New King Richard III DNA discoveries

About two years ago I posted some information on a project to determine the genealogy of several Americans that have an exact mitochondrial DNA (J1c2c3) match to King Richard III. The project has now found (tested) 18 people in the U.S. with this exact match. Four of us now belong to the Society. There is (after 4 years) still only two other matches in the world (Michael Ibsen and Wendy Duldig). Our first paper has been published in England called "King Richard III and his mitochondrial DNA haplogroup J1c2c3" and is located at: http://www.qualifiedgenealogists.org/ojs/index.php/JGFH/article/view/32/17

The results (some going beyond the paper) are significant and include:
1. An overwhelming piece of evidence for the bones of King Richard III
2. J1c2c3 may have been born in England in the Plantagenet Family
3. Why there are no J1c2c3 matches in Europe
4. All living J1c2c3 people are likely to be related to the immediate family of King Richard III
5. The DNA ancestry of the United States is heavily weighted to the Jamestown settlement and the Plantagenets.

These 5 points are discussed in another research paper at:
http://www.historysoft.com/richard3/J1c2c3_points.pdf

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing. It shows just how lucky JAH was. Is the work of tracing the known female relatives of Richard's maternal line complete (as far as can be determined from historical records?)

A J

On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 5:59 PM, dobrink@... [] <> wrote:
 

About two years ago I posted some information on a project to determine the genealogy of several Americans that have an exact mitochondrial DNA (J1c2c3) match to King Richard III. The project has now found (tested) 18 people in the U.S. with this exact match. Four of us now belong to the Society. There is (after 4 years) still only two other matches in the world (Michael Ibsen and Wendy Duldig). Our first paper has been published in England called "King Richard III and his mitochondrial DNA haplogroup J1c2c3" and is located at: http://www. qualifiedgenealogists.org/ojs/ index.php/JGFH/article/view/ 32/17

The results (some going beyond the paper) are significant and include:
1. An overwhelming piece of evidence for the bones of King Richard III
2. J1c2c3 may have been born in England in the Plantagenet Family
3. Why there are no J1c2c3 matches in Europe
4. All living J1c2c3 people are likely to be related to the immediate family of King Richard III
5. The DNA ancestry of the United States is heavily weighted to the Jamestown settlement and the Plantagenets.

These 5 points are discussed in another research paper at:
http://www.historysoft.com/ richard3/J1c2c3_points.pdf

Thank you very much for the information. My family is one of those who came over, so I read this with great interest. I find 23 and Me to be a nice pairing with Ancestry.com. To really find answers takes a tremendous amount of time, and interested family members to go down the rabbit trails. Just a side note, after a lovely river cruise in France we ended in Provence, and I noticed a small restaurant, sadly closed, but bearing the name of my maternal grandmother. I started digging in France, which I had not done before, and through William the Conqueror, and the many details around those who fought with him, names of French who came over, etc. some quite interesting ties. That means not a darn thing, no invitations to tea, or champagne, just interesting.
On Jun 21, 2017, at 2:13 AM, dobrink@... [] <> wrote:

About two years ago I posted some information on a project to determine the genealogy of several Americans that have an exact mitochondrial DNA (J1c2c3) match to King Richard III. The project has now found (tested) 18 people in the U.S. with this exact match. Four of us now belong to the Society. There is (after 4 years) still only two other matches in the world (Michael Ibsen and Wendy Duldig). Our first paper has been published in England called "King Richard III and his mitochondrial DNA haplogroup J1c2c3" and is located at: http://www.qualifiedgenealogists.org/ojs/index.php/JGFH/article/view/32/17

The results (some going beyond the paper) are significant and include:
1. An overwhelming piece of evidence for the bones of King Richard III
2. J1c2c3 may have been born in England in the Plantagenet Family
3. Why there are no J1c2c3 matches in Europe
4. All living J1c2c3 people are likely to be related to the immediate family of King Richard III
5. The DNA ancestry of the United States is heavily weighted to the Jamestown settlement and the Plantagenets.

These 5 points are discussed in another research paper at:
http://www.historysoft.com/richard3/J1c2c3_points.pdf

We would very much like to know of other lines John Ashdown-Hill may have worked. The Ibsen and Duldig lines came down from Richard III's sister but we think our lines could be down another branch from Richard's grandmother or great-grandmother. Looking at those, there does seem to be promising areas for research. Most of our American lines head to the first English settlement at Jamestown. We are working on that early period (1600 to 1700) and there are a number of Plantagenets that are mixed in. I have developed a line (but not maternal) that goes to Richard III as a 2nd cousin 22 times removed. I would guess that a lot of people of English Ancestry will have a relationship like that (to Richard III) but, currently, there's no way to prove it unless you have a rare DNA haplogroup like J1c2c3. But, of course, that forces you to do maternal line genealogy which is very challenging.

23andme is good because you get Y-DNA (if a man), mtDNA, and the autosomal. What's missing is the genealogy which you can't beat with Ancestry.com. AncestryDNA, however, only gives you autosomal (no YDNA or myDNA). This is unfortunate because so many people are going to AncestryDNA. Just 2 years ago, they had half as many users as 23andme and they now have more than double the users. IMO, Ancestry would be, without a doubt, the best service if they brought back the YDNA and mtDNA.

I agree, which is why I like the pairing of the two. I wish I had more interested relatives, and had started all this when my elder relatives were still with us, and still acute in memories and in possession facts. Just an FYI, my grandmother was the eldest of twelve. Her grandmother was named Temperance O'Quinn. He first husband, George Cooper, rode from Henderson, Texas to San Antonio to join the Civil War, from which he never returned. She later married her neighbor, a widower, James York, and my great grandmother, Nancy was one of the children from that marriage. I remember being about eight or so, and one of my great aunts (four of them) was a widow, and was about to marry a Yankee. One of her sisters said "You cannot do that, what would Grandma York think". I was so puzzled, and could not begin to understand the remark. We (cousins) were well into maturity when we started on the ancestry trail. So, it was, of course, only later, that I discovered that Grandma York was a war widow, they lost much of the land, money, and possessions they had. And for her life was very difficult. The collision of past and now. Sorry to ramble off course, and apologies to all.
On Jun 21, 2017, at 3:04 PM, dobrink@... [] <> wrote:

23andme is good because you get Y-DNA (if a man), mtDNA, and the autosomal. What's missing is the genealogy which you can't beat with Ancestry.com. AncestryDNA, however, only gives you autosomal (no YDNA or myDNA). This is unfortunate because so many people are going to AncestryDNA. Just 2 years ago, they had half as many users as 23andme and they now have more than double the users. IMO, Ancestry would be, without a doubt, the best service if they brought back the YDNA and mtDNA.

My experience with 23andMe was okay, except that they didn't fully resolve my mtDNA typing. I'm told by my "mtDNA buddy" that the sequence that wasn't fully resolved could have been very informative. So one of these days, I'll have to repeat the testing with another service to see if there's any more information to be gleaned.

A J

On Wed, Jun 21, 2017 at 10:16 AM, dobrink@... [] <> wrote:
 

23andme is good because you get Y-DNA (if a man), mtDNA, and the autosomal. What's missing is the genealogy which you can't beat with Ancestry.com. AncestryDNA, however, only gives you autosomal (no YDNA or myDNA). This is unfortunate because so many people are going to AncestryDNA. Just 2 years ago, they had half as many users as 23andme and they now have more than double the users. IMO, Ancestry would be, without a doubt, the best service if they brought back the YDNA and mtDNA. 

FTDNA (Family tree DNA at ftdna.com) is the best way to go for a full sequence mtDNA. 12 of the J1c2c3 matches have done this at FTDNA without any problems. Something that has caused us a problem with 23andme is the fact that they have not updated their haplogroups in 4 years so a J1c2c3 will show as a J1c2c. We have spent countless hours taking J1c2c matches through the process of checking their raw mtDNA data for that extra mutation that defines J1c2c3. In almost all cases (because J1c2c3 has turned out to be so rare) the mutation is not there and everyone is disappointed. The National Geographic project correctly shows J1c2c3 and their Y-DNA test is better than 23andme but they do not give you match information like 23andme.

Good to know, and another piece of the puzzle. With 23 and Me, I seem to get a whole lot of questions, and not that many answers. And the matches with Ancestry seem to be closer.
On Jun 21, 2017, at 4:21 PM, dobrink@... [] <> wrote:

FTDNA (Family tree DNA at ftdna.com) is the best way to go for a full sequence mtDNA. 12 of the J1c2c3 matches have done this at FTDNA without any problems. Something that has caused us a problem with 23andme is the fact that they have not updated their haplogroups in 4 years so a J1c2c3 will show as a J1c2c. We have spent countless hours taking J1c2c matches through the process of checking their raw mtDNA data for that extra mutation that defines J1c2c3. In almost all cases (because J1c2c3 has turned out to be so rare) the mutation is not there and everyone is disappointed. The National Geographic project correctly shows J1c2c3 and their Y-DNA test is better than 23andme but they do not give you match information like 23andme.