The case of The Three John's - a genetic & genealogical detective story (Part 1)

[TreeDigger]

@ Murrell & Rena - Thank you!

Wrt Family Search.. the best way to prevent others changing your information - especially if you have done loads of research on an individual and are 100% certain the facts are correct - is to both add as many sources as possible and add a note (note section on the right) explaining why you are certain and/or that you're researching the individual.

This will result in FamilySearch adding a 'red notice' at the top which cautions others to not make changes before reading the note. Yes, I've learned this after much frustration caused by other people changing or removing facts I was dead certain about.

And FS does indeed start trees in the hope others will add to it.

[Biggles50]

A few months ago I was using Familysearch to literary search and noticed that there was a hint.

It was for my Grandfather, he had the wrong info, the wrong info for his parents.

His Father had a different set of Parents.

Totally U/S tree.

I corrected the errors and flagged the changes.

I’ll never use the site again for any tree data, searching yes, but that is all.

If one part of my own tree is wrong, then how many others are wrong?

Looking at others there seem to be spurious emigrations to the USA despite there being UK records of their deaths and burials in England

[TreeDigger]

I only look at trees for possible hints but will never use info without sourcing and double checking it. Because lots and lots of it is, indeed, completely wrong.

My main use of FS is the treasure trove of original documents, and even then you have to be aware of the huge number of transcription errors. Apparently a course in paleography (old handwriting) no longer is a prerequisite when transcribing anything pre-1900.

[Biggles50]

Transcription, I would certainly be useless at that.

I cannot even read my own handwriting.

[Kermit18]

Thanks Treedigger!

Am yet to do my DNA, though I think we are a match!
I just started looking at the Haycocks pre NZ, in Shropshire / Wales
(plus Holt, Wiltshire for the Harford side)
You have provided some interesting background to read.

This is my starting point (based on other people’s hard work).
James Haycock m Mary Lyth
> had son
James Haycock m Ann Owen
> had son
Thomas Haycock m Sarah Anne Harford
> had daughter
Sarah Anne Haycock b NZ m George Hudson b NZ
They left NZ for Vic, Australia
Sarah died soon after, in Raywood, Vic.
Cheers

[TreeDigger]

Hiyah Kermit, and you're welcome 

For starters: the line of descend you give seems incorrect.

1. Thomas Haycock (1743) & Mary Lyth
2. Thomas Haycock (1770) & Mary Stansfield
3. James Haycock (1803) & Ann Owen
4. Thomas Haycock (1829) & Sarah Ann Harford
5. Sarah Ann Haycock (1865) & Reginald George Hudson
etc.

It would be interesting to see whether any matches you have could further confirm my analysis of the Three Johns, but unfortunately the difference between a 5th cousin - sharing the same 4x gr.grandparents, meaning Thomas Haycock & Mary Stansfeld - and a half 4th cousin - sharing one 3x gr.grandparent, meaning James Haycock - will be minimal.

[Kermit18]

Thanks TreeDigger

I think I had my James' and Thomas' confused.
There is a large gap between my 4 and 5.
Though, I am pretty sure there was not another set of Thomases or Sarahs in NZ.
(in NZ bdm or Richmond NZ graveyard)

Thomas Haycock (1829 - 1901)
m 1850 NZ bdm #1850/288
Sarah Anne Harford (1832-1923)
Between 1850 and 1869 they had 9 children
>
Sarah Anne Haycock (1865-1896)
born NZ bdm #1865/33, died Raywood, Aus Vic bdm #7504/1896, age 31
(parents listed as Sarah Ann Harford and Thomas Haycock)
m 1885 NZ bdm #1885/445
George Hudson (no one called him Reginald, though he did have a son later by that name)
https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~sooty/genealogy/HUDSONFrame1Source1.html

I found the NZ paperspast very good to build an understanding on what the Hudsons were up to.
Setting up a saw mill in NZ, which relates to what they did in Aus.
It probably would not have much info on the 3 Johns.
I have about 6-8 illegitimacies to delve into from George down in Australia!
Though part of the temperance movement in NZ, their morals appear questionable.
I have not started on the Harford/Gerrish/Moody (Wiltshire) or Haycock/Owen/Stansfield/Lyth side in UK ... it could be a while. I still have other ancestral arrivals to Aus / NZ to ponder.

Appreciate your great work!
Cheers

[Kermit18]

PS: I have a DNA kit I've been meaning to send off for a while.
I will go ahead and get it done