George Best - Page 3 - Genealogists' Forum

Merry · #21 08-10-19, 07:43

George and Mary should have been married at either Tonbridge or East Peckham (after those banns) but there doesn't seem to be a marriage at either of those places.

I agree that it seems strange than the banns were read three times when George was busy being arrested, if it's the same George and if he was arrested immediately after the crime was committed. Maybe at first no one knew who had committed the burglary, but then it became apparent George had vanished. Someone must have had an idea where he had gone (somewhere in Surrey ?) and so people were sent to try and find him and were successful. I could see all that taking some time. There was no obligation for the future bride and groom to be in the church when the banns were read. Maybe the vicar believed in innocence until guilt is proved in a court of law?!! Mary Summers may not have been so forgiving!

It doesn't look as if there had been people named Best living in East Peckham for generations, so I am doubtful that there were any other George Best's in the vicinity. I'd place a small bet on this groom being the George you are searching for. It doesn't make a huge difference one way or the other really, except to back up the evidence that he was 'of' East Peckham when he was arrested.

Merry · #22 08-10-19, 07:54

Looking at a pdf here:

https://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewconten...&context=aabfj

I looked at the refs at the end...these two looked interesting:

Quote:

PRO (Public Records Office, London) Trials transcripts: Kent Lent Assizes 1790 (PFF 6A77CL ASSI 35/23015 and XC 3237 CL ASSI 31/16)

The first of those appears to have a typo so ASSI 35/23015 should read ASSI 35/230/5 which led me to two results at TNA:

https://discovery.nationalarchives.g...i+35%2F230%2F5

(I'm not sure if those are actually both the same document?)

The other ref, ASSI 31/16, led me to the first result here:

https://discovery.nationalarchives.g...q=ASSI+31%2F16

Have you seen any of these docs?

Of course all three document details include the remark, "This record has not been digitised and cannot be downloaded."

Kit · #23 08-10-19, 11:41

I saw the PDF many years ago and I have to confess I skimmed it and read it for George's history. It's still quite interesting and he really did well for himself. One thing it did say, was that George, himself, said he was from Sussex. (Ritchie, 1971, p. 83 so I remember)

I'd love to read the Ritchie book and the information from the Bigge Commisssion but it is not easy to access.

I tried to find the papers on the TNA earlier today but I'm not very good at it. I think I have a partial copy of one of those pages, although I don't know if it is them or something else. Can I email you and you attach it here? The first reference you posted can't be ordered for copy or viewing at all. I wonder why? The second one, if I'm reading it correctly, is the minute books. I wonder how much information that would contain?

PS: Is Sussex the hard to find county? Do I have to go through the historical society?

PPS I also think the George who didn't marry Mary above is probably mine. It gives a glimpse of him.

Kit · #24 08-10-19, 11:51

familysearch has 1 George Best baptised in Sussex between 1750 and 1770. George son of Charles baptised 1769 at Bramber. There is an image too.

Merry · #25 08-10-19, 12:43

There's also one at Brighton Sussex on Ancestry in 1755.

I haven't quite taken in what you have said except can you email me, so I'll pm my address now, and then off out!

Kit · #26 08-10-19, 12:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Merry

There's also one at Brighton Sussex on Ancestry in 1755.

That's closer in age and more likely.

I'm off to bed soon. Thanks for your help.

kiterunner · #27 08-10-19, 12:57

Bear in mind that there is a George Best / Elizabeth Saunders marriage in Brighton in 1786, and they seem to be having children baptised up to 1795 (or possibly 1801.)

Merry · #28 08-10-19, 15:54

Yes, I just saw that. There are two GB marriages, both to an Elizabeth. One in 1786 and the other about 10 years later (roughly). I couldn't see a burial for the first Elizabeth, so wasn't sure how many GB's there were! Probably no spare ones, in any case!

kiterunner · #29 08-10-19, 16:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kit

I saw the PDF many years ago and I have to confess I skimmed it and read it for George's history. It's still quite interesting and he really did well for himself. One thing it did say, was that George, himself, said he was from Sussex. (Ritchie, 1971, p. 83 so I remember)

If I'm looking at the same PDF, it says that George was christened on 28 Aug 1791 on the convict ship. Was that normal for people who had already been christened in infancy, or does it suggest that he hadn't been christened before that?

kiterunner · #30 08-10-19, 16:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kit

I believe he was a farmer.

He stole property from William Cheeseman the Elder.

The stories are he was a farmer, which I believe as he was granted land in Australia to farm. Where he farmed ranges from Kent, Sussex or Surrey.

When googling for "George Best" "East Peckham", quite a few items come up which say that the indictment states that he was a labourer.