Hello everybody and welcome to Family Tree Talk,
your favourite family history podcast. My name's
Helen Tovey and I'm editor of Family Tree and
with me, yes, as usual, is Nathan Ward. Hello
there. Hi Nathan, it's good to see you. Yeah,
you too. How's it going? Very well, yes. I can
hardly dare tell you what I haven't been doing,
but yes, it's been going well. Are you a bad
lass? I'm not bad, but I'm definitely off -piste,
yes. Off -piste. Yeah. Does that mean you're
doing things that you shouldn't be doing or you
just haven't been doing things? It doesn't matter
if I do them, but then I'm not doing what I said
I would do and I'm not doing what I thought I
would be doing. Is that whatever? Well, welcome
to the world of family history. That's exactly
how it works. How about you? I think I've got
quite a lot to talk about, to be honest. I don't
know where I'm going to begin. I've got the two
angles here. Let's go for the first angle. So
I got an email from a listener last week, a lady
called Liz. And she's like, here's a bunch of
images. Can you please get them to Nathan? And
I was like, OK, what's this? I wonder what this
is. I opened it up and it was Alexander McKay's
divorce document. wow um it honestly it brought
tears to my eyes i was like what what a community
we've got here it's i was so touched somebody's
gone to the is it national archives they must
have gone to yeah liz has gone to the national
archives and she's photographed the documents
for me so i've literally got all of the details
of his divorce It's just amazing. Literally,
honestly, I was in tears. Well, not tears, but
I welled up quite a bit. It was so touching.
I'm so thrilled. So thank you for that, Liz.
That's amazing. Liz had to really persist to
get these records through to us. She had to try
about three times. It was a bit of a struggle.
So persistent and amazing on every front. Properly
amazing. Had no clue what it was going to be.
It's just fantastic. I must confess I've not
properly looked through them yet because I got
sidetracked on my John Hearn stuff, but... It's
all there for me to look at. How cool is that?
So maybe we can go through those documents next
time. I'd love that. That'd be really, really
fascinating. I've never seen divorce documents
before. I don't really understand them. And yeah,
that'd be cool to look through. So thank you
for that. Thanks for making me cry. It's brilliant.
What a community though. They're fabulous, aren't
they? Really outstanding help. That's definitely
above and beyond. We don't deserve or expect
any help at all. But to get help like that is
just next level, isn't it? It really is. Next
level is the exact phrase I was thinking. Yeah,
that's brilliant. So, yeah, what do you reckon?
Maybe next podcast we'll look into those documents.
Yeah, yeah. And it sounds, I mean, it sounds
so fortunate. Off the top of my head, the divorce
records at the National Archives only go until,
I think it's like sometime in the 1930s. So it's
very fortunate. that your ancestor's record's
there. I think it's not something you can go,
oh, ancestor got divorced, head to National Archives,
definitely find him. What year did you just say?
I think 1937. All right, because this says 1932.
Okay, his record's 1932. Yeah. Yeah, but I don't
know the year. You just made me say something
that might be wrong. Anyway, I think basically
you can't go to the National Archives and just
assume you're going to get a divorce record.
It's... Fortunate that your ancestor fell within
those. It is, it is. Yeah. Very cool. Very, very
cool. So going back to my research, if you remember
last time, I was looking at John Hearn, who is
my fourth time's great grandparent. I always
have to pause when I say which times they are.
Anyway, fourth time's great grandparent. And
I found his marriage to Elizabeth Thing. And
then there was issues with duplicates. Being
created. I'll quickly go over that. I literally
just went away after the last podcast and just
merged the two from the one that looked like
the main one. And that worked fine. So now she's
my direct descendant. Descendant? Ancestor. Ancestor.
I am the descendant. Yeah, so that's all sorted.
So within that, there were mysteries of where
the heck was Elizabeth on the 1851 because she
wasn't with her husband and her children. Other
mysteries were finding out details about John
Hearn's first marriage to Jane Scopes. And then
there were other things of a potential child,
James Hearn, who should potentially be from Jane
Scopes. And then another son. John Hearn, who
should be from Elizabeth, but wasn't with them
on the 1951. 1851. 1851, sorry. I can't believe
I'm so far back in time. How cool is that? 1851.
So they were my mysteries. Spoiler alert, I've
only solved maybe one of them. So I've got a
few questions for you. One, John Hearn's death.
I found a document for it saying he died in 1874
at the age of 74. So his name matches, his age
matches, the location matches. There's nothing
else on that document that ties him to anyone
or anything on my tree. Yeah, I have actually
done a naughty and I've pressed yes, it's correct,
which I don't normally do. Interesting. So what
is the document then? Is it just a death register
entry? Yeah. Okay. Well, so that's easy then.
So you've got these brief details which look
as though they match. There's a thing that I
always like to do to find out how many other
John Hearns. So if he died in his age 74, he
died in 1874, he was born in 1800, we're going
to find out, even just looking from the, obviously
can't go back to a national collection of birth
register entries. for 1800 because for England
and Wales they don't exist yet until 1837 but
you could go to the 1841 census find out how
many and the 1851 census find out how many John
Hearns were born in 1800 search on them for those
places think okay there's loads to get confused
with or no there's not very many to get confused
you've got your rough thing am I going to be
getting confused then once you've said am I going
to be getting confused if you think no I'm probably
not going to be getting confused then you can
go to the GRO and you can order up that Best
certificate, only just for a few quid to get
that JPEG. Yeah. Oh, yeah. So the G8, right,
okay. This is my problem. I've spent a little
bit of time away from places and I can't remember
the date ranges where things work and things
don't work. Like 3BMD, that only starts to work
from 1837? Yeah. Where's your mark? So I can
use, right, I can use GRO for that. Yes. And
another thing, because the reason why that could
be good, you... like death records can be a bit
annoying because they're not you know birth records
and marriage records they can have those other
people the parents the fathers of the wedded
couple all that sort of thing to help you cross
ref that you've got the white person and the
death records could be less helpful but hopefully
with that death certificate you're going to get
some information Further clues on there, just
for the sake of a couple of quid, which are going
to help you confirm. Could be the informant is
a helpful name. You're going to be hopefully
getting some helpful information to shore up
the fact that that is your John Hearn's death.
Right. And that's the same thing that you know.
You're really good at this already. Trying to
find a few pieces of information, a few sources
to shore up a detail about somebody's life rather
than just going on one. Because the more we have,
the more confident we can feel. in ruling something
in or ruling something out. Yeah. Like I said,
I have actually accepted this one. It's a burial
document. And I felt a bit naughty doing that.
You can also look for a grave and see if there's
a photo of a gravestone digitised somewhere because
sometimes family graves are really helpful, aren't
they? Because they all have family members recorded
on there. And so if it says, John Hearn, beloved
husband of, was it Elizabeth? Yeah. Anything
like that, you're going to be going, that's another
tick in the tick column, isn't it? Yes, that's
good. Look for grave. And another thing you could
do is look in the national probate calendar on
Ancestry because there's a record. It's like
just an index. Do you remember the ones that
start from 1858, 1859? But they're quite detailed,
aren't they? They have a date of death. They'll
have, I think, the name of the executor and they'll
have an address. that have the value of the estate,
that have some clues, which can be really helpful
with zero money. Yeah, that sounds good. I'll
do that. That sounds really good. And that's
just available within your Ancestry subscription.
Yeah, that's even more brilliant. Yeah, because
it's immediate and not free, but you've already
paid for it. I think I accepted it because, one,
I'm lazy. You're not lazy. I had my three facts,
but then... The death dick fit in quite nicely
with the 1841 and then the... Shush, Nathan.
The 1871 and then the 1881. He was there, then
he wasn't there. I know it isn't a hard fact
and there could still be hundreds of Johns with
that same name that died in that same time in
that same vicinity. But it felt good. I just
wanted a quick win. Don't judge me. I'm not judging
you. And I think we do try and be really conscientious
and careful on the whole, don't we? And David
Annell sent back a reader question recently,
and he said this is an instance of somebody being
too cautious. And it's not often that we get
to that extreme. And I can really relate to this
person, although sometimes I'm a bit gung -ho
and just go, that'll be fine, and then it isn't.
But sometimes I think myself into a corner and
I... don't be confident enough just to plough
on and I dither about. So sometimes, you know,
we're analysing things. We can always go and
correct it later. Yeah, true. I think as well,
I'm building a character for myself, like as
a person, like, oh, as a historian, I'm really
meticulous. And then it becomes like something
that's hampering me because then I'm like, well,
no, Nathan wouldn't do this. He's so inefficient.
He'll get all the facts right. And then it does
like, it holds you back a bit, doesn't it? But
equally. I could just go in and press a load
of buttons and have a really nonsensical tree.
And that terrifies the rubbish out of me. So,
right, cool. That's some good stuff for me to
look for then to find a bit more about John.
So that wasn't even the point anyway, but obviously
these details are coming up and I just need to,
is fine. So going back to his first wife, Jane
Scopes, I found her birth in 1811. I then found
the marriage record. for her and John in 1821.
Mm -hmm. And then I found her death record in
1827. Mm -hmm. That's sad, yeah. Yeah. So I need
to probably look again for her death record because
that'll give me a bit more context. Just to,
like, you know this already because you just
touched on it, you know, that magic 1837 date
for English and Welsh birth. English and Welsh
birth, marriage and deaths. So obviously what
you're researching there is before that date.
So you're going to be looking at baptism, marriages
and burials, not births and deaths, which is
a slightly different, but it means you're going
to get a slightly different amount of information.
Yeah. Right. Not the whole deal. Yeah. So does
that mean I can't look for it on the GRO website?
Yes. Yes, I can. Yes, I can. No. You can't. Right,
okay. You can't. So this is where... You were
worried about the 1841 census and I was like,
it's not such a drama. There's some differences
to the later censuses, but it's not a complete
drama. Once you get back before 1837, again,
it's not a complete drama, but you're in very
different territory because you haven't got those
national, those nationwide collections of birth,
marriage and death indexes like the GRO that
you can go and plug in a name and see what you
get. So you're going to be looking for the...
parish registers so if your parish registers
have been digitized on ancestry and on find my
past as well there's you know there's several
places and you can look on family search there's
some really good places to look for parish registers
but they are not national collections so for
one county and for one maybe one of one of those
record types like the baptisms may be really
comprehensively uploaded somewhere but the marriages
are still partially uploaded so it's going to
very much depend on where you're looking to know
whether your area has been digitized and there's
a really helpful thing that you can do go to
family search and you can google it just family
search 1851 maps and it's just a it just covers
England and Wales go and put in your place name
of interest and then it will you can find out
the different boundaries so the parish boundaries
100 boundaries the diocesan boundaries all of
these things but then you're going to get it
will tell you For those administrative areas,
what the birth, marriage and death records, what
they survived to and from. So for some places,
even though officially the records should have
been kept from 1538 onwards, when Thomas Cromwell
said, we've got to keep these parish records.
Obviously, a lot has happened in that time. You
know, destruction, fire, mice, all the normal
things. Lazy or drunkard. record keeping all
of the there's so many reasons why records might
not even exist and then you've got the next layer
how even if they exist have they been digitized
for your area yeah okay that leads me to kind
of a similar but different question uh it might
be nonsense but there are some records i'm finding
on ancestry that might be like a marriage example
and it'll say all the details where the marriage
happened, who was involved, but there's no official
document. Does that mean the official document
will be scanned in at some point? How has that
information got onto Ancestry if there's no actual
visual? So are you looking at modern -day typed
-up words when you're talking about this? So
it's just a transcript. Yes. But there's no documents
to go with it. Yes. So if you're looking at modern
day typed up words, so it's a transcription,
then it means that the record does exist somewhere.
And Ancestry and lots of the websites, they are
really good. They'll put a link. So it might
say Shropshire Archives or it will say where
the heck that transcription has come from. Yeah.
So there will be a record which either you can
go and track down to see whether another website
has got the digitized images of those old parish
registers. So they're literally great big chunky
books or some of them are surprisingly skinny
little books. They're all different formats because
they've been kept over many, many years. Yeah.
So it could be a lovely leather bound book. Scruffy
and key writing. And as the records move forward
in time over the centuries, they got more and
more detailed with the form and stuff like that.
So by the time you're looking in the early 1800s,
they're pretty good. They're going to have a
typed up form with handwriting filling in the
gaps on the form. So they're quite easy to interpret.
Right. But at a later date, will the document
appear on Ancestry? Well, it just depends on,
so imagine, let's say, I know Find My Past has
done this a lot. So over the last few decades,
Find My Past has worked really closely with the
Family History Society. So Family History Societies
would historically go into the local record office.
They would pull down the big old beautiful register
from the shelves. They would make transcriptions.
So literally volunteers typing up what was saying
on these. saying in these lovely old leather
bound books. So then they would have typed up
versions. They would have their transcriptions
of the information. Sometimes the transcriptions
are really full. They've made a typed version
of every single word for that record. Sometimes
they might just be creating an index. So they'll
be going, whatever, Jane Scopes and John Hearn
married 1821. And so you have very scant details,
but other times they may include. any other further
details included. So the question of whether
it's going to appear on Ancestry is all down
to deals, isn't it? So if the Family History
Society, or any of these websites, if the Family
History Society says to Find My Past, hey, we've
got these transcripts, you can use them and we
get a little cut, then that could potentially
happen. Or it could be that Ancestry has gone
to an archive and it's made a copy of the record
office or archives. transcript and digitised
it. It could be up to the archive or the Family
History Society or whoever to say, yes, you can
or can't use our transcription. Yes, you can
or can't use our digitised copy of the records.
Yes, you can or can't digitise these records.
It's all deals. It's the same with the census.
It's all agreements. So there isn't a definite
answer that anything is definitely going to happen
or not happen at any point. Sorry to be so unhelpful.
Yeah, fantastic. That's great news. It is. The
parish registers over the last 10 years, they've
got more and more available online. It is really
exciting. It is something that continues to be
added to. Yeah. So the one that I'm looking at,
it's the marriage record. Just check the citation
and it says it's on FamilySearch. I'm not sure.
I can't remember if I've even created an account
on FamilySearch yet. So I can go look at that.
But I am playing. I don't know what I'm playing.
speculation whatever let let's say yes i've agreed
that this is my right document it's all the right
names it's the right location it's the right
date blah blah blah i've agreed on it but it
doesn't have all the information so i've agreed
this and i go off carry on with my family tree
and i look at loads of different lines in the
meantime ancestry do have this original document
how do i know it's there without knowing because
obviously maybe there is like um a reference
to the parents or there are some witnesses in
attendance, that might actually be really useful
information for me. But I've already moved on
from this document now. So the fact that it's
saying that it's on FamilySearch, it could be
anything. It could be just a copy of that transcription,
so just those typed up words. Or it could be,
in some instances, that another website does
have the digitised copy of the record. So it'd
be worth following up any sources that are given
to see whether they do have... a copy of the
digitized record this is where it's really well
worth logging what you're doing because you're
not just in one website and you're not following
your trail of hints you're you're want to do
an organized checklist so that you can be comprehensive
not tread the same ground so you go well i'm
going to follow up that lead on family search
and see exactly what it has let's say for instance
it did only have the transcription you're like
okay well i know that it only has that check
i've checked that out next i'm going to go and
search on Find My Past and see what digitised
parish registers they have and do they have the
digitised images for my county of interest. Maybe
they do, maybe they don't. You could even go
and have a look on the archive for your area
and see if they have their own because each of
us is different. We're all dealing with a different
combination of counties and places, aren't we?
Find out whether your place has digitised images
even on their archive because even some archives.
It's not something that I think happens so much,
but sometimes they do have records that you could
pay to download the digitized images. It's a
rarity. Or you're going to make a trip to the
archive yourself. So that's all things you can
do to find out what is available so far online.
The other thing you could do is on Ancestry,
okay, if it did subsequently upload a digitized
image of that record, one is going to probably...
for it up as a hint for you isn't it and the
other thing you can do is go to the card catalog
and do this on a periodic basis and just do a
search either have a look you could do this fairly
frequently and see hey what's been new and updated
in the card catalog yeah these collections of
relevance to my research or you could set yourself
twice a year Who is it? It's Lisa Leeson, who's
an American genius. She recommends doing this
every six months. Just go to the Ancestry card
catalogue, make yourself a cup of coffee, just
search through, just places of interest to you.
And obviously it's going to depend. You have
to search in a few different ways to make sure
you don't miss things and also that you don't
assume things are relevant to you when they're
not so relevant, yeah? Right. So it's a case
of you keeping in charge of yourself a bit. Yeah,
it's my own due diligence then. It's like a reason
to have a research log, etc. Groovy. Okay, cool.
I mean, it's all pie in the sky. I was just asking
the question because, like, obviously, in the
proper documents, you can get a little bit more
information, can't you? But maybe this is all
the information. Who knows? Going back to Jane,
then. So she allegedly died in 1827. I'm not
going to be able to find out stuff like... Oh,
she died in childbirth. And like I have done
in the past for nearer generations than Emma.
James was born in 1824. That's it. That's my
story there. What you are going to potentially
be able to find is even if you're not going to
find a record which says Jane died in 1827 in
childbirth. But what you are able to do is you're
going to be able to find the baptism registers
for that period. And if there's a baby. Let's
say you've got the precise date that Jane died
in 1827. If Jane dies in 1827, making this up,
on the 18th of August, yeah, 1827, and you look
into the parish registers for that place, and
there's a baby born to Jane and John in early
August, then 1827, you're like, oh, she's died
potentially of puerperal fever or a combination
of childbirth, or she could even die very close
at hand, couldn't she, within a day or so of
the war. It's going to be the baby's baptism,
but sometimes the baptisms do include birth dates,
but you're going to have to be judicious about
that because the baby potentially isn't. So if
the mum, there's so many variables, if the mum
died in childbirth, it could be that the baby
is not in a good state either by the time they've
both been through that ordeal. This is all so
much supposition, but the baby potentially is
going to get baptised sooner rather than later
because they're worried about its health and
its soul. Or the baby could, the mother could
have died in childbirth and the baby survives.
It's a thriving little baby and they wait a month
or so before they baptise it. But you're still
going to know there was potentially a baby born
around this time. If the mother died in childbirth
and the baby died and the baby is born dead,
then unfortunately it's a tragedy in and of itself.
And from the record -keeping perspective, then
stillbirths weren't recorded until the early
20th century. So not for another century yet.
So you're not going to find an official register
of that baby. it's not going to have a capacity
to have been baptised in that period and it's
not going to be recorded. Yeah, as far as I know.
Yeah. Okay. There will be exceptions, I'm sure,
but the general thing is you're not going to
be able to find it. But if it didn't become alive,
it could potentially give you some clues about
why Jane died. Right, okay, cool. Going on from
that, on the 1841 census, when I've got Elizabeth
and John married together, I've got James, which
is this. He's a 17 -year -old, so he was born
in 1824, so that would be, you think, Jane's
child. The next child is John Jr., who is nine,
so he was born after she died. So if there was
another child, it must have died. But obviously
that is an if. Cool. There's just a lot to sort
of dig around here, and it's... It is getting
tougher. I am feeling a bit more happy with the
1841. I've put a couple of people on the 1841
now. Willy nilly. But yes. I mean, with the Jane
thing, so Jane isn't your direct ancestor. So
to be really brutal, you could never research
Jane and not worry about it. But obviously that's
not how you tick. And so you do want to research
Jane because that's just your character. All
these side branches get thoroughly dealt with.
It could be that she had a baby and the baby
hasn't survived to the 1841. The baby died as
a young child. So I think it really would be
worth, if you can, even if you're just getting
a transcript, have a look at those baptism. Try
and find some baptism registers for that 1827
period. And then if you do find some potential
babies born to her between 1824 when she had
the one who, James, who did survive in 1827 when
she died. And if there are any babies born around
then. See who they are and if they are, follow
them up in the baptism and look in short order
because it was hazardous being a small child,
particularly then, and see whether you can track
them down the burial wedges as well. Right. And
then just for your satisfaction, because that's
how you are, Nathan. Yes. I mean, I don't think
I do research every single side branch particularly,
but I do get absorbed in them, yes. Yeah. So
I guess it's going to be the same thing for James
then, isn't it? Because, like, I have done searches
for James Hearn, like, because I've got his location,
his Suffolk. He was born in 1824, if the census
is correct. So give or take a year. He's not
coming up on as a birth record. So I'll have
to look at the baptisms for that as well, parish
registers. Mm -hmm. Yeah. All right, OK. Did
you say the 1841 said that he was 17? In 1841?
Yes, he was 17. Am I doing some bad math now?
No, I think that's really good because I could
be getting something wrong. My understanding
was that for everyone who's 15 years and older,
then their age was rounded down to the nearest
five years. I was going to ask you about this
because I haven't found a census document. Oh,
rounded down to the nearest five years. You said
this to me before, and in my head, I was just
thinking of zeros and fives. So if you were 41,
you'd be 40. Yes. Oh. That is correct. So, all
right. So it'd be rounded down to the nearest
five. Not like... I'll show up, actually. I know
what you mean. That he was... And just knocked
five years off. Yeah. No, no, no. So it's just...
So, yes. But that's why it's interesting and
cool that he's done... I mean, I've forgotten.
I don't know. Anyway, it's good that you've got
a precise... H for him. Yeah, but I haven't seen
an... Well, I know I've only really looked at
one particular family on the 1841, but none of
them have got rounded down ages or rounded up
ages. Oh, it's just probably that enumerator
hadn't read that bit of the notebook. It's fine,
they're instructions. They just overlooked that
bit and kept to the detail. Good for me. Yeah,
good for you. Okay, that's cool. What else do
I have for you on this thing? So, yeah, I'm stuck.
I'm stuck with James. I need to find out his
birth or details of his baptism. Yeah, I found
a potential death for him, but obviously, because
we said that there was a younger son called James
as well, so we wondered if maybe this James had
died and then the other one was named in honour
of that James. But if the death date is correct
for the James I've found, then that's not true.
Because in the 1851, I've got James Joseph, which
is a younger child. And I'm suggesting James
Hearn died in 1853. It's so confusing, isn't
it? And all the names are the same. Anyway, so
there's him. And then I've got James... Shush,
Nathan. I've got John Hearn Jr., who was born
in 1832, to find... Again, I'm basing that information
off the 1841. It says he's nine years old on
that, so I've gone back from that. He isn't on
the 1851. But he'd have been 19 then, so he might
have skedaddled. I haven't found him. I've not
been able to find him. I've not been able to
find James. And the bigger mystery is where was
Elizabeth on the 1851 census? Cannot find her
at all. So I could do with some help on that
one. I don't... I've done, like, I've searched
for the locale. I know maybe I'm limiting myself
by doing that. But I've searched the location
because everybody seems to be in Suffolk around
a certain area, like store market -ish. And then
I started removing people. You know, like when
you get your search options, I was like, right,
I'll remove the husband, I'll remove the children,
leave the parents in. And she still hasn't come
up yet. I think I've got more digging to do on
that before I actually think I'm stuck. But she
hasn't come up readily, so I don't know where
she is. I was expecting some sort of hospital
report or something. So what are you going to
do then to progress on that bit? I'm going to
look how many people called Elizabeth Hearn existed
in 1850. You can do that. And then you could
potentially just not forget about it, but just
park it for the moment and think, I can't remember
if I've said this in a previous episode, but
learn about Elizabeth's thing. She was an A thing,
wasn't she? Elizabeth's thing's parents and Elizabeth's
thing's... Elizabeth. I can't speak today. Elizabeth.
Elizabeth. Things. Siblings. And get lots of
information about them because then you'll be
rebuilding. And I really can't speak. Rebuilding.
She'll be rebuilding. What was her name again?
Elizabeth. Stop being silly. You're going to
be finding out about Elizabeth. Elizabeth, things,
parents and siblings, because this will give
you a network of people with whom you can track
them in the 1851 census and potentially see whether
Elizabeth was living with any of these other
things or if they are thing sisters, they might
be called something else. Yeah. Yeah. Mum, that's
confusing. Yes. That's good, because I haven't
fleshed out anything about her details. I've
got her parents, but I haven't actually honestly
looked for any siblings or anything yet. But
then, oh my gosh, I've got the challenge of finding
her parents on various censuses, don't I? Yeah,
okay, I can do that, I can do that. You can,
and none of that's a waste of time, is it? It's
all, she's your bloodline ancestor. Yep. Her
parents are. those siblings are you like doing
the side branches I think it's great to do the
side branches and it's useful to do the side
branches so that's even if they don't shed light
on where Elizabeth was in 1851 none of that is
going to be a waste of time all of that's going
to be a fantastic good use of time yeah yeah
there's just so much to unravel isn't there it's
cool bye I obviously mentioned it the other week.
I've got my Elijah to look at, who's a sailor
in the Royal Navy. I'm excited about that one.
Born on Christmas Day. I've not touched that
yet. That is just a random side quest for a different
day. But I've also got Elizabeth in the 1871.
I did mention this last week. She's in the 1871
living with her son -in -law. But the daughter...
Sorry, the wife. isn't a name of one of their
children. So again, I'm going to have to dive
into this guy's tree to find out if he married
twice and if one of those marriages was to Emma,
who was one of the, well, the only daughter that
I currently know of. It's an adventure, isn't
it? There's just people brimming about everywhere
and it's just getting bigger and bigger, but
I like it. It's like you can't get one answer
without finding out 26 other answers you didn't
know you were looking for yet. Yes. Bonkers.
And this is just based on two people that I'm
researching. It's nonsense. It's fun, though,
isn't it? I think this is one of the best things.
Because it's so absorbing. I love it. Every little
name or date that you stumble on is like a little
win, isn't it? It's a little piece of the jigsaw
and you feel like you are solving a puzzle. And...
I play lots of computer games, but I like playing
computer games where there's a puzzle, you solve
it and it gets you through to the next puzzle
or it'll give you a part of the answer to a different
puzzle. It's then got to backtrack all the way
around the map to find the other section to actually
input that puzzle. That's what it feels like
to me and I love that. I'm just wondering, you
know when you said, so Elizabeth in 1871 is living
with her son -in -law, a woman called Emma who...
No. Oh. Living with a woman called Sarah. Okay,
Sarah. Her daughter was called Emma. I don't
have any details of a daughter called Sarah.
Okay, and so when was Sarah? What year does the
census infer that Sarah was born? I don't know
because I haven't researched this enough. Bear
with me one second and I'll just have a look
at the 1871 census. I might be lying to you,
actually. Hopefully not. We don't like lying
on the podcast. Wait. It might be in the 1881.
Doesn't matter what census it is. Just want her
age. That's what I'm trying to get at. What if
I can't find it? What I'm trying to get at is,
so let's say we've got this Sarah. She is the,
you think if her husband is Elizabeth's son -in
-law, then that would make Sarah Elizabeth's
daughter. But it could be, in fact, that... Sarah
is Elizabeth's stepdaughter and that really Sarah's
mother was Jane Scopes. So let's say Sarah's
inferred birth year comes between 1824 and 1827
or even between 1821 when Jane Scopes married
John Hearn in 1837. That would be really interesting
to learn. That's what I'm trying to get at. Okay,
right. Well, I'll put my hand up now. I've been
a good boy. This isn't me not knowing things.
This is my typical Nathaness. I haven't actually
added the 1881 to Elizabeth because of this Sarah
thing. I wasn't 100 % sure that it was my Elizabeth,
despite the thing else matching up. I do believe
it is her. So anyway, in my notes, which I actually
have kept and not drawn hedgehogs on, it says
Sarah was 45 in 1881. So she was born in 1936?
Question mark? Oh, you're talking to the wrong
person. 1836, sorry, not 19. 1836. Which would
be after, obviously well after Jane's died. Yeah,
so that's not a possibility there. I thought
that was just a fun possibility. Yeah, I mean,
it was a possibility. But it's, rule it out,
move on. Yeah, so I need to discover, I just
need to... research the son -in -law. It's just
fun, isn't it? It's like, why is such a random
thing to research? But that document brings up
all these questions. It's like, well, who are
these people? I do know that relationships in
the past, they wouldn't use the terms necessarily
the way in which we would. We use them very specifically
nowadays, don't we? Like, in what way do you
mean? Like, son, stepson, cousin, son -in -law,
all of these things, we use them. really precisely,
yeah? I'm just going to ask the internet. So
in the past, son -in -law could mean stepson,
the son of a husband or wife from an earlier
marriage. Yeah? Right. So what's this son -in
-law's name then? I need to get to the 18th.
We need to get this document out, don't we? Found
it. Interestingly, it's not on the same page
that it says it's on. I've had to go to the next
page in the census. So I've got Elizabeth Hearn,
mother -in -law, widow. She's 68 years of age,
which kind of ties in. It's about, well, maybe
it's wrong. It's two or three years off what
I think her age is, but these are never hard
facts, are they? No, and what about her birthplace?
Does that tie in well? I think you said it did
tie in, didn't you? Suffolk, yeah. Stream market.
Stream market, okay. Yeah, so the location seems
very strong. But yeah, we've got this Joseph
Stammer, Stammer, Stammer. And then Sarah A,
who's the wife. And have you looked in the TRO
for Joseph Stammer and Sarah A Blank's marriage?
I'll be honest, this was a side quest that I
haven't gone down yet. Because that would be
fun as well, because that would just be good
to... If it did say Hearn, for Sarah A. Hearn,
you'd be like, OK, she has... Yeah, it would
help, wouldn't it? Yes. Yes. Apparently Joseph
was a scavenger. Yes. A roadman scavenger. Yeah.
Interesting. Yeah. Cool. But yeah, that's one
little mini quest for me to do. It doesn't help
me, does it? But it's nice to fill in the blanks.
I think it is, and particularly because you're
feeling shaky about you've got a blank for Elizabeth
in 1851, the more things you can show her at
other points in her life, it all just helps to
not feel like you're not making any progress
on the person. I think you definitely need to
find her because, you know, if that is her...
Living with her daughter and all those grandchildren
just gives a sense of how her life pans out.
You can keep on tracing her forward in time until
you get to her death record if you haven't already
got it. Yeah, that would help, wouldn't it? Yeah.
Cool. Nathan, do you mind if I read out a podcast
listener email? I hate when we get mail. Of course,
yes, please do read. Well, so... This is a very
cool one. It's to do with the dreaded Thing surname,
which I can say as long as it's not prefixed
by Elizabeth. I'm just trying to say them next
week because that other is really, really hard.
So Kevin, who is an associate professor from
Queensland, and he says, I was listening to the
podcast today and was fascinated that Nathan
found someone with the surname Thing. It's a
fascinating surname and it got him thinking.
He believes that he has an ancestor with a great
hobbit name. And his four times great grandfather
lived on the Isle of Wight and his name was Barnabas
Bramble. And he wonders whether me, you or any
of the listeners have another great hobbit name.
Then he goes on to say, keep up the great work.
He's still loving the podcast. So thank you very
much, Kevin, for listening in. And what a great
question, whether we have any good hobbit names
in our family history. Barnabas Bramble. I mean,
beat that. Can anyone beat that? That is awesome.
I like that a lot. Yeah. We might be putting
this one out on socials as a question. Yeah,
yeah. It's just so adorable, isn't it? And I
think it's hot to have had an adventurous life.
You'd hope so, wouldn't you? Yes. Kevin, if you're
listening to this, send us in a little synopsis
of what on earth happened to Barnabas Bramble,
the adventures of Barnabas Bramble. We need to
know. That is brilliant. Yeah. Oh, I can't think
of anybody on my tree I've found. With an interesting
name like that. No, I haven't. I haven't got
anything to even touch that. It's a fantastic
name. Yeah. Yeah. Lord of the Rings style anyway.
I can't think of anything. I've got someone called
Titus, but I can't remember his surname. He's
my greatest hope now for that. That's going to
be a great question. Yeah, so look out for that
on socials. I'll be doing that next week probably.
Ancestors channelling Hobbit things. The best
Hobbit name. Yeah, yeah. I guess Thing is my
closest, really. Thing is good. Thing is very,
very good. Yeah. Curious. So, shall we wrap up
now for this week? Yes, I think I've prattled
on about Johns and Elizabeth far too much already,
so yes. Also, I just know you've got masses and
masses of work you need to do. Oh yeah, I'm a
busy boy. Yeah. Not that you, of course. I'm
busy, but not as busy as you this week. You get
the Mr Busy prize, definitely. Yeah. Well, thank
you everybody for listening. And Nathan, thanks
for sharing your wonderful unpacking of what
you're doing. You're welcome. And parents. It's
good. Maybe you could unpack something next week.
I can briefly say what I've been doing. I have
put, very briefly, I put my Ancestry subscription
on pause and I have made myself. So it means
I can't look at anything new on Ancestry and
it's making me go through. I thought I had one
folder of records that I needed to file up. I've
now found I have four ones and that's just in
one, just in my OneCloud, not my OneDrive, just
in OneCloud thing. And then on OneDrive, I know
I've got more folders. So I'm like, Helen, you
need to file these things up and add them to
Family Tree Maker and just stop hoarding and
actually be a bit more meticulous. So I've literally
just banished myself to the wilderness. That's
interesting. That's a very interesting way to
do it as well. Cut yourself off at the sauce
and then... I had to go cold turkey like an addict.
And then the sighting bit, I still managed to
take myself to a different rabbit hole. So we
do this course with Carol McCulloch that we do
with Abby Tree about using AI to help solve brick
walls. And she's very keen on making us get Gemini
transcriptions of things. So for each of the
records that I'm finding in my naughty files
of documents I haven't filed up. pop the image
into Gemini ask it for a transcription ask it
to be very careful not to guess and to highlight
anything it doesn't know and then I ask it for
an analysis of it and it's showing me all sorts
of cool things like things I would have potentially
missed or taken me a long time to find out so
One of the people had two roods and 17 perches,
and I now know that that's about two -thirds
of an acre, which makes a lot. Two -thirds of
an acre, I can understand. Two roods and 17 perches,
I'm like, what is that? Anyway, so I'm learning
masses. So I'm not saying it's a quick process,
but it's good. Nice. Well, you'll have to let
us know more about your learn next week. I will
do. I will. I'm definitely having fun. It's very
piecemeal, but fun. All valid, isn't it? It's
all worthwhile. Yes. Okay. Cheers then. Bye -bye.
Happy researching, everyone. Bye. Thank you.