NAYLOR/NAYLER family research update

 I’ve been making progress with several branches of my family over this past month and, rather than lumping all the activity on them together into one ‘mixed bag of updates' post, as I had originally intended, I'm going to split them into three smaller posts, relating to each surname. So this first post is about progress on the NAYLER (NAYLOR)¹ line.

As I wrote on 5 February, when following up two recent new DNA matches at Ancestry, I have a cluster of matches who all seem to connect to me through the NAYLER family. I'd therefore made a start on confirming the information for that branch, which previously was just in a rough version derived mainly from other people's trees. I ended that post with details of a possible epitaph in St John The Baptist Church, Gloucester.  

Looking on Wikitree later, I discovered that someone had created a profile there for the Herald, George NAYLER (1764-1831)², along with profiles for his wife & three children.  I'm assuming that this was possibly done because George classes as a 'notable person', since the profiles for George and two of his children had then been orphaned.  So I have adopted those. I also created a free space profile for the epitaph³, which will provide another way of showing the connections between members of the family.  I do like the ability to include such pages on Wikitree, along with 'Research Notes' etc, on individual people's profiles - one of my concerns about family tree programs has always been that, once people are connected as parents/children to each other, it isn't obvious what evidence the relationship is based on, and it becomes more difficult to identify those connections that are just based on assumptions.  These options on Wikitree can be used to make it clear what information is reliable and what is still speculative.

One of the next steps was to try to confirm the epitaph.  Searching for St John The Baptist Church in Gloucester, I discovered that it still exists, but is now a Methodist Church called St John's Northgate⁴.   It seemed a bit strange to contact a minister directly, just to ask about their building, but eventually I decided to send an email.  Of course, I didn't realise that, the very next day, at the Malvern Family History Fair, there would be a stand from the Gloucester Family History Society and volunteers there very kindly also took details of my query.  

And so it is that I now have, not just confirmation that the monuments still exist, but photographs of them, from both sources, as well as a copy of a booklet showing all the monuments in St Johns, produced by the late Alan Morgan, who was a member of the church. Credit is also given in the booklet for information supplied by Dr Robert Tucker.

My thanks to the staff of the Methodist Church, and to the volunteers, Sue and Dave, from the GFHS, for dealing with my query. 

Updating the pages on Wikitree is one of my next tasks.

As well as adopting the profiles of the Herald and two of his daughters, I had created profiles for his father, George NAYLER (1722 - 1780)⁵, and for his grandfather, Joshua NAYLER (abt 1683 - 1750)⁶, who are both mentioned on the memorial.  

Joshua NAYLER, who died on the 14th December 1750, and was buried in St John's⁷, was described as a "Captain" in the epitaph, and is currently the earliest known ancestor in the NAYLER line. So he makes a good starting point for adding information about the rest of the descendants.

However, there is already an issue with regard to Joshua - who did he marry?

Over twenty family trees on Ancestry have claimed the marriage of a Joshua NAYLER to a Mary WISE, which took place in St Martin-In-The-Fields, London, Westminster, England, on 5 Sep 1717⁸, as the relevant marriage for Joshua, before his children were all born in Hull between 1719-1724. 

The marriage in London is currently the only marriage that appears on Ancestry for a Joshua, at about the right time, so I can understand why people might think that this one ‘must’ be the correct one.

However, FindMyPast shows a marriage of a Joshua NAYLER to a Mary GALL as having taken place on 30 Jan 1718, in Cottingham, Yorkshire⁹, and I wonder whether this might be a more likely marriage, considering that Cottingham is only about four miles away from the centre of Hull.

The marriage was by licence and I now have a copy of the licence from the Borthwick Institute for Archives, at the University of York.  Some of the document is in Latin, but, as far as I can work out, Joshua was described in the initial bond portion as of Newland, in the county of York, yeoman, and then, by the time of the marriage, he was described as of the parish of Cottingham, a sailor, aged 24.  

His occupation as a sailor at that time could potentially fit with him being described as a captain in the epitaph by the time of his death. However, the age would mean he was born in 1694, which would only make him 56 in 1750, rather than the 67 as stated in the epitaph.

Unfortunately, as with so many early records, there isn’t sufficient information in any of the documents to conclusively connect relevant entries together.  Is it more likely that the age of the Cottingham Joshua (or on the epitaph) is incorrect, or that a couple, who were both described as of the parish in London when they married, then moved almost 200 miles north to settle down?

Or is there another possibility that doesn't even appear in the currently available databases?

Perhaps DNA might eventually help to answer this question, by indicating a connection to descendants of either the GALL, or the WISE, families.  However, since Joshua is my 6th great grandfather, any such matches are likely to be related to me at about 7th cousin level, which is well beyond the reliable level of autosomal DNA testing.¹⁰

So Joshua has now become the "brick wall" of my NAYLER ancestral line.  

Notes and Sources

1. Many of the sources mentioned here use the spelling NAYLER.  However, the more recent generations of my ancestors often appear in records with the spelling as NAYLOR. 

2. The profile of George NAYLER (1764-1831) Herald, on Wikitree: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Nayler-58

        3. The Wikitree freespace page for the epitaph: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Nayler_epitaphs_%28said_to_be_in_St._John_the_Baptist%27s_Church%2C_Gloucester.%29

4. St John's Northgate: https://www.gloucestershiremethodist.org.uk/churches-old/gloucester-st-johns.html

5. Wikitree profile for George NAYLER (1722 - 1780): https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Nayler-126

6. Wikitree profile for Joshua NAYLER (abt 1683 - 1750): https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Nayler-127

7. Source for Joshua's burial: "Ancestry.com. Gloucestershire, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1813 [database on-line]."

8. The (potentially incorrect) marriage, included on many Ancestry pedigrees, is from the "Ancestry.com. Westminster, London, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1558-1812 [database on-line]", as well as appearing in the "Ancestry.com. England, Select Marriages, 1538-1973 [database on-line]."

9. The Cottingham marriage is in the "Yorkshire Marriages" and the "Yorkshire, Archbishop Of York Marriage Licences Index, 1613-1839" on FindMyPast

10. The reliability of Autosomal DNA testing: https://isogg.org/wiki/Autosomal_DNA

DNA progress - Ancestry Pro Tools and my NAYLOR/NAYLER family

 I have made a start on reading about some of the other bloggers' experiences with Pro Tools and found that the main feature they appreciate is the one that I think will also be the most useful to me - the ability to see how much DNA is shared between a specific match and those other matches that the specific match and I have in common. 

I was intending to illustrate this with some data from a few of my first and second cousins.  However, that post will have to wait a while, since a couple of recent new matches on Ancestry have sent me off on a sidetrack.  Since they are also good examples of how Pro Tools can help, I'm going to use the data from them instead.

So how does Pro Tools help?

The two matches happen to be a mother and son. How do I know that?  Because Pro Tools tells me so:

 

The mother matches me by 47cM across two segments (unweighted shared DNA 52cM, longest segment 45cM).  She has a family tree - but there's only one person on it.  The son matches me by 26 cM across one segment (unweighted shared DNA and longest segment both 31cM). He has an unlinked tree, with about fifty people on it.  

Previously, both of the matches would have appeared on my "4th cousin or closer" match list, since they both share more than 20cM with me.  But, when looking at the shared matches, although they would each appear when I viewed the other's list, I would not have been able to confirm the relationship between them, because I only had the family trees to work with. 

Whereas now, with the Pro Tools, Ancestry shows me the quantity of DNA they share between them, as well as telling me the predicted relationship.

A parent/child predicted relationship is the only one that (as far as I am aware) will always be correct and, as relationships become more distant, the predictions by the DNA companies become less reliable, since they are based on a range of possibilities for the quantity of DNA shared. 

But this information is still a major benefit whenever relatively close members of a family have all tested their DNA.

For example, in this case, having seen that the son is the home person on his family tree, I can immediately identify which side of the tree is the relevant one to research, in order to look for our shared ancestry, because I know the connection is through his mother.

If a match happens to have first or second cousins tested, and it is possible to identify where their common ancestry with the match is, then each of those generations back to their shared ancestor also narrows down the relevant portion of their family tree that I would need to focus on.

Without Pro Tools, I might not be able to identify such cousins - in fact, they might not even show up on the shared match list, if the DNA they share with me has fallen below 20cM.  But the fact that Pro Tools seems to show the shared matches where just one of us shares at least 20cM with them, means there are matches on the lists, which I would not have previously seen.

To illustrate this - based on the old 20cM threshold, only twenty-four of my matches would have shown up as shared matches to the mother.    Eleven of these share between 21cM - 25cM with me, five are in the 30cM - 46cM range, and five between 54cM - 59cM. Then the closest three share 78cM, 146cM and 250cM respectively with me.

The last two are my half first cousin, and a half 1st cousin 1 removed, so I recognise them and know where they fit in my family. The next largest, at 78cM, has a family tree with thirty-six people on it, including a Frederick NAYLOR in Hawaii (supposedly b 1870, no birthplace, and no death details given.)  Now, NAYLOR is one of my ancestral names, and it is relevant to the two higher matches, as well.  The unattached family tree on the son's profile also shows a descent from the same Frederick NAYLOR, in Hawaii, as the 78cM match's tree does.

But, other than identifying that these matches are 'potentially' connected to my NAYLOR line, and that the two new matches will probably connect more closely to the 78cM match, based on their tree, I don't think that I'd have been able to identify much more about them.

However, with Pro Tools, there are fifty-three shared matches shown between the mother and I, rather than just the twenty-four.  As well as her son, these include a predicted half-brother or nephew, and seventeen matches with a predicted relationship involving the term "1st cousin".  Nine of these, including the half-brother/nephew, would not have even shown up as shared matches to me, without the Pro Tools, since they share less than 20cM with me.

But they are all close enough to the new match that I should be able to work out how most of them connect to each other.  

A downside to pro tools?

Yes, there is a downside to all this additional information (at least, for me, and the way I work.)  

Previously, before taking out the Pro Tools, I would check on my new matches at Ancestry most days, in order to keep track of the number in the "4th cousin or closer" category.  If that total had increased, I'd view those matches first, check for any shared matches between us and, if there were any, and I'd already made some progress in identifying our connection, I'd add a note to that effect to the new match's profile.  Once any close matches were dealt with, I'd check through the other, more distant, new matches, looking for any that did show shared matches with me and, again, add a note to their profile. Since, without Pro Tools, the only shared matches had to be ones sharing over 20cM with me, I frequently found these, more distant, new matches did not show any shared matches with me.

But, of course, now that Pro Tools means I can see any shared matches that share greater than 20cM with the new match, even if they only share down to 9cM with me, just about everybody shows some shared matches (in a couple of cases seen so far, there's been nine pages of them!)

So, this makes the task of viewing new matches so much more time consuming, and I am going to need to modify my routine - perhaps not even checking the shared matches unless I have some clear indication that there's a 'potentially findable' link to them.

Returning to the two recent new matches…

As indicated above, based on both family trees and other shared matches, it seems the family share ancestry with me, at some level, through the NAYLOR family.  The NAYLOR line is one that quite a few of my matches seem to connect to. (I mentioned the NAYLOR cluster, "Group 1", in my post on 9 August 2017 at https://notjusttheparrys.blogspot.com/2017/08/ancestry-shared-matches-and-new.html.)

Some years ago, because of the number of matches in this group, I constructed a 'rough' family tree, on paper, predominantly derived from other people's family trees (with a little bit of 'fact checking'. :-) ) 

It has remained on paper ever since - mainly because, once I discovered a Herald at the College of Arms in the early 19c was a possible sibling to my line, sifting through the information to distinguish fact from fiction became much more difficult, since there is so much of it!

But now, with Pro Tools showing how my matches relate to each other, I think I will stand more chance of being able to fit my matches into the NAYLOR line, and actually confirm the links, than I was able to do before (bearing in mind that many of them either have no tree, a partial tree, or even an incorrect tree.)

So that has been my 'sidetrack.'  This week I have been entering all of the rough information into FamilyTreeMaker, the program I use for my own personal family history. I am now beginning to check the 'facts' more thoroughly, as best I can, before making the information publicly available on my Ancestry tree.

I don't know whether I shall be able to resolve who the parents of the Fred NAYLOR in Hawaii were - although the son's tree has his birth as England, I do know that other records indicate it was in Australia (and I think there's one record that suggests the USA instead).  There is a potential Fred born in Australia - and at least one researcher on Ancestry has placed the Hawaii Fred into that family - but there is an issue in that Fred's marriage in the US indicates his father was also called Frederick, whereas the father in the Australian birth was a Charles.

It is a common frustration, when an emigration causes such a break in a family line.  I am hoping that, by placing many of my DNA matches onto the tree, I will be able to develop, and test, theories as to where Fred fits.

But it is still a 'work in progress' - and there will be some caveats to the predicted relationships (which I hope to explain further, when I finally get that "1st and 2nd cousins" post written.)

In closing, I'll include the details of two monuments to the family, reported to be in the church of St John the Baptist, Gloucester.¹:

Epitaphs in St. John the Baptist's Church, Gloucester. 

On a large mural tablet in the south aisle : 

Sacred to the Memory of Captain Joshua NAYLER, 

who departed this life 14th Decr. 1750, aged 67 years. 

Also of GEORGE NAYLER, Son of GEORGE NAYLER, 

of this city, Surgeon. who died 19th March, 1750, aged 6 weeks. 

Also of the above GEORGE NAYLER, Esqr. 

only Son of the said Captain JOSHUA NAYLER, 

who died 12th Septr. 1780, aged 58 years. 

He married Sarah, only Child of John Park of Chitherow [sic], 

in the County Palatine of Lancaster, Esqr. by Frances his Wife, 

Daughter and sole Heir of William Osman, Esqr. and grand-daughr. of John Park 

Of Little Urswick, 

in the same county, Esqr. by Margaret Senhouse, his Wife, 

and by the said Sarah had issue six Sons and three Daughters. 

Also of JOSHUA NAYLER, youngest Son of the said George and Sarah Nayler, 

who died 12th Decr. 1787, aged 20 years. 

Also of EDWARD HENRY NAYLER, only Child of Richard Nayler, Esqr. 

(fourth Son of the above George and Sarah Nayler) by Harriot Howe, 

his First Wife, who died 6 Decr. 1792, aged 4 years. 

Also of CHARLOTTE MARY NAYLER, eldest Daughter of George Nayler, Esqr. 

York Herald (fifth Son of the above George and Sarah Nayler,) 

who died 4th Augst. 1794, aged 

Also of the above-named SARAH NAYLER, Widow, 

who died 31st Jany. 1802, aged 78 years. 

Also of FRANCES NAYLER, Second Wife of the above 

Richard Nayler, Esqr. Eldest Daughter and Coheir of Thomas Blunt, 

of Huntley, in this county, Esqr. she died 19th Decr. 1805, aged 35 years. 

Also of the said RICHARD NAYLER, Esqr. 

who departed this Life 6th Decr. 1816, aged 56 years. 

And of MARIA NAYLER, Second Daughter of the above George 

and Sarah Nayler, who died 28th March, 1821, aged 58 years. 

Below the inscription, on a sort of foliaged corbel, is a shield bearing the arms of 

Nayler, and on an escocheon of pretence those of Park and Osman quarterly. 

On another mural monument placed on the same wall— 

Sacred to the Memory of MARY, Wife of THOMAS NAYLER, 

Lieutenant in his Majesty's Marine Forces, and Daughter of 

Thomas Grimshaw of Preston, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, Esq. 

who ended her course of mortality on the 25th day of September, 1790, 

after having sustained with singular Fortitude and Resignation the tedious progress 

of a lingering Disease. 

Reader! if Devotion without pretence, and Charity void of Ostentation, if filial 

Piety and Conjugal Fidelity be Virtues which thy Justice would commend and Zeal 

would emulate: know here was an Example which might have claimed Applause and 

commanded Imitation. 

This is on a white marble tablet with an urn upon it: on a blue marble back-ground, 

of pyramidal shape, is suspended a small shield, Quarterly 1st and 4th Nayler, 2. Park, 

3. Osman; impaling, Or, a griffin segreant sable, for Grimshaw. 

If anyone can confirm that such monuments actually do exist, I'd be very grateful!

Notes and Sources

1. The epitaphs are given in "The Herald and Genealogist" Volume 7, pages 79/80, as part of an article relating to Sir George NAYLER, pages 72 - 80, which is available at https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis07nich/page/72/mode/2up?q=nayler