Hi all, I was reviewing the DNA results of John W. Queen of 1816. I am a big dummy when it comes to DNA. Has anyone got any conclusions about his relationship to James Campbell Queen? Carol

I have revised the colorful lineage version of the websheet to remove any speculative ancestral connections it may have contained. I found that some folks were getting confused, and some folks assumed that because we made a tentative connection based on circumstantial evidence, that it must be fact. In reality all we were trying to do was help a little. So any colored blocks or names that were added to a specific lineage that were speculative have been removed. What we want on the websheet is the most distant ancestor for which you have documentary evidence. The DNA can tell us a lot, but it can't tell us if you just guessing or how you know what you know. So if anyone wants me to change anything on the websheet regarding any implication that someone is or isn't your last confirmed ancestor, please let me know so that I can change things before anyone gets more confused. I'm confused just trying to unconfuse things! We also need lineages for the following kits . . . 25569 24845 24082 22029 24723 48402 73107 What I need is direct male ancestry back from the donor (who can remain nameless, identified only by kit number) to the most distant confirmed ancestor. Please provide a year of birth, or circa data, for each individual. If we can get this information, we can fill out the remaining blanks in the Group 1 Queen DNA study information. And the rest of us Queens out there that ain't Group 1, time to pony up. Been resting on your laurels, time to get some info into command central. Got to get out of the doldrums! Darn them Heels!!!!!!!! Rolla