As this explains, there is no proof to back up your assertion about Jamie Lee Curtis. My own daughters are named Shawn and Kelley. Names do not a gender make. Glenora Davenport Chamberlin http://www.snopes2.com/movies/actors/jamie.htm

Excuse my ignorance, if it applies, but unless you know that to be a fact about Jamie Lee Curtis I found that remark uncalled for. Please, if you have documentation for this, let us see it. If not, consider other wording. Glenora Davenport Chamberlin >Well, I'll try again. Humans have two sex chromosomes. In the female, >there are two Xs. The male has one X and one Y. No normal female has a >Y chromosome, therefore if you are a normal female, you won't have any Y >chromosome at all to be analyzed. (There are some females who have a Y, >they can look very much like a normal female (e.g. Jamie Lee Curtis), >but they are always sterile). The DNA tests are being done on the Y >chromosome. Anyone who is a direct lineal male to male Davenport >descendant will carry the Y of the original progenitor. The small Y is >easy to analyze and can tell us if two males come from the same male >progenitor. So the only hope for you to be placed into any of these >lines is for you to find a male cousin named Davenport and have him >tested. I had to do that also, since my grandmother was the Devenport >in my line, so my Y DNA wouldn't be from a Devenport, but from a Banks. > >This doesn't mean you don't have any DNA from your Davenport ancestors. >Of course, you do. But because the Y is the only autosome that doesn't >get mixed over the generations, it is the only one that can be used for >these genetic tests. > >Mitochondrial DNA can also be used for genealogy testing. This is >inherited almost exclusively from the mother. However, there are only a >relatively few types of mitochondrial DNA, especially in Europe, so it >makes it less useful. Both males and females can be used for this >testing. > >

Davenport, James Dwight (19 Aug 1969 - 16 Sept 1969) (lousivlle ky) DAVENPORT, Lester born 1877; died 1904 DAVENPORT, Earnest - buried Dec. 19, 1918, age 37 1. 1855 - ____ 2. Florence Davenport-1870-1927- At Rest. Davenport, Harlen P. 23 Rardin, Willie A. 22 Dec 5, 1908 Davenport, Nealy fw 34(d) tennessee nc tennessee (1860 ashe co nc) (LOUISVILLE,KY JEFFERSON CO) Davenport, Harlen P. 23 Rardin, Willie A. 22 Dec 5, 1908 ( GREENUP CO KY) Davenport, James Dwight (19 Aug 1969 - 16 Sept 1969) (lousivlle ky) DAVENPORT, Lester born 1877; died 1904 DAVENPORT, Earnest - buried Dec. 19, 1918, age 37 1. 1855 - ____ 2. Florence Davenport-1870-1927- At Rest. 1. 1. ( STILL GOING THRU LIST SORRY FOR THE MESS MY DUAGHTER DECIDED TO REDECORATE MY PAPERS..LOL) PAM

unsubscribe

Hey, take your pick of Oliver's, I have 9, here's what I have: Oliver Davenport b. 1367 Bromhall, Cheshire, England, s/o John & Alice Bromhall, married Unknown Oliver Davenport b. 1723 Westchester, NY s/o Thomas & Elizabeth Leggett, married Hannah Soby (there is no Hannah Seeley, see previous posts re: Eunis Seeley Will) Oliver Davenport b. 1777 s/o Thomas & Charity Lamoreaux, married Unknown Oliver Davenport b. 1799 Etna, Tompkins Co, NY (son of Unknown), married Nancy Burlingham Oliver Davenport b. ? s/o Thomas & Mary Bronson, married Livia Ransom Oliver Davenport b. 1712/13 Little Compton, RI s/o Thomas & Catherine Woodworth, married Sarah Macomber Oliver Davenport b. 1760 s/o Oliver & Sarah Macomber, married Unknown Oliver James Davenport b. 1843 s/o Oliver & Nancy Burlingham, married Louisa Bowen Oliver b. 1804 s/o Daniel & Hannah Rice, married Mary Green I have further information on most of these Oliver's.......Teri

I have three Oliver Davenport's in my tree. One Oliver Davenport, son of Thomas Davenport and Elizabeth Leggett, married Hannah Seeley, July 12, 1747 in New York and the other Oliver Davenport, b. 1777, son of Thomas Davenport and Charity Lamoreaux, Married Hannah Sobee, is this correct? Or do I have my info. wrong? Thanks. Sandy

Names Locality Record Type Dates Davenport, David v. John Wilkenson Caroline County Judgment 1778 i found this on a virgina site,Names Locality Record Type Dates Names Locality Record Type Dates the library of virginia ... pam

On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 16:09, [email protected] wrote: My cousin is 3 off from the Albemarles, only 2 off from Thomas. Makes me think they all diverged back in England. I have other cases in my family where one cousin went to New England, another to Virginia. > > As to your cousin being two off from Thomas of Dorchester, etc... - I > haven't compared it one-on-one yet to see which looks closer but his ancestors did > come from the North Carolina area. That is Albemarle territory. The Thomas line > generally stayed in the New England area. > > Hope this helps. > > Bill Davenport > [email protected] > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Well, I'll try again. Humans have two sex chromosomes. In the female, there are two Xs. The male has one X and one Y. No normal female has a Y chromosome, therefore if you are a normal female, you won't have any Y chromosome at all to be analyzed. (There are some females who have a Y, they can look very much like a normal female (e.g. Jamie Lee Curtis), but they are always sterile). The DNA tests are being done on the Y chromosome. Anyone who is a direct lineal male to male Davenport descendant will carry the Y of the original progenitor. The small Y is easy to analyze and can tell us if two males come from the same male progenitor. So the only hope for you to be placed into any of these lines is for you to find a male cousin named Davenport and have him tested. I had to do that also, since my grandmother was the Devenport in my line, so my Y DNA wouldn't be from a Devenport, but from a Banks. This doesn't mean you don't have any DNA from your Davenport ancestors. Of course, you do. But because the Y is the only autosome that doesn't get mixed over the generations, it is the only one that can be used for these genetic tests. Mitochondrial DNA can also be used for genealogy testing. This is inherited almost exclusively from the mother. However, there are only a relatively few types of mitochondrial DNA, especially in Europe, so it makes it less useful. Both males and females can be used for this testing. On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 13:39, Winifred Auch wrote: > Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > > > Don't you have any male Davenport cousins? You could sponsor them to be > tested. > > My father's brother and sister married in their forties and had no > children. > > My father did have 5 Uncles (Davenport) one of which was somewhat known > since he had written some music which still shows up in some catalogs > (London). > Therefore, following that thought it is more than likely that the 5 Uncles > had children some of whom were boys. > Tracing all that is not exactly impossible, but very VERY hard to do. > (G) Most of all, it is time-consuming which at this time, I don't have a > lot of due to my husband's recent surgery. > Still, I'll do my best to get into it. > > Its been explained to me here at least 3 times, but I still can't see why > "my blood' ain't good enough. <vbg> Sorry, just thickheaded - now > that would be coming from my German mother. > > > On Thu, 2003-06-26 at 20:06, Winifred Auch wrote: > > Message text written by INTERNET:[email protected] > > >The Rev. John Davenport was perhaps the best known of the several > > Davenports > > that arrived in America in the 1600s. His line is well researched and > dates > > > > back at least to Orme de Auceporte around 1086 in England. Over the years > > there > > has much speculation that all or most of these Davenports were in some > way > > related. > > > > Now we have more ammunition. > > > > The sample from kit # 9415 (Rev. John) has an exact match with the > > Albemarle > > Davenport line. It also has a 24/25 match with the Thomas of Dorchester > > line.<<<<<<<<<< > > > > Comment: I have a Rev. Thomas Davenport and his two sons, Rev. John > > Davenport and Rev. Samuel Davenport. (1700s) in my ancestry - all born > in > > England.. > > > > (Un)fortunately I'm not a man so I can't be checked out genetically. > <g> > > > > Winn > >< > > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237

Could you and I email each other on the Seely family? here is my email [email protected] Janet Ariciu ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 5:18 AM Subject: Re: [DAVENPORT] US Davenports > Hello- > Hannah Soby/Seeley has been a puzzlement to many for quite some time. I heard > she was born a Soby, biological daughter of Trustum Soby & Hannah Griffin. > She was alledgedly later adopted for unknown reasons by Ebenezer Seeley. I'd > also heard she was a full-blooded Delaware Native American. > The confusion came about due to the Will of Eunice Seeley. A man was kind > enough to send me some info to clear this matter up. It turns out that Hannah was > a Soby and never a Seeley at all. Hannah's father Trustum was not of the > Delaware Nation at all, but of English descent. > With the permission of administration, I'd like to post this information, > after I've received permission from my source. Please let me know if it would be > alright to post such...Teri > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

Thanks Bill, that's what I thought. I typed it out, posted it on list and offered to send copies to anyone interested. Teri

Russ, As no one has replied to your message below, I will try to. As your wife and I are both descendents of Thomas of Dorchester we have something in common. Also monitoring this channel are others who carry Thomas blood. Mine is through Jonathon the second son. I have never visited the Davenport homes you refer to and would appreciate more detail. In respect to your query on the English connection, there has been little real progress beyond suppositions until yesterday. As has been discussed here, the last DNA analyses show clearly that Thomas was a close relative to the Reverend John Davenport of Boston and New Haven. As we know that the reverend was a known descendent of Orme Davenport of Cheshire we can thus deduce that Thomas was too. There is much to do yet before the fog clears, but this is real progress. Regards Bob Davenport San Diego ----- Original Message ----- From: "notrya" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2003 3:56 PM Subject: [DAVENPORT] Thomas Davenport > Ran across this Davenport spot the other day. I had done, in the eighties, the research on my wife's Davenport line back to Thomas of Dorchester. We saw the historically-designated four Davenport homes in Milton, MA, and even went through the John Davenport home built in 1706. > I've always wondered whether anybody had been able to find material on Thomas's origins back in England. Today's email made some reference to that, but is there more informayion available? Russ Ayrton > > > > > > > > > > homes in Milton, MA, even went through son, John's > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== > For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > > ============================== > To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >

In a message dated 6/27/2003 4:59:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Its been explained to me here at least 3 times, but I still can't see why "my blood' ain't good enough. <vbg> Sorry, just thickheaded - now that would be coming from my German mother. Winn: I noticed your comment in your last message. I presume you were talking about why you can't participate in the DNA project. It's not that your "blood' ain't good enough". It's because you are a female. When your father and mother had kids - each child received an equal number of chromosomes from your mother and father. It's kind of a random mix so each child may have different features from the mother and others from the father. One pair of chromosomes is different. The sex chromosomes. Females have XX, males have XY. Like the other chromosomes the child will get half a pair from each parent. The mother can offer one of her X's. The father offers either the X or the Y. If an X comes from the father then the child has XX which would make it a female. If the Y comes from the father the child is male - XY. It is this Y chromosome, that only males have, that is being tested. The Y chromosome is passed down from father to son, generation after generation, virtually unchanged. That is why we use it. Your son would have his father's Y chromosome - which would not represent the Davenport line. If you had brothers, or Davenport uncles or their sons - that would work. Or you could go up a generation and follow down a male line. There is a test for females - mtDNA. The mtDNA is passed from mother to her children. The male will have it but cannot pass it onto his children. This is not used as much because it is much harder to tract the female side of the family due to name changes, etc... Bill Davenport [email protected] Davenport Surname DNA Project Administrator

There is several davenports i will list them and email every one with them. I remember a robert. -- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Jo Lynn Davenport" <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:42:38 -0600 >Pam: >Are any of those Kentucky Davenports you mentioned named Richard who was in that state before 1815? I think I've found my Richard in Caldwell County, but I'm always up for more! >Jo Lynn > > > >==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > >

Teri: I don't think Rootsweb allows you (or gives you the ability) to include pictures or attach documents to the mailing list. You may have to put it on your webpage. Bill [email protected] In a message dated 6/27/2003 1:52:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: I couldn't figure out how to go from a .jpg file to the board without an attachment, so I'm typing it. If anyone would like a copy, please just ask...Teri

In a message dated 6/27/2003 2:53:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: do have a question, though. It would appear that #9573 indeed belongs to the Humphrey genetic pool, but 4/25 off in 400 years? Isn't that supposed to be too much? I had interpreted the fact that my cousin (#8305) was off by 2 from the Thomas line to mean the connection had to be back in England before the emigration, but if a descendant of Humphrey could be 4 off, then this would be out the window and we could be descended from Thomas or even John or the Albemarles. What do the people at FTDNA say about the odds of this? Do they have alternative theories (maybe a separate line of Davenports going way back in England from which the Humphreys came)? Gordon: Good question. I was waiting for someone to call me on that. It is a judgment call on my part. Here is my rationale for # 9573 belonging to the Humphrey Davenport line despite being only a 21 of 25 match.. ----- 1. The participant's name is Davenport. That is important. The name came from somewhere and usually it is passed down through the generations. (I am not talking about Davenport vs. Devenport). 2. The combination this DNA sample had was rare - very uncommon. When I compared the results to three online databases - the closest match to a non Humphrey Davenport I got was 13 of 25. When I compared the results for each marker to a statistical analysis on ybase.org (ie - 71% of the samples had a value of 12 on DYS # 388) - kit # 9573 had the most common number of six of 25 markers. You cousin # 8305, as with many of us, had the most common value on 22 of the 25 markers. After the first Humphrey results came in, I spent 1/2 hour on the phone with the president of FTDNA discussing it. He said the value of 20 on DYS # 385b has never been recorded by the lab before. The usual values are 13, 14, or 15. They retested it and it stayed the same. The two documented Humphreys have a 20, # 9573 had 19. Less than 1% of the samples at ybase had a 19. The rule of thumb is that when the name or DNA sample is rare and the timing and location are right then we can assume there is a connection. We have a very uncommon Davenport DNA coming from New Jersey where known Humphrey descendants settled and the DNA is a close match to known Humphreys. 3. There has been recent documentation reporting that some markers mutate faster than others. So when comparing results we now have to take into account which are the "mismatches". Three of the four differences between Humphrey and the "potential" Humphrey are on the "faster moving" markers. We need to be a little more lenient. 4. Remember - the mutations (changes) are rare and random. In ten generations the odds are highest for no or one mutation But 2, 3, or even 4 are not impossible - just very unlikely. ----- Another possibility is that # 9573 is descended from an ancestor or cousin of Humphrey. I'm not going to get into that. ----- As to your cousin being two off from Thomas of Dorchester, etc... - I haven't compared it one-on-one yet to see which looks closer but his ancestors did come from the North Carolina area. That is Albemarle territory. The Thomas line generally stayed in the New England area. Hope this helps. Bill Davenport [email protected]

Ran across this Davenport spot the other day. I had done, in the eighties, the research on my wife's Davenport line back to Thomas of Dorchester. We saw the historically-designated four Davenport homes in Milton, MA, and even went through the John Davenport home built in 1706. I've always wondered whether anybody had been able to find material on Thomas's origins back in England. Today's email made some reference to that, but is there more informayion available? Russ Ayrton homes in Milton, MA, even went through son, John's

- i hope this helps some... pam church 1820 CENSUS FOR STATE OF KENTUCKY, CASEY COUNTY (224-225) PAGES 224/225 ===================================================================================================================================== | FREE WHITE MALES |FREE WHITE FEMALES | |***********| M A L E | F E M A L E | FREE COLORED | |-----------------------|-------------------|FOR|OCCUPATIONS|---S L A V E S-|---S L A V E S |---M A L E S | Names of | 0| 10| 16| 16| 26| 45| 0| 10| 16| 26| 45|NOT| PEOPLE IN | 0 | 14| 26| 45| 0 | 14| 26| 45| 0 | 14| 26| 45| heads of families | -9|-15|-17|-25|-44| up| -9|-15|-25|-44| up|NAT|AGR COM MAN|-13|-25|-44| UP|-13|-25|-44| up|-13|-25|-44| up| William Deavenport 2 X X X 1 X X 3 1 1 X X 1 X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Deavenport 224-226-228 Geo Davenport x x x 1 x / x x 1 x x x x " John Davenport 2 2 x 1 x / 1 x x 1 x x x " " Wm Davenport x x x 1 x / 4 1 x 1 x x x " Thos Davenport x x x 1 x / 3 x x 1 x x x " Grandson of J.T. Carter: (John Tinsley Carter & Icalona Buckner - 2nd wife) Great Grandson of John E. Carter: (John Ellison Carter & Joanna Crutchfield Davenport) John Ellison Carter was the son of John "Jack" Carter and Martha Ann Alfred of Lincoln County. They were married there on December 21, 1832. Joanna Crutchfield Davenport was the daughter of Alexander "Alex" Davenport and Mary Lees Nield. They were married in Lincoln County, Kentucky (Stanford) on May 21, 1839. John Ellison Carter and Joanna Crutchfield Davenport were married in Boyle County on October 20, 1864. John Ellison Carter & Joanna Crutchfield Davenport had the following children: Ella Carter married Charlie Goodin Robert B. Carter married Zerelda Ann Vest Alexander W. "Dick" Carter married Annie Sharp Mattie Carter married Clay Harvey Vest John Tinsley Carter married 1st Fannie Gay Williams married 2nd Icalona Buckner 3 x x 1 x x x " --------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: "Jo Cooper" <[email protected]> Reply-To: [email protected] Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 17:12:51 -0400 >I am looking for the parents of the above mentioned William Davenport, he >was born 1731 in Richmond, VA and died ca. 1823 in Casey Co, KY. >Can anybody help? Thank you! > >_________________________________________________________________ >MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > >==== DAVENPORT Mailing List ==== >For instructions on unsubscribing or searching the list archives visit: >http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~nvjack/davnport/group.htm > >============================== >To join Ancestry.com and access our 1.2 billion online genealogy records, go to: >http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=571&sourceid=1237 > >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > >

Pam: Are any of those Kentucky Davenports you mentioned named Richard who was in that state before 1815? I think I've found my Richard in Caldwell County, but I'm always up for more! Jo Lynn

I am looking for the parents of the above mentioned William Davenport, he was born 1731 in Richmond, VA and died ca. 1823 in Casey Co, KY. Can anybody help? Thank you! _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus