1
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: DNA Test Advice
« on: Today at 17:20 »
If you can confirm the suggested dna match with a confirmed paper trail then it is likely to be correct.
Pheno
Pheno
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: A new 352cM match.
« on: Today at 12:12 »
Best wishes for a response Biggles.
Pheno
Pheno
3
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: I've Been Naughty
« on: Thursday 26 February 26 11:22 GMT (UK) »My Ancestry profile/Family Tree does what some of you rail against.
I appear to be an aunt of mine.
I am assuming you mean deliberately in order to confuse people looking at your tree, rather than as a result of some unfortunate merging or other scenario.
You are not the first and these instances are not too difficult to unscramble - I have several dna matches where my note says 'this is x masquerading as y'.
Pheno
4
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Ancestry Messenger
« on: Monday 23 February 26 14:00 GMT (UK) »
What's absolutely wrong?
Just to state that trees with over 'n' thousand people are built by name collectors - that's what is absolutely wrong and possibly libelous. Lots of genealogists know what the genealogical proof standard is and adhere to it - and label any person as a possibility and fishing for dna clues - if a particular person doesn't meet that standard.
It's a sweeping statement to classify large trees as name collecting and that the owners can't be bothered to answer messages. What does a small private tree get you in terms of dna research - probably not much.
I do take umbrage at this attitude.
Pheno
Just to state that trees with over 'n' thousand people are built by name collectors - that's what is absolutely wrong and possibly libelous. Lots of genealogists know what the genealogical proof standard is and adhere to it - and label any person as a possibility and fishing for dna clues - if a particular person doesn't meet that standard.
It's a sweeping statement to classify large trees as name collecting and that the owners can't be bothered to answer messages. What does a small private tree get you in terms of dna research - probably not much.
I do take umbrage at this attitude.
Pheno
5
Family History Beginners Board / Re: Ancestry Messenger
« on: Monday 23 February 26 10:43 GMT (UK) »
Jebber I think you may be doing some people a disservice here. I have always had a fairly small tree but since the advent of dna I have had to expand it quite considerably, much wider than I would have liked really, to incorporate people/names down to the present day from 5/6 generations back, in order to compute how dna matches connect.
It may not be name collecting but research for dna connections.
Pheno
PS It also doesn't mean that I do not reply to messages!
It may not be name collecting but research for dna connections.
Pheno
PS It also doesn't mean that I do not reply to messages!
6
Wiltshire / Re: Jane Best b.c.1871 Tisbury RD
« on: Thursday 19 February 26 15:58 GMT (UK) »
Well thank you very much everyone for helping to solve this one.
Regards, Pheno
Regards, Pheno
7
Wiltshire / Re: Jane Best b.c.1871 Tisbury RD
« on: Wednesday 18 February 26 21:32 GMT (UK) »
Yes she is married by 1891 but I have not had sight of her marriage record to know whom she names as her father.
In both the 1911 & 1921 censuses she is named as Matilda Jane Wigmore (née Best).
Pheno
In both the 1911 & 1921 censuses she is named as Matilda Jane Wigmore (née Best).
Pheno
8
Wiltshire / Re: Jane Best b.c.1871 Tisbury RD
« on: Wednesday 18 February 26 17:34 GMT (UK) »
Thanks for all your replies and apologies for not replying sooner but I don't receive notifications so have to look at unread posts but was busy sorting something else out this afternoon.
No I don't have William & Agnes after 1881.
I wondered about Jane Best aka Matilda Jane Best who is with William's married sister Emily Gane in 1871 where the relationship is daughter as it is to William & Agnes in 1881 so both seem to be claiming her as their daughter. Maybe that is what happened - could William have brought up his sister's illegitimate child as he had none of his own?
By 1891 she is married and living in London so only with either family for one census each.
Pheno
No I don't have William & Agnes after 1881.
I wondered about Jane Best aka Matilda Jane Best who is with William's married sister Emily Gane in 1871 where the relationship is daughter as it is to William & Agnes in 1881 so both seem to be claiming her as their daughter. Maybe that is what happened - could William have brought up his sister's illegitimate child as he had none of his own?
By 1891 she is married and living in London so only with either family for one census each.
Pheno
9
Wiltshire / Jane Best b.c.1871 Tisbury RD
« on: Wednesday 18 February 26 12:58 GMT (UK) »
The answer is probably staring me in the face but I can't see it.
Jane appears on the 1881 census RG11/ Piece 2077/Folio 48/Pg 8 as a 10 year old daughter, so b/c/1871, with her parents William (Thomas) Best & Agnes Read.
William & Agnes were married 1872 Tisbury so after Jane's birth. I cannot find Jane's birth reg as either Best or Read - wondered if someone else might have more luck.
Regards, Pheno
Jane appears on the 1881 census RG11/ Piece 2077/Folio 48/Pg 8 as a 10 year old daughter, so b/c/1871, with her parents William (Thomas) Best & Agnes Read.
William & Agnes were married 1872 Tisbury so after Jane's birth. I cannot find Jane's birth reg as either Best or Read - wondered if someone else might have more luck.
Regards, Pheno