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 - melba_schmelba

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 110
The Common Room / Re: Permission from parents to marry under 21 - church only?
« on: Monday 17 January 22 11:35 GMT (UK)  »
Yes it did apply to civil marriage, but it was a complex mix of canon law, the 1753 Marriage Act and the 1836 Marriage Act (sec 3 of each).

Read Rebecca Probert's book on marriage law for genealogists for the detail of what might be valid/invalid/void etc.
Thanks all :), yes I see that the 1836 act did proclaim

"and where either of the Parties, not being a widower or widow, shall be under the age of Twenty-one Years, that such Marriage is intended, with the consent of the person or persons whose consent to such Marriage is required by law, or that there is no person having authority to give such consent: "

However, I suppose none of that allows for the person simply fibbing about being of age when they weren't. I wonder, could a marriage be retrospectively be declared null and void in that case?

The Common Room / Permission from parents to marry under 21 - church only?
« on: Sunday 16 January 22 19:25 GMT (UK)  »
After civil marriage came in in 1837, did a person still need parental permission to marry under the age of 21, or did that only apply to marriages in the Church of England?

Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: MyHeritage and the Scandinavian connection
« on: Friday 14 January 22 11:53 GMT (UK)  »
Thanks for that, makes good sense and is clear to understand.

Another of my (known) high matches has tested with MH and also uploaded from Ancestry and the results (in terms of matches and triangulation), as you say, have some significant differences between the two kits.

It's when Ancestry says I match someone with 100% Scandi ethnicity that I really start to wonder but even Ancestry isn't infallible, is it?
How large is the match? Ancestry have changed chips but not for quite a while I think, and obviously they don't accept uploads. I did find that there was a small amount of Huguenot immigration to Denmark and even smaller to Sweden so that may account for some genuine UK/Ireland matches. The other alternative is you may have Orcadian ancestry, which as a probably quite homogenous population with a large % of Norwegian ancestry may seem to be connected closer in time to other Norwegians due to the same genes continually being reinforced.

Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: MyHeritage and the Scandinavian connection
« on: Friday 14 January 22 11:26 GMT (UK)  »
Just resurrecting this thread because MH has surpassed itself and produced a match at 47cM over 2 segments whose ethnicity is 97.6% Scandinavian (the remainder is Irish/Scots/Welsh) and whose tree is Swedish back to the 1750s. Could it mean one of my Irish/Scots/Welsh ancestors nipped over there back in the day? Really foxed by it  ???

None of the shared matches triangulate, either.
I think it's explained by the low overlap problem Flemming, which means imputation is being used i.e. computer guessing, to try and fix the problem, that MyHeritage accepts many different DNA companies' kits which use different chips, and have used different chips in the past, and MyHeritage itself has used a different chip in the past. I found the same problem on GEDMATCH, but it may be worse there as GEDMATCH is fixed to a certain group of SNPs that corresponded to the old FamilyTree DNA test kit, which no longer exists! What I found that means is, if you upload a kit from 23andme since 2017, FTDNA/MyHeritage made since 2019, that all use the GSA chip, you will probably get a very high percentage of false matches as it is such a low overlap to the original chip that GEDMATCH used as the basis for the database. I don't know if MyHeritage use such a fixed sized database or allow for expansion as the new chips came along - they may do since MyHeritage itself uses the new GSA chip.

Not me but my cousin's wife has just celebrated her 90th birthday. Her father was born in 1869. His father was born in 1826. And his father was born in 1789.
Interesting, so her father was about 62 when she was born, his father, 43 when he was born, and his father 37. So only one father very much above the normal parental age. Well, that just pips Jebber who has two b. 1794 & 1798, but technically your cousin's wife is not a Rootschatter so Jebber still gets the Rootschatter accolade :D.

The Common Room / Re: 1921 census
« on: Monday 10 January 22 12:55 GMT (UK)  »
This tells you how to report transcription errors without having purchased the transcript.
Very useful thanks.

As I understand it, the American President John Tyler born 1790 still has a grandson living.  :)

Yes, he does.
Ah, thanks maddy and Erato, so it IS possible :). But the conditions there are so unusual, two fathers in successive generations having children in their 60s and 70s, it must be very very rare.

Yes, two great grandparents born in the 1700s

My father was born 1886, his parents
My paternal grandfather was born in 1836, his parents in 1803 and 1794.
My paternal grandmother was born in 1845, her parents in 1798 and 1810.

Both my father and I were from second marriages so I was born over a hundred years after my grandfather.  My mother was twenty years younger than my father, so my great grandparents on the maternal side were not born until the mid 1850s,  more than fifty years after my paternal great grandparents.

I should add that I am very much alive and a long way from my centenary, as are all my class mates from my school days.  ;D
Wow, Jebber, I think you are the Rootschat winner :D :).

Just curious, my mother has a great grandfather born in 1813, and I realized that might be a record in  my entire family tree, or the family trees of anyone I know of, even older relatives, living. Made possible by her father, grandfather and great grandfather all having children in their mid 40s. Can anyone beat it..or a grandparent, surely not :o?!!!

18th century - that's the 1700s.

I am living,  and all four of my grandparents were born in the 1800s, and are, of course, deceased.  All died in the 1900s in New South Wales.   So their parents would be my great grandparents.  Yes, all eight of my great grandparents were born in NSW in the 1800s.

My older brother was born in NSW in the 1930s and his youngest son was born in NSW in the first decade of this millenium.  :) 

Oh yes I know 1700s is 18th century, I just wondered if it is possible anyone does have one born then, I think it is just about possible but would require two very old fathers in their 60s and another in their 30s or 40s, or maybe someone in their 100s + now with older than average forebears. Do any of your great grandparents beat my Mum's great grandfather's 1813 birthdate :)?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 ... 110