• Welcome to this forum . We are a worldwide group with a common interest in Birmingham and its history. While here, please follow a few simple rules. We ask that you respect other members, thank those who have helped you and please keep your contributions on-topic with the thread.

    We do hope you enjoy your visit. BHF Admin Team

Iommi family

I found these two on my dna matches.
Debbie doesn’t seem to have any Italian in her thou which is odd.
But Giuseppe has a lot. Could possible be on that tree you found, I’ll try and drop them a message
I thought the surname was similar.
Also there are only two regions that come up on my DNA which are
southeast Lazio and Frosinone province. Im sure you mentioned one of them when referring to Luciano
 

Attachments

  • CAA0527A-FE43-4B3F-9551-AA5B8CDC4FD3.jpeg
    CAA0527A-FE43-4B3F-9551-AA5B8CDC4FD3.jpeg
    334.1 KB · Views: 4
Last edited:
Suzanneiom said:
I found these two on my dna matches.
Debbie doesn’t seem to have any Italian in her thou which is odd.
But Giuseppe has a lot. Could possible be on that tree you found, I’ll try and drop them a message
I thought the surname was similar.
Also there are only two regions that come up on my DNA which are
southeast Lazio and Frosinone province. Im sure you mentioned one of them when referring to Luciano
Click to expand...

I find DNA fascinating, I am bit sceptical about some of the results at times though.

Frosinone is a province in the Lazio region of Italy. As I mentioned in the Italians in Bham thread it seems to be the origin of a fair number of the Italians that came to Bham.

I can't see the tree but it appears to stop at Luciano and Elizabeth Bradburn, so I don't think you'd learn anything further back from them, though they might shed light on Luciano in Cheshire.
 
There are 3 trees with Violet Mary Peck listed. (He is listed as Louchiano). One only has 18 people and doesn't help much. Another is private and seems to quite extensive but may be more about other parts of the family.
 
I think without further records becoming available online then your Italian ancestry is probably at a bit of a dead end atm.

It would be interesting to see what Luciano recorded on his marriage to both Elizabeths to see if it the info matches and what he put as his marital status on the second. I wonder if his second family new about his first.

Also Elizabeth Smith is a bit of an unknown before her marriage, we have her dob (which led me on a bit of wild goose chase to Coventry) and some relatives but going back would be just guess work to a degree. I have a likely candidate that matches most of what we know but with Smith I can't be certain.
 
Are you finding it difficult to trace Elizebeth before her children and marriages because of the smith name? also do you suspect she married Foster, while she was still married (but split) so she put widow? or could be the case it is the wrong Luciano and he did in fact pass away.
when he had his other children he would of been quite an age then.
 
Yes, there are lots of them born around the same time.

It wouldn't surprise me that she listed herself as a widow without knowing if Luciano was alive or not or even she knew he was alive. It wasn't an infrequent occurrence and who was going to check in those days. The chances of someone finding out would have been slim, especially if she knew he was no longer in the city. She may not have even told Alfred Foster (or Frank Barker) the truth

Elizabeth gives her dob as 16 Nov 1875 in 1939 and her father was a Henry Smith. On her marriage to Luciano her mother is listed as Elizabeth. On the 1911 and 1921 census she has a niece, Margaret, living with her.

She also has a sister, Jane, but when she marries she gives her mother's name as Mary Ann. This would imply that Elizabeth & Jane were not full sisters and neither were daughters of Henry' wife, Phoebe (1901 census).

I have found an Elizabeth birth reg. Dec 1875 Bham mmn Silvester. There is a Henry Smith that marries an Elizabeth Silvester and he is a widow in 1881. They also appear to have a son, Henry, who has a daughter named Margaret who was born about the right time as Elizabeth's niece.

Unfortunately, Elizabeth is not with Henry in 1881. This is not surprising, the young daughter of a recently widowed man may be with relatives. To find her though is difficult and I'm not sure where any of them are in 1891.
 
Last edited:
MWS said:
Yes, there are lots of them born around the same time.

It wouldn't surprise me that she listed herself as a widow without knowing if Luciano was alive or not or even she knew he was alive. It wasn't an infrequent occurrence and who was going to check in those days. The chances of someone finding out would have been slim. She may not have even told Alfred Foster (or Frank Barker) the truth

Elizabeth gives her dob as 16 Nov 1875 and her father was a Henry Smith. On her marriage to Luciano her mother is listed as Elizabeth. On the 1911 and 1921 census she has a niece, Margaret, living with her.

She also has a sister, Jane, but when she marries she gives her mother's name as Mary Ann. This would imply that Elizabeth & Jane were not full sisters and neither were daughters of Henry' wife, Phoebe (1901 census).

I have found an Elizabeth birth reg. Dec 1875 Bham mmn Silvester. There is a Henry Smith that marries an Elizabeth Silvester and he is a widow in 1881. They also appear to have a son, Henry, who has a daughter named Margaret who was born about the right time as Elizabeth's niece.

Unfortunately, Elizabeth is not with Henry in 1881. This is not surprising, the young daughter of a recently widowed man may be with relatives. To find her though is difficult and I'm not sure where any of them are in 1891.
Click to expand...
Id love to know...I guess if you upped and left back then there would be no way of tracking you down. Its strange as Alexandra im sure never mentioned that her dad wasn't present or anything like that, just that her mom did have lots of men, and that she only had half siblings. Who knows.

so from what I read above, Elizabeths sister has a different mother, her sister Jane is the one who married into the Vecchia surname (can't remember the correct spelling) the other parts you've put I am alittle confused with this bit of the tree but not to worry.
 
Some years later but the husband of my great aunt left her and when she wanted to re-marry she put a notice in the newspapers in the area where she thought he was to make him appear in court so she could divorce him.

It's not easy to understand what people thought in the past and what they would say to cover up 'scandals'. And stories change over time as people mis-remember.

Without a definite birth for Elizabeth everything is circumstantial. If her name was less common or she came from a smaller place you could probably take a chance on buying a birth certificate. Trying to find the right Elizabeth Smith could be costly.
 
hi suzanne yes in those days we certainly could not believe all that was written on any documents/census papers... sometime during the 1870s my gt gt grandfather abandoned his wife and 2 young children in ladywood birmingham.. on the 1881 and 1891 she put down that she was a widow probably to save face as she did not want people to know he had left her.. but try as i may i could not find a death for her hubby...after much searching he was found on the 1901 census in yorkshire with another wife and i think 4 other children..i ordered his first marriage cert and his 2nd one and all the info on both including his signature were identical all except for the part where he states he is single which of course he was not...this served as a reminder to me not to believe all we read...ps i bet that after about 140 years he never thought i would come along and find him out :D when you are stuck always think outside the box

lyn
 
Astoness said:
hi suzanne yes in those days we certainly could not believe all that was written on any documents/census papers... sometime during the 1870s my gt gt grandfather abandoned his wife and 2 young children in ladywood birmingham.. on the 1881 and 1891 she put down that she was a widow probably to save face as she did not want people to know he had left her.. but try as i may i could not find a death for her hubby...after much searching he was found on the 1901 census in yorkshire with another wife and i think 4 other children..i ordered his first marriage cert and his 2nd one and all the info on both including his signature were identical all except for the part where he states he is single which of course he was not...this served as a reminder to me not to believe all we read...ps i bet that after about 140 years he never thought i would come along and find him out :D when you are stuck always think outside the box

lyn
Click to expand...
That's crazy that it, and really interesting at the same time, it seems it was so easy to up and leave, and start again without anyone really knowing anything unless you told them. As a novice really doing this family tree I didn't even think about documents being wrong, changing of surnames and people lying.
 
Lies and mistakes can lead you on wild goose chases. Just one instance of a name, a place or a date can be a nightmare. Corroboration is everything.

On one census a 2 x g grandfather was listed as John Moore born Dorking in Surrey, he turned out to be an Adam Moore born Docking in Norfolk.

However, saying that only on one census was a 2 x g grandmother listed as being born in Wolverhampton (all others Redditch) and it was that one that turned out to be correct. She wasn't registered under her name either. I was pleased with myself when what I suspected was correct.
 
MWS said:
Lies and mistakes can lead you on wild goose chases. Just one instance of a name, a place or a date can be a nightmare. Corroboration is everything.

On one census a 2 x g grandfather was listed as John Moore born Dorking in Surrey, he turned out to be an Adam Moore born Docking in Norfolk.

However, saying that only on one census was a 2 x g grandmother listed as being born in Wolverhampton (all others Redditch) and it was that one that turned out to be correct. She wasn't registered under her name either. I was pleased with myself when what I suspected was correct.
Click to expand...
so you've managed to crack your family tree then, although you've had stumbling blocks.
I guess no one knew we would be looking them up in 100 plus years.
 
  • Appreciate
Reactions: MWS
Sometimes it was fairly straight forward and sometimes it took years to work something out and then only when new records came online.

Here is a thread I started about my 2 x great grandmother and you can see a message almost 10 years later when I worked it out...

MWS

Thread 'Tricky Ancestors'

Hello,

I'm just wandering what people do when they come across ancestors that they are not 100% certain about. How sure do you have to be before deciding you've got the right person?

I have a great great grandmother who I have been tracing and I have a circumstantial evidence but atm I can't say I'm totally certain about her though I think I've got the right woman. Her name is Elizabeth King and she married my great great grandfather Thomas John Brownhill on 21 Dec 1884 at St Peter & St Paul, Aston. Her father was listed as William King.

In the 1891 census she is living with her husband...
  • Appreciate

Eventually though every line ends in a brick wall.
 
Last edited:
Suzanneiom said:
That's crazy that it, and really interesting at the same time, it seems it was so easy to up and leave, and start again without anyone really knowing anything unless you told them. As a novice really doing this family tree I didn't even think about documents being wrong, changing of surnames and people lying.
Click to expand...
we all started out at novices..i have only been researching for myself and helping others for about 17 years and have at least 5 different mysteries still under unsolved (4 of them for other people)..one of them is a more recent one regarding my uncle born abt 1912/13 who married moms sister in 1950..i cant find a birth for him and i dont know where he was born but from his accent it was not birmingham..family whisperings are he was a bare knuckle fighter and moved around with the circus and was a bit of a jack the lad and he never mentioned he had any family ie siblings..on his marriage cert he gives the name of his father and fathers occupation but how do i know that that info is the truth as i cant find a possible father for him either...family also said they think before marrying my aunt he had another family somewhere so was he already married or maybe lived with someone..could be possible as he married my aunt when he was 38...so in a nutshell all i have is his marriage and death cert and family gossip...so many questions but so few answers and every now and then i do go back to him just in case but sometimes we just have to accept that we cant always crack every mystery...having said all that its the thrill of the chase that most of us enjoy :D :D

lyn
 
Last edited:
With your uncles death certificate, did he die here in brum? Do you know where he is buried?
I can’t believe all these men having multiply families…. I guess you really could get away with it back then.
 
All family trees have these problems to work out - women who have illegitimate children who take their step father's name, or put their grandfather's name (or that of another relative) as their father's on their marriage certificate. Children who have the right parents but are born (some times years) before they marry. Spouses abandoning families and re-marrying bigamously, as we have seen.

Then it's wrong place, names, ages etc. Not all deliberate, some honest mistakes in an age when the majority were illiterate.

All these things can throw you off and you can see these mistakes often in other people's trees where they take things at face value and don't corroborate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top