General Chat

hi Sue they are a flamin' (sorry can I say flamin'~) nightmare I have possibly the unluckiest twins who ever lived 1st they were born on the 29th Feb 2nd they were married soon after their 16th birthday and 3rd they were married to the same man ~ can it get any worse x

6 generations and I'm back to Ann Oliver who was born in Thame (in 1795-ish?) and married in Aylesbury in 1815.

There it stops - although one day I'll find out a bit more about her.

Jill

Hi Mel

I've come across the same problem/opportunity. Ian's (my OH's) antecedents were also mormons which means

(a) plenty of information
(b) plenty of wives.

I picked up this story on my travels:

"Being a polygamist, Robert was forced to flee to Rexburg, Idaho and then to Old Mexico, where he spent nine months away from his home. He was arrested four times and had to sell part of his farm to pay his fines. On two occasions his wife Marion was taken into court with him and fined on charges of unlawful cohabitation. Marion was always active in the LDS Church serving as treasurer in the Relief Socitey. She was a faithful temple worker as long as her health permitted. She was charter member of the Peter Maughan Camp of DUP. Her great interest was her home. She had a weaving machine in a small log cabin behind her home and wove carpets and rugs for anyone who needed her services. Her yard was always filled with colorful flowers, and she had a beautiful vegetable garden."

Just as well she had a weaving machine and a garden full of colourful flowers, given that her husband had two other wives - one of whom was her sister.

As my daughter (a historian) says "the past is another country - they did things differently there"



Sue x

The Maternal line is the direct line female to female only going back from your mother.

xxxxx mick

Thanks everyone:)

I have traced two branches on dads line back to 1600's, and a number as far as early 1800s( thats easy).

But my mothers mother seems to have come from Mars, I can't demolish that brick wall yet, despite help from kind people on here.

Uggers this thread is great and the theory is good, however in reality its full of holes I can get bk that way 6 gens including myself 7 if I inc my neices daughter but when I get bk to 5 x great grandmother Sarah her husband is a mormon and has several wives at the same time all having children at the same time I have 2 Elizabeths born between 1850-52 one is my 4 x great grandmother but which one as both their mothers are Sarah's lol x

With certainty I'm back to a person baptised in May 1807. I think she was the daughter of the Daniel and Jane who married in 1804, but as we are talking JONES here, I can't be positive.

Gwyn

Just back to Gt Gt grandmother 1805, stuck with her Mother so far.

(That is Mother to her mother and so on.)

Going back from Father's Mother I get to Gt Gt Gt grandmother but about 1791 stuck there.

sorry it added twice

Does anyone know whether that the line that they use when looking at female DNA?

Oooh....no can do!! Well, not without a big pot of money to pay researchers and translators. My mum's parents were both Lithuanian.
The furthest back I've got is my g.granny who was born circa1860/1870 - nobody really knows. Difficult to get records.
Not breaking any records there then, am I???

However, doing my Dad's mother's side, following the female line, I'm back to 1760. Again, no great shakes, but better than nowt.

K

hi hun, mother to mother to mother (etc!) I get back to Amy Lagden (my 5 x gt grandmother) born about 1747 somewhere in north Essex or south Cambs. Can't find her baptism for love nor money ... yet :-))

I'm very interested in her cos she baptised her daughter Madame Sophia Phillippini Elizabeth - and I would LOVE to know why! as far as I can tell, she and her husband both came from good old ag lab families!

xxxxxxxx

Through my mother's line, back to 1739, and still trying for further back.
Julia in Derbyshire

haha mick ya show of lolol xxxx

All the way back to the Clan of Tara in 17001 BC>

(just a few little gaps to fill in between her and Mary Welton, born 1768!)

The marvels of Ancestral DNA!


xxxxx mick

Do you mean my mothers side or just the female line,Full stop?

Sorry, I didn't say it proper, I mean the line purely from daughter to mother to mother - it's reckoned it's the only sure one:)

female 1779 Scotland,,then its a tumble as everyone had a Janet,!with same surname,,,,,,!!!

Irish ,,not going there at all,,,,,

OH blood family one told even more lies.dont know how they showed their face in church........:}

I can get the maternal line back to a marriage in 1777 but need to get to Bucks RO to do any more really.