Beginning March 2nd, 2020 the Mailing Lists functionality on RootsWeb will be discontinued. Users will no longer be able to send outgoing emails or accept incoming emails. Additionally, administration tools will no longer be available to list administrators and mailing lists will be put into an archival state.
Administrators may save the emails in their list prior to March 2nd. After that, mailing list archives will remain available and searchable on RootsWeb
Hi Lawrence,
I have delayed in writing because I needed to review my sources and make certain I have them right.
Here is what I have for Adam Clendenon and Rebecca (Cope) Bennett as examined from the Quaker Digests which have been microfilmed and held in the Family History Society repository in Salt Lake City, Utah. I have visited the centre twice and have viewed the microfilms and copies of them both at the centre and here in Toronto, Canada. You can view them at your local Family History Centre as copies can be sent there for a fee. I am not certain if the film number numbers have changed because I know the Centre revamps on occasion, so that is why I will not give the numbers because my sources are older and I do not know what the new numbers are. You would have to enquire about it.
I will give comments as necessary:
Adam Clendenon - No known birth date
Married Rebecca (Cope) Bennett in 1695 by a priest in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland
No known death date
Rebecca (Cope) Bennett - Her maiden name is Cope and her marriage to Adam was a second marriage.
Born 1st day twelfth month 1662/3 in Clamolin, Wexford, Ireland. Her parents were
Robert Cope and Marry Sparrow who were married 4th day third month 1662 in Clamolin.
Robert's parents were Georgius Cope and Rebecca Harrisone from Melton Mowbray, Lei, Eng.
First marriage was to George Bennett on the third day of the seventh month 1682 in
Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland. They had three children.
Second marriage to Adam Clendenon as noted above.
Died eighth month 1721 in Ireland. No specific location given.
Adam and Rebecca had four children:
John Clendenon - Born third day, eighth month 1695 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland
Married third, second month 1719 in Garyduff, Ireland to Rebecca Gatchell
died twelfth day, fifth month 1741 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland
Isaac Clendenon - Born fourteenth day, eleventh month 1697 in Clonkeen, Offaly, Ireland
No marriage information found
died eighth month 1733 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland.
Deborah Clendenon - Born fifth day, fourth month 1699 in Clonan, Queens, Ireland
No marriage information found
No death information found
Robert Clendenon - Born fifth day, third month 1703 in Cappagh, Tyrone, Ireland
No marriage information found
No death information found
I am descended from John Clendenon and through the digests, and monthly meeting minutes have traced the family to the emigration to Canada. They came to Canada in 1822.
Please note that the dates are a little strange. First the Quakers (Society of Friends) did not believe in writing out the dates as we know them. Second you need to consider that the calendar as we know it did not come into existence until 1752. Prior to that the calendar used was a religious one known as the Julian calendar which did not recognize January and February as we now do. That is why you may see two dates such as 1662/3 for a given date.
I hope this will be of some help to you.
Steve in Canada
Hi, Steven,
Thank you for the interesting information you have provided. I
certainly accept that you have documented your research, and that, with
further dialogue, one could reproduce the connections you propose,
below, by using the appropriate sources.
My problems remain, however. While it is possible that the Robert, s.
of Adam you cite is the same Robert (1703--bef. 15 1st mo. 1748/49) who
is the father of Isaac and Rebeckah, even if that is proven, there is
still the proof currently lacking that Isaac (1768--1834) is the s. of
the former Isaac (1720--1771).
In any case, I should like to know the film numbers you have recorded,
if you do not mind. If you do not wish to post them to the list (where
I prefer to see these issues discussed), I should be happy to correspond
with you off-list.
As for the dates, you cannot know, of course, that my grandmother was a
birthright Quaker, and that I have been 'doing' genealogy, as it were,
for more than 40 years. Even so, it is always useful to remind
ourselves occasionally that a date is not necessarily a date is not
necessarily a date ... :-)
Thanks again for a most interesting post.
Best wishes,
Lawrence Bouett
Solana Beach, California
Steven Clendenan wrote:
>Hi Lawrence,
>
>I have delayed in writing because I needed to review my sources and make certain I have them right.
>
>Here is what I have for Adam Clendenon and Rebecca (Cope) Bennett as examined from the Quaker Digests which have been microfilmed and held in the Family History Society repository in Salt Lake City, Utah. I have visited the centre twice and have viewed the microfilms and copies of them both at the centre and here in Toronto, Canada. You can view them at your local Family History Centre as copies can be sent there for a fee. I am not certain if the film number numbers have changed because I know the Centre revamps on occasion, so that is why I will not give the numbers because my sources are older and I do not know what the new numbers are. You would have to enquire about it.
>
>I will give comments as necessary:
>
>Adam Clendenon - No known birth date
> Married Rebecca (Cope) Bennett in 1695 by a priest in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland
> No known death date
>
>Rebecca (Cope) Bennett - Her maiden name is Cope and her marriage to Adam was a second marriage.
> Born 1st day twelfth month 1662/3 in Clamolin, Wexford, Ireland. Her parents were
> Robert Cope and Marry Sparrow who were married 4th day third month 1662 in Clamolin.
> Robert's parents were Georgius Cope and Rebecca Harrisone from Melton Mowbray, Lei, Eng.
> First marriage was to George Bennett on the third day of the seventh month 1682 in
> Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland. They had three children.
> Second marriage to Adam Clendenon as noted above.
> Died eighth month 1721 in Ireland. No specific location given.
>
>Adam and Rebecca had four children:
>
>John Clendenon - Born third day, eighth month 1695 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland
> Married third, second month 1719 in Garyduff, Ireland to Rebecca Gatchell
> died twelfth day, fifth month 1741 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland
>
>Isaac Clendenon - Born fourteenth day, eleventh month 1697 in Clonkeen, Offaly, Ireland
> No marriage information found
> died eighth month 1733 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland.
>
>Deborah Clendenon - Born fifth day, fourth month 1699 in Clonan, Queens, Ireland
> No marriage information found
> No death information found
>
>Robert Clendenon - Born fifth day, third month 1703 in Cappagh, Tyrone, Ireland
> No marriage information found
> No death information found
>
>I am descended from John Clendenon and through the digests, and monthly meeting minutes have traced the family to the emigration to Canada. They came to Canada in 1822.
>
>Please note that the dates are a little strange. First the Quakers (Society of Friends) did not believe in writing out the dates as we know them. Second you need to consider that the calendar as we know it did not come into existence until 1752. Prior to that the calendar used was a religious one known as the Julian calendar which did not recognize January and February as we now do. That is why you may see two dates such as 1662/3 for a given date.
>
>I hope this will be of some help to you.
>
>Steve in Canada
>
>
>==============================
>Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
>Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
>http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>
>
>
Doug and all,
Several months ago I wrote in to say that the possible origin was originally
Glen den---as so many people took their names from where they lived, or what
their occupation was. Hence--
--Glen---glen ( P ) Pronunciation Key (gln)
n.
A small, secluded valley.
den
\Den\, n. [AS. denn; perh. akin to G. tenne floor, thrashing floor, and to
AS. denu valley.] 1. A small cavern or hollow place in the side of a hill,
or among rocks;
I am also researching COPE, which is from the word Cape, which was a
profession of cape/cloak makers in England.
What I wonder about is the COPE's who moved to a new settlement and re-named
themselves: COPELAND !!!
A never ending, wonderful adventure !!!!
Cece
----- Original Message -----
From: <Osogooder(a)aol.com>
To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 1:08 PM
Subject: Scottish Surnames and Christian Names
>
>
> There have been numerous messages regarding the variation in the spelling
of
> the Clend**/Glend**/Glind** surnames.
There have been numerous messages regarding the variation in the spelling of
the Clend**/Glend**/Glind** surnames. There is another aspect of names that
have caused us problems in researching our Scottish ancestors. That is the
Scottish Given (or Christian Name). I have found numerous instances where various
family lines have become mixed because of the commonality of the Given Name.
This is most notable in the questions that are being asked about William and
the three sons, Charles, James and John that came to America.
In an article in the Nov/Dec 2003 issue of Everton’s Family History Magazine
titled “Scottish Surnames and Christian Names” by David W. Webster, FSA
(Scott), he states that, “Genealogical research in Scotland is complicated by the
relative small pool of given names in common use”. He gives several tables
indicating the most common male and female names prior to 1864. The five most
popular male names represented 56 percent of the total number while the top ten
represented 88 percent. The top ten male names were: John, James, William,
Alexander, Robert, George, David, Thomas, Andrew and Charles. The top ten female
names were: Margaret, Mary, Elizabeth, Anne, Jane, Janet, Isabella, Agnes,
Catherine and Helen.
“The limited number of given names is probably largely a result of the
distinct naming patterns followed during that that time combined with the small
number of given names approved for use by the Established Church of Scotland. The
most typical of these naming patterns was as follows:
- First son after father's father
- Second son after mother's father
- Third son after father
- First daughter after mother's mother
- Second daughter after father's mother
- Third daughter after mother
Thereafter, it was common to use uncles’ and aunts’ names. A pattern existed
here as well, though it was less frequently adhered to.”
David states that, “ a fuller treatment of this subject will be found in the
best reference work on Scottish surnames, Gregory Fraser Black's The Surnames
of Scotland, first published in 1946, but recently reprinted in both hardback
and paperback.”
Hope that this gives you a little more insight in your research.
Doug
Lawrence:
I'm at work and don't have my papers at hand, but I can give you some
things to check regarding the parentage of Isaac Clendenon of Morgan
County, Ohio, husband of Hannah.
I think you will find his birth date recorded in Pennsville or
Stillwater Monthly Meeting records published in volume 4 of
/Encyclopedia of American Quaker Genealogy/ by William Wade Hinshaw.
I think you will also find record of a membership transfer from
Stillwater to Pennsville, perhaps around 1830.
I think you will find a matching birth date in the records of Robeson
Monthly Meeting, Pennsylvania. The Robeson minutes for 7th Month 1808
make it clear that Isaac Clendenon of Stillwater Meeting had
previously been a birthright member at Robeson, but had been disowned
for marrying out:
"A letter of information respecting Isaac Clendenon from Stillwater
monthly Meeting in the State of Ohio, also a written acknowledgement
from him was received here, which being read was accepted as
satisfaction, it being as follows,
"To Robeson monthly Meeting 5th mo 22nd 1808. Dear Friends, Whereas I
having had a right amongst Friends, but, for want of taking heed to
the dictates of Truth, I so far deviated from the good order and
discipline of Friends as to marry a woman not in membership by the
assistance of an hireling Teacher, having been precautioned, for which
they justly disowned me, for which misconduct I am very sorry and do
hereby condemn the same desiring that Friends would again receive me
into membership as my future conduct may deserve.
--Isaac Clendenon--
Evan Thomas and Thomas Jackson are appointed to prepare a certificate
for him to stillwater monthly Meeting and produce it at our next
monthly Meeting for approbation."
The phrase "hireling Teacher" tells me that Isaac and Hannah were
married by a pastor or minister who was paid by his congregation.
(Quakers did not have paid clergy.) A systematic search of church
records near the Robeson meeting might turn up the marriage record.
My version of the story is at
<http://worldconnect.genealogy.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=trea...>.
Dan Treadway
On Wed, 28 Jan 2004 22:03:28 -0800
Lawrence Bouett <lbouett(a)pacbell.net> wrote:
>Jack was kind enough to send me the names of several people as
>references for my Isaac Clendenon (1720 and 1768) problems; thanks,
>Jack.
>
>My problems are these:
>
>1. There is no question that Isaac Clendenon (this spelling is
>simply the one I use for consistency--it's not an issue), b. 1720,
>was the s. of Robert; nor that Rebeckah, who m. Jasper Seybold, was
>his sister. Neither is there any question that this same Isaac m.
>Elizabeth Barger in London Grove in 1761.
>
>2. There is also no question that Isaac Clendenon, b. 1768, married
>Hannah. The infuriating "Gene Pool" database at Ancestry.com gives
>their marriage date as 12 December 1792. (I say 'infuriating'
>because there were no sources retained for the information that
>comprises this database.) It is widely speculated that Hannah was,
>in fact, Hannah Worrall. My problem is that I have never seen a
>reference from primary sources that documents this 'fact'. Isaac and
>Hannah are the earliest documented people in my Clendenon line.
>
>3. Neither have I ever seen a reference from primary sources that
>proves that Isaac (1768) was the s. of Isaac (1720), although that,
>too, is widely speculated and accepted.
>
>Look, I am not saying that information that is widely accepted as
>fact is NOT fact; all I am saying is that, until it can be proved to
>be fact from primary sources, or unless there is an overwhelming case
>to be made from other sources, these commonly-accepted 'facts' cannot
>be assumed to be true.
>
>My questions, therefore, remain: can anyone provide proof, from
>primary sources, that Isaac (1768) was the s. of Isaac (1720); or
>that the surname of the wife of Isaac (1768) was Worrall?
>
>I welcome public discussion (that is, on-list) on these issues.
>
>Best wishes,
>
>Lawrence Bouett
>Solana Beach, California
>
>P.S.: A word about my preferred spelling, 'Clendenon': my
>great-grandmother was Matilda Jane Clendenon--that is how she, and
>her family, spelled their surname. There are other, earlier
>variations of the name: Clendennon (two n's), Clenden(n)in--even
>Clendin(n)i[e][o]n, and on and on; that's why I said that I have
>chosen to use 'Clendenon' for consistency--because it really doesn't
>matter. - LWB
Jack was kind enough to send me the names of several people as
references for my Isaac Clendenon (1720 and 1768) problems; thanks, Jack.
My problems are these:
1. There is no question that Isaac Clendenon (this spelling is simply
the one I use for consistency--it's not an issue), b. 1720, was the s.
of Robert; nor that Rebeckah, who m. Jasper Seybold, was his sister.
Neither is there any question that this same Isaac m. Elizabeth Barger
in London Grove in 1761.
2. There is also no question that Isaac Clendenon, b. 1768, married
Hannah. The infuriating "Gene Pool" database at Ancestry.com gives
their marriage date as 12 December 1792. (I say 'infuriating' because
there were no sources retained for the information that comprises this
database.) It is widely speculated that Hannah was, in fact, Hannah
Worrall. My problem is that I have never seen a reference from primary
sources that documents this 'fact'. Isaac and Hannah are the earliest
documented people in my Clendenon line.
3. Neither have I ever seen a reference from primary sources that
proves that Isaac (1768) was the s. of Isaac (1720), although that, too,
is widely speculated and accepted.
Look, I am not saying that information that is widely accepted as fact
is NOT fact; all I am saying is that, until it can be proved to be fact
from primary sources, or unless there is an overwhelming case to be made
from other sources, these commonly-accepted 'facts' cannot be assumed to
be true.
My questions, therefore, remain: can anyone provide proof, from primary
sources, that Isaac (1768) was the s. of Isaac (1720); or that the
surname of the wife of Isaac (1768) was Worrall?
I welcome public discussion (that is, on-list) on these issues.
Best wishes,
Lawrence Bouett
Solana Beach, California
P.S.: A word about my preferred spelling, 'Clendenon': my
great-grandmother was Matilda Jane Clendenon--that is how she, and her
family, spelled their surname. There are other, earlier variations of
the name: Clendennon (two n's), Clenden(n)in--even Clendin(n)i[e][o]n,
and on and on; that's why I said that I have chosen to use 'Clendenon'
for consistency--because it really doesn't matter. - LWB
It isn't just that census takers and "naturalizers" did "sound alikes" on
name spelling. Our own families spelled their name inconsistently. Webster
did his best with the first dictionary, but consistency didn't catch on for
another hundred years. Foreign names are particularly difficult. I have an
ancestor (happens to be in the same family with my Clendenning) named
Crossett(e). I searched in Rootsweb using "soundex" and found that line is
from an Anthony du Crozet, a French Huguenot, who fled France in 1630, going
to Ireland. In the mid-1700s, that whole family emigrated together to MA.
I don't know when the name became Croset, Crossett, Crosett, and Crossette,
but it's all of those things. On that list, we've figured out we're all
related to Anthony. Another line attached to the Clendennings (in my
family) is Keyport.......except 2 generations before that they were Kyburz.
They were Polish and Kyburz is pronounced Keyport in Polish. My
greatgrandfather Keyport's father (related by marriage to Clendenning)
changed the spelling to "sound alike" English format, but none of his
brothers did. So, only my branch of that family is Keyport. Everyone else
is a Kyburz. I haven't a clue how those folks pronounce their name. It
seems unlikely they pushed the Keyport pronunciation. I suspect they go by
how it looks like it should be pronounced in English. I'd never find Kyburz
doing a sound alike on Keyport, either. If I didn't know the family
history, that line would be dead to me.
As for Clendenning/Clindinning, that name seems to morph all the way to
Glendon and Glennon. In Scots and Irish Celtic, the "G" and "C" sounds are
both hard, so guessing a spelling on sound could easily come out either way.
If you speak quickly, the last "ing" is going to drop off. I don't think
I've found any other name with as many variations..........and thank God for
it. But, we can't just "blame" listeners for the vagaries in the spelling
of our names. Our own ancestors couldn't decide within family. My
Crossett(e)s drive me nuts. In the family Bible, my great great
grandparents marry as Croset, their children are named Crossett, and they
all die as Crossette. Bang my head against the wall.
Ellen.......retiring from this discussion thinking we're all agreed this
name can begin with a C or a G, use e or i, and be short or long
----- Original Message -----
From: "Elizabeth A. G. Stockman" <stockman(a)bright.net>
To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:14 PM
Subject: Fw: Glendinning
> I would like to support both Sharon and Honey on this one. I was born a
> Glendenning, so was my father, his father on the other hand was born
> Glendenin, and his father my great grandfather has been found listed as
> Clendenin, Clendenning, Glendenning, and Glendenin. He was buried as
> Glendenin. Here are four generations with four different spellings of our
> family name. All four of which were found four generations before my
> greatgrandfather. I agree with Sharon that people have not always been
able
> to read and write and relied on others to spell their name for them.
Census
> takers sometimes spelled the names as they heard them, which was not
always
> right. If we think about it people have not always had the same accents
that
> we have nor spoke as plainly as some people now. Thus the various
spellings,
> ie: ask someone from the north to say Glendenning and then ask someone
from
> the south to say it, you will still get two different pronunciations of
the
> name.
> So yes when you look, Look for all forms of the spelling! If you don't you
> may find that you over looked or discarded information which really would
> have been helpful to you. I know I did and now I can't get that
information
> again.
> Keep on hunting!
> Liz Stockman
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sharon Bryant" <SharonBryant(a)cox.net>
> To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 4:52 AM
> Subject: Re: Glendinning
>
>
> > I wanted to make a comment about Honey's answer to Jean.
> >
> > >>Many people could not read or write and relied on others to spell
their
> > names.<<
> >
> > If you would go to rootsweb.com and check out their surnames message
> boards
> > you will see there are a dozen or more message boards with variant
> spellings
> > of Clendenin/Clendinen. :>) Even Honey and I prefer to spell the name
> > differently. AND I go back and forth between the two variants I listed
> > above. While doing research don't disregard a record you might find just
> > because the name is spelled differently than what you're used to.
> >
> > If you haven't checked out our website, please do:
> > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~clendin . It would be best to copy and
> paste
> > this URL and then bookmark the page once you arrive.
> >
> > Back to the message boards for a second: Because of all of the variant
> > spellings I posted information about our proposed DNA project on each
> board.
> > I'm also the administrator of those boards. However, there are only two
> > mailing lists: Clendenin and Clendinen.
> >
> > Sharon
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <Hslanham(a)aol.com>
> > To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 7:42 PM
> > Subject: Glendinning
> >
> >
> > > Jean,
> > > Yes, yes, yes! This is the perfect way to find out how closely
related
> > you
> > > are to any variations on the name. Most of us have long ago decided
> that
> > the
> > > spellings of the name are immaterial. Archibald Sr of VA was a
> > Glendenning. I
> > > know our line has altered that spelling to Clendenen.
> > > Spelling was not much of an issue in this country until around 1900.
> Many
> > > people could not read or write and relied on others to spell their
> names.
> > > And now the pendulum is swinging back. Spell check has taken over the
> > brains
> > > of the young, and they can no longer spell.
> > > Honey
> > >
> > >
> > > ==============================
> > > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> > > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> > > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>
I would like to support both Sharon and Honey on this one. I was born a
Glendenning, so was my father, his father on the other hand was born
Glendenin, and his father my great grandfather has been found listed as
Clendenin, Clendenning, Glendenning, and Glendenin. He was buried as
Glendenin. Here are four generations with four different spellings of our
family name. All four of which were found four generations before my
greatgrandfather. I agree with Sharon that people have not always been able
to read and write and relied on others to spell their name for them. Census
takers sometimes spelled the names as they heard them, which was not always
right. If we think about it people have not always had the same accents that
we have nor spoke as plainly as some people now. Thus the various spellings,
ie: ask someone from the north to say Glendenning and then ask someone from
the south to say it, you will still get two different pronunciations of the
name.
So yes when you look, Look for all forms of the spelling! If you don't you
may find that you over looked or discarded information which really would
have been helpful to you. I know I did and now I can't get that information
again.
Keep on hunting!
Liz Stockman
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sharon Bryant" <SharonBryant(a)cox.net>
To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 4:52 AM
Subject: Re: Glendinning
> I wanted to make a comment about Honey's answer to Jean.
>
> >>Many people could not read or write and relied on others to spell their
> names.<<
>
> If you would go to rootsweb.com and check out their surnames message
boards
> you will see there are a dozen or more message boards with variant
spellings
> of Clendenin/Clendinen. :>) Even Honey and I prefer to spell the name
> differently. AND I go back and forth between the two variants I listed
> above. While doing research don't disregard a record you might find just
> because the name is spelled differently than what you're used to.
>
> If you haven't checked out our website, please do:
> http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~clendin . It would be best to copy and
paste
> this URL and then bookmark the page once you arrive.
>
> Back to the message boards for a second: Because of all of the variant
> spellings I posted information about our proposed DNA project on each
board.
> I'm also the administrator of those boards. However, there are only two
> mailing lists: Clendenin and Clendinen.
>
> Sharon
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <Hslanham(a)aol.com>
> To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 7:42 PM
> Subject: Glendinning
>
>
> > Jean,
> > Yes, yes, yes! This is the perfect way to find out how closely related
> you
> > are to any variations on the name. Most of us have long ago decided
that
> the
> > spellings of the name are immaterial. Archibald Sr of VA was a
> Glendenning. I
> > know our line has altered that spelling to Clendenen.
> > Spelling was not much of an issue in this country until around 1900.
Many
> > people could not read or write and relied on others to spell their
names.
> > And now the pendulum is swinging back. Spell check has taken over the
> brains
> > of the young, and they can no longer spell.
> > Honey
> >
> >
> > ==============================
> > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>
I've had several men who have Clendenins in their lineage but whose last names are other than Clendenin ask about participating. So I asked a couple of questions. Q & A are below:
1. If people who have the ancestry but whose last names are something other than one of our variants wish to participate will they be able to receive the project pricing?
Yes...we have adoptees, etc test with established groups all the time.
2. Is there any value at all to the ladies who would be willing to be tested to do so? I think the answer is "no" but I wanted to confirm that.
No, unfortunately. The best thing the ladies can do is to ensure that a male is found and that he participates.
In regard to question 1: It's my understanding that the yDNA is passed from father to son; so if your father is Joe Jones and his father's surname was Jones, etc. up to a point where a Clendenin female marries a Jones, the yDNA that is passed down is that of the Jones family line.
Having said that, it's up to you. If you wish to order and submit a test kit, FTDNA stated that you could get the kit for the project pricing. Good luck.
Sharon
The project has been set up with FamilyTreeDNA. If you go to http://www.familytreedna.com you will see links at the top of the page. Click on "projects".
Then click on "c". This takes you to a listing of surname projects beginning with the letter "c." Find CLENDENIN and click on it.
This takes you to a description of the project. As you scroll down the page you will encounter the order form for the test kit.
When you reach the area of the specific test kit to be ordered, please if you can afford it select the 25-marker kit. It is $169.00 but that is less expensive than ordering the 12-marker kit and then paying the additional fee to have it upgraded to the 25-marker kit.
Thank you and good luck. Remember this is a tool.
Lord, help us as we seek to know our ancestors.
Sharon Bryant
Steven Clendenan wrote:
>Hi Jack,
>
>I read your e-mail and became intrigued with the descendants of Adam Clendenon.
>
>I have been able to track through Quaker records the direct lineage from me back to John Clendenon born the third day, tenth month 1695 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland who married Rebecca Cope in 1695.
>
>I am interested in your reference numbers. Are they your numbers for reference from your notes or are they references to to other sources that you have accessed? I do know that Rebecca was born prior to 1675. The date escapes me for the moment as I need to check my records.
>
I, too, am interested in the line that Jack proposed. I don't know any
polite way to ask this, but is there documentation, preferably from
primary sources, for this line?
One problem I have in my own line is the proof that Isaac (b. 1768) who
m. Hannah was the s. of Isaac (b. 1720/21). And it was the elder Isaac
who m. Elizabeth Barger in 1761 (from Hinshaw), not the younger Isaac.
Elizabeth Barger would have been Isaac's second wife, after the death of
Phebe Nichols (poss. in 1757).
For this proposed line to be acceptable, it must be documented.
Best wishes,
Lawrence Bouett
Solana Beach, California
Hi Jack,
I read your e-mail and became intrigued with the descendants of Adam Clendenon.
I have been able to track through Quaker records the direct lineage from me back to John Clendenon born the third day, tenth month 1695 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland who married Rebecca Cope in 1695.
I am interested in your reference numbers. Are they your numbers for reference from your notes or are they references to to other sources that you have accessed? I do know that Rebecca was born prior to 1675. The date escapes me for the moment as I need to check my records.
Thanks,
Steve in Canada
Hi Sharon,
It has been a while since I have written. The latest group of e-mails on a DNA project have been interesting which makes me want to write.
Diane and I attended a genealogical conference in Manitoba in October and what made it interesting was that the Society had contacted an organization in the United States. This organization is in the process of developing a new genealogical database and the study is called the "Molecular Genealogy Research Project (MGRP).
The organization is called Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, address 2511 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. The telephone numbers are 801-461-9775, Fax 801-461-9761 with a website: www.smgf.org and e-mail address of info(a)smgf.org.
I am commenting about it because Diane and I attended the conference and participated in the study. The unique feature of this is that if an event where there are more than 200 participants the organization would send a representative to attend and collect the samples to construct this worldwide genetic/genealogy database. If you are interested they would forward all the information you require to participate. It is an interesting possibility. There was no charge for participating.
Steve in Canada
Dear Steve:
The BYU study ( Sorenson is connected) is set up to do the study but
no specific results are given back to the people who participate in the
study.
Best Regards
John A Hansen
http://www.smgf.org/index.jsp
This is from the FAQ at their web site:
Will I receive any personal feedback from participating in the MGRP?
"Not at this time. Federal regulations require research studies to be
anonymous and that the privacy of the participants be protected. For these
reasons, each sample is coded and no personal identifiers of individuals
born within the last 100 years are used in building the database. No
personal genetic or genealogical information used in this study that might
jeopardize the privacy of those that have participated in it will be
released to anyone, including the participants in the study
-----Original Message-----
From: Steven Clendenan [mailto:firebird@netrover.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 4:15 PM
To: CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com
Subject: DNA project
Hi Sharon,
It has been a while since I have written. The latest group of e-mails on a
DNA project have been interesting which makes me want to write.
Diane and I attended a genealogical conference in Manitoba in October and
what made it interesting was that the Society had contacted an organization
in the United States. This organization is in the process of developing a
new genealogical database and the study is called the "Molecular Genealogy
Research Project (MGRP).
The organization is called Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation, address
2511 South West Temple, Salt Lake City, Utah 84115. The telephone numbers
are 801-461-9775, Fax 801-461-9761 with a website: www.smgf.org and e-mail
address of info(a)smgf.org.
I am commenting about it because Diane and I attended the conference and
participated in the study. The unique feature of this is that if an event
where there are more than 200 participants the organization would send a
representative to attend and collect the samples to construct this worldwide
genetic/genealogy database. If you are interested they would forward all
the information you require to participate. It is an interesting
possibility. There was no charge for participating.
Steve in Canada
==============================
Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
Sharon & all,
As for the name, I don't care. Of course, my first choice would be Clendenen
since that is how my line evolved. I always forget where the "i" in the
other two. But, I can certainly find it when I need it. If Sharon runs the
project, she really should have the authority to name it whatever.
I vote for the 25 marker test. In my Brown study, everyone who gets a match
goes on from 12 to 25 anyway. We have had an instance on my line where 12
marker samples had eleven matches but the 25 marker was not even close.
But, I don't think it matters if some of us do 12 and others do 25. Whoever
pays should make the choice.
But, if we have several of us chip in for a certain sample, I think we
should strive for the 25 marker.
I am looking for a descendent of Archibald Sr of VA to do the test. Any
takers?
Thank you, Sharon, for organizing the study. I am so thrilled. I have
basically hit the brick wall on my Clendenen line and put it aside until now.
Honey
I want to address the last paragraph in Marsha's email. The male descended
from Charles is going to have to come from William, Alexander or Robert.
George only had daughters.
I have one possibility so far--a male descendant of Alexander's. Anyone else
out there? Remember it has to be a man with the surname Clendenin/variant
spellings.
Sharon
----- Original Message -----
From: "marsha moses" <mosesm(a)earthlink.net>
To: <CLENDINEN-L(a)rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 25, 2004 9:28 AM
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: Choices to be made
> Defintely the 25 marker test! I participate in a couple of surname
> projects and everyone who is really interested ends up upgrading...might
> as well save the money and do it at the beginning.
>
> My dad tested for me on my maiden name surname, and his only match with
> the last name Hawkins has already upgraded so that we can be more sure
> of what we are looking for. I sprung for the 25 from the beginning and
> have been glad that I did.
>
> If you aren't already participating in DNA testing on another line, I
> encourage each of you to go to the Family Tree website and look at a few
> of the surname websites to see how much fun this stuff can be. First go
to:
>
> http://www.familytreedna.com/
>
> Push the underlined words:
> Surname Projects
>
> You will see an alphabet with numbers after it. The Boone surname has a
> particularly interesting site because of the suprises that have come
> forth from the DNA testing. (push B and scroll down to Boone) I first
> got interested because of the McGregor research-- so you might look at
> it. Or pick a name that is in your family tree to see what others are
> doing already. My buddy, Phil, who is running the Hawkins surname
> project is doing a nice job on his website even though it just began
> this time last year. So take a look at the Hawkins website. It will
> give you some idea of how quickly results can come in if everyone is
> helping Sharon!
>
> Now all of us who descend from Charles of Charleston need to look for a
> willing male who carries the name Clendenin (I for one don't care how it
> is spelled) and can be documented back to one of Charles's documented
> sons: George, William, Alexander, and Robert are the men that I have
> personally documented. And we hope that someone will find a participant
> from all of the other lines as well. At least we will know if our
> research is going in the right direction even if we don't know which
> generation we will find the match. Couldn't help but add my 2 cents!
> Marsha in WV
>
>
> ==============================
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
>
>
Hello,
I have heard from FamilyTreeDNA and we have some choices to make:
1. Do we want a 12-marker test or a 25-marker test?
Pros/Cons: Whew! I just finished reading genetic information on their website and I think it goes like this. (Don, jump in here anywhere I'm leading everyone astray.) The 12-marker test is sufficient but if we use the 25-marker test we will be able to more closely narrow the number of generations it takes to reach a Most Recent Common Ancestor.
This testing will not tell you the MRCA's name or where he came from!!!!!! What it does tell you is that (if you match exactly) you and the person with whome you matched did so within a number of generations. OR it may tell you that you have no matches and somewhere there is an error in your research. This is kind of like having a dog with a real good nose that realizes there's nothing in that tree to bark at.
For example, I have a distant cousin--both of us have brothers--and our common ancestor in the Clendenin line is Mary Ellen Clendenin Stephenson. If we were descended from the male Clendenin line, our brothers should match a male Clendenin descendant of Mary Ellen's brothers. The 25-marker test would give us a higher percentage of probability of a number of generations.
You will have to have done the regular research and test results should be used to confirm your research NOT give you a target to research towards.
Obviously to many of us price will be the deciding factor. So I asked specific questions about the pricing since, if we set up a project, it is less expensive per test. Here's what I was told (it is possible to start with the 12-marker and have it upgraded without further samples required to a 25-marker test):
Single Test (no group project) Single Test (group project)
Initial: $159, 12-marker Initial: $99.00, 12-marker
Upgrade: +$100, 12 marker Upgrade: +$90.00, 12-marker
Total to upgrade, single test, no group project $259.00 Total to upgrade, single test, group project $189.00
Single Test (no group project) Single Test (group project)
Initial: $229.00, 25-marker Initial: $169.00, 25-marker test
So, if we start with a group project, 25-marker test this appears to be the least expensive method to give us the most reliable results.
2. What spelling of the name are we going to use to designate this project?
We've tossed around the question of how the name should be spelled but I think we've come to the conclusion that it really doesn't matter--that the spelling was based on how it was heard, not how it was supposed to be spelled.
Choices: C-l-e-n-d-i-n-e-n or C-l-e-n-d-e-n-i-n
So, I need a response to these two questions. Send me an e-mail, SharonBryant(a)cox.net. In the subject line, state the marker you prefer and the spelling you prefer.
You're subject line should look like this:
Subject: 12 Clendenin or 25 Clendinen or whatever your preferences are. I'll tally the votes, report back to you, and will contact FamilyTreeDNA to set up the project.
Sharon
Right or Wrong? Any discussion? My lineage is underlined. Jack Stewart in KS
Descendants of Adam Clendenon
1 Adam Clendenon b: Abt. 1675 Reference #: 4447
. +Rebecca Cope b: Abt. 1675 Reference #: 4456
. 2 John/ Clendenon b: October 03, 1695 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland d:
March 12, 1740/41 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland Reference #: 4459
..... +Rebecca/ Gatchell Reference #: 5676
. 2 Isaac/ Clendenon b: November 14, 1697 in Clonkee, Offaly, Ireland d:
June 1733 in Mountrath, Offaly, Ireland Reference #: 4460
. 2 Deborah/ Clendenon b: April 05, 1699 in Clonan, Queens Co., Ireland
Reference #: 4461
. 2 Robert Clendenon b: July 23, 1703 in Cappah, Tyrone, Ireland d: 1744 in
East Marlborough, Chester Co., Pa. Reference #: 160
..... +Alice Clendenon d: Aft. 1748 Reference #: 161
..... 3 Isaac Clendenon b: January 21, 1720/21 in Pennsylvania d: August
1771 in Reading mm, Exeter Twp, Berks, Pa Reference #: 148
......... +Phebe/ Nichols b: April 06, 1731 d: April 29, 1757 Reference #:
1708
......... 4 Robert/ Clendenon b: January 15, 1756 in Uwchlan, Chester, PA
d: August 1833 in McKean, PA Reference #: 1709
............. +Elizabeth/ Battin b: Abt. 1755 d: in McKean, PA Reference #:
4373
............. 5 Lydia/ Clendenon b: February 20, 1798 d: February 03, 1878
Reference #: 4406
................ +Henry/ Chevalier Reference #: 4407
............. 5 Phebe/ Clendenon b: Bef. 1789 Reference #: 6312
............. 5 Isaac/ Clendenon b: Bef. 1789 Reference #: 6313+Elizabeth
Barger b: January 09, 1727/28 in Pennsylvania d: October 1774 in Reading MM,
Berks, Pa Reference #: 149
............. 5 Rachael/ Clendenon b: Bef. 1789 Reference #: 6314
............. 5 Elizabeth/ Clendenon b: Bef. 1789 Reference #: 6315
............. 5 Hannah/ Clendenon b: Bef. 1789 Reference #: 6316
......... 4 Phebe/ Clendenon b: April 29, 1757 Reference #: 1710
..... *2nd Wife of Isaac Clendenon:
.........
......... 4 Simon Clendenon d: January 1790 in Maiden Creek MM, PA
Reference #: 3162
......... 4 Joseph/ Clendenon b: Abt. 1735 d: March 31, 1772 Reference #:
3160
............. +Lydia/ Pearson b: Abt. 1735 Reference #: 3161
......... 4 Elizabet Clendenon b: October 31, 1765 in Berks, PA d: July 03,
1851 in Frankfort, PA Reference #: 1711
............. +Jonathan Williams b: Abt. 1765 Reference #: 1712
......... 4 Isaac Clendenon, Jr. b: June 11, 1768 in Philadelphia, Pa d:
December 20, 1834 in Pennsville, Morgan Co., Oh Reference #: 142
............. +Hannah Worrall b: September 03, 1767 in Pa d: October 21,
1857 in Pennsville, Morgan Co., Oh Reference #: 143
............. 5 Elizabeth/Adopted Clendenon b: October 19, 1793 in
Pennsylvania(Full cherokee) d: 1864 in Howard Co, Ind Reference #: 1378
................ +Job/ Morris Williams b: December 29, 1792 in
Wrightsborough MM, Colunbia(McDuffie) Co, GA d: 1857 in Howard Co, Ind Reference #: 1697
............. 5 Benjamin/ Clendenon b: November 07, 1795 in Philadelphia,
PA d: August 16, 1859 in Stillwater MM, Belmont Co., Ohio Reference #: 1379
................ +Ann/ Hodgin b: June 10, 1800 in Wrightsborough MM,
Colunbia(McDuffie) Co, GA d: December 14, 1868 in Coal Creek MM, Keokuk Co, IA
Reference #: 1698
............. 5 Rebeckah/ Clendenon b: May 14, 1798 in Pa d: July 19, 1845
in Malta Twp., Morgan Co, OH Reference #: 1380
................ +Joseph/ Embree b: November 25, 1798 in Ohio? Reference #:
1699
............. 5 Esther Clendenon b: December 04, 1800 in Ohio d: October
04, 1858 in Deerfield MM, Morgan, OH Reference #: 1381(Kin of Pres. Nixon)
................ +Daniel/ Millhouse b: March 13, 1800 in Wrightsborough MM,
Colunbia(McDuffie) Co, GA d: November 15, 1865 in Deefield MM, Morgan Co., OH
Reference #: 1702
............. 5 Lydia Lucinda Clendenon b: August 02, 1803 in Belmont Co.,
Oh d: August 14, 1858 in Jefferson, Ia Reference #: 137
................ +William 3 Williams b: December 22, 1796 in Oh Reference
#: 136
............. *2nd Husband of Lydia Lucinda Clendenon:
................ +Elisha Snith Reference #: 5335
............. 5 Isaac Clendenon III b: May 02, 1806 in Ohio Reference #:
1382
................ +Mary Ann Barnes b: Abt. 1805 Reference #: 1706
............. *2nd Wife of Isaac Clendenon III:
................ +Sarah Ann Work b: Abt. 1810 Reference #: 1705
............. 5 Mariah/ Clendenon b: October 21, 1808 in Stillwater MM,
Belmont Co., Ohio d: May 1883 in West Branch, Cedar, Iowa Reference #: 1383
................ +Thomas/ Penrose III b: April 12, 1805 d: March 12, 1880 in
West Branch, Cedar, Iowa Reference #: 1707
............. 5 Hannah Clendenon b: June 08, 1812 in Stillwater MM, Belmont
Co., Ohio d: August 28, 1819 in Stillwater MM, Belmont Co., Ohio Reference #:
1384
..... 3 Rebecca/ Clendenon b: 1732 in Bavaria, Germany Reference #: 1714
......... +Jasper Casper/ Seybolt b: 1730 in Nurenburg, Germany d: Abt. 1788
in VA Reference #: 1715
..... 3 Elizabeth/ Clendenon b: 1734 in Bavaria, Germany Reference #: 4369
..... 3 Robert/ Clendenon, Jr. b: 1736 in Bavaria, Germany Reference #:
4370
..... 3 Phoebe/ Clendenon b: 1738 Reference #: 4371
Just to add my two cents.............
I have come to the conclusion that the rule was:
I tell you my name and YOU get to choose how to spell it.
If I speak with a "funny" accent, (one you are unaccustomed to hearing or
can't understand), then that will also affect your perception of what you heard,
and therefore determine how you spell it.
Census takers and other record keepers were under NO obligation to ASK how a
name was spelled.
Keep in mind that every time you find one of your ancestors names in a record
book it was written by the person who HEARD it, not by the person it belonged
to.
I have come to the conclusion that Clendenen/ Clendinen/ Clendenin/
Clendennin, etc, etc, etc,....with or without a "G" is simply a the combination of the
letters C L N & D with a handful of vowels tossed in any old way the person
entering the information in the records chose.
The population was much smaller back then. Even if the name was spelled
"wrong" nobody cared, everybody knew who they meant.
By the time the spelling of a name started to matter to the person the name
belonged to, it seems that the current way of spelling it in any give family
was the one that "stuck".
I could be totally wrong, but that's my perception after spending countless
hours going cross-eyed reading microfilm.
In short: SPELLING MEANS NOTHING!
Cathy