|
A story
circulating in my family was that John Thomas Pond Howard was "an
illegitimate son of the Duke of Norfolk" and had been packed off
to Tasmania at an early age to avoid scandal. I was immediately sceptical
as I think any sensible family researcher would be. Families generally
indulge in this kind of 'romance' when it comes to what they think may
be possible legitimate or illegitimate associations with royalty, aristocracy,
famous people, or people of artistic reknown.
Until now,
no evidence about John Thomas' parentage, his family life in Grimstone,
Norfolk, nor the circumstances surrounding his migration to Australia
was available. The census fragment and a shipping record have shed light
on the mystery and although these documents raise new questions, the census
record certainly puts paid to the idea that John Thomas was of some 'noble'
connection or extraction.
JT Pond
Howard's father, Thomas Howard, was hardly a 'Lord of the Manor'
but was in fact a humble bricklayer who was a 55 year old widower
in 1851 according to the Census. Thomas Howard had a son from another
relationship or marriage, Robert, who was 22 at the time. The latter was
born in Grimstone and worked as an agricultural labourer.
Click here to find out more about the arduous lives of typical agricultural
labourers.
Norfolk
is split into districts. Some parishes have the same or very similar names,
but are in different parts of the county. Kings Lynn, the adjoining district
to Grimstone, is mentioned on the back of a family photo we have of John
Thomas Pond. A message is scrawled "Grandpa Howard 1854-1924 born
Kings Lyn, England". Click
here to view images and access other information about Kings Lynn.
The scrawled message - possibly that of my grandfather, George Coronatio
- is slightly wrong in its reference to the DOB. John Thomas is clearly
born in 1855 - the family possibly moved to Kings Lynn after 1851 - and
John Thomas may have been born in that location.
Under the
same roof in Grimstone lived 36 year old Mary Pond, originally
from Hull in Yorkshire, who was unmarried(denoted by the 'U' in
the census fragment above) and curiously listed as Thomas' "housekeeper".
Mary's son,
14 year old George Pond, was also a member of this family though
like Robert Howard, was fathered from a previous relationship.
Five years
later in 1855, a baby boy, John Thomas Pond, was born to this 'elderly'
couple.
Thomas Howard
was by then approaching 60 and his 'housekeeper' was 41. John Thomas Pond
was a baby born to a woman who may not have expected to fall pregnant.
It does not seem likely to me that the birth was planned considering the
couples ages, the fact that they already had children from other relationships
living with them and the economic pressures these domestic arrangements
must have subsequently created.
If JT Pond
Howard's birth was deliberate, both Thomas and Mary were certainly courageous
as they surely would have attracted the attention of neighbours. I cannot
find any official birth registration for JT Pond Howard. This I think
lends weight to my supposition that John Thomas was born out of wedlock
and that his birth remained unregistered. Another indication is that JT
consistently hypenated his surname "Pond Howard". All official
traces we have of him refer to "Pond Howard". Why did he consistently
include the matronymic in his surname?
Maybe the
unconventional domestic situation was the "unmentionable secret" uncovered
by one of JT Pond descendants who reportedly went to England in the 50s
or 60s to look into the "Lord of the Manor" connection? It has
been conveyed to me by one of my aunts that this particular family member
was "horrified" by what he or she found. I guess the 'blended'
family living situation, underpinned by a couple living out of wedlock
and having a child together fairly late in life, would seem scandalous
to someone eagerly searching out aristocratic connections and hoping to
bring home a 'romantic' story that could be respectably presented for
wider family consumption and 'posterity'.
I
suspect there is a sad conclusion to the Grimstone story and the migration
of JT Pond Howard to Australia. The fragments that I have been able to
locate via the Unassisted
Shipping Index 1852-1889 (Public Record Office of Victoria), throws
up a range of possibilities for speculation about the fate of JT Pond
Howard, the child:
| Surname |
Given Name |
Age |
Year |
Month |
Ship |
Port |
Fiche |
Page |
| POND |
JNO |
38 |
1863 |
DEC |
GREAT BRITAIN |
B |
226 |
11 |
| POND |
JNO T |
8 |
1863 |
DEC |
GREAT BRITAIN |
B |
226 |
11 |
| POND |
MARY |
38 |
1863 |
DEC |
GREAT BRITAIN |
B |
226 |
11 |
Source: Unassisted
Shipping Index 1852-1889
|
Images
of the Great Britain on which the Ponds arrived in Melbourne
can be found at this site: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~drnew/ssgbrit.htm
The
image of the dining room gives an idea of the conditions of travelling
by ship in the mid 19th Century. It is likely, given their economic
situation, that the Ponds came in steerage and that conditions for
them may have been a good deal worse than that shown.
|
What
happened to the Pond Howards of Grimstone?
Thomas Howard
dies, Mary is left destitute and is 'disinherited' by Thomas Howard's
legitimate heir, Robert, who by then is in his thirties and probably has
his own family and concerns. This assumes of course, that Thomas Howard
owned property or an abode and that Robert had negative feelings towards
his step mother. This cannot be substantiated - indeed, that kind of assessment
seems overly 'dramatic' to me. In fairness - and I think more realistically
- Robert may simply have not inherited any property, was not in a position
to look after his step mother and half brothers and being a simple farm
labourer would probably have been struggling to support a family of his
own by that stage. There is a mention of a Howard still residing in Grimstone
in the
1891 Census and I am pursuing the matter to ascertain whether it was
Robert.
There is
also a shipping list record for a 20 year old George Pond (Mary's first
son) migrating to Port Phillip on the Oceania in March 1858 (see the
Unassisted Shipping Index link above) with no other Ponds with the first
name 'George' any where else in sight. His age at 20 in 1858 is less than
a year at odds with the Census record we have of him as a child of 14
in 1851 at Grimstone.
Had Thomas
Howard died around 1858 and George migrated in search of better life opportunities
for himself, his little brother and possibly his mother? Did he leave
for the colony and on to Tasmania from Melbourne as part of a reconnoitering
expedition? Did other family members follow in response to his reports
or out of necessity?
As you can
see from the record reproduced above, an 8 year old child, JNO T POND
(JNO=John) migrates to Port Phillip on the ship, The GREAT BRITAIN
(see above) in December 1863. John Thomas Pond Howard was born
in 1855 so the match is exact. Take into consideration the way the name
"John Thomas Pond Howard" - combining both his mother and fathers'
surnames recurrs - and it seems far too much of a coincidence that there
could conceivably be another 8 year old called 'John Thomas Pond' migrating
to the colony at precisely the same time. JT is in the company of a certain
JOHN POND and MARY POND, both 38 years of age. The crucial
question is this: who were John and Mary Pond?
UPDATE
October 24, 2002:Mary Pond and Thomas
Howard did in fact marry in 1855
It appears that Mary Pond and Thomas Howard did in fact marry in 1855
- the same year my great grandfather, John Thomas, was born. John Thomas
was conceived out of wedlock and I believe the pregnancy would have been
an impetus for the marriage.
Source: http://www.familyorigins.com/users/w/a/r/Mark-J-Warner/FAMO1-0001/d135.html#P11214
Thomas Howard
was previously married to Lucy Riches on 26 JUN 1822 in WEST NEWTON. They
had two children: WILLIAM HOWARD, ROBERT HOWARD. (Note that there is a
mistake in information supplied by M.Warner on his website regarding the
marriage date - Thomas Howard was born in 1793, not married then). Lucy
had died by 1851 as we know by the 1851 Census that Thomas is listed as
a "widower".
According
to the information supplied by Mark Warner, the first son of Lucy and
Thomas, William, died before 1833 - that means he died when he was just
9 years old.
Source:
http://www.familyorigins.com/users/w/a/r/Mark-J-Warner/FAMO1-0001/d135.html#P11211
The second
son from Thomas' first marriage, Robert, also married in 1855. He married
MARY TAYLOR on 1 December of that year.
If Warner's
information is reliable, the scenario by 1855 seems to be one of a family
which is inevitably changing with the departure of Thomas' son, Robert,
from the Grimston household, the birth of John Thomas and marriage to
a second wife, Mary Pond.
It is important
to keep in mind that Thomas Howard is already quite elderly (by 19th century
standards) in 1855 - he is at least 52 years old. This would have placed
Mary and John Thomas in a fairly precarious position as regards their
future welfare. I think this lends weight to my theory about the possible
fragmentation of the family by the 1860s and JT Pond's migration to Tasmania
as a child. Read on ...
An uncle
and aunt bring JT Pond Howard to Australia ?
John Pond was probably JT Pond Howard's uncle. Mary Pond, mentioned in
the shipping record, is not likely to be Mary Pond, JT's mother. 'Mary'
I think you would agree, is on the other hand, a very common first name!
JT's mother, by 1863, would have been 48 years old. If, however, the two
Mary's are one in the same person, JT's mother has put her age back by
10 years. But for what reason? Vanity's sake? Has she miraculously met
a John Pond, 10 years her junior, with whom she is leaving for a new life
in Australia with her little boy? Could it be her first husband (a nice
idea but unlikely in that he would have fathered George Pond at the age
of 12!) This all seems implausable to me. It is, I believe, her brother.
I suppose
that Mary Pond on the shipping list is John's wife and has assumed his
surname. The couple are childless or else have 'grown up' children (either
way, there are no other children than JT with the Pond name accompanying
them). I suspect they have stepped in to help the Pond Howard family out
by migrating with the 8 year old JT Pond Howard who becomes their (adopted)
son or charge in a new world where the three eventually join George who
establishes himself in Tasmania.
The Fate
of JT's mother ...
And what
of the first Mary, JT Pond Howard's mother? My hunch is that by 1863 she
too is dead - not uncommon for a 48 year old woman in such times. This
theory I think is supported if we take Geoff Lowe's study, Longevity
and Child Mortality in Buxton (2001) into account. (Buxton being
a neighbouring Norfolk district). There is one other tragic possibility.
Perhaps Mary Pond knew she could not support any children in her situation.
Her younger brother, John, provides an opportunity for John Thomas to
escape the family's impoverished circumstances. Mary makes what would
probably be for any parent a heart breaking sacrifice - she gives up her
son and faces her future alone? Mary
may have entered a workhouse either in Kings
Lynn, Hull
or Liverpool,
after seeing off her brother, sister-in-law and eight year old son.
The lives
of ordinary Australians certainly are worth telling, much more so than
famous personages to whom some people scramble in an attempt to prove
tenuous connections of one sort or another. On the other hand, there
is no need to romanticise the humble origins and aspirations of people
who arrived in Australia searching for a new start. What happened next
to John Thomas Pond Howard, once established in Tasmania, proves the point.
The new world he arrived in did not turn out to be a Utopia neither did
he nor his children set themselves free of the disadavantage that comes
with being poor or having few educational opportunities. In
my next story I tell the tale of Mabel Ruth Adams, JT Pond Howard's third
wife and my paternal great Grandmother - a figure whom displays a certain
fortitude but also recklessness in conducting her life. The story takes
us forward into the current generation but also back towards what I suspect
may be one of the most interesting family stories waiting to be unveiled
- our possible convict heritage.
© Dale
Pobega. Please respect the time and effort invested in the research and
writing of this family history. Apart from reasonable quotation or linking
to the material contained in this story for non-commerical, personal family
research, no part of the text or any image, may be reproduced without the
express written permission of Dale Pobega 
< back
to Dale's Online Family History Project | < back
to Dale and Lyn's website |
