James PENRICE (1867) - Birmingham area

[heywood]

I think you mentioned that you thought Joseph may not be James’ child.
I also think you may not be interested in Joseph but do you have these records?

1861 2154/142/15

Joseph Pendrice 16 yrs Lock smith b Birmingham
A relative in the home of John and Susan Davis

1851 2057/352/3

John Davis   60 yrs
Sussanna Davis   50 yrs
Sussanna Brich   24 yrs b Wolverhampton
Joseph Brich 5 yrs grandson  b Birmingham
Wm Brich 1 yr grandson
Charles Gevers son 14 yrs

‘Brich’ is possibly Birch.

I wonder if this is Joseph Penrice?

[heywood]

There are births for Joseph and William Birch with mmn Groves.

There is a marriage where James Penrice and Susannah Groves are on the same page.

Charles Gevers transcribed in 1851 could well be Groves looking at the page. He is ‘son’ to the Davis couple.

[The Geneal Geologist]

Thanks for your thoughts.

If we step back, we have no information at all about the actual names of the parents of James jr, only the indicated name of the child's GF. If the GF is indeed James (and indeed the correct relationship), then we are trying to find the couple between GF and grandson. The idea the father may be Joseph is based on nothing other than supposition for a boy who happened to be about the right age living with a James PENRICE in 1871, but was single.

I do like the idea that Joseph BIRCH is the adopted son of James PENRICE as James married Susannah GROVES (but as a spinster) in 1852, coincidentally also born 1824 Wolverhampton. How BIRCH got to GROVES before the marriage is unclear as baptism suggests her name is GROVES (d/o James & Susannah), i.e. 1851 indicates widow Susannah GROVES senior remarried John DAVIS and her daughter (who married as GROVES to PENRICE). Susannah junior was possibly in a common-law relationship with BIRCH (no m found) or incorrectly given as spinster on her marriage.

Charles GEVERS on 1851 would be GROVES.

That would explain "Joseph PENRICE" in 1871 who has no prior history.

This leads to the possibility that Joseph BIRCH is the father of James. We have an 1846 birth record for Joseph that can be investigated. Alternatively, James & Susannah had a son James in 1867 and he was given up.

This still leaves the question of who BIRCH is, who Joseph may have had relations with to create James jr and why the records leave much to the imagination. Not to mention why the descendant in Canada have Birmingham POPPLEWELL DNA. Perhaps a small step in the right direction?

[heywood]

There is also the possibility that Popplewell DNA may be from another source.

What I do not understand is, that although you have access to a birth certificate for James Penright with parents - Elizabeth or Sarah Carrington (you have mentioned both names) and Joseph you do not seem to think that is your James - is that correct?

Have you checked the birth for Susannah Penrice with parents of the same names?

It is very frustrating that young James and Susannah cannot be found (yet) in 1871 and Susannah is missing in 1881, if that is her marriage.

[The Geneal Geologist]

DNA is not really in dispute because 5 people have triangulated atDNA markers at the same genetic distance from Birmingham POPPLEWELLs. 4 descendants on proven on paper, including myself, and the genetic cousin I am working with to solve her ancestry. This person was adopted in the US. We recently found, through DNA, her half-sister she didn't know about. She also matches the group, hence we now know who their biological father is. His Canadian ancestry can be followed on all lines back to 1800 still in Canada, well before the genetic distance for the markers on the UK, except for one 7 y.o. boy coincidentally arriving from Birmingham in 1874. The DNA is important in that is a control and could have only been realistic provided by this child. The story in Birmingham is not straightforward, as we are finding out. Detailed matching of DNA actually puts the POPPLEWELL father on one particular branch, as one of four sons to Nathan POPPLEWELL. One of whom kept two families - his wife and his mistress. Two weren't yet married; two were. They lived in the same area of Birmingham as the GROVES/DAVIS/PENRICE families. Maybe one was "BIRCH".

Joseph PENRIGHT & Elizabeth CARRINGTON are the parents of a child named James PENRIGHT on the BC. I am not convinced, for the various reasons given in this forum, he is necessarily the same as James PENRICE sent to Canada. Too many options remain.

I quite like the BIRCH becoming PENRICE idea, but it doesn't help. I will pass on to the cousin to see if she will apply for the Susannah BC, which I almost sure will be the same couple as identified for James PENRIGHT. I would be happier if Elizabeth CARRINGTON wasn't a 13 year old girl for this scenario.


My thanks to everyone. I am closing this thread now to relay findings to my genetic cousin.