|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 7, 2023 2:56:35 GMT -5
Cledry - sorry, if I had looked a little closer I might have answered your question with this information earlier. It did not occur to me then to look at the children which I think is evidence enough to solve the problem.
CT
|
|
|
Post by cledry on Nov 7, 2023 7:03:09 GMT -5
In light of this DNA evidence has anyone sorted these two Zenobias out with certainty? I am all a bit new to the whole DNA thing and how one decides who is a direct relation and who is a cousin. However if several related people had the family tree incorrect, wouldn't the DNA just point to the incorrect information? Also unless my understanding of DNA is totally wrong doesn't the probabibilty of what degree of relationship decrease with each generation? I think I read an article on all the permutations and it was staggering once you get back 3 or more generations. For example a grand nephew or niece, a first cousin 1 x removed, a great dreat grandparent and a great grand uncle or aunt all share the same percentage of DNA. As we go back this changes even more and there are many many more possible scenarios in which two preople might share the same percentage of DNA with a vast number of possible relationships.
|
|
|
Post by cledry on Nov 7, 2023 7:05:36 GMT -5
Cledry - sorry, if I had looked a little closer I might have answered your question with this information earlier. It did not occur to me then to look at the children which I think is evidence enough to solve the problem. CT I think this is the same evidence that I used when I was delving into this many years ago. I just didn't keep very good notes on how I reached my conclusion. Your well-written and well-reasoned response jogged my memory a bit.
|
|
|
Post by kiwichick on Nov 7, 2023 12:36:39 GMT -5
I took into consideration with people and their matches, I have the Berriman side as removed cousins (around four people) And my line with confirmed matches as direct lines, these people will have closer matches being older then me. For some reason I do get very strong DNA matches back six generations, and with good house keeping in my research I think this helps.
|
|
|
Post by cledry on Nov 8, 2023 6:56:45 GMT -5
Re: Thomasine BERRYMAN bap 23 Mar 1783 who married John Jelbart (sp?) 11 Feb 1809 at Zennor. This couple seems to disappear. I have just done a quick OPC search and can't find anything reall on this couple. Very strange.
|
|
|
Post by cledry on Nov 8, 2023 7:20:19 GMT -5
Re: Thomasine BERRYMAN bap 23 Mar 1783 who married John Jelbart (sp?) 11 Feb 1809 at Zennor. This couple seems to disappear. I have just done a quick OPC search and can't find anything reall on this couple. Very strange. I think I have spotted them over in Mousehole. Looks like Thomasine GILBERT buried Paul 1 July 1857 aged 74 resident of Mousehole is her. Husband John GILBERT buried Paul 28 March 1847 aged 1783 resident of Mousehole. Children. Jane 21 March 1813 Mary Ann 09 October 1814 John 14 Dec 1816 William & John (twins?) 4 July 1821 The above all at Paul. There is also a possible. Elizabeth 02 Dec 1811 at Madron, father John JELBARD no mother listed, but it fits well with this couple. John is listed as a junior. Based on this, I think John was bap. at Madron 3 August 1783 to John JELBART. As you can see the name is all over the place, so wildcard searches very important.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 11, 2023 3:43:50 GMT -5
I had not done anything with this family other than add daughter Mary Ann due to her marriage in 1837 to William Humphrys due to a Noall connection I was looking at back in 2021. I am not sure about 'potential' daughter Elizabeth baptised at Madron in 1811 but I do agree that Jane (1813), John (1816-1820) and sons William and John (1821) belong. But I would certainly NOT jump to the conclusion that the later William and John were twins. Yes, they 'may' be but given there are four and a half years between the 1816 baptism of John and the 1821 baptisms of William and John I think it more likely that William might have been born a little earlier than 1821 but baptised with his younger sibling. That is not necessarily correct either but it is certainly I think the more likely option. A burial for William or the ages of he and younger brother John if they appear together in the 1841 and/or 1851 Census should help clarify that situation. I would also not jump to the conclusion that John Jelbart (sic.) might be the son of John baptised in 1783. Remember that the term 'Junior' generally means that he is the younger of two persons of the same name residing in the Parish. Also note that there are at least two options for parents should he turn out to be the son of John - John Jelbirt and Joan Jelbirt who married at Madron in 1780 and John Jelbart and Jane Victor who married at Madron in 1783 are two possibilities for starters. I am also curious, should Elizabeth baptised at Madron in 1811 be daughte of John and Thomasine, why she would not have been named Joan or Jane if either of the above marriages were for her grandparents. I don't have time for much more at the moment so will leave you with those thoughts. CT
|
|
|
Post by cledry on Nov 11, 2023 14:31:13 GMT -5
I had not done anything with this family other than add daughter Mary Ann due to her marriage in 1837 to William Humphrys due to a Noall connection I was looking at back in 2021. I am not sure about 'potential' daughter Elizabeth baptised at Madron in 1811 but I do agree that Jane (1813), John (1816-1820) and sons William and John (1821) belong. But I would certainly NOT jump to the conclusion that the later William and John were twins. Yes, they 'may' be but given there are four and a half years between the 1816 baptism of John and the 1821 baptisms of William and John I think it more likely that William might have been born a little earlier than 1821 but baptised with his younger sibling. That is not necessarily correct either but it is certainly I think the more likely option. A burial for William or the ages of he and younger brother John if they appear together in the 1841 and/or 1851 Census should help clarify that situation. I would also not jump to the conclusion that John Jelbart (sic.) might be the son of John baptised in 1783. Remember that the term 'Junior' generally means that he is the younger of two persons of the same name residing in the Parish. Also note that there are at least two options for parents should he turn out to be the son of John - John Jelbirt and Joan Jelbirt who married at Madron in 1780 and John Jelbart and Jane Victor who married at Madron in 1783 are two possibilities for starters. I am also curious, should Elizabeth baptised at Madron in 1811 be daughte of John and Thomasine, why she would not have been named Joan or Jane if either of the above marriages were for her grandparents. I don't have time for much more at the moment so will leave you with those thoughts. CT I was not presuming that they were twins. That is why I put a ? next to it. It is a possibility. I am fairly certain that John baptised 1783 is the correct John though. Elizabeth remains unassigned as of this time.
|
|
|
Post by Cornish Terrier on Nov 12, 2023 0:24:41 GMT -5
William and John are almost certainly not twins. In the 1841 Census both are at home with their mother with William recorded as age 20 and John age 15. Due to the practice of allowing the ages of adults (i.e. those age 15 and over) to round their ages down to the nearest five this would mean that William was probably born between 1816 and 1821 and John born between 1821 and 1826. As the first son named John was baptised in December 1816 William was therefore probably born late 1817 or 1818/1819 but as I have not yet found him after 1841 that is as accurate as I can be.
John on the other hand is releatively easy and was almost certainly born not too long before his baptism in July 1821. John married Jane Pascoe Richards at Paul in 1845 and died 17 months later on 21st September 1846. John Jelbard of Mousehole age 25 was buried at Paul 23rd September 1846.
The younger John also left a Will written just four days before his death and proved 1st June 1847 with wife Jane as his sole Executrix.k
The John Jelbart buried at Paul in 1847 'may' be the husband of Thomasine Berryman but I am yet to be totally convinced. He was a 'labourer' at the time of the baptisms of sons William and John in 1821 but that does not mean his employment was confined to solid ground. If he did spend time labouring it is also likely, especially in a fishing village like Mousehole, that he was a fisherman at least some of the time. It is therefore possible that he may have been lost at sea and, therefore, there would be no burial.
What troubles me is that he is not at home with Thomasine in the 1841 Census. Thomasine is certainly a widow by 1851 but the fact John is missing in 1841 suggests the possibility she may have been widowed even before that Census.
There are also a couple of other possibilities for a baptism for John including the illegitimate child of 'Jenny' Jelbard at Gulval in 1777.
CT
|
|