Introduction and Background.

       Following the apparent demise of the Jermy family of Suffolk by about 1700, most members of the Norfolk side of the landed family would not survive much beyond the middle of that next century, and none would see its closing years. [We may qualify the cessation of the Suffolk branch by noting that one branch of same continued in London - not ending until the death in 1810 of an Anne Jermy, spinster - possibly in Bath or Surrey.] The detail concerning all these individuals is more fully described in the section on the Genealogy of the Jermy Family elsewhere on this website.

       Those landed Jermys remaining in Norfolk by the mid-1700s derived from two branches of the family settled earlier at Gunton and Bayfield in the north of that county. 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, 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 man’s father (also John) - namely Francis Jermy (born 1655) and his younger brother, another John Jermy, (born 1658). (They had two cousins of these same 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, elder son Francis settled for a time at Haynford in Norfolk where he had only surviving daughters. Around 1700, he left this family and established a second (irregular) one in London where he had three sons and a daughter before he died there in 1723, leaving no real property. The two younger sons and the daughter died in mid century while the eldest son, another Francis Jermy, died in 1781 in Leghorn, Italy, unmarried. He may have been the last male of the ancient landed family of Jermy. He had accumulated some wealth there as a banker but left most of this to business colleagues in Italy and a little to the only child of his already deceased younger brother Capt John Jermy, she apparently dying without issue later that same decade - as Mrs Elizabeth Denn.

       The younger brother of Francis Snr of Gunton - John Jermy (born 1658) received very little from the Gunton estate and was set to an apprenticeship in Gt Yarmouth where he had two known surviving sons born about the same time as were Francis’s daughters in Haynford. The seeming elder son, Jeremiah (born 1688), also apprenticed, became a Shipwright, married in 1718, but had no known surviving issue. He died in late 1754; his wife Mary Ann was described by him in his Will (1754/55) as his sole heir. The younger boy, 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 circumstantial evidence that he may have. He 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 of Bayfield. With his brother Jeremiah, he voted in the Yarmouth elections in April 1754, the 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’s estate. However, that document may have been a forgery and if so, then the last record we have of this John Jermy is his voting record in April 1754. There is no subsequent burial record for him in the Yarmouth register. It is possible that he died in 1766 in Haynford (possibly staying with his cousins?) although the identity of the John Jermy who was certainly buried there that year can not be established with certainty. However, he was then of an age when in any case his death would be expected within a few years - somewhere - for he would soon be in his 80s. [We may point out that in his Will dated 1737, the father John Jermy referred to his son John as his 'youngest' son; does this imply that he had had a first and surviving son before Jeremiah - eg born about 1683, say, whose baptism is lacking? If so, we might not be too surprised if he too was given an old testament name - as eg Abraham. This may have relevance later in this account when further reference to this suggestion may be made.]

       If the younger John did marry and have issue, it would be around the same time as William Jermy was being born in Norwich - that is, circa 1714 (to 1718), say. Any son born to that younger John would likely be called John himself - this being both his father’s and grandfather’s name. But we may recall that in his Will of 1751, William Jermy made reference to and left his bequest to only one ‘John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth’. Had John any son himself, of whatever name, we might well expect some reference to him as well. There was none. And as William’s father (also John) was often involved in Yarmouth matters, he would surely be aware of any such son and have spoken to William about him. No issue was baptised in the Gt Yarmouth area born to a John Jermy (however spelt) over that relevant period of ca 1712 to 1750, 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 may however be kept in mind. It is possible that the younger John Jermy of Yarmouth 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 otherwise.] 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 not mentioned in William’s Will though still living that year, had a son of that same name I believe who died young, as did yhre daughter Mary Ann, leaving only his wife as his sole heir in 1754.

       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 their issue, but failing the latter, then ‘to the male nearest related to William with the name Jermy’ (and, I believe, his heirs). Frances, who died in 1791, outlived those named relations, who in any case had no issue. All male Jermys descended from the senior Gunton lines had also died (the last being Francis 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 the day labourer - around 1714-20, say - could have married around 1735-45 and have a son in turn shortly after. Such a man would be about 50 or so in 1791 and thus could be then described as the male Jermy nearest in blood to William as of that year (assuming his own father, then about 75, say, had already died). However, if such a 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 estate - centred then on Stanfield Hall, Wymondham in south Norfolk - with many rent-producing farms in other parishes as well.

       This man lived only 5 years and then left it all to his Preston heir and younger brother - the Rev George Preston - who then lived at the Hall relatively undisturbed until his own death in 1837 when his elder son Isaac Preston, a Barrister, inherited. The undisturbed nature of Rev Preston’s 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 actions pertaining to the former Jermy estate during his tenure 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 a part of the Jermy estate. However, this had been sold in the 1760s - to satisfy a requirement of William’s Will - to provide a £5000 benefit to his wife Frances. She had re-married and was now Mrs Frances Michell. The later owners of Bayfield eventually pleaded a Statute of Limitations which was upheld. But in any case, Jonathan Jermy’s case would otherwise have relied on proving his claimed Jermy descent from a Bayfield ancestor, one Robert Jermy, whom Jonathan claimed was common to himself and William Jermy. This was not analysed in the court but my own efforts in that regard concluded that this perception was most probably based upon an unusual similarity in the two respective pedigrees - as to names and dates at least - if not to north Norfolk locations. But Jonathan’s pedigree led back, via Wymondham, to Hempnall in south Norfolk and to an earlier Robert Jermy who derived in fact from the Jermyn family of Hempnall, with no Bayfield connections whatsoever. The details of this 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 Jermy estates of the 18th century, whether factual or based on wishful thinking; and there was nothing in the public domain in this regard between 1750 and 1817. However, there were two or three court cases in London involving claims against an earlier Isaac Preston, William's solicitor and brother-in-law, which the local legal profession in Norfolk would no doubt become aware of later in the 18th century. It is possible 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 Jermy ancestry in Silfield in Wymondham (very near Stanfield Hall at least), developed the case for him, hoping he might make a reasonable fee. If Rev Preston was ever aware of this action of ca 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 main Stanfield parts of the estate. [Might Jonathan have learnt of claims by other Jermys a few years before? See later.] The other action(s) or intended action(s), with respect to George Preston's occupation of Stanfield Hall, may have concerned him more, and are discussed further below. We may note here that as early as 1799, he decided to christen his youngest son ‘William Jermy Preston. And, a few years later (1821), his eldest son Isaac named his eldest son in turn Isaac Jermy Preston. In both cases, one may wonder why such naming transpired that early.

Enter John Larner.

       Following the death of his 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, in mid June 1838, he advertised 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 approached by two men 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 his estate Bailiff, over the ensuing three months of that summer. 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 year, as described further below; these would usefully provide us some retrospective information about the principals concerned.

       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 must change their name to Jermy (which neither he nor his father George 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 son in 1821 - as Isaac Jermy Preston). 'Impressed', because (1) he immediately stopped the auction (this from Stewart Valdar who has Isaac's auction catalogue marked only to that point of the sale); (2) set in motion straight away the procedure to have his 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 year or two later - with the title possibly then considered ‘safe’. However, these events may be interpreted otherwise, as also discussed further below.

The Siege of Stanfield Hall - September 1838.

       But first, during August of 1838, Rush 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) 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 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 their presence there, I believe) while Larner, whoever he was, had returned to London - to keep a low profile for some years.

       The initial newspaper accounts at the time were vague as to the identity of John Larner or the basis of his claim. [To add here: first report appearing in 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 paper) entitled ‘Attack On Stanfield Hall By Mob’ - which, it said, had occurred on the previous Monday, September 24. It 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 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 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 they should proceed through the court as he was now in possession himself. He asked them to leave which they refused to do 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 - learned 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, 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 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. 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 (who is referred to later) was not involved in any of the events of 1838; his existence was unknown to the general public of Norfolk at that time.

       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 felt that it did not properly represent the situation as seen from John Larner’s point of view. He therefore wrote to the same 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, repeated a few days later in the (other) 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 whereby, on the death of his wife Frances in 1791, with her two Preston relatives named as the next inheritors having pre-deceased her without heirs, the estate was supposed 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 family that the present claimant (Larner)’s uncle, who was entitled to the Stanfield and other estates immediately after 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 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 he did not discover to the contrary for several years after 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 - had entered and disseized the family of their just rights by representing that he was the next heir in succession. He had continued in possession until his death in 1796 when he devised the estates to his brother Rev George Preston and this was not discovered until several years after he had been in possession [eg around 1812 or so probably] when 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, being in very indigent circumstances himself, was unable 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 has to be verified as it seems an unlikely claim. If she was thought to be a ‘niece’ of anyone, it would be of John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth, and a ‘great or ‘great-great’ one at that.]

       “On the 12 June last, Larner was informed 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 called upon the Magistrate, Mr 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. 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 [which his father had apparently spent upwards of £16,000 on improvements some years earlier], he sold it for the small sum of £1000 to his agent, Mr Rush, who purchased it for the 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 the man chop down the Ash tree and when brought before Mr Cann in Wymondham later that day, he 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 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 named Pearce) 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, for example, a solicitor named S.J. Cann there as well , I believe.

       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 - born around 1735-40, say, to John’s assumed son (possibly named John himself and born about 1716). This grandson would thus be aged about 50 or so in 1791, when he apparently lived about 155 miles from Stanfield - in the west of England. He likely died (possibly there) before about 1820, say. As John Larner’s uncle, one must assume that he was a brother of John’s mother - also of unknown Christian name, but seemingly of the surname Jermy (or similar). What we did’t know (at this point) is where John the labourer married (if he did) and had any such son and then where that son in turn did likewise a generation later - probably in the mid to late 1730s. 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 in the labouring classes to migrate. And for what reason? A check on the map shows that this distance brings us generally to an area somewhere within Wiltshire or Gloucestershire.

       Whoever Thomas Garlick was, he clearly had a good grasp of John Larner’s case and must have been 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 his claim depended. One would assume that as he knew that much about it all, he would have know these facts as well - including where they 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 connection with John Larner, nor show any address from whence the letter came.

       No more is heard about the siege until after the Assize hearings in 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. [Thomas Jermy was never a part of these proceedings.] 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].

       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 WR Cann on Oct 1 1838 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 that “…I can not see to write 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, the younger one having aided Larner in one of the ‘break-ins’, said the Stanfield Cook, John Carr. There was also a Richard 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 refused it. [As mentioned, no Thomas Jermy was similarly examined at those Assizes.]

       As discussed above, Preston later re-purchased the Hall from Rush for the same £1000 figure and he and his family moved in by 1840. After serving their sentences, John Larner and Daniel Wingfield returned to London to keep a low profile for most of that next decade. The claim to the former Jermy estate at Stanfield Hall and its uncertain basis was thus to recede into obscurity, possibly for ever, as far as anyone was then aware. 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.

Who was John Larner of London ?

       Because he put his London address - at 18 Cross Street - on the Handbills he distributed in 1838, we have for example the opportunity to seek any information on John Larner as provided in the Census of 1841 - the first one to show personal information (assuming he hadn’t move in the meantime). It would be useful for instance if we could discover where and when he was born. Was it in the west country? To whom and where was he married ? And where did they live when any children were born ? 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. There was another one 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 and 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 occurring where it meets that latter street. Just across from there a Shaftesbury Street is almost a continuation of Cross Street. This small 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 were only shown for adults to the nearest 5 years 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 Thomas would be her last-born - when she was about 42, say. Any older children 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 was born in the present county of residence. All three of these Larners were thus shown in 1841 as born ‘in Middlesex’ - ie essentially in London. Next door, at No. 17, there was another Larner family - one William Larner, aged 40+, a Greengrocer and his wife Anne, 50+, both shown as born in Middlesex as well. Might he have been John’s younger brother or just a coincidence ? We can’t say.

       So, we haven’t learnt 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) was probably born about 1760-65, a considerably younger sister of Larner’s uncle, whom we’ve calculated would be born somewhat earlier - around 1735-40. Possibly she was born to a second marriage of their mutual father - suggested to be a John Jermy possibly - born about 1715-17. All this is based on estimates of course, that could be 5 or more years out, with any effects being amplified over later generations.

       We may also enquire about Daniel Wingfield. Who was he and what was his connection with John Larner ? Well, we see from the Assize report at the PRO that he lived near to 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 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 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 shown at No. 33. It thus appears that Wingfield was simply a local shopkeeper living around the corner from Cross Street and known by John Larner who could provide the literacy and general advice he could offer after hearing Larner’s story. Less likely but still possible, Wingfield could have originated in the same district as Larner (whether elsewhere in London or 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.

       The next Census - for 1851 - should show the actual parish of birth for John Larner - and for his wife Mary. But sadly they were no longer in the same house nor in that immediate district at that later date, so this avenue was blocked (for the time being at least) as far as learning any more about his origins. We may recall however that in (just) one of the newspaper accounts about the 1838 siege, it was mentioned that besides ‘friends’ helping him, there were several relatives. 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). There were a few Larners in Norfolk but not in the south of the county and none of those named were of that family. Possibly these relations were in fact ‘in-laws’ therefore - ie relatives of his wife Mary ? But the usual indexes show no marriage locally for a John Larner - ca 1805-30. And why would he be in Norfolk so early in the century - to meet and marry his wife ? Or did she go to the London area then (but why?) and somehow meet Larner there ? This seems unlikely also. And when the London area indexes are examined, we again find no marriage in the relevant period between a John Larner and a Mary there.

John Larner’s Family.

       However, those indexes did provide our next clues at least. For several interesting baptisms were found for issue born to this couple in London. And we know that the couple concerned was indeed the relevant one - as is revealed in two of the following baptisms shown below:

       The inclusion of the middle name Jermy for two of the above sons (the first 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 - with the John Larner concerned being the one who appeared at Stanfield Hall that year. The Thomas Jermy Larner born in 1831 would be the Thomas noted on Cross Street in 1841, aged 9. That Mary had another child - in 1834 - suggests that she was probably born nearer 1789 than the ca 1785 of her husband and was thus likely about 44 or 45 that year.

       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. These provide both the dates of birth and of 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 only 7 months apart within the same year would seem to indicate transcription errors were made between completing the rough and final registers - possibly complicated by the need to begin new registers on January 1st. 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 that year (a street in the City still there today, just above the Thames and not that far from the Tower).

       If Mary was born about 1789, she could have married John around 1810 and thus have had a first born (?son) later that year. One could reasonably suggest that such a first son would likely be called John, with only a second one named Charles or whatever. But where they married and had such a first born John (if they did) we are presently unaware - possibly due to that very inadequacy in register keeping around those years. He likely died in infancy as they named a much later son John in 1834. The choice of Charles is not immediately understandable nor at this point, James (shown as born 1 Oct 1814). By 1817, the family lived a little further west - on Old Fish Street Hill in St Mary Somerset (below St Paul’s Cathedral) when John was described as a Labourer. We might have expected another child born to John and Mary in about 1820-22 (as a second Charles, 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, aged 36, a Policeman; his 1851 Census entry can be sought.]

       By 1824, they have 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 1824 and 1834 - although appeared to move between there and St Martins near Charing Cross (north of the river) 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, they appear again on Saville Place, Lambeth at the baptism of Mary Eliza with John now an ‘Intermediate Brewer’. They then re-appear across the river 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 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 Alexander.)

       It would appear that John and family then moved to the City Saw Mills area of Shoreditch within the next 2 or 3 years (ca 1836, say) - possibly because he obtained a job as a Baker in that area - after which he then appears with new neighbour Daniel Wingfield at the auction in Wymondham, Norfolk - in June 1838. We must presume that because of the earlier claims 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 of that upcoming auction - as advertised in the Norwich papers. This could have been some solicitor (as Mr Francis of Norwich) or just one of his apparent relations who resided in the area. After their consequent activities there that summer and their subsequent spell in prison, they return to Shoreditch and, one might reasonably presume, never to be heard of again.

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 in crowded Thames-side parishes of pre-Victorian (ie Regency) London, already married and having issue regularly between about 1812 and 1834, with a wife Mary, before settling further north near the Regent Canal in Shoreditch in the mid-30s - an area that was still lower working class. He was illiterate but had gained the support of a local shopkeeper to help him argue his case which we understand (from Garlick) he would have learned about from his mother and uncle earlier in the century, one or both having apparently lived somewhere in the west of England - although for how long we are uncertain. They were probably now dead. We also don’t know when, where and to whom he married - probably around 1810/11 - but we do know that he had relatives in south Norfolk and if these were in fact ‘in-laws’ (there were no Larner or Jermy relations of Norfolk helping him in 1838), they could well be his wife Mary’s people. However, as we would normally assume, until shown otherwise, that his claimed descent from a landed Jermy family would be by way of some Jermy family of Norfolk (despite an uncle happening to live, possibly for a time only, in the west of the country some decades earlier), we would quite reasonably assume that his own blood relations could well be of some local Jermy family as well. Indeed, how else would he have come to meet and marry a local girl (as it appears he did)? Finally, and crucially, we know that he included the name Jermy as a middle name for at least two of his sons. He did this not long after Rev George Preston and his eldest son Isaac had, respectively, done the same thing. It seems most unlikely however that he would have known about those latter name choices - 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 - possibly because he was convinced by his mother and uncle about that - which may imply they were, somehow, also aware of the contents of William’s Will from at least by that time (ca 1812), and probably earlier. And his friend Thomas Garlick was clearly familiar with the Will as well. Indeed, it would require someone like that - able to read and write - in order to become aware of such a document and its significant contents. How did this first come about, and where ?

       The foregoing on its own thus provides no clues that can help us discover if and how the John Larner we have traced from about 1812 to 1841 may have had any legitimate claim on the Jermy estate in Norfolk. The rationale of that claim remains a mystery. If we were alive at the time, we would however eventually acquire some useful additional clues towards the end of that next decade of the 1840s. For the matter wasn’t, after all, going to just fade away for eternity. Some of these clues began to emerge from about 1846 onwards, but would not be in the public domain (and so available to ‘us’) until after the significant night of November 28, 1848. Again, it would be the newspaper reports - this time both local and national - from which such information would come and, after that, from books written over the ensuing years about these same events, often adding further clues about the earlier events of 1838 as well, not always made explicit at the time. For on the night in question both Isaac Preston of Stanfield Hall, and his son of the same name (whose surnames had, as described, been changed to ‘Jermy’), were murdered - in the front porch of their 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 1799 or early 1800 in nearby Tacolneston to an unwed Mary Bloomfield, daughter of a tenant farmer, was brought up by her and her eventual husband John Rush, another local farmer, whose surname he took. (James’ putative father, the son of a gentleman farmer resident in the 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 in north Norfolk at Felmingham. Later, he acquired the farm next to Stanfield called Potash farm with money advance by George’s son Isaac Preston, about the time of the 1838 events. Rush also farmed the home farm of Stanfield itself. He was married and had several children. During the 1840s, his father, mother and wife had all died, at least two in suspicious circumstances, with James benefiting financially but avoided being charged. 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 psychopath.

       Rush's considerable debts to Isaac Preston were due for re-payment about the time of the murders and so, after forging a number of bogus agreements and bills of sale, he encouraged Larner and a cousin of his to come up to Norfolk earlier that autumn (knowing from the 1838 events of Larner’s interest and sense of injustice) in order to be seen to be interested in their claimed lands again. He then put on an unconvincing disguise one evening, dropped some notes in Stanfield’s grounds allegedly written and signed by the cousin demanding his property back (thus throwing suspicion onto him; however, he was actually illiterate and couldn’t write), and then shot the two Prestons (called Jermy) with a shot gun at close range in the Hall’s dark porch when they came out to investigate 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 which then passed almost immediately to his infant daughter who eventually took it in marriage to the Gwyn family. After including the name Jermy when naming several of their sons and grandsons (as insurance?) the estate was eventually sold piecemeal out of that family by the 1930s.

       From the newspaper accounts of the murders and associated events of 1849, and the later books written about it, we learn more of the background of both John Larner and now this cousin - one Thomas Jermy (never mentioned in 1838/39) - 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 claims on the estate. 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 already done), but we shall resist this for the moment.

       One of these 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 district in which he lived around 1838-41. Before locating him on Cross Street in that latter Census year, I had come across this small street and while there was no Larner family there, I did note that one of the families there then 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 a Larner family and noted that, while John Larner may have resided there just two or three years before, he again wasn’t there for that next Census. But the family I had vaguely recalled living there in 1841, was still there. I show these entries below - with that for 1841 first, followed by that for 1851:

The Pearce Family

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

       The surname Pearce had been noted in the Norwich papers at the time of 1838 riots - there being 6 of this name 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 was actually baptised in Swainsthorpe church that year. (Robert Pearce, one of the 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 significantly, the daughter Caroline was seemingly born two years earlier - in 1833 or ‘34 - in Lambeth - 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 15 years or more - from about 1832 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. 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 had an even earlier Rachel baptised in Stoke Holy Cross in 1827, who died in infancy.)

       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 his wife Mary. Was she born Mary Pearce - as a sister to such as Robert and James Pearce of Swainsthorpe? The following was found:

       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; William 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?

       Of greater interest however is the presence in this family of a Mary Pearce, baptised in early 1790 (and conceivably born late the year before). 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 - and accounted for them later living in London with her brother James’ family. While the various inter-related relatives who assisted Larner in 1838 (with names like Pearce, Wright, Browse, Roberts, Aldred, etc) would be expected to have married over the preceding decades in many of the 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 Jermy family herself originally and there were Larners in Norfolk as well. 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 a son a 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 ? Or did Mary go to London herself - to find work as a servant, say - and meet John there ? After all, his 1841 Census showed him to be in born in Middlesex and so our idea of Mary marrying a local Norfolk Larner is to that extent further unsupported (assuming the validity of the enumerator’s ‘Y’s (for Yes) when ticking off where born). And a London locale for John and even his Jermy mother earlier at least proves consistent with what was described about his Jermy cousin Thomas (see below) - said to be a Gardener of Tooting - which is also in (south) London. But then we recall that Larner’s uncle (seemingly his mother’s brother and so quite possible the said Thomas’s father ?), had resided around the turn of the century at least - ‘in the west of England’. But for how long? Was he born in that distant region or had he simply gone there for a temporary period in the 1790s ? Was the family not settled (after Norfolk) essentially in London ca 1780-1870, as appeared the case ?

       We should comment here on the presence in the Pearce household in 1841 of a Mary Pearce, aged 50+. Could this not be James’ sister Mary whom we’ve assumed was John Larner’s wife (living just around the corner that year)? This had proved a worry until I learned form a descendent of the Pearces that Richard Pearce, James’ brother, had married a Mary Dye (born 1791) who was a nurse who often visited her brother in London (ie as Mary Pearce) - possibly to help with childbirth. Moreover, that couple had a daughter Lydia (my correspondent’s gt gt grandmother) who referred to her ‘Uncle Larner’ whom she used to visit in London as a girl (he being her Aunt Mary’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 mother and uncle, and it would confirm our ideas about Mary’s origins as well. 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. He was aged 85 and thus born, as we already understood, in 1785. 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. Would he be there that early ? He was - at No. 48 Britannia Row. The entry read as follows:

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

              Next door, lived a Master Baker - William Rudd who came from near Ispswich - 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, although the only marriage listed for a John Larner and an Elizabeth over the following years proved to not be the relevant one. Quite possibly they simply lived together. Mary’s death certificate was now sought and she was indeed found to have 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, also of 3 Waterloo Street - and thus she was born in about 1790, as we understood. 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. [Reference should be made at a later point to fact that Larner’s recent new ‘wife’ (presumably this Elizabeth) asked Read in Oct 1848 not to let Larner know (eg via Rush) that his son (either Thomas or John Jnr) came home from Norfolk quite ill; so they must have ‘married’ earlier that year.]

       But more to the point, we now have a place of birth for John Larner. 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 general area showed a great many individuals as born elsewhere - signified by ample use of the abbreviation ‘N’. And we may note that Ringwood in Hampshire may be included in an arc that is 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’. But, 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 but had her son baptised elsewhere some time after.

       It was felt that it would be useful if we could at least confirm this place of birth by finding John’s 1851 Census entry as well. Did he already live at 48 Brittania Row 10 years before the 1861 Census ? This was checked but sadly no Larner household was found at that address then. Nor was there any in or near the Waterloo Street or Ashley Terrace areas in 1851. 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).

       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 Thomas’s uncle also], then living in the west of England in indigent circumstances, was the rightful heir to the estate”[ie in 1791]. It goes on to explain that when he learned that Rev George Preston had, five years later, inherited the estate from the wrongful usurper, this James [or rather, his son of same name?; see below] sought to have him ejected on several occasions up to within two years of his own death (in 1817) but had not the funds to see such actions through. [Interestingly, it was in that same year that Jonathan Jermy's action was first brought.] They were 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.]

       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). In this, it is pointed out that Rush was Isaac Preston’s tenant in the three farms at Potash, Stanfield and Felmingham and 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 farm but was ejected from this due to his rent arrears so went to live at Potash which he was ostensibly buying. He was also in arrears for Felminham and at the Lent assizes of 1848 at Norwich, Isaac Preston 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 action against Rush after its publication. He 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. 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 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 and one suspects that it was being prepared some time before Rush’s trial of March 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. As such, it was claimed that no Statute of Limitations could apply while any fraud pertaining to a Will remained concealed; thus such a period (typically of 20 years) could only apply as from Sept 1838 when the fraud was thus discovered - quoting the relevant Act of III-IV William IV (Sections 3 and 20). These two pamphlets apparently provided the first hints of the mysterious and concealed fraud. 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 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, from 1791 to 1817, with possibly one or two others in the interim.

       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 (through whom his cousin [ie Thomas Jermy] now claims, having brought an 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 alleged 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 (John Jermy could never have signed it) - and was concealed for that reason. The period of the Statute shouldn't have commenced until this concealment was revealed. [Oddly, the place of origin of neither John Jermy (the father or grandfather) - ie Gt Yarmouth - is ever mentioned in any published documents at the time.]

A Perspective on John Larner’s Antecedents

       It would thus seem from the foregoing (which we, the public, only become aware of after 1928 seemingly) that a John Jermy (of somewhere - possibly Gt Yarmouth if we consider William Jermy's Will and this link with his family) did have a son of that same name who, in turn, had a daughter Dinah nee Jermy, and quite possibly one or more older sons - including one (now seen to be a James Snr as revealed much earlier - in the Norfolk Chronicle of Apr 1849. He was the father of another James Jermy (Jnr) 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 his father 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 within 20 years - ie before 1811 - but given the extra 5 years, it might have been successful at anytime up to 1816 - given acceptance of a retrospective interpretation of an Act of a Statute of Limitations apparently passed many years later (ie in 1833). We may leave it for now and focus on the fact that we have at least learned some relevant names - if not their ages or abodes.

       If John Larner heard Dinah speak about her grandfather John Jermy, we may reasonably ask whether she may in fact 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 means that Thomas Jermy was born to one of Dinah’s brothers - as was the above James. However, James was himself described as a cousin (not the father) of Thomas and thus he would be the son of another brother of Dinah (ie now seen to be a James Snr) and so her nephew. He would of course also be another cousin of John Larner. The father of Dinah and her two brothers would thus be a John Jermy Jnr, described as the son of the John Jermy - the grandfather referred to. We may now construct a draft pedigree to represent these apparent but still unverified relationships:

       As far as I am aware, there was no reference in any of the newspaper reports of the 1830s or '40s 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 resided, save John Larner and Thomas Jermy then residing in the London area in early Victorian times, and their uncertain uncle having being for a time ‘in the west of England’, two generations earlier. When, some years after I first noted the rather unexpected place of birth of John Larner given in the 1861 Census - as Ringwood, Hampshire, I re-checked that for the 1851 Census (previously giving a negative result) but this time happened to proceed from lower numbers on Brittania Row (on earlier pages of the microfilm) towards the high numbers (as No. 48) on later pages. (I must have done so in the opposite direction previously and stopped when he was not found at No. 48). But on this second occasion, I spotted an entry for John Larner at one of these lower numbers - namely, at No. 5. That is, he was already living on Brittania Row in 1851, but in a quite different house. This time the entry read:

       We thus find that the younger John Larner (born 1834) is now in the home whereas he was absent in the Census of 1841 when aged just 6 or 7; possibly he was staying nearby with a friend or uncle that night. His slightly older brother Thomas (now aged 20) was however not now there - possibly living independently by 1851. Knowing that Mary Larner had died in 1847, allows John’s second wife Elizabeth (noted first in 1861) to also appear in this earlier Census - with her actual parish of birth given on this occasion, rather than just ‘Norfolk’. But, on the contrary, we now find John Larner himself shown as having been born not in Hampshire but in Oxfordshire, although on this occasion, the parish for him is, annoyingly, not given. What are we to believe - Oxfordshire (as given in 1851) or Hampshire (as given in 1861) ? Were both valid records of what he actually stated, if inconsistently, to the respective enumerators ten years apart, or was one an error - made when one of the latter was writing up their data onto official forms later the same day ? Is so, which one was valid ? Well, we had already checked the Hampshire area and found no Larners or Jermys whatsoever. What might we find in Oxfordshire ? [Before we answer this important point, it may be salutary to record another 1851 Census entry I located. 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 - to whom?); Elizabeth Larner, wife, 39, born Southampton (ie nr Ringwood?); Dinah Larner, daughter, 17, a Servant, born Kennington, Southwark (near Lambeth) ca 1834; there were also sons William, John and James in the household all born in 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 he be the son of a brother (eg William) of our John Larner, say ? Other hypotheses raced around one’s mind. This hasn’t been followed up. One has also noted that a Dinah Larner died in Thame, Oxfordshire in 1856, age and marital status as yet undetermined.]

       To return to our question: ‘What might we find in Oxfordshire?’: What we find is that, unlike the Hampshire possibility, there were Larners/Learners and Jermys/Jarmonys (variously spelt) in the south-east of that county (ie Oxfordshire) - through much of the 18th century! 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 for a long period we were unsure who was Thomas Jermy’s father until I discovered that Thomas was described as being 'of Swyncombe' in a PRO record of the local Volunteers - apparently born there to a David Germany. (The surname was spelt in the many records of baptism, marriage and burial in a number of different ways including Jermany, Jarmony, Germany and Jarmy, etc - for all members of the family there - and quite possibly not as Jermy itself until after ca 1800; the possible reasons for this will be addressed later). Awkwardly, there were also members of a family named Jermaine in the area whose name was generally spelt in that manner (more or less) who can usually be differentiated from the Jermys/Jarmonys - except with respect to an earlier Abraham Germany whose presence, if not as a member of the Jermaine family, does prove difficult to account for. Otherwise, I believe the name Jermy or its near variations does not appear in Oxfordshire or nearby prior to the early 18th century. How may we account for this ? This too is discussed further below.

The Family in Oxfordshire

       As the crow flies, the area of Oxfordshire where the Jermys and Larners resided in 1791 (and before) was not 155 miles from Stanfield Hall - ie in the ‘west of England’ - as this would bring one to such as Marlborough or beyond in Wiltshire. Rather, it was only 110 miles distant - near Benson in south-east Oxfordshire; more ‘south midlands’ or 'middle England' than ‘west country’. The main towns and villages in the area were Wallingford, Ewelme, Swyncombe, Benson, Berrick Salome, Chalgrove, Watlington and Britwell Salome. It was a flat, 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, ran from just south of Wymondham virtually to Watlington, Oxfordshire. It may or may not be relevant that the distance from Wymondham to London (100 miles and two days by coach) and thence to Wallingford (nr Berrick Salome) by same (about 55 miles and a 14 hour journey) does bring us to the above indicated figure.

       The local parish registers record many events for Jermys and a few for Larners from about the mid-1730s onward, although the names are generally not spelt as such. We may begin by noting the first event that appears to be relevant to our quest - namely the marriage on 30 Aug 1736 between a John Jarmoney and Ann Hester in Chalgrove - with both parties single and of the neighbouring parish of Berrick Salome (about 2 miles south). (It is possible John's surname was in fact shown as Germany; this to be confirmed.) Ann appears to have been baptised on 20 Jan 1716, the daughter of Robert and Mary Hester of Benson, next to Berrick. Berrick had its own church (St Helen's) and thus we can’t be certain why John married in a neighbouring parish’s church. The same Vicar may have served both parishes. [Yes, St Helen's was a Chapelry of Chalgrove's church.] We might estimate that this John would be about 21 or so - and born ca 1716. This fits well with our assumed son of John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth (possibly with a wife Ann Palmer, although this remains speculation). But we have no record of the place of birth of such a man, nor of his parentage. He likely lived in Berrick for a time before meeeting and marrying Ann - from ca 1734/35, say. How did he come to be there then, in this small rural village of distant Oxfordshire?? As mentioned, there appears to be no evidence of the birth in that general area of a boy of this or similar naming. [However, we must note that just 7 years earlier, also in Chalgrove, another Germany (an Ann) of that parish was married (to a Richard Hayward on 2 July 1729). She was baptised there 16 Nov 1705, the daughter of Abraham and Ann Germany who'd had a son Edward Germany there as well 2 years before - baptised 19 Sept 1703 - as well as daughters Elizabeth and Sarah Germany in 1707 and 1709; how confusing it would have been if in some nearby parish, he also had a son John a little later - about 1714-16! A subsequent marriage by him in Chalgrove - like that of Ann Germany - would cause no difficulties as to identities or provenance.] Interestingly, 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 their totally urban port environment?

       The Berrick register shows a daughter Elizabeth Jarmoney born to this couple and baptised on 13 Feb 1742. There was quite possibly one or two earlier children - born about 1737 and 1739, say, although if and where baptised is unknown; the Berrick register appears to have been poorly kept and/or was in poor condition with several gaps including one around 1735-40. One of these probable births (ca 1737/38) would strongly appear to be a son James Jarmony, since this fits several other facts as discussed below (although this choice of christian name is not easily accounted for). Any earlier/first born son (ca 1737) is also a good possibility and named eg John but if so, he likely died young. In neighbouring Chalgrove at the 'mother' church, Ann Germany, widow was buried that year (19 Jan). This would likely be Abraham's widow (he dying sometime before this therefore (but where buried?) since Ann Jarmoney (nee Hester) died in 1745, aged just 29, and was buried in Berrick Salome on 25 May that year. What determined the different spellings of this local surname?

       John soon re-married (as Jarmoney) - as a widower - on 6 July 1746 in Berrick to Mary Savage. Both were of Berrick and she single, I believe. They had a large family of at least 7 children (possibly 8) baptised in Berrick between 1746 and 1762 before Mary Jarmony also died and was buried there on the 8 Sept 1763. John was then approaching 50 and appears not to have re-married. Thus, just before Mary died, there were about 11 members of this family - ostensibly called ‘Jarmony' or similar - living in the small village of Berrick Salome in the middle years of the 18th century. John was very likely an agricultural worker working for a tenant farmer on land owned by absentee landlords. The children born to them (with years of their baptisms in brackets) were: William (1746 - just 4 months after they married), David (1748), Mary (1749), Ann (1751), Moses (1756), Sarah (1759) and Dinah (1762). It seems very likely that an Aaron Jarmony was also born to them ca 1761 and buried as such in Berrick in that same year. [The exact spelling of John’s surname (and hence that of the respective children) at each baptism and burial will be shown here if discovered later.] We may recall that back in Norfolk, William Jermy's second marriage, burial and Will were all of relevance around this same (mid century) time - ie as John Jarmony was having his large family in Berrick Salome, Oxfordshire - seemingly unbeknownst to William or his lawyer Isaac Preston nor vice versa.

       Leaving possible first son James (born ca 1739) for the moment, I have no information at present as to the future of the Elizabeth, baptised 13 Feb 1742, nor of her eldest half-brother William Jarmony - baptised 30 Nov 1746; if they lived and married, the latter events would be expected around 1760-70 - somewhere fairly local probably. Might Elizabeth have been the name of John's mother? The next son - David Germany (bapt 27 Mar 1748) - married firstly to a Jane Sparks in Swyncombe (some 5 miles south-east of Berrick, just beyond Ewelme) on 13 Feb 1775. They had at least two children, including a 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 Thomas Germany, baptised in Swyncombe on 22 August 1783. Jane died and was buried 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 besides Thomas between 1777 and 1795, but we have no evidence of such. The Swyncombe register also appears to have been poorly kept. David re-married on 7 Nov 1796 (I believe as David Germany) to a Grace Harbud, again in Swyncombe. They had no issue of which we are aware. David died on 12 March 1827 - having been found dead at Maiden Grove Scrubs, near Pishill, Oxfordshire (about 2 miles east of Swyncombe on the way towards Marlow and Cookham). He was an impressive 79. A Coroner’s inquest was held when he was described as ‘David Jermaney of Swyncombe’. Again, the name choices for John Jarmony’s early sons James, William and David don’t appear to reflect any older members of the Jermy family (with the possible exception of William but that is such a common name it doesn’t inspire confidence). Later names seems to reflect a certain old testament interest, but why no John?). [More on David's son Thomas is shown below.]

       I have nothing about the next child Mary born to John (bapt 14 Feb 1749) but her next younger sister - Ann Germany (bapt 1 Dec 1751 and surely more likely to be named after his mother (if Elizabeth wasn't) than after an earlier wife) - was the subject of an order dated 28 Aug 1773 (when she was 22) regarding support for a child Mary Germany she had out of wedlock when brothers Jacob and Thomas Hoare of Brightwell Salome were each fined £20 ‘…to answer for the said child of Ann Germany of Berrick Salome’. This would represent several months’ wages. Mary was born ca June 1773 and baptised 20 Feb 1774 (in Berrick) possibly as 'Mary Hoare, natural child of Anne Jarmony', but seemingly brought up as Mary Jarmony. She would later have a child out of wedlock herself - baptised as James ?Germy (spelt thus, I believe but this need confirming) on 14 Feb 1798 in Benson (but apparently born a year or more before this; see later) - she seems to have later married a John Castle in that same village - on 10 June 1800 (he then a widower, I believe). This boy, who retained the surname Jermy 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 provided me with much appreciated information about this family, around 1982. [See also the section on this website concerning the Spurgeon-Jermy genealogy in which, remarkably, a John Castle of Oxfordshire married the daughter of a 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 was then stationed, with wives accompanying husbands), shortly after which John Castle seems to have returned to Wallingford near Benson, Oxfordshire - possibly to marry, as a widower, the present Mary Germy. Did he 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 family descended from Mary Germy's son James is also detailed further below.

       The next born was a son Moses Germany (bapt 6 June 1756) who may have died young, aged 15, on 14 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 name ‘Germaine’ may have been an error for Jarmony/Germany/etc, reflecting a greater familiarity in that area with that surname, or the person concerned may not have been the Moses born in 1756. It would seem preferable that this particular spelling/pronunciation not be associated with the Berrick family (as will be discussed below). However, I also have an entry for the burial of a Moses Jarmony ca 1770/71, so he may well have been the one of the Berrick family. I have nothing on the next child - Sarah (bapt 20 May 1759). One may note here that at about 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 'mystery man' of uncertain origin, then aged about 41. The only 'labour' required in this entirely agricultural area would be on local farms.

       Lastly, we come to Dinah Germany (bapt 12 Dec 1762) - our major concern - who was therefore the ‘youngest child of a John Jermy/Jarmony (however spelt), which agrees with this description as given in Rush’s ‘Case’. Our assumption that she was likely to be Larner’s mother (not actually specified in the quote from that case) is also confirmed when we note that she was later married in Benson - as Dinah Germany - on 17 June 1784 to one John Learner. Both made their marks so the Vicar would have spelt their names as he assumed they were. A witness at the marriage was a James Germany who also made his mark. He would very likely be her eldest (half) brother - born about 1739 to their mutual father John and first wife Ann Hester. It is quite possible that John had died in about 1781 in Berrick but his burial is not registered as the local Vicar had apparently become ill and there was, sadly, few or no entries made in that register ca 1780-83, when the Vicar died. We also have yet to locate any baptism details for Dinah’s apparent son John Larner - born, according to his 1851 Census entry, in somewhere in ‘Oxfordshire’ ca 1785 (the parish sadly not shown).

The 1st (Senior) Line of Descent from John Jarmony

       John Jermy/Jarmony's eldest surviving son James Jermy Snr appears to have married 4 times. He married, as James Jermaney, his first wife Ann Floyd, in Crowell (a little to the north-east of Berrick and area) on 15 Oct 1758 [exact date?] by whom he had a namesake son James Jarmeny Jnr who was baptised 7 Oct 1759 in Benson (next to Berrick). [Awkwardly, Crowell was a centre for the Jermaine/Germaine family as well.] This younger James had a large family as detailed later. We may note here that a few years later a Prudence Floyd, likely 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, and if not to John and Dinah, then possibly to an earlier Joseph.] Ann died when still quite young - in about 1762 - and James re-married - on 7 Nov 1763 - also in Watlington (near Berrick) - to a Mary Vaughan of that town who would have raised the younger James, now her step-son. Their banns were read in Benson church during October that year. Mary would also have her own son by the elder James - baptised in Benson 14 Apr 1765 as William Jermany, who would himself later marry a Mary…….. - in about 1784 or so and have 3 children at least - Thomas Germany (1789), Martha ?Jarmony (1791) and a William Germany (1795), all baptised in Berrick Salome seemingly. (There may also have been a daughter Mary born to this couple - baptised 10 June 1792, possibly as 'Jermy' and buried in October that same year (where?). Again, this should be confirmed as it could be the earliest example of this spelling and if so, one may ask why it hadn't been used previously. The original registers may be in the Bodlein Library, Oxford, with microfilm copies in Oxfordshire Record Office, hopefully. The 1841 Census shows William and Mary Jarmy as ?still residing in Benson, both then in their 70s, he an agricultural labourer. I could see no burial for this William ca 1841-55, although the death of a Mary Jermy (possibly his wife) was registered at the nearby Wallingford registration office ca Dec 1855. The 1851 Census for Benson, etc should be examined.

       There was apparently a Thomas Garmony buried in Berrick on 10 Apr 1784 who could conceivably be an earlier, first born of this couple, who died in infancy, any baptism lacking due to the illness of the local priest, as reported in the register. {But how would such a name be pronounced?) There was a marriage later in Cookham, Berkshire, in 1808, between a Thomas Jermmy (sic) and ?Dianah Trendall that could be the later 1789-born Thomas of this family; but see also later. There was also a William and Elizabeth '?Jarmy' (married ca 1820?) who had a large family in South Weston (a little to the north) ca 1820/30s who were later accorded the surname Jarmaine (more common in that area). While it was not impossible that this William could have been the one baptised in Berrick in 1795, a later Census entry suggests that he was very likley a different William - born that same year in neighbouring Lewknor - as William Jermaine.

       James and Mary also had a daughter Mary - in about 1767 - who married one John Green ca 1787; she is referred to in James' Will. James' wife, Mary Vaughan, died in May 1770, being buried on the 24th of that month - in Watlington, her home village (where there were several Hesters and Larners then active). Dinah and her siblings had now lost a mother and a step-mother but would soon have a new step-mother. James Snr (as James Jarmony of Berrick) married his 3rd wife - Catherine Butler - ca 1770-72 - also in Watlington [details lacking] by whom he had two daughters - Anne Jarmony, who was baptised on 14 Aug 1774, and Elizabeth, baptised 1 Dec 1776 - both in Berrick (apparently) where they were eventually both married: Ann to a Thomas Hearn on 13 Oct 1791 and Elizabeth to Richard Gale on 21 May 1795. [I also have the daughter Ann baptised in Chalgrove - as Jarmony - and Elizabeth as 'Jarmay'; is this the first instance of the name being spelt not as a form of Jermany, etc? These aspects require confirmation.] James also had his surname spelt as Garmoney*, Jarmain, Jarmany and Jarmy in the 1790s - eg as a tax payer for 'occupying Widow Colling's land'in Benson. A Thomas Germany may also have occupied that same land - in 1798. Could this be 15 year old Thomas of Swyncombe or a slightly older Thomas - born for example to the William Jarmony born in 1746 (rather than to his younger brother David; they possibly both settling for a time in or near Swyncombe)and thus (conceivably) father of the namesake William born in Swyncombe in 1775 to said Thomas and wife Mary (nee Hobbs)? [There were, I believe, a number of Garmoneys or similar earlier in ?Berkshire whose name I had assumed would always be pronounced with a hard 'G' - as in Gordon - and thus never representing any of the Jermy, Jermany or Germany lines; but the possible significance of this apparent spelling for James may be kept in mind.]

       Interestingly, the Quarter Session records dated 17 June 1799 show that Thomas Hearn of Swyncombe, labourer and James ?Jermy of Berrick Salome, Higler, were each fined £10 for disobeying an affiliation order at Benson. It would 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. About this time also, dated 1800, there is a tax record for Benson in the name of a Jas. Jarmy - another early example of a 'Jermy-like' spelling of the surname. Finally, the elder James, 'of Berrick', was married a 4th time - to Susannah Fox of Benson, widow, in about 1809 - in Benson. It was in this parish church that the surname was apparently shown as 'Germy' by the Vicar just a few years before and James is also so depicted on this occasion - as James Germy. This fourth wife outlived him, dying in 1832, aged 82 and was buried in Berrick - but as Susan Jermany - on 4 June that year.

       James Snr died on 25 Aug 1817, aged 79, leaving a Will dated 29 May that same year. 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, etc. In his Will, he left his son William Jermy (spelt thus) his house, garden and orchard in Roke. To his daughter Ann Hern, he left his other house, hovel and garden also in Roke (where she now lives). To his wife (unnamed but seemingly Susannah (Fox), he left all his household possessions. Reference was also made to his eldest son James, ‘now dead’; he had in fact died earlier, in the Spring of that same year. [exact date and place?] 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, Ann and Elizabeth) 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. James was buried in Berrick on 28 Aug 1817. The Will was proved on 20 Sept 1817 at the Bishop’s Court in Oxford.

       The pedigree for these Oxfordshire Jermys is shown below. As it is too wide to place in one section, it has been split into left and right portions, the latter placed below the former. (As with other pedigree charts in this section, recent alterations and additions to the text may run ahead of eventual changes in the charts.)

       It was James Jermy’s eldest son James Jermy Jnr (b 1759) who, as far as we can tell, married Frances (Fanny) Curtyes/Curties on 5 Nov 1789 in Britwell Salome (as James Germaney) by whom he had about 12 children between 1789 and ca 1806, most of them sadly dying young. [Note: Any marriage of the later born James (1775), son of David, would have occurred much later - around 1798, say, and any issue born to him ca 1800-1820; but where?. There was a death for a James Jermey registered in Wycombe (not too far away) in the Mar quarter 1855 that should be checked out. [It now has; see below.] The children of the present James, on the other hand, were mostly baptised at the Independent Chapel on Market Square, Wallingford (across the river Thames from Benson). They were: Sarah (1789), Richard (1791; died 1792), William (1792), Joshua (1795; died 1795), Joshua (1796), Joseph (?1798), Mary Ann (1800; died 1800), Mary Ann (1802; died 1802), James (1804; died 1805), James (1806; died 1806). The two Mary Anns were buried at St Marys, Wallingford; where the others were buried, if different, I’m unsure. We may recall that in early 1817, this younger James died (evidence sought) and his father James Snr referred later that year to the 3 children of his recently deceased son James. Presumably, these were Sarah, William and Joseph - the second Joshua apparently also having died young. We may note that this couple named no son David but did, finally, have two they named James, although both died young.

       Frances left a Will herself - as 'Frances Jermy 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 having married at the Primitive Methodist Chapel in Wallingford in 1813). This was probably why Frances then resided in Reading herself after her husband James died 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, aged 32, died and was buried - on 17 Oct that same year - at St John the Baptist, Windsor. If this Joseph was Frances' son, it seems odd that she would refer to him in her Will of 1834 as though still alive (and as of Reading). Her daughter Sarah Ann had a son James Jermy Walters around 1815-20, probably in Reading, where he later married in the June Q 1848. Keeping her father's surname thus alive was maintained by this latter son when in 1852 he named his 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 in 1894 named Horace Jermy Walters, who died the next year. [These examples of the surname Jermy used as a christian name are due to the appreciated efforts of Colin Jermy as per his website.] Where Frances' son William Jermy (apparently with a family) resided in 1834 and to whom he married (ca 1815?) was not mentioned. Two trustees were named by Frances to oversee any purchase of stock with the £300. One was William Harris, the Dissenting Minister of Wallingford. 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 have any surviving son(s) ? 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 of such possible sons been noted.] The later Censuses - for 1881 and 1901 - do show some Jermy/Jermey entries in Reading possibly descended from either this line and that deriving from unwed Ann Jermany and her equally unwed daughter Mary (see below). [We may also note here 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 is yet to be determined.]

       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 origins, this man could represent the senior surviving male Jermy of the original Gunton line, as later would any surviving son he may have had. As he was born in 1792, he likely married around 1815-20, say, and have any such family (referred to by Frances in her Will) in the 1820s - before birth registrations began in 1837. Any issue would themselves then marry around the 1840s and such registrations can be checked in this regard. One can also check for any subsequent death of such a William Jermy in the Berkshire area, as well as in London (to try to gain some idea where this family, if surviving, may have possibly settled). Reading parish registers for the 1820s can also be checked. [I later found no relevant Jermy marriages in the 1840s/50s, nor a death registration for this William in Berkshire ca 1837 to 1860; they 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). One or more of these may well be of other members of the original Oxfordshire family and will be mentioned in the appropriate sections below if so confirmed, as will other Jermy events in these lines noted over this same period. It is interesting to note that until the early 1860s, the Jermy civil registrations are about 90% or more for Norfolk and hence, except for a few in east and north London (probably also derived mostly from Norfolk), most of the remaining few can reasonably be related to the Oxfordshire family, several having settled in south-west London. This split can probably be related to the respective train terminals in these areas, with those found in say Marylebone and St Pancras being more indeterminate.

The 2nd Line of Descent from John Jarmony

       We have traced out the senior line descended from John Jermy/Jarmony’s eldest son James (Snr). The latter's next son, from his second marriage, was another William Jermany who, as mentioned, married a Mary ca 1783-88 by whom he had at least two sons baptised in Berrick - Thomas Jermany (1789) and William Jarmy (1795) in Berrick - as well as a daughter Martha Jarmony (1791). The 1841 Census shows this William (as......) and his wife Mary still resident there, he an agricultural labourer. But we seem to have no data on their two sons which, if found, can be placed here:......]. [We must note the spelling of this William's surname at his baptism on 15 March 1795 (and/or of his parents); this should be confirmed as it may be the first example in Oxfordshire of its spelling as or similar to Jermy - along with that of Elizabeth Jermay at her marriage also in Berrick on 21 May that same year. Could these new spellings relate to any news filtering down to this family regarding the death in 1791 of Frances Michell in London, and its implications?] If the similar-aged cousin William Jermy (born 1792) of these latter two sons did not survive or have a son himself, then one or the other of these two brothers, or their son(s), become the next in this line of seniority. But where might they have married and have such issue - again around 1815-20 or so ? James Snr appears to have had no male issue from his 3rd or 4th marriages. We also have no information on his younger half brother - yet another William Jermany (born 1746). He either died young, never married or left the district. No subsequent issue from him is apparent although we must note that Thomas Germany/Jermy of Swyncombe named his first son (of whom we know) either Samuel or William, but not David. This is touched on below.

The 3rd line of Descent from John Jarmony

       The next son of John Jarmony was David Germany (bapt 27 Mar 1748 in Berrick), not a name noted before in the Jermy families of Norfolk or Suffolk, but one that proves fitting within the range of old testament names often chosen by his parents. After growing up in Berrick presumably, he seems to have moved to Swyncombe, some 5 miles to the south-east just beyond Ewelme, by about 1770, say, where he met and, on 13 Feb 1775, married his first wife Jane Sparks there - as David Germany (as mentioned above). Both made their marks so the surname was probably spelt by the Vicar as it sounded to him. [One wonders if his older brother William may also have settled nearby.] Their first child was a son James Germany baptised privately in Ewelme just a few weeks after they married and again publicly 19 days later in Swyncombe, on 16 April 1775. While probably born in one place or the other, we don't this for certain. He may well have been named after David's eldest brother rather than after their father John. Why? I am uncertain as to any future this James had. A private baptism usually implies a sickly infant and he may have died in childhood although no burial has been noted for him locally. However, burial entries are apparently missing in the Swyncombe register for the period 1784-87.

       [Note: There was a death registered in Wycombe (not that far away) for a James Jermey in 1855 which could be him - then a respectible 80. It appears that it was the same man who was found in the 1851 Census - as James Jarmain - living in Stokenchurch (in Wycombe R.D.), shown as aged 73 and born in nearby Fingest - ca 1777. It is possible that he was actually 75 and so born in 1775. Also found in that Census, was a Thomas Jarmney (sic), farm labourer, living in Shipridge, Lt Marlow, Bucks, aged 49, with wife Ann, 41, born in Sydenham, Oxon (a little to the north-east of Chalgrove). Interestingly, this latter Thomas was also born in Fingest - about 1803. He would seem to be the Thomas Jarmany who died in the Wycombe R.D. (possibly still in Lt Marlow) in 1885, aged 82. An Elizabeth Jermy had been buried in Fingest in 1837, aged 72 and so born ca 1765. She may have been this Thomas's mother therefore. If the above-mentioned James Jermey/Jarmain was actually a widower rather than 'unmarried' as shown, he might reasonably be considered as this Thomas's father - who had married that Elizabeth ca 1800, say. As noted, the James baptised in 1775 could have been born in such as Fingest, even if not baptised there. Clearly, the Fingest parish register need examining. This small village is not that far from the area east of Swyncombe where David Jermy/Germany was found dead in 1827 (Russell Water/Maiden Grove/Pishill).] One would assume that David and Jane had further issue after (their) James over the next few years before they (it appears) had John Larner’s cousin Thomas Germany baptised in Swyncombe in August 1783. There may have been other issue during the period 1785 to '95 as well - when Jane died and was buried in Swyncombe on 14 May 1795 - as Jane Germany. But if so, we have no evidence of their survival nor possible issue. David Germany re-married the following year - to Grace Harbud - on 7 Nov 1796, in Swyncombe. They had no known surviving issue. David died 12 March 1827 as described above.

The Family of Thomas Germany/Jermy (later Claimant).

       The Napoleonic Wars had broken out in 1793 and many young men were ‘called up’ to serve in their county’s Militia, although volunteering to a more local force could keep a man nearer home for a time. Thus, in about 1804-07, a Thomas Jarmany of Swyncombe was noted in Major William Lowdes Company of the Ewelme Volunteers. This entry (found I believe in PRO record WO 13/4490) appears to have identified Swyncombe (and David Germany) as the probable origin of this 1783-born Thomas (originally as Germany himself) - one of the later claimants to the Jermy estate in Norfolk. As mentioned above, a Thomas Jermmy was to marry shortly after this (in 1808) in Cookham, Berkshire to a Dianna Trendall - who may have been this same Thomas (eg having travelled to that nearby area (about 4 miles east) with the Volunteers possibly, if not with some Militia regiment, or simply to work on a local farm or building). However, as mentioned, there was one other Thomas Jarmony (b. 1789 possibly to the younger James' brother William) who might equally well represent this man. But then, a son Samuel Germany was subsequently born in Swyncombe to a Thomas Germany and wife ‘Rebecca’ (in 1809) who could be this same Cookham couple - with the wife’s name transcribed wrongly either at the marriage or at this baptism. [This to be checked; there may of course have been two Thomas 'Jermys' - born to William and David say, and married to a Dianna and a Rebecca, respectively. I later learned that the marriage in Cookham was to a Dianna, not Rebecca; see below.] We must recall that a slightly earlier Thomas Jarmeny/ Jarmney (born ca 1803 in Fingest) was living near Cookham (at Lt Marlow) in 1851. If his father wasn't the James Jermey also born there ca 1775 (as discussed above), could he have been born to this same Thomas 'Jermmy' - if he had already married another girl before Dianna - ie in about 1802, say, when just 19?]. There appears to have been no others born to Thomas and Rebecca (or Dianna?) in that area (as, for example, a son ‘David’, who might reasonably have been expected). Moreover, the choice of Samuel itself also seems inexplicable for a first born son to our Thomas, unless these people were much influenced by old testament Bible stories (or the Thomas born ca 1803 was actually this Thomas's first born)?

       In any case, it seems that one or other earlier wives (if there were such) died soon after and (our) Thomas Jermy (?then) married, seemingly as a widower, one Mary Hobbs - presumably around 1811/12 (where and exactly when is apparently unknown; possibly in one of these more rural, easterly parishes?) and had their first son, a William Jermy, in late 1812 - somewhere in Oxfordshire (as per this son William's Census entry in London at least - many years later (1851). But he was only later baptised - in St Pancras, London - on 1 Aug 1813. Thomas and Mary must have moved there earlier that year - presumably from Oxfordshire or nearby. Thomas was described then as a Labourer - of Somers Town (St Pancras). We may again ask why this early son was called 'William' and not David or Thomas, say? Might this Thomas's father really have been David's older brother William (born 1746), of whom we have no other information? (For it is possible that he too had an earlier connection with Swyncombe and/or points east and this might help explain the possibility of two Thomas's marrying in the early 1800s. Or, was 'William' not our Thomas's first or even second son?)

       Thomas and Mary’s second son, a namesake Thomas Jermy, was born 17 May 1814 - again 'somewhere in Oxfordshire' seemingly (but how was this established?) and, again, baptised much later - on 12 Oct 1817 - at St Margaret’s, Westminster (as Jermy). Thomas and Mary resided for a time in that parish - on Gt Peter Street, where Thomas worked as a Stone Sawyer - probably working on the local Cathedral or Abbey. This would seem to imply that Mary at least had returned briefly to Oxfordshire to have this second child there (and not to Wiltshire, say) - possibly to be near her mother or sister? [Interestingly, there were several Hobbs families in or near Fingest, Lt Marlow and Cookham - to the east of Swyncombe. 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 had 'returned' to this (?home) area - after a short time in Wiltshire? Also, a Mary Hobbs married in Benson in 1823.] This seemingly significant name choice of 'Thomas' for their second son - ie as a namesake - could imply that the choice(s) for the earlier son(s) may also have been significant, therefore, rather than arbitrary. In any case, their next born was a daughter Frances Jermy (born Sept 1817 in St Margaret’s parish, I believe) and baptised the same date as her brother Thomas (Oct 12), in that same church. Is it possible that Thomas's mother was actually a Frances (eg as William's wife)? We may also note that this Thomas did not name his first daughter 'Jane'; why not? [Note: I have another date - of 12 Feb 1817 - for the baptism of a Frances Jermy - in Benson, Oxfordshire, but this requires confirmation; if verified, could it imply that Frances was really born locally - presumably to Mary - and baptised twice?]

       Thomas and family appear to have soon moved on again - but this time quite a distance - to the Cathedral city of Gloucester where they had a second daughter, Mary Ann Jermy, baptised 18 Jan 1819 (Mary at least being the mother's name) and a third son James Jermy (born we are not sure (possibly London) - in either ca 1818/1819 according to a later Census entry) but also baptised in Gloucester - on 5 Dec 1819. Mary Ann died just two weeks later - on 20 Dec 1819. Possibly both were born in Gloucester - as twins(?) - or were they born before they arrived there? But where? Thomas was still described as a Stone Sawyer and had presumably moved to Gloucester for employment there on the Cathedral. (Tewkesbury was also close by.) We don't know for how long into the 1820s, say, the family may have remained there. 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 1820s to somewhere else, either nearby or even back to Oxfordshire or London - wherever stone workers were then needed or other employment was likely. [Try ?Leominster] [But see now below (next paragraphs), where it appears that they did return to Oxfordshire - by 1821.]

       [Some further speculation now appears warranted here: I have received confirmation that the Thomas 'Jermmy' who married in Cookham on 5 Dec 1808 to Dianna Trendall, in the presence of witness Elizabeth Stone (who, like the bride, signed - unlike the groom, who made his mark) - did so as a Bachelor and hence was unlikely to have been the father of the Thomas Jermy born ca 1803 in Fingest, who lived much later in Lt Marlow, near Cookham (unless an unmarried mother named her son thus after Thomas?). It could still be this couple, however, who had the son Samuel in Swyncombe in 1809 (Dianna's name wrongly transcribed - as Rebecca?) - before Thomas met and married Mary Hobbs (we know not where) - presumably around 1811/12. We would normally assume this was a little before they had their first born - William - somewhere in Oxfordshire apparently - in 1812. It does seem odd that they didn't have him almost immediately baptised locally (as was usual) but not until they settled briefly in distant St Pancras - in 1813 - where no one knew them. It also seems odd that their next son Thomas was also said to be born - ca 1814 - in Oxfordshire, but again not baptised there but in Westminster, and not until 1817, when a daughter Frances was also baptised. They then moved to Gloucester and have two children baptised there in 1819, with the elder - James - stating much later (in 1851) that he was nevertheless actually born in London (Mary possibly staying behind and joining Thomas some months later?) and then, again, apparently having the child(ren) baptised not where born (ca 1818?). We mentioned earlier that the family's whereabouts around 1821 and after are unknown. The 1814-born Thomas appears to have died in Gloucester in Oct 1820 and they seemingly then had a second boy given this same name - around 1821, say (he later dying in London in 1850). But where was he born and baptised? Not in Gloucester apparently.

       We would normally assume that Thomas's first wife (if she was) - ie Dianna Trendall - would have died some time before Thomas and Mary married; that is, around 1810, say, possibly in Swyncombe, although there is no burial entry there I believe. But, what if she didn't die then? What if she lived until, say, 1818 or so - but had become estranged from Thomas from about 1810/11? Could this account for the apparent mis-match between birth places and dates on the one hand and baptisms on the other - in respect of Thomas's subsequent issue - seemingly born to second wife Mary - then getting on a bit? And, could it also account for the ?delayed marriage - dated 5 Nov 1821 - between a Thomas Jarmy, widower and Mary Hobbs, spinster - in Cookham - with a witness this time named W. Stone (who signed, while both Thomas and Mary made their marks)?? Or, was the Thomas concerned (seemingly the same man in both marriages, each apparently witnessed by a member of the same (Stone) family) someone else - who resided in Cookham throughout this period (ca 1800-1825+, say) and his marriage, also to a Mary Hobbs, just an amazing coincidence? This seems most unlikely. [The Stones weren't frequent witnesses as one sometimes finds; I could see no others by them.] I currently await further possible parish register entries for Cookham (recently requested) - as for example any issue born to this Thomas and Mary in that village (as the second Thomas ca 1821/22, say?) or was he too born before such a marriage and, again, only baptised later (but where)? [No such baptism was found there 1821-26.] Did Dianna Jermy's death finally allow this long delayed marriage? The local burial register will also be examined to this end. We may note that unlike virtually anywhere in Norfolk or Suffolk, say, there were no other clusters of Jermys in parishes around the villages of Fingest, Marlow and Cookham, who could account for any of this name (or similar) suddenly appearing there - other than those of the single Berrick/Swyncombe family in south-east Oxfordshire.

NB I have just received (20 Feb 2004) the following detail from the Cookham register: Buried: 11 July 1819 - Diana Jarmy of Cookham, 40 yrs. On the face of it, it certainly appears that Thomas and Mary Hobbs had indeed necessarily delayed their marriage until after this date and more probably until after such news had eventually reached them - possibly on their return from Gloucester to the Swyncombe-Cookham area around 1821, say. It also seems to imply that the 'Rebecca' Germany, mother (with Thomas) of a Samuel in Swyncombe, must have been this same lady - 'Dianna' - with the name mis-transcribed at some point; this has yet to be confirmed however; there may have been a second Thomas.]

       In any case, our next clue as to the family's whereabouts is not found until the next decade (1830s) with the first of the two marriages of their eldest son William Jermy, who also became a Stone Sawyer. He married a Rebecca ...... apparently in about 1836 (probably in London) where he certainly had the births of daughters Lydia and Rebecca registered - in Kensington - in March 1840 and 1841, respectively. They also had a namesake son William Jermy - while living on Praed Street, Paddington between 1837 and 1842. Had the entire family returned to London some years before this or...? William's daughter Rebecca's death was soon registered in nearby Kensington in the March quarter 1842 while another apparent daughter, Mary Ann Jermy/Jerny (sic), was born and died in neighbouring Chelsea in the December quarter of that same year. William's wife Rebecca's death was then registered just two years later - in December 1844 - also in Chelsea where their son William had already died - in September that same year. A Jane Jermy's death was also registered that quarter but in Kensington; I'm not sure how she may fit in. Such a catalogue of bad luck and misery. The 1840s were notorious for poor hygiene throughout London, with much infection. At least the daughter Lydia appears to have survived and married - in March 1850 in the 'West London' R.D. [But a Lydia Jermy also married, in Lambeth, in Sept 1862, the daughter of....?]

       This William Jermy married secondly a Jane Fearn, widow (nee Barnes) on 24 May 1846 at St Paul’s, Hammersmith (registered in Kensington) by whom he had 3 or 4 more children, including sons Thomas Jermy and James Jermy in 1848 and 1849, respectively, in Pimlico. In the 1851 Census (where William's birthplace was shown as Oxfordshire), he and family were residing on Commercial Road, Pimlico; he aged 38. He died there on 11 June 1855, aged about 42 - his death probably the one registered in St George Han Sq that quarter. He was buried nearby at Holy Trinity church, Brompton, where his sister Frances then resided (see below). An Emma Jermy's death is registered in Lambeth (just across the river) in March 1851; she was possibly another of their daughters, as may have been a Sarah Jerminy whose birth was registered in Kensington in Dec 1849. A Jane Jermy, possibly William's widow(?), later died in Croydon in 1856 (see below).

       William's son Thomas Jermy (born 1848) appears to have married a Sarah (born Bristol ca 1845) either in Sept 1867 in St George Hanover Sq, or in Dec 1878 (as Thomas John Jermy) in that same church (this needs clarifying) and with whom he had sons Charles Jermy born ca 1880 in Pimlico, before moving across the river to Battersea, where they had second son William Jermy in about 1882. There may have been one or more earlier born issue during the 1870s who had left home by 1901, when Thomas and family lived at 13 Carpenter Street, Battersea. The entry showed Thomas Jermy, 53, born in Pimlico and now a Marble Polisher, aged 53, with wife Sarah, 56 and sons Charles, 21, a Housepainter and William, 18, a Carpenter's labourer. [Oddly, the 1901 Census reveals another William Jermy as born in Battersea ca ?1874 who resided in Bristol by 1901, a Green Grocer, but the civil registrations appear not to show such a man.] A Thomas Jermy married in nearby Wandsworth in Sept 1894 who could be one of those born in the 1870s as suggested; however, no birth in that part of London is apparent for such a man. William and Jane's other son James Jermy (born ca 1849) may have resided in Chelsea in 1901 as a Painter's labourer, aged 52. His place of birth was listed as 'Horwick', however, (in an column which did not show county names) which doesn't signify anything at present and could be an error (for what?). [A Thomas Jermy may have died in Chelsea aged just 15 in 1863 who doesn't seem to fit - other than as the Thomas we've just described as later still living - in Pimlico and Battersea!] As mentioned, an Emma Jermy's death is registered in Lambeth in Mar 1851. [Four Jermys - Frances, William, Frederick and Jessie - were born/registered in Lambeth between 1892 and 1901 whose paternity is presently unknown. We may note here that in about 1986, a W.E. Jermy of North Hillingdon, Middx submitted a poorly constructed pedigree to the Mormon Church's genealogical library which I examined at the time following a request by Isabelle Charlton. When I re-discover my conclusions about same, I shall insert them about here for I recall that Isabelle felt that this man may have descended from one of the foregoing William's sons/grandsons and was thus possibly a third cousin or some such.]

       Thomas and Mary's second son Thomas Jermy Jnr became a Stableman who married an Emily...... around 1843 (at St George Hanover Square) by whom he had two daughters in the 1840s - Emily and Elizabeth - before he died of no apparent cause on 7 Oct 1850 at 7 Gilbert Street, nr Grosvenor Square, Westminster, his age apparently estimated to be 40. Many aristocrats had stables and horses in that part of Westminster then. [No 1851 Census is available for this Thomas therefore; we may enquire how was his birthplace ‘in Oxfordshire’ noted? Possibly in a baptismal register?] Apparently, a Thomas Jermy is shown as being buried in Gloucester on 30 Oct 1820, aged 5 years, which is about the age that this second son Thomas (born 1814) would then be. The son Thomas who died in 1850 on Gilbert Street may thus have been a second one given this same name - born after 1820 (but where; back in Oxfordshire again?) and so be only 30, and not the 40 apparently shown at his death in 1850. He could still have married in about 1842-44, as assumed. Any marriage certificate should confirm one age or the other (and also give Emily's surname).

       Thomas and Mary's one surviving daughter Frances Jermy married Charles Harris (in Sept Q 1840), a Bricklayer, and lived in Brompton, near Kensington ca 1840s/50s (when, as noted, her brother William was buried in that same parish church). She died in 1878 having had 5 children, as they moved gradually westwards towards Fulham, including a son William Harris (born 1854) who emigrated to Adelaide, Australia in 1879 shortly after his mother Frances's death and from whom (as her grandfather) my generous genealogical colleague Isabelle Charlton descends and from whom some of the foregoing data was gratefully received many years ago. So, we can see that both of Thomas's elder sons and his daughter Frances had returned to the London area by at least the mid to late 1830s (possibly earlier) - presumably with their parents - who would themselves eventually reside in Upper Tooting across the river (eg from the mid-1840s, say). The 1841 Census may be checked in this regard. [They were not found in that district in that Census. The Lambert family (Bakers) with whom Thomas's widow Mary would reside in 1851 were however noted in 1841. The area in those days was full of market gardens and Thomas likely found employment in same.]

A Northern Branch of the Family

       The whereabouts of the youngest (or second youngest?) son of Thomas and Mary - James Jermy - during his late teens and 20s is unknown. He may well have returned to London with the rest of the family in the 1820s/30s, say, where he may have worked for a time (eg learning to be a sawyer?). It now appears unlikely that he remained in the west country before migrating north to the Potteries. [We may note in passing a marriage was registered for a Sarah Ann Jermy in Leominster (beyond Gloucester) in late 1838 (who was her father?), while another was so registered for a James 'Jerimah' in Gloucester itself in 1842; might either be relevant?] In either case, James eventually ventured(probably from London) some considerable way north to the Potteries in Staffordshire - for whatever reason. Possibly the growing pottery industry entailed new stone rather than brick premises. He married there on September 12 1849, aged 30 (in the parish of........... near Milton). His bride was Lucy Mellor, widow, nee Hales, from nearby Leek, also in Staffordshire. She was about 6 years older than James and already had several children by her first husband ..........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 at the time. He may have died or deserted her shortly after. In any case, she would eventually marry James Jermy although, as shown above, not for almost a year, after which we may assume that James acknowledged the baby's paternity, who would henceforce be known as James Jermy. They then had a daughter Mary Ann Jermy on 14 Oct 1850 in Leek. [We may recall that James's eldest brother William, then living in Pimlico, London, had himself recently (re) married and had his two sons Thomas and James around this same time. The older boy, Thomas Jermy, was in fact born in Pimlico the same year as this James Mellor/Jermy was in Leek.] Lucy was then approaching 40 and may well have had no others 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); James Jermy Snr was not present. We find him instead then residing on Gold Street, Stoke on Trent, in the home of one Harriett Wright, also Head, married, aged 30 with 2 young children, plus 6 young male 'Visitors' in their 20s or 30s - including James Jermy, then 31, 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 there almost a year before the apparently younger James. Her namesake of the next generation (born Oct 1850) was also to die in her infancy - in Dec 1851.

       Until the 1861 Census is located for the family, our next information about them is the marriage on 25 Oct 1869 in Sheffield, Yorkshire of the younger James Jermy, now aged 20, to a Sarah Ann Eagle, 18, both shown as then living on Bailey Street in that city. James was yet another stone mason - the same occupation as shown on the marriage certificate for his father that year. But James Jermy Snr would shortly die after an accident (falling down stairs) - his death registered in Sheffield (where he too now lived, it seems) in the September Q 1874. His age was shown as 56, possibly an estimate. His widow Lucy would live another 15 years before she died, also in Sheffield, in 1889. A few 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, are 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 Jermy (ie Charles and William) back in Pimlico, London - around 1880. Would such boys from both families, possibly the only surviving ones of Thomas and Mary's issue, all marry after the turn of the century say - and produce sons themselves - to carry on their respective lines? Well, no marriages are apparent in respect of either Charles or William Jermy between 1898 and 1915 in the London area (or elsewhere), nor is there male Jermy issue apparent in their former locations. Maybe they went off to the Boer war? {But consider the line shown by W.E. Jermy ca 1996?] However, the northern branch of the family was more successful. Thanks to information kindly provided by Colin Jermy and by Malcolm Jermy, this part of the pedigree can now be more thoroughly depicted. It is hoped to upload this shortly - as an improvement on the present tentative chart still shown below.

       We may recall that Thomas and Mary had apparently moved from Oxfordshire (or nearby?) to St Pancras, London around 1813 (Mary at least returning to Oxfordshire briefly in 1814 if she had second son Thomas there) and then on to Westminster (to work on the Cathedral or Abbey?) by 1817. This was the year that the senior member of the family - James Jermy Snr (and his son James Jnr) both died back 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 ?1810, say, or earlier) and it may be noteworthy that the spelling of the surname tends increasingly towards ‘Jermy’ from at least then 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 1810/11 with the Pearce family (who lived near Stanfield Hall) could explain the family’s ?initial awareness of the situation there? It is possible that Thomas Jermy was in contact with his cousin John Larner (then residing in the City along the Thames) during Thomas's first short time in London (ca 1813-1818) - they having both settled in London around the same time - ca 1813 or so - albeit in different areas and for different reasons. Around 1818, Thomas made the lengthy move to Gloucester but as mentioned, for how long after 1820, we’re uncertain. It seems probable that the family returned to London by the 1830s at least where the elder Thomas eventually took on the easier occupation of Gardener, as he went into his 60s. [One newspaper account after the murders of 1848 mentioned that Thomas had accompanied his cousin John Larner at the time of the siege at Stanfield Hall 10 years earlier, in 1838. There is however, as mentioned above, no evidence to support this whatsoever; his first appearance in Norfolk was only in 1848, by which time he had certainly moved to Tooting. What does the 1841 Census show? [It shows no Thomas Jermy yet in the Upper Tooting area.]

       Thomas Jermy died on 8 June 1850 in Upper Tooting, near Wandsworth, south London, 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 (as did his namesake son), he too doesn’t appear in the 1851 Census, which should have confirmed his apparent place of birth - in or near Swyncombe, as we believe. In that Census, just a few months later, his wife Mary is shown as a 79 year old widow and an annuitant (with a stipend possibly provided by her daughter Frances?) 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 born there ca 1771-72 - namely, to a John and Mary Hobbes - whom we may thus take probably to be Thomas’s future wife (unless there is other evidence that this was without doubt her maiden surname?). One may note that they named no son John however. She was already a rather surprising 38 or so when she married Thomas and may possibly have been married before. No marriage for them is shown in that Wiltshire register (which has some gaps) although they may have met and married elsewhere if, for example, Mary was either previously married, in employment or visiting relatives nearer to where Thomas lived in Oxfordshire, around 1810 or so. We may recall that their first two children were in fact said to be born in that county - ca 1812-14. Or did they marry somewhere like Marlborough if, say, Thomas was in one of the county Militias then?

       Mary 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 shown as having been a 'general labourer’. Thomas’s cousin John Larner had at that time 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 a noteworthy 85. We may note also that Thomas's adult sons William and Thomas and his daughter Frances were still living in London, with third son James in Staffordshire, during the period when their Tooting-domiciled father was involved, if marginally, with his cousin John Larner concerning Stanfield Hall. They would all have been reading or at least hearing about it at that time (we may assume) 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. This would presumably include the family of Thomas's son James who continue to today. One wonders what communication if any transpired in those times (eg concerning news of births and deaths) between those in Tooting and Staffordshire, say; literacy was still in short supply then. The death of a Jane Jermy was registered in Croydon in June 1856 (just before that of Thomas's widow Mary later that year) which is not too far from Upper Tooting. She may have been Jane nee Hearns the widow of Thomas' and Mary's eldest son William who had himself died just the year before - in Pimlico. If it was her, we don't know why her death was registerd in Croydon; maybe she was staying with or near her mother-in-law at the time - or children?

The 4th Line of Descent from John Jarmony

       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 nearby. Neither appears to have married her and thereby give their 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 22, was 'caught' herself, although the putative father wasn't named, it appears. I believe her resulting son was born about 1796 (probably in Berrick) but not baptised until Valentine's day 1798 in Benson - as James ?Germy. This possible spelling needs to be confirmed but it seems that Mary's surname was spelt similarly when she married, also in Benson, one John Castle on 11 June 1800, he apparently a widower of Wallingford, as discussed elsewhere. They subsequently had issue given the surname Castle (I think in Wallingford). Her eldest son James ?Germy became an agricultural labourer and in about 1820, married a girl named Mary (surname presently unknown) born about 1798 in a ?Newcastle - possibly in or near ?Hereford (the Census entry too illegible to discern; it wasn't Wiltshire, Berkshire or Buckinghamshire but seemingly somewhere ending in '..ford'). Apparently James must have called himself James Castle sometimes (to avoid awkward questions?) and his later issue may have gone by either surname for a time but seem to settle mainly on 'Jermey' by the next generation. It is possible that it was this Mary Jermy whose death was registered in Wallingford in Dec quarter 1855 - if it wasn't the Mary who had been married to William Jermy of Benson and Berrick (both still living ca 1841).

       Young James Germy's older 'cousin' - James Jermany (Jnr) and wife Frances (nee Curties) had settled earlier in Wallingford, across the Thames in Berkshire, where they had many children (most of whom sadly died in infancy) up to ca 1810 - before settling in Reading (as described above). This younger James and wife Mary also followed them to this small market town a few years later and had about 5 children there themselves - between 1820 and 1833 - James generally described as an agricultural labourer. The first was a son Richard Jermany born about 1820 and still living at home in Wallingford at the 1841 Census when the father James and thus the rest of the family (including daughters Sealy and Hannah) were now listed under the earlier surname of Jermany. They would soon move to the village of Brightwell on the outskirts of Wallingford. In early 1841, Richard Jermany (or Jerman?) 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 find them) as he only appears next (in my records at least) some 40 years later 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. 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 next child born to James and Mary was a son William Jermey in 1823 of whom (like most Williams in this family) we seem to have no other information - except he was still at home in 1841, aged 17, an agricutural labourer. Oddly, no members of this (or other Jermy families) were found in the 1851 census for Wallingford, in any of its 4 parishes (nor in Reading itself, as determined later). The next child was another James Jermey - born about 1831 - and thus aged 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 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, but as James William Jermy. Older brothers Richard and William were not now part of the household in Brightwell, nor were they found in Wallingford, Chosley or Reading in 1851. (William Jermy would seem to have married in Wallingford in Dec 1873 and any issue possibly born in Reading.) In the Dec quarter 1851, a Richard Jermy's birth was registered in Wallingford R.D. probably born to Richard Snr in another parish nearby, as was a John Jermy in 1857 and a Thomas in 1860. (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 and one of the younger Richards seems to have done so there 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 Snr. The latter James' wife Elizabeth died in Wallingford in 1890, aged 59. James Snr 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 can certainly lead to errors. Hopefully, the 1861 and 1871 Censuses may clarify matters - eventually.

       Second son Richard Jermey seems to have married in Reading in 1875 and may have had a son Arthur there in 1880 unless this was another born to James? 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, living at Cottage No. 1 there. Again, no children are listed. He died there in 1909, aged 67. George Jermey married a Sarah around 1879 and by 1881 they too have a son named Arthur Jermey aged 1, born, as with his brother's family, where they then resided - in Reading (St Mary). 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 Jermey who first led me into some 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 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 four daughters aged from 23 down to 14 - all born in Andover. There was also a nephew - Henry Ransom, aged 7, born in Reading. 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 elder John Jarmey's father - who lived in north Hampshire in the later 1790s and apparently born about 1770, say. Or might it have been a Jermy mother who had such a son ? There was both an Aaron Jermy and a Sarah Jermy, older siblings of youngest daughter Dinah, of whom we have no other data as yet. [Another 'floater' was noted in the marriage of a Sarah Jermy in Warwick in the December quarter 1848; I've noted no other Jermys in this general area.] 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 Hampshire around 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!

The 5th Line of Descent from John Jarmony: The Jermy - Larner Link.

       Having now delineated the four lines of the family deriving from John Jarmony’s three sons James, William and/or David (all born before 1750) and from his daughter Ann (born 1751), we may consider finally the fifth and most junior line - arising from his youngest child - Dinah Germany born 1762) - who married John Learner in 1784 in Benson. 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 could be Dinah’s husband, but there is no way to confirm this at present. There were, at least, several Larner events recorded earlier in neighbouring Hagbourne (now in Berkshire) of which family this Martha may well have been a relative. [A Stephen Larner married in Basildon, Berkshire in 1761 (just a little south of Aston Tirold) who is another possible source of John Learner/Larner - as described further below.] John and Dinah appear to have had at least one son - John Larner - in about 1785 - born, as per his 1851 Census entry, 'somewhere 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 earlier claimed inheritance and thus with that which his son(s) may later take up)? He may have further ensured this obscurity of (exact but not general) origin in 1861, when his place of birth was given now as ‘Ringwood, Hampshire’ (unless this was an administrative error only?). In any case, we can find no clear evidence of birth or baptisms for any siblings born to Dinah and John Learner - ie ca 1787-97, say, in or near Berrick. However, a son Stephen was born to a John and 'Deana' Larno, baptised in nearby Britwell Salome on 7 April 1793, who should be kept in mind (especially as this could imply the father of John Learner being a Stephen as mentioned above. Of possible relevance are tax records of ca 1785-89 for both a Mr and, later, a Mrs 'Lano' - as tenants on Lord Despencer's estate in Benson. These too need further investigation.

       During John’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 older man could be John’s younger brother (born ca 1788-90, say) and the younger one that man’s son (born ca 1812 and so be about 36 during the 1848 events). 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 who had a son Charles in 1823 (I believe) and it seems possible that John had a brother named Moses (this 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.

       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, 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 area (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 - 1814 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 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, say, her son John Larner also, we wouldn’t expect 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 the Militia aged 55.

       Thus, we really have no explicit information about John Larner (nor of his mother Dinah) until we find him at least living at 25 Dowgate Hill, as a Labourer and Brewery Worker, in the City of London around 1813. Where was he ca 1800 to 1812, as a teenager and young man, or even before that ? With his father…on the move..or ? [We may note here that a ‘Diner’ Larner married on 9 Feb 1802 in Tonbridge, Kent. It must be determined whether she was a widow and whether she may have been traveling with her first husband in some Militia regiment, say, when she met her second husband not long before losing her first - ie to account for this otherwise unexpected location (if, improbably, it turned out to be her). Earlier in the 18th century, I spotted 3 Dinah Larners in Wiltshire!] By about 1808-12, we can, by deduction, place John Larner most probably in either Norfolk, or somewhere in London - when he met and married his first 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), if not while she was working in service in London. Or, John may have been in the Militia himself to explain meeting her almost anywhere. It is a chicken and egg situation as far as who told whom first about any controversy regarding the possession of nearby Stanfield Hall; was it John Larner telling his wife and her family or was it the Pearces with their local knowledge informing John Larner about it and he later telling Thomas Jermy and/or any educated friends in Oxfordshire ? And if John Larner knew first, from whom did he learn about it ? We must assume it would be from his mother or one of her brothers such as James or David and/or the latter’s son Thomas, his cousin, who was just a little older. He would have first heard such information (when old enough to retain it) around 1800, say, (when about 15), in or near such as Berrick Salome, Swyncombe, Ewelme, etc - if and when he returned with his parents from time to time to his family’s homeground. He would first become eligible for the Militia in about 1803.

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 18 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 but 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 served as 'substitutes' for those who wished to leave. But, again, a few only of these have survived - in the archives of the regular Army regiments into which the county Militia were eventually amalgamated in the 1880s. There are none 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 as a skeleton staff at their county town's HQ. One PRO class - WO 13 - does at least provide the names of the men serving in each county Militia during the periods when they were 'embodied' - as from 1793 to 1815 (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 such regiments had up to 600 Privates each 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 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 - I happened to note that the name John Larner also appeared - from at least 1797.

       Re-checking my notes from that time, I see that this John Larner was a Private in the Oxfordshire Militia from 1797 or before (his actual date of enrollment to be confirmed in WO 13/1700-1704) - until the regiment disbanded temporarily in April 1802. His movements with them prior to that show that, after joining up in Oxford city probably (ca 1795/6?), he travelled firstly to the south coast and then up the east coast from Dover to Gt Yarmouth in early 1797 and was in Norwich by October that year (when John Castle married there the daughter of a girl born Sarah Jermy). Over the following winter months, they moved back down to Ipswich, Colchester and finally Portsmouth by March 1798, from where the bulk of the regiment, including both John Castle and John Larner, sailed to Ireland. The regiment remained in that country, in various towns, until they left Dublin for Liverpool in January 1800. They then marched back to their home base in Oxford, via Birmingham, where they remained until April. They then moved on to Poole and Lymington on the south coast and then over to the Isle of Wight by June 1800, where they remained 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 sick there (as seemingly was his wife Sarah, who may have died 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 re-married a girl named Ann Jermy in Benson; she already had a son out of wedlock named James Jermy (born ca 1796 and baptised in Benson in 1798). 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 at least 5 years in the late 1790s/early 1800s. We can't be sure whether his family, if any, travelled with him over that period as, unlike the records for the Cornish Militia, 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 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 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.

       The brief Peace of Amiens ended a year later - in March 1803 and on about the 1st April that year the 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 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. Had it been, it would be easier to have conclude that all those in any such group were likely friends who came from one parish or district in the county - and thereby more readily identify that specific area and their individual identities (as certain common names recur many times). Amongst those joining by 24 April was John Larner and John Castle, again in Capt Dormer's Company. Five days later, on 29 April 1803, another John Larner joined up and was placed in Capt Wall's Company. The regiment then marched to Newbury in Berkshire and by June they 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 seemed to imply they were father and son.

       In the autumn of 1804, they moved north to Colchester, a garrison town, where they stayed at or near the Weeley barracks there until the spring of 1806. [It is at about this time that Thomas Jermy back in Swyncombe and area may have joined a Militia regiment himself - if not the Oxfordshires, then possibly some neighbouring regiment such as that for Berkshire, Buckinghamshire or Wiltshire; this is yet to be checked.] The Oxford regiment then turn up at Taunton, Somerset by late April that year [I hope to locate evidence of their movements between these rather separated areas; did they return briefly to Oxford or Wallingford?] From January 1806, I re-examined (on a more recent occasion) these muster records rather more carefuly. I noted various surnames that may or may not be relevant such as: Sparkes, 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 move 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 throughout the previous 5 years (virtually) of these early years of the 19th century.

       At the muster of 24 March 1808 however, 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 noted in south-east Oxfordshire). Had they all served for...12 years 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 lived (if he 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.

       By May 1808, the regiment was on the march eastwards for Gosport and Portsmouth where they stayed (or nearby) for the rest of that year and all of 1809. More new recruits with names like Sparkes, Savage, Hearn and Hobbs are noted. And then, on 10 Jan 1810, a James Pearce appears - apparently having joined 'from the County' - ie at the 'recruiting depot' in Oxford city. Who was he, I wonder ? I saw no other 'Oxfordshire' Pearces (although one Pierce). We 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. Had his sister Mary already married John Larner Jnr by then (where?) and thus provide James, through her now militiaman husband, with a contact and'goal' by which to get away from home - ie by joining that same regiment? Their families were certainly to live together or virtually together in London some years later. John Larner and James Pearce are both then noted over the following musters through 1810, when they remain at Portsmouth, and then similarly throughout 1811, after which they all march west to Bristol. They and most others received a £2 bounty for 'extending their service' at that time. They remain at Bristol through most of 1812 as well and thus one was growing very pessimistic that the John Larner who barely a year later (or less) would apparently be living in the parish of All Hallows the Great (near the Tower in the City of London) could be this same John Larner; one we had been assiduously tracking in the Oxfordshire Militia since 1803 (and seemingly his father since ca 1797) - as they moved further and further away from London.

       The bulk of the regiment stayed at Bristol until about August 1812. Earlier that summer, another(?) John Larner joined the regiment from 'the county' - around May. I had noticed that over the full period examined, men often re-joined after having left the regiment some months before - as though having found it difficult to find employment 'back home', or had transferred back to the Militia from the Army when they were to be sent overseas. [Unless there were very many with names that just happened to be identical to those who had left previously.] 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 pairs, as they often did in the past; they now tended to differentiate same-named men simply with the numbers 1,2,3,etc. Also noted that summer was that James Pearce left the Oxfordshire militia, having volunteered to join the 62nd Regiment of Foot. But then, in about September 1812, the bulk of the Oxfordshire regiment suddenly reversed itself - returning east to Portsmouth - where they stay until about February 1813. And they then march to....London! And, specifically, to The Tower - so very close to the parish of All Hallows the Great! Just before this, they had received 50 new recruits from Oxfordshire to where 25 others had returned, with their usual travelling allowances. As mentioned below, one wonders if some men may in fact have gone directly to London in early 1812, after the previous stay in Portmouth, and so avoided the temporary sojourn in Bristol that 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 Sarjeants were often away recruiting, sometimes with Privates, to help make up the militia's numbers. One wonders if some men actually preceded the others in coming to London; such arrangements were probably 'in the pipeline' for some weeks in advance of actual orders being issued and the Colonel of the regiment may have 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 Captains deserted that quarter and 3 died! Both of the John Larners were noted during the year June 1812 to early 1813. In the next quarterly muster however, there is again only the one John Larner shown, seemingly the elder one who had recently re-joined. For, on 5 July 1813, the other John Larner (apparently the younger one) was discharged in London - "having provided a substitute" - as did a Thomas Hoare (possibly found during any recruiting activities they had been undertaking with their Sarjeant). John Larner's substitute (from London) was one 'Henry Budd' (not a common surname and only mentioned here for reasons to be 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 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 was the other (elder) John Larner. He was so described (as ill in London) until at least January 1814. Could this relate to the fact that his possible son was now residing 'just around the corner'? One will examine the next muster lists (WO 13/1719 and /1720) to learn if possible what happened to this John Larner and when he was finally discharged - to return home to...?where. The war was soon to end - in June 1815 - when all such Privates would be discharged.

       We may recall that in either 1812 or, apparently more probably, in 1813, 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, as born (not just baptised) only 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 had occurred. It seems quite possible that the earlier born child (Eliza) may in fact have been born before 1813, possibly in or near Portsmouth - around October 1812, 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 later that same year. 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 registers; thus, the age shown at the burial of Charles 'Larmar' (ie '16 months') on 23 Jan 1814, proves difficult to account for in these terms - unless he too was 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 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, say) 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 atypical numbers of entries. [Yes; the numbers of baptisms, burials and marriages were double the number in 1812 than in 1811. They then revert to more typical numbers, possibly with 1814 entries shown as 1813, 1815 as 1814, etc until entries were gradually made closer to when they had actually occurred. ]

       Another difficulty is the fact that the timing of the movement of Militia regiments are not always faithfully recorded in the always later signed 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 muster acounts.] Also, it appears that the men and Officers were paid for each full month (ie 30 or 31 days typically) providing only they always appeared at the muster on the 24th of the month. When stationed for months on end in various odd places, it appears that militia men needn't always be 'on parade' every single day, as it were, but rather 'always available' - as confirmed by their reliable appearance at each monthly muster. On this basis, we may better accept that shortly after arriving in London - and before he 'provided his substitute', John Larner very likely organised some 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 collapsing around him. He no doubt wanted to collect his wages 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 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 name resided in All Hallows parish itself, where John Larner now lived himself. Indeed, Henry may even have worked in the same Brewery.

       The overall impression is thus that it was probably 'our' John Larner who had served in the Oxfordshire Militia and who left same to settle initially on Dowgate Hill where he and wife Mary had three children baptised and/or buried on dates between 1813 and 1815, the years for which were 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 (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 the contrary view - 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. But it is impossible to be certain of any conclusions in this regard but in any case, we cannot accept that two babies could be born to the same couple 7 months apart.

       The relevance of the former 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 late 1812 or so) 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 Oxfordshire Jermys' possible rights 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)? Unless the Norfolk 'Jermys' learnt about the estate's questionable inheritance from the Oxfordshire family?] And when did the surname of that latter family cease being so generally described as Jermany/Germany/etc for example and gradually start being depicted more frequently as 'Jermy'...and why? And when and where did John Larner and Mary Pearce meet and marry? If it was during the years 1808 and 1812 (when Mary would be an approriate 18 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 appreciated). Thus, in May 1808, they were in Gosport and Portsmouth on the south coast where they remained until late 1811. And during this stay, in early 1810, they were joined by a James Pearce. Did John meet Mary because of the latter's arrival or did he arrive because John and Mary already knew one another - possibly already being married? But how would they have met (possibly when she was as young as 16 or so??) Another 'chicken and egg' situation. The regiment then went to Bristol in 1812 before reversing back to Portsmouth. If John and Mary were married, they may well have had a child baptised in one of these places.

       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, 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 a son named Charles Larner baptised there in 1823(?). He would thus have been about 25 in 1848 when a Larner of that latter 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 may have been 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 - the possible name of John's father's mother, as well as the name of one of Mary's sisters.

Summary and Comment.

       We have now completed our resume of the Jermy and Larner families of Oxfordshire (albeit with very little insight into the Larner ancestry, although we shall be able to provide considerable material on John Larner’s descendents, at least (later) - 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 a David Germany whose sons - the cousins John Larner and Thomas Jermy, respectively - do descend from these two siblings’ mutual father - one John Jermy/Jarmony (however spelt). This brings us back to considering the origin of that man - who married in Chalgrove, Oxfordshire in 1736, he then 'of Berrick Salome. There had been specific reference to just such a man - as the son of John Jermy of Gt Yarmouth - and we find that the dates prove consistent with such a linkage. Our first critical question (as 'devil's advocate') must therefore be: could he not instead have been of a much more local, Oxfordshire family - 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 could indeed 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 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 likely died in the 1720s, say, although we know not where he is buried. His son Edward Germany married (as such) in about 1725 to a Mary and had a daughter Anna Marie Germany in Chalgrove in 1727, who died the next year. This brings us almost to the time John 'Jarmony/Jermany' (?suddenly) 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 a son of Edward, born around 1736, say (when her mother died) - the very year that John Jarmony marries himself in Chalgrove - albeit said to then be of neighbouring Berrick. 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, not long before John 'Jarmoney' marries in Chalgrove, the local Vicar had written the surname 'Germany' 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 'Jarmoney' ? [I've never 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 clearly two-syllabled name 'Jermy'.]

       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 are 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, Jermaines, Germaines, Jarmaines or even Jermyns distributed within them. 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 Jermaines, etc (eg in nearby Crowell and Lewknor, especially) actually ‘explain’ the presence of the Jarmonys and Germanys of that area - who only much later (but for what reason?) begin to be accorded the surname spelling ‘Jermy’ (or something very close)? 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 there around 1714-18 of a John Jarmony/Germany/Jermaine/etc (although I'm not aware of just how thorough such a search has been).        Of possible relevance may be the fact that on one occasion the above mentioned Abraham Germany was cited as a witness at an affray in a public house in Chalgrove when he is 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). Generally speaking, the family descended from John Jarmony never have their name depicted as Jermaine, Germain or Germaine (with one possible exception - at an inquest in southerly Nuffield - and even in that case the name of the person concerned (Moses) isn’t itself a guarantee that he was necessarily the Moses of John’s family. There were other Moses about. And again, why add the 'y' sound at the end of a simple name like Jermaine ? Why turn it into 'Jermainey' and thence into Jermaney or Germany ?? But, crucially, why did only one line of these names (and families) eventually acquire the spelling 'Jermy' or similar after being Jermany/Germany for quite a while - ie from the late 1790s or so ? We must leave it at that.

       At this point, however, 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 well founded. 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 - this time by 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 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, 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 in 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 - since it is unlikely that a copy of the Bury paper would have found its way to him in some more distant abode. (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?

       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. 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, on both occasions. During 1847 and early ’48, Rush was represented in two bankruptcy hearings by 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) 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 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? 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. The Schoolmaster was one James Garlick - born about 1785 (and thus a near contemporary of John Larner) - who with two or even three wives had 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 was Thomas Garlick, then married, with three children. This was just three years after the letter described above was sent 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 knowledge about the local Jermy and Larner families from circa 1800, 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 in turn would certainly know something about the background of his own father John Jermy. 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. Thomas Garlick would later take this on board as he, in turn, grew up in the 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 - during the 1810s and ‘20s, say - and thereby maintain bonds and contacts with those of their former community. He may well have asked Thomas Garlick for advice - around 1830 or so. [Note: We may recall that Thomas Jermy did return to this area about then - where his first two children were born although only baptised later in London; he also returned nearby around 1821 as well, as discussed later.]

       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 up to near Hoxton in 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) 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 sprinkling 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 a birth in or near Painswick, Glos. and thereby lend credence to the earlier idea that there was in William Garlick a ready made ‘conduit’ by which Thomas Garlick could connect with the London solicitors concerned with the Larner case. However, his involvement or ?presence in Norfolk in 1838, through John Larner directly, could as readily account for his later introduction to such as Waugh or Flowers - ie through Larner’s friend Richard Read and/or via James Rush.

       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 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?? Aye, there’s the rub!

Addendum: I checked the 1851 Census. Sadly, James Garlick had died before this date (and hence his place of birth must remain 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 jobs in London presumably. She was now described as the ‘Schoolmistress’ and was born nearby - in Ipsden. Might this imply that her husband too was indeed local - or did he come from elsewhere 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 in Bucks where he was 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 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 (or was he born there?) His wife also left a Will, I believe (not yet examined), as did their son William - in 1849. He had 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.

       This man reamins an important element in all this. His presence in the Berrick area in the 1820s/30s/40s 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 about this that he very likely 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 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 such a claim - on the usual basis of seniority of birth order and primogeniture? We can see now that in 1834 at least, the son William of the younger James Jermy (born 1759) was living with children himself [any sons?] in Reading and that there were several others descended from Dinah's older sister Ann also settled in Reading. Her brother David was however her elder and after his son Thomas's death in 1850, there were also several of that line surviving into the 20th century. (But Thomas's sons William and James were also to survive and have male issue.)

Theories to Account for the Jermys in Oxfordshire.

       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 agricultural, as Yarmouth was an urban fishing port on a peninsula relatively cut off from rural/agricultural affairs - would leave that area, seemingly around 1734 when about age 18, and make his way in all of England to a small village in south-east Oxfordshire - there shortly to marry, as John Jarmoney, in a neighbouring village which, awkwardly, had a family of the name Germany living in it just a few years earlier. Why?!? There are a number of theories which seek to provide an answer to this baffling question and these can 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). The material of such theories will be placed here but probably not for some time. In the meantime we may consider:

The Later Larners of London.

       It appears that there were probably surviving male Jermys descended from the more senior lines of the Oxfordshire Jermys, as well as from any descended from the next most potential claimant Thomas Jermy (d 1850). These have been touched on above. What about descendents of the latter's co-claimant cousin John Larner - 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. 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) in 1841, but not shown as such after the family moved to Brittania Row by 1851. Conversely, the last-born son - John Larner - was oddly not shown as being at home in the 1841 Census in Hoxton (staying elsewhere on Census night presumably) but does appear in the Islington home in 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, he 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 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 descendents of the more senior, Jermy lines.

       The elder boy Thomas Larner, not at home in March 1851, was however soon found in that same Census year of 1851, although his details were not found in the Census return itself - 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 a Thomas Wright, Carman. Thomas Larner was described as a Baker who then lived 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 families still resident there. 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 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 very 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).

       If no verified issue or descendents from Thomas Jermy Larner are discovered, the future of the Larner family of present concern 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 generally just John Larner (Jnr). In the spring of 1851, as mentioned, he is found 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. 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 of the subsequent murders at Stanfield Hall in 1848, which would have been discussed at home as well, one assumes. By 1851, with his father and older brother both working as (or for) Bakers, he was 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, Bermondsey, he is shown as John Jermy Larner, age 20, a Baker - the son of John Jermy Larner, also a Baker. 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 signed but Louisa made her mark (as she did when registering their first born later that year). Both 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 Louisa's home area.

       Between 1850 and 1875, this younger John 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 possibly had 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 may 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, Bermondsey (Southwark) on 10 December, 1855. This was barely 100 yards from their former abode on Long Lane in that 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. Two years later, they had their first daughter Louisa Edith Larner, born in December 1857, and registered in Newington, a district just a further quarter mile to the south of the Borough. [There was another district of this same name near to Dalston and Kingsland however 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 either 20 March or 4 Dec 1863 in Dalston (the earlier possibly a baptismal date). Where his parents resided that year is uncertain but the 1861 Census might provide a clue. 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 - on 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 (in the same area?) when the father was now described as a 'Fly Driver'.

       I'm not sure just when John Larner started his Bottle business (late 1870s possibly) but his eldest son Arthur was married in March 1877 to an Eliza Harrington (probably in Camberwell) by whom he had at least 3 sons: a namesake Arthur Jermy Larner in 1879 (who died the following year), a William Larner ca 1881 and a Walter Larner ca 1887 - seemingly all in Camberwell. Any daughters appear to have died in infancy. This family eventually lived at 59 Cork Street, Camberwell where Arthur Larner 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 before Arthur, as a young married man from 1877, had to find something for himself. I am unaware whether the son William also died young or married and had issue but the last son Walter Larner was noted, aged 13, living with his widowed mother Eliza and her brother on Jennings Road, Camberwell in 1901. He'd have married around 1910, presumably, if he survived. Some years later (1922), a Walter Larner was listed in a Directory as residing on South Croxted Road, Dulwich and a 'Mrs Larner' on Gypsy Hill, Norwood, nearby.

       The next son, christened Edward James Larner married twice. His 1901 Census entry showed he and a 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 an 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 has yet to be alphabetically indexed and the location of such a family that year was, as a consequence, unknown. However, that there was in fact such an unsuspected 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 was married firstly - on 25 Oct 1885 at St Olave's church - to an Ellen Howe. She was born, like Edward, in 1863 in Camberwell - a daughter of George and Mary Howe. Edward appears to have worked initially in his family's Bottle business 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 he had received a £100 Bond from his father ca 1890s) and later became an Omnibus conductor (1901) and a Mechanic (1916).

       He and Ellen had several children beginning apparently with yet another John Jermy Larner - 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. 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 gratefully derive). 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 spokeman at the time of his first claim to the Jermy estate at Stanfield Hall (in 1838), Thomas Garlick (see earlier discussion above), lived and was the Publican - the Greyhound Inn in Ewelme, Oxfordshire! One wouldn't write such a coincidence into a novel. Lily Bertha died in Grantham in 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 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 may in fact 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 on construction of the Sydney Harbour bridge and later married there (by about ?1920) to Ethel ...?... by whom he had at least two children - a 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 - 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, 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 has 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 been 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. 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 ......whom he married in early 1895. They had three daughters and a son in Camberwll - Nellie (1895), Catherine (1896), Edith (1898) and William Larner (1900), he being the third and youngest son of Edward James. The futures of these children are presently unknown, as are those of any later issue this couple may have had ca 1901-1905.

       We may revert again to earlier times and consider 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 in Camberwell. They appear to have then moved to Eltham, a pleasanter suburb a little east of Peckham but where, tragically, Walter committed suicide - on 6 May 1910 - 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 way in life (described below) after their mother's death there at just 45. [Note: an odd coincidence was the emigration to Australia (but before 1900 seemingly) of a man of the very same name - 'Walter Henry Larner' (apparently born just a little before 'our' Walter - in ca 1860); any relation? We may also point out that Eltham was the birthplace of Bob Hope (ca 1902) whose family emigrated from there to America around 1907, I believe.]

       The youngest son of John and Louisa Larner - Charles Jermy Larner (born Camberwell May 1867) - married in neighbouring St Saviour June 1891 to a Lucy Tomlinson (where?) with whom he had several children. Any first born to them ca 1892 appears to have died young. They then had a daughter Lucy in 1894 followed by Violet (1897) and Ivy Ella (4 Nov 1899) - born on Phillips Road, Peckham. A namesake Charles Larner Jnr was born - about Sept 1901 in Camberwell - apparently dying the following year. The mother was still relatively young so they may have had one or two more around 1902-5 (a son?) in that same area - assuming that Charles himself 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 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 on the Old Kent Road with a seemingly close lady friend/housekeeper - presumably after losing his wife Louisa (whose date of death is to be sought). The pedigree for these later Larners, mostly of south London, is shown below (but requires amendments):

       Of the 4 sons of John and Louisa Larner, the eldest, Arthur, appears to have had only one surviving son, the Walter born about 1887, from whom future Larner progeny may 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 are 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 an 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 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 ('Tony') Larner to a Harold Phillips (1886-1963) around 1918 by whom she had a son Victor ca 1923 - whose daughter is the Rev Jennifer Phillips of Rhode Island in New England, living today. 'Tony' 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.

       Finally, we should point out that the 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 firstly did as early as ca 1810-15, 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! 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). Charles' grandmother Mary may well have witnessed the siege - as John Larner's wife, with her Pearce relatives living nearby - although she was about 48 that year and hardly a 'girl'. He mentioned that the family's many legal papers and documents concerning their claim had been lost some years earlier by some lawyer. Charles and his wife both died in 1934, I believe - in or near Wimbledon. Apparently, however, there was further interest expressed by someone in the family about the estate as late as 1955, but I have no 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 his son of the same name - if he lived and married ca 1914-20 - (or from any other son(s) either may have had). Charles' daughter Ivy married around 1925 and later lived in Western Australia, I believe, where she died in 1957. Any descendents may still live in that area. I am aware of one male Larner descendant of the family 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 and maybe Dulwich and Gypsy Hill. If anyone reads this site who has further information or corrections in this regard, we would be most pleased to hear from them. [Note: we now have more information (as now included above) which shows that the family survive in several areas of England, as well as in Australia.]

Return to the Genealogy Homepage

Return to the Jermy Homepage

To the Tripartite Homepage