About us
1) Our North Carolina branch is related to those of several English branches for which no paper trail has been identified.
2) A Brownlee family branch has validated family oral history that their immigrant ancestor was a Brownlow prior to emmigrating to the US colonies and changed their name to Brownlee once here.
3) One sample from James and Kate of Virginia branch has shown so far that there is not a match between the tested North Carolina branch and the Parson Brownlow line. More branches will be needed to verify this consistently.
4) The NC>SC>GA> and NC>TN>OK>TX branch has a J haplotype which was the last thing I expected. I felt sure we would show up with a Viking haplotype but did not. The J haplotype was validated via testing. Those with J have an origin back in the Fertile Crescent around 9,500 BCE and are thought to have been early neolithic farmers who moved up into Asia and Europe over the millennia teaching agriculture.
5) The James and Kate line, New York, and Minnesota lines, show a haplotype of R1b, which is European and Celtic deep ancestry. There is, however, a paper trail to connect the Minnesota branch with those in England with the J haplotype. It will be interesting to see, as more people participate, if we can determine where this split occurred.
6) Participants are encouraged to test with at least 37 markers since at least half of the current participants have a unique mutation on marker 464 where there are 6 sub markers rather than the normal or more common 4 sub markers.
7) 3 participants of Irish immigrants have the same markers which have a greater similarity to the Chamberlain study markers than those of the Brownlows. Since the Irish titled male line died out in the late 1600's when Lettice Brownlow married Patrick Chamberlain, this connection makes sense. We still need a collateral Chamberlain sample who might be related to this particular line of Chamberlains to make sure. As of this writing, we have no known matches to anyone in the Chamberlain study.
2) A Brownlee family branch has validated family oral history that their immigrant ancestor was a Brownlow prior to emmigrating to the US colonies and changed their name to Brownlee once here.
3) One sample from James and Kate of Virginia branch has shown so far that there is not a match between the tested North Carolina branch and the Parson Brownlow line. More branches will be needed to verify this consistently.
4) The NC>SC>GA> and NC>TN>OK>TX branch has a J haplotype which was the last thing I expected. I felt sure we would show up with a Viking haplotype but did not. The J haplotype was validated via testing. Those with J have an origin back in the Fertile Crescent around 9,500 BCE and are thought to have been early neolithic farmers who moved up into Asia and Europe over the millennia teaching agriculture.
5) The James and Kate line, New York, and Minnesota lines, show a haplotype of R1b, which is European and Celtic deep ancestry. There is, however, a paper trail to connect the Minnesota branch with those in England with the J haplotype. It will be interesting to see, as more people participate, if we can determine where this split occurred.
6) Participants are encouraged to test with at least 37 markers since at least half of the current participants have a unique mutation on marker 464 where there are 6 sub markers rather than the normal or more common 4 sub markers.
7) 3 participants of Irish immigrants have the same markers which have a greater similarity to the Chamberlain study markers than those of the Brownlows. Since the Irish titled male line died out in the late 1600's when Lettice Brownlow married Patrick Chamberlain, this connection makes sense. We still need a collateral Chamberlain sample who might be related to this particular line of Chamberlains to make sure. As of this writing, we have no known matches to anyone in the Chamberlain study.