Introduction

      To this point in our searches, we had been seeking evidence primarily of some connection between one of the earlier Spurgeons, most of whom we had now identified, and some Jermy - of unknown identity. We didn't know if this would be a male or female Jermy, nor what such a person's christian name might be. Indeed, we had little clear conception about the possible sources, names or even availability of such Jermys - whether as sons or daughters. Further investigations in the Mulbarton and Hethersett areas - because of their possible Spurgeon relevance - did not produce anything of note. (However, these and our earlier efforts did produce more on the Spurgeon family than there's room for in the present account.)

      Because of the possibility that earlier Spurgeons of relevance to our quest may have derived (like Rev. Richard Spurgeon) from the Yarmouth area, this seemed a reasonable next focus for our searches. This idea was enhanced when, after reading a book called 'Palmer's Perlustration of Yarmouth', we learned that there had also been certain members of the landed Jermy family associated with this town. Moreover, there was a good early trunk road between Yarmouth and the Loddon-Beccles area. This could facilitate contacts between them and thus make Yarmouth a more probable location to unearth our sought after link. Palmer's book had also indicated that some of these Jermys had lived in or near Aylsham and North Walsham, in north Norfolk, although Spurgeons seemed less likely there.

      We thus began gradually to give less thought to 'where earlier specified Spurgeons (or even Spurgeons in general) may have lived and more to where the Jermys had. Initially, we were interested in any Jermys at all but later these too were to become more specified. We thus began to approach our task from the other direction - tracing from earlier Jermys forward in time, rather than tracing back to ever earlier Spurgeons. Possibly 'where the two approaches overlapped, somewhere in the mid-1700s, say, we might discover our link ? It had appeared to us, at about this point, that if the Spurgeon concerned was a male, he may have been the William or James mentioned at the end of Part One, or their father, who would likely have one of these same names, and the period of overlap around 1730 to 1760, say. If either Elizabeth Nixon or Sarah Alexander had been a widow when she married a Spurgeon, she may have been an Elizabeth or a Sarah Jermy, born about 1740-45, who would prove to be our crucial link. If some earlier James or William Spurgeon hadn't married such a Jermy girl, he may of course have married the daughter or even the granddaughter of someone (of a different surname) who had done so a generation or so earlier.

      Because the Yarmouth registers were, in part, destroyed by enemy action in 1942 and the Aylsham and North Walsham ones were still retained by the incumbents at those churches, our next intended searches were initially thwarted and delayed. [Later examination of various Yarmouth transcripts produced no evidence of a Spurgeon-Jermy connection there, however, despite the (limited) presence of both families.] We thus gave instead more thought to 'what we could find out about the Jermy family in general - to help us decide where else we might more effectively search for our possible connection.

The Jermy Family

      There were, at this early stage, three sources of information to guide these initial enquiries (in addition to Palmer's book): Firstly, there was the copy of the 'Antingham Pedigree', held formerly by Doris but thanks to Terry now in our possession, which depicted the main branches of the Jermy family from earliest times to about 1750. (Antingham was a parish in Norfolk where one generation of the family happened to live much earlier and was of no special significance otherwise.) Secondly, there was the limited information we had seen in the Norfolk directory on the Jermys of Stanfield Hall c 1845. These two sources had given us a certain limited perspective on the family which was much added to by our eventual third source - a small booklet about the family written by Stewart Valdar who had assisted Doris in her early enquiries. Initially, however, we were limited to the first two sources.

The Bayfield Branch

      From our brief early look at the Pedigree (and also from perusing Palmer's book), we could see that of the various branches of the Jermy family, only one - the Bayfield line - seemed to still exist in any cohesive sense by about 1700. (Some remnants did exist of a cousin line seated formerly at Gunton, near North Walsham, and at Yarmouth and this is addressed further below.) A John Jermy of this Bayfield line, who was an active lawyer and eventually the Recorder of Yarmouth, was born in 1676. Like his father, grandfather and great grandfather, he was Lord of the Manor of Bayfield (near Holt) in north Norfolk, but seems to have rented out that estate by 1700 or so - to reside nearer Norwich - in the attractive market town of Aylsham, the home of several gentry families.

      Thus, our intention of proceeding from the Jermy past forward - to about 1760 or so - to find a possible overlap and link with an earlier Spurgeon, seemed limited to a consideration of the marriages and issue, if any, of what appeared to be the last two relevant Jermys - that is, William and, less likely, his father John Jermy - both of Bayfield. Any such connection would thus have to occur at the time of James Spurgeon 1 or even earlier. A later link, involving James 2 or 3 c1800-1850, was apparently much less feasible. But then, what about the later Jermys - Isaac and his son (also Isaac) - said in the Directory to be resident at Stanfield Hall as late as 1845 ? Isaac Snr, being the Recorder of Norwich at that time, certainly seemed to suggest a significant continuity with what we knew about the rather earlier John Jermy of Bayfield, William's father who, after all, had held the comparable post of Recorder of Yarmouth. The Jermys of this later period would over-lap with the two later James Spurgeons.

      Isaac Jermy, the Norwich Recorder, would appear (consistent with what else we then knew) to have been born about 1780, to a member of the Bayfield branch of the Jermy family. This man, Isaac's father, could have been born at about the same time as any son or possibly late-born half-brother William may have had - eg in the 1730-40s. To allow a tie up with the Spurgeon family we might consider, for example, that either William Jermy had a 3rd, irregular union from which one of the Spurgeons, or a mother of same, resulted - or, William's father John had such a union somewhat earlier - by about 1735-40, say. Isaac's father would then be a contemporary relation to such a Spurgeon, or possibly even his father. But this all seemed a bit tenuous and unlikely.

      As James 2's baptismal record (c1798) was lacking, one might also have considered whether Isaac's father - unknown to us at this point - may not have fathered this James, i.e. with Eunice Grice, by about 1795 - she then soon marrying James Spurgeon 1 and raising the boy as their own; that is, as James 2. This at least appeared consistent with the search James 3 was making for evidence concerning his own father's birth in nearby Hethersett - information which even his father may not have completely known if kept from him. Otherwise, why was the elder James' baptism the only one missing ?

      Who, therefore, was Isaac's father, we wondered ? And how was he related to William Jermy (if he was) - whom we understood to be the last of the Jermys ? Or had he derived from the Gunton Jermys ? When did he acquire Stanfield Hall ? This seemingly 'missing Jermy' - born between William (1713) and Isaac (c1780), say about 1745 - appeared to be a possible key to our mystery. The pedigree showed that William's 1st wife was born Elizabeth Richardson (in 1713), the only daughter of Lord Thomas Richardson, Baron Cramond, and sister and sole heir to her brother William Richardson who died young shortly after succeeding to their father's title. Elizabeth thus inherited Stanfield Hall and its associated estates through him just before marrying William Jermy in 1735. William in turn acquired these in his own right on her death in 1751. And, as his father John Jermy had died, in 1744, he had also recently inherited the Bayfield estate as well and so, by 1751, was a relatively wealthy young man. He seems to have lived mostly in Aylsham (as had his father), Norwich or London and never at either Bayfield or Stanfield - which were usually rented out for income, as were his many other properties and farms.

      William's wife died in 1751 and he soon re-married - later that year. Apparently, William and his first wife had not lived together for some years following a judicial separation (c1740) and thus an irregular liaison c 1745 did not seem an unreasonable hypothesis to account for some Jenn-derived Spurgeon; that is, an earlier James (or William) raised as such- especially as William Jermy was himself shortly to die (1752).

      William's 2nd wife was Frances Preston of another wealthy landed family of Norfolk. They married in late 1751 not long after the death of his estranged 1st wife, despite the fact that he was apparently already quite ill himself and soon to die. It seems possible that he didn't want his considerable estate to go to his only immediate living relative (and heir at law) - his father's only sister Alice England or to her only daughter. Equally, as he was so ill, he may have been too easily influenced by his legal friend (and brother-in-law) Isaac Preston who had probably dictated his complicated Will. This directed the estate to Frances and, on her death, to others of their Preston family in the first instance - rather than to such as his aunt Alice and her family, or to any more distant Jermv relations (legitimate or otherwise) - if any existed.

      If William did have an illegitimate son (or daughter) - with any later attempted claims on his vast estate arising as a consequence - this last minute marriage would seem well designed to thwart same. His 2nd wife thus inherited everything on his death in February 1752 and held same until her own death - which was not until 1791. She soon re-married (an M.P.) and lived mostly in London, continuing to rent out the estates for doubtless good income during the rest of her quite long life. She had further benefited from the sale of part of the estate (Bayfield Hall) in 1766 for £7600. This capital alone would have generated about 10 times the annual income of the average no-manual worker of the day, never mind that derived from rents and profits from the rest of the estate. In any case, there appeared to be no connections here with any Norfolk Spurgeons.

      After Frances died in 1791, what happened to the rest of the Jermy estates such as that associated with Stanfield Hall ? how did it come to Isaac Jermy, the Recorder of Norwich, as of 1845 (and possibly for some years before this) ? One would expect it to have been via some intervening 'missing' Jermy - one living around the period 1760 to 1830, say. Should the estate have gone instead, after Frances, to someone descended from an earlier Spurgeon on the grounds that, for example, he was really a Jermy ? Or was the 'missing' Jermy a half-brother to a Spurgeon and instead of sharing the estate with him, somehow stepped in and usurped it all before leaving it to Isaac, who was apparently his son ? If so, why did the pedigree (and other sources seen later) seem to imply that William was the last Jermy - not Isaac or son with the odd name Isaac Jermy Jermy, Esq - as he was listed in the Directory? Was his mother a Spurgeon ?

The Preston-Jermys

      Most of the questions posed in the foregoing sections were eventually answered when we read our 3rd source material on the Jermys - Valdar's excellent monograph on the family. Firstly, William Jermy was the last of the (true) landed Jermys of Bayfield (or Stanfield). Isaac 'Jermy', born in 1789, was not in fact born a Jermy at all, but a Preston. The missing generation - before Isaac but after William- was thus not a Jermy at all, but another Preston - Isaac's father, the Rev. George Preston. This man had lived in Stanfield Hall for 40 years - from 1796 to his death in 1837. His son Isaac then moved in, as Isaac Preston, with his only son whom he had named (in 1819) 'Isaac Jermy Preston'. (Some years earlier, his father George had named his youngest son 'William Jermy Preston'). But in 1838, Isaac had his and his son's surname changed to 'Jermy' by Royal Warrant. It was for this reason that both appeared as 'Jermys' at Stanfield Hall, Wymondham in the 1845 Directory and not as the Prestons they really were - neither being related by blood to the Jermys.

      The Prestons had acquired William Jermy's estates following the death of his 2nd wife Frances (nee Preston) in 1791. As stated earlier, William's Will directed that on her death, the estate was to go to a particular one of her Preston relations and then to his male line or, failing such issue, to another named Preston relation and his male line. If both these men died before her, without issue (as they did), then the estate was to go to “such male person of the name of Jermy as shall be the nearest related to me (i.e. William) in blood, and to his heirs forever”. But, in 1791, another Preston nephew of Frances (not named in the Will) quietly stepped in and assumed ownership on the basis of certain dubious documents inherited from his father - the elder brother of Frances who had suspiciously 'aided' William in the writing of his Will in 1751.

      The reference in the Will to some male Jermy nearest related to William seemed to imply that there must have been some other male Jermy(s) alive when the Will was written that year. He or they (or their male descendants) could thus still be alive in 1791. But, by that time, 40 years had elapsed and any such Jermy would most likely be quite unaware of his potential relevance to this long forgotten Will (and his identity and whereabouts unknown to those concerned). Thus, unsurprisingly, no such Jermy appeared in the 1790s, if any still existed, to claim this inheritance and another Preston stepped in instead.

      This apparent usurper lived only 5 years and by his Will left it all to his brother the Rev. George Preston in 1796. As mentioned, he remained there undisturbed until his death in 1837 when it was inherited by his eldest son Isaac Preston (later called 'Jermy'). Both he and his only son ware dead before 1850, however, and the estate soon passed via the marriage of the latter's only daughter to a local family called Gwyn. It was gradually broken up and sold piecemeal in the 1920s. The deaths of Isaac and his son constitute a major but separate story (pertaining to the murder at Stanfield Hall alluded to earlier) and will not be elaborated in this present account - save to say that it wasn't at all like the description given us at the police station. The Spurgeons were in any case not involved in those events, as it transpired, nor was the disputed inheritance directly relevant to same.

      Our next concern was to determine whether the Spurgeons apparent belief in some right to this estate was based on a suspected connection with the original, true Jermy family - e.g. via John Jermy or his son William of the Bayfield line - or with its later Stanfield extension - the Preston family - a further complication we could do without . Nothing thus far indicated any link with either family of course - only a reasonable suspicion concerning the paternity of James Spurgeon 2, whose baptismal record c1798 was oddly missing. In our new understanding of the situation, it would have to be either Rev. George Preston or his elder brother (the earlier Isaac Preston (d. 1796) from whom he inherited, who conceivably might be the appropriate, if unrecorded, father of this James - for example, through an irregular liaison with Eunice Grice - before she married James 1 in 1796. Interestingly, later Census records did show James 2's age to be more consistent with a birth in 1795 than the 1798 we had been assuming. We should possibly have been seeking evidence of same under the name Grice rather than Spurgeon.

      Otherwise, with no connection yet apparent in terms of these particular Bayfield - Stanfield Jermys (or Prestons), we might next have resumed our more general search for a link by way of the Yarmouth, Aylsham or North Walsham possibilities - previously thwarted. However, our subsequent wider readings about the Jermys (in Palmer, Valdar, our Pedigree and certain newspaper accounts of the Preston-Jermy murders) had pointed increasingly to the other major branch of the family in Norfolk - formerly seated at Gunton. Certain scattered elements of this line apparently still existed c1720-60 or so. Quite possibly, we thought, it would be one of these who was implied by William's 1751 Will or, by 1791, one of his male descendants ? As Gunton was near both Walsham and Aylsham and some of this line had apparently become connected with Yarmouth, we would by investigating the Gunton line be resuming some of our original focus in any case, albeit with more specified Jermys now in mind.

The Gunton Branch

      The Gunton estate had been sold in 1676 by the eldest son of that line, Francis Jermy, to cover mortgages raise on it by his now deceased father. Francis then lived for a time in and near Norwich and, by 1700, had two daughters but no sons, before moving to London. His younger brother John Jermy had settled in Yarmouth and also had issue about this time, including two sons -Jeremiah (d. 1754) and John Jnr who was still alive that year. Their uncle, the Rev. Anthony Jermy (d. 1723) had remained at Gunton - having the living of the church there. He also had two sons living in the early 1700s - Francis (who settled in North Walsham where he died in 1756) and John who remained at Gunton and was buried there in 1744/5. These 4 sons of the Gunton line seemed to offer more possibilities for discovering some link between the Jermys and Spurgeons than did the soon-to-cease Bayfield line.

      We thus requested the Gunton register first to see what, if anything, it might reveal -before seeking those of Yarmouth or Nth. Walsham, etc. The register began only in late 1723 when a new Rector began his tenure there following the death in September that year of Rev. Anthony Jermy, the previous incumbent. The latter's burial was registered in the new book retrospectively, however, as its first entry. But no other events of 1723 were registered. They, and those of previous years, would have been registered in an earlier register book which, unfortunately, appears to have been lost or stolen. Its prior existence is confirmed by references to it by Rev Jermy when completing his Bishop's transcripts in the 1690s, although these were themselves rather intermittent and few. The earlier register would no doubt have detailed much more about the Gunton Jermys and may have been useful.

      But, before examining the later register in any detail, fate once again intervened in our favour. Incredibly, just as with the Hethersett register, someone had been there on the same quest before us - by about 90 years! For tucked between the front cover and the first page was another old letter - and this time it was dated. It read:

                                                                                                      London. July 22 / 95                                                                                                                                                               No. 8 Pennington Blds
                                                                                                      Pennington St. St. Georges E
                  To the Revd Charles Heath              
                       Gunton Rectory
                  Revd Sir -
              

     After again acknowledging our incredible luck, we wondered where James Spurgeon could have obtained such detailed knowledge about what seemed - finally - to be our elusive missing link' - one Sarah Jermy. That is, the exact date of her death, her age then, and thus her year of birth. How unfortunate that the latter event would be just too early to be entered in the only remaining Gunton register. Who was her father we naturally wondered ? Nevertheless, it now certainly appeared that there was some basis to the family story. But our link, Sarah, was not as we had anticipated, married to one of our earlier Spurgeons - i.e. c 1745, say. She was, rather, married to a James Blogg - as of 1771, at least; possibly it was a second marriage ? Was she married first to a Spurgeon ? Or did she and James Blogg have a daughter who did so a generation later ?

     Significantly, the register showed that a number of Bloggs did live in Gunton and were buried there in the 1720s and '30s. These entries had, in fact, been extracted by the Rector in response to James' letter. For on the reverse of this was jotted down (in faded pencil) the following Jermy and Blogg entries:

                                                  Sept 9 1723         Anthony Jermy, Rector     Brd.

     We later examined the Register further and confirmed all these entries and ascertained that there were no others of relevance to and beyond 1800, including any Spurgeons. Thus Sarah and James Blogg neither married nor were buried in Gunton although, conceivably, one or both may have been born there c1720 to '23, say. As she was a “native of Gunton”, apparently, the fact that there were a number of Bloggs there in the 1700s suggests (at least) that she may have met James Blogg there, but married elsewhere in the general area. Blogg was not that common a name and a cursory check of other Norfolk parishes showed very few. This tended to support the idea that this girl Sarah Jermy (and thus her father) did derive from this Gunton branch of the family.

     From where, one wondered, did James Spurgeon get his information on this couple ? And how did Sarah relate to the Spurgeons and for that matter, to the landed Jermys ? Did she and James have a daughter, or granddaughter, who married a Spurgeon (as suggested above as one explanation) ? If so, this would be about 1765 or so (for a daughter) or c1795 (for a granddaughter). These dates fit quite well for the estimated times of marriage of James l's father (James or William) or of James 1 himself, respectively. But the former appear to have married Elizabeth Nixon and Sarah Alexander and the latter Eunice Grice. Possibly therefore Sarah was first married to an Alexander or possibly she was nee Blogg ? We seemed to be nearing a solution concerning the link between Sarah and the Spurgeons yet it somehow remained elusive. This is considered further below. First, we may consider the origin of Sarah herself.

On the Origin of Sarah Jermy

     Our recent readings had at least allowed us to place the only two Jermys noted in the Gunton register into the wider context of this branch of the family as a possible source (from its 'scattered elements') of our elusive link. It seems that when William of Bayfield died in 1752, there were in fact 3 male Jermys still living - as mentioned above - derived from the Gunton branch, the Bayfield's 'cousin' line. Both descended in parallel from a distant common ancestor - one John Jermy, Esq. (1555-1630), a Norwich Barrister who represented the Diocese of Norwich in their legal matters. He purchased both Gunton and Bayfield, leaving them to his two sons - Francis and Robert, respectively. William descended from the latter man and with his death in 1752, ended that branch of the family. Of the 3 Jermys of the Gunton line still alive that year, one (Francis) was the elderly attorney living in North Walsham without heirs who died in 1756 in poor circumstances. Another (Jeremiah) was a shipwright in Gt. Yarmouth with no sons. He died in 1754. Finally, there was his brother John Jermy (bn 1692), of no known trade or profession, whose date and place of death are unknown. He probably died in the 1760s. William had left this man (his 4th cousin) a token 5 Gns. in his Will. He had no known children but if ever there were any later (true) Jermys with a claim to the Jermy estate, they would seem now to have necessarily derived from either this obscure and possibly last certain Jermy or from the other John Jermy, the son of Rev. Anthony, who had died in 1745. [Note: at this stage, one was not yet aware of the second family of the Francis Jermy who had moved to London around 1700, although there was unlikely to have been a link via that family.]

     If James Spurgeon did not derive from one of the Prestons as described earlier, he would seem to relate instead (via Sarah Jermy) to one of the Gunton Jermys - since William's own Bayfield line had no known comparable sources (assuming no irregular issue from William or his father). In view of the early deaths, without heirs, of the two Prestons named by William as his 1st-choice beneficiaries, the possible existence in 1791 of some Gunton-derived Jermy as, for example, Sarah' s father or his heirs, takes on added significance. It now seems quite likely that there was indeed some basis, some 'raison d'etre', for the old family story - despite its vagueness and uncertainty.

     Our next step was thus to learn more about the union of Sarah Jermy and James Blogg. Where and when did Sarah and James meet, marry and later live, we wondered ? Their marriage would be expected around 1742-'48 but the later register for Gunton unfortunately showed no such entry there. James Spurgeon's letter gave no indication of where they had lived nor where Sarah was buried, or how he himself may have been related to her. James left the Norwich area for London in the 1870s - apparently conveying with him incomplete stories concerning property back in Norfolk which somehow involved a link between an earlier member of his Spurgeon family and one Sarah Jermy - a native of Gunton, as be understood. His later letters of enquiry back to Norfolk and the even vaguer stories passed down to his descendants have served to maintain ideas about this link. There was however one clue which might help us in obtaining evidence about Sarah and her family. This was the reference in the letter to uncertainty regarding the name of her father; ie was it a John or Jonathan Jermy ?

     There was, as mentioned above, a John Jerrmy in Gunton in the early 1700s, the 2nd son of Rev. Anthony Jermy. He died in 1745, of unrecorded age, but could have been of an appropriate age to father Sarah there in 1723, although may have been a little older then than would seen ideal (being born around 1675, apparently). This would apply also to the elder of the two Gunton-derived John Jermys of Gt. Yarmouth (d. 1737). His younger son John, however, was born in 1692 and would thus be a more suitable age to have fathered Sarah in 1723. But neither man seems to have had any contact with the old family seat at Gunton, of where Sarah was said to be a 'native'. However, such contact was certainly not impossible and we felt that this explanation of Sarah's link to the family must be kept in mind. No Sarah Jermy was baptised in Yarmouth at least - around 1723.

     On the face of it, therefore, the more likely candidate for any Gunton-derived father for Sarah would be the John Jermy who was buried there in 1745, with one of the Yarmouth Johns being a less likely candidate. There was however no direct evidence. The other alternative was to consider the idea that a Jonathan Jermy may have been Sarah's father. This has the advantage, at least, that this particular forename was much less common amongst the Jermys than was John. On the other hand, it was not a name that was known to be used by any of the landed branches of the family. And none of those with the name 'Jermy' who can not be traced back to one of the former landed lines, usually within a generation or two, can be said with any certainty to actually be derived from this family. Rather, they appear to be derived instead from one of the many lines of those whose surname was originally more correctly represented by the name 'Jermyn' and its variants. But this name was often altered to Jermy by church incumbents and other officials (just as true Jermys were sometimes recorded in error as Jermyn). Thus, if there were any Jonathan 'Jermys', they may well have been in reality derived from one of the many Jermyn families in Norfolk whose original name in the 17th century and before had been altered - often unbeknownst to them - to Jermy.

     By this point in our searchings, we had become aware of the very useful Mormon genealogical index. This listed, alphabetically, large numbers of baptism and marriage registrations, over several centuries, arranged by county. By looking up names like Jermy, Jarmy, Jermyn, Jarmin, etc. as well as Blogg, it was possible to discover which parishes had most representatives of these two families. This could suggest areas to investigate for possible clues concerning, for example, where Sarah and James had married or lived, or where any Jonathan Jermys (or Jermyns) may have lived. Certainly, there were a large number of Johns (over 50) with one or other of these names (and their variants) scattered over many parishes in Norfolk. There were some Jonathans also, but only 9 and these were confined mostly to one small area of sout-east Norwich - in the parishes of St. John de Sepulchre, St. Michael at Thorn and St. Julian.

     Before following up on these entries, however, we first made an important discovery concerning Sarah's marriage. And, happily, this proved most compatible with what we were learning about the location of these few Jonathan Jermys. This happened while we were visiting Stewart Valdar to look at his extensive range of material on the Jermy family. In a list of Jermy marriages we spotted one for a Sarah Jermy to a James Blogg - dated the 14th Feb. 1768 - in St. John de Sepulchre, Norwich! A later check confirmed that this entry was in the Mormon index also where, eventually, we may well have spotted it. But it was a most exciting and useful early find nevertheless.

     But the year of Sarah's marriage quite perplexed us. We were expecting it to be nearer to 1745 -'50 when, as we understood, Sarah would be an appropriate 23 or so. In 1768, she'd be about 45. And assuming she was born a Jermy, it would have to be her 1st marriage. The existence of one or more Jonathan Jermys in St. John de Sepulchre, where Sarah had married, gave added credence to the idea that the father may have been a Jonathan rather than a John Jermy althouth, awkwardly, this latter name was also in evidence there. But even more significant would seem to be the fact that, as we had recently learned, one of the early claimants to the Jermy estate was a Jonathan Jermy (as described in Valdar's book). He had been a Worsted Weaver of Norwich who went to Court in 1818. What, if anything, might the Court record of this case provide us in our search for information on Sarah's origins and descendants ? What part of Norwich, we wondered, was he from - albeit somewhat later - in 1818 ? If this particular Jonathan felt he had a claim, then possibly there was after all some earlier Jonathan in one of the true Jermy (vs. Jermyn) lines and thus quite possibly Sarah would derive therefrom also.

The Claim of Jonathan Jermy - 1818

     The Complaint lodged in the Court of Chancery by Jonathan Jermy did include information pertaining to his derivation (and hence right to the Jermy estate) as he saw it. He stated that he was born on the 3rd March 1765 to an elder Jonathan Jermy, who had died when he (the claimant) was only 3, on May 4th 1768. There had also been an older brother, John, born Feb. 15th 1756, but who had died a bachelor some years before. The elder Jonathan, with three named sisters (Ann, Elizabeth and Ruth), was born to a John Jermy, he stated, but this father's date of birth was not mentioned. The latter John Jermy, the claimant's grandfather had, said Jonathan, died on Jan. 31st 1739/40. He in turn was said to be the eldest of 3 sons born to an earlier John Jermy in respect of whom no dates were given. Finally, this elder John Jermy was said to be the second and 'youngest' son of a Robert Jermy who was the ancestor claimed by Jonathan to be common to himself and William Jermy of Bayfield.

     According to Jonathan, William derived from this Robert's eldest son, another Robert, through two intervening John Jermys who were, like William himself, only sons. Robert Snr was said to have only these two sons (Robert and John) in the impressively specific and early year of 1644. The submitted pedigree thus took the following form:

     The first marriage entry for a Jonathan Jermy was dated March 18th 1754 when the bride was a Mary 'Rige'. One would assume this was Jonathan the claimant's father Jonathan Snr. It took place in St. Helen's church, Norwich, some distance from St. John de Sepulchre. It was later learned that the bride's maiden name was in fact Rice or Price (Welsh names often used interchangeably) and had been wrongly transcribed. The other marriage entry for a Jonathan Jermy concerned Jonathan the claimant himself, who married Ann Harcourt on Dec. 25th 1789 in St. John de Sepulchre. Finally, the two remaining baptisms amongst these six Jonathan Jermys of the Index concerned this Jonathan's two sons - the first on Oct. 7th 1792 (who died in infancy) and the second on March 16th 1794. Both names ware entered as 'Jonn.' in the register of St. Julian church, the usual abbreviation for Jonathan. The first one was buried as 'Jonathan Jermy' in St. John in 1793.

     The Court record had shown Jonathan's father to have died in 1768, although not where. The Mormon index does not include burial registrations but because the main parish for this family had been usefully identified by means of this index, we were now able to ask for the relevant parish register - i.e. for St. John de Sepulchre. The burial register for this parish confirmed that Jonathan Snr had indeed died there - being buried as Jonathan 'Jarmin' on the date given in the Court submission - May 4th 1768, aged 42. The burial register also showed an entry for this Jonathan's first-born, namesake son - dated Aug 2nd 1755 - in which the surname was spelled Jermy.

     We had now accounted for all six Jonathan Jermys in the Index and they turned out to be all of the one family. Jonathan the claimant's older brother John was said to be born Feb. 15th 1756 and this too was confirmed in both the Index and in the St. John register. As Jonathan Snr and his wife Mary had already lost their first born son (named Jonathan) in 1755, they could have tried this name again for this next born son, but didn't - choosing John instead, presumably after this senior Jonathan's father, which at least proved consistent with the claimed pedigree. As stated, this elder John Jermy (the claimant's grandfather) was said to have died on Jan. 31st 1739/40 - although where was again not stated. The St. John register was again consulted and confirmed this date, showing it took place there - in the name of “Jno. Jarmyn, married man”. Unfortunately, it did not give his age. That a spelling variation was again used suggested that we should examine the Mormon index for all possible versions of the name. Certainly there was no evidence in the Index under the spelling 'Jermy' concerning the births/baptisms of either Jonathan Snr. or of his father John, whose origins we very much wished to establish.

     Our first objective in searching these other spelling versions was thus to establish the place and date of birth for Jonathan Snr. As we knew he had married in March 1754, we felt he would have been born around 1730, say. However, we knew also that he was aged 42 at his burial in 1768 so a birth nearer 1725 seemed more likely. Checking through the Index, we found that a 'Jonathan Jarme' was baptised in St. John on March 29th 1724 - born fittingly to a John Jarme and wife Sarah. His age at death was probably slightly under-estimated by the informant.

     In any case, it was now clear that it was the parish St. John de Sepulchre, with its several indexed Jonathan Jermys and its Sarah Jermy marriage, that Jonathan the claimant and his immediate forebears were from. That is, these Jonathans were the claimant, his children and his forebears. Sarah Jermy would thus strongly appear to have been related to them. And, if so, how ?

     The elder Jonathan's baptism represents a seventh Jonathan entry in the Index. Two others were noted when all spelling variations had been checked. One of these was in respect of a marriage between a Jonathan Jermy and Sarah Bateman - on April 4th 1743 - and signifi­cantly, in St. John again (considering there were 34 other parish churches in Norwich). As there were no other Jonathan Jermys/Jermyns in this area at that time, this would certainly seem to represent our Jonathan Snr. He would appear to have married previously this Sarah - when he was just 19; this may explain why he was a little older, at nearly 30, when marrying Mary Price in 1754 than might have been expected, it being his 2nd marriage apparently. Support for this view is provided in a subsequent burial entry in the St. John register for (it would appear) his 1st wife: “Sarah Jenny, a married woman, aged 33, was buried Feb. 1st 1754”. This was just seven weeks before Jonathan's (apparently 2nd) marriage - to Mary Price when, unfortunately, his status (e.g. Widower) was not recorded in the register.

     The age at death and place of burial of a married Sarah Jermy immediately suggests it was Jonathan's first wife Sarah (nee Bateman). There were no male Jermy(n)s in St. John or nearby known to have married a Sarah in the period before this death. The important matter of whether Jonathan Snr and his 1st wife Sarah had any children - between 1743 and 1754 - is addressed later. The early death of this Sarah indicates that she was not the one who was married to James Blogg at the time of her presumed death in 1771.

     Our next concern was to seek evidence regarding the origins of Jonathan Snr.'s father John. There were too many John Jermys (of all spellings) in the Index to allow us to select one that would necessarily represented his baptism. His marriage - also to a Sarah - around 1710 to 1724, was one possible avenue to learn about his place of origin, but there were no marriages in Norwich at least with these names in this period - whatever the spelling. This suggested they probably married outside Norwich - in the Norfolk countryside - where the Mormon index is much less complete. The first evidence of their presence in Norwich occurs with the baptism in St. John de Sepulchre of their daughter Ann in 1722 - two years before they had Jonathan there. One might assume they would have named their first-born son John - this being his own name and that of his alleged father. If so, he may well have been born somewhere outside Norwich, around 1715-20, say.

     Equally, we would expect they would name an early-born daughter after the mother Sarah. Could this be 'our' Sarah Jermy - born in 1723, a year that was available for this John Jermy and wife Sarah ? If so, it wasn't in Norwich. As she was said to be 'a native of Gunton', did her mother Sarah return to have her there (in the ?home parish) ? This could support the idea that the John Jermy who was buried in Gunton in 1745, “son of the late Rector”, could be the father of the John who died (early?) in St. John de Sepulchre in 1739/40 and whom we have suggested may have been our Sarah's father. On this basis, the Spurgeons would link back to the landed Jernmy family (through Sarah Jermy) by way of Rev. Anthony Jermy of the Gunton line - assuming we can find the later link between Sarah and the Spurgeons. Her father would thus be a John Jermy, rather than a Jonathan, who could now be her brother. Possibly this is why there was doubt about which of these two names was her father's ?

     The link between Sarah Jermy and the Spurgeons would presumably proceed through a child born to Sarah and James Blogg who, as we've seen, married in 1768. If she was born in 1723, she would be a rather middl-aged 45 when first marrying and thus unlikely to have had any children before she died only 3 years later - in 1771. But if this were the case, how could she prove to be the link between the Jermys and the later Spurgeons ? Possibly she had issue earlier out of wedlock ? But, an examination of the St. John de Sepulchre baptism register (or the Mormon index) for the name Blogg revealed that a James and Sarah Blogg (nee Jermy) did have issue - a daughter Sarah - who was baptised there on May 31st 1768. And this namesake of the mother was followed the next year by the birth to them of a son -christened James Blogg after the father, on Dec. 17th 1769, again in St. John.

     Thus far, we have two potential sources for an eventual link with the Spurgeons and via births that could, just conceivably, have occurred in a woman aged about 46 in the 18th century. But our confusion mounted sharply when we noted that James and Sarah continued to have children baptised locally - in 1772, 1775, 1778, 1781 and 1784; that is, right through her 50s seemingly!? Also, as Sarah was living in St. John in 1769 at least (and later), this is where we would expect to have found her burial registration - dated, according to James Spurgeon, August 16th 1771. But, no such entry appears on or near this date (understandably now, as she was still having issue beyond then) either there or in any other Norwich parish. One of the later baptisms usefully recorded the mother's maiden name (as Jermyn) thus confirming that we did have the right couple.

     Clearly, James Spurgeon did not have accurate date and/or age information concerning his suspected ancestor. Where did it come from ? Its wording suggests that it was copied from some earlier written source, possibly an old family bible which, if faded, may have been difficult to interpret accurately. The 3rd child was another Sarah - baptised on June 14th 1772, indicating that the first Sarah had died in infancy (later confirmed). The next child was a son - baptised on May 28th 1775. As their 1st son was named James after the father, and had not died in the interim, this 2nd son's name could well be significant as he would quite possibly be named after Sarah's father this time. Since it was now clear that Sarah could not have been born as early as 1723, but much later, it was now most unlikely that her father could have been the John who fathered Jonathan Snr in 1724. Nor could he have been the John of Gunton we've suggested as the father of this John. Quite possibly, therefore, her father was a Jonathan, after all, and the latter one would seem to be the only candidate. And fittingly, James and Sarah's 2nd son was christened Jonathan!

     Unless James Blogg's father had this relatively uncommon name (I've found no earlier Jonathan Blogg registrations), we can be fairly confidant that Sarah Jermy was born to Jonathan Jermy Snr, rather than to a John Jermy. Her birth would now be a fitting full generation before she married (in 1768) - say about 1745 - as she was obviously a fertile young woman in her 20s and 30s during the 1770s and early 1780s. It is possible, therefore, that James Spurgeon was correct in respect of Sarah's age at death - at 48 - but wrong in the year she died. He appears to have calculated her year of birth by the subtraction of 48 from the wrong year of death (1771) to arrive at 1723. What later year of death would better fit the facts ? To arrive at our estimated birth year of 1745, we would have to subtract 48 from 1793; however, this figure is unlikely to have been mis-read as 1771. But the nearby year of 1791 may well have been so confused. This would generate a birth year of 1743, which is most appropriate.

     The St. John burial register was thus checked for the year 1791 and there the following entry was found:

The day of burial is exactly that given by James Spurgeon, as was her age at death. He had just the year wrong but the fact that he made no mention in his letter of her parish of residence or burial strongly indicates that he did not know these facts nor, importantly, had he obtained this information directly from the St. John register. Much more likely was some earlier family source, as suggested, in which was apparently included the intriguing phrase “native of Gunton” - which was not in the register.

     For the calculated year of Sarah's birth - 1743 - no baptismal entry for her is shown in either the Gunton register or that of St. John de Sepulchre (or other Norwich parishes). Wherever she was horn, however, it now seems quite certain she was not born to any of the Johns of Gunton - all born before 1700 - but to someone born about 1720 or later. When coupled with our other facts, this would strongly suggest Jonathan Jermy Snr - to whose history we should therefore now return. Where was he living in 1743 and to whom was he married ?

The Birth of Sarah Jermy

     It is recalled that a Jonathan Jarmyn married Sarah Bateman, in St. John, on April 4th 1743. The only Jonathan fitting this event was Jonathan Snr who was baptised in 1724 and was thus just 19 (unless the baptism was a little delayed, which did sometimes happen). This age could suggest that the marriage was predicated on an expected early child by Sarah - i.e. within a few months; this was a common situation at the time. If this were a daughter, she would no doubt be called Sarah since both Jonathan's wife and mother had this name. But where - not long after the marriage - was this Sarah Jermy born and baptised - e.g. about August 1743 ? (Oddly, the same name and very year of birth estimated for the Sarah Jermy we initially considered may have married, as Sarah Alexander, an early Spurgeon.)

     As stated, this baptism was not registered in either Gunton or St. John - nor, oddly, in any of the neighbouring Norwich parishes, including neighbouring St. Michael-at-Thorn - just along Ber Street. But this latter parish could hold the key to our search - and explain the uncertainty regarding Sarah's paternity. For, on the 21st April 1745, a John Jermy and wife Sarah had a daughter Elizabeth baptised there. But, there is no evidence of a John Jermy marrying a Sarah in Norwich, or elsewhere in Norfolk, at this time; only Jonathan marrying Sarah Bateman - in 1743 - just up the road. Then, in 1748, a daughter Ann was born to apparently this same couple - John and Sarah Jermy - again baptised in St. Michael. Finally, they (it would seem) had a son John baptised in St. Peter Mancroft, another nearby church, on Feb. 25th 1752. Children born to this couple in Norwich then cease.

     That neither of the two girls born to this couple in 1745 or '48 were named after their mother, strongly suggests they had already done so in respect of an earlier born daughter. One wonders if on each occasion it was the mother Sarah who went to the church to have her babies christened and when asked her husband's name said simply “Jon”, as she may well have called him, and the possibly temporary Curate (as it often was), not kowing Jonathan, recorded this as 'John'. In any case, that John and Jonathan were sometimes confused is witnessed in another nearby entry noted first in the Mormon index. This was in respect of a baptism of a son 'John' on Nov. 3rd 1790 in St. Julian - born, it said, to 'John' Jermy and wife Ann (Harcourt) - with the mother's maiden name thus recorded. But Ann Harcourt was only ever married to the claimant Jonathan Jermy (Jnr). As this was their 1st son, and both the father and the father's father were both named Jonathan, it must be concluded that the Curate or whomever got both the new-born son and his father's name equally confused and wrong; clearly both, it would seem, should have been entered as Jonathan, not John. This boy lived only 3 days and, significantly, was then buried as “Jonathan Germey, infant, the son of Jonathan Germey” on Nov. 6th 1790 in St. John de Sepulchre, this fami1y's usual burial church. This same type of error appears to have occurred in the case of the St. Michael baptisms.

     If that was the case, it becomes noteworthy that there was time for Jonathan (Snr) and Sarah (nee Bateman) to have had Sarah Jermy as their first daughter, around July or August 1743, also in St. Michael-at-Thorn. This was precisely the year of birth implied at Sarah's burial in 1791 when aged 48. Tragically, we are unable to verify this important probability as the St. Michael registers ware totally destroyed by enemy bombing on the night of July 27th 1942. And although Ecclesiastical Transcripts for St. Michael survive for most years - including those covering the baptisms for Elizabeth and Ann above - the year 1743 is one of the very few for which no such Transcripts exist for all Norwich parishes - including therefore St. Michael-at-Thorn.

     In the absence of any other evidence concerning the birth of Sarah Jermy in or near 1743, her birth/baptism in that year of missing documentation in St. Michael seems most compelling - at least if we accept that it was Jonathan and Sarah who were the actual parents of these children. Support for this view is provided by the fact that it was only after both the cessation of further baptisms of issue by 'John' and Sarah Jermy in 1752 and the burial of “Sarah Jermy, married woman, aged 33, on Feb. 1st 1754” that Jonathan Jermy Snr married Mary Price - on Mar. 24 1754 - when aged almost 30. Moreover, it is very significant that Jonathan and Mary then named their successive children 'Jonathan, John, Joseph, Mary, Susannah, Jonathan (2), and Thomas'; that is, not including a Sarah - even though this was the name of Jonathan's mother. The most reasonable conclusion must be that this was because Jonathan had already given this name to his first daughter - born to him and Sarah (Bateman) in 1743 - apparently in St. Michae-at-Thorn. And it was this Sarah Jermy who, in 1768, married James Blogg in St. Joh-d-Sepulchre and yet who, according to James Spurgeon, was somehow also a 'native of Gunton'. Possibly this simply implied that her immediate forebears were understood to be of that parish?

     James's letter thus provides the only known basis for a possible link between the Jermys of Gunton and those of St. John de Sepulchre. Because of Sarah's relationship to the claimant Jonathan, it provides an alternative explanation of Jonathan's connection with the landed Jermys - including William and his various estates. For his (or his lawyers?) view that the link was through Robert Jermy of the Bayfield branch seems unsupported by the facts. In view of this and of James Spurgeon's letter, a Gunton link now seemed the more feasible - e.g. through Rev. Anthony's son John Jermy. Moreover, there was also in the Gunton family another, little known, Robert Jermy who may have been the crucial link and, finally, yet another Robert of potential significance, also little known, and a John, were born into an earlier branch of the Jermy family - that established until about 1680 at Marlingford to the west of Norwich. Which of these alternatives, if any, is the more likely? Or is there some other answer? This is more fully discussed and analysed in terms of four theories in Part 4. Hopefully, one of these will provide our 'final link'. But in the meantime, we may further consider how Sarah and Jonathan may relate not to the landed Jermys but, with respect to Sarah at least, to the Spurgeons.

Part Three - The Link Between the Spurgeons and Jermys

The Spurgeon-Jermy Homepage