New FMS match (U5b2b2)

[PDHOTLEN]

Yeah, well, now that I have a few slugs of Irish Whiskey under my belt, I'm thinking of Danish King Blue Tooth sending his daughters to Normandy for safe keeping (palace Intrigues, etc). If I'm coonnected that way, then my U5b2b2 would go back to Uppsala, Sweden (his wife).

[PDHOTLEN]

It looks to me like maybe my U5b2b2 may go back to Normandy/France. Although my for sure earliest direct line female ancestor was born about 1816 in Indiana, my speculative line is extended to a birth date about 1617 in the Norwich, Norfolk, England area. She was the first wife of a Mr. Pendleton, but her name not found, possibly first name of Hannah. They were of the upper class, so it seems likely that they, Pendleton and both his wives, stem from Anglo-Normans. So the further question is, where did that U5b2b2 in Normandy come from?

[PDHOTLEN]

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.

[PDHOTLEN]

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.

[PDHOTLEN]

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.

[PDHOTLEN]

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.

[PDHOTLEN]

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.

[PDHOTLEN]

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.

[PDHOTLEN]

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.

[PDHOTLEN]

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.

[PDHOTLEN]

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...

[PDHOTLEN]

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

[PDHOTLEN]

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.

[PDHOTLEN]

Matches to my U5b2b2/A228G just are not showing up. Recently I've stuck my neck out and extended my direct maternal line back into colonial times. But it is shaky with other trees giving other interpretations along the way. The route I currently settle on ends up as a toss up between a young Italian mother who must have died young (in New York back around 1669/70), or the second wife who arrived from Ireland as an Irish Quaker. Now my question is: is my U5b2b2/A228G also found in Italy. That girl (underage, it looks to me) supposedly came from Supino, Frosinone, Lazio, Italy, not far from Rome.

correction: it is U5b2b2/G228A. There is an entry from Italy (the only one, it looks like) for U5b2b* (I think it is), in the U5 Project that looks like it might be related. Is the U5 Project still active?

[PDHOTLEN]

Matches to my U5b2b2/A228G just are not showing up. Recently I've stuck my neck out and extended my direct maternal line back into colonial times. But it is shaky with other trees giving other interpretations along the way. The route I currently settle on ends up as a toss up between a young Italian mother who must have died young (in New York back around 1669/70), or the second wife who arrived from Ireland as an Irish Quaker. Now my question is: is my U5b2b2/A228G also found in Italy. That girl (underage, it looks to me) supposedly came from Supino, Frosinone, Lazio, Italy, not far from Rome.