Charlie, when a father and mother have male and female children their
children are related to the father and mother. The male child would have the
same DNA as the father,and his male children would have the same DNA as
their grandfather. The females children would have a different DNA than her
father unless her father or brother was the father of her child. It happens.
If this female child gave her children her surname, then the children would
have different DNA but related to the father of the female, the grandfather.
PS good timing for Sandi on the bastard child.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Charles Hartley" <hartley(a)iglou.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: [BOWLES] Bowles Families in Barren County
We can only make "assumptions" based on the evidence we
four men have significantly different Y-DNA, it is not an assumption
that they are unrelated in historical times. Leathel is correct when
he says that we need more participants from the Nathan A. Bowles line
to verify the evidence of the one we have; but until we get someone
else to participate, we can only go with what we have.
We have the following evidence of Bowles in Barren County KY:
3 participants who trace their ancestry to Thomas T. Bowles who
married Mary Brown. This is the line of Peter Morris Bowles, Sarah
Jane Bowles Lessenberry, William W. Bowles, Henry Holman Bowles, Ann
Elizabeth Bowles, Joseph Bowles, Mary Melvina Bowles Burnett, Thomas
Nathaniel Bowles, and John Brown Bowles. Thomas T. Bowles was a son
of Thomas and Sarah (Holman) Bowles of Hanover County VA. These 3
participants' DNA is sufficiently close enough to support their
3 participants who trace their ancestry to Elijah Bowles, John
Fleming Bowles, and Hezekiah Bowles (of Monroe County KY), and whose
DNA shows they share common ancestry.
2 participants who trace their ancestry to John Bowles who married
Celia White. This is my line and is documented at
. These two participants have DNA that shows they share common
1 participant who traces his ancestry to Nathan A .Bowles. Without
revealing his identity, I am satisfied that he descends, at least by
name, from this line.
Without further evidence to the contrary, we cannot assume that the
DNA evidence is wrong. While I am not an expert on this Nathan A.
Bowles line, I have looked at it in some detail, and I have seen no
specific evidence that links it to any of the other lines. Leathel
has said he can prove that two males with unmatched DNA are related.
I am interested to see what he has to say.
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
BOWLES-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message