On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 2:14:23 PM UTC-4, tkom...@gmail.com wrote: > Hello Leo, can you send me your genealogy records? Tom K. Tom K, According to the Social Security Administration, about 1 in 5 adults who were alive in 2003 (when the post you are replying to was made), are now deceased. Greatly unfortunately, Leo Van de Pas is one of them. --Joe C

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:36:20 AM UTC-7, 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. Given that a "strong paper trail" *without* Y confirmation has to be worse than a paper trail *with* Y confirmation, I have to congratulate you. You have now succeeded in insulting everyone who has ever done medieval genealogy, which it is utterly impossible to verify using your supposed paragon of genealogical confirmation, autosomal DNA analysis. They (we, and you) are all fools and sponges. Well done. taf

Hello Leo, can you send me your genealogy records? Tom K.

Sibilla Ogilvy, wife of John Butter and John Falconer, was the  daughter of John Ogilvy of Powrie and Elizabeth Scrymgeour  NAS: CC3/3/3: Testament-testamentar of Elizabeth Scrymgeour, relict of  John Ogilvy, dated 21 February 1613 (Brechin Commissary Court):        Her  testament gives to daughters Margaret, Elizabeth, and Sibilla, “hail  feddr beds shets blainkats Plaids covering to convtingis taweth uther  fuvuthers of beds pre[sent]lie tening to her p[er]”.  So she had an unmarried daughter named Sibilla.  Elizabeth  Scrymgeour’s executor was her brother John Scrymgeour, Constable of  Dundee.  Dundee City Archives:  Protocol Book of James Wedderburn 1610-1622,  fol. 21v and 24v, in Jack Blair, Ogilvy of That Ilk: Ogilvy of Powrie:  A Genealogical History of an Angus Family from Its Ancient Origins to  the 17th Century, (Dundee:  Tay Valley Family History Society, 2006) ,  page 33, citing the marriage contract:        Sibilla married John Butter of  Gormack.  Their marriage contract was signed at Dundee on 26 June 1615  where she was described as sister german to Thomas Ogilvy of Powrie.  Sir John Scrymgeour of Dudhope, Constable of Dundee, was the  cautioner.  The Burgess Roll of Dundee -1513 to Present (http://www.fdca.org.uk/  LockitF.pdf):  John Falconer was made burgess of Dundee on 23 March 1623.  Comments:  Since John Falconer was in Dundee in 1623, as was Sibilla  Ogilvy, the opportunity to marry each other presented itself.  NAS: GD137/62:        Precept of Clare Constat by John Scrymgeour of Dudop,  Knight, constable of Dundee, for infefting Mr Alexander Wedderburn,  now of Kingenie, as heir of the deceased Mr Alexander Wedderburn elder  of Kingenie, his father, in all and whole a feu ferme of £8 yearly  furth of that land or tenement of the late James Ferriar burgess of  Dundee, lying in the said burgh, on the north side of the Moray gate,  between the lands of the heirs of the late Robert and Thomas Jacks, on  the east, the lands of the heirs of the late Thomas Gardin on the  west, the common meadow on the north, and the lands of the heirs of  the late James Lovell on the south  Dated at Dundee 9 April 1628: witnesses Andrew Pitcairn servitor to  the granter, John Falconar, son of Sir Alexander Falconar of  Halkertoun, knight, and Thomas Wichtan, notary. Signed by John  Scrymgeour and the above witnesses.  NAS:  CC3/3/5:        Testament Dative of Sibilla Ogilvy, confirmed 18 August  1635 (Brechin Commissary Court):  Her testament mentions her spouse  John Falconer, son of Sir Alexander Falconer of Halkerton; David  Falconer, “onlie heire Laulie procreat betwixt thame”; credits from  Archibald Butter of Gormack, brother of Sibilla’s first husband John  Butter, and a debt to John Scrymgeour of Dundee, undoubtedly her uncle  who was cautioner at her first marriage.  NAS:  CS11, Minute books of the Court of Session, First Series, Hay:  Falconer qr Butter ob. 4 November 1635:        Unfortunately, the  corresponding book of deeds where this was recorded no longer exists.  It probably involved the debts owed by Archibald Butter of Gormack,  brother of John Butter, first husband of Sibilla Ogilvy. 

On 8/30/2017 3:01 AM, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:18:06 AM UTC+2, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > >> Your comment (elsewhere in this thread) indicating that 23 markers might >> not be enough to get good information made me wonder if my own results >> are atypical.  Among my Y-DNA matches at Family Tree DNA (none >> apparently any closer than 6th cousins), my 67 marker test shows 25 >> matches with "genetic distance" between 3 and 5 (none closer than that), >> 19 of whose surnames are either Baldwin or one of the variants of >> Maybury (Mayberry, Mabry, etc.), with many more of the latter.  My group >> of Baldwins appears to have arisen from a "non-paternal event" (NPE) >> with a Maybury biological father around 300 years ago, or perhaps >> earlier.  (I have circumstantial evidence for a specific "suspect.") > A 67 marker cluster containing about 3 major old surname groups sounds fairly typical in English surnames. (Logically for example, highland families tend to show much more surname mixing.) In my experience though, the testing companies give guidance about expected time back to the common ancestor which UNDER estimates (possibly thinking it helps keep enthusiasm up?). This leads people to assume NPEs. But possibly the two surnames go back to the middle ages and a time when surnames were less fixed. In many examples there is enough paper trail to be confident that recent dates are not possible. In the case I was referring to, the NPE seems fairly well established.  Among the Mayburys (and obvious variant spellings) who have tested STRs on 67 (or more) markers, a large majority of them fall into a single Y-DNA cluster with paper trails going back to multiple immigrants from England and Ireland, but closely enough related that their common ancestor appears to postdate the time when surnames were first appearing.  Not surprisingly, Baldwin (being a patronymic type surname) is a multiple origin surname, containing several different Y-DNA clusters.  All of my Baldwin surnamed close Y-DNA matches either provably or arguably (in the case of a few weak paper trails) descend from the two sons (and only recorded children) of the same immigrant ancestor John Baldwin who came to Pennsylvania in 1699.  What appears to clinch the NPE in this case is that Mayburys descended from the Pennsylvania group of Mayburys have a 67 marker signature indicating that they were more closely related to my group of Baldwins than they were to Mayburys descended from other immigrants.  Circumstantial evidence which falls short of proof leads me to conjecture that a certain Thomas Maybury who arrived in Pennsylvania around 1716 was the biological father of John Baldwin's two paper-trail sons.  John Baldwin the immigrant had a brother William who also came to Pennsylvania, and still had at least a few dozen direct male line descendants living in the mid 1800's.  If that line still survives in the direct male line, hopefully some of them will have a test eventually to help narrow down things a bit. It would also help a lot of DNA studies if people in England (and Europe in general) were as enthusiastic about having DNA tests as many Americans are. Stewart Baldwin

I would never have guessed this thread would become so strange.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 12:41:10 AM UTC-4, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > I haven't received my copy yet. I would see if I made the cut this year and if they spelled my name right. > Joe Cook Doesn't look like any Cook/Cooke entries this year, unfortunately.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:33:04 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 5:12:57 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > *Paper trails* with conflicting Y results, and with *no* Autosomal proof are worth... nothing. > > I think that is a very over-broad generalization. > > If we take a simple case of two male and their genealogy, and their DNA unexpectedly does not match, then most likely one of them's paper trail is still probably fine, and the other one's probably just has one simple flaw somewhere. > > That information is very useful and worth a lot to a good genealogist, and it also does NOT mean that either of the paper trails must be worthless. > > If we take the case of Richard III, which is actually relevant to this list, then your sweeping generalization advises that EVERYONE who thinks they have an Edward III descent through a York or Lancaster line now has to be certain that they do not, because their was conflicting Y DNA evidence implying a bad paper trail or an NPE somewhere in the last few hundred years. This would be ridiculous advice. This has been discussed many times here. *If* those people who *think* they have a strong paper trail to Edward III have *not* done Autosomal DNA testing to even show that they are related to the grandparent or great-grandparent in that line that they purport to reach back to Edward III, then they *need* a swift kick in the head. Have a nice day.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 9:25:56 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 5:14:36 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > I'm speaking of customers, not scientists. > > Customers testing their own Y and that of a purported sixth cousin, finding a 3 marker mismatch and saying "that's good enough" > > > > It's a house of cards built on marshmellows. > > > > If you have *not* built up your tree using close relatives and Autosomal DNA, than that 3 marker mismatch might be fifty years ago, or five hundred years ago, there is no way to tell. > > But the value of knowing you are in the same long term male line is NOT nothing, surely? (Often a big line can be broken down to much more recent branches because of unusual markers of course, but let's put that aside, and assume worst case for your argument: we only see that a bunch of Lancasters or Johnsons are in the same old male line.) > > It partly depends on the paper trail itself of course. > > For example if you have confidently identified one branch using a strong paper trail (let's say that for example one branch are in Australia and the other are in Scotland, and you know the immigrant) then you have one date after which the common ancestor is unlikely to have lived between that branch and others. You have to go through looking for things like that. > > Most or all genealogy involves trying to build up the probabilities, but knowing you will never reach 100%. Every increase in confidence is worth something. 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.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 5:12:57 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > *Paper trails* with conflicting Y results, and with *no* Autosomal proof are worth... nothing. I think that is a very over-broad generalization. If we take a simple case of two male and their genealogy, and their DNA unexpectedly does not match, then most likely one of them's paper trail is still probably fine, and the other one's probably just has one simple flaw somewhere. That information is very useful and worth a lot to a good genealogist, and it also does NOT mean that either of the paper trails must be worthless. If we take the case of Richard III, which is actually relevant to this list, then your sweeping generalization advises that EVERYONE who thinks they have an Edward III descent through a York or Lancaster line now has to be certain that they do not, because their was conflicting Y DNA evidence implying a bad paper trail or an NPE somewhere in the last few hundred years. This would be ridiculous advice. This has been discussed many times here.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 5:14:36 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > I'm speaking of customers, not scientists. > Customers testing their own Y and that of a purported sixth cousin, finding a 3 marker mismatch and saying "that's good enough" > > It's a house of cards built on marshmellows. > > If you have *not* built up your tree using close relatives and Autosomal DNA, than that 3 marker mismatch might be fifty years ago, or five hundred years ago, there is no way to tell. But the value of knowing you are in the same long term male line is NOT nothing, surely? (Often a big line can be broken down to much more recent branches because of unusual markers of course, but let's put that aside, and assume worst case for your argument: we only see that a bunch of Lancasters or Johnsons are in the same old male line.) It partly depends on the paper trail itself of course. For example if you have confidently identified one branch using a strong paper trail (let's say that for example one branch are in Australia and the other are in Scotland, and you know the immigrant) then you have one date after which the common ancestor is unlikely to have lived between that branch and others. You have to go through looking for things like that. Most or all genealogy involves trying to build up the probabilities, but knowing you will never reach 100%. Every increase in confidence is worth something.

On 30-Aug-17 1:32 AM, Hovite wrote: > On Saturday, August 5, 2017 at 3:42:51 PM UTC+1, Peter Howarth wrote: > >> 'Great Britain' was invented for James I to distinguish his combined realm > Following his accession in England, the some coins issued by James have the legend IACOBVS D. G. MAG. BRI. FRA. ET HI. REX but in an inscription from about 1500 years earlier contains [CO]GIDVBNI·R[EG·MA]GNI·BRIT. However, the first (with the royal name in the nominative) means "king of Great Britain, France and Ireland" whereas the second (with the name in the genitive) may mean "great king of Britain". Peter Stewart

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:05:28 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:42:42 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > My point is that Y is overused to the point of *inventing* details about ancestors whom you do not really share at all. > > Every type of genealogical evidence gets used wrongly sometimes. But I am not sure what type of examples you are describing here as being typical of Y DNA studies. I have mentioned a couple of Y DNA problems already, that I think many people would recognize, but they do not seem to match what you are seeing: 1. false assumptions about ethnic origins (Roman DNA and all that) and 2. over-reliance on bad/rough dating estimations for last common ancestor. In my opinion both derive partly from marketing strategies. I'm speaking of customers, not scientists. Customers testing their own Y and that of a purported sixth cousin, finding a 3 marker mismatch and saying "that's good enough" It's a house of cards built on marshmellows. If you have *not* built up your tree using close relatives and Autosomal DNA, than that 3 marker mismatch might be fifty years ago, or five hundred years ago, there is no way to tell.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:01:31 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:18:06 AM UTC+2, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > > > Your comment (elsewhere in this thread) indicating that 23 markers might > > not be enough to get good information made me wonder if my own results > > are atypical.  Among my Y-DNA matches at Family Tree DNA (none > > apparently any closer than 6th cousins), my 67 marker test shows 25 > > matches with "genetic distance" between 3 and 5 (none closer than that), > > 19 of whose surnames are either Baldwin or one of the variants of > > Maybury (Mayberry, Mabry, etc.), with many more of the latter.  My group > > of Baldwins appears to have arisen from a "non-paternal event" (NPE) > > with a Maybury biological father around 300 years ago, or perhaps > > earlier.  (I have circumstantial evidence for a specific "suspect.")  > > A 67 marker cluster containing about 3 major old surname groups sounds fairly typical in English surnames. (Logically for example, highland families tend to show much more surname mixing.) In my experience though, the testing companies give guidance about expected time back to the common ancestor which UNDER estimates (possibly thinking it helps keep enthusiasm up?). This leads people to assume NPEs. But possibly the two surnames go back to the middle ages and a time when surnames were less fixed. In many examples there is enough paper trail to be confident that recent dates are not possible. *Paper trails* with conflicting Y results, and with *no* Autosomal proof are worth... nothing.

My comments are interspersed below. DR On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 1:55:32 AM UTC-6, jd...@me.com wrote: < Greetings Douglas < < Many thanks for the notes concerning our mutual ancestor, Humphrey. I will <read these with interest. < < Your publications have been frequently quoted to me. The experts at WikiTree < advised me that we do have at least one area of difference in the Poyntz < ancestry. I do not know whether this is so as these experts did not produce < any evidence. The upshot of the claim was that I was banned from WikiTree for < disagreeing with you. This was, for me, an event producing such trauma that <it is unlikely that I will ever recover. Dear John ~ I'm extremely sorry to hear that you were banned from WikiTree for disagreeing with me. Free enquiry is the CENTRAL focus of my scholarly pursuits. The idea that you would be banned for simply expressing an alternative view is not anything I would support. Honest scholars can disagree and still be friends. If you would be so kind, please forward me the contact information for the person(s) who banned you. I will address this matter personally. < It is probably most appropriate that I do so directly to your e-mail address < as above? Yes, by all means, you're more than welcome to correspond with me privately at my e-mail address. > Regards > John Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:42:42 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > My point is that Y is overused to the point of *inventing* details about ancestors whom you do not really share at all. Every type of genealogical evidence gets used wrongly sometimes. But I am not sure what type of examples you are describing here as being typical of Y DNA studies. I have mentioned a couple of Y DNA problems already, that I think many people would recognize, but they do not seem to match what you are seeing: 1. false assumptions about ethnic origins (Roman DNA and all that) and 2. over-reliance on bad/rough dating estimations for last common ancestor. In my opinion both derive partly from marketing strategies.

On Wednesday, August 30, 2017 at 1:18:06 AM UTC+2, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > Your comment (elsewhere in this thread) indicating that 23 markers might > not be enough to get good information made me wonder if my own results > are atypical.  Among my Y-DNA matches at Family Tree DNA (none > apparently any closer than 6th cousins), my 67 marker test shows 25 > matches with "genetic distance" between 3 and 5 (none closer than that), > 19 of whose surnames are either Baldwin or one of the variants of > Maybury (Mayberry, Mabry, etc.), with many more of the latter.  My group > of Baldwins appears to have arisen from a "non-paternal event" (NPE) > with a Maybury biological father around 300 years ago, or perhaps > earlier.  (I have circumstantial evidence for a specific "suspect.")  A 67 marker cluster containing about 3 major old surname groups sounds fairly typical in English surnames. (Logically for example, highland families tend to show much more surname mixing.) In my experience though, the testing companies give guidance about expected time back to the common ancestor which UNDER estimates (possibly thinking it helps keep enthusiasm up?). This leads people to assume NPEs. But possibly the two surnames go back to the middle ages and a time when surnames were less fixed. In many examples there is enough paper trail to be confident that recent dates are not possible.

WILL, What do you feel was incorrect about my statement? I have confirmed all of my great great grandparents through triangulation using autosomal DNA.

I haven't received my copy yet. I would see if I made the cut this year and if they spelled my name right. Joe Cook

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 4:18:06 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin wrote: >  Has anybody looked at the list of > names that would pop up if Richard's current STR data was input to > search for all current matches with genetic distance zero on those > markers? I just did a manual search at https://yhrd.org and it came up with zero matches out of 130,000. I tried FTDNA's search tool and it is giving a response that the requested URL is not found - I don't know if this means the computer is down or if this is how it reports a null result. taf