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

Thanks Gene, for the excellent summary. Sometimes somebody needs to put it all in simple perspective. Rolla http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen/DNA/queenmarker.htm http://www.familytreedna.com/public/queenDNA/ http://webpages.charter.net/rlqueen -------Original Message------- From: O Eugene Queen Date: 05/01/05 22:13:50 To: [email protected] 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 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005

Question about #2: Does David Quinn have anyone who migrated to the US around the timeframe of Charles who "might" be him? ------------------- O Eugene Queen wrote: >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 > > > > -- Skip Queen Viruses? Spyware? Not me! I use Linux!!

I hate to admit it, but this is the first memo I've gotten on the DNA subject that I can understand and appreciate. Don ----- 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 >

Thanks Gene. Diann 2nd Officer Athens Chapter # 439 ----- Original Message ----- From: "O Eugene Queen" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 1:12 AM 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 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005