You've got my attention, now. I'll have to go back over what's been said, if you say he's related to Young Lovelace. Carolyn On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Jack D. Lovelace < lovelacejackd@verizon.net> wrote: > Kit No. 25740 for Robert W. Loveless is in the DYS 439 (12) group. Which > means that he is somehow related to John Lovelace who married Nancy > Bohanan Lovelace and to Young Lovelace. > > Brondak@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 12/9/10 3:09:01 PM, lovelacejackd@verizon.net writes: > > > > > > > >> William's test is two off from the modal values of Maryland and four or > >> five off from the modal values of Dorsetshire (do not yet know the exact > >> modal values for Dorsetshire). > >> > >> It is possible that William is descended from somebody from Dorsetshire, > >> but they came to Kentucky via Maryland. > >> > >> > > > > Okay. My pet theory is back on. Out of curiousity how does he compare > > with > > those of the line of John who married Rachel Van Horn? > > Lou Ann > > > > > > > > -- > Jack D. Lovelace > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > LOVELACE-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >