Rowntree/Rountree DNA
Replies: 2
Rowntree/Rountree DNA
 Fred_Rowntree
(View posts)
|
Posted: 19 Apr 2009 8:21PM GMT |
Classification: Query
Surnames: Rowntree/Rountree/Roundtree
There is a Rountree/Rowntree etc. project site on Family Tree DNA. So far, there are 4 participants.
I am one of the participants and my father and his ancestors lived in Co. Armagh, Ireland. Prior to that is pure guesswork, but it is rumoured that the family came from Yorkshire, England.
Another participant is descended from Thomas Rountree and Evy Sturgis, who immigrated, in 1760, to, eventually, Orange County, North Carolina. Thomas, who was born in 1733, came from the same place in Co. Armagh as my family, so I am certain that we are related, but, I know for certain, at least, 8 generations apart.
A third participant is descended from Turner Roundtree, of South Carolina. Turner was born about 1796, and it is possible that he is a grandson of Richardson Rountree, but there is no evidence other than his name Turner.
I think that it usually assumed, in the States, that Richardson Rountree was a descendent of immigrants who came directly from England. But did they?
Why the query? Well, all the three participants above have identical y-DNA across 37 markers. According to FTDNA, there is a 99% chance that all three of us have a common ancestor around 10 generations ago. Now, the Rountree family was in Co. Armagh in 1660, which would be about 11 or 12 generations ago. Does this indicate that Richardson Rountree's ancestors came from Co. Armagh?
What was wanted was a Rountree/Rowntree who is directly descended from a Yorkshire family. Well, we now have one whose forefather was
John Rowntree, born around 1680.
This Rowntree's DNA results for the first 25 markers were promising, there being two mismatches. This could lead to the possibility of 90% that we had a common ancestor around 800 years ago. This is around the time that surnames were starting to be widely used in England. However, on the next 12 markers there were a further 6 mismatches, which really precludes any relationship in the last 2000 years, if the line from father to father is 'legitimate'.
What is needed is more Rountree men to be tested, especially those descended from the Richardson Rountree line, and from the Georgia family, whose ancestry, I believe, is unknown, in spite of their 'trees'. But at least 37 markers need to be tested, and preferably 67. As can be seen from above only 25 markers are almost certainly a waste of time.
I am one of the participants and my father and his ancestors lived in Co. Armagh, Ireland. Prior to that is pure guesswork, but it is rumoured that the family came from Yorkshire, England.
Another participant is descended from Thomas Rountree and Evy Sturgis, who immigrated, in 1760, to, eventually, Orange County, North Carolina. Thomas, who was born in 1733, came from the same place in Co. Armagh as my family, so I am certain that we are related, but, I know for certain, at least, 8 generations apart.
A third participant is descended from Turner Roundtree, of South Carolina. Turner was born about 1796, and it is possible that he is a grandson of Richardson Rountree, but there is no evidence other than his name Turner.
I think that it usually assumed, in the States, that Richardson Rountree was a descendent of immigrants who came directly from England. But did they?
Why the query? Well, all the three participants above have identical y-DNA across 37 markers. According to FTDNA, there is a 99% chance that all three of us have a common ancestor around 10 generations ago. Now, the Rountree family was in Co. Armagh in 1660, which would be about 11 or 12 generations ago. Does this indicate that Richardson Rountree's ancestors came from Co. Armagh?
What was wanted was a Rountree/Rowntree who is directly descended from a Yorkshire family. Well, we now have one whose forefather was
John Rowntree, born around 1680.
This Rowntree's DNA results for the first 25 markers were promising, there being two mismatches. This could lead to the possibility of 90% that we had a common ancestor around 800 years ago. This is around the time that surnames were starting to be widely used in England. However, on the next 12 markers there were a further 6 mismatches, which really precludes any relationship in the last 2000 years, if the line from father to father is 'legitimate'.
What is needed is more Rountree men to be tested, especially those descended from the Richardson Rountree line, and from the Georgia family, whose ancestry, I believe, is unknown, in spite of their 'trees'. But at least 37 markers need to be tested, and preferably 67. As can be seen from above only 25 markers are almost certainly a waste of time.