• Whaddya think?

    From J. Hugh Sullivan@21:1/5 to All on Sat Oct 12 15:35:05 2019
    I have been a Sullivan for 5 generations. My DNA matches a known
    Sullivan cousin who descends from the same man but by a different son.
    We don't match any other tested Sullivans. Doesn't that tell me that,
    at some point, my paternal ancestor was not a Sullivan?

    Our DNA is also an exact match with a Wyatt and there appears to be no
    way I can link to him. The problem is that the Wyatt doesn't match any
    other tested Wyatts. Wouldn't that mean we had a common male ancestor
    who was neither a Wyatt nor a Sullivan?

    A MRCA indicates a 95% possibility of a match with Wyatt at 6
    generations. And I find one Sullivan family in a county where 3
    Sullivan females birthed bastards. None of the children are named but
    Church Wardens are ordered to bind out a male Sullivan at the proper
    time period. One Wyatt is present in the county.

    I know it is not proof....

    ...but is it sufficiently logical to presume the baseborn male of a
    Sullivan female is the start of my line if I can follow the genealogy
    to my earliest proven relative?

    For info I am looking at Amelia Co. VA ca. 1740-43.

    1743 Amelia Ordered Church Wardens bind out
    Charles Sullivant, orphan on Court Held December 16
    (John not listed as orphan) - Court Order Book 1, page 143 Amelia
    County Virginia, 1735-1746, by Gibson Jefferson McConnaughey

    If anyone has quick access to the above Court Order Book I have a few
    questions if you have time. The copy I saw was in Tuscaloosa and I
    don't drive that far any more.

    Hugh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to J. Hugh Sullivan on Sun Oct 13 12:39:02 2019
    On 12/10/2019 16:35, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
    I have been a Sullivan for 5 generations. My DNA matches a known
    Sullivan cousin who descends from the same man but by a different son.

    Are you counting yourself in those five generations? I.e. is the
    ancestor that you and your Sullivan cousin descend from your great great grandfather?

    We don't match any other tested Sullivans.

    When you say you don't match, is that at a haplogroup level (e.g. you
    are something unusual like T and all other Sullivans are R), or at a
    marker level within a haplogroup? If the latter, how many markers are
    you away from the nearest Sullivans, and how many markers have you had
    tested?

    Doesn't that tell me that, at some point, my paternal ancestor was
    not a Sullivan?
    Yes, but that's true of all Sullivans. Even if the surname has
    descended down the male line with no "non-paternity events", as they're euphemistically called, eventually you get back to the point where the
    surname was first adopted and before that you have paternal ancestors
    who were not Sullivans. I'm not saying that out of pedantry, but
    because it's useful to think about how surnames arose. The idea that
    there was once a man called Suilebhan and his descendants took the
    surname O Suilleabhain may well have some truth, but it is almost
    certainly not the whole story. Other people may well have adopted the
    surname for all sorts of reason, especially in areas where the Irish
    clan system was not strong. Maybe you descend from a person who adopted
    the surname in mediaeval times, and only a few branches of the family
    survive. That isn't implausible. For example, I believe all known
    living male line descendants of King Henry II, who lived in the 12th
    century, are descended from the 5th Duke of Beaufort, who lived in the
    18th century. You should also bear in mind that the vast majority of
    Sullivans have not been DNA tested, and whole families may well have
    been missed. This could include other, more distant branches of your
    family.

    Our DNA is also an exact match with a Wyatt and there appears to be no
    way I can link to him.

    Did you discover this Wyatt match by searching some DNA database for
    likely matches, or did you have some other reason to investigate this particular surname or person?

    The problem is that the Wyatt doesn't match any other tested Wyatts.
    Wouldn't that mean we had a common male ancestor who was neither a
    Wyatt nor a Sullivan?
    That's certainly a possibility, but I don't think you can jump to that conclusion yet.

    A MRCA indicates a 95% possibility of a match with Wyatt at 6
    generations.

    I'd like to know more about this. First, is this based on Y-DNA or
    autosomal DNA? I.e. is it saying there's a 95% probability that there
    is a common make-line ancestor within six generations?

    Secondly, even if that is how it has been presented, the actual result
    will be about the total number of generations between the two tested individuals and the common ancestor. They've probably halved this and
    shown that number to you. But if there are different numbers of
    generations on your side and the Wyatt side, that becomes relevant.

    Thirdly, does the six generations count you?

    And I find one Sullivan family in a county where 3
    Sullivan females birthed bastards.

    Do you have a feel for how many Sullivans there were in the county, or
    even the state, at the time? I'd also be interested to know what, if
    anything, you know about the social status of your earliest Sullivan
    ancestor. In England in my experience, the very rich and the very poor
    were much more likely to have illegitimate children than the yeomen
    farmers and master craftsmen who formed the middle class. But American
    society might well differ.

    None of the children are named but Church Wardens are ordered to bind
    out a male Sullivan at the proper time period.
    Okay, so we have a court ordering the churchwardens to place a child in
    an apprenticeship. Is there any reason to assume this male Sullivan is illegitimate? I'm not familiar with American poor law, but if
    responsibility for the apprenticing a child had fallen to the county or churchwardens, isn't that more likely to be because they were a pauper
    or an orphan than being due to illegitimacy?

    One Wyatt is present in the county.

    I know it is not proof....

    ...but is it sufficiently logical to presume the baseborn male of a
    Sullivan female is the start of my line if I can follow the genealogy
    to my earliest proven relative?

    It's a possibility to explore further, but I wouldn't go so far as
    presuming it to be true.

    Does the state in question have anything like bastardy bonds which might
    record the name of the father?

    Richard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. Hugh Sullivan@21:1/5 to richard@ex-parrot.com on Sun Oct 13 15:05:32 2019
    On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 12:39:02 +0100, Richard Smith
    <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

    First let me thank you for your wxcwllent response.

    On 12/10/2019 16:35, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
    I have been a Sullivan for 5 generations. My DNA matches a known
    Sullivan cousin who descends from the same man but by a different son.

    Are you counting yourself in those five generations? I.e. is the
    ancestor that you and your Sullivan cousin descend from your great great >grandfather?

    Yes, my great great grandfather, Russell Sullivan 1789-1849 - born in
    NC and died in Tuscaloosa Co. AL.

    We don't match any other tested Sullivans.

    When you say you don't match, is that at a haplogroup level (e.g. you
    are something unusual like T and all other Sullivans are R), or at a
    marker level within a haplogroup? If the latter, how many markers are
    you away from the nearest Sullivans, and how many markers have you had >tested?

    I tested 67 markers. I am R1a1a1a, L-664. Other Sullivans (except one
    cousin) are R1b (Irish). I am almost certainly an Anglo-Saxon from
    Germany with a female Irish ancestor by following L-664 from the Black
    Sea.

    Doesn't that tell me that, at some point, my paternal ancestor was
    not a Sullivan?

    Yes, but that's true of all Sullivans. Even if the surname has
    descended down the male line with no "non-paternity events", as they're >euphemistically called, eventually you get back to the point where the >surname was first adopted and before that you have paternal ancestors
    who were not Sullivans. I'm not saying that out of pedantry, but
    because it's useful to think about how surnames arose. The idea that
    there was once a man called Suilebhan and his descendants took the
    surname O Suilleabhain may well have some truth, but it is almost
    certainly not the whole story.

    I have tracked that line from the separation. Mostly they are very
    prominent people and I suspect my ancestors were not. Poor people
    don't often leave paper tracks.

    You should also bear in mind that the vast majority of
    Sullivans have not been DNA tested, and whole families may well have
    been missed. This could include other, more distant branches of your
    family.

    True, but thousands have been tested. The parents of my gggrand have
    never been proved. I have found 9 theories and can prove all wrong. I
    have researched every Sullivan on the 1790 NC census, and have
    determined the only parents that are not proven but can't be
    successfully challenged. Two steps were elimination of men with no
    male children and men with known genealogies. I also eliminated men
    from distant counties.

    Our DNA is also an exact match with a Wyatt and there appears to be no
    way I can link to him.

    Did you discover this Wyatt match by searching some DNA database for
    likely matches, or did you have some other reason to investigate this >particular surname or person?

    Family Tree DNA notified me - exact match at 67 steps. I did his
    genealogy and they were in MA, never in NC. So we apparently have the
    same ancestor but probably in England where there were two Wyatt
    families that have never been linked. The other Wyatts went to VA but
    I can't link him to them.I found errors in Wyatt genealogy albeit
    difficult for most people to discover.

    The problem is that the Wyatt doesn't match any other tested Wyatts.
    Wouldn't that mean we had a common male ancestor who was neither a
    Wyatt nor a Sullivan?

    That's certainly a possibility, but I don't think you can jump to that >conclusion yet.

    A MRCA indicates a 95% possibility of a match with Wyatt at 6
    generations.

    I'd like to know more about this. First, is this based on Y-DNA or
    autosomal DNA? I.e. is it saying there's a 95% probability that there
    is a common make-line ancestor within six generations?

    Y-DNA. There are no Sullivans listed on my autosomal and nothing
    closer than a third cousin

    Secondly, even if that is how it has been presented, the actual result
    will be about the total number of generations between the two tested >individuals and the common ancestor. They've probably halved this and
    shown that number to you. But if there are different numbers of
    generations on your side and the Wyatt side, that becomes relevant.

    ...and there is a 5% chance that it did not occur at 6 generations.

    Thirdly, does the six generations count you?

    Yes.

    And I find one Sullivan family in a county where 3
    Sullivan females birthed bastards.

    Do you have a feel for how many Sullivans there were in the county, or
    even the state, at the time?

    I have a reconstructed 1740 VA census and I have tracked the recorded Sullivans. There were 2 Sullivan families in Amelia Co. VA at the time
    - one from York Co. - female and I know her genealogy. Also a John
    Sullivan was on the 1740 Tax Rolls. That's why I presume the three
    Sullivan females were his daughters. The LDS Church records a marriage
    for him.

    I'd also be interested to know what, if
    anything, you know about the social status of your earliest Sullivan >ancestor. In England in my experience, the very rich and the very poor
    were much more likely to have illegitimate children than the yeomen
    farmers and master craftsmen who formed the middle class. But American >society might well differ.

    I suspect my gggrand was 23 when his probable father died. He is not
    recorded until 4 years later. His probable grandfather (Charles) owned
    a lot of land in VA but his father did not own land in NC. My gggrand
    had 5 baseborn children by 3 different women. He married the one who
    had 2 of them but not her sister who had the first one. My great
    grandfather was baseborn. My dad was the first to leave the farm for a
    job.

    None of the children are named but Church Wardens are ordered to bind
    out a male Sullivan at the proper time period.

    Okay, so we have a court ordering the churchwardens to place a child in
    an apprenticeship. Is there any reason to assume this male Sullivan is >illegitimate? I'm not familiar with American poor law, but if
    responsibility for the apprenticing a child had fallen to the county or >churchwardens, isn't that more likely to be because they were a pauper
    or an orphan than being due to illegitimacy?

    During that period, if the father was not present the child was an
    orphan. The 3 girls were supposed to appear in court for having
    bastards in 1742 and 1743 but none appeared. Charles, an orphan, was
    bound out in 1742. Because only one recorded male Sullivan was in
    Amelia Co. I have presumed the 3 girls were that family and Charles
    was the bastard son of one.

    One Wyatt is present in the county.

    I know it is not proof....

    ...but is it sufficiently logical to presume the baseborn male of a
    Sullivan female is the start of my line if I can follow the genealogy
    to my earliest proven relative?

    It's a possibility to explore further, but I wouldn't go so far as
    presuming it to be true.

    Does the state in question have anything like bastardy bonds which might >record the name of the father?

    That's why I asked if anyone had the Amelia Co. Court Order Book No.
    1. If there were names of bastard births other than possibly Charles,
    or fathers, I did not record them.

    After about 25 years of research I have concluded that no facts are
    recorded that will prove my ggggrand who is a proven son of Charles.
    It appears that all I have left is to create a scenario that can't be challenged EXCEPT it is not proof.

    If genealogy is about proof, I think most of us become Family
    Historians

    Hugh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Denis Beauregard@21:1/5 to Sullivan on Sun Oct 13 16:30:10 2019
    On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 15:05:32 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
    Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

    I tested 67 markers. I am R1a1a1a, L-664. Other Sullivans (except one
    cousin) are R1b (Irish). I am almost certainly an Anglo-Saxon from
    Germany with a female Irish ancestor by following L-664 from the Black
    Sea.

    The only 67-markers test I know is from FTDNA. However, FTDNA is
    no more using the format R1a1a1a. They show something like
    R-L664 (and not R-L-664). L664 would be the most recent SNP
    in your line but is not available from the Y-67 test, so you
    have probably a SNP pack. Big Y would help to figure when
    your lineage is splitting from other close Big Y results.

    If you check https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L664/
    you will see it was formed 4700 ybp (years before present). From
    flags, you see some testees are in many different countries.

    FTDNA has much more results (only some of them were also analyzed
    by yfull and the other labs providing a more complete Y analyses
    have much less results).

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/R;name=R-L664
    has 108 results from Big Y. Most are in UK then Germany, but some
    from East Europe (perhaps a matter of how many people were tested).
    If you click on this SNP, you have 4 more, and more if you go
    deeper. You can see where they concentrate. But the surnames
    are available only from your personal dashboard (if you tested) and to
    the admins of projects you have joined.


    In my own case, I am R1b-Y41710 (or R-Y41710). There are some "not too
    far" cousins who Pagé and Tousignant. They are all gateways to New
    France, so we have some split before the 1600s. We are all Y7363

    https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y7363/
    Y7363 is estimated to be formed 3100 ybp (years before present).
    It is followed by Y41095 then Y41710 formed 1550 ybp (i.e. about
    year 450). This lineage leaded to both Y41710*, i.e. subclads
    not yet detailed because yfull is lacking more details, and to
    Y42667, in Armenia (likely from some Frank military during
    Crusades). The other French families seem to be formed around
    2800 ybd so they split long before family names ever existed.

    So, if you make some Big Y test (Big Y 500 or 700), you have some
    idea about other families with a similar pedigree. There is no
    guarantee you will identify the Wyatt or the ancestor of them/yours
    but I think it will give you more possibilities.


    Denis

    --
    Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
    Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/gfan/gfan/998/ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/gfna/gfna/998/ Sur cédérom/DVD/USB à 1790 - On CD-ROM/DVD/USB to 1790

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. Hugh Sullivan@21:1/5 to denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invali on Sun Oct 13 21:44:55 2019
    On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 16:30:10 -0400, Denis Beauregard <denis.b-at-francogene.com@fr.invalid> wrote:

    On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 15:05:32 GMT, Eagle@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
    Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

    I tested 67 markers. I am R1a1a1a, L-664. Other Sullivans (except one >>cousin) are R1b (Irish). I am almost certainly an Anglo-Saxon from
    Germany with a female Irish ancestor by following L-664 from the Black
    Sea.

    The only 67-markers test I know is from FTDNA. However, FTDNA is
    no more using the format R1a1a1a. They show something like
    R-L664 (and not R-L-664). L664 would be the most recent SNP
    in your line but is not available from the Y-67 test, so you
    have probably a SNP pack. Big Y would help to figure when
    your lineage is splitting from other close Big Y results.

    I was not aware that the R1a1a1a was dropped - I am R-L664. You are
    correct about the SNP pack. This is what I have...

    Martin Voorwinden, Co-administrator R1a1 Project (subgroup Tenths) by e-mail Because your haplotype shows DYS388=10 this means you are part of the subgroup 2. (North-Western European Branch). This subgroup is also called the Tenths because of the
    unique 10 for DYS388=10 which is normally 12. Nearly all members of this subgroup (97%) have their origin in the countries around the North Sea (British Isles, Norway/Sweden, Denmark, NW-Germany, Netherlands). This subgroup is further identified by the
    SNP L664 and belongs to one of the oldest subgroups of R1a1 in Europe. On the British Isles you find about 72% of the Tenths (0.4% of the population), Scandinavia 11%, NW-Germany 11%, and Netherlands 3%. The Tenths (DYS 388=10) can be subdivided in
    several subclusters. You belong most probably to the largest subcluster 2.D with typical DYS464=12-14-14-17 and most probably you will also have the very rare DYS492=14 (normal value is 12). This sub cluster covers about 50% of the Tenths and the
    far majority we find on the British Isles. In our subclass R1a1-L664 we can distinguish 4 main subgroups 2.A, 2.B, 2.C and 2.D. The largest one is 2.D (about 50%). This subgroup 2.D has a unique mutation on DYS492 with the value 14 (nearly all other R1a1
    have the value 12). Many members of subgroup 2.D also have a typical DYS464=12-14-14-17 (this combination is absent in other R1a1-L664 members). Therefor I am quite sure you belong to subgroup 2.D, but to be absolutely sure you must test 67 markers. You
    will most probably belong to 2.D2 and not 2.D1 (because your DYS447=25 and not 24). My test for 67 markers was as Martin Voorwinden predicted thus I am R1a1a1a-L664-2.D2. Note what the following chart depicts about R-L664.

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public/y-dna-haplotree/R;name=R-L664
    has 108 results from Big Y. Most are in UK then Germany, but some
    from East Europe (perhaps a matter of how many people were tested).
    If you click on this SNP, you have 4 more, and more if you go
    deeper. You can see where they concentrate. But the surnames
    are available only from your personal dashboard (if you tested) and to
    the admins of projects you have joined.

    I have reviewed all the info on the FTDNA site. I am an exact match at
    67 markers with a Wyatt and and 37 with a known cousin. I do find
    other R-L664s but none are Sullivans or Wyatts.

    My eternal problem is that there is no proof, or even good theory,
    about the parents of my gggrand except my own. I'm trying to lock out
    any other possibility so I can relate my findings to others with
    multiple warnings that it is not proven.

    Thank you, Denis, I need a little time to review what you have said.

    Hugh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Richard Smith@21:1/5 to J. Hugh Sullivan on Mon Oct 14 13:01:26 2019
    On 13/10/2019 16:05, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 12:39:02 +0100, Richard Smith wrote:

    We don't match any other tested Sullivans.

    When you say you don't match, is that at a haplogroup level (e.g. you
    are something unusual like T and all other Sullivans are R), or at a
    marker level within a haplogroup? If the latter, how many markers are
    you away from the nearest Sullivans, and how many markers have you had
    tested?

    I tested 67 markers. I am R1a1a1a, L-664. Other Sullivans (except one
    cousin) are R1b (Irish).

    And is this known Sullivan cousin a perfect 67 out of 67 match? I'm
    assuming the answer is yes.

    I am almost certainly an Anglo-Saxon from
    Germany with a female Irish ancestor by following L-664 from the Black
    Sea.

    It's a clue, but not one to pay too much attention to because you don't
    know when this happened. It could be that a Viking raider visited
    Ireland in the Early Middle Ages and fathered a child with a married
    woman in the O'Sullivan clan.

    Our DNA is also an exact match with a Wyatt and there appears to be no
    way I can link to him.

    Did you discover this Wyatt match by searching some DNA database for
    likely matches, or did you have some other reason to investigate this
    particular surname or person?

    Family Tree DNA notified me - exact match at 67 steps.

    Okay.

    I did his genealogy and they were in MA, never in NC.

    North Carolina and Massachusetts are certainly some way apart. How far
    back did you trace the line in Massachusetts?

    Do you have any reason to believe either your male-line ancestors or his
    were likely to have travelled long distances as work? For example, was
    anyone a mariner, or a worker on the railways? The purpose of this
    question is to see how likely a more recent relationship is.

    If this Wyatt testee is still contactable, he might be willing to do an autosomal DNA test. If you and he are third cousins or closer, there's
    a 90% chance or better of this being detected by modern autosomal DNA
    tests. Maybe you've already done this.

    So we apparently have the same ancestor but probably in England where
    there were two Wyatt families that have never been linked.
    The Sullivan clan is from Munster (i.e. south-west Ireland), while Wyatt
    is primarily found all over England, and may well have been arisen more
    than once. I've research quite a few Wyatt lines in England, and there
    are certainly a lot more than two families which no-one has managed to
    link. There does seem to be a tendency to assume that people emigrating
    to America must have come from one of the famous, well documented lines,
    like that of Henry Wyatt of Allington. Doubtless some of emigrants were
    from such families, but a lot more were from obscure English families
    that cannot be traced back beyond the 17th century.

    You've traced your line in America to the late 18th century, and have a possible line back at a few more generations, so you're probably talking
    about an ancestor settling in America in the late 17th or early 18th
    century. There were very few Irish in England this far back, so if a
    man of English ancestry had a child with a woman of Irish ancestry, my
    gut instinct is that this more likely happened in America. I know
    little about levels of early Irish immigration to America, but the fact
    that you had nine possible fathers for Russell suggests to me there were
    a lot more Irish in America than England at this time.

    This doesn't necessarily mean the man who fathered a child with a
    Sullivan woman was the ancestor of the Wyatt testee. Possibly the MRCA
    was a little further back, and could be in England as you say.

    A MRCA indicates a 95% possibility of a match with Wyatt at 6
    generations.

    I'd like to know more about this. First, is this based on Y-DNA or
    autosomal DNA? I.e. is it saying there's a 95% probability that there
    is a common make-line ancestor within six generations?

    Y-DNA.
    Okay. Let's step back and remind ourselves how DNA works. Each time a
    man has a son, there is a small chance that the DNA will mutate in a way
    that is detectable in a 67-marker Y-DNA test. With each passing
    generation, the overall chance that a mutation has occurred increases.
    This is like throwing a pair of dice. It's fairly unlikely you'll get a
    double one if you throw once, but if you spend an evening playing craps,
    it will eventually happen. And exactly as with throwing a dice, what
    happens in one generation has no effect on what happens in the next
    generation – a long run with no mutations does not mean a mutation
    becomes any more likely in the next generation.

    Having looked up the statistics for 67-marker tests, I think what they
    are saying is that in ten generation there is a 95% chance a detectable mutation will have occurred. It is ten because a mutation on the
    descent from the MCRA to you would result in a difference, but so would
    a mutation on the descent from the MCRA to the other testee. And it's
    ten rather than twelve because there are two generations between you and
    your grandfather – i.e. it's the number of father-son relationships, not
    the number of people in the sequence.

    However the situation here is more complicated because there are three
    people involved: you, your known Sullivan cousin, and the Wyatt testee.
    Assuming you have a 67/67 match with your Sullivan cousin, this tells
    us that no mutation occurred between you and Russell Sullivan. This
    means you know what DNA Russell had at these 67 points because it was
    the same as yours. So when you compare yourself with this Wyatt testee,
    you're really comparing Russell Sullivan with the Wyatt testee, and you
    should be counting the generations between these two. To return to the
    dice analogy, imagine you throw the dice a few times as a practice and
    then starting betting on them. The fact you avoided getting a one in
    the practice throws does not make it any more likely that they will come
    up later. So it is with DNA. The fact that we know no mutation
    occurred between you and Russell does not make a mutation any more
    likely in the preceding generations, so we have to reset counting
    generations for the 95% chance at Russell.

    At this point it would helpful to know how many generations you have to
    go back on the Wyatt line to reach someone of roughly the same
    generation as Russell. I think most people alive today will have great
    great grandparents who were born significantly more recently than 1789,
    so I'm guessing this Wyatt testee might have an extra generation or two
    back to Russell's time. Let's estimate six, excluding himself, i.e. one
    more than you. The statistics tell us there is a 95% chance that
    Russell and this Wyatt testee are related within ten generations. If we
    need around six to get back to a contemporary of Russell, this leaves
    four. So the statistics tell us there is a 95% chance that the Wyatt
    tester's ancestor was a first cousin or closer of Russell. Allowing for
    a bit of uncertainty over what the testing company mean by "related
    within six generations", this could be a second cousin rather than a
    first cousin.

    It probably seems perverse that by gathering more information the
    relationship becomes less certain, but the field of statistics is full
    of this sort of counter-intuitive result and it is one of the things
    that make DNA results very hard to interpret. You know that you and the
    Wyatt tester share a common male-line ancestor, and therefore in at
    least one of your lines, the surname did not pass down the biological
    male line. You want to find out when this was. The 67/67 match between
    you and the Wyatt tester says it was relatively recently, and almost
    certainly not, for example, in Early Middle Ages. By discovering a
    67/67 match between you and this Sullivan cousin, you eliminate quite a
    few possibilities and therefore the less likely options become more
    likely, pushing back the most likely date for the MRCA.

    If the Wyatt tester had a distant male-line cousin who could be
    persuaded to take a Y-DNA test, and he is found to be a 67/67 match too,
    this would eliminate another swathe of possibilities involving
    non-paternity in the documented Wyatt line, and so the most likely time
    for the MRCA would be pushed back further. It is as Sherlock Holmes
    said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter
    how improbable, must be the truth."

    At the moment, I would suggest the DNA evidence suggests the MRCA was
    most likely born in the early 18th century.

    Have you found anyone who is a 66/67 or even a 65/67 match that might
    help pin down the lineage from the other direction? (Of course, a 66/67
    match can be a closer relative than a 67/67 match, depending where the
    mutation occurred.)

    Do you have a feel for how many Sullivans there were in the county, or
    even the state, at the time?

    I have a reconstructed 1740 VA census and I have tracked the recorded Sullivans. There were 2 Sullivan families in Amelia Co. VA at the time
    - one from York Co. - female and I know her genealogy. Also a John
    Sullivan was on the 1740 Tax Rolls. That's why I presume the three
    Sullivan females were his daughters. The LDS Church records a marriage
    for him.

    Is your theory that Charles, the possible grandfather of Russell, is the illegitimate son of one of John's daughters? If Charles's father is an ancestor of the Wyatt family in Massachusetts, this would be consistent
    with the DNA evidence as I understand it. However, pushing the MRCA
    further back is starting to stretch the interpretation of the DNA evidence.

    You say there's a Wyatt in Amelia Co. at the right time. Have you tried tracing his known children? Is there any possibility he may have had a
    son or grandson who moved to Massachusetts was ancestor that family?

    On a related note, is there any evidence documenting the family's move
    from Virginia to North Carolina? Or is it simply the case that a man disappeared from the record in Virginia at about the same time as a man
    with the same name and age appeared in North Carolina? There's nothing
    wrong if that is the case, but it is more circumstantial and raises more question marks in an already shaky lineage.


    Richard

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. Hugh Sullivan@21:1/5 to richard@ex-parrot.com on Mon Oct 14 17:09:28 2019
    On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:01:26 +0100, Richard Smith
    <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

    On 13/10/2019 16:05, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
    On Sun, 13 Oct 2019 12:39:02 +0100, Richard Smith wrote:

    And is this known Sullivan cousin a perfect 67 out of 67 match? I'm
    assuming the answer is yes.

    37 of 37 but I have done his genealogy. Another cousin is 3 markers
    away from both of us. I hate to tell him what that means.

    I have met with several descendants of my gggrand in Alabama and have
    walked in the footsteps of my ancestors to him with several other
    cousins who still live in the area.

    That could be like the guy going to play golf but the weather was too
    bad so he returned to bed at home. The lights were off and he said the
    weather was lousy. The wife said, "Can you believe my husband is
    playing golf in this weather? OOPS!

    I am almost certainly an Anglo-Saxon from
    Germany with a female Irish ancestor by following L-664 from the Black
    Sea.

    It's a clue, but not one to pay too much attention to because you don't
    know when this happened. It could be that a Viking raider visited
    Ireland in the Early Middle Ages and fathered a child with a married
    woman in the O'Sullivan clan.

    That was a possibility until I located a chart with 4 markers
    indicating Scandanavian descent. I did not match any of the 4.

    Our DNA is also an exact match with a Wyatt and there appears to be no >>>> way I can link to him.

    I did his genealogy and they were in MA, never in NC.

    North Carolina and Massachusetts are certainly some way apart. How far
    back did you trace the line in Massachusetts?

    EDWARD WYATT Birth 1614 in England Arrived in MA 1645 Death 13 Feb
    1680 in Dorchester, Suffolk, MA

    Do you have any reason to believe either your male-line ancestors or his
    were likely to have travelled long distances as work? For example, was >anyone a mariner, or a worker on the railways? The purpose of this
    question is to see how likely a more recent relationship is.

    All I find are farmers up to my dad b. 1894 in AL. Another branch of
    Sullivans from the same area in NC migrated to MS to work on the
    railroad.

    If this Wyatt testee is still contactable, he might be willing to do an >autosomal DNA test. If you and he are third cousins or closer, there's
    a 90% chance or better of this being detected by modern autosomal DNA
    tests. Maybe you've already done this.

    He did the Y-DNA test because his sister, the family genealogist,
    asked. He is not interested in genealogy. I asked him to tell his
    sister to contact me. She never did - I suspect because they might not
    be Wyatts. Most people get disturbed when they learn every man was not
    faithful to the woman he married. My gggrand had 5 baseborn children.
    Me - except for his morals, what a man!

    I've research quite a few Wyatt lines in England, and there
    are certainly a lot more than two families which no-one has managed to
    link.

    That takes me back to square 1 on that genealogy. I thought Haute
    Wyatt was the only other line.

    You've traced your line in America to the late 18th century, and have a >possible line back at a few more generations, so you're probably talking >about an ancestor settling in America in the late 17th or early 18th
    century.

    There were only 2 immigrants to Henrico Co. in 1691 and 1693 - Mary
    Swillivant and John Suilman. I have found Sullivan spelled more than
    100 ways. I sent the list to a lady and she tells me it is on a
    bulletin board at the LDS in Baltimore MD.

    Henrico is contiguous to Amelia and Amelia is contiguous to Brunswick
    Co. There is only 1 Sullivan family in Brunswick at that time and only
    1 in Amelia at the time. The dates make them appear to be children of
    the immigrants. Charles appears to be baseborn of one of the
    immigrants sons.

    I have chosen that as my path because every official record permits it
    and there are no official records to challenge.

    If the Wyatt tester had a distant male-line cousin who could be
    persuaded to take a Y-DNA test, and he is found to be a 67/67 match too,
    this would eliminate another swathe of possibilities involving
    non-paternity in the documented Wyatt line, and so the most likely time
    for the MRCA would be pushed back further. It is as Sherlock Holmes
    said: "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter
    how improbable, must be the truth."

    That is the exact principle I used to determine Russell's father. I
    reviewed the 1790 NC census and eliminated all households with no
    males <16. I eliminated the Sullivans in counties I presumed to be too
    far away. I was left with Sullivans whose genealogy I have done, or
    proved of others. Only one had descendants his will did not name. I
    have the Sherlock Holmes collection. I first saw it when the ship was
    anchored in Tokyo Bay in 1945. After college I purchased a copy.

    At the moment, I would suggest the DNA evidence suggests the MRCA was
    most likely born in the early 18th century.

    Have you found anyone who is a 66/67 or even a 65/67 match that might
    help pin down the lineage from the other direction? (Of course, a 66/67 >match can be a closer relative than a 67/67 match, depending where the >mutation occurred.)

    No one else has taken this as far as I have. Most copy false info
    generated by others. I made an error about 20 years ago and I can't
    get the people who copied it to change!

    Do you have a feel for how many Sullivans there were in the county, or
    even the state, at the time?

    I have a reconstructed 1740 VA census and I have tracked the recorded
    Sullivans. There were 2 Sullivan families in Amelia Co. VA at the time
    - one from York Co. - female and I know her genealogy. Also a John
    Sullivan was on the 1740 Tax Rolls. That's why I presume the three
    Sullivan females were his daughters. The LDS Church records a marriage
    for him.

    Is your theory that Charles, the possible grandfather of Russell, is the >illegitimate son of one of John's daughters?

    Yes.

    If Charles's father is an
    ancestor of the Wyatt family in Massachusetts, this would be consistent
    with the DNA evidence as I understand it. However, pushing the MRCA
    further back is starting to stretch the interpretation of the DNA evidence.

    I think I have to stretch. :) I understand your dice analogy but I
    have presumed no mutations between 1691-1789. If there was there is no
    way to even generate a theory.

    You say there's a Wyatt in Amelia Co. at the right time. Have you tried >tracing his known children?

    He can't be traced. I think my ancestors were mostly poor and only the
    upper class left many records.

    Is there any possibility he may have had a
    son or grandson who moved to Massachusetts was ancestor that family?

    I doubt it.

    On a related note, is there any evidence documenting the family's move
    from Virginia to North Carolina? Or is it simply the case that a man >disappeared from the record in Virginia at about the same time as a man
    with the same name and age appeared in North Carolina? There's nothing
    wrong if that is the case, but it is more circumstantial and raises more >question marks in an already shaky lineage.

    Charles married Rachel and they moved to NC. The children were not
    named in VA but Rachel later named the children in NC and she had to
    testify about a land sale in Brunswick. Too many coincidences to be a
    false trail.

    You and Denis have given me a lot to think about on DNA - and I will
    look back to the comparable generation on the Wyatt clan. At age
    91+11 months my almost photographic memory has rusted. I'm supposed to
    have dementia but I keep forgetting. :)

    Hugh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J. Hugh Sullivan@21:1/5 to All on Mon Oct 14 19:33:29 2019
    On Mon, 14 Oct 2019 13:01:26 +0100, Richard Smith
    <richard@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

    I just redid the Wyatt genealogy based on census records and the line
    tracks 1850 to date. Ancestry.com trees get me back to the Wyatt
    immigrant. None went further South than OH during the period. Of
    course someone could have slept in the wrong bed but no record of
    that.

    So I suspect an R-L664 and/or his brother slept with a Miss Sullivan
    and a Miss Wyatt in England. None of his direct line has tested and
    they probably don't care if they are not Wyatts.

    I think I have created the only scenario possible that is based in
    part on official records and without conflicting records. I doubt
    there is any way to get further back than the immigrants I selected.

    To make things even tougher there are 5 Sullivan families in Johnston
    Co. NC in 1830. People thought they were all related. They are three
    separate families and it took me years to separate them. So I have a
    number of "ex" cousins also.

    Thank you for your help.

    Hugh

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)