RootsChat.Com

Hi Ian,

Here's the death notice:
Stephenson - At 44, Percy Street, Tynemouth, on the 13th inst., aged 70 years, Jane Stephenson (Gordon). Interment at Preston Cemetery on Wednesday at 2.30. [Shields Daily News - Tuesday 15 August 1916]

... and the burial referred to:

[Entry #] 615 - Jane Gordon Stephenson - Female - [Age] 70 yrs - Widow - [Where death occurred] 44 Percy St Tynemouth - [Date of burial] 16 Aug 1916 - [Ceremony performed by] P. Harrington Hart - Consecrated - [Grave#] 12108 - [From what township or parish] Tynemouth - [Registrar] Thos. Simpson [Burial register of Preston Cemetery, vol. 19 (22 Jan 1916 - 4 Dec 1918), folio 62]

Thanks for following up on the suggestion re Wm. Stephenson and Mary Layton.  I' m not sure what odds we have on it bearing fruit but worth a try...  Sorry I haven't got back to you yet on your email but I will do so shortly.

I fully agree with your comments regarding the use of both Stephenson and Gordon as surnames.  We'll never know for sure.  I think I based my suggestion on the fact that I have other ancestors who always went publically by their father's surname but who, because their parents were unmarried,  registered GRO events using their mother's surname.  But other Stephenson siblings didn't do this so maybe it was, as you suggest, more likely to be an attempt to stay under the radar.

I thought that I had already posted these two interesting obits but, based on your comments, perhaps I hadn't:

A harpist and singer, named Leonard Stephenson, but whose professional name was Samuel Gordon, and who was well known in many parts of the country, but particularly at Ipswich, as a frequenter of the river boats plying to and from Harwich, has died suddenly at Lynn. The Borough Coroner held an inquest on Tuesday evening, when Dr. Chadwick stated that he had made a post mortem examination and found that death was due to the rupture of an aneurism.  Chief Constable Payne stated that among Gordon's effects he found a card written to Gordon from Ipswich, and giving the address of his sister (Mrs. Lyall) at South Shields.  The police of that place, however, had failed to find her. The jury returned a verdict in accordance with the medical evidence. [Diss Express - Friday 14 February 1902, p5 col6]

Travelling harpist's death at Lynn ... Mr. E. M. Belcoe, Borough Coroner, held an inquest at the Town Hall, Lynn, on Tuesday evening, when Dr. G. R. Chadwick stated that he had made a post-mortem examination, and found that death was due to the rupture of an aneurism. William Benstead, landlord of the Empress Public-house, Queen Street, said Gordon had lodged with him for five weeks. On Saturday night, he went to bed at 10.30, apparently in his usual health. At 12.40 on Monday, as he was not down, witness called him, and received no answer, so entered his room, and found him dead, with blood on the carpet and elsewhere... A pedlar's certificate granted at Wisbech in 1901, showed Gordon's age at that time to be 61. Witness had known him for nine and ten years as a musician who travelled all over the country... [Eastern Daily Press (Norwich) - Thursday 13 February 1901, p6 col5]

And here is the burial record:

Leonard Stephenson alias Samuel Gordon - Queen Str. - Feb: 13 - 62 years - Gerald L. Morrell [PR, King's Lynn St. Margaret, 13 Feb 1902]

That reference to "Mrs Lyall" in the obit is especially useful as it proves that his sister is Indiana Lyall.

I'll get back to you on the Henry Layton Stephenson link in my email.

Jon 

I completely agree with your comments regarding Thrulines and trees on Ancestry, Ian.  Both can be enormously helpful but also enormously misleading as in the examples you provided.  It's perhaps easy for me to say because I only keep a skeleton tree on there for Thrulines purposes but I make a point of never importing anyone else's entries whether or not it is correct.  I looked at Ancestry trees for an individual last week:  45 trees of which 44 were incorrect and one solitary person had it right! With such a high proportion of "fake news" out there, you begin to wonder how and when (or even if) it can ever be rectified.

I wonder if it would be worth going out on a limb and adding William Stephenson and Mary Layton as tentative parents for John on your wife's tree (maybe just for a few days until Thrulines are regenerated) as this might trigger some new (and correct this time, I hope!) connection suggestions with other descendants of that Egglestone/Romaldkirk group of Stephensons. 

BTW, in your previous post you mentioned Heyworth when you meant Heworth (for the location next door to Gateshead where the Stephensons settled on Tyneside).

Thanks to all for the interesting, thought-provoking and heart-warming (Biggles) answers to my original query.

I have a new match on Ancestry against my mother's test which I was interested in because it shows a shared match with someone descended from an ancestor with a surname that has been a problem for me, said ancestor hailing from the same tiny Northumberland hamlet as "my lot".  Only 9cM/1 segment but hey...  Ancestry say that this match is on my mother's maternal side which would be correct if there is indeed a link.

But when I check the same Ancestry member against my own test, it comes back as 15cM/2 segments and the maternal/paternal attribution is given as "Unassigned".

My question is: how is that even possible or do you think it's a mistake?  The only way I can think of that I could have a stronger DNA match than my mother is if I also have a segment match against this person inherited from my father.  I've occasionally seen a one or two cM increase which I've put down to the sampling science not being 100% correct but this is much more marked.