No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by mpryon View Post
    . . .Except a 6x or so Great Grandfather married a woman from Orkney. So, there could be something but...
    I think your gut instinct is correct. It's probable that the Orkney family was originally from Angus, given the extreme age of the name in Aberdeen and Angus.

    But just out of curiosity, if you had the names of those 6x great grandparents, I'd be interested to see if there is anything that I could find. Probably not, but if there's a chance, why not take it?


    • #17
      No prob. I've not paid up on Ancestry in quite some time and I can't remember how confident I was in this being correct but...

      John Chalmers (or possibly George)

      b: 1698 • Liff, Dundee, Forfarshire, Scotland
      d: 1732 • Denhead, Liff, Dundee, Forfarshire, Scotland

      Married 20 Nov 1720 • Blairgowrie, Perthshire, Scotland.

      Isabella Mowat

      b. 1698 • Costa, Orkney, Scotland.
      d. ???? • Dundee, Forfarshire, Scotland.

      I'm sure you're aware that Angus was known as Forfarshire from the 18th century to the early 20th.

      Originally posted by benowicz View Post
      I think your gut instinct is correct. It's probable that the Orkney family was originally from Angus, given the extreme age of the name in Aberdeen and Angus.

      But just out of curiosity, if you had the names of those 6x great grandparents, I'd be interested to see if there is anything that I could find. Probably not, but if there's a chance, why not take it?


      • #18
        Although, I must admit that I might not be completely objective here as I desperately want your theory to be true.


        • #19

          I've seen some trees that try to take this line further back to a well known clergyman from a place called Rhynie. Living around 1620. Do you have any opinion as to how reliable those might be?

          Is your ancestor's 1698 birth directly recorded in the Forfarshire church registers, or is the place imputed from a marriage or death record? Do you think there is any chance that he, like his wife, was from Orkney?
          Last edited by benowicz; 27 February 2018, 12:57 PM.


          • #20
            You and Henderson are NOT an STR match, but given your shared SNP status of FGC23343+, it's a little interesting that Costa is near the north end of Orkney, and Noss is near the south end of Shetland.


            • #21
              Anything that far back I've pieced together on ancestry. Like I mentioned, I've not paid in some time and can no longer see any of the supporting documentation that convinced me at the time that it was accurate.

              I've not looked up anything that far back in the church registry or people of scotland.

              If my tree is correct (and there certainly is room for error) John's father was:

              George Richard Chalmers 1680–1736
              Birth 1680 • Lundie and Fowlis-Easter, Angus, Scotland
              Death 05 DEC 1736 • Dundee, Angus, Scotland, UK

              It's difficult for me to say about the Rhynie connection as I was having a very difficult time gathering info that far back but I do know that there is some connection to Aberdeenshire so it's plausible.

              I can't seem to find anything associated with Aberdeenshire just now but there clearly are many Chalmers there.

              Originally posted by benowicz View Post

              I've seen some trees that try to take this line further back to a well known clergyman from a place called Rhynie. Living around 1620. Do you have any opinion as to how reliable those might be?

              Is your ancestor's 1698 birth directly recorded in the Forfarshire church registers, or is the place imputed from a marriage or death record? Do you think there is any chance that he, like his wife, was from Orkney?


              • #22

                It seems like a lot depends on understanding precisely where the information came from, something we just can't determine right now. A close inspection really could take this in either direction.

                I personally am fascinated by the Orkney thing, and wonder whether the attribution of Chalmers's birth to Forfarshire was just a very logical conclusion based mostly on the relative frequency of the name there rather than direct documentary evidence.

                On the other hand, I'm not sure the evidence for her origin in Orkney is any stronger. Obviously migration occurred in both directions, but it does seem a little "out of the blue", the FGC23343+ status of Henderson not withstanding.

                This Orkney thing does come at a rather crucial point in your tree.

                If your line did originate in Orkney, I feel like that would tend to strengthen my original Norway>Shetland>Normandy hypothesis.

                The Edgeworth/Swift and Dorey ends of this thing are pretty securely traced to western Normandy, which does seem to have been (mostly but not exclusively) settled by Norwegian Vikings who moved through Shetland and the Hebrides.

                The big problem in this is the two Germans. Unexpectedly, they come from a part of Germany that did experience raids from British-based Vikings. It's just that there doesn't appear to be much evidence of significant Viking settlement there. Some farther north west on the Frisian coast, but not so much directly in the Bonn area.

                I did a McGee comparison of all the 67 marker haplotypes confirmed FGC23343+ or close STR matches to one, and there is a 95% confidence of a MRCA around 850 A.D., which is the Viking era, alright.

                That is, if you take the TMRCA based on the individual furthest from the modal. There are many individual 1-to-1 comparisons that look significantly older, like maybe 400 A.D.

                If TMRCA from 67 marker haplotypes is even the right way to estimate the age of an SNP. I don't know.


                • #23
                  I just realized now that the Edgeworth fellow's situation may be more complicated than I originally though, although ironically it may lead to a clearer understanding of their Norman origins.

                  Y Search account 8AF47 for Edgeworth is GD 4 @67 for HZPGU Garnett, suggesting a very recent MRCA. Like maybe 1600.

                  I think Edgeworth is a descendant of the family of Co. Longford, Ireland, who trace with confidence to about 1560 in Denbighshire, Wales and quite probably to the Herman de Egewurd of the Domesday entries in Gloucestershire I talked about earlier.

                  HZPGU is named Garnett and seems to also go back to the mid-1500s, but to Bunbury, Cheshire, England.

                  Both seem to be bona fide what you'd call gentry families, with entries in Burke's and whatnot. Garnett's arms clearly imply they are a branch of the Garnett family of Halton, Lancashire, although the specific line of descent from the founder, Vivian de Gernet, born about 1030, is not given.

                  Both claim Norman origins. I made some speculative guesses about the Norman home of Herman de Egewurd based on his associates, but the situation for the Garnetts may be slightly clearer. The Garnetts' heraldry clearly references that of the de Mowbray family, who were settled mainly in Lincolnshire.


                  But does that mean that the Garnetts were a branch of the de Mowbrays? Or only followers? In any case, it makes their likely Norman home a place called St. Martin d'Aubigny, a short distance to the south from St. Sauveur le Vicomte, which gave their name to the so-called aristocratic Néel family.


                  In fact, the earliest recorded members of the d'Aubigny family include men named Nigel--a Latin version of Néel.

                  I hope the precise situation is cleared up at some point. But both lines of inquiry seem to lead us to western Normandy. Given that the ancestor of Dorey DEAGD was born on Jersey, I would have a hard time believing otherwise, but the level of coincidence is striking.


                  • #24
                    I just realized now how very close those earliest known Edgworths and Garnetts were, at Holt Castle and Bunbury, respectively. Only 13 miles apart.

                    Maybe GD 4 @ 67 is consistent with this.

                    Without a clear reference one way or the other, it could go in either direction.

                    But I also noticed one other thing: Tellisford, the earliest known home of the FGC23343+ Swift family, was owned by a member of the de Mowbray family at the time of the Domesday Book.


                    The Bishop of Coutances at that time was Geoffrey de Mowbray/Montbray.


                    The connection between the Garnett family and the Mowbrays is a little complicated, though. First, the similarity in their heraldry may reflect only a political affiliation rather than direct descent. Plus, the original "de Mowbray" family seems to have become extinct in the direct male line, with the name being assumed by female line descendants originally named d'Aubigny, from Saint Martin d'Aubigny.

                    Anyhow, Saint Martin d'Aubigny was only 13 miles from Coutances, so the geographical proximity within western Normandy still seems impressive.


                    • #25
                      Actually, there have long been claims that this specific Mowbray/d'Aubigny family descend in the direct male line from the Néel family.


                      Given the pedigrees of the Edgeworth and Garnett families, such a connection may not be a complete surprise. But I don't think the Swifts or Doreys had any such notion, even if geographically the Doreys lived smack dab in the middle of the Néel heartland.

                      I don't think either of the Scottish FGC23343+ people would have suspected this, but there is the Medieval Icelandic saga I referred to earlier that was re-interpreted in the 19th century to make the Néels descendants of the first Jarls of Orkney.

                      That claim seems to have wound a tortured, indirect path through a clearly false notion of the background of Hrolf the Ganger. But in the context of these DNA matches, it doesn't seem such a wild stretch after all.

                      Should we call this the "Eysteinsson Modal Haplotype"?


                      • #26
                        Another detail that I think lends weight to the Garnet/d'Aubigny interpretation of one branch of FGC23343: Y Search 46CE6, another closely matching profile, seems connected in some way to the Gerard family of Bryn, Lancashire.


                        I'm not the first person to make that observation. I saw it in an old social media post by a person I believe is the donor for the Edgeworth entry. But I did encounter a very detailed documentary account that I think goes a long way to closing some of the gaps in the versions of the Garnet of Haughton/Bunbury trees I've seen to date.

                        The Gerards were closely intermarried with a branch of the Garnets of Lydiate located at Warrington since the early 1415, when a William Garnet married a daughter of Sir Thomas Gerard. Probably a son or grandson changed his name at some point for an inheritance.


                        I'm pretty sure this doesn't represent the Gerard family genetic signature, as they're clearly a branch of the same patriline that gave rise to the FitzGeralds in Ireland, and for all the various haplotypes that appear in that DNA project, none of them appear to be FGC23343.

                        Plus, they're almost certainly of Saxon, not Norman, origin. There are a lot of fanciful theories about Other, father of Walter FitzOther of Windsor, but the notes in the Domesday book make it clear that he was a large land owner in England before the Norman conquest.

                        As an aside, I did a little further research into the heraldic conventions used to support the conclusion that the Garnets were of the same stock as the d'Aubignys.

                        The Garnets assumed substantially the same arms as the d'Aubigny/Mowbray family, differenced by a bordure, supposedly around the year 1196. In 1390, the king's ruling on the Scrope v Grosvenor case seems to have stated pretty clearly that the bordure was to be considered a mark of cadency.


                        Granted, the intervening 200 years between the adoption of these arms and the ruling may leave room for doubt, but I think the weight of available evidence is that the Garnets were claiming to be a branch of the d'Aubignys. Furness Abbey was founded by a Mowbray/d'Aubigny, and that place is too close to Halton of the Garnets for me to think the assumption of these arms could have been accidental or escaped the Mowbrays' notice.

                        So, all in all, the association of FGC23343 with the Néels of Cotentin, and through them to Vikings in the Scottish isles seems stronger.


                        • #27

                          That is a very useful index and discussion of the documentary evidence surrounding the early Garnets, but I admit that I found its dense style a little difficult to follow. As a consequence, it looks as though I may have made a significant error in interpretation.

                          The Garnet coat of arms alluding to a connection to the de Mowbray/d'Aubigny family could reference a female line connection, and therefore may have limited application to our discussion of the FGC23343 SNP. The wife of the first man to bear these arms was 100% definitely a great granddaughter of William d'Aubigny.

                          The origin of the Garnets themselves seems not to be directly documented. There is some hypothesis that they may relate to a Garnet family of Essex, whose earliest ancestor appears in a charter at Fecamp, quite a ways away from the Cotentin that has dominated my discussion to date. Although that man is called "de Maupertuis", a name which survives in only one place in Normandy, very near to La Colombe and Coutances, which I touched upon earlier. There is, however, a very similarly named place, "MaupertUS", near Cherbourg, much closer to the places I mentioned at the start of this thread.

                          The earliest securely identified ancestor of our FGC23343+ Garnets is a fellow named Vivian, who appears among the followers of Roger of Poitou.

                          Roger's line begins with Roger de Montgomery, a man hypothesized by Eric Van Torhoudt to be the founder of the abbey at Saint Sauveur le Vicomte (i.e., headquarters of the Néel family).



                          Most of Montgomery's lands seem to have been concentrated far to the south and east of the Néels, although as Van Torhoudt's map shows, he did hold a few manors in the north of the Cotentin--including Tournebut, which seems to be the place where the Dorey name, born by another apparent FGC23343+ person, first appears in the 1200s.


                          So maybe a more realistic interpretation of all this data is that the ancestors of Dorey DEAGD and Garnet HZPGU were tenants of Roger I de Montgomery at MaupertUS or Tournebut. The Garnets could have left for England after the conquest and the Doreys stayed in Normandy, later drifting to Jersey and Guernsey by 1800.

                          There are apparently a lot of Doreys in Jersey and Guernsey, so I don't get a sense that they are all obviously related. The earliest documentary references I find to them there are from the mid-1500s. Although two of them held the office of Receiver of the King's Revenues at that time, and they married into some eminent island families, they don't have their own entry in any of the heraldic works focused on the islands. There is a stray reference to an estate called "Longwalls", but that's about it before the mid-1800s.


                          • #28
                            As an aside that may turn up some leads later, the duchess of Normandy, Gunnor, wife of duke Richard I, is supposed to have been from a wealthy family of the Cotentin. Roger I de Montgomery supposedly rose to influence through this connection, as his mother was supposedly a sister of Gunnor. This could explain how he acquired the Cotentin estates, especially Tournebut, where the Dorey family is early recorded. Page 67.


                            Also, the ancestors of the Doreys and the Garnets were probably acquainted with the d'Aubigny family that would later assume the surname de Mowbray from a very early date. Huberville, immediately adjacent to Tournebut, was the site of a church endowed by the d'Aubignys--named, perhaps significantly, Saint Patrice. Pages 28 &32.



                            • #29
                              More information on the earliest known location for the 'Dorey' surname with a 'y', Saint Germain de Tournebut: The then-lord of Tournebut left for England with William the Conqueror, making my hypothesized identification with the ancestor of the Garnet family of Halton,Lancashire viable.


                              As Van Torhoudt's article points out, there is strong, indirect evidence connecting the Néel dynasty with the Montgomery family, earliest known patrons of the Lancashire Garnets, including a shared patronage over the abbey of Saint Sauveur le Vicomte. As page 29 points out, the Montgomeries remained overlords of Tournebut until the 12th century, and around 1090, a Vicomte Eudes devoted the income from Tournebut to the abbey.


                              The 2nd half of the 11th century was kind of a complicated time in the politics of the Cotentin, apparently, as early rebellions against the rule of William the Conqueror had forced a series of confiscations and re-grants in the area, affecting both the Néels and the Montgomeries. Apparently there were TWO DISTINCT vicomtes du Cotentin named Eudes at this time, one of the d'Avranche-de la Haye family, and another of the Néels. It was probably the son of the younger viscount Néel who was the viscount Eudes who began the long association of Tournebut with the abbey of Saint Sauveur by granting its income.


                              That, plus the d'Aubigny family, who also used the then-uncommon name 'Néel', held the immediately adjacent fief of Huberville.

                              So maybe when Benedict Garnet of Halton assumed a coat of arms as cadet of the d'Aubignys in 1196, he was referring to both his direct paternal and maternal ancestry. Maybe the addition of the crown in the Garnet arms later was an indirect claim to represent a branch senior to the d'Aubignys within the Néel dynasty, despite the d'Aubignys' far greater prominence in England.


                              • #30
                                The detail about a family named de Tournebut going to England with the Conqueror can probably be discounted. I'm pretty sure they don't mean the Saint Germain de Tournebut that is the focus of our Dorey-Garnett-Montgomery-Neel researches, but a different place spelled "Tournebu", quite a distance away, in Calvados, not the Cotentin. This armorial calls them "Turnebu du Livet" and they bear the same arms quoted in my earlier link.


                                There were some clerics named de Turnebut, one a bishop of Coutances and another an administrator close to the royal family in England, but they're almost certainly of the Calvados family, with no apparent family connection to the Cotentin.


                                The Saint Germain de Tournebut thing still seems a valid clue for our purposes, though, linking the Doreys to the Garnetts through the Montgomeries. The history of the property seems to be that it came to the Montgomeries as part of the dowry of Gunnor's niece, and that the Neels and the d'Aubignys also retained estates in the neighborhood up through the 12th century. I wouldn't doubt if Gunnor's family were a branch of the Neels. It would explain the Montgomery family's patronage of the abbey at Saint Sauveur le Vicomte.
                                Last edited by benowicz; 8 March 2018, 06:34 PM.