robertmackayclan

Here's a message regarding my DNA sample. Perhaps it might explain why Robert Mackay Sr. seems not to have any earlier history. Also our Job relationship seems to be a key here as well when you read this report: Before anyone jumps to conclusions it has to be said that this could work two ways. It could be that the gentleman named "George" could have had a female George ancestor who had a relationship with a Robert Mackay descendant and therefore their offspring took the name George as their surname. I do know of at least one family in our Robert Mackay family who is like this with the children taking their mother's surname.

Perhaps though we should be open to the idea that our Robert Mackay Sr. may not have come from Scotland at all. Perhaps like our Job relatives he may be from Wales. Probably a longshot at best.

Our Robert MacKay was born about 1680 and died in 1752 in present day Warren Co. VA. How is it helpful to point out a man named "George" in 1750's Wales having a 12 to 12 match with you Michael ? The surname "George" is a very common surname in Wales. It also can be found in Fauquier Co. VA. I have people with the surname George married into my Pilcher family. Pilcher also said to have come from Wales directly to VA.

I have no problem accepting Robert MacKay Sr. did not come Scotland. I have not carved in stone where he was born.

Your line Michael goes back 11 generations back to Robert Sr., that is 11 women we have to "believe" or "trust" had sex only with their husbands to produce the next generation of men bearing the surname MACKAY: Ann Brown, Patience Jobe, Rachel Ridgeway, Elizabeth Wright, Elizabeth Antrim, Ann E. Lehew and your last four female lines. This is the problem I have with the DNA test using the "Y" marker. When we trace a particular blood line as far back as our McKay line, we are really talking about a "paper case".

If you could talk one of your 2nd or 3rd McKay cousins or some of the lines from James or Moses to do the test that might be helpful and very interesting. But if they do not share the same results as you ? Will you report that ? They will most likely go back 11 or 12 generation back to Robert, with that many more woman bearing the next McKay generation.

I did see a history channel program where if you test a tooth of A CERTAIN PERSON the make up of their tooth can show the place of their birth. The tooth's properties being formed before birth and while an infant. I rather doubt we will find the teeth of our early McKay family. That would be a test I would believe.

There were two people who lived in early Freehold, Monmouth, NJ both Quakers that we know where they were born:

1. John Hampton from Elphinstone, East Lothian, Scotland, I descend from him

2. Richard Borden from Headcorn, Kent, England it was his son Benj. Borden who lived in early NJ. We also descend from him through the Antrim line.

I have not given up finding paper documentation we might find the birth place of Robert's family in one of those locations. But the work will be done in various libraries.

After thinking about it a 12/12 match would signify a common ancestor within the last 500 years or so which is way before our Robert Mackay's birth.

Given the nature of surnames during that time in most of Britain, nothing improper needed to have occurred to produce that connection.

(Hollingsworth DNA tests have also produced some anomolous surname connections)

Robert's ancestry could have indeed come from that area and eventually took on the surname of Mackay while the GEORGE connection could have been the same way. (ap George - ap Morgan - ap Hugh - etc.) before a surname was frozen.

It's important to note that having the surname Mackay doesn't necessarily denote ancestry in the Highlands given the fluid nature of surnames before 1600 or so.

If the integrity of my line holds true than this is definitely the case with our Robert. I've looked over the genealogy records and I believe being Quaker, any improper behaviour would have been reported and condemned and so far I haven't seen anything to indicate that being the case.

I guess we'll have to see if other people descending from Robert, participating in the test produce similar results to the ones given for me. So far, I believe I'm the only one in our family in this test.

I have A postive blood type and my husband A negative both of my son, of course, would have to have A type

Travis Dee Buck-- A Postive like me

Brandan Paul Buck-- A Negative like my husband

A-- blood type found in the area of modern day Great Britain & Ireland and northern Europe. So it is not a surprise since mine & my husband's families come from that area both have A blood type.

DNA test based on the Y marker is a very general test and people are trying to apply it to a specific person. There is a program being run through Howard University studying tribes of Africa with present day African-American. The professor (I forget his name) has isolated only four different African tribal markers and has applied the results to African-American in US being tested. However 15 percent of African-American males are testing out having "European" Y markers. But these "European" markers do not show up as being: Jones, Smith, Mckay, George etc..... They are just very general markers.

I do not need a DNA test to think that our MacKay family came from somewhere in GB--England, Wales, Ireland or Scotland. We need the paper.

You are, of course, believing the lab is working the work correctly. Have your brother submitted a test to a different lab.

My theory on this is simply that if our Robert Mackay Sr. and this (unknown) George shared a common ancestor somewhere in Britain that there would be other people of various surnames showing similar results.

Perhaps if they've done any kind of genealogical work and all of their research points to a general area then that would be a good place to do some paperwork.

My thinking is that it would go along with your theory of a Mid-Lothian, Scotland connection or perhaps a Fishguard, Wales connection or somewhere in between.

But we won't know unless other people are involved in the sampling.

I agree that surnames by themselves do not denote common ancestry since they did not come into existence until perhaps around 1500 to 1600 or so and even then the practice took awhile to catch on in all parts of the islands.

Getting one of my brothers to do this through a different company is a good idea to see if we share the same results. We are definitely the children of the same parents so if there is a difference then one of the companies is to blame for it.

I have A postive blood type and my husband A negative both of my son, of course, would have to have A type

Travis Dee Buck-- A Postive like me

Brandan Paul Buck-- A Negative like my husband

A-- blood type found in the area of modern day Great Britain & Ireland and northern Europe. So it is not a surprise since mine & my husband's families come from that area both have A blood type.

DNA test based on the Y marker is a very general test and people are trying to apply it to a specific person. There is a program being run through Howard University studying tribes of Africa with present day African-American. The professor (I forget his name) has isolated only four different African tribal markers and has applied the results to African-American in US being tested. However 15 percent of African-American males are testing out having "European" Y markers. But these "European" markers do not show up as being: Jones, Smith, Mckay, George etc..... They are just very general markers.

I do not need a DNA test to think that our MacKay family came from somewhere in GB--England, Wales, Ireland or Scotland. We need the paper.

You are, of course, believing the lab is working the work correctly. Have your brother submitted a test to a different lab.

Here's an article that was sent to my by the people from the Y-DNA project.

I must admit I was a little surprised and worried when I heard about the George connection but after I had time to digest the information I believe that the connection MUST predate our Robert Mackay Sr. and therefore a common ancestor in Britain exists between our family and the George people.

Here's a message regarding my DNA sample. Perhaps it might explain why Robert Mackay Sr. seems not to have any earlier history. Also our Job relationship seems to be a key here as well when you read this report:

Hi Mike- It looks like your DNA results came back, and like everyone else in the Mackay/McKay surname study you are one of a kind. :-\ You should probably upload your results to Ysearch and Ybase (www.dnaheritage.com) if you are interested in future matches being able to find and contact you. The directions for uploading to Ysearch came with your results from FTDNA. I did compare your results to several other DNA databases. You are a 12 for 12 match with one person at Ysearch. His last name is George and he traces his origin to 1750 in Wales. You don't currently match anyone at Ybase, Scot DNA, Sorenson Molecular Genetics or the McCoy group at DNAHeritage. If you sent a sample to Sorenson it has not yet been included in their database. (I've been told this often takes many months.) When it is, we will be able to determine more of your results, but since you only come close to matching one person, there is no rush for those results. I would encourage you to find other descendants of your oldest known ancestor who might be willing to be tested. This will allow you to confirm that you are all related to the same ancestor. Someday as we get more samples we might find someone with information beyond your oldest known ancestor. This is what we have done in my case. There are two tests awaiting results which should match my brother's test results. We supposedly share a common ggg grandfather with one and a common gggggg grandfather with the other. Let me know if you have questions. Happy Easter. Bridget Mackay/McKay Surname DNA Administrator

Before anyone jumps to conclusions it has to be said that this could work two ways. It could be that the gentleman named "George" could have had a female George ancestor who had a relationship with a Robert Mackay descendant and therefore their offspring took the name George as their surname. I do know of at least one family in our Robert Mackay family who is like this with the children taking their mother's surname.

Perhaps though we should be open to the idea that our Robert Mackay Sr. may not have come from Scotland at all. Perhaps like our Job relatives he may be from Wales. Probably a longshot at best.

Here's a link to the information about the George DNA project for future reference.

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/literary/463/george/

MY FATHER WAS THE GR G SON OF MOSES MCKAY/BEHETHALIN GAINES . HE HAD TWO SISTERS, ONE OF WHOM IS STILL ALIVE IN MERIDIAN , MISS. THE DNA TESTING WOULD BE INTERESTING. KAREN CARTER

Here's a link to the information about the George DNA project for future reference.

http://victorian.fortunecity.com/literary/463/george/

MY FATHER WAS THE GR G SON OF MOSES MCKAY/BEHETHALIN GAINES . HE HAD TWO SISTERS, ONE OF WHOM IS STILL ALIVE IN MERIDIAN , MISS. THE DNA TESTING WOULD BE INTERESTING. KAREN CARTER

Hello Karen,

The way this test works is it traces the DNA found in the Y Chromosome which is only in males. This particular strand doesn't influence physical traits that I'm aware of but is usually referred to as "junk" DNA. But, it does provide a direct male line which can be tested and therefore can be used to provide clues as to possible connections with people who lived many centuries ago as is the case with this George connection.

The only people who can be tested would be your brothers or perhaps the children of your father's brothers or any other male McKay relative bearing the surname.

As we discussed earlier, this won't solve the mysteries surrounding our Robert Mackay Sr.'s origins but hopefully in the event we have enough matches, especially with people outside of the family it might point to a common location that we could look into. At this point it could be anywhere in Britain or Ireland.