Twins puzzle

I’m not sure that I would see the odds as particularly relevant here. Firstly, I wouldn’t consider any baptism as possible without first checking for a burial and other information.

Secondly, as far as I’m concerned the absence of a burial on it’s own doesn’t make a baptism any more or less likely to be that of my ancestor. It may make the baptism merit further investigation, but no more than that.

 

Yes and no. What I’m saying is, that if there were 3 possible baptisms and 2 can be eliminated, then as far as I’m concerned, and regardless of what the statistics might indicate, for the other baptism nothing changes. It remains what it was before - possible.

 

I've no doubt I'll enjoy reading these articles, but I do doubt that you will persuade me to view this remaining baptism as anything other than 'possible' despite eliminating the other two.

I suspect this baptism question is not a good example, though, as very clearly we have insufficient data here to draw any useful statistical conclusions about this remaining baptism. This is often the case with family history puzzles, though I don't deny that we will often make probability assessments without realising we are.

Maybe another thing worth saying here is that we are not all natural statisticians. Despite having A level Maths, having studied maths as part of my physics degree and coming from a family of natural statisticians, I am not one myself. I'm OK with the straightforward stuff and I can understand more complex problems when presented with the reasoning, but calculus was always my thing.

To me family history is a hobby and something I do purely for pleasure, and stressing too much about statistics risks taking the pleasure out of it. What is helpful to some may prove a hindrance to others.

 

The last time I had my own version of the 'twin lamb' puzzle was in trying to assign a Master to my 18th Century ancestor an apprentice Carpenter. My ancestor finally became a Master Wheelwright and a Guild Freeman with his own Apprentices. But with whom did he serve his 'Carpentry' apprenticeship? The puzzle centred around my ancestor's actual birth year, and explaining how he married within (seemingly) his Apprentice term of 7 years - something quite forbidden by Indenture rules at that time. Finally assigning a Master from 'within my purchased copy of an antiquarian book: "Warwickshire Apprentices and their Masters 1719-1760"

In the end my solution -based on fact and part conjecture - fitted the bigger picture. He served his Apprentice term with an Uncle - a Master Carpenter - and outside of the normal formal Indenture fee afforded only by wealthy parents (even though his father was a Yeoman Farmer), but an Indenture classified as 'en famille'. I also believe he actually started his Indenture at the age of 11 (normally 13) and the year he moved from home to reside within his Master's house. This, tied to his birth year (1720) explained him being out of term c1738; qualified when his Journeyman term began and being free to marry.

It would I am sure have made a puzzle every bit as convoluted as the 'twin lamb' one. I would not normally have gone to such lengths but I needed it to explain anomalies and complete the story I eventually had published in the ' Midland Ancestor' a few years back.

 

I'm afraid I still don't see the connection. I got confused by the twins puzzle initially but I don't see why this might make me more likely to misinterpret evidence.

The point I am trying to make here is that eliminating two of the baptisms doesn't mean the remaining baptism is "the one". That may well seem obvious to you and to other regular forum users, but may not be obvious to everyone reading this.

 

... and no possibility that your "person" was not baptised?

 

This was the kind of thing I was thinking of when I mentioned having ‘insufficient data’ in #66.

 

Well, it's nice to know that two children named Eliza Doel born in Southwick (on all census returns where they appear the birth year is 1806 and both appear in my tree) with only one baptised in North Bradley in 1806 (the parish church) is unlikely to happen very often! The next nearest is 1831. However, my 3gt-grandmother died in 1846 and she was born in 1802 according to her death certificate.

From DNA matches, the two are almost certainly related but I know not how! Just for completeness, nearly all aunts/uncles of "the other" Eliza do not feature as parents in baptism records and a reasonable number of my Southwick "relatives" appear in the Southwick Baptist Register.

 

Is that always the case? You said yourself that you have 3 possible baptisms of one of your ancestors, presumably of the same name in the same parish around the same time. Isn't it perfectly possible for two babies with the same name to be born in the same parish around the same time, with one of them baptised and the other not?

In searching for the baptism of my 3x great-grandmother, I found one that could possibly fit the bill. It was in the right place, with a father of the right name (according to her marriage certificate). However, further investigation of the father (particularly his occupation and marriages) told me this was not the right one. I have still not been able to find her baptism, though other evidence (including DNA) has led me to deduce who both her parents were likely to have been.

 

I would say no. It just means that your brother has not inherited any of the 'Burns' DNA whereas you have. I have come across several cases where I or my husband have a DNA match with a documented distant cousin but not with their sibling.

 

Although I have been more an observer than contributor in these postings, now it has morphed into to discussing how probability plays its part in genealogical research, I find myself fundamentally agreeing with two of Peter's responses; namely:

#1

and #2

They more or less sum up my own approach to Family History research. Take every step you know to ascertain facts, revisit where necessary and when you have exhausted all means known and open to you (DNA included), it is 'make your mind up time'. Record facts, make notes and move on. Don't dwell on the 'what ifs' and 'maybes' and if it all ends in a 'brick wall' return to it later. Remember it is -as Pauline said already - a hobby and should be pleasurable and rewarding.

 

I'm afraid I see various flaws in this argument.

Firstly, from my own experience, I think the chances of a baptism which seems to fit not being the right one may be higher than you might think, and I suspect there may be regional variations as well as between mostly rural and mostly urban communities. I have come across plenty of examples where a baptism appears to fit in terms of when, where and even father's name but turns out not to be correct.

Secondly, our ancestors were individuals not statistics. I'm not saying that probability has no place in family history but we need to be wary of assuming things about our ancestors based on majority trends. Personally I would rather check out even a small possibility that a baptism I've found is not the right one than risk climbing up what might turn out to be the wrong family tree.

Thirdly, blue moons may be uncommon but they are not so rare that we can disregard them. More seriously, though, this seems to me to highlight a fundamental difference in approach - is our focus more on "getting on" in our research or "getting it right". For those whose focus leans more towards "getting on" then I can see that weighing up probabilities might be more important than for those of us whose focus is on "getting it right".

Lastly, and slightly tongue in cheek, for those of us to whom statistics do not come naturally, it may prove quicker to check out that baptism than work out the likelihood of it being the wrong one. (And more enjoyable!)