Reappraisal of Humphrey Warren, potential American gateway (was ... Plantagenet Y-DNA)

[nathan...@gmail.com]

> Well, Dave Kelley has just pointed out to me that the Humphery Warren of
> MD / VA who has traceable American male descendants was shown some years
> ago NOT to be a member of the Warren of Poynton family, or at least not
> to be the Humphrey Warren of Poynton he had been believed to be. I
> cannot offer citations to published material on this, but Dave said
> there is work on this which has been in print for some time. On the
> other hand, it is quite possible that some other Warrens in the UK, US
> etc. do represent the Poynton family and (therefore) the Plantagenets.
> But which ones?
>
> Nat Taylor
(Previous discussion: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/soc.genealogy.medieval/Humphrey$20Warren%7Csort:relevance/soc.genealogy.medieval/hu1M9_JmbtA/Z1svoyueoFQJ)

Humphrey Warren of Charles County, Maryland was previously considered a valid American gateway, see for example: Browning's Americans of Royal Descent (which has it's problems, I'm aware): https://books.google.com/books?id=eyik0rO0HlsC&pg=PA316&lpg=PA316

The problem with his lineage, as best I can tell, is that Humphrey Warren, baptized at Poynton, Cheshire in 1632, the son of Edward Warren, Esq., by Mary Arderne, is said to have died without issue in Watson's Ancient Earls of Warren and Surrey and Their Descendants (1782; Vol. 2, p. 147), quote: "3d [son], Humphry, born June 7, 1632, brought up a merchant, went into the West Indies, where he married and died s. p. about 1680." Repeated in Ormerod.

The line was also considered valid by known fraud Harry Wright Newman in A Genealogical Hsitory of Six Emigrants (Baltimore, 1971), further tainting it: http://www.warrenfamilyhistory.com/Download/CHARLES%20COUNTY%20GENTRY.doc

Consequently, Humphrey Warren does not appear in RD600 or RA.

I would submit there is circumstantial evidence, however, that Humphrey Warren of Maryland was the boy christened at Poynton in 1632:
1. He is called a merchant of London in the 1663 Visitation of Cheshire. In Maryland sources, Humphrey Warren is often referred to as a merchant of London, as early as 1661[/2].
2. Humphrey Warren of Maryland had frequent associations in Maryland records with the Governor William Stone family, which family has known origins in Poynton, Cheshire. The Stones named their estate "Poynton Manor" in Maryland. In fact, in a Charles Co., MD land record dated 1664[/5], discussing transatlantic trade, Warren is called "Mr. Humphery Warren of Poynton." (For a recent account of the Stones, see http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jacmac/stonefamily.pdf).
3. Humphrey Warren purchased Hatton's Point in Maryland [formerly misread Halton's Point] from the Hattons, who we now know were from Lymme, Cheshire (For the Hattons, see http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~wrag44/Opinion_Pieces/The_Origins_of_Thomas_Hatton.pdf). Another close association with a Cheshire family.

Why was Humphrey Warren called "of Poynton" in the 1664[/5] deed? The two options I see are (1) he was called "of Poynton" in reference to Poynton, Cheshire, or (2) he lived with the Stone family at Poynton Manor in Charles County, Maryland. Either interpretation points towards a strong connection to Poynton, Cheshire.

Here is a transcript of the record:

10 Jan 1664[/5]: William Hollingsworth, Plt. by his atty. William Calvert, Esq.; William and Hanna Price, as relict of Hugh Lee, dec’d, Def.; plaintiff petitions the court that this case for debt of 1532 pounds of tobacco has been delayed and payment has not been satisfied; defendants claim they are not liable for the debts of Hugh Lee, dec’d; Esq. Calvert alleges that the plaintiff had at his going home for England last year given all his bills to be recorded to the clerk of the Provincial Records and that some of his, the said Calvert’s, had been lost; request Mr. Humphery Warren of Poynton be sworn before a jury; granted; Warren swore in open court to deliver the truth of his knowledge in this business to the way which he to them did as they affirmed; jury impaneled as follows Mr. Humphery Warren, foreman; John Cage, Francis Wine, Thomas Baker, Richard Dod, John Duglas, Ignatius Causeene, George Harris, John Lambert, Thomas Allonson, Nicholaus Emerson, Thomas Allcoke [Charles County, Maryland, Liber B no. 1 (1662-65), pp. 399-400; FHL film #13746 item 2.]

I note Hollingsworth is also a Cheshire name, but I haven't studied their origin.

There is some type of restriction on this digitized land record; here is the link: https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89XW-N57V?i=371&cc=2523377&cat=427744

Notice how "of Poynton" is written into the margins in apparently the same handwriting. Is this a forgery made by some unscrupulous American descendant? I am doubtful, as Warren is neither the grantee nor grantor, and it was not until this deed book was abstracted in recent years, that this reference has been noticed.

Brief timeline of Mr Humphrey Warren in Maryland court, land, and probate records:

1660 - Humphry Warren witnessed Brumale will in MD
1661 - Humpherey Warring witnessed letter of attorney
1661 - Mr. Humphery Warrin sold two indentured servants
1661 - Mr. Humphery Warren swore that in the year 1661 before December that he had a hogshead of tobacco received of Mr. Arthur Turner; Mr. Richard Stone involved in 1663 case
1661/2 - Mr. Humphery Warrin of London, merchant, appoints attorney to handle affairs in Maryland
1662 - Mr. Humphery Warren appointed attorney to Mr. Edward Walker, Merchant, of Stepney, Middlesex [London]
1662 - Mr. Humphrey Warren demands warrant against George Newman
1662/3 - Mr. James Walker, age ca 44, demanded debt George Newman due to Mr. Humphery Warren
1662/3 - William Heard on behalf of Humphery Warren presents servant maid
1663 - Mr. Humphery Warren enters hog and cattle mark
1663 - Henry Addames subpoenas Richard Stone, Mary Warren, John Waltom and Humphery Warren
1663 - Humphery Warrin witnessed land transaction
1663/4 - Mr. Humphery Warren for Mr. John Piles presents servants
1664 - Mr. Humphrey Warren reports runaway servant
1664 - Mr. Humphery Warren demands warrant against James Fox; action of debt
1664/5 - Mr. Humphery Warren of Poynton, foreman [more]
1664/5 - Mr. Humphery Warrent foreman in court case
1665 - Humfry Warren (Wiccocomico River) appointed executor to will of Bridget Heard; Humphrey Waring (merchant) relinquished administration
1665 - Mr. Henry Mees by his atty. Mr. Samuell Cressey demands warrant against Humphery Warren and John Duglas, admns. To Brigit Heard; debt
1666 - Hump[h]rey Warren owed debt; inventory of William Hall, St. Mary’s County
1674 - Inventory of estate of Humphrey Warren, Sr.
1674 - 9 Mar 1674[/5?] Indenture from William Barrett, the younger, atty. Of William Barrett, the elder, of the city of London, merchant, to Humphrey Warren, planter; by letter of atty. Dated 13 Jul 1674; a judgment against Humphrey Warren, the elder, for 125,000 pounds of tobacco; a parcel called Hatton’s Point of 250 acres, value 4,000 pounds tobacco; /s/ William Barrett, Jr.; wit. Benjamin Rozer, John Jones

At least three American Warrens claiming descent from Humphrey Warren have Y-DNA tested (Haplogroup I-M253; kits 204580, 40085, 1795): https://www.familytreedna.com/public/warren/default.aspx?section=yresults . There are many matches to other American Warren families. The project administrator has dubbed them the "Poynton Warrens."

Rebecca Boothe "one of the dawghters of Humphry Boothe of Salforde in the county of lancaster decessed gentleman," left 20s. for a remembrance ring to her "Brother Humphrey Warren," in her will dated 17 June 1661. Transcript: https://books.google.com/books?id=P6REAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74.

C. H. B. A. [Charles Henry Browning, I presume] published detailed sources about Humphrey Warren in the Boston Evening Transcript (7 Mar 1910): https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2249&dat=19100307&id=UaY-AAAAIBAJ&sjid=n1kMAAAAIBAJ&pg=735,974213&hl=es . He includes an argument against Watson's statement, which I am not qualified to evaluate.

References to the Stones and Hattons interacting in Maryland:
1. (1653) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-052.html
2. (1653) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-059.html
3. (1653/4) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-065.html
4. (1654) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-069.html
5. (1655) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-075.html
6. (1655) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-076.html
7. (1658) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-089.html
8. (1658) http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc5000/sc5094/001000/001891/html/sc5094-1891-090.html

These very strong ties Humphrey Warren had to Cheshire immigrants in Maryland lead me to believe he was also a Cheshire man. He fits the known description of Edward of Poynton's son.

Nathan

[nathan...@gmail.com]

> These very strong ties Humphrey Warren had to Cheshire immigrants in Maryland lead me to believe he was also a Cheshire man. He fits the known description of Edward of Poynton's son.
>
> Nathan

A portion of the will of Edward Warren, Esq. (proved 1687) has survived and been published at findmypast: http://search.findmypast.co.uk/record?id=gbprs%2fchs%2f4012439%2f00026&parentid=gbprs%2fchs%2f748086892&highlights=%22%22

There is no reference to son Humphrey in what survives.

Nathan

[wjhonson]

M253 is FAR too old to have any useful genealogical purport.

Far far far too old.

These testers should retest immediately at least 67 markers.

[Nathan Murphy]

> 1. He is called a merchant of London in the 1663 Visitation of Cheshire. In Maryland sources, Humphrey Warren is often referred to as a merchant of London, as early as 1661[/2].

One correction. My memory betrayed me. The 1663 Visitation of Cheshire only identifies Edward's eldest son, John. The reference to Humphrey being a merchant in the West Indies, then, comes from Watson (1782), ho states he found much of the information for his 2 vols. in Warren private papers.

The only contemporary proof I've seen, then, that Edward Warren's son Humphrey survived to adulthood is his step-sister Rebecca Boothe's 1661 Lancashire will cited above.

Nathan

[Nathan Murphy]

That's a good idea. I don't know who any of them are though. The Warren DNA Project administrator might be able to help.

Nathan

[Nathan Murphy]

I'm bringing this over, I unintentionally split the conversation into two threads:

Re: Reappraisal of Humphrey Warren, potential American gateway (was ... Plantagenet Y-DNA)
Other recipients: a.r.m...@durham.ac.uk, gen-me...@rootsweb.com

>
> I'd say that was the same hand. It would take a lot of practice to forge
> those words so close to the original hand. If someone wanted to forge
> something to bolster a claimed connection to Poynton, Cheshire, would they
> have not added something more explicit, like Cheshire or England, to the
> margin as well? I notice also that there is a partial P in the margin a
> line above 'Poynton' where the writer started to insert the word on the
> wrong line. This is unlikely for a forger who was otherwise being so
> careful to make the words fit the original.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Andrew
>

That's very interesting Andrew. I hadn't noticed how the clerk started to
make the letter "P" in the line above. You would think a forger would have
been more careful.

100 years ago, no one would have been able to find this entry, because
these deed books were only indexed by grantee and grantor. I think that's
why none of the genealogists who have previously analyzed Humphrey Warren
had found this.

The digitized image comes from a photograph of the deed book made by the Genealogical Society of Utah in 1948. So "of Poynton" was there in 1948.

Nathan

[taf]

On Monday, October 3, 2016 at 9:08:29 PM UTC-7, Nathan Murphy wrote:

> In fact, in a Charles Co., MD land record dated 1664[/5], discussing
> transatlantic trade, Warren is called "Mr. Humphery Warren of Poynton."

> Why was Humphrey Warren called "of Poynton" in the 1664[/5] deed? The
> two options I see are (1) he was called "of Poynton" in reference to
> Poynton, Cheshire, or (2) he lived with the Stone family at Poynton
> Manor in Charles County, Maryland. Either interpretation points towards
> a strong connection to Poynton, Cheshire.

How frequent was it for a Maryland record to use language like this in reference to a manor in England? I am not familiar enough to know, but I have to think this is a reference to the local Poynton, in Charles Co. I would also question whether this points to a 'strong connection to Poynton, Cheshire'. Certainly there is a better likelihood than some random person, but there are any number of reasons Humphrey might have been living with the Stone family not having to do with coming from the same place in England.

taf

[Nathan Murphy]

> How frequent was it for a Maryland record to use language like this in reference to a manor in England? I am not familiar enough to know, but I have to think this is a reference to the local Poynton, in Charles Co. I would also question whether this points to a 'strong connection to Poynton, Cheshire'. Certainly there is a better likelihood than some random person, but there are any number of reasons Humphrey might have been living with the Stone family not having to do with coming from the same place in England.
>
> taf

That's good. I appreciate the feedback.

Poynton in England is a town, rather than a manor. The manor is in Charles Co., MD. I think it is very rare in Colonial American sources to identify oneself by his or her small town of origin in England, but he is called a merchant of London in several Maryland sources. Yes, I should have saved writing the conclusion you quote until the end of presenting the several pieces of evidence.

Hatton Point in Charles Co., MD was owned by Thomas Hatton, Secretary of Maryland, and son of Robert Hatton, Rector of Lymm, Cheshire. The road connecting Lymm and Poynton today puts the places 18.8 miles apart, a reasonable distance for the Hattons and Warrens to have been socially acquainted in England.

Nathan

[Nathan Murphy]

> > I would also question whether this points to a 'strong connection to Poynton, Cheshire'. Certainly there is a better likelihood than some random person, but there are any number of reasons Humphrey might have been living with the Stone family not having to do with coming from the same place in England.

Further associations to be considered between the Warrens, Stones, and Hattons in Maryland.

1. In 1664, Robert Hatton and Thomas Hatton of St. Mary's County, Maryland, Gentlemen owed 20,000 pounds of tobacco to Humphrey Warren of Charles County. http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000049/html/am49--333.html
2. In 1664, Humphery Warren witnessed a Stone family deed from Richard Stone to his Brother Mathew Stone. http://msa.maryland.gov/megafile/msa/speccol/sc2900/sc2908/000001/000049/html/am49--335.html
3. In 1658, Humphrey Warren appointed Mathew Stone his attorney, during his absence from the colony. http://aomol.msa.maryland.gov/000001/000041/html/am41--151.html

Mathew Stone was Governor William Stone's brother, see http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~jacmac/stonefamily.pdf ; pp. 9, 22.

I see these relationships of trust as very important for tracing migrations (the FAN Club principle) and theorize they began in Cheshire, England. I'm not sure why the Stone friendship and origin hasn't been part of the argument for Humphrey Warren's origin in Poynton, Cheshire in previous publications. The Hatton origin in nearby Lymm, Cheshire, has only recently been discovered, thanks to the excellent research of William Good. No one had paid attention to this association previously, because the Hatton origin was unknown, and they even misspelled the estate "Halton Point."

The work of the late Marsha Hoffman Rising, CG, FASG, on early settlers of Missouri, Opening the Ozarks, demonstrated that people often migrated with individuals with whom were friends, family, associates, or neighbors in previous locations. I think the same strategy can be applied to individuals who immigrated to Colonial America from overseas.
http://www.marsharising.com/Opening%20the%20Ozarks/First%20Families%20of%20SW%20MO.htm

Nathan

[taf]

I would recommend caution here. Friends, neighbors and relatives from the old country would interact in the New World, but not everyone who interacted in the New World were friends, neighbors or relatives in the old.

Given that you have geographical proximity between Stone and Hatton in the old, the at least six-year relationship between Warren and Stone could have led to a developing acquaintance between Warren and Hatton that only began in MD.

taf

[taf]

At the other end of this chain, one of the factors that has been suggested to connect Warren of Poynton with Earl John de Warenne is the arms. Two coats were presented:

Warenne of Poynton bore chequy or & az, on a canton gu a lion ar.

A junior line bore these arms with a bordure ermine

I can add that another junior line in London bore the same with a bordure gu in 1634.

It was suggested that the canton represents the Nerford arms which were gu, a lion ermine, and that the ermine from the Nerford lion ended up in the bordure of the junior line.

I now can add two points. Papworth attributes chequy, or & az, a bordure ermine to Warenne, and Watson specifically attributes this to Warenne of Wormegay.

Second, in the First Calais Roll, Sir William Warren is given the exact arms in question, chequy or az, on a canton gu a lion arg, yet these are not the arms of the son of Earl John of this name, who (at least Watson tells us) bore the paternal chequy coat with a chief arg.

In other words, rather than the spots spreading like chicken pox, fading from a Nerford canton only to crop up later on the differencing bordure of a junior branch, it may well be that the exact canton was already in use by a branch of the Warenne family, while likewise there was a history of using the bordure ermine, and thus there is no reason whatsoever to invoke the Nerford's leopard changing its spots.

taf

[Nathan Murphy]

TAF, I have discussed this with several colonial immigration experts and they agree with you. The consensus has been that the marginal note likely refers to Poynton Manor in Charles County, Maryland, where the deed was recorded. The fact that he knew two Cheshire families very well in Maryland has not convinced them that Warren was also a Cheshire man.

He may be the Humphrey Warren baptized at Poynton in 1632, but more convincing would need to be found.

Nathan

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Nathan ~

As the author of numerous articles in all the major journals detailing the English origins of New World immigrants, I offer you the following comments.

Point One: The odds you would have two Humphrey Warren's who were merchants of London at the same time would be slim indeed, especially since the given name Humphrey was exceedingly rare. I would rate this possibility at less than 5%.

Point Two: The odds that both of these men went to the New World is virtually impossible. I would rate this possibility at LESS than 1%.

Point Three: The odds that one of those men known to be from Poynton, Cheshire was associated with a place called Poynton in Maryland would surely be a clincher that the Maryland man is the Humphrey Warren, who hailed originally from Poynton, Cheshire.

Point Four: It is known that Humphrey Warren of Maryland was called "Mr. Humphrey Warren" in New World records on numerous occasions. This suggests that he came from a good family in England. This fits the family of Humphrey Warren, of Poynton, Cheshire, whose father, Edward Warren, held the rank of esquire.

Point Five: You have proven that Humphrey Warren of Maryland was associated with the Stone and Hatton families, both of whom are now known to be from Cheshire. This is further confirmation that the immigrant is the man from Poynton, Cheshire. The Maryland man's known association with other Cheshire families in the New World is actually quite an important piece of evidence.

Point Six: You have proven that Humphrey Warren, of Poynton, Cheshire, merchant of London, immigrant to the New World, was living in 1661, he being named in the will of his step-sister, Rebecca Boothe. The Maryland man was very much alive in 1661, he dying in 1674.

Last Point: As far as I know, there no evidence whatsoever that a second Humphrey Warren, merchant of London, was in the New World at this time period. Unless anyone can show that such a second Humphrey Warren existed, I believe you have conclusively proven your case.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[taf]

On Saturday, October 8, 2016 at 10:15:59 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:

> Point One: The odds you would have two Humphrey Warren's who were
> merchants of London at the same time would be slim indeed, especially
> since the given name Humphrey was exceedingly rare. I would rate this
> possibility at less than 5%.
>
> Point Two: The odds that both of these men went to the New World is
> virtually impossible. I would rate this possibility at LESS than 1%.

Are these statistics based on an actual prosopographical study of the period - a tabulation of name frequency among the merchant and immigrant class, or is this just another example of the old dictum that 98.56% of all statistics are invented?

As long as we are talking about members of the London merchant class, has anyone compared the Y chromosome of the descendants of Humphrey Warren to that of Richard Warren's (if any survive)?

taf

[pistonw...@gmail.com]

Hey folks, was wondering if you would be interested in this.
From what I can tell, I’m Arthur Warren’s (1613-1658) direct great grandson. Did a Y111 DNA test and got a whole five matches. and was an R-M269 haplo group. I’ve also completed a Big Y500 test.

One of my matches shows Sir Edward Warren as an ancestor through DNA.
There’s also been a study that King George VI and I have a paternal event, seems to be Count Geoffrey D’Anjou V (1113-1155) I also had other Shepherd cousins than the author of the study.
Though, I’m not a descendant of Richard III.
Illegitamate or not, seems I’m a real Plantagenet.
Though I need help finding Arthur. Being of the failed colony of Weymouth Mass, challenges this novice of genealogy, and with DNA info; just enhances confusion.
I would appreciate some more “definitley maybe”’s than scratching my head in wonder, hopefully getting your own questions answered.

Thanks in advance.

[taf]

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 12:42:57 PM UTC-7, pistonw...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hey folks, was wondering if you would be interested in this.
> From what I can tell, I’m Arthur Warren’s (1613-1658) direct great grandson. Did a Y111 DNA test and got a whole five matches. and was an R-M269 haplo group. I’ve also completed a Big Y500 test.
>
> One of my matches shows Sir Edward Warren as an ancestor through DNA.

You need to be a little bit careful here. You match someone who claims to descend from Sir Edward Warren, but that is not the same thing as being them actually descending from Sir Edward Warren for two reasons.

First, you can't tell how accurate their pedigree is. They may merely think they have this descent because Sir Edward has the same surname and is prominent enough for someone to have decided to link him atop a pedigree once they ran out of evidence.

Second, without an extraordinary number of people being tested, a Y DNA match cannot identify ancestors. It can only identify people whose documented descendants had the same DNA type, so nobody can claim an ancestor 'through DNA'. One could descend from a brother, uncle, cousin, or any other male-line relative.

> There’s also been a study that King George VI and I have a paternal event,

Not sure what this means.

> seems to be Count Geoffrey D’Anjou V (1113-1155) I also had other Shepherd
> cousins than the author of the study.
> Though, I’m not a descendant of Richard III.
> Illegitamate or not, seems I’m a real Plantagenet.

Again, unclear, but we don't know what Geoffrey of Anjou's Y haplotype was. Two supposed male-line descendants are known to have been tested, and they gave different results. Do you match one of these?

> Though I need help finding Arthur. Being of the failed colony of Weymouth
> Mass, challenges this novice of genealogy, and with DNA info; just enhances
> confusion.
> I would appreciate some more “definitley maybe”’s than scratching my head
> in wonder, hopefully getting your own questions answered.

Unfortunately, DNA doesn't really offer much of a shortcut, particularly when the affinities of the other line are equally only the subject of speculation.

taf

[wjhonson]

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 12:42:57 PM UTC-7, pistonw...@gmail.com wrote:

R-M269 is very large and broad. You claim however that you've also done the Big Y. What testing company did you use? And after the Big Y where do you fit in the tree, what is your terminal SNP

[pistonw...@gmail.com]

Terminal SNP is R-BY45605, also have 14 “unnamed variants.”

[pistonw...@gmail.com]

Also FTDNA it’s their Big Y500 test. I also have FamilyFinder and myDNA done too.

[pistonw...@gmail.com]

I didn’t know there were other male descendants of Geoffrey D’Anjou who have been DNA tested. Like I said, “I am a novice.”
Where do I look to learn more?
I had an uncle who recently passed, who, looks like both Henry II and William DeWarenne 3rd Earl of Surrey. The likeness is darn eerie!!
There’s got to be something more to this DNA research, those pictures are my genealogical inspiration.
Though if I am Hamelin’s direct great grandson then both Henry II and William would still be my (ancient) uncles.
There’s got to be a way to figure this out.

[taf]

On Friday, August 31, 2018 at 5:57:00 PM UTC-7, pistonw...@gmail.com wrote:
> I didn’t know there were other male descendants of
> Geoffrey D’Anjou who have been DNA tested.

When the analysis was done on Richard III, they tested his Y DNA, though it wasn't a very thorough test. They also tested several descendants of the Dukes of Somerset, descendants of the illegitimate son of the descendant of the illegitimate (subsequently legitimated) son of John of Gaunt. Both would then be descended from Edward III, and hence from Geoffrey. That is when things got odd. First, they tested several relatively close kin down at the end of this Somerset line, and one of them did not match the others. They concluded that the type that matched all but one of them was the true Beaufort type, and compared that to Richard III, and it didn't match. Thus either Richard, or the Beauforts, or both, were not the genetic descendants of their genealogical male line.

They also tested a French 'count' of Irish descent who walked in and told them he descended from Hamelin but whose pedigree is, well, creative. He didn't match either Richard or the Beauforts.

> I had an uncle who recently passed, who, looks like both
> Henry II and William DeWarenne 3rd Earl of Surrey. The
> likeness is darn eerie!!

May well be the case, but it is coincidence. This is not how genetics works. All of the different aspects of one's visage assort independently, such that a child will inherit one trait and not inherit another. Then the same happens in the next generation. There is simply no way that after, what would it be? 30 generations there would be enough traits inherited together for a descendant to look like an ancestor due to descent of those traits from the ancestor. However, there are only a small number of variants for each genetic trait, and these are found throughout the population. It is completely likely that there will be people, 30 generations later, with a combination of some of the same traits because they descend from the same population within which all these traits are bouncing around.

This is all the more relevant because we don't really have good contemporary portraiture of either. I am not aware of any for William. For Henry, most of the contemporary ones are more in the nature of caricatures, with the exception of his carved tomb, but that, by definition, was done after his death and has somewhat degraded over the intervening years. Most illustrations of Henry come from long after his death by people who were drawing based on written descriptions, if that, and so effectively all such non-contemporary illustrations represent a 'stereotypical dignified white guy' as this was perceived at the time the artwork was executed. If your uncle 'looked like Henry', all it really means it that he looked like just such a stereotypical dignified white guy.

> Though if I am Hamelin’s direct great grandson then both
> Henry II and William would still be my (ancient) uncles.

Henry would be. William would be an ancestor, but Henry was only extremely distantly related to William (the closest ancestor I found was Robert II of France, though I didn't look very hard), so no reason they should have looked similar (or did you mean William, the 5th or 6th Earl, depending on how you count?). Still that 'If' that you begin the sentence with is a big one.

> There’s got to be a way to figure this out.

As much as we like to think there should be, that may not be the case.

taf

[wjhonson]

On Sunday, August 26, 2018 at 12:42:57 PM UTC-7, pistonw...@gmail.com wrote:

I would also suggest that if you have any additional information on Arthur that isn't here you add it. I note as well that they claim there are *no* Y tested descendants, so that would be an addition

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Warren-1479

[Richard Ebdon]

Regarding Humphrey Warren, John Parsons Earwaker in his pedigree of the Warrens (p.288, image 330 in the link) also has Humphrey Warren as being born on the 7th of July 1632 and dying in the West Indies c.1680 "S.P." - https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002088543229&view=page&seq=330&skin=2021&q1=Sir%20Edward%20Warren