Jacques “dit Beaumont” de Bonnevie, Acadian from Paris, 52 Ancestors #26

Posted on June 29, 2014 by Roberta Estes

Frère Jacques, Frère Jacques,
Dormez-vous? Dormez-vous?
Sonnez les matines, sonnez les matines
Ding ding dong, ding ding dong.

I always loved that lullaby from childhood. Brother John, Brother John, are you sleeping, are you sleeping? Morning Bells are ringing, morning bells are ringing….

I had no idea I had my own French Jacques and that the morning bells were those of Notre Dame in Paris.

Little did I know on the day I found my first Acadian ancestor what a floodgate was opening. Now, that’s both a good thing and a bad thing. Wonderful because so much research has been done on Acadian families, and terribly frustrating because in so many cases, in spite of all of that research, we still can’t get them back to France.

The families are also, in some cases, hopelessly intertwined….and I don’t even want to talk about what the autosomal DNA of these families looks like. Let’s just say that it’s not a family tree, but more line a family vine.

Jacques “dit Beaumont” de Bonnevie is an exception in that we know where he was born in France.

Before I tell you about Jacques, what little we know about him, let me thank a few people who’ve helped me immensely.

First, Paul LeBlanc, who tells me we are related in 37 different ways, is the host of the Acadian list at Rootsweb. To subscribe to this list, please send an email to ACADIAN-request@rootsweb.com with the word ‘subscribe’ without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message.

I think it was also Paul who told me that if you’re related to one Acadian, you’re related to all Acadians. I thought it was cute at the time. Little did I realize he was serious! I didn’t know, then, just how true that was!

Secondly, the research on Jacque and much of what has been done on my other Acadian ancestors was contributed by Karen Theriot Reader, a librarian and genealogist extraordinaire, focused on Acadian immigrants to Louisiana. Fortunately for me, those families all originated in Acadia, in far northeastern Canada, shown on the map below.

I am also very grateful to the administrators of DNA projects that include or focus on Acadian families.

There is the Mothers of Acadia project as well as the Amerindian Ancestor Out of Acadia project.

There are also various related projects, such as the Louisiana Creole and the French Heritage projects.

Sorting out the families and separating myth from fact has become much easier with the advent of genetic genealogy. In fact, it’s how I proved my first Acadian connection through the Lore family – but that’s a story for another time.

Dit Names

Oh yes, and there’s one more thing I’d better explain and that’s about “dit” names. Dit names, often found in French Canadian, specifically Acadian, families are nicknames, for lack of a better term, either attached to a surname or to a particular person.

Dit translates literally as “to say” so a “dit” name means “that is to say.” Sometimes dit names are location based, military based or something else that doesn’t make much sense today. For example, if the dit name is LaMontagne, or “the mountain,” does it mean the man was built like a mountain, he was of great social stature, was it that he lived near the mountain, or was it, perhaps, a joke?

As if Acadian genealogy wasn’t complex enough, ancestors can be listed under either name, or both, variously, or at the same time.

When I knew I was going to Paris in the fall of 2013, I searched through my files to see if any of my ancestors had a historical connection to Paris, and sure enough, Jacques was born there.

Jacques “dit Beaumont” de Bonnevie

Jacques was born about 1660, although some references state as late as 1678, in Paris. However, Karen Theriot Reader’s source provides proof that the 1660 date is much more accurate than later dates.

Karen provided me with the following information about Jacques and how we know he was in fact, born in Paris.

The citation from Stephen A. White is from his highly respected genealogical dictionary of Acadians. He does go into detail on the historical document which says Jacques was a “native of Paris.” It is in French in the original citation, but I have the English translation he published somewhat later. Footnote/Endnote Citation: Stephen A. White, English Supplement to the Dictionnaire généalogique des familles acadiennes (Moncton: Centre d’Études Acadiennes, 2000). Published as [vol. 3] of the Dictionnaire Généalogique des Familles Acadiennes.

He is listed as Jacques Bonnavie dit Beaumont.

Another note from Karen provides us with additional information.

Jacques BONNEVIE dit BEAUMONT, Biographical Note: 20 Dec 1732: List of the disabled retired from the French forces at Ile Royale proposed to my Lord the Compte de Maurepas to receive half-pay.

Jacques Bonnevie called Beaumont, aged seventy-two years, native of Paris, former corporal in the troops of Acadia, where he served for seventeen years. He is not in condition to serve, nor to earn his living, because of a wound to his thigh he received in the King’s service.

Document found in Stephen A. White’s Dictionnaire (French ed.): (ANF, Col, D2C, vol 47, fol 475) That would be in the Archives of New France (ANF). Also, Isle Royale is now Cape Breton Island in Canada.

Jacques died on April 23, 1733 at the Hospital de Louisbourg, Ile-Royal, Acadia.

Karen also provided from Bona Arsenault, HISTOIRE ET GENEALOGIE DES ACADIENS; 1625-1810; Ottawa, Editions Lemeac, 1978, 6 vols.; p. 438 (Port Royal); own copy:

Entry says name also BEAUMONT. Jacques was born around 1678, married around 1699 to Francoise MIUS, “doubtless” the daughter of Philippe MIUS Jr. of Pobomcoup & a “sauvagesse” Marie, whom he had married.

Karen’s tree shows the six children listed, born from 1701 through 1715. There were no births listed from 1707-1714, suggesting that at least 4 children perished.

“Sauvagesse” means Native American. Because she has a Christian name, Marie, we can rest assured that she had been baptized into the Catholic faith.

One of the daughters of Jacques dit Beaumont de Bonnevie was Marie Charlote Bonnevie, born May 12, 1706 in Port Royal, Acadia. On August 18, 1721, Marie would marry Jacques “dit LaMontagne” Lore/Lord. They are my 7G-grandparents.

DNA

Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any record that anyone by the name of Bonnevie or deBonnevie has been DNA tested, but at Family Tree DNA there are 15 individuals with the surname Beaumont who have tested. There is no Beaumont surname project, unfortunately, so I checked the French Heritage project. Unfortunately, there is only one and they are from England. At Ancestry.com, there is only one Beaumont who has tested and there is no information attached to their account. I have sent them a message, but I’m not at all convinced that my message-sending capability at Ancestry isn’t broken, considering that I haven’t received a reply from anyone in over a year.

I have a scholarship for Y DNA testing for any male who descends from this line and carries the surname, whatever it is today, Bonnevie, de Bonnevie, Beaumont, or whatever.

Renaissance Paris

I know what Paris was like in 1970 when I lived there, and what it is like today, but what was Paris like when Jacque de Bonnevie lived there as a child in the 1660s and 1670s?

Like everyplace else in Europe at that time, religion played a very big part of the lives of the populace. Paris wasn’t immune to the religious turmoil plaguing the rest of Europe after the beginning of Protestantism in 1530. This problem didn’t begin in the 1600s though, but much earlier, in the 1500s,althoug the ramifications reached forward centuries.

An ominous gulf was growing within Paris between the followers of the established Catholic church and Protestant Calvinism and Renaissance humanism. The Sorbonne and University of Paris, the major fortresses of Catholic orthodoxy, forcefully attacked the Protestant and humanist doctrines, and the scholar Etienne Dolet was burned at the stake, along with his books, on Place Maubert in 1532, on the orders of the theology faculty of the Sorbonne; but despite that, the new doctrines continued to grow in popularity, particularly among the French upper classes.

Beginning in 1562, repression and massacres of Protestants in Paris alternated with periods of tolerance and calm, during what became known as the French Wars of Religion. Paris was a stronghold of the Catholic party. On the night of 23–24 August 1572, while many prominent Protestants were in Paris on the occasion of the marriage of Henri of Navarre—the future Henry IV—to Margaret of Valois, sister of Charles IX, the royal council decided to assassinate the leaders of the protestants. The targeted killings quickly turned into a general slaughter of Protestants by Catholic mobs, known as St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre, and continued through August and September, spreading from Paris to the rest of the country. About three thousand Protestants were killed in Paris, and five to ten thousand elsewhere in France.

This painting by Francois Debois shows the massacre with Admiral Cologny’s body handing out of a window in the rear to the right. The left rear shows Catherine de’Medici emerging from the Chateau de Louvre to inspect a heap of bodies. Another drawing, below, by Frans Hogenberg, shows the massacre as well.

People left Paris in droves, about one third of the population, fearing for their safety. Many houses were destroyed during the Religious Wars and the grand projects of the Louvre, the Hôtel de Ville, and the Tuileries Palace were left unfinished.

This was a very dark time in French history.

By the middle of the 1600s, the city had recovered and new churches were being built, inspired by those of Rome. By 1650, the population had doubled and reached about 400,000. Bridges were being built to replace ferries and new construction was everyplace. The Church of Les Invalides was built between 1671 and 1678 and the College of 4 Nations from 1662-1672. New theaters were created to entertain people and the first café opened in 1686. Paris was growing and prospering. Jacque, born about 1660, would have been witness to this prosperity.

For the poor however, life was very different. They were crowded into tall, narrow, five or six story high buildings lining the winding streets on the Île de la Cité and other medieval quarters of the city. Crime in the dark streets was a serious problem. Metal lanterns were hung in the streets and the number of archers who acted as night watchmen was increased to four hundred.

Of course, we don’t know Jacque’s social or financial status – but I doubt a wealthy man would serve in the military as an enlisted man, and be shipped to Nova Scotia.

Paris in 1660

We know that Jacques was born in Paris in 1660. We know that he was in Acadia by 1699 when he married. He likely did not arrive in Acadia until he was at least age 20, so he was in Paris from at least 1660 to 1680 and possibly another 18 or 19 years.

We know that he was in the military for 17 years, and he know that he had a “dit” name that translates as “beautiful mountain.” (Thank you for the translation to Marie Rundquist.) You’ll have to pardon my wondering about how that name was bestowed up on him, and whether it was before or after he arrived in Acadia.

What was happening in Paris when Jacques lived there?

In 1660, all of Paris gathered to see the entry of King Louis the XIV. Were Jacque’s parents among the crowd? Was his mother pregnant for Jacques, or perhaps she had a newborn infant and couldn’t attend the festivities.

Here’s the Louvre, as Jacque might have seen it as a young boy, in the 1660s. In fact, he could have been one of those children playing in the street.

If, in fact, Jacques was born anyplace near the city center, he could have been baptized in Notre Dame.

Here is a painting of “Choeur de Notre Dame de Paris” from 1669.

This first map is of Paris in 1550. You can see this map in detail at this link. The detail is incredible, neighborhoods and even individual houses. Were Jacques’, and my, ancestors living here then? Is their house on the map?

The first bridge, The Pont Notre-Dame, shown on the map above, was built in 1512 and held a street and 68 houses.

Here’s a perspective view of Paris from 1607. Notice that there were many churches.

The island at the city center is quite visible and so are the walls, although it’s evident that there is already some constructions and people living outside the walls. If Jacques was born in 1660, this would have been the Paris of his grandparents.

This 1660 map shows not only the city, but the dress of Parisians at that time as well. This would have been what his parents wore or saw people around them wearing.

In 1670, King Louis ordered the destruction of the city walls, feeling they were no longer necessary. This 1705 map shows the location of the old walls and the new construction outside the walls. Did Jacque watch the old walls being torn down? Might he have helped? He would have been a strapping man of about 20, in his physical prime.

Jacques would have watched the construction of Les Invalides, above, from 1662-1672.

We don’t know when Jacques left Paris, but we do know he was in “His Majesty’s Service” for 17 years, and it’s very likely that he arrived in the New World as a soldier. Life would have been dramatically different for Jacques, moving from Paris to, comparatively, a wilderness.

We also know he was wounded in the thigh, but we don’t know how or when that injury occurred although it would have not been before his arrival in Acadia. It could well have been in 1710 in the Siege of Port Royal when the British took Port Royal, renaming it Annapolis Royal.

His 17 years in service could have ended shortly after his arrival in Nova Scotia. If he enlisted when he was age 20 in 1680, his 17 years of service would have ended in 1697, for example. However, the wording in his pension application says specifically that he served as a “former corporal in the troops of Acadia, where he served for seventeen years.” If he served in Acadia for 17 years, then his retirement was probably about 1715 or so. It certainly was not after 1716 if he married in Port Royal about 1799. His retirement could have been earlier than 1716.

It’s likely that Jacques was involved with the building of the fort at Port Royal. With the outbreak of the War of the Spanish Succession in 1702, colonists on both sides again prepared for conflict. Acadia’s governor, Jacques-François de Monbeton de Brouillan, had, in anticipation of war, already begun construction of a stone and earth fort in 1701, shown below, which was largely completed by 1704.

Fort Royal was defended by about 300 troops, many of whom were poorly trained recruits from France. We don’t know when Jacques was injured, but to entirely disable him, it must have been severe. In 1710, the French lost both Fort Royal and Port Royal. The painting below shows the evacuation of the fort. Whether Jacques was still in the military at this time, or not, he surely was involved in many ways during this decade of instability.

Did he and his wife worry constantly about an impending attack? Did they finally decide that it was never coming, and relax, only to be surprised? How did they cope with living under constant threat? Life apparently went on, because several of their children were born during this decade.

Jacques would have been 50 years old in 1710 when Fort Royal was taken by the British. He requested a half-pay pension on December 20, 1732, at age 72, and subsequently died on April 23, 1733.

Maybe it’s a good thing he died when he did and didn’t live another 22 years to see his children and their families uprooted and forcibly deported from Acadia in the 1755 event known as “Le Grand Derangement.”

Jacques saw a lot in his lifetime. The rebuilding and expansion of the City of Paris, the removal of the medieval city walls, a transatlantic crossing, the fort at Port Royal and the loss of Port Royal to the British in 1710 when he had young children to protect. He was likely involved in battles, or at least one battle, and was severely wounded. He would have watched his children become adults and marry as the fort area expanded. Still, his children were close by. In 1732, probably as he was becoming feeble and unable to care for himself, he asked for a half-pay pension for his 17 years of service, passing away only four months later..

I wonder if he agreed to go to Acadia (Canada) with the expectation that he would never return home to France, or if the company of French/Indian Francoise Mius changed his mind and was the reason he remained. We have no records from Paris, but his age at the time he married Francoise, nearly 40 years old, suggests that he might have had a family in France at one time as well. Perhaps they perished and he went to Acadia to begin anew.

We are very fortunate to know as much as we do about Jacques “dit Beaumont” de Bonnevie. Like all genealogists, I’d love to know more. I’d also love to test the DNA of a Bonnevie male descendant, if there are any. If you are a male Bonnevie and descend from this line, I have a DNA scholarship waiting just for you!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

I receive a small contribution when you click on some of the links to vendors in my articles. This does NOT increase the price you pay but helps me to keep the lights on and this informational blog free for everyone. Please click on the links in the articles or to the vendors below if you are purchasing products or DNA testing.

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

WikiTree Announces DNA Ancestor Confirmation Aid

Posted on June 26, 2014 by Roberta Estes

The following press release was provided by WikiTree. I was pleased to be able to preview the new DNA Ancestor Confirmation Aid. If people will actually use WikiTree for their ancestors, and enter their DNA information, especially in mitochondrial lines where there is no common surname to follow…this new tool holds a great deal of promise. WikiTree didn’t develop this tool in a vacuum. Genetic genealogist Peter Roberts, project administrator of the Bahamas DNA Project, has been involved along the way, providing invaluable insight as to what the genetic genealogy community needs, and how to go about providing those tools and services.

Great job WikiTree!

Take a look and a test drive…

Fourteen years ago, on 26 June 2000, it was announced that the first draft of the entire human genome had been completed. UK Prime Minister Tony Blair commented that “every so often in the history of human endeavor there comes a breakthrough that takes humankind across a frontier and into a new era. … I believe that today’s announcement is such a breakthrough …”.

The sweeping impact of a map of the human genome is still unfolding in science, medicine, and many other fields. One of these fields is genealogy. DNA testing for genealogy has been advancing rapidly — becoming more reliable, more informative, and less expensive.

Parallel to this, progress on a single family tree for humanity has been advancing rapidly thanks to Internet “crowdsourcing.” Genealogists are pooling their research and collaborating on websites such as WikiTree.com. Until now, this family tree collaboration has been based primarily on research in public records and information handed down through families.

The combination of DNA testing and a collaborative worldwide family tree is enabling something that most genealogists never expected: scientific confirmation of their genealogy.

Today WikiTree is announcing the DNA Ancestor Confirmation Aid, a tool to help genealogists confirm their ancestry. Because of the broad-based collaboration on WikiTree and the fact that the Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA is passed down relatively unchanged for many generations in known inheritance patterns, a DNA test taken by one genealogist can aid the research of many distant cousins. In turn, the research of one genealogist can dramatically expand the utility of other people’s DNA tests.

The DNA Ancestor Confirmation Aid shows step-by-step how to confirm father-son and mother-child relationships in a family tree. It enables genealogists to discover if any other descendants of their ancestors have already taken DNA tests — something becoming more common as the cost of testing goes down and as ancestries become more deeply interconnected. When there’s an opportunity for confirmation by comparing test results, there are direct comparison links. When additional testing needs to be taken for confirmation, it links to potential test-takers.

The DNA Ancestor Confirmation Aid is intended to help genealogists of all levels, including those who are completely new to DNA testing. More experienced genetic genealogists will also find benefits. Roberta Estes of DNAeXplain says, “this is particularly useful for mitochondrial DNA because there is no other ‘connecting’ mechanism. I’m sure that many of my ancestor’s mitochondrial DNA is represented in the thousands of people who have tested — but until now — there was no way to find them, since the surnames may have changed a dozen times since our shared ancestor.”

Nathan J. Bowen, PhD, genome scientist at the Center for Cancer Research and Therapeutic Development at Clark Atlanta University, sees potential long-term benefits we can all share: “The release of the working draft of the human genome 14 years ago was a huge moment, democratizing the use of the sequence for everyone, not just corporations with private databases. Now genealogists at WikiTree are building a public family tree for humanity, confirmed with DNA. Ultimately this may reveal patterns of human migration, inheritance and disease that return significant benefits for science and medicine.”

About WikiTree

Growing since 2008, WikiTree.com is a 100% free shared family tree website. Community members privately collaborate with close family members on modern family history and publicly collaborate with other genealogists on deep ancestry. Since all the private and public profiles are connected on the same system this process is helping to grow a single, worldwide family tree that will eventually connect us all and thereby make it free and easy for anyone to discover their roots. See http://www.WikiTree.com.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Big Y DNA Results Divide and Unite Haplogroup Q Native Americans

Posted on June 25, 2014 by Roberta Estes

One of my long standing goals has been to resurrect the lost heritage of the Native American people. By this I mean, primarily, for genealogists who search for and can’t find their Native ancestors. My blog, www.nativeheritageproject.com, is one of the ways that I contribute towards that end. Many times, records are buried, don’t exist at all, or don’t reflect anything about Native heritage. While documents can be somewhat evasive and frustratingly vague, the Y DNA of the male descendants is not. It’s rock solid.

The Native communities became admixed beginning with the first visits of Europeans to what would become the Americas. Native people accepted mixed race individuals as full tribal members, based on the ethnicity of the mother. Adoption also played a key role. If a female, the mother, was an adopted white child, the mother was considered to be fully Native, as was her child, regardless of the ethnicity of the father.

Therefore, some people who test their DNA expecting to find Native genetics do not – they instead find European or African – but that alone does not mean that their ancestors were not tribal members. It means that these individuals have to rely on non-genetic records to prove their ancestors Native heritage – or they need to test a different line – like the descendants of the mother, through all females, for example, for mitochondrial DNA.

On the other hand, some people are quite surprised when their DNA results come back as Native. Many have heard a vague story, but often, they don’t have a clue as to which genealogical line, if any, the Native ancestry originated. Native ancestry was often hidden because the laws that prevailed at the time sanctioned discrimination of many kinds against people “of color,” and if you weren’t entirely of European origin, you were “of color.” Many admixed people, as soon as they could, “became” white socially and never looked back. Not until recently, the late 20^th century, when discrimination had for the most part become a thing of the past and one could embrace their Native or African heritage without fear of legal or social reprisal.

Back in December of 2010, we found the defining SNP that divided haplogroup Q between Europeans and Native Americans. At the time, this was a huge step forward, a collaboration between testing participants, haplogroup administrators, citizen scientists and Family Tree DNA.

This allowed us to determine who was, and was not included in Native American haplogroups, but it was also the tip of the iceberg. You can see below just how much the tree has expanded and its branches have been shuffled. This is a big part of the reason for the change from haplogroup names like Q1a3 to Q-M346. For example, at one time or another the SNP M3 was associated with haplogroup names Q1a3a, Q1a3a1 and Q1a3a1a. On the ISOGG tree below, today M3 is associated with Q1a2a1a1.

The new Family Tree DNA 2014 tree is shown below for one of the Big Y participants whose terminal SNP is L568, found beneath SNP CTS1780 which is found beneath L4, which is beneath L213 which is beneath L474 which is beneath MEH2 which is beneath L232 which is, finally, beneath M242.

The introduction of the Big Y product from Family Tree DNA, which sequences a large portion of the Y chromosome, provided us with the opportunity to make huge strides in unraveling and deciphering the haplogroup Q (and C, the other male Native haplogroup in the Americas) tree. I am hopeful that in time, and with enough people taking the Big Y test, that we will one day be able to at least sort participants into language and perhaps migration groups.

In November, 2013, we asked for the public and testers to support our call for funds to be able to order several Big Y tests. The project administrators intentionally did not order tests in family groups, but attempted to scatter the tests to the far corners, so to speak, and to include at least one person from each disparate group we have in the haplogroup Q project, based on STR matches, or lack thereof, and previous SNP testing.

Thanks to the generosity of contributors, we were able to order several tests. In addition, some participants were able to order their own tests, and did. Thank you one and all.

The tests are back now, and with the new Big Y SNP matching, recently introduced by Family Tree DNA, comparisons are a LOT easier.

So, of course, I had to see what I could find by comparing the SNP results of the several gentlemen who tested.

To protect the privacy of everyone involved, I have reduced their names to initials. I have included their terminal SNP as identified at Family Tree DNA as well as any tribal, ethnic or location information we have available for their most distant paternal ancestor.

There are two individuals who believe their ancestors are from Europe, and there is a very large group of European haplogroup Q members, but I’m not convinced that the actual biological ancestors of these two gentlemen are from Europe. I have included both of these individuals as well. Let’s just say the jury is still out. As a control, I have also included a gentleman who actually lives in Poland.

Of the individuals above, SD, CT and CM are SNP matches.

CD, WJS and WBS are SNP matches with each other.

BG and ETW are also SNP matches to each other.

None of the rest of these individuals have SNP matches. (Note, you can click to enlarge the chart.)

In the table above, the Non-Matching Known SNPs are shown with the number of Shared Novel Variants. For example, SD and CT have 4 non-matching SNPS and share 161 Novel Variants and are noted as 4/161.

We can easily tell which of the known SNPs are nonmatching, because they are shown on the participants match page.

What we don’t know, and can’t tell, is how many Novel Variants these people share with each other, and how many they might share with the individuals that aren’t shown as matches.

Keep in mind that there may be individuals here that are not shown as matches to due no-calls. Only people with up to and including 4 non-matching Known SNPs are counted as matches. If you have the wrong combination of no-calls, or, aren’t in the same terminal haplogroup, you may not be shown as a match when you otherwise would be.

The other reason for my intense interest in the Novel Variants is to see if they are actually Novel, as in found only in a few people, or if they are more widespread.

I downloaded each person’s Novel Variants through the Export Utility (blue button to the right at the top of your personal page,) and combined the Novel Variants into a single spreadsheet. I colorized each person’s result rows so that they would be easy to track. I have redacted their names. The white row, below, is the individual who lives in Poland.

There are a total of 3506 Novel Variants between these men. When sorting, many clustered as you would expect. There is the Algonguian group and what I’ve taken to calling the Borderlands group. This group has someone whose ancestor was born in VA and two in SC. I have documentation for the Virginia family having descendants in SC, so that makes sense. The third group is an unusual combination of the gentleman who believes his ancestors are from Germany and the gentleman whose ancestors are found in a New Mexico Pueblo tribe, but whose ancestor was, likely, based on church records, a detribalized Plains Indian who had been kidnapped and sold.

Clusters that I felt needed some scrutiny, for one reason or another, I highlighted in yellow in the Terminal SNP column. Obviously the Polish/Pueblo matching needs some attention.

Another very interesting type of match are several where either all or nearly all of the individuals share a Novel Variant – 15 or 16 of 16 total participants. I don’t think these will remain Novel Variants very long. They clearly need to be classified as SNPs. I’m not sure about the process that Family Tree DNA will use to do this, but I’ll be finding out shortly.

Here’s an example where everyone shares this Novel Variant at location 7688075,except the gentleman who lives in Poland, the man who believes his ancestor is from Germany, and the Creek descendant.

I was very surprised at how many Novel Variants appear in all 16 results of the participants, including the gentleman who lives in Poland – represented by the white row below.

So, how were the Novel Variants distributed?

Category	# of Variants	Comments
Algonquian Group	140	This is to be expected since it’s within a specific group. Any matches that include people outside the 3 Algonquian individuals are counted in a separate category. These matches give us the ability to classify anyone who tests with these marker results as provisionally Algonquian.
Borderlands	83	This confirms that these three individuals are indeed a “group” of some sort. This also gives us the ability to classify future participants using these mutations.
All or Nearly All – 15 or 16 Participants	80	These are clearly candidates for SNPs, and, given that they are found in the Native and the European groups, they appear to predate the division of haplogroup Q.
Several Native and European, Combined	45	This may or may not include the person who lives in Poland. This group needs additional scrutiny to determine if it actually does exist in Europe, but given that there are more than 3 individuals with each of these Novel Variants, they need to be considered for SNPhood.
Pueblo/NC	1
Poland/Borderlands	2
Mexico/Algonquian	2
German/Pueblo	9	I wonder if this person is actually German.
Poland/Mexico	20	I wonder if this person’s ancestors are actually from Poland.
Algonquian, NC, Creek	1
Borderland, Mexico, Creek	1
Algonquian/Cherokee	1
All Native, no Euro	2
Algonquian, Borderlands, Mexico, NC	1
Algonquian, Mexico, Borderlands	1
Borderlands, Pueblo	1
Borderlands, Creek, NC	1
Algonquian, Cherokee, Mexico	3
Algonquian, Pueblo, Creek, Borderlands	1
Cherokee, NC	2
Algonquian, Borderlands	2
Borderlands, NC	1
Algonquian, NC	1
Polish/NC	10

Some of this distribution makes me question if these SNP mutations truly are a “once in the history of mankind” kind of thing. For example, how did the same SNP appear in the Polish person and the NC person, or the Pueblo person, and not in the rest of the Native people?

New SNPs?

So, are you sitting down?

Based on these numbers, it looks like we have at least 125 new SNP candidates for haplogroup Q. If we count the Algonquian and the Borderlands groups of matches, that number rises to about 250. This is very exciting. Far, far more than I ever expected. of these SNPS, about half will identify Native people, even Native groupings of people. This is a huge step forward, a red letter day for Native American ancestry!

SNPs and STRs

Lastly, I wanted to see how the SNP matching compared to STR matching, or if it did at all, for these men.

Only two men match each other on any STR markers. CD and WJS matched on 12 markers, but not on higher panels. The TIP calculator estimated their common ancestor at the 50^th percentile to be 17 generations, or between 425 and 510 years ago. We all know how unrealistic it is to depend on the TIP calculator, but it’s the only tool we have in situations like this.

Given that these are the only two men who do match on STR markers, albeit distantly, in a genealogical timeframe, let’s see what the estimates using the 150 years per SNP mutation comes up with. This estimate is just that, devised by the haplogroup R-U106 project administrators, and others, based on their project findings. 150 years is actually the high end of the estimate, 98 being the lower end. Of course, different haplogroups may vary and these results are very early. Just saying.

CD has 207 high quality Novel Variants. He shares 188 of those with WJS, leaving 19 unshared Novel Variants. Utilizing this number, and multiplying by 150, this suggests that, if the 150 years per SNP is anyplace close to accurate, their common ancestor lived about 2850 years ago. If you presume that both men are incurring mutations at the same rate in their independent lines, then you would divide the number of years in half, so the common ancestor would be more likely 1425 years ago. If you use 100 years instead of 150, the higher number of years is 1900 and the half number is about 950 years.

It’s fun to speculate a bit, but until a lot more study has occurred, we won’t be able to reasonably estimate SNP age or age to common ancestor from this information. Having said all of that, it’s not a long stretch from 710 years to 950 years.

It looks like STR markers are still the way to go for genealogical matching and that SNPS may help to pull together the deeper ancestry, migration patterns and perhaps define family lines. I hope the day comes soon that I can order the Big Y for lots more project members. Most of these men do have STR marker matches, and to men with both the same and different surnames. I’d love to see the Big Y results for those individuals who match more closely in time.

This is still the tip of the iceberg. There is a lot left to discover! If you or a family member have haplogroup Q results, please consider ordering the Big Y. It would make a wonderful gift and a great way to honor your ancestors!

You can also contribute to the American Indian project at this link:

https://www.familytreedna.com/group-general-fund-contribution.aspx?g=AIP

In order to donate to the haplogroup C-P39 project which also includes Native Americans, please click this link:

http://www.familytreedna.com/group-general-fund-contribution.aspx?g=Y-DNAC-P39

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Big Y Matching

Posted on June 24, 2014 by Roberta Estes

A few days ago, Family Tree DNA announced and implemented Big Y Matching between participants who have taken the Big Y test.

This is certainly welcome news. Let’s take a look at Big Y matching, what it means and how to utilize the features.

First, there are really two different groups of people who will benefit from the Big Y tests.

People trying to sort through lines of a common and related surname – like the McDonald or Campbell families, for example – and haplogroup researchers and project administrators.

My own family, for example, is badly brick walled with Charles Campbell first found in Hawkins County, TN in the 1780s. We know, via STR testing that indeed, he matches the Campbell Clan from Scotland, but we have no idea who is father might have been. STR testing hasn’t been definitive enough on Charles’ two known sons’ descendants, so I’m very hopeful that someday enough Campbell men will test that we’ll be able between STR and SNP mutations to at least narrow the possible family lines. If I’m incredibly lucky, maybe there will be a family line SNP (Novel Variant) and it won’t just narrow the line, it will give me a long-awaited answer by genetically announcing which line was his. Could I be that lucky??? That’s like winning the genetic genealogy lottery!

For today, the Big Y test at $695 is expensive to run on an entire project of people, not to mention that many of the original participants in projects, the long-time hard-core genealogists, have since passed away. We are now into our 15^th years of genetic genealogy.

For those studying haplogroups, the Big Y is a huge sandbox and those researchers have lost no time whatsoever comparing various individuals’ SNPS, both known and novel, and creating haplogroup trees of those SNPs. This is done by hand today, or maybe more accurately stated, by Excel. This is “not fun” to put it mildly. We owe these folks a huge debt of gratitude. Their results are curated and posted, provisionally, on the ISOGG Tree.

There is an in-between group as well, and those are people who are working to establish relationships between people of different surnames. In my case, Native American ancestors whose descendants have different surnames today, but who do share a common ancestor in some timeframe. That timeframe of course could be anyplace from a couple hundred to several thousand years, since their entry into the Americas across Beringia someplace in the neighborhood of 12-15 thousand years ago.

The Big Y matching is extremely helpful to projects.

Let’s take a look.

Big Y Matches

On your personal page, under “Other Results,” you’ll see the Big Y results. Click on Results” and you’ll see the following page.

The Known SNPs and Novel Variants tabs have been there since release, but the Matching tab, top left, is new.

By clicking on the Matching tab, you will then see the men you match based on your terminal SNP as determined in the Big Y Known SNPs data base. You will be matched to men who carry up to and including 4 mutations difference in known SNPs, and unlimited novel variant differences. If you have a zero in the “Known SNP Difference” column, that means you have no differences at all in known SNPs.

The individual being used for an example here has paternal ancestry from Hungary. His terminal SNP is reported as R-CTS11962. Therefore, all of the people he matches should also carry this same SNP as their terminal SNP.

This is actually quite interesting, because of his 10 exact matches, 9 of them have surnames or genealogy that suggests eastern European/Slavic ancestry. The 10^th, however, which happens to be his closest match, carries an English surname and reports their ancestor to be from Yorkshire, England. His one mutation differences carry the same pattern, with one being from England and two of the other three from eastern Europe.

Our participant has 155 total Novel Variants, 135 high quality and 20 medium quality. Only high quality are listed in the comparison. Medium quality are not.

Ancestral Location	Known SNP Difference	Shared Novel Variants	Non Matching Known SNPs
Yorkshire, England	0	134	None
Prussia	0	127	None
Ukraine	0	121	None
Poland	0	121	None
Belarus	0	119	None
Poland	0	116	None
Poland	0	116	None
Russian e-mail	0	113	None
Bulgaria	0	113	None
Slovakia	0	111	None
English surname	1	126	PF6085
Undetermined, poss German	1	121	F1816
Poland	1	118	F552
Poland	1	116	CTS10137
Prussia	2	122	CTS11840 PF4522
Poland	2	112	L1029 PR6932
Russia	3	116	CTS3184 L1029 PF3643
Poland	3	106	CTS11962 L1029 L260
Ukraine	3	105	CTS11962 L1029 L260
Poland	3	104	CTS11962 L1029 L260
Poland	3	100	CTS11962 L1029 L260
Poland	3	99	CTS11962 L1029 L260
Eastern European surname	3	98	CTS11962 L1029 L260
Poland/Germany	3	97	CTS11962 L1029 L260
Austria/Galacia	3	93	CTS11962 L1029 L260
Poland	4	97	CTS11562 CTS11962 L1029 L260

It’s also very interesting to note that his non-matching known SNPs tend to cluster. Non-matching known SNPs can go in either direction – meaning that they could be absent in our participant and present in the rest, or vice versa.

It’s easy to tell. In the Big Y Results, under Known SNPs, there is a search feature. This means that it’s easy to search for SNPs and to determine their status. For example, above, our participant does carry SNP L1029 (he’s derived or positive (+) for the mutation in question). This means that our participant has developed L1029, and, it just so happens, also CTS11962 and L260, the three clustered SNPs, since these men shared a common ancestor.

It’s difficult not to speculate a little. If the TMCRA Big Y SNP estimates are correct, this suggests that these 3 clustered SNPS occurred someplace between 4350 and about 5000 years ago, based on the range (93-106) of the number of high quality novel variant differences. We’ll talk more about this in a minute.

For SNP F552, our participant is negative, meaning that that other person has developed this SNP since their shared ancestor. In fact, he’s negative for all of the other Known SNP differences.

Novel Variants

The Novel Variants are quite interesting. Novel Variants are mutations that if found in enough people who are not related within a family group will someday become SNPs on the tree. Think of them as ripening SNPs.

By clicking on the “Show All” dropdown box you can see the list of the participants novel variants and how many of his matches share that Novel Variant.

In this example, all 26 of our participant’s novel variants share 13142597. I’m thinking that this Novel Variant will someday become classified as a SNP and not as a Novel Variant anymore. When that happens, and no, we don’t know how often Family Tree DNA will be reviewing the Novel Variants for SNP candidates, it will no longer be in the Novel Variant list. The Novel Variants are meant to be family, novel or lineage SNPs, not population based SNPS that apply to a wide variety of people. Finding these, of course, and adding them to the human haplotree is the entire purpose of full sequence Y chromosomal testing. Just look at tall of this new information about this man’s ancestors and the DNA that they passed on to this gentleman.

By scrolling down to the bottom of that list, we find that our participant has 8 different Novel Variants where he matches only one individual. By clicking on the Novel Variant number, you can see who he matches. Of those 8, 7 of them match to the man who carries the English surname and one matches to a gentleman from Prussia.

This information is extremely interesting, but it gets even more interesting when compared against STR matches. Our participant has a fairly unusual haplotype above 12 markers. He has three 67 marker matches, two 37 marker matches and thirty-three 25 marker matches. None of the men he matches on the SNP test match him on any of those tests. I did not check his 12 marker matches, because I felt that anyone who would invest the money in the Big Y would certainly have tested above 12 markers plus our participants has several hundred 12 marker matches.

The numbers being bantered around by people working with SNP information suggest that one Big Y mutation equals about 150 years. If this is true, then his closest match, the English gentleman from Yorkshire, England would share an ancestor about 2850 years ago. That is clearly beyond the reach of STR markers in terms of generational predictions, so maybe STR matches are not expected in this situation, IF, the 150 year per novel variant estimate is close to accurate.

Another interesting piece of information that can be deduced from this information is how many SNPs were actually found.

At the bottom of our participants page, under Known SNPs, it says “Showing 24 of…571 entries (filtered from 36,274 total entries.)” We know that the entire data base of SNPs that Family Tree is utilizing, which includes but is not limited to the 12,000+ Geno 2.0 SNPs, is 36,274. In other words, 36,274 are the number of SNPs available to be found and counted as a SNP because they have already been defined as such. Any other SNPs discovered are counted as Novel Variants.

Not all available SNPs are found and read in this type of next generation test. The number of “Matching SNPs” with each individual gives us an idea of how many SNPs actually were found and read at either a medium and high confidence level. Low confidence SNPs and no-calls are eliminated from reporting.

Our participants best match matches him on 25,397 SNPs. This leaves a total of 10,877 SNPs that were not called.

The Future

SNP Matching is a wonderful feature and a first in this industry. A hearty thank you to Family Tree DNA!

However, like all passionate people, we are already looking ahead to see what can be and should be done.

Here are some suggestions and questions I have about how the future will unwrap relative to Big Y SNP testing and matching.

Within surname projects, matching should be relatively easy, unless hundreds of people test. I would be happy to have that problem. Today, administrators are creating spreadsheets of matches and novel SNPs and attempting to “reverse engineer” trees. In family groups, those trees would be of Novel SNPs, and in haplogroup projects, those trees would be of both Known SNPs and Novel Variants and where the Novel SNPS slip in-between the known SNPs to create new branches and sub-branches of the haplotree. We, as a community, need some tools to assist in this endeavor, for both the surname project admin and the haplogroup project admin as well.
As new SNPs are discovered in the future, one will not be retested on this platform. As new SNPs are added to the tree, this could affect the matching by terminal SNP. Family Tree DNA needs to be prepared to deal with this eventuality.
As a community, we desperately need a better tool to determine our actual “terminal SNP” as opposed to the Geno 2.0 terminal SNP. Yes, I know the ISOGG tree is provisional, but the contributed tools initially provided by volunteers to search the ISOGG tree utilizing the known SNPs reported in Big Y no longer work. We desperately need something similar while Family Tree DNA is revamping its own tree. I would hope that Family Tree DNA could add something like a secondary “search ISOGG tree” function as a customer courtesy, even if it needs some disclaimer verbiage as to the provisional nature of the tree.
With the number of SNPs being searched for and reported, no calls begin to become an issue, especially if the no-call happens to be on the terminal SNP. We need to be able to determine whether a non-match with someone is actually a non-match or could be as a result of a no-call, and without resorting to searching raw data files. Today, participants can order a SNP test of a SNP position that has been reported as a no-call, but one needs to first figure that out that it is a no-call by looking at the BAM and BED files, something that is beyond the capability of most genetic genealogists. Furthermore, in the case of a “suspicious” no-call, where, for example, individuals in the same surname project with the same surname and other matching SNPS and STRs, some type of “smart-matching” needs to be put into place to alert the participant and project admin of this situation so that they can decide up on a proper course of action. In other words, no-calls need to be reported and accounted for in some fashion, as they are important data points for the genetic genealogist.

I am extremely grateful to Family Tree DNA for their efforts and for Big Y matching. After all, matching is the backbone of genetic genealogy. This list is not a complaint list, in any sense. Family Tree DNA has a very long history of being responsive to their client base and I fully expect they will do the same with the next step in the Big Y journey.

The story of our DNA is not yet told. Where our STR matches are found and where our SNP matches are found tells the story of the migration of our ancestors. Today, SNPs and STRs promise to overlap, and already have in some cases. If I could, I would order a Big Y test for every individual that I sponsor and for every person in each of my projects. I feel that these tests, combined, will help immensely to complete the puzzle to which we have disparate pieces today. I look forward to the day when the time to the most recent common ancestor can be calculated by utilizing the Y STR markers, the known SNPs and the Novel Variants. In a very large sense, the future has arrived today. Now, we just have to test and figure out how all of the puzzle pieces fit together.

If you haven’t yet ordered a Big Y, you can order here. The more people who test, the larger the comparison data base, and the sooner we will all have the answers we seek.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Haplogroups, SNPs and Family Group Confusion

Posted on June 23, 2014 by Roberta Estes

The transition at Family Tree DNA from the old haplogroup naming convention to the new SNP-only naming convention has generated a great deal of confusion. It’s like surgery – had to be done – but it has been painful.

I’ve received several questions, many that are similar, so I’d like to attempt to resolve some of the confusing points here.

First, just a little background.

Ancient History

Remember, in 2008, when Michael Hammer et al rewrote the Y tree? If you do, then count yourself as an old-timer. Names such as R1b1c became R1b1a2. E3a became E1b1a and E3b became E1b1b1. We thought we were all going to die. But we didn’t – and now, if I hadn’t just told you, you wouldn’t even be able to remember the previous name of R1b1a2.

Why did this happen? Because when you have a step-wise tree where each step is given a number and letter, like this, you have no room for expansion.

R1a

R1a1

Each of these haplogroup names is assigned a SNP, and when a new SNP is discovered between R and R1, for example, the name R1 gets assigned to the new SNP and everyone downstream gets renamed and/or a new SNP assigned. If you think this is confusing, it is and was – terribly so. In fact, as testimony to this, the last version of the FTDNA tree, the ISOGG tree and the tree used by 23andMe are entirely out of sync with each other.

With the shift from about 800 SNPs to 12,000 SNPs with the Geno2.0 chip, it was definitely time to redo and rethink how haplogroup names are assigned. What seemed initially like a great idea turned out not to be when the magnitude of the number of SNPs that actually exist was realized. In reality, they needed to be obsoleted, but the familiar cadence of the letter number path will forever be gone – with the exception of the fact that the SNP is prefaced with the haplogroup name. We will no longer have our signposts, sadly, but our signposts were becoming overwhelmingly long. Here’s one example I copied from the ISOGG tree. R1b1a2a1a1c2b2a1a1b2a1a – seriously – I can’t remember that.

So, today, and forever more, R1b1a2 will be R-M269. It will not be shifted or “become” anything else. Moving a SNP to a new location becomes painless, because it will not affect anything upstream or downstream.

However, as you get use to this new beast, you’re going to want to refer to “what something was” before. You’ll find that articles, papers and who knows what else will refer to the haplogroup name – and you’ll need a conversion reference.

Here’s a link to that reference. I don’t know about you, but I copied this and created a .pdf file in case this reference disappears – not that that ever happens in the electronic world.

Why the Confusion?

Within projects, men with the same surname now have different haplogroups assigned, and the SNP names look entirely different. Before, if most of the surname group was R1b1a2, and one person had SNP tested at a deeper level and showed R1b1a2a1a1b4, it was easy to tell by looking that R1b1a2a1a1b4 fell underneath R1b1a2, and was a subclade. Today, with the new tree, everyone that was R1b1a2 is now shown as R-M269 and the lone R1b1a2a1a1b4 person is shown as R-L21. You can’t tell by looking if R-L21 is a subclade of R-M269 or the other way around. And another few SNP tests at different levels into the mix, and you have one confused administrator.

One thing hasn’t changed. Notice the haplogroup I-M253 individual in the purple group below. There is a note that their parentage is uncertain. Given the completely different haplogroup – this individual does not fit into any groups of Estes males biologically. So completely different haplogroups are still exclusive, meaning you can tell at a glance that these folks do not share a common ancestor, even though their genealogy says that they should.

Ok, got that now? Good, because it gets more confusing.

Family Tree DNA did not do a one to one conversion, meaning they did not create a conversion table where R1b1a2=R-M269. They did an entirely new prediction routine. This makes sense, because they don’t hard code the haplogroup – it’s fluid and based on either a hard and fast SNP test or a prediction routine. This also allows for easy future improvements, and they utilize 37 markers for haplogroup predictions now instead of just 12, in most cases.

Unfortunately, or fortunately, the prediction routine produces different results for people within the same family group, based on STR marker results and how many STRs are tested.

What this means is that different people in the same family line will have different haplogroup predictions, as you can see in the groups above of individuals all descended from one male, Abraham Estes.

This isn’t wrong, as in incorrect, but it is confusing, especially when you’re used to seeing everyone who has not been SNP tested have a matching haplogroup within families.

Enter the Terminal SNP

The terminal SNP is your SNP that is furthest down the tree based on the SNPs that you have tested. That second part is really important – based on the SNPs that you have tested.

When you’re looking at your matches, you can see their terminal SNP in the column below to the right, but what you can’t tell is if they have tested for any downstream SNPs and were found negative.

For example, if you are tested positive for R-M269 (formerly R1b1a2) and someone else that you match is R-L21, which is downstream of R-M269 – this does not exclude them as valid matches, UNLESS the first R-M269+ gentleman has actually tested for R-L21 and is negative. You, of course, have no way of knowing this without asking the other participant.

Also, testing “negative” is a bit subjective, because there are known no-calls in the Geno 2.0 results – so if the Geno 2.0 result did not include the terminal haplogroup you expected, and the outcome is truly important to you, meaning family defining – have that defining SNP, if it’s absent in the Geno 2.0 raw data results, tested individually through regular Sanger sequencing – meaning purchase it separately through Family Tree DNA. A non-positive result in the Geno 2.0 results is typically interpreted to mean negative, but that is not always the case. In most situations, if everything else matches, meaning surname, STRs and other SNPs, it’s not necessary to test the SNP separately – but it is available if you need to know, positively.

Secondly, the terminal SNP on the new Family Tree DNA haplotree and in your results, if you have taken the Big Y, the Walk Through the Y or purchased individuals SNPs, may be different. Why, and how would you know?

The why is because Family Tree DNA has synced to the Geno 2.0 tree at this point, and there have been many new SNPs discovered since the Geno 2.0 tree was developed in 2012. The ISOGG tree is more current, but keep in mind that it is a provisional tree. However, you still need to have a way to determine your terminal SNP beyond the Geno 2.0 criteria if you have had advanced testing.

There were originally some tools created by individuals to help with this dilemma, but both tools appear to no longer work. Kitty Cooper blogged about this, and was apparently recently successful, but I was not. I downloaded the updated version of the Big Y Chromosome extension that I wrote about and was using the Morley tree but that no longer functions either. Let’s just say that the word frustrated doesn’t even begin to apply….

My suggestion is to work closely with your haplogroup and surname project administrator(s). Many of the administrators have put together provisional charts and the haplogroup project pages are grouped by SNP groupings with suggestions for additional relevant testing.

The U106 project is a great example of proactive administrators. Individual participants are clearly categorized and the categories suggest an appropriate “next step.” Looking at their home page, the administrators make themselves readily available to project members for consulting about how to proceed.

Yes, all of this change is a bit fuzzy right now, but give it a bit of time and the fog will clear. It did in 2008 and we all survived.

Tree Updates

Family Tree DNA has committed to at least one more tree update this year, and let’s hope that it includes all of the SNPs in the reference data base they are using for the Big Y.

I’ll be talking about Big Y comparisons in a future article.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Ancestry Kit Mixup

Posted on June 13, 2014 by Roberta Estes

Every genealogists worst nightmare. A DNA kit swap. You unknowingly receive the results from someone else, and that equally in-the-dark unknown person receives yours. And you’ll never know unless you recognize the signs and take action to see if it’s your bad luck or overactive imagination, or the answer really is a kit swap or lab error of some sort.

I’ve just spent three months unraveling this exact situation that occurred at Ancestry.com. The person to whom this happened would like to share her story with you. We are hoping that if something similar ever happens to you, that you’ll be able to recognize the signs and know what steps to take to figure out if this indeed has occurred.

Let me also say that a kit swap or similar lab error is really quite rare, and in most other instances when people believe their kits have been swapped, they haven’t been, although this certainly is not the first time this has happened. CeCe Moore reported on another Ancestry.com case in 2012.

We’ll call the lady Jane. Jane’s father agreed to have his Y DNA tested some years ago at Ancestry.com. Jane submitted his DNA for him and noticed that he had no matches to his rather common surname. She didn’t really think anything of it at the time, other than being disappointed. His haplogroup was estimated by Ancestry to be R1b.

As time went on, she ordered Ancestry.com’s autosomal test too for her father. Ancestry sent another sampling kit, and her father is receiving matches to people who, at least according to their trees, share common ancestors with her father.

Last year, Jane decided to transfer her father’s Y DNA to Family Tree DNA. The markers from Ancestry.com were transferred, and Jane still didn’t have any surname matches at Family Tree DNA.

Jane then ordered the Geno2.0 test for her father. The results were returned with haplogroup I, terminal SNP I-L22, which were at odds with Ancestry’s haplogroup R1b estimate.

About the same time, Jane upgraded her father’s STR markers as well, and the haplogroup project administrator noticed that while Jane’s father’s lower panels, meaning the ones tested at Ancestry matched haplogroup R1b, his upper panels didn’t match R1b subgroups at all.

Obviously something was wrong, very wrong, someplace. But what, and where? Jane contacted me and asked if I would help unravel this puzzle.

I checked Jane’s father’s page at Family Tree DNA, and when she transferred his Geno 2.0 results to his FTDNA page, apparently the transfer confused the software at FTDNA because his results reported both I-L22 and R-M269 as positive, which is impossible since I-L22 is in haplogroup I, only, and R-M269 is only found in haplogroup R.

Unfortunately, this only added to the confusion.

At this point, I downloaded the raw data file from the Geno 2.0 test and verified that indeed, M269 was absent and L22 was present.

Family Tree DNA, thankfully, stepped up to the plate and ran a SNP test on Jane’s father’s second vial. That SNP test also came back as positive for haplogroup I, matching the Geno 2.0 results.

Just to be absolutely positive, Family Tree DNA sent Jane’s father a third vial and tested the same markers that Jane had transferred from Ancestry. You can see for yourself – the results are very different. The results are unquestionable. Either there was a kit swap or a lab error of some sort at Ancestry where the wrong markers were posted for Jane’s father’s results. He has been tested three times, from separate vials, at Family Tree DNA with all of the results providing evidence that the Ancestry results were in error.

Marker	Ancestry	FTDNA
DYS438	12	10
DYS391	10	11
DYS392	13	11
DYS426	12	11
DYS439	13	11
DYS445	12	11
GGAAT1B07	10	11
DYS444	11	12
DYS446	13	13
DYS462	11	13
Y-GATA-A10	13	13
DYS437	15	16
DYS441	14	16
DYS458	17	16
DYS463	24	21
DYS635	23	21
DYS452	30	31

In an overabundance of caution, Family Tree DNA is going to rerun the entire test, all markers and the backbone SNP, from yet another (fourth) new vial being sent to Jane’s father. Thank heavens Jane’s father is still available for testing and not entirely discouraged.

Jane is ecstatic, because now, she is actually receiving surname matches and in her father’s words, “we just wanted to know who we are.” And just in time for Father’s Day!

Signs and Signals

How might you know if a kit swap has happened to you? As we know, Ancestry has discontinued their Y and mitochondrial DNA testing and will be destroying the data base, so this won’t be an issue at Ancestry with new Y DNA kits, but it could be an issue for results already delivered, like Jane’s, and for autosomal tests. This is one reason why retesting might not be a bad idea, even though the $19 or $58 Y DNA Ancestry to FTDNA transfer price is quite attractive. Here are some of the signs that might tip you that there is a problem:

If Y DNA, you don’t receive any surname matches, even to those you believe that you are in related to. This is one of those sticky-wickets, because if you don’t match your first cousin, for example, the most likely situation is that you have an undocumented adoption in one of the lines. My suggestion in this situation is to submit an entirely new test under a new kit number. If your first and second kits match each other, then the answer is the undocumented adoption.
If autosomal DNA, and you have no matches to anyone you believe you should match, especially close relatives, submit your DNA to one of the other three testing companies – Family Tree DNA, 23andMe or Ancestry.com. The approach gives you the benefit of fishing in multiple ponds along with verifying that your results match each other. When you receive the results from both companies, download the raw data files from both to www.gedmatch.com and then match them to each other. They should match almost exactly, although there will be some small differences in terms of areas tested and possibly no-calls – but they should match very closely.

Let’s hope this never happens to anyone else. The sad thing is that whoever, at Ancestry, received Jane’s father’s Y DNA results likely has no idea they are incorrect.

Thank you Family Tree DNA for going above and beyond to resolve this very distressing situation for Jane and her father.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Marcus Younger (c1740-1816), Mystery Man, 52 Ancestors #23

Posted on June 8, 2014 by Roberta Estes

The Younger story starts with Marcus Younger. It shouldn’t but it does, because we don’t know who his parents were. We may never know, because Marcus Younger’s Y chromosomal, paternal, DNA doesn’t match the rest of the Younger line to whom he is obviously related. Why obviously? You’ll see. This story reminds me a bit of a soap opera and an onion – unpeeling one layer at a time – slowly and painfully over the past 20 years or so.

In 2007, I began the Younger DNA project. I fully expected Marcus’s descendants to match on the Y chromosome to the descendants of Thomas Younger, a man who lived very close to Marcus in Halifax County and who many believed was Marcus’s father. Even if he wasn’t Marcus’s father, the he was likely his uncle. One thing is for sure – we fully expected them to descend from a common paternal male line – but we were wrong.

Not only did the men not match, there is no possibility on their Y (paternal) line that they are distantly related. In other words, this isn’t a questionable match, it’s a flat out no-match. They are in different haplogroups, with Thomas’s line being in haplogroup R and Marcus’s line in haplogroup I. These men’s paternal ancestors weren’t related in 10s of thousands of years. Well, that was a “stop me in my tracks” revelation. So now what?

So let’s start with Marcus and tell as much of our Younger story as we know. We have made some remarkable breakthroughs recently, compliments of autosomal DNA technology.

Marcus Younger

Marcus Younger was born probably in Essex County, VA and probably around 1730, based on his son’s 1760 birth. He died in January 1815 in Halifax County, Virginia. He married Susannah, possibly Hart. Anthony Hart sold land to Marcus Younger before he moved to Halifax County. Marcus was also taxed under Anthony. We don’t know who Marcus’s parents are, but given recent autosomal DNA evidence, we suspect that he was the illegitimate son of a daughter of Alexander Younger and Rebecca Mills. Alexander Younger mentions no son, Marcus, in his will. Alexander’s son, Thomas Younger, moved to Halifax County earlier than Marcus who arrived about 1785. They lived close to each other, Thomas on Terrible Creek and Marcus on Yellow Bank Creek on the Banister River. Thomas died in 1791 and his will was witnessed by both Marcus and Marcus’s son, John Younger. This implies strongly that Marcus was not Thomas’s heir, as heirs typically did not witness wills. It also suggests that they were very close.

In 1780, Marcus Younger aided in the American Revolution in King and Queen County as documented by the Public Service Claims. He provided 1 gallon, 2 quarts and a half brandy worth 39 pounds, 1 shilling and 3 pence. He probably didn’t have any choice about this, because then the army needed (or wanted) supplies, it needed supplies. They gave you a receipt with the idea that someday you could turn it in for reimbursement. In actuality, people did that, which is why we have the records today. He’s lucky that’s all they took. They were known for impressing horses, but then again, maybe Marcus didn’t have a horse to impress.

Marcus was in Essex County in 1782 and 1785, taxed under Anthony Hart, but is in Halifax County by December 1786 when he signs the marriage bond for his daughter, Mary, to marry George Estes, suggesting she is under the age of 21.

Interestingly enough, George Estes’s father, Moses Estes lived beside William Younger, born about 1740, wife Patience, whose parentage is also unknown. William Younger is in Halifax County as early as 1760 when he was assigned to a road crew on Reedy Creek. He apparently lived on Reedy Creek in South Boston for the rest of his life. Reedy Creek abutted the land purchased by Moses Estes Jr. and today Younger Street is the street that runs perpendicular to Estes Street, both of which now lead to the city dump, and is no place remotely close to Terrible Creek or the Banister River.

In 1795, Moses Estes, George Estes, his son who married Mary Younger in 1786, and William Younger, neighbors, all signed a petition.

I have always wondered if there is a previous pre-Halifax County connection between the William Younger and Moses Estes families. I have often suspected that Moses Estes Sr. had daughters who would have been the perfect age to have been Patience, the wife of William Younger. Conversely, we don’t know who the wife of Moses Estes Sr. was, only that her name was Elizabeth.

Regardless, these two families owned land that is very close to each other on the border of Essex and King and Queen Counties in northern Virginia prior to coming to Halifax County. This is detailed in the unpublished document, “Estes of King and Queen County.” An excerpt is provided below.

King and Queen and Essex County, Virginia

Using various hints, tips and what few records do still exist, we were able to locate fairly reliably the land of Abraham Estes, the original immigrant in the Estes line. As luck would have it, we also discovered the Younger holdings in that area as well.

My cousin Wilma, long time Younger genealogist, posted the following information on the Younger rootsweb list in 2002.

Recently I have come into possession of a map which was the project of a Woman’s Club started in 1937 and published in 1972. It attempts to located the early tracts of King and Queen County. Unfortunately some very significant pieces of the map were omitted. I’m referring to the various hundreds and parishes which would better pinpoint a known location.

That said, I studied the map first, for familiar names. I found the name Boulware not far from Caroline County. Many of you will remember that a Boulware was a business associate of John Younger (from Whitehaven, England) in Caroline County which adjoins King and Queen directly to the north. A Boulware also married the daughter of John Price and Ann Younger, daughter of Alexander. [Note: Alexander is the proven father of Thomas Younger who moved to Halifax County.]

The next name is a little more disconnected but it caught my attention. The name of the property was Fleetwell. Thomas Younger’s daughter by his first wife married a Fretwell and her father (apparently) was prominent in transferring property to Thomas. This Fleetwell certainly may have no relevance but, as I said, it did catch my eye.

Then there was Armistead Hill. Now we all can agree that Armistead is not a very common given name but it has been repeated throughout the Virginia family. I cannot say for sure but I suspect this piece of property was not far from Alexander’s in Essex and King and Queen (to be explained below).

I also noted the name Aylett and remembered having seen it before. I checked Alexander Younger’s notes and found that in 1716 a Robert Farish of St. Stephen’s Parish, King and Queen County bought 100 acres lying in both Essex and King and Queen Counties upon the head of the Dragon. The land adjoined Maj. Aylett’s Quarter and also adjoined the land of Alexander Younger.

I had thought Alexander Younger’s son Thomas had left Essex County (perhaps in anger that his mother had remarried so soon) and had gone to King and Queen. He was known to be in King and Queen County in 1751/2. [Note – based on a merchant’s account book.] Thomas Younger sold his property to his mother and step-father and it was noted that the property he sold was adjoined by John Farish and Capt. William Aylett.

The man I believe to be the father in law of Thomas Younger, (William Fretwell) obtained the property in question from the mother and stepfather and resold it to Thomas Younger.

No record of any other purchase by Thomas Younger has as yet come to light so one can assume (I hope) that half of the land left to Susannah by her father Thomas was the same described property. The other half was willed to Samuel also without a description. The subsequent lawsuit among the heirs did not deal in property but delineated money instead.

This little exercise put things a bit into perspective for me. It is amazing somehow that maps can be so enlightening – even incomplete ones.

I now suspect that the Younger’s lived fairly close to the border between Essex and King and Queen Counties and being located at or near the head of the Dragon, they were also not terribly far from Middlesex County which accounts for some of the Younger records there.

I took Wilma’s information and ran with it and in doing so, using contemporary maps, I located the approximate location of both the Estes and the Younger land.

Abraham Estes’s land in 1783 abuts the Hoskins and Grymes land. Today this marker resides on 360 East of St. Stephen’s Church.

Going with the info from the various locations to my trusty atlas, I find that in King and Queen County, on 360 where it crosses 14 and then East on 360 from that location, we have an intersection with 631 and 621 before getting to Miller’s Tavern. Miller’s Tavern is too far East, It looks like this land is between Bruington which is at the intersection of 14 and 621 as one point on the triangle, 621 itself as another point on the triangle, and probably St. Stephen’s church as another point. You also see Dogwood Fork which surely is connected to Dogwood swamp. Abraham Estes’s land seemed to be on the NE quadrant of this land, so probably nearer to 621. In a much larger sense, it’s between the Rappahannock and the Mattaponi, but nearer to the Mattaponi.

Essex County Land Grants

June 22 1722 – Grant of Robert Farish described as 775 acres in the Counties of King and Queen and Essex. Beg. of Silvester Estice standing in Thomas Cranes line; thence &c. on the south side a branch of Mattapony River. And then 775 acres in the Counties of King and Queen and Essex adjoining the land of Silvester Estice, Thos. Crane &c. on the south side of a branch of Mattapony River and crossing several branches of Rappa: River.

Here are 3 transactions that position Alexander Younger’s land in this same area:

Essex County Deed Book 22 (1738-1742), Pg 215
3 Dec 1740

Thomas Younger of St Stephen’s Parish, King and Queen County, VA to Timothy Driscoll [sic] of Southfarnham Parish, Essex County VA for 5000 lbs of tobacco and cash, all interest now or hereafter in 100 acres in Essex in the Parish of Southfarnum adjoining John Farish, Capt. William Aylett and John Croxton it being all that tract purchased by his father, Alexander Younger, dec’d of Richard Jones and Leonard Hill

Witnesses – Thomas Barker, John Croxton, Henry Brown
Acknowledged 17 Mar 1740 at a court held for Essex County at Tappahannock

3 Dec 1740

Know All Men by these presents that I Thomas Younger of King and Queen County stand indebted to Timothy Driscoll in the sum of ten thousand pounds of good tobacco and cash. The condition of the above obligation is such that Thomas Younger at all times upon request of Timothy Driscoll his heirs sufficiently grant all that parcel of land now in the tenure of Timothy Driscoll clearly aquitted and discharged from all manner of former bargains and incumberances whatsoever done by Thomas Younger then this obligation to be void otherwise to remain in force.

Signed: Thomas Younger
Witnesses: John Croxton, Henry Brown

Then received the full sum of thirty pounds current money, it being the full consideration.

Essex County VA Deed Book 24, Pg 354 and Virginia Colonial Abstracts, p.353
10 Aug 1749

William Fretwell of Southfarnham Parish, Essex County VA to Thomas Younger of Drisdale Parish in County of King and Queen County for 30 pounds, all interest now or hereafter in 100 acres in Essex, purchased of Thomas Younger by Timothy Driscoll and by him conveyed to William Fretwell

Signed: William Fretwell
Witnesses – Thomas Barker, Richard Hodges
Acknowledged 19 Sep 1749.

Another set of records that involved Thomas Younger also positions this family on the Mattaponi.

Thomas Younger was still living in King and Queen County in 1751-1752. (King and Queen Merchants Ledger 1751-1752. Accession #25110, Virginia State Library, Pg. 49). He made purchased in both 1751 and 1752.

Thomas Younger Mar 1751
Thomas Younger July 1752

An Index – Magazine of Virginia genealogy, Vol 29, Number 3, Aug 1991

The King and Queen County merchant’s account book has been abstracted and is identified in the Virginia State Archives by Accession number 28893.

Ledger A covers 25 Feb 1748-21 May 1750 and the unpaid accounts on the latter were transferred to Ledger B as opening balances. Ledger B covers 23 May 1750 to 16 Mar 1751. Balances on 16 Mar 1751 were transferred to Ledger C which covers 19 Mar 1751-4 Aug 1752. These ledgers came from the store of Nininan Boog, factor for Buchannan and Hamilton, Liverpool Merchants. Boog’s King and Queen store was apparently located at Todd’s on the Mataponi about a mile above Aylett where state route 628 now ends.

Name A B C

Thomas Younger 68 104 49

Alexander Younger in America

We know very little about the origins of Alexander Younger before his arrival in Virginia. There is a parish register entry in Lanark, Glasgow, Scotland showing an Alexander Younger christened on May 2, 1681. We don’t know if that record is for our Alexander, but it could be, especially given the 1699 court record which indicates his age as 18 years of age.

There are at least four possibilities for his importation records which begs the question of what happened to these other Alexander Youngers.

1. Old Rappahanock County, VA Order Book 2 1698-1699, Pg 148

10 June 1699 – Deposition – Alexander Younge (r), a servant of Edward Rowzee, said to be eighteen years old.

2. General Index to Court Orders, Essex County VA 1684-1714

11 Oct 1704 – An Alexander Younger imported by Thomas Dickinson 0-3-124

10 May 1705 – An Alexander Younger imported by Ralph Rowze 0-3-164

Considering that Alexander was a servant in a Rowze household it seems plausible that he immigrated in 1705.

These first two records cause me to wonder if Alexander went back and forth a couple of times. That was not unheard of, especially if he was the personal servant to a wealthy man.

We do know that Alexander Younger wrote his will in 1725, designating his wife and son, Thomas to be his executors. His son would have had to have been born very shortly after his arrival. If Alexander was a indentured servant, it’s unlikely that he would have been allowed to marry for the requisite 5 or 7 years to complete his indenture. This record says he is a servant, but it does not say that he is indentured, but it certainly does imply that he is.

3. From angelsmurfholly2@aol.com on Genforum under the Younger forum:

Alexander received 100 acres of land for transporting himself and his servants, James Morrison, to Somerset Co., Maryland. He later signed it over to Henry Bishop, a planter from Maryland. From G. Spades “The Early Settlers of Maryland”. Alexander came to York Co., VA in 1680. As per Virginia Colonial abstract #9. Essex Co. will and deeds of 1714-1717 Alexander Younger was sold 100 acres of land for 3250 pounds of tobacco in the Parish of Southfarnham, Essex Co. Record Book 15 page 359.

I question whether the records above are for the same person. We know that “our” Alexander was in Essex County, but I would like to see some documentation that ties the Maryland Alexander Younger with ours in Essex County, VA.

Alexander witnessed wills in both 1706 and 1707, suggesting that he was not an indentured servant at that time.

Virginia Colonial Abstracts, p. 155 (Essex County)

Will of Richard Matthews of Essex County
Written 12 Jan 1705/6, Pro 11 Feb 1705/6

To eldest son Richard a Bible. To youngest son Giles and daughter Elizabeth. the balance of the estate for their maintenance. To Ann a cow.

Exec. John Boulware, John Mottlin
Witnesses: John X Williams, Robert Parker, Alexander Younger

Essex County VA Records, Abstracted by John Frederick Dorman,

p. 36,37 – 18 Jan 1707 – Will of Daniel Browne of Essex County VA witnessed by Alexander Younger

p. 224 – Jean Browne wife of the deceased Daniel Browne, Sr. of Southfarnum Parish gave her interest in her 1/3rd to son Henry.

Witnessed by Alexander Younger

4. General Index to Court Orders, Essex County VA 1684-1714

10 Aug 1708 – Alexander Younger grants 50 acres of land for his own importation 0-4-47 – 10 Sep 1708

This record actually suggests that Alexander Younger was not indentured, as the person who paid for his transportation would have been the person to claim his 50 acres. However, if the land were part of his agreement, and he arrived in 1799, and was indentured for 7 years, he would have been freed in 1706, in time to witness the 1706 will.

Alexander Younger’s Land

Records show that in 1715, Alexander Younger purchased 220 acres of land in South Farnham Parish, Essex County, VA (Virginia Colonial Abstracts #9, pp. 319-320, Essex County VA Wills and Deeds Bk 14, p 359)

By 1716, Alexander had land and we know where it was, near the head of the Dragon Branches.

Records of Essex Co, VA, No 15, p. 1
18 and 19 Mar 1716

Deed and Release

Casper Coston, smith, and Mary his wife, of St Anne’s Parish, Essex Co, sell to Robert Farish of St Stephen’s Parish, King and Queen Co, for 48 pounds, 250a, part of 100a granted to Richard Jones and George Turner, 8 Feb 1672, lying in Essex and King and Queen Counties, upon the heads of the Dragon, Ashnamscot and Piscatua branches adj a marsh at the head of one of the Dragon branches, by Maj. Aylett the Quarter formerly known as Goodrich’s land, the land of Sheffells old field, Alexander’s house and the head of a branch of Fisher’s mill. Also Capt Brerton’s land “descending to me Mary Coston as being heir at law to my only sister Sarah Shipley, late dec’d, which was left by will of George Boyce to my sd sister, (adj land of Major Aylets Quarter formerly known by the name of Goodrich land, and also adjoining the land of Alexander Younger. Also Capt Brereton’ land)

Witnesses: John Bates, John Boughan, Thomas X Shipley

(Extracted from Virginia Colonial Abstracts, Vol II, Beverly Fleet, Genealogical Publishing Company, Baltimore, MD, 1988, p.83) SW: Sheffield

This is apparently Mary Cosston, sister of Keziah. The second entry of this record on p. 179 of this same source states Jasper Coston, not Casper, Goodrick, not Goodrich. Third record on p. 296 (filed under King and Queen Co) states “the head of Kissells old field, Alexander Youngers house, branch of Fishers mill, etc.” George Boyce record not yet located.

By 1725, Alexander had died, fairly young, and with young children. His son John died in 1733 and Alexander’s estate funds were used to bury John as well. In 1732, his 3 youngest daughters were still under age and Thomas was appointed their guardians.

Alexander was impaneled as a juror several times. But then, in 1724, it was his turn to face the jury.

Essex County VA Order Book 1723-1725, p. 107 – 19 Mar 1723

The suit brought by John Bagge against Alexander Younger is dismissed.

p. 138 – 20 May 1724

Alexander Younger of the Parish of South Farnham for not frequenting his Parish Church according to Law. Presented by the Grand Jury and therefore ordered the Sheriff to summon all said persons to appear at the next court for this County to show cause if any they have why they should not be fined according to Law.

p 161, 17 June 1724

The presentment of the Grand Jury agt. Alexander Younger is dismissed.

The 1724 presentment against Alexander for not attending church was dismissed. Obviously, he wasn’t attending. The question is why. Given that he made his will in 1725, it causes me to wonder if he wasn’t ill by 1724 and not attending church for that reason.

p. 167, 17 Jun 1724

In the action on the case brought by Nathaniel Sanders against John Griggs it is ordered that James Edmondson, Alexander Younger and John Haile or any two of them audit and settle the accounts between the plaintiff and the defendant. and make their report to the next court.

Given this court order, Alexander must not have been ill at this time.

p. 172 – 18 Jun 1724

The action of debt brought by John Bagge vs Alexander Younger is continued. The Plaintiff’s Attorney being absent.

On July 18, 1727, Alexander’s will was probated. He would have been less than 50 years old.

Essex County Wills, Bonds and Inventories, Part 2, pg 222 1722-1730

Will Book 4, pp 222-223
Written 11 Aug 1725, Probated 18 Jul 1727
Virginia State Library

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN…The eleventh day of Aug 1725, I, Alexander Younger of the County of Essex, being sick and weak of body yet in perfect sense and memory thanks be to God for the same I do make and constitute ordain and declare this to be my last will and testament and no other first being point out and sorry from the bottom of my heart for all my sins past most humble begging God forgiveness and remission of the same through the alone merits of my dear redeemer and only savior, Jesus Christ. I commit my soul into the hand of Almighty God, my savior and only redeemer through the merit of whose death and passion I hope to have full and perfect remission and forgiveness of all my sins. My body to be decently interred by my executors hereafter named in hopes of a happy resurrection at the last day and my soul and body to enter into perfect joy and felicity forevermore. And for the settling and disposing my temporal and such goods and chattels as it hath pleased God to bestow upon me I do order give and dispose as follows, that is to say, first all those debts and duties as I owe in right or custom to any person whatsoever shall be well and truly contented and paid within convenient time after my decease by my executors hereafter named. First I will and bequeath to the three poorest objects of pity in the parish thirty shillings in such things as may answer their wants to be paid within one year after my decease by my executors.

Secondly I will and bequeath to my son Thomas Younger that piece of land that I bought of Mr. Hill and Richard Jones, a young heifer called Fairmade and her female increase and if she happens to be barren and not a breeder then to have a young cow out of my own proper stock of chattels and if she should die then to have another young cow in her room out of my own proper stock and six pounds currency and that gun which I bought of Captain Welch.

Thirdly I will and bequeath to my son John Younger that piece of land which I bought of Mary Newton, two young cows out of my proper stock, six pound currency and his choice of my other two guns.

If either of my two sons Thomas or John die without issue then their land, money and gun to fall to the eldest female then alive only my will is that the child in whose hands any of the boy’s land falls to, the other part of

their estate shall be equally divide among the rest then alive. They themselves that have the land having one equal part thereof. It is my will that the two eldest then alive of the female kind if the male be all dead should inherit the land. Also my will is that after appraisement made that my estate be equally divided among my other six children to wit: James Younger, Elizabeth Younger, Ann Younger, Mary Younger, Jannett Younger, and Susannah Younger, and further it is my will that if any one of them died without issue lawfully begotten of their body that their part be equally divided among the rest then alive and it is my will concerning every one of my children’s parts of the estate if they die without issue lawfully begotten of their body to be still equally divided among the rest then alive and further it is my will that if my well beloved wife, Rebecca Younger, should happen to join in wedlock state after my decease it is my will that the boys should be for themselves at the age of seventeen years old and if she continues my widow then to remain till the year of twenty one and if it should please God to whom all things are subject to remove all my issue by death then it is my will that my land and personal estate be secured for my next heir in Scotland of my brother Andrew’s only wife to have the liberty of the same all her days in a moderate way to live upon without control of any person whatsoever.

The executors whom I order and appoint is my well beloved wife Rebecca Younger and my son Thomas Younger to see the same truly appointed and fully performed. In witness whereof I have affixed my seal and set my hand the day and year first above written.

Signed: Alexander Younger
Witnesses: John Haile, Bryant Edmondson, Francis Haile (his mark)

At a court for Essex County on Tuesday the 18th of July 1727, the within last will and testament of Alexander Younger, dec’d, was proved by the oath of Rebecca Younger, his executrix and being further proved by the oath of John Haile and Bryant Edmondson, two of the witnesses thereto was admitted to record.

Signed W. Beverly, C.C.

18 Jul 1727

Bond of Rebecca Younger as Executrix of Alexander Younger. Unto William Dangerfield, Benjamin Robinson, John Taliaferro and Nicholas Smith, Gent., Justices. For L 300 sterling

Securities: Thomas Covington and Richard Jones

It is ordered that James Edmondson, Henry Boughan, John Haile and William Gatewood or any three of them appraise the estate of Alexander Younger, dec’d and return their proceedings therein to the next court.

Appraisers were typically the largest debtor, someone from the wife’s family and a totally disinterested party.

Essex County VA Will Book 5, p. 152,153 – 1727

Account for the administration of the estate of Alexander Younger

This account provides the information that by later in 1727, Alexander’s son John has died, his daughter Elizabeth has married John Dillard and the widow Rebecca has remarried Timothy Driscoll, although it is odd that she signs her name as Rebecca Younger on this document. Actually, she signed with a mark so maybe the clerk wrote her name as Rebecca Younger instead of her new married name. The only reason Timothy Driscoll would sign this is if he had an interest and his only interest would be as her husband.

Essex County VA Court Wills #5
1727

Total Valuation L 157.12.10 including one Negro man valued at 25 pounds.

The estate of Mr. Alexander Younger, dec’d

To funeral expenses for Mr. Younger
To Dr. John Haile
To John Leach a legacy left by Mr. Younger
To Thomas Barber for sundry writing for the estate
To John Taylor (no reason given)
To Pitman Grandoff (no reason given)
To the appraisers of the estate (not named)
To the probate of Mr. Younger’s will
To Mr. ? Carter
To registering the death of the sd Younger
To registering the death of a negro
To registering the death of John Younger
To rolling Mr. Younger’s tobacco
To tobacco charged in the inventory due in his lifetime not received by the executors
To tobacco charged for clerks, secretarys and parsons
To John Dillard for his wife’s part of the estate being 1/8 of 127 pounds, 13 shillings, 4 1/2 pence.

Signed Timothy Driscoll (his mark)

Rebecca Younger (R)

At a court convened and held for Essex County on 22 Aug 1833

Timothy Driscoll and Rebecca, his wife, Executors of the last will and testament of Alexander Younger, dec’d produced their vouchers and made oath that this was a just and true account of the sd deceased estate and all the articles therein being allowed by this court, on the motion of Timothy the same is admitted to record.

Essex County VA Will Book 5: 119,120
15 Jan 1732

Thomas Younger made guardian of Mary and Ann, infant orphans of Alexander Younger, dec’d. Samuel Gatewood and John Ferguson were bondsmen with Thomas. The document continues to reveal that he is also guardian to James Younger.

Essex County VA Will Book 5: 115,116
19Dec 1732

Thomas Younger made guardian of James, Jannett and Susannah stating that they are orphans

I have to wonder why he was not appointed prior to this time. His father has been dead since 1727. Marcus was born sometime prior to 1740, likely to one of these sisters. I thought at one time that perhaps his mother died at this time, but according to later deeds, she did not. Something clearly happened during this time to precipitate this legal action. But what?

Essex County Deed Book 22 (1738-1742), Pg 215
3 Dec 1740

Witnesses – Thomas Barker, John Croxton, Henry Brown
Acknowledged 17 Mar 1740 at a court held for Essex County at Tappahannock

3 Dec 1740

Signed: Thomas Younger
Witnesses: John Croxton, Henry Brown

Then received the full sum of thirty pounds current money, it being the full consideration.

Essex County VA Deed Book 24, Pg 354 and Virginia Colonial Abstracts, p.353 10 Aug 1749

Signed: William Fretwell
Witnesses – Thomas Barker, Richard Hodges
Acknowledged 19 Sep 1749.

There are no records in subsequent Deed Books of Essex County, VA of Thomas Younger selling this land. There are no tax records of Essex County until 1782. It is also known by probate records that William Fretwell was the son-in-law of Thomas Younger.

Unfortunately, the records of King and Queen County have been burned, so while there were very likely more records that pertain to Thomas, they were destroyed. The next time we see Thomas after the 1751/1752 merchant’s account record is in 1765 in Halifax County.

Essex County, Virginia, Summary

The deeds and land transactions tell us that the Estes and Younger families probably knew each other long before they came to Halifax Co. Notice below that the head of Dragon Run is almost exactly on the county border between King and Queen and Essex county which is highlighted in yellow. The purple arrow is pointing to this general area, but slightly on the Essex side. The Younger’s lived on the Essex side and the Estes lived just across the road, right about where the “620” is printed on the way south from Miller’s tavern.

It is exceedingly frustrating for me not to be able to connect our Marcus Younger back to his father. There were other early Younger men who also came to Halifax County, like William Younger. Were they also from Essex county? Was our Marcus related to them? He was clearly associated very closely with all of the Youngers of that time in Halifax County, as they witnessed deeds and such for each other and the Estes family. Marcus and Thomas Younger were neighbors, as were William Younger and Moses Estes Jr.

Given the DNA results, Marcus did not share a paternal line with Thomas Younger or James Younger, both sons of Alexander Younger and Rebecca Mills. The Y DNA of Thomas and James descendants matches each other, but Marcus’s Y chromosome does not, and one of the people (Seay) he matches closely also doesn’t match the DNA of his surname family. The Marcus Younger line also matches one single Rolland male.

Halifax County, Virginia Younger Families

The Halifax County research had two goals. One, to piece the various Younger families together, learning and much as possible about them and second, to find the land and cemetery where Marcus Younger lived.

The following information is extracted from the deed, will, court order, and chancery suits and is combined with census and tax list information in order to assemble families. This is not intended to be exhaustive, but to provide an overview in summary form of the results of the research in Halifax. I have removed almost all of the detail for the Thomas and William Younger families, leaving only what might be relevant for Marcus.

In a nutshell, we have connected all of the early families into three distinct groups that apparently do not connect together in Halifax, meaning they are not father-son groupings. They may well be otherwise related, but we just don’t know yet.

Ironically, it was neither William, Marcus nor Thomas who first appeared in Halifax County, but James Younger in 1758 who is mentioned as providing blacksmith services in the estate management for the children in the estate of Capt. James Hill. Halifax Will Book 0-46. This James never reappears. Two years later, William Younger followed. In 1765 Thomas Younger arrived. Marcus doesn’t appear in any records until 1785.

Marcus Younger, born before 1740, died 1815, wife Susannah

Halifax County records for Marcus Younger begin in 1785.

1785 – Markus Younger is listed on the tax list with 1 white, 1 slave, no horses and 2 cows.

1785 – Marcus Younger is listed on Berryman Green’s list with 1 white tithe, 2 slaves and 1 horse. A different records show him with 1 white, 1 slave, no horses and 2 cows.

1785 – John Younger, son of Marcus, is listed with 1 white, no slaves, no horses and 2 cows.

1786 – On December 19, Mary Younger marries George Estes, her father Marcus Younger and George Estes sign, William Martin is a witness and Daniel Parker is surety.

George signs his marriage bond, above. Below, Marcus signs for Mary to marry George.

1787 – Markus Younger on the tax list shows 1 white, 2 slaves, 3 horses and 2 cows.

1787 – John Younger on the tax list shows 1 white, 1 slave, 3 horses and 6 cows.

1788 – Halifax County VA Deed Book 14, Pg. 276

7 Mar 1788 Mark Younger from Meador Anderson and wife Sarah
100 acres on Branch of the Bannister River

1788 – Halifax County VA Deed Book 14, Pg. 281
7 Mar 1788
John Younger from Meador Anderson and wife Sarah
100 acres on Branch of the Bannister River for 60 pounds.
(John is the son of Marcus)

1788 – Tax list Markus Younger 1 white, 0 slaves and 3 horses.

1788 – Tax list John Younger 1 white, 1 black, 3 horses.

1789 – Marcus witnessed the will of Thomas Younger and also was on the tax list with 100 acres and tithed with one white male, no slaves and 2 horses.

1790 – Marcus Younger has 100 acres every year until 1814 when his land drops to 93.5 acres and then in 1815 to 43.5 acres and is then noted as a life estate instead of held in fee simple. This would be his daughter’s share, I would think. Marcus has no slaves until 1794 when he has 3, then none in1795, 1 in 1796 and each year until he acquires a second slave in 1800 and has 2 until his death. He has no horses in 1790, but acquires 2 in 1796 and then has 4 in 1802, dropping back to 2 in 1809 and 1 in 1810.

1790 – Marcus’s son John Younger has 100 acres and maintains that land until 1812 when he adds another 3.5 acres from his father. He has one slave until 1794 when he acquires a second and has two throughout the record period until 1817.

1795 – John Younger, road hand along with George Estes.

Note: This road hand assignment confirms that George and Mary Younger Estes indeed were living in the north part of the county, probably on the Marcus Younger land. Given this, the Marcus Younger farm is probably where John R. Estes, their son and also my ancestor, born in 1787/1788 was born. There are also several spaces for children “missing” who would have been born in the 1790s, nor were any children named after George’s parents, Moses and Luremia. I suspect those children are buried in the cemetery on Marcus’s land.

1799 – Marcus Younger is listed as a road hand.

1799 – John Younger is listed as a road hand on Terrible Creek along with George Estes.

Note: Further confirmation that George and Mary Estes Younger were living among the Youngers as late as 1799.

1805 – Marcus wrote his will, but he did not pass away until 10 years later, in 1815. Generally in this timeframe in Virginia, people did not write a will until they thought they were going to pass away, so he must have had a scare 10 years before he died.

1810 – Halifax County Tax list. Marcus is taxed with 2 whites, meaning two adult white men, George Estes is not listed on the tax list, which means he was taxed under someone else, and Moses Estes, George’s father, is only taxed with one white male. George and Mary Estes Younger are very likely living with Marcus Younger.

1811 – Halifax County VA Deed Book 23, Pg.197
20 May 1811
Mark Younger to John Younger
6 1/2 acres on Bannister River adjoining Younger’s land.
Witnesses: Benjamin and William Landrum, James Powers

Marcus’ will, written 23 Jun 1805, Probated 25 Jan 1815:

To daughter Susannah 50 acres of land where my house stands during her natural life. Also one Negro girl (Fanny), one mare, one bed, and furniture, one cow and calf. To grandson Younger Wyatt one mare. The rest of my estate to be equally divided among my four children namely, John Younger, Elizabeth Clark, Mary Estes and Susannah Younger together with my forenamed grandson Younger Wyatt.

Marcus and Susannah Younger’s children:

John born April 11, 1760 in Essex County, married Lucy Hart, had 9 children, inherited his father’s land and lived in Halifax County. His son Joel owned the Younger land after John’s death in 1817 as well as the old Younger store. John’s land is where the cemetery is today.
Elizabeth married William Clark, had 5 children, but was dead by March 1816.
Mary Younger married George Estes in 1786 and died after her sister Susannah in 1831, but before 1842.
Sally Younger married a Wyatt and had Younger Wyatt. She was probably deceased by 1805.
Susannah apparently never married and died about 1831. She had a will and in her will she left her clothes to her sister Mary Estes and Mary Wyatt, and then she freed her negroes Fanny and Henry “to be released and given $15”. Fifteen dollars at that time was a significant amount of money. Susannah had inherited Fanny when Fanny was a child when Marcus died in 1815. By 1831, Fanny had presumably married Henry, or perhaps Henry was her son. Neither a Fanny nor Henry Younger are found in the Halifax County region in either 1840 or 1850.

Page 568 July 1815

Land of Marcus Younger (heirs listed) decd to John Younger with agreement of all parties to make survey to Susannah Younger who becomes entitled to the part allocated her under the will of Marcus, tract on the draught of Bannister River beginning at a post on John Younger’s line.

1816 – Marcus Younger’s estate was inventoried. Slaves Joshua, Harry (boy), Phoebe, Ceily (girl), Jacob (boy), Ben (boy), Sampson (boy), Dicey (girl), mare and sorrel colt, Fanny given by will to Susannah Younger, cow, 3 feather beds and furniture also to Susannah, one yoke oxen, cow, cow and yearling, yearling, one stack tops, two clade stacks, two vat stack, cart, 2 ploying, panel of plank, 2 head sheep, 3 fatted hogs, 1 cutting box, parcel of nubings.

I love estate inventories because they tell us so much about what the person did, and didn’t, have. This man was not wealthy by any stretch, but with three feather beds and 8 slaves, although several were children, he also wasn’t a pauper. The slave records hurt my heart and make me sad. I hope they were considered part of the family.

In 1816, Marcus’s estate transferred 62 acres on Banister Creek. Deed Book 25-568.

1816 – Susannah Younger’s land laid off. Susanna Younger, Younger and Polly Wyatt, Thomas and Peggy Clark, William Clark, John and Sarah Henderson, Edmund and Elizabeth Henderson, John and Polly Landrum and George and Mary Estes to John Younger – prompt distribution of Marcus Younger, decd – survey to Susanna Younger part allocated to her under will of Marcus, land sold for 12 months credit $420.60 on the draughts of Banister 62 acres bounded by John Younger line, Bruce’s line, Sights corner, Susanna Younger laying off allotment of land he bequeathed her. Halifax Deed Book 25-568

1817 – Halifax County VA Deed Book 26. Pg. 572
16 Jul 1817
John Younger, Sr. and wife Lucy to Thomas P. Anderson
107 acres on the head of Yellow Bank Branch for $700
Witnesses: Anthony Younger, George Estes, John Younger and James Bruce

1817 – Will: Halifax County Will Book 11, Pg 50 – John Younger (son of Marcus)
Written 17 Jul 1817, Probated 29 Oct 1817

Names wife Lucy – tract she lives on, furniture, stock, all my Negroes
Children:

John Younger – $500 to be raised by executors 12 months after my decease
Elizabeth, wife of Thomas P. Anderson – $500
Joel Younger – 170 acres adjoining Thomas Anderson
Anthony Younger – 100 acres on Big Creek on which he resides lying on the waters of Rye Creek (Bye Ck)
Thomas Younger- land lent to his mother after her death or marriage
Robert Younger – land previously given as his share (100 acres north side of Bye Creek apparently)
Sally, wife of Joel Anderson – $500 beds, furniture & bridles
Polly – $250 for each of her children
Nancy – $500 beds, furniture, horses $ bridles
Polly & children – $125 ea; Bazoil and Betsy P. Ray – 1/2 land she lives on, the children, the other half

Execs: sons Robert and Anthony Younger
Witnesses: James Bruce, Daniel Mills, George Estis and Mary Estis, her mark (daughter of Marcus)
Security: Joel Tucker, Edward Carlton

Note: The fact that George and Mary Estes, sister to John, witnessed his deed indicates that they were close to John and trusted family members. Also note that Mary Younger Estes cannot write.

John (son of Marcus) died in 1817. His wife was Lucy Hart and he was obviously already married when he came to Halifax. His children were:

Robert S who married Mary Polly Moore and died in 1870
Joel who married Lucy Cain and then Fentel Hart
John who married Elizabeth and lived in Pittsylvania Co.
Thomas married Elizabeth Willingham
Nancy married Vincent Carlton
Sally married Joel Anderson
Elizabeth married an Anderson and then Thomas Andrews
Anthony who married Nancy Carrell and sells land in 1824 to James Bruce, by 1830 they live in Franklin Co., VA
Polly who was widowed by a Ray and then marries Samuel Younger (son of Thomas). She has children by Ray, Bazrael (wife Jane) and Elizabeth Ray.

Joel (son of John, son of Marcus) died in 1877 and had the following children:

- Samuel W. (presumed Younger)
- Vincent B. (presumed Younger)
- Harriett F. Carlton
- Matilda E. Tune
- Louise E. Younger
- Martha B. Younger
- Joseph G. Younger
- Thomas L. Younger

This was the last Younger family to own the original Younger land. It was sold in 1906.

Robert, (son of John, son of Marcus) married Mary Polly Moore (William D. Moore brother, James D. Moore nephew), and died in 1870. They had the following children:

- Philip A. Younger
- William Polard Younger
- Peter Palmer Younger
- John Marcus Younger (Methodist Minister) buried in Pittsylvania Co.
- William Younger
- James Younger
- Betsy Light Younger
- Martha F. Younger marries Thomas Bradley

It’s quite interesting that the theme of the Methodist religion runs through these families. This may indeed be the tie that binds many together, especially in situations where they don’t appear as close neighbors, but the children are still intermarrying. Their connection could well be through their church. At this time, the only approved State church was the Anglican church, and everyone was required to attend and to pay tithes to support the church. Methodists and Baptists were considered “dissenting religions.” Around the Revolutionary War, Halifax County authorized three dissenting ministers to perform marriages. William Moore was one of those ministers, and his daughter, Nancy Ann Moore would marry John R. Estes, the son of George and Mary Estes, in 1811. The Rice and Henderson families were also known to be dissenters, and the Younger family married into the Clark family who married into the Henderson family, who was already married into the Moore family.

In 1842, a chancery suit involving Marcus’s estate was settled. The suit claimed that when the heirs of Marcus sold 52 acres to Thomas Clark, the heirs had received the purchase money, but that the whole of them had never conveyed to him clear title, although he was in possession of the land. All of the children of Marcus Younger were listed, and if Marcus’s children were dead, their children as heirs were listed. This suit was invaluable in reconstructing the family of Marcus Younger and in particular, his grandchildren. However, the mystery of his parents, remains.

Marcus Younger Chancery Suit

Suit 1842-057, Halifax Co. Va. – extracted in June 2005 by Roberta Estes

The worshipful county court of Halifax in chancery sitting: Humbly complaining sheweth unto your worships your orator Thomas Clark that a certain Marcus Younger died many years ago leaving a small tract of land containing about 53 (58?) acres to his wife Suckey Younger (see note) for life and at her death to be divided amongst his children. That after the death of the said Suckey Younger, the rest of the children of the said Marcus Younger (the wife of your orator being one) sold the said land to your orator, put him in possession of the same and have received from them the whole of the purchase money, but have not as yet conveyed to him the legal title. The names of the said renders(?) are John Henderson and Sally his wife, John Landrum and Sally his wife, Edward Henderson and Betsy his wife, Robert Younger and Mary his wife, Samuel Younger and Mary his wife, Thomas P. Anderson, Joel Younger and Fental his wife, Vincent Carlton and Nancy his wife, Joel Anderson and Sally his wife, Thomas Younger and Betsy his wife, William Estes and Rebecca his wife, James Smith and Polly his wife, Susanna Estes, Marcus Estes, William Clark and Mary his wife, Anthony Younger and Nancy his wife, John Younger and Betsy his wife, Younger Wyatt and Polly his wife, John Estes and Nancy his wife, Thomas Estes and Sally his wife. In tender consideration of the promises and in as much as your orator is remedyless therein at last?. To this end therefore that the above named renders? be made parties to this suit and required to answer the allegations herein contained under oath. That in consequence of the said partys being numerous and widely dispersed in the United States that the said court decree that the legal title to the said land be conveyed to your orator and that the parties to the said contract as vendors? be required to do so and unless they shall do so within a reasonable time that the court appoint a commissioner for that purpose and grant all other recipients relief. May it please the court to grant the Commonwealths writ of subpoena.

Note: This mention of his wife Suckey Younger drove me to distraction for years. During one of the visits to Halifax County, I saw a form for a lawsuit and realized that often, forms or standard language were used at that time as well. The standard verbiage here would be wife and not daughter. The next sentence in fact says, “the rest of the children” and the subsequent suit and deeds all reference Susannah not as the wife of Marcus, but his daughter. Unfortunately, in this case, the fact that his wife and the daughter who died without marrying and without heirs shared the same first name.

Next document:

The joint answer of John Henderson and Sally his wife, John Landrum and Polly his wife, Edward Henderson and Betsy his wife, Robert Younger and Mary his wife, Samuel Younger and Mary his wife, Thomas P. Anderson and Betsy his wife, Joel Younger and Fental his wife, Vincent Carlton and Nancy his wife, Joel Anderson and Sally his wife, Thomas Younger and Betsy his wife, William Estes and Rebecca his wife, James Smith and Polly his wife, Susanna Estes, Marcus Estes, William Clark and Mary his wife, Anthony Younger and Nancy his wife, John Younger and Betsy his wife, Younger Wyatt and Polly his wife, John Estes and Nancy his wife. Thomas Estes and Sally his wife to a bill of complaint exhibited against them in the county court of Halifax by Thomas Clark – These respondents saving? Do say that the allegations of the complainants bill are true and having answered pray to be hence dismissed.

Next document

This cause came on this day to be heard on the bill of chancery and answered and was argued by counsel and consideration and decise? that Jonathan B. Stovall who is hereby appointed a commissioner for that purpose do by proper deeds convey the lands in the proceeding mentioned to Thomas Clark in fee simply with special warranty.

Two attached pages in file as follows:

Page 1

Marcus Younger left 83 acres for life to Sukey Younger for life and at her death to be divided among his children. Note – after this statement, in a different handwriting, begins the list of his heirs.

Elizabeth Clark, Sally Wyatt, John Younger, Mary Estes, children of Marcus
Thomas, Sally Henderson wife of John Henderson, Polly Landrum wife of John Landrum, Betsy wife of Edward Henderson, William Clark, Children of Elizabeth Clark (inferring that she is deceased).
Younger Wyatt child of Sally Wyatt
Robert, Polly wife of Samuel Younger, Anthony, Joel, Betsy wife of J. P. Anderson, Nancy wife of Vincent P. Carlton, John, Thomas, Sally wife of Joel Anderson – children of John Younger.
John Estes, William, Susannah, Sally wife of T. Estes, Polly wife of James Smith and a grandchild name Mark Estes – children of Mary Estes.
Elizabeth Clark’s children are entitled each to 1/5 of 1/4^th
Younger Wyatt entitled to ¼th
John Younger’s children are each entitled to 1/9 of 1/4^th
Mary Estes children are entitled each to 1/6 of 1/4^th
Mary Estes grandchild is entitled to 1/6^th of 1/4^th

Thomas Clark and Peggy his wife – Halifax
John Henderson and Sally his wife – Halifax
John Landrum and Polly his wife – Halifax
Edward Henderson Jr. and Betsy his wife – Halifax
William Clark and Mary his wife – Patrick County
Robert Younger and Mary his wife – Halifax
Samuel Younger and Mary his wife – Halifax
Anthony Younger and Nancy his wife – Franklin
Thomas P. Anderson and Betsy his wife – Halifax
Joel Younger and Fental his wife – Halifax
John Younger and Betsy his wife – Pittsylvania
Vincent Carlton and Nancy his wife – Halifax
Joel Anderson and Sally his wife – Halifax
Thomas Younger and Betsy his wife – Halifax
Younger Wyatt and Polly his wife – Rutherford County Tennessee
John Estes and Nancy his wife – Rutherford Co Tennessee (actually ditto marks and John was actually in Claiborne by this time it is believed)
William Estes and Rebecca his wife – Halifax
Susannah Estes – Halifax
Thomas Estes and Sally his wife – Montgomery County Tennessee
James Smith and Polly his wife – Halifax
Marcus Estes (son of Mark) – Halifax

(Note – Marcus Estes the son of George and Mary Estes died in 1815 shortly after his marriage. Susanna Y. Estes, the daughter of George and Mary Estes, who never married, also had a son Marcus Estes, not to be confused with this Marcus, the son of George and Mary Estes.)

Thomas Younger, born before 1806, died in 1791, wives unknown

Thomas Younger had to have been born before 1706 if he was administering his father’s estate in 1727. His father, Alexander wrote his will in 1725. If Thomas was 21 at that time, he would have been born in or before 1704.

Thomas Younger was in Halifax County by 1765 when both Thomas and William appeared on different tax lists.

1781 – Halifax County – Revolutionary War Public Claims from Thomas Younger. 22 diets #1-7-6, 15 do, 15 forages#1-10, 54# mutton 11s-3, .5 bu corn 1s-3, 4 gal brandy #2, .5 bu oats, 17 diets #1-2, 100# fodder 3s, 56# fodder, 1 bu corn, 2 bu oats 7s-1.75, 200# fodder 6s, 6 forrages, 1 qt brandy, 3 diets 9s-9, 5 pts brandy 6s-3 cont

Thomas owned land on Terrible Creek adjacent his son William who died in 1801. This relationship is proven in one of the many chancery suits that follow regarding Thomas’s will and his daughter Susannah who had land for her life. Upon her death, the heirs filed suits to determine how her assets were to be divided. Thomas Younger’s children were:

Susannah who never married and inherited land
Samuel who married Polly Younger Ray
James who could not be found for an estate distribution when Susannah dies but then suddenly shows up, causing yet another chancery suit
John
Joseph
Thomas (of the half blood)
Mary Fretwell Scudders (of the half blood)
Jesse who dies in 1805
William who owns land on Terrible Creek and died in 1801 (see below)
Elizabeth who had the child (John G. Younger) by Rev. Gordon and marries John LeGrand
Nancy (Nanny) Smallman
Katey Brown
Dolly Light
Lucy who married George Winn
Rebecca married John Franklin
Rachel

It doesn’t help in the confusion factor that both Marcus and Thomas have daughters Susannah who never marry.

The Younger Store

The old store below is all that is visibly left of the family on the main road, 501, the L.P. Bailey Memorial Highway. This building is about equidistant between the two families, Thomas and Marcus. Brownie, Thomas Younger’s descendant, who took the photo about 2002, believes it was run by Joel’s family, who would have been Marcus’s grandson. You can see that at one time this was probably an early gas station, with the cars pulling under the roof area. This building still stood in 2008.

The Marcus Younger Graveyard

The old Younger family graveyard is located on the original Younger land upon the North side of Banister River located off of current road 610, Murphy Grove Road, on land that included part of Yellow Bank Creek, according to early deeds. This land passed from Marcus Younger to his son John and then to John’s son Joel. I understood that this land was sold in about 1892 to Walter Tune, so I originally thought it could still be in the Tune family, especially given there is an “old Tune house” in that vicinity.

I found records indicating that the graveyard was apparently in the woods near the Tune house, but without a local who knew the area, locating it was going to be very difficult.

In the spring of 2008, with the help of lots of people, I eventually located and visited the original Younger cemetery. I wrote the following story about it at the time. The first part is written in 2007 when I first attempted to locate the cemetery, and the second part in 2008 when I finally found it with the help of one very generous farmer, the current land owner, and my cousin, Audrey.

Meeting Marcus Younger – 1740-1816

Yes, indeed, I met Marcus, just last week…..but not as you might think.

Two or three years ago when I was visiting the Halifax County, Virginia courthouse, extracting records in the damp dusty basement, a gentleman came in and began talking to Lawrence Martin, the gentleman who works in the historical records there. This visitor’s interest was veterans of the various wars who lived in Halifax County, but in particular, those who died in service.

Later in that week, I met with my cousin to do some genealogical spelunking for the Estes and Younger surnames, and she mentioned a gentleman named Doug who might know about the Younger line, as he too is a descendant. Yep, it was Doug who was in the courthouse and I had already exchanged e-mails with him.

Doug and I compared notes. I had discovered an old document in the library in Danville in a prior visit that mentioned an old Younger cemetery on the original Marcus Younger land. The individual who wrote the document had visited it many years ago, years as measured in decades, probably between the 1930s and 1960s, as best I could tell. Clearly her address was no longer valid and her phone number only had 5 digits. All I had were her cryptic directions, based on landmarks of that time and road names that had since changed. Oh yes, and a new major road was put in too, but I didn’t know that it hadn’t always been there. The old woods had been logged, and the well that was supposed to be there apparently wasn’t…..but I’m getting ahead of my own story.

Doug and I communicated for a few months, but then Doug grew very ill. His recovery took a long time and he faced many challenges. In one of his e-mails, he mentioned that I should call a lady named Audrey, that she might know more about the cemetery and such, that she also descended from the Youngers.

Now I hate to make phone calls, especially cold calls, but I’d do just about anything to find my ancestors, so I put off the call as long as possible, but eventually, call Audrey I did. Audrey was very nice when I finally made that call in August of 2007. I was going to NC on business and planned to be in Halifax County for one day on the way back. For a researcher who had spent weeks in Halifax, one day was little opportunity to get anything done, but one day was better than nothing, and I was looking forward to meeting my new cousin, Audrey, who was going to take a DNA kit to one of her male Younger cousins on the Marcus Younger line.

Audrey said she thought she could get us to the cemetery based on the directions in the old letter. She knew it existed, but she had never been there herself. In fact, she had a list of some of the people buried in the cemetery, provided by an elderly relative years ago, which she gave me and are listed below. My identification notes as to how they connect are in parenthesis.

Louise Younger Tune Younger (daughter of Joel Younger who married first a Tune (who was killed in the Civil War) and then her first cousin, Patrick (also shown as Phillip) Andrew Jackson Younger, son of Robert H. Younger, Joel’s brother)
Patrick A. J. Younger (Louise’s husband & 1st cousin)
Kate Younger (Louise’s unmarried sister, daughter of Joel Younger)
Tom Younger (Louise’s unmarried brother, son of Joel Younger and Civil War Veteran)
Nathan Younger (Louise’s unmarried brother, son of Joel and Civil War Veteran)
Walter Tune’s father (Louise’s first husband, his first name unknown, killed in the Civil War)

These turned out to be the children of Joel Younger, grandson of Marcus, so this did in fact confirm we had the right family cemetery.

Audrey and I set out to find the cemetery. We visited the old “Tune House”, now called “Breezy Hill”.

This house clearly is not old enough nor the correct style to be the original Marcus Younger home built around 1788 when he first purchased land here. However, this does fit exactly with the directions we found at the library, and with what Audrey knew from her lifetime of living in this area.

The Tune House in 1982, compliments of Johnny and Donna McKinney, the current owners.

According to the old directions in the library in Danville from the folks who found the cemetery years ago, this is exactly what we should find:

“Route 610 to a dirt road on the left and follow to end of public maintenance where you see a large white farmhouse. Near the house towards the back on the right is a farm road leading down to the creek through a gate. Drive across the creek and you will find an old rock lined well now covered by a concrete slab. Near the well is an area slightly sunken covered by English Ivy. Follow the road on the right about ½ mile beyond the creek. There is a large graveyard in the woods, completely overgrown with trees and a groundcover of periwinkle.”

Route 610 to a dirt road on the left and follow to end of public maintenance where you see a large white farmhouse. Near the house towards the back on the right is a farm road leading down to the creek through a gate. Drive across the creek and you will find an old rock lined well now covered by a concrete slab. Near the well is an area slightly sunken covered by English Ivy. Follow the road on the right about ½ mile beyond the creek. There is a large graveyard in the woods, completely overgrown with trees and a groundcover of periwinkle.

How on earth would we find this in 2007?

We obtained permission from the current owners to drive on back on their property to find the old cemetery, so off we went. They were aware that it was there, but did not know its exact location.

After a false start going down the wrong farm lane, we indeed found Yellow Bank Creek, although the name has been lost to the current generation. Looking at the yellow clay, the reason for the name is obvious. However, the gate was gone and we didn’t expect such a large “dip” in the “road”, shown below.

Audrey was getting a bit nervous. My cell phone didn’t work and she clearly did not want to be the laughing stock of the county for getting stuck in the woods with her northern cousin. I got out and walked across the creek, determining that there was gravel in the bottom and we’d be fine so long as we didn’t tarry and maintained a good speed when crossing. I got back in and told Audrey to hold on, and off we went across the creek in the Jeep. She was truly a good sport, although she periodically looked terrified.

Looking across the creek below, we initially went to the right on a little road only visible by a small clearing in the trees and then determined that this must not be the way, then followed the visible tracks, although it turns out the first overgrown road was the old road we wanted. This turned to the left and then the ground became somewhat soft and we drove on a raised burm until the washouts made us turn back. It was pretty rough back there, even for a Jeep, with quite deep well-hidden (with underbrush and overgrowth,) unforeseen gulleys that could easily swallow a car.

We looked, but the area was so over grown that we could not see any well or anything that looked like a well had ever been there. But then again, we weren’t quite sure what we were looking for either.

Little did we know that the well as actually about just past the clump of trees across the creek on the right, to the right of the road about where the dirt mound is showing. I would discover that this year (2008), but we were painfully close last fall.

Audrey and I decided that we really needed to abandon our plans since we could not get to the cemetery the way we were going and it was getting into the late afternoon and it was getting more difficult to see those gulleys.

On the way out, I took photos of the creek upstream in the little pond and downstream as well, as I knew full well this was the place. However, I desperately wanted to find the cemetery where Marcus and his family, my family, rested.

Audrey mentioned that she knew a farmer who could take us to the land, but he had recently sold it to another gentleman. She called the farmer in question, but he wasn’t home, and besides that, he would need to chat with the current property owner before taking us back to the cemetery from the “front side”.

My visit was coming to a close, so Audrey and I parted and agreed to try this trip again in the spring of 2008 when the brush was less dense and when we could find the right people to show us where the cemetery was located. It had become obvious that without knowing where you were going, you weren’t going to find it.

Above, Yellow Bank looking downstream. Below, Yellow Bank looking upstream.

I left and came home, and Audrey began to pursue the people we would need to help us locate the cemetery. She told me that the new land owner, a man named Dennis, was building a house there and had actually rented from Larry Younger, a Thomas Younger descendant and local veterinarian, while he was getting settled. What a small world.

What a string of coincidences, or maybe Marcus was helping.

To put things in perspective, this is the location where we were traveling.

The topo map below was provided by Denny and the yellow highlighter shows the location of the cemetery. There is a second smaller cemetery near the main road due north of the cemetery on the old road shown that enters from the main road. This road is now defunct, but a small cemetery remains beside this road. The third cemetery, which we now know holds the remains of the Street family, is marked on this map near what is now Younger road. Denny’s land is penciled.

Note Terrible Creek just across the main road on the map above. That’s where Thomas Younger owned land and the Younger store is on the main road between the two locations

Trying to coordinate between the schedules of several people in the spring of 2008 presented some challenges, plus the challenge of not exactly knowing where the cemetery was located. Discussions with Denny, the current land owner, several days in advance disclosed that there wasn’t just one, not two, but three different cemeteries on his property, and that he had purchased his property in segments from different people. To confuse matters even more, there is a 4^th cemetery near his land, between his land and the Banister River, which houses the grave of Hawkins Landrum, a very early dissenting preacher in that area who died about 1804. The local folks tell of the time that his “people” came from Texas to see the grave and there are probably only 1 or 2 people still living who know where that cemetery is located. We have determined that it is not on Younger land.

Denny was kind enough to contact the title companies involved and they did produce some helpful documentation, which I was able to use as a baseline to work from in my courthouse research. My first day was spent at the courthouse in an attempt to track Denny’s various land purchases backwards in time to meet Marcus Younger’s descendants coming forward in time.

What an interesting exercise that was!

Fortunately, we had isolated the land to that just north of the Horseshoe Bend in the Banister River, which was a readily recognizable landmark. You can see the bend on the map below, at the bottom. The approach we took in 2007 shows up in white, and you can see where it crosses Yellow Bank Creek, about an inch to the left of where the white line ends.

On the map below, you can see Younger Road and Bessie Marion Trail as well.

The Yellow Bank Creek crossing is shown by the red arrow. Here is a closer view. The cemetery is between the house and barn and the Creek crossing. Below, you can clearly see Dennis’s new construction.

Here we are, in 2008, back at the infamous creek crossing. But this time, I’m on the right side of the creek with someone who knows where they are going.

You can see the yellow clay and can tell why it was named Yellow Bank Creek.

Cemeteries, especially abandoned pioneer cemeteries and homesteads are often marked by daffodils and periwinkle in the spring. This one was no different. These flowers are often wonderful guides. Marcus Younger or maybe his wife may have planted these.

In the earlier directions, a well was mentioned. Dennis knew exactly where it was. This is probably the original house well that Marcus Younger used and he perhaps dug the well himself. The original stones are there but it was shored up in later days and then of course, the well was eventually abandoned.

The area behind the well shows evidence that it had once been a homestead. Daffodils were getting ready to bloom in a wide area. This is probably where the original log cabin was located and where Marcus lived.

Was this the original step to the house?

The current owners of the Tune House, Donna and Johnny McKinney, contacted me a couple years after this original article was published. Donna and Johnny who are researching the history of the property, indicated that they believe this well was associated with the original Tune home that had burned, prior to the current one being rebuilt. The clump of trees below is believed to be the location of the original Tune home, as told to them by Walter Tune’s great-grandson, Doug Tune. These trees can be seen in the background of the photo of the Walter Tune family, shown earlier.

Johnny located another foundation, about 600 feet from the well, which he believes to be the original Younger cabin, with the cemetery sitting directly up the hill maybe 300 feet from the remains. He promises to take some photos as soon as the winter weather lets up!

Dennis, the current Younger property owner, knew exactly where the cemetery was. It is, like the original records said, located in the woods. I could not help but think how difficult these graves would have been to dig.

Many graves are still marked by fieldstones, hidden under the leaves and periwinkle.

None of the graves are actually marked with contemporary stones, all have simple field stones.

This cemetery is not small. Among this family must surely be Marcus and his wife, Susanna and their unmarried daughter, also Susanna. Another daughter, Sally, died young, after having only one child, and she is probably here too. Marcus’s son John, who inherited this land, died only a year after his father at about age 57 and assuredly is buried here. John’s wife, Lucy Hart, died 17 years later, in 1834, and probably rests here too. Any of their children who died would also be buried here, surrounded by their parents and grandparents.

Marcus and his wife only had 5 documented children. They were married their entire adult life to each other, as best we know, having had son John in 1760, probably their first child. They could have been expected to have 10-12 children during a normal reproductive marriage, which implies that 5-7 children died. Some may be buried here, some back in King and Queen or Essex Counties. How hard it must have been for Susanna to leave the graves of her babies.

If Susanna married Marcus Younger at approximately age 20 and had her first child, John, in 1760, we could expect that she would be bearing children for approximately the next 25 years, or until 1785. We know she was dead by 1805 when Marcus made his will, as was her unnamed daughter who married the Wyatt.

Our ancestor who was Marcus and Susanna’s child was Mary Younger who married George Estes in 1786, roughly two years before Marcus Younger purchased this land on Banister River. In fact, this was before George’s father, Moses Estes Jr. had bought the land abutting William Younger in what is now South Boston. The first records of George Estes are in the north part of the county, possibly living and working on the Younger land. Thomas Younger lived here long before Marcus first bought land. George Estes and Mary Younger may also have children buried here. Mary died sometimes after 1831 and before 1842 and we’ve always presumed she was buried in the Estes cemetery, now under the landfill, in South Boston. If she is not buried there, then she is surely buried here.

Joel Younger, son of Marcus’s son John Younger and his wife Lucy Hart, inherited the Marcus Younger land and died in 1877. Joel’s first wife, Lucy Caine, died in 1818, probably in childbirth, only 4 years after their marriage and a year after Joel’s father, John died, the year after Marcus died. The Younger family visited this sacred burying ground often.

Joel’s second wife, Fentel Hart, died in 1862, during the Civil War. Where else would Joel and his wives be buried? Other family members could well be buried here as well. Many children died young and we don’t even know their names. After the census began to be recorded for every family member in 1850, complete with ages, we know these children existed because there is a gap in the living children of the exact spacing for one who died. It’s certain that many are buried here with their parents, grandparents and siblings.

When property passed out of the hands of the original owners, the new family often started a new family cemetery elsewhere on the property. This land did not pass from the Younger family hands until in the 1900s and according to the list provided by Audrey, several of the Tunes are buried here as well. The Tunes were Younger descendants through Joel’s daughters Louisa and Matilda who both married Tunes. Louisa’s husband, William R. Tune was taken prisoner during the Civil War, and died, but their only child, a son, Walter T. Tune, born in 1864, would own and live on this land. Louisa’s second husband was her first cousin, Phillip A.J. Younger, son of Robert, brother to her father, Joel. This means that Louisa’s name was Louisa Younger Tune Younger. Louisa and Phillip lost at least 4 children who are recorded in Audrey’s note as having been buried here as well. Walter T. Tune died in 1945 and is buried in the McKendree United Methodist Church Cemetery, located just down the road, the first generation not to be buried in this Younger family cemetery.

There are abandoned buildings on the property. I think this building below is too new to be the original home. Dennis said this is an old barn.

Dennis said the photo below may have been the original house. I question that because it’s not a log cabin, but maybe planks were made by the 1780s when Marcus moved to Halifax County. Although the original house/cabin would have been very close to the well and this one is not. Some building was located by that well and the daffodils near Yellow Bank Creek. It’s certainly possible that at one time both Marcus Younger and his son John both lived on this land, along with possibly other families as well, such as George and Mary Younger Estes. Multigenerational family farms were not uncommon. Later generations, such as Joel, may have built a “new” house too.

The second cemetery on the property is shown below.

Did someone lovingly plant this daffodil on their family member’s grave?

The property owner, Dennis, showed me a second cemetery on the property as well. He believes this may be a slave cemetery. It is much smaller and many fewer graves, above and below. The graves are marked with the same kind of field stones as the larger cemetery.

The 2008 visit was just wonderful, to find and stand on the land that Marcus owned and to visit his grave, someplace in that cemetery, nearly 200 years after his death.

Reflections Upon Marcus’s Parents

While there are many records we don’t have for Halifax County’s early residents, such as birth and death records, there are also many that do exist. Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for King and Queen County, Virginia, whose early records are entirely lost.

By combining all of those juicy tidbits, we discover that there is actually a lot of information, in bits and pieces, about Marcus Younger as well as the other Younger families found in Halifax County, even though we still don’t know how they are related. We are provided with a glimpse into Marcus’s life and the lives of his children. We know where he lived and died, and where his daughter, Mary lived after she married George Estes.

Who was the father of Marcus Younger? Speculation abounds, but no genealogical hints have been forthcoming at all. Y DNA tests test males of the same surname and can determine if they share a common ancestor. They don’t tell you which common ancestor though, just if you match others of the same last name. Originally, this was the extent of DNA testing available. Today, in 2014, autosomal DNA testing that matches both male and female cousins is also available. People from both the Thomas and James Younger lines, both sons of Alexander match the descendants of Marcus Younger utilizing autosomal testing, so he appears to be descended from the Younger family, just not through the paternal line. Given all of the evidence available, it’s likely that he descends through an illegitimate birth by one of Alexander Younger’s daughters.

Currently, the Marcus Younger Y-line matches a Seay and a Rolland. Autosomally, we know that Marcus is descended from the Younger family, and he carries the surname, so by process of elimination, it must be through a female, because it is clearly not on the paternal male line.

The Promise of DNA

There are two types of DNA testing that is relevant to the Younger family in terms of sorting out who Marcus’s family and parents were.

The first is Y DNA testing, in which the father contributes the Y chromosome to only his sons. That DNA is not mixed with any DNA from the mother, so it is passed unchanged from male generation to male generation, all carrying the same surname, Younger. Therefore, when we Y DNA test two Younger men, if their Y DNA matches, we know they share a common paternal (surname) ancestor, and if it doesn’t, then no common paternal ancestor.

There is no question that the male Younger descendants of Marcus Younger don’t match the male descendants of either Alexander Younger or his son, Thomas Younger. However, the descendants of Alexander Younger do match each other, through two different sons, Thomas and James. Therefore, we know what the “true” Younger line looks like, and which of these is the “undocumented adoption.”

The second type of DNA testing is autosomal testing. This test differs from that of the Y, because it tests all of your DNA that is contributed by both Mom and Dad’s lines, equally. Therefore, in each new generation, the autosomal DNA that you received from your ancestors is divided in half as the next generation is created by combining the DNA of mother and father together. Half of the DNA of each parent is used, in effect roughly halving the DNA of each ancestor passed on to the child.

Several generations downstream from any given ancestor, descendants carry small amounts of DNA from that ancestor. You carry half of your parents DNA, roughly 25% of the DNA of each grandparent, 12.5% of the DNA of each great-grandparents, until eventually, in the 7^th generation, or your 4^th great-grandparents, you carry about 1% of their autosomal DNA, and so do all of their other great-great-great-great-grandchildren. Marcus is in fact my 4^th great-grandfather, so I carry about 1.5% of his autosomal DNA.

Comparing our autosomal DNA is how we identify cousins. By matching, we know we share a common ancestor, and by comparing genealogy, we figure out which common ancestor we share. When we have three or more descendants that share a common piece of DNA, we can then identify that DNA segment as belonging to that specific ancestor, and anyone else who matches us on that same segment is confirmed to have come from that ancestral line in some fashion. For example, if someone matches me and two Younger cousins on the same DNA segment, we know they are either descended from the Younger line or the line of one of the Younger wives upstream, genealogically, from our common ancestral match.

Let’s say that three Younger descendants match autosomally: me who descends from Marcus, someone who descends from Thomas, son of Alexander and someone who descends from James, son of Alexander. This tells us that all 3 of us either match through the Alexander Younger line, or his ancestors, or though Alexander’s wife or Alexander’s ancestor’s wives lines. Of course, Alexander’s ancestors become Alexander’s line, but his wife’s line becomes his children’s biological line.

This is important to understand because Alexander’s wife was Rebecca Mills. It’s certainly possible that we will match Mills cousins who have no Youngers in their line, because our common ancestor with those Mills cousins through Alexander Younger’s children was not Alexander, but his wife.

To shed light on the Younger family connections, we’ve utilized both Y line and autosomal DNA.

The DNA Evidence

Descendants of Thomas Younger and of Marcus Younger both took the Y DNA test some years ago, and we were absolutely stunned to discover that their Y DNA did not match. We have two descendants of John, the only son of Marcus, and they do match each other, but no other Youngers. It is possibly that Marcus did match the Alexander Younger line of DNA, but his son John, did not. However, given that John’s descendants match Alexander’s descendants autosomally, that virtually eliminates that possibility. If that were the case, that John was not Marcus’s biological son, he would not match the Younger line at all on autosomal tests, because his mother was not genetically a Younger.

The several descendants of Thomas Younger match each other and also the descendants of Alexander’s other son, James. So Marcus seems to be related to the family, carries the surname, but does not share a direct paternal ancestor on his father’s side.

Our candidates for his parents are quite limited.

Barring a totally unknown Younger person, we have the following candidates.

John Younger, son of Alexander – but that would also mean that John was not the biological son of Alexander but did share a mother since Marcus’s descendants autosomally match this line today. Since Alexander’s estate paid to register the death of John, that implies that John was not yet married at the time of his death and responsible for himself. This effectively eliminates John as a possibility. If Marcus was John’s illegitimate son, he would not carry the Younger surname.

The other alternative is that Marcus is the illegitimate child of one of Alexander’s daughters. His daughters were named Ann, Mary, Janet, Susannah and Elizabeth. Unfortunately, three of those names are repeated in Marcus’s daughters, but it could effectively eliminate Janet and Ann, unless Marcus had a child with that name that died young and he did not reuse the name as so many people did at that time. As it turns out, Ann and Janet married about 1732, which would probably eliminate them since Marcus appears to have been born about 1740 – but it doesn’t completely eliminate them as possible mothers as Marcus could have been born earlier. We have no information on the other 3 daughters, Mary, Susannah and Elizabeth other than they were minors at their father’s death in 1727 and Thomas was appointed their legal guardian in 1732, indicating they were still minors at that time, so born after 1711.

This scenario, that Marcus was the child of one of Alexander’s daughters would fit what we do know about this family both genetically and genealogically.

The DNA Jackpot

This brings us to December 2013. Until then, none of the descendants of Marcus Younger autosomally matched the descendants of Thomas Younger, at least not on large enough segments to be counted as a match at the testing companies.

I manage the kit of one of the descendants of John Younger, Marcus’s son. We’ll call him Larry.

I received a query from someone about matching Larry autosomally. I sent the note that I always do, with some basic genealogy info. What I received back was a pedigree chart screen shot from the match, David, that included Thomas Younger as his ancestor. He descended from Thomas via a daughter.

Once again, I was stunned, because here was the link we had sought for so many years…a genetic bond between Thomas and Marcus.

Of course, the first thing I did was to ask about other lines as well through which Larry and David might be related. There were none.

Then I turned to DNA. Larry matches me and Larry matches David, but I don’t match David. This could well be because we don’t have any segment matches above the match threshold of approximately 7.7cM at Family Tree DNA, but since we both match Larry, I could look at Larry’s matches and then drop the comparison level to below the matching threshold to see all of our common matches between the three of us.

Below are our default 5 cM matches on chromosome 1-10. We show a match on chromosomes 1, 4 and 10, but no common segments between the three of us. There were no matches on chromosomes 11-22, so they are not shown.

I am orange. David is blue. Larry is who we are being compared against and is represented by the black background chromosome.

Dropping the cM matching threshold level to 1 shows us that golden nugget we have searched for so diligently on the following graph. In this case, with the matching threshold lowered, we now have matches on chromosomes 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 15.

Look at chromosome 1. All 3 of us match on a small segment of DNA. That DNA is Younger DNA. And that little orange and blue segment proves that indeed, Marcus and Thomas were related, because all 3 of us match on the exact same segment of the chromosome. In other words, that segment comes from a common ancestor of all 3 of us, and there is only one common line, the Youngers.

This also means that there will be others who fall into this “too small to be a match but hugely relevant small segment” scenario. In order to take a look, I triangulated all of the matches for my cousin Larry and David, and there were a total of 15 individuals.

But here’s the amazing part.

There are 16 people in total, including Larry and David who match.

I compared them in the chromosome browser, and downloaded all of them. I then sorted them by chromosome and start/end segment. Here is that oh so beautiful “proof” match on chromosome 1.

There are a total of 191 individual segments across all chromosomes where these people match Larry.

Of those 191 segments, there are also 94 segments on which one or more of us also match each other. Those are shaded green above for chromosome 1.

Of those 94 segments, only 8 were large enough to be above the matching threshold. That means that there were a total of 86 segments that were below the matching threshold but that were useful genealogically. On chromosome 1 above, only Larry and I would have been over that threshold, and we were already matching.

Looking at those 8 large segment matches, some were between known relatives on both sides, like me and Larry on chromosome 1, but until there was someone who connected the dots and matched someone on both sides, like David, on a segment large enough to be counted as a match, the connection wasn’t there and the other matches weren’t meaningful to the question and answer of whether Marcus and Thomas were related.

David matches Larry on a large enough segment to be counted as a match on chromosomes 4 and 10, neither of which is a match to me in that location.

The golden “proof” egg, in this case, for the three of us, was hidden in a very small segment on chromosome 1 that would have gone entirely unnoticed and unreported because it was not over the vendor match threshold.

Are We Done?

Of course, we’re not “done.” Genealogists are never “done” because as soon as you find one more ancestor, there are two more needing to be discovered, their parents. I’d still like to know where the Younger family originated overseas before we find them in Glasgow, Scotland, although that could be before the advent of surnames. I’d like to know who Marcus’s paternal line is and I’d like to identify the surname of his wife. For that matter, I’d also like to know who his mother was and the circumstances surrounding his birth. You know there has to be a story there and probably some scuttlebutt too.

Given that we do now know that Marcus is descended from the Alexander Younger line, even though we don’t know exactly how, let’s take a look at what we do know about this Younger line.

Glasgow, Scotland, the Younger Ancestral Home

There’s a lot we don’t know about the Younger line, but there is a whole raft of information that has been discovered, that tells us about the lives of our Younger ancestors and their descendants. Halifax County is rich with Younger family history beginning around the time of the Revolutionary War. Prior to that, the Younger family was found in Essex and King and Queen Counties, in Virginia.

We know that Alexander Younger was married to Rebecca Mills around 1700 in Essex County and that their son was Thomas Younger. We know that Marcus and Thomas are related, in some way. I’ve speculated that Marcus’s mother was a sister of Thomas Younger, and if this is correct, then Alexander Younger would be the grand-father of Marcus Younger. DNA tells us that they are related. We just don’t know how.

The identity of Marcus’s wife as a Hart is also suggested by DNA testing, but needs additional matches to be confirmed, although I’m fairly confident at this point.

What we do know is this. Alexander Younger was born probably around 1675 in Scotland. We know that because his will, after immigrating to America and having children with Rebecca Mills, stated that if his entire family died, his estate was to be left to his brother Andrew, in Scotland.

From this point, we move to the Scottish records, but we can’t prove beyond a doubt that the Alexander in the 1681 Glasgow baptismal records is ours.

Alexander Younger’s father, born January 15, 1652 in the High Church in Glasgow, Scotland, is believed to be one Thomas Younger who married Anna Smith. We have no way of knowing whether or not the Alexander who immigrated to America and married Rebecca Mills is the same Alexander who was born to Thomas Younger and Anna Smith, although three of Alexander’s children carried the same first names as the children of Thomas Younger and Anna Smith: Janet, Mary and Thomas. Mary and Thomas aren’t unusual, but Janet is rather rare. Thomas Younger and Anna Smith also had a son named Andrew, which aligns with Alexander Younger’s 1725 will which leaves his estate, if none of his children survive, to his brother Andrew in Scotland.

According to the book, Scottish Church Records, Thomas Younger and Anna Smith’s children were christened in the High Church in Glasgow, as follows:

Janet Younger – Feb. 25, 1673
Jean Younger – Oct. 18, 1674
Agnes Younger – March 11, 1678
Alexander Younger – May 2, 1681
Andrew Younger – Nov. 13, 1683
Mary Younger – Feb. 16, 1690

Thomas Younger’s father, reportedly Alexander Younger was born about 1608 is a weaver and a burgess. He married Margaret Steinson (Steinsoun) and was listed in the guild records as follows:

The Burgesses and Guild Brethren of Glasgow, 1573-1750
This is the roll of the parish of Portpatrick above “tuelve yeirs of age”
1639
County: Lanarckshire
Country: Scotland
Younger, Alexander, weaver, B., as third son to dec’d William Younger, burgess (G.B., as mar. Margaret, dau to dec’d Neill Steinson. B. and G.B., 24 Sep 1646) 31 Oct. 1639

Here’s a carving of 16^th century burgesses from Glasgow. Burgesses were free men, often in a guild. Therefore all guild members were by default burgesses in the earliest meanings of the word. Eventually, it could mean an elected official of the municipality.

Although the guild note referring to Alexander Younger is dated 1646, there is a marriage record for Alexander Younger and Margaret Steinsoune Feb. 9, 1632 and their first child was christened in January, 1633.

This record gives us his father’s name, as well as his home location of Lanarkshire, where Glasgow is located. From this, we know that his father was William Younger and he is deceased in 1639, meaning that he would have been born before 1590 and probably earlier.

In summary, this gives us the following generations:

William Younger, burgess, born before 1590 and died by 1639
Alexander Younger, born circa 1608, married Margaret Steinson
Thomas Younger born before 1653, married Anna Smith
Alexander Younger born May 2, 1681, immigrated to America, married Rebecca Mills, will probated July 1727, Essex Co., VA

What do we know about Glasgow? Who was living there, how was it settled and what was occurring during this timeframe that might have affected the lives of the residents?

The present site of Glasgow has been used since prehistoric times for settlement due to it being the furthest downstream fording point of the River Clyde, at the point of its confluence with the Molendinar Burn. After the Romans left Caledonia the settlement was part of the extensive Kingdom of Strathclyde, with its capital at Dumbarton 15 mi (24 km) downstream, which merged in the 9th century with other regions to create the united Kingdom of Scotland. The origins of Glasgow as an established city derive ultimately from its medieval position as Scotland’s second largest bishopric. Glasgow increased in importance during the 10th and 11th centuries as the site of this bishopric, reorganized by King David I of Scotland and John, Bishop of Glasgow.

There had been an earlier religious site established by Saint Mungo in the 6th century.

Glasgow grew over the following centuries, the first bridge over the River Clyde at Glasgow was recorded from around 1285, giving its name to the Briggait area of the city, forming the main North-South route over the river via Glasgow Cross. The founding of the University of Glasgow in 1451 and elevation of the bishopric to become the Archdiocese of Glasgow in 1492 served to increase the town’s religious and educational status, and landed wealth. Its early trade was in agriculture, brewing and fishing, with cured salmon and herring being exported to Europe and the Mediterranean.

Following the Reformation and with the encouragement of the Convention of Royal Burghs the 14 Incorporated Trade Crafts federated as the Trades House in 1605 to match the power and influence in the Town Council of the earlier Merchants Guilds who established their Merchants House in the same year. Glasgow was subsequently raised to the status of Royal Burgh in 1611.

This was about the time that William Younger would have been a young man. For William’s third son, Alexander, to marry in 1646, at the probable age of between 25 and 30, he would have been born between 1616 and 1621. We know for sure he was over the age of 12 in 1639, so definitely born before 1627. His father, William, therefore, to have Alexander as his third son would have therefore been born before 1580 and probably before 1570.

Glasgow is today’s largest city in Scotland, but in the early 1600s, Glasgow was a relatively young and undeveloped city, as we can see by various maps.

In Glasgow, there are two churches referred to as High Church, Inner High Church at St. Mungo’s cathedral and Outer High Church or St. Paul’s. The Glasgow Cathedral is called the “High Kirk” of Glasgow and is located between High and Cathedral Streets, also referred to as St. Mungo’s. It was originally the Roman Catholic mother church before the Scottish Protestant Reformation in 1560.

William’s parents and grandparents would have lived through the Reformation , and William, depending on exactly when he was born, could have been baptized either Catholic or Protestant. By the time Alexander came along, he would definitely have been baptized or christened as Protestant.

The Younger timeline in Glasgow, Scotland, as best we can reconstruct it, is shown below.

1560 – Protestant Reformation
1560 -1580 – William Younger, shown as a burgess, deceased in 1639, his third son Alexander is over the age of 12 at that time.
1600 -1612 – Alexander Younger (Sr.), son of William, born. In 1639, he is over the age of 12 and in 1646, he marries Margaret Steinson.
1632 – Alexander Younger married Margaret Steinsoune and in 1633, their first child is christened.
1639 – Burgesses and Guild Brethren roll list Alexander Younger (Sr.) as over the age of 12 and his father, William, as deceased, with Alexander being his third son.
1646 – Note in guild roll indicating Alexander Younger (Sr.) married Margaret Steinson.
1652 – Thomas Younger, born in 1652.
1656 – Alexander Younger is shown in the guild records as a weaver.
1665 – Alexander Younger is shown in the guild records as a weaver.
1672 – Thomas Younger married Anna Smith based on the christening of their first child in 1673 in the High Church in Glasgow.
1681 – Alexander Younger (Jr.) born to Thomas Younger and Anna Smith and christened in the High Church in Glasgow, Scotland.
1687 – Alexander Younger (Sr.) dies in Glasgow.
1695 – Thomas Younger died in Glasgow. His wife, Anna died in 1690.
1699 – Alexander Younger (Jr.) is found in Virginia records and said to be 18 years old, which would place his birth in 1681.
1704 – Alexander’s son, Thomas Younger, born about this time based on the fact that when Alexander wrote his will in 1725, he indicated that Thomas was to be his executor which indicates that Thomas was 21 years of age.
1725 – Alexander Younger (Jr.) writes his will in Essex Co., VA, referring to his brother Andrew in Scotland.
1727 – Alexander Younger’s will is probated in Essex Co., VA.

This engraving, below, shows the High Church in Glasgow in 1693. This would have been about 100 years after William Younger lived, given that he was born sometime before 1580, and not far removed from the time that William’s son, Alexander and his grandson, Thomas, died in Glasgow, in about 1687 and 1695, respectively. This is also likely the church where their funeral rites were carried out, and it is likely where they are buried as well, although their gravestones, if they ever had one, surely don’t remain today.

The next generation, Alexander, the immigrant was born, probably in Glasgow, probably in 1681, so this is what Glasgow would have looked like about the time he left for America.

The following photo is of the College of Glasgow in the late 1660, with Blackfriars Church on land granted to them in 1246, shown on the right. Alexander, born in the early 1600s and his son, Thomas born in 1652 would have looked upon this very scene.

Below, engraving of Glasgow Cathedral and neighborhood in 1811.

Here is the Glasgow Precinct in 1574. Later maps all show graveyards by the churches and in fact that may be what the “Yairds” are.

This undated engraving shows a communal washing green near the Cathedral, shown in the background. Our ancestors surely visited this area and did just that.

The front of the Cathedral today from Cathedral Square.

The history of the cathedral is linked with that of the city, and is allegedly located where the patron saint of Glasgow, Saint Mungo, built his church. The tomb of the saint is in the lower crypt.

This crypt and the remains of St. Mungo were a much venerated pilgrimage site, so our Younger ancestors would have been very aware of this heritage held within their church.

Below, the Crypt of Glasgow Cathedral where Glasgow University was founded.

Built before the Reformation from the late 12th century onwards and serving as the seat of the Bishop and later the Archbishop of Glasgow, the Cathedral is a superb example of Scottish Gothic architecture. It is also one of the few Scottish medieval churches (and the only medieval cathedral on the Scottish mainland) to have survived the Reformation not unroofed.

Today, the church stands majestic and intact, shown below with the Royal Infirmary, the Cathedral and the Necropolis.

Someplace on these lands, the bones of our ancestors surely rest, as our family brought new life into the world, were baptized and married in this church and laid their dead to rest here as well. It’s from here that our family sprang and Alexander Younger would leave on a ship, from the port of Glasgow, below, about 1700, sailing past the port, Grennock, shown below, to settle in Virginia. I visited Grennock in the fall of 2013, and it assuredly looks much different today.

Ponderings In Closing

Sometimes just putting things in order helps to straighten them out and makes otherwise obscured patterns emerge.

One pattern, of note, is the repeated name of Janet in the daughters of the Younger family beginning with Alexander Younger and Margaret Steinson and continuing for the next three generations through Alexander Younger and Rebecca Mills children. Unfortunately, neither Thomas nor Marcus continued that tradition, or if they did, those children did not survive, but the name Janet does help us connect Alexander Younger in early Virginia with the Younger families in Glasgow, Scotland. The names of Thomas and Alexander also repeat, as does the name Susannah as a sister to Thomas Younger and a child of both Thomas and Marcus Younger.

From the evidence we have, it appears that the Glasgow Younger family is indeed ours.

Another pattern that emerges is of family groupings moving from the Essex/King and Queen County area of Virginia to Halifax County about the time of the Revolutionary War. This includes both the Estes and Younger families as well as the Harts, Fergusons and Landrums.

A third pattern seems to be one of belonging to a dissenting religion, in this case, Methodists. This tale is told by the fact that two of the 3 dissenting ministers in Halifax County were marrying family members of the various Younger families. This is true of the Marcus, Thomas and William Younger family lines, even though we still don’t know exactly how they are connected. Hawkins Landrum, one of those dissenting ministers, is buried next to the Marcus Younger land. The Landrum family also came from Essex County.

A fourth pattern is the connection between the South Boston Younger and Estes families whose lands abut, with the Banister River and Terrible Creek Younger families, some 12 miles distant. This connection likely reaches back to their common location on the Essex/King and Queen County borders. Mary Younger and George Estes were married before George’s father, Moses (Jr.), purchased land abutting William Younger, and before we find records of Marcus Younger, Mary’s father, In Halifax County. In addition, it now appears that George Estes and Mary Younger, daughter of Marcus may have lived on Marcus’s land from the time of their marriage in 1786 until when either Marcus Younger or Moses Estes died, in 1813 and 1815, respectively. In 1810, they appear to be living with Marcus.

After Marcus Younger’s death in 1815, his land went to son John and in life estate, to daughter Susannah. George Estes was the eldest son of his father, Moses (Jr.), who died in 1813 and George stood to inherit significantly from that estate. We do know that later in his life, from at least 1820 on, George and Mary Estes Younger unquestionably did live on the Estes land in South Boston. On the map below, the path from Estes Street in South Boston is shown to Younger Road, running through and north of Halifax, where the courthouse stands.

Additional records that could well illuminate the Hart connection to this family may be available in Essex County. I checked the chancery suit index at the library of Virginia for Essex County, and no Younger, Hart or Estes suits are old enough to be relevant to these families. It does, however, beg the question of who these Youngers in Essex County in the 1800s belong to, since Alexander had only 3 sons and we know the location of all 3. Thomas moved to Halifax County, John died shortly after his father, and James went to Chatham Co., NC.

As with many things in life, and all things genealogy, answered questions beget new ones. We answered quite a few questions recently, including the long-burning question of whether Thomas and Marcus Younger were related. They were in some way. We also have DNA evidence that indicates that Marcus’s wife, Susannah, was a Hart, or related to the Hart line.

With this information, of course, we have simply substituted new burning questions for old ones. We still don’t know who Marcus Younger’s father was, nor his mother, and we may never know. We do know that the men who his Y DNA matches also don’t match their family, or anyone else for that matter. I can’t help but think of a traveling salesman, or in that timeframe, the peddler or maybe an itinerant minister. Were it not so frustrating, it would be quite humorous really. I’m sure our ancestors, who, of course, know the answers, are all having a good chuckle!

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Bennett Greenspan – The Future of Genetic Genealogy

Posted on June 8, 2014 by Roberta Estes

Bennett Greenspan, one of the founders of Family Tree DNA, spoke about “The Future of Genetic Genealogy” at the Southern California Genealogy Society conference this week. The SCGS has been gracious enough to provide a video of the livestream.

High points of Bennett’s presentation include:

There will be a new Y SNP matching capability released in the next few days.
“Regulatory issues are larger issues than the science.” Bennett discusses “armwrestling with the FDA.”
If prices of SNP chips that test over 2 million locations don’t drop substantially in the next couple of years, then genealogy testing likely will not utilize the next generation of SNP chip, but will move directly to full genome sequence testing. This may happen in the 3-5 year range but will, for sure in the 5-10 year range.

Bennett talked quite a bit about privacy and what privacy is in this technology era, expectations and how privacy expectations may affect future DNA testing. Be sure to watch the video. It’s always interesting to hear Bennett, functionally the father of genetic genealogy, speak about this industry and the future.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Edinburgh Castle and a Penannular

Posted on June 6, 2014 by Roberta Estes

This morning we awoke to a sunrise over the sea outside of Queensferry which is where the port for Edinburgh is located.

Oh yes, and Edinburgh is not pronounced Edinborough, it’s pronounced Edinburg, or at least similarly with the Scottish brogue. The Scottish brogue is comforting, homey. It feels like the language of the people.

Today began with tendering into the port. That means that the ship can’t get close enough to actually dock. So they took 3 or 4 lifeboats and lowered them, amongst much swearing in languages I don’t understand, but it was still quite recognizable as such. When they had trouble getting the flag raised on those boats, it didn’t do much to instill confidence. In any case, we did get to port, eventually, but we were an hour late for our tour to begin. Here’s our Carnival cruise ship, anchored beyond the bridge and we are standing in port

We were greeted one final time in port by bagpipers. I’ve enjoyed those greetings so much. Music touches the soul in ways nothing else can. This ancestral music is ingrained in the lives of my ancestors, and therefore, in me.

The earliest known human habitation in the Edinburgh area is from Cramond where evidence was found of a Mesolithic camp-site dated to circa 8500 BC. Traces of later Bronze Age and Iron Age settlements have been found on Castle Rock, Arthur’s Seat, Craiglockhart Hill and the Pentland Hills. People have been here for a very long time.

By the time the Romans arrived in Lothian at the end of the 1st century AD, they discovered a Celtic Britonnic tribe whose name they recorded as the Votadini. At some point before the 7th century AD, the Gododdin, who were presumably descendants of the Votadini, built the hill fort of Din Eidyn or Etin. Although its exact location has not been identified, it seems more than likely they would have chosen a commanding position.

“Edin”, the root of the city’s name, is most likely of Brittonic Celtic origin, from the Cumbric language or a variation of it that would have been spoken by the earliest known people of the area. It appears to derive from the place name Eidyn mentioned in the Old Welsh epic poem Y Gododdin.

In 1603, King James VI of Scotland succeeded to the English throne, uniting the crowns of Scotland and England in a personal union known as the Union of the Crowns, though Scotland remained, in all other respects, a separate kingdom. In 1638, King Charles I’s attempt to introduce Anglican church forms in Scotland encountered stiff Presbyterian opposition culminating in the conflicts of the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. Subsequent Scottish support for Charles Stuart’s restoration to the throne of England resulted in Edinburgh’s occupation by Oliver Cromwell’s Commonwealth of England forces – the New Model Army – in 1650.

In the 17th century, the boundaries of Edinburgh were still defined by the city’s defensive town walls, which you can see, along with the castle, in the drawing from 1670 by Wenceslas Hollar, above. As a result, expansion took the form of the houses increasing in height to accommodate a growing population. Buildings of 11 stories or more were common, and have been described as forerunners of the modern-day skyscraper. Most of these old structures were later replaced by the predominantly Victorian buildings seen in today’s Old Town.

By the first half of the 1700s, despite rising prosperity evidenced by its growing importance as a banking centre, Edinburgh was being described as one of the most densely populated, overcrowded and unsanitary towns in Europe. Visitors were struck by the fact that the various social classes shared the same urban space, even inhabiting the same tenement buildings; although here a form of social segregation did prevail, whereby shopkeepers and tradesmen tended to occupy the cheaper-to-rent cellars and garrets, while the more well-to-do professional classes occupied the more expensive middle storeys.

A census conducted by the Edinburgh presbytery in 1592 recorded a population of 8,003 adults spread equally north and south of the High Street which runs along the spine of the ridge sloping down from the Castle. The population rose rapidly, from 49,000 in 1751 to 136,000 in 1831, primarily due to migration from rural areas.

In the second half of the 1700s, Edinburgh was at the heart of the Scottish Enlightenment, and had become a major intellectual center, earning it the nickname “Athens of the North” because of its many classical buildings and reputation for learning, similar to Ancient Athens. The University of Edinburgh was established by royal charter in 1583 preceded by the Royal College of Physicians in 1506.

My ancestor, George McNiel and his two brothers were supposed to have studied at the University of Edinburgh for the ministry before sailing for America where they arrived about 1750. He was born about 1720, so if this is true, he would have been in Edinburgh between about 1735 and 1750, or so. Below is an engraving from about 1753, so this would have been what George McNiel would have seen, if he was in Edinburgh.

We arrived in Edinburgh about half an hour after leaving the port and drove through the city to the old town to visit the castle. Edinburgh castle was a heavily fortified castle built on a massive granite hill in the center of the city.

Surrounding the city are actually 3 volcanoes, dormant now, but giving great height and character to the city itself. One rises in the middle of the city.

In this photo of old town from above, you can see one of the volcanoes as well.

The castle itself holds, among other things, the Scottish crown jewels. I love mysteries, and there is a good one that goes along with the crown jewels. In 1707, the crown jewels were sealed in a box. I don’t remember the political problem at hand, but in 1818, Scotland’s sovereignty was restored and the box was opened. When it was opened, there was the crown of course, and the sword and the scepter, but there was also another scepter that they have absolutely no idea why was included. Personally, I think it was Merlin’s!

The oldest part of the castle and indeed, the oldest building in Edinburgh is St. Margaret’s chapel at the very top built by one of the earliest monarchs to honor his mother who died in 1097. Very old and very small but so very full of history.

This is probably where Alexander Campbell said his final prayers in this lifetime. I don’t know if he was my direct ancestor, but I do know that he was my relative.

The Kings were Celtic, but some of the wives became Christian and started bestowing names like Richard, James and Alexander on the sons instead of traditional Celtic, pagan, names.

Mary Queen of Scots gave birth here to the eventual King James I of England in the room known as the Mary Room or the Birth Chamber in June of 1566, which caused me to wonder about the DNA of the royal family and royal houses.

As I’ve traveled throughout the British Isles and learned about the history of the monarchy, it has become apparent that while the British monarchy was considered well, British, “the monarchy” as a whole was much more. In fact, the monarchs of the various countries and regions made it a point to marry strategically so that politics and power would come and go with spouses. So, I had to wonder, has anyone actually looked at and identified the DNA of the various “houses” of European royalty? How closely related are they? I’ll make it a point to do some research on this when I return home.

This castle was extremely well fortified. It had 6 different gates at different levels, draw and drop bridges, a mote of course and it sat on top of a huge granite mountain, to begin with. Here’s the castle from another angle.

And a view across all of Edinburgh, from the castle compound.

All of the heads of the clans would come here to meet. I know my ancestors were here. The Campbells would assuredly have been included. They would have arrived for important meetings and walked on these very cobblestones where we step today.

It’s easy to see through their eyes in a place like this as I walk in their footsteps.

We know, beyond a doubt that the Campbells were here, because the portcullis gate, the main entrance, above, is situated beneath the state prison, better known as Argyll’s Tower, as the 9^th Earl of Argyll, Archibald Campbell, the Marquis of Argyll, was imprisoned there prior to his execution in 1685 by “the maiden.” I didn’t know this until after my visit when I was doing research on the history of Edinburgh castle. Amazing that I was in the right place and literally walked where my ancestors had been, and didn’t even know it.

Below, the Earl and his second wife, Lady Anne Mackenzie. His first wife was Lady Mary Stuart who was the mother of his 7 children, including son, Archibald, the 10^th Earl and first Duke of Argyll. You can see the Campbell pedigree chart here.

The Earl was buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard, ironically, within view of the Castle (in the background, below) where he met his demise.

From the castle, we walked down High Street, the old town, now known as the “miracle mile” which is where all of the shopping is located.

Jim and I found a Starbucks and had a nice coffee and then did some shopping. I bought myself something very Scottish, a penannular. This brooch or pin is used to pin and hold wool scarves. Mine is antique and beautiful. This one is from the National Museum of Scotland.

Below, a contemporary penannular at CeltArts (which is available to purchase) shows how a penannular is used. By the way, these aren’t just for women. Men wear them with the scarves slung over their shoulders.

One of my favorite things in old cities is the little alleyways between buildings that are connected above the alleyway. They weren’t alleyways originally, but now they are both too narrow and too steep for anything but foot traffic. I took pictures of several. Many are just wide enough for a person.

In Edinburgh, there are several private schools for children and there is a lot of academic competition to be admitted. There are two from which it’s believed that the inspiration for Hogwarts was derived.

It’s a beautiful city and the ultimate in what it means to be Scottish. It’s not unusual to see men walking around in kilts as a business suit, complete with kilt, coat and tie, or sometimes kilts and sweatshirts. Kilts, here, are the ultimate in manly. For those who want to see what I mean, here’s a link for you. Yes, it’s family friendly, but word of warning, you’ll change your mind about kilts forever.

I had to laugh, because in Scotland, I’m reminded of this cartoon about restroom confusion.

On the return trip, our guide talked about history and then we were back at the docks. The bridges here are very interesting and artful. One, the suspension bridge at left below, reminds me of the bridge connecting the lower peninsula of Michigan with the upper peninsula at Mackinaw City and could be its twin.

Our towel guy tonight wears a celtic tartan scarf with the beautiful penannular I purchased in the wonderful little antique shop below Edinburgh castle as we wandered. I don’t know why these penannulars enchanted me so, but they did. Probably because these reach back in time, probably to the beginning of Celts and shawls, to hold them in place. They aren’t contemporary and they have character already. They are quintessentially Scottish as well, and are heirlooms. The shop had a few new ones too, and they are shinier and unscathed, but the antique ones had character. My ancestors wore penannulars, certainly, and now, so will I.

Our towel guy also has a little book from Edinburgh Castle chapel and a small contemporary watercolor painting of the castle.

British Monarchy’s DNA

After I returned home, I set out to see if anyone had done any genetic work on the DNA of the British monarchy.

The answer, it turns out, is yes. In August 2013, Bradley Larkin published a paper about the Y DNA of the British Monarchy in honor of the birth of the Prince of Cambridge.

Bradley said: “A review was made of existing genetic genealogy findings that infer characteristics of the Y-DNA of members of the British Monarchy. Nine sustained Y-DNA lineages since the year 927 CE were noted as dynastic groups. Haplogroup and haplotype characteristics of three of the dynasties were presented with two more dynasties noted as testable but unpublished. Cultural and geographical origins of these dynasties were considered as context for their DNA haplogroups. Specimen candidates for further testing were identified noting that some will require Ancient DNA (aDNA) recovery and analysis.”

Bradley identified the dynasties of the British monarchy beginning in the year 927 and ending in 2013, as shown below.

Mountbatten/Romanov
Hannover
Windsor
Stuart
Tudor
Plantagenet
Blois
Wessex
Norman
Knytlinga (Viking)

Bradley then researched each dynasty and lineage. If lines have been tested, he provides the results. Several lines have no male descendants, so for those, we would need ancient DNA. The connections and interconnections are fascinating.

To view the detail and summary data about each dynasty, read Bradley’s paper here, especially the summary table near the end.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers

Genealogy Services

Genealogy Research

Legacy Tree Genealogists for genealogy research

Ancestry.com Discontinues Y and mtDNA Tests and Closes Data Base

Posted on June 5, 2014 by Roberta Estes

Ancestry.com has not been actively selling Y and mtDNA tests for some time now. However, today Ancestry announced the official discontinuance of those tests and that as of September 5^th, their Y and mtDNA data bases will also be shuttered – meaning that the results will no longer be accessible for those who tested or for anyone wanting to do a comparison.

This is very sad news indeed for the genetic genealogy community, especially given that Ancestry has in the past purchased other vendors such as Relative Genetics and incorporated their results into their data base.

For anyone who tested their Y DNA with Ancestry, now is the time to transfer those result to the Family Tree DNA data base, now the last vendor left standing who provides those tests along with a comparison data base. This is easy to do and you can be a part of the Family Tree DNA community, availing yourself of their surname projects for only $19.

If you want to see your matches, you can upgrade your kit from Ancestry’s 33 or 46 markers to Family Tree DNA’s standard markers for another $39 at the same time you transfer your Ancestry results. This also has the added benefit of having your actual DNA in the lab at Family Tree DNA where it will be archived for 25 years. I’m already hearing moans from people whose family DNA is only at Ancestry, and the original tester has passed away.

In fact, if you don’t transfer your results from Ancestry now, or before September 5^th, you will lose your opportunity as your Y and mtDNA results will no longer be available at Ancestry in any format, according to their FAQ.

Ancestry states that this change does not affect their autosomal DNA testing, and in fact, that’s where they want to focus, at least for now. Unfortunately, the shuttering of their Y and mtDNA data bases calls into question their commitment to the genetics aspect of the genealogy industry. Autosomal DNA testing will be a priority as long as it’s profitable, just like Y and mtDNA has turned out to be.

I would suggest while you are transferring, you might also want to take advantage of this opportunity to also transfer your Ancestry autosomal results to Family Tree DNA for $69. You can fish in a second match pool and Family Tree DNA offers many tools to participants that Ancestry does not offer.

If you’re not inclined to transfer your results to Family Tree DNA, at least avail yourself of the two free data bases, www.ysearch.org for Y results and www.mitosearch.org for mtDNA. At least your results won’t be entirely lost forever.

I understand that Ancestry doesn’t want to sell the Y and mtDNA products any longer, but I would think that maintaining the current Y and mtDNA data bases in a static state for the tens of thousands of people who have spent a nontrivial amount of money DNA testing, and allowing comparisons, would be well worthwhile in terms of customer loyalty if nothing else. Customers are viewing this move as abandonment and a betrayal of their trust, and it begs the question of what will eventually happen to autosomal results and matches at Ancestry. If you’re going to test at Ancestry, make sure you also test at Family Tree DNA so your actual DNA is available there as well.

______________________________________________________________

Disclosure

Thank you so much.

DNA Purchases and Free Transfers