Chat
|
Daily Search
|
My GenForum
|
Community Standards
|
Terms of Service
|
|
|
Is that the lineage that has now been disproven by DNA?
Message #417 indicates John of New Haven was the John born 1617 to senior Yeoman Edward and his wife Ann Negus. Then it gives the lineage back to Thomas and Dionisia.
I'm researching using the online version of the Broket Archives -- and specifically the discussion about John of New Haven at http://www.brockett.info/London/JohnofNewhaven.htm . In Section 1, item #12 there is consideration of the possibility that John of New Haven was born April 27 1617 in Dunton to Edward Yeoman and Ann. That same lineage was discussed in section 2 "Son of a Yeoman." There it states that "Of currently known possible fathers of John only 1 is known to have been a Yeoman: Edward of Dunton, Bedfordshire, 1589-1660."
Is that the same lineage you're talking about? (It appears there is only one John born in 1617 to a yeoman Edward?) If so, then in both of those sections I cited it indiciates that lineage is contradicted by the DNA results -- that John of New Haven is not descended from the "Dunton clan."
The descendants of William of Hitchin b. 1490 were participants 7, 8 and 9 in the DNA project at http://www.brockett.info/DNA/DNAProject.htm. (The lineage includes William of Hitchin, his son William, his grandson Edward, and his great grandson Edward -- which seems to match Arwen's lineage in #417). They are all haplogroup Rb1. The descendants of John of New Haven were participants 4 & 5. And in the discussion of their DNA it specifically says that they do NOT descend from the Dunton clan as previously thought (I take that to mean that they were not born in 1617 in Dunton to Edward Yeoman). That's because the DNA does NOT match participants 7, 8 and 9. (They give the results, so you can see how many markers are different -- in addition to the difference in haplogroups).
I haven't made a "complete reading of the Broket Archive" like you have. But what I have read seems to leaves it very unclear as to the lineage of John of Haven.
When I don't have a definitive answer, I like to consider all the possibilities. So I found it interesting that he was a "Q" -- same as most native Americans....
Notify Administrator about this message?
Followups:
|
| http://genforum.genealogy.com/brockett/messages/510.html | ||
 |
Link to GenForum Add Forum |
|