Yes that's it Mick; Sawston surnames by the Rev Ronald Bircham. From his extracts, it
is possible to draw up a mini tree which covers some 3 generations and the census returns
confirm a lot of it.
Tim
On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 21:29:14 +1000
"Mick" <catleym(a)netspeed.com.au> wrote:
I agree with your assessment of the likely links between the Catleys
of
Royston, Melbourn and Barley/Barkway/Anstey. My records of Sawston Catleys
are from "Bircham, Rev. Ronald- Sawston Surnames, St Mary the Virgin,
Sawston, Cambridgeshire". They comprise the marriage of John Catley to
Susannah Hinkins 17 Nov 1797 and the births/christenings of their six
children. There is no information on links to other Catleys.
Regards,
Mick Catley
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Cattley via
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2015 8:55 AM
To: lizcordingley
Cc: catley(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Another Cat*ley Familytreedna test coming up
There should be all sorts of links between Royston, Melbourn and
Barley/Barkway/Anstey Catley's because we have dna evidence that connects
them. As to Sawston Catley's and dna which is what Jocelyn is asking about,
to my knowledge, we have never had a Sawston tree member tested, because
there are no living members to provide a sample surely?
Tim
On Tue, 11 Aug 2015 23:16:35 +0100
"lizcordingley" <lizcordingley(a)blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Hi Tim,
> I have entries for Mick in Australia having links with Sawston, Melbourne
> and Cambridge. Not sure if its one I pieced together.
> Liz
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tim Cattley via
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 10:05 PM
> To: Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov
> Cc: catley(a)rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Another Cat*ley Familytreedna test coming up
>
> You have a copy, albeit an old one and now out of date, of my grand bmd
> spreadsheet which gives in colour code, the evidence as to which trees
> have
> got a dna profile. Those trees that have not yet been tested are all
> depicted by the name being in sky blue font. Thus you will see that John
> of
> Sawston is so coloured from which you would be correct in thinking that a
> dna test has thus not been done.
> This is one of a number of trees who seemingly do not have living members,
> the pedigree having fizzled out.
>
> Tim
>
> On Wed, 12 Aug 2015 06:12:39 +1200
> "Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov" <prvanov(a)xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > Hi there Tim,
> > Yes, this is very helpful.
> > Is John of Sawston not considered to be a match with
> > Melbourn/Royston/Barley
> > trees now or has it been absorbed into Royston tree ?
> > Also is there still a separate tree for William of Wheathamstead ? I'm
> > asking these questions as I'm looking at this area again in relation to
> > Zachariah Catley's parents John and Elizabeth.
> >
> > In terms of the FTDNA results I give my approval for my test and my
> > fathers
> > to be made available in the Catley project page.
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Jocelyn
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tim Cattley [mailto:t.cattley@mypostoffice.co.uk]
> > Sent: Tuesday, 11 August 2015 11:17 p.m.
> > To: Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov <prvanov(a)xtra.co.nz>; catley(a)rootsweb.com
> > Cc: Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov via <catley(a)rootsweb.com>
> > Subject: Re: [CATLEY] Another Cat*ley Familytreedna test coming up
> >
> >
> > Jocelyn,
> > There is a security section on the FTDNA site and so unless individuals
> > give
> > their agreement, the test results are hidden from others. Only the
> > co-ordinator has full view of the as to the overall situation within the
> > one
> > name study file.
> >
> > This is my take on the progress so far on the trees tested and you must
> > await Liz's report for the full results:-
> >
> > Charles Cattley of Greenwich 1867................no matches
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Emery Catley of MidsomerNorton 1731..............no matches
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > John Catley of Hackney 1803......................no matches
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > Thomas Catley of Bath 1819.......................no matches
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > William Catley of Kirton in Lindsey 1709............matches with Thomas
> > Catley of Bottesford Thomas Catley of Bottesford
> > 1742....................matches with William Catley of Kirton
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > ----------------
> > James Catley of Barley 1709.........................matches with Joseph
> > Catley of Melbourn and Joseph Catley of Royston.
> > Joseph Catley of Melbourn 1804......................matches with James
> > Catley of Barley and Joseph Catley of Royston Joseph Catley of Royston
> > 1771.......................matches with James of Barley and Joseph
> > Catley
> > of
> > Melbourn
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Stevan Catlay of Normanton 1580.....................matches with Robert
> > Catley of Garforth and Edmund Catley of Bilton Robert Catley of Garforth
> > 1690......................matches with Stevan Catlay of Normanton and
> > Edmund
> > Catley of Bilton and John Catley of Leeds.
> > Edmund Catley of Bilton 1724........................matches with Robert
> > Catley of Garforth and Stevan Catlay of Normanton and John Catley of
> > Leeds
> > John Catley of Leeds 1825...........................matches with Robert
> > Catley of Garforth and Edmund Catley of Bilton.
> >
> > The fact that we have "regional matches" is hardly a surprise and
simply
> > confirms that which we expected, in that there were regional common
> > Catley
> > ancestors.
> >
> > From the above you will be able to see that there are seven different
> > Cat*ley dna profiles. What is more of a surprise is however, that the
> > MidsomerNorton and Bath trees have no connection because we know that
> > there
> > is a quite large pool of Catley dna in the Somerset/Wiltshire area,
> > there
> > are Welton, Cucklington and Kilmersdon Catley trees to add to the mix
> > which
> > surely must be related either the MSN or Bath trees?
> >
> > I have yet another Yorkshire Cattley dna test waiting results (Robert
> > Cattley of Rothwell 1830) because a possible direct link has been found
> > on
> > paper that connects it to the Bilton tree, if this is supported by dna
> > as
> > we
> > expect, it will give us a 5-way Yorkshire Cat*ley tree match !
> >
> > Hope this helps
> >
> > Tim
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 9 Aug 2015 13:45:53 +1200
> > Jocelyn and Bert Prvanov via <catley(a)rootsweb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi there Tim (and Liz),
> > > Thanks for the update on the number of Cat*ley DNA tests that have
> > > been done.
> > > For some reason I can't see any information about these DNA results
> > > our FTDNA Cat*ley projects page. The
Ysearch.org doesn't show 13
> > > different results either. Am I doing something wrong ?
> > > Kind regards
> > > Jocelyn
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: catley-bounces(a)rootsweb.com [mailto:catley-bounces@rootsweb.com]
> > > On Behalf Of Tim Cattley via
> > > Sent: Friday, 7 August 2015 2:16 a.m.
> > > To: catley(a)rootsweb.com
> > > Subject: [CATLEY] Another Cat*ley Familytreedna test coming up
> > >
> > >
> > > Listers may recall that we have some 13 different Cat*ley dna tests
> > > lodged with FTDNA in the United States which have already shown that
> > > regionally, some share common ancestors.
> > >
> > > Thus the two Lincolnshire trees:- Thomas of Bottesford 1742 and
> > > William of Kirton 1709 are connected
> > >
> > > as are
> > >
> > > The three Hertfordshire/Cambs/Essex ones:- James of Barley 1709.
> > > Joseph of Royston 1771 and Joseph of Melbourn 1804.
> > >
> > > and also
> > >
> > > The four Yorks ones:- Stevan of Normanton 1580. Robert of Garforth
> > > 1690.
> > > Edmund of Bilton 1724 and John of Leeds 1825. So close is the match
> > > between Robert of Garforth and Edmund of Bilton (marker distance 1)
> > > that the connection that joins them is now known.
> > >
> > > However, new research has just come to light which indicates very
> > > strongly that a connection exists between the Garforth-/-Bilton Catley
> > > tree and that of Robert Catley of Rothwell. In the light of this news,
> > > I have today got a a bona fide Rothwell male to volunteer to take the
> > > test. Fingers crossed for another marker distance 1 result
> > >
> > > We should not of course, overlook our four lonely dna tested trees
> > > where no match has been found :-
> > >
> > > Emery of Midsomer Norton 1731 Somerset John of Hackney 1803 Thomas of
> > > Bath 1819 Charles of Greenwich 1867.
> > >
> > > I suspect that the Emery of MSN tree is linked in to the Thomas of
> > > Welton line, has anybody got any contact with a Welton male who would
> > > take the test?
> > >
> > > Regards
> > >
> > > Tim
> > > --
> > > Tim Cattley <t.cattley(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
> > >
> > > -------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > > CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
> > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> > > CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
> > > quotes in the subject and the body of the message
> >
> >
> > --
> > Tim Cattley <t.cattley(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
> >
>
>
> --
> Tim Cattley <t.cattley(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
> in the subject and the body of the message
>
--
Tim Cattley <t.cattley(a)mypostoffice.co.uk>
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
CATLEY-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes
in the subject and the body of the message