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
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.
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.
Dora Smith
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
May 4, 2011
Meghan Dewhurst-Conroy
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.
May 4, 2011
Dora Smith
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.
May 5, 2011