Ooh la la, The plot thickens or thins. Don't you want to know about the new DNA results for 59830, matching 12/12 to 4163? 4163 is from Peter, son of James (d.1748, md. Margaret Vivion), son of Capt. Wm of Middlesex. 59830 is from Charles, another son of James (down through the Stith connection). So that's two matching sons for James, proving the line up to James! I feel the discrepancy still exists for Middlesex DNA, i.e. the results for the other set (40078, 20230, 20231), representing Chesley and Josiah, sons of James of Albemarle, son of Robert (d.1720, md. Margaret Price), son of Capt. Wm. (I don't list my James 49481 because he fits in by heavy evidence and matching DNA, not by that desired irrefutable document. Same for the tests 20207 and 13086, we don't know how tightly they would match at 37 markers, obviously a great chance, but no guarantees, hope they'll upgrade someday). This set of tests confirms the line back to James of Albemarle, the next generation is by records, so we need another son of Robert to prove him (or it could turn out to tie him to the other set). Depending on your evaluation of the record evidence tying James of Albemarle to Robert of Middlesex, it's still a fabulous mystery. All these men were called sons, they all received equal inheritances, there's no hint in the records that says they aren't sons, the land tracking is solid for all of them, and so on. Here's my take on the three men and where a paternity break might come in, going back latest to earliest, would love to hear any other ideas or possibilities: 1. If it's James of Albemarle, I think it would just have to be a flat out adoption or illegitimacy. He did leave Middlesex very early, but had been a regular member of the family there, registered his children's births, owned inherited land, etc. He looks certain to be the youngest child and there's no gap between him and previous children (as in a possible child taken in later). More importantly, his birth is registered by his parents. It is the one that says 1709, sitting plunk alone in the middle of all the 1707 births, yet in the correct month and day order (I think it really could just be an error for 1707). I have looked at the original, it is as described, 1709, the nine is larger but not terribly out of whack and it does not look like a correction over another number or some such. 2. If it's James (d.1748, md. Margaret Vivion), it would probably have to turn around him being a son or pregnancy brought into the marriage by Jochebed. He's called and treated equally to the other sons in the records. However, I think James' age has been estimated incorrectly, I suspect by just sliding him into a seemingly empty 1680-82 slot. But he served on jury duty on the "first Munday in July 1700" (Msex OB3-351); that is a reliable proof of majority, so he's born by July of 1679. He also signed a petition in Oct of 1700, also had to be of age. But son Richard was listed as born (not baptized) in Sep of 1678, which would have to push James back. And if (I repeat, if) the daughter Mary who d. Sep 1678 was the infant at the time, that would push James back even earlier, making the idea possible. James was named executor of William's will in 1694, but that doesn't indicate majority, you could be named at any age, just couldn't start serving until the age of 17, so there's no help to his age there. As an aside, that James is older than thought also does two other things: a.) it makes the terms of Capt. Wm.'s will make a bit more sense, he confirmed previously deeded land to the oldest 2 sons William and Robert, had purchased land for James but said James could live at home until Jochebed died (suggesting to me James was the next in line to go), and then gave the homestead to Richard, i.e. I'm suggesting here that Richard is the youngest son who would be staying on the homestead with Mum longer anyway, but it could just be that they already knew Richard was going to be more of a "townie" and wouldn't need as much of the land; b.) it makes more sense of Capt. William's time line, it's not likely he waited around long to marry with the first two young boys in tow, but without further evidence of when their mother died or other children who might have died in between, the time frame between wives can only be by speculation. 3. If it's Robert (d.1720), then it would also seem to be a flat out adoption or illegitimacy. He's always treated equally to his brother William, they each were deeded land at the same time as "my loving sonne", it was confirmed in Capt. Wm.'s will, etc. This is where we desperately need another of Robert's sons descendants to test. So far I've had either no response from contacts I've made or declines. I'm still always working on tracking someone else down but it's getting tougher and tougher! I'm also having no great luck so far finding current descendants of Richard (d.1727 Essex VA) or of William Jr. (d.1723 Msex). Just some further DNA adventures and info: I've always been tracking other surnames that match, looking for a possible different father for any one of these guys: For a long time there was an interesting 11/12 match for James 4163 with the Guthrie family of Middlesex. But the new 59830 showed a complete breakdown, no real match after all. It would have been weird anyway because the Guthries were neighbors in William Jr. and Robert's area, not Capt. Wm. and James' area. There are also some 12/12 matches for this test for the George, Price and Wood names, no known ties to Msex described, but those are candidate surnames. For the other set (James of Albemarle), I've found an 11/12 with the surname Parrott of England (a good candidate surname, not enough info given on this line to know if there are ties to VA), and a very late Ware from KY. There is, however, an amazing match to the James of Albemarle tests with a Sorenson test for a PA Daniels family. Of the 27 markers the two labs test in common, it's a perfect match. A big however to this is that the Sorenson 27 markers don't include some major ones that FTDNA uses. Anyway, that family line goes back to a John Daniel born in Ireland, came to Chester PA in early 1700s, d.1759. I found a descendant from this line, who may or may not be the one who tested with Sorenson, they don't facilitate contact. I plan to contact this guy shortly with hope he'll consider doing the 37 test at FTDNA. One would think this would be helpful in pushing back into the old country if the match holds, but Irish records are so tough. I'm also still tuned in to my idea that Capt. Wm. may come out of the Middlesex/Surrey area, passing through London, so in my current vision that other line would have to represent a branch's later migration to Ireland. So the hunt goes on. Just hope i can find the right tester to answer all this before I shuffle off, yada yada, and so on. Happy summertime to all! Pam in CA

Morning! Always, always a correction: The very last paragraph about a possible Sorenson match - wrong paper, wrong branch, not a match at all! Can't even describe what was going on in my brain at the time. Apologies big time! Pam in CA P. A. Miller wrote: [snip] > Just some further DNA adventures and info: > There is, however, an amazing match to the James of Albemarle tests with > a Sorenson test for a PA Daniels family.