John Bigelow - Geni Curator

John Bigelow is your 8th cousin 17 times removed.

Anyone know how to read DNA. I'm not sure if this tells us anything or not.....

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/bigelow/default.aspx?section=yr...

@John Biglo (Bigelow) of Watertown John Bigelow is my 7th cousin 18 times removed Judy Rice

Your best bet for the Y-DNA results are Justin Durand or the curator for this MP Private User. I'm guessing that there are too few men enrolled to draw conclusions. Also, if there are not descendants in England or traceable to English families, it is a dead end, even if you prove that several American families are cousins.

Hatte is right. There are not enough DNA results in that project to prove anything. There is only one result for a claimed descendant of John Biglo. He matches loosely two other Bigelow men, Robert Leroy and Orlando. The matches aren't close enough to say whether they belong to the same family as John in the 17th century. Maybe Orlando does. Probably Robert Leroy does not.

John does not match Samuel Bagley, and cannot belong to the same family.

Because there are so few results, none of them can be conclusive for any of these ancestors. To be reasonably certain that you've identified the correct result for a particular ancestor you need to have at least two, and preferably three modern descendants who all match. If you don't have that, there is doubt because there could have been a "non-parental event".

Perhaps more results will be forthcoming......It would be nice to have enough results to come to a conclusion.

Thank you, Justin Durand.

I am a direct line descendant. My issue with this is that there is much more conclusive documentation on him than many other people on Geni. Has anyone reviewed it? Besides Victar who admitted he hadn't kept up with it?
Because if you are going to hold John to a certain standard then it is only fair to hold everyone to the same standard. I would like another curator to do a complete review. I don't care about status, as I am already descended from many of those type lines. I have done research on the group of puritans who originated in Chesire which also brings strong evidence of who he was.

Not sure how you all got going on the DNA thing. That should be accomplished however as Baguleys, Leghs, Warrens, Davenports, and other Chesire nobility all intermarried over there and in New England. I've been curating two projects that illustrate this, and it's well known in England. As for Baguley DNA, there are two towns, Baggiley and Baguley, next to each other, full of descendants in Chesire. My own family has 5 male Bigelow's and 5 women.
What I'm trying to do is get a DOCUMENTATION review.

Ok I saw Linda ' s chart. Since I have no idea who Samuel Bagley is, I don't even know what to say. The Baguleys most common name variation is Baggiley or Beageley .

Here is the issue: I have corrected so many other lines on here already that no one felt to leave a " curatorial remark" about, like the entire warren line being wrong, and still appears to be wrong, but no curator note on that, one of the most important in English history, and the info being quoted from a family website? Or the d' Hauteville line, one of the most famous in medieval history I just asked to be fixed, proven right on that as well. In fact of the hundreds I've reviewed with very shaky documentation, no notes on them?

FYI thanks Linda, I think you know how I feel

8th cousin 14 times removed he'd be of me.. not a line i am currently invested in at the moment but if you need the connection to him let me know

I had no idea who Samuel Bigelow is either. Looked for him on the tree, but couldn't find him. We need more DNA results for any conclusions anyway.

I meant Samuel Bagley.....