Moderator Control Panel
A problem shared is a problem halved. Post your brick walls here and see whether you can offer advice to others
Wed Oct 23, 2019 5:55 pm
This could get complicated, so apologies in advance!
One of my (probable) ancestors was a Hannah Dancey, whose baptism took place in Turkdean, Gloucestershire in April 1719. Exact date could be 10th, 16th, 20th or 26th, as it is hard to tell, but that part is not too important.
Her parents were Samuel and Hester, and there are at least 2 siblings, William in 1716 and Thomas in 1725, possibly another called Samuel in 1713, but it only lists his father, so he is a 'maybe' for the moment.
I have not been able to find a marriage record for a Samuel Dancey and a Hester on either Ancestry or FMP. When I have looked up Hannah on the trees on Ancestry, there are over 300, and many list her mother as Hester Crew Stephenson. (Criteria - Hannah Dancey, born 1719 in Turkdean, Gloucestershire, father Samuel Dancey, mother Hester.) Looking up Hester on the Ancestry trees gives over 600 results, with the same surname. (Criteria - Hester, lived in Turkdean, Gloucestershire, married to Samuel Dancey, children William, Hannah and Thomas.)
I have looked through dozens and dozens of these trees, some give dates of marriage, but there is not a single record that confirms Hester's surname or when she got married to Samuel Dancey.
They all link to other trees and you end up going round in circles trying to find the original 'evidence' that everyone else has copied.
Can anyone find a record for a Samuel Dancey marrying a Hester somewhere near to Turkdean in Gloucestershire sometime before 1716, or around that time?
It would be interesting to prove over 600 trees are wrong, but I imagine there must be some evidence for it. I just have not been able to find it, yet.
Thanks for any help anyone can provide with this problem.
Wed Oct 23, 2019 7:28 pm
I see what you mean, just copying each other.
The ones who put the marriage of Hester Stephenson at St Mary de Lode on 14th nov 1709 to Samuel haven't seen the BT I should think, as that says John Dancey of Turkdeane.
Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:48 pm
The answer seems to be here: https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/Calm ... f45&pos=13
Gloucestershire Archives - GDR/Q3/29/(part)
Marriage licence allegation for Samuel Dauncey, of Turkdeane, batchelor, aged 35, and Hester Stephenson of Winchcombe, aged 22, 13 November 1709
Event type: marriage allegation
Memoranda: sworn before Richard Parsons
Transcriber's notes: Joseph Dauncey of Gloucester bricklayer makes and marks the allegation
Note: This is a full transcription of the document. This means we don't need to get out the original for you.
Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:35 pm
Thanks to both of you for the help.
This is where the confusion lies - The original document on Ancestry clearly says the groom’s first name is John, not Samuel. There are versions where the groom’s side of the document is missing, but at least one version is fully intact and says John.
I wonder which one is correct?
I think you usually have to go with an original document over a transcription.
The one I am referencing states the names as John Dauncey and Hester Stephen, in the transcription, but the ‘Stephen’ and ‘son’ bit are a bit separated in the document, so is presumably Stephenson. Groom from Turkdeane and bride from Winchcombe. No ages. Date 14th November 1709.
I think that explains the source for the original ‘evidence’, but is it correct?
John or Samuel? If it is John, was that another name Samuel went by, or a completely different person? If not Samuel at all, where is his marriage record to a Hester?
Last edited by Robbie J N
on Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:46 pm
The only document I can see on Ancestry is the Parish Register (Gloucestershire Archives reference P154/12/IN/1/1). This is entirely different to the document with the reference GDR/Q3/29/(part), which is the marriage licence allegation and far more likely to be accurate as it will have had to be sworn.
Here's what the archives say about the documents in GDR/Q3: https://ww3.gloucestershire.gov.uk/Calm ... R%2f17%2f3
Wed Oct 23, 2019 11:59 pm
I suppose one explanation is that on the Ancestry record, the entries above and below also have the groom listed as John, so there could have been a mix up. In fact, there are 4 Johns in a row. No proof of that idea though.
I guess I have to go with that marriage record, for the moment, and pursue the Hester Stephenson name.
Like I said before, at least the source has now been found.
Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:30 am
Here they are.
I've had a name on a register as William but on the Bishops Transcripts as John so mistakes are made.
The dates are the next day so I'd say they are one and the same marriage.
Avalines link gives their ages and we know where they are from so should be easier to track her down.
Thu Oct 24, 2019 9:53 am
This one is 1682 at Winchcombe, first one in september. maybe she doesn't know her age.
worth keeping on file though as probably the same family group.
Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:07 am
The 1st image shows the 4 Johns in a row, with 2 on the same day of 14th November. (Perhaps that was where the mix up happened.)
How could the the 2nd image be transcribed with the groom’s name when it is not there?
Another thing, Hester’s death in 1748, if that is the same Hester, gives her surname spelling as ‘Dauncey’, like her husband’s name on the marriage record, whereas her 3, or 4 or more, children’s baptism records all have the ‘Dancey’ spelling.
Hannah’s marriage to John Dunce, in 1739, again uses ‘Dancey’.
Strange that the surname switches between those 2 spellings.
But then I have seen surnames like Davis and Davies alternate through the baptism records of several children in the same family. (Who are all descendants of Hannah.)
In conclusion, Samuel has been incorrectly listed as John, for some reason, on the Ancestry record.
Therefore the marriage for 1709 is the correct one, and those trees that listed it are actually correct, even if they just copied others.
Thu Oct 24, 2019 10:26 am
The first image is the Bishops Transcript, the second is the page from the church register. As you say, I think the transcriber just had John stuck in his mind.
The one thing a lot of the trees do make a mistake on is the place of birth of Hester, which Avaline has found, so all those trees are wrong.
Just shows how finding your family tree back 10 generations on the internet by lunchtime doesn't work.
I've been doing mine since 1993, nobody gets on it without a confirmed birth, marriage and death.
I'm stuck on one ancestor as I know where he was married, lived and died but can't find a burial. I know his Admon was in 1828, but no age. He's on 4 trees but where did they get his birth from?
I have his wifes death certificate, but can't find a burial for her either.. strange.. but it's all part of the fun and detective work.
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
phpBB Mobile / SEO by Artodia.