Chalgrove parish register, both Ann Germany and her groom, were (like John Germany) actually of Berrick Salome at that time(!). One would most reasonably assume that John and Ann were siblings therefore. While the Berrick Salome registers were poorly kept in the arly 1700s, it would not seem too unreasonable that one of the nearby parishes should reveal at least one earlier example of this family; otherwise, from where did they derive ?

      The son Edward, as 'Edward Jarman of Chalgrove, married Mary Munt, also of Chalgrove, in nearby Holton on 19 Dec 1726 and had a daughter Anna Maria, but baptised again as Germany, and in Chalgrove - on 22 Oct 1727; she was buried there a few weeks later as such. If they had further issue (as a namesake son Edward Jnr(?), say, their baptisms weren't recorded in Berrick or Chalgrove; nor were the burials of either parent. But those registers were notoriously ill-kept. Finally, we may note that a Martha Germany married in 1720 in 'Hagbourne, Berkshire', her origin and significance remains unknown. Hagbourne is south of the Thames and while formerly a part of Berkshire, is now in Oxfordshire, along with many other nearby parishes including Wallingford. Significantly, there appears to have been no others of this or similar surnames in this entire area at that time. But earlier registers should be examined, if extant.

       The Chalgrove register has a gap between ca 1694 and 1701 (and no Bishops' Transcripts between 1684 and 1721) during which period Abraham may well have married his wife Ann there. And a son John Germany may well have been born to them during this gap period - even as early as 1700, say ? He'd still be only 36 if marrying in 1736, possibly for the second time. [Sadly, Berrick Transcripts are also lacking for 1684 to 1721 so he may equally have been born there ca 1710-15.] However, we may note that John appears to have named no son Abraham although he did name later ones with such old testament names as Aaron, Moses and David ! Is this significant ? It may well be for, interestingly, no other local family (of whatever surname) used such names at that time there. They were thus not dissenters' names that were simply 'in the air' locally then. Abraham appears to have died before 1736 (where buried unknown) as his wife Ann was buried in Chalgrove on Jan 19 that same year - described as 'the widow Germany'. There were, as mentioned, no other families with the name Germany or equivalent in this general area of Oxfordshire at that time. The origin of Abraham Germany, probably born about 1675-80, is therefore just as mysterious and uncertain as is that of John Germany, his possible son, of the next generation. However, as mentioned, a Martha Germany did marry in nearby Hagbourne in 1720 who may or may not have been related or significant.

[Note: Two brothers surnamed Jermaine appeared a little later to the north-east of this small region - in nearby Lewknor and Crowell. On one known occasion only (in a quarter sessions entry), Abraham had his named spelt in this fashion (as Germaine, I believe), otherwise consistently as Germany, whereas the few Jermaines were, I believe, rarely if ever shown in any other form and were restricted to those two parishes, the families of which were quite independent of those we have been considering. The IGI shows only one other Germaine entry in the entire wider area (in Clewer, Berkshire) - with a baptism of a Charles born to a Charles and Jane there in 1735. I haven't located this parish as yet. [An Edward German was apparently 'associated with' (just how not known) the parish of Lewknor in 1725 (as noted in a reference to the ancestors of someone with this surname who had had a DNA test in 2004); this may have been an earlier member of the local Germaine family referred to above or he could somehow pertain to Abraham Germany's son Edward.]

      Finally, we must record about here the interesting finding reported to me recently by Bronwyn Larner of a legal transaction as early as the 1300s in which another man named 'German' - namely, one 'William German' - was shown as being 'of Brittwelle' (ie Britwell Salome today) - just a mile or so from Berrick Salome! Surely there must have been others of this surname locally (and later as 'Germany') during the intervening centuries - besides those mentioned above ? One may note that as early as 1174, there were German 'merchants from Cologne' settled in small colonies in many of England's larger towns (eg as Norwich or Oxford) - as described in Asa Brigg's 'A Social History of England'. The locals may well have called them such as Johannes or Tomas 'the German' - from which the surname German, Germyn, Germaine and Germany (for their children) would no doubt readily evolve, as they mostly did during the 12-1300s for many occupational names. The surname of the original Jermy family (given in error to later Jermanys, etc), would, on the other hand, seem more likely to derive from the early Norman forename Jeremy or Jeremiah, as discussed more fully elsewhere.]

       The Berrick register also had its difficulties. To quote the Oxford R.O. transcriber: "In general, the Berrick Salome registers are in a sad condition. The 1st volume has been re-bound with pages out of order, or upside down, and so tightly bound that many endings are unreadable. Later volumes are badly tattered, with loose covers and...stained by damp. For several periods, ultra-violet light is necessary to read entries. A number of Berrick entries are to be found in the Chalgrove register". There were, he stated, also several gaps - as 1736-40, 1745-46, 1781-83 and 1791-94 - "due to the failure of the Rector, Curate or Clerk." As mentioned, Bishops' Trancsripts are aslo lacking for many of these same periods. Thus, during the gap between 1736 and 1740, it is quite possible that John and Ann had one and possibly two earlier children - as a namesake John, say (ca late 1736/early 1737) and/or, with more certainty, a James Germany (ca 1738) - as later information clearly supports (although this latter choice of christian name for an early 'Jermy' son is, significantly, certainly not easily accounted for in the context of the alleged Yarmouth connection).

       The first child actually shown born to John Germany and wife Ann in Berrick was thus a daughter - baptised Elizabeth Jarmoney (was Elizabeth the forename of John's mother?) on 13 Feb 1742 - the same year that at the 'mother' church in Chalgrove, Ann Germany, widow of Abraham, was buried. John's wife also died a little later, being buried in Berrick as Ann Jarmoney, wife of John, on 25 May 1745, aged just 29. What, one wonders, determined the now slightly different spellings of this local surname in the two neighbouring parishes? On 20 Oct 1745, an entry appears in the Berrick register: "This register has been in the hands of the parish Clerk [rather than with a Vicar] for some years past and accounts for its irregularity". It was quite possible that the Chalgrove Vicar performed the marriage ceremony for John and Ann in 1736 (even if at Berrick church) and so spelt the surname later in his own Chalgrove register in the same form as he typically had for the only other local family of this name - that of Abraham Germany. Later, the incumbents at Berrick and nearby spelt it fairly consistently as Jarmoney or Jermany for many decades (and, for no apparent reason, suddenly as Jarmy or Jermy nearer 1800).

       John, now a widower, soon re-married (as Jarmoney) - on 6 July 1746 in Berrick to a Mary Savage. [No marriages were shown in that register between 1717 and 1740.] Both were of Berrick and she single, I believe. John likely worked as a farm labourer for a Yeoman tenant farmer, on land typically owned by absentee landlords such as the Despencers. They then had a large family of 8 children baptised in Berrick between 1746 and 1762 before Mary also died and was buried there (as Jarmony) - on the 8 Sept 1763. John was then approaching 50 and appears not to have re-married. His eldest son James b 1738) and daughter Elizabeth (b 1742) probably helped raise the younger children. Thus, just before Mary died, there were about a dozen members of this one family - ostensibly called 'Jarmoney' or similar - living in the small village of Berrick Salome in the middle years of the 18th century. The children born to them after James and Elizabeth (with years of baptisms in brackets) were: William Jarmoney (1746 - just 4 months after the second marriage), David Jarmony (1748/49), Mary Jarmoney (1749/50), Ann Jarmoney (1751), Moses Jarmoney (1756), Sarah Jarmony (1759), Aaron Jarmony (baptised and buried in April 1761) and, finally, a Dinah Jarmony (12 Dec 1762), who would be just 9 months old when her mother died the following year.

      (We may usefully recall that back in Norfolk, William Jermy of Bayfield's second marriage, burial and Will (with its reference to John Jermy of Yarmouth) were all of relevance around this same mid-18th century period, when John Jarmony was having most of this large family in Berrick Salome, Oxfordshire - seemingly totally unknown to William or to his lawyer Isaac Preston, and vice versa.) The son Moses was buried in Berrick on 14 Nov 1771 aged 15, as descibed further below. It was noticeable that no other family in Berrick gave their offspring such names as David, Aaron or Moses; rather, all other male children baptised there around this period (born to other parents) were given the more usual names - of Thomas, Robert, John, William, James, Edward, etc, etc. Nor was there another Abraham there, I believe - only Abraham Germany in Chalgrove. One is tempted to see a family association between the only two men named Germany in a small area who share such old testamant names, when no one else locally does. And even 'James' has obvious relevance to the Bible.

       After Moses died, John, probably with daughter Elizabeth's help, would raise his surviving younger issue during the rest of the 1770s, by which time Dinah, the youngest, would be about 18 and the three surviving sons James, William and David either already married and independent or soon would be. Thus, James had, as James Jermany (the elder), already married in 1758, and second and third sons William and David would both seem to have done so by about 1775 (see below for details on these marriages and subsequent issue from the 3 sons). No burials were recorded in Berrick between Dec 1780 and June 1783 when the Rector, having been ill some while, himself died. It seems likely that John Jarmony, father of this family, also died around this time - ca 1781 - and was presumably buried in Berrick during this gap period (when any other relevant baptism, marriage or burial entries would also be lacking). Thus, it is possible that eldest daughter Elizabeth, for example, may have married, or even died there, during this period; we can see now other entries for her.

-- -- -- -- --

       John Jarmony's eldest surviving son James (b ca 1738) appears to have married 4 times. He married, as James Jermany, his first wife Ann Floyd, in Crowell (a little to the north-east of Berrick and area) on 15 Oct 1758 - by whom he had a namesake son baptised as James Jarmany (Jnr) - on 7 Oct 1759 in Benson (next to Berrick), where they likely then lived. This younger James would himself have a large family as will be detailed below - as the 1st or senior line of descent (from John Jarmony) via John's eldest (known) surviving son James Snr. [We may note here that a few years later a Prudence Floyd, possibly Ann's sister, also married in Crowell - to a Samuel Larner. And in 1763, a Joseph Larner was a witness at the marriage of a John Savage at nearby Watlington. A later Joseph Larner was baptised in Berrick Salome itself in 1818, the son of a Stephen Larner who would be born around 1790, say, possibly to an earlier John or Joseph.] James Snr's first wife Ann (nee Floyd) died when still quite young (in her mid-20s) - in about 1762 (details sought) before having any other issue by James.

       James Snr soon re-married (as Jarmany) - on 7 Nov 1763 - in Watlington (near Berrick) - to Mary Vaughan of that town; she would likely have raised the younger James, now her step-son. Their banns were however read in Benson church during October that year, James' name shown each time as Jarmany. Mary would also have her own son by James Snr - baptised in Benson 14 Apr 1765 as William Jermany (ie the younger William), who would himself later marry a Mary (surname unknown) - in about 1785 (details lacking). James and Mary then had a daughter Mary - in about 1767 - who married John Green probably ca 1790s (details previously lacking) - for she is referred to by James in his 1817 Will. [This marriage now known to have taken place at Oxford St Clements on 7 Apr 1804, when both were described as 'sojourners' there; interestingly, Mary was shown as Jermy.] The 2nd line of descent - from this younger William - the 2nd son of John's eldest son James Snr, is also described further below, as are the issue from the latter's later marriages.

       John's second surviving son (after James) was William Jarmoney - bn 1746 to his second wife. (He may be referred to as William Jermany 'the elder'- to distinguish him from the younger William Jarmony - born in 1765 - to James Snr. The elder William (James Snr's brother) was baptised on 30 Nov 1746 in Berrick. He appears to have married around 1770 and it was recently found that on 28 July 1781, this William Germany and wife Sarah had a son Thomas Germany baptised in Fingest (this village, in neighbouring Buckinghamshire, is about 6 miles from Berrick, but just 3 from Swyncombe where his younger brother David appears to have settled and also had issue (including another Thomas) around that same time; see below). Their slightly younger sister Dinah would also settle nearby in Britwell Salome. An unmarried James Jermey died in 1855 in nearby Stokenchurch, aged 80, and so was born about 1775. The 1851 census for this area shows this James, then aged 73 (possibly soon 74 as the census is typically taken in March) - was also born in Fingest - about 1776/7 -and most likley to William and Sarah also, there being no other parents of this or similar surname nearby. He was quite possibly named after his older brother.

      The same local census also shows another Thomas 'Jarmney', farm labourer, living with his wife Ann in Lt Marlow (between Fingest and Cookham), who was then 49 and so born about 1803; his birth again shown to have been in Fingest. The parish register there does show such a baptism - on 8 Nov 1803 - of a Thomas Jerminy born to an apparently unwed Elizabeth Jerminy (and ?putative father named as Kibble Shephard). Elizabeth would normally be expected to be born about 18 or so years before - ie ca 1780-84, say; again, such a birth would most likely have been to William and Sarah also, although no such baptism is shown in the Fingest register at least. She may of course have been a bit older and born earlier in the marriage, before they settled in Fingest.

       We do find that an Elizabeth Jermy was buried in Fingest in 1837, aged 70, and so born rather earlier - about 1767; if she was the latter Thomas's mother, she'd have been about 36 at his baptism (or younger if 70 was an over-estimate). Or, was she a different, married Elizabeth - married to a Jermy/Jermany - as there appears to be no Elizabeth Jermany born in the relevant area around 1767 - ie to John, Elizabeth (b 1742) or James, say, if not to William as suggested, when he'd still be a possible 21? Or, was she a younger, second wife to William himself - if first wife Sarah had died some years earlier (ca 1800, say)? These questions are not easy to resolve. I could see no burial for a Sarah Jermony or similar in that area. There was however a burial registered in Fingest - of a Thomas Jermony, on 9 April 1801, the son of Thomas and Mary Jermony. His age wasn't given but we might estimate that, if an infant, the father Thomas would likely be born around 1775-80. Or was he the Thomas born to William and baptised in Fingest in July 1781? If so, he would have to have married his wife Mary by 1800 - when just 19 or so - a touch young but not that uncommon in those days. Or was there yet another, slightly older Thomas - born ca 1770 ? But to whom? It would have to be to a 'Jarmony' (or similar) born around 1750 or before - ie as to Elizabeth, David, Mary or Ann. Possibly some other local parish (in either Bucks or Oxon) will reveal these missing marriage, burial and baptismal registrations. In any case, we may ask - were there any surviving progeny from this Fingest line of William Jarmony ? In particular, could it be via his son Thomas baptised in 1781 ? Yes, we now believe so - as now addressed further below.

       John's third surviving son - David Jarmony (baptised as such 27 Mar 1748 in Berrick) is described further below in the section concerned with the 4rd line of descent (just as that concerning his elder brother William (and his son Thomas) is further described below in that detailing the 3rd line of descent). The next child born to John was baptised Mary Jarmoney on 14 Feb 1749) but she died in her infancy I believe (this needs confirmation); otherwise, she could (conceivably) have had a child out of wedlock - as a son Thomas Jarmony ca 1772, say, which fits certain fact described below. But her next younger sister - Ann Jarmoney (baptised 1 Dec 1751) - did produce such a child - being the subject of an order dated 28 Aug 1773 (when she was 22) regarding support for her daughter Mary whom she had out of wedlock when brothers Jacob and Thomas Hoare of Brightwell Salome were each fined £20 '...to answer (jointly) for the said child of Ann Germany of Berrick Salome '. This would represent several months' wages. Mary was born ca June 1773 but not baptised until 20 Feb 1774 (in Berrick) as Mary Hoare Jarmony, natural child of Anne Jarmony', but seemingly brought up as Mary Jarmony. This Mary would later have a child herself out of wedlock, as described further below.

       The next child born to John was a son Moses Jarmoney (baptised 6 June 1756) who died young, aged 15, on 10 November 1771, the subject of an inquest at Nuffield on 13 Nov that year when someone described as Moses Germaine died as a result of a horse kick nearby. Nuffield is a few miles south of most of the villages described thus far and the use of the spelling 'Germaine' appears to have been an error for Jarmony/Germany/etc, possibly reflecting some unfamiliarity in that area with the latter forms of the name. For there is a subsequent entry for the burial of a Moses Jarmony on 14 Nov 1771 in Berrick.

I have nothing on the next child - Sarah Jarmony (baptised 20 May 1759) who is another (if slim) possibility as the mother of the Fingest Thomas described above. One may note here that at around this period - on 31 Oct 1757 - 'John Germany of Berrick Salome, labourer, was fined £10 for failing to keep the peace in respect of his wife' (Mary) - as per Oxon Quarter Session records; a considerable sum at the time. He would strongly appear to be our original 'mystery man' of uncertain origin, then aged about 41. The only 'labour' required in this entirely agricultural area would be on local farms. We may speculate whether his sons chose not to commemorate his name when naming their own elder sons because he had mis-treated their mother (or step-mother) - preferring eg the name of their elder brother James.

       Finally, we come to this John's last child Dinah Jarmony (baptised 12 Dec 1762) - our major concern - who was indeed therefore the 'youngest child of a John Jermy/Jarmony' (however spelt), so agreeing with the description given in Rush's 'Case'. Our assumption that she was likely to be Larner's mother as well (not actually specified in the quote from that case, nor in any other publications at that time) is also finally confirmed (more or less) when we note in the relevant register that she was later married in Benson, Oxfordshire - as 'Dinah Germany' - on 17 June 1784 (aged a fitting 22) - to one John Learner. Both made their marks so the Vicar would have spelt their names as he assumed they were (as spoken to him).

       It was of course this union from which the title of this present website section derives and a key element in our search to answer the question 'just who was John Larner' and how did he come to feel he had a claim (with his cousin Thomas 'Jermy' whose identity and claimed rights to the estate we also continue to seek to establish) on Stanfield Hall ? Their claim was presumably by virtue of being surviving male descendents of John Jarmony (bn ca 1712-15) - as of 1835 or so - after that man's other more senior male descendents had possibly or apprently all died. Larner's mother Dinah must have been a younger sister of Thomas's father; and if not of her half brother James Jarmony Snr then more likely of her elder full brother William Germany (bn 1746). But, had all other, more senior males of this local family (and their male heirs), truly died by the 1830s/'40s ?

[Note: After considerable uncertainty in this regard, it was initially concluded that Thomas Jermy, the Claimant (born about 1783 as then believed, was apparently the son of David Germany - of Swyncombe, and who, after serving briefly in the local Volunteers, met and married a Mary Hobbs by about 1811/12 (where unknown) and then, as a London and then Gloucester Stone Sawyer, had with her a family of about 6 children between 1812 and 1821 (ie rather unexpectedly during her late 40s) including William, Thomas, Frances, Mary Ann, James and a 2nd Thomas - born either in Oxfordshire but baptised in London, or born in London but baptised and (in 2 cases) buried in Gloucester. And, after returning to London (where the children (2 of whom also became Stone Sawyers) married, had issue and disbursed), the parents alone then settled ca 1840s in Upper Tooting, south London, where Thomas took on the gentler occupation of Garden labourer. And then, by about 1847, he seems to have been contacted by his cousin John Larner who must have believed this Thomas was the senior surviving Claimant of the family. The Tooting garden labourer thus became peripherally involved - seemingly for the first and only time - in the events at Stanfield Hall (ie in 1848/9 only) before soon dying in Tooting in 1850.]

       [However, this initial conception, assumed for some years, would now have to be considerably altered in several respects - as new facts emerged - as will be further analysed below. [These later findings indicated that this particular Thomas (assumed to be of Swyncombe) was however most unlikely to be the Thomas Jermy we were initially seeking, as discussed more fully below. The man who settled in Tooting (without doubt a Claimant, but with some later doubt as to whether he was nevertheless, the correct, senior 'Jermy' claimant) appeared to be another, similarly aged, Thomas Jermy of Oxfordshire - whose father was not David but David's elder full brother William Jermany. This latter Thomas, son of William, would indeed turn out to be Thomas Jermy of Tooting - who would be encouraged to be a joint Claimant with (and by) John Larner. However, neither of these Thomases (the sons of David or of his brother William) would prove to be the correct, senior Thomas (who was in fact the son of another, more senior William Jermy). This latter William's son was the Thomas who would become the Stone Sawyer with the large family). If anyone, he should have been the Claimant. Thomas of Tooting, who married Mary Hobbs secondly, had no issue by either wife.]

-- -- -- -- -- --

In the meantime, we may continue with our descriptions of the earlier Oxfordshire family of Jermanys, Jarmonys, etc:

       A witness at Dinah's marriage was a James Germany, who also made his mark. He would very likely be Dinah's eldest (half) brother James Snr - born as we have estimated about 1738 to their mutual father John Jarmony (born ca 1712-15) and his first wife Ann Hester. We had (by this point) yet to locate any baptism details for Dinah's apparent sonJohn Larner - born, according to his 1851 Census entry, somewhere in 'Oxfordshire' (the parish sadly not shown) - with his year of birth from different sources estimated to be around 1786-89. Where, one wondered, did his presumed parents settle after their marriage in Benson in 1784 therefore and have their early Larner issue, including in particular a son John ? Ironically (as it was his recorded place of birth that pointed us to Oxfordshire initially, possibly amongst other clues), it wasn't in Benson or Berrick Salome, nor apparently in any of the nearby Oxfordshire parishes where others of the Germany/Jarmony/Jermy family (and fewer Larners) did then reside. And was John their first or second child ? For there appears to have been room for an earlier son or daughter - born nearer 1785, with John Larner born about 1787, say. But where ? [This question is now addressed and finally resolved below (as well now in our earlier Summary of section 1.).]

-- -- -- -- -- --

       Having delineated briefly the issue of our earliest Oxfordshire 'Jermy' (John Germany/Jarmony) and his two wives as above, we now follow each of these lines in more detail:

.

The Senior Jermy Line from John Jarmony - by his eldest son James Jarmony Snr:  : 1 - by the latter's 1st son James Jermy Jnr:

       John's eldest (known) son James Jarmony Snr had (as mentioned above) his eldest son James Jnr by his first wife Ann Floyd in 1759, and then his second son William (the younger) by his 2nd wife Mary Vaughan in 1765. Mary soon died - just 3 years after the birth in 1767 of their only daughter Mary - and was buried in her home village of Watlington on 24 May 1770. James Snr soon re-married (as James Jarmony of Berrick) - on 24 Nov 1770 - to his 3rd wife Catherine Butler, also in Watlington. If they had any issue during the first 4 years of their union, there appears to be no record of same. (A son Thomas born about 1772 would appear a good possibility, as shown below, but seems to have died before his father - by about 1800, say.) They then had two daughters - Anne Jarmony baptised 14 Aug 1774 in Chalgrove, and Elizabeth Jarmony on 1 Dec 1776 in Berrick where they both eventually married: the former as 'Ann Jermy', spinster, to Thomas Hearn, bachelor on 13 Oct 1791 and Elizabeth, as 'Jarmay', to Richard Gales of Warborough on 21 May 1795; the latter couple remaining in Berrick until their deaths there in 1856 and 1842, respectively.

       The foregoing two marriages were, I believe, the first instances of any events registered in Oxfordshire in which the surname was not written as Germany/Jermany/Jarmony, or one of their near variations. The girls' father James Snr also had his surname spelt in the shorter form - as 'Jarmy' at least (as well still as Jarmany, Garmoney* and Jarmain) - in the 1790s, eg as a tax payer for 'occupying Widow Colling's land' in Benson. And a marriage in Berrick on Oct 19 1797 (between Richard Barns and Ann Hancock) was witnessed by one or other 'James Jarmy'; and another tax record for Benson shows the name 'Jas. Jarmy', dated 1800. Interestingly, the Quarter Session records dated 17 June 1799 show that Thomas Hearn, then of Swyncombe, labourer and 'James Jermy' of Berrick Salome, Higler, were each fined £10 for disobeying an affiliation order at Benson. It might seem more probable that the latter man would be the younger James (bn 1759), who may well have worked as a Higler with his father, although it seems equally possible it was the elder man. A Thomas Germany also occupied nearby land - in 1798. This person would presumably then be aged at least 18 or older and so born before 1778, say - eg possibly a Thomas born to James and Catherine in 1772 as suggested above, since William (the elder)'s and his bother David's sons Thomas (1 & 2) were not born until ca 1781 and 1783, respectively, and the younger William's son of this same christian name (Thomas 3), not until 1784 or later. One of the older Thomases may have had a wife Mary in Fingest.

      [* Note: There were, I believe, a number of Garmoneys or similar noted earlier in ?Berkshire whose surname I had assumed would always be pronounced with a hard 'G' - as in Gordon - and thus never represent any of the Jarmony, Germany, Jermy, etc lines of present interest with their invariable soft G or J; but the possible significance of this apparent spelling for James on this one occasion (and also for a Thomas who was shown as ?buried in Berrick in 1784 with this surname), should probably be kept more in mind than previously. We have seen how the name was spelt as a form of Germany/Jarmony for almost 60 years, for various events of countless individuals, and then, for no apparent reason, increasingly as Jarmy, Jermy or Germy - through the mid-to late-1790s and into and beyond the early 1800s. As with most people then in the unskilled labouring classes, they all signed with their marks until well into that next century. By about 1850, many more of them began signing their names and thus would be able to inform church incumbents how they understood they were spelt. This was not the case, however, between 1730 and at least 1830. Why, therefore, did it begin either to ?revert to Jermy or, more probably, simply to alter to this quite different version just before 1800 ? For it was so consistently never of that form for all previous generations and many decades in Oxfordshire??

    Was it pure coincidence therefore that Frances Michell (ex Jermy (allegedly); nee Preston) died in London on 18 Nov 1791 - very near the time that the spelling 'Jermy' first begins in Oxfordshire ? Did the local Vicars get The Times or the Gentleman's Magazine and note her obituary with its Jermy relevance mentioned ? [But this latter date appears to be just too late (by just three weeks!) to allow this interpretation.] Or, did Jermy Harcourt before his death in 1764(?) instruct someone to fulfill his role as a trustee of William Jermy's Will - to inform whichever Jermy was William's nearest in blood when Frances died (if no other named Prestons survived) of their possible inheritance? This would assume that, through his contact with John Jermy in Yarmouth, Jermy Harcourt would have known of John's assumed son's abode in Oxfordshire (and of his eldest grandson - James Snr (of 'indigent circumstances')- as well) - if indeed such relationships were accepted or known of - and informed such a 'deputy trustee' of same before his own death - or even left written instructions to this effect? This could also explain the apparent awareness of the content of William's Will to those in Oxfordshire. What does his own Will say, if anything, in this regard? This, an admitted long shot, might be usefully checked.]

       James and Catherine appear to have had no other issue (ie ca 1778-90s) before Catherine's eventual death and burial in Berrick in late 1808 (no date shown), although we may recall that no baptismal entries were shown in the Berrick register ca 1781-83. The transcribed burial entry showed her as 'Catherine Jenny' wife of James. There were, however, no 'Jennys' in that area and we may confidently assume this should have read 'Jermy' in the original. James soon married for a 4th time - on 9 Feb 1809 - as James Germy, widower, to Susanna Fox, widow - in Benson. As at his three previous marriages, James again 'made his mark'. They appear to have had no issue before James himself died - on 25 Aug 1817 - being buried in Berrick on the 28th of that month - as 'James Jermy', aged 79. His last wife lived until 1832, being buried in Berrick also, but as Susan Jermeny, on June 4th that year, aged 82. Thus the elder James had just 5 definite surviving children of whom we are aware - two sons (James Jnr and William the younger) and three daughters - and possibly a third son Thomas, as mentioned. (We may note here that just 5 days after James' burial in Berrick, a Stephen Larner married in that same church - on 30 Aug 1817 to a Mary Russell, they then having a son Joseph Larner baptised there on 15 Nov 1818.)

       James Snr left a Will written 29 May 1817. In the associated Death Duty register, he is described as 'James Jermy, late of Berrick Salome, Oxfordshire, Higler'. He was sometimes also described as being of nearby Roke and Benson. A Higler is an itinerant dealer in the countryside who haggles (hence 'higler') over the purchase and sale of things like poultry, eggs, butter, cheese, milk, etc. In his Will, he left his younger son William Jermy (spelt thus) his house, garden and orchard in Roke (where he and his wife Mary would long.reside). To his daughter Anne Hern, he left his other house, hovel and garden, also in Roke ('where she now lives'). To his wife (unnamed but seemingly now Susannah (Fox), he left all his household possessions. Reference was also made to his eldest son James Jnr, 'now dead'; he had in fact died earlier that same year,in about March, I believe, but the details are presently lacking. The residue from the sale of his possessions after his wife's decease was to be divided into 5 equal parts; each of his 4 living children (ie apparently William, Mary, Anne and Elizabeth - with no reference to a son Thomas born ca 1772 to him and 3rd wife Catherine once thought a possibility) were to receive one such part while the 5th part was to be equally divided between the 3 surviving children of his recently deceased son James. (Sadly, a fire destroyed the furniture later that year.) His executor was his son-in-law Richard Gale of Berrick, a Wheelwright. As mentioned, James was buried in Berrick on 28 Aug 1817 and the Will proved on 20 Sept 1817 at the Bishop's Court in Oxford by Richard Gale.

       We may note that a 'James Germaney' had some years earlier married in Britwell Salome (near Watlington) - to Frances Curties/Curtyes, both making their mark. Initially, it was assumed that this James could be the son of James Snr (then of Benson). But there is some uncertainty here. The date given is 5 Nov 1798 but James Jnr and wife (also a Frances) appear to have had a large family of about 12 children somewhat earlier - between 1789 and ca 1806 - and in Wallingford (most of whom sadly died young). Should the marriage year have read 1789 therefore? Or, was the Britwell marriage correctly dated 1798 and thus that of a different, later-born James Germany - one born about 1775-77, say, with the present and slightly older James Jnr (born 1759) having married another Frances somewhat earlier (ca 1785-88)? Seemingly, Yes; but where, and when? We lack any such record. The children of this latter couple were mostly baptised at the Independent Chapel on Market Square, Wallingford (quite near Benson and not so near Britwell Salome). Possibly this elder Frances was from the Wallingford area and met and married her James nearby? Their children were: Sarah (1789), Richard (1791; died 1792), William (1792), Joshua 1 (1795; died 1795), Joshua 2 (1796), Joseph (?1798), Mary Ann 1 (1800; died 1800), Mary Ann 2 (1802; died 1802), James 1 (1804; died 1805), James 2 (1806; died 1806). The two Mary Anns were buried at St Mary Le More, Wallingford; where the others were buried, if different, is uncertain but see now below.

       The others now seem to have been buried in that latter churchyard as well - the Independent Chapel, where they were baptised, not having its own burial ground. Ten such burials are recorded although the details are not very complete. They read as follows: 15 Jan 1792 - ....Jirmy, child of Mr Jirmy; 12 June 1795 - ....Jirmy, child of Mr Jirmy; 20 July 1796 - John Jermy, child; 21 June 1800 - Ann Jermy, infant; 27 June 1802 - Mary Jermy, infant; 26 Nov 1805 - James Jermy; 7 Feb 1806 - James Jermy; 26 Aug 1849 - William Jermy (alias Castle), 23 years; 24 Jan 1865 James Jermy, 64 years (of Union House) and 4 Feb 1885 - Maria Jermey, 69 (of Uhion House). (It seems probable that the James Jermy who died in 1865 was not of this family but rather, very likely the husband (widower) of Mary Jermy (nee Francis), who had died 10 years earlier, also in Wallingford. He was probably nearer 67 in age than the 64 ?estimated and thus born about 1797 in Benson to Mary Germy, before she married John Castle there in 1800; see 5th line of descent below.)

       We may recall that in early 1817, James Jnr himself died (but evidence and details still sought; it seems odd that his burial is not registered in Wallingford) and his father James Snr referred later that year to the 3 children of his recently deceased son James (and wife Frances). Presumably, these were Sarah, William and Joseph - the second Joshua having also died young. This seems to indicate that it was indeed the Benson/Wallingford/ Reading Frances (surname uncertain) who was married by 1789 to James Jarmony Jnr, the eldest son of James Snr, and that it was thus another and younger James who, in 1798, most likely married another Frances (ie Curtyes) - in Britwell Salome. Conveniently, it turns out there was at least one and possibly two other James Germany(s) to represent the latter man - the more relevant one born in 1775 to James Jnr's slightly older uncle David Germany (see below). And, with this latter Frances, they could well be the parents of a namesake daughter Frances Jermy (born ca 1803, say) who, as a spinster, also married in Britwell Salome - on 7 Apr 1825 by licence to James Austin, a bachelor of neighbouring Watlington. [One may wonder if David's sister Dinah and husband John Larner Snr may have shifted in this same eastward direction - nearer to their mutual mother's people at Watlington and Britwell Salome; (Yes, they very likely did; see now below).]

      James Jnr and his Frances, who settled in the opposite direction in Wallingford, on the other hand, appear not to have had a daughter given this name (although we may ask 'why not'?), nor any son called David. Possibly the marriage licence (at ORO?) will reveal the Curteis parentage of the younger Frances of Britwell? Did she have any siblings? (The third James Germany (as mentioned above) was the one also born about 1775-77, in nearby Fingest (just beyond Britwell Salome) to William (the elder) and wife Sarah, as described earlier, and apparently unmarried at his death in 1855, aged about 80, and thus would be neither of the two young husbands/fathers named James Germany/Jarmony or similar, both married to Franceses, as discussed here.

       James Snr's daughter-in-law Frances (initially of Wallingford), wife of his son James Jnr, left a Will herself - as Frances Jermy - by then 'of Reading, Berkshire, widow', which she wrote on 10 July 1834. She left her small estate valued at about £300 to be divided equally between her then two surviving children Sarah Ann and William Jermy, otherwise to their children. Sarah Ann was then married to James Walters of Reading, a Cooper (they apparently having married at the Primitive Methodist Chapel in Wallingford in 1813, although the marriage was registered at St Mary Le More there). This shows that in 1813 (date lacking) Sarah Ann Germany (of...?) married James Walters of St Giles, Reading, by licence, although she signed as 'Sarah Jermy' (besides which is written: "same person"). This was probably why her mother Frances would settle in Reading herself after her husband James Jermy Jnr died, apparently in early 1817. Her only other surviving son Joseph Jermy had apparently become a Baker in Reading. He seems to have married in Clewer, Berks to a Lucy Brain on 6 Sept 1830, but just 5 weeks later a Joseph Jermey of Peascod Street, Windsor, Berks (nearby), aged 32, died and was buried - on 17 Oct that same year - at St John the Baptist, Windsor. If this Joseph was indeed Frances' son, it seems odd that she would refer to him in her Will of 1834 as though still alive (and as of Reading). [Maybe it was written about 1828 but only signed in 1834?] One can see no other Jermys in the Windsor area and Joseph is a surprisingly uncommon forename in that family).

       Her daughter Sarah Ann had a son James Jermy Walters around 1815-20, probably in Reading, where he later married ca June 1848. Keeping her father's surname thus alive was maintained by this latter son when in 1852 he named his son in turn identically, as well as by commemorating that of his uncle Joseph Jermy entirely with his next son, born in 1864. The latter man himself moved from his family's then location beyond Reading (in Wiltshire) into London - where he married in 1888 and had a son himself in 1894 named Horace Jermy Walters, who died the next year. [These examples of the surname Jermy used as a middle or forename name are due to the appreciated efforts of Colin Jermy as per his website. One wonders if the motivation to retain this latter form of the name was any more than the usual desire to keep an earlier family surname alive - ie for no other specific reason....or..?]

       Where Frances' son William Jermy (b 1792), apparently with a family, resided in 1834 and to whom he had married (ca 1814-20?) was not mentioned in the Will. Two trustees were named by Frances to oversee any purchase of stock with the £300. One was William Harris, the Dissenting Minister of Wallingford (further identifying Frances and her deceased husband James Jnr with that family). Frances died on 1 Aug 1834 and the Will was proved on 27 Nov that year by her daughter Sarah Ann Walters. Did Frances' sons William or, less likely, Joseph survive and have any surviving son(s)? And, if so, Where? The 1851 Census for Reading is to be examined shortly to this end. [Sadly, no Jermys of this family were found there then; 1841 may be tried; nor have any marriages or issue of such possible sons been noted. One should also consider if any of the William Jermy entries in London could represent this man or his issue. One married in Islington in 1832 but is now known to be a son of one of the to be Thomas Jermys described later. Seemingly the same one had issue in Kensington and Chelsea whose occupation in 1851 was shown as a 'Barman'.] The later Censuses - for 1881 and 1901 - do show some Jermy/Jermey entries in Reading possibly descended from either this line and/or that deriving from unwed Ann Jermany and her equally unwed daughter Mary (see below). [We may note here in passing that in the 1881 Census, a 'Maria Jermy', widow, aged 68 (and so likely born ca 1813 - in London) was an inmate of Wallingford Workhouse, having been married at some point to a male Jermy - one probably born around 1800-10, say - but where and to whom has yet to be determined.] Finally, we may also note that the 1880 Census in America shows about 5 Jermy/Jermey families including a William T. Jermey in Oneida, nr Madison, New York born ca 1843 somewhere 'in England'; his father would likely be born around 1815-20 and if not in Norfolk or London, then possibly in the Reading area - possibly as a son of our missing William (b 1792) [No; this now resolved: This William Jermy was in fact born in Coltishall, Norfolk; see below.]

       It appears therefore that Frances' son William Jermy and family must have left the Wallingford and/or Reading areas before the 1851 Census (and possibly even before his mother died in 1834). Given verification of John Jarmony's alleged origins, this man could represent therefore the senior surviving male Jermy of the original Gunton line, as later would any surviving son(s) he may have had. As he was born in 1792, he likely married around 1812-20, say, and have any such family (referred to by Frances in her Will) in the 1820s - before birth registrations began in 1837. But any such issue would themselves then marry around the 1840s/'50s and such potential registrations should at least be checked in this regard - as can the Census. One can also check for any subsequent death of such a William Jermy (ca 1835-70) in the Berkshire area, as well as in London (to try to gain (as by the Census') some idea where this family, if surviving, may have possibly settled). Reading parish registers for the 1820s can of course also be checked. In any case, this man would, after the deaths of the two James Jermys, be the senior 'remainder man' by the 1830s (and possibly '40s as well) rather than any of the Thomas Jermys or their cousin John Larner (and any other more intermediate cousins). Possibly his existence was simply unknown by the latter men? Or did he die just before 1837 ? No claims to the Stanfield estate have ever been associated with his name.

       [I later found no relevant Jermy marriages in the 1840s/50s, nor a death registration for this William in Berkshire ca 1837 to 1860; he and any male issue may have died ca 1834-37, of course. There was one William Jermy death registered in Brentford in Dec 1838, and others in Chelsea (Sept 1844), St Pancras (June 1851), St Luke's (Dec 1852), St George Hanover Square (June 1855) and another in Chelsea (March 1856). Several of these are however now known to be other members of the original Oxfordshire family and will be mentioned in the appropriate sections below as and when so confirmed, as will other Jermy events in these lines noted over this same period. [From Colin Jermy's fulsome lists, we note a William Jermy (b ca 1798) and family resided in Reading as per the Census that year. But there appears, oddly, to be no record therein of their origins nor of their subsequent careers, nor his burial. One had wondered if the William Jermy with wife Mary Ann and son William (b 1843) who had emigrated to America in 1851 may have been this missing family but it later became apparent that they were in fact of the Jermy family of Swanton Abbott and Coltishall in Norfolk (as described in the section on the Jermys of Broadland (specifically in the sub-section for Salhouse, Wroxham, etc).]

[We may insert about here further detail concerning the two young Jermy families - sometime of Reading in Berkshire - that might somehow relate to our present uncertainties. They were headed by a John and a William Jermy, respectively, both apparently born just before 1800. We first find John (aged 40+) and his wife Sarah (35+) residing in a small village in Hampshire (Brown Candover) as per the 1841 census where he is the Publican and they have 6 children: Sarah (16), Elizabeth (14), Mary (12), John (10), Hannah (8) and Catherine (Kate) (4). All except wife Sarah were born somewhere in Hampshire. This is unusual as there appear to be no other pockets of Jermys residing in that general vicinity at the time or earlier. On this same census, we also find a William Jermy and family residing in relatively nearby Reading - his wife another Sarah and both again shown aged 40+ and 35+. They have 5 children - William (10), Edward (7), Thomas (4), Clara (3) and Mary (1) - none of whom nor the parents are shown as born in Berkshire. One thus wondered if, like the Hampshire family, they may have all been born there also and that this John and William were thus brothers ? This was not reduced in probability when, at the next census, in 1851, we find that the Hampshire family appear now as residents in Reading themselves - with John now a Weaver, as are several of the children, although the son John was a 'Brass Finisher'. Their places of birth are now provided more specifically - being confirmed as 'Andover, Hampshire' - for them all except wife Sarah, born in London. Who, one wondered, was John (and William) Jermys' father - living in Andover, Hampshire in the late 1700s ? And where were William and family in 1851 ? Still in Reading or had they effectively traded places with John and family and moved similarly en masse to Hampshire ? Seemingly neither, for they appear in none of the usual Jermy locales in that next census, nor in Hampshire. And with one of the family having the usefully uncommon name of 'Clara', we should be able to find her on one index or another - but neither she (nor any of the others) seem to appear anywhere - either pre- or post 1841!? By 1861, the son John Jnr is now married (in 1852) to an Ellen and still residing in Reading, shown as an Iron Turner. But where were William and his family - after 1841 ??

       Some possibilities regarding these two families are suggested by the finding (reported previously elsewhere on this site) that the father of the John Jermy born in Andover about 1798, appears to have been a John Jermy himself - a Tallow Chandler of Andover, whose Will, written 11 July 1818, was proved at the court of the Arch Winchester 4 Aug 1826 (estate value less than £100). In it, he refers to his wife Elizabeth and, usefully, sons John and William Jermy. All was left to his wife Elizabeth for life and then to their four children: William Jermy (then of Paradise Street, Finsbury Square, London), John Jermy, the Weaver of Reading, unmarried Sarah Jermy and her married sister Ann Rodd, both still in Andover apparently. We may also recall that if John Jarmony and first wife Ann Hester did have a first son named John as suggested (born ca 1737), he may well have moved to such as Hampshire by the 1760s and have such a son John himself there soon after. (This should at least be checked out.) It would seem that the son John, while having his family in Andover ca 1820s to 1837 and residing in Brown Candover in 1841 (he then the Publican there), moved to Reading before 1851 where they were Weavers for the most part. It is (at present) uncertain whether he was already a Weaver (whether at Reading or elsewhere) at the time his father wrote his Will in 1818. His (?older) brother William was apparently already in London by that latter year (doing what? Possibly acting as an agent for his father's tallow business?). Both brothers were likely still single in 1818, so neither of their future brides nor issue are referred to in the Will. It seems quite possible that William's children were all born in Hampshire (in a parish not covered by the IGI) and this could be Andover (where John's were shown as born with more certainty in the 1851 Reading census). William and family may have resided in the Andover area in 1851 and this census data, similarly, may not be covered by the usual (free) indexes.]

      It is interesting to note that until the early 1860s, the civil registrations for 'Jermy' (and similar) are about 90% or more for Norfolk and Suffolk and hence, except for a few in east and north London (probably also derived ultimately from East Anglia - often as Jermyn, etc earlier, although the above William of Finsbury Square is an exception), most of the remaining few can reasonably be related to the Oxon/Bucks/Berks families, several having settled in inner-west or south-west London. This split can probably be related to the respective train terminals in these areas from the 1840s, with those found somewhere between, in say Marylebone, being of more indeterminate origin. (One of the Oxfordshire family did reside in St Pancras and this may relate to the coaches of the day (ie before trains arrived) coming from Oxfordshire along what is today the A40 - into that area; see later.] We now continue with the next line descended from John Jarmony:

.

The Senior Jermy Line from John Jarmony - by his eldest son James Snr:    2 - by the latter's 2nd son William Jarmony.

       James Snr's second son (born to John and 2nd wife Mary Vaughan) - the younger William Jermy (b 1765) - likely married in the Benson/Berrick area around 1784 to a Mary..?... but details are lacking. They would have 3 children at least - Thomas Jermany (baptised 14 June 1789, but apparently born ca 1784 (the 1789 date appears to be an error for that latter date; see later), Martha Jarmony (20 Feb 1791) and a William Jarmy (15 Mar 1795) - being the third thus far of this forename), all baptised and registered in Berrick, but possibly born in Benson or Roke. As mentioned earlier, an entry also appeared in the Berrick register in respect of a Thomas Garmony, dated 10 Apr 1784. But, because of the illness of the local priest, as reported in the register, many registrations are lacking around this period. One wonders if this entry for Thomas, apparently shown on a burial page, should have been made instead on the baptism page of that register? Once, and if, such an error was discovered, it may have been later rectified by a proper baptismal entry 5 years later - on the 1789 page. (This possibility is considered for reasons discussed below). There may also have been a daughter Mary born to this same couple there - baptised 10 June 1792 but buried in October that same year (the source of which entry is presently lacking) although the Berrick register also has a note saying that "No baptisms were recorded during 1792-93 - while Mr Bonsquet was Curate". [Would any Bishops' Transcripts have recorded such missing data; very unlikley. Such missing baptisms may well have been the case in other periods.]

     In April 1817, this William Jermy, then about 52 and described as a 'Huckster' of Roke (part of Benson and/or Berrick) petitioned with two others to be released from Oxford prison where they were being held in regard to debts, claiming they had already dealt with their creditors in the proper way (for potential bankrupts). A 'Huckster' is similar to a 'Higler', that is, a peddler or hawker of country produce. Some years later, there was a quarter sessions entry - dated 30 Nov 1823 - in which William Jermy and Robt Tuck, both of Berrick Salome, were fined £20 each - 'to answer for the child of Sarah Carr of Newington'. It is possible the William Jermy concerned could be the younger one - born in 1795. We note that in the 1841 census for Reading, there was a William Jermy (b ca 1798) and wife Sarah who had 3 sons and 2 daughters between about 1830 (possibly earlier?) and 1840 (not born in Berkshire; but where?). Could they also have had this child - earlier (ca 1823, say)? [No; this family and that of a brother John were as already described above.] The 1841 Census shows William Snr and Mary Jarmy still residing in Benson (or Roke?), both in their 70s, he an agricultural labourer, but there is no record of them in the 1851 (or later) census. I could see no burial for the elder William ca 1841-55 locally however, although his wife, Mary Jermany 'of Roke', aged 85, was herself buried - in Benson - on 18 Sept 1847. [We will however discover this William's death, four years later; see inserted paragraph next.]

[We now (Sept 2007) have new Census data (gratefully from Colin Jermy) that Mary's apparent husband William Jermy (Snr), widower, aged 85, had left Roke (and indeed Oxfordhire itself) and was residing in St Pancras, London by 1851, with his eldest son Thomas Jermy, the Stone Sawyer, born Benson, Oxfordshire, aged 67 ! This strongly supports the idea that this Thomas was indeed the one born about 1784 - to this William, the younger son of James Jermy Snr. It also explains the lack of a local (Benson/Berrick) burial for William. There was in fact a north-central London death registration for William Jermy within the year (June Q 1851, I believe) which may well be him (see later). We may recall that Thomas Jermy the gardener and Claimant had already died in 1850 in Tooting and thus this present, slightly younger, Oxfordshire Thomas Jermy, the Stone Sawyer, clearly living in 1851, was not Thomas - the Gardener and Claimant (nor was the latter man ever a Stone Sawyer). Nevertheless, that younger Thomas's place of birth in the family actually gave him (and his father William) precedence in such a claim over Thomas the Gardener (whom we had previously considered (in error) to have been, in his earlier life, the Stone Sawyer). Thomas, the actual Stone Sawyer, seems to have died in about 1852/3. Neither he nor his father earlier were likely to have had any knowledge of possible rights to an estate anywhere.

     In the previous Census - for 1841 (when Thomas the Sawyer's father William was noted as still at home in/nr Benson with his wife Mary) - that same Thomas himself (it would now appear) was already residing in London, with his own family, at Eaton Lane North, St George Hanover Square, Westminster (see HO107/732/10) - as also recently reported by Colin Jermy. The relevant entry reads as follows:

1841 Census - St George Hanover Square, London.

     Head - Thomas Jermy, 57, Stone Sawyer, Not born Middx (ca 1783/4); Wife - Mary Jermy, 41, Not born Middx (ca 1799/1800); and 6 children: son William (seemingly named after Thomas's father), 28, also a Stone Sawyer, born ?Middx (ca 1812/13), daughter Frances, 23, no occupation given, born ?Middx (ca 1817/18); son James, 22, Stone Sawyer, Not born Middx (1818/19), son 'John', 20, Stone Sawyer, Not born Middx (ca 1820/21), Emma, 15, born Middx (ca 1825/26), Jane, 12, born Middx (ca 1828/29) and Mary, 8, born Middx (ca 1832/33).

    We are most fortunate to have the actual ages shown in this Census; they were usually given in that Census only to the nearest 5 year point below actual age. Thomas Jermy's ages reported in these 2 Censuses (of 1841 and '51) are consistent, as is his occupation. Clearly, we have had to adjust our initial conception that it was Thomas the Gardener/Claimant who, with wife Mary Hobbs(almost 50 when they married), proceeded to have a large family of about 6 children - with the same names and ages as are now seen in fact to be those of this other Thomas - with his younger wife (or wives) - awkwardly both also called Mary, but neither being Mary nee Hobbs. We had thus also wrongly assumed that Thomas the Gardener/Claimant had been a Stone Sawyer, who had first moved to Gloucester. He wasn't and he didn't. Nor, it is now apparent, did he ever have any issue with his somewhat elderly wife.

     Had these 1841 Census details been discovered and reported on prior to those for 1851 - for this Thomas (as shown above), we would no doubt have seen them initially as confirmation that our interpretation of Thomas the Claimant as initially beig a Stone Sawyer (and only later a Gardener), with a wife Mary (Hobbs) and a large family (some born in Gloucester), later to retire to Tooting, was correct. His assumed birth to David Jermy in ca 1783 would also prove quite consistent with that Thomas being then aged 57. But the 1841 (and 1851) data now requires us to revise this conception greatly. Moreover, not only had Thomas the Claimant died by 1850, but (as will be shown later), his own 1841 Census was also later discovered, showing him already resident in Tooting (still with no family; only his wife Mary) when this other Thomas, the actual Stone Sawyer, and family, was residing in Hanover Square (and, by 1851, doing so in St Pancras with his father William (b 1765) - of Berrick - now reasiding with them. They are thus of our presently considered line of descent (ie rather than of David's, who might remain a possibility as the other (Gardener) Thomas's father or, now more likely, he ((that father) may well be David's slightly older full brother, William Jermany of Fingest (b 1746 in Berrick ). [Yes - now essentally confirmed.]

       We may now seek to relate this latter London family of Thomas Jermy, the true Stone Sawyer, as it now appears in early Victorian times, with our previously gathered data concerning the other couple with these same names (and their presumed Oxfordshire beginnings) whom we had wrongly assumed to be Thomas the Gardener/Claimant and wife Mary (nee Hobbs).

      Thus, it was found (I believe originally by Isabelle Charlton, a descendent of the above Frances Harris (nee Jermy), that a Thomas Jermy, then a labourer of Somers Town in St Pancras, and wife Mary, appear in London as early as 1813 (apparently from Oxfordshire but this only later determined) where they had what we reasonably assumed was the above son William Jermy, baptised there on 1st Aug 1813. [This father Thomas would be aged about 28 that year and his first occupation in London may well have been as a general labourer, before acquiring even the skills needed as a Stone Sawyer (which occupation , before the age of engines and power, was still essentially that of a labourer, albeit based on some training and experience.]

       If he was indeed one of the 3 Thomas Jermys from Oxfordshire born in the 1780s, this naming of his ?first son again suggests that his father in turn was more likely one of the two William Jermys born there in previous generations, rather than David of Swyncombe. [Note: a later Census (1851) for apparently this same 1813-baptised William, by then married and living in Kensington, indicates that he was indeed born in Oxfordshire - in 1812; but to whom was not then apparent. And, was he himself shown as a Stone Sawyer then ? Was it not possible that the 1813-baptised William may have been born to Thomas the Gardener/Claimant after all (even if none of the later born children were) - since the father Thomas concerned was, not inappropriately, shown then as a 'labourer' (as would Thomas the future Gardener later in Tooting) ? If so, then the other Thomas (later to be the Stone Sawyer) must have had his son William (of very similar age, as noted in the 1841 census), born and/or baptised elsewhere. This will be considered again below - when it was concluded (from his earlier marriage details) that the William living in Kensington in 1851 was certainly the same man noted as a Stone Sawyer with his father in 1841, even though he had changed his occupation by 1851 to that of a Carman, and that he was indeed born to Thomas the eventual Stone Sawyer and not to the Gardener, later of Tooting. [This was verified by his parishmarriage registration of 1832. Thomas of Tooting again appears therefore not to have had any issue - including this William baptised in St Pancras in 1813 (long assumed wrong;y to be born to 'Tooting Tom'). He was, rather, born to Thomas the Stone Sawyer who was never the Claimant.

      If it was the same Thomas (of Hanover Square by 1841) who was the father of this William (now concluded to have been, initially, a Stonesawyer himself), we may take it that it was this same father Thomas (with 1st wife Mary) who also had, as a second, namesake son, the Thomas Jermy, born 17 May 1814 - 'in Oxfordshire' apparently (see later) who was, again, only baptised much later - on 12 Oct 1817 - but again in London - this time at St Margaret's, Westminster. The same couple then also had their daughter Frances Jermy baptised there that same date - when they resided for a time on Gt Peter Street, Thomas now working as the Stone Sawyer he would long remain (never having been or becoming a Gardener). This was probably on the local Cathedral or Abbey, although there was much new stone building generally in that area then as well.

       The choice of name for Frances is not immediately apparent, although Thomas's assumed father William did have a sister-in-law named Frances, back in Oxfordshire. It appears that the 1817-baptised Frances later told the Census enumerator in 1861 that she was not only baptised in Westminster but actually born there as well (as agrees with the 1841 entry regarding her place of birth being recorded as Middx). However, in the 1871 Census, she had (usefully) changed this to having been born, specifically, in 'Benson, Oxfordshire' (this, with gratitude, from Isabelle's cousin Brother Rory, discovered only latterly). Presumably, it was concluded that her then older brother Thomas (born 1814) had similarly been born in Oxfordshire (also in Benson, one would assume) and was for some reason later brought, with Frances, to be baptised in Westminster, both on that same day. We might conclude that Mary at least found it preferable giving birth back in Benson - possibly with her mother nearby? Oddly, both Frances and William are shown as born in Middx in that 1841 Census but both would (I believe) indicate in later Censuses that they were in fact both born in Benson or at least in 'Oxfordshire'. We don't know why the parents decided to have the two children baptised back in Westminster; possibly there was no regular or reliable Vicar at Benson or Berrick churches around that time?

       Thomas Jermy, Stone Sawyer, and family appear to have soon moved on again (within a year or two) - but this time quite a distance - to the Cathedral city of Gloucester where they had a second daughter in late 1818, Mary Ann Jermy, baptised 18 Jan 1819 (Mary at least being the mother's name) and a third son James Jermy (where and when born not initially known but seemingly in London ca 1819, according to his later Census entries) although he too was also baptised in Gloucester later that year - on 5 Dec 1819. Possibly both were born in London - as twins(?) - in about late 1818 ? A Mary Ann Jermy died and was buried in Gloucester just two weeks later - on 20 Dec 1819. Was this the daughter or the mother ? In any case, Thomas was still described as a Stone sawyer that year and had presumably moved to Gloucester for employment on the Cathedral. We don't know for how long into the 1820s, say, the family may have remained there - if they did. The Gloucester city rates records could possibly reveal them - if these weren't restricted to property owners only. Or, they may have soon moved on - in the early to late 1820s, say, to somewhere else, either nearby, back to Oxfordshire (where Thomas may have re-married a second Mary (ca 1824) and then on to London again - wherever Stone workers were then needed or other employment likely. In any case, we should also mention here that the son Thomas, born in 1814, died in Gloucester, aged 6, in 1820.

       The 1841 Census now described above shows us that Thomas and his 2nd Mary (not the same one seemingly who had William, Thomas and Frances in Oxfordshire (if baptised in London) - and Mary Ann and James in London (baptised in Gloucester), were now residing in St George Hanover Square by that latter date, and quite possibly from the early 1830s, say. Many new homes were being constructed in that Hanover Sq area then and stone workers were no doubt in demand. The new Mary, shown as only 41 in the 1841 Census (and not born in London), was however likely the mother of the 3 younger childen, including a son 'John'(as so listed), who were born in London (Middx). By the 1851 Census, the family had disbursed - as the older children married and made their way in life (to be traced through later Censuses hopefully) - while the father Thomas the Sawyer (now usefully shown in that Census as born in Benson), had re-married again (to an Ann (born St Lukes, north-central London) and, still with his aged father William Jermy, formerly of Roke (the theoretical 'remainder man'), were now living on Lt King St, St Pancras (working on the new Railway stations?). The father William, now 85, seems to have died later that year (Dec quarter 1851), still in St Pancras, while a Thomas Jermy's death is registered in the June quarter 1863 in Chelsea (his old haunts?) when he'd be about 78. Nearby, in Kensington, an Ann Jermy died in the Dec quarter 1869, aged 77 - possibly residing with her mother-in-law Frances Harris (nee Jermy).

       As with all the rest of the Oxfordshire family (other than John Larner and, only latterly, his (wrong) cousin Thomas), neither appears to have shown any interest in being an heir to an unknown estate in far-off Norfolk. One is inclined to think that none of the rest of the family were ever aware of same and that John Larner alone became so only after meeting Mary Pearce and her brother James (whose family lived near Stanfield Hall in Norfolk) around 1810. The Pearces would know the local land agents - to whom all tenant farmers were paying their rents. Some suspicions about the inheritance of the Hall and the suspect Will was not at all unlikely through the 1790s and into the in the early 1800s. The actual remainder man up to 1851 was thus the William Jermy (b 1765), son of James Jermy Snr by his 2nd wife Mary Vaughan. William appears to have been a bit of a reprobate, being the 'huckster' in prison for debt (1817) and later (1823) named as father of an illegitimate child. I doubt if he'd ever heard of Stanfield Hall.

-- -- -- -- --

       A tentative pedigree for the early Oxfordshire family is shown below. As it is too wide to place in one section, it has been split into left and right portions (as Pedigrees 1 and 2) which, conveniently, represent the issue from John Jarmony's two wives, respectively - the second pedigree now appearing in association with the 3rd line of descent some distance below. [Note: the latter pedigree previously showed issue from Thomas the Claimant (b 1781), all of whom should actually have been shown as deriving instead only from Thomas the StoneSawyer (b 1784). As the surname spellings often vary for the same individual on different occasions, an attempt has been made to use those that seem most typical in a given period. Those shown in the text however are generally as noted in the actual registers for each event; also, the text should normally take precedence over the pedigrees in terms of the latest view as to assumed relationships - as the latter tend to lag behind in any revisions. [The following three pedigrees have now been corrected to agree with the revised text following the receipt of that 1841 and 1851 census data in Sept 2007.]

       We may now trace the dispersed lives of the elder children of Thomas (the Sawyer) and first wife Mary - beginning with William, who, as we now know, also became a Stone Sawyer. Thus, a William Jermy married a Rebecca - apparently by the mid-1830s (seemingly in London) where the births of daughters Lydia and Rebecca (with parents William and Rebecca Jermy) were subsequently registered, in Kensington in March 1840 and 1841, respectively (but with Lydia actually born in Islington, I believe; see below). They also had a namesake son William Jermy - while living on Praed Street, Paddington around 1844 (likely registered in Chelsea in March 1844; but he soon died that same year). I believe that the William who was the father of the above children was, like his own father, shown as a Stone Sawyer himself at some point, but it is important to have this confirmed. [Yes, it has now been confirmed - by notes of this marriage (in Islington in 1832) held by Isabelle Charlton which also show, appropriately, that the Thomas who was William's father was indeed a Stone Sawyer (and not a Gardener). We know that the William residing with his parents in 1841 in Hanover Square was certainly a Stone Sawyer; but marriage status is not given in that census. Was he already married ? If so, where was his wife Rebecca at the time of that 1841 Census ? (Quite possibly at her parents' home having her daughter Rebecca.)

      In any case, the death of daughter Rebecca was soon registered in nearby Kensington RD - in the March quarter 1842, while another apparent daughter, Mary Ann Jermy/Jerny (sic), was born and died in neighbouring Chelsea (?Pimlico) in the December quarter that same year. William's wife Rebecca's death was then itself registered just two years later - in December 1844 - also in Chelsea, where their son William had apparently also recently died - in September that same year, only a few months old. Such a catalogue of bad luck and misery!! The early 1840s were notorious for poor hygiene throughout London, with much infection among the teeming masses of the working class. [A Jane Jermy's death was also registered that quarter but in Kensington; I'm not sure how she may fit in, but see now below. Or, was she his sister - born ca 1829?] At least the daughter Lydia appears to have survived and married - in Sept 1862, I believe, across the river in Lambeth.

        [A re-examination of a Jermy pedigree submitted to the Mormon church in 1981 by a Mr W.E. Jermy has provided some unexpected detail to the above incomplete analysis. Thus, we find that it was known by the compiler of that pedigree (see more on this below) that the above elder Rebecca's maiden name was in fact Read, that the marriage apparently took place in Islington - in the year 1832 (rather earlier than expected), as mentioned above. As this was pre-civil registration times, we must assume that this information was obtained within the compiler's own family and should thus be quite accurate. [I have now located details of this William's first marriage - to Rebecca: It took place at St Mary's, Islington on 23 Dec 1832. Both signed and were described as then of that parish and single, with William shown as a Stone sawyer.] No children appeared to have been born/baptised to them there over the next year or so, although we note below that their daughter Lydia was shown as born in Islington - but in about 1838/39, after which they apparently moved to Westminster, Kensington or Chelsea - where they had several more children ca 1840-44, including Rebecca in 1841, and William and James shortly after - several of whom died in or by 1844, as noted above. Did they not have issue ca 1833-37?] Mr Jermy was also aware that Rebecca the wife died in 1844 in Chelsea and that it was the William Jermy who had been her husband who re-married in 1846 (to a Jane Fearn) - in Hammersmith, West Kensington, presumably shown as a widower. These aspects were more likely obtained from both family data and from the recently commenced civil registrations. [Note: The family history by Mr Jermy stating that the William Jermy who married in Islington was the same one who re-married in Kensington in 1846 (by which time he wasn't however shown as a Stone sawyer (nor in the next Census for 1851), provides the crucial evidence needed to indicate this William was the son of Thomas the Stone Sawyer - with this same occupation shown at William's marriage earlier in Islington.

     From the submitted pedigree and our other data, we might thus conclude that it was the Stone sawyer Thomas and family (whom we have been following in this section), who settled initially in Islington ca 1830-34, say (after Gloucester and possibly Oxfordshire), before shifting finally to Hanover Sq, Westminster by the mid to late-1830s. [Or did William (of Han Sq) simply meet a girl who happened to come from from Islington, marry her there (ie near her parents) and then (with her) re-join his own people, already re-settled in/nr Hanover Square and/or elsewhere in Westminster, Chelsea or Kensington - with its better employment prospects - residing temporarily back home with his parents in 1841 when his wife Rebecca was having a child elsewhere - as in a Lying-In hospital, or with her own parents in Islington ?]

       From information already in the public domain, we knew that a William Jermy (apparently a widower (of ?Rebecca) married Jane Fearn, widow (nee Barnes) on 24 May 1846 at St Paul's, Hammersmith (registered in Kensington RD) by whom he had 3 or 4 more children, including sons relevantly named Thomas Jermy and James Jermy in about 1847/8 and 1848/9, respectively (those same two forenames still continuing!) - apparently in or near Pimlico. William and Jane were noted in the 1851 Census as living in Dyke's Yard, off Commercial Road (in, I believe, the Han Sq area). He was now shown as a 'Carman' (rather than a Stone Sawyer), aged 38, born in 'Oxfordshire' (ca 1812/13). Unexpectedly, his 2nd wife Jane, aged 39, was also shown as born in that same county. [What occupation was given for William on his marriage certificate?? Answer: He had already become a Carman.] With them in 1851 were a daughter Lydia, 12, born in Islington (to first wife Rebecca presumably (ca 1838/9), and sons Thomas, 3, born Westminster (ca 1847/48) and James, 2, born Chelsea (ca 1848/49) to Jane. [These latter locations suggest that the family did indeed reside for a time in Pimlico in 1851, rather than just Han Sq. Also, the presence of Lydia further confirms that it was the same William, now with Jane, who had married firstly Rebecca - in 1832. Sadly, we are still uncertain just where in Oxfordshire he was born - but at least we now know it was indeed somewhere in that county - to Thomas and Mary Jermy of the Benson/Berrick Salome area.]

      William Jermy, the son of Thomas the Stone Sawyer, died on 11 June 1855, aged about 42 - his death being the one registered in St George Han Sq that quarter. He was buried nearby at Holy Trinity church, Brompton, where, significantly, (his sister) Frances Harris (nee Jermy) then resided (see below). An Emma Jermy's death is registered in Lambeth (just across the river from Pimlico) in March 1851; she was possibly another of their daughters (if not one of William's sisters) while a Sarah Jerminy's birth was registered in Kensington in Dec 1849. A Jane Jermy, possibly William's widow(?), later died further south - in Croydon in 1856 (see below). There thus appeared to be a gradual shift of this branch of the family south across the river from Westminster RD (Hanover Square, Chelsea and Pimlico) to Wandsworth RD (Battersea and Lambeth). There is sadly no 1861 Census for William (d 1855) - to further confirm his Stone Sawyer status (which, however, we now know he ceased being before 1846 but was the case earlier; it also being his father's occupation). The future of William's family should be detailed next, in this present section, thus accepting that he was indeed the eldest son of Thomas the Stone Sawyer (and not of Thomas the Gardener) with whom these details were formerly but wrongly associated, having been subsequently extracted from that section (as best as one could) and now placed appropriately here.

-- -- -- -- -- --

       After noting her presence in Hanover Square - still with her father Thomas's family in 1841, we find that his daughter Frances Jermy soon married - Charles Harris, a Bricklayer, in Kensington RD later that same year (Sept Q 1841), and then lived in Brompton, near Kensington ca 1840s/50s (when, as noted, her apparent brother William was buried (1855) in that same parish church). [This fact could further support the idea that the William whom Mr Jermy felt was indeed his ancestor was in fact a member of Thomas the Sawyer's family (as Frances certainly was), rather than of Thomas the Gardener/Claimant's which, as will be seen below, he (Mr Jermy) wrongly believed (due to the publicity associated with that particular Thomas in 1848/49, and in later Books about those events) - as detailed below.] Frances died herself in 1878 having had 5 children, as they moved gradually westwards towards Fulham, including a son William Harris (born Kensington 1854) who emigrated to Adelaide, Australia in 1879, aged 25, shortly after his mother Frances's death and from whom (as her grandfather) my generous genealogical colleague Isobelle Charlton descends and from whom some of the foregoing data (albeit with the Gardener's and StoneSawyer's families confounded for a time by us all) was gratefully received many years ago.

.

A Fuller Analysis of the Pedigree lodged with the Mormon Church Library in 1981.

       In Nov 1986, Isobelle, (as touched on above) asked me if I would examine a Jermy pedigree of which she had then recently become aware - lodged at the Mormon church's Library in Kensington. It was part of Film No. 990487 and was compiled and submitted in 1981 by a Mr W.E. Jermy of North Hillingdon, Middx (referred to above), who has since died. This pedigree was a compilation of several published early Jermy pedigrees of the middle ages and later, and ended with Mr Jermy's own much more contemporary family tree. The latter extended back fairly reliably to his great grandfather, a William Jermy, and appeared to be based largely on information passed down within his family. There was also a little known about that man's parents but this was incomplete or guessed at, as was the detail of any intervening generations by which Mr Jermy sought vainly to link his known or partly known family back to those much earlier landed Jermys of Norfolk, as he found in the earlier published pedigrees. This attempted linking material seems to have arisen is such sources as the IGI, the Census, Boyd's register, Voter's Lists and possibly Stewart Valdar's book. A far as I can discern, those attempted linkages, largely guessed at, have no validity or relevance in the present context whatsoever. However, the later family-derived material is undoubtedly true and has the merit of adding to our existing knowledge of the descendents of one or other of the Thomas Jermys of Oxfordshire. But which one ? And that guessed-at, intervening material could still be of value in respect of certain other, unrelated Jermy lines and may be set aside for a later day.

       The parents of the compiler's great grandfather William Jermy were thus shown as a Thomas Jermy and his 2nd wife Mary. Her maiden name is not shown, nor the years of their marriage or burials, while their birth years were reported (wrongly as later determined) as 1795 and 1793, respectively. However, he at least appears to have been told that this couple, his assumed great-great-grandparents, had married in Oxfordshire, where, fittingly it seemed, Mary was shown to have been born, while Thomas was shown (less fittingly) as born in Hertfordshire. The source of the latter details is given as the 1851 Census for Bethnal Green. [Conveniently, there was a Jermy couple living in Bethnal Green that year whose data somehow 'fitted' certain aspects of the present pedigree; equally, the family stories may also have included some reference to Oxfordshire, since Census data wouldn't normally reveal a place of marriage.] The mention of Hertfordshire appeared interesting in view of the possibility that neighbouring Buckinghamshire at least may actually have been relevant in this regard. But, a later examination of the Bethnal Green 1851 Census located the couple that Mr Jermy claimed as links in his submission. They were in fact a Thomas and Mary Jeremy (sic) of East Street, Bethnal Green, aged 56 and 58, respectively (from which we can see that the wrong birth years given were clearly calculated), whose places of birth were - as mentioned above - as counties only, with no parishes shown. [Two of our Thomas Jermys were of course dead before 1851, and born in Oxfordshire and Buckintghamshire. That this other Thomas's wife, a Mary also, was however born in Oxfordshire seems an intriguing coincidence considering our interest in that county.]

       Bethnal Green had two other Jermy families: headed by Edward and Sarah, and William and Ann - all in their 40s, born in London, with 4 or 5 children each and equally irrelevant in our present quest. But, more significantly, the Hertfordshire-born Thomas Jermy thus shown (even if incorrectly) is nevertheless intriguingly described in the W.E. Jermy's pedigree as having "claimed Stanfield Hall through his cousin James". The surname of the latter man is not shown (although was likely 'Jermy' or similar) and may have been another incomplete snippit recalled from whatever account Mr Jermy had heard, probably years before drafting out this rather tenuous pedigree. Beyond what has been described above, there seems to have been no other firm evidence to help him reach further back into his family's origins and the stories that apparently came down to him. Part of his attempted links back to Norfolk included seeming brothers James and John Jermy of Norwich (who apparently voted there in the 1780s) and who had both 'migrated' to Southwark in south London and became shopkeepers. The pedigree shows Thomas as born to the younger brother John - somehow in Hertfordshire - ca 1795. We would probably be well advised to restrict our attentions to the later, more reliable parts of this confused pedigree compilation.

       It is interesting that Mr Jermy was aware that his gt-gt-grandfather Thomas had been married before - although when, where and to whom was not shown (and probably not known). Nor was any issue from same shown. With his 2nd wife Mary, only one child is listed - his apparent gt-grandfather William Jermy - who, if we accept that the latter's father (Thomas) was indeed a possible Claimant (though not born in Herts, nor ever resided in Bethnal Green), is shown not inappropriately as "born in 1813 in Oxfordshire" and, fittingly (it seems), as having 'died in 1855'. The 1851 Census is again cited re William's birthplace, although no parish or district is named. He seemed unaware of any siblings of this William who is shown to have married twice - firstly to a Rebecca Read in Islington in 1832, she dying in Chelsea in 1844. No issue is shown from her (while we have concluded there were several children born to her either in Islington or near Kensington or Chelsea, who mostly died). From his second marriage, he is shown to have had sons Thomas and James (when married to whom?). The latter part of these details likely derived from civil registrations but the earlier part must be family history and is welcome new data (only the christian name (Rebecca) of his first wife, for instance, being known previously).

       As mentioned above, I have now located the details of this William's first marriage - to Rebecca Read - which was in St Mary's, Islington on 23 Dec 1832, both being single, William shown as a Stone sawyer, as was his father Thomas (Islington fortunately being one of the parishes using the 'new' printed marriage forms supposedly required since 1754 which records this information). The pedigree shows that William then married secondly Jane Fearn in West Kensington in 1846; this likely from civil registrations (West Kensington being a Registration District). They had, as we know, several children, but only one son, 'Thomas John Jermy', is shown in the present pedigree - as born in 1848 and dying in 1930. He was W.E. Jermy's grandfather and, as it was this line that interested him primarily, he again didn't show any sibling lines (as from Thomas John's younger brother James who later settled in Kent, as more recently discovered). W.E. Jermy would have known his grandfather quite well, we may presume, being himself in his 20s before that man died, and would therefore have likely learned something about that man's father William and possibly that his father in turn was a Thomas Jermy. As the newspaper accounts of the Stanfield claims mentioned a Thomas Jermy of similar age, Mr Jermy apparently assumed that his ancestor was that same man as Thomas Jermy the Claimant and Gardener. We can now see that he wasn't.

     [We should probably mention here that by relating his alleged ancestor William Jermy (b 1812/13), as a son of Thomas (the Gardener/labourer), with a claim for the Stanfield estate, Mr Jermy would thus appear to imply that it was the Thomas Jermy who married Mary Hobbs in Cookham in 1821 (as he was undoubtedly the only Jermy to be a Claimant) who was that William's father (rather than the latter's father being Thomas the Sawyer - as we have now concluded). We may have to assume that Mr Jermy's family had read accounts of the claims by either or both the Larners and the Jermys from the time of the murders or even later books or newspaper accounts of same in the 1920s, say, and wrongly placed 'their William' into that ('Claimant') frame as best they could. Mr Jermy's understanding of the origin of his family's William Jermy - ie as born to a Thomas Jermy who was the Claimant - was thus misguided; he was actually born to Thomas the Stone sawyer who never made any known claims (known by the newspapers) and quite likely knew nothing about such matters.]

Two Southern Branches of the Family of Thomas Jermy the Stone Sawyer.

1. The First Southern Branch.

      We may describe now the later aspects of Mr Jermy's family history - (as falling within the line of descent of Thomas the Sawyer). Thus we find that Thomas John Jermy, son of the Sawyer's eldest son William, is seen to have married twice - firstly to Jane Mulligan in Pimlico in 1867, she dying in St George Hanover Square R.D. in 1872. The 1871 Census shows them living on Commercial Road, St George Han Sq, with Thomas a Marble Polisher, aged 23 born in Middx (ca 1848), and their two children Jane, 2, and son Thomas John Jnr, 8 mos, both born in Pimlico. He married secondly Sarah Anne Ville in Wandsworth in 1878. Just one son is again shown from this latter union - a William Frederick Jermy born in 1883, shown as dying in Chertsey, Surrey in '1904' (which appears to be an error as issue born to him apparently is shown as late as 1906, and possibly up to 1910. He had married Ellen Alice Conway in Battersea in 1903 and elder son 'William Edward Jermy' (ie Mr W.E. Jermy, compiler of the incomplete pedigree being presently considered), was born to them 10 Oct 1904, seemingly in Battersea. There was also a younger brother Henry Jermy born there in 1906 and two daughters Lillian and Louisa, later. Any marriage or issue for Henry is not shown. [We show below the William born ca 1883 as a Carpenter's labourer, with an older brother Charles, born 1880, who would also marry.]

       William Edward Jermy also married twice - firstly to Emily Ellis in Wandsworth in 1925, with whom he had 3 sons: William John Jermy (born Ruislip 1936), Anthony George Jermy (born Uxbridge 1937) and Barry Edward Jermy (born Uxbridge 1946). Emily died in Hillingdon in 1966 and William Edward married secondly Kathleen Wakefield the following year, with both then in their 60s. He died in 1985 described as an Electrical Engineer. Each of his sons married, the eldest to Catherine Kavanagh in 1967 in Inneskery, Co Wicklow, Ireland - by whom he had a son Liam Jermy (ca 1970), while Anthony had a son Lee Jermy in Uxbridge in 1962 (who married in 1986) and Barry a son Paul Jermy, also about 1970 (where not stated). It is quite possible that one or more of these latter sons would themselves have had Jermy issue over the last decade or so. We see that these several later generations of Jermys, as descended from Thomas Jermy via his son William, parallel those residing more northerly - in Sheffield - descending from William's brother James Jermy (the elder)- as described below. [There is also now another southern line descending from said William's second son, also a James Jermy (the younger), as depicted below.]

       With his second wife, Thomas John had sons Charles Henry Jermy born ca 1880 in Pimlico (before moving across the river to Battersea (in Wandsworth RD) and William Frederick Jermy in about 1883 in that latter parish. Jane and Thomas (b Pimlico 1868 and 1870) would have left home by the 1901 Census, when Thomas John and (2nd) family lived at 13 Carpenter Street, Battersea. The entry showed Thomas Jermy, 53, born in Pimlico and still a Marble Polisher, aged 53, with wife Sarah, 56 and sons Charles, 21 (born ca 1880 to Sarah), a Housepainter (who would soon marry in 1902 and have two daughters), and William Frederick, 18 (born ca 1883), a Carpenter's labourer. He married in Battersea in 1903. A Thomas John Jermy had also married in Battersea in Sept 1894; he could be the namesake son of Thomas and first wife Jane - born in 1870.) No birth in that part of London seemed apparent for him but one in 1870 in Hanover Square, where his mother died, now appears relevant. [Did he in turn have Jermy issue?] Thomas John Snr himself died in Battersea in Dec 1930, aged 83.

2. The Second Southern Branch of the Family of Thomas Jermy the Stone Sawyer.

       William and Jane (Fearn)'s second son James Jermy, likely born in late 1848 (barely a year after elder brother Thomas), appeared at first sight (not unreasonably) to be a James Jermy noted in a 1901 Census index to have resided 'back' in Chelsea that year - as a Painter's labourer, aged '52'. His place of birth however appeared to have been listed therein as 'Horwick', with no county shown, rather than in such as Pimlico or Chelsea as expected. (Intriguingly, there was, I believe, a Horwick in north Oxfordshire; did any relations still live there - with Jane visiting same during this confinement, one considered?) This is now known not to be the case, for when the Census entry itself was further examined, this James' birthplace was actually shown as 'Norwich'!; this Norfolk Jermy had thus settled in Chelsea quite coincidentally (at 1 Munro Terrace) - with a wife Ann, 48, born Chiswick, and 3 teenaged daughters - Alice, Fannie and Amelia. (He seems to have died, still in Chelsea, in 1938, aged 87!) Unlike the brother Thomas, who was noted as living just across the river in Battersea by 1901, there was no other James Jermy residing nearby in that area according to the Census that year. [It was later noted that his birth at least had indeed been registered in Chelsea - in March quarter 1849.] Nor do the earlier Censuses of 1891 or 1881 reveal his presence thereabouts either. Had he died in his youth during the 1860s or '70s, therefore ? I had not (when first reporting this) yet examined the 1861 or '71 Censuses for this area but we may assume that if James was alive, he would have been living at home with the family in Pimlico - into the mid-1860s, say, when still a teenager. But then...?

       The 1901 Census reveals another William Jermy, also born in Battersea (or ?Lambeth next door), ca 1871-73, who resided in Bristol by 1901, a Greengrocer, with sons William, 3, and James, 3 months. As Thomas John Snr named a son William in 1883 (born to him and 2nd wife Sarah), this latter William would not be a son born to his first wife Jane (Mulligan) in Battersea (about 1872) but, rather, would appear to have been born to his younger brother James who later moved to Lewisham and had some of his issue (including a son William in 1871) baptised and/or registered variably in one or other of these two places (or Lambeth?) - after the move to Lewisham. The age estimate in Bristol thus appears to have been wrong by two years.]

       The future of this James Jermy, if any, and the fact that he wasn't the Norwich-born James Jermy of almost identical age who, awkwardly, resided in James' place of birth (Cheslea) in 1901, has however now (November 2006) been further revealed - by virtue of a recent enquiry concerning the forebears of one Lilian Jermy and family who resided in Tonbridge, Kent by the early 1900s. It turns out that the said Lilian was a daughter of our 'missing' James Jermy (and thus another direct descendent of Thomas Jermy the Stone sawyer - via the William Jermy born 1812 in Benson (and baptised in St Pancras in 1813). The Census of 1871 reveals that James had indeed moved away from his family's district of inner, south-west Thames-side, London, ie around Chelsea/Pimlico and Battersea/Wandsworth (then in Surrey), to the outer, south-east side of London - near Forest Hill and Lewisham, in (inner) Kent, in fact. He was living then at 1 Louisa Terrace, Game Road, Lewisham, as a 23 year old Lathe Operator shown, appropriately, as born in Chelsea, with his wife Ann, also 23, born Motcombe, Dorset, and their two young sons - James Francis, 1, and William, 1 month - both shown as born in Forest Hill/Lewisham. James and Ann had married in the December quarter of 1867 in the Wandsworth RD (which included Battersea and Lambeth) when James was barely 18. [This usually signifies an imminent birth of an early first child and one recalls that both the birth and death of a Jane Jermy was in fact registered in that same quarter - but in Kensington RD.] Their son James Francis Jermy was then born (or maybe later registered) in or near Forest Hill in 1870 - to where they seem to have moved by that time.

       The 1881 Census now finds this James and family shifted some miles south - to Tonbridge, Kent - where sons James Francis and William Jermy (now 11 and 10) have been joined by Ada, 7 (oddly shown as born back in Battersea), Albert Henry, 2 (seemingly also born Battersea but registered in Tonbridge) and Lilian, 10 months - born in Tonbridge itself. (Albert's birth was registered in the June quarter 1879 and Lilian's in the Sept quarter 1880, in Tonbridge). James Snr was still a Lathe Operator. In 1884 and 1886, they also had daughters Alice Maud and Mabel there. The 1891 and 1901 Censuses show the family's continued presence in Tonbridge, living at numbers 2 and then 4 Bank Street there. However, the elder boy James, who also became a Wood Turner, married in March 1892 and had left the parental home before the latter Census. An Ada May Jermy's birth was soon registered in Tonbridge - in Dec quarter 1892 and that last available Census (1901) shows that she was indeed born to the younger James (Francis) Jermy and wife - she oddly also an Ada (born Rotherfield, Sussex).

       The family lived then at 10 Victoria Street, Rochester, Kent but, by March 1901 at least, they'd had no further issue (as a son) to that date. The daughter Ada married a Mr Perrie in Tonbridge in June 1919. The death of her mother, Ada Jermy Snr, the younger James' wife, was registered in Tonbridge in Dec 1925, aged 56; they may thus have left Rochester to reside near his parents. James Francis died in Tonbridge in June 1940, aged 70. The other Ada (James' sister) married, in June 1901, while Lilian did so in that same quarter the following year - both in Tonbridge. Lilian married Harry Fenner and had 3 sons by him in Tonbridge during the Edwardian era. Both James Jermy Snr (70) and his wife Anna (74) died in the same (March) quarter of 1919 (flu epidemic?)- still residing in Tonbridge. Did either of their other sons leave Jermy issue, one wonders? An Albert Henry Jermy married in Medway RD in 1900 (and another, shown as Albert H. Jermy, did so in Sept 1918 in Cheshire), but I could (initially) see nothing definite for their son William Jermy (born 1871).

      [However, it now appears likely that it was that latter William Jermy who married (an Elizabeth) in about 1897 (where unknown) and had a son William in Lambeth late in 1897 and possibly another there - Frederick Henry - in Sept 1899 (?died young), before having a 3rd son James Jermy - in Mar 1901 in Bristol where, at 22 Queen Street (in the parish of St Thomas Apostle, Eastville), they then resided - as per the 1901 Census. This William, shown as 28 (but more likely then 30), was born in Battersea (ca ?1871) and his wife in Bristol. He was a self-employed Greengrocer working from home. (See earlier reference to this man above.) We may recall that while Albert Henry was registered in Lewisham, he was apparently born in Battersea (with relatives?); was there anything comparable with respect to this latter William? [This now appears likely.] We may note that the surviving son William born to James Snr's brother Thomas John was not born until 1883. The age given for the Bristol William seems therefore to have been a year or two out.) Certainly the christian names given the sons born to this couple are oddly consistent with the family of the Pimlico/Battersea/Lewisham/Tonbridge Jermys (and their forebears). They seem to have had a daughter Dorothy Eveline Jermy in June 1907 and another son - Albert J Jermy - in Mar 1911. Their mother Elizabeth died in Bristol in Mar Q 1920, aged 46, and her husband William Jermy in June 1933, aged 62. This further supports his birth in 1871 and thus his identity. Further issue and 'Jermy' descendents from this line (stretching back to John Jarmony (b ca 1715) in Berrick Salome, Oxfordshire) continue in the Bristol area today, I believe.

.

A Northern Branch of the Family of Thomas Jermy (Stone Sawyer and non-claimant).

       The whereabouts of the younger surviving son of Thomas (the Sawyer) and Mary - ie James Jermy (born in London apparently about 1818/19 but baptised in Gloucester) during his late teens and 20s - was formerly uncertain. We now know (from the 1841 Census) that he must have returned to London with the rest of the family by the mid- to late 1820s, say, where he likely worked for a time learning to be a Sawyer). His older brother William would marry during this period (1830s) - firstly in Islington and then in Hammersmith, settling in Westminster. In any case, the family, including the younger William (already married), plus Frances and James, resided in the Hanover Square area by 1841 with their parents Thomas the Sawyer and 2nd wife Mary (plus a youngest son 'John' (so listed) - which may have been an error for 'Thomas' - seemingly born ca 1820/21). Middle brother James Jermy (b ca 1819) then ventured from London some considerable way north-west - for whatever reason - to the Potteries in Staffordshire, apparently by the late-1840s. Possibly the growing pottery industry entailed new stone rather than just brick premises? For he would marry there on September 12 1849, aged 30 (in a parish near Milton in Stoke RD).<

      This James' bride was Lucy Mellor, a widow, nee Hales, from nearby Leek, also in Staffordshire. She was about 7 years older than James and already had several children by her first husband (surname Mellor), the first in the early 1830s and the last in 1847. This was just a year before she gave birth to a son James on 13 Nov 1848, registered a fortnight later in Leek as 'James Mellor' - suggesting she was still married to her first husband (or was she a recent widow?) at the time. He may have died or deserted her shortly before or after this. In any case, she would eventually marry James Jermy although, as shown above, not for almost a year, by which time we may assume that James acknowledged the baby's paternity, as the boy would henceforce be known consistently as James Jermy. They then had a daughter Mary Ann Jermy on 14 Oct 1850 in Leek. [We may recall that James's elder brother William, then residing in Pimlico, London, had himself recently (re-)married and his two sons, Thomas and James Jermy, were also born around this same time. The older boy, Thomas, was in fact born in Pimlico the same year as was James Mellor/Jermy in Leek.] Lucy was then approaching 40 and likely had no others by James after Mary Ann.

       In the 1851 Census, we find Lucy (now as Jermy) still living on Albion Street, Leek (where she resided in 1848 when registering James' birth), with 3 of her older Mellor children, plus 2 year old James and 5 month old Mary Ann - both now listed as Jermy. Lucy was shown as Head (of this household); oddly, James Jermy Snr himself was not present. We find him instead then residing on Gold Street, Stoke-on-Trent, in the home of one Harriett Wright, listed as Head, married, aged 30 with 2 young children, plus 6 young male 'Visitors' in their 20s or 30s - including James Jermy, then 31, shown married, and a Stone Sawyer. Oddly, these latter men weren't listed as 'Lodgers'. Equally oddly, James is shown here as born in London and not Gloucester - even though his older sister Mary Ann was baptised in Gloucester almost a year before the apparently younger James. It is possible they were both born in London ca 1818/19, although why James' baptism was delayed longer than his sister's seems inexplicable (?illness). For the moment, the chart below shows the places of their baptisms, not births. Mary Ann's namesake of the next generation (born Oct 1850) was also to die in her infancy - in Dec 1851.

       By the 1861 Census, Lucy and the children were living on Regent Street, Leek - she shown as a Silk Weaver, married, but Head of that household, aged 50. Her son James, then 12, was an 'Assistant Silk Twister' and already out of school. Also shown were her daughter Eliza Mellor, 14, a Silk Winder and Lucy's grandson William Mellor, 5, at school. Lucy's husband James Jermy Snr was still living away from home in 1861 - this time as a boarder in Ecclesall Bierlow, Yorkshire - living with a widow and her family on Beeley Street there, he aged 41, a Stone Cutter shown again to be born in London (ie ca 1819/20). A few years later, on 25 Oct 1869, his apparent son the younger James Jermy, now aged 20, was married in Sheffield to Sarah Ann Eagle, 18, both shown as then living on Bailey Street in that city. [We may recall the recent marriage of his namesake cousin James Jermy in London in 1867.] The younger Sheffield James had become yet another Stone worker - the same occupation as shown on the marriage certificate of his father. By 1871, James Snr and wife Lucy were back living together - at 23 Shelf Bank, Sheffield, he now 52, still a Stone Sawyer, again 'born London' and Lucy 55, born Leek. Also with them was William 'Jermy', 14, born Leek (ie in about 1857/8) - described now as their son.

       James the father died just 3 years later - in 1874, after falling down stairs, his death being registered in Sheffield in the September quarter that year with his age given as 56, possibly an estimate. His widow Lucy would live another 15 years before she died, also in Sheffield, in 1889. Some years earlier, in the 1881 Census, she is shown as Lucy Jermy residing on Shelf Street, Sheffield, age 70, with a married son William, aged 50 (born about 1831), and a 23 year old grandson, also William (born ca 1858), all born in Leek. This son, and grandson, both labourers, were also now shown with the surname Jermy. One would assume that they were in fact born 'Mellor' but eventually took on their mother's second married name. But with what surname did that younger boy marry (if he did) and what surnames did he give to any children ?

       The younger James and wife Sarah Ann had a large family in the family's new centre of gravity - Sheffield - over the two decades following their marriage. This included sons born around the same time as those born to James' cousin Thomas J. Jermy (ie Charles and William) back in Pimlico, London - around 1880 - and those born to Thomas's brother, also James, in Lewisham and Tonbridge. Would such boys from both families (north and south), possibly the only surviving ones of Thomas the Sawyer and Mary's issue, all marry after the turn of the century say - and produce Jermy sons themselves - to carry on their 3 respective lines in parallel ? No marriages were initially apparent in respect of Charles or William Jermy in London (between 1898 and 1915, say), nor male Jermy issue apparent from them; nor is any apparent from the marriages in Kent of the two sons of Thomas's brother James Jermy - ie James Francis or Albert Henry. However, we have since located evidence of some issue through the long-held pedigree compliled by W.E. Jermy ca 1981 now described above. And thanks to information kindly provided by Colin Jermy and Malcolm Jermy, the latter part of James Jermy's northern line in Yorkshire (after ca 1850) can now be more accurately depicted as well:

       Thus, after having daughters Priscilla and Annie Elizabeth in 1870 and 1875 (Priscilla dying in 1873), James Jnr and Sarah Ann had yet another James Jermy - in 1876 - and a Thomas Edward Jermy on 17 Oct 1883 - ie about the same time that Thomas Jermy and his brother James in London and Kent were having their sons Charles and William Frederick, and James Francis and Albert Henry, respectively. Later, James and Sarah Ann also had sons John William and George Alexander Jermy. As with Charles in London, I don't see subsequent marriages listed for the latter sons in the Sheffield area but there was one there for Thomas Edward Jermy - in the March quarter 1905 (to a Miss Bailey) - just as there was for the younger Thomas John Jermy (to a Hannora.....) and his half-brother William Frederick in London (to a Miss Conway) around this same period. The parents James and Sarah Ann Jermy may have died around 1910-20 but I have no details.

Jermy issue subsequently registered in Sheffield included a Harry Jermy in Dec 1907, a namesake son Thomas Edward JermyJnr in Dec 1911 and an Arthur Jermy in 1918. This younger Thomas E. Jermy also married and had issue, including Malcolm Jermy who kindly provided much of this latter information. Arthur also married and had a son David. There may be other 'cousin lines' of this northern branch of the family extant but verified evidence seems lacking. The 'Jermy' line from John Jarmony of Oxfordshire via his gt grandson Thomas (the Stone Sawyer, not the Gardener/Claimant), and gt gt grandson James Jermy thus continues to the present day in the north. This is shown in the following pedigree along with the parallel lines descended also from William in London, as well as the two other southern branches.

       We may now return to consider the elder Thomas Jermy and ?2nd wife Mary's assumed youngest son 'Thomas' Jermy Jnr (apparently the 2nd one given this name and thought born about 1820, the first one born in 1814 having died that year in Gloucester, aged 6) - unless the later-born one was really named 'John', as indicated in the 1841 census ? Whatever his name and whoever his parents, he apparently became a Stableman who seems to have married an Emily.... around 1843 (at St George Hanover Square?; this needs confirmation) by whom he had two daughters in the mid-1840s - Emily and Elizabeth Jermy - before he died of no apparent cause on 7 Oct 1850 at 7 Gilbert Street, nr Grosvenor Square, Westminster, his age apparently over-estimated(?) to be about '40'. Many aristocrats had stables and horses in that part of Westminster then. [No 1851 Census is available for this Thomas/John therefore; we may enquire how otherwise his birthplace - said, I believe, to be 'in Oxfordshire' - was apparently somewhere noted? Possibly in a baptismal register (or even as an exception in the 1841 Census? [No, but that Census did at least show a younger son (possibly wrongly named as 'John') as 'not born in London' (Middx), around 1820.] His widow Emily and two daughters were noted in the later 1851 Census, I believe; their futures via later Censuses have not been traced; did she re-marry?.] The 'Thomas' Jermy who died in Oct 1850 on Gilbert Street has been generally considered a second one of this name born to this same couple in about 1820 (where presently unknown) and would thus be only 30 or less, and not the 40 estimated, at his death in Oct 1850. He could still have married in about 1842-44, however, as assumed. Any marriage certificate should confirm one age or the other (and also give Emily's surname) but none has been found thus far, I believe. For the moment, this Thomas/John Jermy is not shown on the above pedigree.

       We have no present data on any future for a 'John' Jermy otherwise possibly born to Thomas the Sawyer about 1820. Two John Jermy deaths were registered - in Barnet in Sept 1841 and in Marylebone in Sept 1843); either may have been him but the likelihood that he was really the 2nd Thomas seems the greater.

.

The 3rd line of descent from John Jarmony - by his 2nd son William Jarmony (b 1746).

       While we can differentiate some of the progeny from the two younger sons of John Jarmony by his 2nd wife Mary Savage - that is from William the elder (bn 1746), as here, and from David (bn 1748) in the next section - the origin in particular of the Thomas Jermy who, with his cousin John Larner, would eventually be Claimants to the Stanfield estate, was for some time too uncertain to opt strongly for either this William or David as his father. It initially appeared that Thomas the gardener/labourer - later the Claimant of Tooting - could be the son of either of these two near-aged brothers who both had sons named Thomas - born within a year or two of each other. He could thus have been either the Thomas Germany born in Fingest before July 1781 - to the older William (which I favour) or the one born in Swyncombe before Aug 1783 - to David (these being baptismal dates, not those of births). His origin in Swyncombe, as a son of David Jermy, had in fact been our initial belief. In any case, whichever of these two brothers turns out to have been his father, neither (nor therefore Thomas himself) would take precedence as a Claimant over the progeny descended from their father (John Jarmony)'s eldest son James, and the latter's 2nd son William (b 1765) - as now described above.

       It seems possible that John's eldest son James Snr, by his first wife Ann Hester, remained in or near Berrick and Benson, probably to work with his father, while James' two younger half-brothers, William and David, later ventured some miles to the east - to Fingest and Swyncombe, respectively - quite possibly via any relations of their own wives later in the Watlington, Britwell Salome and Fingest areas, say (and beyond) - with whom they may have felt closer family ties. Younger sister Dinah may also have been influenced by these two younger brothers, much nearer to her own age (as she would soon settle with John Learner in this same area; see later). We might consider also why it was that none of the brothers appear to have named any sons John - after their father. And keeping for a moment with the Benson locale, we note that James Snr's son James Jnr married his Frances and settled in Wallingford, just across the river south-west from Benson, while the families of William and David, including their sons James and Thomas, appear to have settled in those more easterly districts - to where their fathers had seemingly shifted. [We may recall that, awkwardly, Lewknor with its Jarmaine family, was also in this latter area but there is no evidence to support a common origin or any interaction between the two families whatsoever.]

       We are uncertain when and where John's second and younger son William (the elder - b 1746) married - seemingly to a Sarah - but it would presumably be around 1772-74, say, and quite possibly near Fingest. As touched on earlier, they eventually had a son Thomas Germany baptised in Fingest on 28 July 1781 (conceivably born earlier that year) and appear to have had a first son James some years earlier (ca 1775-77), quite likely named after William's older brother James Snr. This James appears not to have married. Oddly, William's younger brother David would also have sons given these same two names - James and Thomas, and in this same order (but with a Richard between) at about the same times - in nearby Swyncombe - also baptised as Germany (see below). We noted above that the latter James (David's son) does seem to have married - Frances Curtyes - and had at least one daughter Frances, who married locally. If they also had any son(s), such information if found, can be placed below in the next section. William may also have had a daughter - Elizabeth - who had a son Thomas Jermony herself (out of wedlock) in Fingest - in 1803. He later settled in Lt Marlow - near to Cookham - which will also prove relevant subsequently. For some reason, as yet unidentified, the forename Thomas proved popular in the Berrick-derived family (named after some earlier Thomas?). We are unaware if the Lt Marlow Thomas (or, now, the Cookham one as well (with Mary Hobbs) had any issue at all. Seemingly not.

.

On Thomas 'Jermy' - Claimant (seen now as born in Fingest, Bucks in 1781 to the elder William Germany (b 1746) ), a younger son of John Jermy/Jarmony of Berrick.

       The Napoleonic Wars broke out in 1793 and many young men were subsequently 'called up' to serve in their county's Militia, although volunteering to a more local force could keep a man stationed nearer home for a time. Thus, in about 1804-07, one Thomas Jarmany of Swyncombe was noted in Major William Lowdes Company of the Ewelme Volunteers. This entry (which I found in PRO WO 13/4490) appeared initially to have identified Swyncombe (and David Germany) as the probable origin of the ca 1781-83-born Thomas (originally as Germany himself) - who would, with his cousin John Larner, appear to have been the later claimants to the Jermy estates in Norfolk. As mentioned above, I discovered some time later however that a Thomas 'Jermmy' (very likely mis-transcribed from Jerminy) was to marry shortly after this (in 1808) in nearby Cookham, Berkshire - to a Dianah Trendall. One naturally wondered if this may be the same Thomas (of nearby Swyncombe). If so, it suggested that he was also the one who would later marry, secondly, Mary Hobbs - in about 1812, say. However, as mentioned, there were two other Thomas Germany/Jarmonys within the family - one born to David's slightly older brother William (before July 1781, when baptised in Fingest), and another to his nephew, the younger William, in Berrick (apparently in 1784), one of whom could represent this man equally well. A son Samuel Germany was subsequently born in Swyncombe to Thomas Germany and wife 'Rebecca' (baptised 16 July 1809); we might reasonably assume this latter Thomas to be the one born to David Germany in that same village in 1783 (and likelyt he later soldier in the Ewelme Volunteers). But when and where had they married? Was it just the year before - in Cookham - which on the face of it appeared a reasonable conclusion - with his wife's name really being 'Dianah', say (as per the 1808 marriage there), but seemingly mis-transcribed back in Swyncombe as 'Rebecca' when their son Samuel was baptised there? Or even the other way around - with the forename 'Dianah' being wrongly transcribed for 'Rebecca' in the Cookham register at that marriage?

       It was, however, later verified that the marriage in Cookham was indeed to a Dianah, and not a Rebecca. Moreover, the Swyncombe register clearly shows the wife of Thomas (and mother of Samuel) to be Rebecca. There were therefore two Thomas Germanys marrying around the same time in that area - to a Dianah and a Rebecca, respectively. They were apparently first cousins - born it seems to brothers William and David Germany, respectively. As both the latter were brothers of Dinah, both Thomases were also cousins of her son John Larner. Which, if either, would become the Tooting gardener and Claimant - the one we had assumed later married Mary Hobbs and eventually settled as a garden labourer in south London (and, with much less certainty, as a Stone sawyer in Gloucester and central London) ?

       There appears to have been no other issue besides Samuel born to Thomas and Rebecca in or near Swyncombe (as, for example, a son 'David', as might have been reasonably expected). Moreover, the choice of Samuel itself seems rather inexplicable for a first born son to this Thomas - unless he was much influenced by old testament Bible stories? Or, was Samuel not his first-born? Possibly this 1783-baptised Thomas had married ca 1805, say, and had had one or two children before Samuel, named less surprisingly after himself or his father, say. But where ? None are apparent. In any case, it appears that the (other) Thomas - who married in Cookham to Dianah Trendall in 1808 - wasn't, after all, the one born in 1783 to David who eventually had the son Samuel in Swyncombe with Rebecca the following year - as reasonable as that sequence and former interpretation initially appeared (ie entailing simply a mix-up of the wives' names). Rather, he would now seem with much greater certainty (as already mentioned) to be the Thomas Germany born in 1781 to David's older brother William and wife Sarah - in Fingest in neighbouring Bucks.

      Was the latter Thomas the later labourer/gardener and Claimant therefore who, just like our third Thomas (the Stonesawyer, also had a father named William? [We may recall that it had long been assumed that Thomas Jermy the Tooting gardener/labourer and Claimant did indeed marry a Mary (nee Hobbs). At her 1851 Census when she was still living in Tooting (where as Mary Jermy, wife, she reported Thomas's recent death), she gave her age as 79 and her place of birth as Gt Cheverell, Wiltshire; presumably, there was only one Mary of any surname born there at the appropriate time - namely to a John and Mary Hobbs (on which deduced evidence alone her identity seems to have been concluded by Stewart Valdar). But Thomas died in 1850 and so neither his exact place of birth (as John Larner's cousin), nor his father's identity, was yet known with complete confidence, nor just when and where he married his Mary (Hobbs). Thus, if he had lived beyond 1851, would his place of birth be shown in that year's Census as 'Swyncombe', as 'Fingest' or as 'Benson' (if not simply as 'Oxfordshire')??

      We may also recall that it was found that a William Jermy, was born in late 1812 - somewhere in Oxfordshire (as per an 1851 Census entry in London which appeared on the face of it to represent that William) - although only later baptised - on 1 Aug 1813 - in St Pancras, London (assuming it was the same William) - as the son of a Thomas and Mary Jermy - Thomas then a 'labourer' (as Thomas the Claimant would, much later, also be so described). Whichever Thomas it was, we might assume that his first wife - be it Dianah (more probably) or, less likely, Rebecca - must have died by about 1810-12, say, to allow a subsequent marriage to Mary Hobbs by about 1812 - if, that is, they were to be the parents of the William baptised in St Pancras in 1813, but born slightly before that, in Oxfordshire. Is there any evidence to this end? Yes, there is now, in part; it was in fact Dianah who died young, as discussed below, although with a twist in the story: for she didn't die as soon as may have been imagined and thus not early enough for Thomas and Mary Hobbs to have married in time for that 1812 birth to have been theirs.

       [In any case, it would now strongly appear that the alleged 'remainder man' in 1791 - ie John Larner's uncle - wasn't a 'Thomas Jermer' who happened to reside (in supposedly indigent circumstances) a coincidental 155 miles (approximately) south-west of Wymondham (ie in Wilcot, nr Pewsey, Wilts), formerly considered by some (eg by Stewart Valdar) to be the father of Thomas Jermy the later Claimant - rather than the latter's father being one or other of the two Williams or the David Germany now being considered). (The surname 'Jermer' in the Wilts area turned out not to be a one-off error for Jermy; there were several other (non-Jermy) Jermers about then, both earlier and later, in that area). In fact, the assumed remainder man was the uncle of both John Larner and Thomas Jermy - viz: their respective parents' elder brother James Jermy Snr (d 1817) - who lived then in Benson, Oxfordshire and, as far as is known, never in Wiltshire or points west and while relatively poor, he did at least leave a Will with a little (small) property.] The previous 'remainder man' was thus not Thomas the Claimant's father after all (whomever he was) but his uncle James Snr. Who was the Claimant's actual father therefore ?]

       Interestingly, there were also several Hobbs and Trendall families in or near Cookham, Marlow and Fingest then. Thus, an Ann Hobbs, a widow in 1851, born in Fingest (as Ann......) ca 1781, and thus just a little younger than Mary, was living in Gt Marlow as a 'Fundholder' that year, while a Daniel Hobbs lived in Turville (next to Fingest, where he was born ca 1796) and would have resided there as a teenager around 1812-14. Possibly Mary's parents (the Hobbs) had 'returned' to this (?home) area - after a short time in Wiltshire? Might the river Thames and Kennet canal systems and their mobile barge workers of the time be a common factor?

       As mentioned, we now have confirmation that the girl whom Thomas 'Jermmy' (?Jerminy) had married in Cookham was a Dianah or Dianna Trendall, and that he did so as a bachelor (after banns) on 5 Dec 1808, in the presence of a witness Elizabeth Stone who, like the bride, signed, while Thomas 'made his mark'. He was thus unlikely to have been the father of the Thomas Jermy born ca 1803 in Fingest, who albeit lived later in Lt Marlow, very near Cookham (unless an unmarried mother named her son thus after young Thomas?). As mentioned, it wasn't this same couple who had the son Samuel in Swyncombe in 1809 either - since Dianah's name was not wrongly transcribed there - as 'Rebecca' (suggested previously as a possibility). And we find no burial or other events registered in Cookham for a Samuel Jermy/Jarmony ca 1809-40. In any case, we may wonder whether the Thomas whom we had assumed married Mary Hobbs around 1812 (if, that is, they were soon to have a son William that same year, later baptised in St Pancras), did so as a widower - who had been briefly married firstly - to Dianah. We would normally assume such a second marriage would be a little before they had any such first born - somewhere in Oxfordshire - about late 1812/13, seemingly - by which date his earlier bride must have already died - ca 1810-12, say. But was it not Thomas the Sawyer (eventually) and his wife Mary who had their first son William in 1812 in Oxfordshire but baptised in 1813 - in St Pancras - albeit when he too was still just a labourer and seemingly not yet a Sawyer? [Yes and thus Thomas the Claimant's 1st wife Dianah need not after all have died as early as 1812. Thomas and Mary Hobbs must thus have married rather later. [Yes - this was indeed later discovered to have taken place in 1821; see below.]

       It did seem odd that Thomas and Mary (which ever couple they were) didn't have any first son William baptised locally (but does 'locally' refer to Cookham or to Benson?) almost immediately (as was usual), but not until one or other couple settled briefly in distant St Pancras - about a year later, in 1813 - where no one knew them. It also seemed odd that the next son born to this same couple, Thomas, was apparently also said to be born - ca 1814 - in Oxfordshire, but again not baptised there - but again in London - this time in St Margaret's, Westminster, and not until September 1817 when their daughter Frances (later found to have been born in Benson, Oxfordshire in February that year), also underwent a delayed baptism that same day - in that same Westminster church). [These baptism details gratefully supplied by Isabelle Charlton who visited the ancient Archives room in the neighbouring Abbey to examine the pertinent original registers. Was Thomas's occupation shown therein we wondered ? Yes, it was; he was already a Stone Sawyer! But, again, which Thomas was in fact that Stone Sawyer ?]

      It has now been concluded that it was Thomas the Sawyer (and not Thomas the Gardener - different man) who then moved with his family to Gloucester where they had two more children baptised - in 1819, with the younger (James) at least stating much later (in 1851 and 1861) that he was nevertheless actually born back in London (as must have been his sister Mary Ann) possibly up to a year earlier. So we have two more of their issue not baptised where and when they were apparently born (ca 1818/19?). We mentioned earlier that the family's whereabouts in the mid to late 1820s was uncertain. The 1814-born Thomas (probably also born in Oxfordshire) appears to have died in Gloucester in Oct 1820, aged 6; they may have had a second boy given this same name (or was it 'John') - around 1820/21 seemingly (he, as a Stableman', later dying in London in 1850). But where and when this second 'Thomas/John' was born or baptised is unknown. He was shown as aged 40 at his death on 1850; was this an inaccurate estimate or close to his real age ? He wasn't born in Gloucestershire apparently. Or, was he born much earlier - ca 1810 ? In any case, where had the family settled ca 1822-30s ? Was it to the Hanover Square area of Westminster - ie from Gloucester via Oxfordshire (briefly)? [Yes] While the other Thomas and Mary must have moved to Tooting possibly even directly from Cookham shortly after their rather later (and subsequently ?childless) marriage there in 1821; that is, with no domestic/childbirth or employment activities in central London at all ?

       Some of these questions appeared to be resolved when it was discovered that an apparently delayed marriage - dated 5 Nov 1821 (not as early as 1812 as had been wrongly assumed - in order to account for the 1813 baptism of a William Jermy in St Pancras) - took place between Thomas Jarmy, widower and Mary Hobbs, spinster - in Cookham, Berkshire. The witness this time was a W. Stone - who signed, while both Thomas and Mary made their marks. Was the Thomas concerned (apparently the same man in both Cookham marriages, each apparently witnessed by a member of the same (Stone) family), someone else (ie not the man born in Fingest) - who just happened to reside in Cookham throughout this period (ca 1800-1825+, say) and his marriage, to a Mary Hobbs, just an amazing coincidence? This seems virtually impossible. [The Stones weren't frequent witnesses as one sometimes finds; I could see no other marriages witnessed by them. They would thus appear to be friends of the same, one Thomas Jermy/Jarmy/Jermany/Jerminy - in Cookham.] We may also note that unlike virtually anywhere in Norfolk or Suffolk, say, there were no other unrelated clusters of Germanys/Jarmonys/Jermyns/Jermys etc in parishes around the villages of Fingest, Marlow and Cookham, who could account for any of this name (or similar) - ie Thomas - suddenly appearing there - other than those of the one original Berrick/Benson family of nearby south-east Oxfordshire. Interestingly, there were also (as mentioned) several Hobbs and Trendalls in this area of east Oxfordshire and of south-west Bucks - eg in and/or near Fingest (and in neighbouring Radnage and Bradenham, as well as in the nearby Cookham-Marlow area of neighbouring north-east Berkshire.

       The seeming long delayed marriage of Thomas and Mary was apparently explained when it was discovered that his first wife, now concluded to be Dianah (nee Trendall), hadn't in fact died around 1810-12, as previously and reasonably assumed (in order to allow time for the subsequent production by Thomas (of Cookham) and Mary of the William Jermy who was baptised in St Pancras in 1813), but in fact not until 1819! The Cookham register entry reads: 'Buried: 11 July 1819 - Diana Jarmy n of Cookham, 40 yrs' (with the letter 'n' for some reason slightly separated from the rest of the name, as shown). Did Thomas and Mary Hobbs necessarily delay their own marriage until after this date therefore (even if having had any issue born ca 1812-20 (especially a son William) baptised away from their normal haunts ? [No, we now know that they had no such awkward early issue forcing such a necessarily delayed marriage; the son William bn 1812 is now seen to have been born to Thomas the Sawyer - in the Benson area - before his baptism in St Pancras some months later.] We may point out that there were no other relevant baptisms registered in Cookham - eg in regard to a possible second son named Thomas (or John) - thought to be born to one or other couple around 1820/21. Possibly Mary (wife of Thomas the Sawyer!) was already pregnant with the latter Thomas when the first one died in Gloucester ? He may have been baptised almost anywhere. [We'll probably never know as he died just before the 1851 Census, which shows birthplaces, while the only previous Census (1841) doesn't. Does it show such a son with them then, aged about 20, or might he have left home by then ? (It shows a son 'John' born about the year that 2nd Thomas(?) was assumed to have been born to them; the name was likely wrongly transcribed by the enumerator rather than by the death registrar.]

       It thus increasingly appears that 'Thomas Jarmy', the future Claimant who married Mary Hobbs in Cookham in 1821, was in fact not the Thomas born to David Germany in Swyncombe in or by 1783 (who later married a Rebecca and had a son Samuel there), but was the one born to his slightly older brother William Germany (and wife Sarah) in Fingest in or by 1781, who later married (firstly) Dianah Trendall in nearby Cookham in 1808 and, secondly, as a widower, Mary Hobbs there in 1821. The existence of the two 1841 and 1851 Censuses - for their two families - indicates that Thomas Jermy, the Tooting gardener (1781-1850), born in Fingest was not Thomas Jermy, the Stone sawyer (1784-1852), born in Benson, who was undoubtedly the one who had that larger family including William, Frances and James. It strongly appears that Thomas the Gardener had no issue by either wife. This is not too surprising in the case of Mary Hobbs who was almost beyond child bearing years when they married (she asa spinster). Thomas may well have met Mary Hobbs only around 1820 in the Cookham area, though possibly knowing her and her family previously - there being other Hobbs in that area.

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

      Thomas Jermy the garden labourer and wife Mary Hobbs - latterly of Upper Tooting - were initially not found in that immediate district in the 1841 Census, although the Lambert family (Bakers) with whom Thomas's widow Mary would reside before 1850, were already there as of that earlier Census year. The Tooting area in those days was full of market gardens and Thomas the Claimant likely found employment in same, as the equivalent of an agricultural labourer, by the 1830s or earlier. Yes; see now results of a slightly wider search for him as per 1841 below. Sadly, he seems to have died in the June quarter 1850, again just too early to obtain any explicit confirmation from the 1851 Census as to his now assumed place and date of birth (in Fingest, Bucks in 1781). We have seen that one of the Thomas and Mary couple's two older sons - William (b 1812) and Thomas (b 1814) - appear to have been born in Oxfordshire but baptised only later in London. We find by the 1861 Census that Frances was shown to have been born in London (Westminster) in about 1817 but, by the 1871 Census, she then reported her actual place of birth to have been Benson, Oxfordshire. Again, I don't believe the register there confirms this (ie in terms of her baptism) - as it (or other Oxford parishes) didn't with respect to her elder brother's. She was in fact baptised (with her brother Thomas - born 1814) in Westminster later in 1817. Her younger brother James was also said (by two different Censuses) to be born in London yet was baptised in Gloucester. All these inconsistencies concerning the children's dates and places of births vs baptisms appeared initially to relate to a delayed marriage of their wrongly assumed parents (ie Thomas and Mary Hobbs) reported above. However, that marriage now appears not to have been delayed on such a basis at all - it being the other couple (Thomas the Stone Sawyer and his wife Mary (not nee Hobbs) who had those children between 1812 and 1837, not Thomas and Mary Hobbs whose marriage in 1821 could only transpire after the death of Thomas's first, also childless, wife Dianah. We can't presently say why the former couple often had delayed and distant baptisms.

-- -- -- -- -- -- --

      We may recall that one of the Thomas Jermys (now assumed to be the Sawyer), with a wife Mary, had apparently moved from Oxfordshire to St Pancras, London around 1813 - presumably already married ca 1811/12 (but where?). This Mary apparently (?also) returned 'home' briefly in 1814 - if she had second son Thomas in Benson - and then on to Westminster with husband Thomas who - likely worked on the Cathedral or Abbey by ca 1817. This was the year that the senior member of the family then living - James Jermy Snr (and his son James Jnr) back in Oxfordshire both died - in or near Berrick Salome. It was later alleged that some actions to eject Rev George Preston from Stanfield Hall had been commenced shortly before this by one of them (from ca 1812-15, say) and it may be noteworthy that the spelling of the surname Germany/Jarmony tended increasingly towards 'Jermy' from about the turn of the century or just before) and of course John Larner gave the middle name Jermy to his early son Charles by 1813. One wonders whether John Larner's connection from about 1810, say, with the Pearce family (who lived near Stanfield Hall in Norfolk) could explain the family's initial awareness of the situation there (rather than knowing anything about Stanfield Hall or the true Jermy family before this)? It is possible that Thomas Jermy/Germany was in contact with his cousin John Larner (then residing in the City along the Thames) not long after Thomas arrived in Tooting, south London in the 1820s or '30s - albeit in different areas and for different reasons.

       Thomas Jermy the Claimant died on 8 June 1850 in Upper Tooting, near Wandsworth, south London, said to be aged 67, less than two years after he was persuaded by Rush to come up to Norfolk briefly with his cousin John Larner, ostensibly to claim the Stanfield estate. He was shown as a labourer by this point and not a gardener. By dying in 1850, he sadly doesn't appear in the 1851 Census, which should have confirmed his age and apparent place of birth. Was it (as we have previously asked) Swyncombe, before Aug 1783 (when he was baptised), or Fingest - before July 1781, the month of the other Thomas's baptism ? The Fingest possibility would make Thomas nearer 69 in June 1850, when his wife was already a goodly 78 or so. (This would at least make him a bit nearer her in age than otherwise.) Or, was the difference in their ages not just 9 but a full 11 years ? In that 1851 Census, just a few months later, his wife Mary is shown as a 79 year old widow and annuitant residing with a Baker's family in that district. Her place of birth was given as Gt Cheverell in Wiltshire. Seemingly, that parish's register must show only one Mary (of any surname) born there ca 1771-72 - namely, to a John and Mary Hobbs - whom we may thus take most probably to have been the surname of Thomas's future wife. (Was there no other evidence that this was without doubt her maiden surname - ie before her 1821 marriage was discovered (by myself), only in 2004)?)

       Mary would be a rather surprising 49 when marrying Thomas in 1821. Was she married previously? Apparently not, as the marriage entry clearly shows her to have been a spinster in 1821. No marriage is shown for her in the Cheverell parish register (which however has some gaps). As described above, they married in Cookham, near the border with Oxfordshire, in 1821 (where they had likely both resided - ca 1815-20s). We may note that if we could find Thomas's 1841 census entry (taken in June that year), a birth in July of 1781 could well be reflected in his age being properly shown as '60' (unless the enumerator was so exact that he recorded his apparent then age - of 59 and 11 months - as '55' - since ages were supposed to be recorded in that census to 'the nearest 5 year point below actual age' on the day of the census; if, however, he was born in mid-1783, it should indeed, with rather more certainty, be shown as '55' (as he'd actually be just 58). And finally, two items from Shore's 'Trial of J.B. Rush' (here italicized) may be quoted which at least support the view that Thomas was likely of an age that proves more consistent with the 1781 birth: For in his Introduction, he states "...We shall now return to the claim made by Thomas Jermy, Gardener of Tooting, aged about 70 (ie as of Oct 1848), and by his cousin John Larner, upon the Stanfield estate..."; and secondly, in one of his cross-examinations of Emily Sanford, Rush asks "Do you recollect seeing old Mr Thomas Jermy, Mr Larner and Mr Read coming to see me at Mylne Street...?". If he was thus characterised to be 'about 70' and 'old...' in 1848, then he would, presumably, be seen by the same criteria as 'about 72' and so even slightly 'older', when he died in 1850. We would suggest however that he was actually 3 years younger than this that year - ie being 'just' 70 only then - and so born in or just before 1781 (rather than, say, 1778 or so) - and thus much less likely to have been born even later - as in late 1783/early 1784. These remarks go some way towards neutralising any credence given his estimated age of 67 given at his death and/or burial registrations in 1850 - this likely being an under-estimate by the informant (likely his elderly widow?); he was, in fact, about 70, we would suggest.

[ STOP PRESS !! The 1841 Census for the greater Tooting area has now (Nov 2006) been more thoroughly examined over a wider area than the 'immediate' streets around Thomas's later abode on Obligation Road, Upper Tooting (as checked in about 2002). On this occasion, I found he was already there - living with Mary his wife - as lodgers with a young married couple Joseph Gates, a Brazier, and wife Elizabeth, residing on Tooting High Street, in the parish of Tooting Graveney [see HO107/1068/5]. This was about a mile south of the later dwelling in 'Upper Tooting'. Joseph and his 15 year old son were shown as born in the local coounty of Surrey), although not his wife, while Thomas and Mary were both shown, appropriately, as having been born 'outside that county'. And he was listed as "Thomas Jermany, aged 60 !", an agricultural labourer, and his wife as Mary Jermany, aged 65+. In those times, there were still market gardens and even farms in that area. His year of birth thus equates exactly to our suggested 1781 (or slightly earlier if actually a touch over 60). This discovery - that Thomas was, as suggested, very probably the son of William Germany of Fingest, David's elder brother - was rather satisfying. He was not the son, born in the mid-1780s therefore, of either David Jarmony of Swyncombe nor of William Jermy (b 1765) of Benson (whose son - a different Thomas - became and remained the Stone Sawyer). How this may affect the validity of Thomas of Tootimg's Claim (vs that of the true 'remainder man' (ie Thomas the Sawyer's father - the 1765-born William Jermy (significantly alive until 1851) - is further discussed in the Summary and Comment section below.

       Mary (nee Hobbs) died on the 27 Nov 1856, aged 84, living on Obligation Row (today Beechcroft Rd), Upper Tooting, described as the 'widow of Thomas Jermy', he then shown as having been a 'general labourer' (ie in June 1850). [Mary was born in 1772 and thus was actually about 68 or 69 at the 1841 Census. But ages were, as mentioned, supposed to be 'rounded down' - to the next 5 year point below actual age and hence she was appropriately, if only approximatedly, shown as '65' in same. Thomas, on the other hand, was it appears virtually 60 on that Census night and so realistically shown as such.] Thomas's cousin John Larner had at that time (1850s) recently moved to Brittania Row in Islington, as a Baker, and would live there another 20 years with his second 'wife' Elizabeth - oddly also from Norfolk, as was his first wife Mary Pearce. He made no further claims on the estate as far as we know before dying there in 1870, aged about 83 (although reported, inconsistently, to be 85. (His actual place of burial was then still unknown, I believe.) We may note also that (the other) Thomas's adult son William (we must assume) and his daughter Frances were still living in London, with third son James now in Staffordshire, during the late 1840s when the Tooting-domiciled Thomas was involved, if marginally, with his (younger) cousin John Larner concerning Stanfield Hall. They may well have been reading or at least hearing about it at that time and no doubt it was later mentioned (by any survivors) from time to time to their children and grandchildren in turn - up to and beyond the 1920s (since those concernd were at least relatives). This would presumably include the families of Thomas the Sawyer's sons William and James, and any descendents in turn who continue today (as those of Mr W.E. Jermy of the 1921 pedigree as discussed briefly earlier), and others in the Sheffield area. One wonders what communication if any transpired in those times (eg concerning news of family births, marriages and deaths) between family members then in London, Kent and Staffordshire, say; literacy was still in short supply then.

.

.

The 4th Line of Descent from John Jarmony - by 3rd son David Germany.

       John's third surviving son - David Jarmony (baptised as such 27 Mar 1748 in Berrick) - married (as David Germany) firstly Jane Sparks, in Swyncombe (some 3 miles south-east of Berrick, just beyond Ewelme) on 13 Feb 1775. Both signed with their marks. They had at least three children, including a first son James Germany baptised privately just 5 weeks later on 28 Mar 1775 in Ewelme and then publicly on 16 April that year in Swyncombe. They also had a son Richard Germany, baptised in Swyncombe on 2 Feb 1777 (possibly named after Jane's father?), and another son Thomas Germany, also baptised there - on 24 August 1783. (This seems to eliminate David as father of the Thomas who, with a wife Mary, had the son Thomas Jermony - whom they buried in Fingest in 1801. But, could they have had further issue - as a son Thomas ca 1810 (d 1850) or, less likely, a William ca 1812-13)? Jane Germany died and was buried in Swyncombe on 14 May 1795, when she'd be about 45. One would assume that she and David, of proven fertility, would have had other issue after Thomas - ie between 1785 and 1795, say, but we have no evidence of such. The Swyncombe register also appears to have been poorly kept, but we note that no later offspring are apparent or unaccounted for nearby.

       David re-married - on 7 Nov 1795 (as David Germany) to Grace Harbud, again in Swyncombe, when both made their marks. They had no issue of which we are aware. David Germany died on 12 March 1827 - having been found dead at Maiden Grove Scrubs, near Russell's Water, Pishill, Oxfordshire (about 3 miles east of Swyncombe and on the way towards such as Fingest, Marlow and Cookham). He was an impressive 80. A Coroner's inquest was held when he was described as 'David Jermaney of Swyncombe', where he was buried. Again, the name choices for John Jarmony's early sons James, William and David don't appear to reflect earlier members of the Norfolk family (with the possible exception of William but that was such a common name then that it doesn't inspire confidence). Later names seems to reflect a certain old testament interest. Oddly, the name John never re-appears.

      As indicated above, David's eldest son James married first - in 1798 - to Frances Curtyes - in neighboring Britwell Salome - where they had a namesake daughter Frances (ca 1802) who married James Austin there in 1825. I have no information on Richard's future. The 3rd son Thomas married a Rebecca ?Denham (born Benson 1780) in about 1805-08 (where unknown) and had a son Samuel Germany by her baptised in Swyncombe in 1809. There appears to be no other information on the future of this Thomas, nor of his wife Rebecca or their only known son Samuel. If he lived to 1841, Thomas's age that year if reported in that Census would likely be shown as 55 (being born in 1783 and so then actually 57 (enumerators in 1841 instructed to round ages down to the 5-year point below actual age although at times they ignored this). This contrasts with the age of 60 shown for his cousin Thomas Jermany (born 1781) in that same Census, as described above. [It is an awkward fact that the other Thomas Jermy (of Benson) was apparently born at a very similar time - in 1784 - whom we find settled eventually in London as a Stone Sawyer as discussed above.] At present, we know of no later 'Jermy' descendents of David's line - as through census, church or civil registrations. [A Samuel 'Jaymeny', aged 39, was noted in the 1851 Census living in Whitechapel, east London, with wife Elizabeth and, amongst others, a daughter Rebecca, aged 7, but all shown as born in Middx.]

.

The 5th Line of Descent from John Jarmony via his daughter Ann.

       We may consider next the family descended from John Jarmony's daughter Ann Jermany (born 1751) who had a daughter Mary Jermany out of wedlock in 1773 in Berrick. The putative father was deemed to be one of the Hoare brothers, Jacob or Thomas - of Britwell Salome. Neither appears to have married her and thereby give that surname to Mary - who thus remained 'Jermany' or similar. She and her mother Ann must have remained living at home with Ann's parents in Berrick and/or any older sibling nearby. In any case, young Mary eventually repeated the error of her mother and, when aged about 23, was 'caught' herself, although the putative father wasn't named an this occasion, it appears. She thus had her child baptised as James Jermy on 14 Feb 1798 in Benson (but apparently born a year or more before this; see later) - she was later married in that same village, as Mary Germy, spinster, to one John Castle of nearby Wallingford, widower - on 11 June 1800. Her son James, who retained the surname Germy or similar, was the ancestor of one of the descendents of this family of Oxfordshire 'Jermeys' referred to above (viz: Maureen Braithwaite (nee Jermey) who first provided me with much appreciated early information about this branch of the family, around 1982, when most 'Jermy searchers' were still focusing on Wiltshire.

      [See also the section on this website concerning the Spurgeon-Jermy genealogy in which, remarkably, a John Castle of Oxfordshire married the daughter of one Sarah (nee Jermy) in Norwich and had a daughter Mary Ann Castle by her in Dublin just before Sarah's probable death there in late 1799 (where the Oxfordshire Militia, including John Castle, was then stationed, with wives typically accompanying husbands). Shortly after, this same John Castle appears to have returned (later than his regiment due to his wife's illness and death in Dublin) to Wallingford near Benson, Oxfordshire - to marry, as a widower, the present Mary Germy in Benson! One wouldn't make this up for a novel! (This same surname spelling would be used when her grandfather James also married in Benson - to his 4th wife - Susanna Fox, in 1809.) Did John Castle know of the latter's family by virtue of his earlier marriage in Norwich - into a branch of the same(?) family?? This is not easily resolved.] The following pedigree shows some of these relationships (as well as that relating to Dinah's husband John Learner which is more fully described in the next section below).

       John Castle and Mary (nee Jermy) subsequently had issue given the surname Castle (I believe in Wallingford, although Rotherfield Greys is also a possibility). Her eldest son James (who was unlikely fathered by her future husband as he was, I believe, stationed elsewhere at the relevant time) became an agricultural labourer and, on 28 June 1820 in Wallingford St Leonard, as James Jermy, married Mary Francis, both then described as 'of that parish'. A later census entry gave her place of birth (ca 1798) as ?Newcastle - a village possibly in or near ?Hereford or Hertford (the Census entry too illegible to discern; it wasn't Wiltshire, Berkshire or Buckinghamshire in any case, but seemingly somewhere ending in '..ford'). Apparently James must have called himself James Castle at times (to avoid awkward questions?) and his own issue seems to have gone by either surname for a time, but settled mainly on 'Jermey' by the next generation. It is probable that it was his wife Mary Jermy whose death was registered in Wallingford in Dec quarter 1855 when she'd be about 57. Her widowed husband appears to be the James Jermy (vs Castle) whose burial was later registered 24 Jan 1865 at St Mary Le More, also in Wallingford).

       Young James Jermy's older 'cousin' - James Jarmony (Jnr) and wife Frances (surname uncertain) had, awkwardly, also settled in Wallingford some years before and where they too had several children baptised (most of whom sadly died in infancy) up to ca 1810 - before they (or at least Frances, possibly only after James' death in early 1817) settled in Reading (see above). The much younger James and wife Mary moved to this small market town of Wallingford themselves a few years later and had about 6 children there themselves - between 1821 and 1833 - with James generally described as an agricultural labourer. The first was a son Richard Jermy baptised 8 July 1821 in Wallingford St Leonard, having been born in the Workhouse there. Conditions didn't improve much for this younger family over the next few years as they also had a daughter Frances ca 1822/3, who was buried 30 Oct that latter year, another daughter Mary Ann Jermy in 1824, second son William (baptised 30 July 1826), Hannah (baptised Oct 4 1829) and James (14 Aug 1831) all born and buried as infants as Jermy, while their parents resided in the Workhouse. Eldest son Richard was still living at home in Wallingford at the 1841 Census when he, his father James and the rest of the family (including surviving daughters Sealy and Hannah) were now listed under the earlier surname of Jermany. Hannah died aged 16 in 1844, being buried in this same parish churchyard on 31 Dec that year but as: 'Jermy (alias Castle)'. Her near aged sister Mary Ann died aged 23 and was buried there 29 Mar 1847. The remaining family would soon move to the village of Brightwell on the outskirts of Wallingford.

       In early 1841, Richard Jermany married in or near Wallingford a girl with the unusual name of Selicia, born ca 1827 in Wallingford. I'm uncertain if they had any issue over the next 10 years (which the 1851 Census should pick up, if we can locate them) as he only appears next (in my records at least) some 40 years later when living in neighbouring Cholsey (a little to the south) in 1881, any children no doubt having left home by then. A Celia Jermy's death at age 67 was registered in Wallingford in 1892; she could be either Sealy or Selicia seemingly. Richard himself was still living in 1901, a widower, aged 79, residing as a lodger at 'Mrs Barlett's' in Wallingford St Leonard, he now described as Jermy - a retired farm labourer. He died there in 1902, aged 80. [No issue is apparent born to Richard ca 1840-43, at least.]

       The second son William Jermey (b ca 1824) was also still at home in 1841, aged 17, an agricutural labourer. His future is presently unknown; he'd likely marry about 1830 or so. The next son James Jermey was just 10 in the 1841 census. By 1851, aged 20, he is still living at home but now in nearby Brightwell - with both parents, as well as with his own wife Elizabeth and young son, another James Jermey, aged 1 - all the family now listed in that Census as 'Jermey'. James had married Elizabeth in Dec quarter 1850 in Wallingford, as James Jermy, seemingly just before the birth there of that ?first born - registered the same quarter - as James William Jermy. (However, it is possible that they had had a son William Jermy born ca 1849 (ie before the marriage) who was buried in St Leonard's 29 Nov 1849, an infant.) Older brothers Richard and William were not part of the 1851 household in Brightwell, nor were they found in Wallingford, Chosley or Reading in 1851. In the Dec quarter 1851, a Richard Jermy's birth was registered in Wallingford R.D. probably born to Richard Snr in Brightwell, as was a John Jermy in 1857 and a Thomas Jermy in 1860 (the latter boy appears to be the one of this name buried in St Leonard's 24 Mar 1862).

      (Confusingly, another Richard and another Thomas were born - in 1852 and 1865, respectively - seemingly to James; see below). One of the older James Jermys married in Wallingford in June 1858, as did a William Jermy in Dec 1873 (the one born ca 1824?) and one of the younger Richards in 1876. A James Jermy then died in Wallingford in 1865 - possibly this recently married one, if not the younger one who was born in 1850 to James. As mentioned above, Mary (nee Francis), mother of the first generation of this family in Wallingford, was buried in St Leonard's 14 July 1855 - as "Mary Jermy, alias Castle". The younger James' wife Elizabeth died in Wallingford in 1890, aged 59 and this James re-married there in June 1892, having been listed as 'Jermy' in the 1901 Census. But he seems to have died in Reading, aged about 80, in 1912. For the time being, we may suggest the following pedigree but so many repeated forenames and over-lapping generations can certainly lead to errors. Hopefully, the 1861 and 1871 Censuses may clarify matters - eventually.

       Besides his namesake son James (born 1850 in Wallingford), James and Elizabeth would have four other sons - Richard (1852) born in Brightwell, then George (1854), Harry (1862) and Thomas (1865), all born back in Wallingford and baptised as Jermey. It seems possible that they had a duaghter Mary Ann as well - about 1857 - who would be the one who married at St Mary's, Wallingford in 1879, she as 'Mary Ann Jermey, spinster of this parish and daughter of James Jermey', to a James John Cox, bachelor of Wantage, Hairdresser. Witnesses were James and Elizabeth Jermey. The last Jermy births in Wallingford were daughters Emma and Jane, possibly also issue of this couple. We may consider the futures of the 3 sons in turn: the eldest, James Jermey, likely married about 1872 (to a Jane who was born in Wallingford about 1844) - although I can see no relevant registration for them - the nearest being a James who married in Kensington in 1878). They had at least three sons in Reading: William George Jermey (1875), Harry James Jermey (1877) and Frederick Thomas Jermy (1879). By 1881, this family lived in Earley on the outskirts of Reading. These sons may well have had issue themselves around or just after the turn of the century (to be checked for shortly). [Thus Frederick Thomas married in Reading ca June 1905 where sons William Frederick, Harry Vincent and Henry Jermy were born between 1905 and 1910, possibly to him or to his brother Harry James Jermey, who also married there in 1908. I can't however presently place the father of the Samuel and Walter Jermy born in Reading in 1892 and 1894, respectively.]

       James and Elizabeth's second son Richard Jermey (born Brightwell) seems to have married and, by 1881, reside in Park Farm Cottages, Wallingford All Hallows as a Farm labourer. The other Richard married an Emily in Wallingford in Dec Q 1876 and in 1881 they lived in Wallingford with no children. By 1901, this(?) Richard is shown as a Farm Bailiff on Stroud Farm near Bray in Berkshire (between Windsor and Maidenhead), living at Cottage No. 1 there. Again, no children are listed. He died there in 1909, aged 67. James' next son was George Jermey who married a Sarah around 1879 and by 1881 they had a son Arthur Jermey aged 1, born, as with his brother's family, where they then resided - in Reading (St Mary) where George was a General labourer. They had 4 more children by 1894: sons Ernest Jermey and Walter Jermey and two daughters - Ethel and Alice. By 1901, this family had moved to 61 Donnington Gardens, Reading St Giles where son Arthur was now a Railway Messenger and Ernest a Page Boy.

       Harry Jermey (born 1862) married a Mary Ann in about 1898 and had a daughter Beatrice in Reading in 1899. They too lived in St Giles where Harry was a Biscuit Maker and would have at least one son (possibly John born Dec Q 1901) who was, I believe, the father or grandfather of the Maureen nee Jermey (later Braithewaite) who first led me into awareness of this line of Jermeys. Finally, James' third son Thomas Jermey (born 1865) married around 1883 (no registration?) and had 3 sons - William Jermey (1883), Walter Jermey (1885) and Thomas Jermey (1895) in Paddington, London where he was a Railway Porter. [There were two John Jermeys, aged 21 and 22, shown in the 1901 Census as Clerks, born in Paddington (ca 1880) where the younger still resided, while the other was then in Northamptonshire; who were their fathers? There was also a Harry Jermey, age 8, and a Cecil Jermey, age 1, that year - both born and resident in Paddington. There were also Jermys born in Hayes, Middx in the 1860s/70s.] For the time being, this completes our present coverage of this ever-expanding family. It requires futher attention.

       We may add here that when searching the 1851 Census for Reading and finding no Jermy/Jermeys deriving form the Berrick family (although oddly there were some there both earlier and later that century), we did find a 'floating' John Jarmey and family - at 40 Coley Terrace, a Weaver, aged 53, born rather unexpectantly in Andover, Hampshire (ca 1798). His wife was a Sarah, 49, born in London. They had one son, also John, a Brass Finisher, aged 20, and five daughters aged from 23 down to 14 - all born in Andover. There was also a 'nephew' - Henry James Ransom, aged 7, born in Reading. He was the son of an unmarried mother 'Charity Ranson' (b ca 1824), the daughter of a Solomon and Elizabeth Ransom, also born in Andover. Elizabeth was conceivably a sister of the elder John Jermy. (At 25 Coley Terrace nearby lived a Thomas Castle, 48, a Wood Turner born in Wallingford (ca 1802), with a wife born in Henley.) One naturally wonders why this Andover family decided to settle in Reading - with its other Jermys/Jermeys - and who was this John Jarmey's father - who apparently lived in north Hampshire in the later 1790s and was likely born about 1765, say. [A Will was later located for this latter man, John Jermy - dated 11 July 1818 and proved at the court of the Arch Winchester 4 Aug 1826 (estate value less than £100). He was a Tallow Chandler. All was left to his wife Elizabeth for life and then to their four children: William Jermy (of Paradise Street, Finsbury Square, London), John Jermy, the Weaver of Reading, unmarried Sarah Jermy and her married sister Ann Rodd, both seemingly still in Andover. We may also recall that if John Jarmony and first wife Ann Hester did have a first son named John as suggested (born ca 1737), he may have moved to such as north Hampshire by the 1760s and have a son John himself there soon after. (It should at least be checked out.) Oddly, but Andover is about 155 miles from Stanfield Hall! [Another 'floater' was noted in the marriage of a Sarah Jermy in Warwick in the December quarter 1848 (and so possibly born ca 1825, but to whom ?); I've noted no other early Jermys in this general area at least.

-- -- -- -- --

.

The 6th Line of Descent from John Jarmony via his daughter Dinah: The Jermy - Larner Link.

       Having now delineated the four lines of the family deriving from John Jarmony's three sons - James, William and David (all born before 1750) - and from his daughter Ann (born 1751), we may consider finally the sixth and most junior line - arising from his youngest child - Dinah Germany, not born until 1762. She would marry John Learner on 17 Oct 1784 in Benson where, fittingly, her nephew, the younger William Jermy (b 1765) then resided and who, after 1817, would become the proper 'remainder man' through whom, if anyone, her future son John Larner should have claimed the Norfolk estate and, after him, through that man's son Thomas Jermy, the Stone Sawyer (b 1784). Instead, he effectively claimed through a less senior William Jermy and, more directly, through that man's son - the other Thomas Jermy (b 1781), the gardener labourer of Tooting and eventual, if indirect, Claimant. One might imagine Dinah saying to her son, sometime before she died in 1833, "John, you should claim the estate through your cousin Thomas, son of William Jermy..." and when Larner eventually sought to contact such a Thomas (ca 1847?), he proved to be the son of the wrong William and was thus the wrong cousin Thomas ! This latter man, the Tooting gardener, quite likely had no idea about the basis of any claim before the late-1840s and, we may imagine, just went along with Larner's version of events.

       At their marriage, John Learner and Dinah Germany both made their marks, I believe, although the marriage, witnessed by James Germany (probably her eldest brother), was seemingly indexed as 'Larner'. From where did Dinah's husband derive ? We note that a John Learner was baptised on 16 July 1758 in Aston Tirrold, Berkshire (near Wallingford and just a few miles south of Benson), seemingly to an unwed Martha Learner. This was once considered his possible origin but later findings below now cast doubt on this view. There were also several Larner events recorded earlier in neighbouring Hagbourne (previously in Berkshire) of which family this Martha may have been a relative. Interestingly, a Martha Germany also wed in this same parish - in 1720 - and one wondered if her family was at all related either to the Larners or Germanys of nearby Benson and Berrick. [A Stephen Larner married in Basildon, Berkshire in 1761 (just a little south of Hagbourne and Aston Tirrold) who was thought another possible source of John Learner/Larner, Dinah's husband, but this too now appears unlikely. Rather, an origin in Wheatfield (nearer to Chalgrove) and Watlington now seems much more probable (as shown below); the other possibilities described here could be 'cousins' of course.]

       John and Dinah had, as we know, at least one son - John Larner - in about 1787 (as mentioned above) - born, as per his 1851 Census entry, somewhere unspecified...'in Oxfordshire'. Did he not know the actual parish - either of birth or baptism? Or did he wish to obscure his exact labouring class, illiterate origins (as possibly appearing inconsistent with his claimed inheritance and that which his son(s) may later take up) ? He may have further ensured this obscurity of (exact but not general) origin 10 years later - in 1861, when his place of birth was oddly then given, rather specifically, as 'Ringwood, Hampshire' (unless this was an administrative error only?) - ie somewhere in the (south-)west country. In any case, we could initially find no clear evidence of birth or baptisms for any issue born to Dinah and John Learner - ie ca 1785-1800, say, in or near Benson or Berrick Salome itself. However, in her wide coverage of the Larner family researched in the 1980s/90s, the direct descendent of John Larner - Bronwyn Larner of Australia - included reference (amongst hundreds of Larners) to a son Stephen born to a John and 'Diana' Larno, who was baptised in nearby Britwell Salome, at least - on 7 April 1793. I later felt that this snippet should at least be kept in mind (especially as this could imply that the father of John Learner may have been a Stephen as mentioned above). Of possible relevance also were tax records of ca 1785-89 for both a Mr and, later, a Mrs 'Lano' - as tenants on Lord Despencer's estate in Benson (where John Learner and Dinah had at least recently married). Possibly this Lord's lands extended to Britwell Salome? We may recall that the son James of one of Dinah's brothers (David) appeared to marry Frances Curtyes in this same village in 1798 and their daughter, also Frances, married there as well - in 1825. This parish's registers seemed therefore clearly to merit further examination. This was eventually done by myself (on July 6th, 2004) after the transcription indexes for same (and for many other nearby parishes) had first been thoroughly examined during a visit to Oxford R O.

       Firstly, it was noted that there were 5 promising surnames of this or similar atypical form listed in the transcription index for Britwell Salome: two were for 'Larno', two for 'Lerno' and one for 'Larnoby' (apparently). There were none for the spellings Larner or Learner. [It is not known why Bronwyn Larner did not discover and/or report on these additional and, as it would later turn out, most relevant 'misspelt' items.] For, when the entries were examined in the actual parish registers concerned (for Britwell Salome), the following significant entries were found:

"John the son of John LARNO by Dianah his wife was baptised on Dec 27 1787"
"Stephen the son of John LARNO and Diana his wife was baptised on Apr 7 1793"
"William the son of John LARNO and Diana his wife was baptised on Jun 2 1799"

"Dinah LERNO was buried on Sept 13 1833, aged 71" [and therefore born ca 1762, as expected]
"John LERNO was buried on Feb 25 1835, aged 72 - Abode: Whitfield, Oxon."

The transcriber had clearly misread the original - reading the baptism of John as the son of John Larnoby rather than as the son of John Larno...by Dianah his wife... etc. The Vicar (or Curate?) seems to have had trouble spelling/hearing - both Larner and Dinah, as well as the name of the village to which her widowed husband probably moved after she died a year or so earlier (and any children had probably left). For it was actually 'Wheatfield' (about 4 miles north-west) - where significantly we find many more Larners resided at that time and earlier - than in any other nearby parishes; could this prove to be where John Snr grew up ? He must have left instructions there to be buried back at Britwell Salome with Dinah. [We can now appreciate that John Larner had re-commenced his family's activities/claims vis a vis Stanfield Hall (ca 1837) not long after the deaths of both parents back in Oxfordshire.]

       There were 30 entries in the Wheatfield transcription index - as both Larner and Learner. Thus, between 1727 and 1740, there were 6 children born to a William and Elizabeth Larner/Learner - viz: William (1727), Mary (1728), Hannah (1731), Austin (1733), Sarah (1736; d 1736) and Elizabeth (1738). Hannah had a base born son John Learner in that parish in 1753 before marrying there in 1760, while Elizabeth married there in 1770. The son Austin married Mary Dixon in Watlington 1 Sept 1759 (where James Jarmony would shortly marry his 2nd and 3rd wives) but then had his children baptised in Wheatfield: a daughter Charlotte (1760) and 4 sons: John Dixon (1763), James (1767), Austin Jnr (1771) and Stephen (1774) - all as Learner. His wife Mary was buried there in 1802. It would seem quite possible that the John Learner who married Dinah Germany in Benson in 1784 and then settled in Britwell Salome was the John born to Austin Learner, in 1763. We may recall that Frances Jermy married a James Austin at Britwell Salome in 1825. Was that latter surname used as a first name two generations earlier (eg being the maiden name of the Elizabeth who was the elder Austin's mother)? We note that Dixon was also used in the family as a forename in this fashion. On the other hand, the forename Austin was rather more common (over England) then than I had realised. The map below shows Britwell Salome to be virtually a part of Watlington; Swyncombe is a more disbursed parish a little to the south while Fingest and Cookham are slightly further east.

       We also find that a James Lerno married Elizabeth Sellar in Britwell Salome on 23 Oct 1805. Unless this James was John and Dinah's first born (where baptised ca 1784/85, say, is presently unknown), he could be the slightly older James born in Wheatfield in 1767. (It may be pointed out that there is no evidence that there was ever any actual, properly spelt, surnames in Oxfordshire as Larno, Lerno, Lano or Larnoby; it was solely a mis-spelling or mis-pronunciation of Learner or Larner.) A Stephen Larner married Mary Russell also in Berrick Salome - on 30 Aug 1817; he could well be the Stephen born to John and Dinah in 1793. An older Stephen Learner 'of Wheatfield' (bn ca 1780?) married an Ann in 1802 in neighbouring Shirburn and had issue in Wheatfield over the next few years, including an Ann and Mary Learner. We may recall that a John Larner had issue in New Cross, south London which included these same family names - as William, Dinah, James and Stephen (see earlier mention of this family) and that there was a William Larner, Greengrocer, living immediately next door to John Larner in Hoxton in 1841, aged 40, and thus quite probably his brother William born in in Britwell in 1799. And there appears to be periods available for 3 or 4 other children to have been born to John and Dinah - ie in ca 1784/85, 1790, 1795-97 and 1802-05, say.

       During John Larner's activities in Norfolk in 1848, reference was made to meetings with Rush that included, in addition to John Larner, both a Charles Larner Snr and Jnr - the latter said to be then living in Wiltshire. Their relationship to John Larner was never stated but the most likely would seem to be that the elder Charles could be one of John's younger brothers (born ca 1790-97, say) and the younger one either that man's son (born ca 1814 and thus about 34 during the 1848 events) or one of John's own sons - born ca 1822. Oddly, a Charles Larner was baptised on 31 July 1814 in North Cerney, Glos (near Wilts) born to a John and Mary Larner. But 'our' John was living along the Thames at that time and although his son Charles Jermy Larner (born ca 1813) had recently died in February that year, they would shortly have a son James Larner baptised in Dec 1814 (or was it 1815? See later). On the other hand, there was a Moses Larner in Shoreditch (possibly born ca 1795) who also had a son Charles - in 1823 (I believe) and it seems possible that John had such a brother named Moses (this being the name of one of Dinah's older brothers who died age just 15 and whom she may have wished to commemorate) as touched on below. It would certainly seem significant that John named his eldest known son as Charles!?

       Whether the later presence of a Larner in Wiltshire could imply that Dinah and her husband and family left the Berrick area shortly after her marriage in 1784, say, and headed for that county for a time at least, we can't say for certain. It does tie in with the idea that the assumed 'remainder man' in 1791 (or even in 1796) was apparently then living in that more western district (155 miles from Stanfield Hall) - as though that man (James Jermy Snr, as we believe) was somehow then associated with his daughter Dinah's Larner family during this ?temporary shift westwards about then. One possible reason for any temporary shift towards Wiltshire or elsewhere, at that time, could be the Napoleonic Wars (as touched on above) - when many young men were required to serve in their county's Militia. These regiments had to march all over the country ca 1795 - 1815 and many men had permission for their wives to travel with them and share their rooms in local rooming houses. Any issue born during these travels could thus be baptised almost anywhere and unless and until genealogical indexes provide much greater coverage, finding any such is like searching for a needle in a haystack. But while Dinah's husband may have been in such a regiment from ca 1795 and, by ca 1803/4, say, her son John Larner also, we wouldn't expect her elder brother James to be so employed at aged 60, although his son James, then about 40, may just about have been eligible. I've seen soldiers discharged from county Militias aged 55+. If the elder John Larner was in the militia, he must have been 'with' Dinah the requisite months before the eventual births of their respective children as baptised in Britwell. Such birth dates needn't always approximate baptismal dates of course. [On the other hand, it appears that there may well have been an unrelated Larner family settled in Wiltshire at that time.]

-- -- -- -- -- --

       We have no further explicit information about young John Larner ca 1800-1810 until we find him at least (with wife Mary) in 1813 living at 25 Dowgate Hill in the City of London, as a Labourer and Brewery Worker (the same year one of his 1st cousins, once removed, Thomas the later Stone Sawyer, had also come to London - to have his son William baptised in St Pancras). Where was John Larnerbetween 1800 to 1810, as a teenager and young man we may enquire ? With his parents in Britwell Salome possibly... or...on the move with them...or ? By about 1810-12, we can, by deduction, place him most probably in either Norfolk, or somewhere in London - when he apparently met and married his wife to be - seemingly Mary Pearce of Swainsthorpe, Norfolk. This may have been while she was working in some relative's pub in Stoke Holy Cross, say (or even in Norwich), although we know of no reason (yet) why Larner would be in that county then ((but see now below). More likely, it was somewhere in the London area while she was working in service, say, or visiting some relative - as her brother James.

[NB In this latter regard, we have recently come across an interesting marriage entry in an index for a John Larney and Mary Pearce for the fitting year of 1810 - in east London. Was the 'y' transcribed wrongly ? We know that our John and his growing family gradually moved westward along the north side of the Thames from the parish of All Hallows (near Tower Hill barracks) towards St Martins-in-the-Fields (and Lambeth on the south side). It would be consistent with this if their married life had actually began (for whatever reasons) just a little further to the east - in Stepney - those two years earlier. The John concerned only made his mark (as 'our' John Larner would, being illiterate) while Mary signed (and we have a signature for her made some years later). She was a spinster but John was shown as a widower (possibly first married about 1807/8, say. Did he have issue ca 1808-10 - as an earlier son John...or ?Charles ? We have noted a John Larner and wife Elizabeth residing across the river in New Cross at about this same time, with issue including lastly a son John Larner - not baptised until 1813. Might he have been born earlier (ca 1811-12) - before (?our) John may have deserted her for Mary ? The elder John and Elizabeth appear to have had no others after this John - who was noted in Camberwell in the 1851 Census, aged 37, with his own wife Elizabeth and children with names oddly reminescent of the Oxfordshire family - including a Dinah Larner born about 1834, plus a William.]

     John Larner may of course have been in the Militia himself and so help explain meeting Mary, or an earlier wife, almost anywhere (as Norfolk, south London of in the south or west country). It is a chicken and egg situation as far as who told whom first about any controversy regarding the possession of Stanfield Hall; was it John Larner telling Mary and her family only after he met them, or was it the Pearces with their local knowledge in Norfolk informing John Larner about it (after he happened to mention to them that his mother was a 'Jermy' (or 'Germany') around 1810 - whose father was a John Jermany/Jermy ? If so, he would only later inform Thomas Jermy the Tooting gardener (the one relative from his home area with whom he may have kept in contact and, as it turned out, the wrong Thomas - as the other contemporary Thomas (also then in London) was actually of the more senior line) and/or any other relatives or educated/literate friends back in Oxfordshire about this exciting news. If, on the other hand, Larner was the one who knew first, from whom would he have learned about it ? We must assume it would be from his mother Dinah or one of her brothers such as James, William or David Jarmony - or one of the latters' sons, as either Thomas his cousin or Thomas his 2nd cousin, who were just a little older. On this scenario, he may first have heard such information (when old enough to retain it) around 1800-05, say, (when in his mid- to late-teens), presumably in or near Britwell Salome - if and when he ever returned to the family's home parish. We may note that he would first become eligible for the Militia about this time (ca 1803/4), as would most of his contemporaries in that rural area. Hence - our next section on this likelihood.

.

John Larner(s) in the Militia.

       From 1758, all English counties were required to establish Regiments of Militia for home defence. Each parish had a parish constable whose duties included drawing up an annual list of all adult males between 17 and 45 from whom a number could be chosen by ballot, as and when required, to serve in their county's Militia. Some of these lists, with personal information, have survived in county record offices, although not many, and can serve as a kind of early Census. The PRO has two Classes of War Office records - WO 68 and WO 96 - in which similar details about Militiamen can sometimes be found although sadly most of this relates to the period after 1850. The Militia regiments themselves kept a similar 'enrollment book' about each man as he joined up, including not only ballotted men but just as many who had volunteered or, thirdly, served as 'substitutes' for those who wished to leave. But, again and sadly, only a few of these 'books' have survived - in the archives of the regular Army regiments into which the county Militias were eventually amalgamated - in the 1880s. Sadly, none survive for Devon, Cornwall, Oxfordshire or Norfolk, for example.

       During times when there appeared to be no threat to the nation, such Militias were 'dis-embodied' of the bulk of their men and retained only a few Officers and Sarjeants as a skeleton staff at their county town's HQ. One PRO class - WO 13 - does at least provide the names of the Privates serving in each county Militia during the periods when they were actually 'embodied' - as from 1793 to 1815 especially (with one short break in 1802) - when the country was at war with France. Sadly, they don't show any personal details about such men. During such times, these regiments moved all over the country. The main interest for genealogists is the fact that each such regiment had up to 600 men whose lives and careers were otherwise invisible. [See accounts elsewhere on this website of two family ancestors tracked in this way with the Cornish/Devon and Oxfordshire Militias, respectively.] In the latter case, this regiment was followed from about 1793 to 5 Apr 1802 when they, with all other Militias, were temporarily dis-embodied during the brief 'Peace of Amiens'. It was during that prior period (before 1802) that while tracking my main interest at the time - one John Castle of Oxfordshire - I happened to note that the name John Larner also appeared - from at least 1797. Was he the husband of Dinah Germany ? It seems probable.

       Re-checking my notes from that time, I see that this John Larner was a Private in the Oxfordshire Militia from at least 1797 - until the regiment disbanded temporarily in April 1802. His actual date of enrollment will be sought. [This now found - he in fact joined up on 15 March 1794 - in Oxford Town itself. Sadly, no others joined on that same day. If they had, it may have been possible (using any uncommon surnames) to identify their probable joint home parish or the area in which the recruiting Sarjeant was active that week. There were, at least, 5 others who joined up within 3 days of this John Larner and this may help identify any such area.] He then travelled with the regiment from Dover on the south-east coast and up the east coast to Gt Yarmouth by early 1797 and was in Norwich by October that year (when, intriguingly, John Castle of Oxfordshire (in the same Company of that same Militia regiment) married there the daughter of a girl born Sarah Jermy). Over the following winter months, the regiment moved back down to Ipswich, Colchester and finally to Portsmouth by March 1798, from where the bulk of the regiment, including both John Castle and John Larner, sailed to Ireland. {Might Dinah have returned home then - to have her son Stephen (possibly already or soon to be born) baptised in Britwell in June 1799?) The regiment remained in Ireland, in various towns, until they left Dublin for Liverpool in January 1800. They then marched back, via Birmingham, to their home base in Oxford where they remained until April - many men given leave to visit their homes and families. John may have returned then to Dinah.

      The regiment then moved on to Poole and Lymington on the south coast that spring and then over to the Isle of Wight by June 1800, where they remained for over a year - until April 1801. They then moved considerably west by marching westwards to Bristol and Gloucester until April 1802 when, as mentioned, they were dis-embodied and sent back to Oxford, because of the peace treaty then being signed. Meanwhile, John Castle had remained in Dublin until about March 1800, having being recorded as sick (as seemingly was his wife Sarah, who seems to have died, and been buried, there). John and his daughter Mary Ann Castle then returned to Wallingford by April 1800 when he left the service and in June that year he (apparently) re-married - to a girl amazingly named Ann Jermy in Benson; she having already had a son out of wedlock named James Jermy (born ca 1796 and baptised in Benson in 1798; he later used both surnames - Jermy and Castle). These aspects will be considered further below.

       This John Larner (as well as John Castle) was thus on the move with the Oxfordshire Militia for about 8 years in the 1790s/early 1800s. We can't be sure whether their families, if any, travelled with them over that period (or sometimes returned home), as unlike the records for the Cornish Militia, say, there was no record of those who received an allowance to pay for married accommodation in the various towns they stayed in - while single men stayed in barracks or Inns. [I did know about the presence of John Castle's wife at least travelling with the regiment only because his daughter Mary Ann's place of birth was shown in the 1851 Census (aged 51) as 'Dublin, Ireland', where I knew John Castle was stationed in 1799/1800.] What we do know is that John Larner was then in Capt Dormer's Company, as was John Castle. They would certainly have known one another therefore. And, interestingly (and possibly significantly), their respective wives were both of 'Jermy' descent - Larner's from Oxfordshire and Castle's from Norfolk! And, as touched on above, John Castle appears to have re-married another Jermy girl - but this time one from Oxfordshire. Does he represent a crucial link between the two counties therefore - and at that significant time in the late 1790s/early 1800s? I never sought to discover the exact date John Castle joined up (eg ca 1795?) but will one day do so in case there may be any implications regarding his possible friendship with John Larner Snr from ca 1790 or before (eg in the Wallingford-Benson area). His first wife Sarah from NOrwich was related to the Jonathan Jermy who would in 1817 make a claim himself on a Jermy estate held by the same family as held Stanfield Hall!

       The brief Peace of Amiens ended a year later - in March 1803 and on about the 1st April that year all county Militias were re-embodied - with men from all three categories - volunteers, substitutes and 'recruits' (ie those ballotted in the home parishes). The first muster was taken on 24 April 1803 and each man accorded 45 days pay as an inducement even though most had in fact signed up only a week or so before this date. This meant that their exact days of enrollment - when often small groups of men from one village joined up together - was not recorded. As mentioned, this would have assisted in identifying a man's home area (and even his own identity). Amongst those joining by 24 April was John Larner and John Castle, again in Capt Dormer's Company. But five days later, on 29 April 1803, another (younger) John Larner joined up and was placed in Capt Wall's Company. The regiment then marched to Newbury in Berkshire and by June were stationed at Dover, where they remained for over a year. During this period, the two John Larners were consistently described as Snr and Jnr, respectively, which seems to imply they were father and son. We thus appear to have located our particular John Larners for this earlier period (unless there was another father and son set of this same name then in Oxfordshire, of the appropriate ages. This seems rather unlikely.

       In the autumn of 1804, the regiment moved north to Colchester, a garrison town, where they stayed at or near the Weeley barracks there until the spring of 1806. This is some miles south of the Norfolk countryside in which however the regiment may, conceivably, have been on a recruiting drive. Was the younger John Larner ever a part of any such recruiting party that year (1805 - when he'd be about 18) and thus come to meet his future wife Mary Pearce thereby ? This seems a long shot but we may recall that John Castle, in the same Company as John Larner Snr at least, and a longtime friend no doubt, had relatives in Norwich. The Oxford regiment then turns up at distant Taunton, Somerset by late April 1806. From January that year, I re-examined (on a more recent occasion) these muster records rather more carefully than on my earlier inspections. I noted various surnames that may or may not be relevant such as: Sparks, Lloyd, Harris, Butler, Curties, Hoare and Hobbs. And besides the two John Larners, there was now a Thomas Larner and a Moses Larner; could they be John's brothers? They all remained at Taunton through 1806 and then moved on to Pendennis Castle, near Falmouth in Cornwall, for all of 1807. In Feb 1808, 250 new recruits joined them from Oxfordshire including a Samuel Hester, William Savage and William Lloyd (but no Thomas Jermy). To this point, we may note that both John Larners were present at the musters throughout the previous 5 years (virtually) of these early years of the 19th century. The younger John was now aged 21. One wonders (because of later findings) if he may have married (for the first time) in such as Somerset, Devon, Cornwall or Hampshire about that time (ca 1806-09) - and have any issue then - before such a first wife died in one such county or the other (or, might he have deserted her)?

       At the muster of 24 March 1808, still in Cornwall, we find only one John Larner is credited with the full 92 days. This becomes explained when it was noted that on various dates earlier that quarter 35 men were discharged - as their respective "times of service had expired". John Larner Snr was one of these and his discharge was dated 5 March 1808 (with only one other on the same day - a John Beesley; had they joined up together? Two others were discharged just one day earlier, one a Richard Alder, a surname also noted in south-east Oxfordshire). Had they all served for...12 years (ie still credited for the gap year during the Peace of Amien)...or? Most men received £1.13.4 to cover their expenses to return the 250 miles to Oxford City. A few received slightly more or less than this who returned to such as Wallingford, Henley, Banbury, etc. This could imply that John Larner and wife Dinah lived (if they had a settled home at all; probably not) in or near Oxford city then - possibly as a job might be more quickly found there than in the more rural countryside. However, Britwell Salome wasn't that far from Oxford, in any case.

       By May 1808, the regiment was on the march eastwards for Gosport and Portsmouth in Hampshire where they stayed (or nearby) for the rest of that year and all of 1809. More new recruits with South Oxon names like Sparks, Savage, Hearn and Hobbs are noted in the regiment for this time. And then, possibly significantly, on 10 Jan 1810, a James Pearce appears - apparently having joined 'from the County' - ie at the 'recruiting depot' in Oxford city. However, I feel that he and others joining about that time or a little before may actually have joined from anywhere (as eg Norfolk) and were only later lumped together when registered - for ease of administration. I certainly saw no other 'Oxfordshire' Pearces whether from the north or south of that county. Who was he, I wonder ? We do know of a James Pearce born (if not baptised) in about 1792 in Norfolk; he would be aged a very appropriate 18 for joining up that year. And, significantly, the James Pearce and John Larner families would later live together or virtually together for many years in Thames-side London.

It may also be significant that it was early in 1810 that James Pearce of Norfolk apparently entered John Larner's world, apparently not because Larner's wife introduced them - after meeting and marrying Larner - but conversely because it was James Pearce, once in the regiment, who soon introduced his sister to Larner. For, as mentioned, we have now located a marriage - between a John Larney and a Mary Pearce - dated April 23 1810 (the very year predicted earlier). The marriage took place, after 3 weekly banns, in Stepney, east London - not that far from where both Larner and Pearce were often stationed - at the Tower barracks. Unless shown otherwise, we may accept that this was indeed the marriage of our John Larner and Mary Pearce; too many elements fit as expected. And James Pearce appears to have been the conduit for same - and quite possibly for John's knowledge about Stanfiled Hall as well.

       Both men were then noted in the same regiment over the musters of 1810, when they seem to be stationed mainly at Portsmouth. However, as mentioned, some men were known to travel with recruiting serjeants, especially to London, to assist obtaining new men. Also, they had to report to their officers only on the 24th of each month (eg in Portsmouth or London) to show their availability but otherwise seem to have had a degree of independence by this period of the war. The bulk of the men had been in Portsmouth for over two years and would no doubt have become rather restive and bored there. Did some men make other plans for their immediate non-Militia futures as and when they could - as in the London area? They were still shown as stationed in Portsmouth throughout 1811, after which most of the the regiment marched west towards Bristol. Many received a £2 bounty for 'extending their service' at that time and remained at Bristol through most of 1812. One was growing rather pessimistic that the John Larner who barely a year later (or less) would apparently be living with his wife Mary in the parish of All Hallows the Great (near the Tower in the City of London) could be this same John Larner whom we had been assiduously tracking in the Oxfordshire Militia since 1803 (and seemingly his father also since 1794) - as some of the regiment at least appeared to move further from London.

       Much of the regiment stayed at Bristol until August 1812. Earlier that summer, a John Larner joined (?re-joined) the regiment from 'the county' - around May. I'd noticed that over the full period examined, the same men often re-joined after having left the regiment some months before - as though finding it difficult to find employment 'back home', or had transferred back to the Militia from the regular Army if they were to be sent overseas. Thus, this John Larner may well have been the one who'd left in 1808, but we can't be certain; the muster lists no longer used the 'Snr - Jnr' styling for any such related pairs, as they usually did in the past; they now tended to differentiate same-named men simply with the numbers 1,2,3,etc whatever, if any, relationship may have been the case. Also noted that spring of 1812 was that James Pearce left the Oxfordshire militia, having volunteered to join the 62nd Army Regiment of Foot. [He was later found to have 'attested' (enrolled) in same on 4 May 1812 as a volunteer from the Oxfordshire Militia into the 2nd Battalion of that 62nd (Wiltshire) Regiment of Foot, as did about 30 other men from that regiment and many from other Militias as well - each man receiving 7 Gns as an inducement bounty; they were sent initially to Jersey. But no John Larner so joined. A Class of PRO records called 'Description Books' (WO 25) may show details of parishes of birth of such men but these are often missing before about 1820. [Sadly, the 62nd regiment seems to have no surviving records whatsoever, including Description Books.]

       The Oxfordshire Militia appeared to be moving ever westwards in 1812. But then, in about September, the bulk of the regiment suddenly reversed itself - returning east to Portsmouth - where most stayed until February 1813. And they then marched further east and north...to London. And, specifically, to The Tower barracks - so very close to the parish of All Hallows the Great! (And just across from New Cross). Just before this, they had received 50 new recruits, ostensibly from Oxfordshire, to where 25 others had returned, with their usual homeward travelling allowances. As mentioned below, one wonders if some men may in fact have gone directly to London in 1810, after the previous stay in Portmouth, and so avoided the temporary sojourn in the west country the next year, and the even shorter one back at Portsmouth? Many men were joining the regular Army at this time, as the allies were closing in on Napoleon in Spain and France; and several Majors and Serjeants were, as mentioned, often away recruiting, sometimes with Privates, to help make up continuing losses of Militia numbers. Some likely preceded others in coming to London; such arrangements would in any case be 'in the pipeline' for some weeks in advance of the delayed dates that actual orders were eventually recorded as issued. The Colonel of the regiment likely sent some men to London earlier - to recruit. It was a time of considerable instability and the regiment was being disbursed on various activities, some going to Ireland even. In addition, four Company Captains deserted during that quarter and 3 died! Both of the John Larners were noted as still in the regiment during the year June 1812 to early 1813(at least as so recorded later), although just where they were posted nd at what dates can not be accurately determined.

       In the next quarterly muster however, there is again only one John Larner shown, seemingly the elder who sems to have recently re-joined. For, on 5 July 1813, the other John Larner (apparently 'our' John, the younger one) was discharged from the Oxford Militia in London - "having provided a substitute" - as did Thomas Hoare (possibly found during any recruiting activities in London they had been undertaking with their Serjeant). For John Larner's substitute was from London: one 'Henry Budd' (not a common surname and mentioned here for reasons elaborated below). Many of the regiment were to be sent to Cork in Ireland that month and others to remain at the Tower. Four more Captains deserted(!) and many men had transferred to the Army. By the autumn of that year (1813), all of the few men remaining had either been sent to Ireland or had left London for Gloucestershire - except for one shown in that next muster as being 'sick in London'; this strongly appeared to be the other (elder) John Larner. He was so described (as ill in London) until at least February 1814. Could this relate to the fact that his apparent son, John Larner Jnr, was now conveniently residing 'just around the corner' on Dowgate Hill - not only with his wife Mary but possibly his mother Dinah as well ? One will examine the next muster lists (WO 13/1719 and /1720) to learn if possible what happened to the elder John Larner and when he was finally discharged from a regiment that was then in such disarray - to return home to... ?where. The war was soon to end - in June 1815 - when most remaining Privates would be discharged in any case.

       [These records have now been examined. It appears that the regiment was split around January 1814 into a larger section (of about 300 men) who moved west or returned to Ireland and a smaller one (of about 70), who had various duties in and around London or Sheerness on the Essex coast. John Larner Snr was not shown within the larger group during 1814 but does appear in the smaller one - in Capt Price's company - until February 1814, although still listed as 'sick in London'. But then during March and April that year that description ceases and he begins being shown as a 'recruiter', along with two other men, seemingly in London. But in May, the three of them are shown to be at the regiment's Depot in Oxford, apparently still recruiting, until about April 1815, when the war ends. John Snr and possibly his wife Dinah would likely then return to their home in Britwell Salome where they likley remained until their respective deaths in the 1830s.

       A different John Larner appears in the Oxford Militia (after two gaps in the records) from about 1817 until about 1821 or so - at which time the Paylist record shows a list of the few men then still in the regiment - with the names of the parishes 'from where they were enrolled', as well as where they now lived - by which means they were given appropriate sums of money to defray costs of travel - either back to the regiment (ie after leave) of after being demobbed (which not being made clear). It seems most unlikely that the parish of enrollment shown for this much later John Larner (Ramsden, north of Witney) would be that from which our John Larners (Snr and Jnr) originally joined up.] We may add here that there was another 'John Lonnor' (?mistake for Lawner or Larner) in the regiment that year (1821) shown as deriving from the parish of 'Greys' near Henley (but born when and to whom?). I would assume this would be 'Rotherfield Greys' where, amazingly, the daughter (born Dublin ca 1799) of John Castle by his first wife (whose mother was born a Jermy in Norwich) was said by the Norfolk genealogist Anthony Campling to have resided as a girl ca 1810-20, as discussed in the section on the Spurgeons. This area may warrant further investigation.

-- -- -- -- --

       We may recall that in either 1812 or, apparently more probably, in 1813, the younger John Larner and wife Mary had two infants baptised in All Hallows Church very near the Tower. [See earlier reference to apparent problems in transcribing registers then - when these two newborns are shown, inexplicably and impossibly, as born (not just baptised) just 7 months apart - within the same year. This was at a time when a new register system was supposed to commence (on 1 Jan 1813) but still relied on transcribing 'rough registers' some time after the actual events recorded had occurred. It seems quite possible that the earlier born child (Eliza) may in fact have been born around October 1812, possibly in or near Portsmouth [or might it have been in or near Stepney?], say, but not baptised until they settled in London early the next year - when some at least of the regiment had made their way there as recruiters, possibly not wanting to go to Ireland. Others may have remained in Portsmouth awaiting a ship. And the next child, Charles, was then shown as born and baptised (as Charles Jarmy Larner) later that same year in All Hallows. The final transcription of all these events, including burials, in a new book appears to have placed them a year too early, but this may require further study of the registers; thus, the age shown at the burial of Charles 'Larmar' (ie at '16 months') on 23 Jan 1814, proves difficult to account for in these terms - unless he too was actually born earlier and elsewhere. The Vicar would know when a child was baptised (even if later entered in the formal book under a wrong year) but would have to learn of the date of the actual birth from the parents; did they always ask as to the year or just assume it was the same as when the baptism occurred? Several years (eg 1812 to 1815) thus appear to have been transcribed into the new (post-1812) book under the wrong years - ie in each case shown as the year before they had actually occurred. If so, there would likely be one early year especially showing atypically high numbers of entries. [Yes; the numbers of baptisms, burials and marriages shown for 1812 were double the number for 1811; many of these should likely have been shown as 1813. The entries then gradually revert to more typical numbers, with 1813 entries including some shown for 1814, etc - until annual entry numbers better approximate numbers historically expected in that parish.]

       Another difficulty is the fact that the timing of the movement of Militia regiments and some of its men are not always faithfully recorded in the always later-signed and later dated acounts. [I noted this in respect of the South Devon Militia; their 'Regimental Book' written later by the regiment's Surgeon from notes kept at the time, often shows different dates of movement than do the delayed muster acounts.] Also, it appears that the men and Officers were paid for each full month (ie 30 or 31 days typically) providing only that they always appeared at the muster on the 24th of the month concerned. When stationed for months on end in various odd places, it appears that militia men (unlike regular soldiers) needn't always be 'on parade' every day, as it were, but rather 'always available' - ie as confirmed by their reliable appearance at each such monthly muster - on the 24th. On this basis, we may better accept that shortly after arriving in London - and before he provided his substitute, John Larner was relatively independent and likely organising rooms for himself and family on Dowgate Hill in the nearby parish of All Hallows the Great, as well as a job in the local Calvert's Brewery as a Porter on that same street (possibly even in 1812), while still making himself available at the next two musters and during that spring of 1813 - as the regiment was in a sense almost collapsing around him. He no doubt wanted to collect whatever wages appeared warranted right up to July 5th! (There weren't too many Captains about to check up on things although we may assume that this particular date must have been correct; and some Lieutenants were still there.)

It seems most significant that the man he provided as his substitute that day was a Henry Budd - when a family of that same uncommon surname resided then in All Hallows parish itself, where John Larner now lived. Indeed, Henry may even have worked in that same Brewery and so been persuaded to join up as his substitute by John. It was a very small parish.

-- -- -- -- -- --

       The overall impression is thus that it most probably was 'our' John Larner who had served in the Oxfordshire Militia from 1803 and who left same around 1813 to settle initially on Dowgate Hill (near the Tower barracks) where he and wife Mary then had three children baptised and/or buried on dates between 1813 and 1815, the correct years for which were typically not accurately recorded - due to two factors: the use of a system of delayed transcriptions from 'rough registers' and the instigation of a new system and register (on top of that) after 1 Jan 1813 - which may itself have been delayed. Until any evidence arises that disqualifies this judgement, we shall maintain it. There are just too many coincidences that seem to negate any contrary view - eg that there were somehow three John Larners living in one very small area in the City in 1813 (near London amd Tower bridges) - all born in Oxfordshire: ie 'our' man and two others in the Militia. In any case, we cannot accept that two babies could be born to the same couple just 7 months apart. [And who was the John Larner having issue with a wife Elizabeth baptised across the river at New Cross about the same time ??]

       The relevance of the view (that there were only the two John Larners - probably father and son - who had both been in the Militia, one of whom later lived on Dowgate Hill from 1812/13 or so (and had likely married Mary Pearce in Stepney nearby in 1810 - possibly using a slightly altered surname to mask his identity?) relates to the matter of just when and where the Larners (whether father or son) first met the Pearces (whether James or Mary) and from which family the other first learned about the possible rights of some distant Jermy descendents to Stanfield Hall (situated so close by the Pearces' home parish of Swainsthorpe). [Or did they learn about it through John Castle - with his apparent marriages to two Jermy girls - one from Norfolk (in 1797) and one from Oxfordshire (in 1800)? Or did the Norfolk 'Jermys' learn about the estate's questionable inheritance from the Oxfordshire family?] And when did the surname of that latter family cease being so consistently described as Jermany/Germany/Jarmony etc for example and gradually start being depicted more frequently as 'Jermy'...and why?        [We now know that it began being Jermy or similar only from the early to mid-1790s although why it suddenly changed then remains unknown. One theory may suggest that the death in 1791 of Frances (nee Preston) may have been reported in such as The Times or in the Gentleman's Magazine that year and reference was made therein to her inheritance 'for her lifetime only' of the Jermy estates. This could well have been read by the Garlicks who ran the School in Ewelme (for future 'London Gentlemen') and/or the local Vicar both of whom knew the Jermany-Larners living nearby - the name then gradually being 're-spelt' as 'Jermy' - after never appearing as such over the previous 60 years locally. William Jermy's Will may then have been sought out by such interested locals (especially by Thomas Garlick); solicitors (friends of the Garlicks?) were ever ready to investigate such possibilities.]

      We might also ask where did John Larner and Mary Pearce meet? If it was during the years 1809-10 (when Mary would be an approriate 19 to 22) and our assumption about John Larner being in the Militia was correct, it would presumably be at or near one of those towns at which his regiment were stationed over that period (remembering the possibility that these men had more 'freedom of movement' between muster days than we may have formerly appreciated). Thus, in May 1808, they were in Gosport and Portsmouth on the south coast where the bulk of the regiment remained until late 1811. And, as mentioned above, during this stay, in early 1810, they were joined by James Pearce, a recent recruit. Did John meet Mary because of the latter's arrival (and then marry her in April 1810 as indicated above or did he arrive because John and Mary already knew one another - possibly already being married (or just travelling together)? [The register for an 1810 marriage of a John and Mary shows the surname as 'Larney'; unless the Vicar misheard the name Larner in this form, we can not be confident that the marriage was necessarily that between our John Larner and Mary Pearce. (Unless, as suggested, he purposely gave a slghtly altered name to 'cover'himself ?)] But in any case, how would they have met ? [See earlier idea about possibly meeting when John was stationed near Colchester when she was as young as 17.] Another 'chicken and egg' situation. If John and Mary were married, they may well have had a first child baptised elsewhere - as near where they married; this could have been in a lodging house a mile or more away from where his regiment was then based. Many married Militiamen did this throughout the years of the Naplolenic Wars (1795 to 1815). And did John have a family (or at least one son) by a first wife - ca 1808-10 (or so) - ie before her decease, or leaving her ?

       Finally, it may be mentioned here that one of the two other Larners who had accompanied the two John Larners for many months in the Oxfordshire militia was a Moses Larner. He could be a younger brother of the younger John (born ca 1795, say), named by his mother after one of her brothers of this same relatively uncommon name. For we note that a Moses Larner married a Mary Baker in St Leonard's, Shoreditch on 13 July 1817 and subsequently had sons baptised (late) at St Lukes, Old Street, Shoreditch as Arthur William Larner (bn 1821) and Charles Moses Larner (bn 1823) on 29 Aug 1824. The latter Charles would thus have been about 25 in 1848 when a Larner of that forename accompanied John Larner and his cousin Thomas Jermy in meetings with James B. Rush in that very area of London (where we know John Larner would shortly settle himself). A Charles Larner of James Street, St Luke's subsequently died and was buried 25 Aug 1849, aged 26, who was likely the same man. And the other Larner noted in the Oxfordshire militia with John and Moses was a Thomas - quite possibly named by Dinah after her nephew. I can't however account for an older Charles Larner being baptised in North Cerney, Gloucestershire on 31 July 1814, born to a John and Mary Larner. We can also mention that John and Mary named a daughter Martha - a name that occurs in both families. But the Gloucester family may well have been an independent one.

.

Summary and Comment.

       We have now completed our resume of the Jermy and Larner families of Oxfordshire (with a little into the Larner ancestry as well, although we shall be able to provide considerably more material on John Larner's descendents - to balance that given earlier on the later Jermys descended from Dinah's older siblings. Our interest was of course to try to gain some understanding of the basis of the claim to the Stanfield estate made by some of these at least. We can now see that there certainly was a Dinah Germany and her brother William Germany (b 1746) whose respective sons - the cousins John Larner and Thomas Jermy - do descend from these siblings' mutual father - one John Jermy/Jarmony (however spelt) who married in 1736. However, as new data emerged it became clear that it was in fact a son of another of Dinah's brothers - namely of James Jermy Snr of the senior line - ie William Jermy(b 1765), father of the other Thomas (the Stone Sawyer), who, in 1838 (and until his death in 1851) was the proper 'remainder man'. [One might consider similarly that in our present Royal family, Prince Harry takes precedence over Prince Andrew in terms of becoming monarch.]

      This brings us back to considering the origin of John Jarmony - whose marriage was registered in the register of Chalgrove, Oxfordshire in 1736, he then 'of Berrick Salome' (where the marriage likely took place). How might those who derive from him have a claim of the Jermy estate in Norfolk ? There had been specific reference to just such a man - as the son of John Jermy, the labourer of Gt Yarmouth thought to be the last of that senior Norfolk family - and we find that the dates at least prove consistent with such a linkage. Our first critical question (as 'devil's advocate') must therefore be: could he not instead have been of the much more local Oxfordshire family of Abraham Germany - with absolutely no connection with the Jermys of Norfolk ? If the area around Berrick Salome, Chalgrove and Ewelme has no earlier families with a name that at all approximated to the names Jermy, Jarmy, Jarmony or Germany, we could feel fairly confident that this man, John Jarmony, may well have related to those of Norfolk, and specifically to John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth. But what do we find?

       Firstly, we find that in the very village in or next to which John Jarmony married in 1736 - namely, Chalgrove, there was a baptism in 1703 of an Edward Germany, the son of an Abraham Germany and his wife Ann. Over the next few years, they then had three daughters there: Ann, Elizabth and Sarah by 1710 (all as Germany, I believe). Ann the mother died in 1736 and was buried in Chalgrove, as a widow. Abraham, who was probably born around 1675 or so, likely died in the 1720s although we know not where he was buried. His son Edward Germany married (as such) in 1726 to Mary Munt and had a daughter Anna Marie Germany in Chalgrove in 1727, who died the next year. They may have had a son Edward as well (where unknown) who appears a possible source of the 'Jarmaine' family of nearby Lewknor and Crowell. This brings us almost to the time John 'Germany/Jarmony/Jermany' appears on the scene in that very district. Of possible relevance is the later baptism of an Elizabeth Germany in 1756 in Marlborough, Wilts born to an Emmanuel Germany and wife Susannah, said Emmanuel possibly being another son of Edward, born around 1736, say (when her mother died) - the very year that John Germany/Jarmony marries himself in Chalgrove (or in Berrick but registered in Chalgrove) - he then of the former village. There appeared to be no other Germanys closer to Marlborough at that time (although it was a name that, on odd occasions, turns up almost anywhere in the UK). Thus, we note that a Martha Germany married in Hagbourne, Berkshire in 1720: we would very much like to know who was her father.] Thus, not long before John 'Jarmony' marries, the local Vicar had written the very similar surname in the register in regard to Edward Germany's daughter Anna Marie. Did he hear John 'Jermy' say his name (in a rural (?Norfolk) accent) and interpret it as best he could - as 'Germany' or 'Jarmony' ? [I've never really understood, however, why Vicars (even in Norfolk) so often heard the sound of the letter 'n', or of the syllable '..man..' (or 'mon' or 'men') in the middle of the pronunciation of the fairly straight forward and clearly two-syllabled name 'Jermy', or even 'Jarmy'. THey must have assumed the illiterates voicing that name had 'reduced' it - as they did with many words.]

       As mentioned earlier, we know, secondly, that there was also a family of the name Jermaine or Germaine in this part of Oxfordshire. Can we assume that the above Abraham and his line of Edward, etc may have been of that family and that the similarly surnamed John Jarmony and his line were a distinct family - despite the awkward coincidence and communality of Chalgrove ? If we choose randomly any number of clusters of 7 or 8 villages in various west country counties, we will be hard pressed to find clusters of Germanys, Jarmonys, Jermaines, Germaines, Jarmaines or even Jermyns distributed within them, never mind Jermys. Is it just hard luck and awkwardness that finds (albeit very few) members of such families co-existing in the one particular cluster of villages to where we happened to have traced what we are assuming to be a single disbursed remnant of a formerly landed family called Jermy from East Anglia?

      Or does the presence there of such Germanys and Jermaines, etc (eg in nearby Chalgrove, Crowell and Lewknor, especially) actually 'explain' the presence of the Jarmonys and Germanys of that area (or vice versa?) - who only much later begin to be accorded the surname spelling 'Jermy' (or something very close)? But for what reason ? Was the latter name (and family) really distinct and did they only have their name wrongly spelt, as initially it was there (and consistently so) - because local Vicars were quite unfamiliar with it and assumed that its uneducated possessors probably meant something nearer to Germany or Jermaine and thus came up with such as 'Jarmony', etc ? After all, this frequently happened in East Anglia itself. Importantly, we find no baptismal evidence in the area of the birth/baptism there around 1714-16 of a John Jarmony/Germany/Jermaine/ etc. But then the parish registers there were typicaly poorly kept, especially at that time. If John Germany/Jarmony was born in those parts, surely there must be some evidence of his father and/or paternal grandfather in some local parish registers during the 17th century ??

       Of possible relevance may be the fact that on one occasion (ca 1725) the above mentioned Abraham Germany was cited as a witness at an affray in a public house in Chalgrove when he was described as Abraham Germaine rather than Germany, and, at the baptism of his son Edward's daughter Anna Marie, the name was now shown similarly - as Jermaine (and again not the 'Germany' it was previously). And we also now find that at his marriage, Edward was shown as Jarman. Generally speaking, the family descended from John Jarmony never have their name depicted as Jermain(e), Germain(e), Jarmain(e), Jarman or Jerman (with the one exception at Moses inquest in Nuffield. And again, why add the 'y' sound at the end of a simple name like Jermaine ? Why turn it into such as 'Jermainey', say, and thence into Jermaney or Germany (or, again, vice versa)? But, crucially, why did only one line of these names (and families) eventually acquire (from the mid 1790s) the spelling 'Jermy' or similar after being Jermany/Germany etc (but never Jermaine) for so long ?

      [And now we learn from Bronwyn Larner that there was someone with the surname 'German' in Britwell Salome as early as the 1300s! Thus: "'Richard de Cuxham served (as Vicar) from 1316, but he seems to have ended his incumbency with a scandal. The following extract is from the Calendar of Patent Rolls in 1323: 'On complaint by the Abbot of Rewley, and others, William German of Brittwelle and Richard, the parson of the Church of Brittwelle, with others, broke and burnt his houses at Nettlebed and Bensington [now Benson next to Berrick Salome] in the county of Oxon, felled and carried away his trees and other goods". ] We may leave it at that for now.

       At this point, we may consider some additional information that may support the proposition that the Stanfield claims and hence the identity and Norfolk origin of the Oxfordshire Jermys of concern may nevertheless be conceivable. The following article, which should be self explanatory, was composed sometime ago but would seem to fit appropriately at about this point. Some repetition of earlier material is inevitable:

.

On the Origin of Thomas Garlick.

       When John Larner arrived at Stanfield Hall in the summer of 1838 - to lay claim to that estate (illegally occupied, he believed, by the Prestons), he was accompanied by a colleague - one Daniel Wingfield. Accounts at the time, and later, variously described this latter man as an 'adviser' and also (wrongly) as an 'attorney'. Ten years later, when James Blomfield Rush tried to implicate Larner and his cousin Thomas Jermy in his schemes regarding this estate, Larner was again assisted by such an adviser - but this time by a Richard Read. Evidence can be produced to show that neither Larner nor his cousin Thomas could read or write and that advisers such as Wingfield and Read probably provided them primarily with the vital literacy needed, especially for correspondence, to help pursue their objectives.

       I was eventually able to identify Wingfield as a corner shop 'Oil and Colour Man' - one who supplied heating oil, paints, varnishes, etc in Victorian London. It appears that he just happened to live around the corner from Larner in the late 1830s (in Hoxton) and was thus a local acquaintance with the necessary ability to read and write. Larner likely promised him some reward if he was successful in his claims. [Note however that there were several Wingfield families living near to the Garlicks in Ewelme as described below.] Richard Read would appear to have known Larner from even earlier in London - they again living near one another - on Red Bull Yard and Dowgate Hill, respectively - nearer the Thames. A large Brewery (Calvert's) nearby seems to have employed them both. When Rush wished to instruct Larner on his next moves, he would often write to Read there, asking him to so advise Larner.

       But during the events of both 1838 and 1848, there was however a third ally of Larner - one Thomas Garlick - who, on reading a newspaper account of the attempted occupation (of which he was no doubt already aware), wrote a lengthy reply to the paper concerned - The Bury Post (of Bury St Edmonds in Suffolk) which he claimed would provide readers with a less biased, more balanced account. The paper did publish this - on 10 Oct 1838 (reproduced shortly after by the Norwich papers). It is not known why the original article (of a week earlier) concerning a Norfolk situation first appeared in a Suffolk county paper, or how it was that it had come to the notice of this particular man. Bury was a large town with many retired gentry from all over East Anglia and the paper may well have been distributed in larger centres such as Norwich and Ipswich, as well as in Bury. The name Garlick occurs more frequently in the west and north-west of England but is comparatively rare in both Norfolk and Suffolk. Certainly, no Thomas Garlick appears to have resided in either the Bury or Norwich areas throughout the 1830s or '40s.

       Who was this 'third man'; this third ally of John Larner? The general tenor of his letter suggested someone of rather more learning and knowledge of Larner's claims than his earlier 'advisers'. A number of attorneys and solicitors were mentioned in various accounts of these events - as Henry Francis, George Waugh and Edward Flower - but Garlick's name is never described in these terms. It was as though he held some intermediate position - between adviser-friend and actual lawyer - such as a solicitor's clerk, for example. In any case, it seems likely that he was in the Norwich area for a time when Larner attempted to occupy the Hall in 1838 (possibly 'advising' him from a safe distance - since it is unlikely that a copy of the Bury paper would have found its way to him in some more distant county. (However, some local solicitor or even Larner himself, knowing of his interest, may conceivably have posted it on to him.) But where did Garlick live and why was he concerned ?

       There appeared to be no Garlicks of relevance living, as had Wingfield and Read, near to Larner's areas of London. I did note, however, that in the very street where both the solicitors Waugh and Flower operated (and resided) in 'legal London' - ie Gt James Street - did live one William Garlick. While he wasn't himself a solicitor, he was at least a professional man - a physician and surgeon - whose practice would no doubt be made up mainly of the many local solicitors and their families in that area. He could well have discussed some of their cases with them. Might he have had a brother or cousin named Thomas who was more directly connected with the legal profession - as a clerk, say? I could, however, see none in that area over the relevant period. Or was Thomas Garlick a relative from the country who developed contacts with such as Flower and Waugh through such a relevantly-placed relative as William Garlick? A Census for 1851 showed the latter man was himself born in the west country ay least - at Painswick, Glos - in about 1812. Garlicks were certainly more common in the west. This was promising.

       It may be significant that while Wingfield's name does not recur in regard to the later events - of 1848 - and that of Richard Read is associated only with that latter period, Thomas Garlick was the one 'adviser' involved, if more peripherally in the background, during both 1838 and 1848. During 1847 and early '48, Rush was represented in two bankruptcy hearings by solicitor George Waugh. It was just after this that he began formulating his 'plan' to ruin Isaac Preston/Jermy and, at the same time, cast suspicion onto John Larner and his cousin Thomas Jermy. In the meantime, it appears that Larner had, during the 1840s, kept in contact with his friend Garlick and, with the assistance of some solicitor, they developed further Garlick's detailed understanding of the basis of Larner's case. When Rush made contact with Larner and Thomas Jermy around this same period, he learned more about this development and must have realised he could utilise such information to his own ends. He suggested they approach his solicitor - George Waugh - who advised that they put this now potential Case - 'Jermy v. Jermy' (that is, Thomas Jermy v. Isaac Preston/Jermy) - into the hands of a fellow solicitor - a Mr Wilson - which they did in early 1848. However, they were not happy with this man's slow progress and eventually transferred it to Edward Flower (who would later have a solicitor's practice in Chancery Lane).

       In order to advance his own plan, Rush asked Garlick for a copy of this now partly-formulated case - which he did give him. Rush then included it in a long pamphlet he had published (in mid-1848) in which he accused Isaac Preston/Jermy of various acts of bad faith. He then tried to arrange through Read for Larner and his cousin to come to Norfolk to 'occupy' one of the Preston farms - the one at Felmingham - and thereby put some reality into the claims inherent in this now published 'case'. Meanwhile, Read had written to Rush to say that the copy of the case that was still held by Waugh couldn't be found by his partner and as Waugh was out of town, would he (Rush) please send back his copy - as Flower wanted it right away to give to a Barrister - who was now ready to prepare an actual Bill in Chancery based on it. Whether this was ever sent or whether Flower eventually got the copy held by Waugh is uncertain. In any case, Rush soon wrote back to Read to say that his plan - the only one, he claimed, that would guarantee the estate would be re-possessed by Larner and Thomas Jermy - required a meeting in London with them all and then for the two cousins to come down to Norfolk to occupy or seek to occupy the Felmingham Farm. In a P.S. to this letter, Rush added:

              "Above all, do not hint in any way to Mr Garlick. I know you will not, but caution the others. I would not have him know that Mr Jermy (ie Thomas) is coming down to Norfolk - for £500. He (Garlick) is a clever man, and must not be trusted in anything I have to do in this matter".

       One must ask 'Why' did Rush so distrust Garlick, or vice versa? Clearly, he realised that Garlick (unlike Richard Read) would never allow Larner or Jermy to proceed in the cavalier way he was encouraging - ie before their 'Case' was properly advanced through the Courts. Rush must have realised that Garlick was bright enough to see through his ploy or at least be suspicious about it. Keeping him in the dark was therefore crucial. Garlick consequently had no further role in the events leading up to the murders and was thus never called as a witness in the subsequent trial. As it was Rush who had promised to cover the costs of the case proceeding, and was now incarcerated, Garlick and Flower appear not to have proceeded with their plan - to put it in the hands of that unnamed Barrister. Like John Larner, Thomas Garlick too must have returned home in the early autumn of 1848 - blissfully unaware of what was just around the corner for both the Prestons and their mutual acquaintance James Rush - soon all to be dead. Larner had returned to London. But where was 'home' for Thomas Garlick? And just who was he?

       A general 'trawl' for the distribution of the name 'Garlick' throughout England soon concluded that there was, significantly, a 'pocket' of Garlicks from at least ca 1800 centred on Ewelme in Oxfordshire! This large village was at the centre of a group of villages that included Berrick Salome, Swyncombe, Benson and Britwell Salome all of which had both Jermys and Garlicks residing nearby. While these were mostly at the agricultural labourer level of society, there was one exception to this 'rule' which appeared to be most promising. Ewelme had a private boarding school with about 50 pupils, most of whom came from outside the county (mainly from London). The Schoolmaster was one James Garlick - born about 1785 (and thus a near contemporary of John Larner) - who with two or even three wives eventually produced about 12 Garlick children, including 8 sons. The last of these was a Frederick Octavius Garlick, who had gained entry to Oxford university in 1845. Another (seemingly number 7) was one Septimus Garlick - who later settled in Oxford city with his large Ewelme-born family. And, one of the older sons (born 1813), became the Publican in Ewelme - as per the 1841 Census. He turned out to be Thomas Garlick, then married, with three children. This was just three years after the letter described above was sent by Thomas Garlick to the Bury Post.

       This man strikes me as the most suitable candidate to represent the Thomas Garlick who had befriended John Larner and written the letter to the Bury Post in 1838. He would clearly have been sufficiently educated and was a member of a bright, scholastic family. His father would provide the necessary 'bridge' by which earlier knowledge about the local 'Jermy' and Larner families - from circa 1810, say, or before and any property rights they felt they had, could be carried forward to the more interested of his children. As the local Publican, Thomas Garlick would know a range of people in the area - probably including James Jermy the Higler (or his son) as they supplied such as eggs, butter, chickens etc to local hostelries. James Jermy (Jermany) Snr in turn would certainly know something about the background of his own father John Jermany. If, as seems likely, John Larner grew up in the 1790s around this area, it is quite likely that James Garlick would have known him therefore and appreciated the situation that John's uncle James and his mother Dinah (James' sister) were apparently trying to pursue from about 1810 or so (but on what basis, we still know not!). Thomas Garlick would later take this on board as well as he, in turn, grew up in the same area - over this very period. It would no doubt have been 'in the air' or 'abroad', within this small rural community.

       One might accept that, from time to time, either John Larner or his cousin Thomas Jermy, or both, may well have returned briefly to their Oxfordshire roots - especially during the 1810s and '20s, say - and thereby maintain bonds and contacts with those of their former communities. He may well have asked Thomas Garlick for advice - around 1830 or so, especially after his parents had both died in the early to mid-30s.

       If this theory about the identity of Thomas Garlick proves correct (admittedly not easily proved), it means we will have established the identities of all three of Larner's 'advisers'. While such knowledge may not seem that important, each such piece in the jigsaw can serve to better understand John Larner and the merits or otherwise of his family's persistent claim to Stanfield Hall. [We may note here that, amazingly, there were also many Wingfields in the Ewelme area but thus far a Daniel of that name has not been noted. Such an origin could help account for Larner moving from his Thames-side area to be near a trusted friend in Hoxton about 1836.]

       When I examine the 1851 Census for Ewelme, I would hope to establish just where James Garlick was himself born. It could be Ewelme which may suggest that his line was simply one of the local pool of Garlicks who, for some reason, rose above most of his relations, or it could be somewhere quite unrelated from where he came to take up the position at this not so common (for the times) commercial boarding school - the other local labouring Garlicks being simply a west-country coincidence. However, it may be pointed out that not every cluster of villages in such as Berks, Oxon or Bucks, say, would have such a pocket of Garlicks. While a birth in the Ewelme area would allow a better basis to allow this family to know the Jermy story, the next best scenario might be James' birth in or near Painswick, Glos. and thereby lend credence to the earlier idea that there was in William Garlick, the London Physician who lived amongst the London legal community who was born in that west country town, a ready made 'conduit' by which the Ewelme Garlicks could connect with the London solicitors concerned with the Larner case (as well as through which, at the time of Frances' death in 1791, they may have become aware of the dubious Will and inheritance pertaining to the Jermy estates in Norfolk). His involvement or ?presence in Norfolk in 1838, through John Larner directly, could account for his later introduction to such as Waugh or Flowers - ie through Larner's friend Richard Read and/or via James Rush. [And, more recently, we have learned that the London Physician himself had a brother Thomas Garlick, a Chemist of Surrey, although such a route by which he may have been made aware of the 1838 claim by Larner seems too indirect (and probably too late) to be valid.]

       But, in either case, we may ask the crucial question: Where might be the original pedigree - which would form part of the 'Jermy v Jermy' case - by which the Jermys of Oxfordshire could establish their alleged descent from a relative of William Jermy? Did Garlick's family retain it? Or, did it remain with Edward Flower? And then, after 1848, what happened to it? Did Flower's files go into some archive on his retirement? But where?? Or, did it ever exist ?

Addendum: I checked the 1851 Census. Sadly, James Garlick of Ewelme had died before this date (and hence his place of birth remains unknown) - his widow Elizabeth was then running the school - called the 'Ewelme Commercial School' which then had 30 pupils - aged 10 or 11 - mostly born in London. They would be training for clerical/adminstrative jobs in London presumably and thereby often raising themselves into the 'Gent' class. She was now described as the 'Schoolmistress' and was born nearby - in Ipsden. This might imply that her husband too was indeed local - or did he come from elsewhere (as ?Painswick) and only meet this local girl after establishing (or continuing) the school? Their son Thomas (born in Ewelme) was, in 1851, still running the local Inn - now named The Greyhound - where he also had a business as a Master Butcher. Another older son was one William Allnutt Garlick (his mother a Sarah Allnutt) who settled in Stoke Poges/Slough (Buckinghamshire) where he became a Coal & Corn Merchant. [There was a William Allnutt in Wallington, an Attorney.] Thus, unlike all the local ag lab Garlicks, James the Schoolmaster seems to have ensured that his sons, at least, all had educations, apprenticeships, occupations or trades - including Frederick and Septimus Garlick in Oxford. James had died in 1843 and left a brief PCC Will - leaving everything to his wife Elizabeth - including his only real property - a leasehold house at Gould's Heath Common - in neighbouring Benson - possibly to where he had planned to retire. His wife also left a Will, I believe (not yet examined), as did their son William - in 1849. He'd married Elizabeth Ann Cottrell in St Marylebone, London in 1846 and had but one son - William - in 1847 (baptised near Slough). He too left everything to his wife. No Will or date of death has yet been found for Thomas Garlick himself, John Larner's determined 'advocate'.

       This latter man remains an important element in all this. His presence in the Berrick area in the 1820s/30s/ would account for his knowledge of the background to John Larner's case - regardless of James Garlick's origins and the source of any earlier, more direct knowledge that he may have passed down to Thomas. One would have to assume that these relatively well educated people would have satisfied themselves as to the basis of the Norfolk origin of James' and Dinah's family and possibly with William Jermy's Will. But, still, where is that assumed pedigree - that could confirm all this ??! We might also ask why it was ever considered the case that the non-Jermy son of the youngest, daughter of the Berrick family might believe themselves to have a claim on the estate - when there were apparently other Jermys of the family living throughout the 19th century who would seem to have had precedence in any such a claim - on the usual basis of seniority of birth order and primogeniture? We can see now by the Will of his mother Frances, that in 1834 at least, the son William of the younger James Jermy (born 1759) was living with children himself [any sons?], probably in Reading or nearby, and that there were several others descended from Dinah's older sister Ann also settled there. Her nephew William was also of senior precedence and after his death in 1851, there were several others of his line surviving into the 20th century. (Thus the Stonesawyer Thomas's sons William and James would survive and have male issue.) It appears that none of these other, senior lines were, like Dinah's son, ever made aware - through the Pearce family presumably, into which her son married - of the existence of a controversial Norfolk estate located so near them - once owned by a Norfolk family with a similar name to John's mother's family in distant Oxfordshire.

.

Theories to Account for the Jermys in Oxfordshire.[This has yet to be addressed in detail.]

       The final major question to be addressed concerns the reason why any son of John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth - with, we must assume, no experience in agriculture, as Yarmouth was an urban fishing port on a peninsula relatively cut off from rural/agricultural affairs - would leave that east coast area, seemingly around 1734 when about age 18, and make his way in all of England to a small inland village in south-east Oxfordshire - there shortly to marry, as John Germany, when in a neighbouring village a family of the name Germany had lived just a few years earlier. Why?!? There are a number of theories which seek to provide an answer to this baffling question and these will be placed here, as and when sufficient background data can be collected and better organised. For example, did either of the political candidates standing in the Gt Yarmouth constituency in the early 1730s have any connections in Oxfordshire through which a job for the son of someone who had the vote in Yarmouth might be promised? Such elections in those days often turned on just a few votes of those relatively few who had the vote then (as eg Freemen of the Borough (and their sons) had, including both John Jermys - Snr and Jnr). Or, did John of Yarmouth have an older brother Abraham but if so, how did he come to settle in distant Chalgrove? The material of such theories (some of which has been touched on already) will hopefully be placed here eventually. And if the Jermanys of Oxfordshire did in fact not derive from Norfolk after all (but had always been there - as eg German/Germany/Jarmony/etc - from much earlier times), can we not relate their interest in and knowledge of William Jermy's Will to their being made aware of Frances' death in 1791 and that Will - through educated locals who confused the names John Jermy and John Jermany - as so many other have done over the centuries ? Or even by being made aware of the Stanfield estates's questioned ownership by members of the Pearce family only after about 1808-10 ? In the meantime we may consider:

.

The Later Larners of London.

       It thus appears that there were surviving male Jermys descended from the more senior lines of the Oxfordshire Jermys, especially from Thomas Jermy the Stone Sawyer (but not from his cousin Thomas Jermy the Gardener/Claimant(d 1850). These have been considered in detail above. What about descendents of the latter's co-claimant cousin John Larner - despite he being of the most junior of the 5 lines of that family and not actually a Jermy himself ? He had at least two sons who subsequently married and had issue. Did they carry on the claims ? We may recall that his elder surviving son Thomas Jermy Larner was born in Lambeth in 1831 and was still at home (on Cross Street, Hoxton) when aged 10 in 1841, but was not shown as such after the family moved to Brittania Row by 1851. Conversely, the last-born son - John Alexander (later 'Jermy') Larner - was oddly not shown as being at home in the 1841 Census in Hoxton (staying elsewhere on Census night presumably; (yes, now known to have been staying temporarily in Wymondham, Norfolk at that time) although, conveniently, he does appear back in the Islington home by 1851 - described now as a Cheesemonger's Porter, aged 17.

      While baptised almost inexplicably as 'John Alexander Larner'(*), it is noteworthy that later in life, from the time of his marriage onwards, this son refers to himself consistently as 'John Jermy Larner'. Indeed, he may well have been told by his father that this was his full christened name so would have no reason to doubt it (or check in the old Lambeth church register to verify this; nor would son Thomas either, we may presume). Thus, John Larner Snr must have assumed that simply by including the name Jermy in his sons' forenames, they would, by being (as he claimed) 'blood' descendents of the same Norfolk Jermy family as William Jermy of the 1751 Will, fulfill the criterion of legitimate claimants - even after his own death. We shall see below that, amazingly, up to 50 years later and beyond, this was indeed still the family's position. Oddly, similar interest was not shown by any descendents of the more senior Oxfordshire Jermy lines themselves - nor earlier by any of those senior members either - who hadn't, it seems, been influenced by stories likely revealed to John Larner by the Pearce family - after ca 1810 (and only subsequently taken up by Garlick).

(*) Note: Bron Larner (BL) suggests that John Jnr's unusual middle name may have been in tribute to a well-off farmer surnamed Alexander of the same parish (Britwell Salome) where his father and grandparents resided for some years and the grandfather was buried just the year before, possibly with financial help from that family. Might such an explanation have accounted for the naming also of an Alexander(?) Larner (and others of relevant names) of Woolwich described earlier ?]

       The elder son Thomas Larner, not at home in March 1851, was however soon found that same Census year of 1851, although his details were not found in some other nearby Census return for 1851 - but through his marriage certificate. For he married earlier that same year - on Jan 20th 1851 - at St Giles church, Cripplegate - to Louisa Wright, daughter of Thomas Wright, a Carman. Thomas Larner was described as a Baker then living at 23 Red Cross Street (very near that church), his bride living equally close. Both signed the register. However, although the 1851 Census was only two months later, neither address revealed any of these same families still resident there or nearby. Most odd. It should be possible to locate them in one of the London Census indexes. We have no confirmed evidence of any issue born to this couple over the following decade or so although there were Larners born nearby, one or more of whom conceivably may have been born to them. Thus, there was a Walter Larner born in the City of London (in which Cripplegate then fell) ca 1852/3, later a Bricklayer who, with a wife Sarah had 7 children born south of the river in Camberwell, including a John, an Arthur and a Louisa although the last named was a last born and the other names and their order were also not particularly appropriate. There was also an Arthur Larner born 'in London' about 1859, and two Thomases in Shoreditch and near Dalston, respectively, in 1863 and '64. The 1881 Census index is quite complete and this can be checked to see if Thomas and Louisa survived to that year at least (when they would be aged about 50). Or did they die young....or emigrate ?

       If no verified issue or descendents from Thomas Jermy Larner are discovered, the future of the Larner family of present concern thus becomes limited to those deriving from his younger brother (indeed the youngest of the family) - John Alexander Larner - later known as John Jermy Larner (or more typically as John Larner (Jnr). In the spring of 1851, as mentioned, he is found still at the family home at 5 Brittania Row, Islington - having grown up about half a mile away on the other side of the Regent Canal in Hoxton (except for some uncertain time spent in Wymondham as a boy in the early '40s). He would have been about 15 when his father was involved for a time with James Blomfield Rush during the summer and autumn of 1848. Assuming he could read, he would likely have read newspaper reports therefore of the subsequent murders at Stanfield Hall in 1848, which would have been discussed at home. By 1851, with his father and older brother both working as (or for) local Bakers, he was himself, as mentioned, a Cheesemonger's Porter. However, by 4 March 1855 when, for whatever reason he marries south of the river - in St Olave's church, Southwark - he is shown as "John Jermy Larner, age 20, a Baker - the son of John Jermy Larner, also a Baker" (then aged about 68). We may assume that his father had told him that they were both given that middle name by their respective parents. The younger John's bride was Louisa Brookwell, seemingly born near Dalston, north London to a William Brookwell (a Tentmaker?) and wife Mary in about 1832. I believe John Jnr signed but Louisa made her mark (as she did when registering their first born (Arthur) later that same year). Both had resided very near that church - on Joiner Street and at Maze Pond (off nearby St Thomas Street), respectively, so it is possible that they met in that same area - where both may have been previously employed - and thus not in north London, say, nearer either of their parents.

       Between 1850 and 1875, this younger John (Alexander/Jermy) Larner had a number of different jobs before settling down as a Bottle Merchant in Camberwell and Peckham. He appears to have been a bright, energetic soul who was determined to 'get on' and probably to work for himself. Eventually, he left the Bottle business to two of his sons and then bought and ran a Public House on the Old Kent Road in his semi-retirement. He had ceased being a 'Baker' shortly after his marriage and tried his hand at being a Cheesemonger Journeyman (having had, as noted, some training/apprenticeship in same before leaving Islington). He was so described when registering the birth of their first born - oddly named 'Arthur Jermy Larner' (rather than the John Jermy Larner one might have expected; possibly he thought three with that name was too many; his father did live another 15 years).

      Arthur was born at 149 Long Lane, in Borough, Southwark on 10 December, 1855. This was barely 100 yards from their former abode on Long Lane in that same district. He was presumably baptised a week or so later in one of the 4 churches situated within a quarter mile in this very crowded area. [This to be confirmed.] Two years later, John and Louisa had their first daughter, Louisa Edith Larner, born in December quarter 1857, and registered in Newington, a district barely a quarter mile to the south of the Borough. [There was another district of this same name near to Dalston and Kingsland however (north of the river) - where their next child would, rather unexpectedly, be baptised (seemingly near to Louisa's parents) so this younger Louisa could conceivably have been registered in either place.] It is not presently known if this daughter survived or later married and had issue.

       A third child might have been expected around 1860 but any born about then (as eg a ?John) appears not to have survived. The next one, who did survive, was a son Edward James Larner born 4 Dec 1862 at 13 Marlborough Road, in Haggerstone, Shoreditch, nearer Louisa's parents in north central London. Two years later, another son was born to John and Louisa - on 2 Feb 1865 - and named Walter Henry Larner. They then lived back south of the river - off the Old Kent Road near New Cross, I believe, which is further south and east of their earlier abodes in Borough. John was then a 'Cabman'. Finally, their last born was a Charles Jermy Larner born 20 March 1867 when the father was now described as a 'Fly Driver' living at 3 Isabella Cottages, Arthur Street, also off the Old Kent Road (to where he would return in later life (ca 1890s) as a Publican).

       I'm not sure just when John Larner (ie the younger) started his Bottle business (late 1870s seemingly) but his eldest son Arthur married about then in March Q 1877, to an Eliza Harrington (probably in Camberwell), by whom he would have 4 sons: a namesake Arthur Jermy Larner in 1879 (who died the following year), a William Larner ca 1880 and a John Jermy ca 1885 (who also both died as infants) and a Walter (?Jermy) Larner ca 1887 - seemingly all in Camberwell. Any daughters appear also to have died in infancy. This family eventually lived at 59 Cork Street, Camberwell where Arthur Larner Snr was a Marine Stores Dealer up to 1894, when he apparently died. It appears therefore that, unlike his younger brothers, he was never a 'partner' in his father's eventual Bottle business which possibly hadn't developed sufficiently (ca 1875-80, say) before Arthur, as a young married man from 1877, had instead to find something sooner for himself and family. The last born son Walter Larner was noted, aged 13, living with his widowed mother Eliza and her brother John Harrington on Jennings Road, Camberwell, by 1901. In the next Census (1911) Walter is listed as a Gardener residing a roomer on Cork Street in Camberwell. Some years later (1922), a Walter Larner was listed in a Directory as residing on South Croxted Road, Dulwich and a 'Mrs Larner' on nearby Gypsy Hill, Norwood. They were quite likely of the same family as described here.

       John Larner Jnr's next son, christened Edward James Larner married twice. His 1901 Census entry showed him and wife Catherine (born Marylebone) living in Camberwell with several Larner children born ca 1886-1900. Such Census entries fail to reveal however if any of the elder children in such a household may in fact have been born to any unrecorded earlier wife, now deceased. In the present case, the earlier Census of 1891 may have revealed such a person but unlike that of 1901, this had yet to be alphabetically indexed and the location of such a family that year was, as a consequence, then unknown. However, that there was in fact such an unconfirmed first wife has now been revealed by information kindly provided by Michael Leonard, the husband of one of the later descendents of this line of the Larner family. From him, we learn that Edward J. Larner was indeed previously married - on 25 Oct 1885 at St Olave's church - to an Ellen Howe. She was born in 1863 in Camberwell - the daughter of George and Mary Howe. Edward appears to have worked initially in the family's Bottle business nearby from ca 1881 by which date it begins to be reported in trade and postal Directories, as it continued to be until at least the late 1920s. He seems to have left the Bottle business in the hands of his two brothers (possibly after receiving a £100 Bond from his father ca 1890s, as revealed in the latter's Will (see below) and later became an Omnibus conductor (1901) and then a Mechanic (1916).

       He and Ellen had several children beginning apparently with yet another John Jermy Larner - who was both born and died in 1886. Their next, a daughter, was named after neither his mother nor wife, but as Lily Bertha Larner - born 16 December 1887 in Peckham - a little to the south-east. She survived childhood, became an accomplished chef, and was later married during the 1st world war to Sidney Thomas Shepherd, a mechanic, on 26 Dec 1916 in Grantham, Lincolshire - his home town, where they later settled. They had a son and two daughters, the youngest of whom married a member of the Polish Air Force in England and, amongst others, had a daughter who became the wife of the Michael Leonard referred to above (and from whom these details were gratefully received). Both are science graduates; her brother Ivor (M.A. Oxford), also a direct descendent of John Larner, has the curious distinction of residing at the present time (2004) in the very house in which Larner's chief ally and spokesman at the time of his first claim to the Jermy estate at Stanfield Hall (in 1838), namely Thomas Garlick (see earlier discussion above), lived and was the Publican - ie the Greyhound Inn in Ewelme, Oxfordshire! One wouldn't write such a coincidence into a novel. Lily Bertha died in Grantham in Feb 1957. Her son was Frederick Sidney Shepherd born 27 May 1918 in Greenwich who married twice and had a son and a daughter. He served in the war as a Quartermaster Sargeant in Airborne divisions, winning a BEM and being Mentioned in Dispatches, and remained in the forces after the war. He died in Southampton in 1977.
[Note: Bronwyn Larner of Australia once referred to a Lily Larner - thought to have lived in Berkshire (ca ?1920s) whose brother (?Frederick) apparently emigrated to Australia and ?farmed near Melbourne. He would now appear to be the next son born to Edward and Ellen - described below - and Berkshire should possibly have been ?Lincolnshire.]

       That next child was Frederick James (and/or?Jermy) Larner born 25 May 1889 when they lived at 12 St James Place, Victoria Road, Peckham. It is known through further correspondence with Bronwyn Larner (and now also from details kindly supplied by Michael Leonard) that this man went to sea with his slightly younger cousin Frederick Walter Larner (see below) in March 1911 and, after serving on the S.S. Lake Erie (March-July 1911), S.S. Demosthenes (Sept-Dec 1911), R.M.S. Ionic (May 1912-Feb 1913) and finally S.S. Marathon (from Feb 1913), they 'jumped ship' together from the latter vessel in Sydney, Australia on 22 Sept 1913. Frederick J. Larner subsequently worked, amongst other places, on construction of the Sydney Harbour bridge and later married there (by about ?1920) to an Ethel ...?... by whom he had at least two children - a son Reginald Larner (born ca 1920s?) who became a noted Musician - and a daughter Joyce Larner (she possibly the elder), who studied Art and later married a Chaplain General of the Australian Forces - a Rev Allen Brooke (ca ?1940s). They had a namesake son Allen Jnr and a daughter Rowan Brooke in Melbourne, presumably still living. Chaplain Brooke died in 1968 but Joyce and Reginald's father Edward lived on in Australia until 2 June 1975, dying at the goodly age of 86, so just out-doing his long-lived gt-grandfather of a century before - the claimant John Larner of Islington. Whether he ever farmed, is not presently known. His wife Ethel apparently owned a very successful Inn/Hotel outside Sydney. Their son Reginald studied the violin and music at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music and later in London where he played with major orchestras and chamber groups. He later returned to Australia to play and teach in Melbourne and Canberra before settling back in Sydney in 2000. He had one daughter - Adele Larner.

       Edward and Ellen had a second son - Alfred Stanley Larner also born in Peckham - in 1891. He married Ethel Nutt (said in Michael Leonard's account to have been 'ardently religious') in about 1919, and with whom he had three children. Alfred appears to have had an interesting, long career in the Army - apparently serving in both world wars, and in the years between. They had three children: Herbert Alfred Larner born 10 June 1920 in the army barracks town of Aldershot, Surrey, a daughter Olive born out in India ca 1922 or so, when their father was a Regimental Sargeant Major, and a second son Gordon Edward Larner born in Glasgow, Scotland probably ca 1925-30. Alfred died about 1962. His elder son Herbert, who served in the war and later worked for ICI, married Brenda Allman in 1941 in Chesire with whom he had three daughters, Margaret, Rosemary and Christine, born in Cheshire during the 1940s and who all married and had issue. Herbert and his wife both died in Chichester in 1998. His sister Olive marrried Frank Sibley and had a son John, probably in the 1940s. Their brother Gordon married twice, also worked for ICI, but was later ordained (1959) to become a Chaplain in the prison service, and has spoken on BBC's 'Thought for the Day'. He is said to have done considerable family research. His first wife was Heather ..... with whom (ca 1950s?) he had a daughter Susan and sons - Andrew and Ian Larner as well as a Jackie Larner (son or daughter?). One or more likely married. Gordon married secondly Celia Drummond.

       Finally, Edward and Ellen had a daughter Ellen Eliza born ?Peckham 26 Oct 1893, the mother Ellen dying soon after - that same date. Their daughter Ellen became a District Nurse in Ipswich and died in 1967, possibly unmarried. She and her younger siblings were then brought up by Edward and his second wife Catherine Elizabeth Young whom he married in early 1895. By the date of the 1901 Census, they had had at least three daughters and one son in Camberwell - Nellie (1895) whose future is unknown, Catherine Elizabeth (1896) who did not marry and was in service, Edith Constance(1898), future inknown, and William Harold Larner (1900), he being the third and (as of 1901) youngest known son of Edward James, and who died in 1935. [We have recently learnt that there was 2nd son - Charles Jermy born to them in 1901, who died an infant in 1902, and Florence Beatrice to them in 1904, before Winifred Maud in 1905 who survived (to 1886)- to give birth to Bron Larner's cousin Beryl Hallam (of Sevenoaks, Kent) from whom this latter detail gratefully derives. Finally, they had a last child Grace Evelyn in 1909 (future unknown). [The dates and places of death for Edward James and Catherine Larner will be placed here once known.]

-- -- -- -- -- --

       We may revert again to earlier times and consider now John and Louisa's third son, Walter Henry Larner (born 1865). He was married in Deptford (north of Peckham and east of Camberwell) to Ada Annie Alford (born 1869) on 29 July 1891 when they lived at 68 St Donatt's Road. The 1901 Census shows them living at 158 Albert Road, Camberwell when they had 3 children with them - namely, Frederick Walter Larner, born 4 April 1894 at 7 Oswyth Road, Camberwell; Ada Florence ('Tony') Larner, born 14 Sept 1895, also in Camberwell; and Maud Margaret Larner born about 1897, presumably also in Camberwell. They appear to have then moved to Eltham, a pleasanter suburb a little east of Peckham but where, tragically, Walter Henry committed suicide - on 6 May 1910, aged 45 - with an overdose of laudanum. He was described as a Bottle Merchant. Ada re-married the following year and died in Kennington in 1915. Her children likely moved with her for a few years before making their own ways in life (described below) after their mother's death there also aged just 45. [Note: an odd coincidence was the emigration to Australia of a man of the very same name - 'Walter Henry Larner' (apparently born just a little before 'our' Walter Henry - in ca 1860). It appears that he was of an unrelated west country family who died a widower in Australia in about 1940.] We may also point out that Eltham was the birthplace of Bob Hope (ca 1902) whose family (with 5 brothers) emigrated from there to Cleveland, Ohio in America around 1907, I believe. He lived until 2003 !]

       The youngest son of John and Louisa Larner - Charles Jermy Larner (born Camberwell 20 March 1867) - married in neighbouring St Saviour on 20 June 1891 to a Lucy Ellen Tomlinson (b 1869) with whom he had several children. Any first born to them ca 1892 appears to have died young. [Or possibly not - as Bron Larner had recently noted that a Charles William Larner was born in 1892 to Charles Jermy Larner [details awaited) and who married a Mildred Jane Stubbs in Nov 1912 in Peckham (any issue?). [Another Charles Larner was born in Camberwell - about Sept 1901 - but to Edward James Larner and 2nd wife Catherine - who died the following year.] In any case, Charles & Lucy then had a daughter Lucy in 1894 in Camberwell, followed by Violet (1897) and Ivy Ella (4 Nov 1899) - born further south and east at 16 Phillips Road, Peckham. The mother Lucy was still relatively young so they may have had one or two others around 1902-5, say (a son?) in that same area - assuming that Charles himself (and Lucy) lived beyond that time.

      But, it was in the year that Violet was born - 1897 - that the 4 Larner sons, with their many children recently born and mostly still living in south-east London, would lose their father John 'Jermy' Larner - who died on 17 May 1897, aged 63, in Guy's Hospital. He had recently lived on both Heaton and Phillips Roads near Peckham Rye, a more salubrious area than the Shoreditch, Islington, Bermondsey and Camberwell of his youth and middle years. His Bottle business on Southampton Street, Camberwell was now run by two of his sons (as 'Larner Bros. Bottle Merchants') and, for a time latterly, he himself ran a Public House back on the Old Kent Road with a seemingly close lady friend/housekeeper (a Mrs Sage) - after losing his wife Louisa in Nov 1889. [We must however now add some new information in this regard recently discovered by John's direct descendent Bron Larner: It appears that not long after John lost Louisa (buried Forest Hill 30 Nov 1889, agd 54), he re-married a year later - to a widow Eliza Wright (nee King) on 27 Nov 1890 at St Anthony's, Nunhead (near Peckham). He still described his (long-deceased) father on that occasion as 'John Jermy Larner, Baker' This 2nd wife, as Elizabeth Larner, aged 43, was herself buried - on 18 March 1893 beside John 1st wife Louisa in the family's tomb at Forest Hill Old Cemetery (just south of Peckham) - where John was himself interred on 22 May 1897, aged 62. [This from BL's cousin Beryl Hallam.] John seems to have shared his last years with Mrs Sage. The pedigree for these later Larners, mostly of south London, is shown below (but requires various amendments):

       This latter phase of John Larner Jnr's life is revealed a little in his Will - written on the 9th Nov 1896, about 6 months before he died. In it, he is describd as "John Jermy Larner (commonly known as John Larner) now of the 'Horse and Groom', 615 Old Kent Road, in the county of Surrey, Licensed Beer Seller" (but later of 69 Philip Road, Peckham Rye where he likley lived with or near his son Charles during his last illness). He appoints two Trustees and Executors (one an Accountant and the other a Laundryman, both of Peckham Rye (where curiously I lived myself for a time in 1957!), East Dulwich) and then leaves to the widow of his late eldest son Arthur Larner (d 1894) - ie Eliza Larner - the sum of £10 (then about 8 weeks' average wages). To the Trustees, he gives upon trust certain moneys arising out of an Insurance Policy on his own life - viz: "... £10 to Mary Sophia Sage, my housekeeper (for mourning) and the rest to pay my funeral expenses". He also leaves all his household effects to the said Mary Sophia 'free for her own use', as well as his Beer House known as the Horse and Groom "...or any other property or business I may hold at my decease (ie via the Trustees) - she to carry on said business(es) as the Trustees see fit and all profits to go to her from same for her lifetime - for the maintenance of herself and her children (Dorothy, Alice and Winifred Sage) and on her death the money from the sale of such business and that from two Bonds are to go to the same three girls as each reaches 21. "...And as to my (second) son Edward James Larner, I consider he is amply benefited by my assignment to him of my Policy for £100 given him during my lifetime. And as to my two other (younger) sons carrying on the business in co-partnership on Southampton Street, Camberwell as Bottle Merchants [ie Walter Henry Larner and Charles Jermy Larner], I consider they are amply benefited by my assignment to them of my business without any financial consideration - my Trustees/Executors hereby exonerated from any losses they may incur through wilful neglect...". The Will wasn't proved (by the Executors) until 4 April 1901, probably because it was witnessed by them rather than by independent witnesses.

       Of the 4 sons of John and Louisa Larner, the eldest, Arthur, appears to have had only one surviving son, the Walter Larner born about 1887, from whom future Larner progeny may or may not have derived. From the second son Edward James, there were 3 sons: Frederick (Jermy) Larner (born 1889), Alfred (ca 1891) and William (1900). Their descendents have been described above. From Walter Henry Larner, 3rd son of John and Louisa, the eldest child was the other Frederick (Walter) Larner who also jumped ship in Sydney in 1913, where he too married - in 1918 in Sydney - to Annie Ferguson Taylor (whom he met on the boat). Their son (born ca 1920s) was the father of the aforementioned Bronwyn Larner now living in north-eastern Australia and from whom much of this post-1901 data was most gratefully received. There is no male Larner derived from this line, I believe. Frederick Walter's two younger sisters also married: Ada Florence Larner married Harold Phillips (1886-1963) around 1918 by whom she had a son Victor Arthur Phillips born 31 March 1923 - whose daughter (b ca 1950?) is the Rev Jennifer Phillips of Rhode Island in New England, living as of ca 2008. Both Ada and her husband Harold died in 1963. The other daughter Margaret Maud married James Herrald around 1920 (where?) and, with their son Jack, emigrated to Newcastle, Australia and settled later in Canberra I believe (any issue?).

      From Bron Larner, we learn by virtue of a copy of an obituary of the outstanding scientific career of the aforementioned son of Ada (a granddaughter of our 'restless soul' John Jermy Larner) and Harold Phillips - namely, Victor Arthur Phillips - who died on November 28, 2008, aged 85. A graduate of the Royal School of Mines of London University, he took a Doctorate in Metallurgy at Yale in 1950 and did post-Doctoral work at Trinity Hall, Cambridge. He subsequently lectured at both Sheffield and the Open Universities in England before pursuing research with General Electric and Lockheed in America and retiring as Chief Material Analyst at United Technologies in East Hartford, Connecticut, after publishing many papers and a testbook in his field and being elected a Fellow of numerous Metallurgical societies'. One would assume that while Ada and her siblings no doubt passed on good quality genes to their offspring, Mr Phillips Snr must also have possessed rather excellent if unsuspected qualities fortunately inherited by such an outstanding son. We may contrast his future with that of an older cousin Walter Larner, gardener, living in a back room in Camberwell in his 30s.

       Finally, we should point out that John Larner's Bottle business did continue (despite any 'wilful neglect') well into the 1920s. And it was in that decade that the original concerns about the Jermy-Larner claim to Stanfield Hall, arising as they did as early as ca 1810, were to materialise yet again. For in 1922, Charles Jermy Larner, the youngest surviving brother still running the family business, contacted (or was contacted by) a London newspaper about the still unsettled claim (as they saw it). That is, over 100 years later (and just before the birth of the above gt grandson)! An article appeared on 2 Sept that year in the Evening News, possibly in response to any report of the sale of the Stanfield estate around 1921, entitled 'Riddle of the Jermy Millions'. In it...[this to come...] It was followed up I believe by an article (in Norwich?) entitled 'The Jermy Pence' by a member of the Gwyn family who had inherited the estate after the murders. He maintained that [...to come...]. On 17 November 1924, another article appeared entitled 'Claim to Seven Million Pound Estate'. [Details also to come...] In the first article, Charles Larner mentioned that he was told that "his father's mother rode as a girl in a Donkey Cart to Stanfield Hall and saw the battle there.." (in 1838). [We may recall the Hon'ble Dorothy Nevill riding as a young girl in her 'Pony Cart' to get sweets from Rush just a few years before.] Charles' grandmother Mary (his father John Larner Jnr's mother) may well have witnessed the siege - with her Pearce relatives living nearby - although she was in fact about 48 that year and thus hardly a 'girl'. [We might consider whether the Charles Larner being interviewed might have been the younger one (born 1892) although if his father was still living, as seems the case, he would likely be the more knowledgeable witness to be so interviewed.] He mentioned that the family's many legal papers and documents concerning their claim had been lost some years earlier, by some lawyer. The elder Charles and his wife both died in 1934, I believe - in or near Wimbledon. [To be confirmed.] Apparently, however, there was further interest expressed by someone in the family about the estate as late as 1955, but I have no further details.

       Any later members of the Larner family in England may have derived, if not from the Walter Larner mentioned above, then from this latter Charles and/or his son of same name - if he lived and married ca 1914-20, say, (or from any other son(s) either may have had). Charles' daughter Ivy Ellen married Patrick Campbell of Scotland around 1925 and later lived in Western Australia, I believe, where she died in 1957. Any Campbell descendents may still live in that area. I was aware of one male Larner who was born around the 1940s(?) who had lived south of London - consistent with the family's progressive shift ever southwards from their early days in Shoreditch and Bermonsey - via Camberwell, Peckham, Dulwich and ?Gypsy Hill and possibly South Croydon. [However, it appears that the family settled for a time in the latter place may in fact have derived from unrelated west country (Gloucestershire) Larners - most of whom settled elsewhere (including Canada) rather than in the London area.]

If anyone reads this site who has further information or corrections in this regard, we would be most pleased to hear from them. Otherwise, we can now see that the Larner family of present concern survives in several areas of England, as well as in Australia and America. Their Larner roots go back, via John Larner of Stanfield Hall fame, to Wheatfield in Oxfordshire - settled there as agricultural labourers from the early 1700s at least.

[This section last updated: Feb 2012 ]

Return to the Genealogy Homepage

Return to the Jermy Homepage

To the Tripartite Homepage