29 Jan 2025

I’m still thinking about the connections between my Carr ancestors and the families of Carrs that occupied Dotland and Dotland Park farms in the 18th century.

See the last two days (Monday, Tuesday) for more background.

The consensus of other Ancestry trees is that the George Carr born around 1790 in Dotland Park was actually baptised on 7 Mar 1790 in Houghton le Spring in Durham and came from a Carr family in that area, namely Matthew Carr, a pitman, and Margaret Bainbridge.

However there is a baptism of a George Carr on 2 Feb 1789 in the Chapelry of Whitley near Hexham that covers Dotland Park. His father is another George Carr.

Here are the pros/cons of the two baptisms.

7 Mar 1790, Houghton le Spring , parents Matthew Carr and Margaret Bainbridge

pro: this is the consensus of many other researchers
pro: George ended up living in this area in his 60s/70s
pro: DNA matches show connections to the Bainbridge family, probably Margaret’s father
pro: George’s son, George, also came to live in this area for a few years before returning north
con: George stated twice in the census that he was born at Dotland Park in Northumberland
con: father was a pitman, yet George was a husbandman and farmer
con: family names don’t seem to align. George didn’t name a child after his father or mother

2 Feb 1789, Whitley/Hexham, parent George Carr and maybe Isabel Liddell

pro: 1851 and 1861 censuses record that George was born at Dotland Park, which is in the chapelry of Whitley, parish of Hexham
pro: the Carrs at Dotland and Dotland Park were farmers, George was a husbandman up until 1851 and by 1861 was a farmer.
pro: George spent the first 61 years of his life in the Bothal/Blyth area and only appears in the Chester le Street area in the 1861 census at the age of 71.
pro: family names seem to align. George’s mother was possibly called Isabel which is the name of a daughter. Jane, Sarah and John were names of his siblings which he also gave to his children. He had a son George, possibly named after himself or his father
pro: both George and his son George could read and write, as could George’s wife Elizabeth Wilson. This is suggestive that the family spent money to educate their children. The Carrs at Dotland and Dotland Park were land owners and electors in the borough of Hexham.

I think without the DNA evidence then I would not even be considering the Houghton-le-Spring baptism as relevant.

The concrete next steps would be to:

Assess the Bainbridge DNA links.
- Perhaps there is another route to that family (there is possibly a Hall connection).
- Perhaps the Carrs married into the Bainbridge family at a different point.
- Check the shared matches for each Bainbridge match to see which branch of my tree they belong to
Pursue alternate events for George from Whitley.
- Did he die young?
- Is there another marriage in the area for him?
Find DNA matches for George from Whitley’s family.
- Find and trace siblings and their descendants
Pursue alternate events for George from Houghton-le-Spring.
- Did he die young?
- Is there another marriage in the area for him?
Find DNA matches for George from Houghton-le-Spring’s family.
- His brother Thomas seems to have an extensive number of descendants.

I’m starting with the Bainbridge DNA links. The first thing I notice is that none of the four matches appear in the shared matches of each of the others. This seems off if they and I are all descended from Bartholemew Bainbridge. There are four matches:

KO - Sheila’s maternal. Tree with 498 people, no Bainbridge’s in the tree. Deviation from Ancestry’s prediction around John Taylor (1843) son of Elizabeth Bainbridge (1814). Tree has John Thomas Taylor (1842) son of Elizabeth Reynolds (1813). I don’t recognise any of the shared matches and there are none with well developed trees.
WE- Sheila’s maternal. Tree with 36 people, no Bainbridge’s in the tree. Ancestry predicts connection via Turner line but tree only has Turners back to 1890. Shared match includes someone MA who Ancestry predicts to be a descendent of Catherine Cowell who may or not be related to the Halls (see earlier). Both the other matches have substantial trees but no obvious connections.
CN - Sheila’s maternal. Tree with 8784 people, earliest Bainbridge is Robert Bainbridge (1771) who was living in Chester le Street in the 1841 census. This person doesn’t quite match up with the Robert Bainbridge in Ancestry’s prediction who was born in 1790. However I think there could be a connection via the Emmery/Amory line from Felton. My ancestor Ann Emmery (1774) married John Peak (1780) in 1801. This match has an ancestor Charles Emery (1791) also from Felton.
JPG - - Sheila’s maternal. Tree with 888 people, no Bainbridge’s in the tree. Deviation from Ancestry’s prediction around William Dobson (1838), son of Mary Nicholson (1805). Tree has William Dobson (1838) illeg. son of Mary Dobson (1806). I don’t spot any obvious connections with my family. Just two shared matches, both without trees.

My feeling now is that the DNA evidence is very weak.