On 27 Feb 1823 the Lord Sidmouth arrived in Sydney carrying
a cargo of female convicts and stores for the colony. One of those convicts was
Cordelia Knight. She had been tried at
the Old Bailey in the previous June and found guilty of stealing 20 yards of
silk, with a death sentence being pronounced. Luckily for those of us who
descend from her, her death sentence was remitted to transportation for life.
This was her second appearance at the Old Bailey. The first
had taken place in April 1820, when she was found guilty (under the name
Cornelia Knight) of stealing 11 yards of printed stuff and sentenced to one
month in Newgate gaol.
On the voyage to New South Wales she took her four
daughters: Sarah, born 16 Nov 1810; Lucretia, born 7 Jul 1814; Mary, born 7 Dec
1817; and Caroline (sometimes called Louisa), born 23 Apr 1821. The eldest three girls had all been baptised
in Hampstead, Middlesex, on 11 Jan 1818 as the children of John & Cordelia
Knightes [sic]. The youngest was not baptised until 1828 in Windsor.
|
St John-at-Hampstead, where three of Cordelia's daughters were baptised [Chris Gunns, via Wikimedia Commons] |
So the natural course of events would be to search for the
marriage of Cordelia to a John Knight or Knightes. The only such marriage
people have found is the marriage of John Knight and Cordelia White on 5 Jun
1810 in Bloomsbury. The date looks
reasonable, given the birth of their first known daughter, therefore many
people have seized on it and used it in their family trees. Subsequently, more
and more people have copied that information, so that it seems to many that it
must be correct.
But there is a problem with this.
Cordelia's first conviction, in April 1820, says she was
aged 26. This would indicate a birth
about 1794. At her second conviction in
Jun 1821, she is still said to be 26, though she should have aged a year by then. This would make her born about 1795. The 1828
census of NSW says she is 33, indicating a birth about 1795. Her ticket of
leave, granted in 1830 says she was born
in 1794 in Hampstead, and her conditional pardon in 1852 says she was born in
1795 in Hampstead. Finally, her burial record in May 1853 says she was 57 years
old, pointing to a birth in 1796.
So most records point to a birth in 1794-95, with only her
burial record – when she was unavailable to provide the information – gives a
birth about 1796. And the convict records state she was a native of Hampstead,
and these records are usually correct in this regard.
And here is where the problem arises. Why would someone born
in Hampstead (and whose children were baptised there) go down to Bloomsbury to
get married? And not only did they marry there by banns, they were both said to
be "of this parish", which means that they were definitely living
there at that time (though not necessarily born there).
Further, most online trees have decided that she was
Cordelia Elizabeth White, who was baptised on 7 Oct 1781 in St Peter le Poer in
London. This is 14-16 years before Cordelia Knight always claimed to have been
born. And she was not born in Hampstead, as the convict records state our
Cordelia was. And there is no single record showing the woman who was transported
to NSW having a middle name of Elizabeth. Could this really be the same
person?
There are other online family trees that say Cordelia's
surname was Rudd, but none of them give any source for this or place of
marriage to check.
Just because only one event for a particular named person
has been found, it doesn't mean that it is the correct one. Even now, not all
records are online, and not all records have survived. It was not unusual for a
parish priest or clerk to forget to record some of the events. If other surviving records provide
conflicting information to the one record found, then it should not be accepted
as the truth without further confirming evidence being found.