Looking for the BOXWELL Surname in FoD (General)

by bernardh , Brisbane, Australia, Wednesday, June 11, 2014, 09:59 (3819 days ago) @ MPGriffiths

Dear P. M. GRIFFITHS,

I am well aware of the apparent anomalies you have pointed out. Let me address them one by one.

Two sources for the event in question:

Mike JOHN's website has Monmouthshire Marriages 1725 - 1812

BROWN, William of Llangattock Lingoed married Mary BOXEL of Skenfrith by banns on 02/05/1808

Skenfrith Parish Register Transcripts - Marriages

No: 157

2 May 1808

William BROWN, X, Llangattock Lingoed
Mary BOXEL, X, opt
Witness:- John PARRY, X; Charlotte BOXEL, X
Consent of Parents

The above transcript details of the marriage of Mary BOXEL to William BROWN, my 3x great grandparents, at Skenfrith, Monmouthshire in 1808 with a Charlotte BOXEL as a witness, was, for some time, one of my many 'brick-walls'. The 1841 Census of Grosmont indicated Mary was not born in Monmouthshire, while the 1851 Census, though difficult to read and interpret, gave her birthplace as "Ham" in Gloucestershire - there are at least two such places.

The transcript indicates that neither the bridal couple nor the witnesses could sign their names and marked the register with an X. This suggests that the spelling of Mary & Charlotte's surname was up to the officiating minister's interpretation of what he heard when this uncommon surname in this county, was pronounced. I subsequently assumed that the surname BOXWELL could not be ruled out.

The three following observations

The comment 'With Consent of Parents' [note the plural 'parents' indicating both were possibly alive and present in 1808 when Mary was about 19],
the use of 'of this Parish' in regard to Mary's status in the Parish of Skenfrith
and Charlotte's presence as a witness,

all point to the possibility that these BOXEL parents and their children could have been living in Skenfrith Parish and had been able to gain official residency rights either by being born there [which Mary's records in the '41 and '51 Censuses state she was not] or by some other legitimate means - which would fit with their having originally lived in the Parish of Awre with Blakeney.

After searching for the BOXEL surname in Gloucestershire, Monmouthshire and beyond, I discovered how very rare it was. I then attempted to find copies of the original handwritten Skenfrith Marriage record - both Bishop's Transcripts and Parish Registers - through the LDS with little success as certain records are unavailable outside the UK. I hoped to find some transcription error, and /or additional information that would shed light on the points made above.

It was then that I received the following from a Monmouthshire researcher of some standing:

Boxall

Bernard,

A large step closer

I have had a closer look at the Glos I.G.I and I believe
I have found the origins of the name Boxall/Boxel

On the I.G.I there are these siginificant entries.

Surname Boxal/Boxall/Boxel/Boxell/Buxel/Baxsall/Bixshell

20.10.1777 Edward Boxall married Anne Cole at Awre with Blakeney
11.5.1803 Charlotte Boxel married James Webb at "

Surname Boxwell/Boxwill/Bixwell

1785 Thomas bap s/o Edward & Anne Boxwill at Awre with Blakeney
1789 Mary bap d/o Edward & Anne Boxwill at "

The former surname Boxwill/Boxwell is more common that Boxall/Boxell
there are 12 entries of Boxall and over 50 of Boxwell.

Families using both surnames are most prevalent in the parishes of Rodmarton,
Oldbury and nearby parishes, and the reason for this is that there is a parish
in the same area called Boxwell which I suspect the family took theirs from.

Hope this helps.

Mike

As to the problem why Charlotte BOXEL didn't use her married surname of WEBB when she witnessed her sister's wedding in 1808, having been married 5 years previously in Awre with Blakeney in Gloucestershire. Seeing that her signature appears to have been left in the hands of the officiating minister, it appears quite likely that he could have know her as the Bride's sister, Charlotte, even though she may have been introduced as Charlotte [or Mrs] WEBB. There could have been at least a family of four BOXELs in the wedding party - all sitting together on the bride's side of the church. He may have simply forgotten her married name or he may not have even known she was married if she came from the Forest of Dean for the marriage, leaving her husband at home.

There are any number of such senarios that could explain Charlotte's maiden name being used. Such an issue is surely insufficient to completely rule out this connection?

After some initial scepticism, I now tend to agree with Mike JOHNS that because of the rarity of the name BOXEL and all the supporting evidence above, that there is more than likely a match with the Mary & Charlotte BOXEL at the 1808 Skenfrith marriage and the two sisters, Mary & Charlotte BOXWELL, Baptised at Awre with Blakeney in the 1780s - at least until someone provides me with evidence of a Mary BOXWELL from Ham in Gloucestershire, Baptised in the late 1780s, possibly with a sister called Charlotte.

The closeness of Ham, a Hamlet just outside Berkeley in Gloucestershire, to the Parish of Awre with Blakeney, with the River Severn being the border between the two parishes, further reinforces the mounting evidence of a connection between the BOXELs of Skenfrith and the BOXWELLs of Awre with Blakeney.

Thank you for your comments, research information and interest. They are much appreciated.

Regards,

Bernard

Brisbane, Australia