Discussion:
OT: Baronet Rowland Blennerhassett
Add Reply
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-16 23:58:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
This is an important addition to all the peerage books. Baronet Rowland Blennerhassett has traditionally been assigned no daughters. However, DNA tests have shown that he had a daughter, mother of George Cashel. Read https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/proof.html and linked pages for details. In addition, a baptism has been found for Melisent Blennerhassett, as his daughter. She probably was George Cashel's mother but it's also possible that George's mother was a later daughter. This is one of the very few cases in which the peerage books were wrong and the family tradition was right.
John Higgins
2020-06-17 05:19:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This is an important addition to all the peerage books. Baronet Rowland Blennerhassett has traditionally been assigned no daughters. However, DNA tests have shown that he had a daughter, mother of George Cashel. Read https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/proof.html and linked pages for details. In addition, a baptism has been found for Melisent Blennerhassett, as his daughter. She probably was George Cashel's mother but it's also possible that George's mother was a later daughter. This is one of the very few cases in which the peerage books were wrong and the family tradition was right.
The accepted manner of referring to this gentleman is not "Baronet Rowland Blennerhassett", but instead "Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, 1st Baronet".

I have no comment on Mark Humphrys' theory that one of Sir Rowland's daughters (now suggested to be Melisent) was the mother (via an illicit affair with an unknown man) of Humphry's ancestor George Cashel, who later assumed the middle name Blennerhassett. [An interesting story...worthy of the tabloid news publications]

BTW it's inaccurate for you to say that "the peerage books were wrong". Even if the editors of BP had knowledge of this supposed relationship, they never would have considered it appropriate to make mention of an illegitimate son of a daughter of a baronet. And it's hardily an "important" addition to the peerage books...
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-17 10:37:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This is an important addition to all the peerage books. Baronet Rowland Blennerhassett has traditionally been assigned no daughters. However, DNA tests have shown that he had a daughter, mother of George Cashel. Read https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/proof.html and linked pages for details. In addition, a baptism has been found for Melisent Blennerhassett, as his daughter. She probably was George Cashel's mother but it's also possible that George's mother was a later daughter. This is one of the very few cases in which the peerage books were wrong and the family tradition was right.
The accepted manner of referring to this gentleman is not "Baronet Rowland Blennerhassett", but instead "Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, 1st Baronet".
I have no comment on Mark Humphrys' theory that one of Sir Rowland's daughters (now suggested to be Melisent) was the mother (via an illicit affair with an unknown man) of Humphry's ancestor George Cashel, who later assumed the middle name Blennerhassett. [An interesting story...worthy of the tabloid news publications]
BTW it's inaccurate for you to say that "the peerage books were wrong". Even if the editors of BP had knowledge of this supposed relationship, they never would have considered it appropriate to make mention of an illegitimate son of a daughter of a baronet. And it's hardily an "important" addition to the peerage books...
First, thanks for clarifying me on the correct way to refer to this aristocrat.
Second, George Cashel being grandson of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett is not only a theory. DNA has shown that it must be so. Also, Mark Humphrys's current thinking is that it was a runaway marriage, like in the family story, not an affair.
Third, I would say that this is an important addition because the peerage books show no daughters at all for Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
John Higgins
2020-06-17 21:09:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
This is an important addition to all the peerage books. Baronet Rowland Blennerhassett has traditionally been assigned no daughters. However, DNA tests have shown that he had a daughter, mother of George Cashel. Read https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/proof.html and linked pages for details. In addition, a baptism has been found for Melisent Blennerhassett, as his daughter. She probably was George Cashel's mother but it's also possible that George's mother was a later daughter. This is one of the very few cases in which the peerage books were wrong and the family tradition was right.
The accepted manner of referring to this gentleman is not "Baronet Rowland Blennerhassett", but instead "Sir Rowland Blennerhassett, 1st Baronet".
I have no comment on Mark Humphrys' theory that one of Sir Rowland's daughters (now suggested to be Melisent) was the mother (via an illicit affair with an unknown man) of Humphry's ancestor George Cashel, who later assumed the middle name Blennerhassett. [An interesting story...worthy of the tabloid news publications]
BTW it's inaccurate for you to say that "the peerage books were wrong". Even if the editors of BP had knowledge of this supposed relationship, they never would have considered it appropriate to make mention of an illegitimate son of a daughter of a baronet. And it's hardily an "important" addition to the peerage books...
First, thanks for clarifying me on the correct way to refer to this aristocrat.
Second, George Cashel being grandson of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett is not only a theory. DNA has shown that it must be so. Also, Mark Humphrys's current thinking is that it was a runaway marriage, like in the family story, not an affair.
Third, I would say that this is an important addition because the peerage books show no daughters at all for Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
So...what should BP say regarding this "important" matter? "Sir Rowland also had a daughter Melisent who, according to DNA testing supporting family tradition, had a son George Cashel by a father whose name is not presently known." That would certainly be a first-of-its-kind entry for BP... :-)
wjhonson
2020-06-18 01:58:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?

Please correct me if I am wrong.

15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
John Higgins
2020-06-18 04:45:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
You are correct that Mark Humphrys uses a 15cm match to state that a connection with Sir Rowland Blennerhassett,1st Baronet, of Blennerville (b. 1741, d. 14.III.1821) has been established with his supposed grandson George Cashel (b. ca. 1807, d. 21.VI.1882).

Someone more familiar with DNA testing than I am will need to read through the details and make a judgment on this. Personally, I don't particularly care either way... :-)
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-18 22:25:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-06-19 15:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.

What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?

As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.

The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.

Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.

Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.

--Carl-Henry
j***@gmail.com
2020-06-19 16:57:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Just to clarify, you can use ancestry.com for a little more than this, and don't need to know or care if you are matching the same exact segment at times (although that certainly strengthens the case)

For the simplest case, if I have 22cm of matching with someone with, say an orphan with no paper history; and also see that we have 12 matches in common, and all 12 matches are related to me through a diverse set of my father's ancestors/cousins, none through my mother's relatives.... it certainly is good evidence that this unknown match is also related to my father. It doesn't really matter if he is related to each of the 12 on different segments. The same analysis can be done with grandfather, great-grandfather,etc; the weight of the evidence depending on how many descendants of how many different children you are matching in common.

--Joe C
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-19 17:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Paulo -

Carl is correct. You need triangulation of DNA matches to prove the Blennerhassett connection.

I recently used triangulation to prove my descent from a Revolution War ancestor, Eli Reynolds, of Delaware Co., NY and Athens Co., Ohio, who was born about 1734. My brother and I and two near cousins were tested. Between the four of us, we had DNA matches to descendants of all seven children of Eli Reynolds who are known to have left descendants.

To do triangulation effectively, you have to have the DNA of several of your known relatives to compare against several known descendants of an alleged ancestor. To do this well, you also need accurate genealogical records of both sets of families.

One match by itself proves absolutely nothing. Triangulation is an effective tool but it depends on having sufficient DNA and good family records. Also it assumes you are not dealing with something which can skew DNA results such as double descents from the same family. If you have a double descent from any family, it will show closer DNA matches to others descended from that family than typical. A similar thing occurs when two brothers married sisters or two first cousins married sisters.

DR
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-20 00:54:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-20 02:27:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
The Blennerhasset connection can be conclusively proved by a well researched triangulated DNA project. There is nothing complex or complicated about such a project. It simply takes hard DNA evidence supported by known proven facts.

DR
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-06-20 02:36:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
Paulo:

Sure, so there is some family tradition. If you want to rely on that family tradition, fine by me. But it still has nothing to do with what the DNA test actually proves. As I said, the DNA test only proves that there is some genetic relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute - there is no DNA evidence yet that demonstrates that the relationship is between Cashels and Blennerhassetts. If you want to say, as you did in your first post, that "DNA tests have shown that he [Rowland Blennerhassett] had a daughter, mother of George Cashel" (and not just that "family tradition says that he had a daughter, mother of George Cashel"), you need to do more work with the DNA. And this has nothing to do with Occam's razor - simply picking the one known or suspected relationship and saying that it (rather than one of the 2000+ potential other relationships) has to be the way they are related, without actually evaluating complete family trees or obtaining additional DNA evidence, is just jumping to a conclusion.

I'm not saying that the Cashel-Blennerhassett relationship doesn't exist or has been disproven - all I'm saying is that it is not yet proven via a DNA test.
John Higgins
2020-06-20 03:32:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
You should refrain from invoking Occam's razor when it doesn't really apply. in fact, there may be a simple explanation for the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name that I pointed out to you offline more than two months ago. I'll repeat it here:

"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"

I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.

As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-20 22:21:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
John Higgins
2020-06-20 23:42:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.

Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-21 00:28:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
JBrand
2020-06-21 02:32:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...

https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up

"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
taf
2020-06-21 03:37:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
I note that the parents of Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan were both members of the Blennerhassett family, first cousins once removed. This would have amplified the amount of Blennerhassett DNA being passed into the Cashel family, and perhaps make descendants of the two lines look closer than they were. Robert Blennerhassett, MP also married his cousin, again boosting the potential for shared DNA inheritance. The 1st Baronet married his cousin as will - since the link was for the maternal side, this would not have affected Blennerhassett DNA inheritance, but if this is part of a larger pattern, then the local gentry might have been so intermaried that they had a very small collective gene pool from which they were drawing, and that would have an even greater effect, because it meant they were all drawing from the same close pool of prospective mates, and each generation would only reassort the same small collective gene pool rather than diluting it out with external contributions.

If this is the route of the relationship, then the closer link to the 1st Baronet would be via Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan's mother Ruth (Blennerhassett), the niece of Robert, MP, who was the baronet's great-grandfather. Mary's paternal line branced a generation earlier, her father being the MP's first cousin. Using some rule-of-thumb, back of the envelope math, George Cashel b. ca. 1807 would be about three generations down from the sons of Sarah (Rowen) Cashel.

At a minimum, this Blennerhassett/Rowan/Cashel connection represents a reasonable alternative, one perfectly in line with Occam's razor.

taf
JBrand
2020-06-21 04:11:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
I note that the parents of Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan were both members of the Blennerhassett family, first cousins once removed. This would have amplified the amount of Blennerhassett DNA being passed into the Cashel family, and perhaps make descendants of the two lines look closer than they were. Robert Blennerhassett, MP also married his cousin, again boosting the potential for shared DNA inheritance. The 1st Baronet married his cousin as will - since the link was for the maternal side, this would not have affected Blennerhassett DNA inheritance, but if this is part of a larger pattern, then the local gentry might have been so intermaried that they had a very small collective gene pool from which they were drawing, and that would have an even greater effect, because it meant they were all drawing from the same close pool of prospective mates, and each generation would only reassort the same small collective gene pool rather than diluting it out with external contributions.
If this is the route of the relationship, then the closer link to the 1st Baronet would be via Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan's mother Ruth (Blennerhassett), the niece of Robert, MP, who was the baronet's great-grandfather. Mary's paternal line branced a generation earlier, her father being the MP's first cousin. Using some rule-of-thumb, back of the envelope math, George Cashel b. ca. 1807 would be about three generations down from the sons of Sarah (Rowen) Cashel.
At a minimum, this Blennerhassett/Rowan/Cashel connection represents a reasonable alternative, one perfectly in line with Occam's razor.
taf
Page 36 of this Journal is an article about a Mr. Rowan Cashel, attorney in Ireland (? Cork), in some kind of legal trouble; p. 38 mentions "Mr. George Cashel, brother of the prisoner," who was living in 1815.

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Journal_of_the_Cork_Historical_and_Archa/rQcMAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cashel+rowan&pg=RA1-PA47&printsec=frontcover

Wouldn't this George, a "Mr." (adult) in 1815, be a good candidate for father of George Cashel, b. 1807?

I noted that another of George and Mary (Blennerhasset) Rowan's daughterss married a Chute. So there does seem to be a pretty heavy amount of inbreeding possible.
JBrand
2020-06-21 04:45:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JBrand
Wouldn't this George, a "Mr." (adult) in 1815, be a good candidate for father of George Cashel, b. 1807?
I noted that another of George and Mary (Blennerhasset) Rowan's daughterss married a Chute. So there does seem to be a pretty heavy amount of inbreeding possible.
"Cashell, Rowan, attorney, Tralee, 1816, killed Henry Arthur O'Connor in a duel at Ballyseady. He was the son of Francis Cashell and Sarah Rowan, and had a brother George. He had an office in Capel Street, Dublin, in 1820. He m. Alicia Lawrence ..."

(from Jeremiah King, _County Kerry Past and Present_ [1986], p. 54.)

He would seem a bit "young" to be a son of the Cashell-Rowan couple, unless there were two generations of Cashell and Rowan marriages ...?

1. George Cashell m. Sarah Rowan

2. FRANCIS Cashell m. Sarah Rowan (another one, also with Blennerhassett lines ?)

3. Rowan and George Cashell
taf
2020-06-21 06:40:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JBrand
"Cashell, Rowan, attorney, Tralee, 1816, killed Henry Arthur O'Connor in a
duel at Ballyseady. He was the son of Francis Cashell and Sarah Rowan, and
had a brother George. He had an office in Capel Street, Dublin, in 1820.
He m. Alicia Lawrence ..."
(from Jeremiah King, _County Kerry Past and Present_ [1986], p. 54.)
He would seem a bit "young" to be a son of the Cashell-Rowan couple, unless
there were two generations of Cashell and Rowan marriages ...?
My 'rule of thumb' approximation could have been off, seeing as I was extrapolating from the early 1600s. However, there seems to have been some source on the family compiled in 1733 (for the Cashel marriage it says 1735, but since all the others are 1733 I suspect this is a type-setting error). We are told that the Cashel/Rowan marriage had produced 5 children by 1735 (sic), and even were a son Rowan Cashel to be born in the next decade, he was still likely too old to be dueling in 1820, so yes, likely multiple generations of Rowan/Cashel marriages, though we can't tell of they were father-son or uncle-nephew or even something more distant.

Here is a published pamphlet on the Rowan Cashel duel affair:
https://books.google.com/books?id=IiFXAAAAcAAJ

taf
taf
2020-06-21 15:01:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by JBrand
"Cashell, Rowan, attorney, Tralee, 1816, killed Henry Arthur O'Connor in a
duel at Ballyseady. He was the son of Francis Cashell and Sarah Rowan, and
had a brother George. He had an office in Capel Street, Dublin, in 1820.
He m. Alicia Lawrence ..."
(from Jeremiah King, _County Kerry Past and Present_ [1986], p. 54.)
He would seem a bit "young" to be a son of the Cashell-Rowan couple, unless
there were two generations of Cashell and Rowan marriages ...?
My 'rule of thumb' approximation could have been off, seeing as I was extrapolating from the early 1600s. However, there seems to have been some source on the family compiled in 1733 (for the Cashel marriage it says 1735, but since all the others are 1733 I suspect this is a type-setting error). We are told that the Cashel/Rowan marriage had produced 5 children by 1735 (sic), and even were a son Rowan Cashel to be born in the next decade, he was still likely too old to be dueling in 1820, so yes, likely multiple generations of Rowan/Cashel marriages, though we can't tell of they were father-son or uncle-nephew or even something more distant.
https://books.google.com/books?id=IiFXAAAAcAAJ
A further indication of the degree to which these families formed a close social group that might have led to multiple intermarriages: I found a published letter written by Morgan Odoherty, no year given but placed next to one from 1820, that begins "Here am I, living at rack and manger, with my old schoolfellow, Blennerhasset," and later the writer relates, "it was only last Thursday, that Rowan Cashel and myself swam across the Devil's Punch Bowl, on top of Mangerton."

taf
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-21 18:00:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by JBrand
"Cashell, Rowan, attorney, Tralee, 1816, killed Henry Arthur O'Connor in a
duel at Ballyseady. He was the son of Francis Cashell and Sarah Rowan, and
had a brother George. He had an office in Capel Street, Dublin, in 1820.
He m. Alicia Lawrence ..."
(from Jeremiah King, _County Kerry Past and Present_ [1986], p. 54.)
He would seem a bit "young" to be a son of the Cashell-Rowan couple, unless
there were two generations of Cashell and Rowan marriages ...?
My 'rule of thumb' approximation could have been off, seeing as I was extrapolating from the early 1600s. However, there seems to have been some source on the family compiled in 1733 (for the Cashel marriage it says 1735, but since all the others are 1733 I suspect this is a type-setting error). We are told that the Cashel/Rowan marriage had produced 5 children by 1735 (sic), and even were a son Rowan Cashel to be born in the next decade, he was still likely too old to be dueling in 1820, so yes, likely multiple generations of Rowan/Cashel marriages, though we can't tell of they were father-son or uncle-nephew or even something more distant.
https://books.google.com/books?id=IiFXAAAAcAAJ
taf
Rowan was the grandson.
Francis Cashell married in the 1720s to Sarah Rowan [her mother was a Blennerhassett] and had issue:
George Cashell, born before 1733 (and probably close to 1733), married Ellen Alton and had issue:
Rowan Patrick Cashel, 3rd surviving son, born about 1789, the dueller.
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/francis.html
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/george.sr.html
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/rowan.html
Thanks for the link to the pamphlet. I saw it on paper in the NLI but did not know it was online.
John Higgins
2020-06-21 05:00:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
I note that the parents of Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan were both members of the Blennerhassett family, first cousins once removed. This would have amplified the amount of Blennerhassett DNA being passed into the Cashel family, and perhaps make descendants of the two lines look closer than they were. Robert Blennerhassett, MP also married his cousin, again boosting the potential for shared DNA inheritance. The 1st Baronet married his cousin as will - since the link was for the maternal side, this would not have affected Blennerhassett DNA inheritance, but if this is part of a larger pattern, then the local gentry might have been so intermaried that they had a very small collective gene pool from which they were drawing, and that would have an even greater effect, because it meant they were all drawing from the same close pool of prospective mates, and each generation would only reassort the same small collective gene pool rather than diluting it out with external contributions.
If this is the route of the relationship, then the closer link to the 1st Baronet would be via Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan's mother Ruth (Blennerhassett), the niece of Robert, MP, who was the baronet's great-grandfather. Mary's paternal line branced a generation earlier, her father being the MP's first cousin. Using some rule-of-thumb, back of the envelope math, George Cashel b. ca. 1807 would be about three generations down from the sons of Sarah (Rowen) Cashel.
At a minimum, this Blennerhassett/Rowan/Cashel connection represents a reasonable alternative, one perfectly in line with Occam's razor.
taf
This Blennerhassett/Rowan/Cashel connection is discussed on the Humphrys website. https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/francis.html

Among other things, it appears to provide evidence indicating that the 2nd husband of Sarah Rowan, daughter of Mary Blennerhassett, was Francis [not George] Cashel. The website also provides information on their son George Cashel and his possible descendants, which would appear to be the line that would lead to the George Cashel who supposedly married a daughter of the 1st Baronet. The descent is not fully proven there, but it looks like a connection that could warrant further investigation.

As Todd suggests, it's certainly a reasonable alternative to the present conjecture about George Cashel marrying the 1st Baronet's daughter.
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-21 17:39:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
I note that the parents of Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan were both members of the Blennerhassett family, first cousins once removed. This would have amplified the amount of Blennerhassett DNA being passed into the Cashel family, and perhaps make descendants of the two lines look closer than they were. Robert Blennerhassett, MP also married his cousin, again boosting the potential for shared DNA inheritance. The 1st Baronet married his cousin as will - since the link was for the maternal side, this would not have affected Blennerhassett DNA inheritance, but if this is part of a larger pattern, then the local gentry might have been so intermaried that they had a very small collective gene pool from which they were drawing, and that would have an even greater effect, because it meant they were all drawing from the same close pool of prospective mates, and each generation would only reassort the same small collective gene pool rather than diluting it out with external contributions.
If this is the route of the relationship, then the closer link to the 1st Baronet would be via Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan's mother Ruth (Blennerhassett), the niece of Robert, MP, who was the baronet's great-grandfather. Mary's paternal line branced a generation earlier, her father being the MP's first cousin. Using some rule-of-thumb, back of the envelope math, George Cashel b. ca. 1807 would be about three generations down from the sons of Sarah (Rowen) Cashel.
At a minimum, this Blennerhassett/Rowan/Cashel connection represents a reasonable alternative, one perfectly in line with Occam's razor.
taf
I discuss that Cashel/Cashell family starting here:
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/index.html#blen
I never found any link between them and my George Cashel.
There are in fact quite a few Cashels in Co.Kerry at that time. See here for lots more:
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/misc.html
When I lay out what actual evidence I have about George Cashel's ancestry here:
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/proof.html
I have basically nothing on the Cashel side.
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-21 17:34:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
Yes there is a Cashell family connected to Blennerhassett from an early marriage (in the 1720s).
I have looked at them here:
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/index.html#blen
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/francis.html
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/george.sr.html
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/rowan.html
But I never found any connection to my George Cashel:
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/george.html
So I gave up on them.
If anyone can find a link, that would be fantastic.
Mark
taf
2020-06-21 18:20:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Humphrys
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
Yes there is a Cashell family connected to Blennerhassett from an early marriage (in the 1720s).
Choosing to set aside the Blennerhasset-Rowan-Cashel link because you haven't found a paper-trail connection, while embracing the Rowland Blennerhassett-George Cashel link, for which you also have no paper trail, when the DNA result would be consistent with either, seems to suggest a bias in the analysis.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-21 20:24:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Humphrys
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
Yes there is a Cashell family connected to Blennerhassett from an early marriage (in the 1720s).
Choosing to set aside the Blennerhasset-Rowan-Cashel link because you haven't found a paper-trail connection, while embracing the Rowland Blennerhassett-George Cashel link, for which you also have no paper trail, when the DNA result would be consistent with either, seems to suggest a bias in the analysis.
taf
Dear Todd, the problem with your hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why such matches didn't happen with Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert. Both her and Sir Rowland Blennerhassett were from different branches of the family than the one that married with the Rohans.
In addition, those Cashels were Protestant while Mark's Cashel ancestries were Catholic.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-21 20:31:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Mark Humphrys
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
Yes there is a Cashell family connected to Blennerhassett from an early marriage (in the 1720s).
Choosing to set aside the Blennerhasset-Rowan-Cashel link because you haven't found a paper-trail connection, while embracing the Rowland Blennerhassett-George Cashel link, for which you also have no paper trail, when the DNA result would be consistent with either, seems to suggest a bias in the analysis.
taf
Dear Todd, the problem with your hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why such matches didn't happen with Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert. Both her and Sir Rowland Blennerhassett were from different branches of the family than the one that married with the Rohans.
In addition, those Cashels were Protestant while Mark's Cashel ancestries were Catholic.
Also, there is non-DNA evidence for Mark's decision. Family tradition said George Cashel was son of a Blennerhassett woman and Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that she must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. As Mark noted, his letter wasn't very convincing but DNA suggests that he really knew what he was talking about.
Andrew Lancaster
2020-06-21 21:09:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Mark Humphrys
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
Yes there is a Cashell family connected to Blennerhassett from an early marriage (in the 1720s).
Choosing to set aside the Blennerhasset-Rowan-Cashel link because you haven't found a paper-trail connection, while embracing the Rowland Blennerhassett-George Cashel link, for which you also have no paper trail, when the DNA result would be consistent with either, seems to suggest a bias in the analysis.
taf
Dear Todd, the problem with your hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why such matches didn't happen with Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert. Both her and Sir Rowland Blennerhassett were from different branches of the family than the one that married with the Rohans.
In addition, those Cashels were Protestant while Mark's Cashel ancestries were Catholic.
Also, there is non-DNA evidence for Mark's decision. Family tradition said George Cashel was son of a Blennerhassett woman and Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that she must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. As Mark noted, his letter wasn't very convincing but DNA suggests that he really knew what he was talking about.
Paulo and Mark maybe it is worth saying that I see no one denying this is a good lead, worth further investigation. I think the doubts being raised are because of the idea that the investigation is already being seen as conclusive. So I suspect the distance between everyone is not "that" big.

If I've read people wrong, then they'll say I guess.
taf
2020-06-21 21:47:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Also, there is non-DNA evidence for Mark's decision. Family tradition said
George Cashel was son of a Blennerhassett woman and Thomas Blennerhassett
of Gortatlea said that she must have been daughter of Sir Rowland
Blennerhassett. As Mark noted, his letter wasn't very convincing but DNA
suggests that he really knew what he was talking about.
Some old tradition, plus an unconvincing letter, plus ambiguous DNA evidence do not add up to something greater than the sum of its parts. Setting aside the genealogy by personal attestation coming from the letter, both the tradition and the DNA could be reflective of an earlier connection that the tradition shifted closer. I was just examining a case last week where this happened, where a connection shown at the top of a visitation pedigree actually happened in an earlier generation.

taf
taf
2020-06-21 21:18:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Dear Todd, the problem with your hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why
such matches didn't happen with Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert. Both her
and Sir Rowland Blennerhassett were from different branches of the family
than the one that married with the Rohans.
Rowland was not from a different branch. Mary Blennerhassett Rowan's maternal grandfather was brother of Rowland's great grandfather. Mary's other grandfather was uncle of those two. This is all the same family.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
In addition, those Cashels were Protestant while Mark's Cashel ancestries were Catholic.
And some of my Meath family, and in one case a single person, were Protestant, and then Catholic, and then Protestant, and the registers are rife with people converting in order to marry, or just converting. We like to think of these as two tribes, forever separate and perpetually in conflict, but some people just don't care that much about religion (and the same family can have both staunch believers and ambivalents).

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-21 21:32:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Dear Todd, the problem with your hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why
such matches didn't happen with Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert. Both her
and Sir Rowland Blennerhassett were from different branches of the family
than the one that married with the Rohans.
Rowland was not from a different branch. Mary Blennerhassett Rowan's maternal grandfather was brother of Rowland's great grandfather. Mary's other grandfather was uncle of those two. This is all the same family.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
In addition, those Cashels were Protestant while Mark's Cashel ancestries
were Catholic.
And some of my Meath family, and in one case a single person, were Protestant, and then Catholic, and then Protestant, and the registers are rife with people converting in order to marry, or just converting. We like to think of these as two tribes, forever separate and perpetually in conflict, but some people just don't care that much about religion (and the same family can have both staunch believers and ambivalents).
taf
First, Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert was also descended from Captain Robert Blennerhassett but DNA matches didn't happen with her.
Second, I'm curious: Why would people convert from Protestantism to Catholicism, considering the Penal Laws against the Catholics?
Regardless, as Mark notes, there's no evidence that any of those Cashels were Catholic.
taf
2020-06-21 22:05:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Second, I'm curious: Why would people convert from Protestantism to
Catholicism, considering the Penal Laws against the Catholics?
To marry, to 'resist the English', to piss off their parents, because a priest once did them a good turn.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Regardless, as Mark notes, there's no evidence that any of those Cashels were Catholic.
And there is no evidence that George Cashel was specifically grandson of Rowland Blennerhassett. If we are going to argue from the absence of evidence, it cuts both ways.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-21 23:24:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Second, I'm curious: Why would people convert from Protestantism to
Catholicism, considering the Penal Laws against the Catholics?
To marry, to 'resist the English', to piss off their parents, because a priest once did them a good turn.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Regardless, as Mark notes, there's no evidence that any of those Cashels were Catholic.
And there is no evidence that George Cashel was specifically grandson of Rowland Blennerhassett. If we are going to argue from the absence of evidence, it cuts both ways.
taf
Another piece of evidence that George Cashel was grandson of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett is the fact that he gave the name Agnes to his eldest daughter. Sir Rowland's wife's middle name was Agnes.
In addition, Agnes Cashel said her Blennerhassett ancestors were from Churchtown.
taf
2020-06-22 00:00:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Another piece of evidence that George Cashel was grandson
of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett is the fact that he gave the
name Agnes to his eldest daughter. Sir Rowland's wife's
middle name was Agnes.
Oh, in that case I withdraw my objection, as there is no other possible explanation for the almost unique name Agnes to be one woman's middle name and another woman's given name unless they were great-grandmother and great-granddaughter. It's the only way imaginable.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-22 08:21:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Another piece of evidence that George Cashel was grandson
of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett is the fact that he gave the
name Agnes to his eldest daughter. Sir Rowland's wife's
middle name was Agnes.
Oh, in that case I withdraw my objection, as there is no other possible explanation for the almost unique name Agnes to be one woman's middle name and another woman's given name unless they were great-grandmother and great-granddaughter. It's the only way imaginable.
taf
You're grasping at straws Paulo.
Sorry, I should have been more detailed. Thing is, as shown in Mark's page, the name Agnes was common in both Sir Rowland's and George's families. Yes, this piece of evidence is very weak alone but sums up with the other pieces of evidence.
Regardless, there's still my second point. The debate between Jim Sullivan and Alice Cashel suggests that her Blennerhassett ancestors were from Churchtown. Then, the only two possibilities are that George Cashel was grandson of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett or of his younger brother, Arthur Blennerhassett.
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-22 03:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You're grasping at straws Paulo.
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-22 10:11:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Dear Todd, the problem with your hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why
such matches didn't happen with Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert. Both her
and Sir Rowland Blennerhassett were from different branches of the family
than the one that married with the Rohans.
Rowland was not from a different branch. Mary Blennerhassett Rowan's maternal grandfather was brother of Rowland's great grandfather. Mary's other grandfather was uncle of those two. This is all the same family.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
In addition, those Cashels were Protestant while Mark's Cashel ancestries
were Catholic.
And some of my Meath family, and in one case a single person, were Protestant, and then Catholic, and then Protestant, and the registers are rife with people converting in order to marry, or just converting. We like to think of these as two tribes, forever separate and perpetually in conflict, but some people just don't care that much about religion (and the same family can have both staunch believers and ambivalents).
taf
Taf, it is the same family, yes - if you travel back to the early 17th century for the common ancestor.
Despite the same name, and the same original 16th century Munster settler origin, these people are very remote relations of each other.
That is why Baronets branch DNA will generally not match Letitia branch DNA.
Cashell branch DNA would also be pretty distant to either of those.
taf
2020-06-21 21:41:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
the problem with your hypothesis is that it doesn't explain why
such matches didn't happen with Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert.
I forgot to answer this.

One thing you can do with most DNA test company interfaces is call up a list of 'shared relatives. If my mother's sample matches with some other sample, I can see what relatives they have in common with my mother. If they are a 4th cousin or more distant to my mother, then as often as not my mother's own brother does not show up as a shared relative. There are descendants of my father's grandfather (more generations removed than he is) who do not show up as shared relatives of each other, yet look at the siblings of the two non-matches and they show up matched.

You do not have DNA of all your ancestors, and even if two people both have DNA from the same ancestor, it usually isn't the same piece of DNA, unless the relationship is really close. At the distance we are talking about for the Blennerhassett connection, there should be no expectation of shared DNA.

So, why didn't Letitia Blennerhassett match? for the same reason the roulette wheel doesn't land on red every time - statistical probability and random chance.

taf
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-22 10:03:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Humphrys
Post by JBrand
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by Carl-Henry Geschwind
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by wjhonson
Do I understand this DNA "proof" correctly in that, he uses a 15cm match to prove his line?
Please correct me if I am wrong.
15cms cannot be used in this manner for a connection only two hundred years in the past
Actually, Mark noted in humphrysfamilytree.com/DNA/baronet.html that such matches are common for such relationships.
In addition, in the previous page I linked to, he explains how such matches didn't happen with the Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert theory.
The problem is not the 15 cM, the problem is the lack of triangulation.
What the first DNA test actually proves is that Meg Niemi is related to John Chute. The DNA test itself does not show how they are related - if they are (as claimed) fifth cousins once removed, then any one of Meg's 64 sets of 5-great-grandparents could be the same as one of John's 32 sets of 4-great-grandparents (a total of a bit more than 2,000 possible relationship paths). Do you know all of the ancestors of Meg and all of the ancestors of John back to the late 1700s well enough to be able to rule out any relationship other than through the Cashels and Blennerhassetts?
As Wikitree (yes, Wikitree) explains (at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Help:Triangulation), once you are beyond third cousins, you need triangulation before you can consider a relationship proven by DNA. That is, you need to see the same piece of DNA in two or more matches in order to establish the branch through which that piece of DNA has descended.
The match between Meg Niemi and John Chute is on GEDMatch, so we know the exact piece of DNA on which they match (on Chromosome 11). In order to prove that this match is because the Cashels are descended from the Blennerhassetts, you need another descendant of George Cashel (through a child other than the ancestor of Meg Niemi) who also matches on at least 7 cM of that segment on Chromosome 11, and you need another descendant of Rowland Blennerhassett (through a child other than the ancestor of John Chute) who matches on at least 7 cM of that segment.
Mark Humphrys offers some other DNA matches between Derval McGrath, Nuala Duggan, and "Bayly 10"; however, these tests are on ancestry.com (rather than GEDMatch) and thus do not give any segment information - in other words, for purposes of triangulation they are worthless. If he can persuade those test takers to export their ancestry.com results to GEDMatch, and then can show that the matches are also on that segment of Chromosome 11 - then he will have proven his claim. But as it is, the relationship between the McGraths and the Yieldings might be through a completely different patch than the relationship between Meg Niemi and John Chute.
Thus, despite what Mark claims, the relationship has not yet been proven - we know that Meg Niemi and John Chute are related, but the DNA has not yet proven that George Cashel and Rowland Blennerhassett are related.
--Carl-Henry
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing undocumented connections.
The Cashels used Blennerhassett as a middle and even first name and had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts.
In addition, Thomas Blennerhassett of Gortatlea said that George Cashel's mother must have been daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett.
"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC. (BTW only a single record is given indicating that George Cashel actually used the Blennerhassett name throughout his long life. See if you can find it.. :-) )"
I hope you can now accept the fact that DNA testing has NOT yet proved this descent. And nobody has even suggested "supposing undocumented connections", to use your phrase above. A "family tradition" is just that, a tradition - not evidence at all of an actual biological connection.
As I told you back in April, "it pays to maintain a healthy dose of skepticism in cases like this". You seem to lost any sense of skepticism in your rush to accept this as a proven descent. That's not Occam's razor - it's simply bad judgment.
Thing is, two of the three candidates for Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. were members of the Baronets branch. Now, DNA has shown a descendant of George Cashel to be related to a descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett Baronets, best explained by George Cashel's mother being a daughter of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett. That doesn't look like a coincidence to me. (BTW, I think Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. was the future 3rd Baronet. He married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism. He may very well have had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
You apparently haven't read the recent messages in this thread regarding the DNA testing. Due to the lack of triangulation in the DNA tests, it cannot be said to be "proven" that the descendant of George Cashel is related to the descendant of the 1st Blennerhassett baronet. And in responding to Will Johnson's latest post, you continue to ignore the non-genealogical connection between the Blennerhassett and Cashel families, which I've (twice) pointed out to you - and which would explain the Cashels' use of the Blennerhassett name.
Stop clinging to the family tradition of a Blennerhassett/Cashel marriage. There continues to be no evidence to support that.
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come through George Cashel, who was claimed to have been son of a Blennerhassett woman. The chances of this being a coincidence are very small.
Regardless, Arthur Blennerhassett, J.P. could be argued another way. As two of the candidates for that man were from the Baronets Branch, it ties in with the DNA evidence. It's very possible that the future 3rd Baronet, who married a Catholic and converted to Catholicism, had sympathy for a disowned Catholic cousin.
See p. 39 ...
https://archive.org/details/selectionsfromol00hick/page/n91/mode/2up
"By her second husband George Cashell of Tipperary she [Sarah daughter of George and Mary (Blennerhassett) Rowan] has issue, anno 1735, sons George and Henry and three daughters ..."
Yes there is a Cashell family connected to Blennerhassett from an early marriage (in the 1720s).
Choosing to set aside the Blennerhasset-Rowan-Cashel link because you haven't found a paper-trail connection, while embracing the Rowland Blennerhassett-George Cashel link, for which you also have no paper trail, when the DNA result would be consistent with either, seems to suggest a bias in the analysis.
taf
Hold on, I do have a paper trail to the Baronets family.
My grandaunt remembered an argument in the family about Churchtown House. Churchtown House was the seat of the Baronets branch.
George Blennerhassett Cashel was recommended for the police by Arthur Blennerhassett JP. Two out of the three possible Arthurs are in the Baronets branch.
Also the ambiguous Gortatlea letter of 1965 saying it is the Baronets. Also the family name Agnes.
Also discovering last week the Baronet did have a daughter. For all these, see:
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/proof.html

For the other theory, I have no paper trail at all. Just the name "Cashel". Nothing else.
Rather than being hostile to that theory, I actually spent years working on it. See my extensive pages on it, starting here:
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/index.html#blen
I gave it up because it got nowhere.

You say the DNA is consistent with both theories and that is true, sort of, since all these gentry families of Kerry are related. I have long known that that Cashell family has some Blennerhassett ancestry, plus ancestry from other gentry families of Kerry.
But if the DNA match is coming through Cashell, it would push the common ancestor with John Chute an extra 2 generations back to George Rowan (born c.1675):
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Rowan/george.html
It was just about credible that a common ancestor Sir Rowland Blennerhassett (born 1740-41) could give cousins with 15 cM today.
A lot less credible if the common ancestor is in the previous century.

I'm all in favour of bringing that Cashell family back into play - given I have already researched them.
I just see no reason to get excited about them at the moment.
taf
2020-06-22 14:44:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Humphrys
Post by taf
Choosing to set aside the Blennerhasset-Rowan-Cashel link because you
haven't found a paper-trail connection, while embracing the Rowland
Blennerhassett-George Cashel link, for which you also have no paper
trail, when the DNA result would be consistent with either, seems to
suggest a bias in the analysis.
Hold on, I do have a paper trail to the Baronets family.
My grandaunt remembered an argument in the family about Churchtown House.
Churchtown House was the seat of the Baronets branch.
George Blennerhassett Cashel was recommended for the police by Arthur
Blennerhassett JP. Two out of the three possible Arthurs are in the Baronets
branch.
Also the ambiguous Gortatlea letter of 1965 saying it is the Baronets. Also
the family name Agnes.
I have seen trails like that. There is a sign saying 'trail entrance here', but it is so overgrown it would take a foraging team with machetes to figure out where it actually leads. We obviously have a very different view of what represents a paper trail.
Post by Mark Humphrys
You say the DNA is consistent with both theories and that is true, sort of,
since all these gentry families of Kerry are related. I have long known that
that Cashell family has some Blennerhassett ancestry, plus ancestry from
other gentry families of Kerry.
But if the DNA match is coming through Cashell, it would push the common
ancestor with John Chute an extra 2 generations back to George Rowan (born
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Rowan/george.html
It was just about credible that a common ancestor Sir Rowland Blennerhassett
(born 1740-41) could give cousins with 15 cM today.
A lot less credible if the common ancestor is in the previous century.
This math is based on a misunderstanding of how DNA inheritance really works.
Post by Mark Humphrys
I'm all in favour of bringing that Cashell family back into play - given I
have already researched them.
I just see no reason to get excited about them at the moment.
No, what is exciting is that Ulster escutcheon.

taf
taf
2020-06-22 18:06:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
We obviously have a very different view of what represents
a paper trail.
Just to remove any ambiguity, when I refer to a paper trail, I am not talking about family traditions, claims of distant descendants or vague hints of a connection that must be deduced. I am talking about explicit contemporary or near-contemporary documentation of the generation-by-generation descent, a trail of paper that goes from ancestor to descendant, such that no guesswork or deduction need be employed.

Though we do not know now what the source was and it may no longer survive, it seems like the author of the Blennerhassett genealogy may have had a source from 1733 that provided such a paper trail connecting the Blennerhassetts to a Cashel family, which is more than we have for the hypothesized Blennerhassett baronet-George Cashel linkage. The two need not be mutually exclusive, but one is a seeming bird in hand, the other simply in the bush.

taf
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-23 11:46:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by taf
We obviously have a very different view of what represents
a paper trail.
Just to remove any ambiguity, when I refer to a paper trail, I am not talking about family traditions, claims of distant descendants or vague hints of a connection that must be deduced. I am talking about explicit contemporary or near-contemporary documentation of the generation-by-generation descent, a trail of paper that goes from ancestor to descendant, such that no guesswork or deduction need be employed.
Though we do not know now what the source was and it may no longer survive, it seems like the author of the Blennerhassett genealogy may have had a source from 1733 that provided such a paper trail connecting the Blennerhassetts to a Cashel family, which is more than we have for the hypothesized Blennerhassett baronet-George Cashel linkage. The two need not be mutually exclusive, but one is a seeming bird in hand, the other simply in the bush.
taf
Yes of course I want to keep going until I get contemporary documents. That was literally what I said in my first message.

As for your idea about this Cashell family, that I have in fact researched without luck for decades, here is one issue: If that is Cashel's link to Blennerhassett, why does Blennerhassett suddenly emerge as a name in the Cashel family generations later? It was not a middle name or first name in this Cashell family in the 1700s. How come it suddenly emerges as a middle name in 1807 and then as a first name in 1848? Makes no sense.
JBrand
2020-06-23 12:08:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Humphrys
Post by taf
Post by taf
We obviously have a very different view of what represents
a paper trail.
Just to remove any ambiguity, when I refer to a paper trail, I am not talking about family traditions, claims of distant descendants or vague hints of a connection that must be deduced. I am talking about explicit contemporary or near-contemporary documentation of the generation-by-generation descent, a trail of paper that goes from ancestor to descendant, such that no guesswork or deduction need be employed.
Though we do not know now what the source was and it may no longer survive, it seems like the author of the Blennerhassett genealogy may have had a source from 1733 that provided such a paper trail connecting the Blennerhassetts to a Cashel family, which is more than we have for the hypothesized Blennerhassett baronet-George Cashel linkage. The two need not be mutually exclusive, but one is a seeming bird in hand, the other simply in the bush.
taf
Yes of course I want to keep going until I get contemporary documents. That was literally what I said in my first message.
As for your idea about this Cashell family, that I have in fact researched without luck for decades, here is one issue: If that is Cashel's link to Blennerhassett, why does Blennerhassett suddenly emerge as a name in the Cashel family generations later? It was not a middle name or first name in this Cashell family in the 1700s. How come it suddenly emerges as a middle name in 1807 and then as a first name in 1848? Makes no sense.
Middle names became fashionable/ common (more common) around 1800 and after. The fact that he only uses it sometimes may show that it was not "given" by his parents, but "adopted" by him (... for whatever reason). Perhaps to remind people he was distantly related to the prominent Blennerhassett family?
John Higgins
2020-06-23 16:56:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Humphrys
Post by taf
Post by taf
We obviously have a very different view of what represents
a paper trail.
Just to remove any ambiguity, when I refer to a paper trail, I am not talking about family traditions, claims of distant descendants or vague hints of a connection that must be deduced. I am talking about explicit contemporary or near-contemporary documentation of the generation-by-generation descent, a trail of paper that goes from ancestor to descendant, such that no guesswork or deduction need be employed.
Though we do not know now what the source was and it may no longer survive, it seems like the author of the Blennerhassett genealogy may have had a source from 1733 that provided such a paper trail connecting the Blennerhassetts to a Cashel family, which is more than we have for the hypothesized Blennerhassett baronet-George Cashel linkage. The two need not be mutually exclusive, but one is a seeming bird in hand, the other simply in the bush.
taf
Yes of course I want to keep going until I get contemporary documents. That was literally what I said in my first message.
As for your idea about this Cashell family, that I have in fact researched without luck for decades, here is one issue: If that is Cashel's link to Blennerhassett, why does Blennerhassett suddenly emerge as a name in the Cashel family generations later? It was not a middle name or first name in this Cashell family in the 1700s. How come it suddenly emerges as a middle name in 1807 and then as a first name in 1848? Makes no sense.
I suggested a reason for the appearance of Blennerhassett as a name in the Cashel family earlier in this thread, repeating a suggestion I had made offline to Paulo back in April:

"There is no doubt that the Cashels and their descendants used Blennerhassett as a given name and a middle name. But that doesn't mean that they were necessarily descended from that family. It's at least equally possible that George "Blennerhassett" Cashel assumed the the name as a gesture of respect for "A. Blennerhassett" who recommended him for the RIC."

BTW I don't believe that George Cashel was given the Blennerhassett middle name at his birth in 1807, as you imply above. Virtually all the references to him in your website do NOT include the middle name. In fact, I think I found one record there that did include the name.
taf
2020-06-23 18:48:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Humphrys
As for your idea about this Cashell family, that I have in fact researched
without luck for decades, here is one issue: If that is Cashel's link to
Blennerhassett, why does Blennerhassett suddenly emerge as a name in the
Cashel family generations later? It was not a middle name or first name
in this Cashell family in the 1700s. How come it suddenly emerges as a
middle name in 1807 and then as a first name in 1848? Makes no sense.
What makes you think it had anything to do with a genealogical relationship and not a social one?

At about this time I have an ancestral uncle who, without any middle name usage in the past, assigns his sons the names William Henry, John Dawes, Thomas Seymour and Charles Symes, of which only Dawes is a family name. At the same time, across the Atlantic, his brother names children William Pritchard, Anthony Johnson, David Russell, Nathan Baldwin, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and John Clark, again with only one, Baldwin, being a family name.

Of course, once it was used the first time in the Cashels, it would have been reused as a family name - in the one family above, Russell gets used 5 times over the next century, but the first time it was used it derived from the father's business partner, not a relative.

taf
taf
2020-06-23 19:11:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Mark Humphrys
As for your idea about this Cashell family, that I have in fact researched
without luck for decades, here is one issue: If that is Cashel's link to
Blennerhassett, why does Blennerhassett suddenly emerge as a name in the
Cashel family generations later? It was not a middle name or first name
in this Cashell family in the 1700s. How come it suddenly emerges as a
middle name in 1807 and then as a first name in 1848? Makes no sense.
What makes you think it had anything to do with a genealogical relationship and not a social one?
At about this time I have an ancestral uncle who, without any middle name usage in the past, assigns his sons the names William Henry, John Dawes, Thomas Seymour and Charles Symes, of which only Dawes is a family name.
I left one out, Hugh Croxall, also not a family name.

taf
JBrand
2020-06-22 15:49:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Humphrys
For the other theory, I have no paper trail at all. Just the name "Cashel". Nothing else.
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/index.html#blen
I gave it up because it got nowhere.
I would go back to working on Cashell, since that is a surname you know is actually ancestral to you. I think there should be a strong presumption that these Cashels are the right people ("George Cashel/ Cashell" is actually a fairly unusual name, "Rowan Cashell" even more unusual).

You still get the Blennerhassett line(s) from Edward III ... just (probably) not the fact of "descent from a Baronet."
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-22 16:08:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JBrand
Post by Mark Humphrys
For the other theory, I have no paper trail at all. Just the name "Cashel". Nothing else.
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/index.html#blen
I gave it up because it got nowhere.
I would go back to working on Cashell, since that is a surname you know is actually ancestral to you. I think there should be a strong presumption that these Cashels are the right people ("George Cashel/ Cashell" is actually a fairly unusual name, "Rowan Cashell" even more unusual).
You still get the Blennerhassett line(s) from Edward III ... just (probably) not the fact of "descent from a Baronet."
I'm not sure whether Cashel is such a rare surname. In https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/misc.html, Mark shows several Irish Cashel families that are not known to be related to either his or the one that married with the Rowans.
JBrand
2020-06-22 16:25:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I'm not sure whether Cashel is such a rare surname. In https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/misc.html, Mark shows several Irish Cashel families that are not known to be related to either his or the one that married with the Rowans.

It is a comparatively rare surname. It is not Smith, Johnson, Williams, Jones, Thompson, Thomas, Taylor, Wilson, etc.
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-23 11:27:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JBrand
Post by Mark Humphrys
For the other theory, I have no paper trail at all. Just the name "Cashel". Nothing else.
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/index.html#blen
I gave it up because it got nowhere.
I would go back to working on Cashell, since that is a surname you know is actually ancestral to you. I think there should be a strong presumption that these Cashels are the right people ("George Cashel/ Cashell" is actually a fairly unusual name, "Rowan Cashell" even more unusual).
You still get the Blennerhassett line(s) from Edward III ... just (probably) not the fact of "descent from a Baronet."
JBrand, well I gave up on that family for a reason.
Cashel/Cashell is not that rare. See my site for lots more Cashels/Cashells at that time, even in Co.Kerry alone.
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/misc.html
"George Cashell" is not that rare. I know of quite a few more, even in Co.Kerry. See my site above.
"Rowan Cashell" is rare, but so what. Rowan is not a name in my family.
taf
2020-06-21 02:43:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
I have read them but, thing is, as Mark already pointed out, Edward Cashel
was Meg Niemi's only Irish ancestor. As Mary Kicham's ancestry is already
known, with her being cousin of the Fenian, the relationship must come
through George Cashel,
Stop right there. I can actually address the DNA this better than most people here, based on my own analogous results. My father has one immigrant couple from Ireland at about the same time we are talking about and the rest of his tree are German. The two were from different places and married after they emigrated separately. The wife was from County Meath, and I now have a dozen DNA relatives of my father that I can show by paper trail to be descended from her family. There are other 'DNA relatives' that have no German ancestry but do have Irish, and are not related to any of the kin on the wife's side. The husband was from County Limerick, and one of my matches of similar size to what we are talking about here, has an entirely non-Irish tree except for one line from County Limerick. It seems reasonable to conclude that is the route for our relationship, and based on the amount of shared DNA that the relationship is in the immediate proximity of the emigrant (indeed, it would predict it to be one generation down from my emigrant, but that isn't geographically possible).

So we compare surnames, and there is no match whatsoever. Nothing. Hers are Protestant reasonably well-off gentry, mine is Catholic working class poor. There are only two explanations - one is that this chunk of shared DNA is the result of an infidelity, or two, that it descends from an older link - you can only cut up a piece of DNA so small and then it passes intact from generation to generation without further reduction as you look retrospectively, so once you hit that threshold, there is no predicting how far back the link might be. Indeed, I have one case where two people share a piece of DNA with my father, and they have a common ancestor who has a surname in his tree. However, his ancestor left Germany in 1815, while their shared ancestral line traces to someone born about 1590 who left, pre-marriage, for Sweden and then his son went to New Jersey, so this little piece of DNA seems to have been handed down intact since the family was in the same place more than 400 years ago.

Now, apply my experience to the Cashel situation, and it becomes clear that a DNA match cannot allow such a precise conclusion as you are trying to deduce -the link could be the result of an infidelity, in which case all bets are off in terms of what it was (e.g. a Blennerhassett baronet could have been George Cashel's biological father for all we know), or alternatively, it could have been a link one or more generations back in time, one or many steps removed, on any branch of George's ancestry. It need not have resulted specifically from a Cashel/Blennerhasset marriage precisely in the generation you think.

taf
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-20 13:26:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks Carl-Henry. I am delighted someone more knowledgeable than me about DNA is having a look at my Blennerhassett DNA project. Please don't go away.
Well first of all I am delighted Paulo is interested. I did not know he had a post here until today.

It is indeed an interesting hunt. So let me explain. As Paulo said, I spent a lot of time on a "Plan A" theory, namely that my family descends from Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert (born 1780). I did no less than 295 one-to-one DNA comparisons on Gedmatch and the best I got of all of them was 8.4 cM. And there was no pattern either.
So I finally dumped Plan A and tried to find a Plan B theory.

The obvious Plan B theory was the Baronets branch, since there was some evidence we are connected to their seat, Churchtown House, Co.Kerry, plus some other clues, explained here:
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/proof.html

Then on my very first Baronets sample, I got a 15 cM match with a George Cashel descendant.
The Baronets line person (Chute) is in the UK. Known ancestry is heavily Anglo-Irish Munster:
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/francis.chute.html
The Cashel person (Niemi) is in the US. Known ancestry is mostly Scandinavian and Russian. The only Irish Munster line is Cashel (ancestors born 1807 and 1840). There is one line to Co.Derry (Porter, ancestor born 1752).
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/tree/152470640
Niemi could hardly be less likely, of all the people in my tree, to match Chute.

So you can see why it looks good to me.
There are then further 9 cM matches to the Baronet's wife's family, and this combined with the clues in the documents.
And then last week, I discovered the baptism of a daughter of Sir Rowland, previously unknown to any of the printed histories.
The baptism of Melisent Blennerhassett in 1768 is here:
https://churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/details/56df180183729
When the RCB library re-opens, I will go there and photograph the original.

So I think I'm getting somewhere.
However, I like your scepticism, so I need to keep going.
On triangulation, no luck so far.
I have 11 George Cashel descendants on Gedmatch.
None of the other 10 have a matching segment (over 3 cM) in that region on Chromosome 11 that Niemi matches.

In reply to the other issues, no, I only have DNA of a single descendant of Sir Rowland so far. I am working on more.
And then on the Bayly matches, yes that person is only on Ancestry. I am trying to get them onto Gedmatch.

I tried using Gedmatch Triangulation tool but it never seems to terminate.
Is there anything else I could do with the material I have right now?

Carl-Henry, if you drop me an email I could send you the Gedmatch kit IDs and maybe you could have a look yourself?
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/howtomailme.html
Mark
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-06-20 17:16:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Humphrys
Thanks Carl-Henry. I am delighted someone more knowledgeable than me about DNA is having a look at my Blennerhassett DNA project. Please don't go away.
Delighted to see your post, and that you are eager to work on solidifying your proof.
Post by Mark Humphrys
It is indeed an interesting hunt. So let me explain. As Paulo said, I spent a lot of time on a "Plan A" theory, namely that my family descends from Letitia Blennerhassett of Tarbert (born 1780). I did no less than 295 one-to-one DNA comparisons on Gedmatch and the best I got of all of them was 8.4 cM. And there was no pattern either.
So I finally dumped Plan A and tried to find a Plan B theory.
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/proof.html
Then on my very first Baronets sample, I got a 15 cM match with a George Cashel descendant.
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Blennerhassett/francis.chute.html
The Cashel person (Niemi) is in the US. Known ancestry is mostly Scandinavian and Russian. The only Irish Munster line is Cashel (ancestors born 1807 and 1840). There is one line to Co.Derry (Porter, ancestor born 1752).
https://www.ancestry.co.uk/family-tree/tree/152470640
Niemi could hardly be less likely, of all the people in my tree, to match Chute.
Very glad to see the Niemi tree. Yes, the Cashel connection looks most likely, though the next obvious place to look would be whether John Chute might have another ancestor in Munster who intermarried with the Cashels or an ancestor in or near Co. Derry who might have intermarried with the Porters (at least the data you've linked to for the Chutes gives only a sliver of John Chute's family tree, so it is difficult to tell what else might be lurking there). But then, given that the Cashels seem to have been very adventurous (George's son went to Alaska and had a kid with an Aleut woman!), one also wonders whether perhaps one of John Chute's 18th-century ancestors was equally adventurous and sowed his oats in Finland or Denmark.
Post by Mark Humphrys
So you can see why it looks good to me.
There are then further 9 cM matches to the Baronet's wife's family, and this combined with the clues in the documents.
And then last week, I discovered the baptism of a daughter of Sir Rowland, previously unknown to any of the printed histories.
https://churchrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/details/56df180183729
When the RCB library re-opens, I will go there and photograph the original.
So I think I'm getting somewhere.
However, I like your scepticism, so I need to keep going.
On triangulation, no luck so far.
I have 11 George Cashel descendants on Gedmatch.
None of the other 10 have a matching segment (over 3 cM) in that region on Chromosome 11 that Niemi matches.
In reply to the other issues, no, I only have DNA of a single descendant of Sir Rowland so far. I am working on more.
And then on the Bayly matches, yes that person is only on Ancestry. I am trying to get them onto Gedmatch.
I tried using Gedmatch Triangulation tool but it never seems to terminate.
Is there anything else I could do with the material I have right now?
I have to admit that I have not actually used the Gedmatch triangulation tool (too cheap to pay for the subscription). However, I see that, when I plug the two Gedmatch IDs into Gedmatch's "People who match both, or 1 of 2 kits" tool, I get 160 hits for people who match both Meg Niemi and John Chute with at least 7cM (though not necessarily on the same segment). Of course, on Gedmatch you generally don't get a family tree or other helpful hints, but only a cryptic user name to identify the match, but perhaps you are sufficiently familiar with the genealogies to be able to figure out at least some of these mutual matches. The strategy to use here is the one outlined by Joe C in post #9 above - do the mutual matches cluster on Meg's Cashel line, so that you can have assurance that the match with John is on this line?

Another alternative would be to persuade either Meg to do a test at 23andMe and/or John to do a test at Ancestry, so that you can then look at mutual matches in the 23andMe and/or Ancestry databases (which may be a lot more user-friendly than the GedMatch database).

I take it (since you do not mention it in your discussion) that Meg does not have any matches with the Yielding descendants at Ancestry (if there were such a match it would be very nice, because that would be a good indicator that Meg's match with John Chute is through John's Blennerhassett/Yielding ancestors rather than some other part of his ancestry).
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-21 17:28:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Carl-Henry:
No, Meg has no matches with the Yielding/Bayly people.
She matches with my cousins who match with Yielding/Bayly, of course.

I've signed up to Tier 1 Gedmatch and am trying to use their tools to find another match of that segment on Chromosome 11.
That might clarify things.
Carl-Henry Geschwind
2020-06-22 20:14:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Humphrys
Carl-Henry, if you drop me an email I could send you the Gedmatch kit IDs and maybe you could have a look yourself?
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/howtomailme.html
Mark
Hi Mark:

I've taken a look and sent you an e-mail. Please let me know if you did not receive it (my e-mails sometimes end up in spam folders).

--Carl-Henry
wjhonson
2020-06-20 19:58:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I have many relatives named such things as George Washington Smith and Andrew Jackson Collier. That is exactly *zero* evidence that they are related to George Washington or Andrew Jackson.

That a family lived in an area where the local birthing doctor was named Miles Davis, means lots of children named Miles Davis Jones, and Miles Davis Taylor. Again zero evidence of any blood relation.

Checking with a 13cm cutoff I have 36,000 apparent eighth cousins. Clearly this is a fallacious argument.

As a dedicated DNA-sleuth myself, you really need to show, generation by generation, that this particular specific segment descended *only* along that specific line to yourself, and to your matches.

Just finding *some* segment you share with some eighth cousin, is not sufficient.
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-20 21:35:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
One other point.

A DNA match of 17 cm. does suggest the possibility of say a 5th cousin kinship between two parties. However, in my own DNA results, there is a person who matches me at 8 cm. who descends from a brother of my great grandfather. Given our common ancestry, he should be at least 30 or 40 cm. He is not.

There is also a woman who descends from a sister of my 2nd great grandmother. She matches neither me or my brother. She does, however, match all of our common relatives. Reviewing all of her own DNA matches and comparing them to my DNA matches, it is abundantly clear that we are members of the same family.

Even though I do not match this woman, I do have 90,000 other DNA matches.

Short end of the stick: One DNA match at 17 cm. means nothing. Such a match might be a clue to common kinship, but that is all. Far more testing and common matches are needed.

DR
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-20 22:17:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
I have many relatives named such things as George Washington Smith and Andrew Jackson Collier. That is exactly *zero* evidence that they are related to George Washington or Andrew Jackson.
That a family lived in an area where the local birthing doctor was named Miles Davis, means lots of children named Miles Davis Jones, and Miles Davis Taylor. Again zero evidence of any blood relation.
Checking with a 13cm cutoff I have 36,000 apparent eighth cousins. Clearly this is a fallacious argument.
As a dedicated DNA-sleuth myself, you really need to show, generation by generation, that this particular specific segment descended *only* along that specific line to yourself, and to your matches.
Just finding *some* segment you share with some eighth cousin, is not sufficient.
Your comparisons don't really work, as Blennerhassett is a much rarer surname than those. In addition, the Cashels, actually, had a tradition of being descended from the Blennerhassetts. Then, DNA showed a Cashel descendant to be related to a Blennerhassett descendant. The chances of this being a coincidence are pretty small.
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-21 17:19:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Thanks for all the comments on the Blennerhassett problem. I think some people are making a logical error though. If I got my DNA results, scrolled through the hits, found a 15 cM match, and then decided I was related to that person through some exotic line that I could see, well obviously that would be nuts.

But that is not what happened. What happened was I constructed a theory of descent based on paper evidence. Then I picked specific people to DNA test. After 295 one-to-one matches with nothing better than 8.4 cM I decided I had proved the theory *false*.

Then I constructed a 2nd theory of descent, based on paper evidence. Then I picked specific people to test. I have only tested one so far, and immediately got a 15 cM match. That would be an incredible coincidence if I just picked a good person by chance.

Anyway, if you think it is not yet proved, no problem with me. I'm going to keep going until I find some evidence in paper records of this link to the Baronet's family. Finding a daughter unknown to Burke's Peerage last week was a good start. If anyone can think of a good way to solve it, let me know.
Mark
The Blennerhassett problem
https://humphrysfamilytree.com/blen.html
c***@gmail.com
2020-06-21 18:03:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Mark -

You're assuming that someone with a DNA match at 17cm. is more closer related to you than someone at 8 cm. I can assure you that this assumption is wrong. I already gave you an example of someone who descends from a brother of my great-grandfather who matches me at 8 cm. Yet there are thousands upon thousands of other people who match me at higher than 8 cm. who are much more distantly related to me.

I usually figure I am near related to someone if they are 30 cm. or higher. Once the cm. drop below 30 cm., however, the relationship can be anything from 3rd to 9th cousin. That's a wide swath of possible kinships. To derive any meaningful results from DNA tests for more distant kinships, it helps considerably if you can triangulate results with other people.

This assumes of course you don't have a double descent from a particular family in your ancestry. I have double descents from the Richardson, Lowe, and White families. I also have 4 Davis descents and 7 Thayer descents. I match descendants of those families at higher cm. than I do other families. Having said that, my first cousin matches a descendant of a brother of my 2nd great grandfather but this person doesn't match me or my brother. Thus is in soute of the fact that this other person and I both have double Richardson descents.

Bottom line: Assume nothing. Prove everything. And whenever possible triangulate results with other people.
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-22 09:35:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by c***@gmail.com
Mark -
You're assuming that someone with a DNA match at 17cm. is more closer related to you than someone at 8 cm. I can assure you that this assumption is wrong. I already gave you an example of someone who descends from a brother of my great-grandfather who matches me at 8 cm. Yet there are thousands upon thousands of other people who match me at higher than 8 cm. who are much more distantly related to me.
I usually figure I am near related to someone if they are 30 cm. or higher. Once the cm. drop below 30 cm., however, the relationship can be anything from 3rd to 9th cousin. That's a wide swath of possible kinships. To derive any meaningful results from DNA tests for more distant kinships, it helps considerably if you can triangulate results with other people.
This assumes of course you don't have a double descent from a particular family in your ancestry. I have double descents from the Richardson, Lowe, and White families. I also have 4 Davis descents and 7 Thayer descents. I match descendants of those families at higher cm. than I do other families. Having said that, my first cousin matches a descendant of a brother of my 2nd great grandfather but this person doesn't match me or my brother. Thus is in soute of the fact that this other person and I both have double Richardson descents.
Bottom line: Assume nothing. Prove everything. And whenever possible triangulate results with other people.
I think the logic is back to front. I picked the fellow first, not afterwards.
Yes, like you, I have many 15 cM matches and no idea who they are. We all do.
But none were picked in advance.
To pick a person in advance and have them turn out to be 15 cM seems very special.
I could be picking random people for years and not get a 15 cM.
In fact, that's exactly what I did. For 2 years I did 295 tests according to my previous theory, and not one above 8.4 cM.

Anyway, I am going to carry on and try to prove for sure with triangulation and more DNA samples. And of course documents.
wjhonson
2020-06-22 19:25:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
TAF I have seen a cms of 60 attributable evidently to a couple married two hundrd years ago.

I have seen as much as 25cms for tenth cousins.

Do you have a specific cms that you think can persist over say 15 generations?

That might explain my hundred thousand apparent cousins
j***@gmail.com
2020-06-22 19:41:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
TAF I have seen a cms of 60 attributable evidently to a couple married two hundrd years ago.
I have seen as much as 25cms for tenth cousins.
Do you have a specific cms that you think can persist over say 15 generations?
Four comments.
1) (Practically) Every gene you have has persisted over 15 generations or more
2) A good rule of thumb is that (statistically) you will be listed as a DNA match to 50% of your 4th cousins. And only 25% of your fifth cousins.
3) The name Agnes is so common that no, it does not provide *any* evidence of anything whatsoever. Not a little evidence. Nothing. Zero. Zilch.
4) 60cm would indicate that there are probably other links or common relations in the past 200 years other than this one marriage unless evidence to the contrary is overwhelming

--Joe C
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-22 20:03:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
TAF I have seen a cms of 60 attributable evidently to a couple married two hundrd years ago.
I have seen as much as 25cms for tenth cousins.
Do you have a specific cms that you think can persist over say 15 generations?
That might explain my hundred thousand apparent cousins
A couple of years ago, you were very defensive of the idea that Autosomal DNA can be very useful for several generations. Have you changed your mind?
wjhonson
2020-06-22 23:06:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A couple of years ago, you were very defensive of the idea that Autosomal DNA can be very useful for several generations. Have you changed your mind?
No it's absolutely true that Autosomal DNA can be useful for several generations.

However those matches *must* be triangulated *one* layer at a time.

So in order to show that your DNA segment actually descends from ancestors 254 and 255 in your tree, for example, you *must* show that it descends at each step down the line to you. Not ONLY for those ancestors, but from each person in the entire chain. That's my point.

You can't simply say, as this poster seems to be saying, that because you apparently share two ancestors two hundred years ago, that the segment in common has to come from them. That's simply not a valid argument.
wjhonson
2020-06-22 23:11:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A couple of years ago, you were very defensive of the idea that Autosomal DNA can be very useful for several generations. Have you changed your mind?
No it's absolutely true that Autosomal DNA can be useful for several generations.
However those matches *must* be triangulated *one* layer at a time.
So in order to show that your DNA segment actually descends from ancestors 254 and 255 in your tree, for example, you *must* show that it descends at each step down the line to you. Not ONLY for those ancestors, but from each person in the entire chain. That's my point.
You can't simply say, as this poster seems to be saying, that because you apparently share two ancestors two hundred years ago, that the segment in common has to come from them. That's simply not a valid argument.
Say for example, that if every descendant from the whole Blennerhassett clan were to be tested. Let's say you end up with five thousand of them that you can identify and they are all tested.

Then you discover wham bam, this SAME segment, actually exists in many of them who don't descend from this couple at all, but rather descend from their first cousins and second cousins and third cousins even. And *then* you find, that the segment is actually two hundred years older than you suspected.

The entire theory falls to pieces, because you find it actually comes *to* the Blennerhassets, from the Smiths, ancestors of their mother's mother's mother. So not a Blennerhasset segment in the first place. Just shared with these cousins.

This is both the problem and the challenge of Autosomal DNA. It's a constantly moving target to try to assign segments to specific ancestors.
Mark Humphrys
2020-06-23 12:02:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A couple of years ago, you were very defensive of the idea that Autosomal DNA can be very useful for several generations. Have you changed your mind?
No it's absolutely true that Autosomal DNA can be useful for several generations.
However those matches *must* be triangulated *one* layer at a time.
So in order to show that your DNA segment actually descends from ancestors 254 and 255 in your tree, for example, you *must* show that it descends at each step down the line to you. Not ONLY for those ancestors, but from each person in the entire chain. That's my point.
You can't simply say, as this poster seems to be saying, that because you apparently share two ancestors two hundred years ago, that the segment in common has to come from them. That's simply not a valid argument.
WJ, no argument about the value of triangulation.
But I still think you are making a logical error about the finding so far. If I got my DNA results, scrolled through the hits, picked a random 15 cM match, and then decided I was related to that person through some particular line, well obviously that would be nuts.
But that is not what happened. I constructed a theory of descent from paper clues. Weak clues, but still clues. One clue is from 1828. And then I hunted in real life for a chosen person to test. There is a reason I picked Chute. They would make sense according to the paper theory. I tested them and immediately got 15 cM. That is evidence my clues are on the right track and I need to keep going.
If you want to tell me: "Oh you can pick anyone at random and get 15 cM", I don't believe you.
taf
2020-06-23 19:09:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Mark Humphrys
Post by wjhonson
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
A couple of years ago, you were very defensive of the idea that Autosomal DNA can be very useful for several generations. Have you changed your mind?
No it's absolutely true that Autosomal DNA can be useful for several generations.
However those matches *must* be triangulated *one* layer at a time.
So in order to show that your DNA segment actually descends from ancestors 254 and 255 in your tree, for example, you *must* show that it descends at each step down the line to you. Not ONLY for those ancestors, but from each person in the entire chain. That's my point.
You can't simply say, as this poster seems to be saying, that because you apparently share two ancestors two hundred years ago, that the segment in common has to come from them. That's simply not a valid argument.
WJ, no argument about the value of triangulation.
But I still think you are making a logical error about the finding so far. If I got my DNA results, scrolled through the hits, picked a random 15 cM match, and then decided I was related to that person through some particular line, well obviously that would be nuts.
But that is not what happened. I constructed a theory of descent from paper clues. Weak clues, but still clues. One clue is from 1828. And then I hunted in real life for a chosen person to test. There is a reason I picked Chute. They would make sense according to the paper theory. I tested them and immediately got 15 cM. That is evidence my clues are on the right track and I need to keep going.
If you want to tell me: "Oh you can pick anyone at random and get 15 cM", I don't believe you.
WJ is closer to the mark than you are. Your match shows there was a relationship of some type, at some time in the past, between the ancestors of the Blennerhassett descendants you tested and the descendants of the Cashels you tested. That is all. This in no way confirms that it was the precise relationship you want it to be. It means your relationship is possible, but not that it is the only way such a genetic link might have arisen, particularly when, as seems to be the case here, you have what seems to be a small somewhat inbred social pool

Your conclusion that the connection is now "proven" based on this test is a massive oversimplification of the meaning of the result, and suggests to me you have fallen victim of 'capture' by your theory, that you have become so enamoured of it that all of the data is simply being evaluated as if it was the only possible explanation for the observed results. There is simply no way, in a family like this, that a DNA test of this type can prove a relationship.

taf
taf
2020-06-22 21:16:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
TAF I have seen a cms of 60 attributable evidently to a couple married two hundrd years ago.
I have seen as much as 25cms for tenth cousins.
Do you have a specific cms that you think can persist over say 15 generations?
That might explain my hundred thousand apparent cousins
It is different for different regions of DNA. First a little background:

There are two ways a piece of DNA can get truncated from one generation to the next, by meiotic crossover and repair.

The repair that results in a truncation is performed when there is double-stranded damage to the DNA. This prevents the normal repair mechanisms from simply removing a problem strand of the double-stranded DNA and fixing it using the other strand as template to synthesize a replacement, because neither strand is intact to allow the other to be fixed. Instead, the cell uses one of two mechanisms. One is simply brute force - it cleans off the damage and simply glues the strands back together. This usually causes a deletion of one or a few bases, and so is only used as a last resort. Instead it prefers to use the other copy of the same chromosome to make the repair. It separates the strands of the broken or damaged copy and lines each of them up on the separated strands of the intact copy, and uses that to replace the missing sequence, and then it separates them back apart and puts the now-complementary 'fixed' DNA together to restore the damaged copy. The problem is that the cell can't really tell which was which - it sometimes lines up one end of the broken copy with the other end of the intact copy, and vice versa, and ends up creating and exchange between the two chromosomes at the point of the repair. This is happening in all your cells, all the time, and is the system hijacked by the CRISPR/Cas gene editing approach that you see in the news sometimes. However, the only way this can affect the DNA that is passed down is if it happens in the cell lineage that gives rise to the gametes, but before the meiotic event that produces the sperm and egg, because they have only a single copy of each chromosome and hence only the brute force repair available when presented with double-stranded damage. As a result, when looking across generations, this form of recombination (and hence truncating of contiguous shared DNA) is relatively rare.

The other way it happens, and by far the more common, is by meiotic crossover. During meiosis, when the sperm or egg is produced, the cell conjoins the two copies of each chromosome at a random selection of specific 'hotspots' along the sequence of each chromosome as a necessary precursor to the process - without the ability to do this, the chromosomes do not segregate properly. This allows the chromosomes to be lined up in the middle of the dividing cell, and as it starts to pull the duplicate copies apart, the conjoining is resolved so that one goes to each end of the cell, and then a division between the two ends creates 'daughter' cells with only one copy of each. As with repair, however, the cell doesn't know which pieces were which, and so it doesn't necessarily separate the conjoined chromosomes the same way they were when they were linked together. Half the time you get an exchange at any particular hotspot involved in crossing over, and hence a truncation in the contiguous DNA from each of the parental chromosomes.

What determines the location of the crossover hotspots is not known, though there has been some speculation that some of these 'hotspots' also to play a role in separating parts of the DNA that is 'open' in the cell for gene expression from parts of the DNA that is tightly packed and unused, and as insulators separating some of the signals that regulate a gene's expression from affecting other genes up and down the same chromosome. What is known is that their frequency is not uniform, with a lot of variation in the length of sequence between hotspots. This length can range from 100s of kilobases to Megabases (roughly cMs). Likewise, the hotspots are not all used for crossing over at the same frequency - some are used frequently, some rarely, most in between.

The take-home message is that once you have a piece of DNA inherited from an ancestor that has been truncated so much as to consist of only the amount of DNA between two adjacent hotspots, this will pass intact indefinitely, like the alleles we learn about in genetics class, rather than like we think of chromosomal segments being progressively shortened with each generation (with the exception of the rare repair events that will produce a one-time shortening). Also, if your piece of interest contains adjacent segments separated by a low-frequency crossover hotspot that is only used once every 10 meiosis events, there will be, on average, 20 generations between truncations at that point.

Taken together, this means that the farther back you go, the more likely you will have a shared piece of DNA that has been passed intact for innumerable generations. This is more likely to occur with a shorter piece than a longer piece, because it is more likely a shorter piece only consists of the DNA between two adjacent non-infrequent hotspots, but there is enough variability that the length this constitutes is different for every region of every chromosome.

As an extreme example, when they did the work that characterized the gene most commonly responsible for blue eyes, they found that most blue eyed people had two copies of the same chunk of DNA that was 150,000 bases long and had passed intact for 10s of thousands of years (even in spite of the double-stranded break repair crossovers that though rare from generation to generation become significant over the course of this time frame), all the way back to the first human in which the 'blue-eye' mutation they all share first occurred (probably in the Neolithic hunter-gatherers ancestral to the ancient 'Anatolian agriculturalist' population).

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-06-22 23:30:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 23-Jun-20 7:16 AM, taf wrote:

<chomp>
Post by taf
As an extreme example, when they did the work that characterized the gene most commonly responsible for blue eyes, they found that most blue eyed people had two copies of the same chunk of DNA that was 150,000 bases long and had passed intact for 10s of thousands of years (even in spite of the double-stranded break repair crossovers that though rare from generation to generation become significant over the course of this time frame), all the way back to the first human in which the 'blue-eye' mutation they all share first occurred (probably in the Neolithic hunter-gatherers ancestral to the ancient 'Anatolian agriculturalist' population).
In other words, most people with blue eyes are descended - ipso facto,
though of course without a paper trail - from someone (whether male or
female) far more special in the history of humankind than any baronet,
earl, king or yeoman farmer. What a turn-up for blue-eyed snobs and
wannabees.

Peter Stewart
taf
2020-06-23 00:06:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter Stewart
In other words, most people with blue eyes are descended - ipso facto,
though of course without a paper trail - from someone (whether male or
female) far more special in the history of humankind than any baronet,
earl, king or yeoman farmer. What a turn-up for blue-eyed snobs and
wannabees.
Descended from that person twice. The original gene induced brown eye pigment, and the mutation knocks out the function of this gene. If you have at least one functional copy then you still make at least some brown pigment. You only get blue eyes if both your copies are knocked out, so you had to get a copy of the same ancient segment from both your father and your mother.

In other words, BLUE-EYED PEOPLE ARE INBRED MUTANTS!!! (as are the rest of us)

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-06-23 00:17:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Peter Stewart
In other words, most people with blue eyes are descended - ipso facto,
though of course without a paper trail - from someone (whether male or
female) far more special in the history of humankind than any baronet,
earl, king or yeoman farmer. What a turn-up for blue-eyed snobs and
wannabees.
Descended from that person twice. The original gene induced brown eye pigment, and the mutation knocks out the function of this gene. If you have at least one functional copy then you still make at least some brown pigment. You only get blue eyes if both your copies are knocked out, so you had to get a copy of the same ancient segment from both your father and your mother.
In other words, BLUE-EYED PEOPLE ARE INBRED MUTANTS!!! (as are the rest of us)
Gosh, if only I could be one too.

Perhaps I could inject myself with disinfectant and kill two (or even
three) birds with one stone.

Peter Stewart
wjhonson
2020-06-22 19:26:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Paulo on several threads you seem to present a rather credulous view of whatever line you're discussing.

I hope you're seeing many blank stares when you post against the idea that this theory has many holes.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-22 20:06:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Paulo on several threads you seem to present a rather credulous view of whatever line you're discussing.
I hope you're seeing many blank stares when you post against the idea that this theory has many holes.
I only post here lines that seem plausible.
I don't post lines that seem too fantastic to be true.
That's why I'm defensive of what I post here.
Regardless, I, actually, asked Mark to post here so that he could explain this better.
wjhonson
2020-06-23 17:28:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
I don't think you can *anyone* at random.

I myself have 3,000 matches just on Gedmatch of 15cms or higher
Ancestry seems to have about five times the number of kits (at least) as Gedmatch has

And then there are kits on myHeritage, FTDNA and 23andMe which aren't on any of the other services.

And these are just people who *have* tested.

So two hundred years ago, to today, I have 20,000 cousins who have actually done a DNA test?

It's highly doubtful that even the most prolific family could do that.

It's more credible that this 15cm segment descends from at least 100 if not 200 years earlier than you think.

At that remove you're going to have thousands of ancestors to try to match together to prove your result. Not two or eight....
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-25 23:33:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings. Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the Yieldings must come through him. As I already said, Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian. Thus, it must come through George Cashel. Thus, he must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, DNA shows it was more likely through Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than through his brother.
taf
2020-06-25 23:59:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings.
Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor
with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the
Yieldings must come through him.
Again, this is not really how it works. Shared DNA need not come from the most recent common ancestor.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-27 00:43:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings.
Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor
with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the
Yieldings must come through him.
Again, this is not really how it works. Shared DNA need not come from the most recent common ancestor.
taf
I should have specified. Blennerhassett Cashel is their only documented common ancestor, other than his own ancestors, obviously.
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to theorize other connections that have no evidence.
Peter Stewart
2020-06-27 00:49:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings.
Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor
with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the
Yieldings must come through him.
Again, this is not really how it works. Shared DNA need not come from the most recent common ancestor.
taf
I should have specified. Blennerhassett Cashel is their only documented common ancestor, other than his own ancestors, obviously.
Occam's razor applies. There's no reason to theorize other connections that have no evidence.
This is specious - other ancestors are necessarily real, not
theoretical, and the possibility of unknown ancestry in common can't be
excluded just because one line happens to be documented.

Assuming that what you know is all you need to know is the beginning of
unwisdom.

Peter Stewart
John Higgins
2020-06-26 00:44:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings. Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the Yieldings must come through him. As I already said, Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian. Thus, it must come through George Cashel. Thus, he must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, DNA shows it was more likely through Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than through his brother.
The name is Mary Kickham, not Kicham.

I have no idea who all these people are or how they connect to the Yieldings or the Blennerhassetts. And I'm not going to dig through the Humphrys family tree to decode your cryptic references. Unless you provide more context in your posts (with citations to the family tree), you're not going to get much response here.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-26 09:52:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings. Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the Yieldings must come through him. As I already said, Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian. Thus, it must come through George Cashel. Thus, he must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, DNA shows it was more likely through Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than through his brother.
The name is Mary Kickham, not Kicham.
I have no idea who all these people are or how they connect to the Yieldings or the Blennerhassetts. And I'm not going to dig through the Humphrys family tree to decode your cryptic references. Unless you provide more context in your posts (with citations to the family tree), you're not going to get much response here.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Regardless, for the McGraths, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html and, for Nualla Dugan, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html. As I said, their most recent common ancestor is Blennerhassett Cashel.
John Higgins
2020-06-26 17:59:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings. Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the Yieldings must come through him. As I already said, Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian. Thus, it must come through George Cashel. Thus, he must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, DNA shows it was more likely through Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than through his brother.
The name is Mary Kickham, not Kicham.
I have no idea who all these people are or how they connect to the Yieldings or the Blennerhassetts. And I'm not going to dig through the Humphrys family tree to decode your cryptic references. Unless you provide more context in your posts (with citations to the family tree), you're not going to get much response here.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Regardless, for the McGraths, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html and, for Nualla Dugan, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html. As I said, their most recent common ancestor is Blennerhassett Cashel.
Ummm...you cited the same website for both people here. Is this another mistake on your part? And so what if they both descend from Blennerhassett Cashel? How does this relate to the Yieldings? The brevity of your posts makes them useless to read.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-26 18:43:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings. Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the Yieldings must come through him. As I already said, Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian. Thus, it must come through George Cashel. Thus, he must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, DNA shows it was more likely through Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than through his brother.
The name is Mary Kickham, not Kicham.
I have no idea who all these people are or how they connect to the Yieldings or the Blennerhassetts. And I'm not going to dig through the Humphrys family tree to decode your cryptic references. Unless you provide more context in your posts (with citations to the family tree), you're not going to get much response here.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Regardless, for the McGraths, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html and, for Nualla Dugan, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html. As I said, their most recent common ancestor is Blennerhassett Cashel.
Ummm...you cited the same website for both people here. Is this another mistake on your part? And so what if they both descend from Blennerhassett Cashel? How does this relate to the Yieldings? The brevity of your posts makes them useless to read.
Oops, the second link should have been https://humphrysfamilytree.com/OMara/duggan.html. Regardless, as shown in their pages, they match "Bayly10", who is descended from a brother of Milicent Agnes Yielding.
John Higgins
2020-06-26 20:11:09 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings. Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the Yieldings must come through him. As I already said, Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian. Thus, it must come through George Cashel. Thus, he must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, DNA shows it was more likely through Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than through his brother.
The name is Mary Kickham, not Kicham.
I have no idea who all these people are or how they connect to the Yieldings or the Blennerhassetts. And I'm not going to dig through the Humphrys family tree to decode your cryptic references. Unless you provide more context in your posts (with citations to the family tree), you're not going to get much response here.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Regardless, for the McGraths, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html and, for Nualla Dugan, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html. As I said, their most recent common ancestor is Blennerhassett Cashel.
Ummm...you cited the same website for both people here. Is this another mistake on your part? And so what if they both descend from Blennerhassett Cashel? How does this relate to the Yieldings? The brevity of your posts makes them useless to read.
Oops, the second link should have been https://humphrysfamilytree.com/OMara/duggan.html. Regardless, as shown in their pages, they match "Bayly10", who is descended from a brother of Milicent Agnes Yielding.
Oh, great - another snippet of information: "Bayly10", descended from a Yielding. (and it's Millicent, not Milicent)

Another brief and useless post.... If you want to make a case for something here, make a full, detailed explanation of what you're advocating, with sources - not just a series of two- or three-sentence blurbs that assume a detailed familiarity with the Humphrys family tree.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-26 21:07:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings. Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the Yieldings must come through him. As I already said, Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian. Thus, it must come through George Cashel. Thus, he must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, DNA shows it was more likely through Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than through his brother.
The name is Mary Kickham, not Kicham.
I have no idea who all these people are or how they connect to the Yieldings or the Blennerhassetts. And I'm not going to dig through the Humphrys family tree to decode your cryptic references. Unless you provide more context in your posts (with citations to the family tree), you're not going to get much response here.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Regardless, for the McGraths, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html and, for Nualla Dugan, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html. As I said, their most recent common ancestor is Blennerhassett Cashel.
Ummm...you cited the same website for both people here. Is this another mistake on your part? And so what if they both descend from Blennerhassett Cashel? How does this relate to the Yieldings? The brevity of your posts makes them useless to read.
Oops, the second link should have been https://humphrysfamilytree.com/OMara/duggan.html. Regardless, as shown in their pages, they match "Bayly10", who is descended from a brother of Milicent Agnes Yielding.
Oh, great - another snippet of information: "Bayly10", descended from a Yielding. (and it's Millicent, not Milicent)
Another brief and useless post.... If you want to make a case for something here, make a full, detailed explanation of what you're advocating, with sources - not just a series of two- or three-sentence blurbs that assume a detailed familiarity with the Humphrys family tree.
There was a link to Bayly10 in the other pages I linked to, but, here is https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Yielding/bayly.html.
Regardless, the matches with both the Blennerhassetts and the Yieldings show that George Cashel must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, they also show that it's more likely that George Cashel was grandson of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than of his brother.
John Higgins
2020-06-26 22:23:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings. Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the Yieldings must come through him. As I already said, Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian. Thus, it must come through George Cashel. Thus, he must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, DNA shows it was more likely through Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than through his brother.
The name is Mary Kickham, not Kicham.
I have no idea who all these people are or how they connect to the Yieldings or the Blennerhassetts. And I'm not going to dig through the Humphrys family tree to decode your cryptic references. Unless you provide more context in your posts (with citations to the family tree), you're not going to get much response here.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Regardless, for the McGraths, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html and, for Nualla Dugan, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html. As I said, their most recent common ancestor is Blennerhassett Cashel.
Ummm...you cited the same website for both people here. Is this another mistake on your part? And so what if they both descend from Blennerhassett Cashel? How does this relate to the Yieldings? The brevity of your posts makes them useless to read.
Oops, the second link should have been https://humphrysfamilytree.com/OMara/duggan.html. Regardless, as shown in their pages, they match "Bayly10", who is descended from a brother of Milicent Agnes Yielding.
Oh, great - another snippet of information: "Bayly10", descended from a Yielding. (and it's Millicent, not Milicent)
Another brief and useless post.... If you want to make a case for something here, make a full, detailed explanation of what you're advocating, with sources - not just a series of two- or three-sentence blurbs that assume a detailed familiarity with the Humphrys family tree.
There was a link to Bayly10 in the other pages I linked to, but, here is https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Yielding/bayly.html.
Regardless, the matches with both the Blennerhassetts and the Yieldings show that George Cashel must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, they also show that it's more likely that George Cashel was grandson of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than of his brother.
So... the DNA matches "prove" this descent for George Cashel? In light of the lengthy discussions earlier in this thread about whether the various DNA matches actually prove what Mark Humphrys thinks they prove, I'm rather skeptical of this. But I'll leave this to someone more knowledgeable on DNA testing to address this - if anyone really wants to... I'' bow out of this discussion for now.
wjhonson
2020-06-28 01:25:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by John Higgins
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
We have focused on the Blennerhassetts. Now, let's focus in the Yieldings. Derval McGrath is nephew of Frank McGrath. Their most recent common ancestor with Nualla Dugan is Blennerhassett Cashel. Thus, their relationship to the Yieldings must come through him. As I already said, Mary Kicham's ancestry is already known, with her being cousin of the Fenian. Thus, it must come through George Cashel. Thus, he must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, DNA shows it was more likely through Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than through his brother.
The name is Mary Kickham, not Kicham.
I have no idea who all these people are or how they connect to the Yieldings or the Blennerhassetts. And I'm not going to dig through the Humphrys family tree to decode your cryptic references. Unless you provide more context in your posts (with citations to the family tree), you're not going to get much response here.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Regardless, for the McGraths, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html and, for Nualla Dugan, see https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Cashel/frank.mcgrath.html. As I said, their most recent common ancestor is Blennerhassett Cashel.
Ummm...you cited the same website for both people here. Is this another mistake on your part? And so what if they both descend from Blennerhassett Cashel? How does this relate to the Yieldings? The brevity of your posts makes them useless to read.
Oops, the second link should have been https://humphrysfamilytree.com/OMara/duggan.html. Regardless, as shown in their pages, they match "Bayly10", who is descended from a brother of Milicent Agnes Yielding.
Oh, great - another snippet of information: "Bayly10", descended from a Yielding. (and it's Millicent, not Milicent)
Another brief and useless post.... If you want to make a case for something here, make a full, detailed explanation of what you're advocating, with sources - not just a series of two- or three-sentence blurbs that assume a detailed familiarity with the Humphrys family tree.
There was a link to Bayly10 in the other pages I linked to, but, here is https://humphrysfamilytree.com/Yielding/bayly.html.
Regardless, the matches with both the Blennerhassetts and the Yieldings show that George Cashel must have been descended from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding. As Mark noted, they also show that it's more likely that George Cashel was grandson of Sir Rowland Blennerhassett than of his brother.
This is faulty reasoning.
It shows that they both have the same ancestors at some distance.
This doesn't have to the exact distance you are proposing.

I note *huge* holes in the trees of both lines
Who is to say that *both* families are not descended from the Smith's basket-weavers of no note whatsoever, and just happen to have their lines cross in this manner.

Happens ALL the time.
It's one of the only reasons I cannot take my own lines back behind about 1700 in most cases. The poets call it ENDOGAMY

Get Jiggle With It.
wjhonson
2020-06-29 21:18:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Also I want to point that you are mis-applying Occam's Razor.

It says the "simplest" explanation, not the one closest in *time*

So the simplest explanation has been given in this thread already, by various, and it's not the one you are proposing.
taf
2020-06-30 01:31:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by wjhonson
Also I want to point that you are mis-applying Occam's Razor.
It says the "simplest" explanation, not the one closest in *time*
So the simplest explanation has been given in this thread already, by various, and it's not the one you are proposing.
I don't know that one solution is inherently simpler than the other, and Occam's Razor is really being misused to apply it to this question, given what we know and in particular, what we don't.

taf
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-30 22:29:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
Also I want to point that you are mis-applying Occam's Razor.
It says the "simplest" explanation, not the one closest in *time*
So the simplest explanation has been given in this thread already, by various, and it's not the one you are proposing.
I don't know that one solution is inherently simpler than the other, and Occam's Razor is really being misused to apply it to this question, given what we know and in particular, what we don't.
taf
The matches of Cashel descendants eith both Blennerhassett descendants and Yielding descendants indicate a descent of George Cashel from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding.
Paulo Ricardo Canedo
2020-06-30 22:32:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
Also I want to point that you are mis-applying Occam's Razor.
It says the "simplest" explanation, not the one closest in *time*
So the simplest explanation has been given in this thread already, by various, and it's not the one you are proposing.
I don't know that one solution is inherently simpler than the other, and Occam's Razor is really being misused to apply it to this question, given what we know and in particular, what we don't.
taf
The matches of Cashel descendants eith both Blennerhassett descendants and Yielding descendants indicate a descent of George Cashel from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding, which matches with non-DNA evidence.
There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing different connections, without any evidence. This is how Occam's razor applies
taf
2020-07-01 01:05:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
Also I want to point that you are mis-applying Occam's Razor.
It says the "simplest" explanation, not the one closest in *time*
So the simplest explanation has been given in this thread already, by various, and it's not the one you are proposing.
I don't know that one solution is inherently simpler than the other, and Occam's Razor is really being misused to apply it to this question, given what we know and in particular, what we don't.
taf
The matches of Cashel descendants eith both Blennerhassett descendants and
Yielding descendants indicate a descent of George Cashel from Robert
Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding,
No, it is _consistent_ with such a descent, but this is not the only way one could obtain that result. Given how inbred these families were, and the fact that you now exactly nothing whatsoever about the derivation of this Cahel line, you can't be sure there are not independent routes for the relationships.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
which matches with non-DNA evidence.
which evidence is so weak that just about any DNA result could be spun to match it.
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing different connections,
without any evidence. This is how Occam's razor applies
This is how Occam's razor misapplies. This is making a virtue out of ignorance - we don't know anything about the Cashell origin, so we will just declare all of what we don't know to be irrelevant and declare our desired answer the simplest and therefor proven. No, not how it works.

taf
Peter Stewart
2020-07-01 06:46:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paulo Ricardo Canedo
Post by taf
Post by wjhonson
Also I want to point that you are mis-applying Occam's Razor.
It says the "simplest" explanation, not the one closest in *time*
So the simplest explanation has been given in this thread already, by various, and it's not the one you are proposing.
I don't know that one solution is inherently simpler than the other, and Occam's Razor is really being misused to apply it to this question, given what we know and in particular, what we don't.
taf
The matches of Cashel descendants eith both Blennerhassett descendants and Yielding descendants indicate a descent of George Cashel from Robert Blennerhassett and Frances Yielding, which matches with non-DNA evidence.
There's no reason to complicate matters by supposing different connections, without any evidence. This is how Occam's razor applies
You have been advised in different ways by Todd, Will Johnson and myself
that Occam's razor does not have the outcome you want in this case - you
might at least try to present a logical argument to the contrary, rather
than just repeating your assertion.

The point of Occam's razor is that absent certainty the hypothesis
relying on the fewest assumptions is to be preferred - not the most
attractive one.

Your assumption is no simpler than the alternative: that unknown
relationships could bring about the DNA-test result. Lack of non-DNA
evidence does not mean lack of possibility, it just means lack of knowledge.

Peter Stewart

Loading...