Joseph Rice was born about 1700, possibly earlier, probably in Hanover County, Virginia, and died in 1766 in Prince Edward County, Virginia. He married Rachel, whose last name is unknown, probably about 1725-1730. Rachel died after Joseph but before 1792.
For a long time, Joseph was believed to be the son of Matthew Rice, who lived adjacent to his property in Prince Edward County, Virginia, but this has now been disproven. Matthew is Joseph’s brother. Joseph’s parents are believed to be Thomas Rice, born about 1660 in the British Isles, and who reportedly died about 1716 reportedly on a ship returning to collect his inheritance. Thomas’s wife was Marcy who was possibly a Hewes. Thomas was first found in the New Kent County records of St. Peter’s Parish baptizing his children:
- James the sone of Thom: Rice & Marce his wife baptized ye 4 day of April 1686.
- Thom: son to Thomas Rice bapt. ye 24th: day of June 1688.
- Edward Son to Thomas Rice bapt: ye 17 of April 1690.
- John Son of Tho Rice & Marcey his wife bapt the 18 Septemr 1698.
- Mary Dautr of Tho Rice baptiz the 19 September 1700.
- Alice daut of Tho Rice baptz the 19 September 1700.
- Marcy dautr of Tho Rice baptized the 5 July 1702.
Thomas’s other children’s baptism records are absent.
I have always wondered about the records in the Vestry book in New Kent and then what would become Hanover Co in Va. Thomas Rice and his wife Marcy are recorded having children in this book, but then some children are apparently missing. Why? I copied part of the transcribed book, including the intro pages, and here is what I found.
“The back part (pages 1-143) contains a record, apparently very incomplete, of births, marriages, baptisms and deaths in the parish between 1685 and 1730 or 31 when a new book was begun.”
The transcriber also goes on to say:
“Of this number some 20 or more leaves have been torn out, apparently at random, generally speaking only 1 leaf at a time is missing, but occasionally two consecutive and in one case three. Furthermore of the ones that remain, or rather that have been counted as remaining, many have been torn or otherwise mutilated to the point where there is less than half and in some cases less than fourth of the sheet left.”
In 1802, this parish was split into two.
Thomas’s immigration is proven by a 1700 land patent to George Alves of New Kent Co. for importing people into the colony which includes the name of Thomas Rice. Marcy’s name is not mentioned which may mean he married her after his arrival before 1686, the date of his first child’s baptism.
We know Thomas owned land, but we don’t know how he acquired it. He died sometime between 1711 and 1716 when his wife was called Widdow Rice, possibly on a boat returning to the old country for his inheritance.
Unfortunately, records are very sparse because the majority of the records of Hanover County were burned during the Civil War, however the parish records of St. Paul’s Parish of Hanover and St. Peter’s Parish of New Kent are extant. Hanover County was formed from New Kent County in 1721.
Joseph is not proven to be the child of Thomas, but circumstantial evidence and family oral history is compelling.
We find Joseph consistently with Matthew Rice, known son of Thomas, owning land beside him in Prince Edward County, Virginia the two men being constantly intertwined throughout their lives.
Joseph Rice is first mentioned in a merchants account book in 1743 in Hanover County, Virginia.
Matthew Rice is first found mentioned in a deed executed in 1741 in Amelia Co., VA, which then encompassed present-day Prince Edward County. He purchased 800 acres and was identified as “of St. Martin’s Parish” of Hanover Co. Matthew accumulated considerable land in Sandy River area close to the land of Joseph Rice, who first obtained land in a 1746, a 400 acre land grant on Sandy River (near Great Saylor Creek) in Amelia (later Prince Edward) County. Later probate records indicate these two men were contemporaries in age. They likely were brothers since their children were near in age and were similarly named.
Joseph surveyed and worked on roads, served on jurys and voted for representatives in the House of Burgesses.
I visited Prince Edward County in 2007 and while I wasn’t able to pinpoint Joseph’s exact land, it was likely near here on Rolling Road, which appeared in his deeds.
In 1759, Joseph was granted permission to build a “meeting house” on his property, indicating he was a fervent member of a dissenting religion (not Anglican), probably a Methodist given that his 2 grandsons, William and Rice Moore became early Methodist ministers in Halifax Co., Va. and Grainger Co., Tn., respectively, in the 1770’s.
Matthew Rice in Prince Edward County lived adjacent Joseph Rice and James Moore. Matthew is the son of Thomas Rice and Marcy. Joseph is not Matthew’s son. The proof lies in these deeds.
All 3 of these deeds are executed on May 18, 1765:
- Matthew Rice of Prince Edward County to John Rice of Prince Edward County for the love which I have for my son John Rice of Prince Edward County, 165 acres on the branches of Sandy River in Prince Edward bounded by Matthew Rice Sr., Matthew Harris, Deep Bottom branch, north fork of the Great Branch of Sandy River, Thomas Smith, signed Matthew Rice wit Matthew Rice Jr., Thomas Turpin, recorded May 20, 1765
- Matthew Rice of Prince Edward County to Nathan Rice of Prince Edward County for the love and affection I have for my son Nathan Rice a certain tract of land about 165 acres on the branches of Sandy River in Prince Edward bounded by Matthew Rice Jr., Daniel Lewallings plantation cornering on the branch, the Great Branch of Sandy River, Thomas Turpin, Matthew Rice Sr., Thomas Smith. signed. wit Matthew Rice Jr., Thomas Turpin, recorded May 20 1765
- Matthew Rice of Prince Edward County to William Rice of Prince Edward County for the love and affection I have for my son William Rice of Prince Edward County a certain tract of land about 175 acres on the branches of Sandy River in Prince Edward bounded by Elizabeth Barns, the road, Joseph Rice Sr., William Womack’s new corner line, Matthew Rice Sr., the branch that runs between David Rice and Joseph Rice Jr, it being half of a tract of land that Matthew Rice Sr. bought of Samuel Goode. signed. wit Matthew Rice Jr, George Rabourn recorded May 20 1765.
Note that I don’t show a land purchase from Samuel Goode to Matthew in either Amelia or Prince Edward County, but the Good(e) surname is everpresent with the Rice family, and I have to wonder if Rachel, wife of Joseph Rice was a Goode.
William, Nathan and John Rice were children of Matthew Rice and Ann McGeehee. Doing the math backwards, this means that all 3 of these people were of course born 21 years or more before this time, so before 1745. I show a birth year of 1738 for Nathan and 1742 for William. I don’t show a date for John.
Matthew Rice Sr. was born about 1696. Therefore he would have married and began having children between about 1716/1725.
Anyway, Matthew deeds his land to three of his sons. In the last deed, he references both Joseph Rice Sr. and Joseph Rice Jr., which threw me for a loop for a minute until I realized that our Joseph Rice (Sr)’s son Joseph would have been coming of age about this time, born before 1744 because he was of age when his father Joseph Sr. died in 1766, so he would be referenced as Jr. by this time in 1765.
We know old Thomas Rice and Marcy were in Hanover County having children because the Parish register shows the baptisms from 1686-1700. Two known children, Matthew and William were omitted, but thought to be born in 1792 (William) and 1796 (Matthew). Perhaps they were reversed. There are children every 2 years for all of the other slots, so if not then, they Matthew would have had to be born before 1692 (possible) or after (1700) very unlikely given the ages of the children.
Until I found a chancery suite, it was believed that Joseph was the son of Matthew, but this chancery suit, filed after Matthew died in 1775, proves otherwise. Ann McGeehee was Matthew’s second wife and their children were all under 21 when he died in 1775. Ann had 8 children by Matthew, and I believe that Benjamin Rice was the oldest of her children and came of age sometimes about 1776 because he is not listed as an infant in 1776.
We know that Benjamin went west in 1787 or 1788 from the suit. So let’s say Benjamin was born about 1755, so the other kids Matthew, Charles, Nathan, James, William and John were born to the first wife. Let’s say it took Matthew 2 years to remarry. So he would have married his first wife about 18 years before 1755, so 1737. I show Matthew Jr. in my data base as being born about 1735, so all of that makes sense.
However, the chancery suit gives all the names of his children, says that Matthew Jr. is the eldest child, and says nothing about a Joseph. So Joseph must be a brother to Matthew Sr. and not his son, which means that Joseph was the child directly of Thomas Rice and Marcy, or of some other Rice male in that neighborhood at that time. However, there are no other Rice’s recorded in the parish registers in that time and place.
Joseph Rice’s will was written in 1765 and probated on June 16, 1766, naming his wife Rachel, his children, several still underage, and his son-in-law James Moore. What we know about Joseph’s family is limited and is based on his will and other evidence. His children are listed the order they are set forth in his will along with their inheritance.
- Son-in-law James Moore 100 acres of the land “whereon I live”.
- John Rice, underage when his father wrote his will, born after 1744, inherited land adjoining James Moore.
- William Rice, underage, 100 acres of the “east part of tract whereon I live”.
- Charles Rice, underage, “remainder of land where I live after death of wife”.
- David Rice, born before 1744, 133 acres of land where “he now lives”.
- Joseph Rice, born before 1744, 133 acres” where he now lives”. Joseph also married a Rachel and had 4 children, John, Salley, Massey and Martha Patsy.
- Mary Rice, feather bed, furniture, cow and calf. Given that Mary was James Moore’s wife, it’s unclear why Joseph named her separately and with her maiden name, unless James first wife died and he later remarried to Mary. We do know that James’ wife’s name in Halifax County was Mary. These people are my ancestors.
- Not mentioned in Joseph’s will, but proven as his son by earlier deeds of gift, is his son Icay Rice. Icay settled very early in current Bourbon Co., Ky. where he obtained a preemption grant in 1779 just before his massacre on June 20, 1780 at Martin’s Station by Indians. His wife and 4 children were taken prisoner and taken to Detroit where his wife, possibly named Maiden, subsequently remarried.
There is also an unexplained William Rice who died in 1760 in Prince Edward County and Joseph Rice is an appraiser for him. We know this William is not Joseph’s son William, who is alive in 1765 when Joseph makes his will, nor Matthew’s son William who is alive in 1765 when Matthew deeds land to him. Who was this William? Joseph was most likely related to William in some manner.
By 1770, James Moore and his wife, Mary Rice Moore had moved to Halifax County, VA and their children were:
- James Moore born circa 1785 married Lucy Akin
- Rev. William Moore born 1750/1751 married Lucy unknown
- Rev. Rice Moore married Elizabeth Madison and moved to Grainger County, Tennessee
- Mackness Moore born before 1766 married Sarah Thompson and moved to Grainger County, Tennessee
- Sally Moore born about 1767 married Martin Stubblefield and moved to Grainger County, Tennessee
- Mary Moore bore before 1769 married Richard Thompson
- Lydia (probably) Moore born about 1746 married Edward Henderson and lived beside James Moore
- Thomas (possibly) Moore, died leaving an orphan
This inventory of Joseph Rice’s estate gives us our only insight into his daily life and tells us a great deal about the man. He was not poor, by any means, but he did not own slaves, which would be in keeping with the Methodist faith. He was probably a soldier, a member of the mustered county militia. Most men were. He could have served in the French and Indian war. Let’s take a peek at what he left behind when he departed this Earth:
- 31 cattle
- mare, 5 horses
- 12 sheep
- 10 geese
- 16 hoggs
- Cart, wheels, old rake
- 12 bells
- 4 jugs, butter pott
- some camphire and tickler (tuhler) bottles and a funnell
- 4 pair cards
- 3 drawing knives
- parcel carpenter tools
- parcel shoemaker tools
- two old swords, pistol barrel
- 3 reaphooks, meal sifters
- old baskets, wool, flax
- bed (2), bedstead, furniture, bag of feathers
- barrell with salt
- 3 old chests and a box
- Corn, cotton, tand leather
- money scales
- ladle, fleshfork
- parcel of old books
- some bottles and old punchboles
- rifle, smooth bore gun belt, shot bagg
- 2 smoothing irons, 2 candlesticks
- 2 iron wedges, parcel of old hoes and axes
- parcel of pewter dished
- parcel of cyder casks
- parcel of salt
- 4 old saddles and horse harnesses
- 3 bee hives
- whip and cross cut saw
- 6 iron potts, a grinstone, pan
- loom and slay
- washing tub, water pails
- wollen wheal
- 2 tables, parcel of chairs
- shears, iron skillet, pickler bottle, bridle bitt
- 3 beds, furniture
- 3 cattle hides, knives, forks
- parcel of wax and tallon
- spectacles, razor, hone
- paper, some bottles, old file
- pair bullet moles
- 3/4 of a hoggshead crop tobacco
Inventory returned to court March 16 1767
Was Joseph a carpenter or a shoemaker, or was he a jack of all trades out of necessity? Did he use those swords? If so, when and where? Where is the rest of the pistol? Are bullet moles actually molds? Did he make his own ammunition to put in his shot bag? Is there a story to be told?
There were books. Could he read? We know he can at least sign his name because the deeds he executed in his lifetime are signed, not marked with an X. What were the books? There are spectacles. I can see this man wearing his spectacles beside the fireplace, sitting at one of his 2 tables, reading his books by the light of his two candles.
I turned to the Rice DNA project to see if I could better define Matthew Rice, or his line. This DNA project is not housed at Family Tree DNA and it does not provide oldest ancestor information on their website. Unable to make heads or tails of this site, I wrote to the administrator and asked about descendants of Matthew Rice. The administrator replied:
“I have not updated my records in sometime, but at least #4086 who is a descendant of Jesse Rice born circa 1778 of Shelby and Muhlenburg, KY who believes they are descendants of Matthew Rice of Prince Edward County, VA is in Group 4. #4086 has no exact matches, so I am unsure if there are other descendants of Matthew or not.”
The information about group 4 shows the following.
The website goes on to say:
“Although nine of the donors have tentatively been traced back to Rices of Virginia, and eight others to Rices of Kentucky or the Carolinas (and probably to Virginia ultimately), the identification of the progenitor remains uncertain. Indeed, some other testees who do not match seem to be contending for the same progenitor (Thomas Rice of Gloucester Co, Va., c1650 – c1716). It will be necessary to test more descendants to firm up this group.”
But this part, this is really painful.
“Besides the results presented here, some of the participants have tested for certain additional loci with much lower mutation rates. These loci are used in studies of population genetics to define categories known as haplogroups. Since haplogroups are distributed broadly on continental scales and date back to prehistoric times, these categories are not useful for genealogy, and we have avoided displaying them here. Indeed, they would be a hindrance, since they have a notable tendency to distract viewers and participants alike from genealogical pursuits.”
I really want to know the Rice haplogroup. I track all of my haplogroups on my DNA pedigree chart. Furthermore, I want to know a detailed haplogroup. There is so much deep ancestry to be gleaned here and historical context that is unavailable without the haplogroup information.
I wrote to the administrator again, and was very pleasantly surprised to discover that they also maintain the Family Tree DNA Rice project site, grouped in the same way. Now, if they just showed the oldest ancestor too, that would be really useful!!!
The good news is that many of these Rice descendants have their haplogroup extended, including kit 4086, believed to be descended from Matthew. They are haplogroup R1b1a2a1a1b, otherwise known as P312. This SNP in effect divides haplogroup R in half, sometime around 4000 years ago in Europe, distributing from the west of the Rhine basin.
Many people test additional SNPs downstream of P312, but the project doesn’t have the SNP table turned on, so I can’t see if anyone in this group has tested with Geno 2.0 and what extended haplogroup they might be. However, with the new haplotree, promised shortly by Family Tree DNA, hopefully this problem will be resolved because the most downstream named haplogroup will show for everyone.
However, sometimes there is more than one way to discover information.
I decided to check the Haplogroup P312 project to see if any of the Rice’s in this group had joined that project. They do have oldest ancestors enabled, and SNPs as well.
I discovered that kits 4897 and 4131 are found in the DF27 group where the administrator wants participants to also test for Z196.
Both of these men list their oldest ancestor as Thomas Rice, Gloucester Co., VA born circa 1655 and died in the early 1700s. One says 1711, one says 1716. Both show his country or origin as Wales. I wonder if that is something that is documented or they have just assumed due the Rice surname being commonly Welsh. For the first time, recently I’ve seen Thomas’s birth listed as having occurred in 1650 in Shirenewton, Monmouthshire, Wales, but I’ve been unable to find any source for that information, so at this point, I have treated it as simply a hint. I’m not even sure how to go about verifying someone’s birth in 1650 in Wales.
I turned to my British friend, Brian, for help with these records and he every so kindly checked the book, “The British Registers of servants Sent to Foreign Plantations, 1654-1686” by Peter Wilson Coldham to see if Thomas Rice was listed. Indeed, he was.
“Thomas Rice of Shire Newton, Glam, To Clement Blake, mariner, 4 years Barbados.”
This entry was dated August 15, 1656. Next, of course, we need to know if indeed, in Wales, near Shire Newton, there was a Rice whose estate was probated sometime between 1711 and 1716. If the story about Thomas’s death is true, then there would be an estate for him to collect. Of course, if his family was well enough off to leave an estate, why was Thomas Rice bound in the first place instead of his family simply paying his transportation?
Moving back to Thomas’s DNA – checking the SNP tab in the DF27 project, it shows is that kit number 4131, a descendant of Thomas Rice, indeed has had additional testing done, which eliminates several common downstream haplogroups.
|4131||Thomas Rice, Gloucester Co,VA,ca1650-ca1716 (WLS?]||R1b1a2a1a1b||R-P312||P312+, L2-, L20-, L21-, L4-, M126-, M153-, M160-, M65-, SRY2627-, U152-|
Even better yet, kit 4897 has taken the Geno 2.0 test and has had many downstream SNPS tested. Indeed, this is my lucky day. This result extends to all of the Rice men who descend from a common ancestor. We can see below that indeed, DF27 is positive.
|4897||Thomas Rice, b. 1650 and d. 1711||R1b1a2a1a1b||R-P312||CTS10168+, CTS10362+, CTS10834+, CTS109+, CTS11358+, CTS11468+, CTS11575+, CTS11726+, CTS11985+, CTS12478+, CTS125+, CTS12632+, CTS1996+, CTS2134+, CTS2664+, CTS3063+, CTS3135+, CTS3331+, CTS3358+, CTS3431+, CTS3536+, CTS3575+, CTS3654+, CTS3662+, CTS3868+, CTS3996+, CTS4244+, CTS4364+, CTS4368+, CTS4437+, CTS4443+, CTS4740+, CTS5318+, CTS5457+, CTS5532+, CTS5577+, CTS5884+, CTS6135+, CTS623+, CTS6383+, CTS6800+, CTS6907+, CTS7400+, CTS7659+, CTS7922+, CTS7933+, CTS8243+, CTS8591+, CTS8665+, CTS8728+, CTS8980+, CTS9828+, DF27+, F1046+, F115+, F1209+, F1302+, F1320+, F1329+, F1704+, F1714+, F1753+, F1767+, F1794+, F180+, F2048+, F2075+, F211+, F212+, F2142+, F2155+, F2302+, F2402+, F2587+, F2688+, F2710+, F2837+, F29+, F295+, F2985+, F2993+, F3111+, F313+, F3136+, F33+, F332+, F3335+, F344+, F3556+, F356+, F359+, F3692+, F378+, F4+, F47+, F506+, F556+, F63+, F640+, F647+, F652+, F671+, F719+, F82+, F83+, F93+, L11+, L132+, L15+, L150+, L151+, L16+, L23+, L265+, L278+, L350+, L388+, L389+, L407+, L468+, L470+, L471+, L478+, L482+, L483+, L498+, L500+, L502+, L506+, L51+, L52+, L566+, L585+, L721+, L747+, L752+, L754+, L761+, L768+, L773+, L774+, L779+, L781+, L82+, M139+, M168+, M207+, M235+, M294+, M343+, M415+, M42+, M45+, M526+, M89+, M94+, P128+, P131+, P132+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P14+, P141+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P151+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P166+, P187+, P207+, P225+, P226+, P228+, P229+, P230+, P232+, P233+, P235+, P236+, P237+, P238+, P240+, P242+, P243+, P244+, P245+, P280+, P281+, P282+, P283+, P284+, P285+, P286+, P295+, P297+, P310+, P312+, PAGES00083+, PF1016+, PF1029+, PF1031+, PF1040+, PF1046+|
Unfortunately, SNP Z196 is not one that is tested in the Nat Geo test, so we’re stuck until the new tree is released, unless, unless….these men have tested SNP Z196 and have joined the DF27 project. Would I be that lucky? Let’s see.
WooHoo, it is my lucky day. Both men have joined the DF27 project, both have apparently tested SNP Z196 because they are both clustered in the group titled “Aa. DF27+Z196- (R1b-DF27*).” Translated, that means they do have the DF27 haplogroup mutation, they don’t have the Z196 haplogroup mutation and the DF27* means that they have tested all downstream SNPs available and they don’t have any, so they are confirmed DF27 and not DF27 with untested downstream SNPs. So even though I can’t see these results directly, the grouping told me everything I need to know!!! Thank you DF27 project admins!!!
So, I’m excited to see where the men with this mutation set are found. Do they cluster someplace in Europe? Will we be able to tell anything from where they are found, as a group? Keep in mind, this map is generated from the “most distant ancestor” field and location, and if you don’t enter that geographic information on the Matches Map, it won’t show up here. What this means is that there are probably a lot more people who could be plotted here but haven’t entered their ancestor’s location information. Let’s see what we have.
This is very interesting. Aside from the British Isles, which is after all, a destination location for the rest of Europe, these group participants are widely scattered. Not something I expected. They are literally found from Spain to Scandinavia and east to west. Let’s take a closer look at the British Isles.
There is no Irish or Scottish cluster. Most of these participants ancestors are from England. Interestingly, there is no Wales cluster either. In fact, there is only one person in Wales, a Davies from Monmouthshire, which, ironically, is where Thomas Rice is supposed to be from in one set of records. Of course, verifying those records and proving it’s the same Thomas Rice are horses of a different color. What this does tell me though is that the two Rice men have listed their oldest ancestor on the Most Distant Ancestor tab, they have not entered the geographic information on the Matches Maps tab. It’s very easy to miss.
We’ve learned a lot through our little DNA sleuthing journey to find the results of our Rice line’s DNA. We’re now back some 4000 years or so in Europe and now we’re looking to figure out what type of historic migration event would populate England but not Ireland or Scotland with the DF27+Z196- men. It surely wasn’t Vikings and we know that Scotland and Ireland were settled by the Celtic people, so it wasn’t them. Who was it? Where did these people come from before England?
This Saxon England map above is similar to the distribution of the DF27* group in England, but we know that the Saxons were clustered in Germany before they arrived in England, and doesn’t fit the continental European distribution of this haplogroup very well.
This map shows Roman Britain and contains the distribution of DF27 quite well, including the portion in Scotland along Antoine’s Wall which is the northern walled border of Roman Britain.
Roman soldiers were recruited and conscripted from all over Europe. At one time Rome controlled most of Europe. The extent of the Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD is shown on the map below.
Which one of these scenarios might best fit the cluster of matches that includes our Thomas Rice? In time, we may discover that answer.
Sometimes looking to the history of the area where an ancestral family is first found is helpful. If, indeed, our Thomas is from Shirenewton, the history of Shirenewton tells us this:
“Before the Norman invasion of Wales, the Shirenewton area formed part of the forest of Wentwood (Welsh: Coed Gwent). At the time of the Domesday Book, it was part of the lands at Caldicot which were held by Durand, the Sheriff of Gloucester. Durand and his successor as sheriff, his nephew Walter FitzRoger also known as Walter de Gloucester, had part of the forest cleared around the year 1100, and established a small settlement which was known as “Sheriff’s Newton (or New Town)” or, in Latin, Nova Villa. The manor then became known as Caldecot-cum-Newton, and in some documents the village was called Newton Netherwent. “Netherwent” is the English name given to the Welsh cantref of Gwent-is-coed (Gwent beneath the wood, i.e. Wentwood), with “-went” deriving from the Roman town of Venta which became Caerwent. The name “Sheriff’s Newton” became contracted over the years into Shirenewton.
But back to our Rices after they adopted their surname which was after 1086 and probably before 1300, or so. Was our Rice line really from Wales? Do Thomas Rice born about 1650 and found in Gloucester County, Virginia and Thomas Rice born about 1660 in the British Isles and found in New Kent/Hanover County, Virginia share a common grandfather or great-grandfather perhaps? And was that ancestor found in Wales? Do records exist for this timeframe that could confirm or refute the claim that Thomas from New Kent/Hanover indeed was sailing back to claim an inheritance sometime between 1711 and 1716? The answers to all of these questions, some resting in history, some in genealogy and some in the genetics of the future wait for us to answer them.
The amazing thing is that we were able to make this discovery about the Matthew Rice line through his common paternal Rice cousins. I don’t have a male Rice descendant to test. This was done entirely “second hand” or as we could have called it at home, via “shirttail cousins.” In this case, shirttail cousins equate to Y DNA cousins, and that’s exactly what was needed. Now, let’s hope that the genealogy is correct for kit number 4086. While that is a serious consideration, I do know the genealogy of some of the Matthew lines and they did indeed wind up in Muhlenburg, KY where this participant’s ancestors are found, so I’m not terribly concerned about the line being connected to the wrong ancestor.
So, just for the record, anyone who thinks that project fields like haplogroup, oldest ancestor and location aren’t important to be displayed in any project are mistaken and deprive genealogists of information that could be useful.
Furthermore, project features like maps and SNPs, provided free by Family Tree DNA, can very simply be enabled and provide a wealth of knowledge to researchers, especially those who don’t have a male line to test.