Can we move forward to list the names of the participants and their DNA ancestors ? I for one have no objection. Don Queen ----- Original Message ----- From: "O Eugene Queen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:12 PM Subject: [QUEEN] Exciting and Discouraging (?) DNA Results > We've learned much since biting into the YDNA project. It remains my > opinion that, in total, it has been a resounding success. My reading of > the results leads me to the following tentative conclusions: > > 1. About 19 donors descend in some way from "old" William Queen of ca > 1716-20. > > 2. Three donors appear to descend from the Charles Queen of VA...and this > Charles may very well have been a Quinn as evidenced by the perfect match > at 12 markers with David Quinn of Northern Ireland. From a study of the > Stephen Post Queen history of this family many years ago, I found nothing > to suggest a linkage with "old" William Queen. Thus, the DNA results are > as expected insofar as the absence of a match to "old" William Queen. > > 3. To my knowledge, Nathan Queen was not a member of a community in which > "old" William's kin were located. The name "Queen" was our clue and hope > to make a connection to other Queens. But, it was our only clue. The > exciting discovery with this sample (with 9 of 12 mismatches to "old" > William at the 12 marker level) is the perfect match with a McQueen of > South Carolina....with reported documented lineage back to Scotland. > > 4. Researchers through the years have been unable to find any evidence of > a linkage of Francis Queen to the "old" William clan. For one thing, > Francis had too much money....perhaps Rolla is of royal ancestors. Thus, > the absence of a genetic linkage was not unexpected. > > 5. No evidence has ever been located linking "old" William to the Samuel > Queen clan of Maryland. We were grasping at straws in trying to find a > link...and we didn't find it through YDNA testing. Those folks moved in > different circles than did our "old" William. Thus, no surprise here. > > This leaves 4 samples that have me scratching my head. As I recall, the > expectation is that 2-5% of the samples should reflect unreported > adoptions or other events somewhere up the family tree; thus 1-2 of these > samples may fall into that category using "average" statistical data. If > the Queen clan was a bit more rambunctious than average surname folks, > then perhaps 10% is a reality for our gang somewhere up in the higher > branches of the tree. > > Discouraging results...........I suppose that my discouragement is > primarily in two areas: > 1. We (and me, I) should have absorbed the reality that there was little > likelihood that sons of "old" William would have YDNA different from their > pa. The statistical reality was staring us in the face; but I never did > the simple math until we were well into the project. In reality, the best > we could realistically hope for was a mutation in the DNA of one of the > grandchildren...and that the DNA of some of our samples would match that > mutation. Well, we're still at our brick walls; but we can see "old" > William on the other side of the wall and many can now call him their > great XXX or some such grandpa. > > 2. The absence of confirming samples in some lineages. This is of great > importance in some lineages with mutations; however getting that second > sample back up the tree off a different branch has been a real challenge. > I know, because I've tried to get some for other lines of interest to me. > Still, we must not give up...especially regarding the samples with major > unexplained mutations. > > My Alfred's pa?? Beats me; but we certainly have Rev. James Henry Queen > of 1847 pegged with YDNA ...and we know from other evidence that his pa > was Alfred. > > Hope this rambling is of help to someone. > > Gene > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== QUEEN Mailing List ==== > Visit my homepage: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegaleire/ > QUEEN YDNA PROJECT > http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=X96855&special=True > http://www.ysearch.org/ > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > > > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005 >

Me either. --------------- [email protected] wrote: > Can we move forward to list the names of the participants and their > DNA ancestors ? > > I for one have no objection. > > Don Queen > ----- Original Message ----- From: "O Eugene Queen" > <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 10:12 PM > Subject: [QUEEN] Exciting and Discouraging (?) DNA Results > > >> We've learned much since biting into the YDNA project. It remains my >> opinion that, in total, it has been a resounding success. My reading >> of the results leads me to the following tentative conclusions: >> >> 1. About 19 donors descend in some way from "old" William Queen of >> ca 1716-20. >> >> 2. Three donors appear to descend from the Charles Queen of VA...and >> this Charles may very well have been a Quinn as evidenced by the >> perfect match at 12 markers with David Quinn of Northern Ireland. >> From a study of the Stephen Post Queen history of this family many >> years ago, I found nothing to suggest a linkage with "old" William >> Queen. Thus, the DNA results are as expected insofar as the absence >> of a match to "old" William Queen. >> >> 3. To my knowledge, Nathan Queen was not a member of a community in >> which "old" William's kin were located. The name "Queen" was our >> clue and hope to make a connection to other Queens. But, it was our >> only clue. The exciting discovery with this sample (with 9 of 12 >> mismatches to "old" William at the 12 marker level) is the perfect >> match with a McQueen of South Carolina....with reported documented >> lineage back to Scotland. >> >> 4. Researchers through the years have been unable to find any >> evidence of a linkage of Francis Queen to the "old" William clan. >> For one thing, Francis had too much money....perhaps Rolla is of >> royal ancestors. Thus, the absence of a genetic linkage was not >> unexpected. >> >> 5. No evidence has ever been located linking "old" William to the >> Samuel Queen clan of Maryland. We were grasping at straws in trying >> to find a link...and we didn't find it through YDNA testing. Those >> folks moved in different circles than did our "old" William. Thus, >> no surprise here. >> >> This leaves 4 samples that have me scratching my head. As I recall, >> the expectation is that 2-5% of the samples should reflect unreported >> adoptions or other events somewhere up the family tree; thus 1-2 of >> these samples may fall into that category using "average" statistical >> data. If the Queen clan was a bit more rambunctious than average >> surname folks, then perhaps 10% is a reality for our gang somewhere >> up in the higher branches of the tree. >> >> Discouraging results...........I suppose that my discouragement is >> primarily in two areas: >> 1. We (and me, I) should have absorbed the reality that there was >> little likelihood that sons of "old" William would have YDNA >> different from their pa. The statistical reality was staring us in >> the face; but I never did the simple math until we were well into the >> project. In reality, the best we could realistically hope for was a >> mutation in the DNA of one of the grandchildren...and that the DNA of >> some of our samples would match that mutation. Well, we're still at >> our brick walls; but we can see "old" William on the other side of >> the wall and many can now call him their great XXX or some such grandpa. >> >> 2. The absence of confirming samples in some lineages. This is of >> great importance in some lineages with mutations; however getting >> that second sample back up the tree off a different branch has been a >> real challenge. I know, because I've tried to get some for other >> lines of interest to me. Still, we must not give up...especially >> regarding the samples with major unexplained mutations. >> >> My Alfred's pa?? Beats me; but we certainly have Rev. James Henry >> Queen of 1847 pegged with YDNA ...and we know from other evidence >> that his pa was Alfred. >> >> Hope this rambling is of help to someone. >> >> Gene >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ==== QUEEN Mailing List ==== >> Visit my homepage: >> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegaleire/ >> QUEEN YDNA PROJECT >> http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=X96855&special=True >> http://www.ysearch.org/ >> >> ============================== >> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. >> New content added every business day. Learn more: >> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx >> >> >> >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005 >> > > > ==== QUEEN Mailing List ==== > Visit my homepage to view old Queen documents: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~donegaleire/ > QUEEN YDNA PROJECT > http://www.familytreedna.com/surname_join.asp?code=X96855&special=True > http://www.ysearch.org/ > > ============================== > Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records. > New content added every business day. Learn more: > http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx > > -- Skip Queen Viruses? Spyware? Not me! I use Linux!!