Genealogy Chat

see below........

I had major difficulty in finding my Nellie Chryst's birth and have finally come about it registered under Wood which was mother Elizabeth's first married surname. Elizabeth was born Adams. On the 91 census Elizabeth is widowed and with children from first marriage. She married Karol Chryst in November 1891. On 1901 census she and Karol have Nellie, Kate and Maurice but i couldnt find the birth of Nellie anwhere. Well, i ordered the birth certificate of this Nellie Wood and mother is Elizabeth Wood nee Adams and the address given is the same on Elizabeth has on the 91 census so is the right Nellie but there is no father listed. Birth was June 91 When Nellie marries in 1911 she gives karol as her father and uses the surname Chryst. I dont think Karol is the father of Nellie but what is others opinions? Thanks Claire

Do you know when Elizabeth's first husband died? What was his name? Anyway, if he died too long before Nellie's birth to be the father, it is certainly possible that Karol was her father but he didn't marry her mother till after she was born.

Have you found Karol in 1891? If so, where is he and what is he doing? Why does he marry a woman with a 5 month old baby? Short of DNA testing, you are never going to know for sure, unless you can prove he was nowhere near Nellie's mum when she fell pregnant.

I think that is the problem, i will never know the truth. I have not found the death of Charles Wood yet but on 91 census Elizabeth Wood is living at 14 moses street in Sheffield with her Wood children and as a widow. On the same census, Karol Chryst and his brother Frank Chryst are both lodgers at the same house at 33 Nursery Street. I know where Nursery street is as its still there now but i am not sure about moses street, i thought it was in Brightside. She has Nellie in June of that year registered as born 14 moses street, mother Elizabeth Wood formerly Adams so i know for sure its the right Nellie. No father given at all on the certificate. I think its that i have in my head that if Karol was the father, why did he marry her 5 months after the birth and not before? Did he pass off the child as his to save embarrassment? Things i will never know. Regards, Claire

If her mother wasn't married, then Nellie would have been registered with her mother's surname (which at the time was Wood), and the father's name would have been left blank on the registration form, even if the father was known at the time. Therefore it's quite possible that Karol is the father. However, it's equally possible that the father was someone else - Nellie would have grown up with Karol as her father, and probably taken his surname, even if he wasn't her biological dad - so may well have put him down as her father on her marriage cert. As Brenda says, you'll probably never know for sure - even DNA testing wouldn't help as that only works through the male line. One thing you could try would be to find her baptism record - it's unlikely that the father is named on there either, but you never know!

Thanks for all your thoughts. I think for the baptism record, i will have to go home to Sheffield at some point to see if it can be found but i highly doubt a father will be named on it. Seems she was brought up as a Chryst anyway whether Karol was the father or not. Regards, Claire

Richard Sorry, but I really cannot let your sexist remark pass unchallenged! What do you mean: DNA only works down the father's line? Havent we females got any DNA then? Really!!! Marjorie

Marjorie I wasn't being sexist - only stating a biological fact. DNA testing of descendants to prove/disprove a common ancestry only works through the MALE line. Sorry but Female DNA will only tell you your 'haplogroup' (race), which is of no use for genealogical purposes. There have been several threads on this subject on these boards, or you could try Googling 'DNA genealogy' to get further information. Of course, if both Nellie and Karol were still alive, then they could get a paternity test, which is different - however, as she would be 113 and he would be 145 by now, I think that this is unlikely to happen! Richard

Hi Ken, I am still trying to find the death of Elizabeth's first husband, he was Charles Wood. On the 1881 census he was listed as being 26 years old and living at Brightside Bierlow in Sheffield with Elizabeth and their children. I have gone through all freebmd deaths of Charles Wood's in Sheffield and none fit, i had yet to go through 1837. I would have thought though that if Charles was the father and he died before she was born, Elizabeth would still name him on the birth certificate of Nellie rather than it looking like she was illegitimate. Regards, Claire

I would say that Charles is unlikely to be Nellie's father. On the 1901 census, the elder children (presumably of Charles & Elizabeth) are listed with the surname Wood and are shown as step-children of Karol. However, Nellie is listed with the surname Chryst and is shown as his daughter. Therefore, is seems more likely that either Karol was in fact her biological dad, or it was a third unknown person, and Karol had 'adopted' her as his own. Definitely worth finding Charles's death cert, though - as that may rule him out of the picture for sure!

Hi Richard, I know i have to find Charles' death as well, just also because Elizabeth is down as widow on the 1891 census but on marriage cert to Karol, she put spinster! I really dont think that Charles would be Nellie's dad for the same reason you have said as well, but also dont understand why Karol would marry her 5 months after giving birth if it was his child. Regards, Claire

If that is right, then Charles is out of the frame, as Nellie was born June 1891!

Hi Liz, Number 5 has to be him, age is correct for him from the 1881 so he is not Nellie's father. will have to get this cert i think to confirm he is the right Charles Wood. As said though, i will never know the truth but it seems to be that Karol is not the father but has taken her on as is own and Nellie herself will probably have never known the truth. Regards and thanks for all your help. Claire x

Richard Sorry, cant let this go! You are, I think, confusing Y chromosome testing - which only works for males and their male descendants. Mitochondrial DNA testing works only for females and their female desecendants. But RECOMBINANT DNA, which we all have in equal parts from our Male and female ancestors can also be used for testing for parentage - if this was not true, what point would there be in a man doing a DNA test to see if he was the father of his daughter? I can tell you didnt read my 'DNA is fruit salad' explanation on another thread! But I forgive you, many thought I was bordering on insanity! So, in this case, a known (and living, of course)descendant of each man can be compared against a living descendant who has the question mark hanging over them. Marjorie

Marjorie No, I didn't see your previous thread, and I can't seem to find it from a search. I would be interested in reading it, so maybe you could nudge it for me... By no means am I an expert on genetics but I have been reading up on the subject and in particular on how this relatively new science is being applied to genealogy. My understanding is (and I gather from your post above that you agree) that the Y chromosome test works only through the male line (i.e. along the extreme left-hand branch of a standard ancestral tree layout), and the mtDNA test works only along the female line (the extreme right-hand branch of the tree). Where I think we differ in opinion is as to whether there is a suitable DNA test for proving connections in the intervening branches of the tree, i.e. where the descent is of mixed male/female lineage (which would of course be the case for descendants of Nellie & her father, whoever he was!). I agree that paternity testing uses a recombinant DNA test, and therefore can be applied to both father/son and father/daughter relationships (assuming that DNA samples are available from both individuals of course). However, I was unaware that recombinant DNA testing can be used to prove/disprove a common ancestry for a pair of individuals. Could well be wrong here, but if such tests were available then how come the labs are not offering them? Maybe you could point me in the direction of a few websites? Richard PS: Claire - sorry if we've hi-jacked your thread a bit :o)

Hi Richard Sorry you cant find my thread, I cant either but will have a look in a minute - and, I dont suppose it was my thread, any more than this one is! (Sorry, Ickle C) I think the reason labs are not offering recombinant DNA tests is that it is of course wildly expensive and very very time-consuming and technically very difficult - the DNA from all participants has to be unravelled and matched up against everyone elses, and the few laboratories who have the technology are at full throttle with paternity cases, crime victims and, recently, with victims of the Tsunami disaster. Of course, everything is available at a price and no doubt as the demand for these tests becomes more widespread, the technology will spread and become cheaper and someone sooner or later will see the potential for Family History use. I have to say, in my opinion, a recombinant test is the only one worth having. A Y test may prove that George Bloggs was not your Gt Granfather - but in fact it doesnt ACTUALLY prove that, just that he was not the Y-carrying Gt Grandfather. He may still be your Gt Grandfather, through a female line. You still share one-eighth of his genes, they just dont show up on your Y chromosome. A recombinant test would show (potentially, even if you couldnt name them) your 8 Great grandparents. Marjorie

Thanks Marjorie. Therefore, I think that my original assertion was correct - if Nellie had been a male, then a Y-chromosome test between a male-line descendant of hers (his!) and a male-line descendant of one of Karol's younger sons would have demonstrated whether or not they had descended from a common male-line ancestor, effectively showing whether Karol was likely to have been the father of the male Nellie or not. These tests are widely available and relatively inexpensive. However, because she was female, a Y-chromosome test is not an option and there is no practical alternative test currently available to us genealogists. Sorry if the laws of genetics appear to be so sexist! Richard.