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.

On 25-Aug-17 7:29 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On 25/08/17 09:28, Peter Stewart wrote: > >> However, I don't agree that Richard III could have been in a >> privileged position a century after the fact to know when John Beaufort >> was born, if this was especially compromising to his mother and yet the >> court, the pope and others at the time did not realise it. >> >> I'm not sure that the birthdays of bastards were much celebrated in the >> 14th century, certainly not so much as to leave a record that would be >> suppressed for a hundred years until falling into the hands of someone >> with a flagrant motive to invent such a problem anyway. > > I'm sure birthdays of bastards weren't celebrated, at least not in a > way to leave record.  But it doesn't preclude the date of his birth > occurring somewhere in a court record.  Not being an heir, there > wouldn't be a proof of age or mention of his age in an IPM, I don't > recall seeing dates of birth in patent or close rolls, and he was no > where near important enough to attract the attention of a monastic > chronicler.  But he may have been mentioned in someone else's proof of > age.  More than once I've read entries in CIPM saying something like > "Joe Bloggs knows X was born on [date] because he was at the baptism > of Y that day and a servant came to tell X his wife had just given > birth". I imagine there must be lots of manorial court rolls that have > not survived containing similar things. > > I don't for a moment believe Richard would have been trawling through > court records looking for such an entry, but if someone else happened > to come across something of that nature, they may well have brought it > to Richard's attention in the hope of currying favour with the king.  > Of course the same detail could have come to light in earlier years, > but it was only after the death of Henry VI that the question of the > Beauforts' legitimacy became a hot political topic. It was a hot topic in the autumn of 1396, when John's marriage to Katherine was acknowledged by the pope and their children were legitimated, and in February 1397 when Richard II confirmed their legitimacy and made John Beaufort earl of Somerset. John's conception, if there had been any real question over it, would have been a hot topic at court again later in that year when he was made marquis of Somerset and then of Dorset. This dead horse has been flogged way past its death without any substantial point being made in favour of Richard III's revisionist nonsense. Peter Stewart

Yes, and the moon could be made of green cheese. Why bother with anything. Sent from my iPhone

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:17:51 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to > Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA Except it the world hasn't moved on. Each has questions they can answer and questions they can't, and both can play a role in an integrated approach. taf

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 7:08:31 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn wrote: > Yes, and the moon could be made of green cheese. > > Why bother with anything. > > Sent from my iPhone Because Michael there is an *actual* way to do this kind of research And then there is your way which is a wall of Swiss cheese. There is a very valid reason why the rest of the world has moved on to Autosomal DNA instead of Y DNA

On 25-Aug-17 6:14 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On 25/08/17 08:33, Peter Stewart wrote: > >>> Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are >>> still poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't >>> breath unaided. [...] I'm sure there were instances of mediæval >>> babies born thispremature who survived nonetheless, but it must >>> have been very rare. >> >> But probably not as rare as someone a century later knowing for certain >> when the baby was conceived, > > It wouldn't require anyone a century later to know exactly when the > baby was conceived, only to within a two months, and anyone with > knowledge of the date of birth could have done that, though there's no > reason to suppose many people would have known the date of birth.  In > that respect Richard could have been in a privileged position. > > In any case, the point is moot.  I've already said I don't believe > Beaufort was born of double adultery.  Had he been, Gaunt had a strong > incentive to say so during his petition for dispensation to marry > Katherine.  He didn't and that speaks volumes.  I think it is quite > possibly that, if so minded, he could have covered up Katherine's side > of the double adultery had it occurred, as I don't image dates of > birth, marriage and death would have have been known outside a small > circle of family and close acquaintances who, back in the 1390s, may > not have had reason to rock the boat.  But doing so would have been > risky and I can't see any motive for him to do so. Nor can I. However, I don't agree that Richard III could have been in a privileged position a century after the fact to know when John Beaufort was born, if this was especially compromising to his mother and yet the court, the pope and others at the time did not realise it. I'm not sure that the birthdays of bastards were much celebrated in the 14th century, certainly not so much as to leave a record that would be suppressed for a hundred years until falling into the hands of someone with a flagrant motive to invent such a problem anyway. There doesn't seem to be any plausible ground for devil's advocacy here. Peter Stewart

On 25-Aug-17 4:21 PM, Richard Smith wrote: > On 25/08/17 02:04, Peter Stewart wrote: >> On 25-Aug-17 10:38 AM, Richard Smith wrote: >>> In this scenario, [...] Beaufort would have to have been nearly two >>> months premature for him to have been conceived after Swnyford's >>> death, and I very much doubt a baby that premature would have lived >>> before the advent of modern medicine. >> >> Doubt on what basis? I don't know whether or not a baby could naturally >> survive premature birth after seven months gestation, then or now. > > Based on the fact that before about week 31, a foetus's lungs are > still poorly developed, generally to the point that the baby can't > breath unaided.  Nowadays a surfactant injection is often given, > either to the mother immediately prior to giving birth, or to the baby > immediately after birth, which is often enough to prevent the lungs > from collapsing, though even then a respirator is sometimes needed.  > These were not options even a century ago, far less in the 14th > century.  I'm sure there were instances of mediæval babies born this > premature who survived nonetheless, but it must have been very rare. But probably not as rare as someone a century later knowing for certain when the baby was conceived, that people in its lifetime evidently didn't except its parents - who must have been idiots to suppose no-one else could work this out. John of Gaunt was in Roquefort when he married for the second time in September 1371. Perhaps Richard III was clairvoyant also in knowing that Katherine was with him between then and the death of her own husband in November, when their contemporaries hadn't noticed this. Peter Stewart

>>This is of course a non-sequitur. Where Richard's G haplotype was in the pre-Roman era is not 'the other alternative', but rather a completely independent question from whether there was a marital infidelity between Edward III and Richard III. That is the "other alternative" to genetic inheritance by a group *specifically brought into Gaul BY the Romans*... Since there is no factual basis for marital infidelity BEFORE Richard III among his paternal line which btw goes back to Gaul, these are the alternatives. So take your pick please. Sent from my iPhone

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:32:31 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn wrote: > > That is the "other alternative" to genetic inheritance by a group > *specifically brought into Gaul BY the Romans*... > > Since there is no factual basis for marital infidelity BEFORE Richard III > among his paternal line which btw goes back to Gaul, these are the > alternatives. So take your pick please. > This is flawed on so many levels. It establishes a huge pair of false dichotomies. First, the choices are not either 1) brought by the Romans, or 2) the Alans - there are numerous other possibilities. More importantly, you have set up a dichotomy between 1) there is proof the evidence of infidelity was in Richard's line, or else 2) there was no infidelity in Richard's line all the way back to pre-Roman times. More to the point, to say that 'there is no factual basis for infidelity before Richard, so there wasn't any' is a completely flawed argument. We can't show the infidelity was in Richard's line, but we likewise can't say it was in the Beaufort line. Yet is had to be in one or the other (if not both), and we have no evidence that enables us to determine which. It just doesn't fly to simply pick which side you want to be the true line and conclude that it is based on the absence of evidence for infidelity in that line. taf

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:09:10 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > And now who is being hyperbolic? If a Cornwall and a Warren were > > both found matching Richard's specific G haplotype, it would strain > > credulity to suggest that all three resulted from a crypto-infidelity > > perpetrated by members of the same male lineage, that it was all just > > coincidence. > > I'm not certain of that. > > A thousand years is a long time, for three different men from Alania's > Y-DNA to migrate into England somewhere, somehow. I am not talking about any old G - there are not just 26 haplotypes, but thousands of them. 1000 years is a long time, and I don't think anyone would be surprised were there an infidelity in each line (after all, there was an infidelity in the Beauforts after the branch point of the five people tested), but it would be extremely unlikely for any two of them to have had the infidelity involve the same rare haplogroup, let alone three. taf

These "new" items on the Abney/ Lee family were first posted in 2006: (from the IGI ...) Saint Mary, Leicester, co. Leicester --Joseph Lee to Bathshuah Abney, 7 Feb. 1663 --Bathsuah Lee, daughter of Joseph and Bathsuah, bapt. 5 February 1665 Checking the Google version of the St. Mary parish register, I see the baptism of the daughter (Bathshuah) of Rev. Joseph Lee and second wife, the widow Bathshuah (-----) Abney, was recorded twice, about a month apart, in different hands: https://books.google.com/books?id=5edOAQAAMAAJ&pg=RA2-PA51&dq=%22bathsuah+dau+of+joseph%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjp_az-wPPVAhWB2yYKHUnUD2oQ6AEIKjAA#v=onepage&q=%22bathsuah%20dau%20of%20joseph%22&f=false Note also that p. 225 of the register shows the burial date of "Mrs. Bathsuah Lee, wid." -- 31 August 1712: https://books.google.com/books?id=5edOAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA225&dq=%22bathsuah+lee+wid%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjQ5qPqwPPVAhUJZCYKHUOiCbMQ6AEIMDAB#v=onepage&q=%22bathsuah%20lee%20wid%22&f=false The will of "Joseph Lee, Clerk of Leicester, Leicestershire," dated 1691, proved 1694, exists in the P.C.C. [see PROB 11/420/435]. This mentions several Lee sons, and a daughter Anne Marriott. No daughter Mary Abney in Virginia, nor daughter Bathshuah, is mentioned. He does mention his wife Bathshuah, who is owed money under the will of her son Abraham Abney, deceased. No other Abneys are mentioned. What is the evidence for the existence of a daughter Mary Lee, of Rev. Joseph Lee (and presumably a first wife, different from Bathshuah), who married first Paul Abney, and then his brother Dannett Abney, both of Virginia?

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:58:21 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:10:52 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > You're being hyperbolic which utterly destroys your argument. > > > And finally we cannot even know if any of these alledged descendants are > > true biological heirs without (and let me pause here for emphasis) having > > their AUTOSOMAL DNA tests on file and vetted. > > > > Without all of that, you have exactly squat. > > And now who is being hyperbolic? If a Cornwall and a Warren were both found matching Richard's specific G haplotype, it would strain credulity to suggest that all three resulted from a crypto-infidelity perpetrated by members of the same male lineage, that it was all just coincidence. > > taf I'm not certain of that. A thousand years is a long time, for three different men from Alania's Y-DNA to migrate into England somewhere, somehow.

>>Not unique, but uncommon for Western Europe. Yes but "uniquely" in the sense that none of Richard's supposed male line descendants, or any other known male line Plantagenet descendants for that matter, share this Y haplogroup, regardless of how common or uncommon it may be in Western Europe. Obviously there must be a disconnect somewhere. Why do genealogists insist upon arguing in favor of a theory based upon marital infidelity when it has no basis in fact. In law we call this a fishing expedition. The other alternative, which btw I am not ruling out, is that the particular type G Y-DNA passed on to the early Plantagenets pre-existed in Gaul before the Roman occupation of Gaul. This is of course a possibility. However, it sheds no light on the question why did they the Plantagenets then become the upstart kings? Sent from my iPhone

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:10:52 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > You're being hyperbolic which utterly destroys your argument. > And finally we cannot even know if any of these alledged descendants are > true biological heirs without (and let me pause here for emphasis) having > their AUTOSOMAL DNA tests on file and vetted. > > Without all of that, you have exactly squat. And now who is being hyperbolic? If a Cornwall and a Warren were both found matching Richard's specific G haplotype, it would strain credulity to suggest that all three resulted from a crypto-infidelity perpetrated by members of the same male lineage, that it was all just coincidence. taf

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:45:28 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote: > An autosomal DNA test on living descendants would be useless. No information to be gleaned more than *at most* 7 generations back. You are not simply incorrect. What it would show is that these people aren't even related to *each other* much less being Plantagenet descendants.

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:02:53 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn wrote: > >>Not unique, but uncommon for Western Europe. > > Yes but "uniquely" in the sense that none of Richard's supposed male line > descendants, Richard had no known male line descendants beyond the first generation. > or any other known male line Plantagenet descendants for that matter, All of which represent a single line, so this is a fancy way of saying that Richard doesn't match the 18th century Beauforts, which doesn't make either more 'unique' than the other. > share this Y haplogroup, regardless of how common or uncommon it may be > in Western Europe. Obviously there must be a disconnect somewhere. Which would be the case either it was G or R or E or whatever. Everyone recognizes that the fact that Richard is different than the Beauforts means there must be a problem somewhere, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with Richard being (specifically) G. > Why do genealogists insist upon arguing in favor of a theory based upon > marital infidelity when it has no basis in fact. In law we call this a > fishing expedition. Because the false-paternity had to happen somewhere, and the vast majority of the intervening generations involve marriages, so all things being equal, which they are not, the odds would favor the false-paternity being in one of the marriage links rather than one of the non-marriage links. (And no, that is not what in law is called a fishing expedition.) As to the theory having no basis in fact, this is rich coming from someone inventing distant connections to ancient tribes. The fact is that somewhere there was an infidelity, whether marital or within the context of a recognized extra-marital relationship. There is no basis at all for where that was, and hence there is no basis on which to assign a haplotype to the Plantagenet root. > The other alternative, which btw I am not ruling out, is that the particular > type G Y-DNA passed on to the early Plantagenets pre-existed in Gaul before > the Roman occupation of Gaul. This is of course a possibility. This is of course a non-sequitur. Where Richard's G haplotype was in the pre-Roman era is not 'the other alternative', but rather a completely independent question from whether there was a marital infidelity between Edward III and Richard III. Whether John Holand got his leg over really doesn't affect one way or the other whether Richard's G haplotype came from the Alans. taf

An autosomal DNA test on living descendants would be useless. No information to be gleaned more than *at most* 7 generations back.

Impressive work, Richard. Nicely done. As far as any other indications of John Beaufort's approximate age are concerned, I know that in 1390, as Monseigneur Jehon de Biaufort [Sir John de Beaufort], bastart de Lancastre, he bore himself with credit at the jousts of Saint Inglevert. The same year he joined the Crusade of Louis II, Duke of Bourbon, to Barbary, and was present at the futile Siege of El Mahadia southeast of Tunis. While men are known to have commenced military service as young as 16 in medieval times, my guess is that he was at least 17 or 18 in 1390, when these events took place. That would place his birth as circa 1372 or 1373, which former date still allows for the possibility that his mother was married to Sir Hugh de Swynford when he was conceived. In which case, I think a review of Swynford DNA would be desirable to rule out any possibility that he was Sir Hugh de Swynford's son. This shouldn't be too difficult to do. Anyone ever heard of the story of David and Bathsheba? Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah On Thursday, August 24, 2017 at 1:05:28 PM UTC-6, Richard Smith wrote: > On 24/08/17 15:22, Paulo Canedo wrote: > > Em quinta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2017 14:17:37 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson escreveu: > > >>John Beaufort, however, is said to have been aged 21 in 1392. [...] > > > > Also where was his age said? > > Assuming you mean where was John Beauford's age stated, CP 2nd ed, vol > 12A, p 40 cites CPR Ric II, vol 5, p 63. The patent roll entry, which > is dated 7 June 1392, says: > > "Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de > Beaufort, retained to stay with the king for life, of 100 marks a year > at the Exchequer. By p.s. > > "Vacated by surrender and cancelled, because the king granted that sum > to him from the issues and profits of the castle and lordship of > Wallyngford, со. Berks, 10 September in his twenty-first year." > > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015008966072;view=1up;seq=77 > > While I'm hesitant to disagree with the editor of Complete Peerage, I'm > certain this patent roll entry has been misunderstood. I think this > means the grant of Wallingford was in 10 Sept 21 Ric II (1397), and says > nothing about John Beaufort's age. > > We can readily confirm this as there is another patent roll entry on 10 > Sept 1397 saying exactly this [CPR Ric II, vol 6, p 205]: > > "Grant, for life or until further order, to the king's knight John de > Beaufort of 100 marks a year from the issues of the castle and lordship > of Walyngford, co. Berks, instead of at the Exchequer, as granted to him > by letters patent dated 7 June in the fifteenth year, now surrendered." > > https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015009337604;view=1up;seq=221 > > If, as seems to be the case, this is the only source putting John's > birth in c1371, I think we can discount it. Other modern secondary > sources put the birth in c1373, after Sir Hugh Swynford's death. This > seems far more likely to me, and there's a good description of this in > Nathen Amin's new book on the House of Beaufort. Amin argues that, as > Gaunt was open in his admission of adultery on his part and incest (as > the Catholic church then regarded a liaison between a man and the mother > of his goddaughter, presumably here being Blanche Swynford), he would > hardly have omitted to mention adultery on the part of Katherine, had > there been any, especially if John Beaufort were living proof of the > adultery. Being caught in such an omission would have risked nullifying > the Pope's dispensation for the marriage, something no-one concerned > would have wanted. > > If all we have left is Richard III's statement, made more than a century > after the event, that John Beaufort was born of double adultery, I think > we can dismiss this as politically motivated. For the reasons just > outlined, if John Beaufort were born of double adultery, the > dispensation for his parents subsequent marriage was arguably invalid, > which brought into question the Beauforts' legitimacy and with it the > validity of Henry Tudor's (already weak) claim to be heir to the > Lancastrian claim. That was clearly in Richard's interest, and it is > easy to believe he would have made up this claim in an attempt to weaker > Henry's position. > > Richard

Mr O Hearn you once tried to make also the Capetians descendants of the Alans until Y DNA tests in three surviving Bourbons which showed the remnants of Henry IV and Louis XVI which you used as your basis were false.

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:02:53 PM UTC-7, Michael OHearn wrote: > >>Not unique, but uncommon for Western Europe. > > Yes but "uniquely" in the sense that none of Richard's supposed male line descendants, or any other known male line Plantagenet descendants for that matter, share this Y haplogroup, regardless of how common or uncommon it may be in Western Europe. Obviously there must be a disconnect somewhere. > > Why do genealogists insist upon arguing in favor of a theory based upon marital infidelity when it has no basis in fact. In law we call this a fishing expedition. The other alternative, which btw I am not ruling out, is that the particular type G Y-DNA passed on to the early Plantagenets pre-existed in Gaul before the Roman occupation of Gaul. This is of course a possibility. However, it sheds no light on the question why did they the Plantagenets then become the upstart kings? > > Sent from my iPhone You're being hyperbolic which utterly destroys your argument. There are *no* other known male-line descendants who have tested. Full stop. Let that sink in. You can hardly state that all other male-line descendants of the Plantagenents do not share a line, when we do not even know any others. You can hardly state that there is a disconnect in one line, without having any knowledge of any other lines. Which is the case. And finally we cannot even know if any of these alledged descendants are true biological heirs without (and let me pause here for emphasis) having their AUTOSOMAL DNA tests on file and vetted. Without all of that, you have exactly squat.