Newsletter – 4th
July 2024
Will the new Government save the UK Census?
Why you should download
the free Ancestor Chart
How do you verify
your family tree?
Don’t read my DNA
Masterclass….
How to get a 3 month Ancestry subscription for £1
The LostCousins
newsletter is usually published 2 or 3 times a month. To access the previous issue
(dated 22nd June) click here; to find earlier articles use the customised Google search between
this paragraph and the next (it searches ALL of the newsletters since February
2009, so you don't need to keep copies):
To go to the main
LostCousins website click the logo at the top of this newsletter. If you're not
already a member, do join - it's FREE, and you'll get an email to alert you
whenever there's a new edition of this newsletter available!
Will the new UK Government save the Census?
For
more than a decade the future of the Census has been under threat from the
Office for National Statistics and others who have no interest in the heritage value
of the census. Whilst it’s undoubtedly true that national censuses weren’t
instituted for the benefit of historians (whether family historians, social
historians, or local historians), there’s no doubting their value as a record
of the population at a moment in time..
Fortunately the members of the House of Commons Public
Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee determined recently that
the census is still needed. In the summary of their Report published on 24th
May they stated:
Until the Government resolves these
longstanding issues around data-sharing, it will not be possible for the UK to
deliver its citizens the evidence they need without a traditional census.
The
committee included members from the three largest parties, and there’s no
evidence of any divisions on party-political lines, so there’s a good chance that
whatever the result of today’s General Election the census will be protected
for the time being.
You’ll
find the full Report here.
Today the United States
of America celebrates the 248th Anniversary of the adoption of the
Declaration of Independence by the 13 American colonies under British rule, a
decision that led to the War of Independence.
But
back in England all was not calm: in late October 1776 a cricket match between
Kent and Essex at Tilbury Fort descended into a battle which ended with at least
three people having been killed, two shot and one run through with a bayonet.
The article on the right is from the Chester Chronicle of 1st
November 1776.
[Image ©
Reach PLC. Image created courtesy of THE BRITISH LIBRARY BOARD. Used by kind
permission of Findmypast]
According
to this page
on the English Heritage website they are the only people to have been killed at
the fort in the 350 years of its existence (it was built between 1670-1684). Some
cricket historians have questioned whether the story is true – as the saying
goes, “it’s just not cricket”.
Why you should download the free Ancestor Chart
Have
you ever downloaded the blank Ancestor Chart that I provide? There’s a link on
the home page and another at the bottom of your My Ancestors page. It
might be quite basic – and you have to fill it in by
hand – but I find it incredibly useful.
Whether
I’m working with online trees, or even trees on my own computer, I often find I
can’t see the wood for the trees. So from time to time
I use this simple chart to remind myself of the ‘state of play’.
Yesterday
morning I filled out the chart, partly because I wanted to show you an example,
but also as an exercise to see how much I could remember without having to look
at my tree. I have to admit that I did better on some
lines than others. Still, it was a worthwhile half-hour – and a useful reminder
that 2 of my 32 great-great-great grandparents are still unknown.
I
don’t suppose you have much interest in my tree – family trees are very
personal things – but it’s worth drawing your attention to one apparent
anomaly. When you look closely you might wonder how Emily Buxton could possibly
be the daughter of Robert Roper and Sarah Hunt? Answer: Emily was born some years
after Sarah’s husband, John Buxton died – it just goes to show that
illegitimate children don’t always take their mother’s maiden name.
Although
I don’t really have Buxton ancestors, my great-grandmother’s surname did get
passed on in one sense – my grandfather’s full name was Harry John Buxton
Calver. However you won’t find him under that name in
the GRO indexes, because the GRO birth register shows him as Harry Buxton John:
I
don’t have a copy of the local register entry, but I suspect that it shows the names
in the same order.
Whilst
it’s quite common for family surnames to be passed down as forenames, it’s very
unusual for the surname to be the middle forename of three. My guess is that my
great-grandparents agreed to name my grandfather Harry Buxton, but that when
she went to register the birth my great-grandmother decided to add her husband’s
name. Whilst they had four sons and four daughters, Harry was the only one to
be named after either of his parents.
But
getting back to the Ancestor Chart - do print a copy for yourself and fill it
in. In the next article I’ll explain why some of my ancestors have been
highlighted in orange.
Tip:
the Ancestor Chart shows the Ancestor Number (Ahnentafel)
for each ancestor – entering these on your My Ancestors page not only makes it
easier for me to assist and advise you, it will help
your cousins to figure out how they’re related to you. It also distinguishes
between different lines with the same surname – for example, in the chart above
you’ll see that I have two great-great-great grandmothers who bore the surname
READ (47 and 49), though they are on opposite sides of my tree, so it would be
a truly remarkable coincidence if they were connected!.
How do you verify your family tree?
You’ve
spent hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of hours researching your
family tree – but how do you know it’s correct? When I started my research I
assumed – and I don’t think I was alone in this – that provided I had
certificates or copies of register entries that backed up the information in my
tree there was little more I could do.
That
changed over 20 years when I realised that there were other family historians
who were descended from some of my ancestors, but were
starting from a different viewpoint. Knowing that they had come up with the
same answers as I had was reassuring, though I couldn’t get away from the fact
that we were all relying on the integrity of the surviving record, as well as
our powers of deduction. It was that realisation in 2003 that prompted me to
start designing LostCousins (it launched the following year).
But
these days we have a great source of information that we didn’t even consider
20 years ago – our DNA. It’s evidence that can’t be lost or destroyed and, more
importantly, it doesn’t lie. It’s just what we need to verify the accuracy of
our records-based research, and using it this way
doesn’t require any specialist knowledge, training, or even experience.
There
is a cost involved, but it’s negligible compared to the sums that each of us
has invested in conventional research – even if you put no value at all on your
own time.
One
of the simplest DNA features to use at Ancestry is Common ancestor – instead
of you scouring through the trees of your thousands of DNA matches to figure
how they’re related to you, Ancestry can do it for you. It’s not only a great
time-saver, sometimes Ancestry can deduce what the connection
is even when your DNA match doesn’t have a tree that goes back sufficiently
far, or when their tree is private.
How
can that help you validate the information in your own family tree? Each of
your Common ancestor matches supports your research: two people who are genetically-related, but working independently, have concluded
that they are descended from the same ancestor (or
pair of ancestors).
Whilst
we’re all familiar with, and wary of, the phenomenon where multiple Ancestry
users have the same wrong information in their tree, you and your cousins will
never have exactly the same information because you’re
descended from different children of the Common ancestor(s). This doesn’t in itself
guarantee that the trees are correct – but the fact that you are also
genetic cousins makes it very likely. You know that you’re connected somehow, so
if that isn’t the explanation, what is?
How do you record on your tree that you’ve
validated your records-based research using DNA? One approach is to do what I
have done on the Ancestor Chart in the previous article – I’ve highlighted in
orange the most distant ancestor on each line whose identity has been confirmed
through DNA matches.
For example, I have multiple DNA matches with descendants
of the two siblings of Mary Ann Burns (27), so I’ve highlighted her name. I haven’t
highlighted her parents’ names because even though I know from the records who they were, I
don’t have any DNA matches to prove it.
Note: in the case of
Mary Ann Burns it was the DNA evidence that came first – I was only able to
find the supporting records thanks to a DNA match with
a cousin in Australia. The same is true of John Holmes (46): it was a match
with a descendant of his convict brother Isaac that enabled me to find his
birth record.
It took me about 30 minutes to fill out the
Ancestor Chart and add the highlighting – if you’ve taken the Ancestry DNA test
how about doing the same?
When
new records are released we’re sometimes able to fill
in gaps in our tree, effectively knocking down a 'brick wall’. But when you take
a DNA test there’s a possibility that it will tell you something that you didn’t
know you didn’t know.
For
example, you might find that the amount of DNA you share with a close relative,
perhaps a 1st cousin, is only half of the average – which strongly suggests
that someone you thought was a 1st cousin is actually a
half 1st cousin.
Or
perhaps you discover a brace of half 1st cousins whose existence was
previously undocumented – and presumably unknown. This isn’t something you were
looking for, and it certainly wasn’t something you were expecting.
Understandably,
when this happens some people begin to wish they hadn’t taken the test – but I
would argue that it’s far better that someone who is an experienced family historian
makes the discovery, so that the news can be managed sensibly and sensitively,
rather than spread all over social media (which is how a member of the younger
generation might react).
Don’t read my DNA Masterclass….
That’s
right – there’s no point reading any of the Masterclasses if you’re not going
to follow the advice. Whilst every family tree is different, and no two
problems are identical, there are basic principles that we all need to follow if
we want to have the best chance of finding the answers.
It’s
particularly important when it comes to DNA because most people only test once –
I’m a rare exception, having taken every test offered by every major company
over the course of the last 12 years. This means that I know as much about what
doesn’t work as what does, enabling me to steer you away from rabbit holes that
will divert you, and quagmires that can only lead to you becoming bogged down.
Reading
a Masterclass and then going your own sweet way is always going to be counter-productive,
but it’s especially true when it comes to DNA. Sometimes I hear from people who
tested years ago but have still not answered some of the most basic questions,
usually because they’ve been going round in circles rather than following the simple,
straightforward steps in the Masterclass. The latest
version of the DNA Masterclass, published in March, even includes a
checklist so you can tick off each item as you complete it.
One
of the key learnings from the DNA Masterclass is that most of the answers will
come from distant matches rather than close matches. Sometimes people write to
me bemoaning the fact that they don’t have any close matches, and I feel like
responding “So what?”. Keep it up and maybe one day I will….
In
the UK there’s a DNA Sale until Monday 15th July – you can save 30%,
which brings the price down to just £54 (plus shipping, of course).
It
will be 5 or 6 weeks before your results come back, but there’s plenty you can
be doing in the meantime – see my DNA
Masterclass for details.
There’s
also an offer in Australia which ends tomorrow (Friday 5th July). If
you’re in Australia it’ll be Friday by the time you get to read this newsletter,
so don’t delay!
Note:
if you’re not taken to the offer page please log-out from Ancestry and click my
link gain. Thanks!
How to get a 3 month
Ancestry subscription for £1
An
Ancestry subscription is not only useful in its own right, it
greatly increases what you’re able to achieve with a DNA test. And, to
convince you of that, Ancestry are offering a 3 month
World membership for just £1 – but only when you order a DNA kit.
Of
course, the DNA kit doesn’t have to be for you – it could be for a cousin, for
your spouse, or for someone else yet to be decided (you don’t have to specify
who the test is for when you place your order). And best of all, you can manage
multiple DNA tests with a single Ancestry subscription.
Please
use the link at the end of the previous article so that there’s a chance to
support LostCousins should you make a purchase..
My
wife normally writes the gardening articles, but she’s very busy in the garden at the moment: there’s either too much or too little rain,
too much or too little sun, and there are always too many slugs.
I
do know that there will be a good crop of plums, damsons, and greengages this
year – provided the sun comes out and they don’t get eaten or infected.
Greengages are my absolute favourite stone fruit, but we only got 3 last year,
and that was a record. But last year’s bumper crop of apples definitely
isn’t going to be repeated.
I’d
never previously heard of Birkhall, King Charles III’s
Scottish home (and nor had my wife), but this article
about the glorious gardens from the November 2013 issue of Country Life
is free to view and written by Alan Titchmarsh, who knows a thing or two about gardens,
but is also a family historian on the quiet.
Prince
Charles, as he then was, inherited Birkhill from his grandmother,
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother. In the 1930s the young Princess Elizabeth, later
Queen Elizabeth II, had many holidays at Birkhill –
and it was as the indirect result of one of her Scottish trips that I
discovered Birkhill’s existence…..
Earlier
this week there was a letter sold at auction which had been written at Birkhill in 1932 by Princess Elizabeth, then a mere 6
years-old (she signs herself ‘Lilibet’ – the name by which she was known within
the family). I don’t know how long it will be available online at the
auctioneer’s site, so take a look now if you find this sort of thing as fascinating
as I do – you’ll find it here.
Note:
the pre-sale estimate was £250 to £350, but the letter actually
sold for £2000 (plus charges).
The
Who Do You Think You Are? magazine offer in the 17th June
issue is still valid – you’ll find the details here.
The
extra special discount at The Genealogist in the 31st May also seems to
be still available if you’re quick – see this article.
This is where any major updates and corrections will be
highlighted - if you think you've spotted an error first reload the newsletter
(press Ctrl-F5) then
check again before writing to me, in case someone else has beaten you to
it......
Peter Calver
Founder, LostCousins
© Copyright 2024 Peter Calver
Please do NOT copy or republish any part of this newsletter without permission - which is only granted in the most exceptional circumstances. However, you MAY link to this newsletter or any article in it without asking for permission - though why not invite other family historians to join LostCousins instead, since standard membership (which includes the newsletter), is FREE?
Many of
the links in this newsletter and elsewhere on the website are affiliate links –
if you make a purchase after clicking a link you may be supporting LostCousins
(though this depends on your choice of browser, the settings in your browser,
and any browser extensions that are installed). Thanks for your support!