This website uses cookies to help us make this website better. To find out more, see our privacy policy.

Message Board

Message Board for Battle, East Sussex Web Site

Click to Start a New Message Thread

Below are the latest messages in the Battle message board ...

Veness Family History

11th February 2017

Alisan Greeff:

Thanks!

... reply to this message

Veness Family History

9th February 2017

Stuart Oliver:

Alisan,

I think the common format used by most gen programmes is UTF-8. If you have to choose use this and I don't think you will go wrong.

Regards,

Stuart

... reply to this message

Veness Family History

8th February 2017

Mark Grace:

Sorry, Alisan - GEDCOM is not my area of expertise, however it wouldn't hurt to back up under each of the options, providing a slightly different name so you know which is which.

We now have histories for 3 of the 5 children of Elizabeth VENESS (1825). The c1850 daughter Mary Ann SMITH may be the Mary Ann WILLIAMS who witnessed her sisters marriage (my 2xGGM to Daniel BICKNELL in 1868). Charles H SMITH (c1853) had a son Charles H SMITH who may have gone to Colorado, USA. The trail on both is currently cold, although I am still investigating.

We are probably moving off-topic for SSX VENESS, until we prove our common ancestor Samuel comes from there. We can discuss further offline if you can contact me through my webpage message form (to avoid putting email details out in a public forum).

... reply to this message

Veness Family History

7th February 2017

Alisan Greeff:

A quick question, Mark. I use a mac-based programme someone wrote a number of years' ago. I like to back up the gedcom regularly ... just in case! It gives me 3 options: MacRoman, Ansel and UTF-8. Which is the best one to use (I do all three, being uncertain of how universal each one is). Thanks so much.

... reply to this message

Veness Family History

7th February 2017

Alisan Greeff:

Wow, Mark. Mind-blowing, indeed. But it sure does make sense. Kudos to you, detective!

... reply to this message

Veness Family History

6th February 2017

Mark Grace:

Alisan -
The VENESS explorations have been an interesting exercise in perceptions. There was one important flaw in my recent analysis that, once recognised, has provided a much better data fit. Loose ends always raise suspicion and demand a revisit! No wonder with this family.

The later census, including my 2xGGM Elizabeth BICKNELL nee VENESS, were taken in the household of John SMITH. Since Elizabeth married Daniel BICKNELL without a father's name being given, it was natural to assume her illegitimacy. Once she appeared in a household, the next natural assumption was that the partner of John SMITH, Ann, was her mother. In fact, this is a red herring, if you accept John SMITH was not being "adoptive" in stating Elizabeth was his daughter (he could have said step-daughter, if Ann's daughter), she really was his daughter, through his first common-law wife, Elizabeth VENESS of Worcester. Ann can be ignored as only John's 2nd common-law wife, and in doing so allows all the other pieces to fit together. John's first common-law wife, Elizabeth VENESS, had 4 children by him, then married Benjamin RICHARDSON, then settled with John PARTRIDGE, while John SMITH eventually settled with Ann (who was not Ann VENESS after all).

For you, John Bacon VENESS, upon his marriage gave John as his father, occupation stoker, which is a perfect match for John SMITH, stoker. It was the incumbent who assumed VENESS as his father's surname.

The additional data that now fits includes John & Elizabeth in Wolverhampton in 1851 as SMITH, with her son John Bacon VENESS as John SMITH, matching his birth year and place, my 2xGGM's birthplace c1852 and her younger brother Charles H SMITH c1853 (also resident with the BICKNELL family). It also explains why John slipped back to "SMITH" in the 1891 census.

I have updated my VENESS research page once again, so previous posts can be ignored. In the end, the grandmother of William ROTHERO and Selina BICKNELL turn out to be one and the same.
Phew.

... reply to this message

Veness Family History

6th February 2017

Mark Grace:

Alisan - I forgot to add, in case you are trying to get to grips with my last post that it is also true, that on John Bacon VENESS’s marriage to Amelia he gave John, Stoker, as his father, which is exactly the occupation of John SMITH in 1851.

... reply to this message

Veness Family History

6th February 2017

Mark Grace:

Alisan - I have been considering this issue further and I may have an answer, although it risks blowing our minds.
The 1851 census appears to show John SMITH (of LIN) and his first wife (Elizabeth, of Worcester) in Wolverhampton, STS, with 3-yo child John SMITH (c1848, Worcester) & Mary SMITH (8 months, Wolverhampton). The marriage to an Elizabeth ELISON/ELLISON in Worcester has been eliminated as this couple. Neither does it appear to be the John SMITH = Elizabeth DISLEY (d/o Richard) marriage in 1848 Wolverhampton (not yet proven with a connection to Worcester). I had pesumed John junior had died before 1861, as Elizabeth his mother (sometime after the 1852/53 birth of Charles H SMITH, above). It is possible, since Elizabeth VINESS is given as being born in Wolverhampton, John first met her mother Ann there. Elizabeth (1851) is registered or baptised, but he does give “daughter” as her official status on two census, when he could have used “step daughter”. As Elizabeth is living with her mother and stepfather in 1881, her declared age and place of birth could be considered the most accurate, however there are no baptisms or births for an Elizabeth V*N*S in Wolverhampton around that time, or anywhere. Between the possible death of John’s first wife, Elizabeth, from 1853, John started the relationship with my 3xGGM, Ann. As the John = Elizabeth relationship remains to be determined, then one possibility that cannot be ruled out entirely, due to the very complex relationships in this family, is that Elizabeth VENESS was the common-law wife of John SMITH first, had a few children by him, then left to marry Benjamin RICHARDSON, or was displaced/replaced by Ann, who had Elizabeth by him. The age and place of birth of John’s wife in 1851 does provide a match to Elizabeth of Worcester. The John SMITH, c1848, would then not have died, but would be John Bacon VENESS. It may also explain the 1891 “slip” back to using SMITH by John on that census. Crazy or what?

... reply to this message

Veness Family History

6th February 2017

Richard Veness:

Mark - I have in my records Samuel/Sarah Stonestreet had 3 children Thomas (1781) Henry (1805) and Ann (1800). My data is mainly of the line that emigrated to Australia. There are many Samuels but none fit the evidence in your post. Cheers Dick Veness

... reply to this message

Veness Family History

6th February 2017

Mark Grace:

Alisan - I have no suggestion of why the family of John VENESS were recorded as SMITH in 1881. Sloppy enumerator or a misheard surname is likely. By this time, he is a working man with a family, so no reason to provide false information. Family match is otherwise perfect. His identity may have been hidden in earlier census for a variety of reasons. I did mention on my research webpage that two of his children provided him as John William or William John upon their marriages. He doesn't appear to have used Bacon from his marriage onwards.

... reply to this message

View Messages by Subject: