Richard Atcherley in pre-WW2 Germany – Part 2

Bookmark and Share

< Back to Part 1

Germany does not want to fight England, but the spirit of the new Germany will brook no interference from any Power which attempts to hinder the attainment of what the Germans consider to be their lawful and rightful aims. The advent of air power has placed a weapon in their hands by which they can impose the same pressure on England which the British Navy imposed on them in the last war. In an amazingly short time they have developed an Air Force which is the most powerful in Europe …
– H V Rowley, 1936

With these words, Squadron Leader Herbert Rowley began setting out the conclusions that he and Group Captain Richard Atcherley had reached as a result of their visit to Germany in October 1936. Rowley and Atcherley had wanted to see “something of the German Air Force’s personnel, aeroplanes and methods of expansion”, and that’s exactly what they did.

On Saturday 10 October, ‘our men in Berlin’ were driven out to Damm aerodrome to see one of the squadrons of the Richthofen group. Rowley had a particular interest in this group – during the First World War he had fought on the same front as the old Richthofen Squadron, flying Sopwith triplanes and Camels in 1917. Along with ‘Dick’ Atcherley he was now able to tour the aerodrome and see how the men and their machines operated in 1936. A half-hour show by a flight of three Heinkels and a demonstration of the Focke-Wolf intermediate trainer was put on for their benefit.

Heinkel He 111, 1940

Weaponry was on show too, including a machine gun which could be fired at a rate of 1,000 rounds per minute without jamming. It appeared that experiments with the use of cannon were also being carried out. “Altogether we were very impressed by the personnel of the squadron”, wrote Rowley. He and Atcherley “left at a rather disgracefully late hour” after a long but enjoyable day. Rowley continued:

As we drove away we thought what a very fine gesture it would be if our Fighting Command were to present some piece of silver to the Richthofen Geschwader in honour of its reformation.   After all even in the war we had the greatest respect and admiration for each other which almost amounted to friendliness, although we killed each other to the best of our ability. … I commend the idea, (which originated as usual with Dick Atcherley) to the A.O.C. Fighting Command, and should like to subscribe a guinea or so, if the idea is approved.

Seeing German planes and the methods by which they were developed and produced were the objectives of most of the other ‘day trips’ undertaken by Rowley and Atcherley while in Germany. On Friday 9 October, at “the rather grim hour of eight-thirty” they were taken to the DVL (Deutsche Versuchsanstalt für Luftfahrt, the German Research Institute for Aviation) at Adlershof. Accompanying them were three American guests, including Mr Nutt, the Chief Engineer and vice-president of the Wright Corporation.

The tour of the DVL first took in a wind tunnel and an engine-testing department. The next stop, after “an excellent luncheon” was the spinning tunnel. “The Germans,” wrote Rowley, “are most interested in spinning and evidently have had a certain amount of trouble with their new aeroplanes.” In this tunnel, the air was conserved to flow round and round. According to Rowley, “Atcherley explained to the Professors that at Farnborough we let the air go as warm air is about the only commodity which our own D.V.L. can produce in quantity with the money allotted to it.”

After viewing the material testing station, the Germans showed their British and American guests the aeroplanes used for flight tests, mostly Heinkel 70s (Blitz),  Klemms and Messerschmidts. An opportunity to examine more German planes was provided on the afternoon of Sunday 11 October during a visit to Tempelhof. There, Rowley and Atcherley “looked all over the civil versions of the Heinkel 111 and Junkers 86, which are, in my opinion, both structurally and aerodynamically as good, if not better than any of our latest civil or military aircraft.” On the following day, Monday October 12th:

One of our professor friends had kindly arranged for us to fly the Focke-Wolf aerobatic aeroplane at Tempelhof, and Col. Hannesse had promised to have us flown out to Rostock to the Heinkel works. But to our great chagrin, having got up at a most frightful hour, we found that the clouds were almost on the ground, and not only the birds but even the Germans were walking. We were greatly tempted to get into our Gull and fly to Rostock ourselves, as I knew Dick could manage it, provided he could see ten yards ahead, but on second thoughts decided it might be rather tactless.

After getting up close and personal with the civil version of the Heinkel 111 on 11 October, Rowley and Atcherley were able to “crawl all over” the military version, the Heinkel 111 bomber, two days later at Rostock (thanks to the application of Richard Atcherley’s charm upon Prince Henry Reuss on the evening of the 12th). Rowley opined that this bomber was “an exceptionally clean twin-engined low-wing monoplane” which, aerodynamically, looked “as nice as one could wish. … There is not an airframe in England among all our latest bombers which looks better.” He concluded: “The Heinkel 111 struck me as being an extremely fine bombing weapon”.

Junkers Ju 86 bomber

Perhaps the most eye-opening day of Rowley and Atcherley’s visit to Germany was Wednesday 14 October, when a tour of the Junkers aircraft works at Dessau took place. A number of other observers also participated in this tour, one of whom, arriving in his own light plane, observed “85 aeroplanes on the aerodrome of which 45 to 50 were new bombers.” Based on this information, Rowley stated: “it is reasonable to suppose that Germany possesses hundreds of these weapons.” He also noted:

Like everyone who visits the Junkers organisation one comes away with but little information in the shape of concrete facts.   The organisation is so vast that it is quite impossible to grasp it during a short visit. … The erecting plant on the aerodrome was estimated by one of the Americans to be as large as the complete Douglas organisation in America. Another American stated that the whole American aviation industry could be lost inside the Junkers organisation. There must be from 5 to 10 thousand men here alone.

Following a demonstration flight of the new bomber, Richard Atcherley was allowed to fly it (“unofficially of course”). He found that “it was extremely pleasant and easy to fly and had no vices.” Junkers were turning these weapons out at a rate of 45 per month. “The construction is extremely simple,” wrote Rowley, “and it is clear that it has been designed expressly for mass construction. … When I think that the Junkers 86 bomber is a fine weapon, almost equal to the best of our new types and superior to most, and when I realise that we have one only of each of our new types, it makes me realise the present Air power of Germany and wonder what it will be like in two or three years time.”

In concluding his report, Rowley contrasted the British and German approaches to military aircraft production. The Germans, he stated, “are concentrating on producing an efficient bombing force first of all … and what is most important, they have realised one simple and commonsense fact which so far has escaped our Air Staff. This is the principle that mass production is not possible on many different types, and that the Air Staff must select one or two good weapons and get them in quantity.”

Britain meanwhile was “ordering many different types of bombers or potential bombers … all of which demand their share of the country’s productive power. … Give us the Vickers and the Bristol bomber in quantity for our striking force, backed up by the Hurricane and Spitfire for our defences, and we shall have a force superior to any in its equipment, and, because of its simplicity, one which can expand readily in time of war.”

Supermarine Spitfire Mark IIB © IWM (E(MOS) 483)

Rowley stated: “I think I am not wrong when I state that there is a large body of experienced and keen Officers in the Royal Air Force who are in complete agreement with my own and Atcherley’s views, and therefore we earnestly hope that they may be given consideration by the Air Staff…”. The final paragraph of his report, which was signed by both Rowley and Atcherley, read as follows:

Unfortunately in these days, when instead of the collective security we had hoped for, we find collective madness, our only hope for peace is to prepare for war. From the point of view of the Royal Air Force, such preparation means building up a powerful striking force. Let us, therefore build it up in the logical way by selecting our best weapon and producing that weapon in quantity.

Rowley’s report probably went unread by those in the Air Ministry who needed to see and act on it. But Rowley had also sent a summary to Wing Commander Charles Anderson, who in turn supplied it to a certain back-bench MP who had managed to get himself appointed to the Air Defence Research Sub-Committee in 1935. That MP was Winston Churchill. He later got to see an edited version of the full report, and meet Rowley in person. What Churchill learned from Rowley (and other sources) helped him to criticise Government policy in the years just before the Second World War.

One of Churchill’s earliest acts after he became Prime Minister in 1940 was to create the Ministry of Aircraft Production. It was decreed that production should be concentrated on the four key types of aircraft which Rowley and Atcherley had called for – the Vickers Wellington and Bristol Blenheim bombers, plus the Hurricane and Spitfire fighters – along with the Whitley V bomber. Though its methods were unorthodox, the Ministry ensured that Britain had sufficient airpower to fight and win the Battle of Britain.

Picture credits. Heinkel He 111, 1940: Photo Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-385-0593-05 / Dahm / CC-BY-SA, taken from Wikimedia Commons, adapted, used and made available for re-use under a Creative Commons licence. Junkers Ju 86: Photo Bundesarchiv, Bild 141-2400 / CC-BY-SA, taken from Wikimedia Commons, adapted, used and made available for re-use under a Creative Commons licence. Spitfire: Photo © IWM (E(MOS) 483), used under the IWM Non-Commercial Licence.


[1] The National Archives, Kew, item ref AIR 40/2086: Report on a visit to Germany by Sqn. Ldr. H.V. Rowley and Flt. Lt. R.L. Atcherley. Indexed at TNA Discovery catalogue.
[2] Timothy Neil Jenkins (2013), The Evolution of British Airborne Warfare: A Technological Perspective. A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Copy viewed at University of Birmingham website.
[3] Vincent Orange (2006), The German Air Force Is Already “The Most Powerful in Europe”: Two Royal Air Force Officers Report on a Visit to Germany, 6-15 October 1936. In: The Journal of Military History, Volume 70, Number 4, October 2006, pp. 1011-1028. Copy viewed at the Project Muse website.
[4] David T Zabecki (ed.) (2015), World War II in Europe: An Encyclopedia. Page 1406. Previewed at Google Books.
[5] Stories of the Battle of Britain 1940 – Lord Beaverbrook, a Week at the Office. At: The Spitfire Site (website, accessed 10 Jul 2015).

Posted in Family history articles | Comments Off

Was Margaret Atcherley’s son transported to Australia?

Bookmark and Share

In 1843 a man by the name of Charles Needham was sentenced, at Sheffield, Yorkshire, to seven years transportation. He was sent ‘Down Under’ on the Equestrian, which departed England on 25 January 1844. Charles arrived at Van Diemen’s Land (Tasmania) later that year and eventually obtained a ticket of leave at Hobart, meaning that he was free to settle in Australia or return home. A number of online family trees say that this Charles was the son of Thomas Needham and his wife, Margaret Ann, nee Atcherley. But was that really the case?

According to an entry dated 29 November 1797 in the parish register of Kinnerley in Shropshire, Margaret Ann Atcherley was the “Daughter of John Atcherley and Anna Meria his wife Formerley howell”. The register also recorded that Margaret was born on 6 October that year, that her family’s abode was Edgerley (a township in Kinnerley parish), and that her father was a “Freehoulder”.

Some 26 years later on 6 January 1824, at the church of St Oswald in Oswestry (pictured right), Margaret Atcherley – living in that parish – married Thomas Needham, of Whitford (near Holywell, in Flintshire, Wales). Thomas was a native of Whitford and was baptised there on 16 May 1802. The marriage of Thomas and Margaret was by licence rather than by banns, and both bride and groom signed the register. Both had therefore come from families which were able to afford to educate their children, and Thomas could afford the higher cost of a marriage by licence. Yet he had an occupation which I would not normally associate with his apparent status.

Thomas and Margaret’s first two children, Mary Anne and Jane, were baptised in north-east Wales in 1825 and 1827 (at Wrexham and Holywell respectively). In both case, the baptism registers showed that Thomas was a miner. Looking at old maps for the abodes of the Needham family as recorded in the registers (“Pantywyll” – actually Pant-tywyll in Minera township – and Brynford) reveals that there were lead mines close by.

By 1830 the Needhams had moved again, had possibly changed their religious affiliation, and Thomas was engaged in a new line of work. The evidence for all this can be found in the following entry in the register of St David’s Wesleyan Church in Parliament Street, Manchester, dated 10 October 1830:

Charles — the Son — of Thomas Needham of Jenkinson Street in the Parish of Manchester in the County of Lancaster Gardener — and of Margaret — his wife, who was the daughter of John and Hannah Atcherley was born on the Sixteenth — day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and — thirty — And was solemnly baptized with water, in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, on the tenth day of October in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty by me Humphrey Jones.

Jenkinson Street was situated in Chorlton upon Medlock, in the south-eastern part of the city, borough and parish of Manchester. Exactly what it was that drew the Needham family to that city is beyond me. However they were still there in 1836, and Thomas was still working as a gardener, when the last addition to the family – Elizabeth – was baptised on 31 December at Rusholme Road Chapel. She had been born three months earlier on 27 September.

When the census of 1841 was taken, Thomas, Margaret and their four children were back in Holywell parish, Flintshire, this time in the township of Greenfield. No occupation was recorded for Thomas, but the family’s address was Parish Mine Road. Their neighbours included a copper chipper, a copper refiner, labourers and two forgemen. It seems logical to assume that Thomas was there to work in the local copper mine. His return to his usual field of employment did not however mean an end to his family’s travels – at least not yet.

A more settled existence for Thomas and Margaret Needham began sometime between 1841 and 1851, when they moved to Maesydre (or Maes-y-dre) just outside the town of Mold. They were recorded in this town – situated midway between Holywell and Wrexham – on the 1851 census, and it should come as no surprise to find that Thomas was working as a lead miner. I suspect he and Margaret were still there at the time of the 1861 census too. However it appears that some of the pages from the end of Mold district 3 have not survived, and I think the Needham household was among those in Maes-y-dre which were on the missing pages.

Neither Thomas nor Margaret made it to the next census – both died in 1865. Margaret was buried at St Mary’s church in Mold on 25 January, her age given as 71 (she was in fact 67). Thomas joined his wife on 31 August, his age given as 65. The burial register recorded the abode for both as Maesydre.

I have tracked the fortunes of Thomas and Margaret Needham’s children with varying degrees of success. Mary Anne and Jane seem to disappear from the records after the 1841 census, with no death, burial, marriage of later census records which I can link to them with certainty. Elizabeth, the only child of Thomas and Margaret who was still with them when the 1851 census was taken, married in 1865 and had at least four children by 1881 (that year’s census being the last trace I have found of her and her family).

Like his older sisters, Charles Needham fails to turn up on any census taken after 1841, as far as I can tell. He does however show up in Australian records. On 3 April 1854 Charles married the widowed Susanna Ennis (nee Pate) at St Phillip’s Church in Sydney (pictured above). Susanna was born in that city in 1835, and her first marriage, to Joseph Ennis, had taken place at St Phillip’s in 1851. Sydney was most likely also the birthplace of Charles and Susanna’s first child, Charles William Joseph Needham, his birth being registered in New South Wales in 1855.

At some point over the next two years, Charles and Susanna relocated to the state of Victoria – the death of their infant son was registered there in 1857. Later that same year (on 2 August) Susanna gave birth to a baby girl, Elizabeth, at White Hills on the outskirts of Bendigo. I can only describe Elizabeth’s entry in the register of births as a mine of information. It confirms amongst other things that her father, 28-year-old Charles Needham, born in Manchester, England, was – like his father before him – a miner.

While Thomas Needham had extracted lead and copper, in Australia Charles was mining for gold. This precious metal had been discovered at Bendigo Creek in 1851, sparking a gold rush and fuelling the growth of the mining settlement. Gold was also found elsewhere in Victoria during the 1850s, including Pleasant Creek where the town of Stawell was established. Charles and Susanna had moved to this area by 1864, when the birth of their fifth child, Susan Emma Needham, was registered. The births of five more children were registered at Pleasant Creek from 1866 to 1878, during which time the town of Stawell continued to grow.

The Official Post Office Directory of Victoria of 1869 lists Chas Needham, a miner, of Stawell – but also lists Chs Needham, an engine driver, of Quartz Reef. These two listings may both have been for the same man. When the birth of Charles and Susanna’s ninth child – Evelyn Atcherley Needham – was registered in 1875, the register recorded Charles’s occupation as “Engine Driver”. It is possible that Charles had bought his own stationary engine and set up in business. What is certain is that in 1878, “Charles Needham, Wimmera-street, Stawell” was declared insolvent due to “Dulness [sic] in trade and pressure of creditors”. Hopefully this was a temporary setback from which Charles recovered – 1878 was also the year in which his tenth child was born so he had nine children to feed. (Child number 10, incidentally, was named after his mother’s, his father’s and his own birthplace: Sydney Manchester Stawell Needham!)

I know very little about the remainder of Charles’s life in Australia, besides the details of his death. Charles Needham passed away on 3 May 1903 at Moonee Ponds, Victoria. He was 72.  His widow Susanna died in Darlinghurst on 2 June 1907 (death notices for both Charles and Susanna are shown above). The question of how Charles Needham’s life in Australia began needs addressing however. Was he transported as a convict? I think not.

The Charles Needham who was convicted at the Sheffield Quarter Sessions of 7 September 1843 was aged 26, and was therefore born around 1817. He was, I suspect, the son of Charles Needham, a scissorsmith, and his wife Harriet, born in 1817 and baptised 1821 in Sheffield. I would guess he was also the Charles Needham, cutler, shown on the 1841 census living with William Needham (also a cutler, and presumably Charles’ brother) in the Sheffield home of John Judge (yet another cutler). Charles’s age was recorded as 20, but adult ages were usually rounded down to the nearest 5 years on this census. It seems that his work with Sheffield steel led to a case of Sheffield steal, as he was found “Guilty of stealing six dozens of table blades, at Sheffield”. He was almost certainly the 40 year old Charles Needham, a labourer, who died on 5 Apr 1858 in the district of Launceston, Tasmania.

So how and when did Charles Needham, son of Thomas Needham and Margaret Ann Atcherley, arrive in Australia? I don’t yet know when, but I think I know how. I have recently discovered that Charles was ‘ticketed’ as a merchant seaman on 8 August 1846, aged 16. His complexion was fair, his eyes dark brown, and he had a cut to the side of his left eye. As for his height, this was noted as “growing”! Charles first went to sea as an apprentice during 1846. I think it is very likely that it was as a seaman that Charles arrived in Australia. I am certain he was not transported – and I say that, if you will pardon the pun, with some conviction.

Picture credits. Oswestry St Oswald: Photo by Alan Myers, taken from his Flickr photostream, adapted and used under a Creative Commons licence. St Phillip’s Church, Sydney, New South Wales: Public domain photo from the collections of the State Library of NSW, taken from Wikimedia Commons. Charles and Susanna Needham, death notices: Composite image from copies of the Sydney Morning Herald published before 1954 and therefore out of copyright; taken from Trove (National Library of Australia) (see Trove’s Using digitised newspapers FAQ).


[1] Convict Transportation Registers (The National Archives, Kew, Class HO 11, Piece 14, folios 2 (recto) and 9 (recto). Copies viewed at Ancestry – Australian Convict Transportation Registers – Other Fleets & Ships, 1791-1868.
Settlers and Convicts, New South Wales and Tasmania (The National Archives, Kew, Class HO 10, Piece 38, Folio 446 (recto) and Piece 40, Folio 344 (verso)). Copies viewed at Ancestry – New South Wales and Tasmania, Australia Convict Musters, 1806-1849.
[3] Kinnerley, Shropshire, parish register covering 1797. Entry for baptism of Magt Ann Atcherley. Copy viewed at Findmypast – Shropshire Baptisms. Abstract in Shropshire Parish Register Society (1913), Shropshire Parish Registers, Diocese of St Asaph, volume III (Kinnerley, Page 246); copies viewed at Internet Archive, Mocavo and Mel Lockie’s website. Indexed at FamilySearch, Batch P01544-1, Film 908230.
[4] St Oswald, Oswestry, Shropshire, marriage register covering 1824. Entry for Thomas Needham and Margaret Atcherley. Copies viewed at Shropshire Archives and at Findmypast – Shropshire Marriages. Indexed at FamilySearch, Batch I03560-6, Film 1657589, Ref ID item 6 p 199.
[5] St Beuno & St Mary, Whitford, Flintshire, baptism register covering 1802. Entry for Thomas Needham, son of Thomas and Mary Needham, abode Uwch Glan. Information provided by Rootschat user Paul.
[6] Marriage licence. At: Wikipedia (website, accessed 5 Jul 2015).
[7] Wrexham, Denbighshire, baptism register covering 1825. Entry dated 20 November for Mary Anne Needham. Copy viewed at Findmypast – Denbigh Baptisms.
[8] Holywell, Flintshire, baptism register covering 1827. Entry dated 9 November for Jane Needham. Copy viewed at Findmypast – Flint Baptisms.
[9] Ordnance Survey (1879), six-inch map series, Denbighshire Sheet XXVIII. (Pant-tywyll appears below the ‘a’ of ‘Minera’ and to the north of the Minera Lead Mines.) Copy viewed at National Library of Scotland website.
[10] Ordnance Survey (1878), six-inch map series, Flintshire Sheet VI. Copy viewed at National Library of Scotland website.
[11] St David’s Wesleyan Church, Parliament Street, Manchester, baptism register covering 1830. Entry for Charles Needham. Copy viewed at Ancestry – England & Wales, Non-Conformist and Non-Parochial Registers, 1567-1970. Indexed at FamilySearch, Batch C08934-1, Film 0560888 (RG4 1145).
[12] Rusholme Road Chapel, Chorlton on Medlock, Manchester, baptism register covering 1836. Entry for Elizabeth Needham. (The National Archives, Kew, item RG4/813, folio 16 (verso).) Copy viewed at Ancestry – England & Wales, Non-Conformist and Non-Parochial Registers, 1567-1970. Indexed at FamilySearch, Batch C08820-1, Film 0560879 (RG4 813).
[13] 1841 census of England and Wales. Piece 1413, book 5, folio 57, page 24. Parish Mine Row, Greenfield, Holywell, Flintshire, Wales. Thomas Needham, 40, [no occupation given] born in county. Margaret Needham, 45, not born in county. Mary Needham, 15, born in county. Jane Needham, 13, born in county. Charles Needham, 10, not born in county. Elizabeth Needham, 4, not born in county.
[14] 1851 census of England and Wales. Piece 2501, folio 599, page 42. Maesydre, Mold, Flintshire, Wales. Head: Thomas Needham, 50, lead miner, born Whitford. Wife: Margaret A Needham, 54, born Kinnerley, Shropshire. Dau: Elizabeth Needham, 15, born Manchester, Lancashire.
[15] Ordnance Survey (1878), six-inch map series, Flintshire Sheet XIII. (Maes-y-dre shown just north of Mold.) Copy viewed at National Library of Scotland website.
[16] Death of Margaret Needham registered at Holywell, March quarter 1865; volume 11b, page 233.
[17] St Mary, Mold, Flintshire, burial register covering 1865. Entry for Margaret Needham. Copy viewed at Findmypast – Flintshire Burials.
[18] Death of Thomas Needham registered at Holywell, September quarter 1865; volume 11b, page 193.
[19] St Mary, Mold, Flintshire, burial register covering 1865. Entry for Thomas Needham. Copy viewed at Findmypast – Flintshire Burials.
[20] St Mary, Mold, Flintshire, marriage register. Entry dated 15 Oct 1865 for Humphrey Jones, 25, Bachelor, Collier, and Elizabeth Needham, 28, Spinster, father Thomas Needham, Miner.
[21] 1871 census of England and Wales. Piece 5646, folio 73, page 46. 66 Maes Dre, Mold, Flintshire. Head: Humphrey Jones, 31, collier, born Mold. Wife: Elizabeth Jones, 32, collier’s wife, born Manchester [Lancashire]. Dau: Margaret Jane Jones, 4, born Mold. Dau: Charlotte Jones, 2, born Mold. Dau: Catherine Jones, 7 months, born Mold.
[22] 1881 census of England and Wales. Piece 5507, folio 106, pages 39 and 40. 16 Cileen Road, Mold, Flintshire. Head: Humphrey Jones, 44, coal miner, born [Rho___r ?]. Wife: Elizabeth Jones, 43, born City of Manchester [Lancashire]. Dau: Charlotte Jones, 13, born Mold. Dau: Eliza Jones, 9, born Mold.
[23] New South Wales marriage registration number 18/1854 V185418 41B. Charles Needham and Sussana Ennis. District CA. Found via search at New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages website.
[24] Early church codes. At: New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages website (accessed 9 Jul 2015).
[25] New South Wales birth registration number 2276/1855 V18552276 42A. Charles W Needham, parents Charles and Susan. Found via search at New South Wales Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages website.
[26] Victoria, Australia death registration 2248 of 1857. Charles William Needham, age 1. Parents Charles and Susan. Source: Ancestry – Australia Death Index, 1787-1985.
[27] Victoria, Australia birth registrations 12490 of 1857 (Elizabeth Needham, at Maryborough); 4294 of 1860 (William Henry Needham), 10028 of 1863 (Emily Needham, at Redbank); 24014 of 1864 (Susan Emma Needham, at Pleasant Creek); 23356 of 1866 (Reuben Thomas Needham, at Pleasant Creek); 25484 of 1868 (Charles George Needham, at Pleasant Creek); 18678 of 1871 (Cecilia Eleanor Needham, at Stawell); 11170 of 1874 (Evelyn Atcherley Needham, at Pleasant Creek); 4557 of 1879 (Sydney Manchester Stawell Needham, at Pleasant Creek); parents Charles Needham and Susan/Susannah Pate/Ennis. Source: Ancestry – Australia Birth Index, 1788-1922.
[28] Victoria, Australia birth register entry for Elizabeth Needham, born August 2nd 1857 at White Hills. Copy downloaded from Victoria Births, Deaths and Marriages website.
[29] Bendigo. At: Wikipedia (website, accessed 5 Jul 2015).
[30] The Early Days of Stawell. At: Stawell Historical Society (website, accessed 5 Jul 2015).
[31] Stawell, Victoria. At: Wikipedia (website, accessed 9 Jul 2015).
[32] Victoria, Australia birth register entry for Evelyn Atcherley Needham, born April 10th 1874 at Borough of Stawell. Copy downloaded from Victoria Births, Deaths and Marriages website.
[33] The Official Post Office Directory of Victoria. 1869. Page 572. Copy viewed at Google Books.
[34] The Argus (Melbourne), 4 Apr 1878, page 5. Copy viewed at Trove.
[35] Victoria, Australia death registration 5533 of 1903. Chas Needham, age 72, mother’s name Atcherly, at Esdon. Parents Charles and Susan. Source: Ancestry – Australia Death Index, 1787-1985.
[36] Sydney Morning Herald, 5 May 1903, page 4. Deaths. Copy viewed at Trove.
[37] New South Wales, Australia death registration 3678 of 1907. Susanna Needham, age parents Reuben and Mary. Parents Charles and Susan. Source: Ancestry – Australia Death Index, 1787-1985.
[38] Sydney Morning Herald, 3 Jun 1907, page 6. Deaths. Copy viewed at Trove.
[39] Criminal Registers, England and Wales (The National Archives, Kew, Class HO 27, Piece 71, Folios 508 (verso) and 509 (recto)). Copies viewed at Ancestry – England & Wales, Criminal Registers, 1791-1892.
[40] Sheffield Independent, 9 Sep 1843, page 4. Midsummer Sessions. Copy viewed at Findmypast.
[41] St Peter & St Paul, Sheffield, Yorkshire, baptism register covering 1821. Entry for Charles Needham. Transcript by Sheffield & District Family History Society viewed at Findmypast – Sheffield Baptisms.
[42] 1841 census of England and Wales. Piece 1335, book 14, folio 41, page 5. Matthew Street, Sheffield, Yorkshire.
[43] Register of Deaths in Launceston & Country Districts, 1858, entry number 400. Copy viewed at Linc Tasmania website.
[44] Registry of Shipping and Seamen: Register of Seamen’s Tickets (The National Archives, Kew, Class BT 113, Piece 169, no. 337,687). Copy viewed at Findmypast – Merchant Navy Seamen.

Posted in Family history articles | Comments Off