RootsChat.Com
Old Photographs, Recognition, Handwriting Deciphering => Handwriting Deciphering & Recognition => Topic started by: Mike in Cumbria on Thursday 28 February 19 19:39 GMT (UK)
-
What do you think the ages of these Joneses are?
Ancestry has the parents as 30 and Martha as 16, which would make the parents 14 when she was born.
Mike
-
It certainly looks like 16. Is Edward's age 34 or 36?
-
And if anyone could check to see what FindMyPast thinks, that would be much appreciated. it's the 1871 census, Shotatton, Shropshire.
Piece:2778 Folio:87 Page Number: 3
-
Yes, 16 looks right, especially as Mary is so clearly 10. I was wondering whether the parents could be 36.
-
I'll have a look on FindMyPast. Have you got a marriage for them?
-
I'll have a look on FindMyPast. Have you got a marriage for them?
No, I'm trying to find one.
-
Interesting
30, 30, 10, 10 ???
-
On the image, Edward looks very clearly aged 36 and Martha 16.
-
Interesting
30, 30, 10, 10 ???
30, 30, 10, 10, would work if the girls were twins but I can see a baptism for Mary but not Martha. And it looks so much like 16.
36, 36, 16, 10 would work so much better!
-
Biggish gap between an 8 y old and a 3 year old.
I'd be looking for second marriage(s)
-
I think it is 36, 30, 16, 1
ADD - As Pauline says, I thought it might be Edward's daughter from a previous relationship, when I saw it
-
On the image, Edward looks very clearly aged 36 and Martha 16.
I agree. Surely Ann must be 36 too.
-
Biggish gap between an 8 y old and a 3 year old.
I'd be looking for second marriage(s)
Yes , that could be it.
-
If that were the case, Edward (born 1835) marries unknown, and Martha is born 1855.
Unknown dies, and Edward marries Anne, (born 1841) some time between 1855 and 1861 and Mary is born in 1861.
-
No Martha, without surname on the Great Ness baptisms for 1856 +/- 2
-
Baptism 1856 in Great Hanwood - parents Edward and Margaret. Edward a labourer.
Added - not too convinced about this though.
-
No Martha, without surname on the Great Ness baptisms for 1856 +/- 2
No.
Mary is there, 13 may 1861 and Andrew, 1st Nov 1863,
This could mean that Edward and wife 1 lived elsewhere. Or didn't bother baptising.
-
Baptism 1856 in Great Hanwood - parents Edward and Margaret. Edward a labourer.
Added - not too convinced about this though.
Hanwood is to SW of Shrewsbury
-
GRO give Mary and Martha mmn Davies Jun Qtr 1861 with same page no 6a 710 in Ellesmere Reg Dist of which Great Ness is a part.
Looks like they were twins and both age 10 in 1871.
Ray
-
Baptism 1856 in Great Hanwood - parents Edward and Margaret. Edward a labourer.
Added - not too convinced about this though.
Could be, but there were about 60 million Edward Joneses in Shropshire at that time, and a similar number of Marthas and Janes.
-
Baptism 1856 in Great Hanwood - parents Edward and Margaret. Edward a labourer.
Added - not too convinced about this though.
Hanwood is to SW of Shrewsbury
Yes, a bit too far for my liking but not impossible of course.
-
GRO give Mary and Martha mmn Davies Jun Qtr 1861 with same page no 6a 710 in Ellesmere Reg Dist of which Great Ness is a part.
Looks like they were twins and both age 10 in 1871.
Ray
That looks interesting.
-
Baptism confirms -
Great Ness 12 May 1861 Martha and Mary to Edward and Ann
-
GRO give Mary and Martha mmn Davies Jun Qtr 1861 with same page no 6a 710 in Ellesmere Reg Dist of which Great Ness is a part.
Looks like they were twins and both age 10 in 1871.
Ray
You were right. Martha was baptised on the same day as Mary - they were 10 year old twins.
Name: Martha Jones Baptism Date: 13 May 1861 Great Ness,Shropshire,England
Father: Edward Jones Mother: Anne
FHL Film Number:
502929
-
Why couldn't I have had ancestors with unusual names?
If you can face it, I'll post another Edward Jones query, with new evidence from a DNA match and see if I can get fresh eyes on a long lasting brick wall.
-
Don't remind me about my Joneses - got too many of those!
Any more info about 'your Martha' ?
-
Did you change your reply Mike - you said that your Martha was b. 1855 so this wasn't her ???
-
Don't remind me about my Joneses - got too many of those!
Any more info about 'your Martha' ?
Yes, she married George Leake on 23rd July 1878 in Burlton. her father was Edward Jones, labourer.
She appears on censuses from 1881 onwards up to 1911, with various children. her stated birthplace was Great Ness, which is in the district of Ruyton XI Towns.
My interest in her is that she appears, well documented, in the family tree of someone who shares my DNA, Jayne Leeke. The Jones name, and the village of Great Ness, lead straight to where my own research took me. I THINK I have found my great great grandfather, Edward Jones there, as a 6 year old child in the 1851 census (with a different Martha as sister).
Although my 1845 Edward usually put Ruyton XI towns as his birth place, he did once say Hopton, which is a tiny hamlet within the parish of Great Ness. I'm sure Great Ness must be the link between myself and Jayne - it would be far too much of a coincidence for it to be otherwise.
I just can't yet find a definitive link between Jayne's Martha and either my known Jones or my potential Great Ness Joneses.
-
Did you change your reply Mike - you said that your Martha was b. 1855 so this wasn't her ???
Sorry - this Martha, Mary's twin and Anne's daughter can not be the Martha I am looking for, ie the one in Jayne Leeke's tree, born 1855.
You've helped me rule her out though, which is always useful.
-
RE the Hopton P of B for your Edward ~
The abode on the Martha and Mary baptisms was Lower Hopton
-
RE the Hopton P of B for your Edward ~
The abode on the Martha and Mary baptisms was Lower Hopton
Yes, quite likely part of the extended family. Why they all had to be called Edward though, beats me.
The 6 year old Edward who I think may be mine is living with his Grandparents John and Martha Jones and his mother Jane Jones in Great Ness in 1851, His father, another Edward Jones, died of typhus in 1850
-
RE the Hopton P of B for your Edward ~
The abode on the Martha and Mary baptisms was Lower Hopton
I'll see if I can find an Edward and Anne Jones in the area on the censuses.
-
Nothing in 1861. Maybe they weren't together by then
-
Nothing in 1861. Maybe they weren't together by then
Could be missing pieces :-\
-
Nothing in 1861. Maybe they weren't together by then
Could be missing pieces :-\
Yes. They baptised their twins in May 1861, which is very soon after the census date. Maybe they were just in different houses on census day. I can't find a likely marriage between an Edward Jones and Anne Davies either, so I don't think these people are going to help me get to Jayne's Martha Jones or my Edward Jones. it's quite tantalising though - the link must be there somewhere.
-
They're half way down on the page after
RG09/1885/48/19
I stepped through but no info on top of page
-
They're half way down on the page after
RG09/1885/48/19
I stepped through but no info on top of page
Not sure how to do a census search using the reference in Ancestry. I'll see if I can work it out.
-
Strangely it has p 22 in top corner
Both 24. Edward b. Kinerley*. Ann born Great Ness
* as written!
-
Got them now. Adding Kinerley to the mix did the trick.
-
he has a John Davies, his wife's son in the household.
-
Well, I can add them to my collection of Joneses in the area. No obvious connection to any of my or Jayne's people yet, but they could fit in somewhere.
-
How much DNA do you share with Jayne?
-
How much DNA do you share with Jayne?
Possible range: 3rd - 4th cousins Confidence: Extremely High
Shared DNA: 107 cM across 3 segments
I know all my Jones relatives from my Great Great Grandfather (Edward, b 1845) onwards, so the link must be at least one generation back from him.
-
So I don't think she can be closer than a fourth cousin. However, if Ancestry confidently predicts 3rd to 4th, my guess is that she is a fourth cousin.
-
Martha (b 1855) is Jayne's Great great grandmother.
-
it would work perfectly if Jayne's Martha and my potential Edward in Great Ness were siblings.
However, that Edward DOES have a sister called Martha, but born in 1849 and visible on all censuses since then - so not the same person as Jayne's Martha.
-
Relationship could be cousin with a remove. Most of my (proven) 3rds are 120-170 cMs.
-
I'm back to pencil and paper.
As I see it:
Edward b1845 is my Great great grandfather. Martha b 1855 is Jayne's Great great grandmother.
1. If Edward and Martha could be siblings, then Jayne and I would be 3rd cousins. However, there is no sign of that. The potential Edward (age 6, in Great Ness in 1851) already had a sister called Martha, and it's a different person.
So either this Edward is not my Edward, and I have to look elsewhere for an Edward and Martha Jones b 1845 and 1855 as siblings, OR Jayne and I are not straightforward 3rd cousins.
2. To be 3rd cousins once removed, Jaynes Martha could be the sibling of my Edward's father.
OR My Edward could be sibling of Martha's father. (I've stuck with fathers, because of the Jones name but there are other possibilities of course, with different Jones families marrying in).
4. To be 4th cousins, my Edward's father and Jayne's Martha's father would have to be siblings (again with the caveat re the Jones surname.)
I'll mull that one over and see if anything jumps out at me.
-
So, looking at option 4, that doesn't fit well with my potential Edward, because I think his father only had sisters.
I'm fairly sure this is them in 1841
HO107 Piece:916 Book/Folio:1/12 Page:17
Kington, Ruyton Of The Eleven Towns
JONES, John 45 born 1796 Shropshire Potential GGGG grandfather
JONES, Martha 45 born 1796 Shropshire Potential GGGG grandmother
JONES, Harriot 20 born 1821 Shropshire
JONES, Edward 20 born 1821 Shropshire Potential GGG grandfather
JONES, Elizabeth 12 born 1829 Shropshire
JONES, Mary 9 born 1832 Shropshire
JONES, Ester 6 born 1835 Shropshire
This implies that either this Edward and his family are not mine, OR that Jayne and I are third cousins once removed rather than fourth cousins.
-
Have a look at :
https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4
and check your shared matches.
-
Have a look at :
https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4
and check your shared matches.
If I'm reading that right, 107 means there's a high probability of it being closer than a 4th cousin relationship.
Jayne and I don't share matches with anyone else in the database (if that's what you're asking). I feel very lucky that there was one person there to lead me back to Shropshire. All the other matches are either people I know about already and/or are related to a different part of my tree or don't have any trees up to compare with.
-
Not necessarily - the range is fairly wide. Snip shows the full relationships. The other side are the half ones - 2nd marriage etc., which I've not snipped.
modified snip
-
Interesting. I couldn't get to a chart like that, so I'll have another go, although I should probably pack in for tonight and come at it fresh.
EDIT: I see it now - I just hadn't scrolled down far enough. Must be tired.