Jo-Ann just nicely pointed out to me in a personal email that I had made a
couple of mistakes on this email from yesterday so, before I cause
confusion, please let me correct them. The first is about calling the first
Lord Baltimore "Lord George". I know that this is not proper as far as what
he would be called, and that it would be Sir George or Lord Baltimore, but I
used the term "Lord George" to refer to him as with many Lord Baltimores it
was intended to reflect Lord (Baltimore implied), George. Sorry if there
was any confusion caused by that point. The second error was in leaving out
a step between William and "Lord George". In my tired state last night I
sent this out without double checking what I'd written. Of course William
was a son of Leonard, not a son of George. He was George's GRANDSON.
Again, sorry for any confusion! Another interesting point that Jo-Ann
brought up to me (thanks for the email JoAnn!) was that she didn't believe
that Philip had any descendants, and in that, I believe, she is right.
However... According to the research done at Historic St. Mary's City they
believe that Philip DID have a child with his second wife, Jane Sewell, but
that this child died very young, after Philip was dead and before Jane
returned to England with Lord Baltimore III (Charles) and that child was
found in the grave with Philip and his first wife Anne Wolsley. For those
interested in the Historic St. Mary's City information and in the project,
check out their webpages at
http://www.smcm.edu/hsmc/ and be sure to click
on the link for "History and Archeology" and then at the end of the page on
the link for "Project Lead Coffins". Thanks again Jo Ann for catching my
errors!
Christi
Only a Genealogist regards a step backwards, as progress
Visit our homepage:
http://christi.is.dreaming.org
Visit our genealogy pages:
http://genealogy.webhop.org
-----Original Message-----
From: Christi Calvert Brogan [mailto:christib@satx.rr.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 10:14 PM
To: CALVERT-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: RE: [CALVERT] DNA testing to establish ancestral line.
Hi Robert et al,
One of the other lists I run, Barton-l, has just completed the preliminary
steps on a DNA project with Brigham Young. The initial phase was collecting
family lines and trying to tie them all together, but this is based on
MALE's of the name only, so only MALES with the surname of BARTON could/can
participate. The fee is (I think) now up to $125 per person and what BYU
does is they send you a collection kit and you have the samples taken and
sent off to them (after the initial phase of gathering the documentation,
etc.) and they do the testing and report back on the likelyhood of
connections. I agree with what someone here said about getting some of the
DNA from Historic St. Mary's in MD. It would be a great way to prove once
and for all whether or not the missing "link" in my own line (that of the
lack of proof that William, son of Lord George, had a son George. I don't
know what would be involved in trying to get that data, but it would
definately be interesting. The coffins that were found in St. Mary's though
are those of Philip Calvert, son of Lord George and his second wife Joanne,
so I'm not sure what that would mean to those of us who aren't from that
line. Anyway, if you'd like to read the write-up that the gentlemen who
were heading up the project on the Barton list did and/or maybe contact them
to find out who to contact at BYU about doing a Calvert testing, the website
is:
http://genealogy.webhop.org/barton/bartondna.html
Christi
A pack rat is hard to live with, but makes a fine ancestor
Visit our homepage:
http://christi.is.dreaming.org
Visit our genealogy pages:
http://genealogy.webhop.org
==== CALVERT Mailing List ====
All messages posted to this mailing list are the property of their writers.
Please obtain permission from all parties before forwarding or publishing
any message from this list.