Keziah was born about 1785. There are a few Kezia Lockyers born in different counties around that time but as the family was in Somerset I think this is the most logical place of birth.[1]. -
She was married To Paul Stoakes Lockyer in Paulton, Somerset in 1804 [2]
She was forced to leave Swan River with "The Perth Gazette and Western Australian Journal, Saturday 13 April 1839" reporting :
" Keziah Lockyer, the female who was found guilty of perjury at the last quarter sessions of the peace, has been allowed the same indulgence as that extended to a Mr Turner, namely, that she should leave the colony in the first vessel, never again to be allowed to visit these shores. "
She arrived in Launceston, Van Diemen's Land, on the "Socrates", May 6 1839.[3]
She was notorious as a "high class whore to the Army Officers". Paul disowned her debts in 1838.[4]
As with her birth, her death is found in various trees in varying counties. I have found no record of her leaving Tasmania and as she was reportedly destitute I question her going back to England. I have hit a brick wall with this one.
Sources
↑ A possible Baptism? Her sex is given here as male but is this a transcript error?
The name Keziah is a girl’s name of Hebrew origin meaning “cassia tree”. -
County Somerset - Place Paulton - Church name Holy Trinity - Register type Parish Register - Register entry number 67 - Birth date - Baptism date 02 Jan 1786 - Person forename Kezsiha - Person sex m (????????) - Father forename James - Mother forename Bettey - Father surname BROOKS
Is Keziah your ancestor? Please don't go away! Login to collaborate or comment, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com
DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Keziah by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA.
However, there are no known mtDNA test-takers in her direct maternal line.
It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Keziah:
Brooks-10850 and Brookes-313 are not ready to be merged because: Too many discrepancies in birth death residence places. Have yet to find record of her leaving Van Diemen's Land after 1839 after being banished from Western Australia.
Brooks-10850 and Brookes-313 appear to represent the same person because: These two people are intended to be the same person so should be merged. Some details are different so care should be taken to ensure the final details are correct. If there is no support for the parents they can be disconnected and linked to in the biography.
edited by Kerry Lockyer