Monday, April 27, 2020

Missing an annual treat, new data, and surname distributions

This past weekend, I should have been away, at the annual conference of the Guild of One-Name Studies.  But, like so many other events, this has had to be postponed until next year, due to the current Coronavirus situation.  A "virtual AGM" was held - which I managed to miss (oops!)  Let's hope everyone keeps safe and well until next year, as it is always such fun (and educational, of course!) when we meet up for the weekend.

The current lovely weather has meant that my garden received more attention than my Study did over the past fortnight - apart from replying to a couple of queries, both of which involved the PARRY DNA Project, as well as genealogy, I haven't done any research at all!

But there's plenty to be done - these are the numbers of PARRYs in the databases that FindMyPast have added in the last two weeks:

FindMyPast Friday email dated 17 April 2020 
  • Surrey Burials - 133
  • Greater London Burial Index - 816
  • United States Billion Graves Index - 1756
  • Canada Billion Graves Cemetery Index - 123

FindMyPast Friday email dated 24 April 2020
  • Kent Baptisms - 374
  • Kent Marriages and Banns - 396
  • Kent Burials - 379

Those will keep me busy (when I get around to looking into them 🙂 )

A recent query on the Guild's mailing list about the old "publicprofiler" surname distribution site resulted in this link to a current website being posted - https://gbnames.mappingdutchman.com/

It's always interesting to look at the results for PARRY on sites like this.  I know what I would expect, based on the data, but the picture presented can vary.  One of the nice things about this new site is that, rather than the limited date ranges of the previous, this one now includes results for most of the census years, as well as more recent data.  There's also a slider so you can easily follow the pattern of change over time.

For 1851, the earliest date, the map shows concentrations of the surname PARRY from Anglesey, across all of North Wales and into Lancashire, another concentration around the Herefordshire/Monmouthshire border area, a third in London, and a final, less concentrated, area around about Birmingham.

By 2016, the North Wales concentration centres more around Liverpool, the Herefordshire/Breconshire concentration has moved south, centering more on the Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire border area, the London concentration has expanded and the Birmingham concentration has both expanded and become more dense.

In various intervening years, the North Wales and Birmingham/West Midlands concentrations join up and then split apart again.

There are several factors to consider with regard to comparing distributions like this, such as how the data has been organised (eg by counties, administrative areas, or postcode areas), whether it shows total numbers, numbers as proportions of the general population, or as percentages of the total in that surname etc. and I haven't yet read all the details about the methodology used on this site.

But it reminded me of the work I did years ago, in 2005, on plotting distributions of the PARRY surname.

This was one of the series I produced from the census data, showing the actual numbers of PARRYs in each of the English and Welsh counties:

The distributions of PARRYs in censuses, per county, based on actual numbers per year.

And this is one of the maps produced during my attempt to plot a modern distribution of the PARRY surname, based on electoral roll data for 2002:

Point distribution of the PARRY surname in 2002, based on Post Towns

All of which reminds me that I really must deal with getting my old web pages back online, as there is so much fascinating information in them!

Sunday, April 12, 2020

Beyond the Guild Blog Challenge

I am very grateful to Corinne for initiating the Guild Blog Challenge, and to Melody for setting up the associated Facebook Group, in order to encourage Guild members to start, or restart, blogging about their studies.  It was tough to get all my ten posts completed before the end of March, but I did manage it, thanks to a last minute dash at the end.

For many of us, the Challenge definitely served as a motivator and prompted us to stop putting off publishing information from our research.  And it is great that the Group will keep going, enabling anyone who hasn't yet completed the Challenge to do so, as well as encouraging us all to continue blogging.

The question for me, though, is exactly how to continue.

The Challenge reminded me of several 'conclusions' that I knew anyway, ie
1. That the Guild's main asset is the members, who are encouraging and supportive,
2. That words are not my forte - but that regular writing, and reviewing what I am going to post, does help to improve it. (well, I think it does - maybe any readers were just too polite to tell me what they really thought 🙂 )

The Challenge also highlighted some issues I need to improve on - for example, finding relevant photographs, or pictures, to illustrate a post.

Coming back to the study after a few years of very little planned research, the Challenge also helped to clarify what it is that I would like to achieve with the PARRY Study - which I have realised relates more to the 'bigger picture' about the data - frequencies, distributions, change rates etc - rather than the minutiae of individual family trees or stories.  Perhaps I shouldn't make such a confession but I don't (often) find other people's family history interesting.  I'm not a 'story' person.  Occasionally something might 'grab me' about a particular individual or family, but I have enough trouble keeping up with all the information on my own ancestors and their descendants, without trying to go into that much detail for all of the other PARRYs!   

There were definitely times over the last few months when I felt 'bogged down' by not getting something done on time - to the extent, at one point, I even considered deregistering the surname!  Examples of posts not completed include analysing the Norfolk records, which I'd extracted early on, also some records for Cumbria that had been mentioned as being on Family Search and which, like the Norfolk records, turned out to involve more than just a simple extraction task, because of the way the records are organised.

When I look back at my third post, "The state of the study. And some Norfolk records". and consider the extent to which the Study moved forward on those three 'big issues' over these months, I would have to answer, "it didn't."

Somewhere in there, is perhaps a hint about why some of us have problems with regular blogging, which is easiest to illustrate by comparing the difference between the impression given in WDYTYA! programmes and 'real research'.

Whenever the WDYTYA! series is on, with the celebrity walking into Registry Offices, or local Archives, and almost immediately coming out with the right piece of information to enable them to move on to the next stage of their journey, there is a chorus of comments from family historians that "real research isn't like that", that it takes time, and that sometimes hours of work produce very little reward (except the 'value' of negative searches, or course!  ðŸ™‚)

The programme is designed to make a good story - and I think that's what I found myself trying to achieve with my posts.  So I ended up doing research in order to write a post (and which therefore has a need to be 'finished'), rather than writing a post as a result of the research I'm doing anyway (where it doesn't matter if the research isn't finished - such a post is still a record of how the study is progressing.)

So, moving forward, there's likely to be a change in the type of posts I write, with more of the "weekly update" style.  I think that's better than reducing the frequency of posts. 

Fundamentally, the PARRY Study blog has to encourage progress on the PARRY study.  If I happen to occasionally produce an interesting story as a result of that, that will be great - but I'm going to try not to let that become my focus, as it reduces the chances of me publishing anything!



Saturday, March 28, 2020

Guild Blog Challenge Post 10: What's in a Name? Pluvius Cambria PARRY

Considering the topic of the previous few posts, perhaps I should subtitle this one, "and now for something completely different." 🙂

As one-namers, we are all used to the idea that names have meanings.  For surnames, that's usually related to the origin of the name - for example, there are surnames derived from occupations, from nicknames, from geographical or topographical features, and from a parent's name, as in patronymic or matronymic naming systems. PARRY is an example of a patronymic surname, since it comes from the Welsh use of 'ap', or 'son of', before a father's name of 'Harry'.

First names often have some form of meaning attached to them, as well.  There are meanings based on the origin of the word, eg for 'Harry', this is described as a Medieval English form of Henry, as well as being used in modern times as a shortened version of both Henry and Harold. Henry was itself derived from a German name, meaning 'home ruler'

But first names are also called 'given names' - a clue to another type of meaning, the meaning placed on it by the parents (or whoever named the child) in choosing that name and giving it to the child.

Sometimes names are chosen because the family are following a tradition:
First son was named after the father’s father.
Second son was named after the mother’s father.
Third son was named after the father.
The fourth son was named after the father's eldest brother
The first daughter after the mother's mother
The second daughter after the father's mother
The third daughter after the mother
The fourth daughter after the mother's eldest sister*
Other times, the name might have some personal relevance to the family - maybe a special relative, or someone who had assisted and supported them in some way, or someone they admired. It might mark an event of personal or national importance, or be a virtue the parents hope for the child (or experienced themselves).

Whatever the reason, 'given names' are chosen names - and, for some names, this just begs the question:
Why?
Why would parents inflict such a name on their child?!

I came up with my own scenario for the strangest name I have so far come across, in the PARRY One-name Study.  Imagine the scene, in a house in Wales, where new mother, Eliza, is talking to her husband, Powell, following their recent house move from England:

"It's raining"

"Yes dear, I know it's raining, but I need to go out to register the baby's birth"

"But, really, look at the weather!  It is *still* raining.  Does it never stop raining here?"

 "Well, it does,...er... sometimes.  But I still need to go out and register the baby's birth now.  What are we going to call him?"

"Rain in the morning, rain during the day, rain in the evening.  That's all I've seen since we arrived here.  RAIN! "

"Yes, dear.  I'm going out the door now - what shall we call him?"

"RAINY WALES!"

……
[a little while later, in an office in town]

"Yes, Registrar, I know it's a strange name.  But that's definitely what my wife said.  You think it might sound better in Latin?   Yes, I think you're right - please register his name as "Pluvius Cambria Parry"


……
[the End]

I may never discover the real reason why Powell and Eliza PARRY gave their son the names "Pluvius Cambria" but that story came to mind when I first discovered them in the censuses.  Powell came from Mold, Flintshire, but Eliza was from Berkhamstead, Hertfordshire.  Pluvius was born in Tewkesbury, Gloucestershire so, when the family appear in Mold, Flintshire, in the 1841 census, I could just imagine the name as a new mother's response to being uprooted to live in a wet and soggy North Wales.

It was a nice story but I now know that it couldn't be true - since the birth of Pluvius was not actually registered, and he was also christened while they were still in Tewkesbury, on the 18 Dec 1839. 

In 1841, Powell (30), Eliza (20) and their one year old son, Pluvius, are in Mold, Flintshire, in the same household as a Cain PARRY, aged 25, and Ann PARRY, aged 60.  Cain and Ann, potentially, are Powell's brother and mother, although I haven't yet tried researching Powell's parentage.

Powell's occupation in 1841 is recorded as "Poor rate collector" - which seems a bit of a change from "Railway Contractor", which was his occupation when Pluvius was christened.

In 1851, the family are still living in Mold.  Powell (43) is now an "Auctioneer" and it is this census which tells us that Powell was born in Mold, while his wife, Eliza aged 34, was born in Berkhamstead, Hertfordshire.   As well as Pluvius, aged eleven, two further children have been born, Llewelyn Horne, aged seven, and Amanda Ann, aged five.

In 1855, Powell dies and, by the 1861 census, Eliza, Llwellyn and Amanda have moved to Eliza's birthplace, Berkhampstead, in Hertfordshire.  I did think I'd found Pluvius in all of the relevant censuses but, if I did, for some reason I didn't keep a record of where he was in 1861.  [So that's a 'mission', should anyone choose to accept it! ]

By 1871, Pluvius is living in Charles Street, St. Marylebone, London, working as a drapers assistant.

On the 4 Dec 1873, Pluvius married Anne Eliza OWEN at St George Hanover Square.  The details for this from the church records were obtained for me some years ago, as a result of one of the marriage challenges.  But, thanks to the newspaper collection on the National Library of Wales, I now know that the marriage was announced in the "Wrexham and Denbighshire Advertiser and Cheshire Shropshire and North Wales Register":
PARRY-OWEN - On the 4th inst., at St. George's Church, Hanover Square, London, by the Rev. J. H. Murray, Pluvius C. Parry, formerly of Mold, to Anne Eliza, daughter of the late Mr William Owen, Tre'r Dryw Farm, Llanidan, Anglesea.
It appears that Pluvius might have ventured into a change of occupation - on the 14th January 1875,  Pluvius and his wife were in Llanwrwst, as the "North Wales Chronicle and Advertiser for the Principality" published the following on the 23rd January 1875:
LLANRWST. THE ROYAL HOTEL.—A supper took place at the Royal Hotel in this town, on Thursday, the 14th instant, on the occasion of Mr Pluvius Cambria Parry, from London, having taken the hotel, when a numerous and respectable party attended and enjoyed a capital spread. After the cloth was removed the usual loyal and patriotic toasts were proposed and drunk. The healths of the worthy proprietor and proprietress coupled with kind wishes for the future happiness and prosperity, the healths of the president and vice-president and other toasts were also drunk. Much credit is due to Mr and Mrs Parry for the way in which they catered for the enjoyment of their friends, who one and all expressed themselves much satisfied with the entertainment which had been provided for them. 
At first, knowing that Pluvius and Eliza are in Marylebone in 1881, I thought this report might just have meant that Pluvius and his wife were staying at the hotel, and put on a meal for their friends there.  However, they clearly did spend some time as the proprietors of the Royal Hotel, as another newspaper report, in "Llais Y Wlad" on the 2nd July 1875, has an account of a court case relating to charges of drunkenness and negligence against a Mr Roberts, which mentions Pluvius.

Llais Y Wlad is a Welsh language newspaper but, thanks to the wonders of modern technology in the form of Google Translate, we learn that it reads:
Pluvius Parry, proprietor of the Royal Hotel, Llanrwst, testified that Mr Roberts had been in the coffee-room at his hotel on the evening of the 6th of May. He remained in conversation with him for about an hour, and the witness, to whom he was essentially an individual, had not the slightest hesitation in saying that he was perfectly sober. Mr Roberts left between five and six o'clock, and both had a glass of beer each.  
I don't know how long Pluvius and Anne were at the Royal Hotel but, by the 1881 census, they are again living in St Marylebone - if I hadn't been searching for probate entries for his father, Powell, in the National Library of Wales, and then carried out a 'random search' for Pluvius amongst the newspaper records, I would not have even realised that the couple had spent time back in Wales.

They have no children with them in 1881, so it seems likely that they never had any (surviving) children.  They are living in 248 Great Portland Street, as are two other families and we know, from the electoral rolls, that they were renting a large unfurnished room on the second floor at 4 shillings a week.  Pluvius is working as a "clerk clothworkers". 

By 1883, they have moved to 43 Museum Street, Finsbury, and are renting one front room, on the second floor, at 6 shillings a week.  The Electoral Rolls on Ancestry.com for 1884, 1885, 1888, 1889, 1890, and 1891 continue to place them there.

Pluvius dies on the 2 Nov 1890 and the administration of his estate is granted to his wife, Anne Eliza, on the 17 Nov 1890.

Every time we visit Wales, and it rains, I think about poor Pluvius and wonder why his parents gave him that name.  From my newspaper searches, I was interested to find numerous references to "Jupiter Pluvius", in particular regarding events that were disrupted by rain.  This was derived from the Ancient Roman mythological concept of Jupiter as the god of the sky and thunder, and therefore as the bringer of rain.

So perhaps naming their child "Pluvius Cambria" really was a response to the idea of moving to Wales!



*
Relationship naming pattern - https://www.genealogy.com/articles/research/35_donna.html

Census Entries
1841: Class: HO107; Piece: 1410; Book: 12; Civil Parish: Mold; County: Flintshire; Enumeration District: 1; Folio: 12; Page: 15; Line: 5;
1851: Class: HO107; Piece: 2501; Folio: 566; Page: 20;
1861:
1871: Class: RG10; Piece: 148; Folio: 51; Page: 32;
1881: Class: RG11; Piece: 137; Folio: 89; Page: 24;

"Jupiter Pluvius" meaning - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_(mythology)

Wednesday, March 25, 2020

Guild Blog Challenge Post 9: 1918, PARRYs in the CWGC

One of the things I wondered about, when I started to consider the PARRY deaths in 1918, was whether I should make any adjustments for deaths relating to the First World War.

This was because I remembered we have a death certificate for Thomas PARRY, my great grandfather's brother, who died out in South Africa, during the Boer War, and I suddenly realised that I wasn't sure of the answer to the question of how these deaths were recorded.  Do they appear in the online civil registration death indexes in some way, despite many of them taking place abroad?  If so, then what impact are they having on the 'normal' figures.

Having checked the copy of the certificate for Thomas, I see that it is actually headed up "Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Special Provisions) Act 1957", as opposed to most of the normal copy certificates, which state "Pursuant to the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1953".    Typed in one corner is "An entry in an Army Register Book of Deaths in the South African War 1899-1902" and other text states that it is a "true copy of the certified copy of an entry made in a Service Departments Register".

So there were separate registers for the war deaths.  However, it appears that those injured in the war and repatriated to the UK, who subsequently died, as well as the personnel from the Royal Navy, or merchant seaman, killed by enemy action and whose bodies were brought ashore, were registered by the local registrars.*

It would take too long to go through all the PARRY deaths I've previously extracted from the Commonwealth War Graves Commission site, to try to identify which ones might also be included in the normal indexes and so relate the statistics to those in the Challenge Post 7.  But this does seem an opportunity to write something about the CWGC figures during the same time period.

My first extraction of the PARRY entries from the CWGC site was probably back about 2006, as part of normal data collection towards the one-name study.  But I'd repeated the process in 2013, when it had been my intention to do a project on them during the centenary period (28 July 2014 - 11 November 2018).  Unfortunately, I didn't manage that project, as the centenary began in the months following the death of a close relative and my time was spent dealing with other issues.

So this time I began by checking the current index back to my earlier extractions, as it is often useful to check for updates to such sites.  I didn't keep a record of how I searched last time, but I imagine I just used a straightforward search for the surname.  If so, then it seems there have been some changes to the search process and results found.   Previously, double barrelled surnames that began with PARRY were included, as was the surname "PARRYMAN".  This time, however, double barrelled surnames where PARRY is the second part were also included in the results, and the "PARRYMAN" entry was no longer included.  There were some changes to names - some mispellings were corrected and a couple of entries that were just initials now contain the casualty's full name.  There were also changes to some service numbers.

This graph shows the total numbers of PARRY deaths on the CWGC site for the period 1914 - 1921:


[Note: This is just PARRYs - I haven't included any of the double barrelled surnames etc, as the  previous Blog posts in this series only related to registrations for the one surname, PARRY, not any of the combination names]

Graphs can be used to show the data in a variety of ways, which can then lead into other types of investigations.  Here, for example, they are broken down by Service type:


As one might expect, in World War 1, the army bore the brunt of the casualties.  But viewing the figures like this might prompt the question of how many PARRYs were in each of the Services, and whether the casualty rates were proportional to that, or not.

The deaths could be displayed in terms of the country they served with, perhaps linking in to emigration of PARRYs and, again, the question of proportionality - were the death rates for the countries the same, and the higher figures for the UK PARRYs merely the product of the UK being the location for the origin of the surname:



With regard to where battles were, the deaths could be displayed in terms of the country the memorial is in:



It is possible to plot these memorial figures the other way round, ie places within each year.  But, since the numbers vary considerably, the story such a graph could tell would seem limited.

And, sometimes, only a table of data can bring home the more human cost of individual events:












*
War death registers and local registrations -
https://history.blog.gov.uk/2017/11/10/the-general-register-office-and-the-first-world-war/

Monday, March 23, 2020

Guild Blog Challenge Post 8: 1918, John Parry and his father, Thomas

Continuing on from my previous post, about the numbers of PARRYs who died in the period covering the 1918 Influenza Pandemic, this post relates to the impact of 1918 on my own ancestral line.  Two of my direct PARRY ancestors died that year, my great grandfather, John PARRY , and his father, Thomas.

John PARRY is featured in a post on my personal family history blog, which you can find here.  There will be more to add to his story, once I finish investigating the reasons for his nine months in prison, in 1911. He died on the 21st November 1918, of "morbus cordis" and syncope.  As someone explained the causes to my Dad (who began our family history research), "they just died!  It would be the most likely thing to put if someone died as a result of general weakness after 'flu".

John's father, Thomas PARRY, was 79 years old when he died in February 1918.  According to the death certificate, he died of cancer, asthenia and syncope so, potentially, the pandemic had no direct connection to his death.  It was just a matter of timing.

Thomas was born in 1838, in Llanwenarth, Monmouthshire.  He'd married in 1863, to Sarah JONES and they'd had four children before Sarah died in 1869, aged just 26, from meningitis.  Their youngest son, Lewis, born four days before Sarah passed away, then died from bronchitis at the age of 8 months. But the other three children survived to adulthood.

By 1891, Thomas was living in Walterstone, Herefordshire, at "Coed Gravel", a widower aged 53, working as a roadman.  With him were his daughter, Elizabeth, aged 24, and his mother, Hannah, aged 81.  It seems likely his mother died in the years soon after that census, although I haven't been able to identify her death yet.  But Thomas remarried in 1893 to Ann JONES, formerly MEREDITH, a 53 year old widow.  Thomas and Ann remained in Walterstone and, in 1901, were living at "Lower House".  Thomas was aged 62, and still working as a roadman for the Rural District Council.  By 1908, when Ann died, Thomas and Ann were living at "Quarries Green", Walterstone, and Thomas appears to still be living at the same property in 1911 (although, in the census, the property is described as "Quarrels Green").  He is now aged 72, and again it is recorded that he is working as a roadman for the RDC.

On the 9th December 1911, Thomas PARRY, of "Quarry's Green, Walterstone", wrote his Will.

He died on the 22nd February 1918, at Plum Tree Cottage, Graigamy, Clydach, Llanelly, Breconshire, which was the home of his step-daughter, Margaret Francis.

This is the relevant entry in the probate calendar:


The discovery of this record is something I always find amazing, whenever I think about it - one of those "chance finds" in genealogy, which help several pieces fall into place.   No other evidence has been found, so far, for this address of 18 Newmarket Street, Hereford, being connected to Thomas PARRY, so this is the find that I believe helped my Dad to confirm the link between my great grandfather, John, and my 2xgreat grandfather, Thomas.

Dad had begun to research our family history in the early 1980s, just after his father, Donald PARRY, died, so it was too late to ask any further questions. (How many of us have found ourselves in that situation!)

Donald had been orphaned in 1918, when his father, John, died, and there was very little information available about our PARRY line. When Dad started, many of the records and search facilities, which we almost take for granted these days, were not available - even the 1881 census was not yet indexed, and the civil registration indexes were only available in a limited number of places.

So, identifying entries relating to the correct father and grandfather for Donald had been a bit of a 'brickwall' for Dad.

I now have the numerous letters from the research company Dad used, showing what research had been carried out when, and giving their reasons why the investigations into John and his father's parentage hadn't progressed far since they had last written to Dad.  Over the years, bits and pieces of information had been collected, including, amazingly, details of the correct birth certificate for John.  But it is difficult to say now exactly what was "known" about the family at any particular time (without analysing all the research and putting it on a timeline) since details we now know to be correct are interspersed with various facts which turned out to be irrelevant (including incorrect birth details from other entries.)

Dad knew, from Donald's birth and marriage certificates, that his father was called John Parry and was a cattle dealer.  John's marriage certificate revealed that John was 37 when he married the 21 year old Rosina Louisa PREECE, in 1903, which made his birth about 1866.  The marriage certificate also indicated that John's father was called Thomas, a farmer.

Since Dad knew when his father, Donald, had been orphaned, it was possible to obtain John's death certificate.  This gave John's address as 18 Newmarket Street, Hereford.  An M.A Francis, "step-niece" was the informant, and her residence was the same address.

Although it seemed likely that the birth certificate identified by the research company in 1986 was going to be the correct one, as the father was recorded as Thomas PARRY, a farmer, the gap in information between that date and John's marriage hampered progress further back.

Despite the money spent on professional research, it was actually the 'chance find' by Dad, in 1993, that identified the correct Thomas. After years in the RAF and then being made redundant from an electronics company, Dad had found his 'dream job', working in a local Archives Office.  Unfortunately, the job didn't last more than about six months, due to ill health. But during that time, a researcher had come in and requested the National Probate Index.  Dad hadn't come across that then and so, once he was free, he decided to look up 1918 in the index, the year he knew John PARRY had died.

There was no entry in the index for John Parry, but, glancing down the page at the rest of the PARRYs, he suddenly spotted the address "18 Newmarkert Street" in the entry for a Thomas PARRY

Dad obtained a copy of the Will and death certificate and, finally, had sufficient information to enable him to be sure he was connecting John PARRY back to the right Thomas.

This is a transcript of the Will:
This is the last Will and Testament of me Thomas PARRY of Quarry's Green Walterstone in the County of Hereford made this ninth day of December in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and eleven. I hereby revoke all Wills made by me at any time heretofore. I appoint Alfred James Gilbert PHILLIPS, Trelandon, Walterstone and John PARRY, Carpenters Arms, Walterstone to be my Executors and direct that all my Debts and Funeral Expenses shall be paid as soon as conveniently may be after my decease - I give and bequeath unto my son John PARRY all my farming stock both live and dead also one Clock "Dresser bench" Three corner cupboard" one Iron bedstead" two Wooden Clothes boxes one silver watch and all my personal effects - The residue to be equally divided between my stepdaughters 
Margaret FRANCIS, the wife of Henry FRANCIS Clydach
Mary Ann WILLIAMS the wife of Arthur WILLIAMS, Bredwardine
Bidget LEWIS the wife of William LEWIS, Leominster
Elizabeth POWELL the wife of Henry POWELL Ebbw Vale
Emma PORTMAN the wife of James PORTMAN, Bridge Sollars -
It is my wish that my stepdaughter, Margaret FRANCIS for the kindness and attention shewn to me shall be recompensed at the discretion of my Executors -
Signed by the said Testator - The mark of x Thomas PARRY - in the presence of us present at the same time who at his request, in his presence, and in the presence of each other have subscribed our names as witnesses
Alfred James Gilbert PHILLIPS - Mary Sophia PHILLIPS
Affidavit of due execution and reading filed
On the 27th day of May 1918 Probate of this Will was granted at Hereford to Alfred James Gilbert PHILLIPS, one of the Executors 

Since neither the Will, nor Thomas's death certificate, show the Newmarket Street address that appears in the National Probate Index, my assumption is that it must have been the address that was entered for Thomas somewhere on the probate paperwork.

The Will at least answers the potential issue of John's birth and marriage certificates describing his father as a farmer, when this Thomas always seemed to be employed as a roadman.   The statement about his "farming stock both live and dead" indicates he must have been engaged in some, probably small scale, farming, whilst also employed as a road labourer.

But there are some intriguing features of the Will - the John PARRY of the Carpenter's Arms, one of the executors, is not my great grandfather, John.  Was there any blood relationship between the two PARRY families - not that I have found so far. 

It is interesting that there is more mention made of Thomas's step daughters than of his own children and grandchildren. His daughter Elizabeth had died in 1906, but she had, had two children who were aged 4 and 5 in 1911.  However, they were living in Buckinghamshire, so potentially had little contact with Thomas.

Thomas's first child, another Thomas, who had died in the Boer War, had three children.  These were aged 23, 16, and 12.  Although the oldest was in London in 1911, the mother and youngest child were still living in Herefordshire.

Finally, Thomas's son, John, also had two children, my grandfather, Donald, aged 7, and his sister, Rosina, aged 5, in 1911.

It is my assumption that Thomas PARRY didn't make his son the executor because, when he planned his Will, John was in Hereford Gaol (John was discharged the same day that the Will was signed, the 9th December 1911).  Perhaps Thomas even made his Will because John was in gaol, and he wanted to ensure his wishes were adequately known, should anything happen to him before his son was released?

We know that Thomas must have been in communication with his son, if he later moved from Walterstone to live in Newmarket Street with John, before going to stay with his step-daughter in Monmouthshire prior to his death in 1918.  Years later, John's daughter would also tell relatives that she could remember visiting her grandfather in Walterstone. I do get the impression that the family members looked out for each other - as well as the above, in 1901, John had his sister-in-law and her children living with him, while his brother was away at war. From John's death certificate, his step-niece had been living with him at the time of his death, possibly helping to keep house and look after the children. And I have been told that, after John's death, it was relatives who took in John's two children, although they were separated.

What an impact the year of 1918 must have had on my grandfather, Donald - to have lost his grandfather, then his father, and then to be separated from his sister, as he was sent to live with relatives outside of Hereford.

In September 1923, aged 19, Donald PARRY obtained the administration of his father's estate:


And, on the 5th April 1924, Donald set sail for Canada, with a view to emigrating there permanently.

Fortunately, for me, sometime before February 1927, he returned to the UK - otherwise I wouldn't be here. 🙂


References:
1891 census: Class: RG12; Piece: 2066; Folio: 19; Page: 4;
1901 census: Class: RG13; Piece: 2485; Folio: 19; Page: 1
1911 census: Class: RG14; Piece: 15738; Schedule Number: 28

National Probate Index - https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/#wills

Friday, March 20, 2020

Guild Blog Challenge Post 7: Human errors (mine!), source data accuracy - and some PARRY deaths in 1918

I've fallen behind on the Blogging Challenge, having not posted anything for a few weeks.  That doesn't mean nothing has been happening on the study - I do have several posts half written.  These were often prompted by sources other researchers have mentioned, either in their blogs or on the mailing lists and Facebook groups.  But doing the research necessary to move from some roughly drafted notes, to a completed post, always seems to develop into a much more involved task than I initially expect.

Like most people at the moment, I imagine, I have been following the developing situation regarding the coronavirus pandemic.  Various events I would have attended have already been cancelled, and I wouldn't be surprised if more were to follow. Daily life is changing.  Even what used to be a simple decision, like how we manage our shopping, has become more complicated.  Do we pop down to the shops regularly for a few bits - potentially contravening the advice about social distancing which emphasises 'stay at home' as much as possible?  Or do we wait to do a larger weekly shop, knowing that the time lapsed since the previous one should allow for any potential contagion to have shown itself - but risking difficulties in obtaining specific items, as well as the ire of the "daily shoppers", who might think we're stockpiling?  With daily 'essentials', such as milk, still disappearing rapidly from the shelves, and limits in place for how much can be purchased at any one time, we are all having to balance our actions, and be considerate of others. 

I wonder to what extent this will permanently change our ways of life?

I suppose it is only natural for comparisons to be made to similar situations in the past, in particular the influenza pandemic of 1918 (which, I only recently learnt, ran from January 1918 to December 1920, rather than just during 1918*).  So I thought I'd take a look at the PARRY deaths for that year, to see how much more than 'usual' they were.  This was particularly prompted by the fact that two of my own ancestral line died that year - John PARRY, my great grandfather, and Thomas PARRY, John's father.

Initially I was going to look at the range of years from 1910 - 1925, to provide an indication of how many 'more' deaths there were that year.  But, using FreeBMD for the figures, I was surprised to find that the number of registered deaths for the surname in 1918 (455) was actually less than the number registered in 1911 (468) .  So I expanded the range to 25 years, to see if that gave me a better impression of the 'usual' numbers.

One of my first considerations was how to ensure the figures were as accurate as possible. I had carried out some extractions of the death index from FreeBMD back in 2007, but those extractions didn't cover all the date range I was currently interested in.  Several of the years extracted had also been incomplete at the time and had transcription errors in them, which I have sometimes noticed leads to duplicated entries, and so would inflate the totals.  I therefore began by extracting those years I knew were missing, and checking the totals for those years previously collected, in case of changes.

I was going to compare the details to the same indexes on other genealogy sites, but then I realised some sites, such as Ancestry, actually cite FreeBMD as their source, at least for the index up to 1915, so I'd clearly be comparing the same data there.  The only obvious comparison to make would be with the UK Government's own General Register Office site, which covers the birth and death registrations. Many one-namers probably checked this site when it first went online, and did comparisons to the data they already held, but I hadn't yet done so.

The GRO transcriptions, I believe, have been carried out by going back to the original copy certificates that were submitted by Registrars each quarter, whereas the FreeBMD index is from the indexes which were produced from those certificates at the time of submission.  So I expected there might be some differences between the two indexes and was prepared for small variations in numbers.

But I was initially surprised to find a couple of years which seemed considerably out (over 20 entries out of 500).

But that experience will (hopefully!) teach me to read the small print in future!

The GRO site returns a maximum of 250 entries per search and three of my searches exceeded that number and were therefore incomplete.  I only realised this after deciding to extract all of the entries for those years, to compare them to the FreeBMD listing and then discovering it was the names at the end of the alphabet that were missing.  🙄

Having collected the correct figures from the GRO site (by checking the totals per quarter within the relevant years), I then looked at the totals across the two sites, which I plotted on the following graph:



By now I was more interested in the differences between the two sites, rather than focusing on the level of deaths caused by the 1918 Influenza pandemic.

So I plotted a separate graph of just the differences between the two sites, to make that easier to see:



As you can see,  the totals are identical for only three years.  So I returned to looking at the specific event data for several years, to try to account for the differences.

One would think a comparison of the two indexes shouldn't be difficult.  After all, the details relate to the same information, so entries that are in both indexes should be easy to match up and I'm sure the more technologically minded would be able to write formula to attempt this.  However, I only know how to do fairly basic comparisons using formula, so find it easier to paste the two indexes into one spreadsheet alongside each other and then use simple comparison formula to help me align matching entries.

I did some preliminary work, to get the two indexes into a comparable order to start with.  For example, the GRO site is gender specific, so the two extractions per gender need combining and sorting alphabetically to match FreeBMD.  I also added a column for the quarter numbers, rather than using the text versions for sorting, so that I could sort both indexes by quarter within the year.  I also used the two excel formulas, "PROPER" and "TRIM", to remove additional spaces in the first names and districts, and to ensure the format coincided.

I did cause myself one problem, having extracted the data into Word initially and then using "Find and Replace" to bring each entry onto just one row with tabbed data - since the surname “Parry” was the term I used to identify the start of each row, someone called “Parry PARRY” caused an additional split!

Having got the data into an order I was happy with, I used the "IF" formula to check whether particular columns from the two indexes were identical, and then set about checking all the mismatching items - of which there were quite a few, to start with!

Most of these are probably the sorts of issues that would make automation of such a comparison more difficult as well, since they relate to inconsistencies in the way the data is recorded:
  • Unnamed deaths - these appear as ‘male’ or ‘female’ on FreeBMD but, since the search is by gender on the GRO, appear with a dash for the name on that site.
  • Not all of the unnamed deaths seem to be in the online GRO
  • The online GRO index includes people's full names, rather than using initials for extended middle names. This didn't just make direct comparison more difficult but messed up the “equivalent“ sorting I’d done.  Entries that were in a particular order when only a middle initial was present, were sometimes in a different order once the middle name was written in full (eg 2x Mary A, that then turned out to be Mary Ann and Mary Alice.)
  • Some districts on the GRO occasionally have "Of" before them (Ruthin, Cardiff, and Haverfordwest, were ones I found)
  • Mis-spellings in the online GRO, eg Haverfordwest occurred as "Hamfordwest" on several occasions, Prestwick instead of Prestwich
  • Registration District name variations.  
    • I imagine space restrictions necessitated the shortened forms used in the original GRO indexes, which were then transcribed "as is" by FreeBMD, but the RDs in the new index are (mainly) transcribed in full.  There still seemed to be anomalies though, eg on my FreeBMD 2007 extraction, an entry was listed as "St Olave Bermondsey”.  That's now become just "St Olave" on FreeBMD, but the GRO has "Saint Olave Southwark".  That entry was in 1900, but another entry, in 1921, shows the RD as  "St. Olave (Bermondsey)" (use of full stops seems to be a bit variable as well!) 
    • Bedwelty/Bedwellty, Aberystwith/Aberystwyth, Festiniog/Ffestiniog, Shiffnal/Shifnal
    • There are two Newport RDs - "Newport Salop & Stafford" or "Newport Mon/(Mon.)" but I did find one entry as just "Newport"
    • Portsea (or Portsea Island) on old index – entry now as Portsmouth
    • West Derby on old index – entry now as Bootle.
    • Some entries in the online GRO index are missing their Registration Districts
All of the above added to my opinion that I should probably be creating a "standardised version" column for items such as names and Registration Districts, in all my spreadsheets, just to make things easier when I want to compare across datasets.

In the columns I checked (which was not all of them), I only found a couple of mistranscriptions on FreeBMD (ie where, on checking their image of the old GRO Index, their transcription was incorrect), eg  Ames instead of Amos, Catherine instead of Catharine, and a Volume 7b which should have been 8b.  Which, I think, indicates how effective the transcription process on FreeBMD is.

But there were some entries with name differences where I have no way of knowing which index is correct, as the FreeBMD transcription matched to their image, but not to the new index, eg Anne/Annie, Harriett/ Harriet, Iorwerth/Jorwerth, and May/Mary.  Perhaps evidence from other sources might eventually help to resolve those.

And then, finally, there were the "missing" entries, which accounted for the differences between the two indexes:
  • Net difference in 1900 - 4, made up of:
    • 5 on FreeBMD but not on GRO
    • 1 on GRO but not on FreeBMD
  • Net difference in 1901 - 9, made up of:
    • 10 (7 named, 3 unnamed) on FreeBMD but not on GRO. 
    • 1 on GRO but not on FreeBMD
  • Net difference in 1921 - 11, made up of:
    • 13 (11 named, 2 unnamed) on FreeBMD but not on GRO
    • 2 on GRO but not on FreeBMD 
It is difficult to identify whether some of the 'missing' entries could have been due to errors in the original index.  For example, two Elizabeths, aged 44 and 84 on consecutive pages within a district, where only one of them is in the online GRO index.  Again, two Joseph Walters, aged 58 and 2, on consecutive pages for same district on the old index but only one of them appears in the newer index. Hopefully, as with the name variation entries, information from other sources, eg burial records, might eventually resolve these issues.

As you can probably imagine, by now, what had begun as a simple question about the PARRY deaths potentially caused by the 1918 influenza epidemic had taken up rather a lot of my time, with very little of it specifically related to the original question!

The original plan for this post also included adding some details about the two PARRYs from my own ancestral line who died in 1918.  But it has taken so long to deal with obtaining statistics that I am happy with, that I'm going to leave that for another post. (I guess that's one way to get my Blog Challenge completed! 🙂 )


*
The 1918 influenza pandemic - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
FreeBMD site - https://www.freebmd.org.uk
UK General Register Office Site - https://www.gro.gov.uk/gro/content/certificates/indexes_search.asp (registration is necessary but searching is free)

Monday, February 24, 2020

Guild Blog Challenge Post 6: Unconventional Lives

I had a very enjoyable day out on Saturday, at the Guild's seminar about "Unconventional Lives".

When I booked for the seminar last year, I requested a pin board, with the intention of putting together a display about my firework/circus connections.   This didn't feel like quite such a good idea when I realised time had passed by such that I had little more than two days to pull it all together, due to other activities having got in the way.

But, in the end, I managed it and had such fun producing the display that I'd encourage anyone to have a go at doing so.  Just like this blog challenge, not only does the goal act as an incentive, it can also lead to new discoveries.

This is the final result, put up at the seminar:

Fire-work and Circus ancestors - display at Littleton Seminar Feb. 2020
The display is actually about my HENGLER ancestors, rather than anyone from my PARRY study, but the seminar topic was so relevant to this line that I thought people might find the information of interest, even though it's not "one-name" based.

I started with an introduction describing how I first became aware of what seemed like an unusual occupation amongst my ancestors when I was transcribing some certificates that had been purchased by my mother.  One was for the marriage of my 2xgreat grandparents, Christopher HARRISON and Harriett Elizabeth JONES – and under the father’s occupations was written “Artists in Fire Works”.

Marriage certificate of Christopher HARRISON and Harriett Elizabeth JONES in 1857

I had never come across this occupation before so, rather intrigued, looked for the family in the censuses and parish registers.  Some of the examples from those used in the display are included below and show how the entries confirmed that members of both the HARRISON and JONES families were, indeed, involved in the manufacturing of fireworks.

1851 census entry for the JONES family


1851 census entry for the HARRISON family

Other people’s Ancestry trees had been linked to the entries I found, in particular that of a, previously unknown, second cousin once removed.  She had taken the pedigree back beyond our shared ancestor – Minnie Louisa HARRISON, the daughter of the Christopher and Harriet from the marriage above – for another four generations, back to a John Michael HENGLER.  There were more pedigrees featuring him – many of which included information about the family’s occupation.  And it was through all these that I first learnt of my ancestors’ role in the production of firework displays, not just for early circus performances, but also as part of other entertainment or celebratory events around the country.

For much of the display, I collected together relevant newspaper reports.  The following graph shows the number of items found by searching for "Hengler" in the British newspapers collection on FindMyPast:

Graph showing number of reports for "Hengler" in British Newspapers on FindMyPast (as at Feb. 2020)


The earliest reference I found, in 1788, was for a firework display in Northampton.  Other adverts during the 1790s related to displays in Louth, Canterbury, and Oxford.  As well as the fireworks, some of the events included a band of martial music and also "astonishing equestrian feats".  During this period, John Michael HENGLER is known to have been producing firework displays to accompany Astley's circus performances but I didn't find any newspaper references specifically referring to Hengler with Astley at this time.  However, the names of those performing at Oxford in 1796 include a "Mr Ducrow" who, I presume, was the father of Andrew DUCROW (1793–1842), later the proprietor of Astley's Amphitheatre. 

Hengler, described as an "artist and engineer in fire-works to His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales" was engaged to visit Oxford in May 1796 "at considerable expense" and his stay could only be short on account of "his grand Preparation of Fire-Works at Ranelagh against the King's Birth Day".  Producing firework displays in honour of the King's birthday features in several years - which is interesting considering that the Canterbury Journal of 31 October 1800 records that:
"The fire-works at Prospect House have closed...Mrs Hengler left us last week to join the Signior, who was ordered to quit the town by Mr. Baldwin under the alien bill".  
(Isn't there a joke somewhere about difficult-to-find ancestors and how they must have come from outer space - it seems I really do have an 'alien' ancestor! )

Whatever the problem was, it doesn't seem to have severely impacted the business as, in 1801, there were several Galas concluding with a Hengler fireworks display in Vauxhall Gardens, London, as well as elsewhere in the country, such as in Bewdley.

Sadly, John Michael HENGLER died in Southwark, Surrey in 1802.  However, his wife, Sarah, the "celebrated" and "inimitable" female artist, Madame Hengler, continued the business.  Initially, it appears she was assisted by her son, a rope-walker who had trained in Paris and reputedly performed before Marie Antoinette. But, later, Madame Hengler was assisted by her daughter, Magdalen Elizabeth JONES and grandson, William JONES, while her son, Henry Michael HENGLER, continued his career as a circus performer.

One day, I'd like to do a proper survey of all of the early newspaper reports, in order to trace where the family were performing when.  I didn't get time to look at the other collections on FindMyPast either, especially the Irish newspapers, where the numbers of references (3,849) follow a similar pattern to the  above graph:

By Date
1800 - 1849 (206)
1850 - 1899 (3,556)
1900 - 1949 (81)
1950 - 1999 (6)

But it is amazing to read reports such as that in the "Hull Packet" (14 December 1813), where a display of fire-works under the direction of Signora Hengler was part of a celebration of the "Late Glorious Events", or the one in the Norwich Mercury (4 August 1838), where "the justly celebrated Madame Hengler, with Mr W Jones" are described thus, "Of their efficiency the public have had ample proof for many years, and lately in the most magnificent display on the evening after her Majesty's Coronation", and to know that these are one's own ancestors.

Unfortunately, things didn't end well for Madame Hengler, who was killed in a fire in 1845, in the building that served as both their factory and apartments.  She was well into her 80s by then and described as "exceedingly stout" - clearly she had given up combining a circus act with fireworks some time before.

Given the rather graphic nature of the reporting at that time, I hesitated to add the reports and inquest details to the display but, in the end, did so, with warnings attached.

Here it shall suffice to include a drawing of Madame Hengler, taken from an "Ode to Madame Hengler", written by Thomas HOOD and available free on Google Books. I gather that as part of her act, she would climb a rope surrounded by a shower of fire.  The Ode calls her the “Starry Enchantress of the Surrey Garden!”.   How she managed doing that whilst also directing the displays detailed in some of the reports, I can't imagine.

Madame HENGLER, from "Hood's Own", by Thomas HOOD. (Digitised by Google)


I still need to research the latter years of Sarah's daughter, Magdalen Elizabeth JONES and Magdalen's son, William JONES, to see when their firework business ceased.  The graph above shows how the number of references in the newspapers to "Hengler" increases from the late 1840s until the early twentieth century - this is because that is the main period when Hengler's Circus, which was created by the sons of Henry Michael HENGLER, was in operation.

For the display, I included some other items which I thought people might find interesting - examples of the illustrations about the circus which often appear on ebay, a copy of the "Ode to Madame Hengler" by Thomas Hood, which I believe was written about 1830, a reference found in Leamington Museum to a "Hegler's Equestrian Circus" (which indicates how easily information can become corrupted, given that it was Henry Michael Hengler's family who appear in the 1841 census in Leamington), a print from a glass plate photograph of Minnie Louisa HARRISON, and finally a print of the "DNA tree" which I have on my personal family history blog, in the hope that it will act as "cousin bait".

Funnily enough, in the course of putting together the display, I discovered that one of my distant DNA matches on Ancestry appears to also descend from the HENGLERs, through a sister of William JONES.  I also discovered a PARRY family tree on Ancestry which connects to the circus branch of the HENGLERS - so I can actually make a link between my HENGLER research and my One-Name Study, after all!

And what about the rest of the seminar?

Since there'll be a report of the seminar in the Journal and the talks were recorded so they will also be available for members, I'm not going to say much.  However, I did find something of relevance to my own family history in almost all of the talks, so I thought I'd note those here, since then I'll remember where I put the information!

When my Dad first started our family history research, he began with trying to prove the family stories - one of which was his mother's statement that her grandmother was a "Caroline BIDDLE" and that she had some connection to gypsies.  Later research established that Caroline was actually a HARRIS and has never turned up any hint of links to gypsies - but the talk by Beverley Walker, Chair of the Romany and Traveller FHS. reminded me that the Hereford and Worcestershire side of my family would have had a great deal of contact with the travellers due to the regular seasonal influxes of migrants, for example during the hop-picking periods.

(It was also fascinating to see photographs of the "benders" - I'd never thought about what gypsies lived in before they took to the painted wagons I generally associate them with.  Nor had I realised that the enumerators in the 1841 and 1851 censuses were only required to record the numbers of people found not living in houses, not their actual names).

Similarly, my consideration of my ancestors' "holidays" has so far been little more than thinking that, when marriages happened on Christmas Day, it was probably because that was the only day off they had, and knowing that fairs, such as the hiring, or "mop", fairs took place each year.  So it was interesting to learn about the cycle of fairs in the talk on the "Fairground Calendar" by Graham Downie, especially when I learnt that Hereford's May fair has a 900 year history - imagine the excitement and anticipation our ancestors must have felt in the run up to such large annual events, and the fun they had during them (and pehaps the regret afterwards!) Graham mentioned the Tenbury Wells and Leominster fairs, as well as Hereford, which are all places important in my family history.  So fairs are definitely events to bear in mind, when I look at what happened, when, in my ancestral lines (as well as in my ONS).

In the afternoon, Peter de Dulin's talk reminded me that, sometime in the long distant past of my early PARRY One-Name Study days, I remember coming across a photograph of an animal wagon that I'm sure said "Parry's menagerie" on it - I must go back and check through my early collections.  And the "Search for Theatrical AncestoRs" website introduced to us by Professor Katharine Cockin of Essex University has provided me with a few PARRY references to look up, as well as a couple of HENGLERs.

I met the final speaker, Gillian Hunter, at the Guild's seminar in Whitmore last year.  Both of us had our own particular reasons for wanting to hear Andrew Van Buren's talk about Philip ASTLEY, who is regarded as the "father" of the modern circus. Given the circus links we both have, it seemed obvious to keep in touch afterwards and Gillian's talk yesterday was additional motivation for me to attend the Littleton seminar.  Facets of her family history, such as the various birthplaces of the children born to one couple, are repeated in some of my ancestors' descendant lines.

And whilst I doubt I shall ever find photographs of the earliest performing HENGLERS, I do have a glass plate image believed to be of Minnie Louisa HARRISON, who was my great grandmother, and the great grandaughter of Magdalen Elizabeth (HENGLER) JONES, :




I think the outfit is more "dance troupe" than "circus" - but that's still to be investigated.  Either way, it is a reminder that some of my ancestors led slightly unconventional lives!




Friday, February 14, 2020

Guild Blog Challenge Post 5: Valentine PARRY

Whilst working on the Norfolk records, I noticed one of the entries was for a "Christmas PARRY". 

Clearly, it's now the wrong time of year to write about him. So I thought I'd take a look for any "Valentine" PARRYs instead.  An exact search on both first name and surname finds 344 records across all collections on Ancestry. But quite a few of them have the middle name of 'Valentine' in the last couple of centuries and, unfortunately, records don't always include middle names, which makes it difficult to follow these people all the way through their lives.

I was intrigued to find two Herefordshire Valentine PARRYs on Ancestry, in the 1700s in the "All England, Select Births and Christenings, 1538-1975".  One of these was baptised 25 Mar 1798 at Saint Owen, Hereford, the son of Henry PARRY and Catherine.  The other was baptised 13 Feb 1752, at Abbeydore, Hereford, the son of an Anne.

It always pays to check what other sites hold - from FindMyPast, I discovered there was also a burial of a Valentine PARRY at Abbeydore on the 13 Feb 1752 so it seems likely that Anne's baby barely lived, if it did at all.

Regarding the Valentine born in 1798, the  "UK, British Army Muster Books and Pay Lists, 1812-1817" on Ancestry do show a Valentine PARRY being mustered at Winchester between 25 Dec 1813-24 Mar 1814, and also between 25 Mar 1815-24 May 1815.  Could those entries relate to him?

There's also an entry in the "All Canada, British Regimental Registers of Service, 1756-1900" database for a Valentine PARRY, born in Hereford, All Saints, who enlisted in the 81st Foot Soldiers, on 30 Jan 1811, aged just 12.  This age would tie in with him being the son of Henry and Catherine. 

At enlistment, he was only about 4ft but, by 24 years of age (1823) he was 5ft 7.5 inches.  His skin complexion was fair, with dark hair and brown eyes.  He enlisted at Eastbourne, signing up for life.  There are additional details under the heading "By whom enlisted" which I think states that this was by "Major Milling by permission of the Commander in Chief to be trained as a Drummer" - possibly added as an explanation for enlisting someone so young, the other lads on the page having ages that ranged from 14 - 21 years.

The Registers have some added page numbering, which doesn't seem to fit with the filming order but, if the images on Ancestry are consecutive, then it appears Valentine briefly deserted in Enniskillen, between 30 April 1820 - 2nd May 1820, and that he died in St John, New Brunswick on 3rd September 1829 through "the Visitation of God".

 It would be good to find out more about this Valentine, but that's all I know so far.

On FindMyPast, there is also a burial of a Valentine PARRY "of Crickhowell", in 1756, in Llangattock, Breconshire.  Unfortunately, the rest of the date is unclear and there is no information about age.  Since the entry does not say "son of", it does seem possible that this Valentine is an adult - so where did he come from?

Another question which currently has no answer.

The border area of Herefordshire, Breconshire and Monmouthshire has always been one of my areas of 'particular interest' for Parrys, since my own family tended to 'border hop' between those three counties. I also know that the name Valentine appears in the area in the 1600s as there are three Will abstracts which include it - the Will of Miles PARRY of Dulas, written in 1609 and proved in 1614-5, mentions the sons of his brother Rowland, which include "John, Simon, Valentine & Rowland".  The Will of Margery PARRY of Eastnor, spinster, dated 1655 and proved 1658, mentions her brother, "Valentine, of Ewias Harold, gent."

The Will of a Valentine PARRY of Ewias Harold, which was written in 1667, is then proved in 1694.

All of which serves as a reminder that I still have a lot of work to do to make sense of the numerous Herefordshire Parry Wills, in comparison to the pedigrees put together from various documentary sources.


A section of a pedigree for PARRYs from Herefordshire

My "ToDo" list grows ever longer!

Sunday, February 02, 2020

Guild Blog Challenge Post 4: Continuing with Norfolk records, search challenges, and other things....

In my last post, I wrote about extracting some Norfolk records from The Genealogist and commented that it would be useful to compare them to the records for Norfolk made available through some of the other providers.  So, since then, I have been taking a look at the records on Ancestry.

Or, to be more precise, I have been looking at the varying results returned, depending on the search terms used!

I often begin a search with fairly broad terms, so I began with just exact surname "Parry" and "Norfolk" as an exact keyword (since the county might not be the location of whatever event is being recorded.

Of course, such a broad search returned thousands of results (18,091, in case you're wondering 🙂), due to the inclusion of records for all the other places called "Norfolk".

When I changed the keyword to exact "Norfolk, England", that reduced the number of results to 6,138, as one might expect, by excluding all those "Norfolk"s, elsewhere in the world.  However, all but one of the Civil Registration indexes also ceased to be listed!  I don't know what makes the "All England & Wales, Civil Registration Death Index, 1916-2007" different from all the other "All England & Wales, Civil Registration......" Indexes, but clearly something does.

So I then switched to using "Norfolk, England" as an exact search in the location.  This had a few unexpected consequences as well - such as the inclusion of records for Bristol amongst the results!

Also several of the, specifically Norfolk, databases showed different results, as this comparison between the Keyword search and the Location search shows:

Using Keyword "Norfolk"

Using Location "Norfolk, England"
Interestingly, when accessing the detail from the keyword search, several of the databases then only showed the same number of results as were found through the location search:


Showing total results as 102, despite being accessed from the keyword link, which showed the total as 206

I am sure there are some very logical reasons as to why such differences occur (perhaps to do with the numbers of individual PARRYs mentioned in a particular database, as opposed to the number of entries eg a baptism with both parents listed might class as three PARRYs but as only one entry.)

But I think this demonstrates a couple of things - firstly, that it's worth trying a variety of search terms to see if they produce different results and, secondly (and perhaps more importantly for a One-Name Study), how careful we should be when quoting figures for our studies just based on index searching, if we don't fully understand what is being included.

Hopefully I shall get around to looking at some details for the individual entries for Norfolk soon!

In other news, ...
a couple of other databases have come to my attention, which will prove useful in the future (with apologies for the lack of thanks to those who posted the details about the databases originally, since I didn't note who they were).

The Digital Dictionary of Surnames in Germany* currently shows that PARRY has been found in their database "with a frequency of 33 telephone connections."  I was rather amused to see that this is more than the surname HENGLER, my only known German ancestral surname, which appears with a frequency of 28!  (Bearing my comment above in mind, I should add that I haven't investigated the site sufficiently to know whether "telephone connections" means individuals or directories.)

Dick Eastman posted about the BBC Radio Times as "another source of genealogy data"- it is indeed, with 8,453 references to "Parry".  I shall look forward to investigating those further, in order to add details to some individual's lives.

One database that was mentioned near the beginning of January, but which I hadn't commented about at the time, was the database of the "England's Immigrants 1330 - 1550 | Resident Aliens in the Late Middle Ages".  There's only one Parry in this - a Clement Parry, who originated in France and for whom there are letters of denization dated 7 May 1539.

There's no notes and no relationships listed for Clement so, without specific clues as to where I might easily find more information on him, this entry will be filed on the "back burner" for now.

Another database, the British Newspaper Archives, shows 1,722,385 results for Parry. So I certainly won't be doing general searches or extractions there!

FindMyPast last week added some Durham records, as well as "Britain, Royal and Imperial Calendars 1767-1973"  I did take a quick look at the calendars - there's 1268 results, which is more than I'd try collecting, for this sort of source anyway.  But I did click through to a couple of entries.

The first entry I looked at spanned across two pages so, an index entry stating:
"Imperial Calendar, 1851 Arthur F Knox Gore Bi Thomas Parry 1851 Great Britain"
turned out to be two entries, one for “Sligo, Col. Arthur F. Knox Gore” (a Lieutenant of the county) and, across on the next page, “Thomas Parry, D.D. Barbados and the Leeward Isles 1842 Coleridge, res”, a Colonial Bishop.

Another entry I checked was correctly showing just the Parry, despite him being one of four entries across a double page.

It is wonderful that such information is available online. I am also very grateful that FindMyPast highlight the place on the original page where the entry occurs - that certainly saves time and is something I wish some of the other databases had.

But I don't think it would achieve much for the Study, if I was to collect all the index entries from a database like this, as any such extraction will contain much irrelevant information and every entry is likely to need to be examined individually for accuracy.

The Durham records seem more straightforward, with 70 baptisms, 47 Marriages, and 57 Burials but, just like the Norfolk databases, will I find more that needs investigation once I try comparing the results to other sources?

Anyway, this post has been a slight "ramble" through the recent activities on the study.  

But I'm going to end with a "positive" for my own family history - not actually to do with the PARRYs, but just to remind everyone that it is well worth searching the surnames registered with the Guild of One Name Studies, to check if your names appear.  After seeing a question on Facebook, I have discovered that two of my surnames of interest, HAYNES and NAYLOR, are now both registered.

So I am looking forward to more collaboration with other Guild members.


* Sources
The Digital Dictionary of Surnames in Germany (DFD)
http://www.namenforschung.net/en/dfd/dictionary/list/

Dick Eastman's Online Genealogy Newsletter
https://blog.eogn.com/2020/01/21/bbc-radio-times-another-source-of-genealogy-data/

Genome BETA Radio Times 1923 - 2009
https://genome.ch.bbc.co.uk/issues


Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Guild Blog Challenge Post 3: The state of the study. And some Norfolk records.

Since I'm restarting research on the PARRY study after several years of relative inaction, I've been thinking about where the study is at, and what I want to achieve this year.  In particular the question I've been asking myself is, "Where do I start?"!

Part of the reason for the lack of progress over the last few years was that available time became short just as the study required some major time investment:
  • My ISP had changed hands and no longer supported personal websites.  Uploading the site elsewhere 'as is' was a possibility.  However, with the availability of the Members' Websites Project, it seemed a better option for the PARRY information to be put online there.  But that required a website re-write, since I wanted to remove the 'non-study' portions.
  • I'd decided to change my system of computer filing, so as to reflect the "seven pillars" approach to one-name studies, since that would make it easier for someone else to understand what's been done, as and when I can no longer conduct the study.  That required a re-organisation of many computer files, as well as devising a more systematic approach for how data gets integrated into the study.
  • When I began researching, less information was available on the internet and what there was occasionally 'disappeared'.  This meant sources were often printed out, to come back to 'later', rather than being entered into a database at the time. Other documents, such as marriage challenge results, whilst always gratefully received, added to the "needs transcription" pile.  So there is now a quantity of paperwork which either needs scanning, transcribing, or I need to return to the original entry online (eg for census sheets printed whilst answering a query) and enter the details properly.

So, these major tasks are still outstanding. 

I was thinking about all this when Melody shared a link in the Guild Blogging Challenge for "The Genealogy Blog Party" at https://mydescendantsancestors.com/2020/01/genealogy-blog-party-organize.html?
Although I don't intend to join the party, this month's topic of "organise and prioritise" is clearly relevant for me. 

Most of us have probably heard a version of the quote, attributed to Benjamin Franklin, that “If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail” and I have long since been aware of the importance of planning before tackling a project - but I've still come to the conclusion that I need to improve my concept of what "planning" involves.

There are so many potential (and very interesting) aspects of the one-name study to pursue that it becomes easy to make 'plans' about what I 'can' do, or 'should' do - like "collect this data" and "analyse that data", "draw conclusions from all the data" and "publish the results" …….(one-namers can no doubt fill in the rest :-) ) 

But I came across a quote by Bill Copeland that made me realise I was missing important aspects of planning: “The trouble with not having a goal is that you can spend your life running up and down the field and never score.”

So, translating all those 'plans' from just 'good intentions' to achievable, and then achieved, goals is what is required.  It's no good having a goal to "get the PARRY website back online", if I don't then consider what specific steps are necessary to achieve that - and then allocate some time to actually do them!  

There is a lot to be done with the study, but I need to accept that:
1.) PARRY is a fairly high frequency surname, so I will never accomplish everything.
2.) Life will get in the way at times. 
3.) Every little bit helps.

So, I need to prioritise the most important aspects, and then focus on achieving something towards those each day. 

While I think more about how to tackle the three 'big issues', it probably doesn't matter so much whether what I achieve is publicising the study or publishing results (as this Blog Challenge is helping me to do), or another aspect, such as moving some computer files to the new system, or scanning a few documents - or even just collecting some new data - as long as I am actually doing some research, that will be progress.

So, in that vein, I took a look at the emails received last Friday from FindMyPast and The Genealogist regarding their new releases.

FindMyPast had some British Army Service records and Kent parish records.  Both of those are likely to have quite a few PARRYs in, so I checked out the Genealogist's new records instead, which were for Norfolk.  Since Norfolk is a long way from Wales, I didn't expect there to be many PARRYs there.

Having initially used the phonetic search for births, I switched to an exact search instead - 74 records is a bit more manageable than 523!  I stuck with exact searches for the marriages and deaths as well, which gave me 73 marriages and  43 deaths.  Although it is possible that using an exact search means I miss some entries (eg any PARREYs), the overwhelming numbers of PERRYs make it impractical to extract all similar surnames.  I shall look for variants through individual searches, if I should discover specific people are missing, or it seems as if there are gaps in the information I have collected.

I had hoped to include more details about the results in this post - but, as is often the way, things soon became more time-consuming.  Some of the entries appear to be duplicated, so the originals need checking to see why.  At least two entries for spouses of PARRYs have variations to their names between the marriage banns and the marriage itself, ie Lucy Toynbee Bender vs Lucy Joynbee Rinder, and John Wade Ream vs John Wade Reeve.  Whilst not difficult to check, that checking all adds to the time needed to analyse the data.

There are other entries that probably relate to the same individual which are spelt differently, for example, these four different spellings:

William Bulkeley PARRY
William Bulkley PARRY
William Balkeley PARRY
William Bulkly PARRY

This one raises an issue I remember considering when I first started my one-name study and was attempting to match entries across different years of early census transcriptions - should I include "standardised name" columns for all entries, in all databases, to make it easier to match up potential entries relating to the same person?  And, if I do that for names, what about parishes of birth etc, using a standard gazetteer spelling for all places?  It won't help where the people themselves vary their birthplaces, but would certainly help with mistranscriptions (and is probably necessary if I want to do any mapping of births etc).

I wonder what other one-namers, particularly those with large studies, think about this?

Anyway, it is clear that, before I can publish any conclusions on the Norfolk records, I need to do some further research to confirm the accuracy of the data.  It will also be useful to compare what Norfolk records have been made available by the other data providers, as well, since I see Ancestry have several relevant databases, such as "All Norfolk, England, Church of England Baptism, Marriages, and Burials, 1535-1812" as well as "Norfolk, England, Church of England Marriages and Banns, 1754-1940".

Oh well, I guess that does give me an obvious topic for another blog post!