McKinstry Family Genealogy

Comment

Comment by Dora Smith on May 5, 2011 at 7:09am

Actually, a descendant of Mahershal has results at SMGF.org.   They are I think Celtic R1b1b2.   I worked out what the markers really are, which isn't exactly what SMGF gives you, and I think that's what I got.   

 

I don't remember her exact words, and it probably matters.   But Margo was specifically talking about what the new McKinstry Y DNA results mean in terms of Mahershal's legitimacy, and she sounded just a bit too conclusive about thinking this means that Mahershal wasn't legitimate.   

 

Actually it isn't proven that all McKinstry's have the same Y DNA, and over a few hundred years there were surely nonpaternity events. In fact, I've seen a couple in Scottish records.  Typically the child would have the mother's surname.   

 

So it would have to be proven that the McKinstry family that Mahershal belonged to didn't match his Y DNA.   

 

It is not statistically unlikely that Catherine married a cousin, nor that a male family member messed with her.   Whatever happened, she and her son sure didn't want to talk about it.   If she were married, something awful must have happened to the marriage.   

Comment by Meghan Dewhurst-Conroy on May 4, 2011 at 2:07pm

Interesting thought - test a male descendant of Mahershal and a male descendant of John and Hugh - see if there is any connection.

I don't think Margo was saying the DNA findings show Mahershal was illegitimate - just that all the research and family lore indicate he was.  I don't think anyone of this McKinstry line has been tested. 

Of course, I would like to think that Catherine married a McKinstry cousin who died young leaving few records to identify him.

Comment by Dora Smith on May 4, 2011 at 1:53pm

Oh, well.  

 

Margo wrote me that she and her husband are both descended from Mahershal.  She thinks that the Family Tree DNA findings "substantiate" that Mahershal was illegitimate, which actually it does not.  It just supports that idea.  You'd have to prove that his own family group didn't share his haplotype      

 

Yours,

Dora

Comment by Meghan Dewhurst-Conroy on May 4, 2011 at 12:57pm

Hi Dora,

Your questions about male descendants of John and Hugh McKinstry remind me I need to get back on my McKinstry research (I have been focusing on my Reeds of Loudoun Virginia and Belmont Ohio).

John had several sons:  Jacob, William, Joseph, James, Aaron and John.  Jacob and William's lines die out or only have female descendants.  There are quite a few possiblities with Joseph's line as there were many sons and I am not sure who may have had male children (area to look at).  James had many wives not sure about children.  As far as I know Aaron did not have children.  There is one possibility with John's line.

Hugh also had many sons- I will have to look at this line again.  One son was Ira Lewis - he had many sons so there are possibilities there.

That one biography mentioned that John and Hugo may have had 10 other siblings - I know of Mary and Sarah and possibly Jane.  It would be nice to find the others.....

But if we could track down a male descendant of one these lines, it would be great to test the DNA results.

 

Meghan

Comment by Dora Smith on May 4, 2011 at 11:38am

You all might be intested - the Bucks County PA McKinstry family and the family of William McKinstry of Sturbridge, MA, are I2b1a1, Isles-Scottish.   I got that SNP confirmed.

Comment by Dora Smith on May 4, 2011 at 11:37am

The Y DNA results are in for three McKinstry testees, at my Y DNA project at http://www.familytreedna.com/public/McKinstry .

First, the Bucks County PA McKinstry family, and the William McKinstry of Sturbridge, MA, families, are related at three degrees of genetic difference on two out of 37 markers. This raises the likelihood that other McKinstry families will prove to be related. There is no tradition that I know of, outside of speculation that all McKinstry's are descended from Roger who lived in Ireland in the mid 17th century, that any New England McKinstry families and the Bucks County, PA McKinstry family, are related. There is however old and vague tradition that the three New England McKinstry families were related.

The other two people who tested are descended from William II and Nathan, two sons of Wiliam McKinstry, b 1722 in Carrickfergus, settled in what became Sturbridge, Massachusetts, and married Mary Morse. They are two degrees of genetic difference off from each other.

This William of Virginia is one of hte few McKinstry's who came from Scotland and not from Ireland. It would be really good to test his descendants, other than those of Mahershal, whose Y DNA at SMGF is consistent with the notion that he was illegitimate.

Meghan suggested below testing descendants of Hugh and of Margo's James line, but it isn't clear who Margo's James line is. Is this James a son of William, or James a son of Hugh, or what? Meghan states below that Hugh had a son named James.


Yours,
Dora Smith

Comment by Robert McKinstry on March 19, 2011 at 1:23pm

To toss around the names and introduce myself, I trace my McKinstry line from Alexander of about 1708 in Ireland, through his son Alexander in Bucks and Cumberland counties, PA (the family arrived in Bucks about 1735).  Alexander (the father) wed Mary Samuels.  Alexander (the son) wed Sarah Ross.  Their son, William wed Elizabeth Ross and their son James Ross McKinstry wed Sallie Jackson.  Their son, Alexander Samuel wed Harriet Stivenson (her first husband was killed in the Civil War).  Their son, James Sylvester was my grandfather.

 

About 1737, Nathan McKinstry, brother Samuel and sister Eleanor arrived in Bucks.  This line appears to be first cousins to Alexander (the son) and have mostly stayed in and around Bucks.

Comment by Dora Smith on March 9, 2011 at 12:59pm

I've encountered sporadic McKinstry Baptists.   As I recall from my Scotch Irish reading, the Presbyterian church didn't adequately support the Scotch Irish in the bulk of their communities, especially as they began to move west, so they were forced to join other denominations.    Many went Methodist, but I'm thinking of the South Carolina family, and they were a very died in the wool bunch.  Fire and brimstone though they might be, the Methodists just didn't believe that God had predestined to damn most of the human race.   It's actually surprising the extent to which McKinstry's managed to remain Presbyterian.   

 

I doubt they stayed Presbyterian very long in New England.   Particularly William, who evidently was a runaway ship's boy, and then a farm servant.   I think they probalby became Congregationalist very quickly.  The Baptist churches were their main competition in the 18th century.   

Comment by Meghan Dewhurst-Conroy on March 9, 2011 at 12:31pm

Dora,

I will have to find that article again - it was from one of Kansas County histories - I simply copied and pasted the article - so I am not sure what the author thought the Scottish Revolution was.

 

I also need to find a biography I have for Aaron McKinstry (son of John and Charity) - it gives details on John and Charity and all the children.  John and Charity were apparently "elders" in the Baptist Church...I have not encountered other Baptist McKinstrys - are you aware of any in your research?

 

Meghan

Comment by Dora Smith on February 21, 2011 at 9:24am

Meghan, I just realized that you don't specifically say it was William who fought in the "Scottish Revolution" before appearing in Virginia in 1760.   Who fought in the "Scottish Revolution", and when did that person go to Ireland?   

 

There was no Scottish Revolution, but there was a very long intermittent period of serious troubles.   There were the Covenanters, the Killing Times, and the Scottish Civil War.   The Scottish Presbyterians did back Cromwell.   I've gotten in touch with a local historian in Galloway, and it would be helpful to know exactly what Scottish Revolution you are talking about.   I gave him what you said, and then realized you suggest family history between this Scottish Revolution and where William went in 1760.   

 

I know your ancestors probably called it the Scottish Revolution, but I need to figure out what it really was.   

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page