|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 17, 2017 5:16:18 GMT -5
William Glasson Curnow did eventually marry - to Mary Ellen Buck in 1898 in Victoria. He died at Ballarat in 1928.
The posts are getting a little confusing but I think the Mary Curnow you are asking about is the mother of the William Curnow baptized at Towednack in 1846. That being the case then she was baptized at Towednack 13th June 1816 daughter of William Curnow and Mary Curnow who married at Towednack 26th December 1815. (i.e. they were born Curnows by birth!)
William Curnow senior was son of Thomas Curnow and Honour Michell ...... Mary Curnow was daughter of Michael Curnow and Mary James.
CT
|
|
|
Post by robyndundas on Oct 17, 2017 5:52:59 GMT -5
The son, Henry Thomas was born on 17 November 1816 at Ludgvan. I found a real record. Father was a tinner, James. Mother Elizabeth.
More searching tomorrow.
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Oct 17, 2017 5:55:07 GMT -5
I have to agree with Zib on the DNA angle- can be a very useful pointer, but oh so frustrating. I have found quite a lot of otherwise unknown family as a result of DNA matching, but equally there are a great many matches that I simply cannot figure out. Though in some cases I suspect it is due in part to incorrect research on the part of less experienced researchers. Though incorrect information in original records can also send people in the wrong directions. In the case of one recent DNA match the cousin had her ancestor born at Forest of Dean, Glocestershire since that is what the 1901 census said. In reality he was born 20 miles eastward at Forest Green near Nailsworth, but because at the time he was living relatively close to Forest of Dean, the census taker has "heard" and recorded the better known name rather than the correct place.
One point to keep in mind with DNA matching is the possibility of coincidental matching - getting a match to what seems like a relative yet not being able to tie it together with paper trails or even family surnames. While sometimes the problem is simply missing documentation for the unknown connection, for the more distant relationships (4th cousin and higher) there is always the chance that your match to another person is purely by a chance random shuffling of the genome.
For example, Ancestry's DNA Circles keeps saying I am related to A William Ward (1839-1916) - either by descent from him or one of his close relatives (cousins, uncles, aunts etc). William Ward was born in Alabama (to American born parents) and died in Florida. Neither he nor his parents carry surnames that are related to my family at all and his mother's family had been in America for several generations. While I have many distant cousins ins the USA, I have only one ancestor who went anywhere near America - my 3xgreat grandfather who abandoned his wife and children in Manchester, Lancs, in the 1860s and then emigrated to New Jersey. As A result I am quite confident that there is no way I could be William Ward, though there is an outside chance of being related to some of his living descendants through other family lines. So I currently consider this group of matches to be "identical by chance" rather than by inheritance.
With matches that are hard to figure out, the more shared matches you have then the more likely it becomes that the match(es) are due to inheritance rather than by chance.
Like Zib I have also had quite a few ancestors that have proved challenging to locate - mainly because they refused to leave solid paper trails and in many cases refused to stay where you expected them to be. One 2xgreat grandfather was a challenge for many years - he remarried in Australia in 1879 and his 2nd wife remarried as a widow two years later. Yet I could not find a death for my 2xgreat grandfather anywhere in Australia or New Zealand. Many years later I discovered he had actually died in Fiji - went there to help build a mill during the establishment of the sugar industry there and died six weeks after arrival.
Even now I have a 2xgreat-grandfather whose death I can't find after 20 years of trying. All I know is he left the family farm in Victoria, Australia during the 1890s Australian Depression when he was in his mid-sixties. He is said to have "gone of with a mate and the mate came back two years later to advise the family their father/husband had died". All I know is that he does not appear in any available death index for any country on the planet. I thought a few years ago I had narrowed him down as going to the West Australian gold rush, but having made contact with a cousin (descendant of the person), it was actually the son of the same name rather than the father. So very frustrating, but refuse to give up.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 17, 2017 6:22:11 GMT -5
OH, dear .... we do seem to have a problem! I am not quite sure where your information is coming from but from what I have been reading I suspect a lot of it is from Ancestry Family Trees! And the first mistake most people seem to make when dealing with these sources is to believe everything they see and read! I have been having a look at Census and other information and the more I check the more I suspect you have been taken a long way down the garden path. In the first place the birth date for Henry Thomas is wrong. There was no Henry Thomas born at Ludgvan in 1817 ......................... BUT there were TWO born in 1816!! And this is where a lot of your problems begin I think. Henry son of James and Elizabeth Thomas born 25th October 1816 and baptized 17th November 1816 at Ludgvan Henry son of James and Ann Thomas born 29th November 1816 and baptized 22nd December 1816 at Ludgvan If you look at the birthdate you have for Henry and then look at the two entries just above you will see that 29th November is the date the son of James and ANN Thomas was born. And in my database I already have this Henry (i.e. son of James and Ann) as being the man who married Sidwell Oates. Also interesting is that in 1851 Henry and Sidwell Thomas were at Cockwells in Ludgvan. On one side was a John Thomas age 26 and on the other was a James Thomas age 31 both also at Ludgvan. The location and the ages of all three match them as being sons of James and Ann Thomas! More work has to be done to confirm exactly which Henry married Sidwell Oates but, as I say, at the moment I have him as the son of James Thomas and Ann Thomas who married at Ludgvan 9th March 1816. Next point - IGNORE ALL REFERENCES TO REDRUTH!! The James Thomas at Redruth might have been buried in 1853 and he did have a wife named Elizabeth .... but she was NOT a Curnow. I think you will find that James Thomas, husband of Elizabeth Curnow, was buried at Ludgvan 12th December 1841 age 53. In the 1841 Census James was living at Carvossoe in Ludgvan with daughters Eliza, Elizabeth and Prudence. The Burial register records that he was 'of Lower Quarter' which is just near Carvossoe. If these people are claiming a link to Elizabeth Curnow via the marriage of Henry Thomas to Sidwell Oates then it is possible that they might all be wrong! If that is the case then you might be chasing something that simply is not there ... and wasting a lot of time doing it. The reputed link to James Thomas at Redruth is, in my opinion, clearly incorrect. The Redruth information seems to suggest you are looking for someone born about 1783 when in fact, if you are indeed connected to Elizabeth Curnow, you should be looking ten years later. Now then, let's get things moved back to Ludgvan and have another look at the problem. IF your Henry Thomas, husband of Sidwell Oates, was the son of James Thomas and Elizabeth Curnow then the registers show Elizabeth Thomas nee Curnow buried at Ludgvan in 1839 at the age of 47. This puts her birth about 1792 or 1793 which makes here the daughter of Henry Curnow and Loveday Warren!! BUT!!!! - as pointed out above, your Henry might actually be the son of James Thomas and his wife Ann Thomas ... and that puts a completely different complexion on things!!! In think you need to check the trees of the people with whom you have DNA matches and re-evaluate everything. Check the information they show for yourself and don't blindly take what they say for granted. CT
|
|
|
Post by sue on Oct 17, 2017 12:17:15 GMT -5
I can only echo what CT has said,and what I think Gandolf & Zibetha are in part saying. You need to look at online records for yourself, and yes, it takes much time. DNA is perhaps an add-on.... I think I said in a previous post: other people's trees: aargh! (so often!) There is a tendency sometimes to slap people who "happen-to-fit" into a family history tree; this gets posted online and replicated time after time... I believe the current phrase for this would be Fake Noos, Folks! I posted a hyperlink earlier in this thread to OnlineParishClerkCornwall where you will find transcriptions of baptisms etc for many of the people mentioned - and you will see for yourself the various children of James Thomases etc. etc. in the early 19th century. PLease, don't go off down the garden path of looking to grab any possible DNA matches to someone's tree who happens to have included the Curnow ancestry of Wm Curnow 1846 that CT has just outlined! I just don't think this will be anything but a huge waste of your time. Sue
|
|
|
Post by jacob on Oct 17, 2017 16:59:53 GMT -5
I agree that all records should be checked and verified before adding anything to a family tree but I am resenting the fact that you appear to be saying that all trees online are 'Fake Noos, Folks'. Please don't tar them all with the same brush, a lot of people work very hard to get their ancestors correct and they don't always lead researchers down the garden path.
|
|
|
Post by robyndundas on Oct 17, 2017 17:46:50 GMT -5
Thank you all for your fantastic assistance, patience and knowledge sharing about this process.
I spent a few hours last night on the OPC database ( which I didn't know existed) and did find a couple of records for myself.
I will use the information you have given me and work out a plan.
I'll keep a watch on this website and use the information here to help me become a better researcher in my own right.
I'll post again when I think I have made significant progress ( with real records) and look forward to your feedback in the future.
Thanks again Robyn
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 17, 2017 21:14:08 GMT -5
Jacob - Sue is not exactly 'tarring' all online family trees with the same brush. The problem is that there are so many of those trees out there with dodgy information that it is extremely difficult to know what is right and what is not. In many cases one person has added incorrect information to a tree and multitudes of others have simply copied that same information without verification thus resulting in a perpetuation of the error.
The point we are all trying to make is that no matter what 'tree' you are looking at or how accurate the information seems it is ALWAYS best to follow the trail until you can verify the information for yourself or dismiss it as being wrong.
Even transcriptions, including those on the OPC site, should be checked against original documents where possible. I have done plenty of transcriptions for the OPC and still find odd errors in my own work. As these errors are found I submit corrections but it does help to highlight that it happens.
Not only that but errors do occur in 'official records' including Birth, Death and Marriage Certificates - I have seen sufficient examples to be able to verify this as a fact!
CT
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 17, 2017 21:17:30 GMT -5
Robyn - no need to 'go into hiding'. Feel free to keep posting and asking questions about new ideas you may have or about any new piece of information you look at. This might help you learn as you go and might also help save you some time along the way. By 'keeping in touch' this way we might be able to help you further by pointing you towards other sources you may not know about or may not have thought of. CT
|
|
|
Post by zibetha on Oct 18, 2017 1:05:46 GMT -5
It takes time as well as effort. I agree with Jacob re: the fake noos-- I look to see if people have records vs. sources and make my decisions re: who are just copiers. Part of what moved me forward had to do with transcriptions of records appearing after my first search/es. Privacy laws differ in different countries and, here in the US, in different states. I have to leap the gap created by the loss of records of the US 1890 Census. Luckily for me, Dickinson County, 1994/5 Michigan State census records survived and became public. That is how I eventually discovered my great-grandfather's mother's first name. I also had to wait out privacy periods in Belgium and for Family Search to add new online images. The Swedish line is a different story--- but much serendipity involved. Again, I say collect any bits of information you can and continue to evaluate them. Zib
|
|
|
Post by zibetha on Oct 18, 2017 1:27:28 GMT -5
To Gandolph,
I am more and more puzzled about some of my more recent DNA matches and starting to wonder about Ancestry's DNA chip change. I was part of My Heritage's beta test -- had 500 matches that boiled down to three when they "recalibrated." I could confirm 2 of previous 500 and none of the new. My understanding is that ANC is adjusting toward ethnic matches-- which could contribute to the "miscellany" I am seeing. (Or I could be nuts! No one seems to be shouting out)
But I have still found consistency with shared matches on Gedmatch.com. My solid matches are real and identifiable.
Zib
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Oct 18, 2017 3:16:23 GMT -5
Be careful that you have not 'jumped the gun' with this. I think you need to read my recent post again about the DNA matches and exactly where each one connects as it may well be that you have been influenced by others who have acted without all available information. In particular you need to be aware of the following information from that same post:- Check everything very careful and see how the results come out. CT
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Oct 18, 2017 5:50:25 GMT -5
Hi Zib To Gandolph, I am more and more puzzled about some of my more recent DNA matches and starting to wonder about Ancestry's DNA chip change. I was part of My Heritage's beta test -- had 500 matches that boiled down to three when they "recalibrated." I could confirm 2 of previous 500 and none of the new. My understanding is that ANC is adjusting toward ethnic matches-- which could contribute to the "miscellany" I am seeing. (Or I could be nuts! No one seems to be shouting out) But I have still found consistency with shared matches on Gedmatch.com. My solid matches are real and identifiable. Zib Although I have been working with DNA assisted research for around a year or so now, I am still only scratching the surface of the deeper analysis. With Ancestry I have never entirely figured out how they come up with the ratings for DNA matches - though it seems that matching surnames and partial matching trees do play some part in the weighting of a match. That being said, they did on one occasion point me at a very distant match that must have been stronger than most, and when I finally worked through her extensive tree, it turned out to be a seventh cousin (couldn't find a single plausible closer relative, and their estimate was 5th-8th cousins) and that match had to be on DNA only as there was no crossover in online trees at the time. Ancestry gives me hundreds of matches at around the 4th-6th cousin level that, for the ones I have checked so far, generally cannot be matched in any way whatsoever. The lack of associated trees for so many of the Ancestry tests does not help either. Even so, often, based on shared matches I have with a given DNA match, I can make some guesses as to possible branches of the family the connection "may" be on, but given Australia and the USA and Canada, where a lot of my matches are from, are countries made up of immigrants it is rarely safe to assume anything when the likely match for me is somewhere in the British Isles (where about 95% of my ancestry comes from) Also like you Zib, where tests from Ancestry are also in GEDMatch I have also found a strong and solid consistency, and GEDMatch's tools are useful for deeper diving. And likewise I can document many of these solid matches with paper trails - so as as you say the "solid matches are real and identifiable". There have even been a couple of matches that I initially could not figure out - usually due to flaws or a lack of intervening generations in the other persons's tree (though my work is not perfect either!) preventing me identifying the right branch of the family - that have now since been resolved as a result of new tests throwing up new common shared matches that I could identity. I also have my test on FamilyTreeDNA and again have had moderate success there. Just recently put a copy into My Heritage to see what would show up and have a couple of matches already.
|
|
|
Post by gandolf on Oct 18, 2017 6:10:54 GMT -5
On a more general note, I have to second the comments from CT, Zib, Sue and Jacob in relation to checking information yourself.
While online trees from other people can be useful for finding pointers to new information, even the best researched and documented tree can potentially have errors.
ALWAYS (and I can't emphasise it strongly enough) double check other people's research, by going back to the original source records (original docs for preference - or indexes or whatever the source was) yourself wherever possible.
Even then, don't assume the original document is correct simply because it was written during the ancestor's life. The original document can have incorrect information for many reasons, including: - the clerk writing it out recorded what he heard (thick accents and unfamiliarity with overseas places produces interesting outcomes!) - the person providing the information simply did not know the correct information (never told by parents, perhaps) - the person providing the information deliberately provided incorrect information to hide something - the document may be a copy of an older document and the copying process may have introduced errors.
One example I gave in an earlier post was a 1901 census entry where the place name of "Forest Green, Gloucestershire" became "Forest of Dean, Glocestershire", a different and better known place some twenty miles away. The official document - the census - is wrong (as they so often are).
In another case I know of here in Australia is a man who deliberately lied on three of his four marriage certificates - mainly because those three marriages were all bigamous! But because each marriage occurred at least a thousand miles apart from any of the others no one would have picked up on his habit. It took a concerted effort, and a lot of luck to piece together his history and ultimately it was only clues in newspaper articles that eventually helped figure it out. Thank goodness for online searchable old newspapers.
|
|
|
Post by kimcarrera on Jun 7, 2020 3:37:46 GMT -5
Thanks for the quick response. It would be very difficult to do both, but not impossible depending on the state of his marriage at this time. The bankruptcy was in Hill End and it states he was temporarily in Sandhurst in 1873. Who knows why though? Anyway, do you have any other ideas of how I can find this William? Have you any records of any other William's both in about 1843/1844 that might fit? I have studied about 30/40 William's and could only find one who fits for 1843/1844. The other one I thought might be OK was William Curnow, born 1851-1942, son of Michael Curnow and Mary Amelia Edwards who married Agnes Jane Shearman. He is VERY young though to be married to Ann and to run a hotel. He is born in Towednack, which may or may not fit with the DNA. Is going into the past through DNA and coming forward a viable option? Thanks so much Robyn
|
|