Major John Castle Gant was the great-grandson of William Gant, a weaver born about 1695 in Bristol. John Castle Gant worked as an Attorney and Solicitor, and his brothers’ professions were Civil Engineer, Architect & Surveyor, and Surgeon. All the brothers owned substantial properties in London, Bristol and Hastings.

He lived to the age of 100, marrying his 32 year old second wife at the age of 74.

Major John Castle Gant charged with assaulting daughter in law, Mrs Edith Louisa Gant, concerning the custody of Winifred and Muriel, the children of Arthur John Gant and Edith Louisa Chamberlain

The Times
Thursday, Aug 30, 1888; pg. 8; Issue 32478; col E
The Times
Saturday, Sep 15, 1888; pg. 4; Issue 32492; col C

Henry James George Gant was born in 1844 in Bristol, Gloucestershire, the son of Henry Denny Gant (1813-1868) and Eliza Collins. Henry Denny and Eliza immigrated to Australia in 1853 with their five children. Henry James George had a checkered history in Australia, getting himself into trouble more than once. He took over the running of his father’s Jewellery business after he died in 1868 – the shop caught fire in suspicious circumstances the following year. He later worked as a medical galvanist in Victoria, Australia.

In 1900 it was alleged that the Victoria Cross he had claimed to have been awarded during the New Zealand Wars in 1864, was in fact a lie as no such medal had been awarded to him, and he hadn’t even fought in the war.

Transcriptions of the newspaper reports of the two events are below.



An inquiry into the circumstances attending the recent fire in Geelong was held there on Monday, before Dr. F. Shaw, coroner ; Mr. Sub-inspector McNamara attending on behalf of the police, Mr. Speed on behalf of Mr. Henry Gant, and Mr McCormick for the National Insurance Company. Henry Gant stated he was a jeweller in Market-square. Remembered the 22nd. There was a fire that night. Discovered it about a quarter to 1. Was awoke by a tremendous noise of something falling and breaking in the shop. The house was a two-storeyed one, built of stone and brick, the partitions below stairs being composed of boards and canvas. Upstairs they were lath and plaster. The shop was closed that night at 9 o’clock. The boy (James Smith) and witness were at work till half-past 10. Mrs Gant and her mother were at church. When they came back Mrs. Gant sent the boy to bed. He left a quarter of an hour before witness. No one was behind the counter after he left, The shop was lit with gas, one jet being above the working-board, and the other over the glass case on the counter. No light was in the window after the shop closed. Witness put the jets out. There was a main cock next the meter, hut witness never turned it off, as he had no key for it. He kept wrapping paper and a lot of boxes containing tools, &c, under the counter. One box contained two cups with diluted sulphuric acid, used in cleaning.

Looked round to see that all was safe before retiring. There were shelves round the counter containing clocks and scents. There was only one small feeding tin of oil on one of the shelves. There was only one box of matches in the shop. Was the last to leave the shop. On opening the bedroom-door there was a great rush of smoke and heat. Told Mrs. Gant to get up, and warned a young lady who slept in the house. Packed up a box containing books and papers, and another containing jobs, and came down together. On waking up the boy saw the reflection of fire under the doorway. Broke the shop-door open and tried to get things out, but the flames burst out close to the door, and witness only succeeded in saving two clocks. Tho fire was from the front to the end of the counter one white flame. Went round into tho yarri broke into the room, and saved some furniture. Could not in any way account for the origin of the fire. The property was worth, as near as h could get at it, £1,057 18s, 3d, The jewellery and clocks amounted to £329. The heavier tools consisted of two lathes/ two mills or rollers, and two draw-benches for drawing wire, the whole valued at £529. Had effected an insurance of £500 on stock and furniture. Had been in business two.years last October. There were two policies of insurance, one taken out in July last and the other in September. £78 8s. 0d. worth of jewellery and two pairs of rollers had been removed since last insurance – some in October and about £43 worth about a fortnight since. Raised money on the jewellery from Mr. Stone. Got an _____ on new stock on Wednesday week. Never gave any persons any orders to search the debris of the fire. Told a man so engaged where the most valuable property ought to be found. In the presence of the sergeant and witness the articles produced, consisting of gold and silver brooches and pins, were found. Did not two days previous to the fire try to obtain a loan of £300.

Wanted to give a bill of sale over his things for £300, a month previously, to Mr. Crawcour, as an action had been instituted against him, and he wished to protect his creditors, his family, and himself. Supplied Crawcour with a list of his property. He did not come to inspect it, but declined to interfere unless the stock was brought into his place. Only received £35 from Stone for jewellery, valued at £78 8s. Gd. Hannah Maria Gant, the wife of last witness, Miss Jeffrey, the young lady who lodged with them, and James Smith, the apprentice, gave corroborative evidence. Josiah Covill, the next-door neighbour to Gant, having given some unimportant testimony, Isaac Crawcour, pawnbroker, corroborated Gant’a statement as to _____ to raise a loan of £300 on his stock and furniture, but stated to have refused to advance more than £150 for it. The principle quantity of the jewellery was washed gold ____ man named Cook. (It) was for four months previous to the _____ of August in the employ of Mr _____ valued the stock at £100, and the tools and machinery at another £100. He, however, admitted that he had an action pending against Gant. The remainder of tho evidence was unimportant, and the inquiry, after lasting five hours, terminated by the jury return in« an open verdict to the effect that a fire did occur, but how it occurred there was no evidence to show.

The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848-1954) Wednesday 1 December 1869

October 1900


Some weeks ago there was published in the Melbourne Argus an account of a gathering of old soldiers at Fitzroy, at which special honour was done to two of the company who were represented as “Victoria Cross heroes. These were Lieutenant H. J. G. Gant, 70th R.S., and Sergeant-major D. S. Lilly, 64th Regiment. The chairman of the meeting (Major J. C. Dempsty) “thus described the circumstances under which .”Lieutenant” Gant was alleged to have obtained the prized distinction of the V.C. : “He was one of the first six who volunteered for the New Zealand war from the Geelong Volunteer Artillery. He joined Colonel Pitt’s Waikato Militia, which left in the Star of India, which was the first ship to leave Victoria with volunteers to fight under the flag of the British Empire in 1863. The act by which he won the Victoria Cross was a daring one. He left camp with a little company, including two young officers. The party were met by an overwhelming number of the enemy. The two officers were discovered behind a clump of scrub and supplejack, where Lieutenant Gant had pluckily drawn them out of danger. He had then drawn the enemy off, afterwards working his way through an almost impenetrable bush with his little band. The road was blocked by the enemy, whom he kept at bay until nearing the camp, when the firing was heard, and a relief party sent to their assistance.” This circumstantial narrative of the daring exploit by which ‘”Lieutenant” Gant is said to have gained the Victoria Cross attracted the attention of some old soldiers who were through the Maori war, bm, strangely enough, had never heard of this particular incident, and their curiosity respecting the matter led to their making certain inquiries on the subject. It was natural that they should turn for information to Mr Bartlett Provo, of this city, until lately sergeant in the Dunedin City Guards, for he was an old member of the Geelong Volunteer Artillery, and he was one of the six who volunteered from Geelong for New Zealand in 1863, and came to this colony in the Star of India. With him, therefore, Lieutenanc-colonel Rashleiga, who was in command of the Geelong Artillery almost from its formation, recently communicated on the subject. Now, it is quite true that a volunteer called Gant came to New Zealand in the vessel named, but Mr Provo is quite clear in his own mind that if the ” Lieutenant ” Gant, who was recently honoured in Melbourne, be identical with that Gant, then it was impossible for him to have obtained the Victoria Cross, for that indvidual was discharged from the force in 1863 as unfit for duty, and saw no action at all. Moreover, the Gant who, with Mr Provo and four others from Geelong, came to New Zealand in the Star of India was not a lieutenant, nor was he a member of the Geelong Artillery.

Mr Provo has not relied on his own recollection entirely in this matter. He forwarded to the Defence department in Wellington the letters he had received from Melbourne, and requested that the records might be searched to see if they would throw any light on the subject. To this letter he has received the following reply irom Sir Arthur Douglas, U rider-secretary for Defence: –

In reply to your letter of the 17th inst., I have the honour to inform you that the name of Gant does not appear in either of the nominal roll books of the Ist, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th Regiments of Waikato Militia, who served through the Native war in this colony during the years 1863 to 1866.

It, however, does not follow that the person named did not actually serve, but from previous known cases it appears that the names were not entered in the roll books, where a man only served for a short period.

However, no person of the name served as a lieutenant in either of the regiments, neither did any person of that name receive the New Zealand war medal or the free grant of land, and, so far as is known, Major Heaphy was the only colonial officer who was awarded the Victoria Cross.

The letter from the department, it will be seen, bears out Mr Provo’s recollection relative to Gant’s service, and absolutely disposes of any suggestion that there might have been a Lieutenant Gant in the Waikato Militia besides the Gant known to Mr Provo.

Beyond all this, however, there is the fairly conclusive answer to “Lieutenant” Gant’s claim to have won the Victoria Cross that no such name appears in the official lists of the recipients of that distinction.

Source: Otago Witness, Issue 2431, 17 October 1900, Page 45
(The Witness began in Dunedin in January 1851 as a four page, fortnightly newspaper. It became a weekly in August that year. At this time illustrated weekly newspapers were a popular and important form of publication in New Zealand and the paper continued to be published until 1932.)
Records online at http://www.paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/

Ancestry DNA results


I finally got around to doing the Ancestry DNA test, as I thought it might help in connecting my very small Gant tree with one or more of the far larger ones – more in a moment. These are my results, more or less as I expected as I’m coming round to the idea that the Gant surname in the eastern part of England (which is where the vast majority of English Gants are) originated with the Flemish weavers who came to Britain in the 14th century onwards. That might account for my 35% Western Europe.

These results are of course from my mother’s side of the family too, so which bits of DNA come from where are open to interpretation. Then of course there’s the mystery of the <1% Africa Southeastern Bantu. I can confidently trace both sides of my mother’s family back to the 1400s in Surrey and Sussex in England, so no Bantu there 🙂 I’m quite sure that I’m misunderstanding all these percentages – the Ancestry help pages explain it all in a great deal of detail, but most of it goes right over my head!

Anyway, back to my hope that it might help me connect my little tree with at least one of the larger ones. I was quite excited when I logged in to my results to see that I had 56 DNA matches of 4th cousins or closer, and one match with a common ancestor who was my father’s maternal great grandparents. Not a Gant unfortunately, but a good result all the same. And for the other 56 matches? Difficult to say as out of those 56 people who had also taken a DNA test, only about 20 of those had linked their test to a family tree. Out of those 20 family trees, I could see that we were related through my mother’s side on 6 of them. For the remaining 14 with a tree, I had no idea as I didn’t recognise any of the surnames. And the 36 people with DNA matches who hadn’t submitted a tree…. I have no idea who they are which is a huge disappointment. They could all be Gants for all I know 😦

So simply put, out of 57 DNA cousin matches there was 1 common ancestor, 6 cousins on my mother’s side, and 50 matches where I don’t have the slightest idea who they are. I’d be interested to know if anyone reading this has also taken the Ancestry DNA test, and if so, what were your results like? (I hope you linked your test to an Ancestry family tree 😀 😀 )

GANT website

After rather a long break, my Gant One Name Study website is finally back online, currently showing details of 5,140 individuals and 1,723 Gant families – I will add more people to the site as often as I can.

Huge apologies to anyone who has written to me in the past 18 months or so, and has not received a reply. If you’d like to write again, I will reply as soon as I can.

Edited 18th December 2018:
The One Name Study website is well out of date and cannot be updated. See a fuller explanation here –

Andrew Edwin Gant

Andrew Edwin GantAt Sittingbourne Council School (Kent, England) between 1904 and 1912, Andrew Gant had 8 years of perfect attendance. To mark this distinction, he had 8 bars added to his School Attendance medal. He was also presented with a splendid brass bound writing box with a commemorative plate (pictured).
Source: Countryman Magazine, March 2006

Andrew Edwin Gant (5th Jan 1899 – Jan 1992) was the son of David Gant and Charlotte Luckhurst, and descends from James Gant and Frances Curson, who married in 1807 in Whiting, Norfolk.

E Gant, Dovercourt, Essex

E Gant, DovercourtThe image on the left is of a milk bottle, with the words “E Gant, Vicarage Farm, Dovercourt”. It’s of the type normally seen in England during the 1950s.

I have yet to positively identify this E Gant, though I’m assuming that it’s Ernest GANT (1896 – 1969). Many of Ernest’s family were farmers in Dovercourt, and apparently an Ernie GANT farmed land opposite Tollgate in Dovercourt in the 1940s. If anyone can confirm the identity of this “E Gant”, I’d be extremely grateful.

Greenard or Gant?

Rodney Kimberley Greenard GANTRodney Kimberley Greenard GANT is a bit of a mystery. He was born in July 1901 in Ipswich, and registered in Sept Qtr 1901 as Rodney Kimberley GREENARD. According to the IGI, he was the son of Edward Marshall GREENARD and Jessie Susan WARNER. Edward and Jessie are on the 1901 census in Ipswich with several children – no Rodney of course, as he would have been born later that year. Jessie Susan GREENARD’s death is registered in June Qtr 1906 in Ipswich, and according to the IGI, Edward Marshall GREENARD died in 1917 in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada. At least 2 of the older children also died in Canada, so they may have gone with Edward after Jessie’s death.

No problems so far… except that Rodney uses the surname GANT, not GREENARD.

  • Rodney’s Navy Service Record Card (shown above) clearly has his surname as GANT.
  • Rodney Kimberley Greenard GANT married Mary McNiece NISBET in 1924 in Brisbane, Australia.
  • Maxwell Rodney Greenard GANT was born in Brisbane in 1927, presumably the son of Rodney and Mary.
  • Rodney Kimberley GANT and Mary McNiece GANT are listed on the Australian Electoral Rolls between 1930 and 1936 in New South Wales, Australia.
  • Rodney Kimberley G. GANT died in 1961 in Parramatta District, New South Wales. His parents’ names are shown on the index as George and Lucy – not Edward and Jessie as would have been expected.

So the question is – why GANT, and who are George and Lucy? I can find no record of a suitable George GANT marrying a Lucy, otherwise I would have assumed that Rodney was taken in by a George and Lucy GANT after his mother died. More research is definitely needed.