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.


Messages - ali.aitch

Pages: [1] 2
1
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: DNA matches - am I being illogical?
« on: Saturday 01 February 25 19:59 GMT (UK)  »
Richard - Thank you. I knew you could enter the number of shared cMs, but was quite unaware of the whole family tree thing ...! I will go and give it a try. Reading back my own message and looking at the figures in the matrix, it did occur to me that perhaps the 'conjugal relationship' happened much earlier.
Thanks again, much appreciated - Alison

2
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / DNA matches - am I being illogical?
« on: Saturday 01 February 25 17:27 GMT (UK)  »
Alison, Josie, Pat, Marion and Barbara all have DNA in common with each other, sharing between 39 and 903 cMs. Alison and Josie are first cousins, descended from John Horlock and Mary Johnson. Pat and Marion are second cousins, descended from John Horlock and Mary Poole. Barbara's family tree going back to her great-grandparents does not include John Horlock. Barbara's ancestors came from Scotland, Ireland, Dorset, south London and the home counties. John Horlock spent his adult life in Islington, north London. Barbara's grandfather and great-grandfather (and their wives and daughters) lived part of their adult lives in Islington.

In order for Barbara to share DNA with four people all descended from John Horlock, I think one of Barbara's female ancestors must have had a child by John Horlock or one of his close male relatives. Am I right, or could there be another explanation? All ideas and suggestions gratefully received. Thanks!

3
Hi Biggles

Thank you for this.

Please do not feel obliged to help. I have plenty to be getting on with thanks to brigidmac's suggestions.

Best wishes - A

4
Brigidmac, thanks so much for all those tips, should keep me out of trouble for a while. I never thought to do Sarah Hammont's tree beyond looking for her death and, on finding no record of that, assuming she was still alive and the reason John and Mary J did not marry.

Is it possible to see images on private trees on Ancestry?

Thru Lines would be great if they came from accurate family trees. I know my own family tree must have mistakes in it, but years go by and you never get the chance / the time / a reason to go back with a magnifying glass to correct yourself.

The mess the enumerator made of the 1871 census for John & family is tattoo'd on my brain. Got the surname wrong, recorded John instead of Tom, Emily's age nonsensical (she was born in 1864, so would have been 7). I suppose two people with broad Westcountry accents were just too alien for him. Plus what we get is a copy of his original records, possibly done by candle-light in an East End slum. When you think about it, it's a miracle that so much of the various censuses is actually right.

I read your MCCAUGHTRIE & ROBERTS DNA thread and had to go and lie down in a darkened room.

I will keep going back to your suggestions in the coming days - thanks again

A xxx

5
Thanks again to CAL for that further explanation, I get what you mean now. That would work like a dream if only I had Tom's DNA and he subsequently had his own list of matches. As it is, I only have my own matches (or of my sister/cousin/niece.) Where I can build trees for those matches who are descended somehow from John Horlock, there is only one (Alf) who descends through Emily Jane (so I know they have Mary Johnson DNA) several who descend through Mary Poole (wrong woman) and several who descend though Mary Johnson but they all have no clue who she was. Catch 22. You are almost certainly right, it looks like it could just be a waiting game. Trouble is, I'm in my 70s now and waiting is not the option I want to accept. Upside, though - it's a huge incentive to keep me going till I become the oldest woman in the world, and the perfect excuse not to do any housework.

6
Thank you for this, Cas. I'm not sure I really understand what you mean by "try with Tom" - I know I can search my *matches* for a surname (in this case Horlock) but there doesn't seem to be an option to search with both first name AND surname. I have found quite a lot of *trees* with Tom in, but they all either go no further back than Mary Johnson, or they incorrectly give Mary Poole or Sarah Hammont as his mother, or they nominate a Mary Johnson who I have eliminated by building their trees. I think I have to sleep on it, I might get what you are saying after a good night's kip. (by the way, love your peeps who pop up - was it Harry Enfield's Greek bloke in Saturday Night Live?)

7
I am trying to find my g-g-grandmother Mary Johnson using DNA, but my g-g-grandfather had children by three different women.
My g-g-grandfather John Horlock (b1824, Horsley GLS) married Sarah Hammont and had two sons with her in Chelsea (1851 census.) He was next discovered living with my g-g-grandmother Mary Johnson in Islington (1861 census) just before the birth of my g-grandfather Tom Sansome Horlock. Mary was calling herself Mary Horlock, the wife of John, aged 23 and born in Somerset. (They didn't marry, I assume Sarah was still alive. John and Sarah's two sons were recorded on census night 1861 as staying at a homeless shelter in Saffron Hill, Clerkenwell.) They then had a daughter together, Emily Jane. Tom and Emily's birth certificates both give Mary's maiden name as Johnson, as does the birth certificate of a child who died in infancy. By the census of 1871 John was living with another woman called Mary with two additional children, Martha and Kate. They were both described as his daughters, with new-Mary calling herself John's wife, aged 38, also born in Somerset. Martha and Kate were not registered in the name Horlock; I assume they were the children of the man new-Mary was living with before, and were registered in his surname. When John and new-Mary had yet another two children, William and Mary, their birth certificates give Mary's maiden name as Poole. Martha died in childhood and Kate took up with one Henry Sessions, who spent so much of his life in prison that they did not have children.
I have taken a DNA test with Ancestry and have a sprawling tree there. Of all my matches, I can find only one who is a certain, documented descendant of Emily Jane. I'll call him Alf. When I look at the DNA matches which Alf and I have in common, those I am able to build a tree for all turn out to be descendants of Mary Poole through William and Mary, her children with John. (There are a couple of our shared matches who have no tree or clues, so I can't trace their ancestors.)
I can find plenty of matches who trace back to Tom Sansome but they too, of course, have John's DNA as well. I need to find a match who is decended from a relative of Mary Johnson, or from a child she had with another man, in order to eliminate John's DNA and find out who Mary was. (Is my logic correct here? Looking at DNA matches gets me back, at best, to people who are descended from John and any one of three or more women.)
I have built trees for all the Mary Johnsons born around 1838 in Somerset from entries I can find on the 1841 and 1851 censuses. They all died too soon, married elsewhere or emigrated. I have messaged all the no-tree people but got no joy there. I have access to the DNA matches of my sister, my cousin and a niece on Ancestry (all descended though Tom Sansome.) I have transferred my DNA results to MyHeritage, familytreeDNA and GEDmatch but am unsure how to use their tools and they can't rival Ancestry for the huge number of trees and DNA test takers. I've tried to find out who Mary Poole was on the off-chance that she and Mary Johnson knew each other back in Somerset - she, too, has eluded me.
I have been looking for Mary Johnson since the arrival of the internet. I thought that DNA would crack the case, but now I'm struggling with the DNA side of things. Can anyone suggest a way forward, please? On Ancestry.co.uk I am ali_aitch1 and the tree is called Seeking Mary Johnson. Thanks so much for reading. Alison x

8
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: just testing - please ignore
« on: Thursday 16 May 24 16:45 BST (UK)  »
testing

9
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / just testing - please ignore
« on: Thursday 16 May 24 16:45 BST (UK)  »
testing if email is correct

Pages: [1] 2