Part 63s - Could Smith Have Been Semare?

Morning,

Just finished 638 loads of laundry. All the clothes clean for another week. There are many doorways when one is searching for one's elusive ancestor... and here's definite food for thought.

I just got a "Y-DNA67 Test Match" notification from Family Tree DNA. It's the second 67 Marker, with a genetic distance of 3, that I've got. The message from Family Tree DNA reads "You and the other person(s) have matched in 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, or 67 loci. This means that there is a 99% likelihood you share a common ancestor in a genealogical time frame." (Loci is another word, from my understanding, for Marker.)

This Match is to a person who's test results are a part of the Family Tree DNA database, as are mine. I have highlighted the genetic differences in red, as reported at our Loci/Markers. Numbers 1 through 31 all match.

Seymour - (#32) = 18; (#34) = 36; (#35) = 42; (#58) = 23 -- (#s 59-67) = 20; 13; 12; 11; 13; 12; 11; 12; 12 Smith - (#32) = 18; (#34) = 37; (#35) = 43; (#58) = 22 -- (#s 59-67) = 20; 13; 12; 11; 13; 12; 11; 12; 12 Seymour - (#32) = 19; (#34) = 37; (#35) = 42; (#58) = 23 -- (#s 59-67) = 20; 13; 12; 11; 13; 12; 11; 12; 12

And believe it or not this is my SECOND 67 Marker match, with a genetic distance of 3. Both matches are to two gentlemen with the surname "Seymour". D was my first match, and now T. But here's the astounding part, from within the capacity of my minute brain, D and T are not necessarily "close cousins"... and from their match, they have a most recent common ancestor, which they have been able to prove with documentation. The Seymours have a genetic distance of 2 in their match.

If T follows back 11 generations or 310 years, and D, traces back 10 generations or 280 years they arrive at their most recent common ancestor. Their most recent common ancestor was one, Richard Seymour who died in 1655. Richard had four sons: John, Thomas, Richard, and Zachariah. D is descended from Richard's son John, and T is descended from Richard's son Thomas. Of the two other sons, Richard and Zachariah, Richard, based on readings, had male heirs while Zachariah had four daughters and no sons.

From the book, Puritan Migration to Connecticut by Malcolm Seymour, 1982, and per Denny

Based on this interpretation Richard Seymour's grandfather John Seymer (Semare) left a will on the "vij" [6th?] day of Oct 1605 and in this will refers to two sons, John and Peter, who where "beyond the seas" [#2 - p25] if either were pressed into naval or private service and jumped ship in the Caribbean. A name change would be understandable.

Most definitely something to chew about. A publication, The New England Historical and Genealogical Register, 1917, Volume LXXI published by The New England Historical Genealogical Society, Boston, Page 105, Editor Henry Edwards Scott, proves interesting reading. Also, check Seymour Wiki which provides an in depth and detailed history of the Seymour genealogy.

All-things-being-equal, in the search for the origins of ggg-grandfather James Smith I will continue to explore and research all possible angles. Hopefully something or some small clue may provide that one clue or "directional arrow" that we're all hoping to stumble upon.

Thank you Daphne for the additions to the transcription of Part 61s.

I've made your catches directly to the transcription - 1. Page 502; 2nd-to-last sentence - "...terms of her natural life subject". 2. Page 503; line 12 - "...presently in the tenure or occupation of Thomas McEwen". I certainly appreciate your comments.

And the search keeps on,

Enjoy,

Jim