Julia, I would very much like to see what you have found and how you connect to those Newton's. Gay Nix ________________________________ From: Ryden Julia <juryden@gmail.com> To: newton@rootsweb.com Sent: Wed, May 12, 2010 4:33:56 PM Subject: Re: [NEWTON] Node "I" Great news. I believe I have found the link between the two men in Node "I". I am currently in Robertson Co., TN and have spent the day in their archives. I've found strong evidence for a link between two brothers who came from Mecklenburg Co., VA in the 1700s. Each is an ancestors of the DNA contributors. I hope they give consent to having their lines published. I also hope this leads to the discovery of other links. On May 12, 2010, at 9:16 31 AM, Gregg Bonner wrote: > Node "I" isn't in the Patriarchs table, but you will find it in the DYS values table. The reason I haven't entered the data there (like I have for the other nodes) is because neither member of the node has given me consent to publish their data yet. That's also why the "I" entry in the data table just says "Private", with no link, rather than a link to the DNA donor's page showing his claimed descent. I usually update all 3 at the same time once I get consent. But in this case, I suppose I should add those two patriarchs to the table, since it is still useful information, and wouldn't violate privacy to add. And of course I could add another "Private" entry to the DYS table to represent the other member as placeholder. > > As fas as John and Giles - one cannot conclude that they are brothers from the DNA alone. These markers mutate slowly, so even 4th cousins should match. All that can be said is that they almost certainly share a common patriarch within the genealogically relevant timeframe (i.e., subsequent to the widespread adoption of surnames). Take a look at those members of Node "J" or "27"...many of them are 6th cousins or more remote, and they still match. > > Best, > > Gregg > > > --- On Wed, 5/12/10, Monty Newton <monty.newton@rrc.state.tx.us> wrote: > >> From: Monty Newton <monty.newton@rrc.state.tx.us> >> Subject: Re: [NEWTON] Node "I" versus Node "T" - errata >> To: newton@rootsweb.com, "Gregg Bonner" <greggbonner@yahoo.com> >> Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 8:58 AM >> What is this Node "I"? It >> isn't on the results table on the DNA project website. >> there is a J27 that follows H. >> thanks >> Monty Newton >> >>>>> Gregg Bonner <greggbonner@yahoo.com> >> 5/11/2010 7:16 PM >>> >> In my last e-mail, I said: >> >> "So I am very confident that John Mitchell who married Mary >> Mitchell would indeed be Node T if he himself could be >> tested." >> >> Of course I meant John Newton, not John Mitchell. Sorry for >> any cornfuzzlement :) >> >> Gregg >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com >> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the >> subject and the body of the message >> >> > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

What i found is at best tentative. A connection between Robertson Co., TN, Newtons and Mecklenburg Co., VA, Newtons. I found a land deal where an Albert RIggs and a George Newton sold land to John Newton in 1824. This John is my best guess for the father of my Robert Henry Newton. Now, according to another researcher in Mecklenburg Co., VA, a George Newton b. 1740 married a Mary Riggs. She had a brother who had a son named Albert Riggs. I've traced my Newtons back to Robertson Co., TN and no further. IF (and that is a big "IF") John Newton is the father of my Robert Henry NEWTON and this much younger George is a brother or cousin, and Albert Riggs is a cousin from the maternal side of the family, then I've found a link. You can see how tentative that is and the time frame is a bit wonky also. I have a lot of work to do to PROVE any connection. Judy Ryden On May 13, 2010, at 10:14 18 AM, LYNDON NIX wrote: > Julia, > I would very much like to see what you have found and how you connect to those Newton's. > Gay Nix > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: Ryden Julia <juryden@gmail.com> > To: newton@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wed, May 12, 2010 4:33:56 PM > Subject: Re: [NEWTON] Node "I" > > Great news. I believe I have found the link between > the two men in Node "I". > > I am currently in Robertson Co., TN and have spent > the day in their archives. I've found strong evidence > for a link between two brothers who came from > Mecklenburg Co., VA in the 1700s. Each is an ancestors > of the DNA contributors. > > I hope they give consent to having their lines published. > I also hope this leads to the discovery of other links. > > On May 12, 2010, at 9:16 31 AM, Gregg Bonner wrote: > >> Node "I" isn't in the Patriarchs table, but you will find it in the DYS values table. The reason I haven't entered the data there (like I have for the other nodes) is because neither member of the node has given me consent to publish their data yet. That's also why the "I" entry in the data table just says "Private", with no link, rather than a link to the DNA donor's page showing his claimed descent. I usually update all 3 at the same time once I get consent. But in this case, I suppose I should add those two patriarchs to the table, since it is still useful information, and wouldn't violate privacy to add. And of course I could add another "Private" entry to the DYS table to represent the other member as placeholder. >> >> As fas as John and Giles - one cannot conclude that they are brothers from the DNA alone. These markers mutate slowly, so even 4th cousins should match. All that can be said is that they almost certainly share a common patriarch within the genealogically relevant timeframe (i.e., subsequent to the widespread adoption of surnames). Take a look at those members of Node "J" or "27"...many of them are 6th cousins or more remote, and they still match. >> >> Best, >> >> Gregg >> >> >> --- On Wed, 5/12/10, Monty Newton <monty.newton@rrc.state.tx.us> wrote: >> >>> From: Monty Newton <monty.newton@rrc.state.tx.us> >>> Subject: Re: [NEWTON] Node "I" versus Node "T" - errata >>> To: newton@rootsweb.com, "Gregg Bonner" <greggbonner@yahoo.com> >>> Date: Wednesday, May 12, 2010, 8:58 AM >>> What is this Node "I"? It >>> isn't on the results table on the DNA project website. >>> there is a J27 that follows H. >>> thanks >>> Monty Newton >>> >>>>>> Gregg Bonner <greggbonner@yahoo.com> >>> 5/11/2010 7:16 PM >>> >>> In my last e-mail, I said: >>> >>> "So I am very confident that John Mitchell who married Mary >>> Mitchell would indeed be Node T if he himself could be >>> tested." >>> >>> Of course I meant John Newton, not John Mitchell. Sorry for >>> any cornfuzzlement :) >>> >>> Gregg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com >>> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the >>> subject and the body of the message >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to NEWTON-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message