Can anyone help out with a difference of opinion about a profile

Question

Can anyone help out with a difference of opinion about a profile

11 Answers

Best answer

As requested, the profile of

Henry (Joseph) Bud(s)worth Bore has been further disaggregated as outlined above https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Budworth-57 These profiles if combined should occur through a merge request once sufficient evidence is available to proceed with these.

At present the identity of Kitty has only been disaggregated twice.

This has been done to aid clearer discussion about each profile.

I have observed on multiple occasions instances where the records of these individuals have been possibly mistakenly misrepresented both in the G2G discussion and in the profiles. Almost all of the references that have been discussed in the G2G discussion are already represented accurately in each profile.

From this point forward it may be easier to refer to the particular profile where a reference has been cited and the reference number to ensure that we are all talking about the same reference. I have been finding it confusing to sift through the multiple versions of each reference cited in the G2G thread and deciphering the different ways they have been represented. Would this be something that we could agree to in line with the Wikitree Honor Code.

We care about accuracy. We're always aiming to improve upon our worldwide family tree and fix mistakes.

Also under this code, I would expect that I would not be directly criticised or have my perspective re-interpreted of re-framed by others in this thread. I am quite able to speak for myself. I am sure this is the same for others in the group. I am attempting work in a collaborative way and this is demonstrated by creating each profile and as much as possible adding all available sources. I have included this evidence to enable collaboration to occur.

Best Regards

answered Mar 14 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

Answer 1 · 2024-03-09T16:44:08+0000

Hello Ros,

The strong disagreement comes from Simon stating that Joseph BORE born 1811, who never left England, had a family there, and died in England in 1862, is the same person as my ancestor Joseph BUDWORTH born 1813, who was transported to Australia as a convict, married an Aboriginal woman named Kitty and had a family with her, and died in Australia in 1892.

Joseph BORE born 1811

1811

·The baptism certificate of Joseph BORE (son of John Budworth BORE & Margaret BORE nee WOODS) shows that he was born on 1 August 1811, and baptised on 1 September 1811 in Lancashire, England.

1841

·The marriage certificate of Joseph BORE, son of John BORE, shows he was a gardener and married Jane HARGREAVES on 8 February 1841 in Lancashire, England.

·The 1841 census shows that Joseph BORE was a gardener.

1861

·The 1861 census shows Joseph B BORE was born in 1811 and his spouse's name was Jane BORE.

1862

·In September 1862 BORE died in Lancashire.

There is no evidence that Joseph BORE ever travelled to Australia.

There is no evidence that Joseph BORE ever set foot in Australia.

There is no evidence that Joseph BORE ever travelled from Australia to England.

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited Mar 13 by J W

Joseph BUDWORTH born 1813

1813

·Joseph BUDWORTH was born in 1813 (92.65% probability he was born in this year based on the record below showing he was 16 years old on 6 December 1829).

1829

·29 March 1829 – The UK Prison Commission Record from Liverpool Jail for Joseph BUDWORTH states that he was committed for feloniously stealing one firkin of butter, and was 16 years old.

·4 May 1829 – The Australian Convict Transportation Register states Joseph BUDWORTH was transported to Australia.

·6 December 1829 – The Claudine (convict ship) Muster Roll states that Joseph BUDWORTH was 16 years old. This indicates that Joseph BUDWORTH was born in 1813.

·On arrival to Australia, BUDWORTH was disposed to be employed by William COX of Clarendon. The COX family were significant contributors to the development of the pastoral capabilities of the colony.

· The COX family owned extensive land and properties on the Liverpool Plains.

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)

oAs stated in the article “The journey to ‘Forked Mountain’” by Marilyn Wood, published in Aboriginal History 2001 Vol. 25, p.209: “By 1826 William Cox’s sons George and Henry had extended their cattle even further north, staking a claim to land at Binnea, south of Coonabarabran, providing the nexus for Jinnie’s move between Mudgee and Coonabarabran… by 1829 George and Henry Cox had moved on from ‘Binnea’ and had established a run at ‘Nomeby’ (‘Nombi’) further northeast into Kamilaroi lands.”

oThe Supplement to the New South Wales Government Gazette of Tuesday 19 September, 1848 is titled: “CLAIMS TO LEASES OF CROWN LANDS, BEYOND THE SETTLED DISTRICTS. LIVERPOOL PLAINS DISTRICT.” This states: Name of Run-Nomeby. Estimated Area-60,000 Acres. Estimated Grazing Capabilities-1,200 Cattle. 2,000 Sheep. This station being on the verge of the plains to secure a spring of water… and bounded as follows, on the north by Belumbela ridges; south by Buballa range, east by Bowen or Cox’s creek; west by rocky ridge.”

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)

1833

· By this time, Joseph BUDWORTH was in a relationship with an Aboriginal woman named Kitty. They had married by 1842, as their son Joseph's birth certificate shows she had taken his last name. They had a number of children, though for the ease of reference only those with baptism certificates are referenced below.

· In 1833 Joseph and Kitty’s son Joseph was born, whose baptism certificate states:

oNSW Baptism Certificate Number 2112 Vol: 61.

Child: Joseph.

Born: 27 June 1833.

Baptised: 1 June 1842.

Father: Joseph BUDSWORTH.

Mother: Kitty BUDSWORTH.

By whom the ceremony was performed: J.T. Lynch. Roman Catholic.

1837

·1 February 1837 BUDWORTH received his Ticket of Freedom.

1840

·Joseph and Kitty had their son James. James’ baptism certificate states:

oNSW Baptism Certificate Number 1650 Vol: 62.

Child: James.

Born: 5 years old.

Baptised: 12 August 1845.

Father: Joseph BUDWORTH

Mother: (Aboriginal)

By whom the ceremony was performed: J.T. Lynch. Roman Catholic.

1843

·Joseph and Kitty had their son John. John’s baptism certificate states:

oNSW Baptism Certificate Number 1729 Vol: 62.

Child: John.

Born: October 1843.

Baptised: 22 October 1845.

Father: Joseph BUDWORTH

Mother: Kitty Aborigini (sic)

By whom the ceremony was performed: J.T. Lynch. Roman Catholic.

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited Mar 15 by J W

1863

· The 11 May 1863 Queensland death certificate (1863/C/23) of Joseph BUDWORTH (Junior) lists his father as Joseph BUDSWORTH and his mother as Black Kitty. This states that he was born on the Liverpool Plain, New South Wales, and married at Mudgee.

~1880s

·Later in his life, BUDWORTH was living on Bomera Station, still on the Liverpool Plains. The diary of Mary Jane CAIN states “After this Bomera Station changed hands a good many times I cannot think what the later hands names are. There was an old man taken a way by the name of Joe Budsworth & an old man Sam Freeman both those men were very feeble but being such faithfully servants & Mr Town’s being so kind hearted it was his wishes for them to go to Windsor his home”. Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales Mary Jane Cain reminiscences of Coonabarabran, New South Wales and district, 1844-1926 MLDOC 2686.

·Joseph BUDWORTH was thus living on the Liverpool Plains up until the time he was an “old man” and went to Windsor, where he died.

1892

·30 November 1892, Joseph BUDWORTH died at Hawkesbury Benevolent Asylum, Windsor.

Joseph BUDWORTH was transported to Australia as a convict, worked on the Liverpool Plains, married an Aboriginal woman named Kitty and had multiple children with her, and lived on the Liverpool Plains until he was an old man, when he went to Windsor, where he died.

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)

JW these details are all on the profile

* the baptism record for Joseph born in 1811 says Budworth not Budworth Bore

* There is no acknowledgement in this narrative that the names Budworth and Bore have been used interchangeably when it is clear that this is the case

* There is still no link provided between William Cox./Joseph Budworth, and his George or a link to Kitty .

* you have only referred to the 1861 census, why not the other census'

* there are multiple records outlining the misdemeanours that Joseph committed. they estimated birthdates ranging from 1811 to 1813. they are estimates only

* There is no birth record for a boy named Joseph Budworth in 1813

* There is no marriage record for a man named Joseph and Kitty in 1832. marriages of convicts were highly regulated with permission needing to be sought. There was no marriage

* Joseph Budsworth, who died in Windsor, was recorded as being born in 1816. The profile references this.

commented Mar 10 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

"There is still no link provided between William Cox./Joseph Budworth, and his George or a link to Kitty ."

The evidential link is contained in the Biographical Database of Australia Convicts sent to NSW & Norfolk Island 1829-1850.

Date; 1829 Dec Joseph Budworth, Arrived per ship: per Claudine, 6 Dec 1829; at Sydney; Age: 16; Education: None; Religion: Protestant; Marriage Status: Single; Born at Liverpool [LAN ENG]; Employment: Stable boy; Trial Crime: Stealing Butter, Tried at Liverpool [LAN ENG], Trial Date: 4 May 1829, Trial Sentence: 7 years; Previous convictions: 4; Height in feet & inches: 5, 0.75; Complexion: Ruddy much freckled; Hair: Brown; Eyes: Hazel; Employment Organisation: Wm Cox; Residence: Clarendon; Marks or Scars: yes; Licence Number: CF 37/138 [Biog Item No. 170313151]

Clicking on this link brings up:

BUDWORTH, Joseph (b: circa 1813 Liverpool LAN ENG); 1829 per Claudine (Convict) [B#17031315101]

COX, William (at: Clarendon NSW AUS) {1829 Convict Indent} [T#17031021902].

This is the evidential link to William COX.

As for the link to Kitty, I have provided this evidence repeatedly but happy to do so again.

As per the birth certificate of their son Joseph:

"NSW Baptism Certificate Number 2112 Vol: 61.

Child: Joseph.

Born: 27 June 1833.

Baptised: 1 June 1842.

Father: Joseph BUDSWORTH.

Mother: Kitty BUDSWORTH.

By whom the ceremony was performed: J.T. Lynch. Roman Catholic."

This is the evidential link between Joseph BUDWORTH and Kitty.

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)

Answer 2 · 2024-03-09T22:07:43+0000

Can you elaborate on this Matthew?

Josephs's birth certificate says Budworth and provides the surname Budworth for his mother and Bore for his mother, even though her maiden name was Woods.This is a consistent practice for the Budworth Bore family over generations and how the name has been used interchangeably. Is this not evidence? how should this be presented?

When his parents were married, his father was listed under the same name, Budworth Bore, and his mother was listed under the name Woods. His children are listed as variations of Budworth, Bore, and BudworthBore and variations of Budworthbore throughout their lives.

The same is true for his siblings, cousins, parents and grandparents over generations. There is a clear convention od these names being connected and being used interchangeably. In WikiTree, we are advised to "use their conventions rather than ours", when considering surnames as there are many cases, and this advice is particularly apt in this circumstance. If you are made aware of this connection, it should not be considered less valid just because it may not align with the naming convention used in your family. this context is very important.

This has been explained in the profiles and can easily be evidenced by creating lots of additional profiles. the question is how should this be communicated in the profile of Joseph Budworth Bore. It is certainly true. Should it be proven by referring the multiple generations of families across multiple lines in a single profile? If this is pointed out, should others just say- 'the naming is not consistent over his lifetime so they are obviously different people', when it is clear that this was not the case in this family.

Budworth, Budsworth, and Budworth Bore were not highly common names in England. Because of this, the evidence is more straightforward. It is not like the name Smith, where you can argue that there are lots of people with the same name in the same locality of the same province. the question is not whether this was true but rather how to represent this on the profile in a straightforward way. This claim should not be ignored because it does not match with our conventions which is what is being done at the moment .

commented Mar 10 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

Look at the actual document I have referenced.

In every single name on that document, it lists the surname of the child as the final name in that row, followed by the date they were born.

This is shown for Joseph BORE: https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/5290631:1351?tid=&pid=&queryId=81cffe13-29d7-4f28-8299-43248a60f842&_phsrc=lBl95&_phstart=successSource

This pattern is consistent with the names underneath Joseph BORE:

E.g. directly underneath is Sarah ECCLES, born 1 September 1811. https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/3347972:2247?tid=&pid=&queryId=ec991721-4d0b-4508-a42d-7b5e4187e208&_phsrc=lBl90&_phstart=successSource

Directly underneath her is Mary CHORLEY, born 4 September 1811. https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/3347973:2247?tid=&pid=&queryId=67ad100c-2fcd-49b4-b12c-5119beb2471b&_phsrc=lBl92&_phstart=successSource

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)

As Gillian has outlined, the way the names have been included on this register is inconclusive. In the vast majority of cases in this register, the surname of the father and mother have been written in the column that you are suggesting defines Jospeh's last name. The difference with this profile is that Joseph's father and mother have been given different last names, which is why Bore is placed after Margt. This is the reason that this record has been transcribed differently by different transcribers in different records as Gillian outlines. What is clear from this profile is that the Budworth Bore family used alternative conventions for last names, as evidenced by this record. The record demonstrates that both Budworth and Bore were family names. This strengthens the position that Joseph went by the surname Budworth, Bore and Budworth Bore.

commented Mar 10 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

"the way the names have been included on this register is inconclusive."

Simon, you are trying to complicate something which is extremely simple. Joseph BORE's last name was BORE, and BORE alone.

This is evidenced on his birth certificate.
This is evidenced in the 1841 census.
This is evidenced in the 1861 census.
This is also consistent with the birth certificates of his siblings.
This is evidenced in BORE's death documentation, which lists his last name as BORE, and BORE alone.

"What is clear from this profile is that the Budworth Bore family used alternative conventions for last names"

This is not clear at all. You have not demonstrated this. This is contrary to the available evidence.

"The record demonstrates that both Budworth and Bore were family names."

This is not demonstrated at all.

"This strengthens the position that Joseph went by the surname Budworth, Bore and Budworth Bore."

This is false. Joseph's baptism certificate, siblings baptism certificates, multiple census records, and death registration show the surname BORE and BORE alone.

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited Mar 10 by J W

To summarise what the experts here have stated:

·G2G6 Pilot Matthew Fletcher: “Joseph Budworth Bore seems to have used the surname Bore all his life. The 1829 deportee (who I'm assuming is the same as the convict from 1824) used the surname Budworth. Claiming they have the same name seems somewhat disingenuous.”

·G2G6 Pilot Helen Ford: “The parish clerk at Esther's baptism in 1824 has quite clearly used Bore as the surname”

·G2G6 Pilot Gillian Thomas: “There is probably an argument for correcting the LNAB for https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Budworth-55 to Bore, consistent with the name at baptism.”

·G2G6 Mach 3 Anonymous Baker: “For the baptism of Joseph Budworth Bore, he was recorded as 'Joseph' ; parents christian names = 'John Budworth' and 'Margaret' ; parents surname = 'Bore'.”

Thank you all for your expertise.

commented Mar 11 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)

Answer 3 · 2024-03-10T03:19:29+0000

Although gaining the Certificate of Freedom does give a convict the right to return to the United Kingdom, as the National Library states "if they could afford it!"

I think that's the main problem with your theory - how does Joseph Budworth the ex-convict afford to get back to England?

The other issue, is that although I know that some English families did use aliases and swap from one name to the other I think you need to be really careful to refer to people as the name they used in the records. For instance you consistently refer to John Budworth Bore in his biography but that's not how he is named in the some records and I think that's is a bit confusing.

Lastly I looked up Budworth in the NSW Convicts Index and there is also a James Budworth who was transported in 1835 and received a certificate of freedom in 1841. It might be worth investigating him further to see if they are related, sometimes that can reveal extra clues or details.

answered Mar 10 by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (630k points)

Show 13 previous comments

I agree with Matthew that there is no evidence to link the convict Joseph Budworth with the West Derby Budworth Bore and for the time being it would be better to have separate profiles for them. Both could include sections outlining the various hypotheses with links to the other profile.

(have also checked Briitish Newspaper Archive and local directories but found nothing of help)l.Theres a frustrating paucity of records for Joseph Budworth convict. One thing I'd like to find is something that indicates his literacy level (many prison records include this ). Both John Budworth Bore the father and Joseph the son signed marriage registers. This is long before compulsory education. I think I remember seeing that Joseph Budworth convict was working as a stableboy at 13.

Edited typos

commented Mar 10 by Helen Ford G2G6 Pilot (478k points)
edited Mar 10 by Helen Ford

Matthew Fletcher - Thanks for sharing your perspective. from my understanding - we are all experts here :). I responded to your message by listening to your response and asking for clarification. Others in this discussion have suggested that the surname was recorded as Bore. These details have been changed on the profile. I don't think there is conclusive proof that this person and the person who was transported are different. I note that I have provided evidence that the names were used interchangeably for generations that was downvoted and not responded to. I would also like to assert that many of the contributors that are arguing against the notion that Jospeh Budworth Bore is the person who was transported to New South Wales have held the opposite position for almost 20 years until now. It was not until I added these details to the Wikitree profile three weeks ago that their position changed and changed so vehemently. There is evidence of this. To not be open about this is excluding a key aspect of the context of this discussion.

commented Mar 12 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

Simon, the only reason the name Budworth is present on the document is because it is the father John BORE's middle name.

Note from the links you provided, John BORE's middle name is not even always used!

The parent's marriage certificate shows John Budworth BORE married Margaret WOODS on 9 September 1810.

This demonstrates Margaret was not know as BORE until after she married John BORE and took his last name. Her maiden name was not BORE.

Consequently, the way you have interpreted the birth certificate is demonstrably incorrect.

What you are really trying to argue is that:

In 1810 John Budworth BORE was married using this name.
In 1811 John changed his name to John BUDWORTH when he had his son Joseph, but his wife Margaret kept his name BORE.
John changed his name back to John BORE or John Budworth BORE when he had his other children and for the purpose of the 1841 and 1861 census etc.

Simon, surely you can now kindly acknowledge this is a nonsensical premise.

Consistent with every other child listed on Joseph BORE's baptism document:

His name is listed (Joseph).
His father's name is listed (John Budworth).
Then his mother's name is listed (Margaret).
Then their common surname BORE is listed, which all three of them shared.

commented Mar 12 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited Mar 12 by J W

''My ancestor Joseph BUDWORTH, who was born in 1813 [Is there evidence of this - the various criminal records for this boy estimate a number of ages which suggest he may have been born between 1811 and 1813. Most of these records suggest 1811. There is a possibility he was recorded as younger than he was in the final record before he was born to avoid the more strict sentence of the death penalty] and transported to Australia as a convict in 1829.

BUDWORTH was assigned to work for the Cox family [this record was added to the Wikitree profile by myself - there is no dispute about this]

who owned land in the Liverpool Plains region [more details are required here - when did William Cox own the land, did he have convicts working on this land? Who were they?].

BUDWORTH married an Aboriginal woman and had children with her in the Liverpool Plains region [This is in dispute. There are no records that link Joseph Budworth the convict on the Josephine with the birth of children. in most of the certificates this man is named as Budsworth. More evidence is required to demonstrate that this is the case. There is no marriage certificate that has been located].

BUDWORTH lived in the Liverpool Plains region until he was an "old man" and travelled to a Benevolent Asylum in Windsor, where he died in 1892.'' [the old man who may have lived in both the Liverpool Plains area and in the Maitland area was named Budsworth. According to his death certificate, he was born in 1816. There may be more than one man named Budsworth represented here. The links to the six children that may have been born to him are less than convincing. It has been suggested in several sources that Joseph married a girl named Kitty who was in the Parramatta Native Institution in Windsor - yet there are no records of this marriage available and no records of them meeting. For this reason there is not yet any evidence of this on the profile. To date there is no clear record that places Joseph Budworth the convict in either the Liverpool Plains or in Maitland.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks JW One of the questions posed by this thread is whether this is indeed the case

commented Mar 13 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

Happy to provide all this information again to ensure the records on this site are now updated to be accurate.

"My ancestor Joseph BUDWORTH, who was born in 1813 [Is there evidence of this"

Yes, there are multiple sources.

Source 1:

PCOM 2 1770-1951 Home Office and Prison Commission: Prisons Records, Series 1. Kew, Surrey, England: The National Archives; Kew, London, England: Metropolitan Police: Criminal Record Office: Habitual Criminals Registers and Miscellaneous Papers; cited in Ancestry.com. UK, Prison Commission Records, 1770-1951

Name Joseph Budworth

Criminal Admission Age 16

Record Type Register

Birth Date abt 1813

Criminal Charge feloniously stolen

Sentence 7 years transportation

Criminal Admission Date 29 Mar 1829

Criminal Admission Place Lancashire, England

Jail Liverpool Gaol

Source Description Liverpool Gaol, Lancashire: Calendars of Trials At Liverpool Borough Sessions

Source 2:

The Biographical Database of Australia, Biographical report for Joseph BUDWORTH states the following:

BUDWORTH, Joseph (b: circa 1813 Liverpool LAN ENG).

Source 3:

This is consistent with his record from the Claudine which states:

Date: 1829 Dec

Biographical record: Joseph Budworth,

Arrived per ship: per Claudine, 6 Dec 1829; at Sydney;

Age: 16;

Education: None;

Religion: Protestant;

Marriage Status: Single;

Born at Liverpool [LAN ENG];

Employment: Stable boy;

Trial Crime: Stealing Butter,

Tried at Liverpool [LAN ENG],

Trial Date: 4 May 1829,

Trial Sentence: 7 years;

Previous convictions: 4;

Height in feet & inches: 5, 0.75;

Complexion: Ruddy much freckled;

Hair: Brown;

Eyes: Hazel;

Employment Organisation: Wm Cox;

Residence: Clarendon;

Marks or Scars: yes;

Licence Number: CF 37/138 [Biog Item No. 170313151].

“BUDWORTH was assigned to work for the Cox family [this record was added to the Wikitree profile by myself - there is no dispute about this]”

Simon I’m perplexed by this comment. Several days ago, on 11 March ago you said “* There is still no link provided between William Cox./Joseph Budworth, and his George or a link to Kitty .”

Following which I provided evidence of the definitive link to William Cox. In any case I’m glad you now accept this.

commented Mar 13 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited Mar 13 by J W

“[more details are required here - when did William Cox own the land, did he have convicts working on this land? Who were they?].”

The Australian Dictionary of Biography has a profile on William Cox https://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/cox-william-1934, which I invite you to read. Of interest, this states that just his estate at Clarendon had “over fifty convict servants”.

As per the Biographical Database of Australia, the convicts who William COX has associated with him in 1829 were:

Thomas Brookbank, age 23, arrived 17 January 1829.
James Downey, age 36, arrived 17 January 1829.
John Graham, age 41, arrived 26 March 1829.
Michael Kelly, age 18, arrived 26 March 1829.
John McQuaid, age 19, arrived 26 March 1829.
Daniel Mullin, age 15, arrived 26 March 1829.
James McGuirk, age 27, arrived 26 March 1829.
John Wilkinson, age 17, arrived 18 August 1829.
James White, age 22, arrived 18 August 1829.
Stephen Bolton, age 31, arrived 27 August 1829.
John McKenzie, age 18, arrived 13 September 1829.
Joseph Budworth, age 16, arrived 6 December 1829.
Thomas Jordan, age 17, arrived 6 December 1829.
George Hood, age 15, arrived 6 December 1829.
Robert Parker, age 16, arrived 6 December 1829.

I have already provided information about the COX family’s association with the region where Joseph BUDWORTH, Kitty BUDWORTH and their family lived, but copy and paste some of it again here:

As stated in the article “The journey to ‘Forked Mountain’” by Marilyn Wood, published in Aboriginal History 2001 Vol. 25, p.209: “By 1826 William Cox’s sons George and Henry had extended their cattle even further north, staking a claim to land at Binnea, south of Coonabarabran, providing the nexus for Jinnie’s move between Mudgee and Coonabarabran… by 1829 George and Henry Cox had moved on from ‘Binnea’ and had established a run at ‘Nomeby’ (‘Nombi’) further northeast into Kamilaroi lands.”
The Supplement to the New South Wales Government Gazette of Tuesday 19 September, 1848 is titled: “CLAIMS TO LEASES OF CROWN LANDS, BEYOND THE SETTLED DISTRICTS. LIVERPOOL PLAINS DISTRICT.” This states: Name of Run-Nomeby. Estimated Area-60,000 Acres. Estimated Grazing Capabilities-1,200 Cattle. 2,000 Sheep. This station being on the verge of the plains to secure a spring of water… and bounded as follows, on the north by Belumbela ridges; south by Buballa range, east by Bowen or Cox’s creek; west by rocky ridge.”

“There are no records that link Joseph Budworth the convict on the Josephine with the birth of children. “in most of the certificates this man is named as Budsworth.””

The children’s baptism certificates identify their father was Joseph BUDWORTH! As I have already demonstrated, the same priest at the same parish alternately named the father of the children Joseph BUDWORTH or Joseph BUDSWORTH. I provide this evidence again.

NSW Baptism Certificate Number 2112 Vol: 61.

Child: Joseph.

Born: 27 June 1833.

Baptised: 1 June 1842.

Father: Joseph BUDSWORTH.

Mother: Kitty BUDSWORTH.

By whom the ceremony was performed: J.T. Lynch. Roman Catholic.

NSW Baptism Certificate Number 1650 Vol: 62.

Child: James.

Born: 5 years old.

Baptised: 12 August 1845.

Father: Joseph BUDWORTH

Mother: (Aboriginal)

By whom the ceremony was performed: J.T. Lynch. Roman Catholic.

NSW Baptism Certificate Number 1729 Vol: 62.

Child: John.

Born: October 1843.

Baptised: 22 October 1845.

Father: Joseph BUDSWORTH

Mother: Kitty Aborigini (sic)

By whom the ceremony was performed: J.T. Lynch. Roman Catholic.

“There is no marriage certificate that has been located].”

The 1833 baptism certificate of Joseph and Kitty’s child, Joseph (Junior), shows that Kitty took Joseph’s last name.

NSW Baptism Certificate Number 2112 Vol: 61.

Child: Joseph.

Born: 27 June 1833.

Baptised: 1 June 1842.

Father: Joseph BUDSWORTH.

Mother: Kitty BUDSWORTH.

By whom the ceremony was performed: J.T. Lynch. Roman Catholic.

So I’m not mistaken, are you trying to suggest that an Aboriginal woman named Kitty just happened to already have the same last name as the man she had children with?

“BUDWORTH lived in the Liverpool Plains region until he was an "old man" and travelled to a Benevolent Asylum in Windsor, where he died in 1892.'' [the old man who may have lived in both the Liverpool Plains area and in the Maitland area was named Budsworth. According to his death certificate, he was born in 1816. There may be more than one man named Budsworth represented here.””

Later in his life, BUDWORTH was living on Bomera Station, still on the Liverpool Plains. The diary of Mary Jane CAIN states (Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales Mary Jane Cain reminiscences of Coonabarabran, New South Wales and district, 1844-1926 MLDOC 2686.):

“After this Bomera Station changed hands a good many times I cannot think what the later hands names are. There was an old man taken a way by the name of Joe Budsworth & an old man Sam Freeman both those men were very feeble but being such faithfully servants & Mr Town’s being so kind hearted it was his wishes for them to go to Windsor his home”.

On 30 November 1892, Joseph BUDWORTH died at Hawkesbury Benevolent Asylum, Windsor. He was elderly, already beyond life expectancy for the time, and living in a benevolent asylum. It’s no surprise his birth year was out. Fascinatingly, the Hawkesbury Benevolent Asylum was founded in 1818 by Archibald BELL and William COX, an interesting connection. I hadn’t realised this! https://dictionaryofsydney.org/organisation/hawkesbury_benevolent_society Joseph BUDWORTH was buried at Windsor General Cemetery.

Joseph BUDWORTH was still living in the same region he had since he was in his 20s, when he was working for the COX family. The evidence shows he left there as an “old man” to travel to Windsor (to live in the Asylum which COX founded), where BUDWORTH died and was buried. It has not been demonstrated there was ever a second man with the same name, with the exception of his son who had died almost 30 years earlier, in 11 May 1863 in Queensland. Of great interest, Joseph BUDWORTH Junior’s death certificate states the following:

Queensland death certificate (1863/C/23)

Name: Joseph Budworth

Death Date: 11 May 1863

Death Place: Queensland

Registration Date: 1863

Registration Place: Australia

Father: Joseph Budworth

Mother: Black Kitty

Registration Number: 000023

Page number: 1860.

commented Mar 13 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited Mar 14 by J W

Answer 4 · 2024-03-10T04:10:05+0000

look at the discussion on this page with a descendant of the budworth bore, budworth-bore family

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bore-81

then the vast amount of evidence if these names being connected across multiple connected families in west derby. this is not something that is being made up. there is vast amounts of evidence that this naming convention existed. how thus represented in a single profile is the issue

* https://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Liverpool/Kirkby/stchad/burials_1831-1847.html

* https://www.frontierinfo.com/LAN-OPC/Liverpool/Knotty-Ash/stjohn/marriages_1837-1917.html

* https://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Liverpool/Everton/stgeorge/baptisms_1825-1835.html

* https://www.liverpoolmaritime.org/advancedSingleTypeSearch.php?Property_Type_Name=Baptised_By&Search_Term=J.+Fearon+Offg.+Min.&Is_Link=N

* https://www.bootlehistory.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1638

* https://www.cofekirkby.co.uk/rosalindlloydspages/burial.htm

* http://www.cofekirkby.co.uk/rosalindlloydspages/sectiona.htm

What would it take to accept that these names being connected is conventional in West Derby in the 1800s and that there being no association between these names is unusual?

answered Mar 10 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

I did review all of those examples yesterday (apart from the liverpoolmaritime.org one that seemed to go to a different family) and there is definite evidence that John Budworth Bore and his descendants often used Budworth as an extra name. In the records it is being used as a 'middle' name.

However there were also different families who were recorded just under the surname Budworth. I couldn't see any use of just the name Bore in the examples you gave, but that doesn't mean there aren't families with that surname in other records.

It seems possible that John or perhaps his father originally used the surname Budworth and then adopted the additional name of Bore, but I don't think there is enough evidence yet to say that definitely.

I didn't see any record where the family was using the named Budworth or Bore interchangeably (one record using Budworth, the next Bore, back to Budworth etc).

The other thing to remember is that in this time period in England we rarely get records completed by the person themselves. So how the name appears in the records may not be exactly the same as how the person or family would have written it (that's if they weren't illiterate to start with).

commented Mar 12 by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (630k points)

Hi Simon,

These links are excellent, thank you for sharing!! There's a lot but I've gone through most of them and provided the relevant information contained below.

For example in this site which you posted: https://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Liverpool/Everton/stgeorge/baptisms_1825-1835.html shows

Searching for 'Budworth' brings up the following:

John Budworth Bore.

That's it!

Searching for 'Bore' also brings up the following:

Mary Bore - [Child] of John Budworth Bore & Anne
Ann Bore - [Child] of John Budworth Bore & Ann
James Bore - [Child] of John Budworth Bore & Anne
Roger Bore - [Child] of John Budworth Bore & Ann
Margaret Bore - [Child] of John Budworth Bore & Anne

This link you provided provides comprehensive support that BORE was the last name, and BORE alone. Thank you for acknowledging this!

The same in this one as well: https://www.liverpoolmaritime.org/advancedSingleTypeSearch.php?Property_Type_Name=Baptised_By&Search_Term=J.+Fearon+Offg.+Min.&Is_Link=N

Searching for 'Budworth' brings up the following:

John Budworth Bore.

That's it!

Searching for 'Bore' also brings up the following:

Margaret Bore Baptised by Her Parents John Budworth Bore (Gardener) and Anne of Walton on the Hill

In this site: https://www.lan-opc.org.uk/Liverpool/Kirkby/stchad/burials_1831-1847.html

The name BORE is frequently in capital letters, differentiating it from the occasions where Budworth is also used. Every example of Bore on this site is below:

BORE Rebecca Budworth
Anne Bore
John Bore
Margaret Bore
BORE Margaret Budworth
Bartle Budworth Bore - Son of John Bore & Jane
John Budworth Bore
Esther Budworth Bore

John Budworth BORE isn't even always referred to with the name Budworth either! This further demonstrates BORE alone was the surname. Adding Budworth as a middle name was evidently an occasional practice, and certainly not a surname always used.

In addition, BORE is frequently differentiated by being in capital letters, showing it is indeed the one word, four letter surname.

In this site you linked: https://www.bootlehistory.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1638

Every reference to Bore is copied below:

Eleanor Bore.
"Yes, they are my grandparents, my mum confirms Eleanor's maiden name as Bore."
Lillian J Barker Mother's maiden name Bore
George Bore age 36
Magdalen Bore age 38
George Bore Son age 8
Margaret A Bore Daughter age 7
ELEANOR BORE daughter age 4
Charles Bore Son age 1
George B Bore
George Budworth Bore

So, the middle name of Budworth is only used in a single instance. In not a single case is Budworth ever used on its own in this family. BORE is unequivocally the surname, based on a sample of the links you posted.

Simon, thank you again for providing these links.

commented Mar 12 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited Mar 12 by J W

Answer 5 · 2024-03-10T05:14:40+0000

Hi Simon,

Thanks for posting about this.

I hope I’m not oversimplifying things, or missing something! I think it's clear that there were two different Josephs, as one married in England in 1841, and the other was in New South Wales around the same period having children. There is not a lot of information about the Joseph Budsworth who was in New South Wales – available sources (or sources located to date) are on https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Budsworth-24

As I see it, there are two issues of dispute. The main one is which, if either, of the two profiles for Joseph Budworth/Budsworth was the one who was transported to New South Wales on the ‘Claudine’ in 1829. I'm aware that numerous online trees have Joseph (Henry??) Budworth/Budworth-Bore, baptised in West Derby in 1811 under the name Joseph Bore - ie https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Budworth-55 - as the one who was transported to New South Wales on the Claudine. However, if it was him, he does seem to be back in England by 1841, rather than having children in New South Wales.

Independently of which one was transported on the Claudine, the one who was in New South Wales in the period from about 1830 to 1850 or later, was the one who married Kathleen Unknown-668880 , otherwise known as Black Kitty.

There is probably an argument for correcting the LNAB for https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Budworth-55 to Bore, consistent with the name at baptism. Also if the profile is worked up based on the sources for his life in England, and the information about the conviction and transportation is moved for the moment to research notes, that may help to sort out some of the confusion.

If needed, it may be better to address the issue of Kathleen Unknown-668880 and Kitty Warmuli-1 as a separate G2G question.

answered Mar 10 by Gillian Thomas G2G6 Pilot (269k points)

The father marries Margaret Woods in 1810 under the name of John Budworth Bore (even signs his name like that), and at least according to the Lancashire OPC site baptises his second son in 1813 as John Budworth Bore, son of John Budworth Bore & Margt. and uses that name throughout the rest of his life.

So is the baptism of Joseph actually a mistake on the part of the Parish priest or whoever fills in the register (or a misreading on our part) and Joseph actually uses the name of Joseph Budworth Bore as we find in other records? Or are we to assume he does use the surname Budworth?

Budworth isn't a common name but nor is it that rare particularly in that North West area of England, so it could be possible that Joseph Budworth who has the criminal record and is transported to Australia for 7 years is not the same person as Joseph Budworth Bore. One of the Criminal Registers names him as Joseph Budworth alias Davis. I would agree with Gillian's initial thought that the conviction record and transportation should go in the Research Notes until we find further clarifying evidence.

Not sure if this works but this is source which calls him 'alias Davis' '''Criminal Register''': "UK, Prison Commission Records, 1770-1951", database with images The National Archives; Kew, London, England; PCOM 2: Metropolitan Police: Criminal Record Office: Habitual Criminals Registers and Miscellaneous Papers {{Ancestry Sharing|10702640|7b22746f6b656e223a22647234434f6e6136706e464d77514245362b574c44316736785633675944646b73427a6a726256417a716b3d222c22746f6b656e5f76657273696f6e223a225632227d}} - {{Ancestry Record|61810|915771|au}} (accessed 10 March 2024)Name: Joseph Budworth [Joseph Davis]; Record Type: Register; Criminal Charge: Felony; Jail: Liverpool Gaol; Criminal Discharge Date: Apr. 1828; Source Description: Liverpool Gaol, Lancashire: Calendars of Trials At Liverpool Borough Sessions.

commented Mar 10 by John Atkinson G2G6 Pilot (630k points)

John, why would you suggest that the baptism was a mistake on behalf of the parish priest when this method of using surnames for parents on birth records was consistent for generations, both before and after Joseph was born? Are you ignoring this, or have you had a look? Again, this is an assumption rather than basing your judgment on whether this occurred or not.

Family members over generations used the name Budworth and Bore and Budsworth Bore - and other variations consistently over the 1700s and 1800s. This is particularly prevalent in West Derby, as illustrated previously. Just because it is not the convention for your family to use last names this way does not mean you should reject that this happened for this family over this period. This record places Joseph Budworth Bore in the area where the crimes were committed as a young boy, with consistent family history in urban Liverpool

This person would have to exist for another Joseph to be transported from West Derby. I acknowledge only two possibilities for this person, both born about 80 miles away from the sites of the crimes in Wirkshite (Josephus) and Burton-on-Trent (Joseph), respectively. There would have to be a pretty compelling case for one of these two candidates to be the person who was transported. and it would not be that this person was born in 1813 from the estimated ages on the court records.as these boys were born in 1811.

Even if you did consider that one of these two boys was transported, I have not seen any indication that you have looked at the possibility that a convict in Windsor married and had at least two and perhaps children while still convicted in Winsdor and that the woman named Kitty is the same woman. Have you examined the other hypothesis in any way to assess its veracity? I think you will find its likelihood relatively weak.

If you would like to start poling holes in narratives to this degree, you would start by looking at one of the attached profiles that you are claiming are equally valid.

https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1715829/collaborate-profile-some-kathleen-kitty-unknown-budsworth

.

commented Mar 10 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

Gillian, thank you for your response. You ask:

which, if either, of the two profiles for Joseph Budworth/Budsworth was the one who was transported to New South Wales on the ‘Claudine’ in 1829.

The evidence definitively shows it is: is: https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Budsworth-24

and that it is not: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Bore-81.

Joseph BORE

The profile incorrectly named Joseph Budworth born 1 August 1811 should be listed as Joseph BORE. This is consistent with his baptism certificate:

https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/172216525:9841?tid=&pid=&queryId=a6b49a77-9062-4e81-9861-f907cdedca76&_phsrc=lBl87&_phstart=successSource

Name: Joseph Bore
Gender: Male
Birth Date: 1 Aug 1811
Baptism Date: 1 Sep 1811
Baptism Place: St. Mary-the-Virgin, West Derby, Lancashire, England
Father: John Budworth Bore
Mother: Margaret
FHL Film Number: 1468982
Reference ID: item 2

There is zero evidence this male ever travelled to Australia at any time, or ever set foot in Australia.

Joseph BUDWORTH https://www.wikitree.com/index.php?title=Budsworth-24

The entirely different person Joseph BUDWORTH was a convict who came to Sydney on the Claudine in 1829, and remained in Australia until he died in 1892. He worked for the COX family who had land in the Liverpool Plains region. BUDWORTH had multiple children with an Aboriginal woman named Kitty in the Liverpool Plains region, as per their baptism records. BUDWORTH remained living in the Liverpool Plains region until he was an "old man", then went to Windsor and died in 1892.

Joseph BUDWORTH is the one and only person who these convict records are about. They have zero to do with Joseph BORE, who never set foot in Australia.

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)

Simon, you ask:

"The baptism record provides the names of Joseph's parents, Budworth and Bore, and his father, Budworth... Unless I am mistaken about what the birth record states?"

Yes, you are mistaken about what Joseph BORE's birth record states.

His surname is BORE and BORE alone, which is entirely consistent with John's other children, aka Joseph's siblings.

For example, you have listed William BORE as another son of John Budworth BORE.

William’s very own birth certificate is located here: https://www.ancestry.com/discoveryui-content/view/15889178:2575 and shows:

When Baptised: 1818 Feb 22

Child’s Christian Name: William

Parents’ Name: John Budworth & Marg

Surname: Boar

This is evidently a homophone, but the surname was Boer/Boar and that name alone, not Budworth. According to William's own baptism record that's a name his father was known by, not him.

Furthermore, the marriage certificate of Joseph BORE’s parents shows that John Budworth BORE married Margaret WOODS on 9 September 1810. This demonstrates Margaret was not know as BORE until after she married John BORE and took his last name.

Hence you have been interpreting Joseph BORE's birth certificate incorrectly. His last name was BORE and BORE alone.

This is also consistent with Joseph BORE's death certificate. This shows his last name was BORE and BORE alone.

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited Mar 10 by J W

Not sure if this works but this is source which calls him 'alias Davis' '''Criminal Register''': "UK, Prison Commission Records, 1770-1951", database with images The National Archives; Kew, London, England; PCOM 2: Metropolitan Police: Criminal Record Office: Habitual Criminals Registers and Miscellaneous Papers {{Ancestry Sharing|10702640|7b22746f6b656e223a22647234434f6e6136706e464d77514245362b574c44316736785633675944646b73427a6a726256417a716b3d222c22746f6b656e5f76657273696f6e223a225632227d}} - {{Ancestry Record|61810|915771|au}} (accessed 10 March 2024)Name: Joseph Budworth [Joseph Davis]; Record Type: Register; Criminal Charge: Felony; Jail: Liverpool Gaol; Criminal Discharge Date: Apr. 1828; Source Description: Liverpool Gaol, Lancashire: Calendars of Trials At Liverpool Borough Sessions.

John this is a fascinating line of enquiry, thank you!!

commented Mar 10 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)

Answer 6 · 2024-03-10T11:11:26+0000

Regarding the information given in the parish register for the baptism of Joseph Budworth Bore, it should be noted that the headings in the register are :

'when baptized' - 'child's christian name' - 'parents name' this is divided into two columns 'christian' and 'surname' - 'abode' - 'profession' - 'by whom ceremony was performed'.

For the baptism of Joseph Budworth Bore, he was recorded as 'Joseph' ; parents christian names = 'John Budworth' and 'Margaret' ; parents surname = 'Bore'.

Regarding the other Joseph Budworth - the 'Joseph Budworth [alias Joseph Davis] quoted in the 'UK, Prison Commission Records' could bear some further investigation - there are a number of 'Joseph Davis/Joseph Davies' baptisms in Liverpool c1811 +/-2 years.

answered Mar 10 by Anonymous Baker G2G6 Mach 3 (37.9k points)

JW, No, this is not clear. Simon has simply updated this profile in part to reflect what academic Rosemary Norman-Hill and a bunch of other Budworth descendants have been publishing for years - that is, that Joseph Budworth's parents were John and Margaret Bore. This is published across numerous platforms and regularly discussed and shared among descendants. Simon has done nothing wrong here other than add to and graciously course-correct a narrative that many people connected to this line have been perpetuating for some time now, albeit ambigiously. His contribution is highly valued by myself and other Dharug loved ones of mine. JW, If you are so certain that the Josephs are not the same, then please kindly provide evidence of who NSW Joseph Budsworth parents were as that would be a productive way forward. I have watched the comments on here for days now and the persistent fixation on this one point has been inappropriate, as has some of the comments directed at someone who is generously giving up his time for what is a fairly timely and thankless task. There are still discrepancies and unanswered questions relating to this particular Budsworth line. As an Aboriginal woman, I will say that such discrepancies have enormous and long-lasting ramifications for community and culture which are heartwrenching for custodians like myself. As it stands, the narrative constructed around this particular line has been accompanied by so few records along with more questions than answers. I for one am grateful for the labour of researchers like Simon for taking this on and doing so with integrity and much patience. Thank you, Simon.

commented Mar 11 by Laura La Rosa G2G Rookie (110 points)

To summarise what the experts here have stated:

·G2G6 Pilot Matthew Fletcher: “Simon, several experts on British genealogy have generously given their time to look at this case. The unanimous conclusion is that Joseph Budworth Bore and the transported Joseph Bud(s)worth were not the same person”

·G2G6 Pilot Helen Ford: “I agree with Matthew that there is no evidence to link the convict Joseph Budworth with the West Derby Budworth Bore” and “The biggest problem is that there is no evidence to connect Joseph Budworth Bore of West Derby with Joseph Budworth the convict.

·G2G6 Pilot Heather Jenkinson: “I came to the same conclusion as most people Joseph Budworth and Joseph Budworth Bore are two different people.”

Thank you all for your expertise.

commented Mar 11 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)

If you look through the comments

* Matthew did not respond to my questions asking him to clarify his rationale. The point about the last name has been conceded and the profile updated

* Helen Ford is correct that the evidence that the convict Joseph Budworth and Joseph Budworth Bore is weak. However, he was the only boy born in close vicinity to where the crimes were conducted. This is why he has remained the prime candidate for who was transported for 20 years. I have begun looking into other Joseph Budworths who this could be but I am currently focused on demonstrating my claim that the names were used interchangeably over generations

* Heather Jenkinson has stated her perspective and I have responded that we are all experts. But until people actually put the work into looking through the records - this is an opinion.

* The profile has been updated to reflect this situation. I can update it again based on suggestion. The most burning issue I can think of is whether Jospeh Budworth who was transported on the Claudine in 1929 is the same man as Joseph Henry Budsworth or Henry Joseph Budworth who may have had up to six children in Maitland and the Liverpool Plains. This is relevant to this question as he has also been strongly tied to both the identity of the man who was transported on the Claudine in 1829 and the man named Jospeh Budworth Bore born in 1811. This cannot be disputed and there is very clear evidence for this.

Please read this post in full before reacting. If you have any other suggestions for how to proceed with the discussion please share them

commented Mar 13 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

To verify that the man named Joseph Budworth Bore and Joseph Budworth on the Claudine in 1829 and Joseph Henry Budsworth (or Henry Jospeh Budsworth) have been conflated for the best part of 20 years, I would like to draw people's attention to the following documents. These were previously added to the comments section on the profile for Joseph Budworth Bore but I do not think most people on the G2G discussion have noticed them. This is why I am persisting. These are publicly available resources that I had no hand in creating

https://kendallfamily.name/kendall_family_nsw/ps07/ps07_363.html
https://darugweavers.tripod.com/ourblackandwhitefamily/id32.html
https://convictrecords.com.au/convicts/budworth/joseph/96224
https://gw.geneanet.org/chatfhs?lang=en&n=budsworth&oc=0&p=henry+joseph
https://researchportal.scu.edu.au/esploro/outputs/991012884700402368
https://www.ancestry.com/search/collections/1030/?name=Joseph_Budsworth&death=1892_Windsor-New+South+Wales&marriage=1892_Windsor-New+South+Wales

Thank you in advance for considering these and this includes people who have made the conclusion that Joseph Henry Bore and the Joseph who was transported on the Claudine are not the same person. For such a long standing and consistent story by this family to be debunked, there is a need to be thorough. They are not a complete list

commented Mar 13 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

Answer 7 · 2024-03-10T14:03:02+0000

Not really a lot to add - I came to the same conclusion as most people Joseph Budworth and Joseph Budworth Bore are two different people. Where did the aka Davis come from? Might be worth looking for a Budworth / Davis Marriage?

Might also be worth looking at where his accomplices came from Lancashire / Cheshire?

Answer 8 · 2024-03-11T05:49:57+0000

Is there any evidence that Joseph Henry Budsworth was ever in England? This would also be useful for understanding the situation Colebee Shelley.

The records we have for the convict are for Joseph Budworth. One outstanding issue that was originally highlighted was that these two men have been conflated.

It is also a strong possibility that Joseph Budworth Bore and Joseph Budwoth have been conflated, which is why I am going through the generations to demonstrate how Budworth, Bore, and Budworth Bore were used interchangeably and why I have requested that others maybe go through the other boy's named Bore that there are records for in Derby and Staffordshire at the time. I have already started this, but I am just one person.

The question of whether Joseph Budworth on the Claudine (1929) and Joseph Henry Budsworth who operated in rural New South Wales is a very relevant, pertinent, and significant question that is being avoided.

Thanks for your collaborations

PS I do not understand what you mean by saying "Kitty's line has been copyrighted" I don't think this represents any law i have heard of. Especially as the link between Kitty as Joseph Budworth who was transported on the Claudine in 1829 has not been established with any evidence

Thank you for listening

commented Mar 13 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

Simon, thank you for your diligence with this, and also for being so reasonable and respectful. I hope everyone researching this line (myself included) can collectively shed further light soon as there are many unanswered questions. As it stands, the true identity of Joseph Budworth/Budsworth the convict has not been established one way or another. If anyone can produce records on who his parents were, that would be super helpful. I am still trying to figure out how a connection to convict Joseph and "Kitty" from the Parramatta Native Institute has been made. I have been researching and enquiring about this for some time now and have not seen any records that link these two people. The only thing I have seen is a mention of a 'Black Kitty' on a QLD death certificate (1863/23) for a Joseph Budworth (son of another Joseph Budworth) however, I have not seen tangible records that clarify who any of the people on this certificate are outside of this certificate, or how they might be linked to Kitty from the Parramatta Native Institute. If anyone here can please provide and/or upload records relating to this to the relevant wikitree profiles, that would be very much appreciated and will hopefully help us to fill in the various missing gaps.

commented Mar 13 by Laura La Rosa G2G Rookie (110 points)
edited Mar 13 by Laura La Rosa

Answer 9 · 2024-03-11T11:33:06+0000

There are some strong feelings about the issues raised in this discussion. On behalf of the G2G Moderators, please could I urge people to be careful in their language and respectful of each other. Please remember to address the issues courteously, and focus on the evidence available.

Answer 10 · 2024-03-12T09:19:43+0000

John I have replied to this many times and updated the profile to represent that the surname was represented as Bore on the birth certificate.

As for the middle name Anderson persisting in your family's case. That is irrelevant to this context. I am taking my time demonstrating that the names Budworth, Bore, and Budworth-Bore persisted over generations for both male and female family members, and these names were used interchangeably. I am doing this slowly under the concept of stop and drop to take the heat out of this discussion. The outcome will be conclusive on way or another and provide closure I would hope. To do this for five generations of Budworth Bores (including cousins) takes time. Please be patient. I can think of nothing else that would satisfy people. In the mean time, if you are still interested, you might try identifying who was transported. There are not too many candidates to choose from and this would also act to provide closure.

I think we have rehashed those records that have already been discussed to death. They do not determine whether Budworth was a middle name - nor do they identify who was transported to Australia. The uncertainty is already reflected on the profile. If you would like to suggest ways that this could be expressed more clearly, please do so.

commented Mar 13 by Living Ross G2G6 Mach 2 (29.7k points)

Thank you again Simon for confirming that Joseph BORE born 1811 was baptised with this name alone.

Why does the profile of Bore-91 still say "Other Last Name(s): Budworth"? As the multiple independent experts on this G2G who have contributed their time and expertise have unanimously agreed, this is incorrect.

Simon, in the links you shared, on multiple occasions even Joseph BORE's father, John Budworth BORE, is referred to only as 'John BORE'. That's hardly surprising - we don't use our middle names all of the time.

Plainly according to the links you shared and all of the other evidence, BORE alone was the last name of every person in this family.

Simon, you explicitly stated: "I have conceded that the last name on the baptism certificate was recorded as Bore" and "The point about the last name has been conceded". I am extremely please by this, which is in line with the plethora of evidence presented and the unanimous agreement of every independent expert on this G2G. Thank you.

commented Mar 13 by J W G2G1 (1.1k points)
edited Mar 14 by J W

Categories

Can anyone help out with a difference of opinion about a profile

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to answer this question.

11 Answers

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Margaret Bore Baptised by Her Parents John Budworth Bore (Gardener) and Anne of Walton on the Hill

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Please log in or register to add a comment.

Related questions