LOCKE-L ArchivesArchiver > LOCKE > 2009-01 > 1232435100
From: "A. L." <>
Subject: Re: [LOCKE] DNA Testing Pays Off!!! ... Sort of....
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 01:05:00 -0600
Thomas Lock had a son in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania in 1722. His name was Benjamin Lock. He died in Jan. 1757 in Bladen County, NC. I will research the book further to see if Jim might have listed that another Lock(e) family lived in that area at the time.
> From: > To: > Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:23:39 -0500> Subject: Re: [LOCKE] DNA Testing Pays Off!!! ... Sort of....> > Don, I was being brief when I wrote my message last night. (It was almost> midnight here on the east coast.) I agree that the DNA mis-match alone> should not deter me from following this line further. However, after> looking at the information available, the DNA was the final nail in the> coffin (so to speak). I should have posted what I found last night but I> didn't. So here it is tonight. These abstracts are from "Philadelphia> County, Pennsylvania Wills, 1682-1819" by the Historical Society of> Pennsylvania, 1900. The data was supplied through my subscription to> Ancestry.com> > Name: Leonard Lock > Residence: Philadelphia Co. > Description: Decedent > Date: 2 Feb 1709 > Prove Date: 3 Feb 1710 > Book-Page: C:234 > Remarks: Leonard Lock of Philadelphia Co. February 2, 1709/10. Wife Dorothy.> Daughter Temsy. Executor: Son Thomas.> > I checked online lineages for This Leonard Lock and found six separate lines> (on Ancestry.com). Now I realize that these online lineages have to be> backed up with documentation, but I think they can be useful in pointing out> a direction to search. Unfortunately only one of those lines actually had> source documentation included. Anyway, in looking at the online trees for> Leonard Lock, I found that all of the lineages listed Temsy as 'Thomasina'.> I also noticed that the online lineages all showed Leonard dying in 1711,> but his will is dated 1709 and proven in 1710, so there might need to be a> little cleanup there.> > I had thought that Thomas might be a good candidate for being the father of> my William, who is estimated to be born 1722 (possibly in Philadelphia).> Thomas was evidently still in Philadelphia in 1722 because he appears as a> witness in the wills of Sarah Jones and Christian Bowman:> > Name: Thomas Lock > Description: Witness > Date: 25 Dec 1720 > Prove Date: 7 Apr 1721 > Book-Page: D:185 > Remarks: Sarah Jones of Sheepack, Pennsylvania. December 25, 1720. Widow of> Griffith Jones, deceased. Children: Ann, John and Mary. Sons-in-law: Israel,> Daniel and John Morris. Executor: Friend Griffith Jones. > > Name: Thomas Lock > Description: Witness > Date: 22 Apr 1727 > Prove Date: 26 Feb 1735 > Book-Page: E:358 > Remarks: Christian Bowman. Providence, Co. of Philadelphia. Potter. April> 22, 1727/8. February 26, 1735. E.358. Wife and Exec: Barbara Bowman. > > However, according to the online lineages Thomas then winds up in Bladen> County, NC, dying there in 1739. There is no mention of a son William in> any of the existing lineages and I have no hints that my William ever lived> in NC, so when I examined the DNA test and saw that there was no match, I> made the conclusion that this line was not connected to mine. Of course,> there is always a chance that we could be related. There are many strange> things that have happened in relationships, so for now I'll put this line in> the back ground and keep it in mind, but I feel pretty sure we won't match.> > *BUT*> > Donald, you are correct in stating that we need another member of this> lineage (Leonard Lock) to get tested, and as Elaine Oakes said, DNA testing> could also help define the lineage for George W. Locke. As for me, I'll> stick with what I said last night, I feel that my DNA test paid for itself> by allowing me to quickly (well, relatively quickly) determine that the> Leonard Lock line is not mine. Sometimes it is important to know what> something isn't before you can determine what it is, and I believe the same> holds true for our endeavors.> > -geo> > George F. Locke> Raleigh, NC. USA> > -----Original Message-----> From: [mailto:] On> Behalf Of > Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 12:58 PM> To: > Subject: Re: [LOCKE] DNA Testing Pays Off!!! ... Sort of....> > Geo > You are doing exactly what I had hoped to see happen. Using the paper trails> and DNA testing together, that was exactly the intent of this project! :) > > DNA is no different then the paper records really. If you have a solid paper> trail, that paper trail normally relates to an unbroken DNA chain where all> the male cousins are a DNA match to one another. If it were me, and I was> headed down a path, knowing only 1 male has tested from that tree and he was> a mismatch to me, I would still go down that path anyway just to see where> it may lead me. > If that path were to lead to a lineage where multiple cousins have tested,> and are all a DNA match to each other, only then would I consider giving up> on that path. > > In Geo's case, he has what appears to be an unbroken chain back to England,> meaning he does have a good DNA match to a lineage in England. > Anthony Lock is the only one representing his tree at the moment, and he is> seeking more Leonard Lock cousins to get DNA tested, so Tony can help prove> that he too has an unbroken chain for his Leonard Lock tree. > > I would not let 1 DNA test stop me from following a paper trail. If that> paper trail ends up being your direct lineage, and you didn't follow it only> because of 1 DNA test, then you would have given up to early. Even if that> paper trail were to lead you to a lineage that is clearly not a DNA match to> you, I would still explore that road because that is the path the paper> records took me. > > A lot of men remarried to ladies who already had children from a previous> marriage, and very often her children took on their step fathers surname. > So I would never rule out a connection based solely on DNA testing, I would> still venture down that paper trail path just to see where it lead me so I> could be certain in my own mind if it were a good or bad connection. > > One must also understand, some trees are by far, better researched and> documented then others. The trees that are not well documented, may have bad> connections in their paper trails, and or unknown events in their tree that> they are not aware of because it isn't as well documented as other trees. > In Tony's case, I believe his is a well documented tree, but we are all> humans, and humans can make mistakes with the paper trail records in making> connections. And even with in very well documented trees, there can always> be that one unknown event in our tree that the paper records never speak of.> So if it were me in your shoes, I would continue down that paper trail path,> just for my own piece of mind. > > We have a couple of men in the project who appears to have pretty solid> paper trails to connect to their tree. Yet do not DNA match their paper> trail proven cousins. So some where in that direct branch, was an unknown> event. What that unknown event is we do not know yet, but it is an obvious> broken chain. And broken chains needs to be explored deeper in the paper> records to see if it was as simple as step children taking on our surname,> or an adoption. > > Here is a good case to compare to. A Mr. Short has well documented his Short> tree. He has since had 2 paper trail proven Short men from other branches of> the tree tested, he is not a DNA match to his paper trail proven cousins. He> has narrowed it down to one specific marriage in his tree where he had> always suspected something fishy in his direct branch. This couple married> and with in 3 months, had a child. So his bride was obviously with child> when they married. This Mr. Short who does not DNA match his Short cousins,> is a DNA match to the Bailey's who also lived in the area. > Mr. Short now suspects the biological father was a Mr. Bailey, not his> direct Short forefather. > > That happened too, a young lady would fool around with one man, and when he> would not marry her, she opted for another man who would marry her. > And even though the male child maybe a biological son of Mr. Bailey, that> male child now carries the Short surname. So there are any number of cases> where a child is raised with another surname, other then the biological> surname they were actually born to. Mr. Short has made himself a pretty> solid case from what I can tell. He asked 2 other paper trail Short cousins> to DNA test, and neither DNA match him, yet the 2 cousins do match each> other. So he used DNA testing to narrow down this unknown event to his> specific direct branch of the tree. And using the paper records, he was> savvy enough to see this one specific marriage took place only 3 months> before the child was born, so he is likely correct, the bride was with child> with another mans baby when she married Mr. Short. And Mr. Short must have> known she was with child, she was likely around 5 to 6 months in to the> pregnancy when they married. > > What also makes his case fairly strong is the fact that this participant is> in Y Haplo Group H1a, and the Bailey's who lived in the same area, have DNA> tested, and are also in Y Haplo H1a. And considering the rarity of this> Haplo Group, he has a pretty strong case to suggest the biological> forefather of his direct ancestor, was a Bailey, not a Short. > > Such things happened, just the facts of life, and it can happen in any tree.> But as genealogists, it is our jobs to try to figure out this puzzle if at> all possible. Some branches will be unbroken chains, others will be the> broken chains, it isn't a judgment, it is a matter of documenting the facts> to the best of our abilities. > > Don > > > > > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in> the subject and the body of the message> > > -------------------------------> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail.
|Re: [LOCKE] DNA Testing Pays Off!!! ... Sort of.... by "A. L." <>|