The family of George THOMAS and Rose Hannah HAYNES

We're now at the end of week 17 of the year and I am only just posting what should have been week 10 of my "52 ancestors and their descendants".  Stuff Happens! 🙂

I am glad I have attempted the "52 ancestors in 52 weeks" principle again, even if I wasn't sticking to the suggested topics.  But it is clear to me that I currently do not have the research documented well enough to try working to that schedule.  Hence I won't be including that as part of the title anymore and will remove the badge from the blog, as well.  From now on, I shall just be posting about my ancestors, and their descendants, as and when it suits the research carried out.

Anyway, on with my second set of paternal great grandparents, my Dad's maternal grandparents, George THOMAS and Rose Hannah HAYNES.

George and Rose were married on the 25th December 1895, in Bromyard parish Church.  Although Rose Hannah's names had been recorded as "Rose Hannah" at her birth, and "Rosannah" in the 1881 census, perhaps indicating that the family did make common use of her middle name, at her marriage only the name "Rose" is recorded:

The 1895 marriage certificate of George THOMAS & Rose HAYNES

Marriage dates like this always tend to stand out, when I come across them in the records.  Why marry on the 25th December - Christmas Day? It is probably not a date that many of us in the UK these days would consider getting married on.

But, in George and Rose Hannah's time, there weren't the 'holiday entitlements' that the majority of working folk enjoy now.  Most people worked six days a week and, if they didn't work, they didn't get paid.  So taking time off to get married was often not an option.  Weddings were therefore planned for the few public holidays that existed.

When George and Rose Hannah married, George was 24, working as a carter and living at Stoke Bliss, and Rose was 21, a domestic servant, resident in Bromyard.  The certified copy of the certificate that I have was hand written in 1980, so does not contain any of the genuine signatures, but it appears that both George and Rose, as well as their two witnesses, Henry JAMES and Lilly THOMAS (probably one of George's sisters) were able to sign for themselves.

George and Rose's first child, Edith, was born on the 30th October 1896.  At that time they were living at Brick Barns, Underley, Wolferlow, in Herefordshire.

In the 1891 census, there were three properties called "Underley" (Lower, Middle and Upper), as well as two cottages called "Underley Cottage"  The Brick Barns were enumerated in between Middle Underley and Upper Underley and two of George's sisters, Matilda and Annie, were working as servants at Upper Underley.  The two girls were living with the family of a Samuel JONES.  But a William BALDWIN lived at Lower Underley and I believe, from family stories, that various members of the THOMAS family have worked for the BALDWINs over the years.

Both Upper Underley and Lower Underley are listed buildings, the former a medieval hall house, the latter dating from the late eighteenth century.  A barn to the north west of Lower Underley, dating from the early nineteenth century, is also a listed building. Described as a "large red brick barn with twin gabled wing. Tile roof with gable ends," one wonders if this might have been where George and Rose were living when Edith was born.

However, based on the enumeration order, since "Middle Underley" was further north than the listed barn (which is within the same group of buildings as Lower Underley), it seems more likely that the relevant "Brick Barns" was closer to Upper Underley.

George and Rose's second child, Ernest, was born on the 2nd May 1899.  The address this time is just given as Underley, Wolferlow, so it is impossible to identify which of the Underley properties the family were living in.

But when their third child, Hilda Mary, is born on the 13th November 1900, their address is again listed as Brick Barns, Underley, so it seems plausible they had been living there all the time.

By the time of the 1901 census, the family had moved to Coombs Wood, Collington - still in Herefordshire.  I suspect this was somewhere in the region identified as "Cwm Wood" on contemporary maps.

It was here that my grandmother, Elsie May, was born on the 3rd April 1902.  George, who had been described as a "general laborer" for their first three children's births, was this time described as a "Farmer".

However, when their fifth child, Ada Annie, was born on the 20th April 1904, his occupation was once again "General Laborer".  George was the informant for each of these births so one wonders why the variation.  Perhaps, as I have found with other ancestors, George was engaged in some small scale farming for himself, whilst also labouring on behalf of an employer, so both occupations were correct.

Matilda Jane was the next child, born on the 17th May 1906, followed by Emily, on the 25th April 1908. Emily's is the first birth registered by their mother, Rose.  One suspects registration had initially been forgotten, as the birth isn't registered until the 11th June 1908, five days over the 42 day time limit.  They might have been fined for this late registration, but perhaps there was some leeway as to when fines were applied.  Since the Registrar was the same one who had registered all of their previous children, he would be in a position to identify that they were not generally a family who were 'non-compliant', so I hope he was able to waive the fine.  (I wonder if the Registrars kept records of fines?)

On the 30th April 1910, the eighth child and second son, George John, was born.

The 1911 census shows the family at "Coombs Wood in Whitbourne, Worcester" - I suspect this is yet another case where the family haven't moved but the county boundary (at least, administratively for the census) has!  Present are George, Rose, Ernest, Hilda, Elsie, Ada, Matilda, Emily and George.

The oldest daughter, Edith, aged 14, is working as a general domestic servant at Butterley Mill Bromyard.  Although it is often difficult to identify individuals working as servants away from their families, I think the fact that Edith's birth place is recorded as "Barn House Woffellow", I can be quite confident about this entry.🙂

In the years following the census, two further children were born, both girls, Olive, on the 5th December 1912, and finally, Dorothy Rose, on the 1st June 1915.

From my point of view, there is a benefit from this number of children being in the family - it has led to there being many descendants, which increases the chances of some of them deciding to take a DNA test.

George and Rose had twenty nine grandchildren (that I know of) and I am aware of at least fifty two other great grandchildren.  Since these great grandchildren are all within the range of 'siblings to second cousins' to me, any of them that take a DNA test should show up as matching me.

Already, I have a cluster of "shared matches" as a result, and any new matches that also match people in this cluster can therefore be identified as connected to my THOMAS/HAYNES ancestral lines in some way, even if I don't know the exact link.

It is wonderful to be able to confirm my genealogy through the use of DNA like this.


References
Christmas Day weddings - https://www.findmypast.co.uk/blog/discoveries/christmas-day-weddings

Historic England Listings for Underley, Herefordshire:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/results/?searchType=NHLE+Simple&search=underley%2C+herefordshire

Census 
1891: (Matilda and Annie THOMAS) Class RG12; Piece: 2071; Folio: 12; Page: 2
1901: Class: RG13; Piece: 2491; Folio: 8; Page: 7
1911: Class: RG14; Piece: 15795; Schedule Number: 20
1911 (Edith): Class: RG14; Piece: 15787; Schedule Number: 50  

Ancestry DNA matches - passing 200 "4th cousins or closer"

I was planning to post an update to my Ancestry DNA match numbers when I reached 200 4th cousins or closer.

But clearly someone, somewhere, has a sense of humour!

Having been slowly creeping up towards 200 over the last few weeks....

....yesterday when I checked, the total had jumped from the previous day's 198, up by three to 201, thus missing out 200! 😀

An increase like this is what one might expect, when a group of family members all decide to test at the same time.  The closest match is a predicted third cousin to me and then the other two are both predicted 4th cousins.

I think it's the first time I've received such a batch of close matches, all on the same day.

Initially. all three matches showed with unlinked trees - but at least they were trees that featured, not just one of my surnames, ALLEN, but also the similar use of a particular middle name.   The trees have since been linked to the matches, so I can now identify the relationships between the three of them.

Another good thing was that, out of the nine other DNA matches shared between myself and the closest new match, I have already identified a common ALLEN ancestor with seven of them, and another one connects to the ALLEN surname, although we've not proved who the shared ancestor is yet.  The ninth match has two other shared matches, creating an isolated group that I hadn’t been able to link into an ancestral line, so perhaps these new matches might lead to the opportunity to do so.

One would think that, with all this information, the connection to the new matches should be obvious, but I didn't recognise the oldest ALLEN ancestor in their line. 

However, following some research today, I have now written to the match.  Potentially, if there is any doubt about the connection between their oldest two generations, then I might just have the answer. 🙂

2020 52anc. Wk 9: Rose Hannah HAYNES (1874-1958)

Rose Hannah HAYNES, one of my paternal great grandmothers, was born on the 20th December 1874, the daughter of George HAYNES and Caroline HARRIS.  At the time, the family were living at 16 Henry Street, St Mary, Cardiff, Glamorganshire.

By the time of the 1881 census, the family were living in Bromyard, Herefordshire - which is where both of Rose Hannah's parents had been born.  What they were doing in Cardiff at the time of her birth is currently unknown and mobility is always an interesting subject, so I'll try researching that when I consider her parents as a couple.

These are the 1881 census details:
[Class: RG11; Piece: 2601; Folio: 30; Page: 11;]
Bromyard, Herefordshire
Brick Clamp

Geo. Haynes, Head, Mar, 25, Ag Labourer, Herefordshire Bromyard

Caroline Haynes, Wife, Mar, 27, Herefordshire Bromyard

Rosannah Haynes, Daur, 6, Scholar, Cardiff

Albert Haynes, Son, 4, Herefordshire Bromyard

George Haynes, Son, 3, Herefordshire Bromyard

Emma Haynes, Daur, 1, Herefordshire Bromyard

So it is clear the family moved back to Bromyard relatively soon after Rose Hannah's birth and a baptism entry for "Rosanna Haynes", with the parents George and Caroline, took place in Bromyard on the 8 Nov 1875, so it is possibly safe to assume they had moved back by then.

Further siblings arrived in the years before the next census and I imagine Rose Hannah helped around the house and with her younger siblings. However, by 1891 she is out at work, as a domestic servant:

1891 census
[Class: RG12; Piece: 2070; Folio: 30; Page: 4; ]
Much Cowarne, Herefordshire, England
Leighton Court
(The DENT family, a farmer, with his wife and six children aged between 13 - 19)
Rose HAYNES, Serv, S, 19, General Servant Domestic, Wales Cardiff

I haven't just assumed that this is the correct entry, especially given the couple of years discrepancy on her age.  However, whilst searching on Ancestry for Ros* Haynes, +/-5 years of her birth year, and no birth place specified, does produce a number of results, none of them look likely to be an entry for "my" Rose Hannah in 1891, nor is there any person in the other years', or database, results, who could be this one in 1891.  So, at the moment, my conclusion is that either she had added a few years to her age, or there was just a mistake in recording it.  There are some other age variations across the various records for the family, which I shall look into in the future.

Her parents and siblings are still living at Brick Clamp in Bromyard in 1891:

[Class: RG12; Piece: 2069; Folio: 26; Page: 9;]
Brick Clamp, Bromyard
George Haynes, Head, M, 35, General Labourer, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Caroline Haynes, Wife, M, 38, Machinist, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Albert Haynes, Son, S, 16, Agricultural Labourer, Herefordshire, Bromyard
George Haynes, Son, 14, Agricultural Labourer, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Emily Haynes, Daur, 13, Scholar, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Henry Haynes, Son, 8,  Scholar, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Ann Haynes, Daur, 5, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Jane Haynes, Daur, 3, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Ernest Haynes, Son, 2, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Florence Haynes, Daur, 7mo, Herefordshire, Bromyard

Rose Hannah HAYNES married George THOMAS in the Bromyard parish church, on the 25th December 1895.  Their married life, and descendants, will be the topic for my next post.

2020 52anc. Wk 8: George THOMAS (1871-1955)

I'm now starting the entries for my second set of paternal great grandparents, George THOMAS and Rose Hannah HAYNES

George THOMAS was born on the 14th April 1871, at Little Kyre, Worcestershire,  the second child of at least seven born to John THOMAS and Priscilla, formerly ROBINSON.

The 1871 census was taken on the 2 April 1871 so, unfortunately, he doesn't appear in a census until he is almost 10 years old.

In the 1881 census, George is with his parents and three younger siblings in Little Kyre, Worcestershire:

[1881: Class: RG11; Piece: 2907; Folio: 20; Page: 3; ]
Bank Street
John Thomas, Head, Mar, 38, Mason Bricklayer, Herefordsh Linton
Priscilla Thomas, Wife, Mar, 35, Wife, Worcestershire, Knightwick
George Thomas, Son, Unm, 10, Scholar, Worcestershire, Little Kyre
Matilda Thomas, Daur, Unm, 5, Scholar, Worcestershire, Little Kyre
Anne Thomas,  Daur, Unm, 3, Scholar, Worcestershire, Little Kyre
Lilia Thomas,  Daur, Unm, 1, Worcestershire, Little Kyre

In 1891, George is working for a DORRELL family, in Stoke Bliss, as a general farm servant.  This time, his birthplace is given as Stoke Bliss, Herefordshire:

[1891: Class: RG12; Piece: 2319; Folio: 135; Page: 7]
Barrett's Bank
(DORRELL family of 3, and a Housekeeper)
George Thomas, Serv. S, 19, General Farm Servant, Herefordshire, Stoke Bliss

It's no wonder researchers become confused, when details vary like this - not just a different parish but also a different county!

"Is it the right person?" has to be a consideration and the evidence examined carefully, to try to ensure the conclusion, ie that this is him in 1891, is reliable.

In a case like this, my first act these days is usually to look up the places online, using a search engine - either for a map where I can check the distance between the locations, or for something like a topographical dictionary.  Here, I soon found the British History online entry which tells me that:

KYRE, LITTLE, a hamlet, in the parish of Stokebliss, union of Tenbury, Upper division of the hundred of Doddingtree, Tenbury and W. divisions of the county of Worcester, 5 miles (S. E. by S.) from Tenbury; containing 144 inhabitants. It is surrounded on three sides by the county of Hereford, and intersected from north to south by the road from Tenbury to Bromyard......

So clearly, Little Kyre, where the family lives, is actually a smaller area within the larger parish of Stoke Bliss.

But what of the different county?

Once again, British History online provides an answer:

Stoke Bliss was formerly chiefly in the Herefordshire Hundred of Broxash, the hamlet of Kyre Parva only being in Doddingtree Hundred. The whole parish was transferred to Worcestershire in 1897....

So, the larger unit, Stoke Bliss, was a parish which straddled the county boundaries and was predominently classed as Herefordshire at the time of the census.  So, when the parish was used for  George's birthplace. the county also changed.

Another way to find out more about the relevant areas is often to look at the first page of the census enumerator's book, which, in this case has a detailed description of the "remaining part of the parish of Stoke Bliss......In Hereford", as well as a description of the properties in Little Kyre.  (Unfortunately, not all enumerators completed this page in such detail.)

Having sorted out the geography, I'd still then search for other entries for the name "George THOMAS" and compare the possibilities in the census to other records - were there others born about the same time, in the same area, that might account for this census entry?  Or are there other census entries that could potentially be "my" George?

Without other family members present in the census entry to help to confirm relationships, it is important to consider these sorts of questions.

As it happens, there were three born in Worcestershire in the 1870 - 1871 range, but only "mine" in the Tenbury District.  Another three were born in Herefordshire (seven if I include those with a middle name).  There are also some birth entries where 'George' is the middle name, rather than the first name - but potentially their middle name could become the preferred name in later years.

So clearly there are likely to be others in the census, with the same name, living within the general county area. Some of these are easily identified but some census entries couldn't be easily discounted just from the index - for example, a George Thomas, of the right age, a servant living in Eardisley, with no birthplace shown in the index.

That would have been a possible contender if it wasn't for the fact that, on checking the original sheet, it is obvious that the transcribed index has failed to include any of the birthplaces from the page and I can happily ignore this one, as he was born in Radnorshire.

So, having looked carefully at the entries, I am happy to conclude that the 1891 entry in Stoke Bliss is the correct one.

Later censuses, which I shall consider when dealing with George's own family, give his birthplace as Little Kyre, Worcestershire - I suspect the 1891 details might have been given to the enumerator by the head of the family, rather than by George, although, if asked what parish he was born in, perhaps he would have answered "Stoke Bliss" anyway.

George married Rose Hannah HAYNES on 25 December 1895 in the parish church at Bromyard and I'll write about their later lives in a separate post.





British History Online
Little Kyre: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-dict/england/pp711-713
Stoke Bliss: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/worcs/vol4/pp349-354

Ancestry close matches

I was beginning to think that my comment on the 12th January - that everyone was just waiting for Christmas to buy DNA tests - was clearly not justified, since there was then a lack of any new close matches for almost another fortnight, during which time 23andMe announced they were laying off staff.  When Ancestry also then reported lay offs, on the 5th February, it just emphasised how much of a downturn there has been in the DNA testing market.

However, it hasn't been all "doom and gloom" since - I've received seven new "4c and closer" matches since my comment ( 24/1, 1/2, 11/2, 13/2, 19/2, 21/2, and 23/2) bringing me up to a total of 190. 

Out of these new matches, one was someone who has also tested at 23andMe - which is useful, since I have identified the potential shared ancestor with this match, and that helps to confirm some of the shared lines at Ancestry, which were suggested through match clustering.

Another match was a predicted 3rd cousin - by the time I'd explained how our shared matches enabled me to identify approximately where in my pedigree they fitted, ie a shared match who is a first cousin of mine meant my paternal side, sharing with certain second cousins of mine narrowed it down to my paternal grandmother's ancestral lines, and a shared third cousin meant the connection was most probably through my great grandmother HAYNES' ancestry somewhere, they'd discovered just how closely they were related to that third cousin, and it was clear exactly where they fitted into the family! 

The other matches haven't been quite so easy to place, varying from no pedigree information and no shared matches, to both good pedigrees and at least one shared match, with a possible suggestion of which of my ancestral lines they will connect to, based on the shared clustering.  

So, still a bit of research to be done for most of the new matches, but with a possibility of success for at least some of those.  

Which makes for steady progress towards my goal of identifying all of my '4c and closer', as well as giving me some more examples to use in a presentation that I am currently working on, on how helpful shared match clustering can be.

23andMe Lay-offs: https://blog.eogn.com/2020/01/23/23andme-lays-off-100-employees/

Ancestry Lay-offs: https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2020/02/05/our-path-forward/

2020 Week 7: 52 Ancestors - and their descendants. John PARRY & Rosina PREECE

One of the lessons I learnt quite quickly, when I began using DNA as a tool for researching my family history, was that I couldn't limit my research in the way that my parents had.

For my father, his goal was to trace the direct lines back. Yes, he would use information about any siblings if it helped him to identify the 'right' line, but those siblings were never a focus in his research.

My mother was more interested in family life.  How many siblings did her ancestor have? What was life like for the family growing up?  And how did that mother cope with ten children?  (Answer, as supplied by the aunt with ten children - "It's all right, after the first couple, the oldest bring up the rest" )

Now that I am making use of DNA results in the research process, I realised that the people who make up our DNA match lists (if genuine, genealogical matches, which they might not always be) have to be descendants of our ancestors, ie in order to trace our connection, it is not enough to just know who the siblings of our ancestors were, sometimes we might have to follow them down through several generations in order to arrive at our DNA matches.

Which is why, as well as posting about my direct ancestors in this series, after each couple, I will include a post about their other children and any generations beyond that, that I know about - subject to any privacy considerations regarding living people, of course.

For close generations, as in the case of my great grandparents, John PARRY & Rosina Louisa PREECE, we hit the privacy limit quite quickly.

John and Rosina had two children, my grandfather, Donald, and his sister, Rosina Jane, who was always known as "Aunty Joan" by my Dad's generation. Sadly, their mother Rosina Louisa died after giving birth to Rosina Joan and so it is unlikely I will ever find any records showing the whole family together.  John also died quite young so the children, aged 13 and 14, were sent to live with separate relatives.

But, despite such beginnings, the known descendants of John and Rosina have numbered over eighty five people, spread across four generations. They aren't all living any more but, even so, I think that's an impressive legacy, from such a short marriage.

A few of the descendants of John and Rosina have taken DNA tests and show up as matches to me at the levels which would be expected for such close relatives.  It is very useful having such relatives in the DNA databases, as they make it possible to narrow down which lines of my ancestry any shared matches are likely to connect to:

 

How DNA tested close relatives can help in identifying connections to shared DNA matches

2020 52Anc. Wk 6: Rosina Louisa PREECE (1882 - 1905)

Bridge Cottage, Mordiford, Herefordshire. (1901 census location)

One of the reasons for taking up the "52 ancestors in 52 Weeks" challenge in the way that I am doing it - effectively "auditing" the information I have on each person - is to finally make some headway with the "Do-over" that I started in 2015.  I have a lot of documents and files relating to my family history, but many of them were produced, or obtained, by my parents, rather than by me.  So the Do-Over is a good opportunity for me to "start again" from myself, to ensure my research is on a proper footing, and that everything is recorded properly. It is also a way for me to get to 'know' my ancestors, as well for me to add any additional information now available since my parents did their research.

This process of going through everything is bringing to my attention information that I had missed when just looking at Dad's family tree file. 

Rosina Louisa PREECE, my Dad's paternal grandmother, was born 18 January 1882, in Park Street, Hereford.  Her parents were Charles PREECE, a draper, and Jane, formerly TAYLOR.

I had not realised that Rosina's birth was actually registered with the names "Rosa Louisa", although later documentation, (two census records, her marriage certificate, her two children's birth certificates, and her death certificate) all refer to her as Rosina.

Something else I had not noticed - the birth was registered on the 4th March 1882, over six weeks after the event.

The informant for the birth registration was a Susan NICHOLAS, who lived in Conningsby Street, and who is described as having been present at the birth.   When I first saw who registered the birth, I just wondered, was Susan a friend or a relative?  To be trusted to register the event, I suspected she was more than just a casual acquaintance - but then again, it did seem odd that she might have made a mistake about the name.

Once I noticed how long it had taken for the birth to be registered, I wondered if I had got this wrong. Perhaps it is more likely that Susan was a local woman who regularly attended women during childbirth - effectively an untrained midwife.  It was the responsibility of someone present to register the birth and, if Susan was acting as a midwife and she then passed on to the Registrar a list of babies she'd attended in this "semi official" capacity, that might make more sense regarding the late registration and the name discrepancy.

A Susan Nicholas does appear in Hereford in the 1871 - 1891 censuses, although not living in Coningsby Street.  She's the wife of a Joseph Nicholas, who was a sawyer.  There's no occupation shown for Susan, but that's probably not unsurprising, since midwifery wasn't legally recognised until 1902.

I wonder if it's possible to check whether there are many other children whose births were registered by Susan?

But back to Rosina....

Rosina was the second known child of Charles and Jane, the first being William Charles PREECE, who was born in Hereford in 1870.  Since there are almost twelve years between the births of the two children, one wonders at the family circumstances - the father, Charles, is present with Jane in the 1871 census but, in the 1881 census, Jane is the head of the household in Park St., working as a laundress but still shown as being married.

In the 1891 census, Rosina and her mother, Jane, now widowed, appear in Norton, Radnorshire.  The address is "The Laundry", but the enumeration schedule number is 26A, with number 26 being described as "Gardener's Cottage".  Based on the enumerator's marks, as well as this numbering, I suspect the cottage and laundry were the same property. The building appears to have been part of the Boultibrooke estate of the Jones-Brydges family and, since Jane's occupation is given as a domestic laundress, it seems likely she was working for that family.

By 1901, the family are living in Bridge Cottage, Mordiford, Herefordshire.  In the census for that year, as well as Rosina Louisa, aged 19, and her mother Jane Elizabeth, there is a child, Ethel Kate PREECE, aged four, who is described as a daughter to Jane.  However, since Ethel Kate was born in Abertillery, Monmouthshire, she is more likely to be one of the daughters of Jane and Charles' son, William Charles PREECE and would be the grandchild of Jane.

Rosina married John PARRY, at the parish church in Mordiford, on the 16th April 1903.  John was 37, Rosina was 21.  Her father, Charles PREECE, is not shown as deceased on the certificate but, from the 1891 and 1901 census entries, where her mother is shown as widowed, it appears he was (or certainly was nowhere to be seen!) The witnesses were her brother, William Charles PREECE, and John's brother-in-law, Thomas Daniel SMALLMAN.

John and Rosina had two children, one of which was my grandfather, Donald.  Sadly, Rosina died after giving birth to her second child, a daughter, her death caused by "flooding collapse" two hours after the delivery, followed by cardiac failure 16 days later.  She was just 23 years old. 

John PARRY was with her when she died.  One can only imagine the impact the death of his young wife would have had on him. 

I'm sure many of you have similar tragedies in your family history.  How lucky we are these days, to have our modern medical care, which reduces the numbers of such incidents.





Sources
1871 census: (Rosina's parents, Charles & Jane, with brother, William Charles, staying with Jane's parents, William and Mary TAYLOR) Class: RG10; Piece: 2699; Folio: 60; Page: 39;
1881 census : (Rosina's mother, Jane, and brother, plus visitor/boarders) RG11; Piece: 2594; Folio: 83; Page: 41;
1891 census: Class: RG12; Piece: 4581; Folio: 18; Page: 5;
1901 census: Class: RG13; Piece: 2478; Folio: 60; Page: 4;

Census entries for a possible Susan NICHOLAS:
1871 (Green St, St Owen, Hereford) Class: RG10; Piece: 2698; Folio: 66; Page: 39;
1881 (Gaol St, St Owen, Hereford) Class: RG11; Piece: 2595; Folio: 85; Page: 6; G
1891 (Hunts Cottage, All Saints, Hereford) Class: RG12; Piece: 2061; Folio: 94; Page: 7;


First Midwives Act 1902 - https://memoriesofnursing.uk/articles/midwifery-in-britain-in-the-twentieth-century
Enumerators marks:  A single diagonal line is used between households, or families, within the same building, and double diagonal lines are used between buildings.

DNA Updates. LivingDNA

A few days ago, I received an email from LivingDNA to say there was an ancestry update available, so I clicked the relevant buttons to start the update process.

At the same time, I took a look at the Wellbeing section of their website and, although I am not overly interested in that side of my results, I noticed that they did offer two reports for free, so put through an 'order' for those.  It will be interesting to see how the information compares to that available from 23andMe but, since it takes 6-8 weeks for the report to arrive, I'll comment on that later.

The ancestry update was said to typically take under 48 hours and, true to that, the next day I received an email stating the results had successfully updated.

So who am I now? 😉

My 2020 LivingDNA ancestry results

Above the figures section, there is a "Last updated" date and, by clicking there, it is possible to get back to a page with details about the recent update and the opportunity to "view previous results".  When clicked, the previous results just appear as figures in a pop-up window so it currently looks as if the only way of keeping a copy of the previous results map would be to take a copy before updating your results.

A pdf of the old figures can be requested - but despite the pop-up saying "Download pdf", clicking that doesn't immediately produce the pdf to save.  Instead a message pops up to say the previous results will be available shortly and in the meantime you can screenshot your results - of course, if your previous ancestry involved many locations, several screenshots are necessary, as it doesn't seem possible to alter the size of the results pop-up to show them all. (or you could just select and copy the figures to paste elsewhere.)

The "headlines" for my latest update state:

4 regions added,
5 subregions added
Your ancestry predictions just got better! One or more regions related to your regional data have been refined to detect your DNA ancestry with more accuracy.

But I think those are generalised headlines - as I seem to have lost more than I've gained, in the way of regions:

My 2020 updated LivingDNA ancestry results, compared to the previous results from 2017

Even though I am one of those people who tells others that the 'ancestry' results should be taken with a pinch of salt, as they are the most 'unreliable' of the findings from a DNA test, that doesn't mean I am not affected by a bit of 'confirmation bias' over my own results.

So I was rather disappointed to see these new results, in particular the reduction in the "South Wales Border" from its previous value of 61% to this new 35.7%.  After all, I have frequently shown a slide in my talks which demonstrated how well my known ancestry matched to this high level of "border DNA".

(The blue for my mother's side of the family might not seem a good match to the multitude of colours in the rest of the 'Do-nut' chart but the blue represents Southeast England, which includes London and, within a couple of generations back from the pedigree shown, my mother's side of the family were spread out in counties such as Wiltshire, Gloucestershire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk and even another country, Germany, so it would be a better fit if I'd extended the pedigree further.)

There's more information from when I first produced the pedigree, in 2017, on my blog at A slight sidetrack - my LivingDNA results  from which I note that, at that time, the "South Wales Border" was actually only showing 41%.  This is because that was written when my results first arrived and there was then an update later in the year, when this region increased to 61%.

So, what do these new results tell me?

Results change because the companies have gathered more data. This changes the genetic signatures that the predictions are based on.  Theoretically, these new results are more accurate - but they will continue to change, as more data is gathered.

As you can see from this comparison of my ancestry at three different dates, the percentages might go up or down for any given region, and some regions will appear or disappear totally:

So maybe it's time to remind myself to take the 'ancestry' percentages (from any company) with a good pinch of salt!




My original blog post about my LivingDNA results
https://notjusttheparrys.blogspot.co.uk/2017/02/a-slight-sidetrack-my-livingdna-results.html

2020 52Anc. Wk 5: John Parry (1865 - 1918)

The theme for Week 5 of the 2020 '52 ancestors in 52 weeks' was "So Far Away" and, because I am now moving on to ancestors that I didn't know personally, that seems applicable as, historically, they are so far away from me!

This post is about John PARRY, my great grandfather.  Since he died in 1918, when his son, my grandfather Donald, was only 14, none of my father's generation knew John either, so there are very few stories passed down about him and what I know is being reconstructed from the records.

John was born on the 3rd September 1865, in Glynfach, Breconshire, according to the birth certificate, although his birthplace is often recorded in census records as "Capel-y-ffin".  He was the second son of Thomas PARRY and Sarah, formerly JONES.  His siblings were Thomas, Elizabeth, and Lewis.

The first census John appears in is 1871, when the family is living in Llanelen, Monmouthshire.  Sadly, John's mother, Sarah, and his brother, Lewis, had already passed away and the family were living with John's grandmother, Anna PARRY (frequently recorded as "Hannah" but not in this census).  John's uncle, James PARRY, aged 23, was also living there.

In 1881, John is living with his grandparents, William and Hannah JONES, in Tyndrain, Glynfach, Breconshire, where he is recorded as a Farmer's son, working with his grandfather.

I've struggled to identify John in the 1891 census.  However, my Dad did think that, at some stage, John travelled across to America as a cattle man.  It is possible that this explains my inability to find him in this census, and "John Parry" is just too common a name for me to identify him amongst records such as passenger lists etc, at the moment.

However, by 1901, John is living in Holmer, Hereford, with his occupation as a "Cattle Dealer".  He is still single but living with him is his sister-in-law, Mary PARRY, and her three children, Eleanor, Elizabeth, and Walter.  Although Mary is recorded as married, unbeknown to them, she had been widowed by then.  John's brother, Thomas, had been killed in July 1900 in South Africa, during the Boer War.

John married Rosina Louisa PREECE, on the 16 April 1903, in Mordiford, Herefordshire.  Their first child, Donald, was born in Mordiford, their second, Rosina Jane, in Cornewall Street, Hereford.

Sadly, Rosina died having given birth to their second child and John was left to bring up the two children on his own, no doubt with assistance from friends and relatives.

One of Amy Johnson Crow's prompts for this week's topic was "Maybe you found an ancestor far from where you expected?".  And, yes, I think John's 1911 census entry fits that description, although not because of distance - but because he is in Hereford Gaol!

That certainly was far away from the situation I expected him to be in, as a widowed father of two, in employment as a cattle dealer (and no, there's no hints of "rustling"!)

I am still piecing together the full story of his stay in prison, so I am not going to write more about that at the moment.  But just to say, for now, that I imagine nine months in prison must have had quite an impact on John and his two young children who, at that time, were aged just seven and five.

However, I know from Poll Books for 1910 and 1912 that John Parry was living at 104 Widemarsh Street, Hereford, both before and after his time in prison.  This is the address where his children were boarding in 1911, so clearly a level of stability was maintained for them while their father was absent.  The description of the rooms occupied shows "Bedroom, first floor, sitting room, ground floor, furnished". 

The Landlord (or, at least, the person to whom the rent was paid), was a Charles OLDACRE.  Charles Edward OLDACRE is also the Head in the 1911 census, living in the property with his wife and three children of their own.  There are also another two adult boarders.  Charles is occupied in "horse dealing" and one of the other boarders is a "stock dealer".

The photograph below is not of the relevant house, but just one I took in 2011.  At the time, I didn't have all the details I do now about John's addresses, but I knew that 'Widemarsh Street' was an address my Dad had mentioned, so it seemed like a good idea to photograph the sign showing the name.

A corner of Widemarsh Street, Hereford, photographed in 2011

John passed away on the 21st November 1918, aged just 53.  His address at the time was 18 Newmarket Street, Hereford, and the informant was an M A FRANCIS, described as a step-niece, who was present at the death. 

The causes of death were given as "morbis cordis" and "syncope".  My Dad obtained the certificate and appears to have asked what the causes meant since, stored with the death certificate, is a response stating that morbis cordis is heart failure, and that this would have been the most likely term to put if John had died as a result of a general weakness following 'flu'.  The syncope means 'fainting' - although, as the respondent says "I never knew it was fatal!"

Whether John had suffered from the flu of 1918, or whether there were other factors which caused his death at such an age, I will probably never know.  Following his death, I believe the two children were sent to live with other relatives, Rosina possibly in Hereford but later in London, and Donald to the Rowlestone area of Herefordshire.

I don't know exactly what John's occupation as a cattle dealer involved - but writing this reminded me of the shows my family visited when I was young so I thought I would end with a cattle photograph, probably taken in the early 1960s, more than likely at the Three Counties Showground, Malvern.

Cattle parade, photographed approx. 1965

1871 census: Class: RG10; Piece: 5311; Folio: 28; Page: 9; 
1881 census: Class: RG11; Piece: 5470; Folio: 71; Page: 1
1901 census: Class: RG13; Piece: 2482; Folio: 90; Page: 32
1911 census: Class: RG14; Piece: 15712; Schedule Number: 215

2020 52Anc. Wk 4: Maud Emily Alice DOWDING

Let me introduce you to my grandmother, Maud Emily Alice DOWDING.  This photograph of her was taken in 1915, when she was aged 19.

She was born on the 7th September 1896, the fourth of seven children to Charles Henry DOWDING and Minnie Louisa HARRISON.  Her siblings were Charles Christopher George, Horace Charles, Minnie Ellen, Glencoe Roberts, Ethel Sophia, and Rose Harriet.  Five of the children, including Maud, were christened at Saint Anne's, Westminster, Middlesex, England, in Maud's case, on the 27 Sep 1896.  The other two children were christened in Lambeth.

I don't know much about Maud's childhood or upbringing.  Although I have not found school details for her, she signed her own name on her marriage certificate, and as a witness for the marriage of at least one of her siblings, so she clearly had some level of education.  But, in 1901, neither of the two children at home (Charles aged 8, and Maud, recorded as "Emilie", aged 4) were shown as being at school - but then nor were any children on nearby schedules, so perhaps the enumerator only noted occupations.

From my mother's accounts of her own upbringing, Maud didn't appear to value education very much - at least, not for a girl - as Nana didn't seem very bothered about sending Mum to school on time!  My grandfather worked nights, delivering newspapers, and it appears Maud often kept my mother up in the evenings for company and then they didn't get up early in the morning, so as not to disturb Grandad.

As a result, in order to avoid being told off for being late, Mum would then skive the rest of the morning school, frequently just playing in the park, and turn up for the afternoon session instead - assuming, of course, that when she went home for lunch, Maud actually had some food in and didn't need to go to the shops first.

If that was the case, well, that was a whole day off school!

In 1911, Maud, aged 15, is shown as working in a "Tobaca Factory".  It seems likely she remained at the same factory until her marriage to John William Frederick ALLEN in 1926, since she is described on her marriage certificate as a "Tobacco stripper", and the family were still living at 27 Pratt Street, Lambeth, where they had been in 1911.

Maud and John on their wedding day in 1926

Once married, John and Maud moved out to a council house in Dagenham and, five years later, my mother was born.  I think the following picture, with 'Jack', the family dog, would have been taken at around that time.

Maud passed away on the 12th March 1971.

Sources
Ancestry.com. England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 [database on-line].
Ancestry.com. London, England, Church of England Births and Baptisms, 1813-1917 [database on-line]
1901 Class: RG13; Piece: 101; Folio: 7; Page: 6
1911 Class: RG14; Piece: 1965

2020 52Anc. Wk 3: John William Frederick ALLEN (or was it John Frederick William ALLEN?)

This post is about my grandfather, John William Frederick ALLEN.  There's so much to record about the ancestors we actually knew, and I am already behind with the "52 ancestors in 52 weeks" so I am going to keep this fairly short and just introduce the key facts.  I am sure I shall be returning to John many times!

John William Frederick ALLEN, with 'Jack'

John was born on 17 February 1892, in Bethnal Green, London.

He was the second of four children to John Prosser ALLEN jnr and Caroline NAYLOR.  His siblings were Amelia Bessie, Albert Edward and Robert.

Their names caused some confusion for my mother, when she first began her family history research.  Amelia had always been "Aunty May", and her uncles had always been referred to as "Bert" and "Bob".  It might seem obvious now which is which but, when starting from the shortened versions, especially "Bert", which can represent several names, the early research was not easy.

And, of course, they are all common first names.  Combined with a fairly common surname, as well, identifying the correct civil registration entries was quite a problem for Mum - in fact, it is only since the advent of the GRO's own online indexes, with the inclusion of mother's maiden names before 1911, that I have finally managed to identify Albert's birth registration.

Even my mother's Dad's name caused her an issue when she was younger - it was discovered that, whilst he always seemed to be known as "John William Frederick" and that is what is on my grandparents' marriage certificate, his birth certificate actually shows his name as "John Frederick William".

Thinking that this might mean the marriage was not legal, I gather Mum asked, "Does that make me a b......?"

She told me that comment earned her a "clip round the ear"!

We all have our own perspectives on other people, based on our experiences.  To me, my grandfather was a happy man - in all the photographs, he seems to be smiling and having a good time.  I have memories of him and others together in my grandparents' house, larking around on an out of tune piano, (frequently singing a song that involved “more beer”!)

He passed away in 1967, when I was still a child.

So it was only when I was older, speaking to Mum about her experiences growing up, that I learnt about other aspects of his life and possibly why there might have been more to the "more beer" song.

Grandad fought in the 1st World War.  He had actually enlisted before the war, in 1909 and served with the Colours for three years before being transferred to the Reserve.  He was then mobilised and served again from 1914 - 1919.  For some reason, he was recalled to the Colours again in 1921 and served for another five months. 

At some stage, he met his first wife, although he didn't marry her until their son was almost four.  Sadly, she died in 1918, of TB, barely nine months after the wedding.  John was serving in Salonika at the time - Mum believed he did try to get home, but was told by his officer "there's no point, she'll be dead by the time you get there".  And when he asked what would happen to his son, he was reportedly told not to worry - he'd be put into an orphanage!

Fortunately, John's son was not put into an orphanage, but looked after by John's parents - but would it be any surprise if Grandad felt bitter towards those in charge?

I don't know when John met my grandmother, Maud Emily Alice DOWDING, but they were married in 1926.  My mother was their only child.  She's passed on a few stories of her childhood, being brought up by 'older' parents, and effectively as an only child, since her half brother was seventeen years older than her.  But they can wait until another time.

John William Frederick ALLEN with his daughter.

52 Ancestors Week 2: Favourite Photo

Back in 2018, when I first attempted the "52 Ancestors in 52 weeks", the topic for week 2 was "Favourite Photo", just as it is for week 2 of 2020 (and, yes, I know it's now the end of Week 4.  Stuff happens!).  Although I probably won't be using all of the suggested topics for my posts through the year, it's funny that I get to use the same photograph this year:

This is a photograph of my grandparents, Donald and Elsie PARRY, taken at a special wedding anniversary.  My 2018 post had concentrated on my grandfather, Donald, but my second post this year was always intended to be about my grandmother, Elsie May, formerly THOMAS, and her family.  So it seems ideal to include this photograph again now.

In some ways, I feel I missed out on getting to know my Nana.  With my Dad in the RAF, we'd moved away from the area where Nana and Grandad lived when I was six, and only "day visited" for most of the time after that.  Talking to one of my cousins recently, she revealed how it had been Nana who taught her how to knit.  I can just imagine the relationship such shared activities would have created.

I do remember seeing Nana knitting - she was one of those ladies who could hold one needle under her arm as she knitted, which is a very fast and efficient method of knitting, unlike my own technique, which takes me quite a while to finish anything.

Elsie was born in 1902, in Collington, Herefordshire.  She was the fourth of ten children to George THOMAS and Rose Hannah HAYNES.   Her siblings were Edith, Ernest, Hilda, Ada, Matilda, Emily, George, Olive and Dorothy.

What were the conditions that she grew up in?  George THOMAS was described as a "farmer" when Elsie was born, which might conjure up an image of a fairly comfortable life, in a landowning family.  But, for the births of subsequent children between 1904 - 1915, his occupation appears on their birth certificates as "General Labourer", which creates a rather different image, one of someone lacking skills and maybe just taking any work that's available. 

The truth is probably somewhere in-between those two images.  In 1901, his occupation was given as "Ordinary Agricultural Labourer".  The school admission register entries for six of the children over the same time period as the above births describe him as a farmer, with a seventh entry recording his occupation as "Woodman". In 1911, he's a "Farm Labourer" and when Elsie married Donald PARRY in 1927, her father was described as an "Agricultural Labourer".  Finally, in 1939, he appears as a "Farm Labourer retired*. 

So the overall picture painted is neither that of a well-to-do landowning farmer, nor one of an unskilled labourer, but of someone employed working on the land, carrying out a range of farming tasks, all of which probably required a certain level of skill, but also, potentially, could have been for the same employer for many years, providing stability for the family. 

In such circumstances, though, I imagine the family didn't have much spare money and all of the children would have grown up helping out in some way, at least until they were old enough to earn money through other means.  For example, in 1911. Elsie's oldest sister, Edith, aged 14, appears to be working as a domestic servant for a PRICE family in Bromyard.*

However, from the National School Admission Registers & Log-Books 1870-1914 on FindMyPast, I know that the first seven children, at least, attended the Tedstone Wafer School (the last three would have begun after 1914, when the online records end). So they were clearly educated, and in some cases, beyond what appears to be the leaving age for compulsory education*.  Elsie herself started at the school on the 17 March 1908, just before her sixth birthday, and left on the 18 June 1915, when she was 13.

I have no evidence for what work Elsie might have done in the twelve years between then and when she married, and there is no occupation given for her on the marriage certificate.  However, according to my Dad, she was employed as a children's nanny at the time she met Donald.  As with many women, their work after marriage goes largely unrecorded but I am sure she was involved in many instances of working on the land, particularly during harvest times, so the "Unpaid domestic duties" reported in the 1939 register is probably a wholly inadequate description of her activities.

I remember my mother (brought up in Dagenham, so very much a "townie") being in awe of Nana's practical abilities (especially her ability to walk to the hen house and have a chicken caught, killed, and half plucked even before she got back up the garden path!) 

So my image of my grandmother remains one of a very practical, and hard working, country lady.


* Sources
1901: RG13/2491/8/7
1911 (Elsie as "Elise") Class: RG14; Piece: 15795; Schedule Number: 20
1911 (Edith) Class: RG14; Piece: 15787; Schedule Number: 50
1939: (George) RG101/5813J
1939: (Elsie) RG 101/5807I

It seem unclear from online sources whether compulsory education ended at 10, 12 or 14 during 1900 - 1918, eg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raising_of_school_leaving_age_in_England_and_Wales

https://study.com/academy/lesson/school-leaving-age-in-britain-history.html

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/overview/1914-39/

Genetic Networks (simple ones!)

Isn’t it great when a new ‘4th cousin & closer’ appears, and you can see this amongst the shared matches:

Four other matches, who all seem to share one suggested line.  I may not have identified the 'most recent common ancestor' yet (the suggested "HARLAND" line comes from a surname & location in common with one of the matches), but this ‘clustering’ gives me something to work on (ie the potential connections between each of the matches), as well as helps me to focus on the part of my own tree that seems most likely to contain the shared ancestors with all of these matches.

In my view, this use of shared matches to produce networks, or clusters, is one of the most effective methods for making sense of our matches at the DNA companies.  Last year, I led a workshop at the Family Tree Live show in Alexandra Palace about ‘Genetic Networks and Triangulation’, and have decided it might be helpful for others if I post some of the  information here.

I wrote about my initial foray into networking back in 2017, with the post at http://notjusttheparrys.blogspot.com/2017/08/ancestry-shared-matches-and-new.html

Since then, other methods for using the shared matches have been developed, for example, the Dana Leeds Method of clustering, MyHeritage’s Autoclustering and the auto clustering of the Collins-Leeds Method in the DNAGedcom Client App - all of which are useful tools.*

But I still like the ‘genetic network’ method, which can take account of every shared match, as opposed to many of the clustering methods, which have restrictions on who is in the cluster, eg all the matches in a cluster must match a certain percentage of the other matches in the cluster.  Whilst that might be useful for those people with thousands of close matches, I think, for those of us with only a few hundred, it can cause important clues to be left out.

But what is the theory behind clustering?

We all (hopefully) know that having known relatives tested can help us to narrow down which part of our family tree other matches connect to.  For example, with parents tested, your matches can be divided into paternal and maternal matches, depending on which parent they also match. (There will probably be a few "false positives" on your match list, as well, who match neither parent, but we won't worry about them for now). 

The principle can be extended with other known relatives, for example, if a cousin of my father tested, it narrows down the potential link with a shared match to one of my great grandparent couples

ie a match to both my Dad's cousin and me will either descend from the shared great grandparent couple or from one of their ancestors.  So I can discount 3/4 of my tree, when I look for the shared ancestry.

Even if we don’t have any known relatives tested, the principle can still be applied - and also extended further back up the branches of our family tree

It does get a bit complicated when trying to describe shared matching in terms of descendants of ancestral lines!
But it should be possible to see how people in particular positions in our family tree will only match certain other relatives, depending on which ancestral lines they share.

I think a key question to ask to understand this is "Where has the DNA come from?"  We received our autosomal DNA through all of our ancestral lines.  Our matches will have received their autosomal DNA from all of their ancestral lines.  The only way we can be genuine genealogical matches is if we share an ancestor somewhere so that we both received the 'same' segment(s) of that ancestor's DNA.  Each segment will only have travelled down to us through one of our ancestral lines.  

Some other people who descend from that ancestor will also have received the same segment.  For example, many people are testing siblings, parents and close cousins.  Such a group of close relatives will all match each other and several of them would be likely to share any particular segment.   So (assuming there's enough DNA to be picked up as matches to me), the descendants of a particular shared ancestor will show up as a group of "shared matches" to each other.

This is the principle behind all the "clustering" and "networking" methods of working with our matches. 

With close relatives, matches fall into only a small number of clusters, but the further back we go, the potential number of clusters increases. If we could just look at matches who all share an ancestor with us at one particular generation, we would get neat clusters:

Relationship		Shared Ancestors	‘Ideal’ number of Clusters/Groups
Full siblings		All	1
Half Siblings		One side, paternal or maternal	2
1st cousins		2 grandparents	2
2nd cousins		2 great grandparents	4
3rd cousins		2 great great grandparents	8
4th cousins		2 great great great grandparents	16

But the reality is, there will be overlap between groups when there are relatives from different generations included.  For example, matches at second cousin level will match two separate clusters from third cousin level, whereas people in one of the third cousin clusters will not match those in the other:

There are issues to be aware of - beyond third cousins, it's possible there will not be sufficient DNA in common for cousins to show up as matching each other.  But there is also the added complication that, at some stage, we reach a point where we share multiple common ancestors with some matches.  This means clusters can show as being linked to each other when they don't actually share the same common ancestor.

But the main point is that, if we can identify how a group of our matches all match each other, then that can sometimes help us in identifying how we match them as well.

And this was what I demonstrated at Family Tree Live, using my top 25 matches at Ancestry.

First, I allocated a letter to each match, for privacy.  Then I produced a table showing who amongst those 25 matches matched each other:

Predicted Relationship level		Shared matches
1st Cousin	Match A	B, E, G, L, V, W,
3rd Cousins	Match B	A, E, G, L, N, S, W,
	Match C	Q, T,
	Match D	F, H, I, P, R, Y,
	Match E	A, B, G, L, N, W,
	Match F	D, H, O, P, R, Y,
	Match G	A, B, E, L, N, W,
4th Cousins	Match H	D, F, K, M, O, P, X,
	Match I	D, Y,
	Match J	(only shared matches beyond the first 25)
	Match K	H, M, O,
	Match L	A, B, E, G, N, W,
	Match M	H, K, O, P, X
	Match N	B, E, G, L, W,
	Match O	F, H, K, M, R, X,
	Match P	D, F, H, M, R, X,
	Match Q	C,
	Match R	D, F, O, P,
	Match S	B,
	Match T	C,
	Match U	(only shared matches beyond the first 25)
	Match V	A,
	Match W	A, B, E, G, L, N,
	Match X	H, M, O, P,
	Match Y	D, F, I,

For the workshop, I produced an image showing lettered dots, with no lines joining them up, so that people could have a go at manually producing the network diagram (A relatively simple task, when the numbers of matches are limited - I suggest not trying it manually with hundreds of matches!)

But here is the diagram with lines drawn to show who matches who:

As you can see, the matches fell into three groups of shared matches.  Not everyone in each group matches everyone else, but the groups are separate from each other.

I don't know exactly how I relate to all of the matches - some have not responded to messages, others have no information about their families.  However, by placing those I do know onto my tree, it is possible to get a good idea as to why the matches in each network form the groups they do:

Network 2 appears to all be on my father's side of my family, as all the known matches would have received DNA from ancestors of my paternal grandmother.

Network 1 is on my mother's father's side of my family.  There are six matches who potentially trace back to a NAYLOR family in London in the early 1800s. The NAYLOR line marries into the ALLEN line at my great grandparents level and, of the other five matches in this network, two descend from the ALLEN line prior to the two lines joining, two descend from after the lines join and one is unknown. 

If I removed from the network the two who descend from after the lines join, as well as the unknown match, who also appears to descend from both lines, this network would fall into two separate groups that do not share DNA with each other - matches who descend from the NAYLORs in one and matches who descend from the ALLENs in the other.  Since these matches do not have any ancestry in common, it is not surprising that they do not share any DNA either:

The smaller Network 3 is on my mother's mother's side of my family and can be seen as a similar pattern to Network 2, with a close match who descends from two of my ancestral lines (DOWDING and HARRISON), matching two others who each descend from one of those lines and who therefore do not match each other.

It is not possible to rely solely on the information from DNA networks or clusters - as I have mentioned, multiple common ancestors, and the variable nature of DNA transmission (as well as company policies regarding the thresholds being used for showing shared matches) can mean that some people show as matches who 'shouldn't' (because they share through a different ancestor), or don't show as matches when they 'should' (because the DNA has dropped out, or the quantity of shared DNA is below the company threshold.)  

But hopefully, it is clear that shared matches can provide vital information to help us trace our common ancestry with our matches.  

[And, just in case you're wondering about the lack of matches from my father's father's side, I suspect this is due to a mixture of family structures and the fact DNA testing is still not as popular in the UK as in some other countries.  In the three ancestral lines represented above, my grandparents all had multiple siblings, and recent generations have embraced DNA testing.  Whereas my paternal grandfather only had one sibling and, as far as I am aware, only one of the descendants has tested and that was at a different company.  I do have matches from further back on this, my PARRY line, at several of the other companies - so no worries so far about anybody's parents not being the expected ones. But that is always something one must bear in mind! :-) ].

*

The Dana Leeds Method of clustering - https://www.danaleeds.com/the-leeds-method/

The DNAGedcom Client App (subscription based) - available from https://dnagedcom.com/