The William Webb Wagg Investigation (1)
Part 1: Untangling Two Men of the Same Name
Identifying the Correct Ancestor of the Webb Wagg Family
Family history research often begins with a simple question — who was this person? Sometimes, however, the answer proves far more complex than expected.
This post documents how a long-standing confusion surrounding my 2× great-grandfather, William Webb Wagg, who died at North Sydney in 1905, was resolved. The analysis presented here reflects research undertaken between 2016 and 2017, and builds on earlier work by my Webb Wagg cousin Leonie.
At the time, online family trees repeatedly conflated William with another man named William Wagg, collapsing two distinct lives into a single, inaccurate profile. It was Leonie’s early research that first identified these inconsistencies and prompted a closer, more systematic examination of the evidence.
What follows traces how that initial work was tested, extended, and ultimately resolved through careful analysis of the historical record.
The Problem: One Name, Two Very Different Lives
When I reviewed public Ancestry trees connected to my family, I noticed something troubling. Although most researchers agreed that my ancestor was William Webb Wagg, the details attached to him varied dramatically.
Across seventeen family trees, two competing profiles emerged.
One William was shown as a child immigrant who arrived in Australia in 1837 with his parents. The other was an adult immigrant who married in Sydney in the early 1850s and died in 1905.
In many trees, these two men had been unintentionally merged — a problem Leonie had already identified in her earlier work.
The Two Competing Candidates
Candidate 1: The Child Immigrant (1837)
This William Wagg was recorded as:
born about 1832 in Norfolk, England
arriving in Sydney in 1837 aged about five, with parents William and Sophia (Kitchen) Wagg
growing up in New South Wales
dying in 1873 near Bathurst
Candidate 2: William Webb Wagg (d. 1905)
This William was recorded as:
born about 1828–1830 in Norfolk, England
marrying Sarah Turner in Sydney in 1853
raising a large family
dying at North Sydney on 8 January 1905
Fourteen of the seventeen trees favoured the second man — but most combined him incorrectly with the first.
So which William was my ancestor?
Starting with the Death Registration
Building on Leonie’s original observations, the most reliable place to begin was the 1905 death registration of William Webb Wagg. The informant was his son, Charles Wagg, who provided these details:
age at death: 77
birthplace: Yarmouth, Norwich, England
time in the colonies: 60 years
estimated arrival: about 1845
parents: father William Wagg (occupation unknown); mother not recorded
marriage: Sarah Turner, St James’ Church, Sydney
These details immediately raised doubts about the 1837 child immigrant.
A man who arrived aged five with both parents in 1837 could not also have arrived independently around 1845 as a teenager.
Eliminating the 1837 William
I next examined the family of William Wagg and Sophia Kitchen, who arrived in Sydney in 1837 with seven children.
Their son William:
became a bricklayer in the Bathurst district
appears repeatedly in NSW Police Gazette notices
died tragically in 1873 at Grove Creek near Bathurst
Crucially, his death is confirmed in multiple records, including his father’s 1887 will, which refers explicitly to “my deceased son William”.
This William was unquestionably dead more than eighteen years before the 1905 death of William Webb Wagg — a conclusion that confirms Leonie’s earlier separation of the two men.
A Different Man Entirely
With the child immigrant eliminated, Leonie proposed a working theory: that William Webb Wagg was a different man altogether — one who arrived independently in the mid-1840s rather than as a child in 1837.
Working from the details recorded on the 1905 death registration, her hypothesis was that this William:
was born in Norfolk in the mid-1820s
arrived in Australia around 1845
had no parents living locally
When I revisited the evidence independently during my own research, I followed the same criteria and came to the same conclusion. Only one candidate matched all of these elements.
The 1845 Convict Arrival
In 1843, a William Wagg was convicted in Norwich and transported to Van Diemen’s Land, arriving in June 1845 aboard the Mount Stewart Elphinstone.
His convict records describe him as:
born about 1824 in Norwich, Norfolk
a labourer, Protestant, able to read and write
son of William and Mary Ann Wagg
brother to Christopher, Mary, Susan, and Adelaide
His ticket of leave was revoked in 1850 after failing to report — and after that, he disappears from Tasmanian records.
The next time a William Wagg appears anywhere in Australia is in Sydney, marrying Sarah Turner in 1853.
Naming Patterns That Tell a Story
One of the most persuasive pieces of evidence came from the names of William and Sarah’s children.
Their family included children named:
William George
Sarah Jane
Mary Ann
Adelaide
Christopher Henry
These names mirror the convict’s immediate family with remarkable consistency — parents and siblings represented.
This pattern, first noted by Leonie and strengthened through broader analysis, is unlikely to be coincidental.
Finding Him in England
Parish baptism records from St Paul’s, Norwich, show two baptisms to William Wagg and Mary Ann Clark:
a William baptised in 1824
a second William baptised on 12 February 1826
The 1826 baptism aligns perfectly with:
the recorded age of 77 at death in 1905
the estimated birth year implied by multiple Australian records
This pattern, first noted by Leonie and strengthened through broader analysis, is unlikely to be coincidental.
Conclusion
William Webb Wagg, who died at North Sydney in 1905, was born in Norwich in 1826, transported as a convict to Van Diemen’s Land in 1845, and later settled in New South Wales, where he married Sarah Turner and raised his family.
The William Wagg who arrived in 1837 as a child with William and Sophia Kitchen was a different man who died in 1873.
This conclusion builds directly on Leonie’s earlier work and demonstrates how revisiting strong initial research with fresh sources can resolve long-standing genealogical confusion.
Sources
To keep these posts focused on analysis and interpretation, individual records are not cited in the text. All documentary sources used in this investigation are attached to the corresponding profiles in my public Ancestry tree. This includes registrations, parish records, convict records, and other supporting material, allowing readers to review the original evidence in full.
Methodological takeaway: how this problem was solved
This case highlights several principles that are useful for anyone researching family history, especially when working with common names.
1. Build on earlier research — don’t discard it
Good family history is collaborative. Leonie’s early identification of inconsistencies provided the foundation for this analysis and helped focus later research where it mattered most.
2. Treat online family trees as clues, not evidence
Public trees are invaluable for spotting patterns, but they often contain untested assumptions. When multiple trees disagree, the underlying records must be re-examined.
3. Start with the most informative record
Here, the death registration provided the strongest framework. Details such as age, birthplace, length of residence, and informant identity set boundaries that other records had to respect.
4. Actively eliminate incorrect candidates
Proving that the 1837 William died in 1873 was just as important as identifying the correct William.
5. Pay attention to timing and family context
Chronology matters. Naming patterns, life events, and family structure often reveal connections that isolated records do not.
6. Be prepared for unexpected outcomes
Convict transportation, missing records, and identity overlap were common in the nineteenth century and should be treated as historical realities.
Together, these approaches allow complex identity problems to be resolved systematically and transparently.
