About us
Two tests have been processed through FTDNA. These are for myself, Geoffrey Mark Swinfield, and my 3rd cousin, Graham Albert Swinfield. We both descend from Sarah Swinfield (1806-1862). She married Thomas Swinfield in 1829 at Trowell, Notts. We are part of "Family 5 & 5A" (see the Goals page on this site for an outline of the main Swinfield trees). She had two sons who have living descendants:
Kit: 156002
1. William (1841 Earl Shilton, Leics - 1905 Camberley, Surrey)
2. Arthur (1883 Earl Shilton - 1956 Camberley)
3. Reginald Ernest (1925 Camberley - living)
4. Geoffrey Mark (1951 Frimley, Surrey - living)
Kit E5902
1. Joseph (1843 Earl Shilton - 1905 Barton under Needwood, Staffs)
2. William (1870 Alrewas, Staffs - 1945 Staffs)
3. Geoffrey (1934 Burton, Staffs - 1988 Derbys)
4. Graham Albert (1957 Burton, Staffs - living)
The test results place us in Haplogroup G2a2b1b1a2b, which represents far less than 1% of the British population. Furthermore, we both have a very rare value at DYS388=15 (as opposed to the normal value of 13). There is only a difference between us at two marker sites. We share a very recent common (and unusual!) male ancestor.
At first sight, both appear to have a legitimate genetic relationship. However, William Swinfield is genealogically legitimate, based on his birth certificate. Joseph was the illegitimate son of Sarah with no father's name recorded. Whoever was the father of Joseph, that man was also the genetic father of William. Presumably, it was not her husband, Thomas Swinfield. The best candidate would certainly be Thomas Brown, her habitual lodger, an unmarried man who lived with her and the Swinfield children and grandchildren from 1841 to his death in 1892.
It was not known what became of Thomas Swinfield, Sarah's husband, who was baptised at Earl Shilton in 1808. No burial or death is recorded for him. Until very recently, he could not be found in any census from 1841 to 1911 and seemed to have abandoned his wife and family. Thanks to the efforts of another family member, Sandra Bates, it now seems that he had run off to live in Calverton, Nottinghamshire, with Maria Cooper by whom he had a daughter named Elizabeth Swinfield Cooper in 1839. In 1841, he was enumerated, for some reason, as George Swinfield aged 30. In 1851, he recorded that he was born in “Earl Shelton” about 1808 and was listed as Thomas Swnfield (sic). This must be him!
An even more exciting discovery is that by 1860 Thomas G. and Maria Swinfield had emigrated to Portsmouth, Rockingham County in New Hampshire, USA. On that census, they are recorded living with Elizabeth Warburton, aged 22, surely their newly-married daughter and her husband. By 1870 Thomas was with Amy Swinfield and in 1880 his wife was named as Charlotte A. Swinfield, a native of Nova Scotia. In City Directories of 1888 to 1892, he and his “fourth wife” are living apart! What a character!
Thomas Swinfield's brother, William, who was baptised there in 1813, died in 1885. He had a son, George (1843-1885) who is the ancestor of a number of lines of male descent through his sons, George Ernest (1876-1948), John Anthony (1878-1964) and Joseph Herbert (1880-1948). The youngest of these was the great-grandfather to my 4th cousin:
1. George (1843 Earl Shilton - Hinckley, Leics)
2. Joseph Herbert (1880 Humberston, Leics - 1948 Leicester)
3. Joseph Edward (1905 Leicester - 1990 Leicester)
4. Derrick George Joseph (1928 Leicester - living)
A DNA test, conducted by another company, for Derrick George Swinfield, a representative of "Family 5F", reveals that he has a completely different Y-chromosome. He is Haplogroup R1b1a2, one of the commonest groups, found in the majority of men from Western Europe. Of 43 markers tested, we only match at 9! Our common ancestor lived many thousands of years ago, not in the early 19th century!
If Derrick has the typical "Swinfield" Y-chromosome, it has certainly not passed down our line through my great-grandfather, William. Comparing Derrick George Joseph (of Family 5) with Paul Frederick Swinfield (born 1957 Crayford - Kit: 195852) and Andrew John Swinfield of Sydney, Australia (born 1957 NSW - Kit: 240372), who are both members of "Family 3", these two separate lineages being unrelated at present, based on genealogical sources (again see the Goals page of this site for their respective pedigrees), they are virtually identical. Paul and Derrick differ at only 1 marker out of the 32 for which they have both been scored.
Andrew has a different haplotype from Derrick at 3 of the same 32 markers. Andrew, in New South Wales, who is the 4th cousin, once removed, to Paul of Lincoln, has only a different STR value at 3 of 37 places along their respective Y-chromosomes.
Tests have now also been performed on two other Swinfield men. One is Maxwell Henry Swinfield (born 1929 NSW - Kit: 265546), another Australian. He is part of "Family 12". The other is John Arnold Swinfield (born 1966 Loughborough - Kit: 310832), a member of "Family 2". Neither lineage can currently be connected to the other main families of 3 and 5 or to each other.
Most importantly, Maxwell and Derrick appear to be identical to each other, matching at all 32 markers at which both have been tested! This must surely lead us to the conclusion that families 12 and 5 have a common origin. John of family 2 has a "genetic distance" of only 1, differing from Maxwell at DYS 576. Paul has a genetic distance of 1, also having a different value at marker DYS 391. Andrew, Paul's cousin, has a GD of 4 from Maxwell, having a different STR value at three other markers. However, they do share a common mutation at DYS 391 where, unlike the other three men, they have a value of 10.
John, Derrick, Maxwell and Paul all seem to have a "typical" Swinfield Y-chromosome. It is now very likely that the four families which they represent (2, 3, 5 & 12) have the same origin. They must surely share a common ancestor, within the last seven centuries, since the surname of Swinfield came into existence!
At the Australian Swinfield Gathering, held at Ryde in Sydney, on 3rd May 2014, three more men were tested. Each represented a branch of Family 3. All have as their great-great-grandfather, William Swinfield (1804-1876) who emigrated in 1848. Leslie Ernest (born 1932, NSW - Kit: 310833), Raymond Francis (born 1934, NSW - Kit: 310834) and Ian George (born 1946, NSW - Kit: 310753) are third cousins and also have that same relationship to John William Swinfield, the father of Andrew John, who had already been tested from Family 3A. All are cousins of the English representative of that family, Paul Frederick. Interestingly, a value of 10 at DYS 391 appears to be a characteristic of Family 3. Once again there was a very close match between these three new samples and those results shown in the table above. Only five markers, highlighted above, show variation between these eight men. They match at all the other 32 markers for which they have all been tested.
The differences in their haplotypes can be highlighted as:
The "normal" Swinfield Haplotype can now be suggested as:
What haplotype do other untested branches of the Swinfield family have? We have yet to test a member of the other large branch, Family 1. Is there a single origin to our rare surname?
Kit: 156002
1. William (1841 Earl Shilton, Leics - 1905 Camberley, Surrey)
2. Arthur (1883 Earl Shilton - 1956 Camberley)
3. Reginald Ernest (1925 Camberley - living)
4. Geoffrey Mark (1951 Frimley, Surrey - living)
Kit E5902
1. Joseph (1843 Earl Shilton - 1905 Barton under Needwood, Staffs)
2. William (1870 Alrewas, Staffs - 1945 Staffs)
3. Geoffrey (1934 Burton, Staffs - 1988 Derbys)
4. Graham Albert (1957 Burton, Staffs - living)
The test results place us in Haplogroup G2a2b1b1a2b, which represents far less than 1% of the British population. Furthermore, we both have a very rare value at DYS388=15 (as opposed to the normal value of 13). There is only a difference between us at two marker sites. We share a very recent common (and unusual!) male ancestor.
At first sight, both appear to have a legitimate genetic relationship. However, William Swinfield is genealogically legitimate, based on his birth certificate. Joseph was the illegitimate son of Sarah with no father's name recorded. Whoever was the father of Joseph, that man was also the genetic father of William. Presumably, it was not her husband, Thomas Swinfield. The best candidate would certainly be Thomas Brown, her habitual lodger, an unmarried man who lived with her and the Swinfield children and grandchildren from 1841 to his death in 1892.
It was not known what became of Thomas Swinfield, Sarah's husband, who was baptised at Earl Shilton in 1808. No burial or death is recorded for him. Until very recently, he could not be found in any census from 1841 to 1911 and seemed to have abandoned his wife and family. Thanks to the efforts of another family member, Sandra Bates, it now seems that he had run off to live in Calverton, Nottinghamshire, with Maria Cooper by whom he had a daughter named Elizabeth Swinfield Cooper in 1839. In 1841, he was enumerated, for some reason, as George Swinfield aged 30. In 1851, he recorded that he was born in “Earl Shelton” about 1808 and was listed as Thomas Swnfield (sic). This must be him!
An even more exciting discovery is that by 1860 Thomas G. and Maria Swinfield had emigrated to Portsmouth, Rockingham County in New Hampshire, USA. On that census, they are recorded living with Elizabeth Warburton, aged 22, surely their newly-married daughter and her husband. By 1870 Thomas was with Amy Swinfield and in 1880 his wife was named as Charlotte A. Swinfield, a native of Nova Scotia. In City Directories of 1888 to 1892, he and his “fourth wife” are living apart! What a character!
Thomas Swinfield's brother, William, who was baptised there in 1813, died in 1885. He had a son, George (1843-1885) who is the ancestor of a number of lines of male descent through his sons, George Ernest (1876-1948), John Anthony (1878-1964) and Joseph Herbert (1880-1948). The youngest of these was the great-grandfather to my 4th cousin:
1. George (1843 Earl Shilton - Hinckley, Leics)
2. Joseph Herbert (1880 Humberston, Leics - 1948 Leicester)
3. Joseph Edward (1905 Leicester - 1990 Leicester)
4. Derrick George Joseph (1928 Leicester - living)
A DNA test, conducted by another company, for Derrick George Swinfield, a representative of "Family 5F", reveals that he has a completely different Y-chromosome. He is Haplogroup R1b1a2, one of the commonest groups, found in the majority of men from Western Europe. Of 43 markers tested, we only match at 9! Our common ancestor lived many thousands of years ago, not in the early 19th century!
If Derrick has the typical "Swinfield" Y-chromosome, it has certainly not passed down our line through my great-grandfather, William. Comparing Derrick George Joseph (of Family 5) with Paul Frederick Swinfield (born 1957 Crayford - Kit: 195852) and Andrew John Swinfield of Sydney, Australia (born 1957 NSW - Kit: 240372), who are both members of "Family 3", these two separate lineages being unrelated at present, based on genealogical sources (again see the Goals page of this site for their respective pedigrees), they are virtually identical. Paul and Derrick differ at only 1 marker out of the 32 for which they have both been scored.
Andrew has a different haplotype from Derrick at 3 of the same 32 markers. Andrew, in New South Wales, who is the 4th cousin, once removed, to Paul of Lincoln, has only a different STR value at 3 of 37 places along their respective Y-chromosomes.
Tests have now also been performed on two other Swinfield men. One is Maxwell Henry Swinfield (born 1929 NSW - Kit: 265546), another Australian. He is part of "Family 12". The other is John Arnold Swinfield (born 1966 Loughborough - Kit: 310832), a member of "Family 2". Neither lineage can currently be connected to the other main families of 3 and 5 or to each other.
Most importantly, Maxwell and Derrick appear to be identical to each other, matching at all 32 markers at which both have been tested! This must surely lead us to the conclusion that families 12 and 5 have a common origin. John of family 2 has a "genetic distance" of only 1, differing from Maxwell at DYS 576. Paul has a genetic distance of 1, also having a different value at marker DYS 391. Andrew, Paul's cousin, has a GD of 4 from Maxwell, having a different STR value at three other markers. However, they do share a common mutation at DYS 391 where, unlike the other three men, they have a value of 10.
John, Derrick, Maxwell and Paul all seem to have a "typical" Swinfield Y-chromosome. It is now very likely that the four families which they represent (2, 3, 5 & 12) have the same origin. They must surely share a common ancestor, within the last seven centuries, since the surname of Swinfield came into existence!
At the Australian Swinfield Gathering, held at Ryde in Sydney, on 3rd May 2014, three more men were tested. Each represented a branch of Family 3. All have as their great-great-grandfather, William Swinfield (1804-1876) who emigrated in 1848. Leslie Ernest (born 1932, NSW - Kit: 310833), Raymond Francis (born 1934, NSW - Kit: 310834) and Ian George (born 1946, NSW - Kit: 310753) are third cousins and also have that same relationship to John William Swinfield, the father of Andrew John, who had already been tested from Family 3A. All are cousins of the English representative of that family, Paul Frederick. Interestingly, a value of 10 at DYS 391 appears to be a characteristic of Family 3. Once again there was a very close match between these three new samples and those results shown in the table above. Only five markers, highlighted above, show variation between these eight men. They match at all the other 32 markers for which they have all been tested.
The differences in their haplotypes can be highlighted as:
The "normal" Swinfield Haplotype can now be suggested as:
What haplotype do other untested branches of the Swinfield family have? We have yet to test a member of the other large branch, Family 1. Is there a single origin to our rare surname?