GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116820023


From: Robert Davenport <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] DAR, SAR, UELA and DNA
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 20:47:03 -0700
References: <052320050324.26021.42914CD80001B5FB000065A52200751150050B989A0E00@comcast.net>
In-Reply-To: <052320050324.26021.42914CD80001B5FB000065A52200751150050B989A0E00@comcast.net>


Of course, you can never guard against people with "select" records who are
trying to falsify their entitlement.

However, in the case you provide, since the DNA of the Loyalist seems well
documented, it can be used in the way: if the person has records which
show they are a descendant, but can't provide the required DNA, then they
are certainly not entitled to membership.

So this is a good example of using DNA to disprove a line, if indeed the
person was claiming a male line descent.

Certainly, in my case, anyone joining Founders and Patriots on the Rev.
John Davenport, for example, would have to have the requisite 37 markers
which are now established for his DNA, in order to use him as a qualifying
Founder ancestor.










At 08:24 PM 5/22/2005, you wrote:
>Sharon, I am now about to demolish my own argument based on a true case
>that will illustrate the pitfalls of using any DNA evidence for hereditary
>societies.
>
>As I noted, I now have the ancestral haplotype of Pvt. Adam Young, the
>father of three Loyalist sons, Lt. John Young of the Six Nations Indian
>Department, Sgt. Daniel Young of Butler's Rangers, and Pvt. Henry Young of
>Butler's Rangers (son David died in service).
>
>Sgt. Daniel Young left the Six Nations Indian Reserve since his wife was
>non - Native and took up his wife's Loyalist Grant in Barton Township,
>Wentworth County, Ontario, Canada in 1795. In that year a son George Young
>was born and when he reached 21 received a land grant as the son of a UEL.
>
>1) George Young (UE) had a number of children including an Elizabeth
>Young who married her first cousin Henry Young and both of the latter (my
>ggg grandparents) are buried in Barton Stone Church Cemetery.
>
>2) In the grave next to them is buried a George Young, born 1795 - who
>had a daughter Elizabeth.
>
>3) A reasonable assumption is that the George Young buried beside
>Elizabeth was her father, and in the past some have made this mistake. It
>is sheer coincidence that out of all places in the cemetery that the two
>graves are side by side. George Young, Elizabeth's father lays in an
>unmarked grave in the Cemetery, while the man buried under the large
>granite memorial was born in Minden Township, Mohawk Valley, NY, USA. The
>census records are key to differentiating the two men.
>
>4) George Young (UE) and George Young (USA) were actually second
>cousins. the latter's father was John D. Young (first cousin to Sgt.
>Daniel Young) who came to Barton Township in the early 1800s. Two of his
>children, siblings of George Young USA married siblings of George Young UE
>- just to ensure that he families were well and truly entangled.
>
>5) John D. Young served in the Mohawk Valley Milita and obtained a
>Revolutionary War Pension prior to bringing his family to Barton Township.
>
>6) Thus the Rebel (Patriot) John D. and his first cousin Sgt. Daniel
>Young the Loayalist (Tory) would have had identical (or virtually so)
>Y-DNA signatures. It would have been very easy for a careless genealogist
>or one who wanted to be admitted to the UELA of Canada to have used a
>selected paper trail and the DNA evidence to bolster their case.
>
>7) Unless perchance we can find a motif that is characteristic of just
>the John D. Young line (unlikely) then there is no way to differentiate
>the descendants in the male line of these two branches of the same family
>which traces its roots to Dunzweiler, Germany in the 1600s.
>
>8) I conclude that it could be unwarranted under all but the most unusual
>circumstances (e.g., when there is a truly air tight paper trail and no
>competing candidates unless descendants of the latter have been tested and
>do not match the applicant) to use Y-DNA evidence for admission to any
>hereditary society.
>
>David F.
>
>
>
>-------------- Original message --------------
>
> > David,
> >
> > DNA can be a real charm and it can be a kick in the face. Case in point: A
> > member of our project can trace her ancestors back to a couple of Butler's
> > Rangers. A distant cousin of hers is quite Canadian (but can't test) and
> > resented the fact that another member, who never left Pennsylvania, turned
> > up as a 37/37 match. Her statement was that the people here (Canada) don't
> > want to be related to THOSE people.
> >
> > Now, we have a third member who also matches these two 37/37. Her husband
> > can also track back to Pennsylvania but, his ancestor told family members
> > that his parents had emigrated from Ireland only a couple of years before
> > his birth in the mid 1850s.
> >
> > Can these three find a common ancestor? Haven't yet.
> >
> > Sharon
>
>
>==============================
>Search the US Census Collection. Over 140 million records added in the
>last 12 months. Largest online collection in the world. Learn more:
>http://www.ancestry.com/s13965/rd.ashx

This thread: