Project News
If you are interested in joining our DNA study, please click on the "Join this group" link at the top of the blue column to the left. Or contact the project administrator (linda@stokesbury.org) for additional information.
___________
May 2009
We have received the results from the two newest participants—the first is from Australia, and the second from the USA, a descendant of the infamous “Sir” William.
Robin E. Stutchbury and Liz Stookesberry Myers contributed funds for these tests. In addition, monies from the Stokesbury general fund are applied as needed to help with testing. When you contribute to the general fund, you receive a public “Thank You” and your name is added to our list of sponsors at: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/stokesburyDNAproject/default.asp
To contribute, click on the “General Fund Donation” link at http://www.familytreedna.com/public/stokesburyDNAproject/.
______________
New Participants
Participant #11: A descendant of Thomas STUCHBURY (Stutchbury) (b. 1691 d. 1760; This is the Hillesden line from Buckinghamshire, England.) This participant is Les Howard Stuchbree from Australia; the sponsor of this test, and contact is Robin Stutchbury, aips AT tpg.com.au. Test results on this participant do not match with either of the two family lines we have identified so far. At this time, until we have another descendant from this line to test, we don’t know if this is an anomaly or not. For the time being, we are placing him in a new family, Family 3. If you want more information regarding the possible explanations of this result, please contact me.
Participant #12: This participant is a descendant of the USA family that descends from the gentleman who, according to some family histories is known as “Sir” William Stookesberry/ Stokesberry (bc 1710). I refer to him as the infamous “Sir” William because there has never been any proof produced to support this claim, and serious researchers consider it simply family legend with no basis in fact. (From this point on I will refer to him as William, Sr.) This participant’s name is Donald Stokesberry, Iowa; the sponsor of this test, and contact is Liz Stookesberry Myers, stookesberry AT gmail.com.
Results from this participant’s test constitute another exciting breakthrough; we can now say with certainty that this participant is a part of Family 1.
Analysis of the results show that an earlier participant (#10, Geoffrey Stutchbury, Australia) probably carries the signature DNA unchanged from the earliest common ancestor, and that the other participants all have a single gene mutation when compared with Geoff’s markers. (I know this gets a little technical, but the results of the 37-marker tests of four individuals, compared with Geoff’s test, each show a one-level mutation at a different marker. Calculations reveal that there is more than a 76% chance they all share a common ancestor between 8-12 generations ago. It’s hard to put a year equivalent on this, but it is consistent with the period of the mid-1600s for the common ancestor, who has yet to be identified.)
Using these results, I can only make an educated guess as to what it all means. I have been working for years on a grid of the early Stokesburys (all spellings) in the US, trying to see how they all might fit together. I have long suspected that many of the lines had to be related. The DNA results have now confirmed many of these connections.
So what do we know? We know that Robert Stukesbury, Sr.—the same man who is identified in the records of Bucks Co. as Robert Stuchbury/Stutchbury—was in Bucks County, PA from ca 1695-1747. I believe he is the common ancestor to all the previous participants who have been identified as belonging to Family 1. We also know that William Stokesbury/Stookesberry, Sr., the ancestor of this latest participant (#12) was in Bucks Co., PA very early in the 1700s. My working theory at this point is that William, Sr. is most probably a son of Robert Stukesbury (Stutchbury), Sr. (who also had a proven son, Robert Stukesbury, Jr., and a suspected daughter, Deborah, who married James Rose in Bucks County, PA in 1737—Deborah’s relationship is not proven, but seems logical to me based on timing and proximity. Please remember, while we know these people are all related, we can’t know exactly how until we find the paper evidence to support the connections. We can only speculate based on known facts.
I am optimistic about the chances of eventually finding documentation to help prove the theories. Here’s a case in point: I hooked up with Liz Stookesberry Myers last summer in Bucks County, PA, for a week of genealogical research. We had a great time. One of our significant finds was a copy of a 1719 document with Robert Stukesbury, Sr.’s actual signature on it. Lo and behold, he clearly spells his name Stutchbury. So, all descendants of Family 1 now know with certainty that the family name was originally Stutchbury.
_______________
February 2008
We have received the results from the two newest participants, the first from Ireland, and the second from Australia, and we have identified the families to which they belong.
Participant #9: A descendant of William STOKESBERRY (b. 1816 d. 05 08 1885; Farmer/butcher in Belfast, Ireland). This participant is Brian Stokesberry, Ireland; stoaksberry AT utvinternet.com. Test results put this participant firmly in Family #2. Comparing his results with participants #3 (JT Stokesbury) & #4 (John A. Stotesbury), they predict the greatest probability for their most recent common ancestors between 6-10 generations ago. Comparing the results with participant #6 (Richard Stotesbury), their most recent common ancestor is probably 12-16 generations ago. This family continues to work on finding their common links.
Participant #10: This participant is a descendant of James Stutchbury (b. 1645, England). His name is Geoffrey James Stutchbury, Australia; geofstutch AT bigpond.com. Results from this participant’s test constitute quite a breakthrough for the members of family #1. At the 12-marker level, we have a perfect match with four of the participants from this family. At this point we can say there is a very high probability that we share a common ancestor between 9-12 generations ago, or roughly 300+ years. Armed with this knowledge, we can see that certain historical records make more sense. Such as, the name of the earliest common ancestor of family 1 was recorded in Bucks County, PA, USA as Robert Stuchbury/Stutchbury. And when you see the name Stutchbury written in the old style cursive, you see that it could easily be misinterpreted as Stretchberry, which is the spelling that one branch of descendants adopted. It’s possible that the ancestors of family 1 originally came from the long-gone village of Stuchbury, which was located in the southern part of Northamptonshire in England about 20 miles southwest of Northampton and about 60 miles northwest of London. We anxiously await the results of the 25- and 37-marker levels, which will help further refine the probabilities.
Upgrade results: We also received the results of an upgrade to the 67-marker test for participant #1 (My father, Elwood L. Stokesbury, a descendant of Robert STOKESBERRY, b. ca 1780, prob. VA; d. 1839 Ross Co, OH), and participant #2 (Teri William’s brother, Robert Stokesberry, a descendant of John STOKESBERRY, b. 9 Jul 1772, VA; d. 22 Nov 1839, IN). We wanted to further refine the probabilities and timeframes, since we had a 2-step difference in the results at the 37-marker level. While significant, the results at that level weren’t as conclusive as we would have liked. The results of the upgrade, however, predict the greatest probability for the most recent common ancestor at 6 generations ago. This result is consistent with the theory that John Stokesbury (b. 9 Jul 1772, VA; d. 22 Nov 1839, IN), and Robert Stokesberry (b. ca 1780, prob. VA; d. 1839 Ross Co, OH) were brothers. They were most probably sons of John Strichberry from Shenandoah Co., VA. I further think that John from Shenandoah Co., VA is the same John Stokesbury who is in Loudoun Co., VA earlier, and that he is a son of Robert Stukesbury, Sr. (of Bucks, Co., PA and Loudoun Co., VA—the same man who is first identified in the records of Bucks Co. as Robert Stuchbury/Stutchbury), and his second wife Elizabeth Hewitt. (By the way, the original marriage license shows that Elizabeth Hewitt was a widow when she married Robert, Sr., so Hewitt was her married name, NOT her maiden name as some researchers had assumed.)
New participant expected: Last July, I presented two papers at the Stooksbury family reunion in Tennessee. One was on the Sir William myth, and the other was on the DNA testing and results to date. (If you’d like a copy of either of these papers, just let me know.) While there I met two brothers from Iowa who are descendants of the William Stokesberry line here in the U.S. The earliest proven ancestor in this line is sometimes referred to as “Sir” William Stokesberry, who was known to have been in Bucks Co., PA in 1763-1775; family legend says he was in this country as early as 1720. The two brothers spell their name Stookesberry and trace back to William Stokesberry, b. ca 1750-52; d. ca 1797-78, who is said to be the son of “Sir” William. They have agreed to participant and will proceed with ordering their test this spring. The results from this test will be particularly interesting and very informative. We should learn whether there is any relation to Robert Stukesbury, Sr., who was also in Bucks Co., from 1695-1757. We suspect a relationship, but this test will prove it one way or another.
_______________
May 2007
The latest DNA test results are in from a descendant of Jacob Stooksbury (born in Loudoun Co., VA in 1753, md. Elizabeth Moorehead). This test was partially funded thanks to a generous donation from Liz Stooksberry. The newest test results from Jacob Stooksbury's descendant show a close match with the descendants of Robert Stokesberry, Joshua Stokesbary and John Stokesberry. The families are definitely related, and this puts the descendants of Jacob firmly in the line that we have identified as Family 1. The results predict a common ancestor with the highest probability within the last 7-11 generations (approximately 200-300 years ago).
Some descendants of Jacob believe that they descend from Sir William Stokesberry, but these test results add to the evidence that Family 1 descends from Robert Stukesbury, Sr. (Bucks Co., PA and later Fairfax Co./Loudoun Co., VA). From court records and other documentation, we know that Jacob Stooksbury (born in Loudoun Co., VA in 1753) was the son of Robert Stukesberry, Jr, who was the son of Robert Stukesberry, Sr. (Bucks Co., PA and later Fairfax Co./Loudoun Co., VA). The results from this test lead us to believe that that John Strichberry (Stokesberry) from Shenandoah Co., VA) is the same John Stokesberry that we find in Loudoun County, VA between 1759-1782. Further evidence leads us to believe that this John was the son of Robert Stukesbury, Sr., and his second wife, Elizabeth Hewitt; therefore John would be the younger brother of Robert Stukesbury, Jr., and the uncle of Jacob.
_______________
December 2006
We just received the DNA test results from a descendant of Joshua Stokesberry (Licking Co., OH in 1820, md. Elizabeth Sinnett in 1818). Most descendants of Joshua spell the name Stokesbary. This test was funded thanks to generous donations from Nancy Offield, Dale Lawrence, and Linda Stokesbury Brennan.
The test results show a perfect match with the descendants of Robert Stokesberry (also in Licking Co., OH in 1820, md. Anna Baughman in 1812). The families are definitely related, and the results support the theory that Joshua and Robert were brothers. This puts the descendants of Joshua firmly in the line that we have identified as Family 1 (see Briefing #1). I have paid for and ordered the next level of test for this Stokesbary line, which will help us further increase the probability and narrow down the timeframe to the most recent common ancestor.
We have now identified three individuals that we suspect were brothers, and the DNA evidence tends to support this theory. The three brothers are:
1. Robert STOKESBERRY (b. ca 1780-90, prob. VA; d. 1839 Fayette Co, OH)(many descendants spell the name Stokesbury)
md. Anna Baughman, 1812 VA
2. John Stokesberry (b. 9 Jul 1772, VA; d. 22 Nov 1839, IN)
md. Jane Moore, 1793 OH
3. Joshua Stokesbury (b. ca 1780-90; d. ?)
(many descendants spell the name Stokesbary)
md. Elizabeth Sennit, 1818 OH
We have speculated that the father of the three brothers was John Strichberry (Stokesberry) from Shenandoah Co., VA. Please note that this part is still not proven. To help substantiate this theory, it would be most useful to find a descendant of the STRETCHBERRY line to participate in the study (we believe another brother is William Stretchberry, and a sister is Sarah Stritchberry). If you know of any Stretchberry contacts, please let them know about the project.
___________
October 2006
We are currently awaiting the results from two new participants, one each from the following lines: Stokesbary and Stooksberry. We expect the results to be in sometime in November 2006. The results should be exciting. We will find out if Joshua Stokesbary is related to Robert Stokesberry as we suspect they are (both were in Licking Co., OH in 1820). And we will see if there is a connection between the descendants of Robert Stukesbury (Bucks Co., PA and Loudoun Co., VA, Circa 175) and the branch that includes the Robert Stokesberry mentioned earlier in this paragraph.
______________
November 2005
Results are in for the 6th participant, a descendant of Robert John Stotesbury (London, England, ca. early 1800s). He shows an exact match with participant #4, a descendant of Robert John Stotesbury (London, England, ca. early 1800s), and a one-step difference with participant #3, A descendant of John STOKESBURY (Freshford Parish, Kilkenny, Ireland, ca. early 1800s). Most probably participant #4 & 6 share a common ancestor between 200-300 years ago. The common ancestor with participant #3 may be up to 100 years earlier.
____________
October 2005
Results are in for the 4th participant, a descendant of Robert John Stotesbury (London, England, ca. early 1800s). His results show a probability of a common ancestor with the 3rd participant, a descendant of John STOKESBURY (Freshford Parish, Kilkenny, Ireland, ca. early 1800s). The two of them probably shared a common ancestor between 200-300 years ago. Because there was a one-step variance, the common ancestor was possibly between 300 and 400 years ago.
Results also have arrived for the 5th participant, a second known descendant of Robert Stokesberry (b. ca 1780, prob. VA; d. ca 1839 Fayette Co, OH). He shows an exact match with the participant #1, as expected. This fully validates the DNA of this branch of the family. He also shares a common ancestor with the 2nd participant, a descendant of John Stokesberry (b. 9 Jul 1772, VA; d. 22 Nov 1839, IN).
______________
September 2005
Test results returned for the 3rd participant, a descendant of John STOKESBURY (Freshford Parish, Kilkenny, Ireland, ca. early 1800s). Results show no relationship to the first two participants.
___________
August 2005
Four additional participants are currently awaiting test results:
3. A descendant of John STOKESBURY (Freshford Parish, Kilkenny, Ireland, ca. early 1800s).
4. A descendant of Robert John Stotesbury (London, England, ca. early 1800s).
5. A second descendant of Robert Stokesberry (b. ca 1780, prob. VA; d. ca 1839 Fayette Co, OH). The results from this test will validate the results of the first descendant (#1) in this line who was tested.
6. A descendant of John Stotesbury (Deptford, Kent, England, d. 1834).
_____________
December 2004
Two participants have been tested:
1. A descendant of Robert Stokesberry (b. ca 1780, prob. VA; d. ca 1839 Fayette Co, OH).
2. A descendant of John Stokesberry (b. 9 Jul 1772, VA; d. 22 Nov 1839, IN).
Test results show a high probability of a common ancestor between 200-300 years ago. Based on earlier research we had suspected that Robert Stokesberry and John Stokesberry were brothers. The DNA test results would tend to support that theory.