16. Who killed Lt. Charles Burton Newenham? - Toulon France 1793

In search of who killed Lt. Charles Burton Newenham - 1793

Departing from Genetic Genealogy for a bit, I wanted to focus on a story that I can't keep my mind off.

With the 200 years anniversary of the end of Napoleon's reign, coming up in June 2015, I wanted to step back a further 22 years into 1793.

After the last few years, I used my Maternal lineage - namely the Newenham family, to put me in the right direction of researching families. Not because of what they did, but they were well documented from a certain point of view. The documentation that supported events on things, that was said within the family, was a great learning tool. I used historical notes to support family stories.

But something has come up, that I need to talk about.

A great story of Family pride, Warships, The British Navy taking Toulon in 1793 with very strong connotations to Navy Officers - Horatio Nelson and Samuel Hood, Family sadness and a lingering Family name that lived on for years to come.

This story centers around Lt. Charles Burton Newenham, in particular - the death of him.

The image up above is believed to be of C.B.N in Navy Dress, just prior to his death. It is a "photograph" of a portrait that may have been compiled around the 1870's by a distant Great Grandfather of mine, who was a professional Photographer.

If anyone can help to support the Navy uniform and if it suggests a unit or type of rank, I'll take the advice.

Now, C B N, was born around c.1767, possibly in either Dublin or Cork, Ireland, but Dublin seems to fit in his Father's "Parliamentarian" occupation.

He was the 11th Child (3rd Surviving Male) of Sir Edward Newenham and Lady Grace Anna Burton.

C B N was named after his Maternal Grandfather and former Dublin Lord Mayor - Sir Charles Burton.

It seems that he was to follow after his namesake, into Military action.

Not much is known about C B N's early life, but it seems when he become of age, he went straight into the Military, namely the British Navy. From there, he was catapulted into sailing the seas.

The story and the main basis of this post, is on C B N and his involvement with the taking of Toulon, France in 1793. It has a deep story that evolved with Napoleon Bonaparte' and his uprising forces.

C B N, was based on a Ship called "HMS Windsor Castle". He was under the command of

Captain - Sir Thomas Byard.

HMS Windsor Castle was a 98 gun, 2nd rate ship and was the "Flagship" for Vice Admiral Phillips Cosby.

The Windsor Castle formed part of Lord Samuel Hood's assault on the bay that surround the town of Toulon, France.

When the French Monarchy fell during the Revolution, the British felt like they were compelled to assist in settling/restoring the Monarchy, but faced a deep and aggressive uprising against them when they attended Toulon. Namely from Napoleon and his Revolutionary forces.

The British landed and took Toulon around August 1793 and assisted in control of the city.
But there were revolutionary forces about, namely Napoleon. They set about retaking the cities around Toulon.

It seems a decision from the hierarchy of the British Navy (Hood or Nelson?), allowed a push of their forces on to the land and then proceeded to infiltrate certain defences (Fort's) to bolster the perimeter, in case of action with the Revolutionary's.
It looks like it was only a few days after they landed in Toulon, C B N was sent out with a party, to Fort Pomets (Pommets and or Fort des Pomets), to perform garrison duties.

Fort Pomets, is posted about 4-5 KM's North West of Toulon, was noted as an "outer lying" Fort.
It was positioned on a hilltop and was probably favorably built, for it's view that overlooked the City of Toulon.

Top View of Fort Pomets : 

Northern Side of Fort Pomets, looking South, back towards the City of Toulon

  

Top View of Fort Pomets (showing the City of Toulon vs Fort Pomets)

 

Attacking Fort Pomets was not all that hard, as it was easily "cutoff" from reinforcements, if the attacker knew where to attack from.
Sometime, during the day of the 24th September 1793, the Fort was attacked by someone, most possibly of the Revolutionary Forces. Initial thoughts was that is Napoleon's force, but it's not exactly sure who, as Napoleon was on the South Western corner of Toulon a few days before (if this is correct?) Napoleon was on his way to take Toulon back around these few days.

*Recent diggings on Napoleon's whereabouts, have netted that he was West of the City and around the 16th of September, Napoleon then left for the Bay of Toulon and entered into the dealings of "taking of Toulon".
Napoleon, was located near the bay of Toulon, firing his cannons at the British Naval Ships, inflicting serious damage around the 20th of September.
*

With these stouch's of the Northern side of the City, Lt Charles Burton Newenham lead his force into defending the Fort. Somehow, the attacking force managed to get into the Fort and they defeated the British defence.

In doing so, C B N was wounded and died within an hour of receiving his wounds.

This death was noted by Lord Hood and other historical sources. Lord Hood felt compelled to say at the least that : "HM has lost a very promising young officer, his gallant defense of the Fort, does him infinite honour".

HMS Windsor Castle's log dated 25th September and Lord Hood's Letter to P. Stephens (aboard the HMS Victory) in Toulon dated 27th September, note of C B N's death (above details are from those letters/logs).

A while after C B N's death, around December 1793, Napoleon finally took back Toulon, the British retreated.
The British made a mistake or under estimated, Napoleon's efforts to hold Toulon.

Now what's interesting about the death of C B N and his force, IMHO, that it was almost a "death march" mission from the start. If C B N had of pulled it off, it would have been by sheer luck.

Everything about this mission, was not greatly thought out from a hierarchical view and from a Fort design sense. Notes about the Fort, say was that it was poorly designed and poorly positioned.

So in essence - 4 things accounted for the death of C B N :

• the British Navy's thoughts/plans and strategies, on how to defend the garrison Fort Pommets
• the design/position of the Fort
• the Force that attacked Fort Pomets
• the commanding skills/weapons at hand of C B N and the experience of his force, whilst under attack
  

But the burning question is, who really killed C B N?

After some research, I thought it was Napoleon, but I can basically rule out Napoleon now (due to his placement in the days preceding C B N's death). But I'm guessing some form of Napoleon Revolutionary Force or Militia formed by Local Republicans. In today's world of the litigious nature, the judicial system would almost have blamed the British Navy and or Nelson or Hood for C B N's death, rather than the Revolutionary's. My opinion is based on the decisions of Lord Hood and Nelson.

Now, when news got back to Ireland, to the Newenham family, it sent shock waves and the family was devastated. All hope was lost for a son to be stationed under the British Navy. In particular under Lord Hood.

In another form of interesting links, many years later and many generations of children/grand children that spawned from Sir Edward and Lady Grace, it almost always included a child named Charles Burton Newenham (or variants of) - the name was based originally from Lady Grace's Father - Sir Charles Burton, but many references also point to the family honouring the Lieutenant, when he fell at Toulon.

With this, 3 children off the eldest son of Sir Edward/Lady Grace - (Edward Worth Newenham 1762-1832) went to serve in the Military.

• Edward Worth Newenham   - 1787-1867
• William Persse Newenham  - 1790-1866
• Robert Burton Newenham    - 1793-1823?

These 3 Grandchildren served in different facets of the Napoleonic era.
The irony here, is that Edward went to War, but became shipwrecked off the French Coast and was captured. He was then sent to Verdun in 1806, well away from the frontline, so he couldn't rejoin his forces straight away - if he escaped. He stayed in Verdun voluntarily until his death.

William fought in many Navy battles and showed quite exemplary service with "courage under fire". He was very well known to Lord Hood.

Robert Burton became part of history, as he served on the days during the June 1815 campaign of Waterloo when Napoleon "fell". Robert survived "Waterloo", but died from wounds in India in 1823.

The last bit of this story, is that a younger brother to the 3 above men, was named after Lord Hood.

Lord Hood was also his Sponsor (Godparent/Guardian)

His name was Henry Hood Newenham - 1805-1895. Henry was a 4th Great Grand Father to me

Lt. Charles Burton Newenham was an Uncle to Henry. Charles was a 5th Great Grand Uncle to me

Below is a Newspaper article depicting some of the above, but also other Newenham family members serving in a very similar situation.

Article was from details supplied by Henry Hood Newenham's daughter Caroline Pitman.

13 March 1897 - Melbourne Argus

Resources : 

• Kent History Forum (now closed to further postings)
  Kent History Forum - HMS "Windsor Castle"
• "Lord Hood And The Defence Of Toulon" by J.HOLLAND ROSE
  (Page 138 contains C B N's death)
• "Sir Edward Newenham - Defender of the Protestant Constitution" by James Kelly (Four Courts Publishing)
• Family Documents
• Trove : trove.nla.gov.au

Read More

15. Still working on Paternal Lineage that leads on to "Native Irish"

Am I of "Native Irish" Blood or I am of Norman Blood?

Since I last posted, I'm getting into something much deeper, than I expected.
That is, my Paternal Line (Y-DNA) has shone a light to mostly being of "Native Irish" descent, but I struggle to comprehend how deep this goes.

I have placed myself in a few DNA projects and finally seeing a trend, that doesn't seem to fit with what I know of. My surname is supposed to carry the story of the Norman Conquest of Ireland in 1169 AD. But interestingly, I do not show the Y-DNA Haplogroup to Normandy or any other earlier European/African DNA structure.

When you visit the Fitzgerald DNA project, it seems to list the Haplogroups in the the oldest origins (at the top) to the newest origins (at the bottom).
The top of the list shows of African descent (earliest ancestor) and at the bottom shows me. In the middle, you can see the human migration coming out of Africa, sprawling out to Middle Europe/Asia/Western Europe, then heads North to Norway or across the sea to England/Scotland then to Ireland.
The very bottom of this list, shows quite a few people that don't yet fully connect with the DNA Project (they have to wait/hope for someone to do a Y-DNA test and help them connect to a lineage in the project)

For some reason, I now fit in the last defined Haplogroup timeline of migration. Why?

I am in thought of this question and what it means. But is very apparent, that my lineage connects to ancient Munster-Ireland and it converges strongly with the Native Irish and some form of Scottish/Viking Ancestors.
Some Fitzgerald's were placed in Munster but left Munster and headed for Scotland (by the way of Wars or they hand no lands and they were displaced - etc etc)

Therefore, the Fitzgerald's of Munster can only be there, around 1169 AD or later. If my Y-DNA proves to predate this era, we most certainly have a Native Irish / Scottish or Viking somewhere in the mix.

I can see this connection, but I don't know which way to read it. Did the Scots come to Munster, or did my Ancestors go to Scotland?
Either way, the Davies-Caldwell names dominate my closest 67 Marker (5th Genetic distance)
The Bonham (English or Scottish?) name also dominates the 25 Marker with majority being exact matches on the 12 and 25 Markers. How interesting.

I've also learnt that the Irish O'Hearn name is still the only dominate name (111 Marker) in my Y-DNA.
This name carries quite a few name variant's - O'Hearne/Ahearn/Ahern/Ahren and all these  seems to stem of the one family name Herron.
Interesting enough, I don't have any of these names in my Autsomal DNA, but I do have a few Herrod's - are they the same? Don't know, but they match pretty close.
From what I have learnt, the O'Hearn name was thought to be of the Dál gCais (or connected with Brian Boru / O'Brien), they connected to the Desmond Fitzgerald's with Lord Roche in wars.
This is as far as I have been able to establish any form of connection, however, there isn't enough evidence to support any "proven" link just yet, just it's a bit co-incidental at this stage. 

It has made me step back a little and try and understand, how much of a "Fitzgerald really am I.

Based on the fact that there is very little Fitzgerald "Surname" involvement (on Autosomal and Y-DNA), we must bear in mind that we (most likely), descend off a Native Male who "adopted" the Fitzgerald surname.
On the upside, we do somewhat connect to a lot of people who mingled with the Fitzgerald's of Munster (O'Sullivan, McCarthy, Barry, Shea - etc). There is also a connection coming out of Limerick and has to do with the Collin's surname. As further testing has revealed that we descend off an offshoot of the Ancient "Collins/O'Donovan" families, could be classified under the Ui' Fidgenti dynasty, with a taint towards a Scottish (maybe Viking) male.

This postulates a hypothesis, that my direct Paternal line of Y-DNA, stops at a Female Fitzgerald and throws a thought that there is Native Irishman, or a Scottish / Viking person in the mix.

I'm guessing that if this is somewhat true, the Female married a lesser (?) Male family line and the Fitzgerald name carried over to the children. Or did indeed a Female Fitzgerald have children or grandchildren that re-entered the Fitzgerald line down a few generations (A daughter or children from any daughter of the Female Fitzgerald re-marrying a Male Fitzgerald)
This is where my DNA is messed up, it isn't clear yet, but the above hypothesis is based from family thoughts that there maybe a Female Fitzgerald as our ancestor.
If you research any of the known Fitzgerald lines, you will come across many different cross-overs of branches due to a marriage - (Desmond's-Kildare etc)

My Maternal ancestry has taught me very well in this area (1st cousins marrying 1st cousins, who's children marry direct cousins). Almost Ashkenazi like.

But the Y-DNA is quite clear on a Fitzgibbon name. About a handful of Fitzgibbon's, appear both on my kit and my Father's kit , with quite a bit of "closeness" (More than expected). But what is weird, is that various versions of the "Gibbon" name - (McGibbon/Giboney/etc), appear on both kits on the Autosomal DNA.
I am seeing a very distant connection via people using GEDMatch and they also connect to Fitzgerald people, but when I try to join the dots, it's very distant.
A recent update to the 111 marker @ 8th Genetic Distance, shows a strong trend to a Fitzgibbon lineage. This is showing quite the strong connection to, again Limerick (River Shannon area)

At the very least, are we a product of Rape (Wars / Plunder & Pillage)? Not ruling this out just yet.

Though in finishing, I'm trying to use a life story of a man called Robert Appleyard Fitzgerald. He was known as a "Geraldine" Fitzgerald from Limerick.
His life in Australia has a weird circumstantial connectivity to my initial Irish Fitzgerald immigrants.
Robert A Fitzgerald, landed in Sydney, Australia within a few days of my immigrants - Jan 1841. Both separate lineages of Fitzgerald's, became part of the same church at the same time (St.James - Sydney).
Both of them had Church ceremonies within a couple weeks of each other - Robert's daughter was married and my 3rd Great Grand Uncle - Robert Fitzgerald was baptised under the St. James Church.
Very interesting how close circumstances were, that the child's name was Robert - but no known sponsors came forward. A little too circumstantial to just drop.
The research continues.

I'll leave it there for now.

Read More