Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Viking FGC23343

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

  • monty alto
    replied
    Hi
    I’ve arrived late for this discussion but my Shetland family are allegedly descended from the chester and flintshire de Monte Altos (Mowat). Although this lineage is oft repeated, our y dna haplogroup is I1 which would argue against it. The rest of the distantly related Mowats in the northern isles are I1 also. Many of the surnames which represent our nearest ‘cousins’ appear to have interpretations which imply roots in Brittany and Normandy however. Our ancestors in Angus in the 15th century are credited with evolving the modern spelling of our surname from de montalt or montealto although when we arrived in Shetland in the early17 th century, the Norse notaries corrupted the Mowat spelling to Movat, softened locally to Mouat eventually.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Latest age estimates for the various clades, leveraging some info from public projects.

    FGC23343 is the best supported age estimate, with the son clades, naturally, having successively smaller sample sizes, with margins of error in excess of 100 years in each direction. It's pretty hard to be super-confident with such small sample sizes.

    The estimate for ZZ40 is just a really crude back-of-the-envelope thing performed only from an averaging of extremely high-level info reported in FTDNA's block tree. But it seems consistent with the differences between my estimates and the estimates of other popular projects, with my estimates typically about 1,000 years more recent. I can support my estimates with a very good pilot study of multiple, well-documented Medieval lineages, so I know that might be controversial to some, but you know, it is what it is.

    No two ways about it, FGC23343 is a weird clade. The two oldest documented families have roots in France, from the Middle Ages, but involving regions that I think were surprising for a lot of the donors. The Garnets seem to have a solid documentary connection to Aquitaine through Roger the Poitevin de Montgomery, and that's not entirely unprecedented, given the history of the R-BY32575 Burke family.

    But the FT372222 Saddingtons, with pretty well-documented origins in western Normandy, are probably still pretty shocked by this geographic distribution. There is a plausible explanation in the archaeological and contemporary documentary evidence pointing to south western France being part of an integrated network of Viking raiders/traders (aka the 'Loire' or 'Garonne' Viking bands) headquartered in Dublin, Ireland. It's pretty much a settled feature of history that western Normandy was settled in the 10th century by Vikings from the Irish Sea region.

    I think there is also some DNA evidence reinforcing this conclusion to be found in the DNA of the Bruce family of Clackmannan, Scotland. They're defined by R-FTB15831, which is currently a pretty long block founded (i.e., NOT expanded) around the same time that FGC23343's MRCA lived. Their history in the Conquest-era crosses paths several times with the Saddingtons' de Rollos ancestors, from Western Normandy (i.e., Brix near Cherbourg for the Bruces, Bricqueville-la-Blouette for the de Rollos) to northern Yorkshire. The geographic distribution of the brother clades of R-FTB15831 suggest that it originated in Shetland or the western Isles, also being an example of a non-Scandinavian family integrated into the Viking aristocracy. While FGC23343 and FTB15831 are both descendants of DF27, they're pretty widely divergent from one another, so FGC23343 is still very conspicuous for its recent Basque origins, but the general point of the basic plausibility of an hypothesis involving Dublin remains.

    Probably also requiring some explanation is the relatively large number of Spanish donors given the apparent origin of FGC23343 on the French side of the border. You'd expect there to be some back-and-forth across the border over time, but the pattern here seems to be a consistent southern migration. That probably makes sense in the history of Gascony and Navarre during the 8th century. It seems a settled part of history that the Basque or proto-Basque people strongly resisted the encroaching Franking kingdom and the founding of the kingdom of Navarre is partly attributed to this.


    Pedigree of FGC23343.png

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    I see that the new FT372222 fellow is a participant of the Z209+ project, earliest known ancestor named Sebastian Guerrero Molina, born about 1677 in Spain.

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

    I would be very happy if there were a further definition of FT372222 related to this fellow--maybe the manual review isn't quite done yet. But I'm not too hopeful.

    In the current situation, I'm not sure there's much I can add. It currently doesn't change the average number of private variants under FT372222, so my previous estimate of an MRCA of 880 A.D. is also unchanged. On the surface the geographic distribution looks a little unusual, but my last post did anticipate branches of FT372222 pre-dating the arrival of the de Rollos family's ancestors in Normandy, so I can't say that was a surprise.

    It's finally great to have some real information on one of the Spanish branches of FGC23343. I just wish there was a little more to work with. I'm far from an expert in the Spanish language or interpreting historical documents from the Spanish Empire, but I have had some success working with families of Costa Rican and Cuban origin, so I think I could learn to work my way around, given enough info. I have the subjective feeling that the family of this new donor is also from a colonial family rather than one with very recent roots in Spain itself, so maybe there are important contextual clues available about Sebastian's birthplace in the history of his nation. I don't know if my other experiences with Latin American genealogy are characteristic of the subject as a whole, but I think these families tend to be very well documented. The surnames Guerrero and Molina alone aren't very telling, being extremely common and widespread throughout Spain.


    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    It's been a really productive couple of days. I think the aging algorithm I'm using now has some legs.

    https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...870#post331870

    But the bottom line for tracing the Saddingtons and the Vincents to a common ancestor in western Normandy born in or after 1000 A.D. remains about the same--29% probability. Consistent with STR analyses using consensus mutation rates. FT372222 was probably formed about 880 A.D., so there most likely are branches that predate the arrival of the Saddington/Vincent ancestors in Normandy, but the idea that the Saddingtons and the Vincents could be branches of the d'Aubigny/de Mowbray family is plausible--with the current information.


    Originally posted by benowicz View Post

    That 25% represented a rough average of the confidence levels at 1000 A.D. calculated per an SNP and an STR analysis I performed a while ago.

    I just made an attempt to validate the SNP rate I used, and now I change my mind. It's certainly far faster than the rates typically bandied about in the genetic genealogy community, but it actually seems pretty well supported. Yeah, in an absolute sense there could be more sampling done to validate it, but relative to what's available for other estimates, it's pretty good. "Optimistic" is kind of wide of the mark.

    https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...833#post331833

    There's significant disagreement about the correct STR rates to use, too, and all that's complicated by convergence. And I just remember now that there is that fellow named Carroll who actually seems to be a Vincent. Tacking his 67 markers on to SDV's 111 marker profile actually brings the MRCA significantly closer vs. the other FT372222 guys.

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

    So, realistically, there is maybe a 36% chance that the MRCA between the Vincents and the Saddingtons could have been born as recently as 1000 A.D. That's not bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . . There's still so much uncertainty about the proper mutation rates that it's hard to have a very strong opinion one way or the other. But given the numbers typically thrown around today, it seems like the de Rollos/de Saddingtons and the Vincents/de Barninghams wouldn't be super-closely related as of this timeframe, the late 12th century. My current best guess, which I think the community would regard as "optimistic", is that there's only about a 25% chance that their common ancestor was born after 1000 A.D., not long after western Normandy is supposed to have been settled by Vikings from colonies in Ireland or the Hebrides. So, at best, FT372222 probably shouldn't be posited as the marker of the de Mowbray family per se, but rather the kindred they sprang from. . . .
    That 25% represented a rough average of the confidence levels at 1000 A.D. calculated per an SNP and an STR analysis I performed a while ago.

    I just made an attempt to validate the SNP rate I used, and now I change my mind. It's certainly far faster than the rates typically bandied about in the genetic genealogy community, but it actually seems pretty well supported. Yeah, in an absolute sense there could be more sampling done to validate it, but relative to what's available for other estimates, it's pretty good. "Optimistic" is kind of wide of the mark.

    https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...833#post331833

    There's significant disagreement about the correct STR rates to use, too, and all that's complicated by convergence. And I just remember now that there is that fellow named Carroll who actually seems to be a Vincent. Tacking his 67 markers on to SDV's 111 marker profile actually brings the MRCA significantly closer vs. the other FT372222 guys.

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

    So, realistically, there is maybe a 36% chance that the MRCA between the Vincents and the Saddingtons could have been born as recently as 1000 A.D. That's not bad.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by SDV View Post
    Looks as though I should reread Shakespere's tale of Richard II and his interactions with Thomas Mowbray. Thank you benowicz, for all the research. I do realize Shakespeare was literary but extrapolating passive clues into the past with a fresh re-read is due, never know. There was alot of court intrigue at the time, and having scant (or scrubbed) records only accessible in the church may have been a survival technique. It seems at least, that a 500 year gap up to colonial Virginia is conceivably connected. I appreciate all the effort put forth in this thread. Having anything precolonial on my familial ties is informative.

    Anyway, have a good holiday season everyone and best of luck on our subclades journey in 2021!
    Thanks, best to you, too!

    From the context of the earliest Vincent family charter I've seen, the eponymous ancestor must have been born around the end of the 1st quarter of the 12th century (i.e., 1125 A.D.). Which is well before the time Nigel de Mowbray is supposed to have married Mabel Patry (her father, William, died in 1174).

    The Vincent family's tenancy at Barningham and Newsham can be traced only to the late 12th century, in the person of Stephen fitz Vincent, who himself made a donation to Guisborough which was confirmed by de Mowbray. I think the character of these donations was different; I think the Bardolfs donated their lease to Guisborough--which remained subject to de Mowbray's overlordship--and I think Stephen fitz Vincent donated only the right to nominate the parish priest at Barningham (i.e., the "avowson"), which had a financial value. To be honest, I don't know for a fact that these two transactions were executed in contemplation of one another, or even that the fitz Vincent tenancy definitely post-dates the Bardolf donation, which are kind of integral to these lines of speculation about the possible origins of the fitz Vincents. But it does seem like they were both executed in the same tight timeframe.

    Of course, not all leases of ecclesiastic lands could represent endowments to illegitimate branches of the nobility. Remember way back when, when I wrote up that paper about the Vincent family's interests at Great Smeaton, it was clear that they started with a lease from St. Mary's, inherited from marriage into the Colby family, and the Colby's history of land ownership well pre-dates their migration to Yorkshire.

    There are some interesting pro's and con's with the theory that the Vincents were an illegitimate branch of the de Mowbrays. On the con side, I'm really surprised that I can't find any mention of this relationship, or at least evidence that the Vincent/de Barningham family had any ongoing client relationship with the main line of the de Mowbrays. I have seen mentions of illegitimate children born to de Mowbrays of later generations, and the de Mowbrays did maintain interests in nearby Brignall and Hutton Magna. On the pro side, the de Mowbrays also seem to have had important relationships with that other FT372222 family, the de Rollos/de Saddingtons. I can't say that those relationships were necessarily familial, but both families shared interests at Viessoix and Vaudry in Normandy and Saddington in Leicestershire.

    There's still so much uncertainty about the proper mutation rates that it's hard to have a very strong opinion one way or the other. But given the numbers typically thrown around today, it seems like the de Rollos/de Saddingtons and the Vincents/de Barninghams wouldn't be super-closely related as of this timeframe, the late 12th century. My current best guess, which I think the community would regard as "optimistic", is that there's only about a 25% chance that their common ancestor was born after 1000 A.D., not long after western Normandy is supposed to have been settled by Vikings from colonies in Ireland or the Hebrides. So, at best, FT372222 probably shouldn't be posited as the marker of the de Mowbray family per se, but rather the kindred they sprang from.

    The name Mowbray is far from extinct, but I don't think any of the current lines can offer proof that they descend from this historic family. A famous branch did find their way to Scotland, but they daughtered out early on, and to the extent their family survives at all, it's through female-line descendants who assumed the name, out of respect for its great social prestige. All the most eminent branches of the name also daughtered out in England. I've heard of a few very minor gentry families of the name surviving into the 17th century, but I don't think any of them claimed to have documentary evidence linking them to the magnates. Given the diversity of the Y DNA signatures I've seen at the Mowbray project web site, I get the feeling that a large number of completely unrelated families adopted this name for whatever reason--maybe their original surnames were only coincidentally similar-sounding, and were gradually changed over time through repeated confusion. That said, there are some donors from haplogroups R1a and I, which are far more typical of Viking ancestry than FGC23343 would be.

    So lots to consider, but not much you could consider solid evidence.
    Last edited by benowicz; 15 December 2021, 09:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • SDV
    replied
    Looks as though I should reread Shakespere's tale of Richard II and his interactions with Thomas Mowbray. Thank you benowicz, for all the research. I do realize Shakespeare was literary but extrapolating passive clues into the past with a fresh re-read is due, never know. There was alot of court intrigue at the time, and having scant (or scrubbed) records only accessible in the church may have been a survival technique. It seems at least, that a 500 year gap up to colonial Virginia is conceivably connected. I appreciate all the effort put forth in this thread. Having anything precolonial on my familial ties is informative.

    Anyway, have a good holiday season everyone and best of luck on our subclades journey in 2021!

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . . And as regards the estates of the Vincent/de Barningham families, although Barningham itself was clearly part of the original so-called "Constables Fee" that the de Rollos family acquired through marriage, nearby Newsham, in the parish of Ravensworth, was NOT--but like Barningham, it had somehow mysteriously become part of the de Mowbray estates before 1190 A.D., when its lease, too, was donated by the Bardolph family to Guisborough Priory and then re-leased to the Vincent/de Barninghams.

    https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...h/vol1/pp87-97

    With so little contemporary documentation to go on, it's definitely a mug's game to speculate about the Vincent family's origins before this point, but that pattern, the tenant of a feudal superior donating their lease to a church institution who later re-leases it to a local family, is familiar. According to Early Yorkshire Charters, that seems to be how the de Saddington family acquired an interest in Bolton-on-Swale, and the much richer documentary context surrounding that family suggests that they were an illegitimate branch of the de Rollos family. After all, if Richard fitz Godfrey de Saddington were a legitimately born member of the de Rollos family, he would have had an excellent basis to sue in court for the de Rollos estates, which is something Richard de Cotele did, and he never claimed more than that his mother was a de Rollos. . . .
    This might be overkill, but in case this becomes significant to future analyses, I think this pattern, the donation of land to an ecclesiastic institution and then a re-lease by the original lord's illegitimate descendants has a very clear legal motivation. Since all wealth accumulation under that pre-industrial economic paradigm was essentially extortion, there was a very limited pool of income generating assets available--basically the amount of arable land. So the lord's legitimate heirs or anybody with a plausible claim on an estate was just about guaranteed to sue for possession at his death, and correspondingly, having a near-bulletproof shield like a church donation would be necessary to protect an illegitimate beneficiary. Who was going to sue a church to take back a donation? Absent this church involvement, it's just about 100% certain that a case brought by any legitimate relation, no matter how remote, would have been successful.

    The confusing part with regard to the de Barninghams/Vincents would be why the Bardolph or de Mowbray families would feel compelled to extend this protection to them. You would have to assume there was some kind of familial relationship. Given the Bardolphs and the Vincents bearing the same coat of arms as Nigel de Mowbray's wife, Mabel Patric of La Lande Patry, and the Patric family's involvement with the abbey of St. Vincent at Le Mans, you have to at least consider the possibility that they (i.e., the Vincents) are a branch of the Patrys. FT372222 seems not to have a credibly Breton background like the Bardolphs. Although the de Mowbrays are an open possibility, they were so eminent that you'd expect there to be an enduring client relationship, which I can't find any evidence for. The de Mowbray Y DNA signature is still an open question, although I have seen fellows with R1a and I that could make sense. Frustrating.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . . Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the information currently available, Akarius Bardolph, the first really well-documented member of this family, could equally be Bardolph's son or his grandson, possibly through a daughter. . . .
    Guess that's wrong. The contemporary documentary record seems pretty conclusive--Akarius was Bardolph's son, and Bardolph was son of count Eudes. "Early Yorkshire Charters", Vol. 5, 'Ravensworth Fee', beginning at the bottom of page 316.

    https://books.google.be/books?id=xHs...Acaris&f=false

    So the following is also wrong.

    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . . So, extrapolating from my observations on the role of church donations in the support of illegitimate children of post-Conquest nobles, I guess it's possible that the Vincents/de Barninghams are a branch of the Bardolphs, whether or not the Bardolphs themselves are direct male line descendants of count Eudes. . . .
    The Vincents/de Barninghams may have been an illegitimate branch of some family closely associated with the de Mowbrays and/or the Bardolphs, but almost certainly not of the Bardolphs themselves. Eudes' family have no credible link to the Basque country, where FGC23343 almost certainly originated, and pretty recently, too, in terms of the phylogenetic tree, I'm guessing 700 A.D. or thereabouts.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    I should maybe add that I have seen one intriguing but absolutely unsupported hypothesis that the Bardolph family of Richmondshire don't descend from Bardolph in the direct male line, but rather descend from a man who married Bardolph's daughter. Who, reconciling to my scarcely better supported hypothesis about the Vincent/de Barningham families, could have been a member of the family of La Lande Patry in Normandy.

    I guess the deal is pretty clear that the Bardolphs inherited the great bulk of their early patrimony from an illegitimate son of Eudes, count of Penthievre named Bodin. I haven't seen a contemporary, manuscript copy of the relevant Domesday survey pages, but from what I'm reading from secondary sources, Bodin is clearly enrolled as "Bodin, brother of Bardolph"--although oddly, Bardolph himself does NOT appear. Anyhow, Eudes was also father of Alan Rufus, 1st earl of Richmond. So that family are of Breton origin. Not the other end of the earth from where the de Rollos and Patry families were domiciled, near the town of Vire in Normandy, but far enough away to suggest that the de Rollos and Patrys were not of Breton origin.

    Interestingly, though, the family of Neel, viscount of the Cotentin, seems to have spent their exile from Normandy after the battle of Val-es-Dunes, being hosted by the family of Eudes, in Britany. I've discussed the Neel family quite a lot in this thread, usually in context of other preliminary hypotheses that turned out to have been disproven, but I guess there are still a few viable hypotheses that could involve them.

    Anyhow, that theory seems to rely on the inability to draw an airtight pedigree for the first generations of the Bardolph family. Correct me if I'm wrong, but with the information currently available, Akarius Bardolph, the first really well-documented member of this family, could equally be Bardolph's son or his grandson, possibly through a daughter. The customs surrounding the transmission of surnames are incredibly unsettled at this time, and there are plenty documented cases of a son assuming the surname of his mother's family.

    So, extrapolating from my observations on the role of church donations in the support of illegitimate children of post-Conquest nobles, I guess it's possible that the Vincents/de Barninghams are a branch of the Bardolphs, whether or not the Bardolphs themselves are direct male line descendants of count Eudes.

    I really tend to doubt that FT372222 will be found to have a deep history in Britany. The parent clade FGC23343 clearly originates in or near the Basque country, and the family of Eudes was most likely of Breton, although also possibly of Frankish origin. I've tried to see whether there were any "near matches" between FT372222 people and surnames associated with cadets of Eudes' family--like Bardolf, FitzHugh, FitzAlan, Claiborne, etc., etc. None so far, but then I haven't really been able to pick out a consistent Y DNA signature among those families in and of themselves. They're all really common names, so I'd have to assume that only a small minority of them--if any surviving families at all--descend from the family of Eudes.

    Assuming there isn't some kind of way-out coincidental NPEs in the Vincent/de Barningham and Saddington families, I have to believe that some association between FT372222 and the so-called Loire/Garonne Viking bands is much more likely. There is plenty of archaeological and contemporary documentary record shoring them active in western Normandy at this time. And Eudes' family is credited with driving them out of Britany, so there would be an added dimension of irony here if FT372222 turned out to be Breton.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . . I'm not really aware of any confirmed use of the names Vincent or Stephen in the Patry family, so this is maybe kind of speculative. But in theory, the relative infrequency of the name Vincent, the Patry's associations with that Abbey at Le Mans, as well as the de Rollos landed interest at Rosel, Caen could mean something. The time frame works out.

    http://racineshistoire.free.fr/LGN/PDF/Patry.pdf

    The coat of arms attributed to the Patry family here is nearly identical to the primary form of the Vincent family arms--three quatrefoils argent, only on a background of gules instead of azure.

    https://archive.org/details/generala.../1058/mode/2up

    Elsewhere I've suggested that the Stoke d'Abernon Vincents may have derived their heraldry from the Bardolf family of Richmondshire, who were among the earliest overlords of the Vincent family at Barningham. Heraldic practice doesn't seem to have been very standardized at this point in history, so maybe this is reading too much into what is essentially a coincidence. But it's still a very interesting coincidence. . . .
    As regards the heraldry of the Bardolph family, again, there seem to be multiple variants. First is the quatre/cinq-foils, usually white, sometimes gold, on a plain field, usually blue, sometimes red. Secondly, there is a motif that recurs in the cadet families of Claiborne, FitzHugh and FitzAlan--two chevrons entwined (sometimes re-imagined as a latice 'fretty') under a plain chief, rendered in various colors.

    So it makes you wonder whether the second motif should be considered ancestral to the Bardolph kindred, and whether the quatre/cinq-foil motif was adopted from some related family--like maybe the Patry family of La Lande Patry?

    And as regards the estates of the Vincent/de Barningham families, although Barningham itself was clearly part of the original so-called "Constables Fee" that the de Rollos family acquired through marriage, nearby Newsham, in the parish of Ravensworth, was NOT--but like Barningham, it had somehow mysteriously become part of the de Mowbray estates before 1190 A.D., when its lease, too, was donated by the Bardolph family to Guisborough Priory and then re-leased to the Vincent/de Barninghams.

    https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vc...h/vol1/pp87-97

    With so little contemporary documentation to go on, it's definitely a mug's game to speculate about the Vincent family's origins before this point, but that pattern, the tenant of a feudal superior donating their lease to a church institution who later re-leases it to a local family, is familiar. According to Early Yorkshire Charters, that seems to be how the de Saddington family acquired an interest in Bolton-on-Swale, and the much richer documentary context surrounding that family suggests that they were an illegitimate branch of the de Rollos family. After all, if Richard fitz Godfrey de Saddington were a legitimately born member of the de Rollos family, he would have had an excellent basis to sue in court for the de Rollos estates, which is something Richard de Cotele did, and he never claimed more than that his mother was a de Rollos.

    I highly doubt the Vincents were a branch of the de Mowbrays, although maybe they were. There is a huge variety in Y DNA signatures in the Moubray project today, none of them Z209+. And I don't think any of them have much claim to descend from the historic dynasty, whose main branches, in any event, went extinct before the 16th century. But the pattern of dealings suggests at least a family closely allied to the Mowbrays, and the Patry family certainly fit that bill.
    Last edited by benowicz; 11 December 2021, 03:30 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . .Second was the fact that Roger le Poitevin also held lands very near the earliest known home of the Hobart baronets at Monk's Eleigh Tye, Co. Suffolk. For instance Preston and Thorpe Morieux, about 2 miles away.

    https://opendomesday.org/name/roger-of-poitou/

    In an earlier post [see below] I had described the Hobarts' earliest home as "Tye Hall, Co. Essex", based on the repetition of this information in numerous pedigrees. However, on closer inspection, I see that there was much disagreement about this attribution, and in fact the most specific citation of supporting contemporary documents (i.e., 1389 A.D.) specifies this place to be Tye near Monk's Eleigh, Co. Suffolk, which appears to be more consistent with the early history of the family spelled out in Volume 2, page 60 of William Harvey's 1895 edition of the Norfolk visitations of 1563.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=dT...tye%22&f=false

    https://books.google.com/books?id=IP...orfolk&f=false

    . . .
    Actually, note # 35 of "The wives of Sir James Hobart (1440-1515), Attorney General 1486-1507", by John B. Weller, states that the ancestor of the Hobart baronets owned land at both Tye, Monk's Eleigh AND Preston St. Mary in 1350 A.D.

    http://www.thericardian.online/downl.../12-152/04.pdf

    Preston St. Mary was owned by Roger of Poitou de Montgomery in 1086 A.D.

    https://opendomesday.org/place/TL9450/preston/

    Of course there's a nearly 300 year gap, but on the surface it seems promising. There's some speculation that some earlier records, dating from 1327 A.D., might show ancestors of these Hobarts somewhat further east, at Dennington, Norfolk, which was a Malet property (and presumably in the temporary possession of Roger of Poitou between 1087-1100, like the rest of Malet's Norfolk holdings). So far, nothing more than that.

    There's an excellent book detailing the known history of Suffolk's manors by a fellow named Copinger, but there are substantial gaps. For Monk's Eleigh itself, for example, the account jumps from 991 A.D. to 1534 A.D. All that can be said of the interim is that it was held by the Abbey at Bury St. Edmund's.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=6T...q=Monk&f=false

    So if these Hobarts did originate at Preston St. Mary or Monk's Eleigh, they must have been very minor under tenants. But still, the possibility that they were FGC28383+ and the connection to Roger of Poitou, just like the FGC28369+ Garnets, is suggestive.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    I just completed a pilot study of another Z209+ family found among the post-Conquest nobility of England, the de Burgh or Burke family who rose to eminence in Ireland.

    https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...575#post331781

    My hypothesis there was that both the Burkes and the FGC28369 Garnets were brought to England through the Aquitanian connections of Rogert le Poitevin de Montgomery. Then I noticed a couple of coincidences that might provide viable clues to the origin of the (currently) undifferentiated FGC28383 family, the Hubbards of early Lancaster County, VA. . . .

    Second was the fact that Roger le Poitevin also held lands very near the earliest known home of the Hobart baronets at Monk's Eleigh Tye, Co. Suffolk. For instance Preston and Thorpe Morieux, about 2 miles away.

    https://opendomesday.org/name/roger-of-poitou/

    In an earlier post [see below] I had described the Hobarts' earliest home as "Tye Hall, Co. Essex", based on the repetition of this information in numerous pedigrees. However, on closer inspection, I see that there was much disagreement about this attribution, and in fact the most specific citation of supporting contemporary documents (i.e., 1389 A.D.) specifies this place to be Tye near Monk's Eleigh, Co. Suffolk, which appears to be more consistent with the early history of the family spelled out in Volume 2, page 60 of William Harvey's 1895 edition of the Norfolk visitations of 1563.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=dT...tye%22&f=false

    https://books.google.com/books?id=IP...orfolk&f=false

    . . .
    Just remembered that there is solid documentary evidence placing the FGC28369 Garnets of Lancashire in Suffolk at least as early as 1094 A.D.


    "Notification that earl Roger, called "of Poitou" (Pictaviensis), in the year 1094, gave to God and St. Martin and the brethren at Sees, in alms for ever, the church of Lancaster with all its appurtenances, and part of the land of that town, from the old wall to Godfrey's orchard, and as far as Prestequet, and the two manors (mansiones) near Lancaster, Andeduva and Neutons, and Ansfrid de Montegommerici with all that he held of the said earl, and the churches of Hessan and Prestetona, and Estanesberia, and Cotegrava, and Crophil[le]e, and Wichelai, and Calisei, and the churches of St. Peter of Lincoln, and Walinguore and Navzebeia, and Bodebeia, with their appurtenances and the tithes of Hales, and Derbeium, and Salfort, and Risebeia, and Bissepephen; and the tithes of all his mares, cows, and swine when they come to the larderer; and Hervey the priest of Torp and Benedict of Eia, and all that he holds of the earl, and the tithes of the churches of all the land of Albert Greslet, and the tithe of Warin Boissel at Brestona, and the tithe of the land of Roger de Monte Begonis at Calisei and Tablesbeia and Tit and all his demesne between Rible and Mersey; and four men of Ralf Grenet in Sulfoc." - from "Calendar of Documents Preserved in France"

    https://shissem.com/Hissem_Gernets_i...%20de%20Gernet

    FGC28383 is the grandfather to FGC28369, so again, the web of connections seems to draw the Hubbards of early Lancaster Co., VA closer to the Hobart baronets. Wonder if anyone with a traceable connection to them has ever tested. Seems like there ought to be some qualified candidates here and there.

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

    Then again, an upgrade to Big Y 700 for Hubbard (who I'm pretty sure is Big Y 500 based on private variant count) would be very interesting, too. He might actually share some SNPs with FGC28370, which would support this line of speculation a lot.
    Last edited by benowicz; 2 December 2021, 09:55 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    I just completed a pilot study of another Z209+ family found among the post-Conquest nobility of England, the de Burgh or Burke family who rose to eminence in Ireland.

    https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...575#post331781

    My hypothesis there was that both the Burkes and the FGC28369 Garnets were brought to England through the Aquitanian connections of Rogert le Poitevin de Montgomery. Then I noticed a couple of coincidences that might provide viable clues to the origin of the (currently) undifferentiated FGC28383 family, the Hubbards of early Lancaster County, VA.

    First was the fact that the forename Hubert, so common among the early de Burghs, is actually the original form of the name transformed into Hobart, baronets of Intwood, Co. Norfolk, who definitely had kin in Virginia about the time of the first known ancestor of the FGC28383 Hubbards. That may not directly relate to their regional origins in France--the Burke pedigree begins only in the late 1100's, by which time they had probably become completely acculturated to the local gentry, whose own origins seem to have lain between Caen and Le Havre. But judging by surname frequencies in the 1881 census, the forename Hubert was probably particularly common there during the Middle Ages. Certainly there were some local magnets, like the de Monte Canisio family who used it quite often.

    https://forebears.io/surnames/hubbard


    Second was the fact that Roger le Poitevin also held lands very near the earliest known home of the Hobart baronets at Monk's Eleigh Tye, Co. Suffolk. For instance Preston and Thorpe Morieux, about 2 miles away.

    https://opendomesday.org/name/roger-of-poitou/

    In an earlier post [see below] I had described the Hobarts' earliest home as "Tye Hall, Co. Essex", based on the repetition of this information in numerous pedigrees. However, on closer inspection, I see that there was much disagreement about this attribution, and in fact the most specific citation of supporting contemporary documents (i.e., 1389 A.D.) specifies this place to be Tye near Monk's Eleigh, Co. Suffolk, which appears to be more consistent with the early history of the family spelled out in Volume 2, page 60 of William Harvey's 1895 edition of the Norfolk visitations of 1563.

    https://books.google.com/books?id=dT...tye%22&f=false

    https://books.google.com/books?id=IP...orfolk&f=false

    This association is kind of weak and indirect, but interesting. Local magnates in this area of Norfolk/Suffolk did have surprisingly strong connections to Aquitaine at a very early period, so even though FGC28383 and BY32575 appear to be separated by at least 2,000 years, their shared Z209+ status, so anomalous in early England, suggests that the Burke, Hubbard and Garnet ancestors may have at least known one another and possibly have been related, if only cognatically rather than agnatically.

    https://www.academia.edu/552480/Dome...e_Lincolnshire

    I guess I'm saying that I believe this materially increases the odds that the FGC28383 Hubbard family actually do connect to the Hobart baronets after all. Probably not just a coincidence.

    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    Finally found the unaffiliated FGC28383 person hanging out there.

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

    After a casual search through online resources, I didn't definitively connect him, through documentary sources, even to his very close STR matches, but there seems little reasonable doubt that like the rest of them, he descends from Thomas Hubbard (1693-1745) and Mary Yerby of Lancaster County, Virginia, on the Northern Neck.

    https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/...thomas-hubbard

    Attempts to go further back than that seem, at least on the basis of the pedigrees I've seen, completely speculative with no documentary basis. Some hypotheses seem directly contradicted by other entries in the Hubbard DNA project itself.

    Approaching the matter from the other end, investigating the early origins of some prominent Hubbard families for plausible connections to that other FGC28383+ lineage, the de Garnets of Lancashire, who I currently think came to England after the Conquest along with Roger of Poitou, proved difficult. Hubbard is an incredibly common surname, being a patronymic, completely untethered to any kind of stable geographic references. I can find only a couple families of this name with a documentary record extending back to the 1300's--and even that is far too late to make any hypotheses better than a wild speculation.

    But there is one kind of interesting finding. There is one possible mention of a member of the Hobart, alias Hubbard, family of Plumstead Parva emigrating to Virginia at precisely this time: "1697, September 20, Thomas Hubbard late of Virginia beyond the seas . . . " Page 150 of the 1895 edition of the 1563 Visitation of Norfolk.

    https://www.google.com/books/edition...0the%20seas%22

    They're an interesting family because several of its members were very prominent in the legal history of England.

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

    But that Thomas of 1697 is described as a bachelor, so he can't be the donor's ancestor. Maybe some close relative also emigrated to Virginia, but if so I've not seen any proof of it, let alone proof that he would connect to the donor's family. In fact, that Virginia reference is part of a massive dump of transcripts from contemporary documents by the editors, almost none of which contain inline citations to connect them to the pedigree of the Plumstead family.

    Generally speaking, though, it doesn't seem improbable. There's lots of proof that the Lancaster County Hubbards' nearest relatives and neighbors came from London, like the Yerbys, Doggetts, and the Carters of Barford. The Hobart/Hubbard family's professional commitments obliged them to reside for extended periods in London. And while I have seen no reference to them any earlier than 1389 at Tye Hall, Margaretting, Essex, this social milieu would be perfectly consistent with a Poitevin or Aquitanian merchant immigrant ancestor.

    Until there are some additional branches opened up along that line of FGC28383, that's probably the most that can be said.

    Leave a comment:


  • benowicz
    replied
    Originally posted by benowicz View Post
    . . . The de Rollos were in some way descended from the Bloet family whose estates clustered very near the Neel viscounts on the west coast of the Cotentin, where local toponymy suggests Hiberno-Norse colonization was most dense. And their members included a "Nigellus" or Neel Bloet, before they disappear from Norman records in the late 11th century. So maybe the Patrys and the Neels descended from a common viking settler ancestor? And that the de Rollos and Bloets before them were just a cadet branch of the Neels? STR and SNP mutation rates are still kind of controversial, so although my estimates of a MRCA born sometimes between 850 and 950 A.D. are a little more recent than those resulting from most proposed rates, they would fit in with this scenario pretty nicely. . . .
    I may have stumbled on some Y DNA data for the de Ports--including their match with a Swedish fellow who provides some context for the aging of the SNP defining the de Port clade, I-FT221948. The common ancestor with the Swede was I-Y44935.

    https://www.familytreedna.com/public...frame=yresults

    An overview of my SNP aging method is discussed incidentally here:

    https://forums.familytreedna.com/for...nce#post331465

    Unlike most aging methods that use a simple average of mutations for the calculation's base, my calculation uses a number that is derived from a binomial analysis of the observed donor array. I think it's theoretically correct, but I suppose just grabbing the simple median value might good enough for a rough calculation.

    Anyhow, the deal is that TMRCA between the de Ports and that Swedish fellow turned out to be almost identical to the TMRCA I calculated for FT372222--MRCA born about 920 A.D. at the 50% confidence level, using an assumed mutation rate of once in 57 1/3 years at the BigY700 resolution level. I inferred from that linked scientific paper that McDonald uses a rate of about 74.7 years at that resolution level, yielding a MRCA birth year estimate of about 550 A.D. The ante-quem date must be somewhere around 1000 A.D., based on the history of Western Normandy, but I don't suppose there really is any reference for a post-quem date.

    The data from the 111 STR marker analyses was a little more ambiguous. I don't have any clear basis to sort the de Port data for a multi-tiered aggregation, but throwing in a single tier anyone with at least 111 markers shows an average GD of 13 vs. the Swede, which is significantly less than the GD of 21 within the FT37222 people. On the other hand, comparing the Swede against the de Port modal haplotype, which may be more appropriate given the heighted risk of convergent mutations at this age, returns a GD of 13, whereas the FT372222 analysis returned 12.5.

    There are problems with direct comparability between the I-Y44935 and R-FT372222 analyses, but I still think it suggests that the hypothesized Neel-de Rollos-Patry explanation for FT372222 is plausible. It would be great to have a post-quem date, but the STR data suggests it's probably not too much before the beginning of the Viking age, even using Ferguson's conservative reading of McDonald's suggested rates.




    Leave a comment:

Working...
X