Lieut. Samuel "The Fellmonger" Smith - Attention Lt. Samuel Smith Group: DNA Match to William Brown Group Here in America.

https://familysearch.org/photos/artifacts/8547163

I don't see a connection yet between the DNA of Lt. Samuel Smith and the Carrington Smith line.

I am looking here:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/SmithConnections?iframe=yresults

Several descendants of Samuel are included together in one group, along with several others who might be his descendants.

However, I don't see a sample for anyone who claims to be a descendant of the Carrington Smith line. Is there one I'm not seeing?

https://www.geni.com/path/Sir-John-Smythe-Lord-of-Carrington+is+rel...

https://www.geni.com/path/Sir-William-Smith-Knight-of-Carrington+is...

Male Y DNA does not change. Therefore, in theory If I match Lt. Samuel Smith, I also match this tree, if this tree is considered validated and correct.

>> If this tree is sound it goes up to the Carrington Line. Follow the path up.

That's the kicker. The line is very questionable. We need more work on the paper trail before we begin thinking we've got a DNA match.

No problem Justin. I understand this well. I have been doing research for a decade.
But, this idea should not be shunned either as it is matching thus far. That is why these files are considered MP correct? its the best we have.

I would love to find another confirmed Y descendant to the John Smith Carrington line to compare DNA with. Truth being, they are most likely here in America with a different last name. (possibly Smith)

Hopefully some Lt. Samuel Smith relatives can chime in and very paths. I listed many links to the Smith Carrington story. Maybe I can email them and ask a Y relative to DNA test.

>> it is matching thus far

That's what I'm pressing to find out. How is it matching? Where is it matching? Is there any place where a known Carrington descendant has tested DNA and found to match the descendants of Samuel?

>> That is why these files are considered MP correct? its the best we have.

No necessarily. MPs can be a way to stabilize a line pending further research. The MP status does not mean the line has been vetted.

Anwar, I recently went through a whole Thing about Carrington / Smith. I'll try to find you the links to discussions, but (in my opinion)

- there is no known paper trail relationship from "the Fellmonger" Smith line to the (fictional) Carington Smith line

- the Carington Smith line is a Smith line (of county Essex). It was jacked up to try and get a coat of arms based on the medieval Carrington's. That it was fictional to the ancient Carington's was shown (to my satisfaction) by Rounds, and recently revalidated by a working genealogist (who BTW gives the Smiths of Essex some props for being richer earlier than thought)

- there's a medieval Michael Carington who it looks like did not exist

- you need to be extremely cautious of the books. As I said, there's a very good site from a current working genealogist - Andrew Lancaster, if I remember right. His work I would trust, not the Aloha site.

Hope this helps.

The profile is John Smith, of Rivenhall and the discussion is https://www.geni.com/discussions/163744?msg=1125434

I believe the Fellmonger Smith line is mentioned.

This is the Andrew Lancaster study on John Smith I mentioned

http://users.skynet.be/lancaster/Dorothy%20Burlingham%20Ancestry.ht...

I'm not good enough at DNA studies to comment effectively on that topic, but I can help on paper trail.

O.K. No problem.

I can patiently await for others understanding.

I am well rehearsed in Y DNA research. In Fact, I was the one to bring my Brown Smith findings to the Smith Group FTDNA project moderators.

I will check the above links .. your time is appreciated.

Anwar, you and I discussed this privately at some length.

Your yDNA match to the descendants of Samuel Smith is probably somewhere between about 450 and 900 years ago. DNA deals with probabilities. It is not exact.

Your earliest known male line ancestor is William Brown, born about 1689 who settled in New Hampshire. There is a tradition he came from Scotland, which is plausible.

Samuel Smith was born in 1602 in England and settled in Massachusetts. At least one line of his descendants were in New Hampshire.

Based on the DNA alone it's not possible to say with certainty how close you are to Samuel Smith. You are close enough that you could be a male-line descendant of Samuel Smith through an early NPE. You are far enough away that your common ancestor might have lived about the time of the Norman invasion and before the adoption of surnames.

My advice to you was that you extend your testing of your most distant cousins on the William Brown line so you can rule out the possibility of an NPE. Did you already do that?

Besides knowing I am Z381+, Z305+

>> It is an important lead for me regardless.

Most certainly. The matches are so very close and so intriguing it has to be the focus of your DNA research. Unfortunately, we aren't ever guaranteed that our closest matches will mean anything significant. It's a crap shoot, because it depends on whether other people have been tested. My closest yDNA match is 3000 years ago. That's never going to help me with genealogy. Someday someone closer will test, and then I might have something to work with.

> I am feeling a bit of negative energy coming from you.

Not negative, I hope. What I want to do is help you focus on what is really relevant to your search. That might not match what you want to do.

>> "shed some light" on what group in history you believe my branch comes from?

This is a common misconception about DNA. It doesn't usually show a link to a specific group in history. It's too old, too spread out.

The relevant group for you is L1. As you say, it's a subgroup of DF98, which is called the Kings' Cluster because of the number of royal families that belong to it. You want to be careful about drawing any conclusions from that. No one knows whether those kings belong to the L1 subgroup or some other subgroup of DF98.

According yFull DF98 is about 3200 years old. The common ancestor of everyone in this group so far lived about 2200 years ago. L1 is about 2700 years old. The common ancestor of everyone in this group so far lived about 2700 years ago.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/

So you can see the problem. L1 starts about 600 BCE. It's older than most of the historic cultures we can name today.

To find the historic area of L1 you would look at other L1 men to see where their ancestors lived. I don't find any summary on a quick search so I went to the L1 project:
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/null439/default.aspx?section=y...

You can see that it is overwhelmingly concentrated in the British Isles. but with some in Germany, and isolated men in Netherlands, Finland, Ukraine, Sweden, Hungary, and even Spain.

From this distribution you might guess that your distant ancestors -- before the Romans -- came from Britain or maybe Germany, and different branches spread out from there. It would be a good guess but still just a guess.

That's about as far as we can go with the current data.

Okay, then.