I'm sure many of us are curious about where our Ainscough family originate from. There is talk that they migrated to Lancashire from Lincolnshire because of recusancy and yet we find them firmly rooted in Ormskirk from 1558. Andrew Scarisbrick (andy_scarisbrick@hotmail.com) has also successfully managed to identify the 22 different Hugh Ainscoughs recorded in the 1881 census, spreading across the region from Mawdesley to Wrightington, Whittle Le Woods and Leyland. The interesting question is, "but how many different Ainscough families were there living in Mawdesley in the 1700s and were they related?"
We see from historical records that on a couple of occasions, Ainscough marries Ainscough and have enough evidence now to know that these families were not 1st cousins (see blog Richard A m Elizabeth A - 21 Jan 07 & 5 Jan 07).
Andrew has set about to to identify exactly how many different Ainscough families there were living in Mawdesley in the 1700's and is trying to establish any links between these families further back in time - he writes:
"Hi.
I am not sure what my next big project will be, but I have been taking a look at the Croston church records via the online parish clerk, and the following burials back up something you have previously stated (3 different Ainscough families in Mawdesley in 1700's??), which I definitely want to follow up;
Family 1. - Parbold Branch ( Hugh (1746-1822) is son of Thomas 1715 & nephew of James 1711-Barbara's line )Burial: 12 Mar 1822Hugh Ainscough -
Age: 75
Abode: Mawdesley
Buried by: Roman Catholic
This gives a year of
birth of
1746 or '47. I presume this is the father of Richard Ainscough of Parbold, and James of Ulnes Walton. He was probably executor to James in 1819, if he died in 1822 - (
see blog entry Jan 3rd 2007: Will of James of Ulnes Walton).
Family 2. - Richard Ainscough's Branch (married Elizabeth Ainscough (Betty) (1776-1816) is sister to Thomas (1780-1861) my GGGG grandad. She married Richard Ainscough in 1795
- see blog entries 21 Jan.07 & 5 Jan.07)
Burial: 25 Oct 1817James Ainscough -
Age: 74
Abode: Mawdesley
Buried by: G. Parkin Curate
This gives a year of
birth of 1743. I believe this is the father of Richard who married your Elizabeth Ainscough. I have James' estate administration, which states his widow as Jane, as shown in the tree I gave you.
Family 3. - Branch? Possibly a son of Thomas (1715-1786) m. Alice and grandson of Hugh (c1680) & Elizabeth
Burial: 16 Apr 1822Thomas Ainscough -Age: 73
Abode: Mawdesley
Buried by: Roman Catholic
This gives a year of
birth of 1747 or '48.Family 4. - Branch? Possibly a son of Thomas (1715-1786) m. Alice and grandson of Hugh (c1680) & Elizabeth
Burial: 28 Dec 1786Thomas Ainscough -Died: Dec 27 1786
Age: 38
Abode: Mawdesley
Occupation: Husbandn.
Cause of Death: Consumption
Notes: Buried on the south side of the Church yard
This gives a year of
birth of 1748.So in Mawdesley, there are
two Thomas Ainscoughs, both born around 1748; a
James Ainscough born 1743; and a
Hugh Ainscough born 1746. The two Thomases must be from different families, and neither of them are the son of James Ainscough (b.1711 - Barbara's line), as there wasn't a Thomas in his Will, and they both died after he died, in 1781. Therefore, there must be two other Ainscough families living in Mawdesley at this time (mid 1700's) - three in total, including your branch.
Presumably, these three families correspond to James, Thomas and Richard, the three sons of Hugh Ainscough (b. 1680's). So it would just be a case of placing the above Thomases, Hugh and Richard with the correct father i.e. a Thomas with each, Hugh (b. 1746/7) with Thomas (b. 1715), and finding where James (b. 1743) goes.
I may extend my census search of Hugh Ainscoughs through all the censuses - 1841 to 1891. This should be a lot easier now I have identified all the Hugh A.s in 1881. My findings from the 1881 census show that all Hugh A.'s come from my North Meols family - or different branches of the Mawdesley family [via John (b. ~1755), & the Parbold branch] - or Henry Ainscough (b. 1815, Ulnes Walton) which I am sure must come from one of the branches [again, something to follow up]. To me, this would indicate that they all must be the same extended family - it is just a case of finding where my Hugh A. (b. 1740) fits in.
So two possible line of investigation to conduct. I will certainly keep you appraised of any findings.
Best Regards,
Andrew"
And in answer to my query that surely that is 4 Ainscough families Andrew offers the following explanation;
"My theory of 3 Ainscough families comes from the 2 Thomases. Neither of them come from James (b. 1711), so James (b. 1711) is family #1. The 2 Thomases MUST be from different families so these are familes #2 and #3. Hugh (b. 1746 - Parbold branch) and James (b. 1743 - Richard's family) could be brothers to either of them, and could be brother's to each other, or one could be brother to one Thomas, and the other brother to the other Thomas. This has, in fact, been addresed by you in a subsequent email.
One of the Thomases is a son of Thomas (b. 1717) [ you could call this family #2], confirmed by Mary. She says he has another brother James (b. 1759). I know nothing of him, and he can't be the James (b. 1743) father of Richard (b. 1772). Thus James (b. 1743) and the other Thomas is family #3.
The details she has for Hugh from family #2 is confusing. She says Hugh was born 1738, died 1792, but the Hugh of the Parbold branch cannot have died in 1792, as he acted as executor to his son James' Will in 1819. This is consistent with the burial of Hugh Ainscough of Parbold in 1822 - born in 1746. Do you know where she got the dates for her Hugh from? Does she have a baptism from 1738, or a burial in 1792, or a will dated 1792? She must have got the dates from somewhere, but they do not match what is known for the Hugh father of Richard Ainscough of Parbold.
Are we talking about another Hugh here? This certainly needs addressing."
________________________
