According to official registration and church baptism records John Thomas and Jane Williams had fourteen children between 1861 and 1880. The records have their first born child as Henry James officially registered with a birth date of 25 Oct. 1861, and the second as John Thomas (the first) with a 14 Jan. 1862 birth date as given when he was baptised on 19 Apr. 1862 by locally resident Church of England minister Rev. W. C. Hawkins who had married John and Jane in Dec. 1860.
As only 3 months separate the birth dates the boys could not have both been Jane's children unless Henry James was not born as recorded but in fact several months earlier, and no later than about May 1861 (thus concieved out of wedlock), or the birth date recorded for John Thomas was incorrect.
A falsification of Henry's birth date would seem unlikely as he would have still been born well after their marriage. It seems unlikely in such an isolated area as Manning River that John Williams would have thought it necessary to hide Henry’s conception status from a government clerk at the registration upriver at Wingham by falsifying his birth date. If he had been born in say April 1861 he would surely have registered him with that birth date or not registered him at all if he had been concerned about the registration being later than the offical requirement of within three months of the birth. If he held that concern he would surely have registered a date close to the three months instead of one less than two months before the registration. Also it would seem most unlikely behaviour for John Williams on 23 Dec. 1861 to have registered a false birth date for a child whose mother was due to give birth to another child in only 3 weeks time. He would have appreciated that such would have the effect, after the second birth was duly registered, of the register showing two children born to the same mother only 3 months apart! So it would seem Henry's birth date of 25 Oct. 1861 as given would have been factual. For the reason given below near the end of this article a falsification of John Thomas's birth date also seems most unlikely. Thus it has to be assumed both boy's birth dates likely were correct. Accordingly it follows the recorded parentage of one child was not as purported. The question is which one?
One factor making it difficult to determine the fact is it appears there was no official registration at Manning River or elsewhere of either the birth or death of 14 Jan. 1862 born John Thomas the first. There is no doubt as to his parentage as the church baptism record gave his mother as Jane and father as John Thomas, a blacksmith residing at Cundletown, which was also the address given when the 1863 birth of their next child Sarah was registered in January 1864. Perhaps his birth was not registered to avoid the creation of an obvious conflict with Henry's registered birth date and thus a percieved potential for awkward to answer questioning by the registration clerk at the time of a registration, or later by mail from the Head Office of BDM Registry in Sydney, such as "Mr. Williams late last year you registered a boy Henry James born on 25 Oct. 1861 and here you are registering another boy born to your wife on 14 Jan. this year - as both boys are apparently still living would you kindly please explain how your wife Jane managed to give birth to two boys 3 months apart?" Alternatively as 3 months were allowed for registrations perhaps the birth was just not registered before the boy died and then the death was not registered for the reason the birth had not been registered. A possibility John Thomas was taken to Sydney for better medical treatment and died there has been excluded. There was a 14 June 1862 John Williams death registered in Sydney (#622/1862) with his parents as John Williams and Jane. However he was a five year old whose father's address was 87 Windmill Street and the mother's maiden surname was Clark.
John Williams was the informant for the registration of all children births except those for 1865 born Emma at Wingham and 1867 Bellingen born Maria Jane at Macleay River for which Jane was the informant. In this compiler's view one factor determining which parentage was correct and which was false is that when registering Emma's birth Jane gave her living issue as "4 girls". This was her first registration experience. Presumably the living issue question, which required the number of males and females who were still living, was put to her in a form such as - "How many male and female children have you had who are still living?" and she answered to the effect "myself - I have had just the 4 girls". Indications are that by then John Thomas the first was deceased. Her answer clearly excluded a very much alive Henry James. Why? A possible explanation is that his mother died soon after giving birth and Henry was informally adopted by them and registered by John Williams with themselves as his parents. Such would not have been an unusual occurrence in those days. The absence of a Henry Williams baptism record may perhaps be explained as that Henry had already been baptised under another name. That church record would have stated his date of birth. However seemingly contradictory was the answer Jane gave to the living issue question on the second occasion when she registered Maria's birth in 1867 at the Macleay River Court House - then she gave "1 male 5 females". By then Henry was almost six. It was a different clerk and was no longer in the jurisdiction where on the previous occasion Jane had lived for 10 years. Perhaps in that circumstance she felt less intimidated and/or not so much concerned with being factually correct. It would be unlikely she would have even recalled her 1865 answer to the question. Perhaps Jane just felt it appropriate to include Henry who was by then approaching six. More likely the question was just couched differently, such as: "Now, in respect of your family - how many boys and girls have you", and she answered - "1 boy and 5 girls". On the first occasion there was no room for error in the answer but with the second there could well have been a question/answer interpretation error by either party. In genealogy preference is given to an earlier over later record so the 1865 Emma birth registration statistical children data is preferred to the contradictory 1867 statistics.
The second factor is that the Rev. William Hawkins, who only took up his post at Manning River some six months before marrying John and Jane in Dec. 1860 (they were his 2nd marriage there), was very active in getting about by horse and by row-boat visiting sick and bereaved parishioners and baptising etc. John and Jane may have attended church. It seems likely their minister would have been aware of Jane's John Thomas the first pregnancy - if not from Jane then from others. Hawkins was a family man and when baptising John Thomas I on 19 April 1862 would no doubt have been aware whether the birth date of 14 Jan given by them was approximately correct. The need for parentage accuracy would be expected to be less so when John registered Henry's birth with an anonymous government clerk at a Court House located many miles upriver from where they lived!
A third factor suggesting room for parentage doubt is Henry's death at a very fit forty years of age from what appears to have been late onset Type I Diabetes. As this is the only instance of this form of the disease in any of the 16 children it suggests the possibility of a genetic difference to them. However it is found in the line of 1863 born Sarah who married Frederick Box (a son who had leg amputations) but such could have come from her husband's Box side.
Taken together these several factors suggest prima facie there is reason to consider the recorded parentage of Henry James in doubt.Compiled by J. Raymond - 5 August 2005