another X line
Leslie Mahler
I know it has been a little while since this has been discussed, and I
dont know how much interest there is in this, but the royal descent I
posted sometime back (search under Samuel Levis) has a somewhat long X
chromosome line, which goes from medieval England into colonial
Pennsylvania.
1. Edward Saint John, b ca 1340, d 7 mar 1389
2. Margaret Saint John, b 1372, d 22 oct 1407
3. Henry Bromflete, b Yorkshire ca 1395, d 16 jan 1469
4. Margaret Bromflete, b Yorkshire ca 1436, d 12 apr 1493
5. Henry Clifford, b Yorkshire1455, d 23 apr 1523
6. Anne Clifford, b Yorkshire ca 1495, d aft 1525
7. Thomas Melford, b Arnold, Nottingham ca 1525, d 9 apr 1602
8. Mary Melford, b Nottingham ca 1560, d 27 june 1631
9. Humphrey Need, b Arnold, Nottingham 15 aug 1590, d 8 nov 1668
10. Mary Need, b Arnold, Nottingham 18 apr 1625, d 16 may 1664
11. Samuel Levis, b Harby, Leicester 30 sep 1649, d mar 1734
12. Elizabeth Levis, b Delaware Co, Pennsylvania 20 dec 1690, d 1777
13. William Shipley, b Delaware Co, Pennsylvania 24 may 1732, d 19 jan
1800
14. Mary Rumford Shipley, b Wilmington, Delaware 1775, d 1870
I wouldnt be surprised if the line continues to the present day. Samuel
Levis had a few other daughters, and if I recall correctly, William
Shipley had other daughters, and Mary Rumford Shipley had some sons.
Bobstjohn
>know it has been a little while since this has been discussed, and I
>dont know how much interest there is in this, but the royal descent I
>posted sometime back (search under Samuel Levis) has a somewhat long X
>chromosome line, which goes from medieval England into colonial
>Pennsylvania.
>
you please expalin it to me?
Bob St. John_Puna Bed & Breakfast_Rural Puna south of Hilo
CERRIDWEN
Despite the fact that I have several hundred things which I _should_ have
been doing, I decided to go over my tracing of the Stuart claimant lineage
from Charles I. However, I seem to have come up with a different result
to before, and have ended up with Princess Astrid of Luxembourg (or her
brothers, if they had issue) which I am almost sure is incorrect. Can
someone point out what is wrong with the following lineage (tracing the
correct claimants)
Henrietta Anne, daughter of Charles I of England
|
Anna Maria d'Orelans
|
Charles Emmanuel II King of Sardinia
|
Victor Amadeus III King of Sardinia
|
Victor Emmanuel I King of Sardinia
|
Maria Theresa of Sardinia
|
Charles III Duke of Parma
|
Robert Duke of Bourbon-Parma
|
Felix of Bourbon-Parma, Prince Consort of Luxembourg(none of his
elder brothers seem to have had any issue)
|
John Grand Duke of Luxembourg
|
Henry Prince of Luxembourg b. 1955
Since I know there is a different Stuart claimant than Henry of
Luxembourg, and I don't have my notes to hand, could someone remind me?
thanks,
Michelle
*****************************************************************************
Michelle Murphy | "Every man has two names: the one
4th year Business Studies student | he is given, and the one he wins
Trinity College Dublin | for himself"
E-mail: mmu...@alf2.tcd.ie | - "Merlin" (Stephen Lawhead)
Web:http://www.geocities.com/Athens/|
5582/michelle.html | "It is better to know some of the
Treasurer of TCD Sci Fi Society | questions than all of the answers"
Executive member of the CSC | - James Thurber
****************************************************************************
Gordon Fisher
He's referring to a succession in which at each succeeding generation, a
daughter marries into another family. Note that in his list, the surname
changes in each generation. The reference to the X chromosome is that the
presence of this in the cells of an human embryo determines that the embryo
is that of a female.
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
Gordon Fisher
At 04:53 AM 4/6/98 GMT, Bobstjohn wrote:
[Actually, Gordon Fisher wrote, in answer to Bobstjohn:]
>>He's referring to a succession in which at each succeeding generation, a
>>daughter marries into another family. Note that in his list, the surname
>>changes in each generation. The reference to the X chromosome is that the
>>presence of this in the cells of an human embryo determines that the embryo
>>is that of a female.
>>
>>Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
>>
>Don't all daughters marry into another family. Is he saying that i n each
>succeeding generation there are only girls? Were there girls in the other
>generzations?
>
>As I understand it 2 Xs make a female and an XY makes a male. Is that list
>purporting that those listed are the only children in all of those
generations?
>Bob St. John_Puna Bed & Breakfast_Rural Puna south of Hilo
>
>
>
I took him to mean that in each generation there was at least one daughter
who married, so they had to or chose to change surnames. It was the change
of surname I was referring to when I said "a daughter marries into another
family."
Actually, if you count cousins of all degrees as members of the same
family, then often enough daughters don't marry into different families
from their own.
As to the double X chromosomes, I suppose the original reference would have
been clearer if the sender had said "double X" instead of just "X". I just
assumed he meant XX instead of XY, i.e. a second X instead of a Y.
Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
Gordon Fisher
At 04:53 AM 4/6/98 GMT, Bobstjohn wrote:
[Actually, Gordon Fisher wrote, in answer to Bobstjohn:]
>>He's referring to a succession in which at each succeeding generation, a
>>daughter marries into another family. Note that in his list, the surname
>>changes in each generation. The reference to the X chromosome is that the
>>presence of this in the cells of an human embryo determines that the embryo
>>is that of a female.
>>
>>Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
>>
>Don't all daughters marry into another family. Is he saying that i n each
>succeeding generation there are only girls? Were there girls in the other
>generzations?
>
>As I understand it 2 Xs make a female and an XY makes a male. Is that list
>purporting that those listed are the only children in all of those
generations?
>Bob St. John_Puna Bed & Breakfast_Rural Puna south of Hilo
>
>
>
I took him to mean that in each generation there was at least one daughter
who married, so they had to or chose to change surnames. It was the change
of surname I was referring to when I said "a daughter marries into another
family."
Actually, if you count cousins of all degrees as members of the same
family, then often enough daughters don't marry into different families
from their own.
CORRECTION: I should have said "often enough daughters marry into their own
families." As it stood, I was using "family" to mean two different things
in the same sentence!
Frank H. Johansen
CERRIDWEN wrote:
> Despite the fact that I have several hundred things which I _should_ have
> been doing, I decided to go over my tracing of the Stuart claimant lineage
> from Charles I. However, I seem to have come up with a different result
> to before, and have ended up with Princess Astrid of Luxembourg (or her
> brothers, if they had issue)
Henri has five children, I think. Jean has five and Guillaume has one.
> which I am almost sure is incorrect. Can
> someone point out what is wrong with the following lineage (tracing the
> correct claimants)
>
> Henrietta Anne, daughter of Charles I of England
> |
> Anna Maria d'Orelans
> |
> Charles Emmanuel II King of Sardinia
> |
> Victor Amadeus III King of Sardinia
> |
> Victor Emmanuel I King of Sardinia
> |
> Maria Theresa of Sardinia
This should be: Maria Beatrice of Sardinia, Duchess of Modena. And then Ferdiand
of Austria-Este -> Maria Theresia, Queen of Bavaria -> Ruprecht, Crown Prince of
Bavaria -> Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria -> Franz, Duke of Bavaria
> |
> Charles III Duke of Parma
> |
> Robert Duke of Bourbon-Parma
> |
> Felix of Bourbon-Parma, Prince Consort of Luxembourg(none of his
> elder brothers seem to have had any issue)
His brother Xavier, has a son Carlos Hugo, formerly married to Princess Irene of
the Netherlands. They have children.
> |
> John Grand Duke of Luxembourg
> |
> Henry Prince of Luxembourg b. 1955
>
> Since I know there is a different Stuart claimant than Henry of
> Luxembourg, and I don't have my notes to hand, could someone remind me?
>
> thanks,
>
> Michelle
I suggest you take a look at
http://users.clover.net/mcferran/
Hope this helps,
Frank H. Johansen
Frank H. Johansen
Bobstjohn
Stewart Baldwin
gfi...@shentel.net (Gordon Fisher) wrote:
>At 06:09 PM 4/5/98 GMT, Bobstjohn wrote:
>>>know it has been a little while since this has been discussed, and I
>>>dont know how much interest there is in this, but the royal descent I
>>>posted sometime back (search under Samuel Levis) has a somewhat long X
>>>chromosome line, which goes from medieval England into colonial
>>>Pennsylvania.
>>>
>>I am sitting here wondering what is meant by aa long X chromosome line. Can
>>you please expalin it to me?
>>
>>
>>Bob St. John_Puna Bed & Breakfast_Rural Puna south of Hilo
>>
>>
>>
>He's referring to a succession in which at each succeeding generation, a
>daughter marries into another family. Note that in his list, the surname
>changes in each generation. The reference to the X chromosome is that the
>presence of this in the cells of an human embryo determines that the embryo
>is that of a female.
>Gordon Fisher gfi...@shentel.net
Actually, I think what you are referring to is generally called an
"umbilical" line (i.e., a line of descent in which every generation is
female). About a year ago, I posted an item which pointed out that
the largest (theoretical) contribution toward the X chromosome in any
given generation of ancestors came from that ancestor who alternated
male-female-male-female-etc. in succeeding generations, and used the
term X-line to refer to any line of descent in which the generations
alternate in that way. If you will look at the original posting in
this thread by Leslie Mahler, you will see that this is the way in
which the term "X-line" was being used. The name "X-line" which I
used for such descents may not have been a very good choice on my
part, since it seems that the mention of the X chromosome has caused
confusion between an "X-line" and an umbilical line. The word
"Alternating" was used by William Addams Reitwiesner in a later
posting on the same subject, and this is probably a less confusing
title to use for those lines of descent in which males and females
alternate in every other generation.
Stewart Baldwin
Todd A. Farmerie
Gordon Fisher wrote:
>
> At 06:09 PM 4/5/98 GMT, Bobstjohn wrote:
> >>know it has been a little while since this has been discussed, and I
> >>dont know how much interest there is in this, but the royal descent I
> >>posted sometime back (search under Samuel Levis) has a somewhat long X
> >>chromosome line, which goes from medieval England into colonial
> >>Pennsylvania.
> >>
> >I am sitting here wondering what is meant by aa long X chromosome line. Can
> >you please expalin it to me?
> >
> >
> daughter marries into another family. Note that in his list, the surname
> changes in each generation. The reference to the X chromosome is that the
> presence of this in the cells of an human embryo determines that the embryo
> is that of a female.
Ah, not quite. What we have been calling an X-line is a line which
alternates male-female-male-female. Both males and females have X
chromosomes, but males are the only ones with Y.
In general, all chromosomes are inherited from each parent with a 50%
probability. There are three exceptions to this rule. The Y (male)
line represesents that which has the greatest contribution of nuclear
genes for men, and the least for women. That is because men inherit
their entire Y from their father, from his father, from his father, etc,
while women, not having a Y, have no contribution of the
gender-determining chromosomes from her paternal grandfather or any of
his ancestors. The mitochondrial (female) line is that from which
certain extra-nuclear DNA is inherited. This mtDNA is in the
(maternally produced) egg, and usually gains no contribution from the
sperm, so all your mtDNA came from your mother's mother's mother, etc.
Finally we have the X line. This line is that with the greatest
contribution in females, and is second to the Y line in males. It is a
line which alternates genders in each generation, (for a man, his
mother's father's mother's father . . . . for a woman, her father's
mother's father . . . .). This is because the X chromosome passed by a
male to his daughter came 100% from his mother, while the X chromosome
passed by a woman to a child came 50% from each parent.
So a X line is one that alternates genders.
taf
Kennwalrus
Interesting; but is any (genealogically evidential) information
derivable from analysis of the X chromosome in "X-lines," as you've defined
them, that *supplements* that from analysis of mDNA?
Also, if the Y chromosome is inherited in the male line only (perhaps, as a
reference to the "umbilical line," we might call it the "penile line" ...
although I realize that doesn't convey quite the same sense of 'body-from-body'
continuity), are there any identifiable gene-sequences therein that could
'prove' descents in the same way as invariants in umbilical-line mDNA
supposedly can?
I'm also interested, as perhaps I've noted before, in whether relevant DNA
sequences survive in bones or hair of the long-dead; and if so, *how* long. (I
know this would depend upon idiosyncratic conditions of burial or entombment;
but I'd think that heavily saponified corpses, in particular, might preserve
soft-tissue DNA for many centuries.)
(BTW, my apologies if any of this has already been chewed over; with my
laughably unreliable Web connection, Dejanews is usually inaccessible.)
Todd A. Farmerie
Kennwalrus wrote:
>
> Interesting; but is any (genealogically evidential) information
> derivable from analysis of the X chromosome in "X-lines," as you've defined
> them, that *supplements* that from analysis of mDNA?
No. Unlike the mitochondrial and Y lines, the X line has importance
only as a statistical construction. Analysis of the X chromosome (in
the absence of some known inherited defect) would be no more useful than
any other chomosome (with the sole exception of connecting a son to his
mother, because you know he got his entire X from her).
> Also, if the Y chromosome is inherited in the male line only (perhaps, as a
> reference to the "umbilical line," we might call it the "penile line" ...
> although I realize that doesn't convey quite the same sense of 'body-from-body'
> continuity), are there any identifiable gene-sequences therein that could
> 'prove' descents in the same way as invariants in umbilical-line mDNA
> supposedly can?
This has been studied in two different ways. In one instance, the
analysis compared Y sequences from representatives of various ethnic
groups, to determine how far back the common male-line ancestor of all
mankind lived. (The results were similar to the "mitochondrial Eve"
results.) In the second instance, the Y sequences of various people
with surnames thought to derive from a single lineage in Old Testament
times were studied for allele frequencies (frequencies at which specific
sequence variants occur). This was found to be significantly divergent
from the average for human males, suggesting that this group does in
fact represent a distinct sub-population. These are realy molecular
anthropology questions however.
The problem with applying this analysis to genealogy is two fold. The
first is that all members of the same lineage would have the same
sequence. Thus you couldn't distinguish among all of the male members
of a family. A practical example of a case in which it would not work
would be an examination of the old claims that Thomas Jefferson fathered
children by a slave of his. Even were the Y sequences shown to be the
same, one could not exclude an alternative (and more likely) scenario,
that the father was his nephew William Jefferson. An example that would
be possible would be in the case of a claimed but not recognized royal
bastard. As long as a known male-line descendant of the king could be
compared with a known male-line descendant of the reputed bastard, it
could produce strong positive evidence (with the same caveat as in the
above example). The second problem will be discussed below.
> I'm also interested, as perhaps I've noted before, in whether relevant DNA
> sequences survive in bones or hair of the long-dead; and if so, *how* long. (I
> know this would depend upon idiosyncratic conditions of burial or entombment;
> but I'd think that heavily saponified corpses, in particular, might preserve
> soft-tissue DNA for many centuries.)
This is not the case. While the fixatives used preserve the body at a
cellular level, it makes a mess of it on a molecular level. I would be
surprised if any reliable results could be obtained from an embalmed
corpse. DNA does survive in bones, hair, and skin. The problem is that
it is degraded into small pieces. The analysis of mtDNA is somewhat
resistant to the negative effects of this process because there are
thousands of copies of it in every cell. Thus even if only 0.1%
survives, you still have several copies to work from. On the other
hand, all of the other chromosomes exist as single pairs, and the Y as a
single copy. Unless you have 100% preservation, you get no positive
result. This is why most of the historical work has been done on the
mtDNA.
taf
Alan Beattie
Abbreviating from many previous correspondants:
> So a X line is one that alternates genders.
It would be nice to think that this could trace the X chromosome back
many generations but of course the X chromosome a man inherits from
his mother COULD be the one that she inherited from HER mother. It is
only a 50% chance that it would be the one from her father.
The only certain chromosomal inheritance is the Y-chromosome.
--
Alan Beattie
Tracing my ancestors in Shetland - Arthur, Beattie, Graham, Irvine
and in Sussex - Edwards, Kilner, Mewett, Todman and Tester
Todd A. Farmerie
Alan Beattie wrote:
>
> Abbreviating from many previous correspondants:
>
> > So a X line is one that alternates genders.
>
> It would be nice to think that this could trace the X chromosome back
> many generations but of course the X chromosome a man inherits from
> his mother COULD be the one that she inherited from HER mother. It is
> only a 50% chance that it would be the one from her father.
Although this is how they teach it in high school biology, it is really
not how it works. In the process of producing each egg and sperm, there
are exchanges of genetic material between the two copies of each
chromosome. What ends up being the case is that the single X chromosome
that is found in an egg is a mix of the two X's present in the woman
producing the egg, with (statistically) 50% of the genetic material
deriving from her mother, and 50% from her father. The reason that 100%
of the X in a sperm comes from the father's mother is that there is no
second X to recombine with. (Note that this is a simplification. There
is in fact a small region of the X which is shared by the Y, and this
small region does recombine. This keeps the two similar enough in this
shared region to allow the X and Y to pair up and sort appropriately
during spermatogenesis.)
> The only certain chromosomal inheritance is the Y-chromosome.
Also the mitochondrial (well, almost certain). Basically, the
inheritance of both gender-determining chromosomes in males is certain.
In a female, one can determine from which parent each chromosome came.
It is just when you look at an egg, the X there is a mix of the two X's
that the mother has.
taf