GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2010-03 > 1268599536


From: "Jim Bullock" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] English Genealogists
Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:45:36 -0600
References: <5c574.15ef7532.38cd8848@aol.com> <3970199420865527845@unknownmsgid><ea3bd9561003132118u460ac289v6e2f0625143fb877@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <ea3bd9561003132118u460ac289v6e2f0625143fb877@mail.gmail.com>


David wrote:

>>Although why would a Bullock from
whatever shire or county care if they are G2 or I1 unless these designators
could be linked to English history.<<

In the case of G2 it probably links them to the early Shropshire Bullocks.
The point I was making, though, was that the various haplogroups clearly
show independent origins for the surname.

>>It is all about how much one wishes to know. Many English are happy to
simply know the parish of the earliest known ancestor, which is probably no
more than 30 miles from where they live (which is true of my grandfather
whose 14th Century ancestor lived a few miles down the coast of East
Anglia).<<

It may be true for some families that they have remained in the same area
for hundreds of years, but I would guess that, as in the U. S., many have
left the farms and moved to the cities.

>>It was pretty easy to get a group of us Fauxes to test since all ancestors
were from the same general area, and the surname was quite unique. We had
little doubt that we were related so the testing was confined to a yes or no
- largely answered with 25 markers<<

My mother's paternal line is Medbury/Medbery, and like Faux, it is rather
uncommon. It's pretty safe to assume they came from Bedfordshire. But with
more common names I still think an English person interested in genealogy
would benefit from DNA tests to determine which line is theirs.

Jim B.


This thread: