Home First Previous Next Last

EARLY BRITISH BANDYS

SUMMARY

 

With only circumstantial evidence, we link approximately 87 British Bandy family groups with our American Bandys.  The reader should use our hypotheses here with caution.

INTRODUCTION

 

The International Genealogy Index of the LDS Family History Library (IGI) contains, among other things, copies of church records of births, christenings, marriages and deaths from many countries around the World.  At the time we did our research for the first two printings of this book, the IGI contained only a negligible number of entries for Bandys.  Since that time, versions 2.15 and 3.02 of the IGI have become available which contain many British Bandy references.  We thank Jeanene W. Scott for calling our attention to this.

 

The British section of version 3.02 of the IGI contains almost 1025 entries with the last name of Bandy, or a related spelling.  Each entry consists of a date, location, and record type.  If it is a marriage record, the husband and wife's names are given.  If it is a birth or christening record, the child's name and sex, the father's name and sometimes the mother's name are given.  There are no death records involving Bandys.

 

Of the 355 unique entries which had dates from 1563 through 1760 (we did not look at any of the entries with dates after 1760), we believe that 333 entries may be grouped into 87 family groups.  The remaining 22 entries seem to us to be isolated and apparently have no connection with these 87 families or with each other.  Further, we believe it is reasonable to infer inter-generational relationships between almost all of these 87 family groups.

 

Our conclusions as to these 87 families, and the generational connections we postulate, are included in the FAMILY GROUP RECORDS and NAME INDEX which follow.  (The 22 isolated entries are not included.)  The individual data items from the IGI (e.g. marriage date) are shown with a reference number of {1244}[1].  Where our own interpretation comes into play, we use a reference number of {1245}. 

 

The IGI lists entries with almost every conceivable spelling of "Bandy" - Bandee, Bandie, Bandey and Bandye to cite a few.  The variation in spelling of the last name is apparently a function of how different recorders thought the name should be spelled at that time.  In many instances, there are multiple entries for what surely must be the same person, with different spellings for these entries.  Thus, the precise spelling of the last name is not of any usefulness in grouping the families or connecting generations.  Regardless of the spelling of the last name in the IGI, we report all events using "Bandy" as the spelling.

 

Almost all of the entries involving births are actually christening recordings.  Even though a child's christening would be some unknown time after the birth, we show the christening date in the birth date field in the Family Group Records which follow.  To ascertain whether or not a christening date was used, look at the notes for each individual.  If the christening location is given in an individual's notes, the original IGI record was for a christening and so is the date in the birth date field.

HOW VALID ARE OUR CONCLUSIONS?

 

In answering this question, we are extremely hampered by not knowing what portion of the Bandy population in England these data represent.  If a great many more Bandy "events" occurred than are in the IGI, our conclusions are pretty weak.  If these records cover a significant majority of Bandy events, then our conclusions are probably quite close.

 

With very few exceptions, all of the Bandy locations reported in the IGI are in a roughly 40 by 40 mile area extending from London northward.  Questions which arise in our minds are: Did all Bandys in Great Britain live in this area? Or did Bandys elsewhere not have their christenings and marriages recorded? Or did the records get destroyed?  Or has the gathering of records for the IGI not reached other areas which contained Bandys?  If we knew the answers to these questions, we could be more certain that our conclusions are sound, or precarious.

 

Family group records were formed by grouping christening records with the same location and father's name.  In addition, the birth (christening) dates for all the children in a family had to fall into a reasonable span of time.  Where present, a match on the mother's name added confirmation.  In addition, some family groups have a marriage record for the same parents and location plus having a marriage date consistent with the children's birth dates.  Thus, we believe that our conclusions on family groupings are generally valid.

 

When we begin to hypothesize connections between generations, however, we are on much more shaky ground - in many instances, we can easily understand an argument for a different conclusion than the one we drew.  For example: Edward and Joane Bandy christened their son Edward in 1676 in Thornborough, Buckingham, England.  In 1711, an Edward Bandy married Rebekah George in Thornborough.  It is not unreasonable for someone born in 1676 to marry in 1711, and the location is the same, but are the two Edwards the same person?  There is no record of another Edward in Thornborough at that time, although there was an Edward christened in London in 1690.  Either were of reasonable marrying age and although the locations are not the same, as we point out above, there is less than 40 miles which separate the locations.  On the basis of location, realizing that people were not as mobile as now, we concluded the Thornborough Edward was the husband.  On the basis of a more probable age at marriage, one could have just as easily have settled on the London Edward.  Unfortunately, the circumstantial evidence in many other connections is even weaker.  Examples for these weaker situations include:

1) More than one child of the same name, who, by birth date, could be the spouse in a later marriage,

2) Conversely, only one child listed whose name and birth date reasonably fit as the parent in several later family groups, and

3) Christening and marriage locations which do not match.

 

Any reader interested in the validity of a particular relationship should do more research which, hopefully, will substantiate or refute our conclusion.

NOTES SHOWN IN FAMILY GROUP RECORDS

 

In the Family Group Records, a "Note" under reference {1245} indicates the degree of certainty or uncertainty we feel with the family and inter-generational connections we show.  This use saved considerable space in the listing.  The notes used are:

(a) We feel there is a very high probability that this child belongs in this family - both parents' names and the church's name are identical.

(b) We feel there is a high probability that the child belongs in this family - the father's and church's names match (mother's name is often not recorded).

(c) We feel that there is a moderate probability that the child belongs in this family - the father's name and the shire (county) match, but the church doesn't (and there is no better fit).

(d) We feel that there is only a slight probability that this child is in this family - the father's name matches, but neither the church nor shire does (and there is no better fit).

(e) There is another family (or families) with the same degree of matching for this child.  We generally selected the family we did because we liked the dates better.  But sometimes the pick was arbitrary.  This note is always followed by reference(s) to the other family or families.

(f) We feel that there is a high probability that the husband of this marriage and the child to whom we have connected him are the same person - marriage and birth events occured in the same church.

(g) We feel that there is a moderate probability that the husband of this marriage and the child to whom we have connected him are the same person - marriage and birth events occurred in the same shire, but not same church (and there is no better fit).

(h) We feel that there is a only a slight probability that the husband of this marriage and the child to whom we have connected him are the same person - there is no geographical connection between the birth and marriage event locations (and there is no better fit).

(i) Same as (f), except for wife.

(j) Same as (g), except for wife.

(k) Same as (h), except for wife.

(m) There is another child (children) with the same degree of geographical match to the husband as the one selected.  We generally selected the child we did because we liked the dates better.  But sometimes the pick was arbitrary.  This note will always be followed by reference(s) to the other child (children).

(n) Same as (m), but for wife.

FAMILY TRADITION

 

Germane to the "Family Tradition" discussed in an earlier chapter, we make the following observations:

1) For the years we covered, there are many (we failed to count them, but we believe over 100) entries in the IGI for the name Jane Cummins.  However, none of them indicated a marriage to a Bandy.

2) There is no record of a Richard Bandy marrying any Jane, Mahala or Malinda.

3) There is no marriage record for a Bandy in the Liverpool area.

4) There is no Bandy listed with a first name of Solomon.

5) There is only one entry involving a Bandy with a Huguenot Church: Susanne Bandy, daughter of Jean and Susanne Bandy, was christened on October 29, 1718, in the Threadneedle French Huguenot Church of London.  It is worth noting that the significant Huguenot emmigration from France occurred immediately after 1685.

 

The absence of any data substantiating the tradition does not disprove the tradition, of course.  However, failure to find anything related to the tradition further increases our skepticism of it.

1795 RICHARD

 

On September 30, 1780, in Bedford County, Virginia, a Richard Bandy was jailed for his Tory sympathies.  (This was probably 1795 Richard, but could have been his son, 1815 Richard.)  In either case, we interpret this as indicating that 1795 Richard was not only of British descent, but was probably born in Great Britain.

 

There are two christening records which conceivably could be that of 1795 Richard:

1) On July 8, 1722, Richard Bandy, son of Richard and Ann (Major) Bandy, was christened in Cardington, Bedford, England.

2) On May 22, 1708, Richard Bandy, son of Thomas and Ann Bandy was christened at Saint James, Clerkenwell, London.

 

To conclude that either of these was 1795 Richard is to do so on essentially no evidence.  However, of these two, we prefer the first because his age (73) at the birth of his last child and at his death (both in 1795) is more plausible.  Also, wouldn't it be more likely that a 58, rather than a 72, year old would have been jailed as a treason defendant? 

 

To tie the British data with our American data, we go ahead and show the first of the above Richards as being 1795 Richard.   Maybe this audacious leap will prompt some other researcher to either prove or disprove this conjecture.

AVY BANDY

 

In the chapter "Which George is Which?", we discussed Avy (or Amy or Ary) Bandy who was the parent of a George and a Thomas Bandy who were small children in 1755.

 

We find no entries in the IGI which give any hint to a solution to the Avy conundrum.

"SPINSTER" ELIZABETH

 

From Cumberland County, Virginia, Court Records[2]: On November 10, 1753, William Moss and Elizabeth Bandy promised marriage to each other.  On January 1, 1754, William broke this pledge and married Anne Toney[sp?].  In June of 1756, Elizabeth, a "spinster", sues William.  1795 Richard and his wife, Elizabeth, testify on "spinster" Elizabeth's behalf at this trial.  On September 27, 1756, Elizabeth wins a financial judgement against William, [but must not have collected].  By June, 1759, William had died and his widow, Anne, is ordered to court to show why Elizabeth should not be allowed to attach William's estate to satisfy the judgement.  There is no further record to indicate the eventual outcome.

 

There are a number of Elizabeths in the IGI data which conceivably could be "spinster" Elizabeth[3]:

1) On April 21, 1717, Thomas and Sarah Bandy christen daughter Elizabeth at Thornborough, Buckingham.

2) On February 8, 1720, William and Mary christen daughter Elizabeth at St. Peter the Great, Chichester, Sussex.

3) On January 28, 1727, Edward and Rebeckak christen daughter Elizabeth at Thornborough, Buckingham.

4) On July 9, 1727, William and Elizabeth christen daughter Elizabeth at Wootton by Bedford, Bedford.

5) On December 28, 1733, John and Frances christen daughter Elizabeth at St. Alban Wood Street, London.

6) On November 27, 1737, John and Susan christen daughter Elizabeth at Saint Dunstan, Stepney, London.

7) On August 20, 1738, William and Elizabeth christen daughter Elizabeth at Wootton By Bedford, Bedford.

8) On May 6, 1739, John and Ann Bandy christen daughter Elizabeth, at Drayton Parslow, Buckingham.

 

The above Elizabeths would have been 37, 34, 27, 27, 21, 17, 16 and 15 respectively at the time of the 1754 jilting.  We might, somewhat facetiously, reason that because their time was growing short, the four older Elizabeths would have been more incensed at being rejected and therefore are the likely candidates.  However, the fifth Elizabeth seems to us to be of the most probable age.  Coincidentally, in 1989, when we discussed the "spinster" Elizabeth court records with Richard Couture, Professor of History at Longwood (Virginia) College, he ventured that he would think from the nature of the case that Elizabeth was 18 to 22 years of age at the time.

 

 

Because 1795 Richard testified on "spinster" Elizabeth's behalf, it seems reasonable that there was some kinship here.    IF, and it is a big if, our interpretation of the IGI data is correct, each of the above Elizabeths had the following relationships with the 1708 and 1722 Richards.

1) 1717 Elizabeth is related to neither Richard.

2) 1720 Elizabeth is a first cousin to 1708 Richard.

3) January 28, 1727, Elizabeth is related to neither Richard.

4) July 9, 1727, Elizabeth is a second cousin of 1708 Richard.

5) 1733 Elizabeth is a half-first cousin to 1722 Richard - they had the same grandfather, but different grandmothers.

6) 1737 Elizabeth is a first cousin to 1708 Richard.

7) 1738 Elizabeth is a second cousin, once removed, to 1708 Richard.

8) 1739 Elizabeth is related to neither.

 

Constructing the inter-generational relationships from the IGI data is a speculative venture, at best.  In many instances, there are more than one interpretation with essentially equal probabilities.  It is possible, using alternative, essentially equal, connections to conclude the following relationships:

1) 1717 Elizabeth cannot be reasonably connected with either 1708 or 1722 Richard.

2) 1720 Elizabeth could have been a half-first cousin to 1722 Richard.

3) January 28, 1727, Elizabeth could have been a second cousin to either Richard.

4) July 9, 1727, Elizabeth could have been a second cousin to 1722 Richard.

5) 1733 Elizabeth could have been a second cousin to either Richard.

6) 1737 Elizabeth cannot be reasonably connected in an alternate interpretation.

7) 1738 Elizabeth could have been a second cousin, once removed, to 1722 Richard.

8) 1739 Elizabeth could have been a second cousin, once removed, to either.

 

July 9, 1727, Elizabeth appears to have been married in 1747, and, if so, would not be the "spinster" in 1754.

 

The above discussion shows how tenuous any conclusions are.  Any of the above Elizabeths, or one not in the IGI, could have been "spinster" Elizabeth.  Nevertheless, having elected to show the Richard born in 1722 as 1795 Richard, we conclude 1733 Elizabeth is the most likely candidate for "spinster" Elizabeth -  and we show it that way in the Family Group Records.

 

 

Home First Previous Next Last

 

 



[1]For discussion of the use of reference numbers, see later chapter on "How To Use The Data Which Follow".

[2] Cumberland County, VA, Court Records, 1749-1762, and Loose Papers of County Court, 1745-1765

[3]Whether or not "spinster" Elizabeth ended up unmarried, she is probably angry at us for repeated reference to her in this manner.  This is a convenient short way to refer to her, however.