This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list. Author: strflwr1 Surnames: Classification: queries Message Board URL: http://boards.rootsweb.com/localities.northam.usa.states.westvirginia.counties.preston/2747.1.1.1.1.1/mb.ashx Message Board Post: I changed the subject line to reflect what we are talking about. Thanks for your reply. I see you are as confused as I am about some of the claims people make. Where do they get this stuff? I think I know where people got the idea that Joanna Chipps was a Roberts. Her eldest child, was named Hannah Roberts Chipps according to a lot of people. I have never seen any documentation for Hannah's middle name being Roberts, but if a person accepts this middle name as being true, then it suggests that possibly she was a Roberts. All of this is total speculation but as I am sure you've seen, that is enough to turn something into a fact for many people. Her son Thomas also had R for a middle initial and her youngest son was named Amos. By the time Amos was born (1783), the Chipps family was living near Amos Roberts in Mon Co and might have named a son after him or just liked the name. Later family names are not necessarily of ancestors. A good example is Thomas Pindal Chipps, the grandson of Joanna. One of his Chipps aunts was married to a Pindall and both of his mother's sisters had married Pindells, so the families were intertwined. However, Thomas Pindal Chipps had no Pindal ancestors. There is also a Thomas Chipps Pindell who had no Chipps ancestors. (Thomas P Chipps seems to have spelled the name Pindal but the family now spells it Pindell. Pindall is another spelling.) Another point is that Joanna and Thomas Chipps first son was named William. I haven't found any Williams in any of the speculation about either Thomas or Joanna. About DNA... There are two sorts used in genealogy. The Y-chromosome DNA is only through the male line, father to son to grandson, etc. The mitochondrial DNA is used far less often and it is through the female line. A man could be tested for mitochondrial DNA but it would be in reference to his mother, grandmother, g-grandmother, etc. His children would have the mitochondrial DNA of their mother. Women don't have the Y-chromosome, we have two X-chromosomes, so we can't be tested for the Y-chromosome DNA. This doesn't mean we can't use the data from Y-chromosome testing. I solved a problem for one of my lines this way. I am descended from this early ancestor's daughter so the DNA testing doesn't apply to me directly. There was a problem in determining if this ancestor was identical to one with the same name in a different county. The timing worked out that he could have moved and some other details caused me to think he was the same man but I couldn't find any documentary proof. The DNA testing on descendants from three different men indicated that these three were brothers. One of these was documented in a deed of gift from his father in one county. The other two were documented in a deed/indenture settling the estate of the father in the other county. My female ancestor was also mentioned in this deed/indenture. So, all three of the men were her brothers and the father moved from the one county to the other. So far, I've not found where he was before this but the ! DNA did verify that he was the same man in the two different counties. When we're dealing with 1760-1795, every little bit helps. There are so few good records. Anyway, if you can tie your lineage, deduced from regular genealogical research, into one where the descendants have been tested for DNA, you might be able to learn something. One caveat: They don't have the DNA of the ancestor. All they are really doing is determining that these guys are descended from the same ancestor and those guys are descended from someone else. It takes old fashioned genealogical research to determine who the ancestor is. I guess we both know how many mistakes or even downright lies can be found in the family trees people have put together. About there being more Roberts than in the census: It is true that in every census, some don't get counted. It is also true that the reason for the census is to determine how many Congressmen a state or area gets. The local political people have always been keenly aware of this. Back in the early days of this country, some areas like Mon Co were growing in population quite rapidly. So, the local politicians would very much want to count everybody to get the best deal possible on representation in Washington. Because of this, I tend to think they tried hard to count everyone and the not-counted problem we think we are seeing is overblown. One thing to look at is how many adults were living in the household. Each "household" was counted and many times that included more than one family or several generations. I sometimes think that even if they had separate houses on one property, they were counted together as if they had only one house. This might be because the oth! er house was over the hill out of view of the census taker and the people he interviewed thought he wanted to know the numbers of people in different age groups who lived on the whole plantation/property. Or, they might have all lived in one house. In those days, it was the frontier and life was hard. Did they come from CT? I haven't a clue! If I were you I'd look carefully at that idea because it might be true. OTOH, I'd not commit myself to believing it without some pretty good documentation. There was a Thomas Chipps christened in a church in NJ in 1747 and a lot of people have jumped to the conclusion he is the same guy as the one who married Joanna and lived in Mon Co. I've hunted and hunted for evidence of this. What there is is very slim. Mathias Chips of Fayette Co PA is definitely from the NJ line as there are Rev War pension records for Morris Chips of NJ which show Mathias as Morris' brother. I found one court record showing that Thomas Chipps had bought a debt from Mathias. BUT!!! Thomas Chipps had been sheriff for a while. Sheriffs in those days had a sideline of making bond for people and making other loans. There were no banks. It is therefore, quite reasonable for Thomas to be buying debts and suing to collect. It was just a way to make some ! money and Thomas was as interested in that as anybody. The deal with Mathias certainly does not mean they were brothers. They might have been but so far I've not seen proof. I know what you mean about there being so many Roberts lines. I don't have Roberts unless Joanna is one, but I do have Rogers and White and Wright and some others that present the same problem. I have had so much trouble finding the Wrights and found so many who were not the right ones, I made a file folder called "Wrong Wrights". Then, I thought it was a good idea and made folders for "Wrong Rogers", "Wrong Whites" and "wrong" every other name! I have discovered that even if one is looking for Beauregard Humperdink, it is still possible there were 2 of them! -------Jo Important Note: The author of this message may not be subscribed to this list. If you would like to reply to them, please click on the Message Board URL link above and respond on the board.