On 01-Sep-17 11:14 AM, wjhonson wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 4:46:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 01-Sep-17 1:35 AM, wjhonson wrote: >>> On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:39:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >>>> On 31-Aug-17 12:55 PM, wjhonson wrote: >>>>> I have no idea why people put up straw men arguments. >>>>> >>>>> Did any of what I said, say that I *do not* use a paper trail? No. >>>> I asked if you used a paper trail and in reply you posted "I don't". >>>> >>>> Peter Stewart >>> Well I think you asked if I "establish" this by a paper trail. >>> What I'm suggesting is that instead of the paper trail being the basis, and the DNA being the additional evidence, that you flip it around. >>> >>> Make the DNA the *basis* of the tree, and the paper trail be the "additional evidence" >> The "this" that I asked if you established by a paper trail was >> specifically information that was preliminary to DNA analysis, i.e. who >> was descended from one of two siblings and not from the other. >> >> You wrote: >> >> "How can I tell if a snippet came through the line from Mary or the line >> from Franz???? How!!!!! Because you test people who came through Mary >> but did *not* come through Franz, and you test people who came through >> Franz and did *not* come through Mary." >> >> So are you now saying that you use DNA testing, rather than a paper >> trail, as the basis for working out whose DNA to test in order to >> exclude descendants of both siblings? How can DNA testing chase its own >> tail in this way? >> >> Peter Stewart > I'm not saying that you use DNA to figure out who to test. > I'm saying that the DNA is used to "establish" how someone is or is not related. > > You use traditional research to determine who to test, but only the DNA can speak to whether they should be established in that tree position. > > If the DNA is negative, they should be knocked out of that tree. > Then you have to search among your matches for who should be put into that position. But if the DNA can't distinguish between either Mary or Fritz as the individual's ancestor, it seems you are saying that "traditional research" - that is, the paper trail - is crucial input to your process. If the input is wrong about which of two (rather than both) siblings belong in the ancestry, then the DNA testing that follows will not make this right, the analysis will be misleading, and you are stuck with relying on the correctness of your paper trail. Peter Stewart Peter Stewart

On 8/30/2017 11:36 AM, wjhonson wrote: > Like I said, relying on Y matches *with* a "strong paper trail" is the > quest of fools and old sponges. > If you have not used Autosomal DNA to even show that you are related to your own "relatives", than you need to start from scratch. Repeating such statements over and over again does not make them true.  You seem to offer no justification for these statements beyond some general concerns that maybe some combination of unlikely events has caused the evidence to be misinterpreted.  All individuals who are knowledgeable about DNA genealogy know that there is a statistical aspect to this that make absolute certainty impossible.  One can always concoct scenarios in which some series of unlikely events has caused evidence to lead to incorrect conclusions, and most of us try to follow a sort of "let's not be ridiculous" principle.  After all, how do we know that one of your parents wasn't formerly a foreign spy with a falsified identity, and that foreign agents didn't also use their contacts at the DNA companies to falsify your DNA report to keep you from finding out? (Don't worry, I won't report you.)  If two individuals with the same surname have closely matching DNA suggesting a common ancestry after the surname forming period, then it is much more likely than not that their common ancestor also had that surname.  If they have strong paper trails identifying a common ancestor (and I mean genuinely strong, not just what an amateur might think is strong), then it is much more likely than not that their genetic ancestry matches their paper trail ancestry.  If their are many such individuals descended in a wide variety of ways from the common ancestor, then the evidence is nearly certain (with the possible, but still unlikely, exception of the most recent common ancestor's wife having an affair with another man).  Your insistence on autosomal DNA makes me wonder why you are even concerned about medieval genealogy, for which autosomal DNA currently has virtually no use (a situation that will continue unless we start digging up mass quantities of medieval corpses and testing them, and even then would be largely hit or miss). Stewart Baldwin

Hello, I am looking for any information on the marriage and background of Maud Grayndour and Helias Walwayn (otherwise spelled as Elias Walwyn and other medieval variants). I am interested in Helias in particular, a member of the Herefordshire family based at Much Marcle. According to various online genealogy sites, apparently gleaned from printed volumes of early English pedigrees, he was born in 1255 and 1286. I'd ideally like to be pointed towards some reliable primary references for his existence. Thank you.

On 9/1/2017 2:11 AM, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > I'm not sure funds would be a problem for Y DNA testing. I would guess > this is more of a problem of being outside their specialty? In reality > the biggest question would be judging people's paper trails, and > recruiting the best ones. Possibly they were even hoping the amateur > community would just do the work once they published what they had for > Richard? In my experience in the current academic world, funding almost always difficult when there is no "real world application" (translation: large financial return).  Lack of expertise in genealogy is also a serious problem.  Many of these researchers are not only poor judges of genealogical research, but they often seem unaware that this is even an issue. Stewart Baldwin

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 9:53:15 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > On 8/30/2017 11:36 AM, wjhonson wrote: > > > Like I said, relying on Y matches *with* a "strong paper trail" is the > > quest of fools and old sponges. > > If you have not used Autosomal DNA to even show that you are related to your own "relatives", than you need to start from scratch. > > Repeating such statements over and over again does not make them true.  > You seem to offer no justification for these statements beyond some > general concerns that maybe some combination of unlikely events has > caused the evidence to be misinterpreted.  All individuals who are > knowledgeable about DNA genealogy know that there is a statistical > aspect to this that make absolute certainty impossible.  One can always > concoct scenarios in which some series of unlikely events has caused > evidence to lead to incorrect conclusions, and most of us try to follow > a sort of "let's not be ridiculous" principle.  After all, how do we > know that one of your parents wasn't formerly a foreign spy with a > falsified identity, and that foreign agents didn't also use their > contacts at the DNA companies to falsify your DNA report to keep you > from finding out? (Don't worry, I won't report you.)  If two individuals > with the same surname have closely matching DNA suggesting a common > ancestry after the surname forming period, then it is much more likely > than not that their common ancestor also had that surname.  If they have > strong paper trails identifying a common ancestor (and I mean genuinely > strong, not just what an amateur might think is strong), then it is much > more likely than not that their genetic ancestry matches their paper > trail ancestry.  If their are many such individuals descended in a wide > variety of ways from the common ancestor, then the evidence is nearly > certain (with the possible, but still unlikely, exception of the most > recent common ancestor's wife having an affair with another man).  Your > insistence on autosomal DNA makes me wonder why you are even concerned > about medieval genealogy, for which autosomal DNA currently has > virtually no use (a situation that will continue unless we start digging > up mass quantities of medieval corpses and testing them, and even then > would be largely hit or miss). > > Stewart Baldwin Exactly. For example my surname is Langley, my Y DNA cluster of Langleys is about 10-15+ strong, the biggest cluster of Langleys tested. Due to the amount of matching surnames I am confident I am a Langley back to at least 300-500 years ago. Something else would be immensely unlikely. Additionally those that test tie back to South Carolina overlapping suspected relations to my paper trail. This strongly supports my paper trail, certainly I descend from something close to it. If I had Y DNA match a sizable cluster of Langleys from England that would also tell me plenty. None of this requires autosomal DNA. With that said I've done many autosomal DNA tests as well, myself, my mother, father, maternal aunt, uncle and grandmother, as well as a cousin. It's great for more recent generations of genealogy and is useful in conjunction with Y DNA testing too. They both have value outside of each other.

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 8:26:10 AM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-7, Darrel Hockley wrote: > > Various Howard families that settled in Massachusetts in the 1620s to > > 1640s, including my Howard ancestor Edward Howard (1616 to about 1688) > > of Boston, MA, originally from London, England belong to Haplogroup G. > > We do not have any paper trail to connect these various Howards, but > > they all have a belief they are descendants of the Dukes of Norfolk. > > If the haplogroup of the members of the House of Howard (Dukes of > > Norfolk) is indeed G, would perhaps the father or grandfather of King > > Richard III was really a Howard? > > Or one of the early Howards was fathered by an Earl Warenne. Remember, we have no reason whatsoever, based on the DNA, to conclude it was Richard's line and not that of the Beauforts where the illegitimacy took place. > > It is not surprising that people with this surname claim descent from the Dukes of Norfolk, but if FT-DNA's Howard project is any indication, there is an extreme amount of variation, was would be expected with a patroymic. Even if one of the groups descends from the Howard Dukes, the vast majority of them do not, and it is more likely that these haplotype G Howards have nothing to do with the Dukes. > > Likewise, the few Howards in the project that are haplotype G all have differences with one or more of the 23 known markers for Richard. As I said elsewhere, G2 has been around for 7000 years, so finding any old G2 and saying 'maybe this is Richard's family' is unlikely to be productive. > > taf Very true, additionally it's perfectly possible both Richard and the Beauforts were illegtimate, or the mordern people descended from the Beauforts were as well illegitimate (maybe even a couple times over). This is where one wishes we could 1) DNA tests (Y DNA, mtDNA, and autosomal DNA) all the royal and noble remains we have access to 2) DNA test a good portion of the modern population We'd answer these questions and probably find a few more interesting ones we didn't know to ask

On 01-Sep-17 1:35 AM, wjhonson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:39:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 31-Aug-17 12:55 PM, wjhonson wrote: >>> I have no idea why people put up straw men arguments. >>> >>> Did any of what I said, say that I *do not* use a paper trail? No. >> I asked if you used a paper trail and in reply you posted "I don't". >> >> Peter Stewart > Well I think you asked if I "establish" this by a paper trail. > What I'm suggesting is that instead of the paper trail being the basis, and the DNA being the additional evidence, that you flip it around. > > Make the DNA the *basis* of the tree, and the paper trail be the "additional evidence" The "this" that I asked if you established by a paper trail was specifically information that was preliminary to DNA analysis, i.e. who was descended from one of two siblings and not from the other. You wrote: "How can I tell if a snippet came through the line from Mary or the line from Franz???? How!!!!! Because you test people who came through Mary but did *not* come through Franz, and you test people who came through Franz and did *not* come through Mary." So are you now saying that you use DNA testing, rather than a paper trail, as the basis for working out whose DNA to test in order to exclude descendants of both siblings? How can DNA testing chase its own tail in this way? Peter Stewart

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:26:25 PM UTC-7, Darrel Hockley wrote: > Various Howard families that settled in Massachusetts in the 1620s to > 1640s, including my Howard ancestor Edward Howard (1616 to about 1688) > of Boston, MA, originally from London, England belong to Haplogroup G. > We do not have any paper trail to connect these various Howards, but > they all have a belief they are descendants of the Dukes of Norfolk. > If the haplogroup of the members of the House of Howard (Dukes of > Norfolk) is indeed G, would perhaps the father or grandfather of King > Richard III was really a Howard? Or one of the early Howards was fathered by an Earl Warenne. Remember, we have no reason whatsoever, based on the DNA, to conclude it was Richard's line and not that of the Beauforts where the illegitimacy took place. It is not surprising that people with this surname claim descent from the Dukes of Norfolk, but if FT-DNA's Howard project is any indication, there is an extreme amount of variation, was would be expected with a patroymic. Even if one of the groups descends from the Howard Dukes, the vast majority of them do not, and it is more likely that these haplotype G Howards have nothing to do with the Dukes. Likewise, the few Howards in the project that are haplotype G all have differences with one or more of the 23 known markers for Richard. As I said elsewhere, G2 has been around for 7000 years, so finding any old G2 and saying 'maybe this is Richard's family' is unlikely to be productive. taf

Various Howard families that settled in Massachusetts in the 1620s to 1640s, including my Howard ancestor Edward Howard (1616 to about 1688) of Boston, MA, originally from London, England belong to Haplogroup G. We do not have any paper trail to connect these various Howards, but they all have a belief they are descendants of the Dukes of Norfolk. If the haplogroup of the members of the House of Howard (Dukes of Norfolk) is indeed G, would perhaps the father or grandfather of King Richard III was really a Howard? Darrel Hockley

On Friday, September 1, 2017 at 3:14:32 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 4:46:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > > On 01-Sep-17 1:35 AM, wjhonson wrote: > > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:39:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > > >> On 31-Aug-17 12:55 PM, wjhonson wrote: > > >>> I have no idea why people put up straw men arguments. > > >>> > > >>> Did any of what I said, say that I *do not* use a paper trail? No. > > >> I asked if you used a paper trail and in reply you posted "I don't". > > >> > > >> Peter Stewart > > > Well I think you asked if I "establish" this by a paper trail. > > > What I'm suggesting is that instead of the paper trail being the basis, and the DNA being the additional evidence, that you flip it around. > > > > > > Make the DNA the *basis* of the tree, and the paper trail be the "additional evidence" > > > > The "this" that I asked if you established by a paper trail was > > specifically information that was preliminary to DNA analysis, i.e. who > > was descended from one of two siblings and not from the other. > > > > You wrote: > > > > "How can I tell if a snippet came through the line from Mary or the line > > from Franz???? How!!!!! Because you test people who came through Mary > > but did *not* come through Franz, and you test people who came through > > Franz and did *not* come through Mary." > > > > So are you now saying that you use DNA testing, rather than a paper > > trail, as the basis for working out whose DNA to test in order to > > exclude descendants of both siblings? How can DNA testing chase its own > > tail in this way? > > > > Peter Stewart > > I'm not saying that you use DNA to figure out who to test. > I'm saying that the DNA is used to "establish" how someone is or is not related. > > You use traditional research to determine who to test, but only the DNA can speak to whether they should be established in that tree position. > > If the DNA is negative, they should be knocked out of that tree. > Then you have to search among your matches for who should be put into that position. The verb "establish" seems to being used to mean "confirm" here, meaning a double check on whatever other evidence you might have, which is what everyone else has been saying would be a normal methodology. Of course you can also start with a DNA test and hope for a recently related match, but then you still need to work out what the results mean, and without other types of evidence (for example the situation of some adoptees) this will be impossible. (For example, looking at censuses, or even just writing to your match to ask where they live etc, is "paper trail" research.) I think every attempt to get this discussion in practical terms is showing that there is no really new approach being proposed behind all the exciting wordings about other types of evidence being useless etc. Furthermore I think the point about the above only working for recent generations and being irrelevant for medieval discussions remains valid, except in the sense which proves the point: confirming RECENT relationships, in the event your interest in medieval genealogy is driven by a need to connect to RECENT relationships.

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 11:08:51 PM UTC+2, taf wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 12:06:22 PM UTC-7, gets...@gmail.com > > funds just limited? > > I suspect that the answer is much more mundane. These are scientists doing genetic anthropology, not genealogists going genealogy. The 23 marker test is standard 'first-pass' analysis for anthropological samples, as indicated by the fact that the biotech company Promega markets a 23-marker kit. Likewise, the test accomplished what they needed it to - their goal was not to identify modern kin of the Plangtagenets, as a genealogist might set out to do. Their goal was to see whether Richard's matched the Beaufort/Somerset type. The 23-marker test was fully sufficient to allow an unambiguous conclusion that negated a Y-chromosome match. > > This is standard scientific process - come up with a hypothesis, ask a discreet question, preferably one that produces a yes-or-no answer, and perform a test that answers that question to see it it confirms the hypothesis. The alternative, what a genealogist would do, determine a detailed haplotype and then, vaguely, 'see if you can find anyone anywhere that matches it - to cast a wide net and see what you catch, is disparaged in science as a so-called fishing expedition (a term misused earlier in this thread), and is unfundable. They had a definitive, publishable result, and so they published it. > > The next question is whether they will pursue it further. Bearing in mind that their audience is one of scientists and not genealogists, they may well conclude that the take isn't worth the chase. No funding agency would fund such an investigation, since in addition to being a fishing expedition, there is a distinct possibility they would fail to find any matches, meaning the money would be wasted. Even if they did, such a result may be unpublishable - > if they were to find someone named Smith who matches Richard's Y, what do you say about it that would appeal to a scientific journal? That is why they told of the Patrice de Warren result in an interview with The Guardian, because they saw no prospects of the result ever being part of a scientific paper. > > If they got the money to sequence the genome, then they may spin off a little bit of money to do a more detailed Y-typing, but if they didn't get the money, they are likely to turn their sights to a different question entirely - they intend to investigate Jack the Ripper's victims. This is actually a hopeful sign, as there is no purely scientific or historic reason for doing this. There is no question of the identity of the skeletons, and nothing that makes their genetics 'special'. They are clearly chasing headlines, so they may be more willing to do experiments that have poor justification on a purely scientific basis, if they think it will get them in the papers, and 'is Bob Smith from Ipswich the true heir of the Plantagenets?' just might do the trick. > I'm not sure funds would be a problem for Y DNA testing. I would guess this is more of a problem of being outside their specialty? In reality the biggest question would be judging people's paper trails, and recruiting the best ones. Possibly they were even hoping the amateur community would just do the work once they published what they had for Richard? By the way it is possible to write to Turi King and ask what their ideas are. The team at Leicester have been open to discussion with amateur genealogists over the years.

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 4:08:51 PM UTC-5, taf wrote: > On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 12:06:22 PM UTC-7, gets...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 2:54:20 PM UTC-5, taf wrote: > > > They did a 23-marker analysis, which is pretty superficial, and gave thm just one step beyond the basal haplogroup. G2 arose well before 7000 years ago, at which time is is found in Spain, France and Germany, in burials associated with the first agriculturalist populations that spread from Anatolia to largely displace the native hunter-gatherers. It was already highly divergent by that time, so it probably is quite ancient. The 23-marker testing done on Richard does not allow his subclade to be determined, so a surname analysis on this level would be largely uninformative. To say that Alans included Gs so Richard's came from the Alans is completely unsupportable in light of this history. > > > > > > For their specific results, see Supplementary Table 2, on p. 8 of their Data Supplement: > > > https://images.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/extref/ncomms6631-s1.pdf > > > > > > They have an ongoing project to do whole genome sequencing, from which further markers may be determined that would allow the subclade to be determined, but as far as I know, this information is not public yet, and until it is, such a surname study can only serve to exclude those who are not G2, but will not provide genealogically-relevant information. > > > > > > > Amazing. Posted this thread--left for a little while--and came back to > > a fascinating discussion. Why did they even bother with such a superficial > > test when so many people worldwide must be interested in the details of > > Richard's DNA? Just wondering if politics and funding weigh into what > > seems to be an academic "walking on eggshells." Is there a question of > > embarrassing the monarchy with the truth about Richard's male line or are > > funds just limited? > > I suspect that the answer is much more mundane. These are scientists doing genetic anthropology, not genealogists going genealogy. The 23 marker test is standard 'first-pass' analysis for anthropological samples, as indicated by the fact that the biotech company Promega markets a 23-marker kit. Likewise, the test accomplished what they needed it to - their goal was not to identify modern kin of the Plangtagenets, as a genealogist might set out to do. Their goal was to see whether Richard's matched the Beaufort/Somerset type. The 23-marker test was fully sufficient to allow an unambiguous conclusion that negated a Y-chromosome match. > > This is standard scientific process - come up with a hypothesis, ask a discreet question, preferably one that produces a yes-or-no answer, and perform a test that answers that question to see it it confirms the hypothesis. The alternative, what a genealogist would do, determine a detailed haplotype and then, vaguely, 'see if you can find anyone anywhere that matches it - to cast a wide net and see what you catch, is disparaged in science as a so-called fishing expedition (a term misused earlier in this thread), and is unfundable. They had a definitive, publishable result, and so they published it. > > The next question is whether they will pursue it further. Bearing in mind that their audience is one of scientists and not genealogists, they may well conclude that the take isn't worth the chase. No funding agency would fund such an investigation, since in addition to being a fishing expedition, there is a distinct possibility they would fail to find any matches, meaning the money would be wasted. Even if they did, such a result may be unpublishable - > if they were to find someone named Smith who matches Richard's Y, what do you say about it that would appeal to a scientific journal? That is why they told of the Patrice de Warren result in an interview with The Guardian, because they saw no prospects of the result ever being part of a scientific paper. > > If they got the money to sequence the genome, then they may spin off a little bit of money to do a more detailed Y-typing, but if they didn't get the money, they are likely to turn their sights to a different question entirely - they intend to investigate Jack the Ripper's victims. This is actually a hopeful sign, as there is no purely scientific or historic reason for doing this. There is no question of the identity of the skeletons, and nothing that makes their genetics 'special'. They are clearly chasing headlines, so they may be more willing to do experiments that have poor justification on a purely scientific basis, if they think it will get them in the papers, and 'is Bob Smith from Ipswich the true heir of the Plantagenets?' just might do the trick. > > taf "Is Bob Smith from Ipswich the true heir of the Plantagenets?" That's a great one and I hope so! One of my numerous ancient relatives in Ipswich will match for sure. Thank you for the detailed answer--very interesting to explore the motivations here. Chasing headlines is a tried and true way of pulling in some funding, I guess, but there's way too much out there now about Jack the Ripper--enough already. And how do you gain an audience by highlighting the DNA of starving prostitutes? They should try to dig up something on the young princes in the tower--it pulls on the heartstrings and brings us back to...Richard. :)

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 4:46:30 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > On 01-Sep-17 1:35 AM, wjhonson wrote: > > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:39:14 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> On 31-Aug-17 12:55 PM, wjhonson wrote: > >>> I have no idea why people put up straw men arguments. > >>> > >>> Did any of what I said, say that I *do not* use a paper trail? No. > >> I asked if you used a paper trail and in reply you posted "I don't". > >> > >> Peter Stewart > > Well I think you asked if I "establish" this by a paper trail. > > What I'm suggesting is that instead of the paper trail being the basis, and the DNA being the additional evidence, that you flip it around. > > > > Make the DNA the *basis* of the tree, and the paper trail be the "additional evidence" > > The "this" that I asked if you established by a paper trail was > specifically information that was preliminary to DNA analysis, i.e. who > was descended from one of two siblings and not from the other. > > You wrote: > > "How can I tell if a snippet came through the line from Mary or the line > from Franz???? How!!!!! Because you test people who came through Mary > but did *not* come through Franz, and you test people who came through > Franz and did *not* come through Mary." > > So are you now saying that you use DNA testing, rather than a paper > trail, as the basis for working out whose DNA to test in order to > exclude descendants of both siblings? How can DNA testing chase its own > tail in this way? > > Peter Stewart I'm not saying that you use DNA to figure out who to test. I'm saying that the DNA is used to "establish" how someone is or is not related. You use traditional research to determine who to test, but only the DNA can speak to whether they should be established in that tree position. If the DNA is negative, they should be knocked out of that tree. Then you have to search among your matches for who should be put into that position.

On 31-Aug-17 2:08 PM, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 8:45:08 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > >>> You keep dividing, without multiplying. You have to do both. >> Loss is loss, it is progressive, and it doesn't matter how many >> descendants there are that don't have the lost material. > By the way, it isn't good enough for the DNA to be preserved in some line, it has to be identifiable to be any good to the analysis. There is an amount actually, literally, lost but a further amount that is lost to the analysis because its presence can not be linked to the common descent. You act like if the DNA is anywhere, among any of the descendants, then it is useful in a reconstruction/confirmation, but it has to be shared by multiple descendants and it has to be known that it is shared because of the specific common descent being evaluated. If either of these conditions fail, then the sequence in question is not literally lost but is lost to the analysis nonetheless. In the other post, I already showed how dramatic this loss can be if you ever have a generation with a small number of siblings. > > I can remember someone telling me that with a powerful enough superdupercomputer it should be possible to recover the voice of George Washington, because we can track individual molecules in the air to determine their trajectories and velocities, then extrapolate them back into the sound waves that dissipated to leave them in their current state, and thereby reconstruct progressive sets of sound waves, back in time, until you get to George Washington. Like with what you propose, the theory is sound (if simplistic), but in the real world any attempt would fail abysmally. I think this is an apt comparison not just as to practicability, but also as to futility - curiosity value may be vastly higher than potential usefulness. Some years ago a sound recording was found that is thought to have captured Queen Victoria speaking in the background. The only slight value of this, apart from the novelty of hearing what may be a voice from history, is that the woman seems not have had much of a German accent (that is a canard often repeated about her family). It would be about equally useful to find out that William the Conqueror did not carry the genes for a receding chin - and before anyone chimes in that we don't yet know how to make such a linkage anyway, there is at least one major project, reported on TV news in Australia a few days ago, to identify genes for such facial features. Peter Stewart

On Thursday, August 31, 2017 at 12:06:22 PM UTC-7, gets...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 2:54:20 PM UTC-5, taf wrote: > > They did a 23-marker analysis, which is pretty superficial, and gave thm just one step beyond the basal haplogroup. G2 arose well before 7000 years ago, at which time is is found in Spain, France and Germany, in burials associated with the first agriculturalist populations that spread from Anatolia to largely displace the native hunter-gatherers. It was already highly divergent by that time, so it probably is quite ancient. The 23-marker testing done on Richard does not allow his subclade to be determined, so a surname analysis on this level would be largely uninformative. To say that Alans included Gs so Richard's came from the Alans is completely unsupportable in light of this history. > > > > For their specific results, see Supplementary Table 2, on p. 8 of their Data Supplement: > > https://images.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/extref/ncomms6631-s1.pdf > > > > They have an ongoing project to do whole genome sequencing, from which further markers may be determined that would allow the subclade to be determined, but as far as I know, this information is not public yet, and until it is, such a surname study can only serve to exclude those who are not G2, but will not provide genealogically-relevant information. > > > > Amazing. Posted this thread--left for a little while--and came back to > a fascinating discussion. Why did they even bother with such a superficial > test when so many people worldwide must be interested in the details of > Richard's DNA? Just wondering if politics and funding weigh into what > seems to be an academic "walking on eggshells." Is there a question of > embarrassing the monarchy with the truth about Richard's male line or are > funds just limited? I suspect that the answer is much more mundane. These are scientists doing genetic anthropology, not genealogists going genealogy. The 23 marker test is standard 'first-pass' analysis for anthropological samples, as indicated by the fact that the biotech company Promega markets a 23-marker kit. Likewise, the test accomplished what they needed it to - their goal was not to identify modern kin of the Plangtagenets, as a genealogist might set out to do. Their goal was to see whether Richard's matched the Beaufort/Somerset type. The 23-marker test was fully sufficient to allow an unambiguous conclusion that negated a Y-chromosome match. This is standard scientific process - come up with a hypothesis, ask a discreet question, preferably one that produces a yes-or-no answer, and perform a test that answers that question to see it it confirms the hypothesis. The alternative, what a genealogist would do, determine a detailed haplotype and then, vaguely, 'see if you can find anyone anywhere that matches it - to cast a wide net and see what you catch, is disparaged in science as a so-called fishing expedition (a term misused earlier in this thread), and is unfundable. They had a definitive, publishable result, and so they published it. The next question is whether they will pursue it further. Bearing in mind that their audience is one of scientists and not genealogists, they may well conclude that the take isn't worth the chase. No funding agency would fund such an investigation, since in addition to being a fishing expedition, there is a distinct possibility they would fail to find any matches, meaning the money would be wasted. Even if they did, such a result may be unpublishable - if they were to find someone named Smith who matches Richard's Y, what do you say about it that would appeal to a scientific journal? That is why they told of the Patrice de Warren result in an interview with The Guardian, because they saw no prospects of the result ever being part of a scientific paper. If they got the money to sequence the genome, then they may spin off a little bit of money to do a more detailed Y-typing, but if they didn't get the money, they are likely to turn their sights to a different question entirely - they intend to investigate Jack the Ripper's victims. This is actually a hopeful sign, as there is no purely scientific or historic reason for doing this. There is no question of the identity of the skeletons, and nothing that makes their genetics 'special'. They are clearly chasing headlines, so they may be more willing to do experiments that have poor justification on a purely scientific basis, if they think it will get them in the papers, and 'is Bob Smith from Ipswich the true heir of the Plantagenets?' just might do the trick. taf

On 31-Aug-17 12:55 PM, wjhonson wrote: > I have no idea why people put up straw men arguments. > > Did any of what I said, say that I *do not* use a paper trail? No. I asked if you used a paper trail and in reply you posted "I don't". Peter Stewart

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 2:54:20 PM UTC-5, taf wrote: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 10:38:10 AM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > > On 8/26/2017 4:03 PM, taf wrote: > > > In fact, the smallest divisible segments are probably in the 10s to > > > 100s of thousands of bases, which is what puts a definite limit on the > > > number of generations over which autosomal is likely to be informative > > > without a huge amount of luck (for every ancestor from 1600 from whom > > > you have a detectable preserved block, you have many more ancestors > > > from whom you inherit no DNA whatsoever). These blocks pass intact for > > > an incredibly long time, the block that includes the gene determining > > > the most common form of blue eyes is about 150,000bp long and to have > > > passed largely intact for more than 12,000 years. This presents a > > > problem on two sides - relatively close relative may not share the > > > block at all. If two people do share the block, it shows they are > > > related, but perhaps too distantly to be genealogically relevant. > > > > Doesn't the "centimorgan" (cM) measurement take this partially into > > account?  If I understand the method correctly, one cM will sometimes > > contain a huge number of base pairs, and sometimes a relatively small > > number (if it is contained in a "hot spot").  So, wouldn't a long > > segment that passed on intact (or essentially intact) over thousands of > > years have a centimorgan measurement close to zero?  Do I have this right? > > A centimorgan is very much a term of traditional, pre-genomic genetics, so to a degree we are using rotary-phone terminology to describe smartphones, but there are, on average, with very large error bars, about 750,000 bp per cM in humans. If there was a hotspot, this would produce a smaller number of bp per centimorgan in the immediate proximity, while a region devoid of crossing-over would be part of a larger-than-average sized centimorgan (it would take more total sequence to generate a 1% chance of crossing over, since you would have this long stretch with no crossing over whatsoever). > > > > With regard to Richard's Y-DNA, have STR-tests been done for enough > > markers that one could do a global search to see what surnames pop up > > among his closest matches?  I know that the noise to information ration > > can be too large if not enough markers have been tested, but it seems > > like it would be worth a shot. > > They did a 23-marker analysis, which is pretty superficial, and gave thm just one step beyond the basal haplogroup. G2 arose well before 7000 years ago, at which time is is found in Spain, France and Germany, in burials associated with the first agriculturalist populations that spread from Anatolia to largely displace the native hunter-gatherers. It was already highly divergent by that time, so it probably is quite ancient. The 23-marker testing done on Richard does not allow his subclade to be determined, so a surname analysis on this level would be largely uninformative. To say that Alans included Gs so Richard's came from the Alans is completely unsupportable in light of this history. > > For their specific results, see Supplementary Table 2, on p. 8 of their Data Supplement: > https://images.nature.com/original/nature-assets/ncomms/2014/141202/ncomms6631/extref/ncomms6631-s1.pdf > > They have an ongoing project to do whole genome sequencing, from which further markers may be determined that would allow the subclade to be determined, but as far as I know, this information is not public yet, and until it is, such a surname study can only serve to exclude those who are not G2, but will not provide genealogically-relevant information. > > taf Amazing. Posted this thread--left for a little while--and came back to a fascinating discussion. Why did they even bother with such a superficial test when so many people worldwide must be interested in the details of Richard's DNA? Just wondering if politics and funding weigh into what seems to be an academic "walking on eggshells." Is there a question of embarrassing the monarchy with the truth about Richard's male line or are funds just limited?

On 31-Aug-17 11:14 AM, taf wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 5:25:16 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> If you don't use a paper trail to establish which people "came through >> Mary but did *not* come through Franz" in order to eliminate >> cross-relationships for DNA testing, how else do you do this? By ouija >> board perhaps? > Without a paper trail (and that is after all why we are doing this) you would have to compare all 7 billion genomes on the planet to every other one, a 50 septillion-fold matrix with a million sites in each genome to compare. If you have a supercomputer that can do a million-site comparison in a millionth of a second, it would still take about 37 million years to complete the comparisons. Once you start matching sibling genomes and reconstructing hypothetical parental genomes, each of those would then have to be compared to all 7 billion. It is ludicrous to suggest such an analysis would take place, even were the data all to be collected. (and this doesn't even take the data-loss problem into account) Perfectly satisfactory for me, whether or not such a ludicrous attempt is ever made - if there is a species 37 million years from now that has evolved from homo sapiens, I doubt that they will care a fig about individual human beings from any era. I suppose quantum computers might speed things up in the meantime, an if so they can resent the waste of energy in misapplying all this analytical power. A few years ago cosmologists used to snigger condescendingly at anyone who asked "What came before the Big Bang?", but now they are busily (and many of them shamelessly) asking the same question themselves. I hope geneticists will not be so foolish in failing to recognise the extent of their ignorance. Peter Stewart

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 9:47:01 AM UTC-6, Douglas Richardson wrote: > Dear Newsgroup ~ > > Complete Peerage 5 (1926): 581-582 (sub Furnivallle) includes a good biography of Sir Thomas de Furnival, 1st Lord Furnival, who died in 1332. Regarding his first marriage, the following information is given: > > "He married, 1stly, before Jan. 1272/3 (at which date he was a minor), Joan, daughter of Sir Hugh le Despenser, of Ryhall, Rutland, Loughborough, co. Leicester, Parlington, co. York, &c., sometime Justiciar of England, by Aline, daughter and heiress of Sir Philip Basset, of Wycombe, Bucks, &c., also Justiciar of England." END OF QUOTE. > > The following documentation is provided for this marriage on page 581, footnote g, which reads: > > "Close Roll, 1 Edward I, m. 10 d." > > The modern printed reference to the above citation is Calendar of Close Rolls, 1272–1279 (1900): 41. This record is an agreement dated 13 Jan. 1272/3 regarding the already contracted marriage of Thomas, son of Thomas de Furnival, and Joan, daughter of Hugh le Despenser. > > The above record may be viewed at the following weblink: > > https://www.archive.org/stream/calendarclosero03changoog#page/n51/mode/2up > > This marriage surely took place, as among the children of Thomas de Furnival is a daughter named Aline, which daughter was doubtless named for Joan le Despenser's mother, Aline Basset, Countess of Norfolk. > > As we can see, Complete Peerage gives no indication as to when Joan le Despenser died. Nor have I seen her death date is any other published source. However, recently I located a Common Pleas lawsuit which indicates that Joan died testate sometime before Hilary term 1314. The lawsuit in question is abstracted below. > > In Hilary term 1314 Stephen de Stanham sued Thomas de Furnivall, Adam de Brom, and John, parson of the church of Whistan, Yorkshire, executors of the will of Joan late the wife of Thomas de Furnivall, in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 100s. > > Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/204, image 229f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/E2/CP40no204/aCP40no204fronts/IMG_0229.htm). > > For interest's sake, below is a list of the numerous 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Sir Thomas de Furnival, 1st Lord Furnival (died 1332), and his 1st wife, Joan le Despenser: > > Robert Abell, William Asfordby, Christopher Batt, Henry, Thomas & William Batte, William Bladen, George & Nehemiah Blakiston, Thomas Booth, Thomas Bressey, Obadiah Bruen, Stephen Bull, Edward Carleton, Kenelm Cheseldine, Grace Chetwode, Henry Corbin, Thomas Dudley, John Fenwick, John Fisher, Gerard Fowke, Thomas Greene, Muriel Gurdon, John Ireland, Samuel & Sarah Levis, Agnes Mackworth, Roger & Thomas Mallory, Anne, Elizabeth & John Mansfield, Anne & Katherine Marbury, Anne Mauleverer, Joseph & Mary Need, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Ellen Newton, Thomas Owsley, John Oxenbridge, Thomas Rudyard, Richard Saltonstall, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, James Taylor, Margaret Touteville. > > Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah Thanks for that tidbit. Could you give the line to Obadiah Bruen? I'm not seeing it. Thanks, Greg Cooke

On 31-Aug-17 9:53 AM, wjhonson wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 4:46:31 PM UTC-7, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 31-Aug-17 9:22 AM, wjhonson wrote: >>> Let's say some eighth generation descendant or Franz, married some ninth generation descendant of Mary. >>> >>> How can I tell if a snippet came through the line from Mary or the line from Franz???? How!!!!! >>> >>> Because you test people who came through Mary but did *not* come through Franz, and you test people who came through Franz and did *not* come through Mary. >> And you establish this by ... a paper trail? >> >> As one of the pigeons who pursue medieval genealogy with NIL interest in >> DNA results of any kind, I find the cultural aspect of relationships >> between people more interesting than the biological. And FAR more >> interesting than their culturally and biologically diffuse and dilute >> connection to modern individuals. >> >> Peter Stewart > I don't. > Personally I think people who use Y-DNA to give "strong evidence" for their "strong paper trail" are misguided, or possibly worse. > > I am more of an advocate for using Autosomal DNA to turn traditional genealogy upside-down. Start with a foundation, then build. If you don't use a paper trail to establish which people "came through Mary but did *not* come through Franz" in order to eliminate cross-relationships for DNA testing, how else do you do this? By ouija board perhaps? Peter Stewart