I could have if I had English Ancestors, sadly my opportunity to enter is therefore somewhat limited, so my focus is helping others to achieve what I cannot via improvements to FT Analyzer.
-
Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!
-
It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here
I've made a Match!!
- Thread starter Tim
- Start date
Liberty
LostCousins Megastar
Just made contact through LC with a cousin who is descended from my 4G GF, Cuthbert Twizell. She didn't even know my 3G GM existed, so we are filling each other in, and discovering what happened to other siblings in that family, which is opening up even more possibilities.....
Congrats. Now if only I had more English Ancestors I'd be able to enter more people too but I've only got 1 of 32 of my 3g grandparents was English the rest are Scottish and that 3g grandparent moved to Scotland before marrying in the mid 1800s. So almost for all the branches of my tree I've only got the 1881 Scotland census as an option.
Well, I normally have the Lost Cousins site open in the background, just in case I add some more people identified by FTAnalyzer to add. So I casually pressed the search button, you know, as you do, in the hopes that someone has added some ancestors that you can match with.
And up it popped. NO. That can't be right, maybe Peter has reset the count, and so its started as if everyone was new. But no.
It looks like it might be correct, a referral I made, but really, how many????
238 MATCHES!!!!!!
And up it popped. NO. That can't be right, maybe Peter has reset the count, and so its started as if everyone was new. But no.
It looks like it might be correct, a referral I made, but really, how many????
238 MATCHES!!!!!!
Liberty
LostCousins Megastar
I did have something similar recently, when 2 referrals registered at about the same time - again, about 240 between them. There was slight anti-climax afterwards, as my match potential, which was straining at '2 higher than I'd achieved' dropped back to parity - I don't know if you notice the same thing.
No, my match potential hasn't changed, still says 5.1606
Sounds like the person you referred has been busy. Note it really doesn't count if it's your brother or sisterThat would be cheating
Me? Cheating? How dare you I say!!!
Lol, no brothers or sisters are here, don't want family hanging around. Cousins are ok though.
Liberty
LostCousins Megastar
Has this happened to anyone else? The two halves of my family have come together!
My ancestry runs approximately thus: my father's ancestors were concentrated in Northumberland, and my mother's in Norfolk and northern fringe of Suffolk. The two halves came together when my parents met in WWII, that great social mixing bowl.
Now, I have been adding descendants of my Northumberland 4G GF (see quote above) and just added the 1881 reference for the (future) husband of one of his GG GD's. When I clicked on 'search', I found that I had hits on him and his mother. But the surprising thing was that they were common relatives with someone I had contacted before - because of a link with my mother's Norfolk family. I have naturally sent a message to the other LC member to see what she can add, but at the moment I am somewhat stunned at finding what I thought were quite separate branches of the tree coming together.
My closest to that so far is that my mum's dad was 7 and living next door to my dad's great grandmother at the time of her death in 1921. Weird to think that the young boy who might have kicked a ball into the old ladies garden would later have a daughter that would marry the old ladies great grandson 44 years later.
Liberty
LostCousins Megastar
One to encourage those who sort out the fiddly bits.
My relative William Symonds married Anna Simmons - all absolutely clear on transcription of church records at FreeReg, also on BMD records. In the 1881 census they had a brother-in-law Ralph Hood staying with them, and I couldn't see how he fitted in. Possibly a slightly more distant relative, described as such for conciseness. I didn't put him on my LC page.
Today I had another look at the FreeReg record for the marriage and saw that Anna had no details for her father, also that a Robert Hood was a witness. Looked like there was some link between her and Hoods. I pursued Ralph a bit further, found his christening - parents Robert and Phoebe Hood. Plot thickens. I found a christening for a sister (same church, same parents) with a middle name of Simmons. Oho!
Suspicions fully roused I looked for, and found, a marriage for Robert and Phoebe. She was transcribed in the index (and listed alphabetically) as Lemmons, but this looked promising. The transcription on FreeReg had her as Summons, and all was falling into place. Then I found a christening for Anna Summons, mother Phoebe, no father, 5 years before the marriage (and the right date for the one who married William Symonds). So, at a guess, Anna was pre-marital but known as Hood, married as Simmons (her legal name) , and rather than reveal mis-match of her surname and her father's, left that bit blank
Feeling very pleased with this, I went to my LC page, and entered Ralph Hood for the 1881 census, as related by marriage - and made a match!
The final twist, and I'm not sure if it's a climax or anticlimax, is that I was in contact with this LostCousin a while back over Ralph's sister Anna. We thought we had a match but I had her as maiden name Simmons, and the other LC member thought she had been Hood (presumably because of Ralph), so we decided it was mistaken identity. I have sent another message and am hoping to pick up the conversation.
I think there is a message there, that it is worth looking into relatives who appear in censuses, even (especially?) if you can't see how they fit into the family.
My relative William Symonds married Anna Simmons - all absolutely clear on transcription of church records at FreeReg, also on BMD records. In the 1881 census they had a brother-in-law Ralph Hood staying with them, and I couldn't see how he fitted in. Possibly a slightly more distant relative, described as such for conciseness. I didn't put him on my LC page.
Today I had another look at the FreeReg record for the marriage and saw that Anna had no details for her father, also that a Robert Hood was a witness. Looked like there was some link between her and Hoods. I pursued Ralph a bit further, found his christening - parents Robert and Phoebe Hood. Plot thickens. I found a christening for a sister (same church, same parents) with a middle name of Simmons. Oho!
Suspicions fully roused I looked for, and found, a marriage for Robert and Phoebe. She was transcribed in the index (and listed alphabetically) as Lemmons, but this looked promising. The transcription on FreeReg had her as Summons, and all was falling into place. Then I found a christening for Anna Summons, mother Phoebe, no father, 5 years before the marriage (and the right date for the one who married William Symonds). So, at a guess, Anna was pre-marital but known as Hood, married as Simmons (her legal name) , and rather than reveal mis-match of her surname and her father's, left that bit blank
Feeling very pleased with this, I went to my LC page, and entered Ralph Hood for the 1881 census, as related by marriage - and made a match!
The final twist, and I'm not sure if it's a climax or anticlimax, is that I was in contact with this LostCousin a while back over Ralph's sister Anna. We thought we had a match but I had her as maiden name Simmons, and the other LC member thought she had been Hood (presumably because of Ralph), so we decided it was mistaken identity. I have sent another message and am hoping to pick up the conversation.
I think there is a message there, that it is worth looking into relatives who appear in censuses, even (especially?) if you can't see how they fit into the family.
Welshlass
Member
I won the lottery on Christmas Day [a ''scratchie'' from my husband brought $1,000], so does this mean I won't get any matches?!!
Only ever had a couple of matches quite some time ago and they were existing contacts. The only possible newbie never replied so I sort
of gave up after that.
Only ever had a couple of matches quite some time ago and they were existing contacts. The only possible newbie never replied so I sort
of gave up after that.
Hi Welshlass, how's it going?
So, 1st point, Never give up! If you have ancestors for 1881, then you need to add them, because you will eventually make mores matches!! You can go through dry spells, but just like buses, they all seem to turn up at once.
Another thing you can try. Now that you have all your direct ancestors in Lost Cousins, go back to the farthest one, and look at their siblings. Follow these siblings forward through time, making sure you add them to Lost Cousins for 1841, 1881 and 1911.
The direct descendants of these siblings are where you are most likely to find your Lost Cousins.
2nd point, congratulations on winning the lottery, what did you spend it on, Ancestry, FindmyPast and Lost Cousins subscriptions?
3rd point, it's nice to see so many Welsh people on the forum
So, 1st point, Never give up! If you have ancestors for 1881, then you need to add them, because you will eventually make mores matches!! You can go through dry spells, but just like buses, they all seem to turn up at once.
Another thing you can try. Now that you have all your direct ancestors in Lost Cousins, go back to the farthest one, and look at their siblings. Follow these siblings forward through time, making sure you add them to Lost Cousins for 1841, 1881 and 1911.
The direct descendants of these siblings are where you are most likely to find your Lost Cousins.
2nd point, congratulations on winning the lottery, what did you spend it on, Ancestry, FindmyPast and Lost Cousins subscriptions?
3rd point, it's nice to see so many Welsh people on the forum
According to your My Cousins page you have had 7 matches, 3 of whom were existing contacts, 1 was new, 2 haven't replied, and 1 you haven't tried to contact yet.
As far as the 2 who haven't replied are concerned, in August 2012 I asked you to contact me if you hadn't heard from them within 14 days, but you never got back to me.
I don't give up when it comes to linking members with 'lost cousins', whether it means making phone calls to the other side of the world, sending letters through the post, or contacting people on Facebook or Twitter. You won't find that sort of service at Ancestry or Genes Reunited - or any other site as far as I know.
Welshlass
Member
Two of my matches are not blood lines - one was a mistake inadvertently caused by me clicking ''ancestor'' instead of ''employment'' in the early days of LC [since corrected]; the other is an adoption, although I have now emailed the contact to make data available to him if he's interested.
My win went on a new vacuum cleaner [exciting - NOT], and 3 days in the beautiful Clare Valley in South Australia [limited by 40+ degrees heat, but we did manage a few air-conditioned wineries].
My win went on a new vacuum cleaner [exciting - NOT], and 3 days in the beautiful Clare Valley in South Australia [limited by 40+ degrees heat, but we did manage a few air-conditioned wineries].
So good news, I've made a match, or more accurately, 337 matches! Yes, my new found 2nd cousin once removed has accepted my referral. So seeing as I referred all these to her, I don't think they count towards the New Match totals that Red Dragon publishes in this discussion.