Those pesky 4th (or more distant) cousins!

I read a very interesting summary about the reliability of DNA with respect to confirming familial relationships in the latest issue of Quarterly, the journal of the Association of Professional Genealogists (December 2015, volume XXX, number 4) by Dr. Blaine R. Bettinger (Understanding DNA Sharing Probabilities among Close Relatives). In the paper, he discussed how difficult it can be to determine whether people are related past the level of 4^th cousins. And, by the way, he did it language that all of us can clearly understand, something that is not always the case with articles on such technical subjects.

Now, of course, many researchers have had success in finding members of their family who are very distant cousins, mostly through traditional genealogical means I think, though. I am not convinced yet that people can very often find those same individuals just through DNA. Dr. Bettinger points out that, because of the way DNA is passed down through generations, with 5^th cousins and beyond “[t]here is a greater chance of not sharing DNA than there is of sharing DNA. Accordingly, lack of sharing between fifth cousins or a more distant relationship is not meaningful evidence.”

That is kind of what I was getting at in my post of 26 January 2016 (Why would we care about 4^th cousins? Or even more distant relatives?). As I said, DNA can be great. I met a few 2^nd cousins through 23andMe, but only because we all had our DNA tested by that company! That is the biggest problem I see in finding those elusive family lines when other genealogical information is missing. If no one in those branches gets tested we might never come across them let alone confirm their relationships.

Having said that, of course, my wife and I both had our DNA tested and I persuaded a male cousin to do so as well. It was done just in the hope that there might be other family members out there who might test theirs and we might make contact with each other. I guess that’s the real game of family research, anyway – get more lines in the water (cousin bait as Randy Seaver says).

I am looking forward to Dr. Bettinger’s next installment about DNA in Quarterly but I also hope he will publish these comments in other journals where non-professional family historians will be able to read them.

I do see DNA testing as a tool but not the end-all-and-be-all. Genealogists seek blood relatives for the most part although not all members of real families are always genetically related (as I stated in my post of 13 January 2015 (Don’t Forget About Those Half-Brothers and Sisters).

If you can find cousins and confirm their relationships with DNA, that’s great! But I think there is still no substitute for vigorous traditional genealogical research in assembling a true and accurate family tree.

Wayne Shepheard is a volunteer with the Online Parish Clerk program in England, handling four parishes in Devon, England. He has published a number of articles about various aspects of genealogy and is the Editor of Relatively Speaking, the quarterly journal of the Alberta Genealogical Society. Wayne also provides genealogical consulting services through his business, Family History Facilitated.

I only have 126 fifth great-grandparents!

OK, I know that does not seem all that exciting. After all, these people lived over 200 years ago so how important can it be?

Two of my 4X great-grandparents, John Shepheard (1768-1845) and Jane Treby Shepheard (1769-1851), were first cousins who married each other (29 July 1791). Their fathers were brothers so that chopped the number of my 5X great-grandparents by 2, my 6X great-grandparents by 4, my 7X great-grandparents by 8, and so on. This example is not terribly surprising as there are cases in almost every family where cousins marry, shortening the overall family tree. It is just more obvious when they share the same surname. I have found one other case in my family in the same area although it does not deal with people in my direct line.

 

Marriage record for John Shepheard and Jane Treby Shepheard, Cornwood parish, Devon

In a recent blog post, James Tanner refers to this situation as pedigree collapse. He goes on to say, “[i]n families that come from a rather limited geographic area, it is entirely possible that everyone in the entire area is somehow related and that shared pedigrees are the rule rather than the exception.” What is surprising in the case of my family is that these great-grandparents did come from quite a small parish, Cornwood, in southwest Devon, England but I have found, so far, few examples of cousins marrying in any family. Mind you, while I have transcribed every baptism, marriage and burial in the parish registers back to 1685, I have not done a full analysis of all of the families who lived there. Perhaps there are more examples in the area than I think there are. As far as I can determine, in my direct family line this is the only example of cousins marrying.

What must have been interesting back in the late 18^th century in this family is that the children of John and Jane had two fewer great-grandparents which really changed their ancestral line. I am sure it did not matter to these children since all of the great-grandparents were dead before either of them were born.

The children of John and Jane, though, including my 3X great-grandfather, John Shepheard (1792-1870), only had 96 5X great-grandparents, when they normally might have had 128 (25% fewer). The pedigree collapse seems more real when considering these individuals. Do you suppose they talked about their grandfathers being brothers or did they really care at that stage of their lives? Over time, generations can make up ground and the collapse does not appear to be all that great. In my case the difference at the 5X great-grandparent stages is only two people, or 1.56%. It’s hard to get your head around that many grandparents of a generation that far back.

It is interesting when you find close relatives marrying – I consider first cousins pretty close. You have to think, in a small parish like Cornwood they knew each other very well growing up, probably went to school together, attended church with their families together and generally socialized so it was, in the end, just natural that an attraction would develop. John and Jane were married for 54 years until his death in 1845. They lived the entire time within a mile or so of where they had been born and very near most of their children and grandchildren. It must have been quite a love story.

 

Gravestone for John and Jane Treby Shepheard, Cornwood, Devon

Wayne Shepheard is a volunteer with the Online Parish Clerk program in England, handling four parishes in Devon, England. He has published a number of articles about various aspects of genealogy and is the Editor of Relatively Speaking, the quarterly journal of the Alberta Genealogical Society. Wayne also provides genealogical consulting services through his business, Family History Facilitated.

Serendipity and Blog Posts

I had two comments recently on an original post from 13 October 2015. One was from a fifth great-granddaughter of a person I had named in the story. Her comment is published with the blog post and read:

What a fantastic find for me! Ann Rice Bond who married David Dunn is my 5 great-grandmother. I was not aware of the Bond name & could find nothing further about her family. I was also having trouble figuring out why the second name of Andrews was given to a number of her children. All explained above with the addition of her parents!

It’s really great when you can provide some information that directly helps another person seeking their ancestors. That’s one of the reasons I am an OPC.

Anyway, Kerrie had never been able to find out why different second names had made in into her family tree. As it happens, serendipity prevailed and she found my post that gave her the clues.

Just to summarize what was in the October post, her 6X great-grandmother was Sarah Bond who eventually married an Amos Rice but apparently not before they had several children together. The question is whether they were living in sin or were prevented by other reasons (perhaps a former spouse still alive?) from getting married until they did. Sarah and Amos married 13 April 1784. Prior to that date the following children were baptized in Plympton St. Mary parish church:

Date Name Relationship Mother 8 Oct 1763 Betty base born d/o Sarah Bond 24 May 1768 Mary d/o Sarah Bond 2 Feb 1772 Benjamin Broadrick base born s/o Sarah Bond 1 Jan 1777 Amos Rice base born s/o Sarah Bond 11 Dec 1778 Annirice base born d/o Sarah Bond 29 Apr 1781 Richard Rice base born s/o Sarah Bond 21 Mar 1784 Sarah Rice base born d/o Sarah Bond

The couple do not appear to have had any children baptized with the surname Rice after their marriage.

Young Sarah married Robert Andrews and that surname, for some reason ended up in the family of Ann Rice Bond and David Dunn. Two of their eight children had Andrews as a second name. Both being soldiers it seems possible the men were also close friends which led to the use of the name although the same was not reciprocated in the Andrews family as only one child appears to have had a second name and that was Damerell.

Anyway, it is curious how information can be found about families, in this case through a blog post that was intended to show how relationships were formed and recorded not to highlight the history of a particular family.

Wayne Shepheard is a volunteer with the Online Parish Clerk program in England, handling four parishes in Devon, England. He has published a number of articles about various aspects of genealogy and is the Editor of Relatively Speaking, the quarterly journal of the Alberta Genealogical Society. Wayne also provides genealogical consulting services through his business, Family History Facilitated.