fore·bear also for·bear (fôrʹbâr′)
n. A person from whom one is descended; an ancestor.
(American Heritage Dictionary https://ahdictionary.com/)
Who were the Casbon/Casban/Casben forebears?
One thing the COVID pandemic has done is given me plenty of time for online research. I’ve been using this time lately to explore the origins of the Casbon surname in England.
I’ve traced my branch with reasonable certainty to William Casbolt, who married Martha Cauckett at Barrington, Cambridgeshire on 6 November 1692 and was buried there in 1714. William’s son Thomas (~1693–1774) was the father of John Casborn (~1721–1796), who moved to Meldreth, Cambridgeshire as an apprentice cordwainer (shoemaker) in 1736 and established the family line there. I’ve also traced the Peterborough line to another William—William Caseborne of Littleport (d. 1699).
Although I’ve traced these two family lines into the late 1600s, the trail goes cold at that point. There are too many gaps in the available records and not enough information contained in those records to connect the families any further back in time.
Nevertheless, there is abundant evidence of families who were probably or possibly related to today’s Casbon, Casben, and Casban lines.
The modern spelling of Casbon, along with closely related surnames of Casbolt and Casburn, arose from a kind of primordial soup of names that had certain elements in common. They all started with the letters C and (almost always) a. These were followed by s and b, which were sometimes separated by an e. B was usually followed by o, ou, or u. The names ended with a limited set of letter combinations: lt, lte, ld, lde, rn, or rne or occasionally just n or ne. Thus, some of the most common variants were:
Casbolt, Casboult, Casboulte
Casebolt, Caseboult, Caseboulte
Casbold, Casbolde, Casebold
Casborn, Casbourn, Casbourne
Caseborn, Caseborne, Casebourne
Casburn, Casburne, Caseburn, Caseburne
Sometimes there are oddball spellings such as Casbal, Casbell or Casbelt. Many of these variants can be connected through genealogical records.
Why so many spellings? There are two main reasons. First, English spelling was not standardized at that time. Individuals spelled words whichever way seemed best to them. The second reason is that illiteracy was widespread. Most people, especially the working classes, could not write and therefore could not spell their own names. The names we see in older records were written by a select few, such as government officials, clerks, and clergy, who had some degree of literacy.
The spelling of surnames was especially variable because they weren’t common everyday words. Regional dialects might have also resulted in different pronunciations. When recording baptisms, marriages, and deaths, the clergy and church scribes had to puzzle out the best way to spell each name. In old church records, the spelling of a name often changes with changes in handwriting, indicating that a new person had started keeping the records.
Here are several examples of baptismal records showing variant spellings (and handwriting styles!)
Searching individual records for each different spelling would be a tedious task. Fortunately, most family history websites—Ancestry, FamilySearch, Findmypast, etc.—allow searches using wildcards—special characters used to represent unknown characters or a sequence of characters in a search term. For example, a question mark “?” can be used to represent a single character and an asterisk “*” can be used to represent one or more characters. Therefore, a search for all the variant spellings above can be accomplished by using C*s?b* as the last name in a record search.
Using this method, I searched online records in England for baptisms of possible Casbon ancestors between 1538 (the first year English parishes were required to keep records of baptisms, marriages, and burials) and 1699. I chose 1699 as the cutoff both to limit the number of records and because I’ve traced the modern lines back to the late 1600s.
This search yielded almost 350 individual baptisms throughout England with names that fit the general spelling patterns described above. The map and table below summarize the results, subdivided by English counties. Each shows the name of the county, the number of baptisms recorded, the predominant spelling variants, and the earliest occurrence of the surname.
Interactive Google map showing the counties (with county seat marked) where baptisms with early variants of the Casbon surname are recorded between 1560 and 1699; click on individual markers to see county name, number of baptisms (in parentheses), predominant surname variants, and earliest occurrence of the surname in that county
|County||Predominant Spellings||Earliest Occurrence|
|Bedfordshire (12)||Ca[s/z]bolt, Cas(h)bolt||1579|
|Cambridgeshire (255)||Cas(e)bo(u)lt(e), Cas(e)bo(u)rn(e), Cas(e)burn(e)||1560|
|Essex (7)||Casbo(a)te, Cas(t)bolt||1569|
|Gloucestershire (20)||Cosborn(e), Cosburn(e)||1619|
|Hampshire (1)||Cas(e)born, Causabon||1639|
|Hertfordshire (17)||Cas(e)bo(u)lt, Casebull, Caseball||1670|
|Kent (18)||Ca(u)sabon(e), Cas(e)born(e)||1605|
|London (4)||Cassabone, Causabon, Cosborne||1652|
|Norfolk (4)||Casburne, Cosbon||1628|
What does this data tell me about these potential Casbon forebears? First, during this timespan, surnames with the C_s_b_, etc. spelling pattern were fairly widespread, especially in the southern and eastern counties of England. That said, Cambridgeshire accounted for far more of the baptisms—72 percent—than any other county. The percentage goes up to 85 percent if you include five counties bordering on Cambridgeshire—Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire, Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk. The earliest record (1560) also comes from Cambridgeshire. These findings suggest that the surname might have arisen in or near Cambridgeshire. The number of baptisms and geographical diversity suggest that the surname arose a long time—perhaps a few centuries—before parish records were being kept. Was there a common ancestor in the Cambridgeshire area? Or was there a common factor unique to the area that led multiple families to adopt a common surname?
It’s likely that the surname arose independently in some counties. I’m most certain of this in the county of Kent, where the name is likely of French origin, possibly brought by Huguenot refugees (more about this in a future post, perhaps). In Gloucestershire, the name is spelled with an initial o instead of a: Cosb___, with the earliest record in 1619. This variant might have arisen independently; or perhaps someone with the Casb___ spelling migrated from elsewhere, with the spelling and/or pronunciation changing in the process. Later dates of first occurrence might also indicate migration from another region.
It’s theoretically possible to test whether the families represented by these baptismal records are related using Y-DNA, which is passed through the paternal line. Doing so would require tracing the families forward and getting DNA samples from surviving male descendants. I have done partial Y-DNA testing on myself and have close matches with two individuals named Casbolt and Casebolt. This might mean that we have a common ancestor, but it would require more extensive (and expensive) testing to find out if and how closely we are related.
In future posts, I will focus on possible forebears in Cambridgeshire, first with a general overview, and then a parish-by-parish breakdown.
 Church of England, Barrington (Cambridgeshire), Bishop’s Transcripts, 1692; digitized as “Bishop’s transcripts for Barrington, 1599-1864,” FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007562691?cat=672635 : accessed 24 January 2019) >film # 007562691 >image 324 of 1174; citing FHL microfilm 1,818,360.
 Church of England, Barrington (Cambridgeshire), Bishop’s Transcripts, 1714; (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007562691?cat=672635 : accessed 29 December 2018) >film # 007562691 >image 390 of 1174.