Looking for a Link...

[jorghes]

Because I think there is a chance that my point might get a little lost in explanation – my questions are as follows:

• Is my supposition that there is a relationship between my Elizabeth Saltonstall and the American Saltonstalls (based on some DNA results) seem reasonable? [Does that suggest that the family tradition is correct?]
• Is attempting to make the link between them probably impossible?

The scenario:
My 5x great grandmother is Elizabeth Saltonstall. Her death register entry (Vol 14, p 111) from 1839 says that she died at the age of 84 in Wisbech, Cambridgeshire. This gives her birth year as approximately 1755. [This record is in my possession]

Elizabeth Saltonstall married Richard Bunbury Dawbarn on 30 April 1782 in Wisbech St Peter. After their marriage they were members (and Richard was pastor) of the non-conformist Baptist church in Wisbech. There is no evidence that either of them was a member of a non-conformist congregation prior to their marriage.

Elizabeth is considered a prominent person in the Baptist history for her books and pamphlets and you can find a Wikipedia page on her (under her married name).

The family stories and tradition is that she was Lady Elizabeth Saltonstall and was a lady of “means” (the source of the family fortune) from Alford, Lincolnshire. She was also the source of the family crest that was used by some of her descendants. This is backed up by the license she and Richard got for their marriage, which gives her home parish as “Alford, Lincs” (found on the Ely Dioceses Marriage Licenses on FMP).

The other part of the tradition is that she is related in some way to Sir Richard Saltonstall, born in about 1521 and died in Essex in 1601. He served as Lord Mayor of London in 1597-1598. There is a big memorial to his family in St Nicolas of Myra in South Ockendon. Sir Richard is said to have descended from Robert de Saltonstall, who had lands near Warley in Yorkshire. (there are two small hamlets called "Saltonstall" which is said to be where the surname originated)

Some documents would suggest that Elizabeth is descended in some way from Sir Richard’s older brother, Samuel Saltonstall. [It should be noted that the family crest for this branch of the Saltonstalls matches that which Elizabeth was said to have brought into the Dawbarn family]

The American branch of the family (and seemingly the only surviving branch of the family as the surname seems to disappear in the UK) descends from Sir Richard (1521-1601)’s nephew, another Sir Richard Saltonstall (1586-1661) who may also be a descendant of Samuel Saltonstall (in the Dictionary of National Biography, this Sir Richard is descended from another brother called Peter; most other documentation has him a son of Samuel). Sir Richard Saltonstall (1586-1661) helped set up colonies in Connecticut and Massachusetts in the USA (even though he didn’t stay long and died in the UK).

I think I have roughly established a link to the American Saltonstalls (suggesting there is truth that Elizabeth is related to Sir Richard in some way) using my grandmother’s DNA as Elizabeth is her 3x great grandmother.

Using one of Peter’s techniques, I searched for the surname Saltonstall and came up with three individuals who have direct Saltonstall ancestors who are well documented (there are several versions of a Saltonstall family tree by the American branch). Admittedly these are not close matches (15cM; 10cM and 10cM), but I wouldn’t expect them to be, as their shared ancestor could be 2-3 (or more) generations above Elizabeth Saltonstall and the chances of sharing any DNA whatsoever is small.

To help to discover more Saltonstall relations in my grandmother’s DNA results and see if I can trace the family back this way, I am constructing my own Saltonstall family tree focusing on the information that is well known – the American branch and the branch which links to the British aristocracy.

However, while I might have confirmed that Elizabeth is related to that particular branch of Saltonstalls, it doesn’t help me find her or confirm her parents and the link between them.

There is no baptismal record for an Elizabeth Saltonstall in Alford, Lincolnshire for around 1755. There are several Saltonstall records – all for the 1730s in Alford, but they’re more likely to be her parents’ generation.

There is a baptism for an Elizabeth Saltonstall in 1755 in Newark on Trent, Nottinghamshire, which gives her as the daughter of Lancaster Saltonstall. I am tentatively thinking that this may be the correct Elizabeth, given the chance of course that there may not be any baptismal record for her.

Lancaster Saltonstall seems to have married Mary Roberson in Newark upon Trent in about 1753 (Ancestry) and they may have had another child, John, baptised in 1756, also in Newark upon Trent. He (Lancaster) also appears on a list of apprentices in 1747 (as an apprentice draper, which was the Dawbarn family business – on FMP) which gives his father as Thomas Saltonstall.

There is a baptismal record for a Lancaster Saltonstall, son of Thomas and Elizabeth for 1733 in Alford, Lincolnshire. Lancaster unfortunately died without a will in about 1760 – he appears in a probate index for the Diocese of York (FMP) but in an attempt to link him to Elizabeth, I ordered the document, which simply directs his property to be given to his widow with no mention of any children.

If Lancaster is Elizabeth’s father, him being born in Alford may be where the tradition of her being “of Alford Lincolnshire” came from. It probably helps that he was in the same business as her future husband and possibly suggests how Elizabeth met Richard Bunbury Dawbarn.

There is a marriage for 30 Sep 1730 in Alford, Lincolnshire for a Thomas Saltonstall and Elizabeth Robinson, which could suggest that they are Lancaster’s parents. This Thomas may be the one who was buried on 29th Feb 1780 in Alford and his wife Elizabeth could be the Elizabeth (wife of Thomas Saltonstall) who was buried in Alford on May 19, 1770. Neither burial record gives an age for the deceased. (both records from FMP's Lincolnshire records as are all mentioned for Alford).

But there isn’t an appropriate baptismal record for Thomas Saltonstall in Alford. It could be that he was born/baptised in a different part of the UK, possibly in Yorkshire, closer to the family estate. I’m not completely sure when he was born, so it means locating this record wherever it might be, is difficult, the idea that there is only a few people with the name does not necessarily make it easier.

So it brings me back to one of my original questions – have a proved a link between my Elizabeth and the rest of the Saltonstall family (i.e. the American branch) even though there isn’t any documentary evidence to support the DNA?

And two, is it worth attempting to find the actual link between Elizabeth (her possible father Lancaster and grandfather Thomas) and Sir Richard? Or is that just a study in pointless searching for something that may never be found?

I am happy to take any suggestions for where to look or new thoughts about possible search processes; or criticisms of my summations.

 

[Pauline]

There’s a lot to take in and think about here, so at present I just have a couple of random thoughts to offer.

Firstly, if Elizabeth was Lady Elizabeth Saltonstall, then when, and from whom, might she have acquired this title. Generally, for a woman, it would have been from her father or her husband. However, you don’t mention Lancaster having a title - if he was her father - and it seems the marriage licence doesn’t mention her having a title (at least, the index at FMP doesn’t).

Secondly, it looks as though Lancaster’s widow married again in 1761 to a man from Alford, which could account for Elizabeth’s residence being Alford when she married. More importantly, it might help you to locate other wills or evidence which may help to confirm whether or not Lancaster was Elizabeth’s father.

Also, I would be cautious about family crests and coats of arms, as there is a lot of misunderstanding about this. The right to bear arms is granted to, and inherited by, individuals, not families.

 

[Pauline]

I meant to add that the place to get definitive answers about coats of arms is the College of Arms. If some of Elizabeth’s descendants were armigerous, the College will be able to confirm which arms and from whom they inherited the right to bear them, and will have all the relevant pedigrees.

 

[jorghes]

There’s a lot to take in and think about here, so at present I just have a couple of random thoughts to offer.

Firstly, if Elizabeth was Lady Elizabeth Saltonstall, then when, and from whom, might she have acquired this title. Generally, for a woman, it would have been from her father or her husband. However, you don’t mention Lancaster having a title - if he was her father - and it seems the marriage licence doesn’t mention her having a title (at least, the index at FMP doesn’t).

I always half thought that the story of her being a "Lady" was a bit of a reach - the embroidering of the family story about some moneyed background. There isn't any reference to it in her obituary in the papers, on her death register, or on anything else. I just offered it here to tell the story that the family has offered.

There were several "Sirs" in the documented family of Sir Richard Saltonstall, but no other titles that I know of. The family did marry into the aristocracy (but I very much doubt on my line).

Secondly, it looks as though Lancaster’s widow married again in 1761 to a man from Alford, which could account for Elizabeth’s residence being Alford when she married. More importantly, it might help you to locate other wills or evidence which may help to confirm whether or not Lancaster was Elizabeth’s father.

For some reason, I never noticed that Lancaster's widow remarried. Thanks for that, I'll go and have a look.

Also, I would be cautious about family crests and coats of arms, as there is a lot of misunderstanding about this. The right to bear arms is granted to, and inherited by, individuals, not families.

I meant to add that the place to get definitive answers about coats of arms is the College of Arms. If some of Elizabeth’s descendants were armigerous, the College will be able to confirm which arms and from whom they inherited the right to bear them, and will have all the relevant pedigrees.

That is again a good point, I will investigate. I have always taken crests with a bit of salt, but I believe the coat of arms may have been granted to Sir Richard Saltonstall (the previously mentioned Lord Mayor of London) but I may have to check that. It appears as one of several on a pedigree done for the Dawbarn family that I have seen and used as a basis for further research into that side of the family.

Luckily that's my latest subject for university, I'm sure it will help with this search.

 

[Pauline]

Going back to your original questions:

Is my supposition that there is a relationship between my Elizabeth Saltonstall and the American Saltonstalls (based on some DNA results) seem reasonable? [Does that suggest that the family tradition is correct?]

My feeling on the DNA question is maybe, maybe not. Three matches is better than none but with the relatively small amounts of DNA involved, the difficulty is knowing if you connect to these matches via the Saltonstalls or elsewhere. Others may well disagree with me on this, but in my experience shared matches at Ancestry are sometimes influenced by what I privately refer to as 'popular ancestor' or 'multiple tree' syndrome - that is, so many people have trees showing a descent from a particular person, that many of us will have a match to one of them despite not being a descendant ourselves.

So I would suggest caution in accepting these three matches as 'proof' of a connection when there is no paper trail. Distant DNA matches may help in confirming a paper trail, or give guidance as to where to look for a paper trail, but published pedigrees may help with the latter anyway.

Is attempting to make the link between them probably impossible?

Not necessarily. Probably the thing to do is follow your own line back in the normal way and see if you come across a 'gateway' ancestor - that is an ancestor who also appears in one of the published pedigrees.

 

[Pauline]

In case you don't already have these, from the Thoroton Society "Abstracts of the Bonds and Allegations for Marriage Licences in the Archdeaconry of Nottingham" :

25 Feb 1754 Lancaster Saltenstall of Foston, Lincolnshire, linen draper, aged 20, bachelor, and Mary Robinson spinster of Newark aged 26. At Newark, bondsman John Robinson of Newark woolcomber

30 Nov 1761 David Stephenson of Alford, Lincolnshire, aged 28, bachelor, and Mary Saltonstall, widow of Newark, aged 32. At Newark

 

[Pauline]

The PCC will of Walter Saltonstall, gentleman of Great Yarmouth, proved 1750 refers to his "cousin" Lancaster Saltonstall son of his nephew Thomas Saltonstall, the nephew Thomas earlier being given as son of his late brother Thomas Saltonstall.

While this doesn't help with whether or not Lancaster was father of your Elizabeth, it does seem to give you the name of Lancaster's grandfather, and there are lots of other useful names included in the will also.

By the way, I couldn't find a son John of Lancaster, but he did have a son Walter in 1756, which is why I was looking at the will of a Walter Saltonstall. And Lancaster's marriage, although listed under 1753 was actually in 1754 - whoever completed the Newark register then was still using the old calendar.

 

[Pauline]

The confirmation that your Elizabeth was daughter of Lancaster Saltonstall may come from the PCC will of John Stephenson of Newark, proved 1848. John Stephenson was son of Lancaster’s widow Mary who married David Stephenson in 1761. Towards the end of the will John makes bequests to the children of Elizabeth Dawbarn widow, referred to as “the sister of the said Walter Saltonstall”.

Unfortunately, I can’t find any prior reference to Walter Saltonstall in the will (though I may have missed it), but on the first page of the will he does mention Lancaster Saltonstall “grandson of my late dear mother Mary Stephenson”.

 

[peter]

My feeling on the DNA question is maybe, maybe not. Three matches is better than none but with the relatively small amounts of DNA involved, the difficulty is knowing if you connect to these matches via the Saltonstalls or elsewhere. Others may well disagree with me on this,

The small amount of shared DNA supports the hypothesis that there is a link several centuries ago - it would be more worrying if there were large amounts of shared DNA.

There are two things to consider - one is how long ago the two lines split and whether the number of DNA matches found is compatible with the hypothesis. To do that you need to calculate roughly how living descendants there are of the American branch, then multiply it by the chance of getting a match with such distant cousins (using the table in the Masterclass), and by the chance that a given descendant has tested (with Ancestry), which will probably be somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 10.

The other thing to think about is whether the two branches remained separate after the split. If so, this reduces (but doesn't completely eliminate) the chance of the link being an a different line.

 

[Pauline]

I am assuming you are busy with other things at present, so I hope I'm not overloading you with information, but I thought you might find the following interesting as it appears to relate to the Walter Saltonstall who was your Elizabeth's brother:

https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_lincolnshire-hospitality_saltonstall-walter_1797

The coat of arms at the beginning of the book does not necessarily indicate that this Walter Saltonstall had the right to bear them, as this was within the era when people made unauthorised use of arms. But the text of the book is no less interesting for that, and would seem to imply that Walter did have a son Lancaster, as well as a son William - see page 5.

 

[jorghes]

Going back to your original questions:

My feeling on the DNA question is maybe, maybe not. Three matches is better than none but with the relatively small amounts of DNA involved, the difficulty is knowing if you connect to these matches via the Saltonstalls or elsewhere. Others may well disagree with me on this, but in my experience shared matches at Ancestry are sometimes influenced by what I privately refer to as 'popular ancestor' or 'multiple tree' syndrome - that is, so many people have trees showing a descent from a particular person, that many of us will have a match to one of them despite not being a descendant ourselves.

I have to say that I was able to trace the three matches trees down from what I had of the American branch to where each of them intersect with the tree using documents, so they seem like legitimate links at least in that particular manner. Although to be honest some of them are not perfect trees.

So I would suggest caution in accepting these three matches as 'proof' of a connection when there is no paper trail. Distant DNA matches may help in confirming a paper trail, or give guidance as to where to look for a paper trail, but published pedigrees may help with the latter anyway.

I see DNA as a way to support documentary evidence, but at the same time, DNA can allow you to take the leap where documents do not exist.

I have a 2x great grandmother who I was able to place with her family through DNA, because I can’t find the documents to support her link to it. There are members of the family who flatly refused to believe that my 2x great grandmother belongs to their family because the link is only through DNA, simply because there are no documents. They don’t believe the 27 DNA matches that come from our shared ancestor (and that's the ones that link to my grandmother).

Not necessarily. Probably the thing to do is follow your own line back in the normal way and see if you come across a 'gateway' ancestor - that is an ancestor who also appears in one of the published pedigrees.

While I would love to be able to find that gateway ancestor, I’m realistic enough to think that perhaps the link may never be made given what I can access via documents from Australia.

In case you don't already have these, from the Thoroton Society "Abstracts of the Bonds and Allegations for Marriage Licences in the Archdeaconry of Nottingham" :

25 Feb 1754 Lancaster Saltenstall of Foston, Lincolnshire, linen draper, aged 20, bachelor, and Mary Robinson spinster of Newark aged 26. At Newark, bondsman John Robinson of Newark woolcomber

30 Nov 1761 David Stephenson of Alford, Lincolnshire, aged 28, bachelor, and Mary Saltonstall, widow of Newark, aged 32. At Newark

I did not have any of these, thanks so much! It gave me some birth years that I didn’t have for Mary Roberson (or Robinson), but the level of detail is great.

The PCC will of Walter Saltonstall, gentleman of Great Yarmouth, proved 1750 refers to his "cousin" Lancaster Saltonstall son of his nephew Thomas Saltonstall, the nephew Thomas earlier being given as son of his late brother Thomas Saltonstall.

While this doesn't help with whether or not Lancaster was father of your Elizabeth, it does seem to give you the name of Lancaster's grandfather, and there are lots of other useful names included in the will also.

By the way, I couldn't find a son John of Lancaster, but he did have a son Walter in 1756, which is why I was looking at the will of a Walter Saltonstall. And Lancaster's marriage, although listed under 1753 was actually in 1754 - whoever completed the Newark register then was still using the old calendar.

Thank you so much again – this is great information and I hadn’t made the jump. I constructed a small tree from the information in Walter’s will, which hopefully can only help me in my quest. Ancestry shows a baptism for a John Saltonstall, but it could be that it’s John in one set of records and Walter in the other, because they are both are in 1756. (Who knows how that gets changed?)

The confirmation that your Elizabeth was daughter of Lancaster Saltonstall may come from the PCC will of John Stephenson of Newark, proved 1848. John Stephenson was son of Lancaster’s widow Mary who married David Stephenson in 1761. Towards the end of the will John makes bequests to the children of Elizabeth Dawbarn widow, referred to as “the sister of the said Walter Saltonstall”.

Unfortunately, I can’t find any prior reference to Walter Saltonstall in the will (though I may have missed it), but on the first page of the will he does mention Lancaster Saltonstall “grandson of my late dear mother Mary Stephenson”.

That might have confirmed it indeed – plus it might have added further information of possible links between the families (I have another John Stephenson in the tree – died in 1741) and a number of “John Stephenson …”, one of whom is Elizabeth’s grandson, so rather than him being named after the first John Stephenson, he could have been named after this one (being born in 1825 could have been an attempt to butter up the one with the family money??)

As the “grandson” that would suggest that there is a second Lancaster Saltonstall, possibly the son of Walter.

Side note: that is an enormous will... Its going to take me a while to sift through it all and add those it mentions to my speculative tree...

The small amount of shared DNA supports the hypothesis that there is a link several centuries ago - it would be more worrying if there were large amounts of shared DNA.

There are two things to consider - one is how long ago the two lines split and whether the number of DNA matches found is compatible with the hypothesis. To do that you need to calculate roughly how living descendants there are of the American branch, then multiply it by the chance of getting a match with such distant cousins (using the table in the Masterclass), and by the chance that a given descendant has tested (with Ancestry), which will probably be somewhere between 1 in 20 and 1 in 10.

The other thing to think about is whether the two branches remained separate after the split. If so, this reduces (but doesn't completely eliminate) the chance of the link being an a different line.

Calculating the number of descendants will be tricky as I haven’t been able to trace down all the lines yet. But it’s likely there are a considerable number of them.

What seems to have happened is one side emigrated and the other seemingly died out (I’m having a look to see if this is correct) which would suggest that the lines remained separate. I’m doing some research into the Saltonstalls who appear in the 1881 census to see if I can trace them back to the family or not, but at the moment it looks like they could also be “Sottonstall” which may or may not be related.

I am assuming you are busy with other things at present, so I hope I'm not overloading you with information, but I thought you might find the following interesting as it appears to relate to the Walter Saltonstall who was your Elizabeth's brother:

https://archive.org/details/bim_eighteenth-century_lincolnshire-hospitality_saltonstall-walter_1797

The coat of arms at the beginning of the book does not necessarily indicate that this Walter Saltonstall had the right to bear them, as this was within the era when people made unauthorised use of arms. But the text of the book is no less interesting for that, and would seem to imply that Walter did have a son Lancaster, as well as a son William - see page 5.

I do apologise that it’s taking me so long to reply, I have been working on it for a while, but I just went back to work after the holidays and so it’s been getting it back into the swing of it all.

That is quite suggestive about Walter Saltonstall, you’re right. And that crest is the one that the Dawbarn family used and the one that Sir Richard Saltonstall had – which is suggestive in itself, even if they’re not using it appropriately. I’ve added the second Lancaster and William to my little mini speculative tree. It's interesting that he was deemed famous or important enough to write a pantomime about??

I have to say I am both appreciative and admiring of the time you have put into this and the things that you have uncovered Pauline.

 

[Pauline]

I have to say that I was able to trace the three matches trees down from what I had of the American branch to where each of them intersect with the tree using documents, so they seem like legitimate links at least in that particular manner. Although to be honest some of them are not perfect trees.

I wasn't suggesting that the trees might not be showing an accurate descent, only that if there are a lot of trees showing a descent from one particular person, you are more likely to have a match with someone whose tree shows a descent from that person, but that doesn't mean that is where the connection is. For example, my sister, my husband and his brother all have 2 or 3 matches (from 8 - 14 cM) with people who have Saltonstall ancestry, but since none of them is known to have Saltonstall ancestry, the connection to those matches is likely to be elsewhere. Hence my feeling that you need to be cautious with just 3 smallish matches. (27 matches is a different ball game!)

It gave me some birth years that I didn’t have for Mary Roberson (or Robinson)

Her age at burial (93 in 1815) suggests a slightly earlier date of birth, but somewhere between the two seems likely. I think her second husband David Stephenson left a will, and there was an admon for Mary.

Ancestry shows a baptism for a John Saltonstall, but it could be that it’s John in one set of records and Walter in the other, because they are both are in 1756

I'm not sure where at Ancestry you found him as John, but I think FamilySearch may have introduced this error. In the Nottinghamshire parish register dataset at Ancestry his forename has been transcribed as Walter, and it's definitely Walter in the original register. I think the FS transcription comes from the BT, but I wasn't able to find an image of that, but possibly John came from there. Other records do seem to indicate that his name was Walter rather than John.

I do apologise that it’s taking me so long to reply

Don't worry about that - we all have other lives.

That is quite suggestive about Walter Saltonstall, you’re right. And that crest is the one that the Dawbarn family used and the one that Sir Richard Saltonstall had – which is suggestive in itself, even if they’re not using it appropriately. I’ve added the second Lancaster and William to my little mini speculative tree. It's interesting that he was deemed famous or important enough to write a pantomime about??

My impression when I found the book was that Walter is thought to have written it, rather than someone else writing it about him. The problem with coats of arms is/was that they are often assumed to relate to a surname rather than to an individual, so Walter using the arms of Sir Richard on the title page cannot be seen as indicating anything beyond a shared surname.

 

[Pauline]

I forgot to mention, there is this transcription by the Norfolk FHS of a memorial to the Walter Saltonstall buried 1750 in Great Yarmouth:
"[Near this [number 48], on the floor, is this] H.S.E. / Gualterus Saltonstall Armr. Hujus portus / nuper dignissimus controrotulator; / Morum condore, vitæ probitate et nota in Egenos / Et cognatos charitate, ornatissimus / Qui veram religionem sanctissime coluit et fidem / Principi inviolatam præstitit omnia denique amicitiæ / et societatis officia rectissime / servavit / Dierum satur, et spe beatæ resurrectionis / plenus obiit / 8-die mensis Maii Aº. Dni. 1750 Ætatis / suæ 77 officii vero supradicti 47"

Needless to say, it's in Latin, but to mention just two things, his age at death was 77, and the 'Armr' after his name could indicate he was armigerous, although it was also used simply to mean esquire or gentleman.

 

[peter]

I see DNA as a way to support documentary evidence, but at the same time, DNA can allow you to take the leap where documents do not exist.

I have a 2x great grandmother who I was able to place with her family through DNA, because I can’t find the documents to support her link to it. There are members of the family who flatly refused to believe that my 2x great grandmother belongs to their family because the link is only through DNA, simply because there are no documents. They don’t believe the 27 DNA matches that come from our shared ancestor (and that's the ones that link to my grandmother).

There are always going to be gaps in the records, but if DNA supports the records that do exist - and vice versa - the more convincing our DNA theories are going to be when the records are missing or incomplete.

 

[jorghes]

I wasn't suggesting that the trees might not be showing an accurate descent, only that if there are a lot of trees showing a descent from one particular person, you are more likely to have a match with someone whose tree shows a descent from that person, but that doesn't mean that is where the connection is. For example, my sister, my husband and his brother all have 2 or 3 matches (from 8 - 14 cM) with people who have Saltonstall ancestry, but since none of them is known to have Saltonstall ancestry, the connection to those matches is likely to be elsewhere. Hence my feeling that you need to be cautious with just 3 smallish matches. (27 matches is a different ball game!)

My grandmother's DNA results are something else - she has 54,325 results (at current count, and it's gone up recently) - a good portion of those results are her Ashkenazi Jewish matches (insular community, intermarriage and pedigree collapse) - so if I was going to worry about a slightly dodgy DNA reading I'd say it would occur where the weight of her results are, and it's in that section.
It has to be noted that the family that Elizabeth Saltonstall married into there is also a bit of intermarriage between first cousins in a few spots (two of her grandchildren married each other for example...) Luckily, not in my grandmother's direct line!

So I figure only three results is a reasonable sample given the enormity of the results on offer (that is admittedly only those who have linked trees that I can look at... not the only shared matches between my grandmother and those three results).

And those 27 matches is what is likely to be another Ashkenazi Jewish family, and my grandmother matches with the two sisters of the woman who refuses to believe we're a relation... it's a strange individual to be sure.

Her age at burial (93 in 1815) suggests a slightly earlier date of birth, but somewhere between the two seems likely. I think her second husband David Stephenson left a will, and there was an admon for Mary.

She does seem to have been the older woman. But then having a date of birth, even a one that might slightly be out is much better than not having one at all.

I'm not sure where at Ancestry you found him as John, but I think FamilySearch may have introduced this error. In the Nottinghamshire parish register dataset at Ancestry his forename has been transcribed as Walter, and it's definitely Walter in the original register. I think the FS transcription comes from the BT, but I wasn't able to find an image of that, but possibly John came from there. Other records do seem to indicate that his name was Walter rather than John.

The collection is the "England, Select Births and Christenings" - which I'm fairly sure is the one that was transcribed from Family Search? So you would be right about where the error likely comes from. I haven't had it appear on the Nottinghamshire parish registers yet, but I'm sure I will locate it before too long. I love scanned registers.

My impression when I found the book was that Walter is thought to have written it, rather than someone else writing it about him. The problem with coats of arms is/was that they are often assumed to relate to a surname rather than to an individual, so Walter using the arms of Sir Richard on the title page cannot be seen as indicating anything beyond a shared surname.

Even having written it, it's a very curious book.
Oh I get the issues with appropriating crests - there are a lot of people who make a lot of money out of selling those "surname crests" documents which suggests that they can tell you who you belong to... and it's always so much more complicated than that. I honestly just hope that they have appropriated it because there is an actual ancestral link rather than just look we have the same name...

I forgot to mention, there is this transcription by the Norfolk FHS of a memorial to the Walter Saltonstall buried 1750 in Great Yarmouth:
"[Near this [number 48], on the floor, is this] H.S.E. / Gualterus Saltonstall Armr. Hujus portus / nuper dignissimus controrotulator; / Morum condore, vitæ probitate et nota in Egenos / Et cognatos charitate, ornatissimus / Qui veram religionem sanctissime coluit et fidem / Principi inviolatam præstitit omnia denique amicitiæ / et societatis officia rectissime / servavit / Dierum satur, et spe beatæ resurrectionis / plenus obiit / 8-die mensis Maii Aº. Dni. 1750 Ætatis / suæ 77 officii vero supradicti 47"

Needless to say, it's in Latin, but to mention just two things, his age at death was 77, and the 'Armr' after his name could indicate he was armigerous, although it was also used simply to mean esquire or gentleman.

Will definitely look into that one. I'll have to get hold of a Latin translator to see if it helps to figure out where he might fit (if he does).

There are always going to be gaps in the records, but if DNA supports the records that do exist - and vice versa - the more convincing our DNA theories are going to be when the records are missing or incomplete.

Without doubt. It's always best to have documents and DNA rather than just one or the other. But when the records that should exist (1841 census and a birth/baptism/equivalent) don't, then the jump needs some other kind of help!

 

[Pauline]

Will definitely look into that one. I'll have to get hold of a Latin translator to see if it helps to figure out where he might fit (if he does).

Part of it is that he was Comptroller of the Customs for 47 years. From his will (see above), he’s definitely connected to your Saltonstalls, but whether he connects to any of the ‘Sirs’ remains to be seen.

 

[jorghes]

Part of it is that he was Comptroller of the Customs for 47 years. From his will (see above), he’s definitely connected to your Saltonstalls, but whether he connects to any of the ‘Sirs’ remains to be seen.

And thus we return to the essential question... is there a link between Saltonstall groups!

 

[Pauline]

And thus we return to the essential question... is there a link between Saltonstall groups!

Well, at least you are getting closer. You now seem to have confirmed that your Elizabeth was daughter of Lancaster Saltonstall, that Lancaster’s father and grandfather were both named Thomas Saltonstall, and that the grandfather Thomas was brother of the Walter Saltonstall of Great Yarmouth, whose age at death as given on his memorial places his date of birth around 1673.

As I said earlier, you will get a definitive answer on whether the Yarmouth Walter Saltonstall had the right to bear arms by contacting the College of Arms, though it will cost you an arm and a leg! However, they would also be able to outline for you the direct male line through which the arms were passed down, and while this might not lead to any of your folk, it may help in finding if there is a link between your line and the ‘Sirs’.

 

[jorghes]

Well, at least you are getting closer. You now seem to have confirmed that your Elizabeth was daughter of Lancaster Saltonstall, that Lancaster’s father and grandfather were both named Thomas Saltonstall, and that the grandfather Thomas was brother of the Walter Saltonstall of Great Yarmouth, whose age at death as given on his memorial places his date of birth around 1673.

As I said earlier, you will get a definitive answer on whether the Yarmouth Walter Saltonstall had the right to bear arms by contacting the College of Arms, though it will cost you an arm and a leg! However, they would also be able to outline for you the direct male line through which the arms were passed down, and while this might not lead to any of your folk, it may help in finding if there is a link between your line and the ‘Sirs’.

Exactly. In fact Walter's family didn't just include his brother Thomas (father of Thomas, grandfather of Lancaster), but there was also a brother called Samuel (who pre-deceased him) but had a daughter called Ann who married Robert Gregory; and Walter also had a sister called Ann who married a Mr Robinson.

It seems that Ann Saltonstall and Robert Gregory married in 1737 in Borthwick, Yorkshire (another step closer!), she was 30 (1707) and he was 35 (1702).

Unfortunately I haven't found any more records for the rest of the little family. Still have to go through the massive will of John Stephenson to see if there are any more relatives mentioned.

I was looking at the costs of having a set of arms created from both the College of Arms and the Court of the Lyon for my university course (well into the 1,000s of pounds even 10s of thousands!) so I have become a little daunted about asking them for what the price might be...

 

[Pauline]

t seems that Ann Saltonstall and Robert Gregory married in 1737 in Borthwick, Yorkshire (another step closer!), she was 30 (1707) and he was 35 (1702).

That comes via FamilySearch and is misleading as it relates to the marriage licence which was granted in York, and is now held by the Borthwick Institute. The marriage itself was in Halifax on 7 Sep 1737 - she was of Norwich (baptised at St Peter Mancroft on 23 Aug 1707) and he was a wool sorter of Leeds.