Viking FGC23343

[benowicz]

My French is not quite up to the task of completely understanding the materials behind this, but apparently there is a hamlet ("hameu") called Dorey in Montaigu-la-brissette.

https://www.wikimanche.fr/Montaigu-la-Brisette

Was the family (DEAGD) called after the hamlet, or the hamlet after the family? And what is the first documented use of this name for the hamlet?

Remember, the significance of Montaigu-la-brissette is that it is supposed to be the earliest attested home of the Dorey family, spelled with a "y" (13th century), and a fief of the Mongtomery family who were patrons of the FGC23343+ Garnetts.

Also remember that Garnetts settled in Lancashire after the conquest. So is there some special significance to the fact that at the beginning of the 12th century, a Vicomte of Cotentin (? Eudes, son of Thurstin Hadup?) exchanged Montaigu with a property in Lancashire held by the de Camprond du Lorey family?

I don't believe that the origins of Thurstin Haldup are known, but he was a successor of Néel II de Saint-Sauveur, so the possibility that he was a kinsman of some sort doesn't seem an implausible speculation.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turstin_Haldup

[benowicz]

. . . Also remember that Garnetts settled in Lancashire after the conquest. So is there some special significance to the fact that at the beginning of the 12th century, a Vicomte of Cotentin (? Eudes, son of Thurstin Hadup?) exchanged Montaigu with a property in Lancashire held by the de Camprond du Lorey family?

I don't believe that the origins of Thurstin Haldup are known, but he was a successor of Néel II de Saint-Sauveur, so the possibility that he was a kinsman of some sort doesn't seem an implausible speculation.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turstin_Haldup

Actually, the linked article says--without citation--that it was a member of Thurstin Haldup's family who made the exchange in the 12th century, not a Vicomte du Cotentin per se.

https://www.wikimanche.fr/Montaigu-la-Brisette

But given the timing, it most likely was his son Eudes, who was Vicomte du Cotentin. Although, as I mentioned earlier, there apparently were two distinct individuals named Eudes who were called Vicomte du Cotentin, seemingly at the same time, one a son of Turstin Haldup and another the son of Néel II de Saint-Sauveur.

So, given all these other associations of the Garnetts, through the Mowbray/d'Aubignys, to the Néel dynasty, and the granting of the income of Saint Germain de Tournetbut (yet another early Dorey home) to the monastery of Saint Sauveur by a Vicomte Eudes during this very same time frame, is it possible that the author actually intended to indicate that Montaigu-la-brissette and the hamlet of Dorey became part of the Néel family's patrimony after the Montgomeries followed William the Conqueror to England? It would be an incredibly easy mistake to make, and it would make our FGC23343+ narrative a little tighter. Van Torhoudt's article mentions that the Montgomeries and the Néel dynasty were the earliest patrons of Saint Sauveur.

[benowicz]

I don't know why my previous searches for this information turned up nothing, but I've hit upon what I hope are pretty good estimates of the age for the relevant SNPs:

FGC23343 aka FGC23342 aka Y9087--formed 4,500 years ago; expansion 1,800 years ago

FGC28370 aka FGC28368--formed 1,800 years ago; expansion 500 years ago

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/

Can anyone comment on the reputation of YFull?

Judging by the figures presented here, I probably should have called this thread 'Viking FGC28370'. But I'm not sure that all reported bearers of FGC23343 have their testing completely up to date. I'm not sure when the subclade was discovered.

It certainly would be helpful to know whether Henderson or Chalmers have tested for FGC28370.

[benowicz]

Looking at the STR genetic distances, Henderson averages something like a GD of 11 at 67 against what I consider to be the core FGC28370+ people, compared to 17 for Chalmers against this same group, implying TMRCA of roughly 720 and 930 years, respectively. So unless I hear something specifically about either of them testing negative for FGC23870, I guess they're both still in play, given an estimated age of 1,800 for that SNP.

A lot of doubt, though. Maybe Canovas really does trace his line to Spain, and not Longjumeau, but he's even closer to the core FGC23870+ group. It could be that FGC23870 is simply too old to achieve a high degree of STR discrimination at resolutions below 111 markers. Or I got really unlucky and am observing convergence between brother clades.

[benowicz]

If Van Torhoudt's observation from that article about the attachment of the Neel Vicomtes to the cult of St.Columba means anything, it might be possible to make a decent guess as to the specific identity of the ancestor of the Garnett/Edgeworth/Swift group: Uathmaran, son of Bardr, son of Ivar.

From the late 800s through the mid 900s, one branch of the Ui Imair dynasty are noted as particularly active around Lough Foyle, where Derry, the home foundation of St. Columba lies. Bardr, son of Ivar himself,married a daughter of the son of Aedh Findlaeth, king of Aileach on the nearby Inishowen peninsula, and one of Aedh's sons may have been fostered with Bardr.

Clare Downham writes in depth about all these family connections and supporting documentary sources in a book called "Viking Kings of Britain and Ireland: The Dynasty of Ívarr to A.D. 1014".

https://www.amazon.com/Viking-Kings-Britain-Ireland-D-ebook/dp/B074M9H6FX

One maybe problem is that Aedh Findlaeth was from a tribe called the Cenel nEogan, whereas St. Columba was the patron of his enemies, the Cenel Conaill.

But in 921, a son of Uathmaran, son of Bardr, son of Ivar, is recorded as visiting Ceann Maghair ("Kinnaweer") at the foot of the Fanad peninsula, which lay in the territory of Cenel Lugdach, a branch of Cenel Conaill which frequently allied with Cenel nEogan against their own kings, who came from the rival faction of Siol nAedha Easa Ruad. In fact, St. Columba was of the Cenel Lugdach faction himself.

A local historian, Brian Lacey, writes a lot about this time and mentions a 17th century copy of a 10th century original poem by Flann mac Lonain that describes a marriage alliance between the daughters of Eignecan, son of Dalaigh, king of Cenel Lugdach and some viking chieftains based at Carrickabraghy on the Inishowen peninsula. Eignecan died in 901.

A lot of guesses stacked on one another, but it presents a satisfying narrative specificity.

[benowicz]

This Uathmaran had at least one son whose name survives in the documentary record: Sichfrith, which I take to be some version of the Germanic name Siegfried.

[benowicz]

My French is not quite up to the task of completely understanding the materials behind this, but . . . remember that Garnetts settled in Lancashire after the conquest. So is there some special significance to the fact that at the beginning of the 12th century, a Vicomte of Cotentin (? Eudes, son of Thurstin Hadup?) exchanged Montaigu with a property in Lancashire held by the de Camprond du Lorey family?

I don't believe that the origins of Thurstin Haldup are known, but he was a successor of Néel II de Saint-Sauveur, so the possibility that he was a kinsman of some sort doesn't seem an implausible speculation.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turstin_Haldup

Okay, I think I've resolved this, although I originally cocked it up.

As I mentioned earlier, I only inferred that the WikiManche article referred to the 2nd line of Vicomtes du Cotentin--who descend from Thurstin Haldup. What it literally says is that it was a member of the family of the lords of La Haye du Puits that exchanged Montaigu-la-brisette at the start of the 12th century. Which, after the battle of Tinchebray, did indeed belong to a descendant of Thurstin Haldup.

But until 1106, La Hay du Puit belonged to Robert, count of Mortain--whose wife was a sister of Roger Montgomery the Poitevin, patron of the earliest known Garnetts in Lancashire. Note 102 on page 29 of Van Torhoudt's article.

https://books.google.com/books?id=ckI5XFb4WhoC&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=%22Naissance+de+la+Normandie%22+Musset+%22Saint-Sauveur%22&source=bl&ots=UzRajbFlqE&sig=sCk8Z1oD5D_op4nHzshpSHoxB6g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFvZjI3qHZAhWul-AKHdQ-BIYQ6AEIOjAC#v=onepage&q=Theil&f=false

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_the_Poitevin

Things moved quickly during this time, with all the rebellions and whatnot. But the exchange of Montaigu-la-brisette for a fief in Lancashire makes sense via this Montgomery connection.

Per Google maps, the hamlet of Dorey is in the extreme northern part of Montaigu-la-brisette, opposite from the border with Saint Germain de Tournebut, owned by the Neel family, whatever the relationship of this place is to the ancestors of DEAGD.

I was hoping this information could take me closer to a documented origin for the Doreys, but probably not. All it does is increase the sense that this immediate neighborhood was inhabited at some point by relations of the Neels (Saint Germain de Tournebut) and their Montgomery (Montaigue-la-brisette) and d'Aubigny (Huberville) cousins.

[benowicz]

If Van Torhoudt's observation from that article about the attachment of the Neel Vicomtes to the cult of St.Columba means anything, it might be possible to make a decent guess as to the specific identity of the ancestor of the Garnett/Edgeworth/Swift group. . .

There actually is some specific contemporary documentary about the links between the Ui Imair dynasty and Normandy: Lagmann, son of Gofraid, son of Aralt, son of Sitric Caech, was recorded by William of Jumieges around 1070 as having served as a mercenary in Brittany on behalf of Richard II, Duke of Normandy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagmann_mac_Gofraid

Amblaid Cuaran, brother of Sitric Caech, was buried on the island of Iona--a monastery founded by St. Columba, apparent patron saint also of the Neel family, vicomtes of Saint Sauveur.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amla%C3%ADb_Cuar%C3%A1n

Also maybe furthering this connection, the original parish church of Crasville, one of the 13th century homes of the Dorey (DEAGD) family, documented at least from 1154, was Sainte Columbe.

http://baguette.over-blog.net/article-eglise-ste-colombe-de-crasville-124052771.html

The immediate neighborhood, including Montaigu-la-brisette (with the hamlet of Dorey), Huberville and Saint Germain de Tournebut, was occupied by the Neels and their (apparent) d'Aubigny and Montgomery relatives in the 10th and 11th centuries. The Montgomeries probably acquired their property through marriage to a niece of Gunnor, duchess of Normandy,whose family were supposedly recent arrivals, although much of the information available about her background seems dubious.

[benowicz]

Just to establish the record, this needs to be addressed, although I don't think it can possibly be true: An ambitious 20th century book attempted to draw a line of descent from the very Ivar I've been talking about to these same Montgomeries. Page 31.

https://www.slideshare.net/HalcyonKing/origin-and-history-of-the-montgomerys

I'm pretty sure the author has screwed up his references. I'm pretty sure the form 'Ingvar' does not appear in the Irish annals as he implies, although there is still a serious contention among legitimate scholars that the 'Ivar' of the Irish annals is identical with the 'Ingvar' of the Saxon Chronicles. But I don't think anyone really believes that he was the son of Ragnar Lodbrok, who likely never existed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_the_Boneless

Also, I think the consensus now is that the Montgomerys of Scotland, who form the bulk of the material in this book, have no relationship to the Montgomerys of Normandy that I've been talking about. So this author started out with some seriously wrong premises and just kept running.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clan_Montgomery

I think the most accurate statement that can be made is that nobody simply knows about the origin of the Norman Montgomeries before the mid 11th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_de_Montgomery,_seigneur_of_Montgomery

But their early and enduring association with the Neel vicomtes du Cotentin is interesting. Even though the bulk of their land holdings were in Calvados rather than La Manche, maybe an Irish origin for the Montgomerys can't be ruled out.

[mpryon]

Judging by my tree on ftdna, I've not been tested for FGC23870 and there doesn't appear to be any reason why I shouldn't try except they won't let me test.

Perhaps they don't have a stand alone test for it?

I don't know why my previous searches for this information turned up nothing, but I've hit upon what I hope are pretty good estimates of the age for the relevant SNPs:

FGC23343 aka FGC23342 aka Y9087--formed 4,500 years ago; expansion 1,800 years ago

FGC28370 aka FGC28368--formed 1,800 years ago; expansion 500 years ago

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-DF27/

Can anyone comment on the reputation of YFull?

Judging by the figures presented here, I probably should have called this thread 'Viking FGC28370'. But I'm not sure that all reported bearers of FGC23343 have their testing completely up to date. I'm not sure when the subclade was discovered.

It certainly would be helpful to know whether Henderson or Chalmers have tested for FGC28370.

[benowicz]

I thought I did see FTDNA offer this SNP at one point. I would probably send an email to FTDNA to find out why you can't find that option on their site before pursuing this, but there are other options.

http://www.yseq.net/product_info.php?products_id=40766

In the long run it probably pays to have as much of your testing done with the same company as possible, to maximize any loyalty programs or integrate your test findings with any projects, etc. But there are options.

[benowicz]

When you talk to FTDNA, be sure to ask about any equivalent SNPs. That link to YFull lists a couple of them for FGC28370, I think. I believe it is the only identified subclade of FGC23343 to date. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[benowicz]

When you talk to FTDNA, be sure to ask about any equivalent SNPs. That link to YFull lists a couple of them for FGC28370, I think. I believe it is the only identified subclade of FGC23343 to date. Correct me if I'm wrong.

I guess I'm wrong. There is at least one other subclade, found only in a German family from the Saarland region.

I guess it's up to you, but given your family's history, I'd probably try FGC28370 or an equivalent before trying that German one.

[benowicz]

Another thought just occurred to me. I don't participate in any projects, so I don't know this for a fact, but I believe some of them can arrange discounted pricing or some such. You might want to think about that before finalizing any order plans.

[benowicz]

The FGC28370 results fascinated me, so I wanted to be able to define their relationship to one another a little better.

Unfortunately, the STR networking programs I'm used to have some limitations that forced me to work outside, with some manually prepared spreadsheets. Which I guess is just as well, because the history of this SNP is longer than the period covered by FTDNA's standard guidance for STR interpetation, meaning I'd need to work a lot with unique confidence interval structures.

Other people may come to different conclusions, but based on the haplotypes I've found in the DF27 project and in YSearch.org, I have defined 3 main groups:

A: A group of 3 high-resolution profiles with surnames Knuckles, Thacker and Swift, with a MRCA born maybe 1600 or thereabouts. After looking at their pedigrees, I'm pretty sure the original surname was Swift, and that the ancestor lived in or near Tellisford, Somersetshire. Most testers seem to have their earliest definitely known ancestors in the American South, but they're cross-referenced against a Yankee line named Swift that settled at Philadelphia, with a Quaker leaving certificate from Wiltshire or Dorset.

B: A group of 2 donors named Edgeworth and Garnett, with a MRCA born maybe around 1700, probably a little earlier. Both of these lines seem to trace pretty confidently to some entries to Burke's landed gentry books, which is useful. It's a debatable call, but for my working hypothesis, I have assumed that Garnett is the "true" surname, on the basis of some ambiguous circumstantial evidence and the fact that the Garnett pedigree goes further back with more confidence towards Normandy.

C: A single individual named Dorey, whose earliest known ancestor was born around 1806 on the Channel Island of Jersey, formerly a constituent part of the duchy of Normandy. Nothing certain seems to be known beyond this, but earliest records of the Dorey family in the islands include men who served as Receiver of the King's Revenue. Researchers focusing on people of this name--specifically with spelling variants which end in "y", somewhat unique for the region--trace the name to 1200s in the adjacent parishes of St Germain de Tournebut, Montaigu la brisette, and Crasville, all in the canton of Montebourg on the Cotentin peninsula. Perhaps not coincidentally, these places figure in the history of the de Montgomery, Saint Sauveur and d'Aubigny families who form the backdrop for the earliest known ancestors of Garnett.

Dorey, to my knowledge, has not tested for either FGC28370 or its parent clade FGC23343, but given the genetic differences observed, I don't think it will be too controversial to assume that he also is FGC23870+.

As I said, the MRCA joining all three of these groups appears to be well outside the standard guidance for interpreting STR matches, so I had to resolve some ambiguities through manually calculated confidence intervals. A mistake in my calculations or judgment could lead other people to come to different conclusions.

But my current guess is that Group A and Donor C are much more closely related (i.e., MRCA born around 1350 A.D.) than Group B is to either. I estimate that the MRCA that Group B shares with the others was born around 1000 A.D., since that is the center point of the very narrow 15 year range that overlaps between the 50% to 95% confidence intervals for those comparisons.

There are a couple of layers of estimates supporting this conclusion, so I guess it's not completely closed off for debate. But at least it seems to make some geographic sense, considering the locations of the earliest known ancestors.