What do you do?

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Looking at people in the 1600-1800s...

A person lives in one county, dies and is buried in that county - but
there is no evidence that he died in that county...

Do you show the place of death? If so, do you show a source such as
Estimate/Logic?

If his parents were living in the county at the time he was born do
you show the birth as that county?

I understand that the fact is not known. But for people who died
before 1900 does it really make any difference if the place of death
is incorrect (unless there is a special circumstance?

Hugh

[Tom Wetmore]

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

I use "probably" in the place of death.

Tom Wetmore

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 3 Aug 2015 16:33:19 -0700 (PDT), Tom Wetmore
<tt...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>I use "probably" in the place of death.
>
>Tom Wetmore

Thanks, Tom. Of course that occurred to me. But, each time you use
"probably" (or ?) with a different county it increases the number of
locations. And I check locations pretty often to maintain consistency.
I alway use 2 letter state designations, I always abbreviate Co. and
Cem. and I never place a comma after Co. or town or Cem.

Of course if you don't print sources "Estimate/Logic" doesn't show and
is misleading.

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

> Looking at people in the 1600-1800s...
>
> A person lives in one county, dies and is buried in that county - but
> there is no evidence that he died in that county...
>
> Do you show the place of death?

No, leave the place and date of death as blank because that information
is not known.

> If so, do you show a source such as
> Estimate/Logic?
>
> If his parents were living in the county at the time he was born do
> you show the birth as that county?

No, that information is not known so therefore cannot be recorded.

> I understand that the fact is not known. But for people who died
> before 1900 does it really make any difference if the place of death
> is incorrect (unless there is a special circumstance?

Yes, it makes a great deal of difference. We are in the business of
recording facts from primary sources, not making assumptions or guesses.

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 08:42:27 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>> If his parents were living in the county at the time he was born do
>> you show the birth as that county?
>No, that information is not known so therefore cannot be recorded.
>> I understand that the fact is not known. But for people who died
>> before 1900 does it really make any difference if the place of death
>> is incorrect (unless there is a special circumstance?
>Yes, it makes a great deal of difference. We are in the business of
>recording facts from primary sources, not making assumptions or guesses.
>
>Trevor Rix

What do you do about recording what "appears to be fact" and later
turns out not to be? This is often true with children being raised by
other than their birth parents and the fact not in evidence.

Of course you edit the fact but that doesn't alter your having
recorded an inaccuracy without even a ? or "Guess" as a location or
source. And, if it is on Ancestry it has been repeated a lot as fact
and never changed.

I respect the desire to be a REAL genealogist. But, don't we
inadvertantly become family historians at times?

Hugh

[Tom Wetmore]

Trevor,

I make a distinction. Sometimes I am recording facts directly from source records. When I do that I record, as closely as I can, the actual data.

Later, after I have collected all the facts that I believe refer to the same real person, I create a record that summarizes what I believe is true about that person. Then I might make and record conclusions that are not directly supported in the evidence. For example, if a person lived his whole life and was buried in the same city, I will add a place of death for the person that will be "probably" the city.

Sometimes we are recording evidence; sometimes we are recording conclusions. I believe different rules apply to the two types of data.

Tom

[Steven Gibbs]

"Tom Wetmore" <tt...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:b8c954b7-d2b1-477c...@googlegroups.com...

> I make a distinction. Sometimes I am recording facts directly from source
> records. When I do that I record, as closely as I can, the actual data.

> Later, after I have collected all the facts that I believe refer to the
> same real person, I create a record that summarizes what I believe is true
> about that person. Then I might make and record conclusions that are not
> directly supported in the evidence. For example, if a person lived his
> whole life and was buried in the same city, I will add a place of death
> for the person that will be "probably" the city.

> Sometimes we are recording evidence; sometimes we are recording
> conclusions. I believe different rules apply to the two types of data.

You can just say in the narrative that the person was buried in that city on
a certain date, and leave the reader to make their own conclusion.

Steven



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com

[cecilia]

On Tue, 4 Aug 2015 20:08:28 -0700 (PDT), Tom Wetmore
<tt...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>[...] We are in the business of

>> recording facts from primary sources, not making assumptions or guesses.

>I make a distinction. Sometimes I am recording facts
> directly from source records. When I do that I record,
> as closely as I can, the actual data.
>
>Later, after I have collected all the facts that I believe refer
>to the same real person, I create a record that summarizes
>what I believe is true about that person. Then I might make
>and record conclusions that are not directly supported
> in the evidence. For example, if a person lived his whole life
>and was buried in the same city, I will add a place of death
> for the person that will be "probably" the city.
>
>Sometimes we are recording evidence;
>sometimes we are recording conclusions. I believe
>different rules apply to the two types of data.

Long ago I read a review in which the reviewer said something to the
effect that the writer, rather than imposing opinions on the reader,
laid out the facts available in such a way as to direct the reader to
a conclusion.

[Tom Wetmore]

On Wednesday, August 5, 2015 at 2:56:42 AM UTC-4, Steven Gibbs wrote:
> Tom Wetmore wrote in message

> > Sometimes we are recording evidence; sometimes we are recording
> > conclusions. I believe different rules apply to the two types of data.
>
> You can just say in the narrative that the person was buried in that city on
> a certain date, and leave the reader to make their own conclusion.
>
> Steven

Yes, I agree. In your narrative you can or course just lay out the facts and let the reader come to their own conclusions. I prefer the types of narratives you find in published genealogies, where the author presents her conclusions in a biographical, narrative style, while providing all the evidence via footnotes or via attached media files showing the records and so forth.

Tom

[Trevor Rix via]

Thanks everyone for your contributions on my views and the opportunity
to discuss.

> But, do you regard family members as primary source records?

Generally speaking, no I don't. The exception is information of events
of recent date from proven family members who are likely to be the only
people to know for example the exact date of birth of the person being
researched. Even then , the source is not primary, it is secondary. Here
in the UK at least it is usually impossible to discover any dates of
birth without buying the birth certificate at £9.25 each. Hopefully in
the next few years that cost may reduce as recent legislation is enacted
and rolled out, but even then births less than 100 years old may still
require the purchase of a full birth certificate. I know that such
certificates can contain incorrect information but that is the best that
we can do, other than buy certificates closer to the original source
such as the local superintendant registrar.

> How reliable is word of mouth after several generations?

In some cases very reliable. In other cases complete fiction.

> A person looking solely at land transactions might be led to one
conclusion. But another who looks solely at census records that don't
show the presence of the person would draw another. In such a case
aren't we are at the mercy of the records we review?

In this case I would link in my family history program the digital
images of both types of record to each of the people concerned. I would
not draw any conclusions unless the weight of evidence was overwhelming.
I would not transcribe those records, but would click my mouse to view
the original image.

> Are Micajah Sullivan and Michael Sullivan, both on primary
sourcerecords the same in the early 1700s because everything except the
spelling was identical? Isn't there a "probably" involved?

Both forenames and last names for the same person can change. Generally
speaking I use the birth name plus aka for the alternatives.

> I have found Sullivan spelled more than 100 ways on official records.
Are they the same surname? If there is no official record of a name
change is Sullivant a descendant of O'Sullivan?

In a single family line the surname can evolve over time. When the
surname changes from one generation to the next I use the birth surname
for each person especially when the change sticks to succeeding generations.

> Don't we need to wait for a YDNA test to record the connection? Most
Sullivans are R1b yet I am R1a. in 2115 will the current DNA test be
considered reliable?

Your Sullivan R1a line is genetically different to those of the R1b
line. No connection within a genealogically relevant timeframe. As far
as Y-DNA testing is concerned in 2115 today's results will still be
reliable. The science in this example will not change.

> If a man says he bought all of John Sullivan's land in 1753 and I
have found only one John Sullivan in that county, would you guess they
are the same John?

Initially no. But in 1753 the population was much smaller than today so
it may well have been the case that there was only one John Sullivan.

> If a family has 5 children of staggered ages in 1800 on the census
would you presume them a single family?

No.

> Another possibility is that two originals survive, a parish register
& a bishop's transcript and they say different things. Which do you believe.

In this case I would link in both digital images to the person
concerned, and record both dates. Recording multiple instances for the
same event is possible in Family Historian. I would not conclude that
one date is correct and the other incorrect without other evidence.

> Why isn't Estimate or Logic a source? We use Abt, ca, Bef, Aft and
Bet with dates. Aren't those educated guesses or presumptions?

No, they are mathematical calculations. For example age 14 in the 1891
census produces a birth year of c1877. That is not a primary source, it
is a calculation to be refined when the primary source for year of birth
is found at a later date.

> I use "Family Member - Father (or other relation)" for many sources.
Doesn't that tell the exact source?

That would be a source of secondary information, not primary.

> If someone gave me info and told me his source, HE would be my
source, not where HE got the info.

But you would not record that 'source'. You would go one step further
and obtain a digital image of the record yourself and link that image of
the original in to your family history program.

> Ancestry and Roots Web are used as sources a gillion times on the
Internet. I don't put much faith in those sources except as a clue to
look further in that direction.

The historical images on Ancestry are extremely good, primary sources.
The family trees and hints on Ancestry as you say can in some cases be
useful as clues, but you should not record any of that information in
your program until you have the digital image of the original record.

> Before refrigeration, one can assume that a person was buried within
a few days of death, but it's still an assuption, indicated by "abt" or
"est".

But in this case the death should not be recorded at all, only the
burial(s). Therefore no 'abt' or 'est'.

Trevor Rix

[Steve Hayes]

Let me give an example.

For 40 years we kew that my wife's ggg granparents were STEWARDSON and
MORRIS.

The source for this was a diary of a German missionary in Omaruru,
Damaraland, who wrote that "Stewardson, brother-in-law of the Wesleyan
trader Morris, with whom he lives in fierce enmity, artrived today
from the Bay",

No first names, no dates (other than the date of arrival from the
Bay), no places.

A writer of a fictional biography of one of his acquaintances decided
to give them the names Ian and Norah, and I wrote to him to ask him
the source, as we had been looking for years. He wrote back saying
that he made the names up for the sake of the story. Those names
nevertheless made their way into serious historical works, including
the appendix to the published diary of the German missionary.

They also said that he had come from Scotland.

So we "pencilled" in rough dates and "Scotland?", but did not include
the name.

The "Wesleyan" bit drove us to look at LDS microfilms of Methodist
church registers in the Cape Colony, and we found the baptism of a
daughter of theirs, parents' names Francis and Frances. The brother in
law seems to have been James Morris, and a descendant of his wrote a
family history which he deposited in the Cape Archives. No mention of
Frances, perhaps because of the "fierce enmity" (arger Feindschaft)
the German missionary wrote about.

The family history said the Morris family came from Ashby-de-la-Zouch
in Leicestershire. Seems a whole bunch of them were baptised at Nether
Seal. Having the first names enabled us to find the marriage of
Francis Stewardson and Frances Morris in Donisthorpe, and his father's
name was Samuel.

There was only one Samuel living in the area at the time, and he came
from further north, Coxbench in Derbyshire -- not as far north as
Scotland, though.

In the last couple of months I've added about 200 Stweardsons to the
family tree, relatives of that Samuel. But still no proof of Francis's
birth.

I show it as "About 1814, Derbyshire or Leicestershire".

That's the closest we can get. But it's a great deal closer than we
were able to get for 40 years. But by following up all the Stewardsons
who may be related, a clue may turn up.

Sources:

A diary entry of a German missionary and a few other published
mentions, mostly oblique.
A baptism entry in a Methodist register in the Cape Colony
A marrtiage certificate from Donisthorpe.

None of them direct, but taken together, they provide a few clues.

One makes a provisional guess by combining the evidence of various
sources, this one read with that one.

Historians don't publish lists of sources. They write history. They
cite their sources but use their sources to make historical
judgements, often based on a more general knowedge of history.

Part of the Stewardson story was based on knowing that Napoleon was
exiled to St Helena and that even after he died there was a British
garrison there, and the Morris family, butchers, bought cattle in
Damaraland to supply meat to the garrison there.

The more you know of the history of the times in which your ancestors
lived, the better you will be able to evaluate your sources and find
new clues.

Having said that, if anyone happens to find the record of the baptism
of a Francis Stewardson, son of Samuel, somewhere in Derbyshire or
Leicestershire, around 1814, please let me know!




--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Richard Smith]

On 03/08/15 16:41, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> Looking at people in the 1600-1800s...
>
> A person lives in one county, dies and is buried in that county - but
> there is no evidence that he died in that county...
>
> Do you show the place of death? If so, do you show a source such as
> Estimate/Logic?

I think one can go too far marking things as estimated, possible or
approximate. Nothing in genealogy is proved absolutely, but that
doesn't mean it's useful to flag everything as uncertain.

If a person was buried in a place where he was known to have lived, I
would simply say he died there. If later information proved that
incorrect, obviously I'd change it; similarly if information came to
light to cast doubt, I might flag it as possible or probable.

I'd suggest that before the 20th century, the vast majority of people
died at home, and of those that didn't, they probably mostly died
suddenly (perhaps due to an accident) in the village where they lived
and worked. Obviously there will be exceptions, but as Lady Grantham
said, "no Englishman would dream of dying in someone else's house."

> If his parents were living in the county at the time he was born do
> you show the birth as that county?

Yes.

Richard

[Steven Gibbs]

"Richard Smith" <ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote in message
news:d2njjc...@mid.individual.net...

> I'd suggest that before the 20th century, the vast majority of people died
> at home, and of those that didn't, they probably mostly died suddenly
> (perhaps due to an accident) in the village where they lived and worked.
> Obviously there will be exceptions, but as Lady Grantham said, "no
> Englishman would dream of dying in someone else's house."

Many older widows/widowers moved away from their home and lived with a child
(usually a married daughter) for a period before they died. I see this
frequently in 19th century burial registers where the abode is given is
given as somewhere other than the village in which they had spent their life
and were buried. I would imagine it is also the case in earlier centuries
but, since the burial register does not give enough information, who knows?
Many, of course, died in the workhouse; sometime a burial register gives
this information regularly. I do not see the point in inventing information
just to fill in a gap.

(Of course, I've made assumptions about the reason for why the abode seems
incorrect, but since I invariably find a child living there, I think am
likely to be correct. Again, what happened in 19th century Bedfordshire may
not be an indicator as to 18th century Virginia practice.)

[Trevor Rix via]

Sorry, I absolutely disagree. You should record the burial date and
place but leave the death date and place blank. There is no need to fill
in every field, just leave them blank.

Trevor Rix

[Ian Goddard]

On 09/08/15 01:01, Richard Smith wrote:
> If a person was buried in a place where he was known to have lived, I
> would simply say he died there. If later information proved that
> incorrect, obviously I'd change it; similarly if information came to
> light to cast doubt, I might flag it as possible or probable.
>
> I'd suggest that before the 20th century, the vast majority of people
> died at home, and of those that didn't, they probably mostly died
> suddenly (perhaps due to an accident) in the village where they lived
> and worked.

And there's a problem for a start!

Some occupations involved a lot of travel and some of these involved
risk to life & limb. For instance hunting down stone masons in the
censuses is an interesting (as in interesting times ;) task. So the
village where they lived isn't necessarily the village, or more likely
town, where they worked when they had their fatal accident.

--
Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng
at austonley org uk

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 08:47:00 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>Sorry, I absolutely disagree.

...as you have the right to do.

But, oftentimes the next step is to arrive at a logical conclusion or
quit genealogy. I have been at that point for years.

If one is researching VA and NC many of the counties had all their
records destroyed in the War Between the States and by fire and flood
also. Thus the facts will never be found.

Of course the downside to that is that my great, great grandfather has
9 sets of parents on Ancestry and elsewhere.

Instead of being confused I took it as a challenge - and I have
disproved 8 sets. The 9th set is my own choice and my position is
unarguable. But it's not fact.

How do you handle immigration? How can you always be certain that
people of the same name are the same people? Way back when every Tom,
Dick and Harry was named John and William.

Years ago I had a paper that proved two right angles in a triangle.
The vast majority of people could not find the flaw. That didn't make
it true. Appearances in genealogy may be equally false merely because
we don't know better. How do you overcome this with a severely limited
definition of source?

Again I am not trying to argue your methods. That's as simple as
genealogist and family historian.

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

After over 50 years of research I have not found any immigrants yet
because all of my known ancestry is English, apart for an ancestor who
moved from Jersey in the Channel Islands (between France and England) to
London for whom I have lots of primary documentation.

To answer your question, the solution is to Y-DNA test known and
possible descendants from both countries in question until you have
proof that they are the same genetic family.

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 09:22:00 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>After over 50 years of research I have not found any immigrants yet
>because all of my known ancestry is English, apart for an ancestor who
>moved from Jersey in the Channel Islands (between France and England) to
>London for whom I have lots of primary documentation.
>
>To answer your question, the solution is to Y-DNA test known and
>possible descendants from both countries in question until you have
>proof that they are the same genetic family.
>
>Trevor Rix

YDNA tests are not helping me so far. I match a known cousin and a man
named Thomas degroat Wyatt who has failed to respond to e-mails That's
pretty trashy but it's not much of a problem. No one will have more on
my line than I do and no one will have anything on a line with a
different surname that tells me anything. So I have added 5
generations using, unarguable by facts, preponderance of evidence with
repeated reqests to prove me right or wrong. I don't anticipate either
happening although my website gets several hundred hits a month.

You being English might educate me. My early ancestor was probably an
Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Friisan (pick one) from northwesterd Europe (Germany)
who invaded England and cohabited with an Irish lass named Sullivan
without benefit of clergy. The history I read says they didn't drive
everyone out of England they just bred with the natives. The young
male issue took his mother's surname and I came along 4,000-6,000
years later. How do I fill in the English gap?

In case I haven't mentioned I am R1a, DYS388=10, L664+.

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

Hugh, have you joined the SULLIVAN Y-Chromosome DNA Surname Project at
Family Tree DNA? Does your test appear in this table?

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/sullivan?iframe=ycolorized

There are only two DYS388=10 in that table.

If you Google "Thomas degroat Wyatt" there are several hits that may
enable you to track him down. How many markers have you tested? What is
the genetic distance of your match with Thomas degroat Wyatt?

With more homework you may be able to indentify the home country. Once
you have done that, proactively Y-DNA test prospective descendants in
that country until you have several close genetic matches.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 08:42:44 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>Hugh, have you joined the SULLIVAN Y-Chromosome DNA Surname Project at
>Family Tree DNA? Does your test appear in this table?

Yes and Yes.

>
>https://www.familytreedna.com/public/sullivan?iframe=ycolorized
>
>There are only two DYS388=10 in that table.

...me and a known cousin I encouraged to test.

>
>If you Google "Thomas degroat Wyatt" there are several hits that may
>enable you to track him down.

Has not worked.

>How many markers have you tested?

67 - my cousin tested 37 but I know his line of descent.

>What is
>the genetic distance of your match with Thomas degroat Wyatt?

zero. I only look at zero matches. He is the only tested Wyatt whose
DYS388=10. I did the genealogy of the Wyatts because my gg grand named
his 3rd son the same name as a Wyatt living near the county where he
was located and because the Wyatts made a number of errors in their
research or found nothing.

>With more homework you may be able to indentify the home country. Once
>you have done that, proactively Y-DNA test prospective descendants in
>that country until you have several close genetic matches.

I have no doubts, based on my DNA test, that my ancestors were from
northwest Europe and immigrated to England. I show that on my website.

I'm satisfied that my ancestors before 1790 will never be found if I
am a Sullivan. If I am a Wyatt I can get back to about 900 AD. But,
without facts, I can choose who I want to be.

I can track some Irish Sullivans back to Adam and Eve and some Wyatts
back to WIlliam the Conquerer. Research and analysis is pretty easy
when the facts are available - not so much so if the records have been
destroyed.

I took the only course left to me - determine 5 more generations of
ancestors, create a website and beg anyone to prove me right or wrong.


Hugh

[cecilia]

On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:56:10 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

> [..] My early ancestor was probably an

>Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Friisan (pick one) from northwesterd Europe (Germany)
>who invaded England and cohabited with an Irish lass named Sullivan

>without benefit of clergy. [...] I came along 4,000-6,000
>years later. [...]

Is there any evidence that there were people that were Angle, Saxon,
Jute or Frisian more than 500 BCE? (Just curious)

[Trevor Rix via]

Hugh, have you tried contacting this Thomas Degroat Wyatt?

Thomas Degroat Wyatt born c1960
794 Alexander Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-6305. Phone 609-452-1615
alternative address 13782 Swans Way, Harbert, Michigan 49115
voter number 4000956409
son of Dale Ford Wyatt and Jane Degroat
http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/64943805/person/40130354743
http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/64943805/family?cfpid=40130340447

Are you saying that you have a Y-DNA 67 marker exact match, 0 genetic
distance, with Thomas Degroat Wyatt? If yes, my priority would be to
upgrade both tests to 111 markers to see if the very close match still
stands up.

I am puzzled by the Sullivan table at

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/sullivan?iframe=ycolorized

The only two with DYS388=10 in that table have tested on 37 markers. Yet
you say your test is 67 markers and that you are in that table?

Have you joined the Wyatt surname group/project at FTDNA? There is only
one DYS388=10 in their table.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Wyatt/default.aspx?section=ycolorized

Do you have any other matches at any genetic distance with Sullivan or
Wyatt?

> I can track some Irish Sullivans back to Adam and Eve and some Wyatts
back to WIlliam the Conquerer.

What I am suggesting is that you research those families *downwards* to
the present day, then Y-DNA test a representative of each family group
to see if you match.

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

I am not competent to answer your question. The more I read the more I
decide that there is no definitive answer to questions about the
history of man. There is little concensus among experts in the field.
So, I have tried to limit my focus to my particular YDNA. It's strange
that I have only found 2 people who match my DNA. I must not know
where to look.

The so-called "tenths" group (DYS388=10) seems to be pretty
well-defined and discussed all over the Internet. A comparison of
markers proves I am not Scandanavian.

L664+ arose as I recall about 4,000-6,000 years ago. The probability
is that I am one of the 4 groups. I find more on Saxons and Angles
than the others so my current focus is there.

Dr. Klyosov is an unbelievably brilliant man. The problem is that he
can't talk dumb enough for me to understand!

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:22:13 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>Hugh, have you tried contacting this Thomas Degroat Wyatt?
>Thomas Degroat Wyatt born c1960
>794 Alexander Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-6305. Phone 609-452-1615
>alternative address 13782 Swans Way, Harbert, Michigan 49115
>voter number 4000956409
>son of Dale Ford Wyatt and Jane Degroat
>http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/64943805/person/40130354743
>http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/64943805/family?cfpid=40130340447

Thank you - I had not found that and Family Tree would not release his
info because he is "private". I wonder why test if you don't want to
communicate with anyone. It's 400 miles to MI and probably 700 to NJ.
I hope I don't have to drive there and knock on his door until he
answers.

It that is the one it brings up an interesting question. He is a
Yankee Wyatt and the Wyatt I might match is a Southern (VA/NC) Wyatt
and the two groups are not know to be related. But the Wyatts go back
to about 1000AD in Wales so I suspect the match has just not been
found. But I am a pretty relentless researcher. The diiference between
us is that I tend to accept very strong probabilities - subject to
change and properly noted.

>Are you saying that you have a Y-DNA 67 marker exact match, 0 genetic
>distance, with Thomas Degroat Wyatt? If yes, my priority would be to
>upgrade both tests to 111 markers to see if the very close match still
>stands up.

I researched the Wyatts. I found one Wyatt who could be my ancestor
based solely on my gg grand naming his third son Dempsey - the same
name as the Wyatt who, in theory, might have raised him. The Wyatt
research on that line is provably wrong and any conclusions are
suspect due to lack of data. I can't even determine preponderance of
evidence!

>
>I am puzzled by the Sullivan table at
>
>https://www.familytreedna.com/public/sullivan?iframe=ycolorized

>The only two with DYS388=10 in that table have tested on 37 markers. Yet
>you say your test is 67 markers and that you are in that table?

My 3rd cousin and I match at 37 markers in the table. We both descend
from Russell. I upped my test to 67 and he did not. I match Wyatt at
67 markers but he would not appear in the Sullivan table.

>Have you joined the Wyatt surname group/project at FTDNA? There is only
>one DYS388=10 in their table.

I have not joined the Wyatt group because Thomas is the only Wyatt
tested who is DYS388-10. The Wyatt User Group is worthless for my
purposes.

>https://www.familytreedna.com/public/Wyatt/default.aspx?section=ycolorized
>
>Do you have any other matches at any genetic distance with Sullivan or
>Wyatt?

Looking at the listing of matches, not the table, I match a number of
people at 67 markers tested but at least three markers apart. I match
Vaughans and Woolards at 37 markers and I looked at the possibilities
there also. I stopped when 67 markers was not a close match. If I
can't find an ancestorat 5 generations I won't be able to find one at
8.

>What I am suggesting is that you research those families *downwards* to
>the present day, then Y-DNA test a representative of each family group
>to see if you match.
>
>Trevor Rix

I understand but of course I don't control that. My sense is that the
ancestor of my great great grandfather will never be proven. If so, I
expect to be the one to do it.

I appreciate your effort in communicating with me - I have benefitted.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 08:22:13 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>Hugh, have you tried contacting this Thomas Degroat Wyatt?
>
>Thomas Degroat Wyatt born c1960
>794 Alexander Road, Princeton, New Jersey 08540-6305. Phone 609-452-1615
>alternative address 13782 Swans Way, Harbert, Michigan 49115
>voter number 4000956409
>son of Dale Ford Wyatt and Jane Degroat
>http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/64943805/person/40130354743
>http://trees.ancestry.co.uk/tree/64943805/family?cfpid=40130340447

The phone is not in service and the tree does not appear on the non-UK
Ancestry.

He claims his earliest ancestor is the Edward Wyatt below but I find
nothing on them other that what I have shown below. Below that I show
what I found on the other Wyatt line in the US. Is the UK tree you
found either of those?

If I was a Wyatt and not a Sullivan, I don't much care. I have been a
Sullivan for 225 years. Either way my problem will be the same - I
can't PROVE my ggg grand. Either way I can make a factually unarguable
case.

EDWARD WYATT Birth 1614 in England Arrived in MA 1645 Death 13 Feb
1680 in Dorchester, Suffolk, MA
+MARY NEWPORT Birth Abt 1613 in Dorchester, Suffolk, MA Death 6 Feb
1705 in Dorchester, Suffolk, MA

Edward Wyatt was settled in Dorchester, Suffolk County, Massachusetts
Bay Colony before 1645 when he was made a freeman. He owned a house on
Adams Street, which he had purchased from John Holmand and
subsequently sold to Ralph Sanmes before 1663. Little more is known
about Edward or Mary. On 15 Sept. 1637, he brought suit against Robert
Corbin, the master of the ship Speedwell. Mary was a locally famous
midwife, and is said to assisted in over 1,1,00 births during her
lifetime.

Children:
NATHANIEL WYATT B. 2 May 1648 in Dorchester, Suffolk, MA D. 20 Mar
1702 in Dorchester, Norfolk, MA
"MARY CORBIN Birth 1661 in Boston, Suffolk, MA Death 1718 in Muddy
River, Norfolk, MA m. 1688
Nathaniel Wyatt 1669 - 1703
+Mary Richardson Birth Abt 1674 in Of Dorchester, Suffolk,
Massachusetts
Asa Wait Birth 1759 in Massachusetts Death 1814 in Leicester,
Massachusetts
+Rebecca Works
Elmer Wait
+Betsey Warner
Harriet Allen Wait
+Waldo Flint Waite
Will Allen Waite b. 4/25/1864
Clarkston, Oakland, Michigan
Edward Wyatt 8/5/1671 - 1690
Jonathon Wyatt 1677 - 1725

WAITSTILL WYATT (female) Birth 3 Jan 1691 in Dorchester, MA Death 12
Mar 1729 in Stoughton Norfolk MA

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


1-Adam Wiat b. 1320, Yorkshire England, d. 1385, Southange, Yorkshire
England
+Agnes Wigton b. 1325 Yorkshire England d. 1550 Yorkshire England
|--2-William Wiat b. 1350, Kent England, d. 1388
+Lady Jane Bailiffe b. 1355 Yorkshire England d. 1385 Yorkshire
England
|--3-Richard Wiat b. 1383, Kent England, d. 1440
+Jane Skipworth b. 1380 Kent England m. 1408 d. bef 1442
|--4-Geoffrey Wiat b. 1410, Yorkshire England d. 1460 England
+Anne Skipworth b. 1411 Yorkshire England d. 1443
Gloucestershire England
|--5-Richard Wiat Sr. b. 1435, Yorkshire England d. 1475 Kent
England
+Margaret Jane Bailiffe b. 1438 Yorkshire England d. 1526
Kent England
|--6-Henry Wiat Earl of Norfolk b. 1460, Kent England d.
10 Oct 1537, Allington, Kent England
+Anna Skinner b. 1475 Sussex England m. 1502 d. 1503
Kent England
|--7-Sir Thomas Wiat The Elder The Poet b. 1503 Kent
England, d. 11 Oct 1542 Dorset England
+Lady Elizabeth Brooke b. 1503 Kent England d. 1560
Kent England
|--8-Sir Thomas Wiat The Younger b. 1521, Kent
England d. 11 Apr 1554, London England
| +Jane Hawt b. 1522 Kent England m. 1537 d. 1600
Kent England
| |--9-Sir George Wiat b. 1550, Allington, Kent
England, d. 1 Sep 1623, Ireland
| +Lady Jane Finch b. 1555 Kent England m. 8
Oct 1582 d. 1646 Kent England
| |--10-REV Haute Wyatt b. 6 Jun 1594 Kent
England, d. 31 Jul 1638, Kent England
| +Anne Lee Cox b. 1605 Kent England, m.
1629, England, d. 28 Feb 1631 Kent England

I might descend from Haute and Anne Cox by Dempsey Wyatt in pre-1800
Nash Co. NC.

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

> Thank you - I had not found that and Family Tree would not release his
> info because he is "private".

I suspect you mean "Family Tree DNA"?

> My 3rd cousin and I match at 37 markers in the table. We both descend
> from Russell. I upped my test to 67 and he did not. I match Wyatt at
> 67 markers but he would not appear in the Sullivan table.

If you are DYS=10 and have tested at 67 markers, I am puzzled why you
don't appear in the Sullivan table. Both of the DYS=388 in that table
are only showing as having tested at 37 markers. For example kit 130961
is only showing 37 markers.

> I have not joined the Wyatt group because Thomas is the only Wyatt
> tested who is DYS388-10. The Wyatt User Group is worthless for my
> purposes.

I recommend that you do join the Wyatt group.

> Looking at the listing of matches, not the table, I match a number of
> people at 67 markers tested but at least three markers apart. I match
> Vaughans and Woolards at 37 markers and I looked at the possibilities
> there also. I stopped when 67 markers was not a close match. If I
> can't find an ancestorat 5 generations I won't be able to find one at
> 8.

Are you saying that you don't have any Sullivan or Wyatt matches other
than Thomas Degroat Wyatt at 67 or 37 markers at any genetic distance?

>> >What I am suggesting is that you research those families*downwards* to

>> >the present day, then Y-DNA test a representative of each family group
>> >to see if you match.
>> >
>> >Trevor Rix
> I understand but of course I don't control that.

Why cannot you do as I suggest?

> The phone is not in service and the tree does not appear on the non-UK
> Ancestry.

The family trees on Ancestry are the same worldwide. Just change the
.co.uk in the URL to .com if you have an Ancestry USA subscription. For
example

http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/64943805/person/40130354743
http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/64943805/family?cfpid=40130340447

> Is the UK tree you found either of those?

The tree by "Thomas Wyatt" on Ancestry is not a UK tree. You can access
all Ancestry family trees worldwide from any Ancestry subscription.

>
> If I was a Wyatt and not a Sullivan, I don't much care. I have been a
> Sullivan for 225 years. Either way my problem will be the same - I
> can't PROVE my ggg grand.

You may be able to prove your ggg grandfather if you research the male
line ancestry of your exact 67 marker match Thomas Degroat Wyatt and
test several of his ancestor's descendant's lines. Also test several of
your Sullivan distant cousins to build on the genetic evidence. Have you
taken an autosomal DNA test?

> | |--10-REV Haute Wyatt b. 6 Jun 1594 Kent
> England, d. 31 Jul 1638, Kent England
> | +Anne Lee Cox b. 1605 Kent England, m.
> 1629, England, d. 28 Feb 1631 Kent England
>
> I might descend from Haute and Anne Cox by Dempsey Wyatt in pre-1800
> Nash Co. NC.

You should research those English Wiat/Wyatt lines down to the present
day in England, and Y-DNA test them.

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:19:46 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>> Thank you - I had not found that and Family Tree would not release his
>> info because he is "private".
>
>I suspect you mean "Family Tree DNA"?

Yep - I'm a 2 finger typist and abbreviate when I can.

>If you are DYS=10 and have tested at 67 markers, I am puzzled why you
>don't appear in the Sullivan table. Both of the DYS=388 in that table
>are only showing as having tested at 37 markers. For example kit 130961
>is only showing 37 markers.

Now I'm puzzled - I am not on the 67 marker table. I had not noticed
because I'm only looking at matches as shown by FTDNA. On that table I
match Wyatt and no one else is closer than 3 markers - a Wollard and a
Vaughn. Wollard is a 1 step match at 37 but 3 step at 67. I looked
carefully at his genealogy and it was no help.

>
>> I have not joined the Wyatt group because Thomas is the only Wyatt
>> tested who is DYS388-10. The Wyatt User Group is worthless for my
>> purposes.
>
>I recommend that you do join the Wyatt group.

I did for a while and posts are rare and worthless to me.

>Are you saying that you don't have any Sullivan or Wyatt matches other
>than Thomas Degroat Wyatt at 67 or 37 markers at any genetic distance?

Wyatt is my only match at 67 markers. Two others are 3 steps away. I
did see a Sullivan with DYS388=10 but he has not been reported as a
match by FTDNA.

>
>>> >What I am suggesting is that you research those families*downwards* to
>>> >the present day, then Y-DNA test a representative of each family group
>>> >to see if you match.
>>> >
>>> >Trevor Rix
>> I understand but of course I don't control that.
>
>Why cannot you do as I suggest?

People are reluctant to pay the cost of DNA tests and, unlike a
friend, I will not pay for them.

>
>> The phone is not in service and the tree does not appear on the non-UK
>> Ancestry.
>
>The family trees on Ancestry are the same worldwide. Just change the
>.co.uk in the URL to .com if you have an Ancestry USA subscription. For
>example
>
>http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/64943805/person/40130354743
>http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/64943805/family?cfpid=40130340447

I looked and that might help. I found that Thomas Degroat Wyatt is
about 55 years old and has lived in a lot of towns in CA, FL, MI and
NJ. H might even have a criminal record. But I wo't pay the cost of a
report unless there is some guarantee of success. I can draw blanks as
well as anyone. I have subscribed to Ancestry for at least 15 years.

>
>> Is the UK tree you found either of those?
>
>The tree by "Thomas Wyatt" on Ancestry is not a UK tree. You can access
>all Ancestry family trees worldwide from any Ancestry subscription.
>>
>> If I was a Wyatt and not a Sullivan, I don't much care. I have been a
>> Sullivan for 225 years. Either way my problem will be the same - I
>> can't PROVE my ggg grand.
>
>You may be able to prove your ggg grandfather if you research the male
>line ancestry of your exact 67 marker match Thomas Degroat Wyatt

I will do that now that you have directed me to a source in Ancestry.

>test several of his ancestor's descendant's lines. Also test several of
>your Sullivan distant cousins to build on the genetic evidence. Have you
>taken an autosomal DNA test?

I have not taken the autosomal. I know people who have and they
generate too many worthless possibilities. I view YDNA as the only
worthwhile clue. I say that for two reasons - the genealogies I find
for my line are mostly worthless guesses and, because of destruction
of records, no one has genealogy that I don't already have.

Again I appreciate your informative comments. I doubted that anyone
could give me new potential clues. If it's there I will find it - my
problem is the wartime destruction of so many records in VA and NC
prior to 1865. I'm satisfied that no living person will have any
genealogy that helps that I don't already have.

I stopped here long enough to check his line on Ancestry and I tried
to contact him. He has not checked in to Ancestry in 11 months.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:19:46 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>The family trees on Ancestry are the same worldwide. Just change the
>.co.uk in the URL to .com if you have an Ancestry USA subscription. For
>example
>
>http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/64943805/person/40130354743
>http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/64943805/family?cfpid=40130340447

>Trevor Rix

I was able to track T. D. Wyatt's line using your URL. Thank you.

The pertinent fact that I see is that he is the only Wyatt tested, and
I am the only Sullivan tested (67 markers), with DYS388=10.

I think what that tells me is that there was some haystack hankypank
in the 1700s.

Since neither of us match other Wyatts or Sullivans some John Doe
sired sons by a Wyatt and a Sullivan without benefit of clergy and the
boys took their mom's surname. So I am really Hugh Doe - looking for
Johns.

I know that my gg grand had 5 baseborns by 3 different ladies - 3
before and 2 after marriage. 4 of the 5 were by sisters and he married
one. I think I have two chances of proving his father - slim and none.
But that tells me that disproof of my Sherlockian determinations has
even fewer chances.

Like the sculptor said, "Chip off all the rock that doesn't look like
an elephant and the result is an elephant."

Hugh

[Charlie Hoffpauir]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 15:33:36 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 09:19:46 +0100, Trevor Rix via
><gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:
>
>>The family trees on Ancestry are the same worldwide. Just change the
>>.co.uk in the URL to .com if you have an Ancestry USA subscription. For
>>example
>>
>>http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/64943805/person/40130354743
>>http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/64943805/family?cfpid=40130340447
>
>>Trevor Rix
>
>I was able to track T. D. Wyatt's line using your URL. Thank you.
>
>The pertinent fact that I see is that he is the only Wyatt tested, and
>I am the only Sullivan tested (67 markers), with DYS388=10.
>
>I think what that tells me is that there was some haystack hankypank
>in the 1700s.
>
>Since neither of us match other Wyatts or Sullivans some John Doe
>sired sons by a Wyatt and a Sullivan without benefit of clergy and the
>boys took their mom's surname. So I am really Hugh Doe - looking for
>Johns.
>

I think there are other more likely possibilities. EX: A
family(surname unknown) suffers some calamity and two male children
are left parentless. One is taken in and raised by the Sullivan
family, and the other by the Wyatt family.

However, unless Y-DNA testing turns up another surname match, in
either case it looks like a real roadblock.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:54:28 -0500, Charlie Hoffpauir
<inv...@invalid.com> wrote:

>I think there are other more likely possibilities. EX: A
>family(surname unknown) suffers some calamity and two male children
>are left parentless. One is taken in and raised by the Sullivan
>family, and the other by the Wyatt family.

Certainly a probability. In fact I looked at my gg grand being a Wyatt
raised by a Sullivan and census records don't bear that out although I
can make an outstanding case for the possibility. The "foster parent"
had one son and only one male lived with him - and survived past the
time that my gg grand appeared. One dubious record said that son was
baseborn earlier from another liaison. The potential mother of my GGG
might have been an Indian and records of that are scarce.

>
>However, unless Y-DNA testing turns up another surname match, in
>either case it looks like a real roadblock.

Although I decided that some time ago I still look. I have decided 5
generations of his ancestors. My "proof" for the three unproven links
is they are the only Sullivans in the area at the time - and the
timeline fits. In the late 1700s proximity is a good clue.

There were 6 Sullivan families in one county in the 1830 census -
everyone has assumed they were one family. At least three are not
closely related and there may be 5 separate families - although they
all obviously knew each other. So I am not absolutely "clueless".

Hugh

[Richard Smith]

On 12/08/15 15:42, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> |--6-Henry Wiat Earl of Norfolk b. 1460, Kent England
> d. 10 Oct 1537, Allington, Kent England
> +Anna Skinner b. 1475 Sussex England m. 1502
> d. 1503 Kent England

I don't think Henry Wyatt was Earl of Norfolk, was he? He was created a
Knight of the Bath in 1509, but I don't think he was ever ennobled.

Do you happen to know much about these two individuals? The reason I
ask is that there is a persistent story that Sir Henry Wyatt was the
father of the Margaret Wyatt who married John Rogers, likely in
Deritend, Warks in about 1505. John and Margaret Rogers were the
parents of the Rev John Rogers that was burnt at the stake in Smithfield
in 1555, the first Protestant martyr of Queen Mary's reign.

I'm inclined to dismiss it as yet another instance of John Cox Underwood
(a late 19th century genealogist and Lieutenant Governor of Kentucky)
fabricating a prestigious ancestry for himself. But I've yet to
investigate this particular claim in detail

Richard

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Unfortunately all I know is what I have found on Internet. A slew of
sources list him as Earl - which is certainly not proof.

I've thought what a prestigious ancestry the Wyatts would be for me
but lack of proof keeps getting in the way.

On the other hand I have no problem with my ancestors being dirt
farmers if that is what they were. Dueling with plows vice swords.
might be a little more challenging anyhow. :)

Coach Bear Bryant of Bama said to ask a potential recruit directions.
If he pointed with the plow give him a football scholarship.

Hugh

[Richard Smith]

On 15/08/15 02:55, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:08:32 +0100, Richard Smith wrote:
>
>> On 12/08/15 15:42, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> |--6-Henry Wiat Earl of Norfolk b. 1460, Kent England
>>> d. 10 Oct 1537, Allington, Kent England
>>> +Anna Skinner b. 1475 Sussex England m. 1502
>>> d. 1503 Kent England
>>
>> I don't think Henry Wyatt was Earl of Norfolk, was he? He was created a
>> Knight of the Bath in 1509, but I don't think he was ever ennobled.
>

> Unfortunately all I know is what I have found on Internet. A slew of
> sources list him as Earl - which is certainly not proof.

Fair enough. I can tell you that he doesn't appear in the Complete
Peerage, which is generally a pretty good source for such things. Nor
does his page of Wikipedia make any mention of an earldom.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wyatt_%28courtier%29

Richard

[Denis Beauregard]

On Mon, 03 Aug 2015 15:41:23 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

>Looking at people in the 1600-1800s...
>
>A person lives in one county, dies and is buried in that county - but
>there is no evidence that he died in that county...
>
>Do you show the place of death? If so, do you show a source such as
>Estimate/Logic?
>

>If his parents were living in the county at the time he was born do
>you show the birth as that county?
>

>I understand that the fact is not known. But for people who died
>before 1900 does it really make any difference if the place of death
>is incorrect (unless there is a special circumstance?

Good question and I see a lot of people gave their opinion.

I can use comments to enter data in my database that will be hidden.

So I can eliminate from potential research those I would consider
as likely dead where born and when sorting my database to see if I
need to complete records, then I would have some records that I will
not search.

On the other hand, I have an interesting case. Someone living in
Sorel, Quebec and having no known burial record. A famous genealogist
presumed he was dead at the same place so he entered a place name
without any "probably" label (because the editor asked him to avoid
useless terms). But I later found a note about his actual death
in Albany, New York (because he died there and someone wanted to be
paid of the cost of the burial). He died in an unexpected place, there
is no record for either burial or death, but there is a record in the
annals of Albany, so there is a "record".

Another similar example : someone I considered as not immigrant, but
found in a census with a sibling, thus she was an immigrant.

For my personal use, I may comment place of death for parents of
immigrants for example, so they won't be listed to external viewers,
but for my own use, this will be considered as complete so no more
search needed. And a source completes what I have, then the reader
will get the new data ignoring I presumed previously a wrong guess.


Denis

--
Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
Sur cédérom à 1785 - On CD-ROM to 1785

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 15 Aug 2015 23:23:21 -0400, Denis Beauregard
<denis.b-at-f...@fr.invalid> wrote:

>For my personal use, I may comment place of death for parents of
>immigrants for example, so they won't be listed to external viewers,
>but for my own use, this will be considered as complete so no more
>search needed. And a source completes what I have, then the reader
>will get the new data ignoring I presumed previously a wrong guess.
>
>
>Denis
>
>--
>Denis Beauregard - généalogiste émérite (FQSG)
>Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
>French in North America before 1722 - www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
>Sur cédérom à 1785 - On CD-ROM to 1785

Merci, mon ami.

My, at least semi-final, conclusion is that I will draw logical
conclusions based on preponderance of evidence and label them as such.

I might call it my "caveat emptor" source.

Hugh

[Richard Smith]

On 16/08/15 11:29, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> My, at least semi-final, conclusion is that I will draw logical
> conclusions based on preponderance of evidence and label them as such.

Isn't that what we all do all the time? There's no such thing as
absolute proof in genealogy, just shades of grey.

Richard

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Can't we all descend from Charlemagne?

I suppose it depends on various parts of the source. A recorded land
grant in 1733 to Micajah Syllivant might a factual grant to Michael
Sullivan. I think one gray is dark and the other gray is black.

But in 1850 5 kids living with a family is not proof of lineage
although most times it is considered iron clad (a shade of gray),

Maybe it's a fact until someone proves it isn't.

Surety numbers in genealogy programs certainly label shades of gray.

..ad infinitum.

Hugh

[Richard Smith]

On 16/08/15 18:35, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> Can't we all descend from Charlemagne?

Almost certainly, at least if you're of European ancestry.

But most genealogists are not interested in simply saying they're
descended from Charlemagne: they want to say *how* they're descended
from Charlemagne.

For example, I think that Charlemagne is one of my 36-great
grandparents: using the standard ancestor numbering system he is
ancestor number 307,235,398,528. I can document that descent moderately
well, and the genealogist in me tells me its probably right.

Then the statistician in me comes along to say it probably isn't. If
I'm only 98% confident of each generation, there's a better than even
chance there's an error somewhere in the line. Have I conflated two
people of the same name in some generation? Was one of the links in the
chain actually a step-child relationship due to a second marriage I've
failed to discover? Even if my research is perfect, the incidence of
non-paternity events in Britain has been estimated at 1.3% and to the
best of my knowledge none of the line has been DNA tested. One of the
links is the illegitimate daughter of a 15th century knight. He
recognised her as his daughter and provided for her, but was she really?
Was the mother exclusively his mistress, or did she "put it about" a
bit? Faced with the choice of attributing the child to a local goatherd
or a prominent knight, there are obvious advantages to choosing the
latter.

But the statistician in me also tells me that even though there's a good
chance that ancestor 307,235,398,528 is not Charlemagne, it's highly
likely that he was one of my 36-great grandparents. There are quarter
of a trillion ancestors in that generation -- obviously not all
different as it's a thousand times the estimated population of the world
at the time. Even allowing for imperfect mixing of populations -- the
idea that families don't move far from generation to generation or
change significantly in social status -- there's a pretty good chance
that anyone in Western European in the 8th century who has descendants
alive today will be my ancestor, and the evidence certainly suggests
Charlemagne does indeed have many descendants alive today.

Is that genealogy? Perhaps not. But it does at least suggest you
shouldn't give up your quest for a descent from Charlemagne. Probably
you have one. The real question is whether the evidence exists to allow
you to document it.

Richard

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 01:47:53 +0100, Richard Smith
<ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote:


>Is that genealogy? Perhaps not. But it does at least suggest you
>shouldn't give up your quest for a descent from Charlemagne. Probably
>you have one. The real question is whether the evidence exists to allow
>you to document it.
>
>Richard

I can almost beat that. I can track some Sullivans in SC back to Adam
and Eve using the Bible, John O'Hart's "Origin and Stem...",
Ancestry.com and a few known contacts.

There was an inventor who invented a braking device for airplanes that
would stop one landing within 3 feet. As he told the patent office he
is now working on a device to keep the pilot from going through the
windshield.

I'm trying to connect to those Sullivans.

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

> Now I'm puzzled - I am not on the 67 marker table.

As you are not in the Sullivan table that makes it hard for people like
me to advise you. Have you asked the administrator of the Sullivan
group/project why you are not in the table?

> >I recommend that you do join the Wyatt group.
> I did for a while and posts are rare and worthless to me.

The purpose of joining the Wyatt group is primarily to appear in the
Wyatt public website Y-DNA results table, so that people like me can
help you. Have you uploaded your Y-DNA results to Ysearch?

> I did see a Sullivan with DYS388=10 but he has not been reported as a
> match by FTDNA.

Where did you see that?

> People are reluctant to pay the cost of DNA tests and, unlike a
> friend, I will not pay for them.

It is sometimes possible to get people to pay for their own tests if you
follow the right technique. If you are not willing to pay for any tests
then that is a huge barrier to you finding your male line genetic ancestry.

> I looked and that might help. I found that Thomas Degroat Wyatt is
> about 55 years old and has lived in a lot of towns in CA, FL, MI and
> NJ.

Have you sent him a message on the Ancestry message service?

> But I wo't pay the cost of a report unless there is some guarantee of success.

What report are you referring to?

> The pertinent fact that I see is that he is the only Wyatt tested, and
> I am the only Sullivan tested (67 markers), with DYS388=10.

You need to test some of your cousins and some of the cousins of Thomas
Degroat Wyatt to find out what happened through triangulation of the
results.

> I think there are other more likely possibilities. EX: A
> family(surname unknown) suffers some calamity and two male children
> are left parentless. One is taken in and raised by the Sullivan
> family, and the other by the Wyatt family.

I agree. An informal adoption is the most likely scenario.

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:16:19 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>> Now I'm puzzled - I am not on the 67 marker table.
>
>As you are not in the Sullivan table that makes it hard for people like
>me to advise you. Have you asked the administrator of the Sullivan
>group/project why you are not in the table?

I have not. I should do that - we have communiucated over the years.

But If no Sullivan on the table is DYS388=10 how could anyone help? If
they are from VA or NC I probably already know their genealogy. I have
seen the reports of two professionals researching Sullivans in NC and
they are no help. In fact I see some errors in one.

My problem is that the records, if they ever existed, have been
destroyed by war, fire and flood. Record destruction by counties is
known. No one will ever be able to PROVE my paternal ancestors before
1789. So far I am the only known researcher who has advanced logical
scenarios that are unarguable by facts.

A second factor is that my ancestors were poor dirt farmers who didn't
leave many records in the first place. My gg grand did because he had
5 illegitimate children by three ladies in NC by 1825 and was in court
over that - and he was shot in AL in 1849. Too many people of that era
in the South were buried under a tree on a hill and marked by a small
rock. I am almost certainly the first of my line to earn a college
degree and the WWII GI Bill paid for most of that.

Thanks to you I have the genealogy of Thomas Degroat Wyatt. His
ancestors never left the north. My ancestors never went north. Our
link almost certainly goes back to England. Depending on who you
believe the Wyatts were Normans OR Anglo-Saxon from about 1066. If I
am Saxon, he must be. His genealogy doesn't tell me that, his DNA
does. Also, the records I see state that the North and South Wyatt
clans have not been proven to link. If that is true his genealogy is
wrong. Yet I see no flaw in it.

>The purpose of joining the Wyatt group is primarily to appear in the
>Wyatt public website Y-DNA results table, so that people like me can
>help you.

I noticed one person on the Wyatt group who appeared to be an
intelligent researcher. I called and he died 2 years ago. I have
developed more accurate potential Wyatt links to me than any other
Wyatt researcher. And they don't average a post a month.

>Have you uploaded your Y-DNA results to Ysearch?

No. Tests of living people won't tell me anything because they don't
have anything I don't have or can't show they are guessing. What I
need are tests of people living 300 years ago and their location. You
can't presume that a matching test has proven genealogy.

>> I looked and that might help. I found that Thomas Degroat Wyatt is
>> about 55 years old and has lived in a lot of towns in CA, FL, MI and
>> NJ.
>
>Have you sent him a message on the Ancestry message service?

Yes. From what I have seen so far, he may have good reason for not
wanting to be found. But, why did he test?

I enjoy research. I don't expect anyone will be able to help with
facts I don't already know about any Sullivans in NC. I'm looking for
clues that I can develop, that I already have not. I expect them to
all be dead ends.

But I have what I believe on my website, repeatedly requesting to be
proven right or wrong. I get about 200 hits per month and not one
e-mail in more than 2 years as a result.

Hugh

[Richard Smith]

On 17/08/15 13:56, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> No one will ever be able to PROVE my paternal ancestors before 1789.

That's roughly when I'm stuck with my paternal line too. (Look on the
bright side, at least your name isn't Smith!) Like your family, they
were poor labourers who left few records, but I haven't given up making
further progress, and I don't see why you should either.

You may prove lucky a find an unexpected "smoking gun". Perhaps your
earliest known ancestor had an aunt who married into a slightly
wealthier family and left a will naming your ancestor. In most areas,
the indexing of will beneficiaries is poor, so this requires a lot of luck.

You may yet make progress with Y-DNA. Just because you haven't yet
found a useful match doesn't mean you never will. And if that person
lived in the same area as your earliest proven ancestor, that's a strong
clue that they're closely related. It's also worth studying Thomas
Degroat Wyatt's ancestry carefully, and other early patrilineal descents
from it. This ancestors may have been in the sorth, but perhaps a son
moved south?

Don't rule out autosomal DNA, even though 1789 is probably close to or
beyond the horizon. In principle, as more relatives are tested, so the
power of it increases as you can start reconstructing the DNA of
ancestor and use that in matching. I'm not aware of sites that
currently do that (though I've not really looked), but if none exist at
present, it's only matter of time. With such a facility, if a lots of
descendants of your earliest known ancestor got tested, the sensitivity
would increase dramatically.

Richard

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

Thanks for the encouragement but it appears that I don't have a giveup
gene! It's an academic exercise to keep this 87 year old brain from
atrophying.

My wife was a Smith - comprende.

Autosomal DNA, as I understand, would relate me to 16 great great
grandparents. I already know all but two of them.

I have the census records of NC Sullivans through 1850, and after for
the line, on my computer. I also have the census for Wyatts through
1820 on the computer. On a county map of NC I colored counties where
each were located and studied the genealogies of common counties and
approximate counties. L can theorize my grandfather being a Wyatt
because he was in the same county with a Dempsey and named a son
Dempsey. But the census records don't allow the possibility of him
living with them and the Wyatts have butchered the genealogy of that
family.

I did the county thing for two other families that are 3 steps away in
YDNA.

Like the man on the beach - I'm leaving no tern unstoned. I'll keep
Star Trekking...

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 08:16:19 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>> Now I'm puzzled - I am not on the 67 marker table.

I jusr rechecked the colorized version of the Ria group on FTDNA.
There are a number of 388=10 entries. I am 18 up in the third group
before the 388s become 12 again. Russell is my named ancestor.

Doesn't FTDNA auto post to YSearch?

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

> But If no Sullivan on the table is DYS388=10 how could anyone help?

If everyone chose not to be in the tables, genetic genealogists would be
seriously hampered in the work that they do. It is a collaborative
effort - the more people that test the more knowledge is gained which
benefits everyone. As more people test there may well be an interesting
someone appearing in the table for you to compare with that may give you
that vital clue.

> No one will ever be able to PROVE my paternal ancestors before 1789.

I disagree. In time through Y-DNA testing it is very likely that your
paternal genetic ancestry will be proved before 1790.

> Thanks to you I have the genealogy of Thomas Degroat Wyatt.

Don't believe the family trees on Ancestry or anywhere else. As Thomas
Degroat Wyatt is an exact 67 marker DNA match, if I were in your shoes I
would research his ancestry thoroughly myself from scratch, not looking
at his tree on Ancestry, proving each step of the way with primary
original records.

>> >Have you uploaded your Y-DNA results to Ysearch?
> No. Tests of living people won't tell me anything because they don't
> have anything I don't have or can't show they are guessing. What I
> need are tests of people living 300 years ago and their location. You
> can't presume that a matching test has proven genealogy.

I disagree. The purpose of testing living people is find genetic cousins
and triangulate the results back to the common ancestor. That common
ancestor may be the brother or uncle or ancestor of your brickwall
ancestor - thereby circumventing your brickwall. Don't assume that all
of your genetic cousins live in the USA. How about those that live in
the home country? Finding one of more of those would give your research
a massive leap forwards. Hence the importance of *you* researching
potential lines in the suspected home country *down to the present day*.

> Yes. From what I have seen so far, he may have good reason for not
> wanting to be found. But, why did he test?

As Thomas Degroat Wyatt is an exact 67 marker match with you, you should
make strenuous efforts to locate and contact him, engaging the help of
others if you are not physically able to do so.

> You may yet make progress with Y-DNA. Just because you haven't yet
> found a useful match doesn't mean you never will. And if that person
> lived in the same area as your earliest proven ancestor, that's a
> strong clue that they're closely related. It's also worth studying
> Thomas Degroat Wyatt's ancestry carefully, and other early patrilineal
> descents from it. This ancestors may have been in the sorth, but
> perhaps a son moved south? Don't rule out autosomal DNA, even though
> 1789 is probably close to or beyond the horizon. In principle, as more
> relatives are tested, so the power of it increases as you can start
> reconstructing the DNA of ancestor and use that in matching. I'm not
> aware of sites that currently do that (though I've not really looked),
> but if none exist at present, it's only matter of time. With such a
> facility, if a lots of descendants of your earliest known ancestor got
> tested, the sensitivity would increase dramatically.

Well said Richard. I agree.

> I jusr rechecked the colorized version of the Ria group on FTDNA.
> There are a number of 388=10 entries. I am 18 up in the third group
> before the 388s become 12 again. Russell is my named ancestor.

Are you kit 56962 with Paternal Ancestor showing as "Russell Sullivan,
b. 1790, Prob. Halifax Co. NC". If yes, I don't understand your "I am 18

up in the third group before the 388s become 12 again".

> Doesn't FTDNA auto post to YSearch?

No, you have to initiate the upload yourself. When looking at your list
of Matches on your myFTDNA page, click "Upload to Ysearch.org" at the
bottom. Let us know your Ysearch ID when you have done that.

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:32:03 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

Although I don't agree with every possibility, your posts are a
valuable educational tool for a number of readers.

>> But If no Sullivan on the table is DYS388=10 how could anyone help?
>
>If everyone chose not to be in the tables, genetic genealogists would be
>seriously hampered in the work that they do. It is a collaborative
>effort - the more people that test the more knowledge is gained which
>benefits everyone. As more people test there may well be an interesting
>someone appearing in the table for you to compare with that may give you
>that vital clue.

Mea culpa. I meant if none of those tested were 10s, not that not
appearing was a choice.

>> Thanks to you I have the genealogy of Thomas Degroat Wyatt.
>
>Don't believe the family trees on Ancestry or anywhere else.

I don't. When you see "1 source" repeated countless times in the
public search, and the first one is wrong... It almost becomes a
tragicomedy.

But it has been 15 years since I learned a new fact on my line. So I
look for potential leads even though I know "Eureka" will not be the
word I use.

>As Thomas
>Degroat Wyatt is an exact 67 marker DNA match, if I were in your shoes I
>would research his ancestry thoroughly myself from scratch, not looking
>at his tree on Ancestry, proving each step of the way with primary
>original records.

Matching DNA IS a different matter. But matches with different
surnames require someone to have genealogy that allows one to link. If
that was probable I would have done it myself. I don't think everyone
else is a failure. I think the records are not available to prove
anything I haven't proven on my line - and never will be.

>>> >Have you uploaded your Y-DNA results to Ysearch?

>> No. Tests of living people won't tell me anything because they don't
>> have anything I don't have or can't show they are guessing. What I
>> need are tests of people living 300 years ago and their location. You
>> can't presume that a matching test has proven genealogy.
>
>I disagree. The purpose of testing living people is find genetic cousins
>and triangulate the results back to the common ancestor.

Again those cousins must have a proven ancestor before 1789. They will
not have it - or it will be wrong if they do.

One person said, "He was the only one available to be his father."
Another said, "I saw where his father was buried in Ireland. The name
on the tombstone was Russell Sullivan." That's your laughs for the
day.

>That common
>ancestor may be the brother or uncle or ancestor of your brickwall
>ancestor - thereby circumventing your brickwall. Don't assume that all
>of your genetic cousins live in the USA. How about those that live in
>the home country? Finding one of more of those would give your research
>a massive leap forwards. Hence the importance of *you* researching
>potential lines in the suspected home country *down to the present day*.

I'm sure that's right. But, I don't even know where or how to start
research in England. The population of England is more than 50
million. How do I eliminate any R1a 388=10s even if I know who they
are?

>> Yes. From what I have seen so far, he may have good reason for not
>> wanting to be found. But, why did he test?
>
>As Thomas Degroat Wyatt is an exact 67 marker match with you, you should
>make strenuous efforts to locate and contact him, engaging the help of
>others if you are not physically able to do so.

When I was younger I would have done that. I would have proved he
couldn't hide from me. I can fly to any no-war zone where there is a
military air field for $10.

>> You may yet make progress with Y-DNA. Just because you haven't yet
>> found a useful match doesn't mean you never will.

Theoretically I agree. Practically, no. The person has to have
genealogy that will permit a match. That person will never exist. I've
gone the other route. I have a web site available for all to see.
"Here is what I think. Prove me right or prove me wrong!" It depends
on isolation. proximity and females being proper ladies until 1816.

>And if that person
>> lived in the same area as your earliest proven ancestor, that's a
>> strong clue that they're closely related.

A man named Dempsey Wyatt lived in Nash Co. NC at the proper time in
1790. Russell name his third son Dempsey and was obviously in Nash Co.
on occasion. That really looked good until I found that my genenealogy
in a week was more accurate then the Wyatts for decades and there was
no way to determine a link without guessing. I addressed the matter on
the Wyatt board and they know nothing of that family except erroneous
conclusions.

>It's also worth studying
>> Thomas Degroat Wyatt's ancestry carefully, and other early patrilineal
>> descents from it. This ancestors may have been in the sorth, but
>> perhaps a son moved south? Don't rule out autosomal DNA, even though
>> 1789 is probably close to or beyond the horizon. In principle, as more
>> relatives are tested, so the power of it increases as you can start
>> reconstructing the DNA of ancestor and use that in matching. I'm not
>> aware of sites that currently do that (though I've not really looked),
>> but if none exist at present, it's only matter of time. With such a
>> facility, if a lots of descendants of your earliest known ancestor got
>> tested, the sensitivity would increase dramatically.
>
>Well said Richard. I agree.
>> I jusr rechecked the colorized version of the Ria group on FTDNA.
>> There are a number of 388=10 entries. I am 18 up in the third group
>> before the 388s become 12 again. Russell is my named ancestor.
>
>Are you kit 56962 with Paternal Ancestor showing as "Russell Sullivan,
>b. 1790, Prob. Halifax Co. NC". If yes, I don't understand your "I am 18
>up in the third group before the 388s become 12 again".

That's me. The table I saw had several Haplo IDs. The first had only 1
person. The next two groups were larger. I was 18 from the bottom of
the third group - and you found me.

>> Doesn't FTDNA auto post to YSearch?

>No, you have to initiate the upload yourself. When looking at your list
>of Matches on your myFTDNA page, click "Upload to Ysearch.org" at the
>bottom. Let us know your Ysearch ID when you have done that.

Wilco,

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 09:32:03 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

I planned to post my results to YSearch by your suggestion and this is
the message on FTDNA.

"Your results have already been uploaded to YSearch.org. Your User ID
is TFN2M. Click below to go to YSearch.org"

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

> Again those cousins must have a proven ancestor before 1789. They will
> not have it - or it will be wrong if they do.
>

You are not understanding. If you find a close Y-DNA match with a
Sullivan or Wyatt, in England for example, that living person may well
have a proven paternal line in England that extends beyond 1790, back to
a period before your Sullivan/Wyatt arrived in the USA. Your USA
research in this circumstance will be irrelevant because you will have
circumvented your brickwall of c1790.

> I'm sure that's right. But, I don't even know where or how to start research in England.

Research in England since 1837 is relatively easy because we have
centralised national indexes of births marriages and deaths. And a
national index of wills since 1858.

http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl
http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=8782
http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=8753
http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7579
http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1904

You would start by using the British 19th Century Surname Atlas by
Archer Software. This will give you the hotspots of Sullivan and Wyatt
in 1881 which is a very good indication of their geographical locations
prior to and since that date. The hotspots for Sullivan were Middlesex
and Surrey. The hotspots for Wyatt were Devon and Middlesex and Surrey.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/es649kc98pddvf4/Sullivan.JPG?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/l2zgcxqkj98zer0/Wyatt.JPG?dl=0

http://search.findmypast.com/search-world-Records/uk-electoral-registers-2002-2014
http://www.192.com

Using these facilities together with the decennial census 1841-1911 it
is quite easy to find Sullivan and Wyatt descendants whose paternal
lines lived in those hotspots. For the period before 1837 there is a
huge quantity of high quality images of historical primary source
documents of parish register baptisms marriages and burials for
Middlesex Surrey and Devon on Ancestry and Findmypast.

> I was 18 from the bottom of the third group - and you found me.

I found you by using a Ctrl+F search in the table for Russell.

> "Your results have already been uploaded to YSearch.org. Your User ID
> is TFN2M. Click below to go to YSearch.org"

Unfortunately you only have 12 marker matches on Ysearch which will not
help you. When the Sorenson SMGF and Ancestry Y-DNA databases were
available, did you search those large databases for matches?

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:20:36 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>Research in England since 1837 is relatively easy because we have
>centralised national indexes of births marriages and deaths. And a
>national index of wills since 1858.
>
>http://www.freebmd.org.uk/cgi/search.pl
>http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=8782
>http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=8753
>http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7579
>http://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1904

I will avail myself of those opportunities.

>You would start by using the British 19th Century Surname Atlas by
>Archer Software. This will give you the hotspots of Sullivan and Wyatt
>in 1881 which is a very good indication of their geographical locations
>prior to and since that date. The hotspots for Sullivan were Middlesex
>and Surrey. The hotspots for Wyatt were Devon and Middlesex and Surrey.

And Saxon hotspots were Essex. Middlesex, Surrey and Wessex. Sounds
promising but I may not be a Sullivan and Wyatt may not be a Wyatt
since our tenths don't match other Wyatts or Sullivans.

>https://www.dropbox.com/s/es649kc98pddvf4/Sullivan.JPG?dl=0
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/l2zgcxqkj98zer0/Wyatt.JPG?dl=0
>
>http://search.findmypast.com/search-world-Records/uk-electoral-registers-2002-2014
>http://www.192.com
>
>Using these facilities together with the decennial census 1841-1911 it
>is quite easy to find Sullivan and Wyatt descendants whose paternal
>lines lived in those hotspots. For the period before 1837 there is a
>huge quantity of high quality images of historical primary source
>documents of parish register baptisms marriages and burials for
>Middlesex Surrey and Devon on Ancestry and Findmypast.

I looked again at WYatts who have tested. Only 1 Wyatt is a "tenth"
(DYS388=10). Doesn't that tell me one of three things - (1) He is not
a Wyatt (2) our MRCA was in England (3) more Wyatts need to test.

I did notice that the Wyatt who might have been my ancestor was not a
tenth based on one person's genealogy. But if the genealogy is wrong
no conclusion is meaningful.

At the moment it appears that I only need to look at tenths regardless
of surname. That's in the first 12 markers. If a person is not a tenth
how could we match since cave drawing time?

>Unfortunately you only have 12 marker matches on Ysearch which will not
>help you. When the Sorenson SMGF and Ancestry Y-DNA databases were
>available, did you search those large databases for matches?

I was not even aware of their existence. Before my match with Wyatt I
looked only at a paper trail and I was an Irish Sullivan. The DNA
tests burst that bubble.

Apparently I need to upload my upgrade from 37 to 67 markers. But,
since I first tested 37 I wonder why only 12 show? But even 12 should
eliminate those who are not tenths.

At one time I thought I was pretty knowledgeable, comparatively
speaking. I think you have shredded that bubble.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 10:20:36 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>You would start by using the British 19th Century Surname Atlas by
>Archer Software. This will give you the hotspots of Sullivan and Wyatt
>in 1881 which is a very good indication of their geographical locations
>prior to and since that date. The hotspots for Sullivan were Middlesex
>and Surrey. The hotspots for Wyatt were Devon and Middlesex and Surrey.
>
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/es649kc98pddvf4/Sullivan.JPG?dl=0
>https://www.dropbox.com/s/l2zgcxqkj98zer0/Wyatt.JPG?dl=0

You took some time and effort to give me the info on the above URLs
from Archer. I appreciate it.

The density of both Sullivan and Wyatt in the southeast corner of
England is surprising and will hopefully be a clue.

However, If Thomas deGroat Wyatt does not match any other Wyatts, and
I don't match any other Sullivans except a cousin, seems like our MRCA
would not be either Wyatt or Sullivan.

For me to pick up anything from English genealogies they would have to
be much less amateurish than the ones I find on my line in the
colonies.

You are an amazing resource.

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

> I looked again at WYatts who have tested. Only 1 Wyatt is a "tenth"
> (DYS388=10). Doesn't that tell me one of three things - (1) He is not
> a Wyatt (2) our MRCA was in England (3) more Wyatts need to test.

More Wyatt's and Sullivan's need to test, especially your distant
cousins - for example test some of your 3rd, 4th and 5th cousins. It is
important to triangulate those results back to the common ancestor to
verify the genealogy that you have done.

> If a person is not a tenth how could we match since cave drawing time?

You should not put too much emphasis on the DYS388=10. Mutations occur
at random, in any generation at any time. For example it is possible for
a mutation to have occurred on DYS388 between your father and yourself.
Hence the importance of testing some of your distant cousins.

>
> Apparently I need to upload my upgrade from 37 to 67 markers. But, since I first tested 37 I wonder why only 12 show?

On Ysearch you have 37 markers showing. Where are you looking in that
you only see 12?

> But even 12 should eliminate those who are not tenths.
>

If you can establish that your DYS388=10 holds good back to the common
ancestor between you and your distant cousins, then yes you could adopt
a cost effective strategy of initially testing only 12 markers.

>
> However, If Thomas deGroat Wyatt does not match any other Wyatts, and
> I don't match any other Sullivans except a cousin, seems like our MRCA
> would not be either Wyatt or Sullivan.

I don't think you can say that without testing distant cousins of Thomas
and yourself. The most likely scenario is that no one else has tested
yet in your line or in the line of Thomas.

>
> For me to pick up anything from English genealogies they would have to
> be much less amateurish than the ones I find on my line in the
> colonies.
>

You should not pay much attention to other people's research because
much of it is likely to be just plain wrong. You need to do the research
yourself from scratch.

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 20 Aug 2015 08:57:29 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>> I looked again at WYatts who have tested. Only 1 Wyatt is a "tenth"
>> (DYS388=10). Doesn't that tell me one of three things - (1) He is not
>> a Wyatt (2) our MRCA was in England (3) more Wyatts need to test.
>
>More Wyatt's and Sullivan's need to test, especially your distant
>cousins - for example test some of your 3rd, 4th and 5th cousins. It is
>important to triangulate those results back to the common ancestor to
>verify the genealogy that you have done.

Again the problem will be that no one has a link back to any common
ancestor. It might appear that we link to a grandfather with several
preceding greats but there will be no genealogy to provably link us.
In 20+ years I have not seen a genealogy that has even close to as
much as I do on my line - or any other surname that might link.
Everything tells me there is an oddity somewhere.

>> If a person is not a tenth how could we match since cave drawing time?
>
>You should not put too much emphasis on the DYS388=10. Mutations occur
>at random, in any generation at any time. For example it is possible for
>a mutation to have occurred on DYS388 between your father and yourself.
>Hence the importance of testing some of your distant cousins.

But the probability is that a mutation has not occurred and I am
already resigned to relying on probabilities. Being the first of my
line would be an interesting thought.

>>
>> Apparently I need to upload my upgrade from 37 to 67 markers. But, since I first tested 37 I wonder why only 12 show?
>
>On Ysearch you have 37 markers showing. Where are you looking in that
>you only see 12?

I thought that was your comment. Mea culpa.

>
>> But even 12 should eliminate those who are not tenths.

I went through the list of 8 pages (almost 4000 people) of R1a's on
FTDNA yesterday. I started with tests of 12 markers and proceeded to
37. I eliminated everyone except my cousin and Thomas Wyatt, marker by
marker, long before the 37th marker.

>If you can establish that your DYS388=10 holds good back to the common
>ancestor between you and your distant cousins, then yes you could adopt
>a cost effective strategy of initially testing only 12 markers.

I don't know any distant cousins who are not Sullivans and I know
their genealogy. In fact I have informed most of them about their
line. I know three Sullivan lines that go back further than mine and I
have helped on all three. I know the genealogy of every Sullivan
(various spellings) on the 1790 NC Federal census if one can be
created. I did them to eliminate every Sullivan who could not be my
ancestor.

>> However, If Thomas deGroat Wyatt does not match any other Wyatts, and
>> I don't match any other Sullivans except a cousin, seems like our MRCA
>> would not be either Wyatt or Sullivan.
>
>I don't think you can say that without testing distant cousins of Thomas
>and yourself. The most likely scenario is that no one else has tested
>yet in your line or in the line of Thomas.

I agree. But isn't it amazing that we are unique in our lines - and
lots of Sullivans have tested.

>> For me to pick up anything from English genealogies they would have to
>> be much less amateurish than the ones I find on my line in the
>> colonies.

>You should not pay much attention to other people's research because
>much of it is likely to be just plain wrong. You need to do the research
>yourself from scratch.

I look for other lines to give me clues. I should be able to concur or
disprove any Sullivan line - or prove there is no way to link even if
there is one.

I thought the maps showing so many Wyatts and Sullivans in one
location was WOW! Then I realized it was London.

I understand your directions and I'm certain they are absolutely
effective where success is possible.

Realistically I believe I am doomed to failure - but that won't stop
me! It's a concept that is rare to me. I do admit that putting excess
toothpaste back in the tube is tough.

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

> Again the problem will be that no one has a link back to any common
> ancestor. It might appear that we link to a grandfather with several
> preceding greats but there will be no genealogy to provably link us.
> In 20+ years I have not seen a genealogy that has even close to as
> much as I do on my line - or any other surname that might link.
> Everything tells me there is an oddity somewhere.
>

For this excercise, temporarily put your genealogy research to one side.
Imagine a scenario in which you find a Sullivan or Wyatt that is a close
Y-DNA match to you in the home country wherever that may be. In that
home country there may be records that prove an emmigration of a close
genetic match of yours to the USA. If your research has only been on USA
records, you will not have seen those records in the home country.

The percentage of people outside the USA that have tested their Y-DNA is
small compared to those within the USA. Assume that the close match that
you are looking for in the home country has not tested yet. It's all a
big unknown which will only be resolved as more people test. To get your
target people to test you need to be proactive in seeking them out.
Nothing much will happen until you do that, unless you are lucky.

>
> >On Ysearch you have 37 markers showing. Where are you looking in that
> >you only see 12?
> I thought that was your comment. Mea culpa.

On Ysearch your only matches are with people that have tested on 12
markers. None of those matches have the surname Sullivan or Wyatt. Have
you actually looked at your matches on Ysearch?

> I eliminated everyone except my cousin and Thomas Wyatt, marker by
> marker, long before the 37th marker.

Do your cousin and Thomas Degroat Wyatt appear in the R1a table? If yes,
what are their kit numbers please?

> I agree. But isn't it amazing that we are unique in our lines - and lots of Sullivans have tested.

No, it is not amazing. It is to be expected. It is common for people not
to have any close Y-DNA matches on FTDNA, myself included. My close
matches tested with Sorenson SMGF when they were offering free tests, so
their results do not appear on FTDNA. And it is very common that
potential matches have not tested yet.

> I look for other lines to give me clues. I should be able to concur or
> disprove any Sullivan line - or prove there is no way to link even if
> there is one.

But as far as I know, you have only looked in the USA? And you are only
using the tool of traditional genealogy. Y-DNA testing does not lie.

> Realistically I believe I am doomed to failure

With respect, I think you are being far too pessimistic, not looking at
the big picture, not seeing the wood for the trees, giving up before
properly exploring potential genetic cousins, relying only on
traditional genealogy.

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:56:25 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>On Ysearch your only matches are with people that have tested on 12
>markers. None of those matches have the surname Sullivan or Wyatt. Have
>you actually looked at your matches on Ysearch?

I tried that and the site would not accept my password. I never got a
response when I asked for e-mail help to reset the password. I guess I
need to spank that butt again.

>
>> I eliminated everyone except my cousin and Thomas Wyatt, marker by
>> marker, long before the 37th marker.
>
>Do your cousin and Thomas Degroat Wyatt appear in the R1a table? If yes,
>what are their kit numbers please?

I'll look it up later. I'm preparing a genealogy study for a friend
who has the same problem with her Sullivan ancestor. I may put it on
my web site for her. She is a PhD in Salt Lake City with the Mormon
records at her disposal. But her male Sullivan relatives are R1b and I
am R1a.

>> I look for other lines to give me clues. I should be able to concur or
>> disprove any Sullivan line - or prove there is no way to link even if
>> there is one.
>
>But as far as I know, you have only looked in the USA?

I am not aware of the resources that enable me to effectively look
elsewhere.

And I don't see how a person in England who DNA matches me can have
data that would permit a link. I think there is a gap between Sussex
in 1650 or so that can't be linked with Johnston Co. NC in 1816 - the
first time my ancestor actually appeared. The only news he ever made
was in court records for siring illegitimate children. I may have the
same problem they have looking for someone.

>> Realistically I believe I am doomed to failure
>
>With respect, I think you are being far too pessimistic, not looking at
>the big picture, not seeing the wood for the trees, giving up before
>properly exploring potential genetic cousins, relying only on
>traditional genealogy.

I think my ancestors flew pretty much under the radar - probably came
over, served out their bond for cost of passage and acquired a few
acres. They never really established themselves until after WWI - most
of the burial places are unknown until after 1850. I'm not looking for
management type people who left traces of their being here. That
doesn't bother me because I am who I am. I have left a lot of tracks.

I don't think I have ever been pessimistic. I've never been much of a
realist from the standpoint of giving up. I can always see the light
at the end of the tunnell - in genealogy I'm not sure yet if it's
daylight or a train.

Hugh

[Trevor Rix via]

> I tried that and the site would not accept my password. I never got a
> response when I asked for e-mail help to reset the password. I guess I
> need to spank that butt again.

Anyone can view your results and matches on Ysearch using your ID TFN2M.
No password required. Visit http://www.ysearch.org , click Search For
Genetic Matches, and enter TFN2M in the Enter User ID: box, click
Search, enter the Captcha number, click Search. Your matches are
displayed. Click your ID TFN2M to view your 37 marker results and your
contact details.

> >But as far as I know, you have only looked in the USA?
> I am not aware of the resources that enable me to effectively look elsewhere.

I have already given you information as to how to get started in England.

>
> And I don't see how a person in England who DNA matches me can have data that would permit a link.

As you have a genealogy brickwall, the strategy is to work your way
around that brickwall using Y-DNA testing.

I have already explained that there may be documents in England that you
have not seen yet. For example, only a small percentage of the records
in The National Archives are online. I don't think you have even looked
at the ones that are online?

> I think there is a gap between Sussex in 1650 or so that can't be linked with Johnston Co. NC in 1816

I don't understand. Why do you mention Sussex and 1650?

>
> I don't think I have ever been pessimistic. I've never been much of a
> realist from the standpoint of giving up.

My perception is that you are being very pessimistic. Not willing to
understand or try what I am suggesting.

Trevor Rix

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:02:23 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>
>> I tried that and the site would not accept my password. I never got a
>> response when I asked for e-mail help to reset the password. I guess I
>> need to spank that butt again.
>
>Anyone can view your results and matches on Ysearch using your ID TFN2M.
>No password required. Visit http://www.ysearch.org , click Search For
>Genetic Matches, and enter TFN2M in the Enter User ID: box, click
>Search, enter the Captcha number, click Search. Your matches are
>displayed. Click your ID TFN2M to view your 37 marker results and your
>contact details.

I'll try that. The site would not let me in the way I was directed.

>> >But as far as I know, you have only looked in the USA?

>> I am not aware of the resources that enable me to effectively look elsewhere.
>
>I have already given you information as to how to get started in England.

I have that info and will work on it.

>>
>> And I don't see how a person in England who DNA matches me can have data that would permit a link.
>
>As you have a genealogy brickwall, the strategy is to work your way
>around that brickwall using Y-DNA testing.

I agree.

>
>I have already explained that there may be documents in England that you
>have not seen yet. For example, only a small percentage of the records
>in The National Archives are online. I don't think you have even looked
>at the ones that are online?
>
>> I think there is a gap between Sussex in 1650 or so that can't be linked with Johnston Co. NC in 1816
>
>I don't understand. Why do you mention Sussex and 1650?

My only match was a Wyatt. That's where ANglo Saxons and Wyatts were.
I am L664+ - almost certainly Anglo-Saxon and not from Scandinavia.

>>
>> I don't think I have ever been pessimistic. I've never been much of a
>> realist from the standpoint of giving up.
>
>My perception is that you are being very pessimistic. Not willing to
>understand or try what I am suggesting.

I understand and I appreciate what you are doing to help. I expect
that type research to be extremely slow and I want to to stick with it
for a time for continuity. Now and then is not a very productive
search method.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 21 Aug 2015 08:56:25 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>Do your cousin and Thomas Degroat Wyatt appear in the R1a table? If yes,
>what are their kit numbers please?

Strange - I don't find either one on the R1a table any more. The below
info covers the 37 marker matches with no more than 1 step difference.
Only Wyatt matches at 67 markers - Mike didn't test 67.

0
Mr. Thomas Michael Sullivan
Russell Sullivan(t) Johnston County, North Carolin R-M512
12/29/2008

Note that Russell was probably born in Halifax, probably lived in
Franklin for years, possibly moved to Nash for a time and first
appeared in Johnston in 1816. I correspond with Mike frequently. He
descends from a different son of Russell.

0
Thomas de Groat Wyatt
Edward Wyatt, d. 13 Feb 1680 R-M512 9/15/2006

0
Woolard
R-M512 2/6/2009

1
Ward Junior Wollard
R-M512 9/5/2006

1
Wollard
R-M512 10/7/2008

I've just returned from the monthly VFW breakfast so I'll check
YSearch now.

Hugh R1a1a1a L664+

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 10:02:23 +0100, Trevor Rix via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>Anyone can view your results and matches on Ysearch using your ID TFN2M.
>No password required. Visit http://www.ysearch.org , click Search For
>Genetic Matches, and enter TFN2M in the Enter User ID: box, click
>Search, enter the Captcha number, click Search. Your matches are
>displayed. Click your ID TFN2M to view your 37 marker results and your
>contact details.

That search was a little disappointing.

Only 2 R1a people matched me.

Only 1 R1a1a1a person was close and he is 2 markers different. He is
DYS388=12 so he is eliminated.

However I'm not very surprised. Seems to me that before 1789 there
must have been some illegitimate sons in my line who took their
mother's surname. Or, maybe even in 1789... Or, even informal
adoptions... Or, records destroyed in the War Between the States...

In any event it gives me more confidence that my conclusions based on
preponderance of evidence on my website are factually unarguable even
though probably wrong.

You are an excellent resource. My lack of positive results is the
fault of my ancestors - not you.

Hugh

[vill...@gmail.com]

What a story - I wish I'd been following it.

But I have a serious interest in Frisians and the like. Germanic people from Schleswig-Holstein began moving southward along the coast pretty early, I'm not sure if it was closer to 700 BC or 500 BC and may have seen varying dates.

By the time Caesar got there they were Germanic, and Belgic Celts south of the Rhine; people who were culturally Celtic and ethnically more German, more or less. Some of them had migrated westward from the northern part of the Celtic heartland; in that location they were adjacent to southward moving Elbe River Germanics as well as the Germanic people immediately north of them. Also, the Celts pretty much had conquered Denmark at one point; they wanted to control the amber trade.

Of course, in 500 BC they were not called Frisians.

Jutes were a people who developed in northern Jutland after the Cimbri migrated southward (and were eventually vaporized by the Romans in the lands north of Italy). Angles were people of east Jutland and the Danish islands, who were wealthy and controlled trade in the area. The archeological record in East Anglia confirms that there was a Norse element. Saxons were something of a confederacy; they didn't have much of an identity of their own. Word might mean axe. They basically existed in Schleswig-Holstein, and then they began to move south. There were quite a number of small German groups in the vicinity that at various points in time might have been affiliated with Saxons, later they were affiliated with the Franks, and eventually their identity was Frankish - after one family of Frankish chieftains unified them. For centuries before they invaded England, Frisians and Saxons were a bother in the English channel and adjacent lands, and they were often mixed up with each other. I think the terms Saxon and Frank both began to be used after a series of Roman defeats drove a tremendous amount if Germanic reorganization during the 3rd century, and they began to form large defensive unions.

My brother belongs to an independent branch of haplogroup I1 that has yet to get an actual name, but has its own SNPs, and some elements of it can be distinguished by their haplotypes. Big Ys have confirmed the haplotypes about who belongs to the clade. The older elements (twice the genetic distance) are arranged along the Elbe (specifically Saxony) corridor and the upper Rhine. One theory is they were Elbe River Germanics, and one sees a clear progression of SNP development moving south. Or as nearly as we could get it from 4 people. One group ended up in North Brabant and England, with genetic distance in England consistent with Flemings who got there with the Normans or in Norman times. It could be that one of them came down the Rhine with the Romans, or that they were Belgic Celts and migrated from Saxony where the two groups lived adjacent to each other. It is also within the realm of possibility that Franks migrated to Saxony and to the upper Rhine. Little else explains their existence and founder genetic distances on the upper Rhine. It wouldn't be Saxon or Norse, for instance.

I hadn't realized this group was about Genetic genealogy. It looks interesting. I'll have to change my subscription from digest.

On Tuesday, August 11, 2015 at 6:08:06 PM UTC-5, cecilia wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Aug 2015 13:56:10 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
> Sullivan) wrote:
>
> > [..] My early ancestor was probably an
> >Anglo-Saxon-Jute-Friisan (pick one) from northwesterd Europe (Germany)
> >who invaded England and cohabited with an Irish lass named Sullivan
> >without benefit of clergy. [...] I came along 4,000-6,000
> >years later. [...]
>
> Is there any evidence that there were people that were Angle, Saxon,
> Jute or Frisian more than 500 BCE? (Just curious)

[vill...@gmail.com]

What do I do?

I am working on development of SNPs and a name for my brother's new haplogroup i1 branch. Trying to work past a set of project admins who require people to participate in further outsourced work at further expense that Family Tree DNA doesn't support. Urghh! Specifically, the AS121210 group on the haplogroup I1 project is negative for the SNP, DF29, that most of haplogroup I1 is descended from, and classed as I1*. Since DF29 is more than 4000 years old, that necessarily means we have our own SNPs. Seven members of the group did Big Ys, and we found nine uniquely shared SNPs, and the project admins have completely ignored it. Oi, don't get me going.

Anyhow, the group itself is very exciting. They can be traced back in time for somewhere between 2000 and 4000 years. Some live in the Elbe-Rhine corridor, some with the least shared SNPs lived farther north, one group of them made it to the Rhine delta, England and Scotland, and that group has hierarchical organization on the STR haplotypes. The great bulk of the English people are descended from a single ancestor who lived likely between 1000 and 1300 AD, and his ancestors were not there sooner, and as far as I can tell, this person, maybe together with his sons and grandsons, trotted all over England and southern Scotland leaving pregnant women behind them.

I have one member of the group, who INSISTS, that he KNOWS FOR A FACT, that Papa Wanderer was a Norman lord, descended from Rollo, AND Freskin, AND ALL of the Knights Templar. Got multiple members of a family from the Forth of Firth insisting that they connect more recently to the descendants of Freskin.

I really think there might have been a Flemish knight in this somewhere. His name wasn't Freskin. But the whole family are very unusual. The family group contains few impoverished people, and many instances of people rising from nothing to much with the odds against them. Family as a whole possessed of real creativity, political talent, sales talent, that sort of thing. Norman-era Flemish emigrant could have been a successful merchant. Group members' fortunes have a real tendency to fall suddenly as well as rise, so I've an idea that this group's origins are lost in time, but one can always hope something comes to light.

Dora

[vill...@gmail.com]

On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 6:33:20 PM UTC-5, Tom Wetmore wrote:
> On Monday, August 3, 2015 at 11:41:25 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> I use "probably" in the place of death.
>
> Tom Wetmore

LOL.

Dora

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 22 Aug 2015 12:16:25 -0700 (PDT), vill...@gmail.com wrote:

>What a story - I wish I'd been following it.=20

The story evolved because of my research, a brick wall at 1789 and a
very knowledgeable person trying to help tear down my wall ala Berlin
Wall. I have an authenticated peice of that. But I was in Tokyo in
1945, not Berlin.

I am R1a1a1a L664+. My markers do not agree with Scandanavians thus I
am not Norman. My brief sojurn into history indicated that I must be
Frisii, Jute, Angle or Saxon. I have all this on my website. I think
what I have proven is that a little knowledge is a very dangerous
thing. Sometimes this Southern boy gets et up with a case of the
stupids.

Actually what I have succeeded in doing is create a large gap between
1789 and about 4,000 BC + or -. C'est la vie or, it be what it be.

Hugh

[Richard Smith]

On 22/08/15 14:01, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> My only match was a Wyatt. That's where ANglo Saxons and Wyatts were.
> I am L664+ - almost certainly Anglo-Saxon and not from Scandinavia.

Why almost certainly Anglo-Saxon and not Scandinavian? On the
Continent, L664 is not just found in Germany and the Low Countries, but
also in Norway. Your line could have come to the British Isles with the
Anglo-Saxons, or the Vikings, or even the Normans (who were themselves
Norse raiders who settled in France).

R1a is relatively rare in both England and Ireland, and only slightly
more common in England than Ireland. The Vikings certainly reached
Ireland, and while the Anglo-Saxons did not, their Anglo-Norman
descendants did.

With only one exact match, I don't see a particularly good reason to
prefer the explanation that you are a Wyatt rather than that Thomas de
Groat Wyatt is a Sullivan.

Even if you are a Wyatt of Anglo-Saxon origin, why specifically Sussex?
The surname is more common in the south-west than Sussex, but there
are local pockets of them in various areas. My Wyatt ancestors were
from the New Forest, for example.

Richard

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:09:06 +0100, Richard Smith
<ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

>On 22/08/15 14:01, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> My only match was a Wyatt. That's where ANglo Saxons and Wyatts were.
>> I am L664+ - almost certainly Anglo-Saxon and not from Scandinavia.
>
>Why almost certainly Anglo-Saxon and not Scandinavian? On the
>Continent, L664 is not just found in Germany and the Low Countries, but
>also in Norway. Your line could have come to the British Isles with the
>Anglo-Saxons, or the Vikings, or even the Normans (who were themselves
>Norse raiders who settled in France).

There is a 6 marker comparison. One set is General and the other
Scandinavian. I am a mismatch with Scandinavians on all 6 markers.

>
>R1a is relatively rare in both England and Ireland, and only slightly
>more common in England than Ireland. The Vikings certainly reached
>Ireland, and while the Anglo-Saxons did not, their Anglo-Norman
>descendants did.

I think R1a1a1a DYS388=10 L664+ 2.D.2 folks have an aversion to DNA
testing.

>
>With only one exact match, I don't see a particularly good reason to
>prefer the explanation that you are a Wyatt rather than that Thomas de
>Groat Wyatt is a Sullivan.

I'm starting to think we are neither. Some R1a dude captured a Wyatt
and a Sullivan woman when raiding the countryside and they helped him
make it though the night. That guy was probably my 20th great
grandpappy - his surname was Anonymous.

>
>Even if you are a Wyatt of Anglo-Saxon origin, why specifically Sussex?
> The surname is more common in the south-west than Sussex, but there
>are local pockets of them in various areas. My Wyatt ancestors were
>from the New Forest, for example.

The greatest concentration of Sullivans and Wyatts is in the
southeast, especially London.

As I read most seem to think Wyatts were Norman from France since they
came over with 1066 Billy the Conq. I think Admiral Wyatt was a WASP.

Hugh

[Richard Carruthers via]

Then there was the architect Jeffry Wyatt who wanted to be grand and
Norman and changed his name to (de) Wyatville and became Sir Jeffry
(after designing Brighton Pavilion for George IV).

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GENCMP-...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>

[Richard Carruthers via]

Or rather the remodelling of Windsor Castle. Sorry.

On 27/08/2015, Richard Carruthers <leli...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Then there was the architect Jeffry Wyatt who wanted to be grand and
> Norman and changed his name to (de) Wyatville and became Sir Jeffry
> (after designing Brighton Pavilion for George IV).
>
> On 27/08/2015, J. Hugh Sullivan via <gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:55:41 -0700, Richard Carruthers via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>Then there was the architect Jeffry Wyatt who wanted to be grand and
>Norman and changed his name to (de) Wyatville

I thought you were going to say he became a town.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 08:58:16 -0700, Richard Carruthers via
<gen...@rootsweb.com> wrote:

>Or rather the remodelling of Windsor Castle. Sorry.

Is that where the duchess "dukes" it out with her husband?

Hugh

[Richard Smith]

On 27/08/15 16:49, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> The greatest concentration of Sullivans and Wyatts is in the
> southeast, especially London.

That may be true now, after all 20% of the UK population is in the
London metropolitan area. But that's the result of 19th and 20th
century migration. Historically it was much more common in the south-west.

Historically London was part of four counties: Middlesex, Essex, Surrey
and Kent. On the 1841 census, there were 622 Wyatts in Middlesex, out
of a total population of 1,576,636; Surrey had 278 out of 582,678; Kent
125 out of 548,337; and Essex 156 of 344,979. That's 1181 Wyatts out of
a total population of 3,052,630, or 387 per million.

Compare that to Devon where there were 677 Wyatts out of a total
population of 533,460, Somerset with 498 out of 435,982, Gloucestershire
(199 out of 431,383), Dorset (57 out of 175,043) and Wiltshire (158 out
of 258,733). That's 1589 Wyatts out of 1,834,601, or 866 per million.
Higher in absolute terms and much higher in relative terms. If you only
look at Devon and Somerset, the rate rises to 1212 per million.

Sussex is far lower: 55 out of 299,753. The only county that might be
considered part of the south-east to have a rate comparable to that in
the south-west is Hampshire (355 out of 355,004, or 1000 per million).
But it's debatable whether Hampshire is part of the south-east or the
south-west, and the parishes with the highest concentrations of Wyatts
are those in the far west of the county.

It's also worth noting that only 66% of the Wyatts in Middlesex were
born in the county, compared to 90% of those in Devon. This reflects
London's increasing status and population, often through migration from
far afield. The Wyatts in the south-east were far more heavily based in
London than elsewhere, as evidenced by the low incidence of them in
south-eastern counties outside London, such as Hertfordshire or Sussex.
This, together with the larger Wyatt population in the south-west
strongly suggests that a lot of the London Wyatts in 1841 must have been
fairly recent migrants from the south-west.

Your interest is not the 19th century distribution of Wyatts, but the
18th or 17th century population, as that's presumably when your
ancestors emigrated to America. At that time, it seems very likely that
the majority of Wyatts lived in the south-west (especially if Hampshire
is included).

> As I read most seem to think Wyatts were Norman from France since they
> came over with 1066 Billy the Conq. I think Admiral Wyatt was a WASP.

I wouldn't pay any attention to this sort of story. Possibly some
Wyatts might be male-line descendants from someone who came over with
William the Conqueror, but I get very sceptical when I see such e
claims. The surname Wyatt probably doesn't derive from someone alive in
the 11th century as most surnames arose rather later. Wighard was an
Old English name which evolved into the Middle English form Wyot, which
in turn gave rise to the patronymic surname Wyatt. I imagine the
surname arose independently on several occasions, and as likely as not
from the most ordinary of men.

A lot of the Wyatt descents one finds on the Internet go through Sir
Henry Wyatt of Allington, and although I've not studied his ancestry in
detail, a lot of what is written about it is demonstrably false.

Richard

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 19:06:29 +0100, Richard Smith
<ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

>On 27/08/15 16:49, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> The greatest concentration of Sullivans and Wyatts is in the
>> southeast, especially London.
>
>That may be true now, after all 20% of the UK population is in the
>London metropolitan area. But that's the result of 19th and 20th
>century migration. Historically it was much more common in the south-west.

>A lot of the Wyatt descents one finds on the Internet go through Sir
>Henry Wyatt of Allington, and although I've not studied his ancestry in
>detail, a lot of what is written about it is demonstrably false.
>
>Richard

You know a lot about the Wyatts and I appreciate the info.

When I learned that the Wyatt who matched me did not match any other
Wyatts tested, that made me wonder. Aside from a cousin I know I do
not match any other Sullivans tested.

If I am neither do I get my pick of the litter?

Based on preponderance of evidence I have decided who 5 generations
are before the proven one and that is on my website. I almost beg for
confirmation or rebuttal. I get almost 200 hits per month and no
communication.

I tracked every Wyatt and Sullivan (possible to track) in 1790 NC (to
an fro). I have a call in for A. Conan Doyle!

I can track 29 of my 32 ggggg grands.

I blame YDNA testing for the problem. If not for that I could link
back to O'Suilebhain in 862. And I would be as happy as a dead pig in
the sunshine.

Hugh

[Richard Smith]

On 27/08/15 21:30, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> When I learned that the Wyatt who matched me did not match any other
> Wyatts tested, that made me wonder. Aside from a cousin I know I do
> not match any other Sullivans tested.

What is the most recent common ancestor your share with the known
cousin? (I'm not sure whether you're using "cousin" to mean a
first-cousin, or a more distant cousin.) The fact that your Y-DNA
matches your cousin verifies your line back to the that common ancestor,
but no further.

You suspect that because of your unusual haplotype that there may have
been a case of illegitimacy or a non-paternity event (NPE) in your male
line. One possibility is that this could be a NPE in the generations
after Russell. No matter how diligently you've researched the line,
without Y-DNA verification, there's always a possibility that the person
recorded as and believed to be the father was not actually the father.
If you and your cousin descend from different sons of Russell, then you
can already eliminate this possibility. But if not, I'd try to trace a
living male descendant of one of Russell's other sons, and try to talk
them into doing a Y-DNA test.

> Based on preponderance of evidence I have decided who 5 generations
> are before the proven one and that is on my website.

Good. And looking at your website, it looks like you've traced some
living male-line descendants of these earlier 5 generations of
ancestors. Assuming you're not aware that any of them have taken Y-DNA
tests, I'd try to contact some of these descendants and try to take a
test. If they match your DNA and your cousin's, it makes it more
plausible that you are closely related to them, though it doesn't
necessarily prove you've identified the relationship correctly. However
if they don't match then something is up: a research mistake or a NPE,
and you have some idea where it might be, though not whether it's on his
side or your side.

I would suggest using Ancestry as a tool to locate possible people to
take a Y-DNA test. If you find a suitable Sullivan, don't be concerned
that they may have done a shockingly poor job of researching their line:
the fact that they are interested in their ancestry suggests they'll be
more receptive to doing a Y-DNA test than someone random you've found
using a phonebook.

If you do end up contacting people without a known interest in
genealogy, you might find it helpful to give them an attractively
presented write-up of what you already know, both of their ancestry and
of yours, and include the speculative links identified as such. Also
include a page explaining what a Y-DNA test is, the name of some
affordable testing companies, and how it can be used to prove distant
relationships such the ones you've discussed. You may find that they
contact you suggesting a Y-DNA test without you having to ask explicitly.

Richard

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 28 Aug 2015 00:11:28 +0100, Richard Smith
<ric...@ex-parrot.com> wrote:

>On 27/08/15 21:30, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> When I learned that the Wyatt who matched me did not match any other
>> Wyatts tested, that made me wonder. Aside from a cousin I know I do
>> not match any other Sullivans tested.

Again, most interesting...

>What is the most recent common ancestor your share with the known
>cousin? (I'm not sure whether you're using "cousin" to mean a
>first-cousin, or a more distant cousin.) The fact that your Y-DNA
>matches your cousin verifies your line back to the that common ancestor,
>but no further.

MRCA is my gg grandfather - his ggg. He descends from a different son.
Most of the family gossip I know from him or his cousins. I knew other
descendants very well and know what they knew including one who knew
my great grandfather. All the older ones are gone now. My grandfather
had 51 grandchildren - 7 of us are left. Only one knows anything about
genealogy (except family history) and he got most of his records from
me.

>But if not, I'd try to trace a
>living male descendant of one of Russell's other sons, and try to talk
>them into doing a Y-DNA test.

Most of them are not interested in genealogy except to know what I
have.

>> Based on preponderance of evidence I have decided who 5 generations
>> are before the proven one and that is on my website.
>
>Good. And looking at your website, it looks like you've traced some
>living male-line descendants of these earlier 5 generations of
>ancestors.

I've tracked then as closely as they can be tracked with the available
records. The BIG problem is my selection for my ggg grand. His will
named one child and "other children". And he did not own land. His
father and 4 brothers were in NC in 1800-1810 and only one ever
appeared on a census record! Circumstantially my conclusions look
impossible to disprove But I can't prove it. It would probably convict
in a court of law.

>Assuming you're not aware that any of them have taken Y-DNA
>tests, I'd try to contact some of these descendants and try to take a
>test.

Until we tested I thought a person in FL and I were "cousins". But his
test didn't match me and, some years later he matched another person.
He gave me a lot of my original data. But I worked out his new line
for him and that eliminated the last challenge to my conclusions.

> If they match your DNA and your cousin's, it makes it more
>plausible that you are closely related to them, though it doesn't
>necessarily prove you've identified the relationship correctly.

I've taken the opposite tack - prove who is not related to me and my
conclusions become more solid.

>I would suggest using Ancestry as a tool to locate possible people to
>take a Y-DNA test. If you find a suitable Sullivan, don't be concerned
>that they may have done a shockingly poor job of researching their line:
>the fact that they are interested in their ancestry suggests they'll be
>more receptive to doing a Y-DNA test than someone random you've found
>using a phonebook.

Unfortunately I have already looked at most of those. I either agree
they don't link or they don't have their ancestry back as far as I do.
My only chance will be to find someone with a different surname who
has his genealogy back to the mid 1700s. Then I can research to
determine if there is a link.

Woolard and Vaughan matched me at 37 markers and I researched both
lines. Actually I helped them extend their line. But they tested for
67 and are 3 steps away. I can't help the Wyatt who matches because he
is too classless to respond to e-mails from several people. I'm
guessing he is hiding from the law.

Although I have done all this, except find others to test, it's
helpful to go over it again.

Years ago having children out of wedlock was condemned so people hid
the fact. My gg grand had 3 children before marriage and 2 more by two
ladies not his wife. He may have learned that at his father's knee.
That's probably why no one has determined his parents in more than 50
years research. I see 8 guesses - all wrong. Another problem is there
may be Indian blood. I thought my mom would slug my dad when he
mentioned the possibility. Now it's a big deal.

At the moment I am working on another Sullivan line that everyone
thought was related until testing. She is a PhD and has the same
problem at the same time I do. We have worked together for 20 years. I
plan to include it on my site to promote communication. I have
theorized her ancestors as I did mine.

I can actually link to the Wyatts because my gg grand named his first
legitimate son the same name as a person who could be his father. But
it's not provable and I have done more accurate genealogy on that
Wyatt family than the Wyatts have.

Hugh