Author Topic: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather  (Read 539 times)

Offline LMFAO

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather
« Reply #9 on: Thursday 09 July 20 18:20 BST (UK) »
Yes- that’s her
If William was in fact her grandfather rather than her father is it then possible he may have been Ruth Verriers brother?

Offline Flemming

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather
« Reply #10 on: Thursday 09 July 20 18:24 BST (UK) »
Her age is recorded as 45 years at GRO as well. So perhaps she is the same Jane Verrier bp to mother Ann in 1816.

Offline Flemming

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather
« Reply #11 on: Thursday 09 July 20 19:06 BST (UK) »
Quote
If William was in fact her grandfather rather than her father is it then possible he may have been Ruth Verriers brother?

Yes, or Jane's mother Ann could be Ruth's sister.

I've now found more bps to John and Betty Verrier, from 1775 to 1793, all North Curry except for two in Creech - William 1783 and Ann 1786.

I can't find any further records for daughter Rose bp 1775. It may help if the local research organisation could provide a scan of the original image to see if it could be Ruth.

Ann bp 1786 could be the mother of Jane Verrier bp 1816, although I haven't looked for a marriage, burial or census entry for this Ann.

John Verrier married Betty Dwelly 1774 North Curry. It might be worth you and your match searching your list of matches for Dwelly in Somerset to see if anything comes up for the name.


Offline LMFAO

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather
« Reply #12 on: Thursday 09 July 20 19:24 BST (UK) »
Thank you so much for your help and all of the leads you have given me - very much appreciated .
You have given me much more to investigate. :)

Offline LMFAO

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather
« Reply #13 on: Thursday 09 July 20 19:56 BST (UK) »
Flemming - you are amazing!!

I have just checked my DNA matches for Dwelly .

I have a match of 12cms across 1 segment.
They have John Verrier marrying Betty Dwelly


Interestingly In total I have 5 DNA matches for Dwelly
the other four are all in Plymouth Massachusetts.

 

Offline LMFAO

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather
« Reply #14 on: Thursday 09 July 20 20:12 BST (UK) »

Flemming - you are amazing!!

I have just checked my DNA matches for Dwelly .

I have a match of 12cms across 1 segment.
They have John Verrier marrying Betty Dwelly


I can't find any further records for daughter Rose bp 1775. It may help if the local research organisation could provide a scan of the original image to see if it could be Ruth.

Interestingly In total I have 5 DNA matches for Dwelly
the other four are all in Plymouth Massachusetts .

 My next step is to try and find out if “Rose” is indeed Ruth.




Offline Flemming

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather
« Reply #15 on: Thursday 09 July 20 20:47 BST (UK) »
Interestingly, there's a bp for Betty Dwelly 1753 North Curry to Samuel and Joan (possible maiden name Derham - another one to check in matches' trees), then Ruth Dwelly bp 1758 Northy Curry to the same couple, so this could be who Betty named a child after.

If Ruth and Ann were sisters, it looks to make you and your match 5C1R. DNA Painter's shared cM tool has this relationship in the highest probability level for 27cM (56%). So far, it fits.

As you say, the question is whether Rose = Ruth and, if so, why a few years were added to her age later on.

Somerset Archives and Local Studies' website says they're planning to reopen in early August, or the Somerset & Dorset FHS may help in the meantime - their office is closed but volunteers are working remotely. As well as the bp for Rose Verrier, you could ask them about the marriage licence for Ruth Verrier and George Miller. FindMyPast has a transcript with three witnesses on it, but the original may hold more information than this. Ancestry has an image for this marriage although I don't have a sub at present to check what it is - it may be the marriage itself rather than the licence for it.

Who does your 12cM match descend from?

Offline LMFAO

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 131
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather
« Reply #16 on: Thursday 09 July 20 21:29 BST (UK) »
The DNA used was from my mother
This is the baptism it is hard to read

Offline Flemming

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 501
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Is this enough evidence to confirm 3xgrandfather
« Reply #17 on: Thursday 09 July 20 21:41 BST (UK) »
It does look like Rose. The third letter is similar to the 's' in Anstis on the line below. Other transcriptions have it as 'Mos.' but don't think it's that. You could post it on the Handwriting and Deciphering board to get other people's views. They may ask for a bigger section of the page to get a better feel of the handwriting style.

Another option is that Ruth was born to Betty Dwelly before the marriage to John Verrier. Betty would have been 17 or 18 if Ruth's YOB 1770/1 is correct. It still leaves the question of what happened to 'Rose'.