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