Miniature portrait of Geoff de Crespigny by Olive A Chatfield

My father has a small collection of family portraits. One is a miniature of his father Richard Geoffrey “Geoff” Champion de Crespigny (1908 – 1966) as a child.

Geoff miniature

The portrait is signed  ‘O. A. Chatfield’. This was Olive Amy Chatfield (1880 – 1945).

Olive Chatfield was born in New Zealand, the fourth of eight children of an architect named William Charles Chatfield (1852 – 1930). Olive’s mother Mary Chatfield nee Hoggard (1853 – 1896) died when Olive was 15.

In November 1910 Olive Chatfield ‘of New Zealand’ was one of the artists in the 13th annual Federal Art Exhibition in Adelaide, a showing organised by the South Australian Society of Arts. I am not sure when Olive Chatfield came to Adelaide or why she was living there.

In March 1912 Miss Olive Chatfield donated a miniature portrait of Lady Bosanquet, wife of the South Australian Governor, to the Art Gallery of South Australia. Described as ‘gouache on ivory, 7.6 x 6.3 cm’, it remains in the Gallery’s collection,

In 1914 and 1915 Olive Chatfield is mentioned several times in Adelaide newspapers, usually under ‘social notes’.

On 3 April 1916 Olive Chatfield married Vyvyan Hughes (1888 – 1916), Geoff’s maternal uncle. Vyvyan Hughes died a few weeks later in a military hospital in Ceylon.


Vyvyan Hughes with Olive 1916

Olive Hughes did not re-marry, and in November 1916 returned to New Zealand, where under the name of Mrs Westbury Hughes she practiced as a professional artist specialising in miniature portraits. Some of her work was exhibited by the New Zealand Academy of Fine Arts.

Hughes Olive 1923

Photo of Olive Hughes accompanying an article in the Sydney Sun of 16 December 1923

Hughes Olive 1923 article

ART AND HEREDITY (1923, December 16). The Sun (Sydney, NSW : 1910 – 1954), p. 1 (Women’s Supplement). Retrieved December 6, 2018, from

Olive Hughes died in Wellington, New Zealand on 10 July 1945.

There is a family resemblance down the generations between Geoff and his descendants.

Geoff, his son, grandson, and great grandsons


Related post


Tools for interpreting DNA results

My husband Greg and I have had our DNA tested. We used The tools that employs to compare details of family trees and shared DNA matches to help establish how we are related to others who have also tested at are quite useful but could be better. However, does not provide a chromosome browser.

A chromosome browser produces a diagram of where on your chromosomes you share DNA with your match. If you know how you and your match are related, you can deduce that you have both inherited that shared DNA from your shared ancestors. You can then attribute that shared DNA to those ancestors. When you don’t know how you are related, you can look at where you match and based on your analysis of who you inherited that bit of DNA from, you can predict how you are related. in effect does this calculation for you with their shared matches tool but doesn’t show the calculations in making its predictions.

The tools offered by, GedMatch and Family Tree DNA include a chromosome browser which does not provide. A chromosome browser gives you the detail of what DNA you and your cousin share.

MyHeritage chromosome browser for 2nd cousin LB

MyHeritage chromosome browser showing where Greg and one of his second cousins share DNA


So far with matches from MyHeritage, GedMatch, and FTDNA, Greg has been able to attribute 27% of his DNA to particular ancestors. The tool DNAPainter graphs attributed DNA based on matches with multiple cousins.

DNA Painter view for Greg Young November 2018

One of the genealogical puzzles I sought to solve with DNA was the parentage of Greg’s great grandfather Henry Sullivan. I produced a hypothesis that he was the son of Matilda Sullivan nee Hughes. I need more data on how various cousins share DNA to show that Matilda Sullivan nee Hughes was indeed the mother of Henry Sullivan. The shared matches tool of is incapable of showing that descendants of Eleazar Hughes, Matilda’s first son are definitely connected to descendants of Henry Sullivan. A chromosome browser would help to show that these cousins do indeed share inherited DNA.

To download DNA data from, choose the settings link on the top right hand corner of the AncestryDNA home page. On the right hand side you are given the option to download your raw DNA data. The steps are:

1. From the AncestryDNA status page click the link ‘manage test settings’.
2. On the ‘manage test settings’ page click the ‘Get started’ button on the right under ‘Download your raw DNA data’.
3. Enter your password. This will trigger an email that will be sent to your email account on file, which will include a link to confirm download of the DNA data.
4. Open the email and click the ‘Confirm data download’ button in the email.
5. On this download page click the button “Download Raw DNA Data”.
6. The file will then download to your computer.

Uploading your DNA data to MyHeritage is done at the page and the process is explained at . It takes about a week before the data is processed and you can see your matches and the details of where you share DNA.

Remembering John Percival Young died 9 November 1918

With next Sunday Armistice Day it seems appropriate to recall that today is the hundredth anniversary of the death of one of our family’s WW1 soldiers, Jack Young, brother of my husband’s grandfather.

Jack – John Percival Young – enlisted in the Australian Imperial Forces on 6 October 1916. On 25 August 1918, while serving with HQ 10th Brigade – taking part in the so-called Hundred Days Offensive, the Allied attacks that brought the war to an end – he was wounded in a mustard gas attack and was admitted to a Line of Communications hospital. Three days later he was invalided to England, sent to Beaufort Hospital near Bristol.

He was discharged from Beaufort after a month, but within a few weeks he was back in hospital, the 3rd Auxiliary Hospital Dartford.

On 9 November 1918, two days before the war ended, Jack died of influenza and pneumonia. He is buried at Brookwood Military Cemetery.


Group portrait of the Signal Section of the 10th Infantry Brigade, outside the Chateau at Querrieu, 7 July 1918. Pte J. Young is in the back row eighth from the left (fourth from the right).


Related post

Macavity wasn’t there!

Today, 5 November, is the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, an abortive attempt to assassinate King James I of England and blow up the Houses of Parliament. Some of my forebears were English politicians of the time. I’ve been trying to find out if any were involved or implicated or put in danger.

Edward Mainwaring (1577 – 1647), one of my 10th great grandfathers, was elected to Parliament on 30 September 1601 for the borough of Newcastle Under Lyme. However, he was not re-elected in the next election, on 28 February 1604, so at the time of the plot in November 1605, he would not have been present in Parliament.


Mainwaring Edward 1577 - 1647

Edward Mainwaring, portrait from opposite page 63 of The Mainwarings of Whitmore and Biddulph in the County of Stafford. An account of the family, and its connections by marriage and descent; with special reference to the Manor of Whitmore. J.G. Cavenagh-Mainwaring, about 1935


Edward Mainwaring matriculated at Magdalen Hall, Oxford,  on 8 November 1594. He entered Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court in 1595. In his history of the Mainwarings of Whitmore, Gordon Mainwaring says:

At this time there was considerable litigation concerning manorial dues, and lords of manors began to realise that a knowledge of law was essential in the management of their estates. Among the papers at Whitmore is an interesting correspondence between this Edward and his father concerning the refusal of Sir John Bowyer of Knipersly to recognise their right to a heriot [a tribute paid by the estate of a
deceased tenant].

In 1601 Edward Mainwaring married Sara Stone. In 1604 his father died and he succeeded to the Whitmore estate. Perhaps he decided to forgo a parliamentary career to concentrate on running the estate.

Edward Mainwaring was elected again to Parliament in 1625. There is a suggestion that the person elected was not Edward Mainwaring (1577 – 1647) but  his son, also named Edward (1603 – 1674).


A visit to Parliament House in Melbourne

Last Wednesday I went on a group tour of Parliament House in Melbourne. This magnificent building is a wonderful example of high-Victorian public architecture.

The double-storey Parliamentary Library, with its gas lights, curving staircases and central ten-sided table is particularly impressive.



Hanging in what is known as Queen’s Hall is a portrait of Sir Harry Lawson (1875 – 1952), politician and Premier of Victoria from 1918-1924. Lawson was a first cousin of my great grandmother Beatrix de Crespigny nee Hughes. The portrait, painted in 1981, is a copy of a 1923 portrait by John Longstaff.


Sir Harry Lawson, portrait by John Perry 1981. This copy of ‘Portrait of Sir Harry Lawson’ 1923 by John Longstaff (original held at Castlemaine Art Gallery and Historical Museum) was presented to the Parliament of Victoria by the Lawson Family and the Perpetual Executors and Trustees Association of Australia Ltd in 1981.


Also on display is crockery from the Parliament House collection, with it a program for a dinner given to Harry Lawson by the Government of Victoria on 20 December 1922, shortly before Lawson’s departure for an official trip to Europe.


The Age, reporting the dinner, called the date ‘Mr Lawson’s lucky day’. 20 December coincided with the 23rd anniversary of Lawson’s selection to Parliament, and he had been offered his first position in Cabinet on 20 December 1913). Lawson served as Premier from 1918 to 1924.

Our group also visited the Shrine of Remembrance, Melbourne’s war memorial, in St Kilda Road. Lawson was a trustee of the Shrine of Remembrance. It was commissioned while he was Premier.

Shrine opening 1934

Report of the opening of the Shrine on 11 November 1934: VICTORIA’S GREAT SHRINE OF REMEMBRANCE. (1934, November 12). The Age (Melbourne, Vic. : 1854 – 1954), p. 13. Retrieved from


Further reading

Portrait of Anne de Crespigny

Today I received an email from the art broker Sotheby’s to say that it is selling a pastel portrait by Katherine Read (1723 – 1778) of Anne de Crespigny, my 6th great aunt. The sale is being conducted as a timed auction ending on October 29 2018. (See…/KATHERINE-READ-Portrait-of-a-w…/  )

CdeC Anne H0046-L155543688

This portrait was sold by Christie’s in 1912 and sold again in 1927 and 1931. I am not sure if the sale in 1912 was by a member of the Champion de Crespigny family, but it seems likely given there were three other de Crespigny family pictures sold at the same time. In the 1912 catalogue Anne is asserted to be the wife of Philip de Crespigny. This is probably incorrect. Philip de Crespigny’s wife Anne Fonnereau (1704 – 1782) was a much older woman at the time this  was made. It seems more likely that the portrait is of her daughter Anne.

Art prices current 1912

From Art Prices Current 1912 retrieved from

I have previously written about my sixth great aunt at The marriages of Anne Champion Crespigny (1739-1797)

A natural conclusion

In a memoir of his sister Theresa Poole formerly Walker nee Chauncy (1807 – 1876), Philip Lamothe Snell Chauncy (1816 – 1880), who was my third great grandfather, wrote:

[Her grandfather] William Snell Chauncy was the proprietor of the Winkfield Estate in Berkshire, where he resided for many years ; he was also possessed of slave estates in Antigua and St. Kitts, in the West Indies, of house property in Sackville Street, Dublin, and of considerable funded property.

Her father was his only son, born in London, on the 14th August, 1781, and died at Leamington on 1st August, 1845.

In giving this information, however, Philip Chauncy neglects to mention that his and Therese’s father was illegitimate, the natural son of William Snell-Chauncy (1756-1829).

Here was the explanation for something that had puzzled me: why had published pedigrees of my Chauncey forebears failed to include Philip Chauncy’s father William (1781-1845)?

On 14 August 1781 William Brown, the son of Eunice Brown and William Snell-Chauncy, was born in London.

Eunice (1753 – 1836) was the daughter of Captain Robert Brown (1713 – 1769) and his wife Margaret Brown nee Cosnahan (1718 – 1769). The Brown family was from the Isle of Man. Eunice was the seventh of nine children. William Brown was brought up on the Isle of Man by his mother’s family, with financial support from his father.

On 6 June 1783 William Snell-Chauncy married Sarah Toulmin (1757 – 1834). William and Sarah had two daughters, Sarah (1786 – 1841) and Catharine (1788 – 1858). William Snell-Chauncy and his wife Sarah separated in 1789. The Deed of Separation, issued in 1789, stipulated that William should not have the management of his two daughters.

Philip Chauncy’s father, William, married Rose Therese Lamothe on 5 May 1804 at Malew on the Isle of Man. Marriage records give his name as William Snell Chauncy; it appears William had adopted his father’s name. William’s children were all known by the surname Chauncy.

Philip wrote that his sister Theresa was “sent on a visit to my grandfather at Wingfield, where she rendered us good service by watching and partially defeating the intrigues of another branch of the family who were using every exertion to obtain an undue share of property from my grandfather in his old age. I think Theresa must have been at Wingfield for several years”. This would have been in the late 1820s.

William Snell-Chauncy died in 1829. In his will he named his son as William Brown, later referring to his “natural son William Brown”. The children of William Brown were also provided for, as was Eunice Brown, William’s mother. Only after providing for the Browns does William’s will turn to his daughters Sarah and Catharine. He made no provision for his wife Sarah, stating he had provided for her in his lifetime.

In 1831 William Snell-Chauncy’s daughter Mrs Catherine Snell Burke challenged the legal validity of the will and its codicil on the grounds of insanity of the testator. One of the executors was a man called Robert Westwood; the case was named ‘Westwood against Burke and Others’. The challenge was put forward in June 1831 and the case came to court in November and December 1831. The bulk of William Snell-Chauncy’s estate of £25,000 had been left to his natural son.

Martha and Theresa Brown [sic], Philip Chauncy’s sisters, were noted as having lived with the deceased, their grandfather. The court heard evidence alleging that William Snell-Chauncy’s behaviour had been childish, that he was a habitual drunkard, and that he had conducted himself in an insane and irrational manner. It was also alleged that the signature on the will was not in his hand-writing. The counter allegations were that the deceased, though eccentric, was not of unsound mind; he had conducted his own affairs, had received and paid money, played at cards, spoke French; that he was charitable and benevolent; and that he entertained great regard for his natural son and his family.

On 19 December 1831 The Times reported the proceedings of the Prerogative Court for December 17. The King’s Advocate on behalf of the executors observed that the party opposing the will was really Captain Burke on behalf of his wife and her unmarried sister and that Captain Burke’s difficulty with the will was not that the testator was incapable of making a will but only a will more in favour of the legitimate children. The King’s Advocate noted that previous wills made by William Snell-Chauncy in 1799, 1816 and 1820 had all provided for his natural son. Given that the 1789 deed of separation from his wife had stipulated he should not have the management of his two daughters, it followed that there was less intimacy with his legitimate family. But he had had constant interaction with his natural son and his family.

Dr Lushington on behalf of Captain Burke stated that in the course of evidence there were “charges brought against the Misses Brown [Theresa and Martha Chauncy] [which] were not a substantial part of the case, but solely with the view of discrediting the testimony of a witness.”


Portrait of Sir John Nicholl (1759-1838), Welsh politician and judge. Artist William Owen Collections of St John’s College, University of Oxford Retrieved from

The Times of 5 January 1832 reported the decision of Sir John Nicholl, judge of the Prerogative Court of Canterbury. More than 50 witnesses had been examined and there were depositions from more than 100 witnesses. There was a larger body of evidence on the case than in any case of the records of the Court. Nicholl found that no act of insanity had been proved and that the whole conduct and history of the testator naturally led to the conclusion of the probability of the dispositions in the will. The judge

“referred particularly to the charges alleged against the Misses Brown, in an interrogatory address to a witness named Gould, and which he had positively denied. Where, he asked, was the necessity of attacking the character of these two young women? It was an act of justice to them that the Court should declare thus publicly, that the character of these young women had been attacked without any just cause, and that the single witness by whom the charge had been attempted to be supported, was unworthy of any sort of credit whatever.”

Mr and Mrs Burke were condemned to all costs as it was deemed unfair that the estate should bear any of the costs.

From the judge’s summing up it appears that Martha had most certainly earned the comment from her brother that “…she rendered us good service by watching and partially defeating the intrigues of another branch of the family who were using every exertion to obtain an undue share of property from my grandfather in his old age”.


  • Philip Lamothe Snell Chauncy (1816 – 1880) wrote a memoir of his sister Mrs Poole, Theresa Poole formerly Walker nee Chauncy (1807 – 1876). It was first published in 1873 as Memoir of the late Mrs G.H. Poole by her brother. It was republished in 1976 together with a memoir of Philip’s second wife as Memoirs of Mrs. Poole and Mrs. Chauncy.
  • Tucker, Stephen, 1835-1887. Pedigree of the Family of Chauncy. Special private reprint, with additions. London: Mitchell and Hughes, 1884. Viewed online at [see printed page 10]
  • Will of William Snell Chauncy Esquire probated 26 March 1832 PCC  Class: PROB 11; Piece: 1795
  • “Prerogative Court, Tuesday, Nov. 15.” Times [London, England] 16 Nov. 1831: 4. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 30 Sept. 2018.
  • “Prerogative Court, Saturday, Dec. 17.” Times [London, England] 19 Dec. 1831: 7. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 30 Sept. 2018.
  • “Prerogative Court, Wednesday, Jan. 4.” Times [London, England] 5 Jan. 1832: 4. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 30 Sept. 2018.

Related links

  • The Gazette (London Gazette) Publication date: 12 December 1780 Issue: 12144 Page: 4 William Snell, later William Snell-Chauncy, was born in 1756 at Wingfield, Berkshire to William Snell (1716 – 1779) and Martha Snell nee Chauncy (1720 – 1765). Martha was the daughter of Charles Chauncy (1673 – 1763). In his will, Charles Chauncy specified that his grandson William Snell should take on the name Chauncy when he was twenty four years old and that he should quarter Charles Chauncy’s coat of arms with his own. Charles Chauncy’s three sons had no male issue and William Snell was the oldest of Charles Chauncy’s three grandsons by his daughter Martha. William Snell of Edmonton was granted license in accordance with the will of his late grandfather Charles Chauncy late of Newington to add Chauncy to his name in December 1780.
    • Will of Charles Chauncy probated 28 February 1763 : The National Archives; Kew, England; Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 884
  • ‘William Snell Chauncy ne Snell’, Legacies of British Slave-ownership database, [accessed 1st October 2018].
  • From
    • In 2017, the relative price worth of £25000 0s 0d from 1831 is:
      • £2,160,000.00 using the retail price index
      • £2,450,000.00 using the GDP deflator
    • In 2017, the relative wage or income worth of £25000 0s 0d from 1831 is:
      • £20,200,000.00 using the average earnings
      • £30,900,000.00 using the per capita GDP
    • In 2017, the relative output worth of £25000 0s 0d from 1831 is:
      • £114,000,000.00 using the GDP
  • UK National Archives: it seems the court records are available: Reference: PROB 37/883 Description: Westwood v Burke and others Testator or intestate: Chauncy, William Snell formerly of Bishopsgate Common, Surrey; afterwards of Windlesham, Surrey; late of Winkfield, Berks.; esq. Date: 1830-1832 Held by: The National Archives, Kew

Related post

Samuel Pepys and the Crew family

The diarist Samuel Pepys (1633-1703) was well connected; conversely, many people were and are connected to him.  Pepys to me was the first cousin once removed of the husband of my 10th great aunt, Jemima Crew (1625-1674), daughter of John Crew (1598-1679) and Jemima Crew née Waldegrave (died 1675), my 10th great grandparents.



Samuel Pepys portrait by John Hayls 1666. The portrait now hangs in the UK National Portrait Gallery


Jemima Crew the daughter married Edward Montagu, later 1st Earl of Sandwich, (1625-1672). Montagu’s mother was Paulina Pepys (1581-1638), sister of Samuel Pepys grandfather, Thomas Pepys (died 1606).

In 1654-5 Samuel Pepys entered the household of his first cousin once removed Edward Montagu, who became his benefactor and patron. In his diaries Pepys often mentions Edward Montagu and members of the Montagu family, including my tenth great grandparents and ninth great grandmother Anne Wright nee Crew (1637-1708).

Pepys Montagu Crew Wright tree

On 22 May 1661 Pepys noted that Anne Wright sang songs to the harpsichord with her sister Jemima Montagu. On 20 November he described Lady Wright as “a witty but very conceited woman and proud”.  On 3 December 1661 Anne Wright dined with her sister Jemima Montagu. Pepys joined them and found the conversation was “about the great happiness that my Lady Wright says there is in being in the fashion and in variety of fashions, in scorn of others that are not so, as citizens’ wives and country gentlewomen”. On 9 December he again met Anne Wright: “dinner to the Wardrobe [Royal Wardrobe]; where my Lady Wright was, who did talk much upon the worth and the desert of gallantry; and that there was none fit to be courtiers, but such as have been abroad and know fashions. Which I endeavoured to oppose; and was troubled to hear her talk so, though she be a very wise and discreet lady in other things.”

In July 1665 Pepys stayed with Lady Wright at her house Dagenham in Surrey when seeking to arrange the marriage of Jemima Montagu to Philip Cartaret. On 16 July he said he “walked in the gallery an hour or two, it being a most noble and pretty house that ever, for the bigness, I saw.” On 17 July the party, including Anne Wright, played billiards. During the visit on 16 July there was effort made to let the young couple get to know each other, however proprietaries had to be observed so they were left in a room with the door open. “… and lastly my Lady Crew come out, and left the young people together. And a little pretty daughter of my Lady Wright’s most innocently come out afterward, and shut the door to, as if she had done it, poor child, by inspiration; which made us without, have good sport to laugh at.” The child was probably Anne Wright who would have been about seven years old – she later married Edmund Pye and was my 8th great grandmother.

On 17 January 1666 Pepys visited Dagenham again. “Lady Wright was very kind”, he wrote. Of her mother, he observed that she was “the same weake silly lady as ever, asking such saintly questions.”

There are at least 20 mentions of my ninth great grandmother in Pepys’s published diaries. From Pepys I have learned she could sing, play cards, and play billiards. She saw her family quite often, was very interested in fashion, and deplored the what she regarded as a lack of proper gallantry in men’s behaviour.

Sir Henry Wright (1637-1664), my ninth great grandfather, husband of Anne Wright nee Crew, is mentioned by Pepys at least 16 times. On 10 December 1663, “…calling at Wotton’s, my shoemaker’s, today, he tells me that Sir H. Wright is dying”. A couple of months later, on 5 February 1664, Wright passed away.

In the nearly ten years he kept his diary, Pepys spent much time with the family of his patron Edward Montagu. He often dined with John Crew, father-in-law of Edward; John Crew is mentioned at least  141 times. In 1665 Pepys helped to arrange the marriage of Edward’s daughter Jemima to Philip Cartaret.

I am delighted to have learned more about my forebears through Pepys observations.

Resource: A most useful website on the Diary of Sir Samuel Pepys:

Related PostBurke’s family records can be wrong

Burke’s family records can be wrong

Edward Mainwaring ad Jemima Pye

Double portait of Edward Mainwaring and Jemima Pye by Michael Dahl. The portrait hangs in the front hall of Whitmore Hall. Image from the book by Christine Mainwaring: From 1066 to Waltzing Matilda page 71

Many family historians rely on published pedigrees such as John Burke‘s 1833 Genealogical and Heraldic history of the commoners of Great Britain and Ireland. Unfortunately sometimes Burke got it wrong.

My Mainwaring forebears are included in Burke’s 1833 family records, a genealogy of the junior houses of British nobility, which records family origins, surnames, events, and locations of about 300 British families; some are accompanied by coats of arms. The records have been digitised and indexed by The incorrect relationships are included in at least 28 public family trees on, presumably based on Burke’s error.

The entry for my seventh great grandparents reads:

Edward Mainwaring, of Whitmore Hall, bapt. 25 Aug. 1681, m. 1st Jemima Pye, second dau. of Edmund Pye, of Farringdon, Berks (see Burke’s Landed Gentry), by Anne , his wife, dau. of Lord Crewe, of Stene, and by her, who was buried 22 August 1721, had issue, …

When I started to look at the text of the marriage settlement for Edward and Jemima I became a little confused. Burke’s has combined mother and daughter into one person: Jemima was the daughter of Anne Rider formerly Pye nee Wright (c 1660-1731) and granddaughter of Anne Wright nee Crew (1637-1707); Jemima was thus the great granddaughter of Lord Crewe of Stene, 1st Baron Crewe.

The settlement was dated 15 March 1708 and was between four groups of people:

  • Edward Mainwaring of Whitmore, only son and heir of Edward Mainwaring deceased by Bridgett his wife, of the first part;
  • The Right Honourable and Right Reverend Nathaniel Lord Crewe, Baron of Stene, and Bishop of Durham, Henry Pye of Faringdon Co. Berks Esquire and John Conyers of Walthamstowe Co. Essex Esquire, Executors of the will of Dame Anne Wright of Dagenham, of the second part,
  • Anne Rider late wife of Edmund Pye Esquire of Faringdon and Jemima Pye, the daughter of the said Anne Rider and Edmund Pye of the third part, and
  • the Honourable Edward Cartaret of the Middle Temple and Carew Hervey, alias Mildmay, of the fourth part.

Dame Anne Wright of Dagenham was the daughter of Lord Crewe of Stene. She was the sister of the Right Honourable and Right Reverend Nathaniel Lord Crewe, Baron of Stene, and Bishop of Durham. She died in 1707 and her will was proved on 24 March 1708. [The National Archives; Kew, England; Prerogative Court of Canterbury and Related Probate Jurisdictions: Will Registers; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 508]

Anne Crew, born about 1637, married Henry Wright on 23 March 1658. Wright was a physician, son of Laurence (Lawrence) Wright, also a physician, at one time physician to Lord Protector Oliver Cromwell. Laurence Wright died in 1658. Shortly afterwards, on 10 April 1658, Cromwell made Laurence’s son Henry a baronet. This honour was disallowed – it didn’t seem Wright – when the monarchy was restored in May 1660, but on 11 June 1660 Henry Wright was AGAIN created a baronet by King Charles II. Henry and Anne Wright had two children, Anne and Henry (1662-1681). Henry junior died unmarried and on his death the baronetcy became extinct.

Anne Wright, the daughter, married Edmund Pye on 4 March 1678/9 at St Giles in the Fields. Pye was a medical doctor, the son and heir of Sir Robert Pye of Faringdon, Berkshire. Edmund Pye was born in 1656 and died about 1703 of smallpox at Knotting, Oxfordshire. His wife Anne remarried, to William Rider or Ryder. She died in 1731. [Edmund Pye’s will probated 3 January 1704 PCC Will Registers; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 480. Anne Rider’s will probated 2 March 1731 PCC Will Registers; Class: PROB 11; Piece: 650]

Crewe Wright Pye tree


Edward Cartaret was Jemima Pye’s second cousin. He was youngest of four children. His mother died at the time of his birth. Edward’s father, Philip Cartaret, was killed in the Battle of Soleby when he was six months old, along with his maternal grandfather, Edward Montagu, Earl of Sandwich. Edward Cartaret, together with Carew Harvey, were provided for in the marriage settlement of Edward Mainwaring and Jemima Pye in the case of failure of male issue of the marriage.

Battle of Solebay

The Burning of the ‘Royal James’ at the Battle of Solebay, 28 May 1672. Painting by Willem van de Velde the Younger. Edward Montagu and Philip Cartaret were on board the ‘Royal James’ which was attacked by fire ships. Image retrieved through Wikipedia.

While I understand the family connection of Edward Cartaret, I am not sure how Carew Harvey alias Mildmay is related. He was a neighbour of Anne Rider formerly Pye nee Wright in Essex and was appointed Sheriff of Essex in 1712. Perhaps her estate of Dagnams was encumbered in some way to him.

I have not been able to find out much about William Rider. When Anne Rider formerly Pye nee Wright made her will in 1722 she described herself as the wife of William Rider and left him an annuity of one hundred pounds per year during his lifetime. She bequeathed one thousand pounds to her grand daughter Jemima Mainwaring as promised her son in law Edward Mainwaring. There were other bequests but her residuary legatee was her much esteemed friend and relation Edward Carteret, that is her first cousin once removed.

William Rider / Ryder and his wife Anne were involved in several court cases.

Plaintiffs: Jemima Pye, Mary Pye, John Pye, Penelope Pye and Isabella Pye.

Defendants: William Ryder, Anne Ryder his wife, [unknown] Pye and others.

Subject: personal estate of the deceased Edmund Pye of St Margaret, Westminster, Middlesex, Bedfordshire.

Plaintiffs: Emery Argus and another.

Defendants: William Ryder, Anne Ryder his wife, [unknown] Pye and others.

Subject: property in Westminster and Grafton, Middlesex and Oxfordshire.

Plaintiffs: Anne Rider (wife of William Rider, esq of Knotting, Bedfordshire, and formerly widow and sole executrix of Edmund Pye, esq deceased late of Knotting, Robert Packer, esq) and Henry Pye, esq of Faringdon, Berkshire (eldest son and heir of said Edmund Pye and Anne Pye).

Defendants: William Rider, esq, Edward Carteret, Carew Hervey alias Carew Mildmay, Thomas Watford senior and Thomas Watford junior

Plaintiffs: William Rider, esq of Knotting, Bedfordshire and Ann Rider his wife (late widow and executrix of Edmund Pye, esq deceased, late of Farrington, Berkshire).

Defendants: Edward Carteret, esq, Thomas Watford senior, Thomas Watford junior and Carew Harvey alias Carew Mildmay.

Plaintiffs: Ann Rider (wife of William Ryder, a defendant, by Robert Parker, esq) and Edmund Pye, esq.

Defendants: William Rider, esq and others.

William Rider was also involved in several other court cases.

Although John Burke’s genealogy made a small error in confusing the generations, overall it is a very useful source and a terrific starting point for tracing the family trees of the families he documented. The genealogies would have been painstakingly compiled and of course without the databases and digitised records we rely on today. As with anybody’s research, Burke’s genealogies need  to be verified against available documents which for this period include marriage settlements and wills. Perhaps also court cases.


DNA testing two years on

Two years ago I sent off a sample of my DNA for testing. When I first received the results, I was unable to make any connection between my tree and the trees of people with whom I shared DNA.

I have made some progress since, however, speeded up by more testing: I persuaded my father to have his DNA analysed by His results are interesting and will be very useful to my family history research.

He, of course, is one generation closer than I am to the ancestors revealed by DNA matches. The difference in the numbers of matches, however, is greater than I expected.

My father has 219 matches estimated to be 4th cousins or closer. Estimates of how closely a person is related to someone is based on how much DNA they share. I have only 74 matches  where I am estimated to be a 4th cousin or closer. I share 56 of these matches – 76%  – with my father. (AncestryDNA provides a tool to filter matches shared with your father.)

I am not surprised that the great majority of my matches are on my paternal side, for my mother’s family is from Germany, where DNA testing in family history research is comparatively uncommon.

My father has 546 pages of matches on AncestryDNA. I have 305 pages. He shares DNA with about 27,275 people on the AncestryDNA database. I share DNA with about 15,225. Assuming that the overall ratio of paternal to maternal matches is proportionally similar to matches for 4th cousins and closer, about 11,500 of my matches are paternal. This means that my father has more than twice as many matches as I have with people who descend from the same forebears.

In the inheritance process segments of DNA are divided unevenly. Sometimes a complete segment is inherited; sometimes no part of the segment at all is passed on. (The genetic genealogist Roberta Estes explains the difference between how much of an ancestor’s DNA we could share and how much we do share in a blog post at

No matter how children’s segments of DNA are divided when they are inherited, their parents have larger and more complete segments, and as a result have more matches, of better quality.

AncestryDNA identifies people with whom you share DNA and whose family trees include the same forebears. It may be that you and your match have inherited the matching DNA from these forebears.  AncestryDNA calls these shared ancestor hints. I have twelve shared ancestor hints on AncestryDNA. All these are paternal. One of these hints is with my father. Of the other 11,  two are not in common with my father. The tree matches are paternal but my father is not shown as having the same DNA.

Shared DNA matches June 2018

Family tree (Sun Chart generated through MyHeritage) showing the most recent common ancestors of shared DNA matches with Rafe and Anne (red text), with Rafe only (green text), and with Anne only (blue text).

Looking more closely at these matches I have but my father does not, I see that I share with one of these matches 6.1 centimorgans of DNA across one segment and with the other match I share 6.3 centimorgans across one segment. For one cousin we share 6th great grandparents and are 5th cousins once removed. The other cousin we share 4th great grandparents and are 5th cousins. Sharing 6 centimorgans is a very small amount of shared DNA. A centimorgan is a unit used to express the distance between two gene loci on a chromosome and it measures how likely the segment is to recombine as it passes from parent to child. I higher number of shared centimorgans means greater confidence in the match.

It is possible that I share DNA on my mother’s side with these two cousins and have the same people as ancestors on my father’s side, but the more likely explanation is that the AncestryDNA algorithms may have truncated the segments: these are in fact paternal segments. Examining the data for these two matches through GedMatch, FTDNA or MyHeritage could help provide some answers. These other three sites provide better information on where a person and a probable match share DNA.

My father has 22 shared ancestor hints: one hint with me, 9 shared with me and 12 hints where he has DNA matches with cousins and I do not. There are 12 cousins who have researched their family tree to the extent that they and I have identified shared ancestors. They are shown to share DNA with my father but they do not share DNA with me.

One of these shared matches is a third cousin once removed on the Chauncy line (my 4th cousin). My father and this cousin share 20.8 centimorgans shared across 3 DNA segments. AncestryDNA suggests I have no shared DNA: this match disappeared in one generation.

DNA Chauncy shared ancestor hint

(This cousin’s tree has only 11 people in it. We are lucky to have a shared ancestor hint.)

I have corresponded with several of my father’s matches. The smallest match with a shared ancestor hint has 6.4 centimorgans across 1 segment. She and my father are 5th cousins once removed. She grew up in the village of Caithness, Scotland, where our mutual forebears lived. Her father still lives there. She has researched further back on that line, and I look forward to learning more about these of my forebears from her.

Unfortunately, very few of my father’s matches with hints have uploaded their DNA elsewhere, and this limits our ability to make new discoveries. Uploading the DNA data from to these other sites (GedMatch, MyHeritage, Family Tree DNA) is free and is not hard to do.

One of the nice things one can do with the information one gets from these other sites and not through, is you can attribute segments of your DNA to particular matches. For this attribution you need information about your shared ancestors and the numerical information provided by the testing company for each match so you can visualise it on your chromosomes. The application is called DNA Painter ( )


DNA Painter Profile 2018 06 26 for Rafe de Crespigny

Only a few matches have uploaded their data or tested with sites that have details of how the DNA is shared. I have managed to paint, ie attribute inherited DNA to particular ancestors, for just under 10% of my father’s DNA so far using DNA painter.


Despite the limited data provided by, there is still much more analysis for me to do within the AncestryDNA database.