A review of the search for Ann Austin will help you and me to understand the conclusions that have been reached in the determination of her parents.
In 1934 a researcher found a copy of the death certificate which stated she had died 25 January 1871 at 26 Tenby Street in the subdistrict of Ladywood, Birmingham, Warwick. She was 93 years 11 months and 15 days. This would mean that she was born 10 February 1778. In several searches made in the census records. In 1871 her son George was living at the 26 Tenby Street address, but as the census was taken in March of that year, .it meant that Ann would not be listed.
A Birth certificate of Melissa daughter of George and his wife Elizabeth
was found in 1949 which stated she was born 1 Court Livery Street Birmingham on the 28 October 1~9. A search was made at that address in 1851 and the family was found with Ann living there with George and his family plus
her son Henry. Ann was 70 a widow and had been born in Sutton, Kent,
Henry was 33 a pearl turner and born in Huntingdon, Hunts and George was
30 married (Henry was unmarried at this time) a sp.filer and born at Gibralter. George's family was also listed.
A letter from a Laura who is related to the family states:
The date of birth for Thomas Baugh 1777 which I have was obtained from an old Temple record which was begun by George Thomas Baugh. I imagine he approximated it from Ann Austin's date. I questioned Uncle George H. Baugh about his parents and grandparents and he told me he thought his grandfather, Thomas died in Birmingham and buried St. Marys Churchyard in Birmingham. (Note: during my trip to Birmingham, I checked St Mary, St Mary Handworth (B's were missing) St Mary Selly Oak, St Mary Moseley, and no Baugh's) A check should be made once more in the registers of St Mary Handworth to see if Thomas and Ann could have been there. Uncle George said he thought Ann was buried in Witton Cemetery (This is in Aston near Birmingham) The temple record gave her birthplace as in Kent. Grandfather did work in the temple for two brothers William and Henry Huntington. Uncle George said that Henry worked at Dover and that William had two sons burned or drowned at sea. This William worked at the shipyards and was clerk of Regiment at Fort Pitt. He enlisted as William Ball. George Thomas Baugh was a German Silver spoon maker and Thomas was a military ornament maker.
In a letter written by Aunt Alice Smith:
I remember hearing them tell about when Aunt Jane was two weeks old they had to move They were going to pull the building down, that they were going to build the Snowbill station and I think they lived on Livery Street, but the only place I can remember where we lived was on Church St. We lived on a court and then we moved to Duke of York yard then to 26 Tenby Street. I can't remember the street Grandpa lived on.
In 1955 the Genealogical Society made a search in the Senior Chaplain of the Garrison Churches in Gibralter, Spain for Baugh, Ball etc and it was negative.
It was discovered that there was a christening for a Thomas Baugh at St Martins Birminingham 10 July 1780 son of Thomas and Elizabeth Baugh. (This was the ropemaker one). The search at Sutton Valance Kent showed a christening for Ann dau of Samuel and Elizabeth who was christened 30 Dec 1819, but was born 3 Jul 1781. This was the only christening found for this Ann and the marriage of Samuel and Elizabeth was never found. (I have made searches at Sutton at Hone, Sutton Vallence, East Sutton, and Chart next to Sutton Valance and there was no Ann in the time period 1770-1790. At that time I made a check in the IGI for Samuel Austen marriage and found Samuel Austen and Ann Hook married 18 Apr 1771 and a Christening for a Frances daughter of the above in 1772 at, Pembury) Pembury borders Sussex at the bottom of Kent.
In 1958 a search was made for the burial of Thomas Baugh who according to family tradition had died 15 Apr 1829 or 39. The Parishes of Birmingham (all) have been checked an the only death record found was Thomas Baugh 5 April 1829 age
73 years buried at St Mary Birmingham. This would make this Thomas born
1756 and too old to be your ancestor. Non-Conformists registers were searched around Sutton Valance to see if there was any more to the family of Samuel and Ann Austin. This was negative. A search was also conducted for the burial
of Thomas Baugh in St Mary and St Martin's Birmingham.
Again in 1958 a search was made into the Civil Registration records for the death of Thomas. These records start on 1 Jul 1837 and 11 were found
in various places in Stafford, Warwick and Worcester. All were checked and none matched Thomas’ data.
In 1963 a search was made into the Monthly returns for Gibralter in 1821 and nothing pertinent was found. There was a statement from this letter, however, that was pertinent At that time Birmingham was the main center of the armament industry in England.
In 1975 a search was conducted in the muster rolls for the Queensborough area of Kent. There were 3 Baughs found an Edward, George and John who were all contemporaries of Thomas. It was noted that the Sherness records were missing. The marriage certificate was found for Henry Baugh and his wife Jane Allpress in 1852 which states that his father was Thomas Baugh an ornament maker. Normally it would state that he was dead. but somehow it was not given. George and his wife were witnesses.
In 1987 a license for the marriage of Thomas Baugh was granted on 9 May 1799, (no copy was made) He was a sergeant in His Majesty's Service and the marriage was to take place at St. Nicholas, Rochester, Kent. A mention was made that there is a photo of Thomas Baugh as a Druid in the family.
In 1988 was when I started searching for the family and I first made a copy of the original marriage licence which had Ann's surname as Allen, but on the marriage record in the parish register it was Austin. Since the family had always spoken of her as being Austin, it was odd that she was listed
as Allen. At Sutton Hone there was two Anns christened daughter of George and Margaret Allen, one in 1772 and one in 1775. It is probable that the first Ann died and the following child was named that which is traditionally done in England at that time.
I also checked the Court of Lichfield 1660-1820 for any Baugh wills that migh help. There were none at this time.
Later in 1988 there was a check for a death certificate for Thomas Baugh in 1845 this proved to be a child 2 years old. Also a check was made in the 1841 census of Handsworth for Thomas again negative. Checked the IGI for him, negative. Check in the Military Pensions for Widows negative.
I made a note of the thing that has always bothered me and that is that they were married in 1799 and yet the first known child was born in 1813, then there is another gap from 1813 to 1818. This is why it is important to discover
his military records to discover where they were in those years and to find other children that may have died during their travels. It would also help
us to find additional information about Thomas and perhaps another place of birth for it appears that he enlisted at Birmingham but born elsewhere for
the whole of Birmingham has been checked.
1989 I made a search in Birmingham for other children of Thomas and Ann Baugh and found a family, but this family had children before Thomas and Ann were married and were of the ropemaker family.
I also made contact with an agent in London to do some searches there in the military records. As the Kent recor.ds had now come into the Library
I began a search of them including the parish of Queensborough from 1780 to 1820. There were no Baughs, but a large number of Austins. I made a check into the death Record of civil Registration for the time period of 1849 to 1851 for Thomas Baugh as this had never been checked. ' There was one at Wolverhampton.
1990 The Agent finally said the penny dropped and he realized that there was a Marine base at Chatham where William was supposed to have been born. He said he got it from the notation of that birth and that George had been born at sea. He was able to obtain a copy of the Description book page
86th Company of Chatham Division of the Royal Marines
When enlisted 22 Jan 1797
When made corporal 13 Aug 1797
Name Thomas Baugh
Size 5' 5 1/2"
Remarks 27 October 1797 to sergeant this company
This meant that he was born in 1775
Searches were made in Discharge Books 1816-34, Greenwich Hospital out-pensionary hooks 1817-1826, Discharge Book 1814-31, 181-'1826, Muster List Plymouth Division, Portsmouth Division,Woo1wich, Chatham divisions, and Disposal book 1809-33.
He also checked the Muster list of the 86th Company of Marines for 1797, but it was not found.' It is possible that Thomas was serving aboard a ship in a small unit of Marines and the record is hard to find. If we could find him in a Muster list then we could trace him backwards and forwards, and check those places for the birth of the children.
1991 A further report was made on the searches in the Naval Records. The 86th Company of Marines was stationed in Portsmouth division to 1814. When Thomas joined the Marines in 1797 the Napoleonic threat was growing as were all the military forces, so changes were constantly being made, and of course, the changes extended to the records. Baugh was not in the 86th Company any later tahn 1797 at least among the extant records. He tried to determine his new unit by a search of the periodical returns of pensions paid in various units, including out-pensioners of Greenwich Hospital, the authority resposible for the payment of naval and marine pensions, particularly the district of Birmingham. Admission rolls to Greenwich to 1859.wills for Royal Marines1786-1861. nil.
1992 Search of Burial Records and Directories of Birmingham. Was able to clear the distinction of the two Thomas Baughs having family in this town.
During this time I checked the Parish Registers of Chatham for Austin and Baugh from 1719 to 1813. There were no Baugha including a christening for William who was supposed to have been born there. There were two Ann Austens christened there:
d Thomas and Mary Austin
d Thomas and Elizth Austin
7 Dec 1777 6 Nov 1785
There were two marriages of Ann
William Kelvie and Ann Austin Joseph William and Ann Austin
12 Jan 1795 16 Nov 1795
The second Ann is too young to have married either one of these men. one could have married either one of them or married Thomas Baugh as stationed in Chatham and had a son there. Evidently there were ties him to come back here.
The other he was here for
What we do know about Ann Austin.
Brn 10 Feb 17788he died 25 Jan 1871 in Birmimingham at the age of 93yl1m15d She married Thomas Baugh 9 May 1797 this would make her 19 yrs She is listed in 1851 census as 70 Brn 1780
A Chr of Ann Austin at Sutton Valence 30 Dec 1819 but born 3 JuI 1781 This one could not be ancestral as she was Austin still in 1819
and your Ann was married in 1799.
The Ann listed above in 1777 is the closest in time to your Ann and she may have been born on 10 Feb 1777 and then Christened
in December of that year.
At present there are no.probates to clear this problem. There is a high mobility of people in this area and many are soldiers or sailors. In finding the family
of Thomas and Mary Austin , I believe they are the couple married at West Farleigh on 26 Sep 1773 Mary nee Randalls and that they had five children
Thomas chr 20 Feb 1774 Chatham
Ann XX chr 7 Dec 1777 Chatham
Thomas chr 2 May 1779 Hallipg
James brn 12 Jan 1782 Clover St. Ind Chatham
Mary chr 14 Mar 1784
In doing the area search of 10 miles around Chatham and Queensborough, I have found t~e following Anns two are too early and one died.
Anne 1758 Ann 1762 Anne 1775
Settingbourne born 1775
Places covered an area search:
1750-1800 was the time period. There are about 13 more parishes to cover.
I have also begun a check of other Thomas Baughs appearing in the latest IGI 1770-1780.
chrs 1776 Made1ey Shrops does not clear md there Chrs 1779 Whitchurch clears, but is some distance away from Birmimingham.
In doing this report I have discovered that Ann was not covered in the 1841 or the 1861 census of Birmingham. Particularly the 1861 census might give another birthplace. If Thomas does not appear in the 1841 cens us it would help to establish his death before 1841,and perhaps make the 1829 one more useful. Since his son Henry was married in the Handworth parish, it would be a possible thing to find Ann there in 1861 or with George in Birmingham.
At Present the are 148 single entries and 53 marriage ready for submission on the Austin lines. Please let me know how you want these distributed,as soon