The Douglas Controversy

By Carol Baxter

Preface
Carol Baxter wrote the original version of The Douglas Controversy as the "essay" component of the Society of Australian Genealogists' Diploma in Family Historical Studies in 1986.

In the following couple of decades, many historical records became more readily accessible, such as the Colonial Secretary records. In 2000, Carol rewrote some of the essay to include recently discovered information and to omit information that was no longer of importance. That version was previously published on this website.

Most of the sources used in this essay should be well-known to genealogists. Source references will only be provided for the more obscure sources of information.

Update 2023

In the years since this essay was published on Carol's website, she has received many emails from Douglas descendants, some thanking her for clarifying the situation, others claiming that she is wrong. However, none of the latter correspondents have been able to provide any evidence whatsoever to refute Carol's research or to support their own claims.

It's important to note that the following are not valid evidence-analysis arguments:

a) "I believe ..."

In evidence analysis, a person who says "I believe" is showing that they cannot prove whatever they are claiming. If they could prove their claim, they would say "The evidence shows ..."

b) "Great-grandfather wouldn't lie."

Seriously?

Additionally, the information communicated to great-grandfather might have been wrong. And the words great-grandfather used to communicate the information to others might have been distorted as they passed from one mouth to another. It's like the children's game of "Chinese Whispers" or "Broken Telephone": the distortions are often unintentional yet inevitable.

Here is an example that Carol uses in her evidence-analysis book and seminars:

Great-grandfather: I wonder if Captain Thunderbolt was the person who stole my horse.

Grandfather: It was probably Captain Thunderbolt who stole my father's horse.

Father: Captain Thunderbolt stole my grandfather's horse.

c) Cousin Mary undertook the research in the 1970s and 1980s and I trust her research skills.

Really? Is Cousin Mary an expert in historical research and evidence analysis?

It's worth noting that attitudes towards genealogists have changed since that time. For example, when Carol began researching her family history in the late 1970s, genealogists were not permitted to obtain a reader's ticket to the Mitchell Library in Sydney, where a considerable amount of Australian historical material is lodged. Thus, family historians had limited access to historical records, so they were more likely to make errors in their research. Today, record repositories are making it much easier for genealogists to access historical records because they recognise that genealogists are a "cash cow" and that they can add to their financial bottom line by selling material to the big genealogical databases such as Ancestry.com.

Note

When Carol migrated this material from her old website, she rewrote some of the sections to make them clearer for readers and she has also provided a clearer layout. However, the evidence itself is exactly the same.

If you read the following essay and still believe that your male "Douglas" ancestor is the son of First Fleeter William Douglas (or one of the other Douglas men who arrived in New South Wales pre-1800s), you are strongly advised to read Carol's book on evidence analysis and/or attend one of her classes (shown below). Knowledge is power. Research errors will cost you time, effort and money.

If you maintain this belief and wish to contact Carol about these families, please note that she will only respond if you provide a research report that clearly states your claims regarding the Douglas families and that offers evidence to support these claims.

If you are unwilling or unable to do so, please don't waste her time or yours.

View Carol Baxter's book on evidence analysis

View Carol Baxter's lessons on evidence analysis

The Author (2023)
Carol Baxter has been a genealogist for more than forty years, having commenced her family history journey while she was a high school student. In 1984, she obtained full-time employment as Project Officer for the Australian Biographical and Genealogical Record. In that role, she edited six volumes of New South Wales general musters. Later, she edited the convict indents database published in Convicts to New South Wales: 1788-1812 (CD-ROM).

In the early 2000s, she became general editor of the ABGR's new incarnation: the Biographical Database of Australia, remaining there until 2012. She then worked part-time for the project between 2016 and 2021. In those roles, she processed many other colonial record series and linked entries for the same individuals recorded in early colonial records. Thus, her knowledge of New South Wales colonial records and of the information contained within them is far superior to that of most genealogists.

For her services to genealogy and to Australian history, she was voted a Fellow of the Society of Australian Genealogists in 2002 and an adjunct lecturer at the University of New England in 2011.
Carol is also a mainstream author, writing true tales of murder, mystery and mayhem. Not only have they achieved international acclaim, two are being turned into TV series.

Additionally, she has written many genealogy "how to" publications, including Help: How do I separate fact from fiction?, which communicates the skills of evidence analysis.

The Douglas Controversy

Introduction
The study of genealogy has interested mankind since ancient times, although the methods of its practise have seen many changes. Techniques of tracing genealogies have often been influenced by the social or political importance of family to the society of the time. On occasion, these influences have resulted in family histories of questionable accuracy.

The nineteenth-century saw an era of shoddy genealogy. With birth the key to social status, many a bogus genealogy was produced to aid would-be social climbers. The weakening of the class system and the application of the scientific method to genealogy has reduced the need and scope for this type of creation.

However, even today, status affects the study of genealogy. In Australia, it has become a status symbol to have a First Fleet ancestor. This can affect a researcher's objectivity.
Genealogical research should follow a step-by-step progression from descendant to ancestor with the link provided by rational research methods and the proof of a connection. Unfortunately, the scarcity of information in many early Australian records often makes it difficult to link generations. In these cases, "circumstantial evidence" is used to justify the link.
The Douglas Controversy deals with one such situation. The controversy centres around three fathers and two sons and raises the question of "who begat who".

The three fathers were convicts who arrived in the colony in its early years: William Douglas on the First Fleet's Alexander in 1788, Thomas Douglas on the Canada in 1801 and William Douglas on the Coromandel in 1804. They were the only men in the colony with the surname Douglas who appear to have been fathering children prior to 1810. They will be referred to as William (FF) Douglas, Thomas (Canada) Douglas and William (Coromandel) Douglas.

The two sons were born in the colony prior to 1810 and will be referred to as Thomas (BC) Douglas and William (BC) Douglas.
Although colonial records list these men variously as Douglas and Douglass, the spelling Douglas will be used throughout this essay. All of the men were apparently illiterate, and no consistency has been found in the spelling of their surnames in these early colonial years, so the surname spelling is of no significance in the analysis of these family connections.

1. William Alexander Douglas

a. Previous research

For many years, the general consensus was that First Fleeter William (FF) Douglas fathered two sons, Thomas and William, although there is documented evidence of his fathering only one child – a daughter.

Parish records show that William (FF) Douglas married Mary Groves in 1788 and had a daughter, Elizabeth, baptised in 1796. Elizabeth married Daniel Jurd in 1812 and had nine children. William (FF) Douglas is recorded as living at Daniel Jurd’s place in the 1828 Census.
     A number of publications refer to William (FF) Douglas and his family. Don Chapman in 1788: The People of the First Fleet writes:

WILLIAM DOUGLAS .... arrived on the Alexander. He married Mary Graves (sic) in 1788 and they were settled on a thirty acre farm at the Hawkesbury in 1794. By 1806 he was reduced to renting 15 acres, and they had two children. He later worked as a butcher and in 1828 was living at Pitt Town. He died at St Albans on 27 November 1838.

In The Forgotten Valley, M. Hutton Neve writes:

William Douglass arrived 1788 on the Alexander and married Mary Groves in Sydney 1st June 1788; he had several children, amongst whom was a daughter Elizabeth who married Daniel Judd/Jurd at St Matthew's Church, Windsor in 1821 (sic). The 1828 Census stated William Douglass was ... living with his daughter and son-in-law, for he was then apparently a widower. He had a son William, on whose behalf he applied for a grant of land in the Valley, and the 1851 Census showed that this son William was a landholder in the Upper Macdonald.

The "Family History and Pedigree of the Thoms Family"[1], the 1788-1820 Pioneer Register, and Bobbie Hardy's Early Hawkesbury Settlers all list the family of William (FF) Douglas and Mary Groves as follows:

George - md Mary Ann Cross
Elizabeth - bn 1796, md Daniel Jurd 1812
James - bn c.l797, md Frances Carroll 1832
Thomas - bn c.1804, md Charlotte Plumb 1829
William - bn c.1808, md Jane Wright 1831
Sarah - bn 1810, md Thomas Green 1829

This list of children appears to have been determined by the author of the "Family History and Pedigree of the Thoms Family" and used as the basis for the other publications. The researcher appears to have taken the name of any person who was seemingly born in the New South Wales colony in the early years of settlement, whose parents were unknown or who had a father called William Douglas, and absorbed them into the family of William (FF) Douglas. When evidence came to light "proving" that the person was not a child of William (FF) Douglas, only then was that person "deleted" from the list.
Evidence conclusively shows that three of the above were not the children of William (FF) Douglas and Mary Groves, as follows:

George (No. 1) was in fact William (Coromandel) Douglas himself. He was recorded as George (for unknown reasons) in the baptisms of his three youngest children.
James (No. 3) appears to have arrived in the colony around the year 1830 as there is no trace of him in records prior to that time.
Sarah (No. 6) was the eldest daughter of William (Coromandel) Douglas.

These three individuals have now been "deleted" from the family of William (FF) Douglas.

Some genealogists who are researching the Douglas family, however, still believe that William (FF) Douglas and Mary Groves had two children: Elizabeth (born 1796) and Thomas (born c.l804). And they still believe that William (FF) Douglas and another woman named Ann Peat had a son William (born in 1809).

The Fellowship of First Fleeters used to register descendants of these three children as descendants of First Fleeter William Douglas. However, some years ago, they accepted Carol's exhaustive research as proof positive of the relevant Douglas connections. Carol was informed of this fact when she was invited to be the keynote speaker at the Fellowship of First Fleeters annual Australia Day lunch with NSW Governor Marie Bashir.

b. Research problems

Instead of following accepted genealogical practice of linking a child with parents only when there is proof of a connection, the opposite appears to have occurred when the family of William (FF) Douglas was researched in the 1970s. At least three of the six children listed above were linked with William and his wife even though there was no evidence to support the connection. They were extracted from the family only when evidence was found proving that they could not be a part of the First Fleeter's family.

In view of the obvious errors in the above list of children, it would seem logical to re-examine the evidence and determine if the sons Thomas and William had any genuine claim to a family connection with William (FF) Douglas. However, until now (1984), this has not occurred.

Update 2023: And even after this thesis was written in the 1980s, and even though the research was accepted by the Fellowship of First Fleeters in the early 2000s, the same errors are still being repeated by equally ignorant researchers.

c. Re-examining the evidence
The conclusion that William (FF) Douglas had two or more children appears to have resulted from an incorrect interpretation of the 1806 Musters, which Carol edited as part of her job with the Australian Biographical and Genealogical Record.

William’s entry in the 1806 General Muster records that he arrived on the Alexander, was free by servitude, and was renting 15 acres from Williamson at the Hawkesbury.

His entry in the 1806 Land & Stock Muster records that he was farming 15 acres rented from Mr Williamson at the Hawkesbury, and that on the land were one proprietor, one wife and two children.
Chapman and other researchers appear to have assumed from this information that William's wife at that time was Mary Groves and that the two children were Elizabeth (born 1796) and another child for whom there is no baptism record. So they went looking for another child.

However, the following points indicate that these assumptions and conclusions are incorrect:

The heading "wife" in the Land & Stock Muster covered any female companion, whether she was a wife, mistress, housekeeper or whatever.
When a reference was made to a partner in a muster or census entry, an individual entry can usually be found for that partner. However, neither a Mary Groves nor a Mary Douglas is listed in the 1806 General Muster nor in Marsden's Female Muster (1806) nor in any later record. This suggests that Mary Groves/Douglas had died prior to 1806.
The 1806 General Muster records an entry for a Sarah Dailey who came on the Kitty in 1792. At the time of the muster, Sarah was listed as a housekeeper living with William Douglas. No other person was recorded as "living with/wife to" a man named William Douglas in the 1806 Muster.
There were only two men by the name of William Douglas listed in the 1806 General Muster: William (FF) Douglas and William (Coromandel) Douglas. The latter was listed as a prisoner employed by a D. Brown. Thus, it is extremely unlikely that he would have been in any position to have a "housekeeper" at that time.
It is also unlikely that Sarah Dailey was living with a soldier of that name (if there even was one) as "Soldier" was generally noted after the partner's name in those instances. This indicates that Sarah Dailey was almost certainly living with William (FF) Douglas in 1806.
Marsden's Female Muster (1806) records that Sarah Dailey of the Kitty was a "concubine" with two natural female children.

d. Analysing the evidence
In order to fully understand the significance of the information contained in the three extant musters for 1806, it is essential to understand the records themselves.

In Carol's role as project officer for the Australian Biographical and Genealogical Record, she was responsible for the publication of these musters. Thus, her knowledge of the musters far surpasses that of anyone else.

Carol checked every entry in the various musters and wrote the introduction, analysis and statistics pages. They explain that the information contained in both the extant General Muster and in Marsden's Female Muster was extracted from the original returns of the 1806 General Muster, which have not survived. These original returns included information that was not transferred to the extant copy of the General Muster, such as details of residence, victualing status, and children. Marsden used the original version of the muster to generate his Female Muster.
It is also important to understand why the musters were made and why the various pieces of information were collected. As Carol teaches in her evidence analysis classes, the who, what, when, where, why and how questions must be asked of the original records themselves and not just of the people listed in the records.

The musters were primarily collected so that the authorities could keep track of the population and could determine victualing requirements. For example, they had no interest in whether or not Sarah Dailey was the mother of two children. They merely wanted the details of those for whom she was responsible.

They did not ask landholders for the details of their "wife" and "children" to determine if they were married or had fathered children of their own. Rather, they wanted to know how many people each farm was supporting or, alternatively, if these people were being supported by the government stores. Why? Because in the event of a flood or drought or fire, they needed to know how many people they would be required to feed.

These are important distinctions. If they are misunderstood, they can lead to an incorrect interpretation of the information contained in the musters, which is exactly what happened in terms of these early Douglas families.
As the information from these three 1806 musters was extracted from the same original source, and as the details of "family" were a reflection of fiscal responsibility not biological relationship, there should be a correlation between the various entries. This is what we find:

The Land & Stock Muster records that William (FF) Douglas's farm was supporting a proprietor, a wife and two children.
Marsden's Female Muster records that Sarah Dailey was responsible for two female children.
Thus, logically, Sarah Dailey's two female children were the two children listed as living with William Douglas on his farm in 1806.

One of these children was almost certainly William's daughter, Elizabeth, who was baptised in 1796, but who was the other child? Could she have been a daughter born to Sarah Dailey?

e. Sarah Dailey

Sarah Dailey was a convict from Dublin who was transported to Sydney aboard the Kitty in 1792. The convict indents record that she was 23 years of age. No other information has been located for her in pre-1806 or post-1806 records.

Although no primary source records have been found confirming that Sarah had a daughter, strong circumstantial evidence supports this claim.

Church records reveal that an Elizabeth Dailey married a Thomas Jones in Sydney in 1807.
The 1828 Census indicates that Elizabeth was born in the colony around the year 1798, although this is clearly an under-recording of her age as she would have been too young to marry in 1807 if that age was correct.
Her burial entry in 1845 records that she was 55 years of age (born c.1790).
Thus, these references suggest that Elizabeth was born in the colony in the early 1790s. However, no baptism entry has been found.

Confirmation that Elizabeth was almost certainly the daughter of Sarah Dailey lies in the name of a witness to her marriage in 1807: William Douglas.

Interestingly, Elizabeth also named her two children, William and Sarah. Clearly, there is strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that Sarah Dailey had a daughter named Elizabeth who was born in the early 1790s, and that Elizabeth was the second child recorded as living on William's farm in 1806.

f. Later references

Later references to William (FF) Douglas provide no evidence of his fathering additional children. William was recorded as a labourer in Sydney in the 1814, 1822 and 1823/24/25 Musters (checked and edited by Carol Baxter). No children were listed with him, although the latter muster noted that he had a wife named Eleanor Carthorne.

On 30 June 1826, William transferred his house and premises at 5 York Street, Sydney, to his son-in-law, Daniel Jurd.[2] The transfer contained the condition that William and his housekeeper Ellen Holden (presumably the Eleanor Carthorne mentioned in the 1825 muster although this cannot be started with certainty) could reside there rent free. However, William appears to have resided there for only a short time as, by 1828, he was living with his daughter’s family in Pitt Town.

William's daughter Elizabeth and her husband, Daniel Jurd, were well-established settlers at Pitt Town by 1828. They had a 75-acre farm with 6 horses and 24 cattle, according to the 1828 Census.
William (FF) Douglas died in 1838 and was buried at St Alban’s Old Cemetery with the Jurd family. His monumental inscription reads[3]:

Sacred
to
the memory of
WILLIAM DOUGLAS
who departed this life on
November the 27 1838
Aged 81 years

.....d him through life one
daughter he left here behind
with his grandchildren nine
whose constant prayers they
do set forth for him from
time to time may his soul
rest in peace amen

This inscription records that William (FF) Douglas left behind one daughter and nine grandchildren. His daughter Elizabeth had nine children alive in 1838.

Thus, this inscription provides no evidence to suggest that William had more than one child or more than one family of grandchildren living in 1838. This is especially significant when it is noted that his two alleged "sons" had six children between them by that time.

g. Summary

Therefore, the surviving information for William (FF) Douglas does not support the claim that he gave birth to children other than a daughter named Elizabeth (although an unbaptised infant could have died without being documented in a burial entry).

If he had sons nearing adulthood, it would seem more logical to transfer his Sydney home to them rather than to a well-established son-in-law living miles from Sydney.

Additionally, Mrs Hutton Neve writes that William applied for a grant of land for his son William around that time, but why apply for a grant when he was already disposing of a property?[4]
Finally, if William (FF) Douglas had other children and grandchildren, the wording on the gravestone appears especially odd. Are descendants claiming that the family deliberately excluded any reference to his other children and grandchildren when preparing the inscription?

The only logical conclusion, given the extant evidence, is that William (FF) Douglas had no other surviving children than his daughter, Elizabeth.

2. The two sons Thomas and William
Not only does the information available for William (FF) Douglas provide no evidence to support the claim that he fathered two sons, the information available for Thomas (BC) Douglas and William (BC) Douglas provides no evidence linking them to William (FF) Douglas.
In the muster and census records for the 1820s (Carol edited all the muster returns), only one Thomas Douglas and one William Douglas with the notation "born in the colony" (BC) were listed. The early marriage registers record only one Thomas Douglas and one William Douglas who appear to have been born in the colony. These marriage entries link up with the muster and census references.

This suggests that only one Thomas Douglas and one William Douglas were born in the colony in the early 1800s and were alive in the 1820s.

Who were these men?

3. Thomas BC Douglas

a. Background

The only early church entries and muster/census entries located for a man named Thomas Douglas who was born in the colony are as follows:

Baptism: No entry
1822 Muster: Douglas, Thomas - BC. In gaol for trial, Sydney
1823/24/25 Muster List: Douglass, Thomas - 23 BC. Labourer, Richmond
1828 Census: Douglass, Thos. - 24 BC. Protestant. Farmer, Richmond, total acreage 29, all cultivated
Marriage: Thomas Douglas married Charlotte Plumb on 11 August 1829 at St Peter's Richmond. Witnesses: Thomas and Alice Adams
Child's baptism: Thomas, son of Thomas and Charlotte Douglas, Farmer, Richmond, born 12 July 1830, baptised 3 July 1831, St Peter's, Richmond

These records indicate that:

Thomas Douglas was born in the colony between 1801 and 1804.
He resided at Richmond in the 1820s.
He worked as a farmer.

It's important to note that William (FF) Douglas resided in Sydney from at least 1814 (if not much earlier) to at least 1825.

No baptism entry has been found for a Thomas Douglas who was born in the early NSW colony, nor is Thomas linked with his parents in any muster or census records. Thus, from the above sources, no information about his parentage can be determined.

b. Family life
Further information about the adult Thomas (BC) Douglas has been found. He and his wife, Charlotte Plumb, had nine children, all born at Richmond and baptised at St Peter's, Richmond, as follows:

Thomas - bn 1830
Maria - bn 1832
Phillip - bn 1834
Rachael - bn 1836
Sarah Jane - bn 1840
Joseph - bn 1843
Eliza - bn 1846
Charlotte Ann - bn 1848
George - bn 1851

Thomas' wife, Charlotte, died in 1881 at Richmond and was buried at St Peter's, Richmond.

c. Thomas's death

Thomas was presumably the man who died in 1871 and was also buried at St Peter's, Richmond. This man’s death certificate records that he was a 66-year-old farm labourer who was born in the colony. This indicates that he was born in the colony around 1805, which fits with the known information for Charlotte's husband.

However, the certificate notes that he was unmarried and had no family. It also adds that Thomas' father was a farm labourer by the name of Douglas and that his mother was unknown. The informant was the superintendent of Windsor Hospital, where the deceased was residing at the time of his death.

Descendants have generally accepted that this is Thomas' death certificate, and that the lack of a reference to his wife and children was an error on behalf of the hospital informant. Unfortunately, the certificate provides no information to assist in the search for Thomas' parents.

d. Previous conclusions
The available information provides no evidence to support the conclusion that William (FF) Douglas was his father, yet this is the conclusion that researchers have reached.

Why?

Seemingly, they have combined the following information:

That the entry for Thomas (BC) Douglas in the 1828 Census recorded that he was born in the colony c.1804.
That no baptism record had been found for any person by the name of Thomas Douglas who was born in the colony in these early years.
That the entry for William (FF) Douglas in the 1806 Land & Stock Muster recorded him with a wife and two children.
That only one child had been identified as a child of William (FF) Douglas: Elizabeth (born 1796) who married Daniel Jurd.
That they needed to find another child to fill this "second child" role.

It is worth noting that, in the 1980s, the Fellowship of First Fleeter's researchers, Joyce Cowell and Roderick Best, wrote to Carol stating that their evidence supporting the claim that Thomas (BC) Douglas was the son of William (FF) Douglas included the fact that Thomas (BC) Douglass, William (BC) Douglass, and William (FF) Douglas were listed consecutively in the 1828 Census.

However, in reaching this conclusion, they failed to understand the methodology of the data collection and documentation of the 1828 Census.

c. The 1828 census

The 1828 Census required an Act of Parliament (unlike the colonial musters Carol edited). The details were collected on household returns, one document for each household.

While most of the household returns have not survived, the extant alphabetised volume records that Thomas (BC) Douglas was living at Richmond while William (FF) Douglas and William (BC) Douglas were recorded as living at Pitt Town. These entries were listed consecutively.

Clearly, though, Thomas (BC) Douglas was not listed on the same household return as William (FF) Douglas.

Thus, the consecutive nature of these three entries could only have been a matter of coincidence. In fact, it was almost certainly caused by the fact that, in the surviving alphabetised volume, given names starting with "T" preceded those starting with "W".

A failure to take into consideration the method by which the information in a muster or census return was collected and recorded can lead to serious errors in analysis, as has obviously happened in this situation.

d. Summary
This exhaustive analysis shows that the claim that Thomas (BC) Douglas was the son of William (FF) Douglas cannot be supported.

No evidence has been found to suggest that William (FF) Douglas had more than one child, and no evidence has been found to suggest that the father of Thomas (BC) Douglas could have been William (FF) Douglas.

Therefore, the possibility must be raised that Thomas (BC) Douglas was the son of another family. This is discussed later in this essay.

4. William (BC) Douglas

a. Background

The only early church entries and muster/census entries located for a man named William Douglas who was born in the colony are as follows:

Baptism: William, son of William Douglas, ship carpenter, and Ann Peat, born 10 June 1809 Pitt Town, baptised 22 March 1829 Portland Head Presbyterian.
1822 Muster: Children are generally unnamed (as Carol knows from editing the muster).
1823/24/25 Muster List: Douglass, William - 16 BC. Son of William Douglass, Windsor (listed as part of the family of William Douglas of Windsor, who was himself listed as a District Constable who arrived per Coromandel in 1804)
1828 Census: Douglass, William - 20 BC. Labourer to John Grono, Pitt Town
Marriage: William Douglas aged 22 of Wilberforce (signed with mark) married Jane Wright aged 15 of Wilberforce on 17 May 1831 at Wilberforce by the rites of the Presbyterian Church. Witnesses were Elizabeth Douglas and Richard Hayes both of Wilberforce.
Child's baptism: William son of William Douglas (settler, Lower Wilberforce) and Jane Wright, born 28 March 1834, baptised 4 May 1834, Portland Head Presbyterian.

These records indicate that William (BC) Douglas was born at Pitt Town in 1809 to William Douglas and Ann Peat.

These records show that his father was a District Constable at Windsor in 1825 and had arrived on the Coromandel in 1804.

Yet many descendants have chosen to ignore this unequivocal information and have continued to claim descent from the First Fleeter.

b. Family life
Further information about the adult William (BC) Douglas is known. He lived at Wilberforce in the 1830s and attended the Presbyterian church there. He died in 1877 however his parents were not listed on his death certificate.

He and his wife Jane had ten children as follows:

William - born 1834
Mary Ann - born 1836
James - born 1839
Ellen - born 1841
Ann Pete - born 1844
George - born 1846
Sarah - born c1849
Joseph - born 1851
Rosetta - born 1854
John Thomas - born 1857

Other records clearly link the child born in 1809 with the man who married Jane Wright, as follows:

The birth certificate of William and Jane's youngest son records that William was born around 1809 at Pitt Town.
William and Jane named their fifth child, Ann Pete Douglas, which was the name of the birth mother of the William Douglas who was born in Pitt Town in 1809.

c. Summary

The surviving evidence clearly shows that William (BC) Douglas was the son of William (Coromandel) Douglas. So why have some descendants refused to accept this clear link?

Seemingly, they have done so because of one piece of information found for another member of William (Coromandel) Douglas's family. We'll come back to that in the next section.

5. William (Coromandel) Douglas

a. Background

William (Coromandel) Douglas arrived as a convict on the transport Coromandel in 1804. He either married (record not survived) or established a common-law relationship with Mary Ann Cross around the year 1809. Mary Ann Cross was the daughter of Charles Cross and Rose Flood and was born in the colony around the year 1793.

b. Family life

William (Coromandel) Douglas and his wife Mary Ann Cross had the following children (although it must be noted that William was recorded as George in the baptisms of his youngest three children, as mentioned earlier):

1. Sarah                       - bn 22 August 1810, bp Windsor
2. Charles - bn 31 July 1812, bp Windsor
3. Elizabeth - twin bn 14 Nov 1814, Wilberforce, bp Windsor [5]
4. Mary Ann - twin bn 14 Nov 1814, Wilberforce, bp Windsor
5. George                     - bn 12 July 1817, bp Windsor
6. Christopher - bn 1 October 1820, Pitt Town
7. Eleanor - bn 10 June 1823, Pitt Town
8. Humphrey Taylor - bn 10 Apl 1826, Pitt Town
9. Thomas Green - bn 18 Jan 1829, Pitt Town
10. James                    - bn 9 July 1831, Pitt Town
11. Henry                     - bn 13 March 1835, Pitt Town

    William (Coromandel) Douglas died in 1852, prior to the civil registration of births, deaths and marriages. Thus, no death certificate is available to provide evidence regarding his children.

c. Mary Ann Cross

William's wife, Mary Ann Cross, died in 1862 after civil registration had been legislated. From the information on her death certificate, researchers reportedly concluded that William (BC) Douglas was not the son of William (Coromandel) Douglas.

But let's examine the evidence:

Mary Ann's death certificate listed the eleven children named above as being her only children. This is correct. These were her only biological children.
Descendants claim that because William (BC) Douglas was not listed as a child on his stepmother's death certificate, he could not have been the child of her husband.

Seriously?

Clearly, they failed to take into consideration the fact that the children of William (Coromandel) Douglas and Mary Ann Cross almost certainly knew that William (BC) Douglas was not their full brother, that he was not the biological son of their mother, Mary Ann Cross.

Why?

William (BC) Douglas was baptised as an adult.
William (BC) Douglas named his own child Ann Pete Douglas, which was the name of the birth mother listed in his baptism entry.

Thus, it is logical that the family did not list William (BC) Douglas as the child of Mary Ann Cross because he was not her son.

Therefore, to conclude from this information that he was not the son of William (Coromandel) Douglas, even though he is listed or linked as such in multiple records (more provided later), is absurd.

d. Why William (FF) Douglas?

The conclusion that William (FF) Douglas was the father of William (BC) Douglas was seemingly by default.

According to William (BC) Douglas's baptism entry, his father had the first name William and was residing in the colony in 1809. Eligible in both categories, William (FF) Douglas was apparently chosen for the role.

In the 1980s, when asked for evidence supporting this conclusion, the Fellowship of First Fleeters claimed that the consecutive, albeit unlinked, entries for William (FF) Douglas and William (BC) Douglas in the 1828 Census acted as "confirmation" of their family connection, as they were both residing in Pitt Town at that time.

The fact that William (Coromandel) Douglas was also living at Pitt Town in 1828 appears to have been ignored because the death certificate of Mary Ann (Cross) Douglas had "proved" that William (Coromandel) Douglas was not his father.

Yet no other evidence has been found suggesting a family link between William (BC) Douglas and William (FF) Douglas.

e. Other evidence connecting William (BC) Douglas and William (Coromandel) Douglas

The 1823/24/25 Muster List is not the only record to indicate that the family of William (Coromandel) Douglas included another child.
The list of children born to William (Coromandel) Douglas and his wife Mary Ann Cross (shown above) reveals that they had two children when the General Muster was taken in 1814, six children in 1820, seven children in 1823, eight children in 1826, and nine children in 1829. Yet contemporary records consistently add one more child to the family.

Let's start with the 1814 Muster (which was edited by Carol):

It records that William's wife was responsible for three children at that time (although it must be noted that the muster inaccurately recorded her husband as Thomas rather than William Douglass).
It was collected late in October 1814 for those residing in the Windsor district.
At the time of its collection, Mary Ann had given birth to only two children (the twins were born a month later on 14 November 1814).
Therefore, the 1814 Muster indicates that the family included one child more than was listed in the above baptisms and in Mary Ann's death certificate.

What about the 1822 General Muster (which was also edited by Carol)?

The 1822 Muster records that William (Coromandel) Douglas of Windsor had seven unnamed children at that time.
According to the above baptism list and to Mary Ann's death certificate , the family only had six children at that time.

There's more.

In July 1824, William Douglas, District Constable of Pitt Town, signed a petition requesting a further grant of land.[6] He stated that he had arrived on the Coromandel in 1804 and had a large family of eight children, the eldest 16 years, the youngest 11 months. Again, this is one child more than is listed in baptism records and in Mary Ann's death certificate. Furthermore, the eldest child in those records, Sarah, was only 13 years of age in July 1824.

  The 1823/24/25 Muster List is the first clear and unequivocal source to link the father and son together. It groups the following eight children as being the offspring of William (Coromandel) Douglas:

William - 16 BC
Sarah              - 15 BC
Charles - 13 BC
Mary Ann - 10 BC }
Elizabeth - 10 BC }
George            - 8 BC
Christopher - 6 BC
Eleanor            - 3 BC

    The eldest child list above (that is, William aged 16 BC) was the only William Douglas listed in the Muster List who was born in the colony. His age indicates that he was the same person as William (BC) Douglas (born in the colony in 1809). So why would he be recorded with this family if he was not a member of the family?

There's more.
The Reeve Record File includes a transcript of a letter from William Douglas, District Constable at Pitt Town, to the Surveyor-General dated 2 February 1828.[7] In the letter, William (Coromandel) Douglas mentions that he has a large family of 9 children. Yet according to the above list of baptism entries and to Mary Ann's death certificate, only eight children were alive in 1828. The ninth would be born the following year.
Clearly, all of these records indicate that another child belonged to the family of William (Coromandel) Douglas, and that this child was a son named William who was born around 1809 (that is, William (BC) Douglas).

Additional evidence supports the family link between William (BC) Douglas and the family of William (Coromandel) Douglas:

William (BC) Douglas was living in Pitt Town in 1828 where William (Coromandel) Douglas and his family were also residing.
William (BC) Douglas was baptised, married and baptised his own children in Presbyterian churches. William (Coromandel) Douglas baptised his three youngest children in a Presbyterian church.
The Presbyterian church in which William (BC) Douglas was baptised in 1829 and in which he baptised his own children in the 1830s was Portland Head Presbyterian. William (Coromandel) Douglas baptised his three youngest children in Portland Head Presbyterian Church in 1836.
The marriage of William (BC) Douglas and Jane Wright in 1831 was witnessed by Elizabeth Douglas. William (Coromandel) Douglas had a daughter Elizabeth who was not married until 1832. By contrast, William (FF) Douglas' daughter Elizabeth was married in 1812 and used the surname Jurd from then onwards. Thus, she was not the witness to William (BC) Douglas' marriage.
The other marriage witness was Richard Hayes, who was almost certainly the man married to Mary Ann Cross' sister Elizabeth (information from Michelle Donald)]
William (BC) Douglas and Jane Wright gave six of their children names belonging to the family of William (Coromandel) Douglas: William, Mary Ann, James, Ellen/ Eleanor, George, and Sarah.
The two eldest two children of William (BC) Douglas and Jane Wright were given the names William and Mary Ann, which were the names of William (Coromandel) Douglas and his wife Mary Ann Cross. (Note that William (FF) Douglas's wife was listed as Mary, not Mary Ann in colonial records. Mary and Mary Ann were considered to be different names in those days and families often included daughters with both of these names.)
In 1827, William (Coromandel) Douglas wrote to the Surveyor-General regarding the selection of his grant of land. He requested that he could select land at Little Caddie Creek adjoining that of his brother-in-law, Christopher Cross. In 1845, the NSW Government Gazette recorded a grant of land to Christopher Cross and noted that the land had been promised to "William Douglass the younger". Christopher Cross was the brother-in-law of William (Coromandel) Douglas.

f. Summary

No baptism has been found for a child named William who was born around 1809 at Pitt Town to William (Coromandel) Douglas and Mary Ann Cross. This is not surprising as William BC Douglas was not the child of this couple. His baptism entry records that his mother was a woman named Ann Peat.[8]

William was clearly aware of his mother's real identity because he was baptised as an adult and he named his fifth child Ann Pete Douglas.

It is highly likely that William's siblings also knew the truth about his birth for the above-listed reasons. This would explain why William's half-brother Christopher did not include William's name on his mother's death certificate. Mary Ann (Cross) Douglas was Christopher’s mother but she was not the mother of William (BC) Douglas.
Additionally, it is clear from the available evidence that William (BC) Douglas was not the son of William (FF) Douglas. No evidence whatsoever has been found to suggest a family link between these two men yet conclusive evidence has been found linking William (BC) Douglas with William (Coromandel) Douglas.

This evidence shows that William (BC) Douglas was the son of William (Coromandel) Douglas and a woman named Ann Peat however he was brought up by William (Coromandel) Douglas and his wife Mary Ann Cross.

This evidence is so conclusive that it is extraordinary that any descendants of William (BC) Douglas would still claim descent from the First Fleeter.

6. Thomas (BC) Douglas

a. Background

Determining the family background of Thomas (BC) Douglas was more difficult as no record has been found linking him with his parents. However, one piece of evidence from the 1823/24/25 Muster List acts as the key to solving the puzzle.

It is important to understand how the Muster List was documented. As the editor of the published muster, Carol determined that the entries were usually recorded in alphabetical order although this was not always consistent. In family groupings, the parents were recorded first then the children followed in descending age order. Occasionally, children were listed separately from the parents but still in descending age order.

The entry for Thomas BC Douglas in the extant copy of the 1823/24/25 Muster List is found in the following environment:

  Douglass, Thomas       - 23 BC Labourer, Richmond
            Douglass, Philip            - 20 "          "                 "

    The entry for Philip Douglas follows that of Thomas in descending age order and "dittos" Thomas in all other details (although it must be noted that the dittos were reproduced as the full text in the published volume for computerisation, indexing and sorting purposes).

Although the Douglas entries in the muster are not consistently in alphabetical order, they are loosely that way. Yet these two entries break the alphabetical order. Additionally, the manner in which the entries were recorded (that is, the dittos) indicates a family relationship. Substance to the theory of a family connection is suggested by the fact that Thomas (BC) Douglas gave his second son the uncommon name Philip.

b. Philip Douglas

No trace of a baptism entry has been found for a Philip Douglas who was born in the colony in the early 1800s. However, the various muster, marriage and burial records provide additional helpful information:

1822 Muster: Douglas, Philip - BC Labourer, Windsor.
1825 Muster: Douglass, Philip - 20 BC Labourer, Richmond.
Marriage: Philip Douglas (aged 20 free) married Ann Ham (aged 16 free) at St Peters Richmond on 22 August 1825. Witnesses were Maria Douglas and James Duff.
Child’s Baptism: James son of Philip and Ann Douglas born 25 February 1827, baptised 20 May 1827 at St Peters Richmond.
Burial: Douglass, Philip aged 20 BC Farmer died Hospital Sydney buried 17 August 1829, St James, Sydney.
Monumental Inscription at Devonshire Street Burial Ground: Philip Douglas died 14 August 1828 aged 22 Years.

From these records, we can determine the following:

Philip Douglas was born in the colony between 1804 and 1808.
He resided in the Richmond area in the 1820s.
He was a farmer.
His parents could not be ascertained from these records.

Importantly, Philip Douglas is linked to another "Douglas" in the record of his marriage in 1825. The witnesses included a woman named Maria Douglas, who was almost certainly a member of his immediate family.

It's worth noting that Thomas (BC) Douglas named his eldest daughter Maria, another "less common" name at the time.

c. Maria Douglas

The following information has been found for Maria:

1822 Muster: Douglas, Maria - 17 BC Windsor
1825 Muster: Douglass, Maria - 15 BC Daughter of Thomas Douglas, Richmond
Marriage: Maria Douglas (aged 19) married John Deegan (aged 29, Assistant Jailer), at St Philip’s, Sydney on 15 September 1827 with the consent of her parents. Witnesses: W. Wilson and Mary Wilson, both of Sydney

These records provide the following information:

Maria Douglas was the daughter of Thomas Douglas of Richmond.
She was born between 1804 and 1810.
Her parents were alive in 1827.

In November 1827, the Sydney Gazette records that Maria ran away from her husband. No trace of her has been found in later records, suggesting that she changed her name to elude detection.

d. Thomas (BC) Douglas' family

These sources indicate that Thomas came from a Douglas family that included the following family members:

Thomas Douglas of Richmond, who seemingly had offspring:
Thomas - born 1801-1804
Philip - born 1804-1808
Maria - born 1804-1810

7. Thomas (Canada) Douglas

a. Background

Thomas Douglas of Richmond was a convict who arrived on the Canada in 1801. He does not appear to have married in the colony. Instead, he lived with another convict, Sarah Pearce, from around 1804 until her death in 1851. Sarah Pearce was born around the year 1780 and was transported on the Nile in 1801.
Carol's original essay included detailed information about Thomas (Canada) Douglas, Sarah Pearce and their family. However, this information was eliminated from this version of the essay as information was later found that provided conclusive evidence of a family connection between Thomas (BC) Douglas, Philip Douglas and another sibling, and therefore between Thomas (BC) Douglas and Thomas (Canada) Douglas. If more information is required, the original thesis at the Society of Australian Genealogists can be examined.
Thomas (Canada) Douglas and Sarah Pearce settled in the Windsor district around the year 1805 and were recorded as living in Richmond from 1815 onwards. They remained there until their deaths in the 1850s.

Sarah was the mother of twelve children, the first three being born to various men, and the final nine to Thomas (Canada) Douglas . Details of these children are as follows:

John was born in the late 1790's and arrived with his mother per Nile in 1801. He apparently used the surnames Pearce/Pierce and Douglass at will, and in court records and the 1828 Census is recorded as John Pearce alias Douglas.
Thomas was born 15 December 1802 to Sarah Pearce and was baptised at St Philip’s Sydney on 18 April 1803. The baptism entry recorded his father as Thomas Reynolds; however, this man appears to have been a convict who arrived in 1802 aboard the Atlas only two months before the child was born. As Thomas Reynolds could not have conceived the child, it appears likely that an unknown man conceived the child and that Sarah Pearce was living with Thomas Reynolds at the time of his birth or baptism. Sarah appears to have had little if anything to do with Thomas Reynolds from 1804 onwards (Thomas Atlas Reynolds lived with Mary Nuttle from around 1805 onwards and named a son born in 1811 Thomas). Evidence will show that Sarah's son Thomas (born 1802) became the man known as Thomas (BC) Douglas.
Elizabeth was born on 15 July 1804 in Sydney. Her baptism records that she was the daughter of Reynold and Sarah Douglas however no such couple existed. Elizabeth appears to have been conceived while Sarah Pearce was living with Thomas Reynolds and born while Sarah was living with Thomas Douglas, hence the confusion with names. Elizabeth died on 17 September 1804 as a result of being eaten by a pig and was buried on 18 September 1804. The Sydney Gazette reported her death and in so doing confirms her connection with Sarah Pearce and also confirms the existence of the two older children as it notes that "the mother on returning home with the little creature in her arms, placed it on the bed that she might herself go in search of two other children". [NB. This story has generated the title for the recent publication Pig Eats Baby!]
Philip bn c1804-1809, who was discussed above. His marriage entry was witnessed by Maria (below).
Maria was born between 1805 and 1809 to Thomas Douglas and Sarah Pearce. Her parentage is confirmed by duplicate entries in the 1823/4/5 Muster List. Under the surname Douglas, Maria was recorded as 15 years of age, born in the colony, and the daughter of Thomas Douglas of Richmond. Under Pearce she was recorded as 16 years of age, born in the colony, and the daughter of Sarah Pearce and Thomas Douglas of Richmond; she was also linked with a number of later children. Most of the references for Maria suggest that she was born c.1808.
Ann born 4 August 1810, baptised Windsor, died 1811.
Joseph born 1 April 1812, baptised Windsor.
Charlotte born 2 April 1814, baptised Windsor.[9]
Sarah born 1 April 1816, Richmond, baptised Richmond
Henry born 2 Jly 1819, Richmond; baptised Richmond
Isaac born 1 February 1821, Richmond; baptised Richmond
William born October l824; died 1825 Richmond

b. Family connections

A record has been found confirming the link between Sarah Pearce's three eldest sons, John, Thomas and Philip. On 1 July 1809, the records of the Colonial Secretary include three consecutive entries that record that John Pearse, Thomas Douglas and Philip Douglas received rations from the Hawkesbury stores.[10] They were placed on half-rations (indicating that they were children) by order of the Lt. Governor, presumably as a result of the Hawkesbury floods in June 1809. These were the names all three men used in later life.

These three children were undoubtedly Sarah Pearce's three eldest living children. Her daughter Maria was probably still being breast-fed at this time, and was therefore not in need of the same quantity of food.

It is interesting to note that Sarah's eldest son was listed with the surname Pearse, while the other two were named Douglas. John was born in England, prior to Sarah's transportation to New South Wales.
These three half-brothers appeared before the courts on a number of occasions in the 1820s charged with a variety of crimes committed in the Richmond/Windsor area.

In 1822, the case of "The King vs John Pearce and Philip Douglass Free" recorded that John and Philip were "charged with taking down the fence of William Cox Esq. of Clarendon and turning into his paddock seven head of cattle".[11]
John appeared before the courts again in 1826 charged as "John Pearce alias Douglass", although he was described in the proceedings as "John Douglass".[12]
He was again referred to as “John Pearce alias Douglas” when he was convicted in 1828 and transported to Moreton Bay.[13]
John's half-brother Philip was convicted of another crime in 1827 and died while a prisoner in Sydney a short time later.[14]

The 1822 Muster also reveals that Thomas (BC) Douglas was "in gaol for trial" at that time. Court records reveal that Thomas Douglass (free) was committed for trial in August 1822 on the charge of "stealing a cow" in Richmond.[15] Interestingly, the court proceedings described him as Thomas Douglass Jnr, which suggests that he was the son of a man named Thomas Douglass Snr: that is, Thomas (Canada) Douglas.

The apparent link between Thomas (BC) Douglas and the family of Thomas (Canada) Douglas and Sarah Pearce is supported by the fact that Thomas gave six of his children names from that family: Thomas, Maria, Phillip, Sarah, Joseph and Charlotte (although admittedly the first and last names were also the names of Thomas (BC) Douglas himself and his wife, Charlotte).

c. Summary
The connections between John Pearce alias Douglas, Thomas (BC) Douglas, Philip Douglas and Maria Douglas, and those between Maria Douglas and the family of Thomas (Canada) Douglas, combined with the fact that they were all living in Richmond throughout this period, indicate beyond a shadow of doubt that Thomas (BC) Douglas was a member of the family of Thomas (Canada) Douglas and Sarah Pearce. Presumably, Thomas (BC) Douglas adopted his stepfather's surname as he was only a toddler when his mother established her relationship with Thomas (Canada) Douglas.

8. The Three Douglas Families
The evidence speaks for itself.

William (FF) Douglas was not the father of a large family. He was the father of only one known child, a daughter Elizabeth who married Daniel Jurd.

Of his reputed "sons", Thomas (BC) Douglas was in fact born in 1802 to convict Sarah Pearce. He acquired the surname Douglas from his stepfather, Thomas (Canada) Douglas.

William (BC) Douglas was born in 1809 to William (Coromandel) Douglas and Ann Peat. He was brought up by William (Coromandel) Douglas and his wife, Mary Ann Cross.
The claim that William (FF) Douglas was the father of these two sons is still accepted as fact by some researchers, even though the Fellowship of First Fleeters no longer accepts descendants of these men as descendants of William (FF) Douglas. Is it because they are driven by the desire for a First Fleet ancestor and have little concern for the truth?

Conclusion

As the Encyclopaedia Brittanica writes: "Genealogy, like every other branch of knowledge, must ... submit itself to recognized scientific methods and frankly admit where descents hitherto accepted can no longer be satisfactorily proved".

Endnotes
[1] Family History and Pedigree of the Thoms Family [SAG 4/5497]
[2] Land Titles Office: Register of Deeds [BK A. No.99]
[3] Excessive capitalisation and use of commas in the inscription was ignored in this transcription as the purpose was to communicate the contents. Some published references to William Douglas include monumental inscriptions with details that vary considerably to the information contained in the second half of this transcription, however photographs are now available that support the phraseology provided here.
[4] No source reference for this information has been located.
[5] The child recorded as the twin of Mary Ann in the baptism register is named Joseph. No baptism has been found for a child Elizabeth born to the Douglass family however the child linked as the twin of Mary Ann in the 1823/4/5 Muster List and recorded as the same age as Mary Ann in the 1828 Census is named Elizabeth and not Joseph. As there is no reference to a Joseph Douglas in any record other than the baptism, and as numerous references to Elizabeth have been found, this suggests that a mistake was made by the session clerk when recording the baptism.
[6] Petition - William Douglass [SRNSW ref: Colonial Secretary In-Letters - 4/1837 No.287; Reel 1074]
[7] Reeve Record File [SAG ref: 11/6/7/158 - last page]
[8] Ann Peat was the daughter of First Fleeters Charles Peat and Hannah Mullens.
[9] Charlotte Douglass is the ancestor of the author, Carol Baxter.
[10] John Pearse, Thomas Douglas and Philip Douglas on Hawkesbury Stores [SRNSW ref: 9/2673, p.62; Reel 6040].
[11] Court of Criminal Jurisdiction: Session 19-30 Dec 1822 [SRNSW ref: SZ800 p.201 No.17; Reel 1978]
[12] Sydney Gazette October 1826.
[13] Petitions [SRNSW ref: 4/1987 No. 28/5758 & 4/1988 No. 28/6005]; also 1828 Census.
[14] Sydney Gazette, 18 Apl 1827; Col.Sec. petitions, burial entry &c.
[15] Court of Criminal Jurisdiction: 23 Sep - 17 Oct 1822 [SRNSW ref: SZ798 p.357 No.25; Reel 1977]