This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Queen Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.queen/574.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: You mention that William was one of the youngest males in the family - Can you provide information on his parents and siblings? Also, was there estate papers or a will for his father's estate? Thanks, Vicky

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.queen/574.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: William Queen, Jr. who was born in 1810 in Rutherford County North Carolina. William being one of the youngest males in the family did not get very much inheritance from his father. Most went to his older brother and sisters in the family. With what he did receive, he married Mary Rayford and together they moved to Holmes County Mississippi. He lived a short distance from one of his brother who encouraged him to move to Mississippi. There just like his father before him, he was a farmer by trade, share cropping the land he was on. While there, William and his wife Mary had seven children, all born in Holmes County Mississippi. Either before the born 1820 Georgia, Civil War between the States or just after the war, William took his family by wagon across the states to Texas. There they settled first in the northeast and later moved down to the town of Christman in the county of Milam. After Williams's death in 1887, his wife Mary moved to Rockdale Texas until her death in! 1905. Children of William and Mary Sarah Jane: b. 1834 Holmes County Miss d. 1901 Burleson County Tex Catherine: b. 1842 Holmes County Miss d. 1876 Burleson County Tex Elizabeth: b. 1849 Holmes County Miss d. 1879 Caldwell TX Louisa H: b. 1851 Holmes County Miss d. 1890 Burleson County Tex Susan Ann: b. 1853 Holmes County Miss d. Unknown William L: b. 1855 Holmes County Miss d. 1929 Annona Tex Franklin W: b. 1862 Holmes County Miss d. 1895 Gause TX (Rockdale) James W: b. 1864 Holmes County Miss

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.queen/574.2/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Please "beef up" this post a bit. In what year do you find William and in what part of the country? What was the approx year of birth of your Alfred Queen? What part of the country? Any known children? Thanks, Gene

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Surnames: Queen Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/surnames.queen/574.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: Greetings friend - Can you give us any more info. Where did your William Queen live? What years? Same questions for your Alfred?

Okay, it's pop quiz time, then I'm off to bed. We old mutants have to have our sleep...more now than years ago. Question 1: Based upon what we know about the workings of YDNA, compare the YDNA of the donors of kits 35107 and 26983 - descendants of Samuel Queen of 1759, a son of old William Queen. Include the significance - or insignificance - of mutation 15 on marker 464c. Where did the mutation occur? Was it a one-step or two-step mutation? Why or why not? The donor of kit 35107 is a great great grandson of Samuel. So is the donor of kit 26983. They share a common ancestor in Rev. John L. Queen (b. 1830). His father was John R. Queen of 1803 and his father was Samuel of 1759. Question 2: There is no question 2. Gene

----- Original Message ----- From: Drew Welch To: O Eugene Queen ; QResearchers Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 12:46 PM Subject: Re: [QUEEN] YDNA Evaluation 1 Remind me please, who do we think Richard Queen belongs to? Is he supposedly another son of Old William or a nephew? Drew, I do hope that others will also respond to your question. Years ago Queen-L was briefly alive with discussions regarding Richard and his son (or probable son) Elias Queen of 1815-1820. Now, with YDNA evidence of perfect match at the 67 marker level with the norm of that of old William, it seems that we should seek to find a home for Richard. It seems to me that he would have been either a son or one of the first grandsons of old William of 1716-20. Gene

This is the last of my 5 evaluations relating to YDNA. It is the simplest, and in some ways, the most challenging. General Statement: A living, breathing Queen male can have a YDNA mutation from the "norm" and be even "nearer" an early ancestor than someone with zero mutations from that early ancestor. Donor of kit 72192 was born in 1941. He is the G.G. Grandson of Alfred Queen of 1810. At the 37 marker level, the donor has ZERO mutations from that of Alfred. Donors of kits 34392, 38162 and 23313 are grandsons of William Monroe Queen (b. 1877) down two different branches. Each donor has two mutations from the norm at the 37 marker level. Thus, William Monroe Queen of 1877 had these two mutations. Here the Grandson of Alfred of 1810 would had TWO mutations from that of Alfred, while the G. G. Grandson noted above had ZERO mutations. Conclusion: We must not look at a mutation, alone, and draw a conclusion regarding the distance in generations from a common ancestor when compared with another donor with zero mutations. The genetic wizards, in their own way, tell us this. Mutations are random and can occur at different locations on different branches of the greater family tree. Down one branch a mutation may hit at the first generation, down another branch a mutation may not hit for any number of generations. So....of what benefit is YDNA evidence to family research? Gosh, how to answer my own question here? 1. It has split the "Queens" into 4 or 5 groups. 2. It has split the "old William" group into two sub-groups. 3. It has nailed John Queen of 1853 as being a son of my Alfred (he was missing from one census report). 4. It has narrowed the focus of all of us in seeking to break thru that brick wall of ours. It has enriched the stockholders of the YDNA testing companies. ...............Now, hit me with challenges, disagreements, other opinions, the kitchen sink, etc. But, please don't throw any rotten 'taters at me. Gene

If those who are studying these evaluations are cheating and studying them out of order - you may be missing something. I do recommend following the order. I will now share some facts regarding single mutations within the Alfred Queen lineage in the hopes that this information will be valuable to others as they study the YDNA results of their lineages. Requirement: We must accept the fact that YDNA reported here is the YDNA of the DONOR-not necessarily a perfect replica of that of the donor's father, grandfather, etc. This is especially true with the Alfred Queen clan. We love to mutate. Alfred's oldest son was born in 1847 and right off the bat he had to be different. His marker at 447 mutated from 25 to 24. This is well documented thru descendants of two of his sons and their descendants. Every tested descendant (5) of James Henry Queen of 1847 has this mutation. Thus, it's in our blood as a distinct branch of the old Alfred tree. Some later descendants picked up additional mutations, but we'll leave that be for now. It is not pertinent to "the rest of the story". Alfred's third son was John Queen, b. 1853. The two-step mutation in this lineage has already been discussed as has the mutation from 12 to 11 on 565. Since this lineage has one or more mutations - and, except for the 19, these mutations do not match those of the James Henry Queen lineage - we would have been tempted early on to focus on the YDNA and conclude that these two lineages were not closely related. We would have been, at least mentally, associating the YDNA of the DONORS with the probable DNA of the ancestor. We would have been wrong, dead wrong. Same common ancestor, Alfred Queen, but two different branches of the old Alfred tree with different mutations occurring down the two branches. But, this was not enough. I wanted a third branch off the old Alfred tree, thus I went to the lineage of son number 5, Lawson Dee Queen (b. 1860). L. D. Queen raised some of his younger siblings following the death of his parents. I've personally visited with Bessie Q. Cope (b. 1893) and Mary Q. Nelson (b. 1901), two daughters of L. D. Queen. They recalled their Uncle, the Rev. James Henry Queen (b. 1847) riding his horse across the mountain from Indian Creek to visit with their family up North Fork. They recalled playing with the bearskin that g. grandpa Henry had on the horse. In any event, L. D. was one of the sons of Alfred, thus I was able to obtain a YDNA sample from one of his descendants. Except for the 19, that sample did NOT have either of the mutations of the lineage of the other sons of Alfred. But, it did have mutations: a 25 on 390 and a 38 on CDYb. Ouch, what in the world was going on with YDNA? Thus, I robbed another bank and had the donor's brother tested thru 37 markers. The brother had the same mutation 38 on CDYb, but no mutation on 390. Now we had proof that donor 39478 originated the mutation 25 on 390; but that the mutation 38 on CDYb originated with their father or with their grandfather, L. D. Queen of 1860. The expectation is that it occurred with their father. General Conclusions: 1. Alfred Queen of 1810 had no mutations except the 19 on 520. He passed no common mutation on to his three sons other than the 19. 2. We must not let single mutations throw us off track as to relationships. Since mutations occur randomly at various levels in a family tree and out/down various branches, we must consider other evidence as well as YDNA in reaching conclusions as to relationships. Next: Simple mutations and direct relationships. Gene

Snip --Are single mutations confusing us?-- Gene said Ok - before he moves on - let me assure some of you out there that are thinking - ok I'm already confused :*) And let me assure you that it is ok. Keep on wading through it and drawing charts and circles - it will all come to you. But the main purpose of my post is to assure Gene that we are out here , or should I say I'm out here. Of course Old Richard is a 20. Had to smile Rolla's lap top died, my pc has died and I'm on a lap top and am adjusting to it's strange key board - any hard drive magicians out there? Plus somebody slid into my car today (ice and snow in Kansas) - no note - ok that's two that's enough. Keep typing away Gene. Glenda

Until approximately 500 short years ago it was scientific "fact" that the sun revolved around the earth and that the earth was flat. Eventually, some troublemakers including Copernicus, Galileo and Columbus challenged those scientific "facts" and the world has never been the same since. I say that to say this. Our knowledge of YDNA and relationships is based upon "facts" as we know them today. These "facts" and other evidence of relationships may change as additional information comes to light. But, we must plow forward, so referring to Rolla's spreadsheet, here goes... http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm Evaluation 3: 1. Two-step mutations: Let's take a bite out of this one using some hard evidence. John Bob (Robert) Queen (b. 8-31-1853 d. 3-19-1887) was a son of Alfred Queen of 1810. John had one child - a son, George Wilson Queen (b. 6-16-1883 d. 8-15-1923). George had children, including sons William Earlie and Walter A. Queen. YDNA kit 31268 is from a descendant of William Earlie and kit 72192 is from a descendant of Walter A. Queen. Notice that these first cousins have the 19 on 520 and also a common 11 on 565. So far, so good; the YDNA facts match the spoken facts that these first cousins know each other and have no reason to doubl their ancestry and relationship to each other. However, kit 31268 of the William Earlie lineage also has a 15 on 464c while his cousin has a 17 as do most of the Queen 19's (and 20's for that matter). So, what gives? The mutation had to come from the donor (a two-step mutation) or the donor's father (a two-step mutation) or else the father's marker moved from 17 to 16 and the donor's marker moved from 16 to the 15. Inquiring minds had to know the answer. Facts had to be separated from fiction. Statistical probablilites had to be replaced with hard one-on-one evidence....and a donor was available. Thus, donor kit 63451, a brother to kit 31268 was tested. We didn't need the 67 marker test because we knew that his brother and first cousin both had the 19 on 520 and the 11 on 565. We were only interested in the marker on 464c. Would it be a 17, a 16, or a 15? The results arrived late last week and now we know. Donor 63451 has the common 17 on 464c - a two-step difference between he and his brother. Thus, kit 31268 with the 15 has a two-step mutation from that of his brother, his first cousin and other tested descendants of Alfred of 1810. ...........How to apply this knowledge to other samples in the Queen Project? Without solid evidence as was obtained with the above samples, we now move from hard factual evidence to imperfect logic and reason. Still, I'm bold enough to give it a shot. a. I will argue that the 15 on 464c of kit 26707 of the Hence Queen lineage is a parallel mutation to the 15 of the above discussed donor. I will support my argument with the knowledge that all of John Queen's descendants are known thru the 1940's and the Hence donor is not one of those male descendants. I will further point to the fact that the Hence donor does not have the 11 on 565 as do the John Queen descendants. I will further argue that since the 11 in the John Queen lineage is shared by first cousins, the 11 originated with George Wilson Queen (b. 1883) the father of William Earlie and Walter A. or it originated with George's father, John Queen of 1853. Alfred did not have the 11. b. The Hence Queen donor of kit 26707, with the 15, shares a common ancestor with the other Hence donor in 1858; thus this common ancestor did not have the 15 (else he would have passed it on to both his sons). The 15 in the Hence Queen lineage occurred with the donor or the donor's father; neither a descendant of the John Queen of 1853 lineage. c. There are no other matching mutations between the 4 lineages of the 19s, except for the 19 itself. Thus, within the sub-group (19) of the old William group we have a parallel mutation in the lineage of Hence Queen with the lineage of Alfred Queen. Further, one of these mutations is a documented two-step mutation. The other 15 may well be a two-step, but this has not been determined with YDNA evidence. Notice that I have absolutely refused to cross the divide between the 19s and 20s here. It is my firm belief that these are two distinct sub-groups and should be treated as such after the late 1700's. Next: Are single mutations confusing us? Gene

This is part 2 of a number of parts dealing with the Queen YDNA Project. It reflects facts as well as one man's opinions. News Flash: Richard Queen of 1766 - kit 69696 results are just in and are a perfect match to the old William model all 67 markers, including the 20 on 520. Evaluation 2: In Evaluation 1 we noted that YDNA evidence has allowed us to group "Queens" into a number of different groups. My focus is on the old William Queen of 1716-20 group and these comments relate to that group. The previous evaluation noted eleven (11) donors of descendants of old William with perfect matches at the 37 marker level. Following the recommendations of our testing company, we upgraded a number of samples to the 67 marker level in an attempt to, with absolute confidence, sub-divide the old William group. That has been accomplished with the 19s and 20s on marker 520. All the samples tested at the 67 marker level have a 20 on 520 except for four (4) lineages who have the 19. The 19's are: William Queen of 1790 - kit 24723 Hampton Queen of 1796 - kit 23661 Alfred Queen of 1810 - kit 72191 and others Hence Queen of 1823 - kits 24404 and 26707 There is adequate factual evidence that the 19 on 520 is an "old" mutation dating back to at least 1810. Overwhelming additional evidence suggests that the 19 occurred not later than 1772. Here's the evidence: 1. Descendants of 3 sons of Alfred Queen of 1810 were tested and all tested descendants carry the 19. Thus, Alfred had the 19 in 1810. 2. Descendants of 2 sons of Hinsey Jonas Queen of 1858 (son of Hence Queen of 1823) were tested and each has the 19. Thus Hinsey Jonas had the 19 in 1858. 3. A descendant of William Queen of 1813-1820 has been tested and has the 19. Since there is only one confirmed sample of this lineage, the only absolute of the 19 is that of the donor, himself. 4. A descendant of Hampton Queen of 1796 has been tested and has the 19. Again, since there is only one confirmed sample of this lineage, the only absolute 19 is that of the donor. Circumstantial evidence is building that there was a relationship of Hence Queen to William Queen of 1813-1820; thus to William Queen of 1790. Further, the location of William Queen of 1790 in Macon County in 1840 - next door to Haywood County - increases the likelihood of a relationship to Alfred Queen who was in Haywood County in the 1830s prior to his move to Cocke County, TN. The move of Hampton Queen out West by 1820 removes him as a candidate as the father of one of the 19s back East. Thus, I believe that I speak for "we 19s" in saying that we are convinced that parallel mutations are not at play here. There was a male son or grandson of old William Queen of 1716-20 that originated the 19 on 520 and we descend from that male Queen. That male Queen could have been the most recent common ancestor of the 4 -19s; thus William of 1790, Hampton of 1796, Alfred of 1810 and Hence of 1823 being brothers. Or, the most recent common ancestor of two or three of the 19s could have been a brother to the most recent common ancestor of one or two of the other 19s. Bottom line is that YDNA evidence has clearly sub-divided the old William descendants into the 19's and 20's on 520. For research purposes, it appears unlikely that any donor with a 20 on 520 descended from the lineage of the 19's any more recent than 1772....and probably never. Further, it appears unlikely that any donor with a 19 on 520 descended from the lineage of the 20's any more recent than 1772. The 1772 date is used as the most recent probable date of birth for the father of William of 1790. Thus, here we are: The 19s looking for a common ancestor born about 1772 or earlier - and who had the 19 on 520. This ancestor would have been a son or grandson of old William Queen of 1716-20 based upon the probabilities of relationships due to some significant perfect YDNA matches at the 37 marker level. The field of research has been narrowed for the 19s - now looking for relationships between the 19s. It has also been reduced for the 20s - now looking for relationships between the 20s. Next: Proof of a two-step mutation (as currently defined by our testing company) and parallel mutations. Isolating the 19s and the 20s. Gene

Remind me please, who do we think Richard Queen belongs to? Is he supposedly another son of Old William or a nephew? ----- Original Message ----- From: O. Eugene Queen To: QResearchers Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 7:29 AM Subject: [QUEEN] YDNA Evaluation 1 Greetings all, I'm going to break my YDNA comments up into a number of mailings so as to focus a few subjects at the time. Some review, then some new evaluations based upon new results. Everyone interested in the Queen YDNA Project should be very familiar with Rolla's spreadsheet by now. Without it, we'd be lost except for those of us who have developed spreadsheets of our own. Thus, the link below to Rolla's fine spreadsheet...thanks MAN! http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm Focusing on the first 37 markers - the recommendation of our testing company for most of us - we find that YDNA has allowed us to group "Queens" into a number of broad groupings. With all due respect and best wishes for the other groups, I will focus on the old William of 1716-20 group. In this group we have 11 donors with identical markers to the 37 marker level. (I have included one confidential Henry result for our friend, Bill Henry). These samples represent: 1. Samuel Queen of 1759 - kit 35107 2. Joseph Queen - kit 29459 3. Isaac Queen, Sr. (1806-1809) - kit 28391 4. Meredith Queen (ca 1775) - kit 24845 5. James A. Queen (1800) - kit 46522 6. Cornelius Henry - (the one with no mutations) 7. Richard Queen of 1766 - kit 69696 8. Hampton Queen of 1796 - kit 23661 9. Hence Queen of 1823 - kit 24404 10. Alfred Queen of 1810 - kit 72192 11. John Queen of 1806 - kit 25626 The word from our testing company, based upon broad statistical interpretations of data, is that the above donors (with emphasis on donors) descend from a common ancestor back up our tree somewhere. They even give us probabalities of how far back up the tree this common ancestor was. Thus, based upon YDNA evidence, these donors should be able to claim old William Queen of 1716-20 as an ancestor of theirs. Nothing new here, just a restatement of old evidence/facts. Thus, if hard documentary evidence is available, the documentary evidence should support the YDNA evidence and vice-versa. Perhaps it's worth re-stating that the DONOR descends from old William. Anyone who can prove a blood relationship to one of these donors can also claim old William as their ancestor. Thus, we have "clean" (no mutation) evidence of the relationship here in Evaluation 1. Later, for Evaluation 2 and the two sub-groups of the old William lineage. Gene When replying to a digest post, quote only the specific text to which you are replying, removing the rest of the digest from your reply. Also, remember to change the subject of your reply so that it coincides with the message subject to which you are replying. TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY SUBJECT, GO TO THE THREADED ARCHIVES AT http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY DATES AND SUBJECT GO TO THE SEARCHABLE ARCHIVES AT http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners > http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm > > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/queenDNA/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Greetings all, I'm going to break my YDNA comments up into a number of mailings so as to focus a few subjects at the time. Some review, then some new evaluations based upon new results. Everyone interested in the Queen YDNA Project should be very familiar with Rolla's spreadsheet by now. Without it, we'd be lost except for those of us who have developed spreadsheets of our own. Thus, the link below to Rolla's fine spreadsheet...thanks MAN! http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm Focusing on the first 37 markers - the recommendation of our testing company for most of us - we find that YDNA has allowed us to group "Queens" into a number of broad groupings. With all due respect and best wishes for the other groups, I will focus on the old William of 1716-20 group. In this group we have 11 donors with identical markers to the 37 marker level. (I have included one confidential Henry result for our friend, Bill Henry). These samples represent: 1. Samuel Queen of 1759 - kit 35107 2. Joseph Queen - kit 29459 3. Isaac Queen, Sr. (1806-1809) - kit 28391 4. Meredith Queen (ca 1775) - kit 24845 5. James A. Queen (1800) - kit 46522 6. Cornelius Henry - (the one with no mutations) 7. Richard Queen of 1766 - kit 69696 8. Hampton Queen of 1796 - kit 23661 9. Hence Queen of 1823 - kit 24404 10. Alfred Queen of 1810 - kit 72192 11. John Queen of 1806 - kit 25626 The word from our testing company, based upon broad statistical interpretations of data, is that the above donors (with emphasis on donors) descend from a common ancestor back up our tree somewhere. They even give us probabalities of how far back up the tree this common ancestor was. Thus, based upon YDNA evidence, these donors should be able to claim old William Queen of 1716-20 as an ancestor of theirs. Nothing new here, just a restatement of old evidence/facts. Thus, if hard documentary evidence is available, the documentary evidence should support the YDNA evidence and vice-versa. Perhaps it's worth re-stating that the DONOR descends from old William. Anyone who can prove a blood relationship to one of these donors can also claim old William as their ancestor. Thus, we have "clean" (no mutation) evidence of the relationship here in Evaluation 1. Later, for Evaluation 2 and the two sub-groups of the old William lineage. Gene

Hey everybody! Finally, got some of the latest results posted that Gene has been referring to. I am going to let Gene do the initial explaining, since I am still trying to get my old/new computer up to snuff. My laptop just about died on me. So I pulled an old machine out, did some minor upgrades and tune-ups, and things are getting back to normal. I just hate buying new when I can make something old work. (Well, except for Gene!) I've been busy just moving stuff from one computer to the other and reloading programs. Does take time though. And this week, I went and got myself put on dang jury trial. I am a juror, not the defendant! (I didn't want to leave that remark dangling like a fishhook. Never know what you might catch!) Anyway, just so you know. I did buy one of those newfangled 19 inch widescreen LCD monitors cheap at the computer store. I swear, I can almost see the entire numbers side of the spreadsheet without even scrolling - its great!!! My wife hates it. Messes up her solitaire screen. But I think I'm going to like it just fine! Rolla

Yes indee=ee ,we'se specicalpeople ,we'se were bornd and raised on the Applachain language and tater soup and it hant hurt nary one of us...so fur.We tend to let all our decendendants know where they come from. We send our chaps to far away places to git educated but we still preach to them upon return to us ...not to git above their raising.Gene ask that one fellow if he would like me to send him som books on the Golden Valley people. thats where I got my raising after being bornt and jerked up here and there tell him I got some good stories I seems to think he would enjoy.Betty

I've had 9 private or Queen-L responses to my "tater soup" e-mail..... Everyone, except some strange feller out West somewhere, appreciates the fine foods of Southern "by the grace of God" folks. Within a few days we expect to be ready to share some factual data regarding two-step YDNA mutations and parallel mutations between Queen males. We Queens may not exactly fit the "mould", or is it "mold", of the fancy-smancy "statistical wizards of the YDNA testing companies"; but then, we don't expect to, do we? We're kinda "special" and let our genes loose once in a while to chart our own course. Stay tuned. Gene

Shucks Gene, ifin I hadn't had my tater soup I probly wooten be here.Many days it was tater soup or else...and I'm shore you know about how many vitimens are in that or else. Betty.

Volums 1-9 of Short Tales are now available.True and triditional tales of the people and the place and some family trees in some books. All books based of family history of the place where the Queens began your family history.If interested email me.Betty

Yep, there's a lot to be said for 'tater soup and fried cornbread, although the sausage/chicken jambalaya I made for supper last night weren't too shabby either. -----Original Message----- From: queen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:queen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Faded Genes Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 12:03 AM To: O. Eugene Queen; QResearchers Subject: Re: [QUEEN] Digging 'taters We eat tater and onion soup - gotta cut those taters up small - lot of onions, lots of bacon grease and cook it REALLY slow. Then a plate full of fried corn bread to go with it - gotta have my onions in that as well. Even the grandkids love tater soup for supper. Carol R ----- Original Message ----- From: "O. Eugene Queen" <EQueen@Lexcominc.net> To: "QResearchers" <QUEEN@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:04 PM Subject: [QUEEN] Digging 'taters > Yep, went to the little patch of land down the country and dug a bushel of > North Carolina 'taters here on the 27th of January. > > Wanted to prove again that old William Queen and the others back in the > 1700's, 1800's and early 1900's knew how to keep food without 'frigerators > and the like. > > Last fall, after the ground had begun to cool down; I buried a few bushel > under a mound of dirt. (I believe that the older folks put them in a hole > in the ground.) Anyway, pleased to report that it still works. Got me > some good 'taters this afternoon. > > Might have the missus "fix" a pot of 'tater soup this evening. But, don't > guess anyone on this list knows about 'tater soup. (No, don't have to eat > 'tater soup; but as an old uncle told me years ago.... I don't want to get > too far above my raisin' that I forget lots of the good old "stuff".) > > Have a good 'un. > > Gene > > When replying to a digest post, quote only the specific text to which you > are replying, removing the rest of the digest from your reply. Also, > remember to change the subject of your reply so that it coincides with the > message subject to which you are replying. > > > TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY SUBJECT, GO TO THE THREADED ARCHIVES AT > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners > > TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY DATES AND SUBJECT GO TO THE SEARCHABLE ARCHIVES > AT http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners > >> http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm >> >> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/queenDNA/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > QUEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message > When replying to a digest post, quote only the specific text to which you are replying, removing the rest of the digest from your reply. Also, remember to change the subject of your reply so that it coincides with the message subject to which you are replying. TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY SUBJECT, GO TO THE THREADED ARCHIVES AT http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY DATES AND SUBJECT GO TO THE SEARCHABLE ARCHIVES AT http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners > http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm > > http://www.familytreedna.com/public/queenDNA/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to QUEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

We eat tater and onion soup - gotta cut those taters up small - lot of onions, lots of bacon grease and cook it REALLY slow. Then a plate full of fried corn bread to go with it - gotta have my onions in that as well. Even the grandkids love tater soup for supper. Carol R ----- Original Message ----- From: "O. Eugene Queen" <EQueen@Lexcominc.net> To: "QResearchers" <QUEEN@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, January 27, 2007 3:04 PM Subject: [QUEEN] Digging 'taters > Yep, went to the little patch of land down the country and dug a bushel of > North Carolina 'taters here on the 27th of January. > > Wanted to prove again that old William Queen and the others back in the > 1700's, 1800's and early 1900's knew how to keep food without 'frigerators > and the like. > > Last fall, after the ground had begun to cool down; I buried a few bushel > under a mound of dirt. (I believe that the older folks put them in a hole > in the ground.) Anyway, pleased to report that it still works. Got me > some good 'taters this afternoon. > > Might have the missus "fix" a pot of 'tater soup this evening. But, don't > guess anyone on this list knows about 'tater soup. (No, don't have to eat > 'tater soup; but as an old uncle told me years ago.... I don't want to get > too far above my raisin' that I forget lots of the good old "stuff".) > > Have a good 'un. > > Gene > > When replying to a digest post, quote only the specific text to which you > are replying, removing the rest of the digest from your reply. Also, > remember to change the subject of your reply so that it coincides with the > message subject to which you are replying. > > > TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY SUBJECT, GO TO THE THREADED ARCHIVES AT > http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners > > TO VIEW PREVIOUS EMAILS BY DATES AND SUBJECT GO TO THE SEARCHABLE ARCHIVES > AT http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index/listowners > >> http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm >> >> http://www.familytreedna.com/public/queenDNA/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > QUEEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >