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.

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 1:34:20 PM UTC-7, Nancy Piccirilli via wrote: > 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? It would make autosomal testing for more than just immediate parentage worthless - if everyone is related to everyone, one way or another, then little can be gained by learning someone is your cousin somehow. Y- and mt-DNA testing would still be of value for an adoptee or illegitimate, as these would still be lineage-specific, even if there are fewer distinct lineages it would narrow things down. taf

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 6:25:48 AM UTC-7, JBrand wrote: > The Robert who married Martha Woodward was Rev. Robert Peck of Hingham, Norfolk, and Hingham, Massachusetts, an ancestor of some of us by his first wife, Anne Lawrence. > > The second wife Martha was, I believe, married previously to a Bacon, and has some Bacon descendants in Virginia. I'm unsure about any Liddell connection. Thanks for the response. Is Rev Robert Peck the same as the one in the will I mentioned? On this site, which I have no clue if it is right since they cite no sources: http://yuugi004.tripod.com/genealogy/Bacons_in_america.htm It places George Lyddall of Virginia as son of Thomas Lyddall m. Bridget Woodward... it outlines the following George Lyddal probably was the brother of Sir Thomas Lyddal, who died in' 1627. His father survived him. Sir Thomas Lydall married Bridget, daughter of George Woodward and Elizabeth Honiwood. Her sister Martha's first husband was Rev. James Bacon, father of Col. Nathaniel Bacon Sr., president of the Virginia Counsel, acting governor and member of the House of Burgesses. Her second husband was Sir Robert Peake, rector of Hingham in Norfolk County, England. I'm unsure on the accuracy of this info. Assuming it was correct it could make George Lyddal a cousin of Robert Peake's wife? Would that be cause to call him "cousin" in his will. It seems that site copied info from: https://books.google.com/books?id=sCUjAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA268&lpg=PA268&dq=Sir+Robert+Peake+martha+woodward&source=bl&ots=q7Rv3wGlza&sig=HKngCalkNB3FvfDwfN80th5I0z8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwichb2pg6HNAhVU0WMKHYHWCR0Q6AEILTAD#v=onepage&q=Sir%20Robert%20Peake%20martha%20woodward&f=false

Many adoptees are comparing their atDNA and YDNA to others who have tested in the big three DNA genealogy companies (23andMe, ancestryDNA, familyTreeDNA) to find clues that accurately lead them to their biological parents.

Vance, Commenting on your 3rd point ("...if people with the same surname are really related"): I would use this with a certain caution. Unless the two families have extremely well populated family trees (i.e., "most" ancestors identified back several centuries), a genetic link confirmed by DNA testing could be erroneously linked to the wrong family. I have tried to use DNA testing to confirm if my ROBERTS great grandfather of unknown 19th century parentage was the child of a certain known ROBERTS family. Through DNA testing. I found positive matches with several other descendants of known relatives of the ROBERTS family in question and thought that I had thereby confirmed my own gr grandfather's family identify. But in studying the family trees of some of these other ROBERTS relatives, I found other non-ROBERTS connections in our family trees in the 18th and 18th centuries that could have accounted for the positive matches. If both family trees in your study are densely enough populated so that you can rule out other possible connections within the genealogical timeframe indicated by the DNA match, then you have a higher probability that the surname match is the source, but if there are major gaps within a century or two, there could have been another family tie that remains unidentified. In reasonably small, long settled communities, it is not unlikely that two modern individuals might have inherited multiple family connections over two or three centuries. Greg -----Original Message----- From: gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:gen-medieval-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Vance Mead via Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2016 11:54 AM To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com Subject: What can DNA really do? 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. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 6/11/2016 10:53 AM, Vance Mead via 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. I would recommend the ISOGG website for some basic reading material on DNA in genealogy. http://www.isogg.org/ Stewart Baldwin

On 6/11/2016 12:41 PM, Greg Vaut via wrote: > Vance, > > Commenting on your 3rd point ("...if people with the same surname are really > related"): > > I would use this with a certain caution. Unless the two families have > extremely well populated family trees (i.e., "most" ancestors identified > back several centuries), a genetic link confirmed by DNA testing could be > erroneously linked to the wrong family. > > I have tried to use DNA testing to confirm if my ROBERTS great grandfather > of unknown 19th century parentage was the child of a certain known ROBERTS > family. Through DNA testing. I found positive matches with several other > descendants of known relatives of the ROBERTS family in question and thought > that I had thereby confirmed my own gr grandfather's family identify. > > But in studying the family trees of some of these other ROBERTS relatives, I > found other non-ROBERTS connections in our family trees in the 18th and 18th > centuries that could have accounted for the positive matches. This comment is true about autosomal DNA testing, which can be very tricky to analyze, because a match could be in any line, but Y-DNA testing tests only the (biological) direct male line. Y-DNA testing can tell if two individuals have a reasonably close direct male line biological relation, but it cannot give the exact number of generations, only an estimated relationship with a certain probability. Stewart Baldwin

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 12:11:49 PM UTC-7, taf 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. > > > 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. > > Just to be absolutely precise, it was used to show that the skeleton found at Leicester shared the same mitochondrial haplotype and documented descendants of the maternal lineage of king Richard III. It showed him to have a different haplotype from documented descendants of his paternal lineage. > > > - It could show if Granny had a secret she never told Grandpa about who > > was Dad's father. > > If Grandpa is still alive, or left behind a high-quality, uncontaminated sample that could be tested, then it could demonstrate this directly. Otherwise, it could do so implicitly, if descendants of Granny had a different Y-DNA haplotype than descendants of multiple brothers of Grandpa. If there were not multiple grand-uncles with descendants, then testing of the descendants of one, plus the descendants of more remote male-line kin would also demonstrate this. > > > - It could show if people with the same surname are really related. > > We are all related (see below). It could indicate that two people with the same surname derive from the same male lineage within a reasonably small number of generations, but could not define that number. > > Why I said we are all related: a very-distant cousin of mine had his DNA tested along with that of another person of the same surname. The company who performed the test reported back that 'Congratulations, you are indeed related'. When he showed me the report I read the small print (which being aged 94, he could not do), where they classified what they meant by 'related' - that they shared a common male-line ancestor within the previous 25,000 years. In other words, they were both white, but that's about it. This was about 15 years ago, and I don't think any company would try to pull this kind of thing now. > > > 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? > > Yes, it could. > > > > - 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? > > Male-line testing or female line testing can only show that you are of the same male or female lineage, not the number of generations (unless you have very precise information that is beyond the scope of most testing). > > There is another type of testing, Autosomal testing or SNP testing, hat can tell if two people are distant cousins, in the range of 2nd - 6th or so, but it cannot tell you precisely how close. > > > 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? > > I can give several examples. If a man married two wives and you don't know which was mother of a female child, then you could test maternally-inherited mtDNA for a female-line descendant of that child, and also from descendants of sisters of the two wives, and whichever matches, that is the family to which the child's mother belongs. > > Another female-line example. If there were two first cousins, daughters of brothers, both with the same name and no document to determine which was the later wife of that name, then testing female-line descendants and comparing them to the lineages of the wives of the two brothers would tell you which couple's daughter was the one who married. > > Male line examples: Your name is George Webster, and you can trace your male line back through the censuses to 1800 in New England, but not before. You find records in town histories that identify multiple Websters there, some descended from Gov. John Webster of Conn., others descended from the other John Webster, ancestor of Congressman Daniel Webster. You can compare your DNA to descendants of both immigrants and determine whether your line descends from one or the other (or neither). Likewise, as you suggest, you can determine if two immigrants of the same surname were of common English origin. In a family blessed with a lot of tested samples and a lucky mutation or two, it could even narrow down to which branch of a family a line belongs. > > Male-line testing is also very useful in cases of illegitimacy or poorly documented paternity. I have a Rev. War ancestor who is first documented picking a guardian at age 14 as the son of an unmarried woman. He has a different surname than her, and based on this, I have a guess who the father might be. DNA could be used to confirm that my guy shared the same Y-chromosome as his prospective son. > > In terms of the Autosomal testing, the earliest uses are still the most rigorous. It can demonstrate unambiguously 'who's your daddy' as long as everyone is still around to be tested and your daddy didn't have a twin brother. More generic applications are 1) a fishing expedition for missing information - you will get a list of distant relatives, and by sorting out how they relate, it may reveal connections you don't know about. > > It can also be used more directly to confirm a pedigree. My Pennsylvania g-g-grandfather 'died due to a fall from a ladder'. It must have been a long ladder and took him a long time to croak, because he landed in Kentucky with a different wife, or so it seems. There are no male-line descendants on my side, and no absolute proof the two are the same man, so I could do an autosomal test with a Kentucky descendant and if it reported a connection in the 2nd-to-5th cousin range, then it would be a strong indication that I have things reconstructed correctly. If it also showed linkage to someone else not descended from either the Pa or Ky group (and the common ancestor is close enough that both are fully documented) then it may provide a clue to where he came from (and perhaps reveal that this was not the first ladder he fell from). > > Those are just some examples. > > taf I understand that DNA testing has shown that Samuel Pickering of Pennsylvania is not connected to the Pickerings of Salem, Massachusetts, and, making it more interesting, the Salem Pickerings are apparently not related to the Yorkshire Pickerings, although the Pennsylvania ones are, in some as-yet-unknown way. I also understand that Moses Knapp of West Virginia and his brother Joshua (both born in New York state) have been shown by DNA tests to be of the family of Nicholas Knap of Connecticut - but again, the connection is not yet known.

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. > 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. Just to be absolutely precise, it was used to show that the skeleton found at Leicester shared the same mitochondrial haplotype and documented descendants of the maternal lineage of king Richard III. It showed him to have a different haplotype from documented descendants of his paternal lineage. > - It could show if Granny had a secret she never told Grandpa about who > was Dad's father. If Grandpa is still alive, or left behind a high-quality, uncontaminated sample that could be tested, then it could demonstrate this directly. Otherwise, it could do so implicitly, if descendants of Granny had a different Y-DNA haplotype than descendants of multiple brothers of Grandpa. If there were not multiple grand-uncles with descendants, then testing of the descendants of one, plus the descendants of more remote male-line kin would also demonstrate this. > - It could show if people with the same surname are really related. We are all related (see below). It could indicate that two people with the same surname derive from the same male lineage within a reasonably small number of generations, but could not define that number. Why I said we are all related: a very-distant cousin of mine had his DNA tested along with that of another person of the same surname. The company who performed the test reported back that 'Congratulations, you are indeed related'. When he showed me the report I read the small print (which being aged 94, he could not do), where they classified what they meant by 'related' - that they shared a common male-line ancestor within the previous 25,000 years. In other words, they were both white, but that's about it. This was about 15 years ago, and I don't think any company would try to pull this kind of thing now. > 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? Yes, it could. > - 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? Male-line testing or female line testing can only show that you are of the same male or female lineage, not the number of generations (unless you have very precise information that is beyond the scope of most testing). There is another type of testing, Autosomal testing or SNP testing, hat can tell if two people are distant cousins, in the range of 2nd - 6th or so, but it cannot tell you precisely how close. > 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? I can give several examples. If a man married two wives and you don't know which was mother of a female child, then you could test maternally-inherited mtDNA for a female-line descendant of that child, and also from descendants of sisters of the two wives, and whichever matches, that is the family to which the child's mother belongs. Another female-line example. If there were two first cousins, daughters of brothers, both with the same name and no document to determine which was the later wife of that name, then testing female-line descendants and comparing them to the lineages of the wives of the two brothers would tell you which couple's daughter was the one who married. Male line examples: Your name is George Webster, and you can trace your male line back through the censuses to 1800 in New England, but not before. You find records in town histories that identify multiple Websters there, some descended from Gov. John Webster of Conn., others descended from the other John Webster, ancestor of Congressman Daniel Webster. You can compare your DNA to descendants of both immigrants and determine whether your line descends from one or the other (or neither). Likewise, as you suggest, you can determine if two immigrants of the same surname were of common English origin. In a family blessed with a lot of tested samples and a lucky mutation or two, it could even narrow down to which branch of a family a line belongs. Male-line testing is also very useful in cases of illegitimacy or poorly documented paternity. I have a Rev. War ancestor who is first documented picking a guardian at age 14 as the son of an unmarried woman. He has a different surname than her, and based on this, I have a guess who the father might be. DNA could be used to confirm that my guy shared the same Y-chromosome as his prospective son. In terms of the Autosomal testing, the earliest uses are still the most rigorous. It can demonstrate unambiguously 'who's your daddy' as long as everyone is still around to be tested and your daddy didn't have a twin brother. More generic applications are 1) a fishing expedition for missing information - you will get a list of distant relatives, and by sorting out how they relate, it may reveal connections you don't know about. It can also be used more directly to confirm a pedigree. My Pennsylvania g-g-grandfather 'died due to a fall from a ladder'. It must have been a long ladder and took him a long time to croak, because he landed in Kentucky with a different wife, or so it seems. There are no male-line descendants on my side, and no absolute proof the two are the same man, so I could do an autosomal test with a Kentucky descendant and if it reported a connection in the 2nd-to-5th cousin range, then it would be a strong indication that I have things reconstructed correctly. If it also showed linkage to someone else not descended from either the Pa or Ky group (and the common ancestor is close enough that both are fully documented) then it may provide a clue to where he came from (and perhaps reveal that this was not the first ladder he fell from). Those are just some examples. taf

THANK YOU Nathan for your remarks. You add the voice of sanity to a discussion that has been increasingly become more and more irrelevant. As I mentioned before, I see DNA as a tool and not as THE tool. It's to assist me with my research. Incidentally I'm into genealogy because I love history and genealogy makes history come alive by adding that personal connection. Peter D. A. Warwick

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

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.

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:01:09 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:19:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > I agree that this discussion should discontinue, as well, because it all > > boils down to basic philosophical differences. [The proposal that one type > > of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first > > pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.] . . > > Ah, and finally, finally, we see the crux of the matter. DNA cannot be reliably used for genealogy, because DNA supports evolution that is antithetical to your philosophy. > > > TAF, is an exceedingly learned man, . . . He does not know, however, the > > totality of the field of research, . . . he tries to put up a smoke screen > > of his intellectual skills, which are prodigious, when I am only simply > > pointing out, some of the most obvious inconsistencies of what is promised > > vs. real time similar problems, which create in my mind a "mass of > > confusion" as to the viability of DNA use. > > Except these inconsistencies only exist due to your lack of familiarity with the underlying principles (both the physiological mechanisms and the testing). It is not 'putting up a smoke screen' to try to explain why the aspects you perceive to be a problem are not relevant to the application of DNA to genealogical testing. Further, you repeatedly overreach in suggesting that any problem with any aspect of our understanding of DNA invalidates all DNA-based results. This is no more valid than to suggest that the frequent indexing errors on Ancestry.com invalidate the images of primary documents found there. > > taf -------------------------------- REPLY: In conclusion, I hope, your suggestion, re: Ancestry.com, is irrelevant, to use your terms. Years ago I attended Utah Technical College, before it became UVU, "the current provider of higher education for more Utahns than any other state institution." Your statement:[lack of familiarity with the underlying principles(both the physiological mechanisms and the testing)] is an invalid comparison. It is like saying no one on this forum, because they do not understand a computer's machine language, or the concepts of Boolean algebra, in which the values of the variables are the truth values true and false, usually denoted 1 and 0 respectively, can ever discuss concepts or information provided by more simple computer language interfaces. There are many languages used in computers and many diagrams presented showing how they developed and cross comparisons of why they were developed and for which use they are best suited. In fact, come to think of it, TAF, you have just given me the idea of why comic DNA fantasy is so really stupid. It is like saying, if I transpose a computer back in time, 4.5 billion years in the past, it will transmogrify over time,(surprisingly, magically, strangely, and grotesquely)into Boolean algebra. This can be described eloquently by credentialed policy makers, to the lesser, contemptible unlearned masses,(to the joy of all animal creatures and human biological specimens), whose instincts were all originally formed with simple understandings of yes-no reactions), that all computers, past, present, and future, originated genetically, from a 0 and a 1. DUHHH! NOT SO! Complexity, for those who have any understanding of astronomy, exists universally, and is found, within the time frame of modern research, among all galactic formations. And, for those who have studied ancient astronomical observation; same findings. http://www.academic-genealogy.com/science.htm#physical

The Robert who married Martha Woodward was Rev. Robert Peck of Hingham, Norfolk, and Hingham, Massachusetts, an ancestor of some of us by his first wife, Anne Lawrence. The second wife Martha was, I believe, married previously to a Bacon, and has some Bacon descendants in Virginia. I'm unsure about any Liddell connection.

On Saturday, April 18, 2015 at 6:34:48 PM UTC-7, Matthew Langley wrote: > Anyone have information on a George Liddell (Lyddall) of Virginia, who had a daughter Anne who married an Edmund Bacon. > > Most tree seem to connect him to Sir Thomas Liddell who married Isabel Anderson, either as a son (some sources seem to mention he had a son George, or as a son of that George)... though having a hard time finding a concrete tree. If anyone has any information would greatly appreciate it. > > One of the primary reasons to connect him seems to be the will of Sir Robert Peake whose will that was created 1666 mentions: > > "To my cousin and sometime servant, George Lyddall, in Virginia, gentleman, three hundred pounds in three years" > > https://books.google.com/books?id=CaNCAAAAYAAJ&lpg=PA11&ots=y_1d26zGoz&dq=robert%20peake%20%22sometime%20servant%22&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q=robert%20peake%20%22sometime%20servant%22&f=false > > I'm having a hard time confirming his relation. It seems Robert Peake might have been married to a Martha Woodward, who had a sister Bridget Woodward married to a Thomas Liddell son of the mentioned Sir Thomas Liddell m Isabel. > > If the initial correlation is correct would he call him "cousin" if his wife had a sister who was married to a cousin of George? > > It seems Robert Peaks father was William Peake married to an Ann Acton son of Robert Peake (a painter) m. Elizabeth Beckwith. Just wanted to follow up on this, if anyone has any additional info

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 10:24:51 PM UTC-3, Peter Stewart wrote: > On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 8:02:19 AM UTC+10, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 5:44:11 PM UTC-3, Douglas Richardson wrote: > > <snip> > > > > The exact relationship between Eustace de Hélicourt and his kinsman, > > > Bernard de Balliol II, is not known. > > > Thank you very much for your thorough answer. > > > > I've found that the most recent studies about this family are those of > > Geoffrey Stell, mainly: > > a) "The Balliol Family and the Great Cause of 1291-1292." Essays on the > > Nobility of Medieval Scotland. Edited by K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985), > 150-65. And > > b) "In Search of the Balliols: 2. France." Balliol College Record (1999), > 11-5. > > I haven't seen the second of these, but in the first Stell appears to have relied for the relationship between Eustace de Hélicourt and Bernard de Balliol on GA Moriarty's 'The Baliols in Picardy, England and Scotland', *NEHGR* 106 (1952), which he described as "not witrhout errors". > > <snip> > > > So, whatever the relationship between Eustace and Bernard II, it's clear > > that the French fiefs, which were centered around Bailleul-en-Vimeu, > > where the family had its origins, belonged to one or, maybe two, very > > close related families (or two branches of the same family). > > François Darsy in his 1896 study of Hélicourt found not enough evidence to trace the succession of seigneurs before Eustace - the earliest record he cited was the latter's charter dated 1190 for the leper hospital at Val de Bugny. > > Peter Stewart Thank you very much, Peter. It's quite clear. So, for now (and maybe forever, unless some new contemporary records prove otherwise), I cut the ancestry of Eustace, starting the Anglo-Scottish line to King John, not showing his relationship with Bernard II. Cheers, JL

T'was I who originally placed Helen as daughter of Allachie in the Roglo database as she is many times an ancestor of mine. I did however find new evidence that shows she was indeed daughter of Ballintomb in the last few months. Unfortunately we are in the throes of moving and with the combined 10,000 books I have along with the countless family trees i have collated i will not be able to find the suitable data for this lady in the short term. As i explained to Brad in an earlier email, there may be a short cut. I sent my original findings to a cousin who also genealogises and he may have kept my findings, if so I will post them onto this group. In short the proof lies in three land exchanges or gifts from Allachie to his niece, Helen, daughter of his older brother Ballintomb and wife of the 'Goodman of Keithmore'. He left his niece most of his estate. Interesting the appendage of 'Goodman' denoting that Alex Duff, whose sword I have, Was not of Gentle birth! Peter

On Saturday, June 11, 2016 at 8:02:19 AM UTC+10, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote: > On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 5:44:11 PM UTC-3, Douglas Richardson wrote: <snip> > > The exact relationship between Eustace de Hélicourt and his kinsman, > > Bernard de Balliol II, is not known. > Thank you very much for your thorough answer. > > I've found that the most recent studies about this family are those of > Geoffrey Stell, mainly: > a) "The Balliol Family and the Great Cause of 1291-1292." Essays on the > Nobility of Medieval Scotland. Edited by K.J. Stringer (Edinburgh, 1985), > 150-65. And > b) "In Search of the Balliols: 2. France." Balliol College Record (1999), > 11-5. I haven't seen the second of these, but in the first Stell appears to have relied for the relationship between Eustace de Hélicourt and Bernard de Balliol on GA Moriarty's 'The Baliols in Picardy, England and Scotland', *NEHGR* 106 (1952), which he described as "not witrhout errors". <snip> > So, whatever the relationship between Eustace and Bernard II, it's clear > that the French fiefs, which were centered around Bailleul-en-Vimeu, > where the family had its origins, belonged to one or, maybe two, very > close related families (or two branches of the same family). François Darsy in his 1896 study of Hélicourt found not enough evidence to trace the succession of seigneurs before Eustace - the earliest record he cited was the latter's charter dated 1190 for the leper hospital at Val de Bugny. Peter Stewart

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:51:06 PM UTC-7, P J Evans wrote: > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:38:33 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 2:01:09 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > > > On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 1:19:27 PM UTC-7, Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr. wrote: > > > > > > > I agree that this discussion should discontinue, as well, because it all > > > > boils down to basic philosophical differences. [The proposal that one type > > > > of organism could descend from another type goes back to some of the first > > > > pre-Socratic Greek philosophers, such as Anaximander and Empedocles.] . . > > > > > > Ah, and finally, finally, we see the crux of the matter. DNA cannot be reliably used for genealogy, because DNA supports evolution that is antithetical to your philosophy. > > > > > > > TAF, is an exceedingly learned man, . . . He does not know, however, the > > > > totality of the field of research, . . . he tries to put up a smoke screen > > > > of his intellectual skills, which are prodigious, when I am only simply > > > > pointing out, some of the most obvious inconsistencies of what is promised > > > > vs. real time similar problems, which create in my mind a "mass of > > > > confusion" as to the viability of DNA use. > > > > > > Except these inconsistencies only exist due to your lack of familiarity with the underlying principles (both the physiological mechanisms and the testing). It is not 'putting up a smoke screen' to try to explain why the aspects you perceive to be a problem are not relevant to the application of DNA to genealogical testing. Further, you repeatedly overreach in suggesting that any problem with any aspect of our understanding of DNA invalidates all DNA-based results. This is no more valid than to suggest that the frequent indexing errors on Ancestry.com invalidate the images of primary documents found there. > > > > > > taf > > ---------------------------------- > > REPLY: > > TAF, you are HALF-way home. DNA does not support EITHER one. Yes, it does not support my philosophy, NOR does it support evolution. Conjectures offer no support at all, because the sample sizes and availability over time do not exist. From a Christian standpoint, many saints' bodies from Adam on down, have already been resurrected; from a secular standpoint, mass movements, like the Syrian migrations of today, Chinatowns and pockets of ethnic groups, do not make geographic maps realistic. It is all sad, comic DNA fantasy. And yes, TAF, I have been reading over time, thousands of professional and popular articles on the subject, Googled worldwide, etc. CONCLUSION. There is more scientific reliability in weather forecasting, than various comic DNA fantasy projections. > > What your particular sect of Christianity believes happens to dead bodies is not connected to genealogy or DNA, which are based on facts rather than faith. (It does raise questions about whether you even understand the difference between fact and belief.) ------------------ REPLY: This is not sect centric; it was linguistically motivated, coming from item by Johann Albrecht Bengel (24 June 1687 – 2 November 1752); i.e., Bengelius, Greek-language scholar; re: Greek New Testament and related commentaries. [His fame was such that almost 200 years later, Hermann Hesse has the hero of The Glass Bead Game discuss Bengel's writings.]. . . [Hermann Karl Hesse . . . (2 July 1877 – 9 August 1962) was a German-born Swiss poet, novelist, and painter. His best-known works include Steppenwolf, Siddhartha, and The Glass Bead Game, each of which explores an individual's search for authenticity, self-knowledge and spirituality. In 1946, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature.] ITEM: From BibleHub http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/27-52.htm "Matthew 27:52. Τῶν κεκοιμημένων ἁγίων, of the saints that had slept) The name saints belongs equally to the living and the dead; yea, in the mention of the dead, the determining clause is added, “who had slept.” And these saints are reckoned such, not by human, but Divine Canon. Of the Saints, who had died either a long while before the birth of Christ, or not much after (see Gnomon on John 11:25), from all tribes no doubt. The ancients appear to have considered Job to have been one of these; for, at the end of his book, the LXX. and Theodotion add γέγραπται δὲ αὐτὸν πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι μεθʼ ὧν ὁ κύριος ἀνίστησιν, but it is written that he shall rise again with those whom the Lord raises." Thus, as I suggested, from Adam and Eve, to the time of Holy Messiah. Matthew wrote it as a fact, attested to by saints living in those ancient times. The belief system that they had was all from eye-witness testimony, as recorded. Which brings up a parallel item of interest specifically related to medieval genealogical resources. DNA May Reveal Origins of Medieval Manuscripts By Andrea Thompson | February 10, 2009 . . . Stinson's plan, which he recently presented at the annual meeting of the Bibliographical Society of America in New York, is to take DNA samples from manuscripts with known dates and establish a reference base to which samples of texts of unknown origin can be compared. He hopes to do this by pinning down the specific herds of animals each piece of parchment came from and comparing pieces for potential family relationships. If it works, it could make tracing the lineage of ancient books much easier. . . . http://www.livescience.com/3300-dna-reveal-origins-medieval-manuscripts.html Current: Mitochondrial DNA analysis of medieval sheep (Ovis aries) in central Italy reveals the predominance of haplogroup B already in the Middle Ages. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25917303 It is denialism to suggest to anyone, at this stage of DNA research, (that said information is practical, usable evidence, when every individual examined piece of evidence provided is incomplete and underrepresented); and, logically, it cannot be made to conform, without force of reputation, into other documented written resources, to obtain a solid, comparative conclusion. Do not be misled.

On Friday, June 10, 2016 at 3:26:11 PM UTC-7, PDeloriol via wrote: > T'was I who originally placed Helen as daughter of Allachie in the Roglo > database as she is many times an ancestor of mine. I did however find new > evidence that shows she was indeed daughter of Ballintomb in the last few > months. > > Unfortunately we are in the throes of moving and with the combined 10,000 > books I have along with the countless family trees i have collated i will > not be able to find the suitable data for this lady in the short term. As i > explained to Brad in an earlier email, there may be a short cut. I sent my > original findings to a cousin who also genealogises and he may have kept my > findings, if so I will post them onto this group. > > In short the proof lies in three land exchanges or gifts from Allachie to > his niece, Helen, daughter of his older brother Ballintomb and wife of the > 'Goodman of Keithmore'. He left his niece most of his estate. > > Interesting the appendage of 'Goodman' denoting that Alex Duff, whose sword > I have, Was not of Gentle birth! > > Peter Here's some context as background for Peter's note, for those who may be interested: Brad Verity and I with a couple of others have exchanged emails in the past few days regarding the parentage of Helen Grant, wife of Alexander Duff of Keithmore. As the Duff surname may suggest, this couple is ancestral to the Duke of Fife, as well as many other people including the poet Lord Byron, Prince William the Duke of Cambridge - and Peter de Loriol! The discussion was prompted by Brad's recent post on his "Royal Descent" blog (http://royaldescent.blogspot.com/) regarding the matrilineal line of descent for Katharine Gordon, mother of Lord Byron the poet. Helen Grant is a part of that line, but sources have differed as to whether her father was Alexander Grant of Allachie (as indicated in Brad's blog post) or his elder brother Archibald Grant of Ballintomb. For example (and these are not the only sources at issue), BP (starting at least as early as 1914 and continuing to the last edition of 2003) indicates her father to be Archibald Grant of Balintomb, while Burke's LG, in at least one of its editions, says he was Alexander Grant of Allachie. As Peter suggests in his note, he had previously supported Alexander Grant of Allachie as Helen's father, but he recently found evidence causing him to change to Archibald Grant of Balintomb. If anybody has any information to add on this issue, it would be quite welcome.