The difference between ‘second cousin’ and ‘first cousin once removed’ is not difficult to grasp. The former is someone who shares the same great grandparents as you, whereas the latter is EITHER the child of your cousin OR you are the child of their cousin. But in non-genealogy circles it’s surprising how many people get this muddled. In fact I remember, myself, referring to my cousin’s children as my second cousins. So this week here’s a little something for less experienced genealogists – or indeed for anyone having trouble calculating cousin relationships. This becomes all the more important if you start to work with DNA and need to place likely matches, but there’s a DNA-specific cousin calculator to help with that aspect. Today’s post is all about understanding how and why our cousins are ‘removed’.
The following ‘Cousin Calculator’ chart is really quick and easy to use (instructions down the right side). It’s available from FamilySearch. Click the link to download a higher resolution copy for your own use.
This is really helpful in pointing you to the answer, but it still doesn’t explain why and how these people are so many times ‘removed’; and understanding this seems to me to be the main difficulty for many people. I hope the following explanation will help.
It’s all about different generational ‘levels’ We know that these cousins are on two distinct, direct lines of descent from the ancestors they both have in common. As set out on the above chart, first cousins share the same grandparents, second cousins share the same great grandparents, third cousins share the same GG grandparents, and so on…. However, the above only holds good when there is no generational difference between the two cousins. We talk about cousins being ‘removed’ when there is a generational difference between them. First cousin once removed, second cousin three times removed, and so on.
In fact, as an old hand now, dealing with this, I don’t use a chart to identify cousin relationships. I find it quicker to look at those two individual lines of descent and do a couple of quick calculations:
First, I identify the Most Recent Common Ancestor(s)
Then I count how many generations down from them to my ‘cousin’ in the other line. This gives us the ‘2nd cousin’, ‘3rd cousin’, (or whatever) part of the relationship.
Next, if they are older than (more accurately, ‘on a generational level above’) me, I look to see who is their ‘opposite number’ in my line. That is, which of my ancestors is on the same generational level?
And finally I count down how many additional generations from that ancestor to me. The number of additional generations is how many times ‘removed’ we are.
If my ‘cousin’ on the other line is on a generational level below me, then I look for my own ‘opposite number’ in their line, and count down how many additional generations to them, to get the number of times ‘removed’.
This little family tree shows two lines of descent from my 3xG grandparents, George and Mary. I’m descended from their daughter Annie Elizabeth. The other line is descended from their daughter Martha. A couple of years ago I made contact with Martha’s great grandson, called [Son] on the tree, to ask if he had any photos of Martha and Annie Elizabeth that he might share with me. He didn’t, but he did have a little ‘family history’ that his aunt [Amy] had written sometime during the 1950s. What a find! There were some inaccuracies in it, but it gave a real insight into my great grandfather George’s life – information I couldn’t have got from anywhere else and which really helped me to understand the family dynamics.
So – the key people in that little story are [Son], his aunt [Amy] and [Me].
Amy is the same generational level as my granddad John. The two of them are three generations below their Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA), George & Mary. In other words, George & Mary are their great grandparents, making John and Amy second cousins (2C)
To calculate my relationship to [Amy] I need to count down from John to myself – that’s two generations. So [Amy] is my second cousin twice removed (2C2R)
However, if I want to calculate my relationship to [Son], I don’t use my granddad John as the benchmark, because [Son] is on the same generational level as my Dad. The two of them are four generations below their MRCA couple, their 2xG grandparents (George & Mary), making my Dad and [Son] third cousins. I am one generation below [Son’s] third cousin (my Dad), so [Son] and I are third cousins once removed (3C1R), and my children are [Son’s] third cousins twice removed (3C2R).
Half cousins Sometimes we see the term ‘half cousin’ or even something like ‘half third cousin twice removed’. Wow – Scary! 😀
The important thing to remember here is that the ‘half’ relates to the MRCA couple. One of the ancestral couple married twice. One of these half cousins is descended from the first spouse and the other from the second. The rest of the calculation is exactly as above. If the ancestor had married more than twice the same would apply – all descendents from that ancestor but with different spouses would always be ‘half’ plus something: half 4C, half 3C3R, etc.
I don’t know if this helps, or if any of my experienced readers have another way, but that’s how I do it. Either way, if you didn’t understand why some cousins are ‘half’ or ‘removed’, I hope you do now.
Family stories are not always true, but often there is truth in them.
I wrote in my last post about my elusive GG grandfather Edward Robinson. Last month, after a 25-year search, I was finally able to place him with his birth family. Throughout the search there had always been at the back of my mind my mother’s story – which must have had its origins with her own grandmother, Edward’s daughter Jane. The story was that when Jane’s mother died, after spending all his money on women and drink Edward went back to The Crooked Billet where he was born, and threw himself in the river. I knew The Crooked Billet, still a pub until fairly recently, and although I never went inside, whenever I drove past I would think of its connection to my family history.
Even with a one-line story such as this there may be several elements. I had long ago found evidence to show that my GG grandmother, did indeed die long before Edward – thirty years earlier to be precise. I had also found several drunk and disorderly charges, each resulting in several nights in Wakefield prison. What surprised me when I first researched Edward was that there was another long-term partner after my GG grandmother. Edward was with Hannah at least seventeen years, from before the 1881 census until his death in 1898. This was never passed down in the story. And finally, Edward’s act of suicide and the location is evidenced by his death certificate and the Coroner’s notes.
Only one element of this story remained to be proven: that Edward was born close by The Crooked Billet inn in Hunslet. Throughout the years of my search for Edward’s birth family I remained guided by this, but always open to the possibility it might not be accurate.
I now know that on his father’s side Edward is descended from generations of Edward and John Robinsons, all living in Hunslet in Meadow Lane, just across the river from Leeds township and marked on the map below with a blue dot. Edward’s family lived here at the time of his sister Elizabeth’s baptism 1822. They also, it turns out, had an older son, John, baptised in 1818, Meadow Lane being the place of residence given here too. At some point between sister Elizabeth’s birth in 1822 and brother John’s death in 1834 Edward sr. broke with tradition and moved with his family to Pottery Fields, marked on the map with a pink dot. The Crooked Billet inn was more than a mile away in Thwaite Gate, indicated with a red dot, right on the border with the parish of Rothwell. It isn’t looking like Edward would have been born there.
It is in fact Edward’s mother, Elizabeth Clarebrough’s family that is key to this puzzle. I’ve now traced her line back to my 11xG grandparents in the sixteenth century. The Clarebroughs are a long-established Rothwell family, located mainly in the Oulton and Woodlesford area. Elizabeth and her twin sister were eighth and ninth of thirteen children, although at least three of them did not survive to adulthood. Baptism and burial records indicate that the family relocated from Oulton between January and August 1791. The place they moved to was… Thwaite Gate in Hunslet, the exact location of The Crooked Billet. They were still there in 1805 when Elizabeth’s father was buried, and although by the time of Elizabeth’s mother’s death in 1830 she was living in Woodhouse Hill (indicated on the map with a green dot), she would seem to have remained close by the area around Thwaite. Even if a baptism record does somewhere exist for my GG grandfather Edward, the abode given will be the usual residence – Meadow Lane or Pottery Fields – and yet it is entirely reasonable to consider that his mother Elizabeth might have gone to stay with her own mother for the period of her confinement, and that he really was born right next to or at least close by The Crooked Billet.
Thinking more widely than this story for a moment – I wonder if this might sometimes be the key to locating missing baptisms? What if our ‘baptism-less’ ancestors who insist on census records that they were born in place X really were born there, because the mother had gone to be with her own mother for the birth, even though a baptism record will be found in place Y…? After all, the parish register records the name and abode of the father, not the actual place of birth. Quite apart from a truthful response to the question of the father’s own abode, it was in any case important for proof of settlement for a child to be registered in the correct parish.
Back to Edward, we can now fast forward to March 1898 when, the story goes, he left his home in Leeds township (marked orange on the map below) and drowned himself in the water by The Crooked Billet (red dot). In fact, thanks to several witnesses whose words are recorded in the Coroner’s notebooks, we can be more precise than that. South of Leeds the river Aire, being not fully navigable, is accompanied on its way to the Humber by the Aire & Calder Navigation canal. The Coroner’s notes, written the day after Edward’s death, evidence that Edward had walked along the water from Thwaite Gate in Hunslet and thrown himself in the canal close to Rothwell Haigh, at roughly the spot marked by the blue dot. Knowing what I know now about his mother’s origins, just a little further along the river, in and around Woodlesford and Oulton (green dot), knowing that as a twin her family’s connection to her sister and her children might have been particularly close, and knowing through burial records that the older generation retained a strong connection to the parish of Rothwell even after moving to Hunslet, I can imagine happy childhood days playing by the water, or walking the three miles or so along the water to visit family.
Of all my ancestors, Edward has been the hardest to love. Finally, working through his story with the additional information, and re-reading the Coroner’s notes, has helped me to make my peace with him. My impression of Edward was that he didn’t have a good life. He didn’t settle to a trade, and the deaths of two significant women in his life – his mother and his first wife, seem to have sent him off on self-destructive behaviour. My mother’s story, suggesting that in his despair, Edward was returning to his own roots to drown himself, was certainly true, but I now believe the attraction was not The Crooked Billet inn itself, but happy childhood memories with his mother and family by the water on the way to Rothwell.
I’ll be taking a break from the blog for a few weeks. My next post will publish on 15th July.
When I started researching my tree my Mum told me what she knew about her family. It wasn’t much, but enough to get me started. Regarding her mother’s grandparents she could name only one, and even then only his surname: Robinson. However, for the next 25 years, my GG grandfather Robinson – Edward, as I discovered – kept his origins a closely guarded secret. The problem was that there were no documents to evidence his birth family. He didn’t actually marry either of his ‘wives’, and if there was a baptism, I have never been able to find it. Any of these records would have evidenced Edward’s father’s name, location and occupation. From 1851 onwards I collected a great deal of information about Edward, right up until his death in 1898. All censuses and other documentation are absolutely consistent with a birth year of 1826 – and with one exception, even consistent with a birthdate between 18th March and 3rd April 1826, but there was nothing at all to enable me to place him with a family.
Even before knowing Edward’s name, I grew up hearing stories about him. He had a stall in Leeds market. My Grandma told me he paid a shilling for her mother, Jane, to go to school one day a week, and Jane used to play with gold sovereigns on the floor. After Edward’s first wife, my GG grandmother Margaret died, he turned to drink and lost all his money. There is truth in this: I unearthed drunk and disorderly reports and short spells in the slammer, but I rather suspect there was never that much money to lose. Finally, my Mum told me that after losing all said money ‘he went back to The Crooked Billet where he was born, and threw himself in the river’. This too is true. I have the Coroner’s Report made the day after his death in 1898, although Edward actually drowned himself a couple of miles along from that spot.
It’s fair to say that Edward had a colourful life, and from 1851 I think I have the measure of him. I even suspect that withholding information was a reflection of his personality: he probably didn’t trust the authorities, and maybe it has taken him all this time to trust me too! Nevertheless, in amongst all of the above there were several clues:
Edward was born in 1826, or at the latest in 1827
In all records he gives his birthplace as Leeds
My mother’s story suggests a birthplace of Hunslet – not part of Leeds township at that time, but just across the river, and within the large ancient parish of Leeds.
There was a hint that he might actually have been born at the Crooked Billet inn in Hunslet.
Edward had two daughters: the younger, Margaret, was named after her mother. Might the older, my great grandmother Jane, have been named after Edward’s own mother?
Two of these clues turned out to be red herrings, but they had me hooked for a while. At the time of Edward’s birth the innkeeper at the Crooked Billet was John Robson. Could that name somehow have morphed into Robinson? No, it hadn’t: it seemed Edward could have been born *near* the Crooked Billet, but not *in* it.
As for Jane, there was an Edward of the right age living with a Jane old enough to be his mother in Hunslet at the time of the 1841 census. However, searching the parish registers for a Robinson marrying a Jane in the parish in the years before 1826 returned only two records, both traceable in the 1841 and 1851 censuses living away from Leeds.
Searching the parish registers for Edward’s baptism proved equally fruitless. Ten Edward Robinsons were baptised in Leeds between 1825 and 1831. There were also two marriage records in 1847 and 1867 that might possibly have been him. I had long ago realised that the reason Edward and my GG grandmother Margaret didn’t marry was that she was already married to someone else. Perhaps Edward too, had married another woman before meeting Margaret? But no: the couples in these two records were still together in subsequent censuses when I knew Edward was with Margaret or, after Margaret’s death, I knew where he was.
It troubled me not being able to break down Edward’s brick wall, so a couple of weeks ago I decided to give him another opportunity to reveal his identity. Using Ancestry, FindMyPast, TheGenealogist, FreeReg and FamilySearch, I listed every possible baptism for every Edward Robinson baptised in Leeds from 1824 to 1831. I was able to discount a couple on the basis of location or father’s occupation; another died in infancy; and the rest I worked forwards through the 1841 and 1851 censuses. I knew where my Edward was in 1851, so if any of these Edwards could be located elsewhere, they were not my Edward. I was left with about three baptisms, and no way of choosing between them. I then searched the 1841 census for any additional possibilities, and found two not accounted for in the baptisms. One of these was my long-preferred Edward with Jane in Hunslet. The other was Edward and sister Elizabeth, living in Hunslet with their parents Edward and Elizabeth.
At this point I did something I hadn’t had the opportunity to do on previous attempts to break through Edward’s brick wall: I turned to DNA. Using the filters on the Ancestry website I searched amongst all my DNA matches for anyone with the surname Robinson and birthplace of Leeds in their trees. I didn’t expect to find anyone. I needed someone who had already traced their ancestry back to Edward’s parents, who had young Edward in their tree, who had taken the DNA test, and shared DNA with me – not guaranteed at 3rd or 4th cousin level. It felt like searching for a needle in a haystack. But unbelievably I found someone: just one person, estimated at 5th to 8th cousin. He had my Edward in his tree, born c.1826, living in 1841 with sister Elizabeth and parents Edward and Elizabeth. This was, in other words, one of the families I had already identified as a possibility. Unlike Edward, sister Elizabeth had a marriage certificate and a baptism record and had therefore been traceable quite easily back to her birth family. My DNA match, Elizabeth’s descendant, already had another bit of information on his tree too: a marriage record for Edward’s parents, and with that a maiden name for the mother: Clarebrough. But could this just be coincidence? My match and I didn’t share very much DNA; this could be a case of confirmation bias. The next step was to do the same filtered search on Ancestry, but this time for the unusual surname Clarebrough and a birthplace of Leeds. If I could find anyone amongst my DNA matches just one generation further back from Elizabeth Clarebrough but descended from a different sibling, then there was no doubt that this was my Edward… Bingo! A DNA match, and three more on MyHeritage. Finally, after 25 years of trying, I have my Edward!
I hope there’s something in this account and the methodology to interest you. In those pre-census/ pre-Civil BMD days, listing all possible baptisms and then working each one forward to discount as many as possible can often solve the puzzle. In Edward’s case it didn’t, and without bringing in the DNA cavalry at this point I would never have been able to break through this brick wall.
This is the last post in my 3-part mini-series about using chromosome browsers in genetic genealogy. You’ll find links to all my previous DNA posts [here].
Today we’re talking about GEDmatch: an online service that allows you to upload your autosomal DNA data files from any of the testing companies and compare with people who have tested with different companies. In other words, you’re not restricted to just comparing your Ancestry results with other Ancestry matches or your MyHeritage results with others who tested there: you can compare common matches with all the testing companies in one go.
Alongside this they also have a number of tools to help with analysis of these comparisons. The basic package of tools is free to use. These include a chromosome browser, which is particularly useful if you tested with Ancestry, since they don’t provide one. There are more advanced tools (called ‘Tier 1’), but there is a monthly fee to use them, currently US$10 per month. You can subscribe just for one month at a time when you know you’ll have plenty of time to explore.
GEDmatch doesn’t itself offer DNA tests. They state that when you upload your data, the information is encoded, and the raw file deleted. Even so, we should all always check Terms & Conditions when we upload our DNA data to any site, and be sure we’re happy.
Often people who upload to GEDmatch don’t know what to do next; and I know both from personal experience, and from discussion with my own DNA cousins, that at first sight it all seems pretty daunting. So in this post I’ll talk you through what I consider to be the essential basic tools. Once you’ve uploaded your DNA files you’ll find links to all these on your home page at GEDmatch, in the right hand sidebar:
All you need to make use of these tools is the kit number you’ll see on the left hand side under ‘Your DNA Resources’. It starts with one or more letters followed by some numbers. Copy that and then follow these links:
One-to-many DNA comparison Click on the second ‘One-To-Many’ option, and on the new page that appears, paste your kit number in the box and click to display your results. What you’ll get is a list of everyone on GEDmatch who matches you. They are arranged in descending order of the size of your match.
Looking from left to right you’ll see your matches’ kit number, name or pseudonym, email, largest segment and total cM (this is the field by which the matches are arranged in decending order), likely number of generations to Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) and some other information. You might already recognise some of these people and be able to place them on your tree, together with your MRCA.
Now we’ll move onto finding out more about some of these matches. So pick the top one or another one near the top, and copy their kit number. Then back at your GEDmatch home page, click on:
One-to-one Autosomal Comparison Paste your own kit number in box 1 and your selected match’s kit number in box 2. (Hint: after you’ve pasted your own number once you can bring it up again by double clicking on box 1, so on subsequent searches you’ll only need to input your match’s kit number.)
For these early searches leave the rest of this form in the default settings. You can play around with them and learn more later. Click compare.
What you’ll get on the next page is a chromosome browser showing exactly where you and this person match. For every chromosome with a matching segment you’ll also see a little box, showing start and end position of the segment and number of centimorgans (cM). The image below shows just part of one of my match comparisons – Chromosomes 11 to 15. As you can see, this person and I have a matching segment on Chromosome 14.
If you’re painting to DNA Painter, as described in my last post, this text in the little box is the information you need to paste to ‘paint’ the segments. If you match on more than one chromosome you can go back to the input form and change ‘Graphics and Positions’ to ‘Position’ only. This will remove the chromosome browser from the results and simply provide you with several little boxes of information that you can then copy all in one go.
Now, keeping those same two kit numbers, return to the home page and click on:
People who match both, or 1 of 2 kits Again, enter your own number for kit 1 and your match’s for kit 2. What you get this time is three lists:
people who match BOTH of you
people who match just you
people who match just kit 2, and not you.
It’s the list of people matching both of you that’s most obviously helpful. If you can already place any of these shared matches this may help you to narrow down the part of your tree where you and this person have common ancestors. However, thinking back to my previous post on chromosome browsers, matching a third person does not necessarily mean you all ‘triangulate’. Certainly you share a common ancestor with each one, but it’s possible that the common ancestor they share with each other might be on a different line, not related to you at all.
If you’ve read my previous DNA posts or if you’ve already been using MyHeritage, you’ll see that this basic package of tools on GEDmatch is not dissimilar to the tools on there. The One-to Many comparison equates to the MyHeritage DNA match list; The One-to-One autosomal comparison equates to MyHeritage’s chromosome browser; and the People who match both, or 1 of 2 kits roughly equates to the shared matches you see when you click to Review any of your matches. The advantage of GEDmatch is that there is no fee to use these tools. There is also the availability of the more powerful ‘Tier 1′ tools when you want to make use of them. MyHeritage, on the other hand, combines all of their tools with availability of matches’ trees that you can compare with your own. Plus they have the triangulation tool discussed two posts back. In terms of enjoyment of use I would have to say I prefer MyHeritage’s DNA offering above all others, but GEDmatch is a powerful additional tool in your DNA toolkit, not least because not everyone has tested with/ uploaded their data to MyHeritage, and because of the availability of the Tier 1 when you feel ready to move on.
My DNA posts are intended as a beginners’ guide, building up the information in order, in bite-sized chunks. Click [here] to see them all in the order of publication.
This is the second in my 3-part mini-series about using chromosome browsers in genetic genealogy. You’ll find links to all my previous DNA posts [here].
My last post introduced chromosome browsers. We looked at how to interpret the data revealed in the browser, how to use it for One-to-One or One-to-Many comparisons, and the importance of using this information in conjunction with documented trees. We talked about the weakness of chromosome browsers, being that they are unable to distinguish between DNA from your maternal line and that from your paternal line. MyHeritage have partly got round this by introducing a ‘Triangulation Tool’ which operates when using the chromosome browser in One-to-Many mode, highlighting when the matches being compared ‘triangulate’ – that is, when you and all the matches being compared are all descended from a common ancestor.
What MyHeritage cannot tell you is which of your lines – maternal or paternal – this match is on. You have to work that out yourself. One other obvious issue – and this is by no means a weakness on the part of MyHeritage, but it is a drawback anyway – you can only use the Triangulation Tool on MyHeritage to compare segment data with people whose autosomal DNA was either tested with or has since been uploaded to MyHeritage.
DNA Painter is a third-party tool that helps you overcome these two difficulties. It was created by Jonny Perl in 2017 and has gone from strength to strength. It’s free to use provided you create only one profile. If you want more than one profile, or if you want to use the advanced tools there is a charge. I have seven profiles.
I cannot express enough how fantastic DNA Painter is. For me, it’s right up there with seeing the Aurora Borealis. I know that may sound excessive, but it’s true.
Briefly, the way DNA Painter works is this: when you’re comparing your DNA with another person’s using a chromosome browser you can download the segment data. This data – whether it be from MyHeritage, FTDNA, 23andMe or GEDmatch – can then be uploaded to DNA Painter and ‘painted’ on your profile. Unlike a chromosome browser, DNA Painter has two lines for every chromosome – a paternal line and a maternal line so you can start to separate out your matches. If you know which of your lines these segments are on – say, if you are painting a match with your maternal first cousin so you know this is on your maternal line – you can include this information, and these segments will be painted to your maternal copy of those chromosomes.
Blaine T Bettinger’s excellent video showing how to use DNA Painter was all I needed to get me started. He covers how to paint segments, how to edit them, and other features (although there are more now than when this video was made in 2017). I watched it through once, then again in short bursts alongside ‘painting’ my first segments, and after that it was all plain sailing.
So without further ado I’m going to suggest you watch this video. (The automatic start point is not right at the beginning – you’ll need to wind it back.)
Blaine T Bettinger: Mapping your Chromosomes with DNA Painter:
Just to be clear – you can’t use DNA Painter if your results are just on Ancestry. You have to be able to see your results in a chromosome browser. So if you tested with Ancestry you need to upload your data from there to MyHeritage or FTDNA or GEDmatch before you can use DNA Painter.
This is how my main profile on DNA Painter looks right now. Click it to see a larger image:
The pale blue lines in the background represent the copy of each chromosome that I got from my father and the pale pink lines are for the copy I got from my mother. By the time I found DNA Painter I had already confirmed a number of my matches on GEDmatch and MyHeritage. These were the ones I painted straight away. As these were known and confirmed matches I already knew our Most Recent Common Ancestor couple (MRCA) and I knew if the match sat on my maternal line or my paternal line so was able to paste them accordingly. These known matches set the scene for anything else I paint.
More recently I allocated specific colours to each of my grandparents. My paternal grandfather is shades of blue and my paternal grandmother yellow. My maternal grandfather is green and my maternal grandmother red. You can see this on my profile: the blue and yellow shades are always on my paternal line, the green and red shades always on my maternal line.
Apart from my brother (he’s not on here; I made a separate profile for him) I have no matches at all closer than second cousin, so the nearest MRCAs for whom I have confirmed matches are at great grandparent level. In my colour scheme the closer ancestors have a pale version of their allotted colour, and the further back generations have increasingly darker shades of that colour. Again on my profile, look at the maternal line on chromosome 13. You’ll see two long lines representing my great grandparents, and within them several shorter segments of darker green. These darker segments are ancestors further back along these great grandparents’ lines whose DNA I’ve discovered because of matches with more distant cousins. In fact these more distant matches have evidenced that the first long green segment on chromosome 13 is from my great grandfather, while the second long green segment is from his wife, my great grandmother.
In every case I record the MRCA couple when I ‘paint’ the match, and these are shown in the table at the bottom right of the profile.
If I have a segment already attributed to one of my copies of a chromosome – let’s say to my Dad’s paternal great grandparents and another match on that same segment comes along that seems to be from my Dad’s maternal line, then something is wrong. While both of these relationships are consistent with my own paternal copy of that particular chromosome, it is not consistent with my Dad’s chromosome inheritance: one of these would be on his maternal copy and the other on his paternal. He could not have passed on both of these copies to me on the same segment.
So – possibilities include:
I’ve made a mistake
My tree, or my match’s tree is wrong
There is a case of misattributed parentage (often referred to as an NPE – ‘non-paternity event’) somewhere along one of these lines in my own tree or my match’s tree
All of the above is absolutely in order but this person and I also match on my maternal line and that is where the segment is from
The segment is a piece of DNA belonging to a shared population group, such as Jewish or Irish
You make mistakes as you go but you can edit and change them very easily as new info comes in.
Here’s an example of a DNA match with a surprise and how I used DNA Painter to record it, changing my initial conclusions:
A and I matched at around 3rd to 4th cousin. He was adopted but had found his birth mother and had an idea of who his father was. Using my own tree and working back the tree of his suspected father I was able to confirm that we had MRCAs at 3xG grandparent level, making us 4th cousins. The man A thought might be his father definitely was. I added A to my list of confirmed matches and painted our segments to my profile. Our match was on my paternal line, and painted yellow for my paternal grandmother’s ancestry.
After so many years of searching, A found it quite difficult to accept so easily that we had found his father, so I offered to work on three other close matches that triangulated with the two of us. When A could see that other matches led to the same conclusion I thought he would be convinced. The first two matches did indeed lead back to the same MRCA, and both of them were closer matches to A than they were to me – they are all descended from one of our 3xG grandparents’ sons, and I am descended from another. A was happy: something shifted for him, and for the first time he really believed he knew his roots. Then I moved on to the third of our common matches. Starting with a small amount of information on this person’s online tree, I worked back until I found an overlap with A’s tree. But it was confusing: A’s match with this person led up another of A’s lines – one that didn’t end with our confirmed 3xG grandparents. It took a bit of working out (there was a lot of false information on census and marriage records and a nasty divorce) but eventually I was able to follow their common line… back to another set of my 2xG grandparents still on my paternal line, but this time my paternal grandfather. A and I are cousins twice over: on both sides of my paternal line, both of these connections confirming different parts of A’s father’s line. DNA Painter actually allowed me to record this information by keeping two of the segments yellow and changing the third segment we share to blue – it’s the pale blue segment you see on my paternal line towards the end of chromosome 12. How amazing is that!
My main profile on DNA Painter is for confirmed matches only. However, there are still a number of decent matches on MyHeritage, FTDNA and GEDmatch that I can’t place. I didn’t want to lose sight of them, so I created a new profile for my mystery matches. By comparing my mystery profile matches to other confirmed new matches from time to time, I’m able to narrow down our match, at the very least allocating some of them to either my paternal or maternal line or even moving them into my main profile. More recently I decided to set up an Irish mystery matches profile which I hope in time will enable me to home in on distinct parishes or areas.
In the “Segment/Match Notes” I list how the match descends from the common ancestral couple, any relevant ID numbers, and anything else pertinent including other potential ancestral lines in common. This means that I list every generation beginning with the common ancestral couple and ending with the tester.
It occurs to me that chromosome mapping kind of turns it around so that it’s about mapping your DNA segments just as much as it is about proving your family tree. I do know, though, that my chromosome map will never be complete. My close family is too small.
It’s perfectly possible to make great DNA discoveries without even looking at a chromosome browser. However, working with chromosome browsers and DNA Painter has done more than simply help me to sort out my matches. It has helped me to visualise and better understand complex abstract information. By viewing my matches in a chromosome browser I saw, for example, that the twenty-two chromosomes are all different lengths and numbered 1 to 22 broadly in that order of length. I also saw and understood that the longer the segments, the closer the family connection. Hence a lot of short segments indicates either that you are more distantly related, or you may simply share a lot of DNA as a result of being from an endogamous or close-knit community, going back centuries. I knew that the segments I was looking at came either from my mother or from my father, but it wasn’t until I started to use DNA Painter that I understand the maternal copy and paternal copy of each chromosome covers the full length of the chromosome. Originally (because of the single grey line on the regular chromosome browser) I thought 50% of that line was from one parent and the other 50% from the other parent.
If you’re a visual person you too may find it easier and more enjoyable to work this way. It is definitely more fun!
There is a DNA Painter User Group on Facebook with, at the time of writing, approaching 12,000 members, and there are very knowledgeable group members who will help with any questions. Jonny and Blaine are also on there.
My DNA posts are intended as a beginners’ guide, building up the information in order, in bite-sized chunks. Click [here] to see them all in the order of publication.
This is the first part in the third and final ‘mini-series’ in my beginners’ guide to genetic genealogy. You’ll find links to all the previous posts [here].
In this mini-series we’re moving on to something called ‘chromosome mapping’ and as an essential part of that we’ll be looking at my favourite tool: the chromosome browser. We’ll focus on:
a definition of chromosome mapping
what a chromosome browser is
what it tells you about your match with another person
how we can use it to identify multiple matches who are descended from the same common ancestors
amount of shared DNA and length of segments as a guide to the closeness or remoteness of a match
a case study illustrating how this can all work together
What do we mean by chromosome mapping? When you have a number of confirmed DNA matches and you’ve identified Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA) for each of them, you have already started to allocate matches to different branches of your tree. A second cousin, for example, becomes a ‘benchmark’ for more distant DNA matches along the same great grandparent line. We can do this far more accurately if we can actually see the specific segments we share with that second cousin. All these segments, we know, came to us (and to this second cousin) from that known set of great grandparents. If we now find a more distant match (say, a 4th cousin) on one or more of the same segments we can trace those specific segments back even further. Not only will this help to verify our documentary research going back to the next MRCA – likely to be around 3xG grandparents – but also we now know *which* of those previously identified great grandparents this specific segment of our DNA actually came from. I find that very exciting. However, before we can do any of this we need to be able to ‘see’ those segments, and for that we need a chromosome browser.
What is a chromosome browser? Essentially, a chromosome browser is a visual representation of the parts of your DNA that you share with one or more other people. It looks like a series of ‘stripes’ – one stripe for each of your twenty-two autosomal chromosomes. If you tested with FTDNA or 23andMe there will be an additional stripe for the X chromosome.
The following is an example of one of my matches from MyHeritage. I have removed name and contact details, but we’ll call this person A.
The essential information provided here about my match with A on the general listing of all my matches is:
we share 155.4cM across eight segments
this equates to 2.2% of our autosomal DNA
the longest segment is 45.5cM
our estimated connection is ‘1st cousin twice removed – 2nd cousin once removed’
If I click on the pink ‘Review DNA Match’ button, I also see
a list of all the other people on the MyHeritage site who also match A and me
if A has a tree on MyHeritage I can look at that
lists of any surnames we have in common
a comparison of our ethnicities estimates
a chromosome browser representing our match
That’s a lot of information.
At its most basic level, the chromosome browser provides a graphical view of some of that information. It doesn’t provide any surname or ethnicity data, but it does show exactly where, on your chromosomes, those shared segments are.
Below is that match with A as viewed in the chromosome browser. The 22 grey lines represent me: my 22 autosomal chromosomes. The segments where A and I match are those pink lines (segments) on chromosomes 1, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19 and 21. Although you can’t see it on this screen grab image, if I hover my cursor over any of the pink segments while I’m on the MyHeritage website I can see exact locational information (start and end points). I can also download all that information.
These segments are where A and I have inherited exactly the same DNA from the same ancestors.
Using the chromosome browser ‘One to Many’ function A and I now have a lot of information about our match but although we know we’re fairly closely related we still can’t say which of our ancestors we both share. For that we need to look at our documented trees. However, in this case, by a process of elimination of A’s close family members who have tested but don’t match me we have been able to conclude that we are connected on the one part of A’s tree about which nothing is known: a missing grandparent. The chromosome browser may be able to help.
Using the ‘One to Many’ tool, we can use the chromosome browser to compare overlaps between our own DNA and that of several other people – up to seven matches all in one go at MyHeritage. In the example below I’m looking at just two of my matches, comparing exactly where each of them matches me, and looking for any segments where all three of us match. Again, the grey lines represent my 22 autosomal chromosomes. The red segments show my match with A (you can see they are in exactly the same positions as in the above chart, although now they are coloured red). The mustard segments are another person with whom we both match at a close level. We’ll call that person B.
The chromosome browser here shows that I share more DNA with B (mustard) than I do with A (red), and the segments tend to be longer. It also shows that I share lots of DNA with each of them that I don’t share with the other. However, there is one more very important piece of information: A, B and I all share exactly the same DNA in two positions: on chromosomes 7 and 13. Taken as a whole this tells us:
All three of us are descended from the same fairly recent common ancestors.
Between the three of us, we have inherited different parts of the DNA of these common ancestors. What we inherited has come down the line from them to us via our own parents and grandparents – and just to recap a key point from my post earlier this year (Asking other family members to test) siblings (in this instance our respective grandparents) inherit a lot of the same DNA but not exactly the same – which explains why A, B and I don’t all have exactly the same autosomal DNA from those ancestors
I am more closely related to B than I am to A
Since I have previously placed B as my second cousin I already know which set of great grandparents are our Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCA). Those two 3-way shared segments are proof that A is also descended from these same common ancestors. As a result A now has a name for that missing grandparent
Also as a result, I now know that all those segments coloured red and mustard on my maternal line have come to me from that particular set of great grandparents
Triangulation What we have just seen at chromsomes 7 and 13 is an example of triangulation. To fully understand what this means, we need to understand a key point about chromosome browsers. The chromosome browser represents each chromosome as a single grey line, but that one grey line belies that fact that we get two copies of each chromosome: one from our mother and one from our father. The chromosome browser cannot tell these maternal and paternal lines apart. Therefore when you look at a match on a chromosome browser the segments on those grey lines could be maternal or paternal. They could even (more unusually) be a mix of both if your match is related to you via your maternal and your paternal lines. We have to find some way of working out which.
If you’re working on MyHeritage the Triangulation tool helps with this. It tells you if two or more people match with you at a given segment on the same copy of the same chromosome. In other words – either on your maternal side or on your paternal side. It still doesn’t tell you which side that is, but if you can work it out for at least one of the matches using your documented tree, then you know that this is also where the other ‘triangulated’ person matches you.
You can see how the triangulation tool works in the example above: there is a little box around the overlapping segments at chromosomes 7 and 13. This is MyHeritage’s way of saying that these two segments of DNA shared by A, B and me are indeed on the same copy, and we are therefore descended from the same line. A, B and I triangulate.
Segment length and amount of shared DNA as a guide to remoteness of the match Obviously, these great grandparents from whom A, B and I inherited all these DNA segments, they too inherited their DNA from their own parents, and those parents from their parents, and back through time. Since we all inherit 50% of our autosomal DNA from our mother and the other 50% from our father, when my mother was born she recombined all of this DNA from the line we share with A and B with a whole new set of DNA from her other parent, and then I did the same. This means that DNA shared with closer matches (and inherited from closer ancestors) tends to have longer segments: there have been fewer recombinations. By contrast, shared segments with more distant matches have undergone more recombinations – the DNA is mixed up with that of far more other ancestors – and so segments tend to be shorter. Hence, alongside the total amount of shared DNA, we can also use segment length as a guide to closeness or remoteness of a match.
Once we have identified the MRCA (or MRCA couple) from whom we inherited a decent amount of autosomal DNA (as I did above with A and B) we can use that information to try to place other people who match us more remotely on any of the same segments.
Consequently, attributing a segment to one ancestral couple is not the end of the story because they got it from someone else – or rather one of them did. Therefore when we use new, more distant, DNA cousin matches to take that segment (or part of it) back further, we can work out which of the closer ancestral couple it came from, and which of their ancestors they (and we!) got it from.
A more remote example – a work in progress! The final image, below, shows another One-to-Many chromosome browser example. This time the red lines are B (who was mustard in the last example) and the new person (mustard segments) is C. You can see here that I share far fewer segments with C, and that the segments are shorter. We actually share 31.9cM, and the longest segment is 17.4cM. Using all the information outlined above, we can say that my match with C is more remote than my match with B. Our estimated relationship is given as ‘3rd to 5th cousin’, suggesting MRCAs at 2xG grandparent to 4xG grandparent. Importantly though, MyHeritage’s triangulation tool (the box on chromosome 11) tells me that this match with C is further back along that same line that I share with B. If I can find where C and I connect I will know exactly which more distant ancestors these mustard-coloured segments of my DNA come from. But of course, beyond that set of great grandparents that I share with B there are four GG grandparents, eight 3xG grandparents, sixteen 4xG grandparents, and so on. Our MRCA could be any one of them.
So this one is still a work in progress. By making contact with C, I was able to use the same triangulation process (with one of his closer cousins) to determine which of C’s great grandparent lines we match on. So we know which of *his* great grandparents and also which of *my* great grandparents, but so far analysis and further building of his tree has drawn a blank.
I have reason to suspect that these short segments have come to me from an Irish 3xG grandmother along this line, precise origins unknown, but this is not my common ancestor with C. If I can find an Irish connection along the relevant part of C’s tree, or indeed if I can find a definite Irish lineage for one or more additional people who triangulate with B, C and me along this line, then I may even be able to place this Irish 3xG grandmother’s origins in a specific part of Ireland. I have some ideas for how to progress this, and if they work I’ll write about them in a future post.
In my next post I’ll be continuing this theme by looking at DNA Painter, a third-party tool that helps with the organisation of segment information.
My DNA posts are intended as a beginners’ guide, building up the information in order, in bite-sized chunks. Click [here] to see them all in the order of publication.
Last month I wrote about a lot of errors in the online transcripts of parish registers for St James Pockthorpe in Norwich, where several generations of my ancestors lived. I’ve written previously about the wonderful medieval churches in Norwich, and the Norwich Historic Churches Trust that ensures the ones no longer in use as places of worship are beautifully maintained and leased to organisations who bring them back into use with new purposes. St James Pockthorpe is one of these repurposed buildings. Since 1979 this Grade 1 listed building has been home to the Norwich Puppet Theatre, and I was delighted to visit there a couple of years ago. The building was open, and when I explained my interest I was given a guided tour.
Shortly after writing that previous post about the parish registers I was looking online at some old photos of Norwich, and since St James Pockthorpe was fresh on my mind I searched for that. There were several photos, but this one dated 1931, actually took my breath away. Apart from the church building itself, there is literally nothing left of this scene.
I’ve looked at these two photos full-size and side by side, and it would no longer be possible to capture the building from this angle today. It was taken from about 20 metres to the right of where I was standing to take my photo, along what was then Cowgate. The two maps below show that today the church (now the T-shaped building to the right of the roundabout) is set back from the road. I think I was standing at the edge of the new grass verge when I took my photo. We can also see that all the street names have changed, although there is a nod to what was there previously. Cowgate Street, where the 1931 photo was taken, is now Whitefriars; Cowgate is now north of the roundabout. The church had stood at the junction of Cowgate and Bargate Street. Bargate is now the main inner circular road for Norwich and is called Barrack Street, referencing the Barracks that was built along the road around 1805. To the left of the roundabout we have St Crispins Road dual carriageway; formerly this was Norman’s Lane, and the church once standing along it is now referenced only by a street name: St Paul’s Square. A tiny part of the ancient city wall that you can just see to the right of the older map is still there, by the way.
I love visiting historic towns, and particularly places where my ancestors lived. I imagine that by doing so I’m getting a feel for the place they knew. Yet when I look at this lovely old photo, I see that in this case at least I really didn’t achieve that just by visiting and walking around, taking photos. There was a lot of heavy bombing in Norwich during the war. St Paul’s and the area around it was severely damaged and later demolished, and of course it made sense to rebuild for the changing world: wider roads and modern housing. But oh! How lovely it all was before the bombs! I do wish I could have seen it then.
The moral of this story, then, is that visiting is lovely, taking photos and asking questions is great. But to really get a feel for a place, alongside reading around the history sometimes we also need old photos and maps.
My last post focused on the potential dangers of relying on transcriptions. But transcripts can also be our friend! Today we’ll focus on their benefits, and how to make the most of them. I hope there is something here for both beginners and intermediate level family researchers. Perhaps beginners will benefit most simply from an appreciation of the variety of records available, whereas intermediate level genealogists will be more interested in wringing every last drop of use out of each of them.
To start, then, what do we mean by ‘transcription’? In my last post I used the term as a sort of ‘catch-all’ for documents that copy and record the information from an original document. But in genealogy there are lots of different kinds of record that do this, and some of these copies are more properly called ‘indexes’. It makes sense, then, to start by looking at the different types of record we might come across.
This is the image of the original record(A) of my 5x great grandparents, James Calvert and ‘Sally or Sarah’ Brewer. The actual original is kept at West Yorkshire Archives, and although I haven’t seen that physical document, I can say I’ve seen ‘the original’ because I have this photograph of it. It tells us that James was from another parish: Bradford, whereas ‘Sally or Sarah’ was from ‘this’ parish: Calverley. They were married by Banns, and we can see that James signed the register, but ‘Sarah or Sally’ made her mark. These alternative names, together with the fact that on every other record I’ve found, the name ‘Sarah’ is used, suggests Sarah was her ‘proper’ name, but that everyone called her ‘Sally’. Then down at the bottom we see the names of the witnesses. We will never find a copy (transcription or index) of this document that includes all of this information. Even if what is transcribed is perfectly accurate it will not have all of these facts and visual clues.
Below is a document contemporary to the original. It’s the Bishops’ Transcript (B) of that same event. It was written up at the end of the year (1799-1800) and sent off to the bishop. This image is on FindMyPast. Unfortunately the entry for James and Sally/ Sarah is right down at the bottom of the page. I’ve lightened it but it’s still dark and not easy to read, but already we can see a difference between these two documents. This records simply the following: ‘James Calvert and Sarah Brewer by Banns’, plus the date: 8 Dec.
There are other records on FindMyPast and Ancestry for this event, e.g. FindMyPast has it in the England Marriages 1538-1973 set (C). It is a transcription only – no image – in fact this record set was created by FamilySearch, and used at FindMyPast with their permission. It records only the following information:
First name(s): James Last name: Calvert Marriage date: 08 Dec 1799 Marriage place: Calverley Spouse’s first name(s): Sarah Spouse’s last name: Brewer
There are other types of modern transcripts. If you’re lucky you might just come across a local genealogy website relevant to your interests with dedicated researchers who have transcribed lots of documents and made them freely available. The following is from such a site: CalverleyInfo. Here we can see a very full transcription (D) of James and Sarah’s marriage.
CLICK FOR BIG! Source: Calverley Info: Calverley Parish Church Records: Marriages 1791-1800
To illustrate more types of transcribed records I’m going to have to switch to a different part of my family, but still in the ancient parish of Calverley. These records are for the burial of my 8x great grandfather, John Dracup. I have the original record from the parish register (with image) and it reads: ’10 [April] John Dracup Junior of Idle Green buryed’.
Next, the entry for that burial on FreeReg (E). In fact there are two, and when I click on each one to view the transcript I see this is because the information has been transcribed by two different people, but the transcription is the same, and it does provide all the information on the original.
My final example is from the Calverley page of GENUKI. There are a lot of transcripts for Births, Marriages, Burials and other related records on this page, including several different sets for the Calverley burials, transcribed and made freely available by a number of different people. One person, for example, has extracted all baptisms for people living in Idle for the years 1796-1800; other sets are for marriages arranged alphabetically by groom and by bride. The set I’m going to home in on is Calverley Burial Indexes 1596-1720, arranged alphabetically by surname (F), and transcribed by Steve Gaunt. Scrolling down to Dracup, this is what I find: a full listing of the burials of several generations of my ancestors, all in one place, and John Junior is right there in the middle. Again, all the information from that original has been included.
Apart from the original, right at the top, every other document you have just seen is a type of transcription. Some are indexes – they might serve simply to point to where information can be found. Since they are online most of them depend on the existence of a searchable index (G) so we can find them. What they have in common is that the information they record has simply been copied from somewhere else. That ‘somewhere else’ might be the original, or it might have been copied from another transcript. The Bishops’ Transcript has an unusual status in that it is a contemporary original document, but it is itself just a copy – a resumé, even – of the original entry in the parish register.
Beware! So this is a good time to think back to my last post, and remember that every time the information is copied, there is the possibility of mistakes creeping in: human error, difficulties with archaic writing, inexperience, carelessness, administrative error…. Every single time something is copied there is scope for error. We must be mindful of that when we use them.
Where will we find these different types of record? If you have a paid subscription to Ancestry, FindMyPast, The Genealogist, MyHeritage, etc then you’re more likely to have access to digital images of the originals. However, this depends on whether the archives where the originals are kept has licensed your subscription site to share them. For example, FindMyPast has a licence agreement with Staffordshire Archives Service which means they can provide Births, Marriages, Banns, Marriage Licences, Burials, Wills and Probate records – all with images of the originals. On Ancestry, at the time of writing, you’ll find ‘Staffordshire, England, Extracted Church of England Parish Records, 1538-1839’ – these are just transcripts, no images of the originals. On the other hand it is Ancestry that has the licence agreement with Wiltshire, and you will find all the parish records with images on that site. FindMyPast currently has simply the Indexes. Neither site has originals of parish registers from Berkshire. Transcripts (or ‘indexes’) are all that is available. When we progress beyond the basic census and civil Births, Marriages, Deaths, it makes sense to choose our subscription website based on availability of the older parish registers that you need.
The transcripts and indexes, on the other hand, tend to be freely available. As indicated above, you may find them on the GENUKI page for your parish, on FreeReg, through a local family history society, or a local website dedicated to making genealogical records available, like the CalverleyInfo site. You’ll also find them for free on FamilySearch (although FamilySearch do also have a lot of images of parish registers that you can browse) and you may even come across a brilliant site like one I sometimes refer to for my Wharfedale ancestors: Wharfegen Family History, which is a very trustworthy, ongoing project to construct the family lines and histories of every person who lived in the Wharfedale and Craven areas of Yorkshire. That’s a LOT of possible transcripts!
So how can we make the best use of them? * Firstly, a transcript is infinitely better than nothing The original might have been lost, or it might not yet have been photographed for use on subscription websites. You might not be able to get to the archives where the original is stored, or it might have become too fragile for public perusal. You might not have the cash to access the subscription website where the records are kept, or any subscription website for that matter. For all these reasons, we can be very grateful for transcriptions and indexes. Although I don’t need that particular FamilySearch transcription (C) above, there are still some events for which the FamilySearch transcription is all I have. But if I use a transcript I always make a note of that, if possible I note where the originals are to be found, and if an original becomes available online I replace it as soon as I can.
* Second, even if you do have access to the original record, the transcript can help Take a look at Original (A) above, for example. Can you read everything on there? I had trouble with the first name of one of the witnesses. Now look at Full Transcription (D), and there you have all the names. Someone has kindly done the work for you. All you have to do is decide if you agree.
* Third, you can use the Bishops’ Transcript to confirm a modern transcript of the original, or to help with illegible writing on the original OK, so the Bishops’ Transcript (B) above is NOT a good example of this. But mostly they are very neat and the photographed image is NOT too dark to see. Anyway, trust me – you can.
* Fourth, the Bishops’ Transcript is also great if you have a subscription with a website that provides this but not the original parish register I gave a few county examples of this above, but I have an ongoing example relating to my own research. West Yorkshire parish registers are on Ancestry but not on FindMyPast. However, FindMyPast has the Borthwick Institute records from York which include the BTs for the whole of Yorkshire. For this reason alone I need subscriptions to both sites.
* Fifth, if your subscription site doesn’t return an existing record, try searching on a different site I gave this example in my last post: I couldn’t find a marriage for my 5x great grandparents. His name was Thomas Mann and she was Sarah. I felt sure her surname would be Creak, since that was the middle name given to their son, my 4x great grandfather. There was no such marriage showing up on Ancestry or FindMyPast. Eventually, it was FreeReg that came to the rescue (example E above is from this site). The problem here was in copying the name to the index. Ancestry did have the record, but their index gave the bride’s surname as Cooke. There’s no guarantee that FreeReg will be right and Ancestry will have it wrong of course. It could be the other way round. But it’s an example of the benefit of having a variety of sites and indexes (G) at your fingertips, and swapping between them all when you can’t find something. Remember – there is scope for human error in every index, and if the index is not correct we will not find our records on that site.
* Sixth, if you come across a transcription that’s arranged alphabetically instead of chronologically, use it as a checklist That was how I used the alphabetical transcription (F). I found I had almost all of these burials but a couple were new to me. All I had to do was search for these specific records on my subscription site, and the records appeared.
* Finally, if you come across the work of a dedicated and trusted researcher thank your lucky stars – but still search for the evidence! With practice, you can tell which researchers you can trust. Their work is careful and meticulous, thoroughly sourced, well organised… I’ve named three such examples above: the CalverlyInfo site, the Calverley page on GENUKI (although not all pages on GENUKI are as well padded) and the Wharfegen site. If you come across a site like any of these you can do a happy dance. Even so, use it as a starting point. Look for the originals. And if you can’t find the originals cite them and their website as your transcription source.
I hope there are some new ideas for you amongst that little lot. Have you any other interesting ideas for making the most of transcriptions? If so, why not leave a comment.
My 6xG grandparents John Christian and Rose Moss had five children:
First child John’s baptism is missing, but he died in 1733 and was buried 20th March. I have seen digitised images of the original record on Ancestry (record set: England, Church of England Baptism, Marriages, and Burials, 1535-1812) and FindMyPast (record set: Norfolk Burials) so I know for certain that this took place at St James Pockthorpe, Norwich.
However, according to record set: England, Select Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991, also on Ancestry, but licensed from FamilySearch, the burial took place on that same day but at Necton, Norfolk.
Second son Jonathan was baptised 25th August 1734. Again, digitised images of the original records on Ancestry (record sets: Norfolk, England, Church of England Baptism, Marriages, and Burials, 1535-1812 and Norfolk, England, Transcripts of Church of England Baptism, Marriage and Burial Registers, 1600-1935, this latter being Bishops Transcripts) and at FindMyPast (Record set: Norfolk Baptisms) leave me in no doubt that this took place at St James Pockthorpe, Norwich.
Yet according to England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975, it too took place on the same day but again at Necton.
No baptism to be found for daughter Rose, but again digitised originals evidence her burial at Norwich St James Pockthorpe on 21st June 1737 – although there is also a separate indexing of the record on Ancestry under the name of Ross. And once again England, Select Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991 records the event at Necton.
No problems for the baptisms of sons Christopher and Philip: correctly recorded at St James Pockthorpe on all record sets. However, when it comes to Christopher’s second marriage in 1764, records for both the marriage and the banns, although having digitised images and correct transcriptions, are incorrectly attributed to the Northamptonshire county records office instead of the Norfolk archives.
Christopher already had a son by his first wife. This son, also Christopher, would eventually marry Jane Childs on 18 July 1788 at Norwich, St Andrew. I know this to be a fact. I have seen the digitised image of the originals on Ancestry (Record sets: Norfolk, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1936; and Norfolk, England, Transcripts of Church of England Baptism, Marriage and Burial Registers, 1600-1935) and at FindMyPast (Record set: Norfolk Banns And Marriages – separate records for the marriage and for the banns which were read on 25 May, 1 Jun, 8 Jun, 1788). All records indicate that both bride and groom are of the parish of Norwich St Andrew.
However, record set England Marriages 1538-1973, licensed by FamilySearch to FindMyPast, has three different transcripts for this marriage:
18 July 1788 at Catfield, Norfolk
8 June 1788 at Catfield, Norfolk
18 July 1788 at Norwich, Norfolk
All of the above relates to just three generations of one line of my family. I have many similar examples, both in Norfolk and in Yorkshire – and possibly others that I just dealt with and corrected without really noticing. This is easier to do when you are both experienced as a genealogist and familiar with the lay of the land.
But we are not all experienced, and we are not all familiar with the geography of the areas where our ancestors lived. At the time of coming across some of the above errors I was lacking in both – at least at the time of discovering the Necton mysteries. When an entire generation of my family seemed to have been baptised simultaneously at both St James Pockthorpe in Norwich and at Necton, about 25 miles away – surely an impossibility in the 1730s? – I started to wonder if perhaps the church at Necton had some sort of connection to the parish of St James Pockthorpe in Norwich. Perhaps St James Pockthorpe was a grand church, and Necton was some sort of chapelry linked to it? Or perhaps my ancestors had family ties to Necton and the baptism was recorded there too. I have since visited St James Pockthorpe and know the former to be far from the truth, but at the time I remember posting a question about this on an online group. A more experienced genealogist pointed out to me that all of the wrong information had come from one provider, that these record sets were transcripts only, and that the true information could be seen and verified by looking at the images on all the other sets.
There are several points to take from all of the above, and for less experienced readers I hope there will be something to learn from this. The first is that even on the same subscription site the same event might be recorded in several different record sets. In the examples above, the same event has appeared in the original parish register entry, the contemporary bishop’s transcript based on that register, and a more modern transcription of that information that someone has made for ease of bringing genealogical information free of charge to a wider audience.
The second point is that not all record sets are equal. A transcription is much better than nothing, but it is far better to see the original image for yourself. It was only through seeing the original record in several of the record sets for St James Pockthorpe that I knew for sure the Necton entries were wrong. It was then through realising that the incorrect information all came from one source – the transcriptions licensed from FamilySearch – that I realised the potential dangers of relying on transcriptions. Ever since, when I rely on a transcription made by someone else I note that it was a transcript and where possible I note the location of the originals. Over time, often the originals will become available online. We need to get to know which are the best sets for our geographical areas of interest, and to rely on transcripts only when necessary.
Third is that we must engage with the information. In the other main example above, when records suggested that Christopher and Jane married in two different places on two different dates it made me pause for thought. It was unlikely that there were two Christopher Christians marrying two Jane Childs’s in Norfolk within a few weeks of each other. More likely that the different dates came about because of a record of the reading of the banns – and the lack of a field for the transcriber to record that this was the banns and not a marriage. It was also possible that that Christopher’s bride was from the parish of Catfield, therefore banns would be read at both places. It was only by reading the information on the records that I could see both Jane and Christopher were from the parish of Norwich St Andrew and the problem was in the transcription; but also that yes, the different dates arose because some of the records related to the banns.
Fourth is that errors are not limited to transcription sets. Archaic handwriting may be difficult to read, and even when the original image is included in the set the names may be wrongly indexed. I spent many years looking for the marriage of a Thomas Mann to a Sarah Creak. (See above) Creak had been transcribed as Cook. If something looks unlikely, or if we’re drawing a blank, it makes sense to try the same search using a different record set or even a different index with another provider, such as FreeBMD, FreeReg or FreeCen.
And then there is the matter in the final example above, in which the entire record set has somehow been assigned to Northamptonshire. If you were unfamiliar with the geography of your ancestors’ homeland you might easily record the location of the originals as Northamptonshire records office instead of Norfolk, which wouldn’t be a good thing.
I hope there is food for thought in all that. Now that we have the perils of over-reliance on transcriptions out in the open, my next post will look at the matter from the other side – how we can use them effectively in our research.
Since 1841 the decennial census has been an increasingly invaluable resource for genealogists and family historians, providing us with a ten-yearly check-in on our ancestors that we can compare with parish registers, civil BMD certificates, and other documents recording events in their lives.
But did you know that the census did not begin in 1841? There were four earlier censuses, in 1801, 1811, 1821 and 1831.
There had been calls for a better knowledge and understanding of the state of the population since the middle of the 17th century. How many people were there? How many paupers? How many men were available to fight, and what would be the impact on their communities if they were required to do so? These, and other important questions were behind the call, and it was felt increasingly that existing parish records were not up to the job. However, it was not until the turn of the 19th century that the issue finally found its way to the statute book. The Population Act of 1800 provided for ‘an enumeration’ of the population on 10 March 1801, or as soon as possible thereafter, with two objectives:
to ascertain the number of persons, families and houses and a broad indication of the occupations in which the people were engaged;
to gather information to provide a better understanding of whether the population was increasing or decreasing.
Information relating to the first objective was to be collected by the Overseers of the Poor or ‘other Substantial Householders’, via house to house enquiry. The second objective was to be addressed by selective scrutiny of parish registers during the previous hundred years, and was to be carried out by the Clergy in England and Wales, and by the Schoolmaster ‘or other fit person or persons’ in Scotland.
This pattern of specific Act of Parliament followed by a census the next year occurred every decade up to and including the 1910 Act / 1911 census. (The Census Act of 1920 provided for future enumerations as well as for that due to be taken in 1921.) As with the censuses since 1841, the questions asked were amended in 1811, 1821 and 1831. You can read the exact questions asked, together with more about the history of the earlier censuses at the Vision of Britain website.
Sadly for us as genealogists and family historians, what distinguishes these early censuses from those since 1841, is that they were simply enumerations of the population: there was no requirement to record names. Of course the information recorded was and remains of use to various professionals including planners, population analysts and historians, and we can access digitised images of the original reports via online search at histpop: online historical and population reports. An abstract for Leeds Town for the 1801 enumeration, for example, shows that the East division, where I know some of my ancestors lived at that time, had 1,156 inhabited houses, occupied by a total of 1,339 families. 58 additional houses were uninhabited. I also see that in this division there were 2,387 males and 2,737 females, and I can see the breakdown of occupations of these people. Similar information is available for 1811, 1821 and 1831 – and of course for every other parish in the country.
If by now you’re thinking this is all very nice, but you would far prefer to see records with the names of your ancestors and to learn a little more about them specifically and their lives… you may be in luck.
When the overseers, schoolmasters, clergy or other fit and substantial persons carried out their enquiries, they did of course make their own records. Generally this would have included a list of actual named householders, together with the required information for that household. They were, as we know, not required to submit this information; rather they extracted the numerical data from it. Having done that they may have destroyed their original paperwork. On the other hand, they may have retained it, often amongst the papers in the parish chest.
In fact quite a few name-rich lists from the early censuses are known to have survived and more come to light from time to time. As they do, their existence and whereabouts are recorded by a team at the University of Essex Department of History, who have published a booklet listing their findings: Census schedules and listings, 1801-1831: an introduction and guide, available online [here]. Documents are listed by county, alphabetically, and within that by parish. Known locations of the documents are included. They may, for example, be at the local record office; copies may be at the main library; and local history or family history societies may have transcribed them. The authors at Essex University acknowledge that theirs is a work in progress, so it’s possible that there may still be more to be found amongst parish records and papers at your local Record Office.
To return to my Leeds Town example, notes have been found for almost the whole township for 1801, and these do include the East division. I haven’t yet been able to view it, but it will certainly add another piece to the developing jigsaw puzzle of known information about my ancestors in this area.
I hope you find something of interest about your parishes too.