Advice please on which test to do to maybe break down my brick wall.

[Mart 'n' Al]

I'm 50 pages into "Family Tree Guide to DNA Testing and Genetic Genealogy: How to Harness the Power of DNA to Advance Your Family Tree Research Paperback – 13 Oct 2016 by Blaine T. Bettinger  (Author).

It has a chapter on choosing a test, but I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to get maximum value out of their results.  It is very readable.

Martin

[carol8353]

My great grandma was born in Cheshire,on all 6 censuses it says a different place,including one of them even saying London!

I think the enumerator had trouble reading his own writing,don't forget he would have been doing this in half light of a candle,no brightly lit rooms with electric light!

Carol

[sugarfizzle]

1881 census shows both children as British Subjects, which possibly rules out Mary's ancestors as coming from France, which should make things easier.

Regards Margaret

[carol8353]

There is a school admission that gives Mary's DOB as 6 Jun 1875, but I can't find a birth for her that fits that date. Is the 1861 Croydon marriage the right one,with Mary's maiden name being Fuller?

It seems to be the only one to a Mary?

[Braytons]

1881 census shows both children as British Subjects, which possibly rules out Mary's ancestors as coming from France, which should make things easier.

Regards Margaret

Thank you Margaret

Yes I remember noticing the  B.S. "British Subjects".  I felt it looked like it had been added later by a different hand.  I wish I knew more about the process of the Census.  For example did the householder or enumerator fill in the original form.  The form we see is a fair copy I presume?

Braytons

[Braytons]

There is a school admission that gives Mary's DOB as 6 Jun 1875, but I can't find a birth for her that fits that date. Is the 1861 Croydon marriage the right one,with Mary's maiden name being Fuller?

It seems to be the only one to a Mary?

Thank you

Yes that school admission is correct.  The Croydon marriage is not correct.  Mary's parents Robert and Mary were married in St Pancras.

Braytons

[Braytons]

For what it's worth, I suspect the 'children' may have been adopted.   Robert and Mary married 1861 and in 1871 are in St. Pancras with Mary's mother Sarah Yorke - no children after 10 years.  1871 Census taken on 2/4/1871 yet 'son' Robert is said on baptism to have been born 24/2/1871??

Besides son Robert bp'd 1875, and Mary bp'd 1876 there was another child in between: Mary Augusta Jane Susannah b.27/12/1872, bp.4/5/1873 St Pancras who appears to have died as plain Mary in Dec.1873.
 
I doubt very much that Robert (also known as George) and Mary ever left these shores - he was a cabman from marriage 1861 through to 1881 and in 1891/1901 the couple are still in St. Pancras but with no children.    Where are 'son' Robert Richard born 1871 and 'daughter' Mary Eliza Amelia born 1875 in 1891?   I can't seem to find these 2 after 1881??

All somewhat mysterious.

Annette

Thank you Annette

Sorry I think I missed your reply this morning.  In very quick time you have summed up the problem.  I too have been unable to find an 1891 Census for either of them.  And yet they both went on to have families of their own. 

Maybe thinking that a DNA test would cast some light is wishful thinking.

Braytons

[Annette7]

For what it's worth, I suspect the 'children' may have been adopted.   Robert and Mary married 1861 and in 1871 are in St. Pancras with Mary's mother Sarah Yorke - no children after 10 years.  1871 Census taken on 2/4/1871 yet 'son' Robert is said on baptism to have been born 24/2/1871??

Besides son Robert bp'd 1875, and Mary bp'd 1876 there was another child in between: Mary Augusta Jane Susannah b.27/12/1872, bp.4/5/1873 St Pancras who appears to have died as plain Mary in Dec.1873.
 
I doubt very much that Robert (also known as George) and Mary ever left these shores - he was a cabman from marriage 1861 through to 1881 and in 1891/1901 the couple are still in St. Pancras but with no children.    Where are 'son' Robert Richard born 1871 and 'daughter' Mary Eliza Amelia born 1875 in 1891?   I can't seem to find these 2 after 1881??

All somewhat mysterious.

Annette

Thank you Annette

Sorry I think I missed your reply this morning.  In very quick time you have summed up the problem.  I too have been unable to find an 1891 Census for either of them.  And yet they both went on to have families of their own. 

Maybe thinking that a DNA test would cast some light is wishful thinking.

Braytons

I really don't think DNA is going to help here unfortunately!   I doubt that Robert and Mary were actually related to each other at all, let alone to Robert (George) and Mary, their 'parents'.   What I find interesting is that on 1891/1901 and 1911 census Robert continually states he was born in Chelsea, whilst Mary always states St. Pancras (where they lived).  Why I wonder? Had the parents told him he was born in Chelsea, perhaps 'adopted' him from Chelsea Workhouse?   So unfortunate that adoptions weren't legally recorded before 1927.

Found Robert in 1891 - shown as a servant working as a 'Potman' - from his marriage in 1903 we know he was in the Army and a fairly brief service record records that he was a 'Potman' before joining the Royal Artillery (Gunner) in which he served for 18 years, and discharged in 1909 (at own request).   In 1901 he is in barracks at Woolwich.

So where was 15 year old Mary in 1891 I wonder? 

Sorry to be casting a dampener on your thoughts.

Annette   

[Braytons]

For what it's worth, I suspect the 'children' may have been adopted.   Robert and Mary married 1861 and in 1871 are in St. Pancras with Mary's mother Sarah Yorke - no children after 10 years.  1871 Census taken on 2/4/1871 yet 'son' Robert is said on baptism to have been born 24/2/1871??

Besides son Robert bp'd 1875, and Mary bp'd 1876 there was another child in between: Mary Augusta Jane Susannah b.27/12/1872, bp.4/5/1873 St Pancras who appears to have died as plain Mary in Dec.1873.
 
I doubt very much that Robert (also known as George) and Mary ever left these shores - he was a cabman from marriage 1861 through to 1881 and in 1891/1901 the couple are still in St. Pancras but with no children.    Where are 'son' Robert Richard born 1871 and 'daughter' Mary Eliza Amelia born 1875 in 1891?   I can't seem to find these 2 after 1881??

All somewhat mysterious.

Annette

Thank you Annette

Sorry I think I missed your reply this morning.  In very quick time you have summed up the problem.  I too have been unable to find an 1891 Census for either of them.  And yet they both went on to have families of their own. 

Maybe thinking that a DNA test would cast some light is wishful thinking.

Braytons

I really don't think DNA is going to help here unfortunately!   I doubt that Robert and Mary were actually related to each other at all, let alone to Robert (George) and Mary, their 'parents'.   What I find interesting is that on 1891/1901 and 1911 census Robert continually states he was born in Chelsea, whilst Mary always states St. Pancras (where they lived).  Why I wonder? Had the parents told him he was born in Chelsea, perhaps 'adopted' him from Chelsea Workhouse?   So unfortunate that adoptions weren't legally recorded before 1927.

Found Robert in 1891 - shown as a servant working as a 'Potman' - from his marriage in 1903 we know he was in the Army and a fairly brief service record records that he was a 'Potman' before joining the Royal Artillery (Gunner) in which he served for 18 years, and discharged in 1909 (at own request).   In 1901 he is in barracks at Woolwich.

So where was 15 year old Mary in 1891 I wonder? 

Sorry to be casting a dampener on your thoughts.

Annette   

Thank you again Annette

Where was Robert living 1891 when he was listed as a potman? I don't know whether I have seen that record.

I don't think I have the record showing he was a "potman" before enlisting in the army.  I do have some details of his service and his discharge. 

There are various Mary's around the country who I have dismissed.  Maybe it was a lost record.  Surely there is no guarantee that everyone was listed.  Just annoying she can't be found.

I think you are correct in thinking they were not related. If that was the can and if, and its a big if, I was to be able to contact a descendant of Robert Richard and they were willing to take a DNA test would they appear as totally unrelated to me? 

Braytons