My DNA match - Corporal Michael Griffith

Sir Thomas Buildings (now Sir Thomas Street). Shows Sir Thomas Street and building of Municipal Buildings, 1858. Painting by W G Herdman, from liverpoolpicturebook.com

We have found the marriage record of Michael Griffith and Mary Taylor at the St Nicholas church  in Liverpool in 1856.  Michael's father was another Michael Griffith, and his occupation was bootmaker.    Mary's father was William Taylor, a watchmaker.   The Griffiths resided at Gay St at this time, and the Taylors in Lionel St. The marriage occurred on 11th August 1856. The bride and groom were minors. Mary signed with her mark, but Michael signed his name.  His occupation at that time was book keeper, and Mary recorded none.

From my previously constructed Excel spreadsheet I knew that Michael Griffith senior had a child called George, born in 1824, but I went back to the records to confirm it.

The above extract was taken from the Bishop's Transcripts showing the baptism took place at St Peter's Church, Liverpool on 5 September 1824. ( Reference Number: Drl 2/284).   It lists George, son of Michael and Catherine Griffith, of Sir Thomas' Buildings, cordwainer.

Cordwainer refers to Michael's occupation, and is an an old term for shoemaker.  Sir Thomas's Buildings was later renamed Sir Thomas Street.

Looking carefully through Liverpool church records for the children of Michael and Catherine, the following family emerged:  Mary, bap 1822, George  bap 1824, Michael bap 1828 (buried at the Non Conformist Church in 1835 aged 7, of consumption), Catherine bap 1829, Richard James, bap 1831, Thomas bap 1835 and Michael bap 1837.  Mary, George, Richard and Thomas were all baptised at St Peters, Liverpool.  Catherine was baptised  at St Martins in the Field, Liverpool, and the youngest  Michael turns up in the Bishops Transcripts for Liverpool.  In each case Michael senior's occupation is given as some variation of shoemaker.


I did not locate the family in the 1841 Census at all.  Michael senior died in Liverpool in 1841 a few weeks after the census, but even he is not around in a hospital somewhere. Of course they could be lurking somewhere with a badly misspelt surname. But the remaining family reappears in Liverpool in the 1851 Census. 

The paper trail for George as a member of that family tenuous, but the paper trail for Michael, son of Michael and husband of Mary Taylor is strong.  What links them is the dna trail.

George and Michael junior were brothers.  Their daughters Mary Jane and Alice were first cousins.   My dna match had dna in the right range for a third cousin once removed - at the top of the range, really, which made him more noticeable in the results list.    A chart showing the expected shared centimorgans from specific degrees of relationships showed that the range for a third cousin once removed is 0-156, with the average being 56 cMs.   My dna match shared 113 cMs, twice the average,  with the longest shared block at 45.

The known facts about George (born in Liverpool in 1824, father was a bootmaker) fits the son of Michael and Catherine.  Knowing George went to sea in 1841 explains why I could not find the usual genealogical records for my George - no 1841 ad 1851 censuses, no passenger records to Victoria and New Zealand.  I hesitate to mention spelling, which is so often an unreliable indicator, but George Griffith was very consistent with his own spelling of his name without the s at the end, and the family of Michael Griffith seems to be the only family in Liverpool using that spelling.  It is suggestive rather than proof.


The paper record has failed, but all the known facts are corroborated.  What connects the dots is that the descendants of George Griffith, musician,  of Liverpool and Michael Griffith, soldier, of Liverpool share dna at a higher than average level that is expected for the degree of relationship described of third cousins once removed.

I think we are good here.

And of course there is more to come!

Got you! DNA test collars George Griffith

Liverpool Landing Stage, 1864. George Griffith's home town.  Print by W G Herdman.

I don’t suppose this is a record, but a power-boost from my recent dna test results enabled me to nail my ancestor George Griffith within four days of them being posted online.  I was able to pick him up in the paper record, but it could not be proven without the aid of the dna test. 

I received my results last Sunday evening.  My first inkling that the results had been posted was an email in my inbox from Carol Wilkes, a second cousin on my father’s side of the family.  She very kindly pinpointed each of her (and my) relations which appeared at the top of my results list.  Using the buttons provided at FTDNA to separate the results into two camps – those in common with that Carol on my dad's side, and those not in common, I could identify which side of the family my other  results came from.

My Griffith match, Dennis Beeney, appeared quite high up in the list of matches, with 94 cMs and the longest block at 44 segments.   Using the “Not in common with” button on Carol Wilkes, I came up with a list of matches on my mother’s side of the family.  It was my great good fortune that at the top of that list was Graham Johnston, someone whom I knew to be a second cousin  from my mother’s maternal family. My Griffith match was not far behind him, but using the “in common with” button, he disappeared.  So he was not from my mother’s mother’s side of the family.  He had to be from my mother’s father’s side of the family where the Griffith line does occur. And he had Griffith in his list of  family names.  Perfect!

Before attempting the dna solution, I had created an excel database of known George Griffiths from Liverpool – I had 21 Georges on that list, and not one of them pretending to be a musician.  I couldn’t tell if he had stayed in Liverpool after he was born there as he was nowhere to be found in the 1841 and 1851 censuses.  That just increased the degree of difficulty.  I still cannot make the link with a paper trail but my brand new cousin Dennis Beeney’s grandmother Alice Griffith’s mother was born in Liverpool.  Going flat out on Alice’s available records I was able to create a rough family tree, but the clincher came from her father’s name  on her marriage certificate – Corporal Michael Griffith.  Her mother was Mary Taylor.  The only marriage in England for a Michael Griffith and Mary Taylor occurred in Liverpool in 1856.  That marriage showed his father was also a Michael Griffith, and a cordwainer (or shoemaker).  The only shoemaker I could find who was named Griffith was Michael Griffith. And that Michael Griffith senior had a son called George Griffith.

The whole family did not appear in the 1841 Census. Where the heck were they?  Don’t know.  Given that his whole family did not appear in the census, it seems I was wasting my time trying to figure out which whitesmith, grocer’s apprentice, engineer’s apprentice, labourer or warehouseman was my George Griffith.  In all likelihood, none of them.

In 1851 Michael Griffith senior’s wife Catherine was back in Liverpool, the head of the house, and still described as Married.  Her husband was not in the household, nor was her son George, but her youngest son Michael who went on to marry Mary Taylor was  in the house.   His occupation at the time was errand boy. When he married his occupation was bookkeeper, but when he died, he was a Chelsea Pensioner, formerly a Corporal in the Royal Artillery Coast Brigade.  He died in Eastbourne in 1875, where Alice was born in 1873.  It was a long time after their marriage in 1856, but whether there were other siblings beside her sister Emily born in Woolwich in 1869, we don't yet know.

Dennis’s connection to the family from Liverpool now has a paper chain.  My paper chain is made of  very fine tissue paper, virtually not there at all.  George’s daughter, my great grandmother Mary Jane, didn't know either of her grandparents' names, but remembered her grandfather’s occupation of bootmaker. I didn’t take it as being reliable proof of relationship to the shoemaker, but the dna chain shows that Dennis and I are related, and so I have to rely on the very basic facts –George's name, his birthplace, his birth year, and the uncertainly remembered fact that his father was a bootmaker - plus the dna evidence - to show that I have found his right family. 

   

George, you may consider yourself well and truly collared.  I told you I was coming to get you!

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are due to my second cousin Carole Wilkes who kindly contacted me with a list of her (and my) relations whom she had encouraged to be dna tested.  This enabled me to quickly separate my father’s and my mother’s families.

Thanks also to my second cousin Graham Johnston who had himself dna tested.  This enabled me to differentiate between my maternal grandmother’s and maternal grandfather’s lines and identify Dennis Beeney as being likely related to me through the Griffith family which he had named in his FTDNA profile.

Thanks to my friend Jenny Coates who patiently coached me through my abject ignorance of dna tests and helped me figure out what I was doing.

Very great thanks to my third cousin once removed Dennis Beeney who had put a detailed family tree online showing his grandmother Alice Griffith (a first cousin to Mary Jane) and came up with the first name of Alice’s father, Michael, which enabled me to put together a family tree which would include George Griffith; and who very kindly had his DNA  tested and put the results where I could readily find them.

Thank you everybody - you’ve all been Very Good!

There will be some future posts coming up looking at the family in Liverpool.  Can't wait to do the work!

PS  And thank you to a Benevolent Universe which provided me with a set of dna results which did not include my husband as a match.  Given that some of our brick wall families come from the same part of Tasmania, and that our colouring is very similar, I was suddenly struck with some trepidation that when I looked at my matches he might possibly turn up there.  But thankfully not.  How would I explain THAT to the children?

PPS  I should add, by the way, that I had my husband do a dna test back in 2012 to try and break down the brick wall of his Tasmanian family, the paper record being totally inadequate, but there has not been any movement at all in terms of solving that problem – so not all dna results are equal, I am afraid. In his case we just have to keep waiting.