Daughters of Princess Mary Kittamaquund

Daughters book cover

Recently Shawn and Lois Potter utilized the Minority Admixture Mapping technique I developed, utilized and described in the series “The Autosomal Me” to establish that the mother of John Red Bank Payne was Native American.  Shawn and Lois were so encouraged after that positive experience that they set forth to document another Native ancestor.

They produced this report as a beautiful and fully sourced booklet which they have very graciously given permission to reproduce in part here.

Daughters of Princess Mary Kittamaquund

Every student of American history has heard about Pocahontas—the young Indian princess who struggled to establish peace between the Powhatan Indians and Virginia colonists, married Englishman John Rolfe, and left descendants through her son Thomas Rolfe.  But, few have heard about Mary Kittamaquund—another young Indian princess who likewise promoted peace between the Piscataway Indians and Maryland colonists, married Englishman Giles Brent, and, as revealed by archival research combined with DNA analysis, left descendants through her daughters.  Both women lived heroic yet brief lives; and both should be remembered for their devotion to their people in an age of momentous danger and change.  The following sketch introduces Princess Mary Kittamaquund and her daughters.

Mary Kittamaquund, daughter of the Tayac (Paramount Chief) of the Piscataway Indians, was born in Maryland probably about 1631.[i]  Her father ruled over as many as 7,000 people between the Potomac and Patuxent Rivers.[ii]  Following about six months of dialogue and study with Jesuit Missionary Father Andrew White, Mary’s father converted to Christianity and was baptized on July 5, 1640.[iii]  Soon after February 15, 1640/1, Mary too was baptized, and her father sent her to the English settlement called St Mary’s City, near the mouth of the Potomac River, to be educated by Governor Leonard Calvert and his sister-in-law, Margaret Brent.[iv]

Mary married Giles Brent, brother of Margaret Brent, before January 9, 1644/5.[v]  A band of Parliamentarians led by Richard Ingle and William Claiborne attacked St Mary’s City on February 14, 1644/5, and carried Giles Brent, Father Andrew White, and others in chains to England.  Upon his arrival in London, Giles brought suit against his captors and returned to Maryland before June 19, 1647.[vi]  Mary and Giles moved to present day Aquia, Stafford County, Virginia, after November 8, 1648, and before August 20, 1651.[vii]  Mary died probably after April 18, 1654, and before September 4, 1655.[viii]  Giles Brent died in Middlesex County, Virginia, on September 2, 1679.[ix]

Scholars disagree about the number of children born to Mary Kittamaquund and Giles Brent.  Some list only three children named in the 1663 and 1671 wills of sister and brother Margaret and Giles Brent.[x]  Margaret appointed her brother Giles “and his children Giles Brent, Mary Brent, and Richard Brent” executors of her estate.[xi]  Giles left bequests to his son Giles Brent and daughter Mary Fitzherbert.[xii]  Other historians, such as Dr. Lois Green Carr, Maryland Historian at the Maryland State Archives, on the basis of information gleaned from provincial court records, probate records, and quitrent rolls, identify six children of Mary and Giles, including Katherine Brent (who married Richard Marsham), Giles Brent (who married his cousin Mary Brent), Mary Brent (who married John Fitzherbert), Richard Brent (who died after December 26, 1663), Henry Brent (who died young), and Margaret Brent (who also died young).[xiii]

Some researchers further believe daughter Mary Brent divorced John Fitzherbert before April 26, 1672, and married second Charles Beaven.  This belief is supported by (1) a reference to the divorce of Mary and John in a letter of this date from Charles Calvert to his father, (2) a statement regarding “my brother iñ Richard Marsham” in the June 20, 1698 will of Charles Beaven, (3) the appointment of “my well beloved Richard Marsham” by Mary Beaven to be executor of her 1712 will, and (4) other circumstances demonstrating kinship ties between these families.[xiv]  Still others refuse to accept this relationship without further evidence, lamenting the loss of contemporary records which has “confused researchers for a hundred years.”[xv]

Recent DNA analysis, however, reveals six descendants of Katherine and Richard Marsham and three descendants of Mary and Charles Beaven, representing six separate lineages, inherited at least sixteen matching segments of Native American DNA on chromosomes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 15, 16, 20, and 22.  Figure 1 shows the relationships between these descendants; and Figures 2-17 illustrate the sixteen matching Native American chromosomal segments (see Figures 18-33 for additional images of these segments produced by four independent admixture tools; and also see https://dna-explained.com/2013/06/02/the-autosomal-me-summary-and-pdf-file/ for information about Minority Admixture Mapping).  These matching chromosomal segments point to a common Native American ancestor, who, because other possibilities can be eliminated, must have been the mother of Katherine and Mary.[xvi]  Considering this DNA evidence in light of contemporary records, it now seems certain Mary Kittamaquund and Giles Brent were the parents of Katherine, wife of Richard Marsham, and Mary, wife first of John Fitzherbert and second of Charles Beaven.

Genealogical Summary

Katherine Brent was born probably in Aquia, Stafford County, Virginia, say about 1650.  She may have served an unknown period of indentured service to Thomas Brooke, perhaps following the death of her mother, before she married Richard Marsham perhaps before December 26, 1663, and certainly before March 11, 1664/5.[xvii]  Richard immigrated to Maryland in 1658, where he served three-years of indentured service to John Horne for his transatlantic voyage.[xviii]  Katherine died in Calvert County, Maryland, before October 26, 1670.[xix]  Richard married second Anne Calvert, widow first of Baker Brooke Sr., and second of Henry Brent, after April 30, 1695, and before February, 1696.[xx]  Richard died in Prince George’s County, Maryland, between April 14 and 22, 1713.[xxi]  Katherine and Richard were the parents of the following children:

1. Sarah Marsham was born in Calvert County, Maryland, say about 1667, married first Basil Waring say about 1685, married second William Barton after December 29, 1688, married third James Haddock after April 19, 1703, and died in Charles County, Maryland, after January 8, 1733.[xxii]

2.  Katherine Marsham was born in Calvert County, Maryland, say about 1669, married first her future step-brother Baker Brooke Jr. say about 1689, married second Samuel Queen after May 27, 1698, and died in St Mary’s County after March 18, 1712, and before April 14, 1713.[xxiii]

Mary Brent was born probably in Aquia, Stafford County, Virginia, say about 1654.[xxiv]  She married first John Fitzherbert before 1671.[xxv]  Mary and John divorced before April 26, 1672.[xxvi]  Mary married second Charles Beaven say about 1674.  Charles died in Prince George’s County, Maryland, between June 20, 1698, and June 21, 1699.[xxvii]  Mary died in Prince George’s County between April 28, 1712, and June 13, 1713.[xxviii]  Mary and Charles were the parents of the following children:

1. Richard Beaven was born in Calvert County, Maryland, say about 1676, married Jane Blanford before June 11, 1703, and died in Prince Georges County, Maryland, before August 9, 1744.[xxix]

2.  Sarah Beaven was born in Calvert County, Maryland, say about 1678, married Thomas Blanford on June 20, 1698, and died in Prince Georges County, Maryland, after August 7, 1749.[xxx]

3.  Margaret Beaven was born in Calvert County, Maryland, say about 1680, and died in Prince George’s County, Maryland, between April 28, 1712, and June 13, 1713.

4. Elizabeth Beaven was born in Calvert County, Maryland, say about 1682, married John Boone about 1708, and died in Prince Georges County, Maryland, before October 30, 1725.

5. Katherine Beaven was born in Calvert County, Maryland, say about 1684, married Henry Culver about 1711, and died in Prince Georges County, Maryland, before December 20, 1762.[xxxi]

6. Charles Beaven was born in Calvert County, Maryland, say about 1686, married Mary Finch about 1712, and died in Prince Georges County, Maryland, on December 16, 1761.[xxxii]

Daughters pedigree

Following this lineage information, Shawn and Lois included a chromosome by chromosome analysis of the various individuals who tested.  I am including only one example, below.

Daughters DNA

Following the many pages of genetic comparison information, Shawn and Lois included quite a bit for their readers about the Piscataway History and Culture.  After all, DNA without genealogy and history is impersonal science.  Included were early drawings and paintings of Native people and villages, an account of the people by Father Andrew White in 1635 as well as anonymous documents from 1639 and 1640.  Their food, language and vocabulary were discussed as well with historical events being presented in timeline format.

Piscataway Timeline

1550           Piscataway Tayac governed c. 7,000 people between Potomac and Patuxent Rivers

1608           John Smith explored the Potomac River; Piscataway welcomed him with kindness

1622           Powhatan Indians attacked at least 31 Virginia settlements along the James River

1623           Virginia colonists attacked Moyaone, killing many and burning houses and corn

1634           Piscataway Tayac Wannas permitted Leonard Calvert to establish St Mary’s City

1640           Piscataway Tayac Kittamaquund was baptized by Jesuit Father Andrew White

1644           Wahocasso succeeded as Tayac, who was succeeded by Uttapoingassenem in 1658, who was succeeded by Wannasapapin in 1662, who was succeeded by Nattowasso (son of Wahocasso—breaking the tradition of matrilineal succession) in 1663

1666           Facing increasing encroachments by European settlers, the Piscataway petitioned the Maryland council, saying: “We can flee no further.  Let us know where to live, and how to be secured for the future from the hogs and cattle.”

1695           Maryland Governor Francis Nicholson “advised the council to find a way of depriving Indians beyond Mattawoman Creek of their lands, in order to ‘occasion a greater quantity of Tobacco to be made.'”

1697           Piscataway Tayac Ochotomaquath and about 400 others fled to northern Virginia; then they allied with the Iroquois in 1701 and moved to Pennsylvania.

1699           Maryland colonists estimated Piscataway military strength at 80-90 warriors

Although many Piscataway left Maryland by the end of the 17th century in the face of encroaching European settlements, others remained on their homeland, intermarrying with Europeans and Africans, while preserving their cultural traditions.  In 1996, an advisory committee appointed by the Maryland Historical Trust voted unanimously to recommend state recognition of the Piscataway Indian Nation, citing genealogical, linguistic, cultural, and political continuity between the earliest Piscataway people and their modern descendants.  On January 9, 2012, Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley issued two executive orders, granting official state recognition to the Piscataway Indian Nation (about 100 members), and the Piscataway Conoy Tribe—consisting of the Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes (about 3,500 members), and the Cedarville Band of Piscataway (about 500 members).

St Mary's City 1634 Indian Village

This drawing of St Mary’s City in 1634 by Cary Carson from the Maryland State Archives Map Collection shows the Native people living outside the city fortifications.

This 262 page book is a wonderful combination of genealogy, genetics and history, and does exactly what genetic genealogy is supposed to do.  It enables us to document and better understand our ancestors, and in this case, to prove they were indeed, Native American.  Shawn and Lois would welcome inquiries about the book or the family lines included and you can contact them at shpxlcp@comcast.net.


               [i] Most scholars estimate her year of birth as 1634, because an unidentified Catholic missionary made the following statement about her.  “On the 15th of February we came to Pascatoe, not without the great gratulation and joy of the inhabitants, who indeed seem well inclined to receive the christian faith.  So that not long after, the king brought his daughter, seven years old, (whom he loves with great affection,) to be educated among the English at St. Mary’s; and when she shall well understand the christian mysteries, to be washed in the sacred font of baptism.”  See “Extracts from Different Letters of Missionaries, from the Year 1635, to the Year 1638,” in E.A. Dalrymple, ed., Relatio Itineris in Marylandiam.  Declaratio Coloniae Domini Baronis de Baltimoro. Excerpta ex Diversis Litteris Missionariorum ab Anno 1635, ad Annum 1638, Narrative of a Voyage to Maryland, by Father Andrew White, S.J.  An Account of the Colony of the Lord Baron Baltimore.  Extracts from Different Letters of Missionaries, from the Year 1635 to the Year 1677 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1874), 76.  But, the circumstances of Mary’s life suggest she was born a few years earlier.  So, we suspect the author of this letter underestimated her age.

               [ii] Father Andrew White, “Annual Letter of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, 1639,” in Clayton Colman Hall, ed., Narratives of Early Maryland, 1633-1684 (New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 1910), 126.

               [iii] Ibid.

               [iv] Ibid., 131.

               [v] John Lewger to Governor Leonard Calvert, January 9, 1644/5, in Proceedings of the Council of Maryland, 1636-1667, Vol 3, pp. 162-163 (original pages 186-187), Archives of Maryland Online.  “To the horle Governor.  Sir  I doe signify unto you that Mr Giles Brent hath delivered unto me 2. petitions nerewth sent unto you; and I desire you by vertue of the Law in that behalfe, that you wilbe pleased to give him a competent security for his indemnification in the possession of the lands at Kent, mentioned in one of the said petitions, & for iustification of his title in them, according to the said petition, dated 7. January instant: & likewise to satisfy unto him 5700l tob & cask, demanded in the other petition for damage of non pformance of a covenant to his wife Mary touching certaine cattell; or els to shew cause why you refuse to doe either; and to appoint some time when the Counsell shall attend you for it, betweene this & Monday next.  So humbly take leave to rest  Yor servant  S. Johns. 9th Jan: 1644 John Lewger.”  See also Margaret Brent, “Account of the Estate of Governor Leonard Calvert,” June 6, 1648, in Judicial and Testamentary Business of the Provincial Court, 1637-1650, Vol. 4, pp. 388-389 (original pages 159-160).  “By payd to Mrs. Mary Brent Kittamagund 0748.”

               [vi] For information about the arrest and transport of Giles Brent to London during Richard Ingle’s Rebellion, see “Richard Ingle in Maryland” in Maryland Historical Magazine, Vol. 1(1906), 125-140.  For the terminus ad quem (limit to which—latest possible date) Giles Brent returned to Maryland, see Maryland State Archives, Judicial and Testamentary Business of the Provincial Court, 1637-1650, Vol. 4:312-313.  “June 19th This day came Margaret Brent Gent, & desyred the testimony of the prnt Gouernor Mr Tho: Greene concerning the last will & Testamt of the late Gouernor Leonard Calvert Esqr And the sd Gouernor did authorize Giles Brent Esqr one of his Lops Counsell to administer an oath unto him the sd Gouernr concerning the foresd busines.  The sd Gouernor Tho: Greene Esqr answered uppon oath concerning the last will & Testamt of Leo: Calvert Esqr aforesd That the sd Leo: Calvert, lying uppon his death bed, some 6 howres before his death, being in prfect memory, directing his speech to Mrs Margarett Brent sayd in pnce of him the sd Mr Greene & some others I make you my sole Exequutrix, Take all, & pay all.  After wch words hee the sd Leon: Calvert desyred every one to depart the roome & was some space in priuate conference wth Mrs Marg: Brent aforesd Afterwards the Mr Greene comeing into the roome againe, he heard the sd Mr L: Calvert appoint certaine Legacies in manner following.  Viz I doe giue my warring cloaths to James Linsay, & Richard William my servants, specifying his coath suite to Rich. Willan & his black suite to James Linsey. & his waring Linnen to be diuided betweene them.  Aliso I giue a mare Colt to my God sonne Leon: Greene.  Allso hee did desyre tht his exequutrix should giue the first mare Colt tht should fall this yeare, (& if non fall in this yeare, then the first tht shall hereafter fall) unto Mrs Temperance Pippett of Virginea.  And further he deposeth not.  Recognit Teste mc Willm Bretton Clk.”

               [vii] The terminus a quo (limit from which—earliest possible date) for the relocation of Giles Brent from Maryland to Virginia is the date Giles Brent appeared in court at St. Mary’s on November 8, 1648, requesting compensation for destruction of his property on the Isle of Kent by anti-Papists.  See Archives of Maryland, November 8, 1648, Liber A, Folio 205.  The terminus ad quem (limit to which—latest possible date) Giles Brent removed from Maryland to Virginia is the date Giles Brent patented Marlborough in Potomac Neck, Virginia, on August 20, 1651.  See entry from Mercer Land Book cited by W.B. Chilton, ed., “The Brent Family,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jul., 1908), 96-97.

               [viii] Virginia Magazine XVI, 211.  On April 17, 1654, Giles conveyed his personal estate in Virginia and Maryland to his sister Mary, in trust to educate his children and allow maintenance to his wife Mary.  See also Lurene Rose Bivin in “Brent-Marsham-Beaven-Blandford Article: A Closer Look,” Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 3, 328-334.  “In the grant to John Harrison (dated 4 September 1655), he refers to his “sister” as Mrs. Frances Harrison (Nugent, p. 319).”  Giles may have been engaged to marry his second wife, Frances Whitgreaves, widow of Jeremiah Harrison, on this date, because John Harrison made a provision for Giles.

               [ix] W.B. Chilton, ed., “The Brent Family,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 16, No. 2 (Oct., 1908), 212.  “‘Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Virginia.  Collo Giles Brent of Potomac departed this life 2d of September 1679 and was buried in the Great Church Yard ye next day following.'”

               [x] For example, see Douglas Richardson, Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 2005), 129.  “They had two sons, [Col.] Giles and Richard, and one daughter, Mary (wife of [Capt.] John Fitzherbert).”  See also, Robert W. Barnes, British Roots of Maryland Families (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1999), 73-74.

               [xi] W.B. Chilton, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jul., 1908), 98-99.  “The Will of Margaret Brent.  In the name of God Amen.  I Margaret Brent of Peace in the County of Westmoreland in Virginia considering the casualtys of human life do therefore make this my last Will and Testament as followeth my soul I do bequeath to the mercies of my Savior Jesus Christ and my worldly estate to be disposed of by my Executors as followeth to my nephew George Brent I give all my rights to take up land in Maryland except those already assigned to my cousin James Clifton to my niece Clifton I give a cow and to my neece Elizabeth Brent I give a heifer; to Ann Vandan I give a cow calf; to my neece Mary Brent daughter of my Brother Giles Brent I give all my silver spoons which are six; to my nephew Richard Brent son of my brother Giles Brent I give my patent of lands at the Falls of Rappahanock River also my lease of Kent Fort Mannor in Maryland saving yet power to his Father my brother Giles Brent that if he shall like to do so he may sell said lease and satisfye to his son other where as he shall think fitt in lands good or money and in case of my said nephew Richard Brents death under age and without heirs of his body lawfully begotten his legacy thereto to go to his brother Giles Brent or his sister Mary Brent or to the heirs of my brother Giles Brent or otherwise as my said brother shall dispose it by his Deed or last Will to my brother Giles Brent and to his heirs forever I give all my lands goods and chattles and all my estate real and personal and all that is or may be due to me in England Virginia Maryland or elsewhere still excepting the before disposed of in this my last will and Testament and I do appoint him my said Brother Giles Brent and his children Giles Brent Mary Brent and Richard Brent or such of them as are living at the time of my death the Executors of this my last Will and Testament.  In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal this 26th day of December, Anno Domini, 1663.”

               [xii] W.B. Chilton, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jul., 1908), 98.  “The Will of Giles Brent.  In the Name of God Amen.  I Giles Brent of the Retirement in Stafford County in Virginia Esquire contemplating the uncertainty of my time of death do ordain this my last Will and Testament in manner and form following my body to the earth and my Soul I bequeath to the mercy of my Savior Christ all my worldly estate I appoint to my Exectors to be disposed of as followeth to my daughter Mary Fitzherbert I give five ewes and a ram to my son and heir Giles Brent and to the heirs of his body lawfully begotten I give for ever all my lands rights unto lands and reversions of lands any ways due to me in either England Virginia or Maryland and for want of such heirs then unto mine own right heirs and for want of such then to the right heirs of my Honored Father Richard Brent, Esquire, deceased Antiently Lord of the mannors of Admington and Lark Stoke in the County of Gloucestershire in England after my debts paid I give all my goods moveable or immoveable whatsoever to be disposed of as followeth three thousand pounds of good tobacco with cask to be given by them my Executors unto pious use where and to whom they shall see fitt for which doing and how and to whom given I Will that to none else but God they shall be accountable.  I also Will that to Mr. Edward Sanders they give four ewes and a ram and to John Howard four ewes and a ram.  Executors of this my last Will and Testament I appoint my son Giles Brent and my Brother Richard Brent and my Brother William Brent both in England and as Attorneys in their Executorship untill my said Brothers shall otherwise order and I do appoint Mr. Edward Sanders and John Howard above mentioned both of Stafford County to be and to act and it is my Will that after my debts and my Legacies paid my said Executors stand possessed of all my goods and personal estate to the sole use of my son Giles Brent then to be delivered into his sole dispose when it shall please God that he hath arrived to the age of one and twenty years.  In witness unto this my within written last Will and Testament I have hereunto set my hand and seal this last day of August, Anno Domini, 1671.”

               [xiii] Image SC4040-0166-1, Dr. Lois Green Carr’s Biographical Files of 17th and 18th Century Marylanders, Maryland State Archives, http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc4000/sc4040/000001/000166/html/sc4040-0166-1.html.  Note: Dr. Carr lists the children in the following order: Mary, Giles, Richard, Katherine, Henry, Margaret.

               [xiv] See excerpt from Charles Calvert to Cecilius Calvert, April 26, 1672, in William Hand Browne, ed., Proceedings of the Council of Mayland: 1671-1682 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1896), xiv.  “Major Fitzherbert’s brother who maryed the Indian Brent, has civilly parted with her, and (as I suppose) will never care to bed with her more; soe that your Lordship needs not to feare any ill consequence from that match, butt what has already happened to the poore man, who unadvisedly threw himself away upon her in hopes of a great portion which now is come to little.”  See also Will of Charles Beaven, signed June 20, 1698, proved June 21, 1699, Prerogative Court (Wills) Vol. 2, pp. 182-183, Liber 6, Folios 285-286.  See also Will of Mary Beaven, signed April 18, 1712, proved June 13, 1713, Prerogative Court (Wills) Vol. 3, p. 240, Liber 13, Folio 513.  See also Maryland Land Patents, BB#37:374.  On March 15, 1696/7, Richard Marsham transferred 600 acre grant called The Hickory Thickett to Charles Beaven by assignment.

               [xv] Lurene Rose Bivin in “Brent-Marsham-Beaven-Blandford Article: A Closer Look,” Maryland Genealogical Society Bulletin, Vol. 37, No. 3, 328-334.

               [xvi] Four potential scenarios explain this matching DNA considered together with Charles Beaven’s reference to Richard Marsham as “my brother iñ Richard Marsham.”  The first scenario is Richard Marsham and Charles Beaven were brothers.  This scenario almost certainly is not true because Richard Marsham and Charles Beaven had different last names and the written reference by Charles Beaven to Richard Marsham as “my brother iñ” appears to have been a standard contraction of “my brother-in-law.”  The second scenario is Richard Marsham and Mary, wife of Charles Beaven, were brother and sister.  This scenario almost certainly is not true because Mary referred to Richard Marsham as “my well beloved Richard Marsham.”  If Richard Marsham and Mary had been brother and sister, Mary surely would have referred to Richard as her brother.  The third scenario is Charles Beaven and Katherine, wife of Richard Marsham, were brother and sister.  This scenario almost certainly is not true because their descendants inherited matching segments of Native American DNA.  Charles Beaven immigrated from England to Maryland in 1666 (Skordas, Liber 9, folio 455), so he surely did not inherit Native American DNA from his parents.  The fourth and most compelling scenario is Katherine, wife of Richard Marsham, and Mary, wife of Charles Beaven, were sisters, and they also were daughters of a parent with Native American ancestry.  This scenario is consistent with other indications that Katherine and Mary were daughters of Mary Kittamaquund and Giles Brent.

               [xvii] Maryland Colonial Land Records, Liber 7, Folio 582, 583, Maryland State Archives.  “March xith 1664.  Came David Bowens and demands land for these rights following John Barnes, Clement Barnes, Margaret Whitthe, Martha Garbett, Catherine Marsham by Assign and Francis Street by Assign as follows–Know all to whom these presents may concern, that I Katherine Marsham doe assigne all my Right and Title of a Right due to mee the said Katherine for fifty acres of land unto David Bowing as witness my hand this Eleventh of March One Thousand six hundred sixty foure.  Katherine Marsham (her K mark).  Witness Richard Marsham, Robert Turner.  Know all men by these presents to whom this may concern that I Francis Streete doe assigne all my Right and Title of a right due to mee the said Francis Streete for fifty acres of Land unto David Bowing as witness my hand this Eleventh of March One Thousand six hundred sixty four.  Francis Streete.  Witness Richard Marsham, Robert Turner.”  See also Maryland Colonial Land Records, Liber 12, Folio 512, Maryland State Archives.  “May 11th 1670.  Came Richard Marsham of Calvert County and proved right to fifty acres of land it being due to him for the time of service of Katherine his wife performed to Major Thomas Brooke, Warrant then issued in the name of the said Richard Marsham for fifty acres of land it being due to him for the causio oraem above.  Certified the 11th of August next.”  Note: Even though these two documents indicate Katherine was due a total of 100 acres, the first 50 acres for an unstated cause and the second 50 acres for service to Thomas Brooke, neither record says Katherine was transported to Maryland, and both records may result from fraudulent claims.  If these records reflect legitimate claims, they do not say or prove Katherine was transported to Maryland, since some claims were granted for people who were born in Maryland.  For example, a patent for 1,644 acres was granted to Mary Brent on November 17, 1652, for the transportation of 33 persons, including “Mrs. Mary Brent, wife to Capt. Brent.”  See Nugent, pp. 266-267.  This Mrs. Mary Brent was Mary Kittamaquund, wife of Giles Brent, who certainly was born in Maryland.  Furthermore, according to Abbott Emerson Smith (“The Indentured Servant and Land Speculation in Seventeenth Century Maryland,” in The American Historical Review, Vol. 40, p. 467), “A great many of the warrants which were granted were for rights proved by the wife of a freedman.  It is not unlikely that some persons managed to get freedom dues in land, although they had never been in indentured service.”  Finally, if Katherine did serve a term of indenture, her service may have resulted from the death of her mother at a time when she was old enough to begin providing for her own maintenance.  It was not unusual during this era for children of deceased well-to-do colonists to serve a term of indenture.

               [xviii] See Maryland Colonial Land Records, Liber 4, Folio 4, Maryland State Archives.  “May the 7th 1659.  John Home demands Land for the transportation of himself and his Servants, Richard Marsham & John Edmondson, in 1658.”  See also Maryland Colonial Land Records, Liber 5, Folio 295, Maryland State Archives.  “Know all men that I Richard Marsham do give and make over to Thomas Pagett my right as is due to me as being a Servant, and now being free in Roberto McJohn Hearen as witness my hand the 16th of September 1661.  Richard Marsham.  Wit: Robert Coberthwail, Michael Coreuly.”

               [xix] See Maryland Colonial Land Records, Liber 12, Folio 512, Maryland State Archives, as cited above.  “May 11th 1670.  Came Richard Marsham of Calvert County and proved right to fifty acres of land it being due to him for the time of service of Katherine his wife performed to Major Thomas Brooke, Warrant then issued in the name of the said Richard Marsham for fifty acres of land it being due to him for the causio oraem above.  Certified the 11th of August next.”  See also Maryland Colonial Land Records, October 26, 1670, Liber 14, Folio 228.  “Patent for 50 acres in St. Mary’s County, originally Calvert County, to Richard Marsham, tract called St. Katherine’s.”  Note: This patent establishes the terminus ad quem (limit to which—latest possible date) for Katherine’s death, because Richard would be unlikely to name this property Saint Katherine’s unless Katherine had died.

               [xx] The terminus a quo (limit from which—earliest possible date) for Richard’s marriage to Anne Calvert is established by the date of a Prerogative Court record concerning the estate of Henry Brent naming Anne Brent executrix.  See Prerogative Court Records, April 30, 1695, Liber 13A, folio 291, Maryland State Archives.  The terminus ad quem (limit to which—latest possible date) for Richard’s marriage to Anne Calvert is the date they were named as husband and wife on a probate record.  See Provincial Court Judgments, February Court 1696, Liber P. L. #3, Folios 556-557, Maryland State Archives.  Richard Marsham with Ann Marsham, administrator of Henry Brent, against Thomas Collier.

               [xxi] Will of Richard Marsham, signed April 14, 1713, probated April 22, 1713, Maryland Prerogative Court (Wills), Liber xiii, Folio 514-520, Maryland State Archives.

               [xxii] The approximate year of Sarah’s marriage to Basil Waring is estimated from the year of Basil’s death preceded by four years to account for the births of two children.  See Will of Basil Waring, signed December 8, 1688, probated December 29, 1688, Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol. 2, p. 50, and Liber 6, Folio 66.  Basil named his wife Sarah and sons Marsham and Basil.  The terminus a quo (limit from which—earliest possible date) for Sarah’s marriage to William Barton is determined by the probate date of the will of her first husband Basil Waring.  See Will of Basil Waring, signed December 8, 1688, probated December 29, 1688, Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol. 2, p. 50, and Liber 6, Folio 66.  The terminus a quo (limit from which—earliest possible date) for Sarah’s death is determined by her deed to Robert Mackhorn.  See Deed from Sarah Haddock to Robert Mackhorn, signed January 8, 1733, recorded March 18, 1733/4, Charles County Land Rcords: 1733-1743, Book O #2, page 28.  “Sarah Haddock, widow, of Prince George’s County, formerly wife of William Barton, late of Charles County, Gent., deceased, to Robert Mackhorn of Charles County, planter.  William Barton by his will, divised to his son-in-law, Basil Waring, 300 acres, being part of this tract of land called Hadlow, lying in Charles County, and the rest of Hadlow to his wife, being now the aforementioned Sarah Haddock.  Now this deed witnesses that sd. Sarah Haddock, for 4500 lbs tobacco, has sold to said Robert the rest of Hadlow, lying in Charles County, bounded by Thos. Gerard, the division line made by sd. Sarah Haddock and Basil Waring.  Signed Sarah Haddock.  Wit. Jas. Haddock Waring, Henry Keen.”

               [xxiii] The approximate year of Katherine’s marriage to Baker Brook is estimated from the year of Baker’s death preceded by eight years to account for the births of four children.  See Will of Baker Book, signed February 5, 1698, probated May 27, 1698, Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol. 2, p. 142, and Liber 6, Folio 83.  Baker named his wife Katherine and four children Baker, Leonard, Richard, and Ann.  The terminus ad quem (limit to which—latest possible date) for Katherine’s marriage to Samuel Queen is determined by the probate date of the will of her first husband Baker Brooke.  See Will of Baker Book, signed February 5, 1698, probated May 27, 1698, Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol. 2, p. 142, Liber 6, Folio 83.  The terminus a quo (limit from which—earliest possible date) for Katherine’s death is determined by the date her husband’s will was probated.  See Will of Samuel Queen, signed January 10, 1711, probated March 18, 1712, Maryland Prerogative Court (Wills), Vol. 3, p. 222, Liber 13, Folio 389, Maryland State Archives.  The terminus ad quem (limit to which—latest possible date) for Katherine’s death is determined by the date of the will of her father, Richard Marsham, which provides for her children but does not mention her.  See Will of Richard Marsham, signed April 14, 1713, probated April 22, 1713, Maryland Prerogative Court (Wills), Liber 13, Folios 514-520, Maryland State Archives.

               [xxiv] On April 5, 1673, Giles Brent Jr., son of Col. Giles Brent and Mary Kittamaquund, deeded 500 acres, which he had inherited from his father, to his uncle George Brent of Woodstock, Stafford County, Virginia, stating he had reached the age of 21—a condition set in his father’s will for his ability to take possession of the land.  This suggests Giles Brent Jr. was born about 1652.  See W.B. Chilton, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jul., 1908), 99-100.

               [xxv] Will of Giles Brent, signed August 31, 1671, in W.B. Chilton, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jul., 1908), 98.

               [xxvi] See excerpt from Charles Calvert to Cecilius Calvert, April 26, 1672, in William Hand Browne, ed., Proceedings of the Council of Mayland: 1671-1682 (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1896), xiv.  “Major Fitzherbert’s brother who maryed the Indian Brent, has civilly parted with her, and (as I suppose) will never care to bed with her more; soe that your Lordship needs not to feare any ill consequence from that match, butt what has already happened to the poore man, who unadvisedly threw himself away upon her in hopes of a great portion which now is come to little.”

               [xxvii] Will of Charles Beaven, signed January 20, 1698/9, proven June 2, 1699, Prince Georges County Wills, Liber 6, folios 285-286,  Maryland State Archives.

               [xxviii] Will of Mary Beavan, signed April 28, 1712, proven June 13, 1713, Prince Georges County Wills, Liber 13, folio 513, Maryland State Archives.

               [xxix] Will of Richard Bevan Sr., signed February 27, 1738/9, proven May 21, 1739, Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol. 8, p. 789, Liber 22, folio 58, Maryland State Archives.  For the terminus ad quem (limit to which—latest possible date) of Richard’s marriage to Jane Blandford, see Administration of the Will of William Bayly, June 11, 1703, Liber 24, folio 16a, Prince Georges County, MD.  “Executrix, Mrs. Jane Beven, wife of Richard Beven.”

               [xxx] Will of Thomas Blandford, signed June 17, 1749, proven August 7, 1749, Maryland Calendar of Wills, Maryland State Archives.  Thomas named his wife Sarah executrix.

               [xxxi] Will of Catherine Culver, signed October 6, 1762, proven December 20, 1762, Maryland Calendar of Wills, Vol. 31, pp. 890-891, Maryland State Archives.

               [xxxii] Charles Beaven signed a deposition in 1728, claiming to be 42 years of age.

74 thoughts on “Daughters of Princess Mary Kittamaquund

  1. Reference note [xxiii] “The terminus ad quem (limit to which—latest possible date) for Katherine’s death is determined by the date of the will of her father, Richard Marsham, which provides for her children but does not mention her. See Will of Richard Marsham, signed April 14, 1713, probated April 22, 1713, Maryland Prerogative Court (Wills), Liber 13, Folios 514-520, Maryland State Archives.

    It seems to me that a better terminus ad quem might be August 7, 1712, based on Richard Masrsham’s filing Dated August 7, 1712 filed BY Richard Marsham on estate of Samuel Queen, Volume 33B, Pages 34 and 35, Maryland State Archives, Hall of Records, Annapolis, Maryland “To funerall Charges and disbursmts to him and his wife in their Sickness 10.. 0.. 0”
    The wording seems to indicate that both were dead by this date.

  2. Hello Roberta,   This information is absolutely awesome! I am still reading and re-reading it over and over.   Thank you for sending it to me.   Also, I was very happy to see that we are “matches” on the Family Finder;  maybe 5th cousin?   I will contact you again, as soon as I make logical comprehension of this information about Mary Kittamaquund and the Piscataway Indians.   How can I send a copy of this entire blog to the members of my ftdna research group, the Wesorts-Piscataway.   I await your reply.                                                                   Yours truly,                                                                         Carmen Proctor Cook,                                                                         Group Administrator  

    • Hi Carmen,

      Great to hear from you again. Of course you can forward it. I hope it helps others as well. You might want to contact Shawn and work with him. He is very nice.

      Roberta

  3. Charles Beaven (1645 – 1699)
    is your 9th great grandfather
    Richard Beaven (1691 – 1738)
    son of Charles Beaven
    Basil Waring Beaven (1715 – 1792)
    son of Richard Beaven
    Charles Beaven (1739 – 1796)
    son of Basil Waring Beaven
    Charles Henry Beaven (1776 – 1839)
    son of Charles Beaven
    Sarah Sally Beaven (1802 – 1854)
    daughter of Charles Henry Beaven
    Thomas Tucker (1825 – 1899)
    son of Sarah Sally Beaven
    Elizabeth Frances Tucker (1848 – 1926)
    daughter of Thomas Tucker
    Hosea Cutright (1881 – 1956)
    son of Elizabeth Frances Tucker
    Addison Cleo Cutright (1904 – 1988)
    son of Hosea Cutright
    Doris Pauline Cutright (1933 – 2011)
    daughter of Addison Cleo Cutright
    Jimmy W. Schmig
    You are the son of Doris Pauline Cutright –

    My cousin is Will Cox and he researched this line his Mother and my Mother were sisters.

  4. Well, I am a little confused. I thought, reading your blog, I was in the Charles Beaven line. You have charles Beaven married to Mary Brent. I have Charles Beaven`s first wife as being Martha Paca. that is the line I was following kinship wise. But Charles Beaven and Martha Paca are not kin to Princess Mary, from what I can see. Now 2nd wife, Mary Marsham does go back to parents, Katherine Brent and Richard Marsham. Katherine is the daughter of Princess Mary. That line does go down and is kin to some of my Boone relatives, but I am not in that line. Have I got this worng? sunspritepat@yahoo.com

    • Yes, Pat, you are wrong in your thoughts of the lines. There was no Martha Paca and Charles Beaven’s only wife was Mary Brent and all this is proven in this report. The name Mary Marsham is not because she was a daughter of Richard Marsham and Katherne Brent but from the fact that she is Mary Brent, sister to Katherine Brent who married Richard Marsham and she was Richard Marsham’s sister-in-law. The names became confused because of the way the records were interpreted. Katherine and Mary are daughters of Princess Mary Kittamaquund and Giles Brent. So depending on which line you descend of the children of Charles Beaven & Mary Brent, you are of this Native American descent. I hope this helped.

      • Thank you so much for explaining this. I am kin through Mary Brent and Charles Beaven. Most of my family is also kin through Katherine Brent.

      • It is not my desire to get into a lengthy debate, but I must disagree that Charles Beaven had only one wife – Mary Brent. There is no question that Charles married Mary Brent. And the study proves that Mary Brent was of Piscataway lineage. However, there are historic documents that indicate that Charles Beaven was in fact married first to a woman named “Martha”. Whether that was Martha Paca is subject to debate. The most precise document is a reconstructed deed.
        In 1701, a fire at the Court House in Anne Arundel County destroyed many legal documents, including some of the original transcriptions of deeds that had been recorded in the official land transfer record of Anne Arundel County . The historic lines of property ownership were then “reconstructed”. That is, deeds were developed based on retracing the transfers of title to the land, which in turn were based on some kind of existing historic documentation and/or testimony. These “reconstructed deeds” were then duly recorded by the County Recorder of Ann Arundel County beginning in 1706.
        Deed # 280. “Recorded 1708 for Thos Fench for orphans of Nathan Smith. Charles Beaven & Martha Beaven his wife to Nathan Smith, Patent St. Mary’s 20 Nov 1668, to Robert Paca “Dawn”, 490 a to Charles Beaven heir & excr.Lyonle Paresley dec’d. by consort Marth ? His wife. 6,780 lbs tob to Nathan Smith lines James Ogdon. 200 a 11 Oct 1703. [The original deed, dated June 10, 1673 includes the words, “Charles Beaven lawfull heir and Executor of Lyonell pauley desd as will appear upon record by and with the consent of Martha his wife…”].
        This does not detract from the DNA findings that Sarah and Elizabeth Beaven daughters of Charles and Mary Brent Beaven and descended from Piscataway ancestors. Other historic data indicates clearly that Charles Beaven Jr. was the youngest child of Charles Sr. and thus, the son of Mary Brent Beaven as well. However, to my knowledge, the historic record does not prove the maternity of Charles’ other three children: Richard, Margaret, and Katherine. Also, I know of no historic record of the exact birth dates of Charles’ children, or the marriage date of Charles and Mary Brent, so it seems entirely possible that Richard and possibly Margaret and Katherine were children of Charles’ marriage to Martha.
        If you have information to prove the claim that these latter three children were children of Mary Brent Beaven, or that Charles Beaven did NOT have a wife named Martha, I would be delighted to have it. I am descended from Richard Beaven.

    • Here is my line. 1. Mary Brent/Charles Beaven, 2.Elizabeth Beaven/John Boone. 3.Charles Boone/Mary Boarrman. 4. John Boone (brother of Walter Boone) Frances Rhodes. 5, Johnny Boone/Catherine Greenwell. 6.Elizabeth Frances Boone/Austin Howard. 7, Boone Howard/Mary willie Hutchins (my grandparents), 8. Marcella Howard/Marion Mathews (my parents). My DNA from ancestry showed no native american or Asian. My 23andme DNA showed 0.2% African and middle eastern, but no native American.

      • Pat, did you upload your autosomal results to GEDMatch.org? If not, that is what you will have to do as soon as they are back up again. Their server went down yesterday and very limited service down and only for ‘one-to-many’ matches. Until all features are restored so that the Admixture tool can be used, you can’t run your kit there to prove your N.A. markers. They will be small and so small they cannot be detected by regular testing at 23andMe or AncestryDNA or FTDNA ~ but they clearly are identified in the Admixture tools. None of the kits used to establish the proof of N.A. via Princess Mary were done anywhere else but at GEDMatch.org as it is the only place that offers this feature. And the only place that allowed for tiny fragments to be studied on the same chromosome. And now we have to wait again until the server is up. However, if you did upload your results through either place or both, you can run your kit for one-to-many matches to see if you match any of the kits used in the DNA analysis. If not, here is the link and when they have all features up again so that you can upload your autosomal results (do both places). http://www.gedmatch.com/ When they are fully restored, you will have to create an account with your email address and password for logging in. Kit F264093 (my tester from Walter Boone) matches the other two kits – A604906 at 4.4 gens and M083103 at 5 gens. But his kit was tested at FTDNA so they only place you get the other matches is at GEDMatch.org. Contact me direct at sherrylucky@yahoo.com. I am entering all of your lineage now into my own file as we are cousins for sure.

  5. Thanks for putting up this information. Walter Boone was my 4 x Great Grandfather. My descent is through his second marriage to Elizabeth Hagan-Mattingly. Their son William Henry Boone married Rosena Hagan. Their son Miles Nicholas Boone married Rosa Jane Duvall. Their son Victor Ivo Boone married Mary Willie Watson. Their daughter Mary Willie Boone married William Oscar Sweat – these were my grandparents.

    Charles Beaven’s marriages always confused me since – and I know you disproved this information – some say he married twice: Martha Paca and Mary Marsham. In fact, there is a marriage record out there showing a marriage between Charles Beaven and Mary Marsham . . . which is all the more confusing. But, I’ll take DNA evidence any day! Thanks again.

    Scott Mitchell

    • Scott, anywhere you see Charles Beaven married to any name other than Mary Brent, daughter of Giles Brent & Princess Mary Kittamaquund and sister to Katherine Brent who married Richard Marsham ~ please add a postem or comment to them referring them to the report by Shawn & Lois Potter (you can use this blog link as the documentation). I too had the wrong information in my personal file until one of the kits used in this report was someone I sponsored for testing. People get things wrong but DNA never does and that’s the proof in the pudding (blood in this case).

  6. As someone who had trouble downloading my raw DNA from Ancestry, it turns out that it was only a problem with the internet browser I was using. I normally use Internet Explorer and when I clicked on the “gear,” “cog,” “sprocket,” icon, the next screen that allows the user to manage the test settings, I did not have any button that would allow me to download my raw DNA. A very bright representative at Ancestry, Ryan, suggested that I try a different browser. Since my daughters don’t like IE, when they are here at my house, they have downloaded the Google Chrome browser. So, I opened that browser, went to the Ancestry website and when I got to the page where I can manage my test settings, I saw something completely different than the same page when using Internet Explorer. In the Chrome browser, there is a gray rectangle on the right side of the screen. First is the area that regards the consent agreement, but below that was a button where it said I could download my raw DNA! Below that there is another button that allows the user to delete the raw DNA. For some reason, Ancestry is just not compatible with Internet Explorer.

    If you haven’t been able to download your raw DNA and you are using Internet Explorer, try using a different browser! I don’t understand why the first two Ancestry representatives I spoke with weren’t aware of this incompatibility, but Ryan was. Give it a try.

    It was very easy after I clicked the “Download raw DNA” button. A pop-up announces that you will receive an e-mail which you have to access (do that in a separate window) and gives you another “download raw DNA” button in that e-mail. Once I clicked on that, a pop-up box asks what I want to do with it. Just click on “save” and the raw DNA file goes into your hard-drive’s Downloads folder (usually on your C: drive). You will see the file there in your Downloads folder. Just leave it as a .zip file and go to gedmatch.com to upload it. Gedmatch was great about giving me instructions to follow and I printed those instructions, so I wouldn’t get the process wrong.

    I hope this info helps other Internet Explorer users to gain access to their raw DNA.

  7. Sharon – So, I did the Admixture match with each of the Gedmatch #s listed, and for all but one it came back as no shared DNA. On F264093 Chromosome 8 matched with 11.8, and a 5.1 Generation. Now, I know that DNA diminishes with each generation due to the amount of DNA passed down from each parent, grandparent, etc., but shouldn’t there somehow be a DNA match between me and all the others in the studies? I received the same – no shared DNA – explanation when I did the match with Pat Matthews. Thanks.

    • Scott, please contact me at sherrylucky@yahoo.com. I realize now when I look at the other message that we have like ancestors. Mattingly is also my direct line. And there are reasons why you only match certain people and others do the same.

  8. I am very excited to have found this page and learn about the history of Mary Kittamaquund who i found out this week is my direct descendent by way of Mary Brent —–> Katherine Beaven —–> Eleanor Culver ——-> Dorsett —–> Howeth ——-> Gilliam —-> etc etc i am trying to learn as much as i can about this never before known history… and imagine there is a distant connection to some of the people on this thread!!!!

    • Yes, it is so exciting! I actually took an autosomal DNA test (at Ancestry) and once I was able to download my raw DNA file, I followed Roberta’s instructions: uploaded it to gedmatch.com and did the chromosome painting she had explored with her own DNA and others who descended from Princess Mary. To my utter surprise, I found Native American DNA on about six of my chromosomes, in varying amounts on each of them. Tiny amounts, to be sure, but there nevertheless! I am descended from Princess Mary through my maternal grandmother. My other maternal grandmother’s ancestors all immigrated from Germany in the mid-1800s, as did both of my grandfather’s ancestors.

      My daughters have always assumed there would be some Native American ancestry on their father’s side of the family because his mother has many facial characteristics similar to Native Americans. What a pleasant surprise to find that I have a Native American ancestor on my side.

      There is a children’s book about Princess Mary, copyright 1959, by author Nan Hayden Agle. It was available on Amazon earlier this year but I don’t know if there are any other copies still available. I don’t yet have grand children, but bought it just in case I ever do. My daughters were thrilled to learn of this discovery, as I’m sure your descendant’s will also be thrilled to know this bit of factual information about one of their ancestors. It’s rare to have this much information on any of our ancestors, much less ones who lived in the early to mid-1600s! Many thanks to Roberta Estes for turning so many of us on to this line.

  9. Hi,

    I also had my autosomal DNA analyzed by 23andme, and then analyzed again through the minority admixture tools at GEDmatch. I have small segments of Native American ancestry on several chromosones, particularly expressed in the Eurogenes K13 Admixture proportion test. However my kit# M765201, did not match with the Kit #’s listed in this article, which I found puzzling.

    I descend from Princess Mary Kittamaquund through the Marsham, Queen, Jameson, and Mudd lines of Charles County, Md. No other Native American ancestor – I am 99% European. Would love to hear from anyone who has this line of descent and would like to share kit information!!

    With best, Lydia H. Ozenberger You can contact me at: Lydia_ozenberger@yahoo.com

    • Sometimes a child, especially males, receive “their portion” while the Father is alive. Sometimes this fact is mentioned in the Father’s will and sometimes it is not mentioned in the Father’s will.

      • Yes, but there still has to be evidence to support that William and Sarah had a son Thomas (and don’t say it is the DNA). As listed above (which I already knew) Sarah Marsham had to have married William Barton after 29 Dec. 1688, meaning the earliest a son Thomas could have been born is late 1689. William Barton wrote his will on 19 Apr. 1703. He named his wife Sarah, daughter Katharine, daughter Sarah, son-in-law [step-son] Basil Waring, son-in-law [step-son] Marsham Waring, as well as children of [his sister] Elizabeth [Barton] and her husband Thomas Smoot. He also named his sister Margaret [Barton] Hungerford.
        https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.3.1/TH-1942-24235-5777-0?cc=1803986&wc=MDLV-YM9:146535401,147178401

        It would be strange that he left bequests of slaves and land to daughters, step-sons, and nephews, but would leave nothing to a son Thomas Barton, who in 19 April 1703 could have been age 13 at the oldest (if born late 1689).

        For years, I have seen people claim (incorrectly) that this William Barton married a Sarah Beaven, and had a son Thomas, but they usually list this Thomas as born *before* 1685. Again, we know William Barton’s wife wasn’t a Beaven, and a son by Sarah Marsham couldn’t have been born before late 1689. If this is the Thomas that is claimed in the chart above, he also died in Baltimore County where he wrote his will on 6 January 1730. He is listed with children in church records born as early as 1710, so he could not be a posthumous son of William Barton born after he wrote his will in 1703.

        While I don’t dispute the DNA that shows that M131135 is a descendant of Mary Kittamnaquund, I would think it would have to be from a different branch of their ancestry, that they haven’t yet identified.

        That’s why I am requesting evidence (other than just the DNA) that William Barton and Sarah Marsham had a son Thomas. If it is the DNA that is the “evidence” (combined with erroneous on-line trees that list William and Sarah with a son Thomas) it’s like trying to force a round peg into a square hole, to make the DNA fit the desired result.
        http://home.netcom.com/~fzsaund/barton.html

    • I’ve had many instances where an ancestor doesn’t mention the older children, especially if those children are married with families of their own. In fact, my 8 x GG William Boarman only mentioned the children of his third wife in his last Will and Testatment. So, it would not – as James mentioned – be unusual for all the children not to be mentioned in the will. There are also instances, where an ancestor only mentions their wife by name, and makes a reference “to be split among my children” without naming the children.

      • See above. A “son” Thomas Barton could have only been 13 at the oldest when William Barton wrote his will and gave land and slaves to daughters, step-sons, and nephews. If you read the will (link above) there is no “split” among unnamed children.

  10. Some additional information:
    Robert W. Barnes, _Baltimore County Families, 1659-1759_ (Baltimore, Maryland: Genealogical Publishing Co., 1989), pp. 30-31 has information on Thomas Barton. He was a taxable on the north side of Gunpowder Hundred in 1700. His will was written and probated in Baltimore County in 1730. This is the Thomas that is claimed in some on-line trees (without sources) as the son of William Barton and Sarah Marsham. Is that the same Thomas that is claimed by M131135?

    If so, this Thomas Barton was at least age 16 to be in the 1700 tax list, placing his birth as 1684 or earlier. He could not be a son of Sarah Marsham who did not marry William Barton until after 29 December 1688. He would not be living on his own and taxed in 1700 if born in 1689 or later.

    If this is not the Thomas claimed as the son of William Barton and Sarah Marsham, then please indicate/identify what Thomas is claimed as a son of William Barton and Sarah Marsham.

    • I have the actual report by Shawn & Lois Potter as the kit I sponsored, F264093, used in this study to prove the N.A. lineage. Besides my tester, 7 others were used to determine the N.A. bloodline of sisters Mary & Katherine Brent. Through Mary Brent her daughter Sarah Beavan’s descendant and through her daughter Elizabeth Beaven’s son Charles Boone, two descendant lines. Four descendant lines were used from Katherine Marsham, daughter of Katherine Brent; and M131135 was used for Sarah Marsham. Per the chart on page 9 of the report (not the final but the one he sent to me a little over a month before the final one that Roberta used), this is lineage given by kit M131135 – line going back to Sarah Marsham (no dates or spouse name, only the actual line and in this case Barton) – tester M131135, Phillip W. Barton, Othal A. Barton, William L. Barton, William S. Barton, John Barton, Thomas Barton, Sarah Marsham.

      I did not enter any of the lineage myself into my own tree nor do any research as I was not connected to this tester (although he does match one of my cousins but from a completely different line not connected to this one). I suggest you contact Shawn Potter directly about this and share all the information you have posted here. I know that Shawn was dependent on every person used based on that person’s documented lineages and that of his own research on Katherine & Mary Brent.

      Now to Thomas Barton ~ This is the reading of the last part of the will: “to wife Sarah and child, afsd., residue of personal estate. Child. to be brought up in Church of England.” (By codicil dated 19th April) 1703, testator devises to John Nathan Smoote and his brother William,, 400 A., “Barton’s Hazard” on N. side Zachiah Swamp., provided they make over to their brothers Thomas and Charles Smoote, 400 A., bequeathed them by their father Thomas Smoote; otherwise sd. “Barton’s Hazard” to go to daus, Katharine and Sarah afsd.
      Also devises certain personalty to sister Margaret Hungerford.
      Trustees, in event of death of wife during minority of child., Thos. Brooke, Thos. Greenfield, John Wight, Col. Walter Smith, Samuel Queen and Thos. Smoote.
      Test: Thos. Greenfield, Benjamin Berry, Jno. Warren. 3.643

      Thomas (the unborn child referred as in ‘To wife Sarah and child’) through descendants John, William, Sharp, James E. ,William S., William L., Othal A., Phllip W. Rolbert Barton Kit M131135 used in the Princess Mary Kittamaquund report by Shawn & Lois Potter. As such, this son would have to be born after 19 Apr 1703 not about 1685 as all others have stated.

      Barton Historical Society – Lineage I
      http://bartonsite.org/Lineage_I.html
      In the 20th Century these families were known as “Bartons of the South”

      More than 100 men from 36 different Barton families with matching DNA test results in the BARTON DNA Project are grouped together in Lineage I. yDNA testing has united many of these Southern Barton families with no previously known connection and separated other Barton families who believed they were related. Fowler, Holmes, Eskew, Simpson, Stone, Lee, Chason, Giglotto, Hutchins, Jackson, Pitman, Taylor and Ragland males also have ySTR DNA test results which match this Barton line! This is by far our largest and most complex family. DNA Project kit I.D. numbers are shown in red.

      United Kingdom families are first and then United States and the first one •Thomas Barton born before 1685 died before 22 April 1730 at Gunpowder Hundred, Baltimore County, Province of Maryland. Twelve generations of his descendants all in America have been identified. A-37 B-06 C-16 — NOTE no ancestor is shown for Thomas Barton, only descendants as you can click on his link for tree information.

      A-37 is kit 19724, B-06 is kit 19729 and C-16 is that number. As M131135 was used in an autosomal test and his lineage from a female Sarah Marsham, I do not know if he even tested his Y-DNA or only the autosomal. I would strongly urge him to test his Y-DNA through FamilyTreeDNA to establish his Barton lineage matches on the Y-DNA results.

      There is no doubt that M131135 shared N.A. lineage as shown in the report by Shawn & Lois Potter and he also matches at 5.1 gens to kit A785682, descendant of Katherine Marsham through daughter Anne Brooke; F162994 from Katherine Marsham’s daughter Margaret Queen at 7.5 gens. But it was not these particular matches that were used in the study and report done by Shawn & Lois Potter. The Admixture tool was used to show the N.A. for each of people in the report as well as a feature on GEDMatch.com that is no longer being used as it overloaded their systems. It was a specific chromosome section feature that identified testers on certain segments. It was used so much by so many people that it crashed their system. And it has taken a long time to rebuild and they are still doing so again with moving their servers. Only certain features have been restored at this time.

      It does now also appear to me that it would be impossible for a child born after 19 Apr 1703 to produce children born in 1709 as the data on Thomas Barton indicates. Further, there is no menton of a Thomas Barton to anyone connected with Sarah and she died after this Thomas Barton who died in 1730. But the blood & DNA of M131335 does prove his chromosome matches as used in the report and he also matches two other Katherine Brent descendants. But based on all this, I am going to send a message myself to Shawn & Lois Potter giving them the link to this page where everyone is making their posts with issues one way or another. Hopefully, we will hear from Shawn about this.

      Rick, could you please either post your email address or send me a message at sherrylucky@yahoo.com. Thanks.

      • Thank you Sharon for your response. I was hoping that someone had the booklet that they could answer if there were details on the lineage of M131135 (dates/location/spouses) included in it. I had e-mailed Shawn basically the same questions I posted here at the same time I posted, in case he was not monitoring this blog. I have not yet heard from him.

        I administrate several y-DNA projects, so I am familiar with the benefits (and limitations) of both y-DNA and atDNA. While atDNA as with this study can show descent from a common ancestor, it can’t prove the path of how someone is descended from them.

        I have also taken both tests (my number at Gedmatch is F21413) and I wouldn’t expect to match any of these participants unless it is a coincidental match on another family. I was hoping that with the careful citations here, that the booklet would contain details on the lineages (dates/locations/spouses) up to at least 1900 or so. I wouldn’t expect that citations would have been included to prove each generation, but with that identifying information, anyone interested in the results could evaluate the lineages for themselves.

        One of my biggest pet peeves is y-DNA projects that only list an earliest ancestor (if that) with no corresponding chart of the claimed lineage, so that someone can evaluate for themselves whether that truly is the correct earliest ancestor. I don’t research every lineage in the projects I administrate for absolute proof, but I do evaluate all of them for any red flags, that I will either investigate myself or bring to the attention of the person tested. Multiple people online all claiming that Thomas the “son” of William Barton and Sarah Marsham was the Thomas of Baltimore County, and that he was born before 1685 is a major “red flag” when such a child couldn’t have been born before 1689 to be the son of Sarah.

        I had also already examined the Barton y-DNA Project site. I won’t do a lot of discussion here, but will include some relevant links that anyone interested can examine. If you follow the lineage down from Thomas Barton before 1685 there for each generation, after a few generations there are some mismatches with the lineage listed by M131135, so that doesn’t appear to be what he lists. Going the other way, I took the uncommon name of Sharp Barton and searched for it on the site. This appears to be the lineage listed by M131135:
        http://www.bartondatabase.com/getperson.php?personID=I1823&tree=gbtree

        If you follow it there is:
        William Barton 1735 VA or MD- 1807 Patrick Co., VA; m. Susan Sharp
        Sharp Barton 1770 VA-1841 Jackson Co., OH; m. Sarah
        James Edmond Barton 1805 Patrick Co., VA-1861 Warrick Co., IN; m.2 Mary Stroud
        William Stroud Barton 1840 OH- 1915; m. Sarah Johnson

        This seems to be William S. with son William age 5 in 1880:
        https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MHS6-YRL

        William L. (age 46) in 1920 with son Othal (age 16):
        https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/MH2L-YWK

        Othal (age 27) in 1930
        https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/X79B-4D8

        Othal (age 36) in 1940
        https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/V1R1-P2H

        William 1735 is the earliest generation listed on the Barton site for this line. He is also on this page:
        http://bartonsite.org/Lineage_I.html

        At least one person claims that William 1735 is the son of John (1715), son of Thomas (1685) son of William Barton and Sarah Marsham.
        http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=PED&db=jes5026&id=P25449
        [Note the birth date there of 29 June 1662 for William Barton is incorrect. The William who married Sarah Marsham was born 27 Feb. 1667/8. Details on my webpage.]

        That differs from the Barton site that lists a different William as the son of John (1715):
        http://www.bartondatabase.com/getperson.php?personID=I6469&tree=gbtree

        That leaves a possibility of not only an error in connecting Thomas (1685) to William Barton and Sarah Marsham, but in the identity of which William is actually the son of John (1715).

        My e-mail is fzsaund@ix.netcom.com It is also on my Barton webpage I listed in an earlier post.

        Based on what appears to be the lineage of M131135, I have to believe that their descent from Mary Kittamaquund is on a different branch of their ancestry. Knowing that he is a descendant, it may open possibilities for evidence to support some connection though a female line whose surname was previously unknown. I just don’t see how it can be through William Barton and Sarah Marsham (at least through a “son” Thomas), which appears to be the lineage they are claiming.

  11. Frederic,

    You may be correct. We relied on the research of others to document the lineage between M131135 and Richard and Katherine Marsham. But M131135 has only confirmed his lineage using contemporary records from himself to William S. Barton. The DNA comparison suggests that he is a descendant of Mary Kittamaquund — perhaps from Sarah Marsham and William Barton some other way; but until we know the precise lineage, we should remove his line from the study.

    Thank you,

    Shawn and Lois Potter

    • Thank you for the information. Hopefully one day the connection may be found. Do the results suggest that he is closer to one of persons who tested than the others?

      I descend from William Barton’s sister Margaret Hungerford. Unfortunately their father William Barton (died 1717) only had the one son William who married Sarah Marsham, who I believe only had daughters. So, there is no y-DNA from William (died 1717) to test, which is my interest. William (died 1717) did have a brother, but so far no one who has y-DNA tested has been able to prove a connection to him.

  12. Yes. A tool on GEDMatch suggests a common ancestor between M131135 and A785682 about 4.1 generations ago, and a common ancestor between M131135 and the other people tested between 5.9 and 6.2 generations ago. Based on our limited experience with such calculators, we place no confidence in the estimated number of generations. Depending on which two individuals in this study are compared, the actual distance to a common ancestor — if that ancestor is Mary Kittamaquund — is between 9 and 12 generations ago. However, we do believe it is significant that M131135 appears to be related to all the other participants, and that M131135 appears to be more closely related to A785682.

  13. A serious error is made in this study when it ignores the deed made to Nathan Smith by “Charles Beaven and his wife, Martha of the one part” and later in same deed “with the consent of his wife Martha. This deed conveyed a part of the land inherited by Will from Lyonell Paully. That Charles Beaven married first Martha UKN and second Mary Brent Fitzherbert can’t be denied. (NSA No. CM91, Anne Arundel County Court [Land Records] Charles Beaven & wife Martha to Nathan Smith, 1 673, Book IH#1 pp 280-284, Cr 39,508-1(prepared by Jennifer Petrisko, Archival

    Assistant. There is also another serious omission in regard to the age actual age of Richard Beaven found in Prince George’s Land Records 1730-1733 Q: p 521, which shows his age as 53 years old on 9 July 1731. He was born in 1678.

    Charles Beaven, his younger brother was 42 years old in March 1728, which agrees with a deposition Charles gave in Charles County Land Record 39 p.699, dated 5 March 1743/4, when he gavehis age as 58. He was born in 1685/6.

    • Even given these mistakes, how is any of this relevant to the fact that there is Native American ancestry through the Beaven line?

      • But it does not prove all the children of Charles Beaven have native blood. I am Richard Beaven’s descendent and I prefer to know if Richard is the son of Martha Beaven or Mary Brent Fitzherbert Beaven. The question is not the Indian blood, it is finding the CORRECT ancestor.

      • Have you had your autosomal DNA analyzed through GEDmatch utilizing the ethnic admixture proportions? If you have Native American signals, and the Mary Brent Beaven line is your only line carrying Native American ancestry, this should answer your question. Unless, however, you also have a Native American line through Katherine Brent Marsham – then that would not solve the problem.

    • Another possibility is that Martha and Mary are one and the same individual! Has anyone been able to determine the Legal Birth Name of Mary Brent? I agree, it does matter as to who the actual ancestor was – Martha Paca (don’t know where that surname came from) or Mary Brent. Many individuals at that time had both a given name (first) and a middle name. As many people on Ancestry have discovered (including me), many individuals answered to their MIDDLE name, and only used their first name on Legal Documents. The census forms are an example: an individual might have a birth name of Mary Elizabeth (Surname) and be referred to in one census as Mary, another census as Elizabeth, and another census as Eliza or Beth or Lizzy. ALL the SAME person. Could it be that Mary Brent had a middle name of Martha? Or her actual name was Martha Mary Brent? Has anyone researched this? If they are two different people, we do need to know that, because it makes a HUGE difference in our paper lineage. Our trees would look very different if we could never determine who the mother was. I certainly hope someone can determine why there are two possible wives for Charles Beaven. If there were two wives, people descended from Martha would NOT have NA DNA, and people descended from Mary Brent WOULD HAVE NA DNA, albeit in very, very small quantities, such as in my case. However, there is another possibility that I haven’t heard discussed – has anyone made a note of the +/- error rate for gedmatch? Are there any scientific studies showing it is 100% accurate? Ignorance is NOT bliss – and I, for one, want to know. 🙂

      • I want to address the error rare issue. One of the reasons we use triangulation is for exactly this reason. When you find exactly the same thing in a number of descendants, it’s not happenstance. How segments are interpreted based on the studies is open to discussion and is discussed a lot. However, when you have entire groups matching, and they are some flavor of Native, it doesn’t matter what label you put on them. So, let me say this another way – the +/- error rare for GedMatch or really, the admixture tools does not matter in this case, because this entire group is matching and that is the question and the answer.

      • Roberta,   I think this study is remarkable and a breakthrough in genealogical roadblocks.  Since I first read the manuscript by Judith Simms in 1963, on the “Ancestry of Dr.William Queen,” I have been fascinated by the story of Princess Mary Kittamaquund.  Despite the many attempts to disprove the ancestry of Katherine Brent Marsham, her maternity has finally been resolved; and, at least for me, I discovered an extra NA line through her sister, Mary Brent Beaven.   Job well done.

  14. BEAVEN – John, Charles and Sally Beaven were the children of Richard Beaven, of Maryland. Charles married ANNA SAUCIER, and settled in Callaway Co. Mo, in 1824. His children were Richard, William, Robert, Zadock, Theodore, Walter, Polly, Elizabeth, Julia A., Eliza and Permelia.

    • The Charles Beaven mentioned in the study was born in 1645 and died about 1699. The Charles Beaven you mention is obviously a descendant and or a totally different Beaven line many generations removed from the Charles Beaven in the study!

      • Yes Scott, I did realize that, my Beavens were of the Line we are discussing, but I wanted to show other Beavens existed. My Sarah Sally Beaven was born in 1802 and was the mother of my 2 X Great Grandfather Thomas Tucker. He was born in 1825 and died in 1899. I have had folks trying to show kinship in different lines. Thanks for the response!

  15. Princess Mary Kittamaquund is my 12 great grandmother / Giles Brent line. I have Native American ancestry, which came up on the World 9 admixture calculator.

  16. Thank you so much!! My research indicated that I am a descendant of Mary Pricilla Brent who married Richard Fenway. A Fenway married a Dant. My mother was a Dant. My late Uncle William Dant supposedly proved lineage in the early 80’s

  17. I see a lot of people here trying to prove a relationship to a “princess” that never had a title like that. I am *quite* familiar with the period and people in question, and I also know that these DNA tests are, for all intent and purposes, highly problematic.

    The article claims that a Katherine Brent married Richard Marsham when she was between 11 and 13 years of age. Colonial mores were such that even that would have been a huge scandal. So, no. That discussion has gone on for a while on other boards, and the conclusion has been that that Brent is someone else who was not born in America. Moreover, why would someone born in Maryland be an indentured servant when servitude was, as the article says, the repayment of a loan for passage to the New World? It doesn’t make sense.

  18. Rob Johnson writes that the title “princess” was never granted by any monarch to Mary Brent. However, the title “emperor” was applied to her father from the very first recorded encounter with him and his people. Andrew White, SJ, called him emperor, his village the metropolis of the Piscataways, and his home a palace. Similar language was chosen by other adventurers and missionaries throughout the colonial era. The Powhattan chief was called “king” and also “emperor.” In New England, so too was Massasoit until the term sachem supplanted its use. Even into the American era, Indian leaders were given titles in English-language sources taken from British and European patrimony rather than their own. With the Five Civilized Tribes of the U.S. Southeast, “kings,” “ambassadors,” and other titles were pronounced, sometimes by U.S. commissioners and at other times by generals, governors, and the President of the United States.
    In the case of Pocahontas/Rebecca Rolfe, she was made known on her visit to England as the princess of the Virginia Indians, Powhattan’s people, etc. In literature and oral tradition, both native and non-native, these titles have also seen continuous use. In recent decades, revisionist perspectives have challenged the use of them, but they continue to be used alongside the names and titles which have emerged from modern scholarship.

    Also, at the New England Historic Genealogical Society, we use DNA testing, such as the one described in this blog, all the time. It is a frontier in genealogical research which has been rapidly reduced by constant advancement in the science and technology behind it. The science of it is neither “highly problematic,” as Rob Johnson posits, nor problematic much at all. In studies such as the Potters’, American Indian genetic heritage can be detected fairly easily by correlating descendants’ results with the considerable body of past test results, and the specific “flagged” or “signal” markers therein, and finding that there is agreement between results for test subjects with known Indian ancestry and differences from appropriate control subjects. Isolating the specific ancestor, which necessarily involves data from genealogical study that is not empirical, is where substantive error may affect the outcome. We would test descendants of siblings or immediate collateral kin on both sides of Richard Marsham. If they do not present with the specific markers known to indicate Indian ancestry and the sibling lines of his wife, Katherine, do show such ancestry, then it can be said that Katherine was of Indian ancestry. If, as the study referenced in this blog would seem to have found, Katherine’s descendants (through the multiple lines of the chart) show a high degree of probability of descent from the same ancestors as known children of Giles and Mary Brent, then there is a corresponding high probability she was their sister. Further, if the historical record suggests the particular kinship and the genetic study proves her genetic heritage was what it should have been if she were related in the suggested way, then the kinship is very probabe.

    Colonial mores were not as Rob Johnson states, either. The Chesapeake before the 1640s was populated by adventurers and their children as well as planters of Catholic and Anglican religion. Puritans, whose particular mores Rob Johnson would seem to reference, were certainly present, but their ascendancy there had only just begun at the time Giles and Mary Brent married. What’s more, Giles Brent came from a prominent and influential family. Indeed, he acted in Lord Calvert’s stead for a time. He was the perfect candidate to marry to a prospective Indian of rank so as to assure continuing peace and trade stability. That practice was typical of both the English (and other Europeans) and the chiefs of American Indian polities during the early colonial period. Twelve or thirteen, as the tradition suggests was Mary’s age, was not without precedent in other early relations with the tribes. Also, since the age is traditional, carried in English accounts of Mary Brent’s life, she may well have been a few years older.

    Finally, indentures may have been made for any number of reasons, not strictly transportation. Education, apprenticeship, deeds to property, and being raised in someone’s household may all have incurred an indenture (see, for example, the article cited in the blog, related to transferred indentured service).

    The work on this identity problem is encouraging. We should like to see correlation of results from tests taken by descendants of Giles and Mary Brent’s other known child, Giles Brent, Jr., by his wife, Mary (Brent) Brent (later Hammersley).

    • CCL, you spend a lot of time on conjecture, which is disprovable given known history.

      So, let’s start with the “princess” title. The daughter of a chief was more like the daughter of a mayor or a governor than a princess. She certainly wasn’t going to inherit any throne or a castle. “Daughter of a prominent person” doesn’t sound as romantic as “princess”. No tribe today in the mid-Atlantic uses the term. Either way, the use is erroneous.

      Next why would someone who was highly-placed and of rank, with assets, using your own words and logic, stoop to become a servant? It makes no sense. Conjecture is not fact, and the facts are that during the early settlement of Maryland, the largest number of indentured servants were those who wanted to immigrate to the colony, but could not pay for passage. Statistically, the chances of your theory being true are very low.

      As for DNA, the phrase “data from genealogical study that is not empirical, is where substantive error may affect the outcome” says it all. Technique doesn’t matter if he empirical record isn’t correct. In this case, the paper trail leads in a different direction. The record shows that this Marsham married someone else who came over from England as an indentured servant. Not the “princess” you’re desperately looking for.

      The Catholics and Puritans (different than the pilgrims) fought in Maryland during the 1650s as part of the English Civil War. Nevertheless, laws on marriage and indentured servants were clear in both Virginia and Maryland. At that time, the average age of brides was 23, with grooms averaging 26. For indentured servants who married without permission, which you go on at length about, laws said that freemen who secretly married indentured females would be punished by the doubling the value of the woman’s service and by requiring payment of a fine of 500 pounds of tobacco.

      Hammersly was the name of Giles Brent Jr’s second wife after he divorced his cousin Mary. So, no relation.

      The facts show a completely different picture.

  19. I am a direct descendant of Sarah Marsham (lineage 1 in Figure 1). Selected Figure 2 shows no results from Sarah’s line (I understand her line to Philip Barton has been questioned above). I guess the amount of American Indian (red) in her sister Katherine Marsham’s lineage 2 and 3 (figure 2) is very small and masked by the orange East Asian? Is it possible to obtain copies of the other 32 figures showing chromosomal matching? The issue of Katherine Brent’s parentage has been debated for so long it would be nice to have copies of the full set of DNA matching. Thanks!

  20. Pingback: 375th Anniversary Celebration of the Baptism of the Piscataway Chief Kittamaquund by Fr. Andrew White, SJ on July 5th, 1640 - Prince George's County Historical Society

    • Actually there is a Tribe, called the Cedarville Band of Piscataway. I know a few people that have tried to communicate with them. I personally spoke to the Tribes Museum Coordinator, about My lineage and was told that the Lineage has to be completely Matrilineal all the way from Mary Kittamaquund, and other folks that contacted them and was told they didn’t really want them to come to Maryland and partake in any events. If you don’t now and have always lived in Maryland, or very close don’t bother to try to sign up for any membership. The Cedarville Band is primarily a Biracial Tribe of Native American and African Descent.

  21. Thank you. This is interesting. I’m descended from Katherine Brent/Richard Marsham through their daughter, Sarah Barton (Marsham). Anyway, that’s what I got through documents, especially wills, from Sarah down to my paternal great-great grandmother, whose family was originally from Maryland. I did not know much about ancestors before Sarah Barton.

  22. After doing further research, I do not believe that Katherine, who married Richard Marsham, was Katherine Brent. The main issue is that she was not mentioned in Giles or Mary Brent’s wills, and the report on “The Legend of Katherine Brent” was convincing to me. I’ve found that wills or probate records are very helpful. There may be some matches on chromosomal analyses, but how do you exclude other possible ancestors for any matches, especially when the ancestors existed 9-11 generations ago? I am definitely an amateur, but am learning bit by bit how to find good documentation for my family tree.
    Lisa Bell

    • Lisa – while wills and probate records are very helpful, you can’t rely on wills to list all children, and just because a child is not in a will doesn’t mean the child did not exist. In many cases, older children were given bequests when they married and so not mentioned in the wills. I have birth records for ancestors (in the late 1600s) and yet they’re not mentioned in their parents wills. It doesn’t mean the children didn’t exist, only that because of prior bequests they weren’t in the wills. Just some things to consider.

      Scott

  23. i will concede this, Scott, but whether the Brents were ancestors or not, I find the Brent family’s stories pretty fascinating, espeacially Giles Sr.’s older sister, Margaret’s, story.

    I do disagree with a little of the commentary I’ve read, such as that Katherine signed her 50 acres of property over to David Bowen. That’s not what I read. Anyhow, why would she? Did Richard lose a poker game? It looks like David Bowen was a witness- a fellow ex-indentured servant, but a witness nonetheless. She signed the land over to her husband, Richard, who had accumulated about 2300 acres of land by the time he died. I suppose that this would indicate that she was no longer a minor at that time.

    Katherine did get the 50 acres (but no mule!) for serving Thomas Brooke, i.e. she was an indentured servant. Having become an amateur historian also (especially of New England), I read that most indentured servants were voluntary, in order to pay for their passage to the colonies. Sometimes the indentured were orphans, who served their ‘foster parents” until their majority. Sometimes, convicted criminals were involuntarily sent to the colonies to be indentured servants, usually for longer periods of time than the others (eg 10-14 yrs as opposed to the 3 yrs Richard Marsham did). When released, they usually got land as a type of payment for their service. The more servants a man brought with him to Virginia, the more land he was entitled to. They wanted more people each year, because the mortality rate was so high in the early years.

    So I just don’t know what to say, but Richard and Katherine, whoever they were, were successful people-who came from poor beginnings and accomplished much.

  24. FYI – the U.S. and International Marriage records on Ancestry don’t actually mean a marriage has taken place. These records, according to Ancestry, are compiled from “Original data: This unique collection of records was extracted from a variety of sources including family group sheets and electronic databases. Originally, the information was derived from an array of materials including pedigree charts, family history articles, querie”. As everyone should know, Ancestry trees are suspect at best unless you have the documentation to prove the information in the tree. So, when you find a source as U.S. and International Marriage record on Ancestry for Ancestor A who married Ancestor B, it doesn’t actually mean they married or even knew each other, only that somebody put it in their tree and Ancestry used that to create a source. This is something many people, including myself, do not (did not in my case) know, and they mistakenly assume that this source is valid and there is backup documentation. Sometimes, there is, but more often than not, there isn’t. So, before accepting as fact, do some digging. The reason I’m posting this here is due to the many people insistent that Charles Beaven married Mary Marsham and stating there is a marriage record. The only “proof” I’ve ever found is, you guessed it, the U.S. and International Marriage records reference on Ancestry.

  25. I recently had MtDNA testing results given to me from Family Tree DNA and was surprised to learn I am an:
    Exact Match

    Name:

    Most Distant Ancestor: Queen MARY Kittamaquund
    Marker Location: Maryland, USA

    While I expected native American DNA from my father’s side of the family this I did NOT. I’ve done a little research. How fascinating! Now what? This tribe has not received federal recognition. It is good to know a bit more about who I am in the natural.
    P.S. ~ Surprise!

  26. I match both kits# F170177 and #F137816 on Gedmatch. Can anyone address these kits? I only had one small segment of Native American DNA, and only knowledge of one possible Native ancestor, in the 9th generation as well, and possibly Mary Kittamaquund. I had read somewhere that she had left Giles Brent, and then because she was shut out of her own tribe, she joined with another. She may have then had a relationship with my 9th great grandfather, who was by coincidence a cousin of Giles Brent through marriage in England. I believe they had a child together, which explain a match to kits descended from Katherine Marsham……in essence a half sibling to my ancestor.

  27. Based on Roberta’s expert advice, we are adding an important initial step to this process to eliminate false positive matches. We first look for matching segments using the GEDMatch tool called “One-to-one compare” that have been inherited by three or more descendants with reliable “paper trails” leading back the families of Sarah Marsham, Katherine Marsham, Sarah Beaven, and Elizabeth Beaven. Then we examine larger triangulated matching segments (longer than 5cM and more than 500SNPs) using the GEDMatch admixture tools for the presence of matching Native American ethnicity. Since these Marsham and Beaven families are nine or more generations removed from most modern day testers, we are finding that many descendants inherited no matching segment of this size, so comparisons of the DNA of many descendants are necessary. Matching segments so far are interesting, but the distance between modern day testers and these Marsham and Beaven families may prevent definite conclusions – for now.

  28. Hello! I am wondering why you show any Warings with the Bartons in your chart containing Sarah Mary Marsham? I descend from Sarah Mary Marsham and Basil Waring (8th great grandparents). Thanks!

      • I am an inconsistent researcher. When I started I never included children that weren’t directly related to me, I also became exhausted as I went back so many generations. The Queen family tree , alone, kept me busy for months. I do have an Anne (Margaret) Waring as a 3X grandmother.

  29. I have been informed that I may be related to Princess Mary on my Grandpa Jones, my dad’s dad, but saw no Jones listed.. Can anyone help with that?

  30. Queen Mary Kittamaquund; Searching for this name, I have encountered this blog, very interesting, indeed! But, going back in just the maternal line; What is the mtDNA Haplogroup which she pertained to? Mine is L2a1c5, with only two matches at FTDNA, one being related to this historical person. I have understood that this is an African Haplogroup! And, yes, my autosomal reflects Native American, since I am Puerto Rican, nothing rare with that. What was Queen Mary Kittamaquund’s mtDNA Haplogroup?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s