Reader be forewarned! This is one of those strict genealogy posts – all names & dates – no interesting stories. I won’t be offended if you decide to pass on this one. With this post, I intend to summarize my research into the origins of what I have called the “Peterborough Casbons”, so named because the family eventually settled in that area, and members of the family remain there today.
In an earlier post (see “How doth your garden grow? Part 1”) I described how Thomas Casborn (~1776–1855) left Littleport, Cambridgeshire, and how his son Thomas (~1807–1863) settled in Peterborough, where he had a gardening business. Working backwards, I traced “1776 Thomas” back one generation to his father Thomas (see “Stepping Back: Thomas Casborn of Littleport (~1732-1780)”). Here is a diagram of the sequence I just described.
3 generations of Casbons, from Littleport & Peterborough. (Click on image to enlarge)
Now I’ll start with Thomas (~1732-1780)”) and work my way back. His baptismal record of October 15, 1832 shows that his parents were Thomas and Anne Caseborne.[1]
Detail from LIttleport (Cambridgeshire) parish register, Baptisms, 1732. “Thomas of
Thomas & Anne Caseborne _ _ (October) 15.” (Click on image to enlarge)
Who were Thomas & Anne? The Bishop’s Transcripts of 1720 show the marriage of Thomas Casebourne and Anne Kendale on October 6th.[2]
Detail from Bishop’s Transcripts, Littleport, Marriages 1820. “Thomas
Casebourne & Anne Kendale October 6.” (Click on image to enlarge)
Looking further back, there is a baptismal record for Thomas Casborne, son of William & Alice, May 29, 1695.[3] He is the most likely candidate for the Thomas who married Anne Kendale, and father of Thomas (b. ~1832). I have not found a baptismal record for Anne.
Besides Thomas, there are records of six other children born to Thomas and Anne: William (baptized 1721), Elizabeth (1722), Mary (1727), Abraham (1729, died 1734), another Mary (1734), and another Abraham (1739).[4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10] Anne’s death is recorded in 1750, and Thomas’ in 1751.[11],[12] You can also see that Thomas’ burial record gives his occupation as “Labourer”
Detail from Bishop’s Transcripts, Littleport, burials 1751. “Thomas Casborne, Labourer.—Sept:r 27.” Note that his son William’s burial is the next entry, on October 13th. (Click on image to enlarge)
Here is a family tree of Thomas and Anne (Kendale) Caseborne, showing their relationship to the Peterborough Casbons.
(Click on image to enlarge)
I’m able to trace this family back one more generation. As mentioned above, Thomas (baptized 1695) was the son of William and Alice. There are baptismal records for three other children born to William and Alice: William (baptized 1687), Alice (1592), and John (1699).[13],[14],[15] There may have been a fourth child, Mary, for whom there is a burial record on the same day as John in 1699, but no baptismal record.[16]
Who were William and Alice? I don’t know. I cannot find a marriage record for them, nor can I find a baptismal record for William. There are no baptisms, marriages or burials with the Casb(*) surname recorded in Littleport between 1620 (burial of Robert Casborn, widower) and 1687 (baptism of William – see previous paragraph).[17]
Here is a family tree of William and Alice, the earliest generation I have been able to trace back from the Peterborough Casbons.
Where did this family come from before William? It’s impossible for me to say. There are Casb(*) records in nearby Ely and Stuntney, but not enough information to make familial connections.
Detail of 1945 Ordnance Survey map showing Littleport and Ely (This work is based on data provided
through http://www.VisionofBritain.org.uk and uses historical material which is copyright of the
Great Britain Historical GIS Project and the University of Portsmouth). (Click on image to enlarge)
I’ve said before that there is no evidence that the Peterborough Casbons, hence the Littleport Casborns, are related to my branch, the “Meldreth Casbons.” It’s still fascinating to me that the many variants of our surname are concentrated so heavily in the part of England known as East Anglia. Perhaps there was a common ancestor many generations before, or maybe there was just a common reason for so many people to have the same name (see “a term of reproach …”). Would DNA be able to help sort this out?
Our Casbon Journey 