Note: To a large extent I am only the editor of this article. Most of the legwork and research for it has been done by others, in particular by Irene Makepeace-Lott, Malcolm Burbury and Liz Lane, and I would like to thank them for all their continued assistance.
1. Introduction
(Back to top)
William Burbury (1778--1852) is the earliest confirmed ancestor of the Stoneleigh Burbury family. As the name suggests, this family flourished in the Warwickshire village and parish of Stoneleigh, although later generations of the family moved to Kenilworth and further afield to Yorkshire, and even to the United States.
Click here to go to the information page for the Stoneleigh Burbury family
A tradition has grown up in the Stoneleigh Burbury family that they are related to a Burbury who went to Australia and made a fortune, and consequently tried to persuade some of his Stoneleigh relatives to emigrate too. This has resulted in efforts to identify the Australian relatives and to find a link to them. The most likely possibility here is that the Stoneleigh Burbury family were related in some fairly close degree to the Coventry Burbury family, as one of the members of this family did go to Australia. This was Thomas Burbury (1809--1870) who was transported from Coventry to Van Diemen's Land (present-day Tasmania) in 1832 and later became a successful butcher and farmer. The details of this particular search are outside the scope of the present article, but they have been covered in a separate article.
Click here to read a discussion of the link between the Coventry and Stoneleigh families
Click here to go to the information page for the Coventry Burbury family
In any case, no clear relationship links have been found between William of Stoneleigh's family and Thomas of Coventry's family, and so on the assumption that the link must have been some generations earlier, several researchers have made efforts to try and discover who William of Stoneleigh's parents might have been. Unfortunately, this matter has not been conclusively settled either, and in fact three possible candidates for William of Stoneleigh's parents have been found. This article discusses the problems that have occurred in trying to decide who William of Stoneleigh's parents were.
2. The Basis for Speculation
(Back to top)
William BURBURY married Catherine COX on 15 October 1805. The Stoneleigh parish register does not record much information on the marriage apart from the names of both parties and the date of the marriage. The witnesses were Thomas & Mary Cox. However, there is no information on the ages of the parties [1].
Evidence of William's age can be found in other records, however, including censuses and parish records. These can be summarised as follows:
| Nature of record | Date of record | Age in record | Est. YOB |
| Marriage register | 1805 | 27 | 1778 [1] |
| 1841 census | 1841 | 63 | 1778 [2] |
| 1851 census | 1851 | 73 | 1778 [3] |
| Burial register | 18 Feb 1852 | 70 | 1782 [1] |
The 1841 census gives William's age as 63 [2], which is somewhat unusual for this census, as ages above 15 were supposed to be rounded down to the nearest age divisible by five. In other words, you would expect his age in this census to be given as 60 rather than 63. Even so, I'm not sure what this might imply as far as accuracy goes. A year of birth of 1778 is supported by the marriage register for the parish of Stoneleigh [1] and the 1851 census [3], but barely a year later, his burial record gives an age that is roughly three years different, suggesting a year of birth of 1782 [1].
The four sources cited above are the only confirmed sources for a birth date for William Burbury of Stoneleigh that we have managed to find, and it can be seen that the dates are only approximate and they are in conflict with each other, although three sources (his marriage register entry, and the 1841 and 1851 censuses) give an approximate year of birth of 1778 [1] [2] [3].
Furthermore, the information in the burial register could only have been supplied by an informant who may have been uncertain of his age, and furthermore the record is, as reported by Liz Lane, difficult to read [1]. Hence the evidence would seem to suggest that William Burbury was born in around 1778.
Apart from the age, however, the 1851 census gives one more vital piece of information on William's origins, and that is his *place* of birth. Although William married in the parish of Stoneleigh and lived all of his subsequent life there, he was actually born in the neighbouring parish of Stretton on Dunsmore [3].Below is a list of William Burburys which I have located who were baptised in the parish of Stretton on Dunsmore around the years when William of Stoneleigh was born. There are a few other Williams who were baptised around the same period in nearby parishes, but -- even taking into account the fact that they were not baptised in Stretton on Dunsmore -- they can be discounted as candidates for William of Stoneleigh because they can be accounted for elsewhere. For example, another William Burbury was baptised on 6 February 1785 in Leek Wootton, Warwickshire to parents Thomas and Mary (née PERKINS) [4]. However, this William appears doing other things and marrying different people in later records, which exclude him from being identified as William Burbury of Stoneleigh.
| No. | My reference * | Date of baptism | Parish | Names of parents |
| #1 | MIS 03657 | 22 Jun 1777 | Stretton On Dunsmore | William & Elizabeth (née RUSSELL) [5] |
| #2 | MIS 03577 | 26 Oct 1777 | Stretton On Dunsmore | John & Sarah (née CLARKE) [5] |
| #3 | BOR 03593 | 29 Jun 1785 | Stretton On Dunsmore | Thomas & Catherine (née MITCHEL) [5] |
|
* The "My reference" column contains reference numbers for each William Burbury that follow a system I have devised to track individuals, in which each individual in my database is assigned a family code consisting of three letters and five numbers. The three letters identify the family grouping to which the individual belongs. The family codes used in the above list are:
So if we accept that William Burbury of Stoneleigh was born and baptised in Stretton on Dunsmore (as the 1851 census says [3]), then we can narrow down his possible parents to one of the above three couples. Following is a discussion of each of these couples to show what we have been able to learn about each one and to assess the likelihood that they might have been William of Stoneleigh's parents. |
 Figure 1 - Candidate Couples for the Parents of William Burbury of Stoneleigh |
3. Summary of the Candidates
(Back to top)
Following is a summary of the three candidate couples for William of Stoneleigh's parents. In all cases these couples have been written up in more detail elsewhere on this website, and links to these more detailed write-ups are provided.
William Burbury and Elizabeth Russell were married on 26 November 1770 in the parish of Saint Nicholas, Kenilworth. The marriage register gives William's place of residence as Stretton on Dunsmore [6]. Their son William was baptised in Stretton on Dunsmore 22 Jun 1777 [5].
Figure 2 - Family of William and Elizabeth Burbury of Stretton on Dunsmore
William Senior's origins are unknown, and his write-up has been included in the Unplaced Individuals and Family Groups section of this website. There are several possibilities for William's identification once the known details are examined, and he could possibly be a member of either the Bourton on Dunsmore Burbery family or of the Brandon Burbery family. Both families flourished around Wolston, Monks Kirby and surrounding parishes during the 17th to 19th centuries.
Click here to read more about William Burbury who married Elizabeth Russell
Click here to go to the information page for the Bourton on Dunsmore Burbery family
Click here to go to the information page for the Brandon Burbery family
John Burbury married Sarah Clarke on 15 October 1776 at Stretton on Dunsmore. The witnesses were Thomas Burbery and Mary Clarke. This was the second marriage for John, his first wife Ann (née Wolfe) having died in 1775 [5].
Figure 3 - Family of John and Sarah Burbury of Stretton on Dunsmore
John Burbury's origins are unclear, and his write-up has been also included in the Unplaced Individuals and Family Groups section of this website. The tentative conclusion I drew from everything I could find out about this John, is that he was a scion of the Brandon Burbery family which flourished around the 17th and 18th centuries in the area of Warwickshire around Wolston, Brandon and Monks Kirby. Because the conclusion is tentative, I have stopped short of drawing a solid line between him and the Brandon family, however.
Click here to read more about John Burbury who married Sarah Clarke
Click here to go to the information page for the Brandon Burbery family
Thomas Burbury married Catherine Mitchel on 10 October 1780 in Stretton on Dunsmore. Thomas was a member of what I call the Bourton on Dunsmore Burbery family. His parents are known, and a line of descent from one of his children has also been traced for several generations.
Figure 4 - Family of Thomas and Catherine Burbury of Stretton on Dunsmore
A possible problem with including this Thomas as a candidate for William of Stoneleigh is that Thomas and Catherine's son William was baptised in 1785 [5], which is several years later than the years of 1778 or 1782 suggested by other sources for William of Stoneleigh.
However, Irene Makepeace-Lott believes firmly that this Thomas was the father of William of Stoneleigh, and she cites a persuasive piece of counter-evidence to support this. The evidence is that William of Stoneleigh's son William Burbury of Crewe Farm, Kenilworth had a daughter who was named Mary Mitchel BURBURY [7]. This middle name of "Mitchel" appears in the 1851 census for Hook Norton, Oxfordshire where Mary appeared with her mother Elizabeth (although I don't have a copy of this census entry myself, I only have the reference to it from Irene's notes). The 1861 census (which I have sighted personally) gives her name simply as "Mary" [8], but the 1871 census again has her given names as "Mary Mitchel" [9].
Irene's contention is that the middle name of "Mitchel", with this unusual spelling, evokes the surname of Catherine MITCHEL who married Thomas BURBURY in 1780, and hence Mary is descended from this BURBURY/MITCHEL marriage (which, if true, would make Mary a grand-daughter of Thomas and Catherine through her father William of Crewe Farm and her grandfather William of Stoneleigh). However, an alternative explanation might simply be that there was a MITCHEL family who flourished in or around Stoneleigh at the same time as the Burburys, and that a close association between the families continued for several generations. For instance, in Irene's correspondence she also mentions that a Mary Burbury (probably William of Stoneleigh's daughter) was a witness to the marriage of James MITCHEL [sic] and Hannah HEWITT in Stoneleigh in 1845 [7].
Click here to read more about Thomas Burbury who married Catherine Mitchel
Click here to go to the top of the information page for the Bourton on Dunsmore Burbery family
4. Skipping a Generation to William's Grandparents
(Back to top)
Malcolm Burbury has suggested that the three potential fathers, William, John and Thomas, were all brothers who lived in Stretton on Dunsmore and married at around the same time. Malcolm pursued this hypothesis in order to try and determine if he could identify a couple that might have been William of Stoneleigh's grandparents.
He found a possible family grouping that supported this idea, in the children of William and Mary (née Constance) Burbery of Bourton on Dunsmore, a parish next-door to Stretton on Dunsmore. His search of the International Genealogical Index (IGI) provided the following children baptised to William and Mary Burbery [10]:
(1) William baptised 1743-09-29 at Stretton-on-Dunsmore
(2) Thomas baptised 1744-01-21 at Bourton-on-Dunsmore
(3) William baptised 1744-01-21 at Bourton-on-Dunsmore
(4) John baptised 1746-03-08 at Bourton-on-Dunsmore
(5) John baptised 1747-02-14 at Bourton-on-Dunsmore
(6) Mary baptised 1750-06-03 at Bourton-on-Dunsmore
Malcolm's suggestion was that the first William (1) and the first John (4) died in infancy, leaving Thomas (2) (bapt. 1744), William (bapt. 1744) and John (bapt. 1747) as the three brothers [11]. Unfortunately, while the above entries have been taken from the IGI, the actual parish records for Stretton on Dunsmore and Bourton on Dunsmore make rather a mess of this assumption because they don't fully match what the IGI says.
First off is the first William who was baptised in Stretton on Dunsmore in 1743. Malcolm's theory supposes that this William died in infancy, so that a second child could also be named William. However, although the baptism appears in the Stretton on Dunsmore register as stated, neither the Stretton on Dunsmore nor Bourton on Dunsmore parish registers actually have a burial for an infant William Burbery in around 1743/44 [5] [12]. This leaves the first William in a bit of limbo. Did he die in infancy but his burial was missed from the register or occurred elsewhere? Or was it a different William and Mary Burbery who were the parents? (Shudder at that thought.) There were no other William and Mary in the area at the time that know of, so for the moment I can only assume that this first William's burial has been missed somehow.
The problems reconciling the IGI entries for William and Mary's children don't stop there. There actually is no entry for a Thomas baptised in 1744, on the same date as William. What there is, however, is a single entry in the Bourton register, with "Thomas" crossed out and "William" written above. A similar thing appears to have happened with the second child Thomas, who was originally entered into the register under the name John [12].
|
Once this confusion is sorted out, we arrive at the following revised list of children for William and Mary Burbery of Bourton on Dunsmore [12]:
(1) William baptised 1744-01-21 at Bourton-on-Dunsmore We still end up with three brothers William, Thomas and John. Could Malcolm have been correct in his hypothesis that the three candidates for William of Stoneleigh's father were in fact brothers, the sons of William and Mary of Bourton? Unfortunately no, the hypothesis is incorrect. It is let down by the simple fact that a bit further along in the registers after the last John's baptism, there is a burial entry for a John Burbery [sic], infant who was buried on 28 March 1747 [12]. So John (who married Sarah Clarke) clearly wasn't the brother of both William and Thomas. |
|
Malcolm's theory can be given a further run though, if it is applied to a different family in the area. This is the family of William and Elizabeth (née GEORGE) Burbury of Brandon in the parish of Wolston, Warwickshire. This couple had the following children:
(1) Thomas baptised 1745-05-23 at Barston [10]
(2) Jane baptised 1746-05-04 at Wolston [13]
(3) Edward baptised 1748-03-03 at Wolston [13]
(4) William baptised 1748-03-03 at Wolston [13]
(5) Elizabeth baptised 1749-07-14 at Wolston [13]
(6) John baptised 1749-07-14 at Wolston [13]
Although it is missing a final bit of proof, I am reasonably sure -- in fact, I'm almost certain -- that the child John in this family was the John Burbury who married Ann Wolfe and Sarah Clarke. Have a look at the article on this John Burbury for details on this. A Thomas Burbury was also a witness to John and Sarah's marriage in 1776 in Stretton on Dunsmore [5], and this might have been John's elder brother.
|
I have very little further information on Thomas and William, the elder brothers of this John. Thomas was baptised in Barston [10], a parish in modern-day Solihull, between Coventry and Birmingham and some distance away from Stretton on Dunsmore. It was possibly close to Elizabeth's home, as William and Elizabeth were married (in the same year, 1845) in Sheldon which is also in the same area, a bit closer towards Birmingham [14]. |
|
So the three brothers of William and Elizabeth may match the three candidates for William of Stoneleigh's father. The only real problem I have with this is the identification of Thomas. Elsewhere I have made a solid identification of the Thomas Burbury of Stretton on Dunsmore who married Catherine MITCHEL as the son of William and Mary Burbury of Bourton on Dunsmore. But is this correct?
I have made this identification because essentially Thomas of Stretton on Dunsmore who married Catherine Mitchel is anchored fairly firmly in Stretton throughout the period from his marriage in 1780 through to his death in burial in 1816 (at which time he was living in Princethorpe which was a hamlet in the parish of Stretton on Dunsmore). Moreover, his age was 69 at the time of his death in 1816, which suggests a year of birth of 1747 (or maybe 1746) [5].
This is all in contrast to Thomas the son of William and Elizabeth of Brandon, an unknown for whom there is no evidence at all that locates him in Stretton on Dunsmore, the best being that his family lived in nearby Brandon [13]. Moreover, this second Thomas was baptised in 1745, which would make him a year older than Thomas of Stretton (Bourton), and although the years are still very close and the age given in the Stretton burial register may not be pin-point accurate, the best fit for Catherine Mitchel's husband is still Thomas Burbury of the Bourton on Dunsmore family.
Although the theory of the three candidates all being brothers might be a bit difficult to sustain, examining this theory has thrown up two possible sets of *grandparents* for William Burbury of Stoneleigh, and these possible grandparents may hold a key to the problem. The key is a socio-economic one -- maybe something that is not politically correct in our modern day and age, but we are not talking about modern-day families after all.
The two sets of possible grandparents -- William and Elizabeth of Brandon and William and Mary of Bourton on Dunsmore -- shared a common surname and lived fairly close to each other. In fact there is evidence in the Poor Law records for Warwickshire that the two families actually knew each other and had direct dealings together [15]. But these Poor Law records, and other evidence such as parish registers, show a fairly crucial difference between the two families.
The stories for each family have been written up in detail in their own respective pages (the Brandon Burbery family for William and Elizabeth of Brandon, and the Bourton on Dunsmore Burbery family for William and Mary of Bourton). But to summarise, references to the Brandon Burbery family include several wills, plus several men in the family are styled as "Mr." in parish register references, indicating thet they were of yeoman class. In contrast, the Bourton on Dunsmore family don't seem to have left any wills at all, and one branch of the family (descended from William of Bourton from his second marriage) was even dependent on parish charity at one stage [16]. In other words, the Brandon Burberys were a wealthy family and the Bourton on Dunsmore Burberys were poor. This is a generalisation, but for the period of time we are examining here, it's a valid one.
So how does this relate to William of Stoneleigh? Maybe it doesn't. However, we know that his two sons James and William were successful market gardeners, so were they from humble beginnings and completely self-made, or did they have the backing of capital that had been handed down through their family?
Irene Makepeace-Lott's correspondence gives another snippet of information that adds something to the socio-economic angle. Irene's cousin Dorothy Burbury of Leamington Spa told how her grandfather William Burbury of Crewe Farm joined the 'Free Church' and was cast out by the Wootton Grange relatives of Leek Wootton and went to Oxfordshire, where he became involved in the wool industry there [7].
The 'Leek Wootton' relatives were the Kenilworth Burbury family who were tenant farmers under Lord Leigh of Stoneleigh, and they were also fairly wealthy like their Brandon Burbery counterparts (to whom they were probably closely related). Hence Dorothy's anecdotal evidence suggests a link between William of Stoneleigh's family and a wealthier rather than a poorer Burbury family (i.e. the Brandon family rather than the Bourton on Dunsmore family).
Click here to go to the information page for the Kenilworth Burbury family
5. Summary and Conclusions
(Back to top)
So, what conclusions can be drawn from all this, and do we know for sure who William of Stoneleigh's parents were?
Well clearly, we don't know who his parents were for sure. The preponderance of evidence gives a date of birth for William around 1778, with one source suggesting an alternative date of around 1782. This lets us narrow the possibilities for his parents down to three candidates, all of whom lived in the parish of Stretton on Dunsmore and who had a son William baptised to them around 1778/1782:
| Name | Date of baptism | Parish | Names of parents |
| William BURBURY | 22 Jun 1777 | Stretton On Dunsmore | William & Elizabeth (née RUSSELL) |
| William BURBURY | 26 Oct 1777 | Stretton On Dunsmore | John & Sarah (née CLARKE) |
| William BURBURY | 29 Jun 1785 | Stretton On Dunsmore | Thomas & Catherine (née MITCHEL) |
Moreover, we can also narrow down the possibilities for the next generation back to the following:
| Name | Date of baptism | Parish | Names of parents |
| William BURBURY | 21 Jan 1745 | Bourton on On Dunsmore | William & Mary (née CONSTANCE) |
| Thomas BURBURY | 10 Oct 1746 | Bourton On Dunsmore | William & Mary (née CONSTANCE) |
| William BURBURY | 03 Mary 1748 | Wolston | William & Elizabeth (née GEORGE) |
| John BURBURY | 14 Jul 1749 | Wolston | William & Elizabeth (née GEORGE) |
Figure 7 shows a summary of these potential relationships in diagram form. The potential candidates for William of Stoneleigh's father are shown in bold.
Figure 7 - Summary of the Theories on William of Stoneleigh's Parentage
I suppose if I were asked about my personal conclusions on the matter of William of Stoneleigh's parentage, I would say the following.
Other related links:
