Cheryl...

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

I need an opinion if you would ever be willing to voice one.

There are 5 Sullivan families, in the same county, in an 1830 census -
John who had a son Josiah, Jesse, Jonathan Jackson, Russell and John
R.

Three descendants of Jesse married three descendants of Jonathan
Jackson. Their DNA is unknown. Would you combine them into one
genealogy?

Josiah was bonded until age 21 to Jesse who is possibly the uncle of
Jesse and brother of John. The DNA of descendants of Josiah is known.
Would you combine John with Jesse/Jonathan?

Josiah's wife was probably the sister of John R's wife. John R's. DNA
is known but different from Josiah's. Would you combine their
genealogy?

Jesse and Jonathan Jackson were bondsmen for Russell in two of his
paternity suits for baseborn children - he had at least 5 by three
different women. Russell's descendants DNA is known but different from
the others. JJ might be Russell's brother.

The ancestors of John, Jesse, Jonathan Jackson, John R. and Russell
will never be provably determined. What county they came for is not
determinable. It's obvious the census records missed their families.

I'm at a point where I either give up on genealogy or link some people
based on preponderance of evidence knowing that I can't ever be proven
wrong. Even if future DNA tests match, or don't, people don't have the
genealogy to prove or disprove a link. My DNA already matches about 10
surnames, none of which are Sullivan.

I lean toward the combos.

My subject header is not intended to prevent others from replying. I
just cherchezed la femme.

Hugh

[singhals]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> I need an opinion if you would ever be willing to voice one.

Opinions are free, and worth twice what you paid for 'em. ;)

> There are 5 Sullivan families, in the same county, in an 1830 census -
> John who had a son Josiah, Jesse, Jonathan Jackson, Russell and John
> R.
>
> Three descendants of Jesse married three descendants of Jonathan
> Jackson. Their DNA is unknown. Would you combine them into one
> genealogy?

Descendants? How far down?

>
> Josiah was bonded until age 21 to Jesse who is possibly the uncle of
> Jesse and brother of John. The DNA of descendants of Josiah is known.
> Would you combine John with Jesse/Jonathan?
>



> Josiah's wife was probably the sister of John R's wife. John R's. DNA
> is known but different from Josiah's. Would you combine their
> genealogy?
>
> Jesse and Jonathan Jackson were bondsmen for Russell in two of his
> paternity suits for baseborn children - he had at least 5 by three
> different women. Russell's descendants DNA is known but different from
> the others. JJ might be Russell's brother.

Russ's male descendants don't share DNA patterns with male
descendants of the potential sibs? Do they share with each
other? Or did poor Russ get a bum rap?

Jonathan Jackson ought to sound familiar to you, so follow
that trail a bit?

>
> The ancestors of John, Jesse, Jonathan Jackson, John R. and Russell
> will never be provably determined. What county they came for is not
> determinable. It's obvious the census records missed their families.
>

I wouldn't put it past 'em for John R and Russell to be the
same man, either.

You've played with given-name sorts, with wild mispellings,
and the like in various places? Try a reverse soundex, or
google surname thesaurus, which also has a given name
database. You'd be amazed how far off some people can get. (g)

> I'm at a point where I either give up on genealogy or link some people
> based on preponderance of evidence knowing that I can't ever be proven
> wrong. Even if future DNA tests match, or don't, people don't have the
> genealogy to prove or disprove a link. My DNA already matches about 10
> surnames, none of which are Sullivan.

>
> I lean toward the combos.
>

And very large, tres rouge, tags of POTENTIAL or CHALLENGED
or TENTATIVE including one as a suffix to the name.

Because, yes, you're right -- without a genealogy to compare
to/against, DNA'll get you nowhere, pretty quick.
And giving up isn't an option yet.

> My subject header is not intended to prevent others from replying. I
> just cherchezed la femme.

Je me trouve. (Sorry, out of practice).

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:57:12 -0400, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
wrote:

>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

>> Three descendants of Jesse married three descendants of Jonathan
>> Jackson. Their DNA is unknown. Would you combine them into one
>> genealogy?
>
>Descendants? How far down?

Their children. I have no idea if they were first cousins - I doubt
it.

>Russ's male descendants don't share DNA patterns with male
>descendants of the potential sibs? Do they share with each
>other? Or did poor Russ get a bum rap?

As far as I know, no one else in the world matched my DNA and a
cousin's. We descend from Russell - direct line. We can't find people
from potentials to test - except to mismatch.

>> The ancestors of John, Jesse, Jonathan Jackson, John R. and Russell
>> will never be provably determined. What county they came for is not
>> determinable. It's obvious the census records missed their families.

>I wouldn't put it past 'em for John R and Russell to be the
>same man, either.

Except they both appeared on the 1830 census and John R. is different
DNA from me.

>You've played with given-name sorts, with wild mispellings,
>and the like in various places?

I created a chart with each of the 5 listing the children's names.
Lots of matches. But the DNA of those known does not match mine. Jesse
and JJ are unknown. Wild mispellings - I found Sullervant yesterday in
1850. That's 153 ways now.

I have every fact I have ever discovered for Sullivan in VA (to 1800)
and NC (to 1835) listed by state, county and year in chrono order. I
have created a spreadsheet with the counties at the top and the years
from 1666 to 1835 down the left. I have posted every name in the
proper place - so I could really get confused.

>> I lean toward the combos.

>Because, yes, you're right -- without a genealogy to compare
>to/against, DNA'll get you nowhere, pretty quick.
>And giving up isn't an option yet.
>
>> My subject header is not intended to prevent others from replying. I
>> just cherchezed la femme.
>
>Je me trouve. (Sorry, out of practice).

The only language I really speak is Drawl.

My line from 1790 is known. I'm going to do a spread sheet of the
people I believe are ancestors starting in 1666. I'll track them
through they years and locations to see if everything fits. If it does
I get the $200 for passing GO.

My seat belt is that so many records were destroyed by war, fire and
flood that the proof I need doesn't exist. If it did I would have
found it. The research locations are compromised becase too many
people have guessed and copied. My Russell has 6 or 7 daddies at
least.

Hugh

[singhals]

I was sorta thinking of all the ways to spell Rusell or even
Jaxon ...?

> I have every fact I have ever discovered for Sullivan in VA (to 1800)
> and NC (to 1835) listed by state, county and year in chrono order. I
> have created a spreadsheet with the counties at the top and the years
> from 1666 to 1835 down the left. I have posted every name in the
> proper place - so I could really get confused.
>

That'll do it, all right.

>>> I lean toward the combos.
>
>> Because, yes, you're right -- without a genealogy to compare
>> to/against, DNA'll get you nowhere, pretty quick.
>> And giving up isn't an option yet.
>>
>>> My subject header is not intended to prevent others from replying. I
>>> just cherchezed la femme.
>>
>> Je me trouve. (Sorry, out of practice).
>
> The only language I really speak is Drawl.
>
> My line from 1790 is known. I'm going to do a spread sheet of the
> people I believe are ancestors starting in 1666. I'll track them
> through they years and locations to see if everything fits. If it does
> I get the $200 for passing GO.
>
> My seat belt is that so many records were destroyed by war, fire and
> flood that the proof I need doesn't exist. If it did I would have
> found it. The research locations are compromised becase too many
> people have guessed and copied. My Russell has 6 or 7 daddies at
> least.

Did you try newspapers? Where they lived when somebody got
married, where they lived before that ... often, after a
family moves, the daughter wants her friends "back home" to
know she caught on, so someone sends a notice or an
invitation to the editor back home, who if he is short of
material (as most chronically WERE) will print it.
Post-wedding notices tend to include who wore what or who
gifted what AND how everyone was related? Just 'cuz there's
only one issue for Podunque Co doesn't mean it's not the
issue you need.

OTOH, where does combining them into one family get you,
research wise? Does (your program of choice) have a
research advice tab? If not, might d/l the free version of
Legacy and run the database through it to see if it has
anything you haven't already done.

Meanwhile, I'll pass it around some free-thinkers I know and
see if they have brilliant ideas.

Cheryl

[Denis Beauregard]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:32:57 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

>On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 11:57:12 -0400, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
>wrote:
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>>> Three descendants of Jesse married three descendants of Jonathan
>>> Jackson. Their DNA is unknown. Would you combine them into one
>>> genealogy?
>>
>>Descendants? How far down?
>
>Their children. I have no idea if they were first cousins - I doubt
>it.
>
>>Russ's male descendants don't share DNA patterns with male
>>descendants of the potential sibs? Do they share with each
>>other? Or did poor Russ get a bum rap?
>
>As far as I know, no one else in the world matched my DNA and a
>cousin's. We descend from Russell - direct line. We can't find people
>from potentials to test - except to mismatch.

There is a Sullivan who settled in Quebec. Timothy Sullivan, born
about 1696 in Cork, Ireland, waas married near Quebec City in 1720.
He had 4 daughters born and buried between 1720 and 1733 (I have a
burial for each of them). Our records are almost complete, so there is
about no possibility that you descend from him and there is no way
to get DNA from descendants.

However, this can be of interest for you since you no DNA link
to other Sullivan. He was known as SYLVAIN. What about the opposite,
i.e. your ancestor was a SYLVAIN (or variations in other languages
like SILVANUS etc.) and switched to SULLIVAN when arriving in USA ?


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 1780 - On CD-ROM to 1780

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:16:48 -0400, singhals <sing...@erols.com>
wrote:

>Did you try newspapers?

As you know there were not too many pubs in 1790 and before - or even
by 1835.

>OTOH, where does combining them into one family get you,
>research wise?

I presently maintain Sullivan genealogies for a number of lines -
mostly to eliminate anyone who could NOT be Russell's father. But I
wind up working with several people working on several lines. Where
the families intermarry names are duplicated if separate genealogies
are maintained so updating must be duplicated.

>Does (your program of choice) have a
>research advice tab? If not, might d/l the free version of
>Legacy and run the database through it to see if it has
>anything you haven't already done.

I use GenSmarts for research advice. My problem is that my ancestors
until about 1924 were poor dirt farmers. There is nothing wrong with
that except they don't leave many published footprints.

>Meanwhile, I'll pass it around some free-thinkers I know and
>see if they have brilliant ideas.

Gracias.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 17:07:16 -0400, Denis Beauregard
<denis.b-at-f...@fr.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 19:32:57 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
>Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

>There is a Sullivan who settled in Quebec. Timothy Sullivan, born
>about 1696 in Cork, Ireland, waas married near Quebec City in 1720.
>He had 4 daughters born and buried between 1720 and 1733 (I have a
>burial for each of them). Our records are almost complete, so there is
>about no possibility that you descend from him and there is no way
>to get DNA from descendants.
>
>However, this can be of interest for you since you no DNA link
>to other Sullivan. He was known as SYLVAIN. What about the opposite,
>i.e. your ancestor was a SYLVAIN (or variations in other languages
>like SILVANUS etc.) and switched to SULLIVAN when arriving in USA ?

>Denis

By DNA tests my line arose in Eastern Europe/Western Asia. They went
through the Scandanavian countries and probably settled in England.
Most of the Sullivans settled in Ireland.

The name O'Suilebhain originated in Ireland in BC times. The name
change that occurred was that some lines dropped the "O" from the
front of Sullivan. And some Sullivans in this country became
Sullivants. People in my line pronounced the name with a "t". But the
myriad of variations in spelling over the centuries doesn't allow a
researcher much confidence.

I am absolutely convinced that proof of my ancestry before 1790 will
never be found. I think I can determine those ancestors through logic
that cannot be factually challenged - but not before they came to this
country. I have transcribed the Sullivan immigrants from the ISTG and
none can be connected, even by logic.

Merci, Denis.

Hugh

[singhals]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Apr 2012 16:16:48 -0400, singhals<sing...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Did you try newspapers?
>
> As you know there were not too many pubs in 1790 and before - or even
> by 1835.

There were a lot more than people think, though. If nothing
else, denominations usually had some sort of circular or
newsletter wherein some amazingly picayune nits got flogged.
And, there was the Pa. Gazette, the Va. Gazette, the Md
Gazette -- so it sort of follows there was an NC one too,
and again, some truly remarkable tidbits turn up therein.

[Remarkable tidbits as in -- we've been baffled for most of
a century about when one widow-lady died. From a throw-away
word at the END of a news-article about the circumstances of
the death of the husband, it turns out she pre-deceased him.
Serendipity then provided us the fact that she died in or
of childbirth with a child we didn't know existed and who
apparently died before reaching age 10.]

You're bored, you're dead-ended, nothing to lose by looking
-- except maybe some bourbon-sipping time and I feel sure
Your Lovely Wife would think that a fair trade.

>
>> OTOH, where does combining them into one family get you,
>> research wise?
>
> I presently maintain Sullivan genealogies for a number of lines -
> mostly to eliminate anyone who could NOT be Russell's father. But I
> wind up working with several people working on several lines. Where
> the families intermarry names are duplicated if separate genealogies
> are maintained so updating must be duplicated.
>

OK, makes sense. Who is William Sullivan b ca 1750 in NC?
Any hope there?

>> Does (your program of choice) have a
>> research advice tab? If not, might d/l the free version of
>> Legacy and run the database through it to see if it has
>> anything you haven't already done.
>
> I use GenSmarts for research advice. My problem is that my ancestors
> until about 1924 were poor dirt farmers. There is nothing wrong with
> that except they don't leave many published footprints.
>

Back to the newspapers, who often published lists of names
--jurors (grand and petit), unclaimed mail, delinquent
taxes, political rally attendees ... Or to the County
minute books (records of the county council in case NC uses
different terms for 'em), or Lord he'p other people's wills,
looking for witnesses.

Of course, if they were Southern Ireland, there'd be Church
records...and often the Episcopalians had nearly identical
records for CofE folks.

>> Meanwhile, I'll pass it around some free-thinkers I know and
>> see if they have brilliant ideas.
>
> Gracias.
>

Du rien.

C

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:52:52 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

>By DNA tests my line arose in Eastern Europe/Western Asia. They went
>through the Scandanavian countries and probably settled in England.
>Most of the Sullivans settled in Ireland.

So, your male line can be some Viking arriving in England and at
some time, changing the name for Sullivan from something not too
far, or from something very different by way of adoption. And the
adoption can be 2 or 3 generations back only.

If the name was changed by adoption, then DNA won't help. If the name
was adapted for language reasons, then this can be your lead ! You
may have to keep track of not only Sullivan (which happened to have
different DNA from yours but can be your genealogical ancestors by
way of paper trail), but also names that can be changed to Sullivan.

Obviously, adoption is a dead end. Since you need hope to find
something, you have to presume adoption is not probable. And then,
you can focus on possible solutions, like a Sullivan paper trail
but also a name change occuring in USA.

Where is your line in 1790 ? VA or NC ? The population in those
colonies in 1780 is likely too large to be handled but you can
focus on scandinavian names. There was a Swedish colony around
Delaware River but 1638-1655. By what I have seen in Albany, a
former Dutch colony, after the English conquest, the people there
remind there and keep their names and faith. I presume the same
applies to former Swedish settlements but I guess a more
recent immigration.

By the way, Wikipedia has some pages about other Scandinavian
immigrations, so you can get some colonies from the references
in those articles.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 09:59:38 -0400, singhals <sing...@erols.com>

wrote:

>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

>You're bored, you're dead-ended, nothing to lose by looking
>-- except maybe some bourbon-sipping time and I feel sure
>Your Lovely Wife would think that a fair trade.

What - and let her have all the bourbon?

>>> OTOH, where does combining them into one family get you,
>>> research wise?
>>
>> I presently maintain Sullivan genealogies for a number of lines -
>> mostly to eliminate anyone who could NOT be Russell's father. But I
>> wind up working with several people working on several lines. Where
>> the families intermarry names are duplicated if separate genealogies
>> are maintained so updating must be duplicated.
>>
>
>OK, makes sense. Who is William Sullivan b ca 1750 in NC?
>Any hope there?

Every Tom, Dick and Harry is named John or William. One William born
about that time married Tabitha Lee in Johnston Co. There were two
WIlliams in Bertie Co. in 1790. Interesting thing about Bertie. There
were 17 male Sullivans in the county in 1790 and none were there in
1800. There is no trace where they went. I suspect it was to Wayne Co.
Wayne is just one of the Cos. in NC where I can prove people were not
enumerated. But 17???

>Back to the newspapers, who often published lists of names
>--jurors (grand and petit), unclaimed mail, delinquent
>taxes, political rally attendees ... Or to the County
>minute books (records of the county council in case NC uses
>different terms for 'em), or Lord he'p other people's wills,
>looking for witnesses.
>
>Of course, if they were Southern Ireland, there'd be Church
>records...and often the Episcopalians had nearly identical
>records for CofE folks.

I spent days doing the genealogy of the Bible, Irish Mythology, John
Hart's book and several others. I spent years looking around Bantry
Bay for my ancestors. Then I DNA tested. My bunch are from the Steppes
and to England via the Scandanavian countries. Those "Tangled Webs"
have been woven for centuries.

You always help me out when I tell you where I came in.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 10:25:54 -0400, Denis Beauregard
<denis.b-at-f...@fr.invalid> wrote:

>So, your male line can be some Viking arriving in England and at
>some time, changing the name for Sullivan from something not too
>far, or from something very different by way of adoption. And the
>adoption can be 2 or 3 generations back only.

...or some Vikingesses lingered with some Sullivans. My gg grandfather
had 5 baseborn children by 3 different ladies. He marrried the first
one who had two. "Lingering" is an ancient practice. A Viking lady
would seem to be the most traceable scenario since I would be looking
for a male Sullivan.

>Where is your line in 1790 ? VA or NC ?

My gg grandfather was probably born in Halifax Co. NC in 1790. There
were 44 Sullivan households in NC in 1790. I know the genealogy of 37
of them and 6 leave Bertie Co. never to be heard from again. That's a
lock to one person EXCEPT a friend in FL thinks he descends from a
brother of the remaining person and our DNA doesn't match. We worked
together for years assuming it would match.

I have quibbled with "proof" for some time and your mention of
adoption brings it to the front. Those people who can "prove" they
descended from Charlemagne or William the Conquerer can't possibly be
aware of adoptions, or wife dying and the sister marries the widower
and helps raise the kids. So logical and unarguable proof of my line
seems, on the surface, to be as acceptable as theirs EXCEPT I KNOW I
don't have proof.

I appreciate the suggestions. Like the boy walking on the beach with
rocks in his hand, he left no tern unstoned. I want to leave no stone
unturned.

Hugh

[Brian]

On Sat, 21 Apr 2012 12:52:52 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote:


>I am absolutely convinced that proof of my ancestry before 1790 will
>never be found. I think I can determine those ancestors through logic
>that cannot be factually challenged - but not before they came to this
>country. I have transcribed the Sullivan immigrants from the ISTG and
>none can be connected, even by logic.
>
>Merci, Denis.
>
>Hugh

that's discouraging although I imagine you are probably correct.

I've traced one line back the early 1800's and late 1700's.

On my grandmother's side, I have them back to the immigrants but all
the records just say they came from Ireland. And there are a lot of
Sullivans and Caseys.

On my grandfather's side, while I wasn't particularly interested in
genealogy then, I asked a cousin a cousin of my father to write down
what he knew. He knew names and the counties.

No such luck on my grandmother's side. She died in 1965. My cousin and
I are her only grandchildren left. She had one brother who lived
beyond childhood and he had no children; at least none who became
adults.

My mother died last week. My cousin, who might have some records but
isn't all that interested in genealogy, said that he had a flood in
his basement where he stored records. There may be some records in the
attic of his beach house and the garage but I can only imagine what
they would look like after decades in the summer sun and freezing
winters.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 22 Apr 2012 21:41:46 -0400, Brian <drmorri...@comcast.net>
wrote:

I decided over the weekend that I have recorded all the facts that
will ever be available to determine my line prior to 1790 - and four
other lines. I will rely on the fact that my logic, although not
proven, can't be disproved. I will write a paper for the other two
unrelated Sullivan lines with whom I communicate regularly.

One fact turned the tide for me. A person I thought immigrated in 1664
immigrated in 1696 according to Ancestry.com. That brought the years
and locations close enough together to link people. Couple that with
the fact that the Sullivans I track are the only Sullivan families in
the counties they move to until 1800.

Long after I am looking at grass from the root side, if I am wrong,
one will only have to unlink one father and son to get back to proof
from 1790.

It helps to be methodical and organized. My wife got a paper clip from
my desk yesterday. I need to go now and make sure the rest are lined
up properly in the box.

We never really know frustration until we get interested in genealogy.

Hugh

[Brian]

I may not have enough OCD.

It does get frustrating though.

[Ian Goddard]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

> I am absolutely convinced that proof of my ancestry before 1790 will
> never be found. I think I can determine those ancestors through logic
> that cannot be factually challenged - but not before they came to this
> country.

I'm not sure that there's anything unusual about this (depending on what
you mean by proof because in the final analysis all we're doing is
supposing that this person named as the parent of a given child is that
person named in a marriage and that other child named in some earlier
baptism without any contemporary source saying that they're one and the
same).

F'rinstance there are sufficient baptisms in the 1600s in Upperthong,
West Riding of Yorks, of children with father's name William Goddard, &
just enough other information, to suppose that there must have been 4
generations of William. But none of the baptisms is of a William.

The best that can be said is that William no. 2 is mentioned in the
manorial roll as "junior" and so is no. 4 in the parish register. That
implies two father/son pairs but it's not decisive as the word can be
used in other connotations. It also leaves a possibility that 2 & 3
could have been cousins of different ages, uncle & nephew or just plain
unrelated.

So my view that my earliest more securely (sic) connected Goddard, John,
was the son of the last of 4 generations of William is just, as with
your case, "logic that cannot be factually challenged".

In another line of research we're looking at the migration of various
branches of the Dearnley family from Derbyshire into Yorkshire. Some of
it is based on a number of cross-references between lists of siblings in
Wills & lists of baptisms in the PRs. But in other cases it's a matter
of "he must have come from somewhere" (irrefutable logic, I suppose) and
realising that the names given to children in Yorks. could be those of
putative grandparents in Derbys or, in the worst case, that the name of
the Yorks man is the same as that of the Derbys child of some years
before. It's all starting to tie up but hard proof is lacking.

Inevitably, as a sometime scientist, I'm left with the knowledge that
one has to be content with a reasonable hypothesis that fits the known
facts and has not yet been disproven.

--
Ian

The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:29:00 +0100, Ian Goddard
<godd...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
>> I am absolutely convinced that proof of my ancestry before 1790 will
>> never be found. I think I can determine those ancestors through logic
>> that cannot be factually challenged - but not before they came to this
>> country.

>Inevitably, as a sometime scientist, I'm left with the knowledge that
>one has to be content with a reasonable hypothesis that fits the known
>facts and has not yet been disproven.
>
>--
>Ian

That makes my day.

I think I descend from one brother.
He thinks he descends from another brother.
Our DNA doesn't match.
He is wrong.

Well, there is a bit more to it than that - but not much.

Hugh

[Denis Beauregard]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 18:09:28 GMT, Ea...@bellsouth.net (J. Hugh
Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

>On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:29:00 +0100, Ian Goddard
><godd...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>>
>>> I am absolutely convinced that proof of my ancestry before 1790 will
>>> never be found. I think I can determine those ancestors through logic
>>> that cannot be factually challenged - but not before they came to this
>>> country.
>
>>Inevitably, as a sometime scientist, I'm left with the knowledge that
>>one has to be content with a reasonable hypothesis that fits the known
>>facts and has not yet been disproven.
>

>That makes my day.
>
>I think I descend from one brother.
>He thinks he descends from another brother.
>Our DNA doesn't match.

Both brothers have the same Y-DNA they inherit from their common
father.

Not matching means :

line from either tested descendant to the common father is broken.

That break can be at any point. Some possibilities : undocumented
adoption (of no effect if you follow the paper trail), either line
is wrong, i.e. one or both leads to someone else for whatever reason.

>He is wrong.

You mean : he can be wrong. He can because he may descend from a
sibling and not you... You have to find a 3rd descendant.

>Well, there is a bit more to it than that - but not much.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

He has to be wrong because I am me! :)

He matches a person we never heard of. I match two people with
different surnames (and one known cousin).

It took me 18 years to unravel this. It all happens by 1820. I'm
hoping we can't find anyone else to test. :)

1. Owen Sullivan, a probable brother of Charles Sullivan, married
Patty Grizzell who was a daughter of William Grizzell. Owen was
probably the grand uncle of Russell.
2. Simeon Pugh married Mazey Grizzell who was a daughter of
William Grizzell and a sister of Patty Grizzell. Simeon was a
brother-in-law of Patty and Owen.
3. Bannister Grizzell married Sally Pugh who was a daughter of
Simeon Pugh and Mazey Grizzell.
4. Bannister Grizzell and Sally Pugh had a daughter Sarah
Grizzell. Sarah Grizzell was the niece of Isabella Pugh.
5. Isabella Pugh was a daughter of Simeon Pugh and Mazey Grizzell
and married Russell Sullivan. Russell was Sarah Grizzell's uncle.
6. Russell Sullivan had 2 children by both Isabella Pugh and
Sarah Grizzell and one by another lady without the benefit of clergy.
7. Patty Grizzell Sullivan was an aunt of Russell. So Owen was
his uncle.
8. Sarah Grizzell was the niece of both Mazey and Patty That
would make her also a first cousin of Russell who was a son-in-law and
nephew.

Hugh

[Bob Melson]

On Thursday 26 April 2012 17:07, J. Hugh Sullivan (Ea...@bellsouth.net)
opined:

Hugh,

But, if I understand you, you and he DON'T match. If that's the case,
the likelihood is that you are not at all related. Y-DNA passes virtually
unchanged from father to son, so if his ur-great grandfather and yours were
siblings, they'd have a common father; their Y-DNA would match and the
Y-DNA of their male descendants would match at a high percentage (there
might be mutations along the line to prevent a 100% match, but a match in
the 90-100% range is pretty conclusive). Since you don't match, you don't
share a common ancestor and are not related in any degree. As Denis
suggested, there may be an adoption somewhere along the way, but the
genetic/blood link is not there and the only way to figure things is to
follow the paper trail.

On the other hand, you say you match two persons with different surnames
and one known cousin. How high is the match with the two different
surnamed persons? If those matches are in the 90-100% range, it's a
pretty sure bet that you share a common male ancestor and, if you have not
done so, they're worth pursuing to see if you can determine on paper
which "Sullivan" (or "Sullivans") sowed a wild oat or two. The Y-DNA
establishes the relationship via a distant ancestor, you just have to find
him. I'd say your known cousin is the benchmark by which to measure all
other matches: lower percentage match is dubious, any equal or greater
percentage is a sure bet.

I realize I've rehashed many of the points others have made, but it all
bears repeating.

HTH,

(p)Sycho Ol' Bob

--
Robert G. Melson | Rio Grande MicroSolutions | El Paso, Texas
-----
The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated
in the name of the noblest causes -- Thomas Paine

[singhals]

Someone has a tag-line that says something to the effect
that sometimes the Blindingly Obvious isn't.

With that in mind -- Hugh, the Pugh family is Welsh origin.
(ap Hugh, as a matter of). They're all over the Valley of
Virginia. Mazey, depending on how it's said, could be the
Mauzy (maw-zee) of the Valley. Neither Sullivan nor
Grizzell has a heavy Valley presence AFAIK.

Whether any of that progresses things further, dunno.

And BTW, my resources I said I'd try didn't think of
anything you haven't already struck out on, which is why I
didn't say anything sooner.

Cheryl

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:36:53 -0400, singhals <sing...@erols.com>

wrote:

>J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

>Someone has a tag-line that says something to the effect
>that sometimes the Blindingly Obvious isn't.
>
>With that in mind -- Hugh, the Pugh family is Welsh origin.
>(ap Hugh, as a matter of). They're all over the Valley of
>Virginia. Mazey, depending on how it's said, could be the
>Mauzy (maw-zee) of the Valley. Neither Sullivan nor
>Grizzell has a heavy Valley presence AFAIK.

Welsh origin is interesting. I doubt that my ancestors lived in
Ireland - The R1a1 Haplo group was in other places in the English
Isles.

>And BTW, my resources I said I'd try didn't think of
>anything you haven't already struck out on, which is why I
>didn't say anything sooner.

As usual - my thanks.

I have prepared a 12 page analysis of my probable ancestry before 1790
(and after). It's preponderance of evidence but unarguable on a
factual basis. The pieces fit like a jigsaw puzzle.

Now I need to check who came to this country by 1693. I think I know
but will look again. I expect NO JOY!

Hugh