The Stokes-Stoker Discussion page

As of  December 24, 2011 we have 80 members in the DNA project. The Stokes-Stoker project has identified 8 lineage groups. The project identifies a lineage when DNA tests on two or more men show a high probability that they have a common ancestor since the use of surnames became common. It is hoped each lineage will have a volunteer coordinator, who promotes the gathering of more information about the lineage through further DNA tests and traditional genealogical research. More detail about the lineages is available on the Results and Patriarch pages.

Also you may want to look at the Stokes message forums at ROOTSWEB  and GENFORUM 

Stokes Family Research site by Brenda Stokes Cothern 

 

Genetic Distance 12 markers, 25 markers, 37 markers and 67 markers


OooOooO

Stokes Lineage Group 1 - Haplogroup  I1

John Stokes d before 27 April 1746 lived Charles City Co VA m Elizabeth ---  S-11 and S-27 - Jennie Howe  [jenniehowe AT cox.net]

Based on 25 marker test results and the matching pedigrees for S-11 and S-27 I am creating Stokes Lineage Group 1. Their Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) is John Warren Stokes b 1886 Lunenburg County, Virginia m Frances Arlington Powers d 1936.  See the  Results and Patriarch pages.  This is also the David Stokes m Sarah Montfort line. If you review the pariarch page this Stokes family has been in Lunenburg County, Virginia from at least 1746 to 1936. 

In comparing 25 markers, the probability that S-11 and S-27 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
25.59%
8 generations is
55.32%
12 generations is
75.65%
16 generations is
87.44%
20 generations is
93.74%
24 generations is
96.96%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatch.  See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.

For the John Stokes S-11 line the males are named: Richard, William, David, Thomas, Peter and then Montford shows up as either a first or middle name.  See the  Results and Patriarch pages.

Is John Stokes and his male descendants related to the Young Stokes male descendants  line in Group 2? The preponderence of the DNA evidence seems to indicate these are two entirely different families even though they both ended up in Lunenburg County.  See Group 2 below which are all Haplogroup R1b1b2. Even if one does not accept the fact that John Stokes is in the line of David Stokes and Sarah Montford, the proven line downward from David Stokes and Sarah Montford for the S-11 person who tested still does not match those 10 individuals in Group 2. See the  Results and Patriarch pages.

The claim to John Stokes as the last known "proven" ancestor of this line is based on the following provided by Jennie Howe:

Will of Elizabeth ---- Stokes (written 27 April 1746; recorded 1 Oct 1751)
Lunenburg County, Virginia Will Book I, page 42

In the Name of God Amen I~ Elizabeth Stokes formerly of Charles City County but now of Brunswick, being in perfect health Sense and Memory do make and Ordain this my last Will and Testament in manner and form Viz: 

Imprimis I give and Bequeath to my Son Richard Stokes one Rug vallue Twenty shillings and one Sheet vallue Ten shillings 

Item I Give and Bequeath all the rest and residue of my estate both Real and personall to my Son David Stokes and his heirs for ever Item it is my Will and desire that my Estate shall not be appraised nor my Executor hereafter mentioned to give Security - 

Item I so Appoint my Son David Stokes whole and Sole Executor of this my last Will and Testament In Testimony whereof I do hereunto set my Hand and Seal this 27th Day of April 1746 - Eliz. Stokes,
L.S. [Legal Seal]

Signed Sealed and published as my last Will and Testament in presents of } Lyddall Bacon, John Bacon, Drury Allin


At a Court held for Lunenburgh County the first Day of October 1751.
The within written last Will and Testament of Elizabeth Stokes deceased was exhibited in Court by David Stokes the Executor therein appointed and the same was proved by the Oath of one of the Witnesses thereto and ordered to be Recorded And the said Executor having made Oath thereto according to Law on his Motion Certificate was granted him for obtaining a probate of the said Will in due form Te.[Testament] of Clement Read CLC

Truly Recorded
Teste.
Clem.' Read Clc [Clerk of Lunenburg]

Source: http://www.vagenweb.org/lunenburg/w0stokes.htm

OooOooO

Stokes Lineage Group 2 - Haplogroup R1b1b2a1b

As of 12 Aug Apr 2010, these are the last known ancestors for those who had a Stokes male test  in Group 2:

John Stoakes/Stokes b 8 Apr 1764 Brunswick Co VA m Sarah Hall d 19 Apr 1840 Graves Co KY S-48 - Leighanne Stokes [leighann.stokes AT att.net] and Bonnie Rardin [shortiz89 AT sbcglobal.net]

John Stokes m Margaret Young d Unk (possibly NC) S-16 - Jay T. Stokes [stokesancestry AT yahoo.com]  

Joel Stokes
b NC  m Abigail Robinson d c 1787-1790 SC S-8 - Robert Allan Stokes  [rstokes1 AT aol.com]

Joel Stokes b NC  m Abigail Robinson d c 1787-1790 SC S-6 - James Avery Stokes [bljack88 AT aol.com]

Young Stokes b 1700 Lunenburg Co VA d 1770 Lunenburg Co VA S-13 - Blythe Stokes [bstokes52 AT gmail.com]

Young Stokes b 1700 Lunenburg Co VA d 1770 Lunenburg Co VA S-25 - Carol Stokes [firstevergreen AT earthlink.net]

Henry E. Stokes b 1792 Sumter, SC m Elizabeth Tiller S-5  - Steve Stokes [shstokesmd AT hotmail.com]

Henry E. Stokes b 1792 Sumter, SC m Elizabeth Tiller S-32 [formerly AS-2 - Butch Stokes  [butchbsa AT bellsouth.net]

Joshua Stokes b 1821  NC d 1907 Gadsden Co FL S-29 [formerly AS-1] - Scott Stokes  [scottstokes AT sbcglobal.net]
Mike Terry Note: As of August 12,  2010, Scott has updated his pedigree to include Sylvanus Stokes b ca 1636, m. Mary Bishop. Scott Stokes makes a good case for Joshua Stokes as a descendant of Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ?? and Sylvanus Stokes b ca 1636, m. Mary Bishop.  See rootsweb post1. and rootweb post2  See Group 2 under Patriarchs for this pedigree. 

William Stokes b 1761  VA  m Nancy Locke d 1844 SC S-9 - Stan Stokes [stanstokes AT yahoo.com]
Mike Terry Note: William Stokes also had a brother named Henry Stokes who  had a son named variously in documents as H. Y. Stokes, Henry Y. Stokes and Young Stokes. We believe this William Stokes is a son of David Stokes and Margaret Dupree. 

Colin Stokes b 1797 Virginia m Sallie Montfort Cralle d 1865 VA S-21 - Contact Jennie Howe  [jenniehowe AT cox.net]
Mike Terry Note: I believe Colin Stokes is a grandson of Young Stokes d 1769-1770 Lunenburg Co VA. See Group 2 under Patriarchs for his pedigree. 

Thomas Stokes b 1761 NC  S-24 - Robbie Stokes [stokesrobbie AT bellsouth.net] 
Mike Terry Note: His son is Singleton Stokes of Greenville Co SC. The date and place for his father's birth date/place derive from an 1850 Gilmer Co GA census. Singleton Stokes married the grandaughter of David Stokes married Margaret Dupree. See Group 2 under Patriarchs for this family pedigree. 

Benjamin Hampton Stokes b 1803-1806 VA m Susan ????  d aft Aft. 07 Jun 1880 Gilmer Co GA S-52 - Kevin Charles [KevinWCharles AT aol.com]

David Stokes b bef 1755 Craven Co NC d bef 1820 St Peters Parish, Beaufort  Co SC? S-34  - Lauren Gray [laurensgray AT gmail.com]

Absalom Lafeyette Stokes b 1790 SC m 20 May 1852 Santa Rosa Co FL Elizabeth Jay d 30 Oct 1871 Andalusia, Covington Co AL - Curtis Thomasson [cthomasson AT centurytel.net] S-57
Mike Terry Note: S-34 Lauren Gray [laurensgray AT gmail.com] thinks her Burrell Stokes b 1785-1794 is a brother to S-57 Absalom Lafeyette Stokes and she lists David Stokes as his father. A 67/65 match certainly supports this claim. 

Matthew J. Stokes b 1858 Maine m 17 May 1874 Daviess Co IN Martha Lanham d 1888 Daviess Co IN - Betty Bennie [bbentx AT sbcglobal.net]
Note by Mike Terry: This family has a 67/67 match with
S-57 Absalom Lafeyette Stokes family. The 1880 census for Daviess County, Indiana states a birth place of Maine for Matthew J. Stokes. No one has been able to find this man in the 1860 census in that state. We are checking Indiana church records and for an obituary in early Indiana papers for other clues. 


Thomas Stokes b ca 1755-1760 VA? met Clary Gunter d 1811 Chatham Co NC - H-1 - Bill Heppe [heppe_b AT verizon.net] 
Mike Terry Note: Last known proven ancestor for this family is Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ??. See Group 2 under Patriarchs for this pedigree. 

Thomas Stokes b ca 1760-1765 Brunswick Co VA m Hannah Hill d ca 1811 Chatham Co NC - Ogden Stokes [ogdenstokes AT earthlink.net] S-49
Mike Terry Note: Last known proven ancestor for this family is Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ??. See Group 2 under Patriarchs for this pedigree. 

Charles Stokes b 1811 m Mary Parker d 1833 Surry Co NC S-46 - Jim Stokes  [jstokes AT q.com]
Mike Terry Note: The R deep subclade tests indicate the haplogroup for S-46 is R1b1b2a1b. So this test confirms the haplogroup for Group 02. Mary nee Parker's first husband was Benjamin Hinshaw. 

Robert Gibson  b 1793 m Martha Belton 10 Mar 1810 Rockingham, NC d 1877 Washington Co MO G-25  - Gena Gibson Davis [coftagain AT aol.com]
Mike Terry Note: This family has a very close 67 marker relationship to
S-9 and S-32 in Group 2. The most recent common Stokes ancestor is unidentified at this time. Marriage date information from Gibson Family Bible. 

James McDaniel b 1717 VA m Anne Smith  M-1Dee Severson [twojunes AT yahoo.com] 

David Stokes b VA d c 1784 VA m Margaret Dupree S-33 Tom Stokes [Tomstokes1 AT aol.com] 

==========

New 37 marker results posted for S-25 Young Stokes b 1700 Lunenburg Co VA d 1770 Lunenburg Co VA


Young Stokes b 1700 Lunenburg Co VA d 1770 Lunenburg Co VA  S-25 [Carol Stokes line]  and S-21

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-25 [Carol Stokes line] and S-21 shared a common ancestor within the last...

4 generations is 3.26%
8 generations is 23.84%
12 generations is 53.36%
16 generations is 76.46%
20 generations is 89.65%
24 generations is 95.88%

Note by Mike Terry:  By my calculation, the Stokes males who tested are 5th cousins once removed. Their most recent common ancestor is Young Stokes d 1770 Lunenburg Co VA. They are a genetic distance of 4 or a match of 37/33.

See FTDNA for explanation of 37  marker matches.   See Group 2 under Patriarchs    See the  Results page for Group 2.

=========

Young Stokes b 1700 Lunenburg Co VA d 1770 Lunenburg Co VA  S-25 [Carol Stokes line] and S-13

In comparing 12 markers, the probability that S-25 and S-13 shared a common ancestor is shown in the table below for 12 markers.

Note by Mike Terry:  By my calculation, the Stokes males who tested are 4th cousins once removed. Their MRCA [most recent common ancestor] is William Stokes m Lucretia Ellis. They are a genetic distance of  0  or 12/12 match.

S-25 [Carol Stokes line] is a 25/24 match with S-8, S-16, S-21 and S-29.

S-25 [Carol Stokes line] is a 37/33 match with S-16, S-21 and a 37/34 match with S-29...

=========

In comparing 12 markers, the probability that S-5, S-8, S-9, S-13, S-16, S-21, S-24, S-25, S-29, S-32, H-1 and S-34 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
33.57%
8 generations is
55.88%
12 generations is
70.69%
16 generations is
80.53%
20 generations is
87.07%
24 generations is
91.41%

Note by Mike Terry: A generation is considered to be 20-25 years. Each participant in the DNA study can also generate these percentage comparisons from thier own personal FTDNA page. See FTDNA for explanation of 12 marker matches. 

* The FTDNATiP™ results are based on the mutation rate study presented during the 1st International Conference on Genetic Genealogy, on Oct. 30, 2004. The above probabilities take into consideration the mutation rates for each individual marker being compared.

 

In comparing 25 markers, the probability that  S-8, S-9, S-16, S-21, S-32, S-34  shared a common ancestor within the last... 
4 generations is
27.24%
8 generations is
57.78%
12 generations is
77.85%
16 generations is
89.03%
20 generations is
94.77%
24 generations is
97.57%
S-25, H-1, S-24, S-33  are a genetic distance of 1 from S-8, S-9, S-16, S-21, S-32, S-34 aboveSee FTDNA for explanation of 25 marker matches.   See Group 2 under Patriarchs    See the  Results page for Group 2.

The advantages of increasing test markers is shown below. Note with 37 markers the probability precentages  increases to almost 90 percent at 12 generations.  All of these probabilities would probably increase if 67 markers were compared and the Time to the Most Recent Common ancestor would probably be found within fewer generations.

 

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-25 Young Stokes and H-1 Thomas Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
57.45%
8 generations is
88.06%
12 generations is
97.1%
16 generations is
99.35%
20 generations is
99.86%
24 generations is
99.97%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatch.  See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-21 Young Stokes and S-29 Joshua Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
56.46%
8 generations is
87.4%
12 generations is
96.84%
16 generations is
99.26%
20 generations is
99.83%
24 generations is
99.96%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatch.  See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-21 Young Stokes and S-16 John Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
30.09%
8 generations is
70.15%
12 generations is
90.03%
16 generations is
97.1%
20 generations is
99.22%
24 generations is
99.8%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches.  See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-21 Young Stokes and S-8 Joel Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
26.85%
8 generations is
65.86%
12 generations is
87.35%
16 generations is
95.88%
20 generations is
98.76%
24 generations is
99.65%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches. 

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-21 Young Stokes and S-24  Thomas Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
58.66%
8 generations is
88.83%
12 generations is
97.4%
16 generations is
99.44%
20 generations is
99.88%
24 generations is
99.98%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatch. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.  According to the FTDNA these two families are "Tightly Related" .... Very few people achieve this close level of a match. Your mismatch is within the range of most well established surname lineages in Western Europe. Documentation suggests Collin Stokes is a grandson of Young Stokes d 1770 Lunenburg Co Va. Therefore, the probabilities are inclusive for Young Stokes. 

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-8 Joel Stokes and S-6 Joel Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
.02%
8 generations is
1.24%
12 generations is
8.16%
16 generations is
23.49%
20 generations is
43.74%
24 generations is
63.14%

* The FTDNATiP™ results are based on the mutation rate study presented during the 1st International Conference on Genetic Genealogy, on Oct. 30, 2004. The above probabilities take into consideration the mutation rates for each individual marker being compared. Since each marker has a different mutation rate, identical Genetic Distances will not necessarily yield the same probabilities. In other words, even though S-6 has a Genetic Distance of 7 from S-8, someone else with the same Genetic Distance may have different probabilities, because the distance of 7 was prompted by mutations in different markers, with different mutation rates. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches. 

It should be noted the Stokes men who tested for S-8 and S-6 above are documented half third cousins. So in this case, the FTDNA probability model is conservative. Five of thier seven differences on thier markers are on the red DYS markers DYS 385b, DYS 456, DYS 576, DYS CDY A and DYS CDY B.  Where there are differences on black more stable DYS markers between S-6 and S-8 DYS 389 | 2 and DYS YCA | | b  S-6 is in agreement with S-16 or S-8 is in agreement with S-16See the  Results page for Group 2.


In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-16 John Stokes and S-6 Joel Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
3.86%
8 generations is
32.23%
12 generations is
67.8%
16 generations is
88.58%
20 generations is
96.69%
24 generations is
99.17%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 5 mismatches.

Above is a comparison between John Stokes m Margaret Young d Unk (possibly NC) S-16 and Joel Stokes b NC d c 1787-1790 SC m Abigail Robinson S-6. This shows the effect of increasing marker numbers.  Even at 12 generations the probability these individulals shared a common ancestor is almost 70 % and almost 100 % at 24 generations. Since the half 3rd cousin is S-8  I would suggest this relationship above is similar for S-8 whose mutations probably occured more recently.  See Patriarch page for the migration patterns for  families of S-5, S-8, S-9, S-13, S-16 and AS-1. 


I usually do not include 12 marker tests in a lineage group, however, in this case I have made an exception for S-13. One of the oldest persons in the study and one of the best documented lines, in Group 2 is Young Stokes S-13.  Some descendant charts circulated have included "Sherad" Young Stokes and I think this is an error. However, Young Stokes for pedigree S-13 is that same person in the Will abstract below. While there may be a difference in reported birth dates for this Young Stokes, the death date is fairly certain for him.

 

Stokes, Young 8-23-1769; 12-13-1770; Lunenburg County, W.B. 2/362
Mentions: Wife: Elizabeth Stokes
Sons: Henry Stokes, Sylvanus Stokes (Silvonus Stokes), Allen Stokes, William Stokes
Son-in-law: Henry Blagrave*
Daughters: Susannah Christopher, Mary Ann Neal, Lucy Anderson, Cecilia Stokes, Elizabeth Blagrave
Executors: William Stokes, Henry Stokes (sons)
Witnesses: Lyddal Bacon, John Davis
* "Henry Blagrave, the husband of my daughter Elizabeth Blagrave".

http://ftp.rootsweb.ancestry.com/pub/usgenweb/va/lunenburg/wills/1746-1825-b.txt

==========

What follows is some probablitiies for several families in Group 2 lineage haplogroup R1b1b2 who have are a genetic distance of 1 or 2 --  that is to say they have 37/36 or 37/35 matches.

David Stokes b VA d c 1784 VA m Margaret Dupree  S-9 
Young Stokes b 1700 Lunenburg Co VA d 1770 Lunenburg Co VA S-21 
Henry E. Stokes b 1792 SC m Elizabeth Tiller d 1856 Henry Co AL S-32  
Thomas Stokes b 1761 NC d aft 1850 GA?  S-24 
Joshua Stokes b 1821  NC d 1907 Gadsden Co FL S-29
Thomas Stokes d 1811 Chatham Co NC met Clary Gunter H-1
David Stokes b VA d c 1784 VA m Margaret Dupree  S-33

See Group 2 under Patriarchs for the pedigrees for above and migration patterns for the various families.  

 

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-9 David Stokes and S-21 Young Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
57.86%
8 generations is
88.33%
12 generations is
97.21%
16 generations is
99.38%
20 generations is
99.87%
24 generations is
99.97%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatch. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches. 

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-9 David Stokes and S-32 Henry E Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
57.59%
8 generations is
88.15%
12 generations is
97.14%
16 generations is
99.36%
20 generations is
99.86%
24 generations is
99.97%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatch. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches. 


In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-9 David Stokes and S-24 Thomas Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
30.43%
8 generations is
70.56%
12 generations is
90.27%
16 generations is
97.2%
20 generations is
99.26%
24 generations is
99.82%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches. 


In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-9 David Stokes and S-29 Joshua Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
28.24%
8 generations is
67.76%
12 generations is
88.58%
16 generations is
96.45%
20 generations is
98.99%
24 generations is
99.73%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches. 


In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-9 David Stokes and S-33 David Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
28.89%
8 generations is
68.61%
12 generations is
89.1%
16 generations is
96.69%
20 generations is
99.08%
24 generations is
99.76%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.  The two persons who tested are cousins to what degree I am not sure.


In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-9 David Stokes and H-1 Thomas Stokes met Clary Gunter shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
29.22%
8 generations is
69.05%
12 generations is
89.38%
16 generations is
96.82%
20 generations is
99.12%
24 generations is
99.77%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.  Last known proven ancestor is Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ??. See Group 2 under Patriarchs for his pedigree. 


In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-9 David Stokes and G-25 Robert Gibson shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
29.36%
8 generations is
69.23%
12 generations is
89.1%
16 generations is
96.69%
20 generations is
99.12%
24 generations is
99.77%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.   See Group 2 under Patriarchs for  the pedigrees. 

 

OooOooO

Some Group 02 haplogroup R1b1b2 analysis for several matching families S-33, S-48, S46, S-9, S-16 

Closest match for John Stoakes/Stokes b 8 Apr 1764 Brunswick Co VA m Sarah Hall S-48 R1b1b2 Leighanne Stokes [leighann.stokes AT att.net] and Bonnie Rardin [shortiz89 AT sbcglobal.net] is with the following:

Charles Stokes b 1811 m Mary Parker d 1833 Surry Co NC S-46 R1b1b2 - Jim Stokes [jstokes AT q.com] 


In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-46 and S-48 shared a common ancestor within the last... 
4 generations is 46.63% 
8 generations is 85.75% 
12 generations is 97.16% 
16 generations is 99.52% 
20 generations is 99.92% 
24 generations is 99.99% 

==========

John Stoakes/Stokes b 8 Apr 1764 Brunswick Co VA m Sarah Hall S-48 R1b1b2 Leighanne Stokes [leighann.stokes AT att.net] and Bonnie Rardin [shortiz89 AT sbcglobal.net] 

John Stokes m Margaret Young d Unk (possibly NC) S-16 R1b1b2 Jay T. Stokes [stokesancestry AT yahoo.com] 

David Stokes b VA d c 1784 VA m Margaret Dupree S-33 R1b1b2 Tom Stokes [Tomstokes1 AT aol.com] 

The above three families tested have the marker value of 27 at DYS 413b; however S-9 below does not and neither does S-46.

=========
David Stokes b VA d c 1784 VA m Margaret Dupree S-9 R1b1b2 Stan Stokes [stanstokes AT yahoo.com] does not have the value of 27 at DYS 413b. S-9 does not have the mutations that S-33 has and is closer to the modal values for all of Group 02. 

The new entry in the Stokes DNA project, Allen Stokes b ca 1770 m(1) Hannah Mary Self, m(2) Levisia Clarke d bef 1843 Burke Co NC - Brenda (Stokes) Cothern [zarkina AT wirrelwind.net] should be a match with S-16 as some researchers believe they are related. It will be interesting to see if S-50 has that value of 27 at DYS 413b as well.


http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/stokes/pats

http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/stokes/results

http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/stokes/disc


OooOooO

 
In comparing 67 markers, the probability that G-25 Robert Gibson and S-32 Henry E Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
70.79%
8 generations is
94.86%
12 generations is
99.23%
16 generations is
99.89%
20 generations is
99.99%
24 generations is
100%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatch. See FTDNA for explanation of 67 marker matches.  See Group 2 under Patriarchs for  the pedigrees. 

OooOooO

A comparison of 67 markers in Stokes DNA study for H-1, S-9, S-29, G-25 and S-46 who are a genetic distance of 1 from S-46. In otherwards, on 67 markers there was a mismatch of 1.



Charles Stokes b 1811 m Mary Parker d 1833 Surry Co NC - Jim Stokes [jstokes AT q.com] S-46

Robert Gibson b ca 1793 NC m 10 Mar 1810 Rockingham Co NC Martha Belton d 04 Apr 1877 Washington Co MO - Gena Gibson Davis [Coftagain AT aol.com] G-25

Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ?? - Bill Heppe [heppe_b AT verizon.net] H-1

David Stokes, b VA, d c1784 VA, m Margaret Dupree - Stan Stokes [stanstokes AT yahoo.com] S-9

Joshua Stokes b 21 May 1821 NC m Sarah Fletcher - Scott Stokes [scottstokes AT sbcglobal.net] S-29


In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-46 and H-1 shared a common ancestor within the last... 

4 generations is 70.48% 
8 generations is 94.73% 
12 generations is 99.2% 
16 generations is 99.89% 
20 generations is 99.98% 
24 generations is 100% 


In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-46 and S-29 shared a common ancestor within the last... 

4 generations is 69.74% 
8 generations is 94.43% 
12 generations is 99.12% 
16 generations is 99.87% 
20 generations is 99.98% 
24 generations is 100% 


In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-46 and S-9 shared a common ancestor within the last... 
4 generations is 70.79% 
8 generations is 94.86% 
12 generations is 99.23% 
16 generations is 99.89% 
20 generations is 99.99% 
24 generations is 100% 


In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-46 and G-25 shared a common ancestor within the last... 
4 generations is 70.58% 
8 generations is 94.77% 
12 generations is 99.21% 
16 generations is 99.89% 
20 generations is 99.99% 
24 generations is 100% 


http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/stokes/pats

http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/stokes/results

http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/stokes/disc

See explanation for 67 marker matches and genetic distance

http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-67-markers.aspx

========

I'm just doing the analysis on the 67 marker matches in Group 02 with Thomas Stokes b 1760 -1765 Brunswick County, Virginia d 1811 in Chatham County, North Carolina. Several individuals in Group 02 have solid  37 marker mathes as well with S-49.  It is significant that S-49 is 1 marker off from matching the modal values for entire Group 02.  The most recent common ancestor for S-49 and H-1 is Thomas Stokes b 1760-1765 Brunswick County, Virginia d 1811 in Chatham County, North Carolina.

 
Thomas Stokes
b ca 1760-1765 Brunswick Co VA m Hannah Hill d ca 1811 Chatham Co NC - Ogden Stokes [ogdenstokes AT earthlink.net] S-49
Note: This family has updated the pedigree to include last known ancestor Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ??

Charles Stokes b 1811 m Mary Parker d 1833 Surry Co NC - Jim Stokes [jstokes AT q.com] S-46

Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ?? Bill Heppe [heppe_b AT verizon.net] H-1

Joshua Stokes b 21 May 1821 NC m Sarah Fletcher - Scott Stokes [scottstokes AT sbcglobal.net] S-29

David Stokes, b VA, d c1784 VA, m Margaret Dupree - Stan Stokes [stanstokes AT yahoo.com] S-9

Robert Gibson b ca 1793 NC m 10 Mar 1810 Rockingham Co NC Martha Belton d 04 Apr 1877 Washington Co MO - Gena Gibson Davis [Coftagain AT aol.com] G-25

 

In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-49 and S-46 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
71.86%
8 generations is
95.27%
12 generations is
99.32%
16 generations is
99.91%
20 generations is
99.99%
24 generations is
100%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatches.

 
In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-49 and H-1 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
45.16%
8 generations is
84.68%
12 generations is
96.79%
16 generations is
99.42%
20 generations is
99.91%
24 generations is
99.99%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches.

 

In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-49 and S-29 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
44.23%
8 generations is
83.96%
12 generations is
96.53%
16 generations is
99.35%
20 generations is
99.89%
24 generations is
99.98%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches.


In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-49 and S-9 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
45.55%
8 generations is
84.97%
12 generations is
96.89%
16 generations is
99.45%
20 generations is
99.91%
24 generations is
99.99%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches.

 

In comparing 67 markers, the probability that S-49 and G-25 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
45.29%
8 generations is
84.77%
12 generations is
96.82%
16 generations is
99.43%
20 generations is
99.91%
24 generations is
99.99%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches.


http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-markers.aspx?testtype=67

1 marker off is genetic distance of 1, 2 markers off is a genetic distance of 2 and so forth...

Distance: 1-2 - Tightly Related
65-66/67 You share the same surname (or a variant) with another male and you mismatch by only one or two 'points' at only one marker. It's most likely that you matched 36/37 or 37/37 on a previous Y-DNA test. Very few people achieve this close level of a match. All confidence levels are well within the time frame that surnames were adopted in Western Europe.


See the  Group 02  Results page and  See Group 02 on Patriarch page.

================

A comparison of Absalom Lafeyette Stokes b 1790 SC d 1871 Covington Co AL S-57 to the following on 67 markers:

A comparison of Absalom Lafeyette Stokes b 1790 SC d 1871 Covington Co AL S-57 to the following on 67 markers*:

Match Genetic Distance ID Last known ancestor
67/67 0 S-56 Matthew J. Stokes b 1858 Maine d 1888 Daviess Co IN
67/66 1 S-29 Sylvanus Stokes b Est 1636 m Mary Bishop
67/65 2 S-8 Joel Stokes b NC m Abigail Robinson d c 1787-1790 SC
67/65 2 S-34 David Stokes b bef 1755 Craven Co NC d bef 1820 Beaufort Co SC? 
67/65 2 S-46 Charles Stokes b 1811 d 1833 Surry Co NC
67/64 3 S-49 Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ?? 
67/64 3 G-25 Robert Gibson b ca 1793 NC d 1877 Washington Co MO 
67/64 3 S-9 David Stokes b VA d c 1784 VA m Margaret Dupree 
67/64 3 H-1 Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ?? 

*Note by Mike Terry: While everyone in group 02 is genetically related, I chose to compare those with a genetic distance of 0 to 3 in that group. Those with the same genetic distance would have similar numbers which would vary only slightly since it is a mathematical probability equation. 


In comparing 67/67 marker match, the probability that S-57 Absalom Lafeyette Stokes b 1790 SC and S-56 Matthew J. Stokes b 1858 Maine shared a common ancestor within the last... 
4 generations is 89.79% 
8 generations is 98.96% 
12 generations is 99.89% 
16 generations is 99.99% 
20 generations is 100% 
24 generations is 100% 

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show no mismatches. 

==========================

In comparing 67/66 marker match, the probability that S-57 Absalom Lafeyette Stokes b 1790 SC and  S-29 Sylvanus Stokes b Est 1636 m Mary Bishop shared a common ancestor within the last... 
4 generations is 69.74% 
8 generations is 94.43% 
12 generations is 99.12% 
16 generations is 99.87% 
20 generations is 99.98% 
24 generations is 100% 

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatches. 
==========================

In comparing 67/65 marker match, the probability that  S-57 Absalom Lafeyette Stokes b 1790 SC and  S-34 David Stokes b bef 1755 Craven Co NC d bef 1820 Beaufort Co SC? shared a common ancestor within the last... 
4 generations is 46.92% 
8 generations is 85.95% 
12 generations is 97.23% 
16 generations is 99.53% 
20 generations is 99.93% 
24 generations is 99.99% 

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatches. 
==========================

In comparing 67/64 marker match, the probability that  S-57 Absalom Lafeyette Stokes b 1790 SC   and  S-49 Silvanus Stokes, the Elder d 06 Feb 1748 Surry Co VA m ?? shared a common ancestor within the last... 
4 generations is 20.61% 
8 generations is 64.01% 
12 generations is 88.52% 
16 generations is 97.01% 
20 generations is 99.32% 
24 generations is 99.86% 

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 3 mismatches. 
==========================

In comparing 67/64 marker match, the probability that  S-57 Absalom Lafeyette Stokes b 1790 SC and  S-9 David Stokes b VA d c 1784 VA m Margaret Dupree shared a common ancestor within the last... 
4 generations is 19.51% 
8 generations is 62.17% 
12 generations is 87.39% 
16 generations is 96.56% 
20 generations is 99.17% 
24 generations is 99.82% 

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 3 mismatches. 
==========================

Discussion:  My first inclination is to focus on those 36 | 40 marker numbers in Group 02 results table at markers CDYa and CDYb. The 40 value is there for S-25, S-29, S-56, S-57 and S-34. However, the 36 | 40 pattern is only evident for S-56, S-57 and S-34.

What we do know is there was an Absolum Stokes and Burrell Stokes in the 1820 St. Peters Parish, Beaufort County, South Carolina Census.  Let's look at census records for Beaufort County.

David Stokes Not Stated, Beaufort, SC 1790
Young Stokes Not Stated, Beaufort, SC 1790

David Stokes St Peters, Beaufort, SC 1800
David Stokes St Peters, Beaufort, SC 1800
John Stokes St Peters, Beaufort, SC 1800
Sylvanus Stokes St Peters, Beaufort, SC 1800

Burrl Stokes St Peters, Beaufort, SC 1810
David Stokes St Peters, Beaufort, SC 1810
David Stokes St Peters, Beaufort, SC 1810
John Stokes St Peters, Beaufort, SC 1810
Silvenus Stokes St Peters, Beaufort, SC 1810

Absolem Stokes St Peters Parish, Beaufort, SC 1820
Burrell Stokes St Peters Parish, Beaufort, SC 1820
Millen Stokes St Peters Parish, Beaufort, SC 1820*
Sylvanus Stokes St Peters Parish, Beaufort, SC 1820
William Stokes St Peters Parish, Beaufort, SC 1820
* Some believe Millen Stokes is Millen Blount the widow of David Stokes who therefore is deceased before 1820. In an 1823 newspaper ad, Sylvanus Stokes asks that credit not  extended to his wife Sarah who had left his bed.... 

Stokes, Burrell St. Lukes Parish, Beaufort, SC 1830
Stokes, Council St. Lukes Parish, Beaufort, SC 1830
Stokes, William St. Lukes Parish, Beaufort, SC 1830


John R. Stokes St Peters Parish, Beaufort, South Carolina1840
Ann Stokes St Peters Parish, Beaufort, South Carolina1840
J. Stokes St Peters Parish, Beaufort, South Carolina1840
J. J. Stokes St Peters Parish, Beaufort, South Carolina1840
Note: By 1840, Burrell and Absolem Stokes, Counseil Stokes had left for Florida. 

It probably comes as no shock there DNA matches in this family with earlier Sylvanus Stokes famlies if you look at the names. 

For S-34 David Stokes married Millen Blount?? these names are suggested as sons: Burrell, David, John, James, Absalem Lafeyette, Henry and Counsel Stokes. 

Names for sons of S-57 Absolem Lafayette Stokes include: John William, Wright Absolum and Josiah Hampton Stokes by wife (1) and  Matthew Wright, Noah Stanton, Burrell Jackson and Decatur Stokes for wife (2).

Looking at S-56 Matthew J. Stokes, the mystery man. His sons are named: Absolum Levi, Robert Joseph, and Charles Louis Stokes.

The family of  S-9 David Stokes and Margaret Dupree sons: Young, Josiah, William A., Henry Y, Bartlett and Thomas Stokes. 

The family of S-29, S-49, H-1 Sylvanus Stokes the Elder m Cecelia Walker sons: Marcus, Drury, Sylvanus, and Micajah Stokes. I believe the last son Micajah Stokes ends up in Claremont Dist SC later Sumter County. 

Heartwell Claremont District, SC 1790 
Marcus Claremont District, SC 1790 
Micaijah Stokes Claremont District, SC , 1790 
Wm Stokes Claremont District, SC, 1790 
Micaijah Stokes Clarendon District, SC 1790 

Jacob Stokes Salem, Sumter, SC 1800
Joel Stokes Salem, Sumter, SC 1800
William Stokes Jr Salem, Sumter, SC 1800
William Stokes Sr Salem, Sumter, SC 1800

Abij Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
Demp Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
Eliz Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
Ephr Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
Fed Stokes Not Stated,Sumter, SC 1820
Fred R Stokes Not Stated,Sumter, SC 1820
Henry Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
Henry Stokes Not Stated,Sumter, SC 1820
Joel Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
Marcus Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
Red ( Unknown) Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
Sylv Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
Vine Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820
*Wm Stokes Not Stated, Sumter, SC 1820


http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/stokes/pats

http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/stokes/results

http://www.worldfamilies.net/surnames/stokes/disc

See explanation for 67 marker matches and genetic distance

http://www.familytreedna.com/genetic-distance-67-markers.aspx

This is a work in progress, so I think we are seeing some matches with some of the Sumter County Stokes in the project.



=========

Comment:  Based on DNA results for Group 2 if you see anyone who links male descendants of the those in Stokes Independents - Haplogroup I1 with those in Group 2 then you can see that would be highly suspect based on a preponderance of the DNA evidence presented in the project. I would certainly suggest that the 12/12 marker tests in Group 2 be upgraded. My comparison for TMRC dealt mainly with those who have 67 marker tests. I think we would see 67/67 marker matches on some of the 12 marker tests which would match the modal values. Theoretically, the modal values are what the markers would be for the common male Stokes ancestor of everyone in Group 2 would be if he were to be tested  See the  Results page for Group 2.

In conclusion I think you can say those in Group 2 are genetically related and their common ancestor was probably in Lunenburg County at some point in time or one of the derivative counties.


OooOooO

Probable Stoker Lineage Group 3 - Haplogroup R1b1b2

James Stoker b bef 1727 S-3 and S-23

This Stoker family is in Rowan County, North Carolina  in 1810...   If there is any question about a relationship with the other Stokes in the project, this certainly indicates while they are haplogroup R1b1b2 this Stoker family is  not related to any of the Southside Virginia Stokes families in the study. 

Genetic Distance 12 markers, 25 markers, 37 markers and 67 markers

 
In comparing 12 markers, the probability that S-3 and S-23 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
33.57%
8 generations is
55.88%
12 generations is
70.69%
16 generations is
80.53%
20 generations is
87.07%
24 generations is
91.41%


OooOooO

Stokes Lineage Group 4 - Haplogroup R1b1b2

Edward G. Stokes b ca 1770 VA or MD m 1789 Guilford Co NC Cealy Chilcutt d ca 1840 Meigs Co TN - Jim Stokes [pjstokes AT grm.net] S-15

Thomas Stokes m ca 1787 Guilford Co NC Mary Norman d ca 1840 Alabama  - Cecil Stokes [cstokes AT hiwaay.net]
S-19

Henry Stokes d ca 1810-1820 of Colleton County, South Carolina - Contact Jennie Howe [jenniehowe AT cox.net] or Joseph B. Stokes [JosephBStokes AT gmail.com] S-53

 
In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-15 Edward G. Stokes and S-19 Thomas Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
29.03%
8 generations is
68.8%
12 generations 
89.22%
16 generations is
96.74%
20 generations is
99.09%
24 generations is
99.76%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 2 mismatchs. See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.  See Group 4 under Patriarchs    See the  Results page for Group 4.

Comment: Neither the family of Edward G. Stokes or Thomas Stokes are closely related to any other haplogroup R1b1b2 Stokes families.  This does narrow the research focus for this family. If you see any internet comments about a relationship of this family to the Southside Stokes in Group 2 it would be highly questionable.

OooOooO

Commentary on the family of Henry Stokes as it relates to Stokes DNA project Group 04 by Mike Terry

The William and Eliza Boulware Stokes Family History and Genealogy 1833 - 1980 compiled by Benjamin Boulware Stokes, Jr., Atlanta, Georgia. June, 1980

Page 04, Lists pedigree for Henry Stokes born in North Carolina as a son of William Stokes b 10 Oct 1735 m Sarah Wade.

In the The Book of Stokes 1201 - 1915 by J. LeMacks Stokes, D. D. on pages 7 and 8 he indicates "William, born October 10, 1735. He was the first to leave his Virginia home for North Carolina, and became the ancestor of many of the Stokes name in the Old North State, among them Henry and Peter Stokes, who, as we shall see further on, founded the South Carolina branch of the family."

Page 10, "To come back to William Stokes. He was the eldest child of David and Sarah Montfort Stokes. He was the first of the name, apparently, to seek a home in South Carolina, and "was followed there by his brothers John and Montfort." According to our tradition he was several times married, and had a large number of children. Among them were the half-brothers, Henry and Peter Stokes, who about the close of the eighteenth century left Wilkes county, N.C., for Colleton county, S.C.

"After correspondence with Mr. Jordan Stokes of Nashville, Tenn., I am of opinion that another son of William Stokes was Thomas (who represented Chatham in 1796-97), father of Sylvanus, father of Jordan Stokes, Sr., father of my correspondent. "

A source given was: The Virginia magazine of history and biography, Volume 6 By Virginia Historical Society, William Glover Stanard, the year ending June, 1899, pages 95 -99. It lists the Descendants of Christopher Stokes and of the David Stokes and Sarah Montfort Family.

There are a number of issues concerning the naming of Henry Stokes d ca 1820 South Carolina, as a son of William Stokes m Sarah Wade:

Henry Stokes was in the 1800 census of Colleton County, South Carolina. In that census he is listed as being 45+ which makes him born at least prior to 1755. This same Henry Stokes is also in the 1810 census of Colleton County, South Carolina. In that census he is listed as being 26 - 44 which probably still makes him born prior to 1755. Henry Stokes of Colleton, died sometime between 1810 - 1820 and had a son in named Williams Stokes b 24 Nov 1788, the family says, in Wilkes County, North Carolina who dies and has a tombstone epitaph with his death date as 04 Apr 1850 in Colleton County, South Carolina. 

As far as I know, there is just not one Stokes by the name of Silvanus or Sylvanus in this Colleton County Stokes group so I believe the claim to be related to Thomas Stokes d 1811 Chatham County, North Carolina is at first suspect. The DNA evidence supports this assumpton. 

What we have here, I believe, is a Colleton Stokes "leaky" bucket.... I do not think anyone has fully researched the "born in Wilkes County, North Carolina claim". Yes, John and Montfort were there or at least visited one another. Yes, we have the Jordan Stokes comment in the J. Lemacks Stokes publication. Yes, I know it is all over the internet that the Colleton County, South Carolina Stokes are descended from the David Stokes m Sarah Montfort line or at least related to Col. John or Gov. Montfort Stokes.

Now let us examine the DNA facts. Based on the 37 marker DNA evidence for the S-53 Henry Stokes family of Colleton County. As a result, this family has been moved to Lineage Group 04. An analysis follows:

 
In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-53 Henry Stokes and S-19 Thomas Stokes shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
3.34%
8 generations is
24.28%
12 generations 
54.02%
16 generations is
77.04%
20 generations is
90.02%
24 generations is
96.08%

 
In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-53 Henry Stokes and S-15 Edward G. Stokes  shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
2.8%
8 generations is
21.37%
12 generations 
49.6%
16 generations is
73.1%
20 generations is
87.42%
24 generations is
94.65%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 4 mismatchs.  

See FTDNA for explanation of 37  marker matches.   See Group 4  under Patriarchs    See the  Results page for Group 4.

All the mismatches in Group 04 are on the red DYS markers. So I think the MRCA is closer than suggested by the FTDNA probabilities. S-53 is what we call the "in-betweener". The results clearly show S-53 is not related to Thomas Stokes d 1811 of Chatham County, North Carolina or anyone in Group 02. To me the family history and documentation for the whereabouts of Henry Stokes prior to 1800 is very limited. As the DNA shows, S-53 is not related to anyone in Group 02 and the three families now in lineage Group 04 are not related to David Stokes and Sarah Montfort family who are in Group 01 and a totally different haplogroup. 

I suspect the percentages would increase at the lower end if S-53 would increase markers to 67. 

In conclusion, the S-53 DNA test was done to prove or disprove the oral family history they were related to David Stokes m Sarah Montfort in Group 01. There were several claims attributed to Jordan Stokes Sr. and John Lemacks Stokes in several publications claiming a descent from William Stokes m Sarah Wade who is a proven son of David Stokes and Sarah Montfort. 

This William left a will in Elbert County, Georgia and named all his children. Will recorded in the oldest will book on page 90, in Elberton, Elbert County, Georgia. Will abstract from page 107, Ragland Genealogy.

Wife - Sarah... plantation on South Broad River
Daughters - Elizabeth Pryor, Sarah " Peggy" Grimes, Margaret Strong and Jane Stokes..each leave 20 shillings to buy each of them a ring.
Son - William Montfort Stokes land on Beaver Dam Creek in Oglethorpe County (600 acres), land at Big Shoals, in Franklin County (300 acres); also two negroes.... all printed books
Grandsons Thomas and Robert Burdale legacies
Executors: William Montfort Stokes and sons in Law William Strong and William Stokes.

October 16,1794

Signed William Stokes
Witnesses: Johnston Clark, John McMillian, Sarah Clark, James Elliot
Recorded March 1st, 1796

They only had one son, William Montfort Stokes per his tombstone epitaph. 

"Sacred to the memory of Dea Wm M Stokes, only son of Wm & Sarah Stokes. Born in Virginia, 21 Feb 1771, died 19 Mar 1843, aged 72 years & 29 days. "

Burial: Jane Posey Cemetery, Coweta County, Georgia, USA 

Note: The birth and death dates for William Stokes m Sarah Wade are found in David Street bible record. in Genealogies of Virginia Families from the William and Mary College Quarterly. [5 vols.] (1982). page 620. A marriage bond exists for this couple in Halifax County, Virginia dated 19 Apr 1759. This would be approximately four years after the estimated date of birth of Henry Stokes of Colleton County, South Carolina. As far as I can ascertain, William did not have multiple marriages and married at approximatley 24 years of age. Henry and Peter Stokes were living when his will was written and neither were mentioned. See also the epitaph above for "only" son William M. Stokes.

OooOooO

Stokes Independents - Haplogroup I1

These are the last known ancestors for those who had a male test  in  Stokes Independents - Haplogroup I1:

 

Thomas Stokes b 1647 d 1707 S-14  - Michael K. Stokes [mstokes AT stokesTechnologies.com]

Thomas Stokes S-14  has the oldest pedigree and descendants can be found on various census and church records for several generations in Bedfordshire County, England. This Stokes family immigrated to Utah some time after 1846. See the  Results and Patriarch pages.

Comment: After reviewing the full 67 markers for S-17 it suggests that S-14 is not related to S-17 although they are in the same haplogroup and have several markers in common so I have changed the designation from Group 1 to Stokes Independents - Haplogroup I1 and not assigned these individuals to a lineage group. 


OooOooO

Stokes Lineage Group 5 - Haplogroup I1

 

Daniel Stokes b 11 Mar 1813 NC m 1834 VA Sarah Ayres d ca 1857 prob Lafayette Co MS S-51 - Gene Stokes [gstokes4 AT austin.rr.com]

Daniel Stokes b ca 1813 NC m ca 1830-35 VA Sarah Ayres d ca 1857 Lafayette Co MS S-30 - Linda Stokes Pitts [lindapitt AT bellsouth.net]

Thomas Stokes S-17  was born in Virginia died there in 1777.    His sons were named Christopher, Thomas and Richard Stokes all born in Sussex County, Virginia. See the  Results and Patriarch pages. His son named, Christopher Stokes,  removed to Rowan County, North Carolina. See the  Results and Patriarch pages for migration patterns for this family.

 

In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-51 and S-17 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
83.49%
8 generations is
97.28%
12 generations is
99.55%
16 generations is
99.93%
20 generations is
99.99%
24 generations is
100%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show no mismatches.
In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-51 and S-30 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
56.46%
8 generations is
87.4%
12 generations is
96.84%
16 generations is
99.26%
20 generations is
99.83%
24 generations is
99.96%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatches.

There is a website for the descendants of  Christopher Stokes.

See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.

OooOooO


Stokes Lineage Group 6 - Haplogroup R1b1b2

Benjamin Stokes b Oct 1837 of Gloucester Co VA married Minerva R. ??  d aft 1900 VA?  - Contact Jennie Howe [jenniehowe AT cox.net]  S-22 and S-39


In comparing 37 markers, the probability that S-22 and S-39 shared a common ancestor within the last...
4 generations is
57.86%
8 generations is
88.33%
12 generations is
97.21%
16 generations is
99.38%
20 generations is
99.87%
24 generations is
99.97%

The above numbers are based exclusively on the comparison of their Y-DNA results, which show 1 mismatch.  See FTDNA for explanation of 37 marker matches.


OooOooO

Cooke - Stokes Lineage Group 7 (by DNA; all share a common ancestor) - Haplogroup R1b1b2a1a

Abraham Cooke - Old Rapp Co, VA/New Kent, VA ca1665 - ca1720 m Martha Clayton C-1Jim Cooke [jecooke88 AT hotmail.com]

John Manning Stokes b 1829 SC d 08 May 1880 at home on East River, Pulaski Co GA S-35 - John C. Stokes [stokes93 AT aol.com]

 

Genetic Distance 12 markers, 25 markers, 37 markers and 67 markers

OooOooO


Stokes Lineage Group 8 (by DNA; all share a common ancestor) - Haplogroup
R1a1

Thomas Stokes b 1770-1775 - Edward Stokes  [Ed.Stokes AT BrassLNG.com]

Thomas Stokes b 1770-1775 d aft 1836 TN? - Anthony L. Stokes [zorrostokes AT yahoo.com]

 

Genetic Distance 12 markers, 25 markers, 37 markers and 67 markers