The marriage is recorded in the old freehand style and is recorded in a 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 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 it falls within the area covered by the Bramshott parish registers. I know these very well and have copies on microfiche. I 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. 

 

From there I looked at all of the likely candidates for a Thomas Kinshot that came from the area in or near Kirdford. 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, 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 proven ancestry from the present-day Australian Kingshott family, from convicted rioter John Kingshott to his grandfather Thomas Kinshot. I know that Thomas was from "Carford" in Sussex. Because he had several children, he 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 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. He must have moved away because he is not recorded in the burial registers. 

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. This hypothesis fits on a balance of probabilities, but it is open to discussion and may require revision if 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.