A few days ago, Cipher Mysteries commenter Paul Relkin very kindly sent me through a copy of a document listing James Crowshay’s marriage to Margaret Seaton in 1745:
This inspired me to hunt for more information, mainly via the LDS’s (frankly astonishing) familysearch.org website. And I was genuinely astonished at what I was able to uncover…
James Crowshay
As you can tell from the above, James Crowshay married Margaret Seaton on 18th August 1745 in Pontefract, Yorkshire. The LDS reference is:
“England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N2NT-VY9 : 10 February 2018), James Crowshay and Margaret Seaton, 18 Aug 1745; citing Pontefract,York,England, reference , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 990,759.
Note: Margaret’s surname is mistranscribed as “Seuton” in the second record (a mistake that seems to have reached everywhere on the Internet), while the date of the wedding is moved to 17th August 1745:
“England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:NXCX-CWB : 10 February 2018), James Crowshay and Margaret Seuton, 17 Aug 1745; citing York, England, reference , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 1,469,711.
However, I have to say that the dates given on the LDS page for James and Margaret’s births (1715 and 1718 respectively) seemed far more like computer-generated guesses to me than anything else. So when I found a James Crowshay who was born in Howden in 1722, it seemed far from unreasonable to predict that this was exactly our man. (Though because I don’t have a subscription to www.thegenealogist.co.uk , I can’t tell this for sure).
I then wondered: did James and Margaret Crowshay have any children? Anyone who has looked at old parish BMD registers for any period of time will know that the pattern back then was for the gap between the wedding and the birth of the first child to be small (sometimes even the same day). It may well therefore be no coincidence at all that in the registers of the parish of Howden (22 miles east of Pontefract), I found this string of birth entries:
* James, son of James Crowshow, of Howden Dyke. Sept. 23. [1746] [p.75]
* Ann, dau : of James Crowshow, of Howden Dyke. Nov. 27. [1747] [p.77]
* Mary, dau : of James Crowshow, of Howden. May 29. [1750] [p.79]
* Grace, dau : of James Crawshow, of Howden. Mar. 22. [1752] [p.81]
* John, son to James Crowshow, of Howden. Sept. 13. [1757] [p.87]
* Richard, son to James Crawshow, of Howden. May 20. [1759] [p.88]
And, of course, in those days of higher infant mortality, there were the inevitable burials listed too:
* Mary, d. to James Crawshow, of Howden. May 2. [1751]
There was also a Robert Crowshay of Howden, who married a Mary Westoby on 13th Feb 1739: they too had a daughter called Grace (born, errrm, 13th February 1739), along with a daughter called Jane (born 22nd September 1741). Moreover, given that a Grace Croashaw (widow) of Howden died in November 1744 [p.72], I think it would seem to be a pretty good bet that she was mother to both James Crowshay and Robert Crowshay, and hence grandmother Grace to the two little Graces (though only overlapping one of them).
As for Margaret Seaton, the LDS site lists three women with that name and of broadly the right age, though we can rule out the third because she married John Staveley in 1745:
* 10th December 1713, Mepal, Cambridge (daughter of John Seaton and Hannah)
* 31st March 1721, Luddington, Lincoln (daughter of John Seaton)
* 6th June 1723, Rothley, Leicester (married John Staveley, 1st October 1745, York)
If James Crowshay was born in 1722, it would surely seem likely that it was the Margaret Seaton born on 31st March 1721 in Luddington whom he married: but all the same it’s hard to be sure.
John Croshay
But wait! There’s also a John Croshay who married Jane Bland on 22nd May 1750, also in Pontefract (presumably All Saints):
“England Marriages, 1538–1973 ,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:N2NR-TQT : 10 February 2018), John Croshay and Jane Bland, 22 May 1750; citing Pontefract,York,England, reference , index based upon data collected by the Genealogical Society of Utah, Salt Lake City; FHL microfilm 990,759.
And then in 1751, a John Crowshay had (I think it’s safe to infer) a daughter Jennet (probably Jeanette?) Crowshay. Here are part of the banns for Jennet’s marriage to John Higgin in August 1767:
According to www.thegenealogist.co.uk website again, John Crawshey was born in Ilkley, Yorkshire, in 1718: so if we are talking about just a single John Crawshey, he would have been four or so years older than James Crowshay.
According to the LDS site, there was a John Crowshaw (son of John Crowshaw) who was christened in Mirfield (near Dewsbury & Batley) on 29 Oct 1727: and the timing for him would be consistent with the 1750 marriage date of this John Crowshay. However this is, for now, just a guess.
At the same time, if it was a 1722-vintage James Crowshay who was taken prisoner on board the Eagle in May 1738 having vigorously resisted the pirates’ attack, he could only have been 16 years old, which is perhaps only just feasible. While if it was John Crawshay instead, he would have been closer to 20 years old, which arguably fits the description slightly better (though not by much).
Unfortunately, I can’t currently tell how old John Crowshay was, so I therefore can’t tell whether our unidentified seaman JCROWSHAY was James Crowshay or John Crowshay (perhaps they were cousins?). But perhaps a Cipher Mysteries reader with greater genealogical skillz than me will be able to find out much more about these two men and their families – I don’t have any subscriptions (and I’m not a member of the LDS), so there’s only so deeply I can dive into this particular pool.
Other James Crowshaws…
Note that there was also a James Crowshaw in Sowerby Bridge, Christ Church, whose children listed on FindMyPast were:
* Ellen Crawshaw [1743]
* John Crowshaw [1745]
* Johanna Crowshaw [1746]
* Jane Crowshaw [1752]
However, given that the first James Crowshay is listed multiple times as “Crowshay” (rather than Crowshaw), the odds are still forever in his favour, one might say. (Though perhaps not by much.)
What do you think? 🙂
Nick: So happens there was another James C. from Yorkshire who started his naval carreer as an AB aboard a fourth rate frigate HMS Eagle, then engaged in the Habsberg succession wars through to the mid 1740s. During the decade after, he had his own command of a brig and spent seven years in far Northern American waters, mapping and charting the new British Territories of Nova Scota, Newfoundland, as well as other former French island territories in the Gulf like St. Johns (PE), then possessions all along navigable reaches of the Saint Lawrence river. His surname of course was Cook and one might wonder if parts of the Hollow River story could have had as its basis, the better known James’ well documented explorations of Canada, which took place in much the same time period to that of our note in the bottle discovery.
Having looked at many more entries on the LDS familysearch.org website, I now believe that the dates 1715 and 1718 (for James Crowshay’s and Margaret Seaton’s respective years of birth) are not computer generated (as I suspected), but are in fact genuine values.
This would mean that if the prisoner on the ship in 1738 was James Crowshay, he would have been 23, which is almost exactly right.
Moreover the gaps between the children (1747-1750, 1752-1757) aren’t inconsistent with a parent going away to sea inbetween times. Just saying. 🙂
I must admit that until just now, I never had much to do with the history of wine bottles, their manufacture coloration, sizes and methods of sealing liquid contents for maturation and storage. After googling up on the subject for about an hour or so, I’d now be prepared to put my knowledge along side that of era notables, who had also mastered the subject, greats like Samuel Pepys who was most unfortuate to have missed out on new bottle making technology and conformity, by giving up his ghost in 1699. He knew all about wine casks perse, but nought about keeping the plonk in bottles for maturation or its commercial viability. For one, because in his time and for many decades after, glass blowers were flat out keeping up with demand for their very expensive wares and so bottles for wine could only satisfy the whims of rich folk who sought to have them for athetic gratification and to fill from hogsheads stire in their cellar. Of course we know that ancient civilizations were known to be familiar with using a variety of vessels, including glass, for storage of wine, and it’s also undeniable that they had the means to seal it up suitable for life on the ocean waves, but I think we can overlook the relevence to our particular setting of 1738/49. Bottles of the type we are familiar with today, only became commercially viable for mass manufacure of commercially strong, thick necked bottles of regulation size and content, with onset of the industrial age from about 1750 in England. The French still remained uncinvinced for any need to change; not until they realised that their foul tasting swill such as champers and merlot could be made more palatable by cork sealing and extended aging. This style of bottling and means of distribution to the inebriat peasant masses, didn’t take hold to any extent until long after after, and primarily due to the FR. Getting back to my intended point; it was at least a long half century hence, that a certain young, very opportunistic and deceptive, captive British seaman, put his secret message in a cork stopped, standard 750cc (6 gil) clear glass, marine test, ultra wide necked wine bottle, then consigned it to the wild northern seas for intended eventual recovery then forwarding to the Admiralty for decipherment by a team of code crackers. If you can see and hopefully agree with my critical points on the unlikelihood (not impossibility) of the Hollow River story having credibility within reason, well and good. If not, then I can still, of course recommend that coming episides of the James Crowbait treasure Island saga will keep you enthralled; I for one will continue to be a well entertained and amused fan no doubt.