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

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 12:09:17 PM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Em domingo, 27 de agosto de 2017 19:40:35 UTC+1, taf escreveu: > > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, Mike wrote: > > > From "Y DNA of the British Monarchy" an interesting scholarly research paper published in 2013: > > > > Just to make sure this is clear, this is NOT a scholarly journal, as that term is usually understood. It is a curated web1 site - real journals name their publisher, have formal contact information, and a list of named and theireditors (and yes, that will be plural). Plus this 'research paper' is written by the journal's 'editor'.. > > > > > > > >>The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate > > > >>that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended > > > >>from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources > > > >>attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another > > > >>branch of R1b-U106. > > > > For what its worth, ref 13 here is the Henry Project. However, the conclusion that they are more likely to be R1b-U106 is both excessively specific, and completely unsupportable. > > > > > > > We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This > > > article associates this type with Roman citizens. > > > > > But why Roman Y? > > > > Completely arbitrary. > > > > > Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type. > > > > If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that > > modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones. > > > > About R1b-U106 the haplogroup or better his subclade R1b-Z381 in three male- > line descendants of Louis XIII of France so it is assumed to be the Capetian > Y Haplogroup. What is arbitrary is to suggest that the Plantagenets would belong to the same haplogroup as the Capetians, given how little we know about Hugh of Perche, the earliest male-line ancestor of the Plantagenets. The author/editor is taking generic vague comments about relationship and turning it into a precise haplogroup. taf

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? 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. Stewart Baldwin

Em domingo, 27 de agosto de 2017 19:40:35 UTC+1, taf escreveu: > On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, Mike wrote: > > From "Y DNA of the British Monarchy" an interesting scholarly research paper published in 2013: > > Just to make sure this is clear, this is NOT a scholarly journal, as that term is usually understood. It is a curated web1 site - real journals name their publisher, have formal contact information, and a list of named and theireditors (and yes, that will be plural). Plus this 'research paper' is written by the journal's 'editor'.. > > > > >>The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate > > >>that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended > > >>from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources > > >>attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another > > >>branch of R1b-U106. > > For what its worth, ref 13 here is the Henry Project. However, the conclusion that they are more likely to be R1b-U106 is both excessively specific, and completely unsupportable. > > > > We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This > > article associates this type with Roman citizens. > > > But why Roman Y? > > Completely arbitrary. > > > Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type. > > If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones. > > taf About R1b-U106 the haplogroup or better his subclade R1b-Z381 in three male-line descendants of Louis XIII of France so it is assumed to be the Capetian Y Haplogroup.

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 9:41:38 AM UTC-7, Mike wrote: > From "Y DNA of the British Monarchy" an interesting scholarly research paper published in 2013: Just to make sure this is clear, this is NOT a scholarly journal, as that term is usually understood. It is a curated web1 site - real journals name their publisher, have formal contact information, and a list of named and theireditors (and yes, that will be plural). Plus this 'research paper' is written by the journal's 'editor'.. > >>The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate > >>that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended > >>from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources > >>attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another > >>branch of R1b-U106. For what its worth, ref 13 here is the Henry Project. However, the conclusion that they are more likely to be R1b-U106 is both excessively specific, and completely unsupportable. > We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This > article associates this type with Roman citizens. > But why Roman Y? Completely arbitrary. > Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type. If we have learned anything over the previous decade, it has been that modern distributions are a poor indication of historic ones. taf

Thanks to Nathan and Leslie for greatly adding to our knowledge of these families.

>From "Y DNA of the British Monarchy" an interesting scholarly research paper published in 2013: >>The Plantagenets are a bit more difficult to predict as some speculate that they are related to the Carpetian (sic) kings of France and descended from Roman citizens in the haplogroup J2 or G2. However, early sources attribute them as Germanic Franks13 and thus more likely to be another branch of R1b-U106. We now know of course that Poor Richard's Y-DNA was actually G2. This article associates this type with Roman citizens. Apparently because it is uncommon in Gaul from where the Plantagenet ancestors, including Robert le Fort, were from. But why Roman Y? Surely central Italy is hardly a bastion of this type. Then again, as I have said all along, perhaps the Romans did have a hand in the mix when they brought mercenaries from Alania, known today for a maximization of this type relative to most other locations, specifically into Gaul in the 4th and 5th centuries, long before Robert's reign began.

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

On Sunday, August 27, 2017 at 2:00:16 AM UTC+2, Katherine Kennedy wrote: > I do recommend the autosomal tests also. I even treated my mother to one from 23andme a couple years ago for Christmas. The bonus medical information from that site in particular is quite nice. I think no one is denying that the current types of autosomal testing can be useful for some types of genealogical questions, (especially for people in well-tested populations), but for NON-MEDIEVAL, recent, genealogy. Concerning the weaknesses of Y DNA in studying RECENT generations, for example the hypothetical case of a man being son of his father's brother, cousin, or whatever, I think that this is covered by my previous comment that all types of evidence in genealogy can sometimes be helped, if needed, by cross checking with other types of evidence. But again, no one is denying that autosomal DNA is useful for recent generations. I do not think paternity testing is the main aim of genetic genealogy in most cases though.

On Thursday, August 17, 2017 at 1:30:26 PM UTC-6, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote: > This version of the will of Robert Overton (d. 1678) seems to name his sons-in-law: "... do lastly nominate and appoint my two sons-in-law Andrew Broughton and Nathaniell Johnson to be overseers of this my will and that they be assisting to the performance thereof." > > https://www.geni.com/people/Major-General-Robert-Overton/6000000008011086536 ANNE OVERTON, b. say early 1640s, m. by 1663, ANDREW [II] BROUGHTON, Esq., of Seaton, Rutland. Andrew, bp. Maidstone, Kent, 19 Jan 1637/8,[1] the son of Andrew [I] Broughton by his wife Mary (?Barron).[2] A biography of his father, Maidstone mayor and regicide Andrew [I] Broughton (1602/3-1687), appears in ODNB.[3] In 1663, lands in Maidstone, Kent, formerly held by Andrew [I] Broughton (and forfeited for having ‘murthered King Charles the First’), were reconveyed by deed poll to his son Andrew [II] Broughton, of Seaton, in Rutlandshire, Esq.’[2] Andrew Broughton’s rental book (1665-1685), regarding lands in Bisbrook and/or Seaton, is preserved at Lincolnshire Archives.[4] He does not appear on the 1665 Hearth Tax of Rutland.[5] His absence might be explained by the fact that the King had appointed him ‘Receiver of Hearth Money.’[2] In 1668, ‘Robert Overton of Elizabeth Castle in the Isle of Jersey Esq.,’ [where he was imprisoned] conveyed lands in Kilnsea, Yorkshire to ‘Sir Mathew Appleyard of Burstwick in the County of York Knight and Andrew Broughton of Seaton in the County of Rutland Esq. (Executors of the Will of Grizell Figges late wife of William figges gent deceased)’ for £400.[6] He served as Sheriff of Rutland (1669-1670).[7] Andrew Broughton, Esq., of Seaton, Rutland, was a party in the 1671 Johnson-Overton marriage settlement.[8] In a 1673 publication, he is described as a member of Rutland’s nobility or gentry.[9] In 1676, Ann Yardley, widow, and others brought suit against Andrew Broughton, in chancery, regarding property in Seaton, Thorpe, and Bisbrook, Rutland.[10] In 1679, Robert Dring brought suit against Andrew Broughton, in chancery, regarding unspecified Rutland lands.[11] On 6 July 1688, the PCC granted [limited] administration on the estate of Andrew Broughton, Esq., of Seaton, Rutland, deceased to [creditor] Anne Aldwin, widow of Edward Aldwin, Citizen and Girdler of London.[12] The Broughtons were Presbyterians. A congregation was licenced to meet at their house in 1672.[13] Two of his daughters became Quakers. For this reason, records of Andrew and Anne’s marriage, children’s baptisms, and their burials have not been found in Church of England parish registers. Andrew did, however, have the burials of three sons who died before reaching maturity registered at Seaton.[14] Through children’s wills, family letters, chancery suits, Seaton’s burial register, and a monumental inscription, ten children can be identified. Children of Andrew Broughton by Anne Overton (order unknown): I. ANDREW [III] BROUGHTON, Esq., Merchant of London, of St George the Martyr, Middlesex (1734), b. 1663 (aged 71 in 1734), d. 13 Sep 1734, bur. St George the Martyr Cemetery, Brunswick Square, 13 Sep 1734.[15] Andrew Broughton by [London] licence issued 1718[16] at Westminster St Anne Soho, 29 May 1718, ANNE DAY.[17] He had a wife in 1721, as mentioned in a letter.[18] He mentions no wife or children in his will.[19] Andrew Broughton’s role as administrator of Overton family estates resulted in multiple chancery suits. In 1712, John Overton brought suit in chancery against Andrew Broughton and others regarding property in Easington, Kilnsea etc. in Yorkshire.[20] In 1716, Andrew Broughton, merchant of London (administrator of Fairfax Overton, Esq., deceased late of London, of goods unadministrated by Benjamin Overton, Esq., deceased) brought suit in chancery against John Overton, Esq., Constance Overton, Walter Littleton, Francis Peytoe, Robert [Constable] Viscount Dunbar.[21] In 1722, George Atkins, gent of Portsmouth, Hampshire and Mary Atkins his wife brought suit in chancery against Andrew Broughton, merchant of London, Dorothy Dykes alias Dorothy Overton and John Dykes alias John Overton, her son, infant (by said Dorothy Dykes alias Dorothy Overton, his guardian), John Holmes, Gent., Henry Waterland, Gent., Hon James Vernon, Esq., Sir John Norris, Knt., and John Ellis, Esq.[22] In 1725 (or later), John Holme, Henry Waterland, John and Dorothy Dykes [Overton] quitclaimed claims under wills of Benjamin and Robert Overton, or out of the estate of Andrew Broughton.[23] In 1726, Andrew Broughton, merchant of London (administrator with will annexed of Lewis Ruggle, Gent., deceased, of goods unadminstrated by Fairfax Overton, Esq., deceased, his sole executor; also administrator of said Fairfax Overton, of goods unadministrated by Benjamin Overton deceased) brought suit in chancery against John Overton, Esq., William [Constable] Lord Dunbar, Constance Overton, Francis Peytoe, Walter Littleton, [unknown] Pemberton and Leonard Burgh.[24] In 1738, John Dikes alias John Overton of St Dunstan in the West, London and Dorothy Dikes alias Dorothy Overton of St Dunstan in the West (his mother), John Holmes, Gent., of Shuffling, Yorkshire and Henry Waterland, Gent., of Hedon, Yorkshire (administrator with will annexed of Benjamin Overton alias Ebenezer Overton, of goods unadministered by Andrew Broughton, deceased) brought suit in chancery against Lydia Broughton, Christiana Broughton, spinster, Nathaniel Broughton, Andrew Broughton, Ann Broughton Joanna Broughton, Christiana Broughton and Constantia Broughton, Sir John Norris, Knt., George Atkins, Esq., and Robert Johnson, Esq.[25] Also in 1738, John Dikes alias John Overton of St Dunstan in the West, London and Dorothy Dikes alias Dorothy Overton of St Dunstan in the West (his mother), John Holmes, Gent., of Shuffling, Yorkshire and Henry Waterland, Gent., of Hedon, Yorkshire brought suit in chancery against Christiana Broughton, spinster, George Atkins, and Sir John Norris, Knt.[26] A number of other chancery suits, which may or may not involve family matters, may also be found on TNA’s Discovery Catalogue. Andrew Broughton of London wrote a letter to his Brother Colo. Thomas Broughton att Carolina in 1721. Various business matters are discussed; he recites that in previous letters from Broughton, he was informed of the death of ‘Poor Sister Ashby;’ and Andrew states his ‘Poor spouse hath been ill all ye winter.’[18] ‘Andrew Broughton of the Parish of St George the Martyr in Queen Square in the County of Middlesex,’ left a will dated 1 June 1734, proved in the PCC 24 October 1734 by the oath of his sister, Christina Broughton, spinster. He requests a private burial in church nearest to where he dies; forgives Rev Mr Thomas Inett of Worcester of his debt (Inett married testator’s niece); sister Christina Broughton who now lives with me; sister Lydia Broughton; Mr Benjamin Longnet and Nephew Thomas Day aid and assist my executrix; witnesses: Henry Whitridge, John Squire, J Daye.[19] Andrew Broughton owned stock in the Bank of England at the time of his death, which resulted in additional probate paperwork. In a version of his will dated 1 June 1704 [1734 intended?], Andrew Broughton late of Glocester Street Esqr. appointed his sister Christina Broughton of Glocester Street sole executrix.[26] II. HON. COL. THOMAS BROUGHTON, of Mulberry Plantation, Berkeley County, South Carolina, d. 22 November 1737;[27] m. his first cousin, ANNE JOHNSON.[28] Anne, d. 25 June 1733.[29] Accounts of Thomas Broughton’s career, which reached its apex as lieutenant governor (1731-1735) and acting governor (1735-1737) of [South] Carolina, may be found in the Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives[30] and the South Carolina Encyclopedia.[31] The former source also includes biographies of his sons Nathaniel Broughton[32] and Andrew Broughton,[33] as well as his son-in-law Thomas Monck.[34] The date of Thomas Broughton’s marriage to Anne Johnson is unclear. From correspondence in State Papers Colonial it can be inferred that one of Nathaniel Johnson’s daughters had married by 1689.[35] Was this Anne? In 1715, Thomas Broughton was serving as executor to [the estate of his father-in-law] Nathaniell Johnson [deceased].[36] Many family letters have survived, providing valuable genealogical clues.[18] Two of his South Carolina plantations were named Seaton and Kiblesworth, reminiscent of he and his wife’s English homes.[37] Madam Johnson, ‘his Excellency the Governor’s Lady’ died ‘at the Seat of the Hon. Col. Broughton,’ 2 July 1732.[38] His children (not named) were legatees in their Aunt Christiana’s 1742 will.[39] Nathaniel Broughton, ‘his only son’ [sic], was a legatee in Thomas’s Sister Lydia’s 1749/50 will.[40] His will is available online and identifies the following issue:[37] (i) Johanna Broughton (wife of Thomas Monck),[34] (ii) Christiana Broughton (m. Rev. Daniel Dwight),[41] (iii) Constantia Broughton, (iv) Nathaniel Broughton (eldest son, m. by 1717),[32] (v) Andrew Broughton,[33] (vi) Robert Broughton, (vii) Anne Broughton (m. John Gibbes).[42] Some of his descendants are identified in Izard of South Carolina (1901),[42] Broughton Memoirs (1972)[43] and Capt. John Norwood and Mary Warren Norwood: A Family History (1979).[44] III. JOHN BROUGHTON, son of Andrew Broughton, bur. Seaton, Rutland, 28 September 1666.[14] IV. MARY BROUGHTON, b. say 1667; m. say 1688, REV. TIMOTHY CHAMBERLAINE.[45] Timothy Chamberlaine, admitted pensioner (age 16) at Magdalene College, University of Cambridge, 14 May 1672; matriculated 1672; migrated to Trinity College, 21 March 1672/3; scholar, 1674; B.A. 1675-6; M.A. 1679; ordained deacon (London) 21 Sep 1679; rector of Brooksby, Leicestershire, 1680; rector of Goadby, 1681-1698.[46] He was buried at Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, 22 January 1697/8.[47] ‘Timothy Chamberlaine of Goady in the County of Leic[este]r Clerke being weake in body’ left a will dated 18 August 1697, and proved in the Archdeaconry Court of Leicester, 26 January 169[7/]8 by the oaths of Christiana Broughton, Benjamin Brown, Elianor Burton and William Gibson. He remembers his wife Mary, only son and heir John Chamberlaine, two daughters Ann Chamberlaine and Mary Chamberlaine. He helds lands in Goady and one half of Rearsby Manor He names other relatives. Witnesses: Christiana Broughton, Ben: Brown, William Gibson.[48] Issue: (i) John Chamberlaine, bp. Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, 18 October 1689;[49] (ii) Mary Chamberlaine, bp. Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, 7 May 1692;[50] (iii) Villerya Chamberlaine, b. Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, 20 October 1693;[51] (iv) Anne Chamberlaine, bp. Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, 3 April 1696;[52] m. London St Dunstan in the West, 15 November 1718, Rev. Thomas Inett.[53]. Legatee in Uncle Andrew’s will (1734);[19] her child(ren) legatee(s) in Aunt Christiana’s will (1742);[39] legatee in Aunt Lydia’s will (1749/50)[40]. Thomas Inett, admitted pensioner (age 18) at Magdalene College, University of Cambridge, 25 June 1707, B.A. (1710/1), M.A. (1714), ordained deacon (1711), priest (1713), Vicar of Wirksworth, Derbyshire (1718-1744), Prebendary of Worcester (1726-1749), Prebendary of Winchester (1732-1749), d. 4 Jan 1748/9.[54] The will of ‘Thomas Inett Prebendary of Worcester,’ dated 6 May 1745, codicil dated 17 June 1746, proved in the PCC, 21 January 1748[/9], by the oath of his relict Anne Inett. He mentions no children.[55] V. ALETHIA BROUGHTON, b. say 1670; living Owthorne, Yorkshire, 12 May 1753,[56] m. probably by Rev. Timothy Chamberlaine [her sister’s husband] at Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, 29 Jun 1691, THOMAS ACKLAM.[57] The Acklams were Quakers. Thomas Acklam, of Dringhoe, Yorkshire, b. 8 March 1661/2 (Ostwick Monthly Meeting);[58] bur. 8 January 1699/1700 (Bridlington Monthly Meeting).[59] Issue: (i) Thomas Acklam, Gentleman, of Dringhoe, Yorkshire (1749/50), legatee in Aunt Lydia’s will (1749/50);[40] (ii) Peter Acklam, Gentleman, of Hornsea, Yorkshire (1749/50), legatee in Aunt Lydia’s will (1749/50);[40] (iii) Alethia Acklam, b. 2 2mo [April] 1692,[60] m. (1) [unknown] Reaston (their children included Capt. Thomas Reaston, Esq., of Hull, Yorkshire),[61] m. (2) Tunstall by Patrington, Yorkshire, 26 December 1732, Rev. George Longmire,[62]; legatee in Aunt Lydia’s will (1749/50).[40] George admitted sizar at Jesus College, University of Cambridge, 1720; matriculated 1720; B.A. 1723-4; ordained deacon (York) 1726; priest (Lincoln, Litt. dim. from York) 1735-6. Curate at Tunstall, Yorks., 1726-52;[63] (iv) Ann Acklam, b. 11 5mo [July] 1694,[60] prob. m. John Rysom, Yeoman, of Patrington, Yorkshire (1749/50), legatee in Aunt Lydia’s will (1749/50).[40] VI. ROBERT BROUGHTON, son of Andrew Broughton, bur. Seaton, Rutland, 28 November 1672.[14] VII. NATHANIEL BROUGHTON, son of Andrew Broughton, bur. Seaton, Rutland, 18 February 1680/1.[14] VIII. CONSTANTIA BROUGHTON, d. St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, Berkeley County, South Carolina, 20 Jan 1720[/1];[64] m. JOHN ASHBY, Esq., 2nd Cassique, of South Carolina. John, d. St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, 30 Nov 1716.[65] Accounts of John Ashby have been published in SCMG[66] and Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives.[67] In a letter dated 1715, Thomas Broughton mentions his son’s ‘ant Ashby.’[18] In another letter dated 19 May 1721, Andrew Broughton of London recites that in previous letters from his Brother Thomas Broughton of South Carolina (dated 26 December 1720 and 9 March 1720/1), he was informed of the death of ‘Poor Sister Ashby.’[18] Her children legatees in will of Aunt Christiana (1742).[39] Wills have not survived for John Ashby or his widow.[68] Issue: (i) John Ashby, 3rd Cassique (m. St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, 8 November 1726, Elizabeth Ball),[69] (ii) Elizabeth Ashby (m. St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, South Carolina, 21 January 1714/5, Rev. Thomas Hasell),[70] (iii) Mary Ashby (m. St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, 14 April 1726, Col. Francis Le Jau),[71] (iv) Ann Ashby (m. St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, 29 April 1730, Gabriel Manigault),[72] and (v) Thomas Ashby (m. St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, 16 August 1720, Elizabeth Le Jau).[73] IX. LYDIA BROUGHTON, of St George the Martyr, Middlesex (1749/50), b. 1678 (aged 72 in 1750), d. 28 May 1750, bur. St George the Martyr Cemetery, Brunswick Square.[15] Did not marry. She was a Quaker,[74] and affirmed, rather than making an oath to prove her sister Christiana’s will.[39] There is some confusion over the year of her death. In a reading of her monumental inscription, her death was transcribed as 28 May 1732;[15] however, this must be in error, as she wrote her will on 20 March 1749[/50],[40] and a family letter, which seems to be most accurate, states she died 28 May 1750 (assuming letter has been properly dated).[18] Legatee in will of her Brother Andrew (1734);[19] in will of her Sister Christiana (1742).[39] ‘Lydia Broughton of the Parish of Saint George the martyr in Queen Square by Ormond Street in the County of Middlesex Spinster,’ dated 20 March 1749[/50] and proved 4 June 1752, by the oath of Robert Johnson, Esq., sole executor. She requested ‘burial in the same Vault with late Brother and Sister Andrew Broughton and Christiana Broughton deceased in the late Mr Nelsons Burying Ground given by him to the said Parish of Saint George the Martyr.’ She names niece Anne Inett (Widow and Relict of the late Reverend Mr Thomas Inett of the City of Worcester Clerk deceased) £1000; nephew Thomas Acklom of Dringho in the County of York Gentleman £1000, silver watch, silver plate; nephew Peter Acklom of Hornsea in the said County of York Gentleman my Trustee £300; niece Alathea Longnire (the now Wife of the Reverend Mr George Longnire of [blank] in the said County of York Clerk) £300; her children [not named]; Thomas Reaston, Peter Reaston, and Anne Maria Reaston the sons and Daughter of my said Niece Alathea Longnire (which she had by a former Husband) £300; niece Anne Rysom the now Wife of John Rysom of Patrington in the said County of York Yeoman; their only daughter Lydia Rysom £300; made a bequest of £20 to the Poor belonging to the Meeting House in the Savoy in the Strand in the County of Middlesex; nephew Nathaniel Broughton only Son of my late Brother Colonel Thomas Broughton late of South Carolina deceased £100; no relationship stated [NRS]: Thomas Daye of Cliffords Inn London Gentleman £31 10s.; NRS: Anna Maria Bonfield the now Wife of John Bonfield of the Town of Kingston upon Hull in the said County of York Tanner £10 to buy her Mourning; maid servant: Eleanor Iredale £21 for her diligent care and faithful Service and attendance upon me; clothing; cousin Robert Johnson of the Parish of Saint Pauls Covent Garden in the County of Middlesex Esquire, lands in the City of London or elsewhere in Kingdom of Great Britain; full and sole executor. Witnesses: Alex[ande]r Gage, Percivall Bentley, William Fortescue.[40] X. CHRISTIANA BROUGHTON, of St George the Martyr, Middlesex (1741); bur. St George the Martyr Cemetery, Brunswick Square, 12 Apr 1743.[15] Did not marry. She witnessed the will of [her sister’s husband] Rev. Timothy Chamberlaine, of Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire in 1697.[48] ‘Christiana Broughton of the parish of St George the Martyrs in the County of Middlesex Spinster,’ left a will dated 15 November 1742, and proved 27 April 1743 by the oath of Robert Johnson Esq. and the sincere Declaration or Affirmation of Lydia Broughton the executors. She left 100 Guineas to her cousin Robert Johnson Esquire and appointed him executor. She left 50 Guineas to Alexius Clayton of the Middle Temple Esquire; mentions her late brother Andrew Broughton dec’d; and sister Lydia Broughton, executrix, residuary legatee of household Goods, Apparel, Books, Plate, Jewels, Pictures, Goods, Chattels, and other real and personal Estate whatsoever. She left legacies to nieces and nephews, the children of my late deceased brothers and Sisters Thomas Broughton, Mary Chamberlayn, Alathea Acklom, and Constantia Ashby. Witnesses: Luke Trevigar Westfield in Sussex Clerk Ja: Clayton of the Middle Temple.[39] CREDITS: Thanks to John Brandon and Leslie Mahler, FASG, for their research on this family. REFERENCES: [1] Maidstone, Kent, bishop’s transcripts; FHL access film 1736876, https://familysearch.org/search/catalog/460556 : 1637[/8] Jan 19 Andrew the Son of Andrew Broughton gen[tleman] & Mary his wife [baptised]. [2] Walter B. Gilbert, Memorials of the Collegiate and Parish Church of All Saints, in the King’s Town and Parish of Maidstone (Maidstone, 1866), 229-230, https://books.google.com/books?id=K8gHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA229&lpg=PA229 : Andrew [I] Broughton’s Maidstone lands forfeited for having ‘murthered King Charles the First,’ were reconveyed ‘By a deed poll, 23rd Feb., 1663 (16 Chas II.)’ to ‘Andrew Broughton, of Seaton, in Rutlandshire, Esq., son of the within-named Andrew Broughton.’ This marriage, recorded at London, St Antholin, 18 August 1631, seems to apply: Andrew Broughtonn and Mary Barron, https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/1624/31281_A101026-00062?pid=5318378 . Children bp. at Maidstone: Ann (9 May 1633), Lydia (18 Jan 1639[/?40), see FamilySearch. In addition, Andrew Broughton, Gon[Gentleman?], of Maidstone, Kent, and his wife Mary baptized a son, John Broughton, at St John, Wapping, Middlesex, 28 Nov 1641, see findmypast. [3] Sean Kelsey, ‘Broughton, Andrew (1602/3–1687)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008, http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/74828 . [4] Title Deeds: Bisbrook and Seaton, 3-ANC/1/33/10, in Title Deeds: Heathcote Properties, Lincolnshire Archives Catalogue, https://www.lincstothepast.com/Title-Deeds--Bisbrook-and-Seaton/780883.record?pt=S : Andrew Broughton's rental book, containing detailed yearly rentals, 1665-1685. [5] Jill Bourne and Amanda Goode, Rutland Hearth Tax, 1665, Occasional Publications (Rutland Local History & Record Society) 6 (1991). [6] Geo. T.J. Miles and William Richardson, A History of Withernsea (Hull, 1911), 250: Appendix IV: The Overtons of Easington, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b117544;view=1up;seq=295 . [7] List of Sheriffs for England and Wales, From the Earliest Times to A.D. 1831, Lists and Indexes 9 (1898; reprint 1963):114, https://archive.org/stream/listofsheriffsfo00newy#page/114/mode/2up : Date of appointment or of commencing account, 11 Nov 1669, Andrew Broughton, esq.; next sheriff appointed 4 Nov 1670. [8] Lamesley in ‘The Coleman Deeds,’ Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, 3rd Ser., 9 (1919-1920; published 1921):161, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.32044090394941;view=1up;seq=201 : 1671, Aug. 30. Settlement after marriage of Nathaniell Johnson (elder son of William Johnson) and Joanna, his now wife, daughter of Robert Overton, between (1) William Johnson of Kibblesworth, merchant; (2) Sir Thomas Liddell of Ravensworth castle, bt., John Clarke of Newcastle, esq., Robert Overton of Easington, co. York, and Andrew Broughton of Seaton, co. Rutland, esq.; and (3) William Dawson of London, gent., and John Carr of Newcastle, merchant. Manor of Kibblesworth. [9] Richard Blome, ‘Nobility and Gentry, Which are, or lately were, related unto the County of Rutland: With their Seats and Titles by which they are, or have been, known,’ in Brittania: Or, A Geographical Description of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland … (London, 1673), 418: https://books.google.com/books?id=fBhhAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA2-PA418&lpg=RA2-PA418 : Andrew Broughton of Seaton Esq. [10] Yardley v Broughton, 1676, C 5/584/7, TNA Discovery Catalogue, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C3967964 . [11] Dring v Broughton, 1679, C 6/275/46, TNA Discovery Catalogue, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5269966 . [12] PCC Administration Act Book, July 1688, f. 103; FHL film 96268. [13] ‘Notes of licences, &c.,’ Calendar of State Papers, Domestic Series, May 18th to September 30th, 1672 (London, 1899), 78, 199, https://books.google.com/books?id=niNOAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA199 : licence for Presbyterian congregation at house of Andrew Broughton, of Seaton, Rutland. [14] Seaton, Rutland, parish registers, findmypast: The marriage of an unidentified Anne Broughton who married [blank] ACKLOM at Seaton, Rutland, on 17 May 1686, is recorded twice: http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=s2%2fgbprs%2fleics%2f102322422%2f00051&parentid=gbprs%2fleics%2fmar%2f00268562%2f1&highlights=%22%22 and here http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=s2%2fgbprs%2fleics%2f102322423%2f00018&parentid=gbprs%2fleics%2fmar%2f00268685%2f1&highlights=%22%22 (upside down); Justin Simpson, ‘Extracts from the Parish Registers of Seaton, co. Rutland,’ Genealogist 5 (1881):111, https://books.google.com/books?id=fRfly9tiaacC&pg=PA111 . [15] Frederick Teague Cansick, A Collection of Curious and Interesting Epitaphs, Copied from the Existing Monuments of Distinguished and Noted Characters in the Cemeteries and Churches of Saint Pancras, Middlesex (London, 1872), 207; digital image, https://books.google.com/books?id=h7UEAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA207 : Underneath lies the body of ANDREW BROUGHTON, Esqre., Of St. George the Martyr’s, And Son of Andrew Broughton, Esq., Of Seaton, in Rutland. He dyed the 13th September, 1734, aged 71. CHRISTIANA BROUGHTON, Sister of The said Andrew, was buried here April ye 12th, 1743. Also the body of LYDIA BROUGHTON, Sister of the said Andrew. She Dyed May ye 28th, 1732 [recte 1750], Aged 72. Arms: Two bars, on a canton a cross impaling per chevron three mullets. Crest: A sea dog’s head couped. [16] Boyd’s Marriage Index, findmypast: London marriage licence, 1718, Andr Broughton & Anne Page [sic]. Original record not found in Faculty Office marriage licences (FHL Film 355470). [17] Westminster St Anne Soho, parish registers, http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbprs%2fwsmtn%2f005109307%2f00032&parentid=gbprs%2fwsmtn%2fmar%2f0125145%2f1&highlights=%22%22 : 1718 May 29, And[re]w Broughton & Ann Day p[er] Lic[ence]. [18] D. E. Huger Smith, ‘Broughton Letters,’ The South Carolina Historical Magazine 15 (1914):171-196, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27575406 . [19] PCC 211 Ockham (1734), f. 149, https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/5111/40611_311173-00019/663955 . [20] Overton v Broughton, 1712, C 7/664/55, TNA Discovery Catalogue, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C5351327 . [21] Broughton v Overton, 1716, C 11/2349/37, TNA Discovery Catalogue, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10409672 . [22] Atkins v Broughton, 1722, C 11/43/5, TNA Discovery Catalogue, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10398878 . [23] Copy quitclaim relating to the wills of Benjamin and Robert Overton, c.1725, DDCK/26/1, East Riding of Yorkshire Archives and Local Studies Service, in TNA Discovery Catalogue, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/abb57f0c-dd1c-48ae-8905-4768274c3c03 . [23] Broughton v Overton, 1726, C 11/2627/33, TNA Discovery Catalogue, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10483258 . [24] Dikes alias Overton v Broughton, 1738, C 11/1275/39, TNA Discovery Catalogue, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10433971 . [25] Dikes alias Overton v Broughton, 1738, C 11/1275/43, TNA Discovery Catalogue, http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C10433971 . [26] Bank of England Wills Extracts, Register 180 (1732-1754), Film 64/3, findmypast, http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbor%2fboe%2f008%2f0104&parentid=gbor%2fboe%2f702003621%2f1; Register 433 (1726-1745), Film 62/2, findmypast, http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbor%2fboe%2f003%2f0214&parentid=gbor%2fboe%2f702003620%2f1 . [27] K.G. Davies, ed., Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies: Volume 43, 1737 (London, 1963), [288-299], 307. British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/colonial/america-west-indies/vol43/pp299-312: (pp. 288-299): ‘Lieut. Governor Broughton died 22 November [1737] …;’ (p. 307): ‘Col. Broughton, the late lieut.-governor, dying towards the latter end of November [1737]…’ [28] Will of Thomas Broughton, Charleston County, South Carolina, Wills, etc. (1736-1740):177-194; FHL Film 23457; https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PY-49J7?i=97&cat=236996 : In some transcripts of this will, as noted by John Brandon, editors mistakenly states that Broughton’s daughter Johanna was the granddaughter of Sir Nathaniel Broughton Knight. In this earlier version on Ancestry, the wording states clearly ‘the Hon[oura]ble S[i]r Nath[anie]l Johnson Kn[igh]t her Grand father Deceased.’ [29] A.S. Salley, Death Notices in The South-Carolina Gazette 1732-1775 (Columbia, South Carolina, 1917), 7 https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/27040/dvm_LocHist011492-00004-0/2 : On Monday last [25 June], died the Lady of the Honourable Col. Broughton, President of his Majesty’s Council of this Province, a Lady of great Piety and Charity, and very much lamented, by all that knew her. (South Carolina Gazette, Charleston, South Carolina, Saturday, 30 June 1733). [30] Walter B. Edgar and N. Louise Bailey, ‘Broughton, Thomas (d. 1737),’ Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives (Columbia, S.C., 1989), 2:103-105. [31] Nathan E. Stalvey, ‘Broughton, Thomas (?-November 22, 1737),’ South Carolina Encyclopedia (2016), http://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/broughton-thomas/ . [32] Walter B. Edgar and N. Louise Bailey, ‘Broughton, Nathaniel,’ Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives (Columbia, S.C., 1989), 2:102-103. [33] Walter B. Edgar and N. Louise Bailey, ‘Broughton, Andrew,’ Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives (Columbia, S.C., 1989), 2:102. [34] Walter B. Edgar and N. Louise Bailey, ‘Monck, Thomas,’ Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives (Columbia, S.C., 1989), 2:465-466. [35] K.G. Davies, ed., Calendar of State Papers Colonial, America and West Indies: Volume 13, 1689-1692 (London, 1901), [57-76], British History Online, http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-state-papers/colonial/america-west-indies/vol13/pp57-76 : ‘June 22: "Copy of John Burrowe's narrative sent to Lord Nottingham by Mr. Henley of Bristol." A short assortment of hearsay statements against Sir Nathaniel Johnson; that he had openly declared his intention to give up the Island to the French; that his son-in-law was a papist in disguise, and so forth. 1½ pp. Endorsed. 22 June 1689. Recd. 25 June, '89. [America and West Indies. 550. No. 12.]’ NWM: Was this Anne? Nathaniel Johnson had only been married 19 years. Some secondary sources state Anne Johnson married Thomas Broughton in 1683. A source for that year hasn’t been discovered. [36] Thomas Broughton was executor to Nathaniell Johnson, 1715 Judgment Roll, South Carolina Department of Archives and History, http://www.archivesindex.sc.gov/onlinearchives/RecordDetail.aspx?RecordId=157649 [37] Will of Thomas Broughton, Charleston County, South Carolina, Wills, etc. (1736-1740):177-194; FHL Film 23457; https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-C9PY-49J7?i=97&cat=236996 . Abstract: D. E. Huger Smith, ‘Broughton Letters,’ The South Carolina Historical Magazine 15 (1914):171-196, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27575406 . [38] A.S. Salley, Death Notices in The South-Carolina Gazette 1732-1775 (Columbia, South Carolina, 1917), 6 https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/27040/dvm_LocHist011492-00004-0/2 : On Sunday last, at the Seat of the Hon. Col. Broughton, President of his Majesty’s Council for this Province, died Madam Johnson, his Excellency the Governor’s Lady; after a pretty long Indisposition. She was a Lady so remarkable for the good Qualities of a Wife and Mother, that his Excellency’s Loss can be supported only by that happy and steady Disposition of Mind He himself is Master of. By all her amiable Qualities, in Life, she had gained the universal Esteem of this Province, and consequently her Death proves a General Concern; which was in some Measure testified by the Number of Persons, of all Ranks, that paid their last Respects at her Funeral, which Ceremony was performed in the Church at Charleston, in the most handsome Manner that possibly it could. We hear that most People design, on this Occasion, to put themselves in Mourning. (South Carolina Gazette, Charleston, South Carolina, Saturday, 8 July 1732). [39] PCC 101 Boycott (1743), folios 43-44, https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/5111/40611_311210-00449/ . Bequests to children of Aunt Chrisa. Broughton dec’d’s brothers and sisters Thos. Broughton, Mary Chamberlain, Alethia Acklom, and Constantia Ashby, are also referenced in two letters: (1) [Robert Johnson] to Nath[anie]l Broughton Esq[ui]r[e] in South Carolina, [received] 2 May 1744, and (2) [Charles Pinckney, Esq.] to Nathaniel Broughton Esq[ui]r[e] at the Mulberry in So[uth] Carolina, London, 1 August 1754; published in D. E. Huger Smith, ‘Broughton Letters,’ The South Carolina Historical Magazine 15 (1914):171-196 at pp. 183-184 and 194-195, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27575406 . [40] PCC 146 Bettesworth (1752), folios 120-122, https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/5111/40611_309899-00680/265897 . [41] Frederick Lewis Weis, The Colonial Clergy of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina (Boston, Mass., 1955), 76, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89059427401;view=1up;seq=88 . [42] Langdon Cheves, ‘Izard of South Carolina,’ The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine 2 (1901):205-240, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27574958 . [43] M. Leon Broughton, Broughton Memoirs (3rd ed., Dallas, Texas: M.L. Broughton, 1972). [44] Margaret Dial Norwood and Charles S. Norwood, Capt. John Norwood and Mary Warren Norwood: A Family History (Goldsboro, North Carolina, 1979). [45] A marriage record for Rev. Timothy Chamberlaine has not been discovered. I have concluded she was Mary Broughton based (1) on the fact that Mary is known from family wills and letters to have married a Chamberlaine, (2) Mary’s sister Alethia married at the Church where he served as Rector in 1691, and (3) Christiana Broughton, probably Mary’s sister, witnessed Rev. Timothy Chamberlaine’s 1697 will. [46] John Venn and J.A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, Part I, Vol. 1 (Cambridge, 1922), 317, https://archive.org/stream/alumnicantabrigipt1vol1univiala#page/316/mode/2up ; John Nichols, The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester (1800; reprint, East Ardsley, UK: S.R. Publishers Limited, 1971), Vol. 3, Part I, p. 395, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000032377095;view=1up;seq=301 : Timothy Chamberlaine, presented to Brooksby, 11 December 1680, patron: Sir William Villiers, Bt. [47] Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, parish registers, findmypast, https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record/browse?id=s2%2fgbprs%2fleics%2f15-0818-gb-lec-goadby-de1217-1-baptisms-marriages--burials-1656-1794%2f00024 : 1697/8 Jan 22: Mr: [Timothy written in] Chamberlain: Rector Buryed; John Nichols, The History and Antiquities of the County of Leicester (1795; reprint, East Ardsley, UK: S.R. Publishers Limited, 1971), Vol. 2, Part I, p. 197, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pst.000032377071;view=1up;seq=283 : Baptisms of Mary, Villerya, and Anne Chamberlain; burial of Timothy Chamberlain, rector. [48] Archdeaconry Court of Leicester, original wills, 1698:139, findmypast, http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record/browse?id=s2%2fgbprs%2fleics%2f102616169%2f00403 . [49] Melton Mowbray, Leicestershire, parish registers, findmypast, http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=s2%2fgbprs%2fleics%2f102144184%2f00143&parentid=gbprs%2fleics%2fbap%2f00226912&highlights=%22%22 : 1689 Oct, John Son of [Mr written in] Timothy Chamberlain of Burton [Clerk written in] Gentl[eman] by Mary bp. 18. [50] Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, parish registers, findmypast, https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record/browse?id=s2%2fgbprs%2fleics%2f15-0818-gb-lec-goadby-de1217-1-baptisms-marriages--burials-1656-1794%2f00021 : Mary Chamberlain the daughter of Mr [Timothy Chamberlain written in] Rector and Mary his wife was baptized May the 4th. [51] Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, parish registers, findmypast, https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record/browse?id=s2%2fgbprs%2fleics%2f15-0818-gb-lec-goadby-de1217-1-baptisms-marriages--burials-1656-1794%2f00022 : 1693, Villerya Chamberlaine Born the 20th of October. [52] Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, parish registers, findmypast, https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record/browse?id=s2%2fgbprs%2fleics%2f15-0818-gb-lec-goadby-de1217-1-baptisms-marriages--burials-1656-1794%2f00023 : Anne the daughter of Timothy Chamberlain and Mary his wife was Baptized Aprill the 3th 1696. [53] London St Dunstan in the West, parish registers, https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/1624/31281_A101488-00039?pid=9824627 : 1718 November 15[?] Thomas Inett of M of wirksworth Bachelour & Ann Chamberlaine of R… Spinster were maried by Licence. Image difficult to read. [54] John Venn and J.A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, Part I, Vol. 2 (Cambridge, 1922), 447, https://archive.org/stream/p1alumnicantabri02univuoft#page/447/mode/1up . [55] PCC 16 Lisle (1749), folios 125-126, https://www.ancestry.com/interactive/5111/40611_311636-00617 . [56] Papers of Crust Todd and Mills, Solicitors, of Beverley, Hull History Centre, U DDCV/208/7, 12 May 1753; Appointment: Alethea, widow of Rev. George Longmire of Owthorne to Peter Acklom of Hornsea gent. £300 under Will of his aunt Lydia Broughton spinster (i.e. £100 to Rev. John Mackereth of Owthorne and his wife Anna Maria (daughter of A.L.); and £100 each at death of A.L. to her sons Thomas and Peter Reaston). Witn. James Moor, Richard Preston, William Harrison. With a relative Agreement, 6 November 1754 1 item [57] Goadby Marwood, Leicestershire, parish registers, https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=s2%2fgbprs%2fleics%2f15-0818-gb-lec-goadby-de1217-1-baptisms-marriages--burials-1656-1794%2f00021&parentid=gbprs%2fleics%2fmar%2f00355966%2f2 : 1691 June 29, Tho[ma]s Accalam and Alletheal Broughtton Maryed. [58] Ostwick Quaker Monthly Meeting, http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=tna%2frg6%2f1363%2f0%2f0092&parentid=tna%2frg6%2fbap%2f1660923&highlights=%22%22 : Thomas Sonn to Peter Acklam of Hornsey & Alce his wife Borne the 8th day of the first Month [March] in the yeare 1661. [59] Bridlington Quaker Monthly Meeting, http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=tna%2frg6%2f1119%2f0%2f0133&parentid=tna%2frg6%2fbur%2f809185&highlights=%22%22 : Thomas Acklam of Dringo was buried ye 8th of ye 11th mo: 1699. [60] George Poulson and William Dade, The History and Antiquities of the Seigniory of Holderness … (Hull, 1840-1841), 1:333-335, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015086596445;view=1up;seq=387 . [61] D. E. Huger Smith, ‘Broughton Letters,’ The South Carolina Historical Magazine 15 (1914):171-196, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27575406 : Reaston is mistakenly identified as a son-in-law of Hon. Thomas Broughton in a footnote on p. 188. [62] Tunstall, Yorkshire, parish registers, https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=S2/GBPRS/YORKSHIRE/007909252/01097&parentid=GBPRS/YORKSHIRE/MAR/500162029/1 : 1732 Dec 26, George Longmire Curate of Tunstall and Aletheia Reaston of the Parish of Owthorpe Widow, were married in the Parish Church of Tunstall; Tunstall, Yorkshire, bishop’s transcripts, https://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=GBPRS/YORKSHIRE/007588019/00045&parentid=GBPRS/YORKSHIRE/MAR/212685/1 . [63] John Venn and J.A. Venn, Alumni Cantabrigienses, Part I, Vol. 3 (Cambridge, 1924), 104, https://archive.org/stream/p1alumnicantabri03univuoft#page/104/mode/1up . [64] Robert F. Clute, The Annals and Parish Register of St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, in South Carolina, from 1680 to 1884 (Charleston, 1884), 95, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t50g3z37f;view=1up;seq=99 : John Ashby Esq. d. Nov. 30, 1716. [65] Robert F. Clute, The Annals and Parish Register of St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, in South Carolina, from 1680 to 1884 (Charleston, S.C., 1884), 95, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t50g3z37f;view=1up;seq=99 : Constancia Ashby, widow of John Ashby, d. Jan. 20, 1720. [66] Henry A. M. Smith, ‘The Baronies of South Carolina,’ The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, Vol. 18, No. 1 (January 1917):3-36, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27569413 . [67] Walter B. Edgar and N. Louise Bailey, ‘Ashby, John, Jr. (d. 1716),’ Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives (Columbia, S.C., 1989), 2:41-42. [68] Searched Charleston and South Carolina will indices. [69] Walter B. Edgar and N. Louise Bailey, ‘Ashby, John (1698-1729),’ Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives (Columbia, S.C., 1989), 2:41; Robert F. Clute, The Annals and Parish Register of St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, in South Carolina, from 1680 to 1884 (Charleston, S.C., 1884), 25, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t50g3z37f;view=1up;seq=29 .. [70] Robert F. Clute, The Annals and Parish Register of St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, in South Carolina, from 1680 to 1884 (Charleston, S.C., 1884), 25 (marriage), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t50g3z37f;view=1up;seq=29, 64-65 (children), https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t50g3z37f;view=1up;seq=68 . [71] Walter B. Edgar and N. Louise Bailey, ‘Le Jau Francis (1695-1758?),’ Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives (Columbia, S.C., 1989), Vol. 2; Robert F. Clute, The Annals and Parish Register of St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, in South Carolina, from 1680 to 1884 (Charleston, S.C., 1884), 25, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t50g3z37f;view=1up;seq=29 . [72] ‘Six Letters of Peter Manigault,’ The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine 15 (1914):113-123, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27575397 ; Maurice A. Crouse, ‘Gabriel Manigault: Charleston Merchant,’ South Carolina Historical Magazine 68 (October 1967):220-231; Walter B. Edgar and N. Louise Bailey, ‘Manigault, Gabriel,’ Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives (Columbia, S.C., 1989), Vol. 2; Nicholas Michael Butler, ‘Manigault, Gabriel (April 21, 1704-June 5, 1781),’ South Carolina Encyclopedia, http://www.scencyclopedia.org/sce/entries/manigault-gabriel-2/ ; Robert F. Clute, The Annals and Parish Register of St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, in South Carolina, from 1680 to 1884 (Charleston, S.C., 1884), 25, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t50g3z37f;view=1up;seq=29 . [73] Walter B. Edgar and N. Louise Bailey, ‘Ashby, Thomas,’ Biographical Directory of the South Carolina House of Representatives (Columbia, S.C., 1989), 2:42-43; Robert F. Clute, The Annals and Parish Register of St. Thomas and St. Denis Parish, in South Carolina, from 1680 to 1884 (Charleston, S.C., 1884), 25, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t50g3z37f;view=1up;seq=29 . [74] Letter from Son Peter Manigault to Hon. Madam, London, 4 July 1750, published in ‘Six Letters of Peter Manigault,’ The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine 15 (1914):113-123 at pp. 115-117, http://www.jstor.org/stable/27575397 : ‘Your Aunt Broughton died the 28th of May last [1750]; By her Death, some Money which was left by her Sister, will come to be divided betwixt you, & the rest of her Brothers & Sister’s Children: Mr Johnson is her Executor, & I believe will get considerable by her Death. As she was a Quaker, she was buried very privately, for nobody besides myself, except the People of the House was at her Funeral.’

There are two major hurdles with autosomal DNA. First there's the fact that, due to the recombination (shuffling) that occurs in every generation, you can't guarantee that you have any identifiable DNA from any particular ancestor after 5 - 7 generations ago, although you will obviously have DNA from particular ancestors much earlier than that. Then there's the fact that autosomal DNA is inherited from all lines of descent, which means that all the unknown maiden names in your pedigree become more important to learn. That being said, my personal experience is that autosomal DNA has been a much better witness to my recent ancestry than has yDNA. This is due to my ability to compare the overall patterns of my autosomal matches with the genetic predictions implied by my documented ancestry -- and the two data sets line up reasonably well for the past 350 - 400 years or so, and really well for people to whom I am alleged to be related within the past 250 years. (I will point out that I have enough endogamy in my ancestry that a number of genetic lines have been reinforced and are more detectable than they otherwise would be.) David Teague On Saturday, August 26, 2017, wjhonson <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 10:36:20 AM UTC-7, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em sábado, 26 de agosto de 2017 18:24:02 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 12:20:55 AM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster > wrote: > > > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 4:17:51 AM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > > > > > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved > on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA > > > > > > > > The full potential of Y DNA for genealogy is "on hold" because those > tests are no longer being promoted, and the value of genetic data > collecting for estimating family trees increases depending upon how many > samples are available for comparison. > > > > > > > > Instead, the main reason for the upswing in autosomal testing is > that this is what the genealogical companies are promoting right now for > commercial reasons. Genealogical bloggers etc are also very happy with this > for a mixture of reasons, including good ones. For the companies though, > the tests are more expensive, and give customers lots of > difficult-to-dismiss matches, freeing the imagination to come up with > satisfying narratives in a style that the testing companies also > successfully manage to promote in newspapers etc as if they were scientific > discoveries. > > > > > > > > (Don't get me wrong. There are really interesting discoveries coming > from autosomal data, but rarely useful for genealogists, and these are > rarely the ones newspapers write up. There are also real genealogical > success stories from autosomal DNA, normally restricted to connections a > few centuries back.) > > > > > > > > We all have to remember that most genealogists, most people in fact, > are driven by the need to be connected to a good story. Mankind's > attraction to certain types of wrong stories is why Francis Bacon taught us > to use neutral methodologies. > > > > > > > > The emphasis in autosomal and future full sequencing testing has to > be on software and algorithms, because this is the only way to have clear > methodologies when the information available is so complex. But also such > algorithms are hard to understand. Y DNA phylogenies are at least simpler > in this respect, and in the period where they were the main type of genetic > genealogy the progress was enormous, even if limited to study of male lines. > > > > > > > > > Contrary to your dismissal, almost every month I find new information > of a genealogical nature. > > > > > > Some people are dedicated to this insane quest to extend their > male-line backward as if that says anything at all about them. It doesn't. > > > > > > The amount of DNA you get from your 12th great-grandfather is > minuscule. > > > The Y-DNA quest also smacks of a patriarchal holdover attitude. That > women are not important to your own personal story. > > > > > > I have been doing my own genealogy for over thirty years, and yet just > this year, I was able to fill in a missing maiden name for a 3rd > great-grandmother. > > > > > > This was *only* possible because of my hunt among the slew of odd > matches I was getting to the HARDING surname, which was not previously in > my tree. > > > > > > Autosomal DNA is quite relevant for genealogists. > > > > > > In addition to that, at least three times in the *past year* I have > had people, who had quite good trees, realize through Autosomal DNA that > part of their tree is completely mythical, since an NPE occurred, recently. > > > > > > If you have not done the atDNA test, then you are trading in > mythology, in your own family. > > > > The problem of autosomal DNA is that it becomes unreliable after some > generations. > > My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that > you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy. > > Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and > then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out > they are not even related to them > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 10:58:11 PM UTC-4, deca...@aol.com wrote: > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 7:41:14 PM UTC-4, John Higgins wrote: > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 12:29:05 PM UTC-7, deca...@aol.com wrote: > > > On Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 2:12:51 PM UTC-4, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > > > Em terça-feira, 15 de agosto de 2017 17:16:35 UTC+1, wjhonson escreveu: > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 7:53:27 PM UTC-7, deca...@aol.com wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, August 14, 2017 at 5:08:10 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > > > Sure is a good thing you didn't include all those pesky dates since it's patently obvious your bad dates are fictions > > > > > > > > > > > > It's patently obvious you don't make any sense at all! > > > > > > > > > > Over and over you've been shown that making up birth years when we have no such documentation is a logical failure on your part. Your response is to insult people. > > > > > > > > > > What a world! > > > > > > > > Perhaps they are educated guesses. > > > > > > Paulo, > > > > > > The above pedigree of Diana, Princess of Wales which includes the dates assigned to the twenty generations were constructed by genealogical researchers working for the Yeo Society. I previously stated that in the original post. If you want to check out their sources, you can here: > > > > > > http://www.yeosociety.com/yeoroots/grenvilletreetowill.htm > > > > > > > > Cheers ~ > > > LE (aka Deca) > > > > How exactly can you "check out their sources" on this website? I see no sources at all there for this pedigree. Perhaps you could point out for us where they provide their sources...?? > > > > And here's one obvious date error in the pedigree you posted assuming it was accurate. "10 Sir John Grenville 1623-" is actually (per CP 2:20-21) Sir John Granville, 1st Earl of Bath, who was born 29 Aug 1628 [not 1623]. > > I never stated that they listed all of their sources. Some sources are listed within their articles such as Visitation Pedigrees. However, if you wanted specific sources for the above pedigree, you can contact their genealogist. I do not represent the Yeo Society and while there may be a few minor date discrepancies in the above pedigree depending upon the source, the substance of their work is fairly accurate. 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

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 6:40:53 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 2:42:51 PM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:57:21 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > > > My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy. > > > > > > Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them > > > > I can not parse this point. It looks like a apples and pears logic. All kinds of tools can help a genealogists and help confirm each other, but that does not mean any of them are necessarily useless on their own. > > Here is how you parse it Andrew. > Your father is not your father. Or is he? > The Y tells you nothing on this point at all. > Sure you might match some people they might even have your surname > But it tells you nothing about which line you are in, since lines can pass on, completely unmutated for four generations. > > Maybe you're really the second cousin of who you think you are > > Autosomal DNA however does not lie on points like this I assume you could also be an interdimensional being only made to look like human, but chances are... I do recommend the autosomal tests also. I even treated my mother to one from 23andme a couple years ago for Christmas. The bonus medical information from that site in particular is quite nice. Concerning Y DNA results I think Scottish clans have contributed significantly to that field. Take a look at projects like the Gordons, Hamiltons or MacDonalds who have so many tested individuals with a documented pedigree connecting them to one another they can essentially tell a testee who lacks a documented genealogy which branch of the family they belong to. What is learned, like mutation rates, from such documented families who are tested allow for deductions on families not so well documented. Not everything in science happens right before your eyes, but it is based on logical deductions.

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 5:47:47 PM UTC-4, wjhonson wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 2:28:58 PM UTC-7, Katherine Kennedy wrote: > > I looked up the source and the translation of Saxo says specifically, "Once she had learnt of this, the queen ((Adela)) returned to her own country with her young son, leaving behind twin daughters: one of them, Ingerd, married Folke, an aristocrat of Swedish, and bore him sons, Bengt and Cnut;", so unless that translation is horribly flawed the text seems clear that Adela was their mother also. > > https://books.google.com/books?id=MbK6BwAAQBAJ > > This link go to "No Ebook available" > > How were you able to read it It still shows for me when I click the link. It's just a preview, not full view book. The title is Saxo Grammaticus: Gesta Danorum - The History of the Danes, Volume 2 by Karsten Friis-Jensen, if you wish to Google it independently.

Dear Newsgroup ~ Complete Peerage 12(1) (1953): 46–48 (sub Somerset) includes a good biography of John Beaufort, K.G., Duke of Somerset (died 27 May 1444), who was the maternal grandfather of King Henry VII of England. Regarding his marriage, the following information is provided by Complete Peerage: "He married, in or about 1442, Margaret, widow of Sir Oliver St. John, sister and heiress of John Beauchamp, daughter of John Beauchamp, of Bletsoe (according to modern doctrine 4th and 3rd Lord Beauchamp of Bletsoe), by Edith, daughter of Sir John Stourton." END Of QUOTE. On page 47, footnote l, the following documentation is given for this marriage: "They had a papal indult to have a portable altar, 8 Kal. [24 June] 1443 (Cal. Papal Letters, vol. ix, p. 368." END OF QUOTE. Fortunately, there is evidence to better indicate when the marriage of John Beaufort and Margaret Beauchamp took place. Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1436–1441 (1907): 559 shows that on 2 August 1441, Margaret, then widow of Oliver Saint John, was granted livery of the dower lands of her late mother, Edith, to have without any inquistions. See the following weblink for this record: https://books.google.com/books?id=v-gLAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA559&lpg=PA559 Elsewhere there is a Common Pleas lawsuit dated 1442 in which John Beaufort and Margaret Beauchamp, then husband and wife, are the plaintiffs. An abstract of the lawsuit is found below. In Hilary term 1442 John, Earl of Somerset, and his wife, Margaret, sued John Sharp, Gent., of Worcester, Worcestershire in the Court of Common Pleas regarding a debt of 20 marks. Reference: Court of Common Pleas, CP40/724, image 39f (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no724/aCP40no724fronts/IMG_0039.htm). A related entry is Court of Common Pleas, CP40/724, image 1836d (available at http://aalt.law.uh.edu/AALT1/H6/CP40no724/bCP40no724dorses/IMG_1836.htm). Hilary term 1442 fell beween 23 January and 12 February. Reviewing the above, we see that John Beaufort and Margaret Beauchamp were married after 2 August 1441 and before Hilary term [23 Jan./12 Feb.] 1442, roughly a six month window of time. Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 2:42:51 PM UTC-7, Andrew Lancaster wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:57:21 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > > > My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy. > > > > Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them > > I can not parse this point. It looks like a apples and pears logic. All kinds of tools can help a genealogists and help confirm each other, but that does not mean any of them are necessarily useless on their own. Here is how you parse it Andrew. Your father is not your father. Or is he? The Y tells you nothing on this point at all. Sure you might match some people they might even have your surname But it tells you nothing about which line you are in, since lines can pass on, completely unmutated for four generations. Maybe you're really the second cousin of who you think you are Autosomal DNA however does not lie on points like this

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 2:03:45 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 11:47:34 AM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > In actuality the statistics on this point is not correct. > > Or rather it's both correct and not correct. > > > > The genes do not half. You don't inherit a half-gene. > > Actually, they sometimes do, and you sometimes do. There are two types of crossovers that drive the 'halving', and one of them takes no notice whatsoever of where gene boundaries are - it is completely random. The other is not random, having hotspots and deserts, but it isn't entirely clear what defines these - it is not boundaries between individual genes, which for the most part don't exist, with the possibility of the same DNA being part of two different genes, but may be the boundaries of 'regulatory blocks' that include several full genes - that is just a guess, but it may be a valid one. > > > The segments, on average, and viewed globally, can be inherited in half > > pieces, however there is a limit to that. There is not going to be a case > > where you inherit, in a string of ten base pairs, one base pair from > > randomly disconnected ancestors. > > 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. > > taf I actually agree with the point that *you* may have no preserved DNA some particular ancestor, however that misses the point of the group to which you match. For each ancestor you have, you have a group of descendants who have tested. Even if you have no preserved DNA for that ancestor, one of the members of your group will. The further back in time the ancestor, the more people in the group of descendants. So as the chance of you having DNA from that ancestor goes to zero, the number of descendants goes to infinity. Essentially, the further back in time you want to go, the more people you need to have had testing done, and matching to you in such a way that the ancestral pyramid can be build stone-by-stone as it were.

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 7:57:21 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > My point is that the YDNA is useless without the autosomal to show that you are even on the right track or even in the right galaxy. > > Imagine all that work put in, even for moderators of some Y groups, and then finally they test their sister or first cousin or uncle and find out they are not even related to them I can not parse this point. It looks like a apples and pears logic. All kinds of tools can help a genealogists and help confirm each other, but that does not mean any of them are necessarily useless on their own.

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:08:23 PM UTC+2, Paulo Canedo wrote: > Wrong Y DNA is still much tested today. Yes, but the momentum has been taken away from projects, and it is very unrewarding now. You can go out trying to promote the idea among a group of interest for example, but once you get them interested they are still going to go and check the testing company websites which tell them they can find their viking genes or whatever, INSTEAD. (Most people have a limited budget.)

On Saturday, August 26, 2017 at 8:00:12 PM UTC+2, wjhonson wrote: > I have many cases where I'm matching sixth cousins, back to 1750, with 50cm matching. I said 1800. You say as much as 1750. That could be, and it might be possible to push it a bit further. What will make a bigger difference is full sequencing, which means seeing a real phylogeny with mutations. IE, like we could more or less do with Y DNA many years earlier.