The adoption of John R. Queen of 1854 possibility is merely one of several possibilities. (The best info I have thus far regarding the particular birth is that the child in question may have been named Hooper.) If the currently identified mutation in the Samuel Queen of 1759 lineage occurred with the birth of a son, Alfred Henson Queen, in 1879; then apparently this John R. did not descend from the Samuel Queen lineage. Tentative conclusions (ignoring the back mutation issue): 1. The YDNA of Samuel of 1759 was identical to that of his father. 2. A mutation occurred with Albert Henson Queen, his son, or his grandson. 3. A mutation occurred with John R. Queen of 1854, his son, grandson, or great grandson. (This conclusion may be totally unrelated to 1 and 2) Actions needed: 1. Solidly confirm the relationship of Reuben R. Queen and Albert Henson Queen. 2. Identify the point of mutation in the Albert Henson Queen lineage. 3. Identify the point of mutation in the John R. Queen of 1854 lineage. In her book of Aug 24, 1992, Dorothy Queen Conner has included a page from a Bible that contains the following on the Births page written by hand: R. R. Queen was born May the 25th 1871 Albert H. Queen was born March the 12th 1879. Regretably, the handwriting from the first birth of 1854 to the last birth of 1879 appears identical and the pen or pencil used appears to have been identical. On the deaths page this: R. R. Queen Dide Oct the 28th 1906. On pg 23 of her book, Dorothy records Rueben R. Queen b. May 25, 1871 married 2/13/1898 Fannie Parker b. Jan 10, 1881 d. June 22, 1931 d. Oct. 28, 1906 I'm still digging. Gene ----- Original Message ----- From: "GlendaP" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:31 PM Subject: Re: Re: [QUEEN] Samuel Queen of 1759 DNA > Hi guys - I'm with Don I like rules also, that way you know when you've > won the game .... but here we go. > > It appears that we have two brothers, both sons of Rev. John Lewis Queen > (descendent of Samuel 1759). We have one living descendent who is one > mutation off, and another who matches Old William perfectly. So it > would appear that the DNA of Samuel 1759 would match old William > perfectly. No proof of these lines in my hands other than census data > posted. > > The only glitch I see if I'm remembering correctly is the speculation that > we had about John R. Queen, 1854 fitting in this line somewhere as a child > out of wedlock. Can't lay my hands on the posts and searching is bringing > up to many 'hits'. But the above theory would throw that out I think. > Drats wish I find some of the posts - I might win a prize? > > Anyway - Tag - somebody else is it now. > > Glenda > > > > > > ==== QUEEN Mailing List ==== > GenConnect at Rootsweb > http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/genbbs.cgi/FamilyAssoc/Queen > QUEEN YDNA PROJECT > http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=X96855&special=True > http://www.ysearch.org/ > > ============================== > View and search Historical Newspapers. Read about your ancestors, find > marriage announcements and more. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13969/rd.ashx >