• 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!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

My GGF the celebrity

Bryman said:
Perhaps I should come clean about the medallist. The book which contained his photo was probably the result of a ONS showing dozens/scores of 'the family' who originated near the Welsh/English boarder. Unfortunately there does not appear to be a link to that part of the 'family' later than about 1700.
Click to expand...

I MAY have found the missing link and would appreciate suggestions from other members as to how I might prove the connection.

I and known cousins have independently traced our family line back to Richard who married Letitia at St Chad's church in Shrewsbury in 1751.

The medallist part of the family is described in quite some detail in the ONS book and one of the 'side shoots' mentions Richard who was baptised in 1730 at the village of Condover, just south of Shrewsbury. Unfortunately, there are no later references included but I believe that might be my ancestor, mainly due to the lack of other alternatives. The difficulty lies in trying to prove that both Richards are the same person. If the link can be established then my line of ancestors can be extended back a further 8 generations to the early 1500s.

More recent marriages would show the father of each partner on the certificate but that information does not appear to be available in this case. The parish records list the parents for the baptism but not the marriage. Would 'on the spot' investigation be likely to yield more information? I do know a former work colleague who now lives in Shrewsbury and might be willing to ask around if I can tell him what is needed.
 
More recently, and completely separate from my earlier post, the ONS book (privately published about 1980) mentions that the medallists performed some of their work in a building at 62 Newman Street, London W1, up to about 1900. This sparked my interest as I started my working life with a computer company in Newman Street but cannot remember the exact address.

I used Google Street View to show me where No 62 is located and was surprised to see the facade of the building where I had worked. The computer business was conducted in a modern building which had replaced that used by the medallists. Where might I be able to get further information about the 'original' building?
 
Original plans ought to have been submitted to the local council they may still have them in the archives for that borough. Alternatively they may have documentation relating to company that previously used/owned the building either way the City Archives for the London Borough concerned is probably your best bet. Being London sometimes this might be the National Archives, so you might find something by browsing their online collection catalogue prior to making a request.
 
I have often found the wonderful British History Online a valuable site for architectural and place history, especially for London - a site search for "Newman Street" may come up with something. Is that the Newman Street of the Newman Arms fame? My man still goes misty-eyed at the memory of his steak and kidney pudding...

(Sorry mods, my tablet won't let me post proper links)
 
Bryman said:
I MAY have found the missing link and would appreciate suggestions from other members as to how I might prove the connection.

I and known cousins have independently traced our family line back to Richard who married Letitia at St Chad's church in Shrewsbury in 1751.

The medallist part of the family is described in quite some detail in the ONS book and one of the 'side shoots' mentions Richard who was baptised in 1730 at the village of Condover, just south of Shrewsbury. Unfortunately, there are no later references included but I believe that might be my ancestor, mainly due to the lack of other alternatives. The difficulty lies in trying to prove that both Richards are the same person. If the link can be established then my line of ancestors can be extended back a further 8 generations to the early 1500s.

More recent marriages would show the father of each partner on the certificate but that information does not appear to be available in this case. The parish records list the parents for the baptism but not the marriage. Would 'on the spot' investigation be likely to yield more information? I do know a former work colleague who now lives in Shrewsbury and might be willing to ask around if I can tell him what is needed.
Click to expand...

Hi Bryman,

I've found 3 baptisms, one for 1728, one for 1730 and one for 1732 that meet your criteria. One is in Acton Burnell and the other 2 in Condover. If I widen the baptism year, I get a lot more. It seems to be a common surname for that area at that time?
 
Tackling this from a mini one name study may prove fruitful. The way I manage this is by adding every last scrap of info I find in my one name study into a tree, even if that means creating duplicate people. In time I weed out duplicates once the connection becomes proved. Thus leaves become twigs, become branches, and just rarely become attached to the main trunk of my tree.

This approach means you don't worry about conflicting facts you add the facts as they are presented. So if you have two similar Richards you add them both and their parents or children. Eventually as you add more and more scraps of info you'll come across the proof and can merge the data from the two candidate people into one. This then grows tree. The key is not to worry about having duplicate people. It will sort itself in time. This does require however a rigorous adherence to tagging your facts with the source so you can refer back to it later when deciding if the proof is sufficient to merge the individuals.
 
Tim said:
I've found 3 baptisms, one for 1728, one for 1730 and one for 1732 that meet your criteria. One is in Acton Burnell and the other 2 in Condover. If I widen the baptism year, I get a lot more. It seems to be a common surname for that area at that time?
Click to expand...

Very common (in all senses)! There are about a dozen villages in that area with family members in each. All males have given names of William, Richard, Thomas or John and most females are Elizabeth, Mary, Ann(e) or Sarah. Very confusing as parish records do not often mention which village members are from. One entry shows the burial of John, "a very old man", with no age or dob given. By elimination, I believe that was a former church warden who probably lived to be 90+. Infant deaths were not uncommon but then reuse of the given name (repeatedly) until a child survived adds to the confusion, especially if a death is missed. Fortunately, ctrl+F works to find the next/previous instances of names when browsing the transcripts.

The author of the book must have really struggled in the 1970s without the help of computer records. I am now finding various minor inconsistences with his research but it is giving me an enormous helping hand. The start of the year on 25/Mar causes yet more problems when recording dates and calculating ages. My thanks to Peter for alerting me to that complication in one of his newsletters.

The medallist branch of the family trace back to Acton Burnell and I think mine go back to Condover. Of course, lack of alternatives does not necessarily prove that my guesses/hopes are correct.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
Tackling this from a mini one name study may prove fruitful. The way I manage this is by adding every last scrap of info I find in my one name study into a tree, even if that means creating duplicate people. In time I weed out duplicates once the connection becomes proved. Thus leaves become twigs, become branches, and just rarely become attached to the main trunk of my tree.

This approach means you don't worry about conflicting facts you add the facts as they are presented. So if you have two similar Richards you add them both and their parents or children. Eventually as you add more and more scraps of info you'll come across the proof and can merge the data from the two candidate people into one. This then grows tree. The key is not to worry about having duplicate people. It will sort itself in time. This does require however a rigorous adherence to tagging your facts with the source so you can refer back to it later when deciding if the proof is sufficient to merge the individuals.
Click to expand...

Thanks Alexander. That is more or less the approach that I have taken. I have entered most of the information from the book as separate unlinked branches in my tree together with references to the source and then tried to verify those facts for myself. When I succeed, I update the reference and join/merge branches when doubts are resolved. As mentioned above in my reply to Tim, multiple occurrences of the same given name add to the challenge but having a framework to build on helps a great deal.

The book concentrated on the medallists line of descent which was separate from my research so it is not difficult to avoid a muddle. Eventually, I hope to extend some of the 'side' shoots towards the present day. Who knows, I may even reach the period where there were census entries which can be added to LC! I think it very unlikely that I will be able to extend any lines back to earlier times as information is very sparse for that period, at least for us common folk.
 
SuzanneD said:
I have often found the wonderful British History Online a valuable site for architectural and place history, especially for London - a site search for "Newman Street" may come up with something. Is that the Newman Street of the Newman Arms fame? My man still goes misty-eyed at the memory of his steak and kidney pudding...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestion. I will take a look.
FYI, the Newman Arms is actually in Rathbone Street, the next road over from Newman Street, and if I remember correctly (from nearly 50 years ago) there is a narrow alley joining the two roads.
 
My only real claim to fame in the celebrity stakes occurred with my youngest sister’s first marriage. Her husband was the nephew of someone he always referred to as Uncle Frank. I only learned of Uncle Frank’s celebrity status shortly after meeting the said gentleman. I was visiting my sister and husband (in the 70's) when Uncle Frank popped in with his wife (Aunt Norah) for a short visit. I recall them arriving in a large Bentley car and being impressed with that.

Apparently we had met at the wedding but re-introductions were carried out and my brother-in-law said I might recall Uncle Frank better as Francis Durbridge (FD) the Novelist and Playwright. Not only did I know the name – and who wouldn’t brought up to listen to ‘Paul Temple’ on the radio on a Saturday evening (and its famous 'Coronation Scot' signature tune )-but was quite thrilled to meet the very man responsible for its writing. (For those who were too young to recall the man or Paul Temple you can find out more here): Durbridge

Once I began my main Tree I included FD and his ancestry as an integral part of my sister’s married line. (Aunt Norah was in fact the sister of my brother-in-law's mother). I recall many years after he died receiving a communication from one of his grandsons (via Ancestry). He naturally enquired my connection with his grandfather and was, I think, a little disappointed to find the link tenuous, particularly as my sister and brother-in-law had both long divorced and remarried. Such is family and life!
 
Tim said:
Before my time, sorry. Was the TV series any good?
Click to expand...
The TV series (as I remember from my youth ) was indeed good. The actor who played Paul Temple, Francis Matthews, died in June this year, aged 86 (and good-looking to the last)
 
Tim said:
Lol, probably. Was it on BBC1 or BBC2?
Click to expand...
Just possibly it was so long ago that there was only BBC1. OK, it wasn't THAT far back, but I think in those days BBC2 was the 'cultural' channel and Paul Temple would have been more mainstream i.e BBC1.
 
Tim said:
Before my time, sorry. Was the TV series any good?
Click to expand...

Strangely enough Tim I have no real memory of the TV series I suppose because my own life had moved on and television was not so 'in the face' as it became. But the radio plays were something else and Mom and Dad were avid listeners as I too became. They began well before I was old enough to take them in. I do recall the actors (male and female) who played the main parts were household names also.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top