What avenues to explore?

[PGmicstand]

I'll try to keep this factual but it's a bit of a long one.

Recently I was contacted by someone on Ancestry who has matched to me on DNA. They are the descendant of someone who was transported to Tasmania in 1852. He was born around 1829/1830

I find a petition from someone who says he is the father of the transportee, and the letter (written 1850) is sent from the house of someone in my family tree. The sender of the letter married the widow of my ancestor, in 1845, when they were both in their 50s. Both have children from their first marriages born between 1814-1831

As far as I can see, the person who wrote the letter was married 3 times. Children from the first marriage include someone of the right sort of age, but a different name.
No children from second or third marriages.
My ancestor's children are contemporaries of the transportee, and all are documented through baptismal records.
On that basis, I have ruled out him being the son of either person.

I don't find a baptism record for the transportee with the alleged parents. I do find baptism for all other children.

So, assuming that this person is NOT the son, who could he be? A cousin? A nephew? I don't find him definitively on the 1841 census [he has a very common name ] but do pick him up in 1851 when he's on board a convict ship pending transportation.

I'm struggling to think what lines of enquiry to pursue. The fact that I've picked up as DNA match must mean that the parents or grandparents are in my family tree too, but we just cannot find how we're linked.

Happy to provide more info but as I'm working with the person who's descended from him I don't want to be posting details all over the place immediately. At this point I'm just trying to think if there is anything I have overlooked.

This is my field. How many cM do you share with the DNA match?

You say "the widow of my ancestor". Was she your ancestor too?

The writer of the petition could obviously be using "son" loosely, and it's his stepson - ie the widow's son or stepson. Re the surname of the transportee - whose is it?

If the transportee is the youngest child, perhaps the dad died before he was baptised so they never got round to it, or perhaps they were visiting a relation and got baptised there. (I've found that first names can be a clue here - they go to an aunt or uncle's parish, and name the child after that relative.) I've even had relatives changing their first names completely after being registered. Have you found the siblings later in life?

Of course, if they were from the same small village, it's more likely they may share dna.

As it's so long ago, you might get more help by giving more details eg the names/occupations etc of those involved. Have you looked in old newspapers?

Having had a bit more of a chat with the person I share some DNA with we think the person may be the illegitimate son of my ancestor's daughter.

I'll try to explain more clearly.

John Clarke is pending transportation in 1851. He's aged 22.
A petition was raised in 1850 by Charles Richard Clark who calls John his son. Charles Clark was previously married to a Sarah Davenport. They had 6 children. Sarah died somewhere around 1841. Charles mentions in the petition about John's likely transportation negatively affecting John's mother.

Charles R Clark married my ancestor, Phoebe Goldsmith (nee Lear) in 1843. I don't know what year she was born, but she was baptised 1795.
Phoebe was previously married to Charles Goldsmith (married 1813) with whom she had a number of children, the eldest being Juliet, born 1813. They also had a son, John, born 1824, but he died in 1825. Later son, Thomas, was born 1828 but is accounted for and is not the same person as the John Clarke of 1851.

The DNA match is showing a 35cm match to DNA through Phoebe.

Phoebe had elder sisters, some of whom died in infancy. I cannot find death or marriage records for two of them. I don't find any female children born after her.
I haven't found siblings for either of her parents (we'd be looking at London/Middlesex/Clerkenwell 1720's-40s)

I'm unable to find a definitive birth or baptism for John, under Clark, Clarke, Goldsmith, Lear or Roe.

35cM is a distant cousin match. Likely 4th to 7th cousin plus generations removed. As a DNA genealogist I don’t work with such low matches, and would suggest you don’t either; it will be traditional genealogy that needs to be done for this, although illegitimate births are difficult to prove. Good luck!

I found an (illegitimate) son of my GGF in Australia, I had a DNA match with his GGS, he was obviously a close relative by the amount of DNA in common 180 cm. But it took quite a bit of detective work to track it back.

35 cm isn't very high, you probably have to hope for another match with someone else to tie it together somehow. I have a few difficult people that I just need another jigsaw piece to figure out.

Edit: Have you looked at your common matches with that person, it may tell you which side of the family the relationship lies if the common matches are maternal or paternal, or often with one particular family name.

Yes I have looked at shared matches and thr match is on the maternal side. I can trace through the Goldsmith family to second cousins on my side as well as to my sibling. We all match to this person on DNA in varying %

I just wish I could find a baptism or definitely pin John down on the 1841 census. All info I have on him is 1846 onwards (criminal records) other than the petition calling him the son of Charles Richard Clark.
The petition was sent from the house of William & Susanna Lawrence. Susanna is the daughter of Pheobe Lear and Charles Goldsmith.

How frustrating! Looking at the trees on Ancestry, there's a gap between George Goldsmith b 1828 and William Goldsmith b 1832, which could be filled by John - but you can't find his baptism. And he's not with the family in the 1841 census. The 1841 absence might be explained if he's been put in some type of institution - sometimes these are down by initials not names, but it's a longshot.

If he's actually Juliet's illegitimate son, perhaps there's something in the parish records about getting the father to contribute. But then where is he in the 1841 census? This makes me think it's more likely he's a cousin whose parents have died, and was taken in by the Goldsmiths.

Or perhaps Charles Richard Clark's mother is a Goldsmith, to explain the DNA? Or maybe the DNA is a red herring 😀

In fact, the tree on Ancestry has J Clarke, french polisher and married in the 1851 census. If that is him, have you looked for a marriage?

I did wonder about CR Clarke's mother being the connection.
I did also wonder about John being a Goldsmith child but the only John born to Charles Goldsmith & Phoebe Lear was John who was born 1824 and died 1825. All baptisms are "properly" recorded for them.

The cousin avenue is definitely something to consider. I do note that Charles & Phoebe Goldsmith's younger sons are named Clark on the 1851 census, after she married CR Clark. On marriage docs and later census returns they're Goldsmith and cite Charles Goldsmith as father.

When John Clarke was imprisoned some of the documentation mentions a wife and a child, saying that they live on Algate Street but I don't find them on the census. The 1851 census shows him detailed as J Clarke, Married, aged 22, French Polisher from Clerkenwell on the Sterling Castle Convict Hulk at Portsmouth.
I think the name Clarke may be a red herring as (per above) other children of Charles Goldsmith & Phoebe Lear are called Clark, children of CR Clarke - who was petitioning for John's sentence to be mitigated. He could be a Goldsmith, but I can't find any evidence he was a son of Charles Goldsmith.

His descendant is picking up too many people I'm related to through this Goldsmith family line for it to be a red herring. At this point in the family tree for me and other known and validated DNA matches I have, he's picking up on Goldsmith and the earlier lines of Roe & Lear.

If I could find out what his original surname was, before he was theoretically adopted by Charles Richard Clark, then I might make some progress. I'm swaying to him being the son of Juliet on the basis that that's the only female on the Goldsmith line that is of childbearing age when John was born.

I suspect this is going to need a lot more digging.

@PGmicstand One thing I can think of doing is to get a giant piece of paper and on it, draw your entire tree and every single person you know of into the tree, with dates of birth & death, spouses, the lot. Link definites with a solid line and the not sure's with a dotted line. Then get a yellow highlighter and working backwards from yourself, highlight all the ones who have to be in some way connected by blood/dna to this J Clarke. At some point your yellow trail will either stop abruptly or have gaps in it. Having it all visually down on paper in front of you might help.

Who was J Clarke married to, and what happened to her and the child - did she eventually follow him to Tasmania? On the 1851 Census, where are they? Have you looked in the Clerkenwell Workhouse records? That was in Farringdon Road, only a short walk from Aldgate Street. (I'm assuming that is the 'Algate Street' from your records).

If she didn't go to Tasmania, then he must have presumably married again and had children, who the Ancestry person is descended from.

Has the Ancestry person allowed you access to their tree?

I'm a bit lost with all the name changes, but looking at the tree on Ancestry
1841 census - George Goldsmith age 13
1851 census - George is now George Clarke aged 14
Or is George Clarke actually Charles Richard Clarke's son? If so, what happened to George Goldsmith? Have you found him in the 1851 census, or was he known as John?

I notice the prison records say John Clarke's wife is named as Sarah aged 21 and daughter Sarah aged 9 months, then living at Sugar Loaf Court, Garlic Hill, but I can't find a marriage or baptism either.

It's also strange that Charles Richard Clarke talks about his wife being upset, and not John Clarke's wife and child. Did John not write a petition saying that his wife and child were in distress?

So many questions, and so few answers!

Thanks for this. You made me realise I drqther overlooke an important point

John married again in Tasmania with permission from the prison as he was still detained. Im not sure what he put for his marital status. The person I'm DNA linked to is a descendant though this marriage.
I've done extensive family tree work and John's the fly in the ointment in terms of fitting him in.

He managed to stay on the straight and narrow briefly but did end up in prison again and then absconded.

As far as I can see the rest of the Goldsmith family avoided a life of crime.

I do have all my trees on ancestry with documents relevant to the people and links between all trees.

I'm just keen to resolve the connection.

I had a similar scenario a couple of years ago and I did find the link - in that case, my great x3 aunt was the sibling of the other person's greatx3 grandmother. It turned out that my gt x3 aunt was related to my great x3 grandmother too - they were second cousins.

George Goldsmith is accounted for. The census enumerator recorded him as Clark in 1851 but he's not biologically related to Charles Richard Clark- he's a stepson.

Thabkyou for the information about the wife's name - I hadn't found that - I've not long been able to see the other persons tree and I'm still working through their information.

Given that he seems to have been recklessly lighfingered, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some bigamy (It's a common theme in another branch of the family tree with an unrelated line).

George Goldsmith is accounted for. The census enumerator recorded him as Clark in 1851 but he's not biologically related to Charles Richard Clark- he's a stepson.
Are you sure? (I'm getting a bit lost 😀) Doesn't Charles Richard Clark have a George Clark baptised in 1838
www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/1558/records/4297997

Then he's the George living with the family in 1851, aged 14? I couldn't then find George Goldsmith - but I'm getting confused - which is why I thought he might have changed his name to John, then to John Clarke.

The wife's name came from FMP - will attach a jpg.

John Clarke certainly sounds interesting 😁

@SwetSwetSwet I shall look into John's wife in more detail asap.

You've made me rethink the 1851 census. I know that when Phoebe was married to Charles Goldsmith, they had a number of children including William, born 1832 and George born 1828; I'd mistakenly assumed George's age to have been incorrectly recorded on the census but that actually makes no sense.

I do find a record for George Clark on the 1861 census working as a publican, living with cousins. This could tie in with Charles Clark's son, born 1838 who does appear to be the person on the 1851 census return.

William Goldsmith later married and I can pick him up.

It's been very useful to get this 'out there' to consider.

I can see that since many of the events took place prior to civil registration, you have some baptismal records that you are going on. Where did you find that information, and was it from Ancestry or similar, or from transcriptions of the original parish registers?

Something to consider with baptisms is that they may not necessarily have taken place soon after the child's birth. There may be a gap of anything up to several years, particularly if the family changed their address frequently. I have long suspected that some folk would have their dc baptised all over again at their new church. One set of my ancestors moved from Devon to London in the early 1800's and had all their dc baptised together at a London church. I reckon they were probably also baptised in Devon, but the parents decided to do it again anyway, when their youngest (my ancestor) was born in London.

@dodobookends I got the info from Ancestry as well as some that was forwarded to me from FMP.
The baptisms were a mix of Church of England and Countess of Huntingdon Connexion (Spa Fields) but all the offspring of Charles Goldsmith and Phoebe Lear had baptismal records. All were baptised before the age of 3.

As Charles Richard Clark isn't my ancestor I've not researched all the baptisms of his children.

The Goldsmith family did seem to move about a bit, but mostly within area.

Having considered that John might be George Goldsmith, I've come across a death for a George Goldsmith in 1840 but the information in the public domain says he's 10 (nearly 11) as opposed to 12. Which could be correct if it had been drawn from the date of baptism. Unfortunately I can't confirm that the address given has anything to do with the family.

There's also a George Goldsmith of a similar age who had a criminal record, but those records overlap with and go past the date of John Clarke's transportation, so it's difficult to have any certainty.

Just looked up George. You could order the death certificate, but the burial gives his address as Caroline Place. I wonder whether he is the son of Henry and Elizabeth Goldsmith, who are in Caroline Place in the 1841 census. They have a daughter Lucy aged 9, and they are all born out of county.
www.ancestry.co.uk/search/collections/8978/records/7502475

I have long suspected that some folk would have their dc baptised all over again at their new church. So true! I had one who was registered under one name, then baptised under a totally different (weird) name - at the church of a wealthy relative with the same weird name!

Thankyou! Yes, there are a few Goldsmith families around a they share some common names.
I haven't been able to get back further than Charles Goldsmith (former husband of Phoebe). The marriage document for 1813 doesn't name his father, and I have extrapolated his year of birth from his death cert. He may be the son of another Charles Goldsmith and wife Anne, but I don't find any other children of this marriage.
The family seem to have been in and around the clerkenwell area.

I'm grateful for all the input as it's helping me to think outside the box.