World Families Forums - not much clarity for Michael Treece thus far

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 29, 2014, 12:42:14 PM
Home Help Search Login Register

+  World Families Forums
|-+  Family Boards
| |-+  Surname Projects Starting With 'T'
| | |-+  Treece
| | | |-+  not much clarity for Michael Treece thus far
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Go Down Print
Author Topic: not much clarity for Michael Treece thus far  (Read 4209 times)
Jef Treece
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« on: August 15, 2014, 09:40:10 PM »

A number of descendants of Michael Treece, b. 1759, have now done a yDNA test.  One tester matches the "main" group - lineage 1 - of Treece yDNA results.  The others do not match.

The fact that one person does match makes me revise my theory.  I now suspect:

  • Michael Treece b.1759 was a biological descendant of Peter Dries, b.1716.
  • There may have been more than one Michael, and records might be intermixed
  • The NPE I seek could be George Treece/Trease b. abt 1787

I have also done autosomal DNA testing, and I match as a distant cousin more than one person who is a descendant of Michael's sibling(s).  Of course the assumed family tree is based on traditional genealogy research by others and myself.  Two Michaels could explain how I share Michael's parent(s) as an ancestor with some other testers, yet Michael himself also matches lineage 1 in the project -- they could be two different people/families.

We really need some more descendants of Michael and George in the project, since no clear pattern has emerged yet.

Feel free to add your thoughts to this discussion or contact me.
Logged
Mary Lou Clegg
New Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4


« Reply #1 on: August 21, 2014, 06:31:41 PM »

There is more than one Michael Treece but only one that moved to Tennessee.
Logged

M.L. Clegg
Jef Treece
Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 8


« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2014, 06:46:47 AM »

Something's been bugging me about Michael Treece, b.1759. With his second wife, Malinda, he had sons John Jackson b.1824 and William Simpson b.1829. Was he really 65 or 70 when he had these children?  Or perhaps it's more likely that he raised a son's or brother's children.  You go, grampa! It's noteworthy that we now have participants in the surname DNA project who are descendants of John Jackson and William Simpson who match other Treeces in the project, while we have descendants of Michael's sons George, Jacob, and Adam who do not match the same group of Treeces on Y DNA.

Meanwhile, we have descendants of Michael's son George, Michael's daughter Mary Magdalena, and Michael's niece Catherine who match each other by triangulating autosomal DNA (proving a common ancestor, but explicitly not via George's Y DNA).

Who has a theory?
Logged
Pages: [1] Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


SEO light theme by © Mustang forums. Powered by SMF 1.1.13 | SMF © 2006-2011, Simple Machines LLC

Page created in 0.062 seconds with 19 queries.