I have posted new results on the short form. I am working on the lineage version and will update it a little later. The spreadsheet includes several new results for Group 1, as well as Group 4. Also, one upgraded test has now been removed from Group 4 and temporarily give a group of its own, having developed too many differences to justify inclusion in the Group. I will be talking to this participant. My suspicion is that his results may line up with Quin/Quinn study results. I am exploring and will see what I can find out. Thanks Rolla

Roy, I know that you've been working hard on this. "Get those samples" is a must even if folks test only at the 12 marker level to begin. We just don't know what the future holds. For our own lineage, a YDNA sample is a gift like no other that we Queen males can give ourselves and those who come after us. Your uncle gave you a gift like no other. May he long be remembered. The best to you. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "RQueen" <rqueen1@kc.rr.com> To: "Rolla Queen" <rolla.queen@charter.net>; <radcrk@comcast.net>; <Queen-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 12:30 AM Subject: Re: [QUEEN] DNA study and mutation rates > All: > I just received the test results for group 4 kit 75273. This kit is > from > my Uncle (age 77). I just had him tested as the oldest and last male of > his > generation in October, leaving myself and my son as the last males of my > family line. I am replying to this message as there is a 1 marker > difference > at 458 between him and I, (13th marker). Maybe this shows that the > possibility exists that sequence location is not an exact linier gauge and > perhaps some interpolation may be in order. Since a one generational > mutation clear back at my 13th marker; to what I had believed, would have > indicated a much earlier common ancestor. I also regret to say my Uncle, > Mr. > Robert Queen of San Francisco, passed away just a few days before > Christmas. > Get those samples.... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Rolla Queen" <rolla.queen@charter.net> > To: <radcrk@comcast.net>; <Queen-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:55 PM > Subject: Re: [QUEEN] DNA study and mutation rates > > >> Reilly, >> >> How many markers were being tested? At the 37 marker test, 4 mutations is >> within the norm for what we are seeing - and remember that some of the >> markers duplicate mutations and locations on the test, and even though it >> may show a marker mismatch, the mismatch may be only counted as one, or >> not >> at all. You have to look at what FTDNA says the mutation difference is. >> >> Rolla >> >> And because I was 4 mutations (single mutation on four different markers) >> away from other participants, a statistically unlikely event, I had my >> dad >> tested. >> And I am two steps away from him! One step on 459B and one on 460. >> So either the lab made an error on my DNA, or I've "beat the odds," so to >> speak. >> And I've read that some families show a faster mutation rate than others. >> So don't give up, just because you can't account for some mutations. >> >> 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

All: I just received the test results for group 4 kit 75273. This kit is from my Uncle (age 77). I just had him tested as the oldest and last male of his generation in October, leaving myself and my son as the last males of my family line. I am replying to this message as there is a 1 marker difference at 458 between him and I, (13th marker). Maybe this shows that the possibility exists that sequence location is not an exact linier gauge and perhaps some interpolation may be in order. Since a one generational mutation clear back at my 13th marker; to what I had believed, would have indicated a much earlier common ancestor. I also regret to say my Uncle, Mr. Robert Queen of San Francisco, passed away just a few days before Christmas. Get those samples.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolla Queen" <rolla.queen@charter.net> To: <radcrk@comcast.net>; <Queen-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [QUEEN] DNA study and mutation rates > Reilly, > > How many markers were being tested? At the 37 marker test, 4 mutations is > within the norm for what we are seeing - and remember that some of the > markers duplicate mutations and locations on the test, and even though it > may show a marker mismatch, the mismatch may be only counted as one, or > not > at all. You have to look at what FTDNA says the mutation difference is. > > Rolla > > And because I was 4 mutations (single mutation on four different markers) > away from other participants, a statistically unlikely event, I had my dad > tested. > And I am two steps away from him! One step on 459B and one on 460. > So either the lab made an error on my DNA, or I've "beat the odds," so to > speak. > And I've read that some families show a faster mutation rate than others. > So don't give up, just because you can't account for some mutations. > > 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

Reilly, I am really sorry to hear about your uncle. Specific to Group 4, we need to spend some time filling in the lineages for the different tests. Having said that, I am quite a bit confused about what you are saying here. I have looked at the test results for all of Group 4, and the results indicate a tightly related group of males so far. I think that you are misinterpreting the markers and the importance of the sequence of the markers in the test. The sequence is not important, and their position on the display is not relevant to the degree of relationship. Each marker is an independent measure. If you show only one number different at one specific marker out of 37 markers tested, then this indicates that the two of you are closely related. Am I misunderstanding your point or analysis here? I don't want to leave people confused, least of all me! Rolla -----Original Message----- From: RQueen [mailto:rqueen1@kc.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:30 PM To: Rolla Queen; radcrk@comcast.net; Queen-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [QUEEN] DNA study and mutation rates All: I just received the test results for group 4 kit 75273. This kit is from my Uncle (age 77). I just had him tested as the oldest and last male of his generation in October, leaving myself and my son as the last males of my family line. I am replying to this message as there is a 1 marker difference at 458 between him and I, (13th marker). Maybe this shows that the possibility exists that sequence location is not an exact linier gauge and perhaps some interpolation may be in order. Since a one generational mutation clear back at my 13th marker; to what I had believed, would have indicated a much earlier common ancestor. I also regret to say my Uncle, Mr. Robert Queen of San Francisco, passed away just a few days before Christmas. Get those samples.... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolla Queen" <rolla.queen@charter.net> To: <radcrk@comcast.net>; <Queen-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2006 2:55 PM Subject: Re: [QUEEN] DNA study and mutation rates > Reilly, > > How many markers were being tested? At the 37 marker test, 4 mutations is > within the norm for what we are seeing - and remember that some of the > markers duplicate mutations and locations on the test, and even though it > may show a marker mismatch, the mismatch may be only counted as one, or > not > at all. You have to look at what FTDNA says the mutation difference is. > > Rolla > > And because I was 4 mutations (single mutation on four different markers) > away from other participants, a statistically unlikely event, I had my dad > tested. > And I am two steps away from him! One step on 459B and one on 460. > So either the lab made an error on my DNA, or I've "beat the odds," so to > speak. > And I've read that some families show a faster mutation rate than others. > So don't give up, just because you can't account for some mutations. > > 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 -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.4/615 - Release Date: 1/3/2007 1:34 PM

Lawson was the grandson of James Smith Queen (b. 1819). Lawson was the son of Thomas H. Queen. 1930 census of Swain County lists Lawson with wife and 5 children. There was a male Queen (I think) descendant researching this lineage back in late 1990's. Any descendant on Queen-L today? Thanks, Gene

----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolla Queen" <rolla.queen@charter.net> To: "'O Eugene Queen'" <EQueen@lexcominc.net>; "'QResearchers'" <QUEEN@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 10:13 PM Subject: Re: [QUEEN] Partial Results on 72192 snip > 1) This lineage lived near nuclear waste at some point in its history, > leading to an accelerated mutation rate that rivals speed records set at > Bonneville Salt Flats. snip I never considered that. By golly you may have hit on the right answer. Gene

Partial results are now available on subject kit and a "19" is present, as expected on 520. I suppose that we should wait for kit 63451 upgrade to 25 results to consider the ramifications of the "15" on 464c on 63451's brother, kit 31268. However, this John R. Queen of 1853 is a son of my Alfred of 1810. The 19's are falling into place like cordwood on a pile. Gene

I'm going to tag this onto an earlier query concerning the reported dad of James Smith Queen. It has been reported without blinking that James Smith Queen, b. 2-23-1819, was a son of William Queen and Margaret Orr Queen. Does anyone, anywhere, have any shred of documented evidence that this is fact? Thanks, Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "O Eugene Queen" <EQueen@Lexcominc.net> To: <QUEEN-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2006 11:32 PM Subject: [QUEEN] Wm. L. Queen, Jr's last son > Wm. Jr. reportedly >> died in 1822 in Rutherford County and his wife, Margaret, was named >> administrator of the estate. Question: Was Margaret pregnant with >> another son at the death of Wm Jr.? > > I'll try and answer my own question. > > 1830 census of Haywood reflects Margaret with males: > 20<30 reportedly Maxwell > 10<15 reportedly James Smith Queen > <5 Unknown, but not son of Wm L. Queen, Jr. if Jr died on or before 1822. > > Females in the household in 1830 were: > Margaret 40<50 > Female 15<20 there were 2 > Other younger ones > > So...........Hence Queen of 1823 doesn't fit here? > > Did the mutations for James Smith Queen lineage and Hence Queen lineage > come more recent than these older folks? > > Gene > > > ==== QUEEN Mailing List ==== > Visit Reiley Kidd's homepg to view Queen information > compiled and catagorized by first name: > http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Bluffs/2864/ > QUEEN YDNA PROJECT > http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=X96855&special=True > http://www.ysearch.org/ > FOR HELP EMAIL postalq@grnco.net > > ============================== > Census images 1901, 1891, 1881 and 1871, plus so much more. > Ancestry.com's United Kingdom & Ireland Collection. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13968/rd.ashx >

I certainly wasn't offended at any question. I do, however, have a burr in my britches regarding the results reported by the lab for this sample. (I've just been able to snort privately until now.) If these results at markers 50-60 hold, then at least we are due a major explanation from the lab. How could a nearly perfect match (off 1) at 37 markers blow apart into hyperspace on markers 50-60? Another bit of "matching" info. When there are no (or a few) matches of non-Queens at 37; it is not possible to generate matches by upping to 67. This old sucker still works: match at 12, then upgrade to 25; still match at 25, then upgrade to 37; match at 37, then there had darn well better be some fairly solid matches when upgrade to 67. If inadequate matches at 12; then the boat has been blown out of the water for matches at 25>37>67. Rolla...........c'mon in. Argue? Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "GlendaP" <gprieba@cox.net> To: "QResearchers" <QUEEN@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:11 PM Subject: Re: [QUEEN] James S. Queen kit 38694 > Gene - Thanks for checking for other surnames matches on this kit. Hope I > didn't offend anyone by asking. It will be interesting to see what the > lab does on their second try! Oh by the way - Rolla I LIKE the changes > on the web site - with the link for the 'wider' version. Thanks again. > > It'll be interesting to see what the next results are. Can't wait! > > Glenda > > > > > 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

I was trying to save time and work by incorporating a little more data before posting the latest results. But, I'll tidy things up and post the short version as soon as I can, probably sometime tomorrow. I have requested FTDNA to re-check the results for KIT 38694. There are four equally plausible, perhaps implausible explanations, for the 9 marker mis-match in the 38-67 markers. 1) This lineage lived near nuclear waste at some point in its history, leading to an accelerated mutation rate that rivals speed records set at Bonneville Salt Flats. 2) The participant is related to Old William, but the split came a "few" generations before Old William. 3) The participant descends from Old William, but the line just has an overexcited mutation rate. Some families have reported accelerated mutation rates, but these tend to be witnessed throughout the line, not just one participant. Now, FTDNA says that even with the 10 marker mis-match at the 67 marker level, this participant has a 20% chance of sharing a common ancestor with Group 1 Queens at 9 generations ago, a 35% chance at 11 generations, and a 53% chance at 13 generations ago, as well as a 6% chance at 5-7 generations ago. Compared to a perfect match at the 67 marker level, a common ancestor is predicted at almost 100% at 6 generations. So if these results hold, it appears as if FTDNA must be figuring in how these markers affect the statistics. Clearly, they are not being treated the same as the first 37 markers. But all things being equal, most of the Group 1 Queens are looking at Old William as a possible common ancestor at 8-10 generations ago. Now, the fact that we have witness remarkable stability and "conservatism" in the marker results we have seen to date may be coloring our "expectation" about what is plausible, which makes these results seem implausible. Which leads us to the final explanation. 4) Someone screwed up! Rolla

Gene - Thanks for checking for other surnames matches on this kit. Hope I didn't offend anyone by asking. It will be interesting to see what the lab does on their second try! Oh by the way - Rolla I LIKE the changes on the web site - with the link for the 'wider' version. Thanks again. It'll be interesting to see what the next results are. Can't wait! Glenda

Okay, I've changed the settings to allow comparison to any human being of any name anywhere in the world. I've uploaded the data to YSearch that contains YDNA data of thousands upon thousands of humanoids throughout planet earth. No match of any significance at the 67 marker level to any other two-legged animal. Nice matches up to 37 markers with Queens. 5 mutations on markers 50-60. I "ain't believing this". Never did. Never will. I've just been ignoring this "stuff" except for the 20 on 520. Let's see what the lab has to say about checking this out. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rolla Queen" <rolla.queen@charter.net> To: "'GlendaP'" <gprieba@cox.net>; <equeen@lexcominc.net> Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 3:58 PM Subject: RE: [QUEEN] FWD: New results coming in > Other than the Poor and Henry surname participants that we know about, > there > are no other surname matches for this participant other than the Queen's > in > our group. This is because the participant has opted to only see within > group matches. In order to see if other surnames are showing up, the > participant needs to go their personal test page and change the surname > report options. > > If the participant wants to do this, but does not know how, contact me > off-line and I will assist or make the change at your request. > > Thanks > > Rolla > > -----Original Message----- > From: GlendaP [mailto:gprieba@cox.net] > Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 12:41 PM > To: equeen@lexcominc.net > Cc: Rolla Queen > Subject: Re: [QUEEN] FWD: New results coming in > > Howdy Gene and Rolla - hmm - I am guessing you have done the testing for > any matches with a different surname? > > Just a thought. Back to work today - but it is hard to get my head into > it > - a week off was just tooooo cool. > > Glenda > > - >

No argument. I agree with your analysis (for the most part!) Rolla -----Original Message----- From: queen-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:queen-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of O. Eugene Queen Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 4:55 PM To: GlendaP; QResearchers Subject: Re: [QUEEN] James S. Queen kit 38694 I certainly wasn't offended at any question. I do, however, have a burr in my britches regarding the results reported by the lab for this sample. (I've just been able to snort privately until now.) If these results at markers 50-60 hold, then at least we are due a major explanation from the lab. How could a nearly perfect match (off 1) at 37 markers blow apart into hyperspace on markers 50-60? Another bit of "matching" info. When there are no (or a few) matches of non-Queens at 37; it is not possible to generate matches by upping to 67. This old sucker still works: match at 12, then upgrade to 25; still match at 25, then upgrade to 37; match at 37, then there had darn well better be some fairly solid matches when upgrade to 67. If inadequate matches at 12; then the boat has been blown out of the water for matches at 25>37>67. Rolla...........c'mon in. Argue? Gene

Bravo on kit 38694! At the 37 marker level, all is fine according to the wizards at the testing company. No need to go to 67 except to fine tune "within" a group. Well, I wanted to fine tune - thus went to 67 and all hello broke loose between 38 -67. 1. The testing company should be advised to run it again at 38-67. 2. I have never been convinced that James Smith Queen was a "documented" son of William Lewis Queen, Jr. It may have been wishful thinking on the part of the early researcher to "force" a link from James to Jr. I don't know. There appears to be no doubt that the donor is a Queen. But, if he links back to old William is an unknown for me. I am convinced that the lab screwed up this sample at 38-67. I'd like for them to try and prove me wrong. Go for it. Group Administrator - ask for a retest. Do it again, Sam - or George or whoever. Gene ****** Forwarded Message Follows *******

Gene, I will ask FTDNA to confirm their analysis. Rolla -----Original Message----- From: equeen@lexcominc.net [mailto:equeen@lexcominc.net] On Behalf Of Rolla Queen Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 11:31 AM To: Rolla.Queen@charter.net; Queen-L@rootsweb.com Cc: EQueen@lexcominc.net Subject: FWD: [QUEEN] New results coming in Bravo on kit 38694! At the 37 marker level, all is fine according to the wizards at the testing company. No need to go to 67 except to fine tune "within" a group. Well, I wanted to fine tune - thus went to 67 and all hello broke loose between 38 -67. 1. The testing company should be advised to run it again at 38-67. 2. I have never been convinced that James Smith Queen was a "documented" son of William Lewis Queen, Jr. It may have been wishful thinking on the part of the early researcher to "force" a link from James to Jr. I don't know. There appears to be no doubt that the donor is a Queen. But, if he links back to old William is an unknown for me. I am convinced that the lab screwed up this sample at 38-67. I'd like for them to try and prove me wrong. Go for it. Group Administrator - ask for a retest. Do it again, Sam - or George or whoever. Gene ****** Forwarded Message Follows *******

Correction - statement should state "at the 67 marker level, the results are so dramatically different"

The New Year greets us with at least 3 upgrade results that should prove interesting, another brick or three out of the wall. I will post those results as soon as I get some additional information from the participants for those 3 results. In the meantime, the 67 marker results of KIT 38694, going back to James S. Queen, 1819, are becoming more interesting. The participant has speculated a connection back through William Lewis Queen, but at the 37 marker level, the results are so dramatically different that it begs the question of considering some scenarios. How firm or speculative is the connection from James to William Lewis, and how is it being documented. Is there cause in these results to propose that this test may actually represent a break from the Old William line prior to Old William. There is a clear relationship established in the results, the question is how far back we go till we find the last common ancestor, before or after Old William. Or does this represent a DNA anomaly, some event of fast mutating alleles? Rolla

James, I've long felt that Old William was married twice, but I must have missed your previous messages regarding Margaret Stone as a second wife. Would you please elaborate on that theory. Thanks, Drew ----- Original Message ----- From: James B. Hardin To: queen@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 11:42 AM Subject: [QUEEN] Lewis-Middleton Marriage It is not probable that one of the Lewis sisters married into the Middleton family IF the William McQueen/MacQueen that married Catherine/ Katherine Lewis is "Old William". The following, taken in whole, clearly shows this. 1. 12 June 1739, Joseph Hunt and wife Mary Hunt, Joseph Fry and wife Elizabeth Fry and William Robins and wife Ann Robins, all of Prince George's County, daughters of Thomas Lewis, late of Charles County, to Benjamin Thorn of Charles County, tract of 150 acres called Birch Den. Wit: Thomas Stone, John Briscoe; 2. 10 March 1741/42, William McQueen/MacQueen and wife Katherine MacQueen of Prince George's County to Humphrey Deaverson of Prince George's County, part of a tract called Birch Den which fell to Katherine she being co-heir with her sisters. Wit; Thos. Stone, Will Eilbeck; 3. 1 March 1755 Elizabeth and her husband Joseph Fry, at that time of Fairfax County VA, to William Robins of Prince George's County MD in which they conveyed to Robins Elizabeth's interest in Battersea; The deed states that Elizabeth's father Thomas Lewis was the son of Thomas Lewis who left him part of Battersea in his will; that her father was the brother of John Lewis and died after John; that her father died intestate without male issue; that he left four daughters: Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, and Catherine; It is worth noting that a Thomas Stone was involved in the 1739 & 1741/42 transactions in Maryland AND that Queens & Stones were involved in transactions in NC. As previously stated, it is my opinion that the William McQueen/MacQueen that married Catherine/ Katherine Lewis is "Old William" and that he was married twice - first to Catherine/ Katherine Lewis and second to Margaret Stone. 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

It is not probable that one of the Lewis sisters married into the Middleton family IF the William McQueen/MacQueen that married Catherine/ Katherine Lewis is "Old William". The following, taken in whole, clearly shows this. 1. 12 June 1739, Joseph Hunt and wife Mary Hunt, Joseph Fry and wife Elizabeth Fry and William Robins and wife Ann Robins, all of Prince George's County, daughters of Thomas Lewis, late of Charles County, to Benjamin Thorn of Charles County, tract of 150 acres called Birch Den. Wit: Thomas Stone, John Briscoe; 2. 10 March 1741/42, William McQueen/MacQueen and wife Katherine MacQueen of Prince George's County to Humphrey Deaverson of Prince George's County, part of a tract called Birch Den which fell to Katherine she being co-heir with her sisters. Wit; Thos. Stone, Will Eilbeck; 3. 1 March 1755 Elizabeth and her husband Joseph Fry, at that time of Fairfax County VA, to William Robins of Prince George's County MD in which they conveyed to Robins Elizabeth's interest in Battersea; The deed states that Elizabeth's father Thomas Lewis was the son of Thomas Lewis who left him part of Battersea in his will; that her father was the brother of John Lewis and died after John; that her father died intestate without male issue; that he left four daughters: Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, and Catherine; It is worth noting that a Thomas Stone was involved in the 1739 & 1741/42 transactions in Maryland AND that Queens & Stones were involved in transactions in NC. As previously stated, it is my opinion that the William McQueen/MacQueen that married Catherine/ Katherine Lewis is "Old William" and that he was married twice - first to Catherine/ Katherine Lewis and second to Margaret Stone.

May you be blessed this year (even those of us with bald heads and hairy backs)! ================ Skip Queen