Quest for origins of John Haycock 1816 Oswestry - 1876 Wolverhampton

[brigidmac]

Following this with interest .

Impressed by your research matching DNA and paper trails

[Gadget]

Have now found your tree on Ancestry (given your location ), so will investigate what you have so far.

You'll be interested to know that we don't share any DNA!


Gadget

[TreeDigger]

@ Gadget

I share the following cM amounts with 'my' Thomas Haycock matches..

* by Thomas Haycock (1770) - 16cM and 13cM resp with 4x gr.grandchildren
* by John Haycock (1774) - 13cM with 4x and 9cM with 5x gr.grandchild
* by Robert Haycock (1782) - 54Cm with 3x and 13cM with 4x gr.grandchild

The 54cM match basically clenched the deal for me of theorizing I descend from Thomas & Mary as well, though that many matches, even being so 'small', are also a fairly good indicator. And with that many generations apart, anything larger -barring being close(r) relatives, is logical in my opinion.

And yes, I also tested with Ancestry, though the 54cM match is via My Heritage. Neither my match or I could figure out how we were related, until I realized my tree was very probably completely wrong and came across the additional matches confirming I most likely belong somewhere in my larger match's tree.

It's been an ongoing quest since 1987, from finding my birth father and figuring out his family, to (recently) discovering my gr. grandfather's origins also being 'not legit'. John is the next piece in the puzzle. Like I said in an earlier post, this family's motto should be 'There Be Bastards' 

@Bridgid - Aww, thank you! 

[Gadget]

The link with the Robert descendant looks very interesting. Have you used the Chromosome browser in My Heritage and checked for any triangulation?

[TreeDigger]

My main match and I triangulate with just one of our mutual matches (20.2cM & 13.1cM), and their tree is fairly obscure. Also, I haven't really delved into digging it out further because, until recently, I was neither convinced we shared the same Haycock ancestors, nor was John my main interest

The triangulation seems legit at 13.1cM and over 6,000 SNPs, but I'll need to flesh out their tree to see where we connect.

[Gadget]

When I had a similar challenge with my grandfather's father, I looked at a small group of shared matches - ranging from   125 to 27cMs. I contacted one of them who told me where the family seemed to come from - which was the same village that I was born in. I then spent about 3-4 months redoing or creating their trees. The group all seemed to descend from the same family. More work led me to my probable great grandfather. Further work linked me to his descendants in Birmingham, London and South Africa, which confirmed my results.

I assume that you are using the same approach. I never take people's trees as accurate and always check and double check.
 
Painter, gives a wide range of possible relationships with 54cMs and the generation level has to be estimated :

https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4

There are quite a few other tools in the main site that may be useful:

https://dnapainter.com/

I'll see if I can find anything more about Robert but not very much is showing at the moment.

Incidentally, my grandfather was born in Oswestry of Welsh/Scottish parents.


Gadget

** It might mean that you have to investigate all the children of Thomas Heycock and Mary Lyth

[TreeDigger]

Yep, that's basically my own approach as well 

And I'm familiar with DNA Painter; their WATO tool is the one that helped me finally find the real origins of John's son George (my gr. grandfather) by telling me my hypothesis was not only viable but highly likely.

It does look like I'll have to go branch to branch to find John. I do have an eye on son John (1774) as he has a son James born 1803 in Oswestry. Putting 'my' John (1816) in WATO as his son gives very good odds, just one place below the strongest hypothesis that isn't genealogically feasible.

It's a question of filtering out both possibilities & impossibilities, as well as taking into account there good be many reasons for John to try and obscure his origins.

[TreeDigger]

This is still confusing though.

Shared matches with Thomas Haycock & Mary Lythe descendants seem to indicate that I descend from that couple as well. However..

*John Haycock (1816) names his father in 1850 as "John, a gardener", apparently not deceased
*The 1850 W'hampton census has John Haycock/Heacock born 1781 Wheaton Aston, laboring gardener
*John (1781) is the son of Thomas Heacock & Elizabeth Farnell, Wheaton Aston/Lapley, mar. 1773
*The Lapley Thomas Heacock is approx the same age as the Shropshire Thomas Haycock

Which means I'd have to search at least two generations further back so the two Thomas H's could be cousins, changing the 54cM match from a 3rd cousin 1R to a 5th cousin 1R. And of course there's always the option that it isn't the Haycocks where I link in, but one of the marrying parties.

-EDIT-

Plugging in John (1816) in WATO as a hypothetical descendant of a cousin to Thomas Haycock (1743) scores as zero percent. So much for that hypothesis.

[Gadget]

Have you checked the trees of your matches to check that they are the descendants of the Hordley couple?

Add - often someone creates a tree and the others just follow!