Birch descendants
Le Bateman
mother was Martha Elizabeth Burch Born 15 Mar 1848 d.d. 1 Feb 1914. The
daughter of Alfred Littlebury Burch (1811-1894) and Sarah Parrish. Now there
is a book titled Burch, Harrel & Related Families by Marilu Burch Smallwood
that covers the family here in the United States. The Immigrant ancestor of
Martha Elizabeth was one George Birch son of John Birch of Manchester
England. When George's father died he did not leave an inheritance to
George, so George left for America. Arriving in New Castle County De
before1734. George's brothers Thomas, and John were appointed High and Low
Ardwick. This maybe, one reason George left for the colonies.
Mrs. Smallwood also wrote another book, The Family of Birch, Burch of
England, and America, which I haven't seen that chronicled the families
history in England. Supposedly they descend from a John de Bourg. Who was
the so-called Baron of Tourburg. and a commander in the king's army. The
Birches are connected with Manchester in someway. Also The History of The
Ancient Chapel of Birch by a 19th cent minister, mentioned them. The line
goes Mabel Gay Hardwick, Martha Elizabeth Burch, Alfred L. Burch, Joseph
Burch II born 1758, killed by Indians 3 Mar 1818, Irwin Co., Georgia,
Joseph Burch I, 1717 Maryland died 1765 North Carolina. Listed on Duplin
County Marriage Records. George Birch Baptized Manchester Cathedral 1697
died New Castle County Delaware 1761. Said to have married Jane Todd of
Toddburg Maryland. George was the son of John Birch. Whose father was Samuel
Birch II also of Manchester. Samuel's father was born in 1599 and died in
1669. Sam II was born in 1619 and died in 1728. According to Mrs.
Smallwood's later book all of the Birchs are buried at Manchester Cathedral.
I got most of my info from Family Bibles, Census Records, Marriage Records.
plus the secondary sources mentioned above. Any advice as to where to look
to prove John de Bourg was actually the son of Baldwin II, or who his father
really was would be appreciated.
Le
Nathaniel Taylor
LeBa...@netzero.net ("Le Bateman") wrote:
> My grandmother is the Late Mabel Anna Gay Hardwick. Her father's
> mother was Martha Elizabeth Burch Born 15 Mar 1848 d.d. 1 Feb 1914. The
> daughter of Alfred Littlebury Burch (1811-1894) and Sarah Parrish. Now there
> is a book titled Burch, Harrel & Related Families by Marilu Burch Smallwood
> that covers the family here in the United States. The Immigrant ancestor of
> Martha Elizabeth was one George Birch son of John Birch of Manchester
> England. When George's father died he did not leave an inheritance to
> George, so George left for America. Arriving in New Castle County De
> before1734. George's brothers Thomas, and John were appointed High and Low
> Ardwick. This maybe, one reason George left for the colonies.
> Mrs. Smallwood also wrote another book, The Family of Birch, Burch of
> England, and America, which I haven't seen that chronicled the families
> history in England. Supposedly they descend from a John de Bourg. Who was
> the so-called Baron of Tourburg. and a commander in the king's army.
> Any advice as to where to look
> to prove John de Bourg was actually the son of Baldwin II, or who his father
> really was would be appreciated.
This is a common scenario. Too many people see an obviously suspect
line like this and immediately get interested in pushing the envelope
back from the earliest alleged generation. Even if they're skeptical
(as they should be), they make the mistake of seeking to scrutinize or
confirm the earliest allegation first. It should be the other way
round.
The first thing to seek to confirm (if you're sure of the American part
of your ancestry, which is off-topic here anyway) is the blithe
statement that the immigrant George Birch was the son of a particular
known person (in this case, 'John Birch of Manchester'). Most
immigrants' parentages in books of this type turn out to be fabrications
or unsupported guesses. Get Mrs. Smallwood's other book for starters to
assess its sources and value--focusing at first ONLY on whatever
connects your particular American Birch ancestor to his alleged father.
Only when you have primary sources that bridge the water in hand should
you pay any attention to ANYTHING that is alleged about the English
ancestry of this person.
As the Oxford Dictionary of English Surnames tells us, Birch is a
perfectly respectable English name, attested in the 12th - 14th
centuries, apparently designating people who lived at or near birch
groves or trees. Attempting to derive any particular 'Birch' from a
nonexistent son of a known aristocrat who had the unrelated 'du Bourg'
as an epithet (i.e. Baldwin II, King of Jerusalem) is typical of
Victorian attempts to 'gentrify' families with common surnames with
clumsy sound-alikes. Assume the whole line from 'John de Bourg' to the
immigrant George Birch is a fantasy like countless others.
Nat Taylor
Peter Stewart
<snip>
> Any advice as to where to look
> to prove John de Bourg was actually the son of Baldwin II, or who his father
> really was would be appreciated.
You would be well advised not to look for proof of this, since your
search would be in vain.
If Baldwin du Bourg who became king of Jerusalem had fathered a son with
descendants, this John or his children would have become heir/s to the
throne instead of Baldwin's daughter Melisendis.
It's virtually inconceivable that he might have had acknowledged
illegitimate offspring, as in this case the howls of protest would still
be reverberating around the Holy Sepulchre, and the veil of the Temple
would be rent in shreds.
Peter Stewart
Todd A. Farmerie
will address the earliest generations that you have asked about.
Le Bateman wrote:
> Mrs. Smallwood also wrote another book, The Family of Birch, Burch of
> England, and America, which I haven't seen that chronicled the families
> history in England. Supposedly they descend from a John de Bourg.
They don't, because . . . .
> Who was
> the so-called Baron of Tourburg.
He wasn't. In fact, he didn't exist.
> Any advice as to where to look
> to prove John de Bourg was actually the son of Baldwin II, or who his father
> really was would be appreciated.
Here is the forged Burke line as it usually appears. I take this
from the abysmal O'Hart book, Irish Pedigrees (keep in mind -
this is a forgery, not real):
Charlemagne
Charles the Young
Roland
Godfrey, King of Jerusalem
Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem
Baldwin II, Count of Flanders and King of Jerusalem
John de Bourg, baron of Toursbourg
Harlowen de Burgo, lord of Conteville
Robert de Burgo, Earl of Cornwall
William de Burgo, Earl of Cornwall
Adelelm and John de Burgh, ancestors of later de Burghs and Burkes.
This can be broken down into several separate sections -
Charlemagne was father of Charles the Young, but he had no known
children.
The hero Roland was apparently originally placed in this
pedigree, but his invented status as sister's son to Charlemagne
made this unworkable, and thus it was modified to give the hero a
daughter Juliana (an anachronistic name) who married her cousin,
Charles the Young, and had as son an otherwise unknown Roland the
younger. The original Roland probably belonged to the same
generation as Charles the Young, and neither his parentage nor
any descendants are known.
Godfrey and Baldwin I, Kings of Jerusalem, were brothers, sons of
Eustace II of Boulogne and something like 10 generations removed
from Charlemagne. Both died without issue. Baldwin II, "of le
Bourg", was a distant kinsman of Baldwin I, and followed him in
Jerusalem (he was never Count of Flanders). He had no surviving
sons, only a daughter that married Fulk V, Count of Anjou.
However, his toponymic (authentic) "of le Bourg", suggested a
connection with the later Burkes (Bourg means castle, so you can
well imagine how many families derive from places with castles -
de Bourg). Here, the pedigree maker apparently just copied off
of a Jerusalem kings list, without realizing that it was not
father-to-son succession. (The link of Charlemagne, Roland, and
Godfrey suggests that the early part of the pedigree derived from
a list of the medieval 'Worthies' that included these three.)
The next man, John, is the traditional father of Herluin de
Contevile. John is not attested in any document, and was
probably invented (the name John would be completely unexpected
in Richardian Normandy). Likewise, chronologically, Baldwin II
would have been about the same age as Herluin, and cannot be his
grandfather. Herluin, as in an earlier post, was the husband of
Herleve, mother of William the Conqueror, and by her had two
sons, Robert and Eudes. Robert, Count of Mortain, his son (never
a Bourg/Burgo) accompanied William to England and was named Earl
of Cornwall. He had a son William, who held his father's titles
but died without issue, leaving sisters.
Adelelm de Burgh did exist as did John de Burgh but they were not
siblings, or even of the same generation, and not necessarily
related. I have seen Adelelm (whose name suggests an Anglo-Saxon
origin) made son of a William, but I do not know if this is solid
(I have never actually researched any of the Burghs), but even if
this were the case, the father could not be William de Mortain.
Now from what you have posted, I assume your source has the
following:
Charlemagne
Charles the Young
Roland
Baldwin I of Flanders
Baldwin II of Flanders
John de Bourg, baron of Tourburg
Herluin de Conteville (identical to Duke Robert)
etc.
You can easily see in this the same basic descent as in the Burke
forgery, and it is likewise trying to link to a family whose
name, Burch, sounds something like Burke - it clearly has the
same origin. The Kings of Jerusalem, who cannot possible play a
role is such a descent, have been replaced by Baldwin I and II of
Flanders. While Baldwin II could possibly have an undocumented
son, this is hardly likely, as a kinsman, AEthelweard the
Chronicler (whose grandparent was apparently first cousin of
Baldwin's wife and who may have met Arnulf, Baldwin's son, when
AEthelweard was a young man at court and Arnulf came on a
diplomatic mission to England) gives an account that matches well
with the contemporary record, naming just two sons Arnulf and
AEthelwulf (Adelolf/Adolf - again, the name John would have been
out of place among these germanic names). Further, while Baldwin
II of Jerusalem was two generations too young to be grandfather
of Herluin, Baldwin II of Flanders is about II generations too
old. New version, but same verdict.
You can see, then, that this whole line is derived from a
fraudulent, completely impossible original Burke pedigree, and as
such should be discarded in its entirety. Likewise, this places
in doubt everything that derives from this source - you can't
trust any of it. I suspect that the Burch family, in fact,
cannot be accurately traced prior to the 17th century, and that
there was no connection to Burkes, Burgos, Bourgs, or any other
such thing, but rather the name is for trees around their home.
taf