Over the Target

Anyone publicly challenging BS regime narratives these days receives flak. If you are over the target on the FamilySearch Shared Tree clouds of Blue Hints appear onscreen.

A week ago, in Garden of Earthly Delights, I offered screenshots of two Robert Jenkinsons born in 1819. One was rightly the son of Thomas and Mary nee CASTLE and the other mistakenly so. After adding all but one of Right Robert’s missing children with Elizabeth COLE, I connected him with his parents. The two Roberts are now “brothers” – and the system has issued “Possible Duplicate Child” warnings.

For now, Wrong Robert will remain a child of Thomas and Mary. I have made just enough changes to enable me to put the other Robert’s headstone on the Shared Tree as a memory. ( I didn’t add Jane to the family he created with Elizabeth. The child’s name is inscribed in stone but I have so far been unable to find a birth, census, or death record for her.)

This representation of Robert and Ann BARWICK is problematic. It asks us to believe Ann was twelve years old when she had an illegitimate child, and thirteen when she married. It also shows son William dying in 1849, even though an attached census source shows the boy aged three in 1851.

There is a source for the marriage on 13 September 1846 and the banns (below). The absence of Blue Hints is significant. Robert’s death in Durham is confidently asserted but searching for a record on Findmypast (+/- 5 years) returns nothing.

The births of William and James were registered.

JENKINSON, William, Mother’s Maiden Surname: BARWICK. GRO Reference: 1847 J Quarter in OF YORK IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YORK Volume 23 Page 709.

JENKINSON, James, Mother’s Maiden Surname: BARWICK. GRO Reference: 1849 D Quarter in OF YORK IN THE CITY AND COUNTY OF YORK Volume 23 Page 672.

GRO Index

But after 1851 the family disappears. I have found neither hide nor hair of them after this date.

The Lucky Country

24,000 children

Australia Under Attack

Insect 38 · Fly

Possibly a Horse Fly, Pampletine Cliffs

More Gardening

Before bringing an outcast Robert JENKINSON in from the cold [L8S2-22P], I searched again for his children and found…

Previously, I had looked for a Robert born in 1819 +/- 2 years. My bad. But I am pleased to have this family to build on. When I have added the missing children I will introduce them to their paternal grandparents. That will be a shock to “the system”.

This morning I had a last look for missing children on the Shared Tree and found Robert the Second, born in the summer of 1855. When he was 19 years old, he married Elizabeth STEPHENSON. Though that isn’t quite how he has been presented.

The three-year discrepancy in father Robert’s birth year is a red flag, and the absence of the children’s grandparents is disconcerting but, yet again, it is the attached sources that confirm that there is something amiss here.

The contributor who attached three sources was clearly aware of the birth year difference but allowed this weed to take root anyway.

The second source earns flower status because the “wrong Robert” above will be made right by simply changing the birth date. The children shown in the screenshot seem right, though six more have to be added. The note added by the contributor isn’t quite correct, (“age 20 born 1854)”, and it doesn’t reveal that the bride’s mother in law was Elizabeth COLE. It also fails to point out that the Robert born in 1852 to Robert Jenkinson and Rachel HODGSON, died aged 9.

The third source is also a flower, being the Bridlington household of Robert and Elizabeth nee Stephenson.

It will take a few more days to fix the errors plaguing the closely related Jenkinsons of Filey and Bridlington – and to upload their several Filey St Oswald’s headstones to the Shared Tree as memories.

Clouds 52 · Filey Bay

Superdad?

I ended Friday’s post with a 1901 census screenshot of “wrong” Elizabeth STORK as Mrs WESTFIELD. The only birth record I had found that was a reasonable fit for her gave the mother’s maiden surname as ULLIOT. It didn’t take long to figure that this woman was not the mother of the future Mrs Westfield. Here is the birth registration of the besmircher of little Elizabeth Stork’s memory.

STOCK (sic), Elizabeth, Mother’s Maiden Surname: MAINPRIZE. GRO Reference: 1845 J Quarter in BRIDLINGTON Volume 23 Page 21

In most other readily available sources this Elizabeth’s calculated birth year is 1851. There is a record showing that she was baptised at the age of two that goes part way to explaining the six year discrepancy.

Elizabeth, daughter of William Stork and Frances “Fanny” Mainprize, already has a place on Filey Genealogy & Connections, but the information about her maternal grandparents there is minimal. I had to do more work to establish that, in reality, grandfather Leonard Mainprize was born in Flamborough in 1785. In a corner of the Shared Tree he is almost a quarter of a century older. And this fellow married twice and appears to have fathered seventeen children. I have put the two families together –

“Wrong” Elizabeth’s mother is child 8 on the right.

That John Mainprize should have been born in 1807 to both Mary Morris and Frances Vickerman is only one indication that all is not well here.

Leonard is apparently sixty-seven years old when his last child, Mary, is born. In 1851 she is described in the Census as a “house servant”, 23 and unmarried, living in Flamborough with her widower father. His given age is 65, not 90.

One of the FamilySearch Genealogies, from a partner site (MyTrees.com), has a firmer grip on reality.

If this mess on the Shared Tree can be cleared up, the relationship between the two Leonards may become clear – and little Elizabeth Stork can sleep in peace eternally when “wrong” Elizabeth is laid to rest in the right place and at the right time.

(I have just had a quick look online and the FamilySearch Shared Tree has been calculated to be 98% accurate.)

Beach 139 · Filey Sands

Arndale Slip

Re-arranged Marriages

A few days ago I messaged a contributor to the FamilySearch Shared Tree,and with David’s help the problematic PARROTT families have been reconciled.

Tom Parrott of Hemswell has had his marriage to Susannah GRAVES annulled and he is now happily married to Minnie HIDER. On the 1911 census form he stated that ten children had been born in the previous 25 years, of whom three had died.

The sudden emptiness in Susannah’s life was instantly filled by marriage to Tom PARRATT (sic) of Donington on Bain. I think David has already added to their family.

Because of the distant connection to Filey, through Emily Etta, I did a bit more work today on her father George, finding the marriage of his parents in Northorpe, a few miles from Hemswell.   George’s mother was 38 years old when she married and may have had a daughter with much younger Thomas Parrott before they tied the knot. I haven’t put Mary on the Shared Tree because I couldn’t find sources for her birth or baptism.

George and Elizabeth VICKERS have possible duplicate IDs linked to the baptism sof a daughter Elizabeth (MJB9-8QF) on 18 May 1859. Brother Tom was baptised on the same day, and firstborn sibling Sarah Elizabeth in May two years earlier. Alas, I haven’t been able to find a birth source for Elizabeth – and Sarah Elizabeth reaching adulthood and marrying puts a questionmark over Elizabeth and Tom being twins. I haven’t found little Elizabeth in census or death records either, so have not made the merge. Perhaps a descendant will find these Parrotts and offer a solution to this small mystery.

I took George Woodward Parrott from the other couple called George and Elizabeth but made up the loss by contributing other children and sources. Neither parent has ancestors on the Shared Tree, and only two grandchildren so far from their four girls and five boys. There’s plenty of work there for others to do!

Mark of Man 65 · Whitby Abbey

Rose window, north transept

A Confusion of Parrotts, Part 2

The parents of Emily Etta PARROTT have this minimal presence on the FamilySearch Shared Tree – but it is something I can build on over the next few days.

Making George Woodward Parrott the fruit of a union that had not yet formed is puzzling.

But I can make mistakes too and I must own up to tentatively marrying Emily’s brother Tom to one Annie SMITH, in Caistor in 1879. It was only the discovery of him at Thonock Hall in 1881 that has saved my blushes. He was an usher, servant to Elizabeth, Lady BACON. Also “living in” at the Hall was Minnie HIDER, a kitchen maid born in Belgravia, London. I had seen their names linked earlier in Free BMD Marriages. They married in St George’s Hanover Square in 1885. Their first two children were born in London but the family then moved back to the Parrott heartland. The births of their next eight children were registered in Gainsborough.

Minnie has a FamilySearch ID [LK4R-W1M] but her husband-to-be is otherwise engaged, so to speak.

The Tom Parrott tied up with Susannah GRAVES has a Hemswell baptism source attached and two census sources giving his birthplace in Donington on Bain, over twenty miles away. I must somehow free Hemswell Tom from this illicit marriage and give Donington Tom his real parents.

PARRATT, TOM, Mother’s Maiden Surname: POTTS. GRO Reference: 1858 S Quarter in LOUTH Volume 07A Page 501.

As for the third Tom who married Annie Smith… I think I’ll let him go. I have more than enough to do.

Stone 25 · Gravestone

A Confusion of Parrotts, Part 1

Reviewing my current list of “Stone People” this morning, I noticed that Emily Etta PARROTT was in need of a FamilySearch Tree ID.

This memory of her probably brings a smile to most people who notice the stone by the west wall of the churchyard.

Born in Upton, Lincolnshire, she was with Mary Elizabeth in Filey when the census was taken in 1901. They offered lodging to visitors at 4 Rutland Street.

Photographed this afternoon

That year, Emily was 27 and Mary 32. Some of Mary’s forebears were established in Filey before the end of the 16th century and it would be interesting to know how she formed such a strong bond with the daughter of an agricultural labourer from the other side of the Humber. The two women appear to have lived together to the end of their days, Mary departing first aged 91 and Emily following about fifteen months later.

About three years ago I found Emily’s parents on the Shared Tree, their record associated with the christening of their first child in 1856. Looking today for a more substantial pairing I happened upon Emily’s older brother George Woodward Parrott. Five years separate them, and both were born in Upton – but although they should have the same biological mother, George has been placed with  Elizabeth nee DOWLE.

This Elizabeth’s husband George died in 1911; “just Elizabeth”, mother of Sarah Elizabeth and Emily Etta, buried her George in 1885. The GRO Births Index shows her maiden surname.

PARROTT, Sarah Elizabeth, Mother’s Maiden Surname: VICKERS. GRO Reference: 1857 J Quarter in GAINSBOROUGH Volume 07A Page 629.

PARROTT, George Woodward, Mother’s Maiden Surname: VICKERS. GRO Reference: 1868 S Quarter in GAINSBOROUGH Volume 07A Page 713.

PARROTT, Emily Etty (sic), Mother’s Maiden Surname: VICKERS. GRO Reference: 1873 D Quarter in GAINSBURGH (sic) Volume 07A Page 722.

The confusion doesn’t end here. The eldest brother of Sarah, George and Emily – Tom – is correctly pinned on the Shared Tree with his christening source but he has been married to the wrong woman and misplaced geographically in 1881 and 1891.

This will take some sorting out. I hope to offer my “workings” in Confusion Part 2 tomorrow.

PARROTT, Tom, Mother’s Maiden Surname: VICKERS. GRO Reference: 1859 J Quarter in GAINSBOROUGH Volume 07A Page 627.

Abstract 75 · Iron Stone

Seawall, Filey Sands

The Wrong Wife

John Braithwaite TAYLOR is currently married to Ann CHADWICK on the FamilySearch Shared Tree. Nine sources are attached to his record but one is duplicated and another has been removed. Only the Civil marriage registration source is misleading.

Here is John’s Probate entry –

Hmm, Elizabeth. The 1881 census finds John and Elizabeth at 14 Ferndale Terrace, Scarborough, with two children – Annie Gertrude, 4, and Francis Edward, 2. And the GRO Births Index offers…

Clearly, the marriage of Ann to John Braithwaite Taylor on the Shared Tree should be dissolved so that the birth of her first daughter with George COCKERILL can be recorded.

This child was born in Filey. She does not have a Shared Tree ID yet but she is with her seven siblings on Filey Genealogy & Connections. Her father has a foothold on the Shared Tree.Ann Chadwick has two IDs, one tying her to the wrong husband, the other placing her in the bosom of her birth family.

Elizabeth, the right wife, died shortly after celebrating her seventieth birthday.

Found Object 40 · Love Mask

Stuttering

Back in December, I looked at the three contenders for a lasting place in the affections of John COLLEY.

G259_COLLEYjane_20200519

They were not all called Jane.

I messaged a contributor and can now report that some changes have been made on the Shared Tree. It may help to read Jane Lundy x2 before proceeding.

All of the women discussed in December’s post have been thrown in the dustbin of family history, though Sarah’s ID has been taken by an outsider, one Jane STUTTER.

JaneQueryLater

This screenshot updates December’s Jane & Sarah illustration.

I am questioning Jane Stutter because she dies aged 47 and not 56 as recorded by the gravestone, death registration and burial record. Her five children were born in Filey between 1827 and 1837 but her marriage to John took place in Essex in July 1825. Maldon is a small port on the Blackwater estuary, so it is quite possible that our Master Mariner found his wife there. But I am loathe to give up on the elder Jane LUNDY who figures in Filey Genealogy & Connections, though there are no sources to prove a woman with that name married the sailor.

The marriage of John to Jane Stutter does not seem definitive, lacking information regarding home parishes, father’s names and their occupations. It doesn’t give the age of the bride or groom either. Jane’s age on the Shared Tree accords with the 1841 Census, where she is 38, living with 47-year-old John in Prospect Place, Filey. Enumerators were cavalier with ages at this census and the instruction “to the nearest five years” could give a margin of error up to ten years for adults. Jane is said to be Yorkshire-born – and searching for a fitting Colley family in Essex has yielded nothing so far.

I also sent a plea-for-help message in December regarding the elder Jane Lundy’s great-granddaughter Mary Jane COLLING, who was posing as Mary COLLEY, daughter of William and his wife Jane JENKINSON. See Another Mistaken Mary. I didn’t get a reply and so, five months on, I have packed the errant Mary off to the West Riding, where she belongs.

Tree 37 · Country Park

19_20160519Trees1_6m

Lonesome Dove

If I take “Snaith George” away from his parents on the Shared Tree he will have no-one in his past. After several hours of searching, I’ve yet to find his real ma and pa. Based on geography alone, there is a good chance he is the son of John and Elizabeth DOVE. They christened their boy in Bubwith, about ten miles from where “our George” married Rachael Lansdon née BICKERTON. Alas, the few sources that give his age all disagree. The 1841 England & Wales census says he is 35, the 1851 Canadian census offers 47. So, calculated birth years of 1806 and 1804. The Bubwith christening took place on 8 September 1802.

Rachael Bickerton’s birth year is an equally moveable snack – 1806 (1841census), 1801 (1851 census) and a very precise 16 April 1796 attached to her christening in Howden, attended by parents John Bickerton and Jane RICHARDSON. FamilySearch gives eleven hints for Rachel/Rachael and only one is duff – the 1851 census, which makes her the wife of “Middleton George” and mother of three children not her own. In that year, of course, she was over 3,000 miles away in Ontario.

I am waiting for replies to messages I sent a while ago to two contributors to the Doves from Hook/Snaith/Goole. I would prefer it if descendants made the needed corrections.

I wonder how much Snaith George knew about his ancestry. Was he able to tell his children about their roots? Some days ago I discovered that his fourth daughter Harriet married Benjamin F. CHEESBRO in Norfolk, Ontario on 11 September 1858. Today I discovered that this union is peculiarly represented on the Shared Tree.

DOVEharrietCHEESBROben_FSTss

The marriage date is wrong and this Benjamin’s birthplace is given as Saginaw. His two brothers were born in Methley, Yorkshire, a few years later. But, the parents of the Benjamin F. CHEESBRO who married “our Harriet” are given as Joseph and Jane in the Norfolk marriage source. A quick look at the growing Methley CHEESBROUGH family in England looks right, hence the ticks. Its Y-line goes back to Robertus, born 1586, but if you explore the Shared Tree further it becomes clear that Harriet married into a family of great distinction – assuming the earlier generations have been assembled with greater accuracy than those in the 19th century.

For now, in truth, poor Snaith George is bereft of forebears.

Dove Tale

One George DOVE was a grandfather of the WARLEY girls of Middleton on the Wolds.

Last month, I deliberately titled a post Floy Warley, so that this blog might take the top spot from Rootspoint – should one in a billion people Google-search for the poor woman.

I was tempted to play the same card today with George, but there are two Yorkshiremen with this name, contemporaries, who found their wives, both called Rachael, in villages only twenty-five miles apart. I didn’t want to flummox the crawlers.

Over at FamilySearch the bots (whatever) can be fooled into offering inappropriate hints – though human agents must unwittingly contribute false data to make this happen.

I will call the men George of Middleton and George of Snaith, after the places where the census enumerators found them in 1841. In real life, only one was the grandfather of Charlotte and Floy. On the Shared Tree, both of them are. It is a complicated tale.

DOVEgeo&SELLERrachael1_FSTss

The only significant error here is George of Middleton’s birth date. The absence of Rachael’s family name is made good by the next screenshot.

DOVEgeo&SELLERrachael2Mar_FSTss

Note the date and place of the marriage.

DOVEgeo&BICKERTONrachel2_FSTss

Same date, different place. This is George of Middleton with his correct dates of birth and death, his parents and his youngest daughter Esther (sometimes Easter) – but married to George of Snaith’s wife. Now, a further complication.

DOVEgeo&BICKERTONrachel1b_FSTss

The two Rachaels fledged a number of baby Doves before civil registration began but, fortunately, they then had several children that are readily found in the GRO Births Index.

In the first quarter of 1839, George of Middleton registered the birth of Jane Elizabeth, Charlotte and Floy’s mother-to-be, in Driffield Union.

In the last quarter of the same year, George of Snaith registered the birth of George Wesley in the Goole Union. Middleton is in the Driffield Registration District, and both Hook and Snaith are in the Goole RD.

1839

DOVE, Jane Elizabeth, Mother’s Maiden Surname: SELLERS (sic). GRO Reference: 1839 M Quarter in DRIFFIELD UNION Volume 23 Page 30 Occasional Copy: B.

DOVE, George Wesley, Mother’s Maiden Surname: BICKERTON. GRO Reference: 1839 D Quarter in THE GOOLE UNION Volume 23 Page 213.

The 1841 households of the two families are found in the FamilySearch sources.

1841_George&Rachel_MIDDLETON

“Elizabeth” here is Jane Elizabeth.

1841_George&Rachel_GOOLE

Young George is George Wesley.

George of Middleton has at least five IDs. I haven’t rounded up all the IDs for George of Snaith but suspect he has a similar number. The wives ditto. So, there is a lot of merging to be done. The mixing of the marriages, evident in the screenshots, won’t make this straightforward.

One day, perhaps, the FamilySearch “system” will be smart enough to red flag the data entry errors that have caused this mess – rather than acquiesce by offering a Census hint for the “wrong” family.

1851_RightGeorgeWrongRachael

One George and Rachel duo has the birth and death dates of the other, ensuring this hint points to the wrong clutch of Doves. Not a Match.