Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - chris_49

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 151
1
The Common Room / Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Friday 24 May 24 20:20 BST (UK)  »
Thanks for your observations. At least you have DNA and photographic evidence - I have little of the former and none of the latter, even though I have photos of some of my other great-grandparents.

I'll keep waiting and hoping.

2
The Common Room / Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Sunday 19 May 24 21:20 BST (UK)  »
Thanks very much for all your contributions anyway

3
The Common Room / Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Sunday 19 May 24 20:53 BST (UK)  »
Until I get another Manton or Gaydon match, I'm resting this line for now. My only contact who is a definite line from both has not taken a DNA test and last time I messaged her she didn't reply - to complicate matters she is also related to me on another line, though more remotely.

The Aitkens were long-time neighbours but I fail to see anyone who could be Sarah's father, and I have no matches. There are any number of reasons why Harriet could be "visitor" - she could be just visiting at the time of the enumeration, for the day. I worked the 1981 census and found people didn't understand the criteria even then.
 

4
The Common Room / Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Sunday 19 May 24 11:25 BST (UK)  »
I'm not convinced by your Aitken theory. Mrs Aitken had been a Tidmarsh, and there is no son before William after her marriage, just a daughter. Tidmarsh is such a rare name that it was worth checking to see if she might have had a son before the marriage, but nobody nearby.

(I actually wonder if Harriet being enumerated with the Aitkens rather than the much less crowded Hancox house next door was a fiction to disguise the fact that they had a heavily pregnant unmarried teenage daughter living with them, from the enumerator.)

But mainly because domestic servants had such a restricted life - generally just one day off a week, and that only for the day. The master or young master of the house being the father is much more likely, I agree, and I know of an example nearby, but we have no way of finding out where that was - not necessarily locally.

5
The Common Room / Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Saturday 18 May 24 19:46 BST (UK)  »
John Edward Weyman died at El Alamein in 1942. My mother married my father in 1948. As I said, I don't know any Mantons who I could ask to test. A first cousin has tested and although she is a Harriet descendant she has the same unknown father as me, and her matches don't give any significant information.

My Manton match is quite remote, I agree. ThruLines in its wisdom has tried to suggest we are related on her father's side in some way, but the only match she has with me is on her mother's side which includes the Mantons.

6
The Common Room / Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Saturday 18 May 24 19:27 BST (UK)  »
Harriet was "domestic servant out of place" in 1881 because - I suspect - she was sacked for getting pregnant. She was staying - hiding? - with next-door neighbours. I've often wished that those employers had sacked her just a little later!

7
The Common Room / Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Saturday 18 May 24 19:21 BST (UK)  »
Sorry if that's not clear. My mother's first husband was John Edward Weyman, son of Margaret Manton who was the half-sister of my grandmother Sarah Hancox. So yes descended from Henry Manton and Hannah Gaydon. I only wish that I was still in touch with my Manton relatives but sadly not, and none of them has taken an Ancestry DNA test (there aren't many of them).

I realise that this is all surmising but I have little else to go on. My Manton match has only Northants forebears apart from this line.

8
The Common Room / Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Thursday 16 May 24 16:22 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Milliepede on Thursday 16 May 24 16:08 BST (UK)
Quote
Personally, I'm not convinced that Samuel was the father of Sarah and twin Alice.

Me neither.  He would either have married her sooner not 4 years later or disappeared soon after she got pregnant if he didn't want to be a willing father. 

Couldn't there be links to other possible fathers out there somewhere  :-\

I don't think so either, but perhaps he was more mature and willing to take responsibility at 25 than he was at 20. Against that, he didn't acknowledge her.

There could be some other father out there but 3 years of chasing DNA matches on Ancestry hasn't uncovered him - most matches turn to be from other branches on my mother's side, like Hancox. There then remains the problem of how I am descended from those Manton and Gaydon matches.

9
The Common Room / Re: so why wouldn't he acknowledge her?
« on: Thursday 16 May 24 15:32 BST (UK)  »
Quote from: Ashtone on Thursday 16 May 24 14:07 BST (UK)
Quote from: chris_49 on Thursday 16 May 24 13:56 BST (UK)
Yes I have Sarah's birth certificate...

Are you willing to share the details on the birth cert? Addresses and informant are very helpful.

As Sarah is described as "step-daughter" on the 1891 census then it suggests she's not Samuel's daughter. Also, she didn't give a father's name on her marriage record. If Samuel was really her father why wouldn't she mention this when she married? It suggests she was not aware who her father was.

Personally, I'm not convinced that Samuel was the father of Sarah and twin Alice.

I'll try to dig out that cert. What I remember is that nothing on it was remarkable - father space blank. It was on Clinton Lane, aka Castle Hill,  in Kenilworth. I agree that Samuel was an unlikely father, and she herself was unaware, but those Manton and Gaydon DNA matches are pretty specific.
 

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 151