My English Genealogy & DNA

16/02/2026

Independent research has determined that it is likely there are two main branches of in . Firstly, there is the indigenous English family and secondly the other from Dutch BOLLE, which is a from a Protestant family invited to settle around in Kent, England by Elizabeth I.

Interestingly, both branches have Phineas BOWLES in them, with the Dutch descendants apparently relating to the more notable family in London and then also Ireland. One descendant of the Dutch group has indicated a R-FT8621 Y haplogroup.

I have suggested that the original Kentish family (which I suspect is mine) took the first name Phineas from an ancestral French settler family . The other family appears to have used the name in recognition of some earlier family, honouring a person with that as a first name. So entirely different origins.

This could explain a lot of the confusion between reported research where trees and connections are being made across both.

16/02/2026

Found a new match (7C2R; 7th cousin, twice removed) on downstream of the = marriage in the US. While data is not current shared, this is likely to be part of the wide chromosome 16 story downstream of ancient and the RADFORD=HODDER marriage in Somerset.

This segment (or segments from a much larger original C16 segment that I share less commonly) provides hundreds of matches, so is quite common in my genetic mapping. Not so many share their data, but it would be possible if I had all this data that I might be able to use recombination points to identify which bit of C16 go down which family lines.

It is a project I am happy to undertake if anyone is interested in joining in and sharing the details of their C16 match with me.

16/02/2026

Mormon cousins.

I'd be interested to hear from any of the faith who may have further insights into attitudes concerning DNA testing and sharing of results.

In my own personal case I have several groups of paper-matched DNA testers in Utah who are Mormon. Most have DNA-tested on so their segment connection is not proven/established. Of course, knowing this information will help sort out the UK-side of any lineage.

Over the years I have reached out to all but never get replies. I have over 100 Mormon matches from specific emigrant families beyond 6th cousins, which indicates long-ranging surviving DNA segments that follow certain family names.

I had assumed that Mormons, who I understand to be big on family and also family tree research, would be a group that would represent high engagement levels when using DNA to prove their ancestry back to the old country. This does not appear to be the case. I was wondering if there is something I am missing?

The three main groups are downstream of my & then families from Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire and the family from Essex.

Please add a comment if you have insights, or DM me. Thanks!

09/02/2026

I am descended from but they are a difficult bunch to tie down. I have a few matches into lines in nearby , but can't always connect them. Oldbury & Halesowen were an outlier of until 1844, before being integrated into surrounding by an act of Parliament.

Like many rural families (this family name potentially coming from the village of Hadley near Telford in Shropshire, meaning 'heather field') [I also have the SHELVOCK / SHILVOCK & BODEN families doing the same] they moved to that part of Shropshire adjacent to the industrialising West Midlands for work. HADLEY, in particular, probably goes back to the 1600's in this area. I have a few atDNA connections into connected and non-connected lines.

The HADLEY DNA Project on using Y-DNA indicates that three families (Quaker, Eastern Shore, and Halesowen/Oldbury) share a common paternal ancestor in England a round 1400 CE. While the atDNA signal is one of the weakest in my genetics, any male HADLEY in the family can contribute by taking a Y-DNA test.

03/02/2026

Note to DNA testers - Time to think about logging back in to your various accounts as the post-Christmas kit results are starting to come in. After a quiet few weeks, there's defo an upsurge in matches now. February/March is usually the biggest months for matching. 🧬

24/01/2026

Here’s a little question for those of you who use and generally understand the range of shared DNA expected for any given relationship. A section of the table is shown as the image.

Statistics indicate that the expected shared amount of cM between 2C1R (2nd cousins once removed) is between 14cM & 353cM with an average of 122cM. It can be a lot of very little. It is not zero. But can it be? Yes, it can.

I have an example that one of my 2nd cousins does not share any DNA with a mutual 2C1R. This is not reflected in the statistics even though I submitted this info to the table compiler. Many might consider this to be “impossible” and that something must be wrong. It is extremely rare, but it is possible if you think about it.

Here are two ways it might be, as the lower end limit for 2C1R matches is actually small at 14cM, so in theory you could find an example that exceeds this limit. Statistically small, but on the far end of probabilistic distribution that is not usually considered.

The match in question is on , a company that does not provide raw matches but results filtered through their algorithm. There is an earlier post on this blog which shows the results of my top 100 DNA matches where I have data both on Ancestry & for the same cut-off (assumed to be 6cM). Briefly, shared matches of 100cM or more are not affected by Timber, but as your matches get smaller between 50% and the entire match can be removed (i.e. Ancestry shows no match, whereas your own family DNA mapping study finds the match on ). This is the reason I do not like the way Ancestry presents its results in a “we know better about your family DNA than you” manner. This is the first possible explanation.

The other explanation is that it is possible to share the proportionate amount of DNA expected, but rather than being a single larger piece that can be detected and considered real by companies such as Ancestry, they are just off the minimum end. Currently, Ancestry shows matches shared as low as 6cM, which is well over the 50% probability of not being genuine ancestral matches at all. 15cM is consider the smallest segment size for shared ancestral DNA within a reasonable timeframe, with increasing chance of being false positives as the match gets smaller. What if my cousin and his 2C1R shared 15cM of DNA (above the minimum predicted for a match) but it is three segments of 5cM each? If all the data is on GEDmatch, you may find this an explanation. Ancestry would show no match.

Sometimes, it is worth stepping back an applying some critical thinking. There could be other reasons I have not considered, so I am happy to receive your thoughts.

22/01/2026

My renewed interest in came up with a new match to my sister's DNA. This HORNBUCKLE had a mother who is in our family tree. Turns out to be a potential confirmation of an additional branch from another son of Thomas (1815) through a new 6th cousin.

21/01/2026

Followers may now realise that if you have enough matches, even with small segments, you can go a long way to proving your lineages back to the C16th in some cases. This does require at least a few of these matches (7th plus cousins) to share their data with you on the professional matching database . You also need more than a little time on your hands to search matches and a modicum of patience. It is helpful if you have a less common name to find this matches on & .

I came across more than half-a-dozen new matches that have prompted me to reach out to see if we can get the party started on & in Nottinghamshire (the latter in the US being descendants of the VA settler in Stafford County), and from Derbyshire/Nottinghamshire.

I'll let you know if I make any progress.

18/01/2026

Since my comprehensive investigations into the various DNA-matching lines for , with the now ubiquitous chromosome 16 segment, it has been a while since I have found a new tie. Therefore, it is pleasing to find another 6th cousin downstream of my 5x GGF Anthony, via his grandson Joseph and his second wife Grace . We still have four other C16 HODDER lines not yet tied, which continues to suggest this surname marker comes from C17th or earlier. Word search HODDER for previous posts that discuss possible origins of the name and the DNA segment.

02/01/2026

A couple of additional discoveries following on from Ann being proven at 6xGGM. It turns out that her sister, Sarah HORN married a Jeremiah , who seems to be a 2nd cousin of Thomas (through Thomas & Susannah).

Having cousins extend their trees with the new BOWLES info has provide a tantalizing new connection (very small though) from cousin Sarah through Sarah & Ann HORN's brother William. I am waiting for the data to be shared which may prove this one way or another, i.e. push our DNA trail back another generation to 7x great William HORN & Mary LYON. That will be a result!

30/12/2025

30/12/2025

Breakthrough on the family of , Kent,

The BOWLES speculation has been running for 46 years, ever since I found out my 3xGGF Jeremiah married Mary Ann in 1836. We knew BOWLES was a common name so working out her ancestry was always going to be a problem. She was an only child and therefore any genetic expression inherited by GRACE descendants would be the only DNA on our side of the family tree available to match others.

Thanks to the collaborators in the family project who have DNA tested and shared their results, I have now successfully crossmatched 11 GRACE descendants with 10 BOWLES descendants in New Zealand. One segment on chromosome 5 seems to be a more common “family” marker and two others have been identified.

Thanks to the cousins giving me access to their match lists on , I was looking for clues way down in the low end of their lists. Any genetic connection was likely to be small. I was fortunate to notice a match with a distinctive pseudonym in several of the lists who had NZ BOWLES ancestry. Further investigation found a trail through other trees that lead back to in Kent, the same area our family came from. It was possible to use available records to connect both sides of the trees at a place commensurate with the degree of match, at my 6xGGPs; pushing back our BOWLES line by 3 generations. The genetically supported BOWLES family tree is shown in the image. It was John Jones BOWLES who settled in New Zealand. Matches in NZ are 5C2R, 6C1R & 7th cousins, depending on who matches whom.

I have several enquiries pending on Ancestry & which appear to be additional segments. I will post shortly the apparent paper trail back to Elizabethan times in St Margaret’s at Cliffe, near .

Happy New Year!