Re: DNA Testing Offer to Whitlock Male
-
In reply to:
Re: DNA Testing Offer to Whitlock Male
carolyn osborn 12/09/07
Thank you for your response to my inquiry.It is wonderful to hear from a descendant of the Whitlocks of Caroline Co., VA.I have passed along your post to the person who had made this DNA testing offer and am awaiting a response about that.However, one thing that has changed is that we no longer believe there is a likelihood that our ancestor Euclid Langford was fathered by a Whitlock, which would be our primary interest in the DNA test results.We believe now that it is much more likely that our Euclid's mother was a Whitlock.
I would certainly love to dialogue with you further about possible family connections.That may be easier to do more directly through email.My email address is:[email protected], if you prefer, we can continue the conversation through posts on this forum.
Our situation is that the name Euclid was non-existent among Langfords and Lankfords before our Euclid.Yet, he was apparently born in Caroline Co. and lived near the Whitock family, including a Euclid Whitlock.Moreover, it appears that the name Euclid was quite common for a while among the Whitlocks of Caroline Co. in that time period.We were also intrigued by our Y-DNA type that is rare among Langfords and Lankfords and wondered if Euclid might not have been born a Lang/kford.However, since the time of my previous post about the DNA testing, we have matched with some other Langfords and Lanfords with whom we must share a common ancestor earlier than Euclid.Therefore, any possible fathering from outside the family line would have been earlier.
I still want to dialogue about our possible family connection through Euclid's mother, who may have been a Whitlock, though we have no documentation of that.It just seems very likely that Euclid got his unusual name through his mother's side of the family.Unfortunately, DNA tests would not help us in that regard, since we can only test for direct paternal line or direct maternal line, with no criss-crossing of genders throughout the generations.
I have seen the documentation of the orphaned children you mentioned.However, that was in 1763.So it both the deceased father John Whitlock and the orphaned child John would have to be different people than your great-great-grandfather John N. Whitlock, whom you indicate was born 1797, though they may have been related in some way.
Thank you again.I hope to hear more from you.And I'll let you know what I hear from the person who offered to pay for the DNA test previously (almost 2 years ago).