Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New FMS match (U5b2b2)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
    Forget everything I just said. I took an apparent wrong fork in the road. Now I'm back with a female Pendleton, but this time connected ultimately with the Lancashire branch. So it looks again that my direct maternal line goes back to England. But it still may ultimately be of Norse origin, back in the mists of time.
    That female Pendleton was born too early to be connected to the New England Pendletons, from what information is available at Ancestry, and assuming that he birth in or around 1640 is correct. So it's back to early Virginia. That also makes a necessity for there to have been an ( unknown) first wife of Mr. Pendleton. A scenario might be that he married in Norfolk, England, went to Virginia where by some tragedy he lost his wife and maybe a child or two. Martha being the only survivor. Then he returned home, remarried, and a couple or more of his children by his second wife migrated to Virginia (e.g. Philip P.). Otherwise there must have been another male immigrant Pendleton who has escaped the records. Anyway, my female Pendleton later married a Sherwood in Virginia. I notice that the surname Sherwood is among the founders of Jamestown.

    http://www.jamestowne.org
    Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 20th August 2018, 08:24 PM.

    Comment


    • #92
      There is also the possibility tat my Cynthia A. Lee, c.1816 to 1856, supposedly (no record seen) born in Indiana, had parents who were yankees. I found an Emeline Lee, born 1829 in neighboring Rush County, Indiana. Cindy was living in Decatur County. Emeline married Wm. L. Hunt in Indiana, whose parents came from New England. Nothing more is given about E. Lee. Hmm...
      Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 26th August 2018, 12:47 PM.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
        There is also the possibility tat my Cynthia A. Lee, c.1816 to 1856, supposedly (no record seen) born in Indiana, had parents who were yankees. I found an Emeline Lee, born 1829 in neighboring Rush County, Indiana. Cindy was married in Decatur County. Emeline married Wm. L. Hunt in Indiana, whose parents came from New England. Nothing more is given about E. Lee. Hmm...
        I should add that Emeline Lee is 4th to 6th cousin at Ancestry. That would work if she was Cynthia's sister or first cousin.

        Comment


        • #94
          It looks like my latest change to my direct maternal line, adding a Huguenot component, may be on track. I just received a notice from Ancestry that I have a DNA match to someone with a Huguenot in Virginia as a common ancestor.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
            It looks like my latest change to my direct maternal line, adding a Huguenot component, may be on track. I just received a notice from Ancestry that I have a DNA match to someone with a Huguenot in Virginia as a common ancestor.
            This is not my direct maternal line, strictly speaking. It is Cynthia's daddy's branch.

            Comment


            • #96
              I have an exact mtDNA match to me, but it has not appeared in the U5 or U5b projects. This is an exact FMS match, something the other two in my subgroup are not. I do wish these projects would do something. It looks like they are dead-in-the-water.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
                I have an exact mtDNA match to me, but it has not appeared in the U5 or U5b projects. This is an exact FMS match, something the other two in my subgroup are not. I do wish these projects would do something. It looks like they are dead-in-the-water.
                Correction: an exact match to my viewable HVR1+HVR2. But it is a genetic distance of one in total, assume in coding region.

                Comment


                • #98
                  I notice some movement in the U5b FMS project. The above mentioned match to me, genetic distance of one, has joined the project. But she has been placed in a holding pattern, and not into my subgroup (U5b2b2b). Since the other two matches in my subgroup apparently have genetic distances greater than 3, I suspect that this subgroup may eventually be split. I hope action will be taken reasonably soon to resolve this complication.
                  Last edited by PDHOTLEN; 14th November 2018, 07:41 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post
                    I notice some movement in the U5b FMS project. The above mentioned match to me, genetic distance of one, has joined the project. But she has been placed in a holding pattern, and not into my subgroup (U5b2b2b). Since the other two matches in my subgroup apparently have genetic distances greater than 3, I suspect that this subgroup may eventually be split. I hope action will be taken reasonably soon to resolve this complication.
                    At a closer look at the two matches already in my subgroup, a mutation/back-mutation in HVR1 prevents me from saying that they have genetic distances greater than 3. So we'll just have to wait and see if my new match pointed out earlier will ever be placed in my subgroup. I don't recall seeing her as an auDNA match.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by PDHOTLEN View Post

                      At a closer look at the two matches already in my subgroup, a mutation/back-mutation in HVR1 prevents me from saying that they have genetic distances greater than 3. So we'll just have to wait and see if my new match pointed out earlier will ever be placed in my subgroup. I don't recall seeing her as an auDNA match.
                      OK, I see that apparently my two matches in my subgroup are both genetic distances of two. Kit numbers are not given for double check accuracy, but earliest ancestor names are given. That still means that the newest match is only a genetic distance of one. So I don't see why she has not been incorporated into my subgroup.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X