On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 4:18:06 PM UTC-7, Stewart Baldwin wrote: > Thanks for explaining this.  I knew that they had to do the analysis by > looking at small segments and seeing how they would be attached, but it > hadn't occurred to me that this would make long STRs harder to analyze, > although it is pretty clear now that you mentioned it. I know that the > typical layman probably has a much simpler process in mind, no doubt > aided by all of the CSI-type TV shows where they just put the DNA sample > into a machine, push a button, and presto! (As an expert in the field, > can you even watch those shows without cringing?  There was one such > show recently where the cops had an "expert" genealogist aiding them in > a case, which was so bad it had me shaking my head in disgust.) I think all scientists, and to a lesser extent, all scholars, suffer this. I recall seeing a show doing carbon dating on gold coins. It comes with the territory. In the real world, the tests you see on TV crime shows take 24 hours for the text itself, but the forensic labs always have a queue that is several days long (or, scandalously, in the case of rape kits many years long). > It is > tempting to think of a chromosome as being like a long string of > recording tape that you just put in a device and read from end-to-end, > but I suppose that that technology is still a long way off.  There are several different technologies. The original sequencing approaches would give you a 300 (+/-) bp read from a defined point of your choice. To get the next 300 bp, you had to do another reaction with a new start point toward the end of the previous one, so that you could line them up. Most of the public human genome project was done with a modification of this approach that gave you more like 1000 bp reads from a defined point, but the competing private ones used a completely different approach that produced a whole lot of short (150 bp) pieces and used a computer to line them all up (this is called 'shotgun' sequencing. This approach isn't used any longer, but has been replaced with equivalent techniques that have high-throughput, short read-length. There is a competing technology that does not have this read-length problem - it gives you very long reads (40,000 bp or more), but they have a high error rate, so that approach is good for determining STRs, but has an unacceptable rate of false SNPs. The best result is obtained by coupling the two approaches - use a long-read approach to scaffold the more accurate short-read sequences, but this is rarely done. > Does the > above discussion mean that the "whole" genome sequencing that they talk > about is a misnomer? Yes. As I may have said earlier, when they announced the completion of the human genome 15 years ago, they lied - it still isn't complete, as there are a small number of stretches that have proved completely unobtainable. A 'complete' genome sequence is just shotgun sequencing in which they accumulate enough random sequence as to comprise some multiple of the the total DNA in the organism. A 'complete' genome of a living human will often be in the range of 5- to 10-fold coverage, meaning that if you collect 10 times the total sequence, in 150 bp segments, then statistically speaking you will have covered the vast majority of the genome at least once, and much of it multiple times (which helps catch errors). With ancient DNA, the preservation just isn't that good, and they are usually satisfied with 2-fold coverage, meaning they know they are missing a lot of the variation, but are getting enough of it to do meaningful analysis regardless. > 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. I was speaking specifically about Richard's, which as reported allow no better assignment than G2, and as I said elsewhere int he thread, G2 had already diverged by 5000 BC, so it is not going to be meaningful. There is a degree of luck involved, as in many cases, 23 markers will catch a distinctive difference that allows a much narrower net to be cast. > 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?  Even if it produces nothing of interest, it still seems worth > a try.  One possible problem is that I am not sure the Promega kit used by the scientists is using the same marker sites as FTDNA uses, but I am unaware of anyone doing further processing of the results. taf

Yes, this mystery has been solved. Sibilla's parents were John Ogilvy of Powrie and Elizabeth Scrymgeour.

These are all from editor Hoff's annual feature, "New England Articles in Genealogical Journals in 20XX." One article's title is given as: "Preserving One Family's Stories" The Button-Treadwell Family Reunion Collection." Another is shown as... "Indenture Between Stephen St. John and Joseph W. Hoyt, 1827, Apprenticing Moses St. John," Jessup." In yet another place, one of our own soc.gen.medieval contributors is indexed as "Farmerie, Rodd A." Yes, we get it -- this is boring filler fluff. But surely it should emerge in the final product as _well-proofed_ boring filler fluff. The height of literal-minded diligence is, as usual, found in one particular entry: Hoff, Henry B. "New England Articles in Genealogical Journals in 2013," _Register_ 169 (Summer 2015):256-270. How many times do we need to capture our own reflection within a reflection ... within a reflection?

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:13:02 PM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 5:34:31 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. > > "We hear countless times" sounds like the right way to start a straw man story. But the wording is also "apples and pears" logic. Y DNA can indeed really say something about ancient ancestors, and define groups into family tree structures as part of that. There is no such thing as a corresponding "autosomal group" in such discussions about "ancient" ancestors. Autosomal SNP testing does not look for novel mutations, it looks at old and widely shared mutations, and therefore does not look at ancient family trees structures with branches. And you, knocking down a scarecrow I never raised. I did not state that Autosomal *can* tell us about ancient ancestors. My point is that Y is overused to the point of *inventing* details about ancestors whom you do not really share at all.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 12:35:51 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:27:21 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:06:02 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > > > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. > > > > > > Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. > > > > > > Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. > > > > > > This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. > > > > > > And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter > > > > > > Clearly you don't understand my point. > > What if you, and these three cousins, all took the Autosomal test and it came back with *none of you* matching each other. > > > > Than what would you say > > I would say that this is the exact expected result. NO AUTOSOMAL test would or could prove 6th cousins. Even 4th cousins only have a 50% chance of being identified as "cousins" on the majority of these tests. Which shows Joe that you have no idea how to use Autosomal tests, or what they do and don't tell you. I have no idea why you bothered to respond.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 5:34:31 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. "We hear countless times" sounds like the right way to start a straw man story. But the wording is also "apples and pears" logic. Y DNA can indeed really say something about ancient ancestors, and define groups into family tree structures as part of that. There is no such thing as a corresponding "autosomal group" in such discussions about "ancient" ancestors. Autosomal SNP testing does not look for novel mutations, it looks at old and widely shared mutations, and therefore does not look at ancient family trees structures with branches.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:27:21 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:06:02 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. > > > > Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. > > > > Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. > > > > This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. > > > > And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter > > > Clearly you don't understand my point. > What if you, and these three cousins, all took the Autosomal test and it came back with *none of you* matching each other. > > Than what would you say Your question is equivalent to asking "What if all 3 6th cousins took a lie detector test and it proved none of you had ever even met each other." I would say...yes, that is expected.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:27:21 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:06:02 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. > > > > Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. > > > > Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. > > > > This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. > > > > And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter > > > Clearly you don't understand my point. > What if you, and these three cousins, all took the Autosomal test and it came back with *none of you* matching each other. > > Than what would you say I would say that this is the exact expected result. NO AUTOSOMAL test would or could prove 6th cousins. Even 4th cousins only have a 50% chance of being identified as "cousins" on the majority of these tests.

On 8/28/2017 12:32 PM, taf wrote: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 12:54:20 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > >> 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, > For those holding out hope, let me add that I said 'may' intentionally. The next-generation sequencing approaches most commonly used would provide useful SNP data (places where a single base is different), but is abysmal at determining the number of repeats in STRs (and is prone to guess, and when it does, guess wrong). > > This has to do with the way the information is generated - it collects very short stretches of sequence and uses a computer to line them up, Since by their nature, an STR has the same sequence, repeated again and again, the computer doing the alignment doesn't know which set to align with. As an example, lets say you generated sequences that could be characterized as: > > ABCDEFG > > DEFGHIJ > > This is simple to align as ABCDEFGHIJ. However, if you have a repeat: > > ABCDEEEEEEE > > EEEEEEEFGHI > > there is no way to tell how many of the repeats you have, which E aligns with which: > > ABCDEEE....EEEFGHI > > The only way you can count what is in between is if you have a single sequencing read that spans all the way from one side to the other: DEEEEEEEEEFG. However, most genealogically-informative STR regions are longer than the read lengths typically generated by the sequencing reaction, so you will never get this information. Unless it has specifically been programmed not to do this, the computer doing the compiling may simply align one stretch of EEEEE with another and give you a sequence that has a definite number even though the raw data was ambiguous. > > Thus, I wouldn't hold out hope that whole-genome sequencing will resolve this question, and one should be very careful in accepting reported values unless these issues are specifically evaluated. > > The STR analysis that is typically performed is PCR-based, not sequencing based, and hence does not suffer from these limitations, but one has to separately evaluate each STR, hence the scaled costs for progressively more 'markers', each additional marker being another test that must be performed. There is nothing to stop them doing a 100-marker test on Richard's DNA - if it was preserved well enough to do a 23-marker test, it should be good enough to do any number. It is just a question of whether the research group would view this as a priority or not. (And one may be able to sway this decision on their part with a sizable financial contribution to their research program, but it is going to cost you a lot more than simple having FTDNA test a cheek swab.) Thanks for explaining this.  I knew that they had to do the analysis by looking at small segments and seeing how they would be attached, but it hadn't occurred to me that this would make long STRs harder to analyze, although it is pretty clear now that you mentioned it. I know that the typical layman probably has a much simpler process in mind, no doubt aided by all of the CSI-type TV shows where they just put the DNA sample into a machine, push a button, and presto! (As an expert in the field, can you even watch those shows without cringing?  There was one such show recently where the cops had an "expert" genealogist aiding them in a case, which was so bad it had me shaking my head in disgust.)  It is tempting to think of a chromosome as being like a long string of recording tape that you just put in a device and read from end-to-end, but I suppose that that technology is still a long way off.  Does the above discussion mean that the "whole" genome sequencing that they talk about is a misnomer? 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.")  Of the remaining six, two have circumstantial evidence for either a Baldwin or Maybury NPE, two have an ancestral geography consistent with such an NPE, and two have insufficient information.  If I look at my matches which only consider the first 25 markers, I have 21 matches with genetic distance zero, 14 of whom are either Baldwin or Maybury.  At the 12 marker level, as one might expect, there is no obvious pattern, with a huge number of matches of distance zero with apparently random surnames.  So, the "noise level" at 12 markers is obviously too high for those results to be of much use.  At 67 markers, the noise level is small and at least plausibly attributable to NPEs.  At 25 markers, the noise level is high, but not high enough to drown out the Maybury presence.  So, is my experience typical, or has an overabundance of Maybury testees skewed the results?  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?  Even if it produces nothing of interest, it still seems worth a try.  (I would do it myself, if I knew how, but Family Tree DNA's tools are not helpful for something like this.) Stewart Baldwin

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 10:06:02 AM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. > > Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. > > Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. > > This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. > > And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter Clearly you don't understand my point. What if you, and these three cousins, all took the Autosomal test and it came back with *none of you* matching each other. Than what would you say

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:34:31 AM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world. Honestly, I'm not sure I understand your point. Here is a concrete example. I had a line that in every book written since 1880 identified the same male line 17th century immigrant ancestor. Fine. But not fine. Working through the paper trail I found some problems. After a few years I came up with a hypothesis that was pretty strong based on the paper trail that there had been a man in the 1700s had changed his name to a different surname. Same 8 children with the same first names all made the jump and everything else lined up. the paper trail before this was solid, and the paper trail since was solid, but the generation with the name change was "probable" or "likely", based on the paper evidence. Found a cousin to take a Y-DNA Test. The result showed a full Y-DNA identical match to descendants of three other siblings of the man in question. No connection whatsoever to any claimed descendant of the originally identified man. This Y-DNA Evidence is *very strong* evidence on top of the paper evidence that my hypothesis was correct. And no Autosomal DNA test (due to the number of generations back) would have helped in any regard in this matter

On 28-Aug-17 11:18 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em segunda-feira, 28 de agosto de 2017 13:40:19 UTC+1, Peter Stewart escreveu: >> On 28-Aug-17 9:43 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: >>> Mr. Stewart I believe you may have misunderstood my first comment I just wanted to point out an interesting conjecture about a Capetian and Plantagenet relationship. I did not nean to say it was proved. >> Your first comment was perfectly clear - this was: "Christian Settipani >> has conjectured both the Capetians and the Plantagenets to be male line >> descendants of Count Hervé of Hesbaye." >> >> Since you posted this in the context of a discussion about investigating >> DNA, the implication is that in your view this conjectured relationship >> is worth pursuing by DNA investigation, or at least that it may provide >> some useful hint or guidance. >> >> Stating - plainly, as you did - that something has been conjectured, >> without applying it beyond the immediate context, implies that the >> conjecture has relevance or value in that context. >> >> I questioned you to find out what you think about this, but your >> response was just to provide links to what someone else thinks. >> >> For some reason you choose to post without copying in whatever has >> prompted your remarks, stripping away the specific context. If you think >> this particular conjecture is interesting, why not explain the interest >> you find in it? >> >> Peter Stewart > It had been mentioned a page about DNA that said that the Plantagenets and the Capetians may have been male line relatives and so have the same DNA so I gave this as an example of such conjecture. So are you now saying you reported the conjecture not because of its intrinsic worth, but just because it is there? I suggest you try counting the number of "if"s that are required to link Hervé of Hesbaye to either of the families in question. Even without trying to assess a degree of uncertainty for each of these many "if"s, the number of them ought to be impressive enough. Then I suggest you consider if this number is in direct or inverse proportion to the plausibility of the conjecture. You might save yourself a lot of time. Peter Stewart

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:03:41 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 12:19:57 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 3:07:46 PM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 6:31:18 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > > > However to *rely* on Y testing *alone* is the task of a foolish person > > > > > > ...Who quite possibly does not exist. I have in any case never heard of any person arguing that genealogists should use Y DNA alone. > > > > > > I'm saying Y *and* Autosomal > > Not Y and a paper trail > > I think that is also how I understood you. Let me re-phrase to make sure: "I have never heard of any person arguing that genealogists should, with regard to genetic testing, use Y DNA alone". > > I am saying your original comment about patriarchal people is directed against a "straw man". This patriarchal Y DNA movement is presumably living in the same virtual world where there is a big movement to ban people saying "Merry Christmas". :) We hear countless times about people matching each other in Y-DNA testing, or that the Y signature of some ancient ancestor has been discovered. However these studies show, *no regard whatsoever* for a corresponding Autosomal group, of the same people, that tries to show even in a simplistic way, that these people are even related *to each other*. So I would say, it's a real world.

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.

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 12:19:57 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 3:07:46 PM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 6:31:18 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > However to *rely* on Y testing *alone* is the task of a foolish person > > > > ...Who quite possibly does not exist. I have in any case never heard of any person arguing that genealogists should use Y DNA alone. > > > I'm saying Y *and* Autosomal > Not Y and a paper trail I think that is also how I understood you. Let me re-phrase to make sure: "I have never heard of any person arguing that genealogists should, with regard to genetic testing, use Y DNA alone". I am saying your original comment about patriarchal people is directed against a "straw man". This patriarchal Y DNA movement is presumably living in the same virtual world where there is a big movement to ban people saying "Merry Christmas". :)

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 1:39:23 AM UTC+2, taf wrote: > On a purely technical level, this is correct, but having the Y genome will only be useful for genealogy by comparison to other people, and it is still well in the future when enough people will sequence their entire genomes for genealogical purposes to provide a sufficiently large pool that you are likely to find a 'match' with Richard III based on Y-genome sequence, while there may well already be enough people tested to find an STR match. Not sure I agree with this. Initiatives like Yfull already started years ago and showed the commercial potential. Large numbers of people have therefore already done full sequencing at "low" prices just through what was effectively an internet-organized group effort to see if it was possible. Efforts of yfull itself have moved on to interpretation. But I think they have shown that all it requires is a testing company to take up sequencing and then the data available will increase dramatically. The only problem really seems to be that the big ones were all investing in other technology in recent years, having initially fought against that change, they are stuck a bit. It is a classic business situation, which seems to be very close to a tipping point to me.

On 28-Aug-17 9:43 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Mr. Stewart I believe you may have misunderstood my first comment I just wanted to point out an interesting conjecture about a Capetian and Plantagenet relationship. I did not nean to say it was proved. Your first comment was perfectly clear - this was: "Christian Settipani has conjectured both the Capetians and the Plantagenets to be male line descendants of Count Hervé of Hesbaye." Since you posted this in the context of a discussion about investigating DNA, the implication is that in your view this conjectured relationship is worth pursuing by DNA investigation, or at least that it may provide some useful hint or guidance. Stating - plainly, as you did - that something has been conjectured, without applying it beyond the immediate context, implies that the conjecture has relevance or value in that context. I questioned you to find out what you think about this, but your response was just to provide links to what someone else thinks. For some reason you choose to post without copying in whatever has prompted your remarks, stripping away the specific context. If you think this particular conjecture is interesting, why not explain the interest you find in it? Peter Stewart

On 28-Aug-17 7:53 PM, Paulo Canedo wrote: > I believe those pages will clarify you https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robertiens and https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maison_du_Maine. These pages could hardly be more useless if that was their object - as to alleged "clarity", they are based entirely on asserting what has been found merely conjectured in secondary works, of the kind where firstly "this is possible", secondly "if this, then that is also possible", and finally, self-referentially convinced by nothing but a tissue of flimsy possibilities, "given this and that then the other seems likely". No rigorous, scholarly mustard is cut that way. Peter Stewart

On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 3:18:08 PM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > But surely you do not need STRs if you have full sequencing? Even between > a parent and a child there are likely to be some novel SNP mutations. On a purely technical level, this is correct, but having the Y genome will only be useful for genealogy by comparison to other people, and it is still well in the future when enough people will sequence their entire genomes for genealogical purposes to provide a sufficiently large pool that you are likely to find a 'match' with Richard III based on Y-genome sequence, while there may well already be enough people tested to find an STR match. taf

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:20:57 PM UTC-4, Katherine Kennedy wrote: > Descents from William Grenville and Philippa Bonville also appear on Genealogics. It appears the line to Princess Diana holds up, and I'm apparently a descendant myself. > http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00113921&tree=LEO You bet it holds up. The only real date discrepancy is where we find: 1 William Grenville 1402 - 1449 It should read, "1 William Grenville (by 1381 - 1450)", [as William's father, Sir Theobald Grenville, died by 26 July 1381, and Roger Granville states in 'The History of the Granville Family' that William Grenville was still alive by the time of a deed dated 27th Henry VI. (1449)]