JONES and HENGLER (HANGLER) update

 This is the final one of three updates about the documentary research I've been doing on my own ancestry during the past month.  This time, it concerns my firework making ancestors. 

I've started looking at this branch again, having made the 'mistake' of mentioning to one of my friends about how some of my ancestors used to produce firework displays at the ends of circus and musical performances.  I'd forgotten that my friend is involved with our local family history society, but I imagine it's not a coincidence that I was later contacted with the question, "Could you write a piece about them for the journal?"

Initial 'panic' - do I know enough to write something of sufficient interest to the local members?  And am I sure of all my facts?  This is another family whose period of activity starts in the late 1700s, and they originate in Germany, so much of the story is second hand, and that is always a concern when it comes to the reliability of the information.

But then FindMyPast’s newspaper collection came to the rescue - while the family primarily lived in London, they did travel around the country to put on performances and, lo and behold, there are reports of them putting on events in this very area.  So I am hoping to create an interesting piece, just summarizing the family line and their wider activities, before using the specifics from those events to provide the local aspect.  

Who knows, some of the readers' ancestors might even have been at the performances!

I'm not going to write much about the family here now, but I thought I'd just mention some of the recent discoveries, which aren't directly relevant to the article.

The earliest known ancestor for this family line is John Michael HENGLER, who was buried on the 18th February, 1802, in Southwark, London.  There are almost seventy family trees on Ancestry for him, some of which now show a birthdate of 1759, along with potential parents' names.  I hadn't seen this information before, which comes from a database on Ancestry called "Germany, Select Births and Baptisms, 1558-1898". But, since I haven't investigated the details further, and there are other pedigrees that give his birth as around 1740, I won't be adding these earlier generations to my tree just yet.  I have my doubts as to whether someone born in 1759 would have been old enough to have served as a Lieutenant in the Hanoverian Artillery, and developed the skills necessary for producing large scale firework displays, before moving to London in around 1780 and setting up a firework company three years later. (But I could be wrong!)

It is often helpful to research more widely than just one's own direct lines.  Whether that is in the form of a One-Name, or a One- Place, Study, or using the "Friends, Acquaintances, & Neighbours" (FANs) principle of developing clusters of the people who were connected to 'your' people, these methods of researching can be very helpful in solving some of the more difficult genealogical problems, such as identifying who is who, when there are several people with the same names and ages, in the same area, or when individual records have insufficient information to confirm identification.  It's useful to build up biographical profiles of the individual, and to ensure you aren't creating a 'fictional' person in your tree, through a mix of references that actually relate to several different people.

But sometimes such research doesn't (immediately) lead to a solution - just to another sad story.

In the 1841 census¹, John Michael's widow, Sarah, aged 70 and now remarried, so under the surname FIELD, was living with her daughter, Magdalen JONES, aged 45, along with a Harriet JONES, aged 5.  The occupations of Sarah and Magdalen were given as "artist in fireworks".  Their neighbours were an Elizabeth CANNON, aged 30, with two children, Elizabeth aged 4, and Sarah, aged 1.  Also in the house was a Thomas NASH, aged 20, and a Henry CORBY, aged 40.  Elizabeth CANNON and Thomas NASH were both listed as firework makers.  

I had previously seen that some pedigrees gave a maiden name of "CANNON" for Sarah, but it was only when searching recently that I found potential confirmation of this, in the parish records for St Margaret’s Church, Westminster, on Ancestry, where, on the 15th September 1783, "Michael HANGLER" married Sarah CANNON.  So I decided to purchase the birth certificate for the one year old Sarah CANNON, to see if that might eventually lead to more information about the earlier generations of the CANNON family. 

The certificate showed that Sarah was born on the 25 February 1840. Her father was a William CANNON and Elizabeth's maiden name was NASH.  Their address was Edwards Place, Westminster Road, the same as in the census entry.  

William CANNON and Elizabeth NASH are possibly the couple who married in St. Bride Fleet Street, London, England, on the 5th June 1830.  Sarah CANNON's birth certificate did not indicate that William was deceased but, as I searched the BMDs and newspapers, I soon discovered newspaper reports of two accidents he seems to have been involved in, the second of which led to his death.  I also found a record of his burial in St George the Martyr, Southwark, on 31 Jul 1839, aged 30.

The first accident was in 1835, and was reported in several newspapers.  The following is from the London Packet and New Lloyd's Evening Post, 08 July 1835, available through FindMyPast.

I am reasonably confident that this is the correct William CANNON, since he is described as an artist in fireworks, from Westminster Road.  But I have noted that it mentions his mother being present, but not the fact that he was married.  (And it's a shame that the report doesn't give his mother's first name!)

The second accident, which led to his death, took place in 1839.  Again it was widely reported - the following being from the Blackburn Standard, 31 July 1839, available through FindMyPast.

Another article, from the Morning Herald (London), 27 July 1839, indicated that William CANNON had told his wife, after his admission to the hospital, that the boy, on leaving the room, had "slammed the door sharply after him, and that the current of air caused by the violent shutting of the door, blew a spark from the candle into some firework composition which was spread on a bench to dry.  The fatal explosion instantly took place."

Elizabeth must have been in the early stages of pregnancy at the time of William's death, since the articles only mention one child, and Sarah was born seven months later.  The reference to Elizabeth's brother in the article suggests that the Thomas NASH in the 1841 census might be that brother.

So that's one sad story.

There's a potential second sad story, which stems from a greater appreciation that "John Michael HENGLER" can appear as just "Michael HANGLER", and that it's therefore worth searching for  HANGLER entries, as well as "HENGLER", "ENGLER" etc.  

I'd probably always known this, at some level, because the baptisms of two of the children usually recorded as born to John Michael and Sarah HENGLER (Henry Michael, bapt. 30 June 1784, and Magdalen Elizabeth, bapt. 8 June 1788), as well as the burial of a third child, (Tobias Joseph, bur. 1 Sept 1786), are all under the surname HANGLER in the  "All London, England, Church of England Baptisms, Marriages and Burials, 1538-1812" database on Ancestry, with the parents listed as Michael and Sarah (ignoring the one record that has the father as "Richard" - despite the image clearly showing Michael!)

A search on Ancestry (UK and Ireland) produces 120 results for HANGLER, and on FindMyPast (Britain), just 44 results, so it is not a common spelling.  When I narrowed the dates down to an expected range for children to John Michael and Sarah, in addition to the known London events, I found a burial of a Barbara HANGLER, daughter of a Michael, in Hull, on the 31 October 1791.  Intrigued, I tried the HENGLER spelling, and found, not just the baptism of Tobias Joseph in London (8 Mar 1786), but also the baptism of a Barbara HENGLER in Nottingham, on 28 Mar 1790, parents Michael and Sarah.

The HENGLERS are known to have travelled around the country producing firework displays.  The later generations certainly performed in both Nottingham and Hull². 

Although I haven't been able to find any newspaper reports of them being in those cities, in those particular years, could it be that there was a fourth child, now long since forgotten in the modern accounts of the family? 

It would be interesting to know if the John Martin Turner Circus Research Collection³, which contains a family tree for the HENGLERs (along with a vast quantity of information relating to the family, and other circus performers), mentions Barbara.

Notes & Sources

1. 1841 census entry:  HO107; Piece: 1086; Book: 9; Civil Parish: St George The Martyr; County: Surrey; Enumeration District: 18; Folio: 10; Page: 13;

2. Newspapers containing adverts for displays of fireworks by the HENGLER family in Hull and in Nottingham appear in The Hull Packet 28 July 1807, and The Nottingham Journal 29 June 1838

3. Details about the John Martin Turner's Circus Research Collection, held at the National Fairground Archive, University of Sheffield Library: https://archiveshub.jisc.ac.uk/search/archives/2c11bc5a-26a5-343a-9fc2-dd1dfe2f420f , https://archives.shef.ac.uk/repositories/2/resources/10 .

JONES and SAUNDERS update (and possibly a little rant!)

 This is the second of my three surname updates for March.  This one was prompted by a query from a cousin's son, who is also researching his family history.  Our shared ancestry is on the paternal side of my family and the query specifically related to my 3xgreat grandparents, William JONES (abt 1809 - 1887) and his wife, Hannah, formerly SAUNDERS (abt 1814 - 1890) who lived in the parish of Llanigon, Breconshire.

Now, I've never properly researched this couple - like many of my 'non-PARRY' branches, the original research on them was carried out by my Dad, who started researching in the early 1980s.  Dad was a conscientious researcher of both local and family history.  However, compared to today, very little information was easily available and so he often did have to rely on (frequently paid) researchers for sources, such as parish registers and censuses. These records tended to be held in London, or in archives local to the relevant area.  Since my parents have now passed away, it's always been my intention to go through all their old paperwork, to confirm (or disprove) the details of our family, and also to develop the research further, particularly now that DNA testing makes it possible to be even more certain about connections.

But that's still on my "ToDo" list.

The details being queried were Hannah's birthplace (Ruhlen, Radnorshire, according to Dad's information, rather than Llanigon, Breconshire, which every census that includes a birth parish indicates), and the maiden name of Hannah, since the only marriage entry for those names seems to be in Bedwellty, Monmouthshire, on 29 July 1834, whereas there is another possible marriage of a William JONES to a Hannah WILLIAMS that took place in Glasbury, a parish on the border of Breconshire and Radnorshire, on 1st August 1835.   Since 'my' William and Hannah are living in Glasbury in the 1841 census, this later one does seem to be the more likely marriage.

But that doesn't make it the right one!

So, over last weekend, I went through some of Dad’s correspondence and found that he had obtained a possible birth certificate for my 2xgreat grandmother, Sarah JONES, back in 1994.  The birth at "Tregoid" (usually spelt Tregoyd), one of the hamlets in Glasbury, Breconshire, took place on the 21st July 1842, and Sarah was the daughter of a William JONES and Hannah, formerly SAUNDERS.

As I read through Dad's correspondence with researchers in the area, I could see that there were times when he doubted whether this was the correct birth registration.  But, eventually, he was able to obtain the birth certificate for one of Sarah's brothers, Lewis, who Dad had identified by working back from the details for an elderly aunt, who used to live with Dad's family, when he was growing up.  Again, the certificate showed the maiden name of Hannah, Lewis's mother, as SAUNDERS.  So I was reasonably confident that the mother's maiden name was correct but, just to add more evidence, I searched in the GRO for birth registrations of the other children.  Interestingly, some of the children's births were registered, but others' were not:

The children of William and Hannah JONES:

I have heard it said that, in the early days of civil registration, when the responsibility for getting births registered lay with the Registrar, rather than the parents, some people viewed baptism as an 'alternative' and therefore did either one, or the other.  It would be purely speculation on my part, to suggest that William and Hannah might have been acting under this impression, registering Sarah maybe because it was easier (or the Registrar followed up the birth) and then, not registering Jeremiah, possibly because the minister insisted on baptising both Jeremiah and his older sister, making baptism seem more important.  

I'll never know, but it can be interesting to ask "Why?" when we find variations in our ancestors' behaviour over time. 

Anyway, purchase of the digital image for the registration of Thomas's birth, also showed his mother's maiden name as SAUNDERS, and I haven't found another family in the censuses etc, whose children could account for these civil registration entries.

I also knew there was potentially additional confirmation of a SAUNDERS connection, based on a DNA match from 23andMe, who I had been in contact with some years ago.  They descend from a brother of Hannah - he, and Hannah's parents, Daniel SAUNDERS and Elizabeth, formerly LEWIS, emigrated to America.  But the shared DNA is only a 14cM segment so, although it is suggestive of the SAUNDERS link, it was always possible that we share other ancestry from the area, so I couldn't rely on the DNA alone. There needed to be documentary evidence, as well.

So, that was Hannah's maiden name dealt with - but what about that "Rhulen" birthplace?

I eventually traced that back to what appears to be census entries supplied to Dad in 1993, by a researcher in Gwent:

Now, it's apparent that the researcher has added some additional details (census enumerators can't usually forecast death and burial dates! ☺)  

But, knowing the format of a census entry, I think most of us would probably read the 1851 details as if the birthplaces have been transcribed from the census.

However, these are the relevant portions of the actual census entries, from Ancestry:

1851 census:

1871 census

Since the images might be a bit hard to read, working down from William, the birthplaces are: Llanigon, Llanigon, Glasbury, Glasbury, Llanigon, Glynfach, and all of them are in Breconshire.  

So, as you can see, the birthplaces that were supplied to Dad, as if from the 1851 census, for Hannah, and three of their children, are totally incorrect.

The age for Thomas in the 1871 details is also wrong, since it is 19, not 10!

Perhaps I'd be doing the researcher a disservice, if I had a little rant, about how wrong the information is.  Perhaps they only had access to an index of names and ages, and everything else was just what the researcher 'thought' was correct.  

But it is not clear!  

There is no indication that other sources were used, even when, later, Dad queried the information.  So, as a result, my Dad spent years searching for Hannah's birth in the wrong place! 

Of course, it’s not just individuals who make such mistakes - during the course of checking the records for this family, I discovered that some marriages in Grosmont, Monmouthshire appear on Ancestry as having taken place in Cwmcarvon, Monmouthshire. And some burials in Llanelli, Breconshire appear on FindMyPast as being at Llanfihangel Pontymoile. 

Is it any wonder that we sometimes struggle to find the records we are looking for!

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 

The ongoing search for my ALLEN ancestry

I recently returned to looking at my mother's ALLEN ancestry.  The research on this line hit a 'brick wall' some years ago, with an Edward ALLEN, born about 1786 who moved into London from Hertfordshire, probably sometime around 1840.  He appears in Lambeth in the 1841 census, with his wife, Sophia, and four of their eight children, all of them recorded as born outside of the county.* 

The connection back to Hertfordshire had been made (after many years of searching!) following the discovery of the baptism of Edward's son, John Prosser ALLEN, my 2x great grandfather, in the parish of Thundridge, on one of the LDS Vital Records cds.    

In the later censuses, once the family are in London, they never seem to put their parish of birth, merely the county, and, in several of the census entries, it reads more like "Herefordshire" than "Hertfordshire".  Hence the long search for where they had come from.

Having finally identified the relevant parish, I'd viewed the parish registers on microfilm at my local LDS Family History Centre. The register for John's baptism gave the family's address as High Cross, Standon - which is actually a hamlet in the adjoining parish to Thundridge.  Working through the register, I found the baptisms of the other children who appear in the censuses, as well as discovering the burial of Edward and Sophia's eldest daughter, Louisa, in April 1841, with the address recorded as Lambeth. So that helped to confirm the connection.

But attempting to take the family line any further back stalled with the discovery that there were two Edward ALLENs born around the same time - one Edward born 1785, son of a John and Jane, and the other Edward born 1787, son of an Edward and Ann - and no obvious way to confirm which one was 'mine'.  

ALLEN is quite a 'popular' surname and so, with other activities to deal with at the time, it was easiest to pause the research there.  Returning to it again recently, I first refreshed my memory by grouping the various entries, which I'd previously collected in a spreadsheet, into families.  John and Jane had four children between 1779-1785: William, Ann, Sarah, and Edward, with a possible fifth, an Elizabeth, christened with parents, John and "Jenny", in 1789.  Edward and Ann had six children between 1781-1791: George, Christian, Hariott, Edward, Richard and John Canfield. [Note: two spellings of this name, "Canfield" and "Camfield," appear in the records so, for any references below, to searching for the name, I will have checked both versions.]  

Since the two couples were having children in the same place, over similar time periods, it seemed possible that Edward and John might be brothers.

The John Canfield ALLEN later used the middle name of "Canfield" for his first two sons, and then the middle name of "Kilham" for two others, but at least three other sons had no middle name.  In view of the fact that my Edward also only gave one of his seven sons a middle name, that seemed intriguing.  But, since I knew that this John Canfield ALLEN was not my ancestor, I had not paid a great deal of attention to him before.  

However, this time, I decided to research him, since he was the brother of one of the Edwards who 'might' be my ancestor.  Following him through the censuses - I promptly realised that, in 1851, he has his brother Edward living with him!*  Maybe I saw this and didn't realise the significance before, or maybe it wasn't available then (we forget how many records the genealogy companies have added over the years).  But, since I know that 'my' Edward had died in Lambeth in 1849, this obviously means that I can now discount the baptism entry for Edward, the son of Edward and Ann.  

So, potentially the Edward, son of John and Jane, could be the correct one for my line.  

But how could I be sure? 

As well as searching for John Canfield ALLEN on the genealogy sites, I'd looked in the National Archives catalogue, since the combination of his three names was likely to be easy to identify.  There I found a couple of relevant references, for example "Henry Allen of Wadesmill, Thundridge, son of John Canfield Allen, farmer..." and a conveyance to him of land in High Cross, Standon.

Then I tried just "Canfield AND Allen" - that resulted in a reference to a Court Roll in April 1744, which was described as "Admission of Mary Allen, widow, under will and surrender of Andrew Camfield."

Since this item is held by Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies, I switched to their catalogue, where I found another interesting and very informative entry:

Title: Waggon and Horses

Description: (Formerly Gun and Catherine Wheel, formerly Gun), blacksmiths shop and yard; messuage abutting on its north side; 2 other messuages all in High Cross, copy will, Andrew Canfield of Highcross blacksmith proved 15 Sep 1741; copy will and codicil, Edward Allen the elder of Highcross, blacksmith, 29 Dec 1791; probate John Forster of High Cross, labourer, 1 May 1746; copy will, Edward Mason of Stanstead Abbott, cordwainer, proved 16 May 1788 (74)

Aha! Relevant names in the relevant place.  And, what was particularly interesting to me, they were both blacksmiths.  Because, although John Canfield ALLEN's occupation is generally recorded as farmer, or corn factor, the occupation of my ancestor, Edward ALLEN, was that of a blacksmith.  

Back on FindMyPast, I found a burial for an Andrew Canfield, blacksmith, in Great Hormead on 20 August 1741, which seemed to be the only one that fitted the Will reference.  Another entry among the results caught my eye - one, dated 1740, for an Andrew Canfield in the "Essex Wills Beneficiaries Index, 1675-1858"  Checking the details indicated that he was the father-in-law to the testator, a "W Allin", of Great Hormead.

The Essex Wills Beneficiaries Index is, as one might expect, an index of the beneficiaries in Wills - but there are a few 'unexpected' features.  It just covers Wills held in the Essex Record Office and primarily only lists beneficiaries who have a different surname from the testator.  The place given might be for the testator, and not the beneficiary.  Also the date given is the date of the Will, ie when it was written, not the date when it was proved, which could be some years later.  I found helpful information about the Index on the "Essex and Sussex Surnames" site at, https://essexandsuffolksurnames.co.uk/essex-wills-beneficiaries-index/ 

Having found the entry referring to Andrew CANFIELD, I then searched for ALLENs in the Beneficiaries Index and found the following, potentially relevant, entries:

BR22 383, dated 1731, testator: A Canfield [Standon] listing ALLEN beneficiaries of Mary (dau), William (son-in-law), and then William, John and Edward, all grandsons.

MR12 50, dated 1752, testator M BANGS [Standon] listing ALLEN beneficiaries of Jane (daughter) and John (son-in-law).

MR12 50, dated 1755, testator W BANGS [Standon] listing ALLEN beneficiaries of Jane (daughter) and John (son-in-law).

So, based on the first entry, Andrew CANFIELD had a daughter, Mary, who married a William ALLEN.  They had children, William, John and Edward.  Could the John and Edward be the two men in the "Edward and Ann" and "John and Jane" couples above?

At this point, several issues dawned on me:

• The marriage of Jane BANGS to John ALLEN (of Braughing), which, according to FindMyPast, took place in Standon in 1749, was not in my spreadsheet. Therefore my spreadsheet must be incomplete.
• If that's the John and Jane ALLEN having children between 1779-1785, then that's a long gap between their marriage and having children.
• Likewise, since Andrew Canfield listed his grandsons, William, John and Edward, when he wrote his Will in 1731, that John and Edward would have to be aged around fifty before having children, if they were the fathers in the two families I listed above. 

So clearly, despite the occurrence of the "right" names and occupations, the entries are unlikely to fit together in such a straightforward way as it initially might appear - which is why this is an "ongoing" search!

Next steps:

• Extract more of the parish register entries into my spreadsheet, widening the search to other parishes beyond my initial selection.
• Obtain copies of the relevant Wills, transcribe them, and confirm the relationships between the  individuals mentioned, as well as look for any further identifying features.
• Check out the tithe records relating to land and properties owned, and occupied, by the ALLENs to establish exactly who was living where.
• Explore, in more detail, the entries in the various archives' catalogues relating to land and property ownership.

The following is just a screenshot of a quick map, drawn in Google Maps and then opened in Google Earth, in order to show the relationships between the various places mentioned above.  The linear pattern is interesting, since I remember visiting an historic "Smithy" once, where it was mentioned that blacksmiths' workshops would often be along a main route. Had the family established themselves along a main route from London to Cambridge? [or is it just an artifact of how I produced the map! 😊]

* Additional information about sources:

1841 Lambeth census for Edward, Sophia and 4 children: HO107/1058/9/13/20/2387 (Piece/Book/Folio/Page/Schedule) Union Street, St Mary Lambeth, London.

1851 census for John Canfield ALLEN and his family: HO107/1705/570/1/3 (Piece/Folio/Page/Schedule) Plashes Farm, Standon, Ware, Hertfordshire, England

TNA Entry relating to the Court Roll: https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/2e9b8cb6-8ad3-48ac-98bc-c9b0d1636a79

Hertfordshire Archives and Local Studies entry about the Waggon and Horses: https://www.hertfordshirearchives.org.uk/collections/getrecord/GB46_CDESb_1_1_40_2

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/

52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks: Week 2 - Favourite Photo

(I think I'm going to be interpreting the week numbers loosely in this series!)

Week 2's prompt was "Favorite Photo." -  Tell the story of the people, place, and event in a favourite photo. Where did the photo come from? Who has the original now? How did you get a copy of it?

It's difficult to choose one favourite photograph, amongst all the thousands I have but, in keeping with my aim of working through my ancestors systematically this year, I've chosen this one:

These are my paternal grandparents, Donald PARRY and Elsie THOMAS.  The photograph was taken at a party to celebrate a special wedding anniversary.  It's the first in a series of photographs that gradually expand through the family, to include their children, children's spouses, grandchildren and then, finally, everyone who was at the party.  Including the piano player who, according to a story told to me years later, just happened to be someone in the pub at the time who was able to play the piano!

I don't think there is one 'original' print of the photograph - all of the main family members had copies.

In this post, I'm focusing on my grandfather, who was born on 3rd February 1904, in Mordiford, Herefordshire, the son of John PARRY and Rosina Louisa, formerly PREECE.  Donald was baptised on 17 April 1904 - I was rather surprised when I first found that baptism entry on the British Vital Records cds, as it was less than 100 years old at the time.  But thanks to that surprise, which led me to enthusiastically show the entry to my mother, and then randomly decide to search for one of her "brick wall" ancestors, we solved that brick wall of hers!  (I'll save the details of who that was, for when I tell that ancestor's story.)

Donald had one sister, Rosina Jane, who was born in Hereford on 5th April 1905.  Sadly, their mother, Rosina Louisa, passed away sixteen days after giving birth to her daughter.

One can only imagine what Donald's early life must have been like, having lost his mother so young.  Or how their father coped with the two infants, whilst also trying to earn a living.  I suspect other members of the family may have helped out, but actual evidence for what happened is in short supply.  Perhaps there were 'non-family' carers involved - there has to be some explanation for the anomalies I found in the local school records.  On the 3rd February 1908, Donald was admitted into All Saints Infants School but the school registers show his father's name as Donald Martin Parry, rather than as John, and Donald himself is recorded as Donald in one register and Albert Donald in another.

Although his sister was over a year younger than Donald, she is admitted to the infants school just three months after Donald, in May 1908.  Was this as a result of a difficult home situation?

There are errors in her school admission entry, as well, with the father's name recorded as Donald Martin again and her birth date entered as the 19th April, rather than the 5th.  She is also named Jane, rather than Rosina - but I do know she was called 'Joan' throughout her later life, so potentially this is not an error, but the name used for her from infancy.

One of my aims of following the 52ancestors series is to help me organise and record the information I currently have on my family.  But it also serves to indicate where more research is required. And clearly there is a need to investigate these errors in the school records further, if possible, so I have added an item to my Research Log, to look for any school log books which might reference the family and clarify the details on the admission registers.

I don't have any major concerns about the errors though, as the address for the entries, 104 Widemarsh Street, ties in with where Donald and 'Jane' appear in the 1911 census, with their names as per their birth certificates:

However, the 1911 census provided me with a mystery, which you might have noticed - where is their father, John PARRY?

He wasn't actually difficult to find.  What was more difficult was identifying why he was where he was - since he was in Hereford Gaol!

I'll save the full story (or as much as I currently know of it) for when I write about John.  But, just to avoid too much suspense, he was jailed on the 24 March 1911, by the Sheriff's Court, for 'Contempt of Court'.  And he wasn't released until the 9th December 1911.

Donald remained at the infants school until March 1912, when he transferred to the 'senior school'. Since he was only aged 8, I assume the 'senior school' was what we would now call a Junior School.  It was possibly "St Owens Council School" as, in 1914, Donald was awarded a prize from there, for regular attendance:

The book was Treasure Island and Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson (and purchased from C.E.Brunwell, Bookseller, Broad Street, Hereford, according to a little sticker in the back). I wonder if these tales of adventures inspired Donald, who later set off on travels of his own.

I currently don't have any further information about the family until 1918 - in November of that year, Donald and Rosina's father, John, passed away, aged 53.  It must have been a very difficult year for them, as their grandfather, Thomas PARRY, had also died in the February.  I don't know what level of contact Donald had, had with his grandfather, but it is possible that Thomas had been living with John and his family in the months prior to Thomas's death, although he actually died elsewhere. (This is based on the address given on Thomas's probate entry.)

What happened to Donald and Rosina after their father, John, died?

As far as I can gather, Rosina was looked after by an aunt and Donald was sent to stay with (and potentially work for) other relatives.  Almost five years later, in September 1923, Donald obtained the Grant of Administration for his father, whose effects were £30 14s 3d.  Then, in April 1924, he emigrated to Canada, in the company of a Rowland Thomas LEWIS.  We believe the two of them were on an agricultural scheme, but the arrangements are unclear - according to the Form 30a, Donald had paid his own fare across.

I haven't yet discovered when Donald returned to the UK, but he was here by February 1927, when he married Elsie May THOMAS.  Donald and Elsie lived for a while in Hanbury, Worcestershire, where they appear in the 1939 register. Later they moved to Herefordshire and then down to Cornwall, before eventually moving back to Herefordshire, and finally Worcestershire.

Donald and Elsie were able to come to my wedding.  We saw them in the months following that, when they chose some of the wedding photographs that they wished to have copies of. Sadly, Donald passed away before we had a chance to give them the copies.  I remember leaving the photographs with one of my aunts, after Donald's funeral, for her to give to Elsie at a more appropriate time.

It was one of their last 'days out' together.

Writing this has made me aware of how much information there is about my closest ancestors that still needs to be compiled properly - including any recollections of Donald and Elsie that those of us still alive might have.  The further back we go, the less detail we are likely to find out about our ancestors - so I think it's important that we record as much as we can about those we did know, and pass that information on to the generations to come.

Another potentially identified DNA connection

Isn't it nice when things just work out?

I haven't done much regarding DNA over the past month or so, due to other activities.  But I have tried to keep up with the "new" events, such as the MyHeritage changes.  I'll write more about my results at that site at another time - this post is about an Ancestry find.

Late last night, (probably too late, I should have been on my way to bed, but you know that thought, "I'll just check one more thing" 🙂) I decided to look at how many '4th cousin and closer' matches I have on Ancestry.  I thought it would probably be 81, which is what it went up to a week ago. But the numbers have been increasing more rapidly recently, with five new matches in that category since the beginning of the year, so I am ever hopeful of an increase.

The total was 82!

I quickly searched for the new match -  no tree and only a 'good' confidence level, with 22.7 centimorgans shared across 3 DNA segments.  That could mean three segments at about 7.5cM each, or it could be one longer segment and a couple of smaller ones.  I won't know unless they transfer their data to another site.  Still, it would be worth following up when I get time.

But then I looked for any shared matches.  Often there are none, as shared matches only show for matches in the "4th cousin and closer" category so, if this match also matches some of my more distant matches, the more distant ones won't show up on this person's profile.  But, this time, there was one shared match shown, predicted 'high confidence', with 38cM shared across 2 DNA segments.  And with a tree of eleven people.

I keep a running total of the numbers of matches I have, as well as noting the names of new matches and anything interesting about them (like whether they have a family tree, or a surname in common with me). So I could tell that the shared match had appeared on the 9th of January and, at that time, was not showing a family tree.  So I am fortunate in that it looks like they are interested in finding out more about their ancestry, as they have taken the trouble to add some family details.

There were two surnames in common with me, LEWIS in Wales and ALLEN in London.  The Welsh one was not in one of "my" counties, so I took a closer look at the ALLEN first.

There were no dates, just the location for the one female ALLEN's birth in London.  But her marriage was shown, so that gave me her husband's name.  Armed with that information, I was able to identify their marriage, in 1926, on Ancestry.  London records are well represented on the site so I didn't just find the civil registration index but also an image of the actual parish register.  That gave me the bride's father's details, Herbert Henry ALLEN, a poulterer.  As the bride's age was shown on the certificate, it didn't take long to find the family in the 1911 census, Herbert Henry (33), with wife, Ada (32), and children, Edward (12), Florence (11), Herbert Henry (10), Frederick (7), Joseph (6), Dorothy Violet (5), Cyril James (4), Bessie Maud (3) and Frank Reuben (1).  From there I checked the 1901 census, which showed Herbert and Ada, along with the two older children.  Herbert's birthplace was Lambeth in both censuses.  Ada's and the children's varied from Lambeth to Brixton and Stockwell, but these are fairly closely connected areas in south west London, and all familiar from my own family.

The next step was to identify the marriage of Herbert Henry ALLEN to Ada - I used FreeBMD for that and found that the most probable entry was in September 1898, in Camberwell.  Back to Ancestry to search for the church records.  Yes, again the entry was there - Herbert Henry ALLEN, aged 20, married Ada SPRINKS on September 12, 1898.  Herbert's father was a John ALLEN, Perambulator Maker.

Now that's exciting - because my John Prosser ALLEN, snr, was also a perambulator maker. And, on February 10th, 1878, my John, with his wife, Sarah, christened their son, Herbert Henry ALLEN!

Obviously, I need to continue to work through the details, and check for my John and Sarah in records such as the censuses, to make sure their Herbert is with them, or not, as appropriate, and that there's no evidence to suggest this isn't the right connection to my DNA match.  I also need to contact the shared match who appeared on my list yesterday, to confirm whether or not they connect to the same family line.  And, of course, it would be great if both matches transferred their raw data to one of the other DNA sites, so that we can check exactly where we match on the DNA.  That would also mean I could look for more evidence, for or against the connection, amongst my other DNA matches.

ALLEN is a fairly common surname, so I don't follow up general references to it on my DNA matches' surname lists - but, who knows, if these two matches do transfer their data, perhaps there'll be others matching over the same segments and with the same surname.  I'd certainly be following those up then!

Just going back to the quantity of DNA shared - 38cM is the average for 4th cousins (based on Blaine Bettinger's Shared cM Project*) whereas we actually appear to be 3rd cousins.  So the shared DNA is a bit on the low side, but well within the range.  The match with 22.7cM could be more distant, but I am hopeful that they will still be within the range of my genealogy!

(And I did eventually get to bed last night - although it was 'today' rather than yesterday!)


*
Blaine Bettinger's Shared cM Project - https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/
Interactive Tool by Jonny Perl - https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcm

52 ancestors in 52 weeks - Week 1 - Start

"Let's start at the very beginning..."

Perhaps I am being a little unimaginative, but I'm going to take several of Amy's suggested starting points and make my first "52 ancestors" post about myself.  After all, we're always advised to begin our family history with ourselves, and I am the "Home Person" on my Ancestry public tree.

But then again, I am not actually one of my own ancestors - so I'm also going to include my parents in this post.  Although they are both deceased, it still seems too close to publish much online about them, from a privacy point of view, so covering all three of us at once means I can then move on to the more distant ancestors, knowing I have at least mentioned us all in the series.

For those who don't know, the "52 Ancestors in 52 Weeks" is a series of weekly prompts, produced by Amy Johnson Crow, aimed at helping genealogists share their research about their ancestors.  I did consider taking part in the series some years ago, when I began the Genealogy Do-over. At the time, I'd recently acquired all of my parents' family history records and I was planning to work through them, starting with myself, in order to confirm, and add to, Mum and Dad's research.

Unfortunately, I got "bogged down" after about week 6 of the Do-over, and never started the actual "family history" tasks (although I learnt a lot about tools and techniques during those first few weeks, which definitely came in handy for some of the other activities I had going on then!)  You can find my 'Do-Over' posts earlier in this blog.  My more recent posts here (if you can call them "recent"!) have related to my DNA research.  Once again this is something that I find easy to get bogged down with, as DNA can rapidly become complicated, especially for those of us who are not particularly 'technologically minded' and who have to work hard at understanding what all the various tools can do. 

But one of the things I have learnt, in all the years since first taking a DNA test, is that family history is important!  DNA alone will not produce all the answers.  It needs to be combined with genealogy - so hopefully, this year will be the year when I really feel I demonstrate some proper "genetic genealogy"!

Anyway, back to my "start".

Obviously my parents were present - and they continued to be responsible for many of my "starts" in life. Particular memories for me include my first driving experiences - steering an old Bedford van, whilst sitting on Dad's lap (I couldn't reach the pedals!) and, as soon as I was legally old enough to drive, giving Mum a fright when I turned a corner rather abruptly, after she'd bravely allowed me to drive her car on a disused airfield.  Mum and Dad were both responsible for my enjoyment of gardening - I have many happy memories of visits to garden centres, and certain plants will forever be associated with particular experiences involving my parents.  They were also both responsible for my interest in photography, another of their joint hobbies.  A camera was passed down to me when I was merely six or seven and, again, specific memories are intrinsically linked with the two of them, such as photographing lightning in Singapore, and doing our own developing and printing at home.

Of course, the combination of these two hobbies does have its downside, as I now have thousands of photographs of flowers to deal with!

     

Mum was creative - I didn't inherit any of her musical skills but I like to think that some of her practical side has rubbed off on me, for general handicrafts and (potentially!) model making.  Dad was also practical but more studious. He was responsible for my interest in archaeology - I remember the two of us watching Mortimer Wheeler on television when I was a teenager.  Dad was also the one who began our family history research, back in the early 1980s. 

And he was the one who first mentioned DNA to me, around the year 2000, asking me if I knew anything about it. By then I had begun researching and was concentrating on our surname of Parry, since that was the one Dad had got stuck on and Mum and Dad were both working on all of the other branches.  One of my regrets is that my response was to say, no, I didn't know about DNA and didn't see how it could be used with a multiple origin surname like ours. 

If only I had asked what had he read and did he want to do it.......

Dad passed away within a year of that conversation.  Fortunately for me, seven years later, when I had finally learnt a bit about DNA, another male relative was willing to take a Y-DNA test.  But what a missed opportunity, to have been in there right in the early days of genetic genealogy.  Who knows what situation my DNA surname research would have been in now if I had acted differently?

But there's no point looking back at what might have been.  I'm what's known as a "RAF BRAT", so am fairly used to moving on without allowing regrets to build up.  And I am so grateful for the wealth of experiences my parents gave me, and for the treasures I still have to explore, within their research, as I begin this year's journey to increase my knowledge about all of my ancestors.

 
References
Amy Johnson Crow - https://www.amyjohnsoncrow.com/52-ancestors-in-52-weeks/