On Monday, April 30, 2012 at 8:07:38 PM UTC-4, Brad Verity wrote: > On Apr 30, 3:29 pm, "mholl...@mac.com" <hollic...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Jasper was the son of William Tyrrell and Philipa Thornbury. > > Martin, thank you for the reply (and thank you to Douglas for > contacting you). Jasper may not have been the son of the couple > above. The William Tyrrell who was father of Jasper is said by HOP to > have died 28 September 1543, when he was succeeded by his grandson, > Edmund Tyrrell, who must have been returned as age 30 and more, so > born by 1513. HOP's source for this is William Tyrrell's IPM > (C142/71/98). > > > William > > in turn is the son of John Tyrrell and Alice Coggeshall.  The Tyrrells > > are outlined in “The Tyrells of England” by Oliver F. Brown > > (Phillimore, Chicester, Sussex, 1982). > > Sir John Tyrrell, Speaker of the House of Commons, was born about 1382 > and died in 1437. His first wife Alice Coggeshall died in 1422. The > youngest of their five sons was William Tyrrell of Beeches in > Rawreth. The latest date he could be born is 1422. He may be the > William Tyrrell who married Philippa Thornbury, but he most definitely > could not be the William Tyrrell (d. 1543) who was the father of James > (d. 1539), and grandfather of Edmund (c.1513-1576) and your Joan > Tyrrell, wife of Edmund Lewkenor (d. 1545) above. > > Cheers, -----Brad Brad, Martin, Douglas, others I came across this website which includes transcripts of a number of documents relating to EDWARD DE VERE, 17TH EARL OF OXFORD. A number of the documents pertain to the Tyrrell's and three wills in particular seem to cornfirm the parentage of Jasper Tyrrell was William Tyrrell and Philippa Thornbury unless I am interpreting them incorrectly. They are linked below and are present after some commentary by the author of the pages. The first is the will dated 16 March 1471, of Sir William Tyrrell of Beeches http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-5-167.pdf The second is the will dated 6 November 1576 and proved 29 November 1576, of Edmund Tyrrell of Ramsden Barrington, the son of Jasper Tyrrell and Anne Goring http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-58-499.pdf The third is the will dated 20 December 1493 and proved 28 November 1494, of John Tyrrell of Beeches, eldest son and heir of Sir William Tyrrell http://www.oxford-shakespeare.com/Probate/PROB_11-10-311.pdf There are a number of other documents on this site that may be useful to researchers on the newsgroup. Regards, Jordan Vandenberg

Hello all In 2004 there was a lengthy discussion about the identity of the mother of Nichola, wife of Thomas Chaworth.[1] To recap briefly, CP XI, 568, sub Scrope, says that she was the daughter and heir of Sir Gerard Braybroke, sheriff of Essex and Herts, 5 Nov. 1406. This Sir Gerard, who died in 1429, married Eleanor de St Amand. His father, Sir Gerard who died in 1403, married 1st Margaret Longueville, whose line became extinct on the death of their great-grandson Richard Beauchamp Lord St Amand; and 2nd Isabel Meynell - who is sometimes said to be Nichola's mother. But if CP is correct in identifying Nichola's father as Sir Gerard who was sheriff in 1406, Isabel Meynell obviously cannot be her mother. In 2004 Rosie Bevan suggested that Nichola could be the daughter of the Sir Gerard identified by CP, but by an unknown previous marriage. On chronological grounds, Nichola could not be the daughter of Eleanor de St Amand (who must have been born in 1370 at the earliest, since her parents were married in or before Feb 1368/9 according to CP), as Nichola herself was married in 1394. There is a reference to Sir Gerard Braybrook, living in 1428, in VCH Bedfordshire, sub Knotting, in connection with the Bossard family, who had been subtenants of the manor since the first quarter of the 13th century. Giles Bossard was the last to hold Knotting Manor, which at his death "appears to have been divided between two co-heirs, one of whom was the wife of Gerard Braybrook, who is recorded as holding the property in 1428 [Feud. Aids, i, 38] and who in the same year surrendered his right in the manor to the Dean and Chapter of St Paul's. [Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. ix, App. i, 40b.] The other was possibly Alice the wife of Richard Brounder, who with her husband quitclaimed her half-share in the manor to the Chapter of St. Paul's for 100 marks of silver in the same year.[Feet of F. Beds. 6 Hen. VI, no. 25.] [3] Probably the dean and chapter were acting as trustees for Sir Gerard Braybrook's granddaughter and heir Elizabeth Lady St Amand in her own right [G.E.C. Peerage], who is later found holding the manor with her husband Sir William Beauchamp. [Harl. R. H. 14; O. 41.]" Giles Bossard's date of death is not known, but a fn adds "it was probably before 1376, in which year the patronage of the church (which followed the same descent as the manor) was in the hands of Sir Gerard Braybrook." [2] It is evident from the reference to his granddaughter Elizabeth Lady St Amand that the Sir Gerard Braybrook in question is the one who d. in 1429. Could the Bossard co-heir be the unknown wife of Sir Gerard's suggested by Rosie Bevan? Since his known wife Eleanor de St Amand was born in 1370 at the earliest, I see no chronological objection to Sir Gerard's being married to the Bossard co-heir in 1376, when he would have been about 22 years old. If Nichola was his daughter by this marriage, and was born around the time of Giles Bossard's death, she would have been 18 or so in 1394, when she was married (or already married) to Thomas Chaworth. Notes: [1] CP Correction: Scrope-Chaworth-Braybrook, soc.genealogy. medieval, 2004 [2]'Parishes: Knotting', in A History of the County of Bedford: Volume 3, ed. William Page (London, 1912), pp. 139-142. British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/beds/vol3/pp139-142 [accessed 11 June 2016]. [3] http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/fines/abstracts/CP_25_1_6_78.shtml Regards Saba Risaluddin

On Tuesday, 31 May 2016 08:32:04 UTC+1, Peter Stewart wrote: > Anyone reading the article by Andrew MacEwan that was cited in the thread 'Re: Christine, natural daughter of King William the Lion of Scotland ?' will find this on p. 19: > > 'Matilda’s first marriage to Henry V, which did not require a dispensation, was in marked contrast to her second, to Geoffrey le Bel, count of Anjou, which did, as Chibnall shows in her biography of the Empress: “Whatever her personal wishes she finally acquiesced in her duty. In May 1127 she was escorted to Rouen by her brother Robert of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count for formal betrothal to Geoffrey of Anjou. Bishop Roger of Salisbury later complained that only they and John, bishop of Lisieux, were consulted about the marriage.” ... Only later in the book does Chibnall refer to the dispensation, “She had married into the house of Anjou, but she had also married a kinsman so close that papal dispensation had been necessary for the marriage to be valid.” [para] Neither Hollister in his *Henry I* nor Warren in his *Henry II* mentioned the dispensation, and Chibnall neglected to cite her source. Does any reader know its terms?' > > I'm not sure what MacEwan meant by 'Chibnall shows', since clearly he did not have proof from her work, but in any event there was no papal dispensation. Sorry if this is obvious to everyone, but how was Matilda related to Geoffrey of Anjou? I assume these historians thought she was, and so needed papal dispensation. If there wasnt dispensation given, maybe its cos they wernt closely related? keri

> Thanks for the response. Is Rev Robert Peck the same as the one in the will I mentioned? No, your person is a "Sir" Robert Peake, this was a Rev. Robert Peck. Robert Peck died in the mid-1650s, I believe.

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:59:02 AM UTC-7, Marcia via wrote: > Good day all! - This is my first post, but I have studied your posts for > years, researching the Maryland USA Gateway ancestors of my own: Digges, > Lowe, Brent, Brooke, Mainwaring, Calvert and Gerard. The recent proof of > Margaret Domville Hatton adds one more. I thank you for informative and > lively discussions. > > > > Here's another Gateway ancestor that needs further research and official > addiction to the 'list': Anne Fielder who m. (1) Thomas Gantt (in Hampshire > EN) and (2) Dr. John Wight (in Calvert County MD). > > > > Would anyone like to work with me on this? > > > > I purchased last year Colonial Chesapeake Families, British Origins and > Descendants, Vols. 1 & 2, by Dr. Harrison Dwight Cavanagh of Dallas, TX > (2014). His extensive research ties Anne Fielder to the English families of > Cole, Tipping, Dering, Waller, Archdeacon/l'Arcedekne, Weston, Gerard, Page, > Mainwaring, Cotton, and many more with whom we are all familiar. > > > > https://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/ebook/colonial-chesapeake-families-british > -origins-and-descendants-1 > > > > http://bookstore.xlibris.com/Products/SKU-000753362/colonial-chesapeake-fami > lies-british-origins-and-descendants.aspx > > > > The well-researched MD families of Gantt, Bradford, Wharton, Brooke and > Lancaster descend from this couple. (Myself, from Eleanor Bradford and > Raphael Lancaster Sr. of Prince George's County MD. Raphael was the son of > Capt. John Lancaster of Liverpool.) > > +++ > > Thomas Gantt, merchant and planter, was born 1630-1638 in (prob.) Bulwick > Parish, Northamptonshire, immigrating to Calvert County MD about Oct. 4, > 1653; transported as a "servant" (Calvert Maryland Patent Book 6, Folio > 126). He died before Jan 1692 (probate date, Calvert MD). > > > > Dr. Cavanagh cannot prove a deep (English) lineage for Thomas, but connects > Anne Fielder, Thomas's second wife, to the families mentioned above. > > > > Anne Fielder Gantt Wight, born c1662 in Hartley Wespall, County Hampshire, > and died before (probate date) May 26, 1726, in (now) Prince George's County > MD. She m. Dr. John Wight before April 22, 1697 as his second wife, the > first being Mary Gittings, daughter of John Gittings of Gedstone, Surrey (d. > Calvert County MD bef. probate date Feb 1676). > > > > Here is the truncated ancestral line for Anne Fielder, starting with: > > > > Generation One: Sir George Tipping > > Of Wheatfield/Whitfield, Oxon. c1564-1627/28, m. Dorothy Borlase/Burlace of > Little Marlow, Bucks. (1564-1637), daughter of Sir John Borlase Esq., M.P., > Bucks. and Anne Lytton (c1541-Jan 1621). > > > > Two children of Sir George and Dorothy Tipping: > > (1a) John Tipping (of Wheatfield Hall, c1590-1618) m. Anne Pigot/Pigott > (prob. Bucks. c1592-1617). Father of Sir Thomas Tipping, prominent > Parliamentarian during the English Civil War. > > (1b) Anne Tipping (bef 1590 -?) m. John Fielder, Heir of Burrough Court and > Polling Manor. (See next.) > > > > Generation Two: Anne Tipping Fielder > > >From Chesapeake Families: "John Fielder II, eldest son [of John] and heir to > Burrough Court and Polling Manor, Odiham Hundred, Hampshire, was born c1585. > He matriculated at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford University on 22 Oct 1602, aged > 17 years and died in September 1638 (Chan. Inq. p.m. [Ser. 2], 15 Charles > 1640, pt II no. 34). He married firstly about 1610 Anne TIPPING, eldest > daughter and heiress of Sir George Tipping (Typping) of Wheatfield Manor, > Oxfordshire. He married secondly Mary Pinke, widow of Robert Payne of > London, merchant." Issue from first marriage. > > > > The book does not determine the lineage of this John II Fielder, or his > (presumed) parents John I Fielder and Alice Cooke. > > > > He states: ". Fielders are numerous in the 16th and 17th century records in > Hampshire, especially in and around the environs of the ancient market town > of Petersfield. There are two armigerous branches of the family dating from > the mid-16th century registered in the various Visitations of Hampshire > (1530, 1575, 1624, 1686) emblazoning the same arms with no cadence > difference but without identifying earlier pedigree connections between > them. ....The Fielders of Burrough Court (Odiham Hundred) and their kin of > Cleer Place (Crundall Hundred) both used Field arms as fules,....No mottos > for either branch are recorded in the Visitations or in the College of > Arms." > > > > And, "John Fielder I was probably born c1530 and purchased Burrought Court > in 1561 from John Dale. At his death in 1620, the entailed manor passed to > his son John II who died testate in September 1628, and thence to his > grandson John III by 1640 (Inq. p.m. W. and L., 7 Jan 1 [1640] pt. ii, no. > 34). In 1699 John IV sold Burrough Court to Frederick TYLNEY of Rotherwick > (Feet of Fines, Hampshire Mich. II Will III). In 1596-1597, John I also > purchased the adjacent Manor of Polling from Robert Young, son of Nicholas > Young, died 1595; and at the death of John II in 1638, Polling was also > inherited by his son John III. In 1639-1640 John III sold part of Polling > Manor to Anthony Pickering and in 1649, part of Polling to his youngest > brother, William FIELDER, father of Ann Fielder GANTT. (Chan. Inq. p.m. > [Series 2] CCXLV, 56; ibid 15 Charles I; 59M87/48, RRO, Hampshire (1649). ." > > > > Children of John and Anne Tipping Fielder: > > (1) Susan Fielder born about 1610 m. John Bradley of Wokingham, > Berkshire > > (2) John Fielder III eldest son and heir to Burrough Court and > Polling Manors, Hampshire, gave his age to the Heralds in 1686 as 72 years > old (thus bc 1614). > > (3) Edward Fielder ESQ of Gray's Inn. > > (4) Capt. William Fielder, gent. Military Career, youngest son; d. > 1679. (See next.) > > > > Generation Three: Capt. William Fielder > > Born c1620 Hampshire, died abt. Oct 1679, buried Hartley Row Churchyard [?] > m. Margery COLE of Liss, Hampshire, (bef. Jul 31, 1697-buried Sep 9, 1699 > Hartley Row Churchyard. She was the daughter of Thomas COLE (c1573-1641) of > Liss, Hampshire, and Mary WALLER (c1595-c1672) of Beaconsfield, Bucks., dtr. > of Thomas WALLER ESQ (1546-Sep 1626 Beaconsfield), Justice of the Common > Pleas, and Dorothy GERARD (c1548-bef. Dec. 16, 1626) of Harrow-on-the-Hill, > Middlesex. > > > > Generation Four: Anne Fielder > > Daughter of Capt. William and Margery Cole Fielder: > > Anne Fielder who married Thomas Gantt (See above.) > > > > Would any researchers like to help by adding to, corroborating or disputing > any findings in these lines, per Dr. Cavanagh's book? It is the FIELDER line > that goes deep into familiar ancestral lines. > > > > Thanks to all - I welcome any correspondence and can reference the book at > any time. It would be nice to be able to add ANNE FIELDER GANTT WIGHT to the > established Gateway list of ancestors, and link many more English families > to USA descendants. > > > > I thank you - Regards, > > MEMattingly/Texas USA Gary Boyd Roberts "The Royal Descents of 600 Immigrants to the American Colonies" (Baltimore, Genealogical Publishing Co. 2008) v:I:426 has the lineage from William I the Lion, King of Scotland, d. 1214 to Anne Lytton=Sir John Borlase. Then the above picks up from Sir George Tipping=Dorothy Borlase dau. of Sir John Borlase and Anne Lytton to Anne Fielder=Thomas Gantt David Lawrence Grinnell

On Tuesday, July 21, 2015 at 11:59:02 AM UTC-7, Marcia via wrote: > Good day all! - This is my first post, but I have studied your posts for > years, researching the Maryland USA Gateway ancestors of my own: Digges, > Lowe, Brent, Brooke, Mainwaring, Calvert and Gerard. The recent proof of > Margaret Domville Hatton adds one more. I thank you for informative and > lively discussions. > > > > Here's another Gateway ancestor that needs further research and official > addiction to the 'list': Anne Fielder who m. (1) Thomas Gantt (in Hampshire > EN) and (2) Dr. John Wight (in Calvert County MD). > > > > Would anyone like to work with me on this? > > > > I purchased last year Colonial Chesapeake Families, British Origins and > Descendants, Vols. 1 & 2, by Dr. Harrison Dwight Cavanagh of Dallas, TX > (2014). His extensive research ties Anne Fielder to the English families of > Cole, Tipping, Dering, Waller, Archdeacon/l'Arcedekne, Weston, Gerard, Page, > Mainwaring, Cotton, and many more with whom we are all familiar. > > > > https://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/ebook/colonial-chesapeake-families-british > -origins-and-descendants-1 > > > > http://bookstore.xlibris.com/Products/SKU-000753362/colonial-chesapeake-fami > lies-british-origins-and-descendants.aspx > > > > The well-researched MD families of Gantt, Bradford, Wharton, Brooke and > Lancaster descend from this couple. (Myself, from Eleanor Bradford and > Raphael Lancaster Sr. of Prince George's County MD. Raphael was the son of > Capt. John Lancaster of Liverpool.) > > +++ > > Thomas Gantt, merchant and planter, was born 1630-1638 in (prob.) Bulwick > Parish, Northamptonshire, immigrating to Calvert County MD about Oct. 4, > 1653; transported as a "servant" (Calvert Maryland Patent Book 6, Folio > 126). He died before Jan 1692 (probate date, Calvert MD). > > > > Dr. Cavanagh cannot prove a deep (English) lineage for Thomas, but connects > Anne Fielder, Thomas's second wife, to the families mentioned above. > > > > Anne Fielder Gantt Wight, born c1662 in Hartley Wespall, County Hampshire, > and died before (probate date) May 26, 1726, in (now) Prince George's County > MD. She m. Dr. John Wight before April 22, 1697 as his second wife, the > first being Mary Gittings, daughter of John Gittings of Gedstone, Surrey (d. > Calvert County MD bef. probate date Feb 1676). > > > > Here is the truncated ancestral line for Anne Fielder, starting with: > > > > Generation One: Sir George Tipping > > Of Wheatfield/Whitfield, Oxon. c1564-1627/28, m. Dorothy Borlase/Burlace of > Little Marlow, Bucks. (1564-1637), daughter of Sir John Borlase Esq., M.P., > Bucks. and Anne Lytton (c1541-Jan 1621). > > > > Two children of Sir George and Dorothy Tipping: > > (1a) John Tipping (of Wheatfield Hall, c1590-1618) m. Anne Pigot/Pigott > (prob. Bucks. c1592-1617). Father of Sir Thomas Tipping, prominent > Parliamentarian during the English Civil War. > > (1b) Anne Tipping (bef 1590 -?) m. John Fielder, Heir of Burrough Court and > Polling Manor. (See next.) > > > > Generation Two: Anne Tipping Fielder > > >From Chesapeake Families: "John Fielder II, eldest son [of John] and heir to > Burrough Court and Polling Manor, Odiham Hundred, Hampshire, was born c1585. > He matriculated at St. Edmund Hall, Oxford University on 22 Oct 1602, aged > 17 years and died in September 1638 (Chan. Inq. p.m. [Ser. 2], 15 Charles > 1640, pt II no. 34). He married firstly about 1610 Anne TIPPING, eldest > daughter and heiress of Sir George Tipping (Typping) of Wheatfield Manor, > Oxfordshire. He married secondly Mary Pinke, widow of Robert Payne of > London, merchant." Issue from first marriage. > > > > The book does not determine the lineage of this John II Fielder, or his > (presumed) parents John I Fielder and Alice Cooke. > > > > He states: ". Fielders are numerous in the 16th and 17th century records in > Hampshire, especially in and around the environs of the ancient market town > of Petersfield. There are two armigerous branches of the family dating from > the mid-16th century registered in the various Visitations of Hampshire > (1530, 1575, 1624, 1686) emblazoning the same arms with no cadence > difference but without identifying earlier pedigree connections between > them. ....The Fielders of Burrough Court (Odiham Hundred) and their kin of > Cleer Place (Crundall Hundred) both used Field arms as fules,....No mottos > for either branch are recorded in the Visitations or in the College of > Arms." > > > > And, "John Fielder I was probably born c1530 and purchased Burrought Court > in 1561 from John Dale. At his death in 1620, the entailed manor passed to > his son John II who died testate in September 1628, and thence to his > grandson John III by 1640 (Inq. p.m. W. and L., 7 Jan 1 [1640] pt. ii, no. > 34). In 1699 John IV sold Burrough Court to Frederick TYLNEY of Rotherwick > (Feet of Fines, Hampshire Mich. II Will III). In 1596-1597, John I also > purchased the adjacent Manor of Polling from Robert Young, son of Nicholas > Young, died 1595; and at the death of John II in 1638, Polling was also > inherited by his son John III. In 1639-1640 John III sold part of Polling > Manor to Anthony Pickering and in 1649, part of Polling to his youngest > brother, William FIELDER, father of Ann Fielder GANTT. (Chan. Inq. p.m. > [Series 2] CCXLV, 56; ibid 15 Charles I; 59M87/48, RRO, Hampshire (1649). ." > > > > Children of John and Anne Tipping Fielder: > > (1) Susan Fielder born about 1610 m. John Bradley of Wokingham, > Berkshire > > (2) John Fielder III eldest son and heir to Burrough Court and > Polling Manors, Hampshire, gave his age to the Heralds in 1686 as 72 years > old (thus bc 1614). > > (3) Edward Fielder ESQ of Gray's Inn. > > (4) Capt. William Fielder, gent. Military Career, youngest son; d. > 1679. (See next.) > > > > Generation Three: Capt. William Fielder > > Born c1620 Hampshire, died abt. Oct 1679, buried Hartley Row Churchyard [?] > m. Margery COLE of Liss, Hampshire, (bef. Jul 31, 1697-buried Sep 9, 1699 > Hartley Row Churchyard. She was the daughter of Thomas COLE (c1573-1641) of > Liss, Hampshire, and Mary WALLER (c1595-c1672) of Beaconsfield, Bucks., dtr. > of Thomas WALLER ESQ (1546-Sep 1626 Beaconsfield), Justice of the Common > Pleas, and Dorothy GERARD (c1548-bef. Dec. 16, 1626) of Harrow-on-the-Hill, > Middlesex. > > > > Generation Four: Anne Fielder > > Daughter of Capt. William and Margery Cole Fielder: > > Anne Fielder who married Thomas Gantt (See above.) > > > > Would any researchers like to help by adding to, corroborating or disputing > any findings in these lines, per Dr. Cavanagh's book? It is the FIELDER line > that goes deep into familiar ancestral lines. > > > > Thanks to all - I welcome any correspondence and can reference the book at > any time. It would be nice to be able to add ANNE FIELDER GANTT WIGHT to the > established Gateway list of ancestors, and link many more English families > to USA descendants. > > > > I thank you - Regards, > > MEMattingly/Texas USA

On Monday, 30 May 2016 04:58:26 UTC+1, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > Ignorance, False Promises and Pseudoscience: Is This > Profit Promotion of DNA Fiction by Senior Genealogists? > > In 2013, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints suggested "New Technology Makes Family History Easier, Even Fun", noting "An interesting development in family history research is the use of DNA testing to discover one’s ethnicity." > https://www.lds.org/church/news/new-technology-makes-family-history-easier-even-fun?lang=eng > > Is this a serious public relations mistake, for an organization, noted for being the source of all truth, to promote hope in fictional data sets? Today, this is now updated in FamilySearch, the genealogy arm of the LDS Church, in subset "Hiring a DNA Testing Company", listed under Hiring a Professional Researcher. > https://familysearch.org/wiki/en/Hiring_a_DNA_Testing_Company > > Evaluate one such company and its claims, that: "Once you've taken your test, we'll search our network of AncestryDNA members and identify your cousins—the people who share your DNA." And, AncestryDNA promotes itself as "The World's Largest Consumer DNA Database." Their site includes A Comprehensive Map of AncestryDNA Ethnicity Regions; currently listing 26 areas. > www.ancestry.com/DNA > > Well, from a Biblical standpoint, this is indeed true. We are all related as descending posterity of the prophet Noah, whose cousin relatives and ancestry, consisting of all mankind living prior to the flood, were then DNA hourglass squeezed into the one small family unit that survived. [" . . . Even if we use rates appropriate for the present world (x = 1 and C = 1.5), over 3 billion people could easily have been on the earth at the time of Noah."]. Ignorance: Any laundry list of people used on the earth, contains names and surnames, that are all related to each other, as a "cousin-hood"; this is not established genealogical proof. > http://www.academic-genealogy.com/ancientandmoderngenealogies.htm#012 > > http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html > > https://www.google.com/search?q=hourglass&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi6upetr_rMAhVE72MKHb4TBC0QsAQIKA&biw=1600&bih=727 > > Furthermore, "Genealogical Discontinuities among Etruscan, Medieval, and Contemporary Tuscans", accepted June 10, 2009, concludes by stating what is not "a safe general assumption": "Only a handful of populations of preclassical Europe have been studied genetically, all of them only for mtDNA, and hence generalizations on their relationships with their current counterparts appear premature. Therefore, it is not clear yet whether these data may eventually force us to reconsider the results of studies inferring demographic history under the assumption that genetic diversity in current populations is a good proxy for the (unknown) diversity in past populations of the same region. At this stage, one can only emphasize that cases of both genetic continuity and discontinuity have been observed. Therefore, the notion that the modern inhabitants of a region are descended from its ancient residents does not seem a robust general assumption, but rather a hypothesis that whenever possible should be tested empirically using ancient DNA." > http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/9/2157.full > > "This study shows that genealogical links can be detected between people who inhabited Tuscany at different time periods, but so far not between the Bronze Age and more recent inhabitants of the region." Additionally, "Analyses of mtDNA diversity in the British Isles (Töpf et al. 2007), and Iceland (Helgason et al. 2009), also showed sharp differences between historical and current populations. In addition, a large fraction (up to 80%, depending on the region considered) of the Dutch surnames were displaced from the areas in which their frequency was highest three centuries ago (Manni et al. 2005)." > > CONCLUSIONS: > (1) DNA testing cannot be used currently to discover one’s ethnicity > (2) Ethnicity Regions are only at present, pseudoscience conjecture. > (3) Effective family history research requires primary document data. > > REFERENCES: > DNA Testing: A Plus (+) or Minus (-) For Genealogy? > Mathematics Indicates That It Just Does Not Add Up. > https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10153907038371424&id=261975771423 > > "It is well known that horoscopes use vague statements which recipients think are more tailored than they really are (referred to as the ‘Forer effect’). Genetic ancestry tests do a similar thing, and many exaggerate far beyond the available evidence about human origins. You cannot look at DNA and read it like a book or a map of a journey. For the most part these tests cannot tell you the things they claim to – they are little more than genetic astrology." > http://www.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/119/Sense-About-Genetic-Ancestry-Testing.pdf Like many readers of this forum, I know very little about DNA investigations and interpretations, nor do I know anything significant about the Mormon religion. Nevertheless, I have found this discussion to be highly amusing and entertaining. >From the point of view of a bystander, some of the comments, especially regarding religion, can only be described as bizarre. Much of the grammatical constructions and mental meanderings defy parody. To paraphrase a late, well-known English journalist, this all contributes to the gaiety of nations. Ken

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 7:35:11 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn via wrote: > TAF, > > My mtDNA was tested at 23& for a value of haplogroup U a very ancient > type, At Ancestry, haplogroup H. At FTDNA, type H2, etc. > > Apparently, FTDNA revised their original agreement with type U based upon > later discovered SNPs, as Mitosearch has a few matches claiming to be U4 > with testing done by FTDNA, whereas FTDNA now has many matches for H2 > etc., apparently based upon newly discovered SNPs. > > So what is the relevance? No direct relevance unless you have a candidate line in mind that is not H2, in which case you have excluded that line as being ancestral to you and you need to go back to the drawing board. Still, this is a pretty broad grouping so a match is not a guarantee that you have the right line. Were you to do whole-mtDNA sequencing you could determine this with much higher precision. I don't want to minimize the curiosity factor, the intrigue in knowing things like: > The body of St. Luke in Padua, Italy tests H2 etc. [The body found in the tomb traditionally claimed to be that of St. Luke . . . - remember the last time they opened the tomb of the 'Princes in the Tower' and found that many of the bones weren't even human: given the avarice of the medieval relic-hunters, I have to express doubt that even were there once bones of St. Luke in the tomb, whether what remains represents what was originally buried there] > This is a worthwhile > comparison, as are those of Bourbon and Czarist monarchs, also type H. but such associations are fundamentally non-genealogical because the origin of H2 is long before the advent of historical documentation. taf

Thanks everyone, this has been very informative.

<snip> > mtDNA: > > like Y DNA but purely maternal lines, this is far less useful since mtDNA mutates far less often than Y DNA. This means that you may match someone else on your mtDNA but that doesn't narrow it down to a genealogical time frame depending on the level of testing. You can usually get an idea whether two people share a maternal ancestor within 500-1000 years or so. This made the Richard III testing valuable since his mtDNA matched a maternal descendant of his believed maternal line, basically the odds of that being a coincidence are pretty insane, this is how they confirmed he was indeed Richard III. <snip> For a practical application of mtDNA to proving a theory (actually two theories) see... Perry Streeter and Mike Morrissey, “Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) Testing of Probable Eighth Cousins Confirms Their Kinship and Proves Their Matrilineal Lines of Descent from Aeltje Cornelis (Cool) (Van Couwenhoven) Stoothoff; Simultaneously Proving Two Long-Held Theories Developed Sequentially Through Conventional Research; Mary (Updike) Richey of Greenwood, Steuben County, New York Was a Heretofore Unidentified Daughter of Roliph-5 Updike (John-4, Lawrence-3, Johannes-2, Louris-1 Jansen); Eleanor5 "Nelly" Lane (Gizebert-4, Mathias-3, Gysbrecht-2 Laenen, Matthys-1 Jansen) Was the Heretofore Unidentified Wife of Roliph5 Updike,” New Netherland Connections (April, May, June 2005; Volume 10, Number 2). ...which is available online as... http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~streeter/NNC/mtdna.pdf I am working on similar project right now!

On Jun 11, 2016, at 9:08 PM, taf via wrote: > I realize that I said something likely to be interpreted differently than I meant it, so I will clarify in the hope that someone will see the clarification before putting this information into their database with my name on it. > > On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:40:47 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: >> Hyring is called the first post-Briton king of Northumbria and I have been >> unable to identify who the author had in mind. As father of Woden, this >> is novel, since the consensus is that Woden was son of Frealaf. > > The clarification: the consensus among surviving pedigrees from the Anglo-Saxon and Early Anglo-Norman period is that Woden was son of Frealaf. The consensus among modern historical scholars is that Woden never existed as a historical entity, and hence he had no father. > > taf > because a given person is considered mythical, does not necessarily mean he does not have an equally mythical parent within a culture's legends. historicity is often irrelevant when dealing with these stories

>No doubt this is due, at least in part, to the unrealistic claims of companies trying to sell a product. I agree, many of the claims are overblown. This might be a helpful link. Last year, an adhoc group of genetic genealogists produced Genetic Genealogy Standards designed to help professionals when working with clients. Limitations on each of the three popular tests are defined: http://www.geneticgenealogystandards.com/ All the best, Nathan

I realize that I said something likely to be interpreted differently than I meant it, so I will clarify in the hope that someone will see the clarification before putting this information into their database with my name on it. On Friday, June 3, 2016 at 2:40:47 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > Hyring is called the first post-Briton king of Northumbria and I have been > unable to identify who the author had in mind. As father of Woden, this > is novel, since the consensus is that Woden was son of Frealaf. The clarification: the consensus among surviving pedigrees from the Anglo-Saxon and Early Anglo-Norman period is that Woden was son of Frealaf. The consensus among modern historical scholars is that Woden never existed as a historical entity, and hence he had no father. taf

TAF, My mtDNA was tested at 23& for a value of haplogroup U a very ancient type, At Ancestry, haplogroup H. At FTDNA, type H2, etc. Apparently, FTDNA revised their original agreement with type U based upon later discovered SNPs, as Mitosearch has a few matches claiming to be U4 with testing done by FTDNA, whereas FTDNA now has many matches for H2 etc., apparently based upon newly discovered SNPs. So what is the relevance? The body of St. Luke in Padua, Italy tests H2 etc. This is a worthwhile comparison, as are those of Bourbon and Czarist monarchs, also type H. With regard to specific ancestry, I am totally in agreement. Sent from my iPhone

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 7:53:35 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > SECOND REPLY and CONCLUSION: > It is not my interest to delve into others religious beliefs, as they are out of the scope of this group; So are yours. taf

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 10:02:43 AM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 4:03:27 PM UTC-6, taf wrote: > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:38:33 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > > TAF, you are HALF-way home. DNA does not support EITHER one. Yes, it does > > > not support my philosophy, NOR does it support evolution. > > This is way outside the scope of this group <religion warning>, but I want to point out that Mr. Tinney's opinions do not reflect my beliefs as a member of the LDS faith (Mormon). > > Mr. Tinney is of an older generation of genealogists and his opinions have not been critiqued through participation in scholarly genealogical circles. I can't tell that he has ever had the practical experience of taking a DNA test. > > I attended the LDS-sponsored Brigham Young University for my undergrad. Here are some of the things I was taught by its professors: > 1. No president of the LDS religion has denounced evolution. To the contrary my biology professor taught there is much evidence to support it and people of the LDS faith should not be afraid to study it. > 2. BYU professor Scott Woodward was one of the earliest proponents of genetic genealogy testing and was the scientist behind the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Project, which at the time was one of the largest DNA databases overlaid with pedigree charts. Rumors were that he was dropped from studying ancient DNA of the Pharoahs in Egypt because Egyptian government officials feared his Mormon faith would lead to proxy baptisms for the dead being performed for the Pharoahs, see https://medium.com/matter/tutankhamuns-blood-9fb62a68597b#.9pj28crdp. > 3. BYU has produced some of the leading genetic genealogists: Dr. Ugo Perego (an Italian who is an expert in Native American DNA), Angie Bush, Diahan Southard. They would completely disagree with Mr. Tinney's bizarre arguments and point out that the walls he has built up that prevent him from utilizing DNA evidence have simply blocked him from learning more about his ancestors. > 4. I personally was encouraged by a genealogy/history instructor to read The Seven Daughters of Eve back about 2004. > > Each month, more and more people who visit the LDS Family History Library in Salt Lake City, are asking for help in interpreting their DNA results. Several staff are now trained to help them. > > I have helped clients interpret DNA results for over a decade as a professional genealogist in Salt Lake City. > > My personal opinion, with a background in history and genealogy (BYU, Univ. of Leicester, Univ. of Utah) is that it is a mistake to canonize one version of the past. No well-trained historian would shut the door to new discoveries that alter our understanding. > > Nathan, FamilySearch employee SECOND REPLY and CONCLUSION: It is not my interest to delve into others religious beliefs, as they are out of the scope of this group; nor, for that matter, do I have power or authority to canonize any version of the past. Nevertheless, I wish to remind Nathan, who touts his BYU background connections and LDS faith, that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of his religious belief. It is presented, in the personal and LDS history of Joseph Smith, Jr., as anciently created plates written upon and also conveyed by a former mortal man named Moroni; and, that said Moroni, appeared to Joseph Smith, Jr. as a clothed, resurrected being; and, as such, his DNA cannot be properly evaluated. Since Moroni's death occurred circa 421 A.D., it falls within medieval genealogies; that other former kin were also resurrected. https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/book-mormon-fourth-nephi-through-moroni-zion-destruction/18-moroni-last-nephite-prophets And as to LDS / BYU, I suggest your reading Book of Mormon and DNA Studies . . . At the present time, scientific consensus holds that the vast majority of Native Americans belong to sub-branches of the Y-chromosome haplogroups C and Q14 and the mitochondrial DNA haplogroups A, B, C, D, and X, all of which are predominantly East Asian. Now, we just find out that "Laser technology reveals cities concealed under the earth which would have made up the world’s largest empire in 12th century" were in Cambodia, [a country located in the southern portion of the Indochina Peninsula in Southeast Asia.] Implies Pacific trading. https://www.lds.org/topics/book-of-mormon-and-dna-studies?lang=eng [Near Eastern DNA should be easily identifiable among modern native groups], unless, as suggested from the religious teachings of the Book of Mormon, all the Saints of former days in the Americas were actually resurrected, indirectly inferred by the following statement: [Fourth Nephi covers the nearly 200 years of unity and harmony following Jesus Christ’s visit to the Americas. The people “were all converted unto the Lord” (4 Nephi 1:2), resulting in a society that people of all ages have dreamed of. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles observed that following Christ’s visit, “His majestic teachings and ennobling spirit led to the happiest of all times, a time in which ‘there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift’ [4 Nephi 1:2–3]. That blessed circumstance was, I suppose, achieved on only one other occasion of which we know—the city of Enoch, where ‘they were of one heart and one mind, and dwelt in righteousness; and there was no poor among them’ [Moses 7:18]” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1996, 40; or Ensign, May 1996, 30).} And of course, your religious belief validates that the whole City of Enoch was translated. Which is another problem you need to clearly face as a helping, DNA expert.

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 10:02:43 AM UTC-7, nathan...@gmail.com wrote: > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 4:03:27 PM UTC-6, taf wrote: > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:38:33 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > > TAF, you are HALF-way home. DNA does not support EITHER one. Yes, it does > > > not support my philosophy, NOR does it support evolution. > > This is way outside the scope of this group <religion warning>, but I want to point out that Mr. Tinney's opinions do not reflect my beliefs as a member of the LDS faith (Mormon). > > Mr. Tinney is of an older generation of genealogists and his opinions have not been critiqued through participation in scholarly genealogical circles. I can't tell that he has ever had the practical experience of taking a DNA test. > > I attended the LDS-sponsored Brigham Young University for my undergrad. Here are some of the things I was taught by its professors: > 1. No president of the LDS religion has denounced evolution. To the contrary my biology professor taught there is much evidence to support it and people of the LDS faith should not be afraid to study it. > 2. BYU professor Scott Woodward was one of the earliest proponents of genetic genealogy testing and was the scientist behind the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Project, which at the time was one of the largest DNA databases overlaid with pedigree charts. Rumors were that he was dropped from studying ancient DNA of the Pharoahs in Egypt because Egyptian government officials feared his Mormon faith would lead to proxy baptisms for the dead being performed for the Pharoahs, see https://medium.com/matter/tutankhamuns-blood-9fb62a68597b#.9pj28crdp. > 3. BYU has produced some of the leading genetic genealogists: Dr. Ugo Perego (an Italian who is an expert in Native American DNA), Angie Bush, Diahan Southard. They would completely disagree with Mr. Tinney's bizarre arguments and point out that the walls he has built up that prevent him from utilizing DNA evidence have simply blocked him from learning more about his ancestors. > 4. I personally was encouraged by a genealogy/history instructor to read The Seven Daughters of Eve back about 2004. > > Each month, more and more people who visit the LDS Family History Library in Salt Lake City, are asking for help in interpreting their DNA results. Several staff are now trained to help them. > > I have helped clients interpret DNA results for over a decade as a professional genealogist in Salt Lake City. > > My personal opinion, with a background in history and genealogy (BYU, Univ. of Leicester, Univ. of Utah) is that it is a mistake to canonize one version of the past. No well-trained historian would shut the door to new discoveries that alter our understanding. > > Nathan, FamilySearch employee ======================================= REPLY: I agree that new discoveries of fact are always interesting, such as when the Guardian reported in an exclusive on Friday, concerning Revealed: Cambodia's vast medieval cities hidden beneath the jungle; dated Friday, June 10, 2016. . . . Laser technology reveals cities concealed under the earth which would have made up the world’s largest empire in 12th century . . . discoveries that promise to upend key assumptions about south-east Asia’s history . . . “This urban and rural landscape, linked by road and canal networks, now seems to have constituted the largest empire on earth in the 12th century,” Sharrock said. . . . Using the lidar at Longvek and Oudong in combination with conventional archaeology we will reveal the dark age as equally rich, complex and diverse.” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/11/lost-city-medieval-discovered-hidden-beneath-cambodian-jungle Now, has The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, had the opportunity to apply this same technology to the jungle regions of North and South America? Certainly, it would clarify, once and for all, Book of Mormon geography claims.

Here is another example. The Maybury/Mayberry/Mabry family has an active Y-DNA project, the results of which show that a significant majority of them have a common biological direct male line ancestor who apparently lived in England during the period when surnames were being formed. This includes descendants of different immigrants to America and at least one line that went to Australia. The "outliers" can be plausibly explained by "non-paternal events" (adulteries, adoptions, etc.), suggesting that this is a "single-origin" family. Since my surname (Baldwin) is a patronymic, it would be expected that Baldwin is a "multiple-origin" surname, and that is exactly what the results show, with different clusters suggesting a number of different origins. One thing that stood out when I got my Y-DNA results is that I have a lot of close matches with the surname Maybury (and variants) and only a few with the surname Baldwin. I have a good "paper-trail" line of descent from John Baldwin, an immigrant who came from near the Yorkshire-Lancashire border to Pennsylvania in 1699, and had two sons (on paper), John and William. The descendants of William are for the most part very well documented, but I am the only male line descendant who has tested his Y-DNA (that I know of). William's older brother John can be traced to what is now Ashe County, North Carolina, and appears to have left a large number of descendants, but without a clear paper-trail to prove many of the exact relationships. Most of my other Baldwin-surnamed matches have a very probable line of descent back to this second-generation John Baldwin, and the others can be at least plausibly conjectured to be his descendants. The punch line is that the Y-DNA results show that one group of Mayburys is more closely related to my Baldwin matches and to me than they are to some of the other Mayburys (to whom they are also related, but not as closely). This shows pretty convincingly that one of my Baldwin ancestors was a biological son of a Maybury. The big question would then be: "When did this non-paternal event occur, and who was the culprit?" Since I have close matches with (very probable) descendants of my ancestor William's brother John, the non-paternal event was probably not later than them, because that would require a scenario where a Maybury (or more than one Maybury) was impregnating two or more Baldwin spouses, or something equally unlikely. That is about all that can be said with certainty. However, I have a specific "suspect" whom I am unable to "convict" on the available evidence. A Thomas Maybury of Bucks County, Pennsylvania sold land to my William Baldwin, and later moved to Frederick County Virginia where William Baldwin (and probably also his brother John) also moved. Thomas is a chronologically possible biological father of John and William, and shows up on the scene right about the time the older son John was born (1716, eight years after the marriage of the until-then childless immigrant John Baldwin). In contrast, the Baldwin place of origin on the Yorkshire-Lancashire border shows no likely Maybury suspects, which is of course not conclusive, since it would not be that difficult for a non-resident "traveling salesman" Maybury to leave some of his DNA behind on a visit. There are a number of unanswered questions, including Thomas Maybury's place of origin, but there is still the possibility that additional DNA evidence could reinforce or disprove my theory. The most promising possibility for testing this is that the immigrant John Baldwin had a brother William Baldwin (d. 1720) who also came to Pennsylvania. He had only one son, and still had a few male-line descendants in the early 1800's, but I don't know if his line survives. If a test from a male-line descendant of his matched me closely, that would disprove my theory, and show that the non-paternal event probably occurred earlier in England. A non-match would give my conjecture a significant boost. Stewart Baldwin

I wonder what would be likely to happen in a study of a small island (I have Aquidneck Island, RI in mind.) Since everyone is cousin to everyone else (sometimes in several lines), would this make DNA testing of such a population more difficult?

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 3:59:16 PM UTC-7, Matthew Langley wrote: > On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 8:53:34 AM UTC-7, Vance Mead wrote: > > I have some questions regarding the use of DNA in genealogy, in view of the recent postings on the subject. Much of the recent discussion, it seems to me, has been based on straw men and false dichotomies. "DNA can show your ancestry back to Adan and Eve or else it is completely worthless." No doubt this is due, at least in part, to the unrealistic claims of companies trying to sell a product. > > > > As far as I can tell - and I am certainly no expert - DNA testing can supplement documentary evidence in a few ways: > > > > - It was used to prove that the skeleton found in Leicester was in fact that of Richard III. > > > > - It could show if Granny had a secret she never told Grandpa about who was Dad's father. > > > > - It could show if people with the same surname are really related. In my case, there were several Mead families in Oxon/Bucks/Herts in the 15th and 16th centuries. One question: how far back is this reliable? For example, there are proven descendants of Thomas Mede of Henley on Thames, Oxon, born about 1550, and of Richard Mede of Watford, Herts, born about 1515. They are probably unrelated, but could DNA show a theoretical connection between them some 15 to 20 generations ago? > > > > - I have seen how it has been used to show that two people are fifth cousins, or whatever. Is this only in the male line, or in all possible relationships? > > > > I can see how DNA could be used to support documentary evidence, much as archeology is used to supplement historical evidence. Could someone give a brief summary of how it is used in genealogy? For someone who is more at home in the map and large document reading room than in a forensics laboratory. > > > DNA is absolutely useful for genealogy. Ignore the thread you saw, many genealogists are using DNA effectively. > > There are three types of DNA tests: > > Y DNA: > > Representing the paternal line only Y DNA is *immensely* useful for genealogy. For example as a Langley I've been Y DNA tested. I dead end on my ancestor with a Langley that lived in the late 1700s in South Carolina. I've Y DNA matched other Langleys that trace to people in that region, one who sold land to my ancestor. Via DNA I now know without a doubt those Langleys share a paternal ancestor to mine. > > Based on the amount of markers tested and how close the match is I can get a rough idea how closely we relate too, such as within 200, 300, 400, 500 years etc. > > When you map Y DNA to paper trails it's amazingly useful and can confirm or deny believed relations. > > Further if a Langley in England Y DNA matches me in the future I can confirm we share paternal ancestry and that will help me find my immigrant ancestor and where they came from in England. > > > mtDNA: > > like Y DNA but purely maternal lines, this is far less useful since mtDNA mutates far less often than Y DNA. This means that you may match someone else on your mtDNA but that doesn't narrow it down to a genealogical time frame depending on the level of testing. You can usually get an idea whether two people share a maternal ancestor within 500-1000 years or so. This made the Richard III testing valuable since his mtDNA matched a maternal descendant of his believed maternal line, basically the odds of that being a coincidence are pretty insane, this is how they confirmed he was indeed Richard III. > > > aDNA: > > Autosomal dna is immensely useful. You pretty much have to ignore any segments that match below 7 cM (maybe even 10 cM). But 10 cM+ is something like over 99% chance of being a relation within a genealogical time frame. > > The true value comes in finding a cluster of people who *all* match the same segment of aDNA. This means all those people got that same segment from the same source somewhere. So say you have 3+ people who share a segment and you find that all have a shared ancestor in their tree, it becomes very likely that specific segment came from that ancestor for each person (the more people in the cluster obviously decreases the odd everyone shares another set of ancestors that is unknown). This means you can identify segments as from certain ancestry, then match other people on that segment with no known tree overlap, you can find ancestry further up that line via this method. It takes a lot of work but has been invaluable for many genealogists, including myself. To give an example of using aDNA. My mother's paternal ancestry is Bryant. I've found multiple people who share the same Bryant ancestry in the 1800s. Via enough matches 4-6 I've found some segments I've identified as Bryant DNA, at least Bryant to the point where we all share ancestry. Not too long ago I found a cluster of people, roughly 4 or 5 that all match each other fairly closely and they all share Bryant segments. They also matched my kits (mother, uncle, and cousin) at pretty high levels, 4th cousin range-ish with some fairly large segment matches. Turns out they all descend from a woman who was living next door to an ancestor of mine in Georgia, John P Bryant, in 1850. Her husband died (or disappeared) yet she still kept having children, the same ones that DNA match my family. As it turns out my ancestor John P Bryant was already cheating on his wife with another woman, and by 1860 abandoned his first family (within a year or possibly even before my ancestor was born, his youngest of children with his first wife) and is living in Tennessee with his second family. Further those children from the widow stop being born within the year John ran off to Tennessee. Combine this with the fact that John P Bryant's sons are probably too young to be knocking up the neighboring widow and it becomes very likely those children are illegitimate children of John P Bryant and the high level of matching suggesting that generation amongst multiple matches across multiple kits (3 on my side roughly 4 or 5 on that branches side) A mystery that might have been impossible to solve without DNA.