Thomas Kinshot is the mysterious ancestor of John Kingshott of Greatham, who was his grandson. I have done a lot of work on him this year (2012) and this is what I have come up with. This allows me to link, at least provisionally, the Australian Kingshott family who descend from John Kingshott with the rest of the family worldwide.
Thomas Kinshot appears in the parish registers of Greatham at the time of his marriage to Ann Bayly on 17th December 1752. It is difficult to read, as you can see.
The marriage is recorded in the old freehand style and is recorded in the simple sentence which states:-
"Thomas Kinshot of the parish of [Carford] in the county of Sussex and Ann Bayley of Greatham, spinster, were married December 17, 1752."
I have placed Thomas' parish of origin in brackets as it is frustratingly unreadable. I have examined it using my own microfiche reader and I have even asked staff at the Hampshire Records Office to examine the original document, all to no avail. The best estimate is that the parish is recorded as "Carford". Sadly, there is no such parish in Sussex.
Looking at various old parish maps I came up with two conclusions. One, was the area of Conford, near Bramshott, Hampshire and the other was Kirdford, Sussex. I discounted the former area because this falls within the area that would be covered by the Bramshott parish registers. I know these very well, and have copies on microfiche, and have checked and re-checked these and there is no Thomas Kinshot of the right age in them. This leaves Kirdford which, phonetically speaking, could easily be recorded as Carford.
OK, from there I looked at all of the likely candidates for a Thomas Kinshot that come from the area in or near Kirdford. In fact, I expanded this out and examined all possible candidates, wherever they came from.
About four miles from Kirdford (in the direction of Greatham) is the village, and parish, of Northchapel. There are a lot of early Kingshotts there and one, in particular, caught my eye. His surname is recorded as Kingeet, but this is not a problem as the name is a proven variant of Kinshott/Kingshott. He was Thomas Kingeet and he was baptised on the 7th May 1726. I checked and he was not recorded in the burial registers there or in the surrounding parishes. This is a good sign and indicates that he lived to adulthood.
I then examined all of the other Thomas Kinshot/Kingett possibles who would have been around the right age to have married in 1752. Most of them died young, and those that lived all married off. Thomas Kingeet, born 1726 at Northchapel, was the only one who did neither.
So, I have a proven ancestry back from the present day Australian Kingshott family, through convicted rioter John Kingshott to his grandfather Thomas Kinshot. I know that Thomas was from "Carford" in Sussex, and due to the fact that he had a number of children, was unlikely to have been very old when he got married, putting him in the usual range of 18-25. Going the other way, I have a proven line of descent from my 9th great grandfather and progenitor of the entire Kingshott family, John Kingett, down through a line in Northchapel to Thomas Kingeet. That Thomas Kingeet lives into adulthood, as he is not recorded in the parish burial registers and as he is not recorded in the burial registers he must have moved away.
For these reasons, I believe that Thomas Kingeet, born 1726 in Northchapel, Sussex is one and the same as Thomas Kinshot, who married Ann Bayley in Greatham, Hampshire.
This is an exercise in logic, which I am the first to admit does not amount to proof. On a balance of probabilities this hypothesis fits but it is entirely open to discussion and may well require revision in the event that further evidence comes to light. This can be said for many of the early relationships in any genealogy. If you have any thoughts, or alternative theories, please drop me a line.