About us
With full data now available on four volunteers, this project is generating very valuable information on the family. The four are (1) the Project Administrator (Kit 153521), representing the main stem of the Fordingbridge Kenchingtons descended from "Old Edward" of Frogham, born around 1620 and the first Kenchington recorded in Fordingbridge parish, (2) a descendant of the Damerham sub-branch of the family (Kit 158140), which can also be traced back to Old Edward, (3) a descendant of the Jersey Kenchingtons (Kit 183639), whose line leads back to another Edward, born around 1749 and perhaps in Ogdens, but which cannot be traced further and (4) a descendant of John Kensyngton of Salisbury, born 1565 and the oldest documented member of the family from whom a descent can be followed down to modern times (Kit 203490). That last is a representative of a wholly different branch of the family from the other three. The first two kits have documented lineages leading back 8 and 9 generations respectively to a common ancestor: John, who was born in 1705. Kit 153521 and Kit 158140 come from 7th cousins once removed ... or so the documents say. No such connections in the documentary record are known with either of the other volunteers but Kit 183639 is at least 7 generations away from a common ancestor with the first pair (or so the documents say), while Kit 203490 is a minimum of 13 generations removed.
The results shows that Kit 158140 has the current best estimate of the ancestral form of Kenchington DNA. It differs in only a single marker from each of the others, which differ from one another in two markers each. It is now almost certain that the distinctive DNA of these four Kits has been passed down, father to son, since at least the time of John Kensington (born 1728), who left Salisbury for London in the 1740s and very probable that it has marked the men of the family since Tudor times (if not earlier). If the Damerham sub-branch has retained the ancestral form of the Kenchington DNA, then there has been one mutation in each of the other lineages leading to volunteers tested to date.
The lineages leading to Kit 158140 and Kit 153521 diverged in the 1730s -- or so the documentary record claims. FTDNA's calculator, in contrast, finds that the single most likely relationship between those two Kits is one with a Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) two generations back. It suggests that there is a 20% chance of our sharing the same grandfather and a 56% chance that we are no further separated than three generations. The calculator claims that there is only a 5% chance of our MRCA being as far back as the documentary record claims. Between Kits 158140 and 183639, the single most likely MRCA is again only two generations back, while there is only a 13% chance of the documentary record being correct. For Kits 158140 and 203490, the single most likely is, yet again, an MRCA two generations ago, while the genetics shows only a 0.5% chance of the lineages having been separate for as long as they are known to have been different.
There are only three possible explanations for these disagreements:
1: Over the centuries, there has been much less Y-Chromosome mutation in amongst the Kenchingtons and Kensingtons than is normal for other families.
2: The FTDNA calculator misrepresents the average rates of mutation and implies closer relationships than typically exist.
3: At least three and perhaps all four lines included a "false paternity" event that created cross links: Either a Kenchington wives had sons by Kenchington men in the other lines or four Kenchington wives had sons by the same closely-related men, who may not have been Kenchingtons at all.
The third explanation might be stretched to include all three Kits of Fordingbridge origins, since there was only a small pool of families from which "false paternity" DNA might be draw. It is not, however, plausible that Kit 203490 is the end result of any such cross-link -- certainly not since the birth of the 1728 John and very likely not for some generations before. Hence, the third explanation can be rejected. Either Kenchington mutation rates are exceptionally slow or the FTDNA calculator gives erroneous results.
In terms of "deep genealogy", all four Kits fit into the "Atlantic Modal Cluster" and are only one mutation away from the Atlantic Model Haplotype. Indeed, they fit into what is sometimes called the "Frisian Modal Haplotype" and, in confirmation, the FTDNA database finds a higher proportion of exact matches on the first 12 markers in the Netherlands than it sees anywhere else. That is a strong indication, though by no means proof, that the ancestral Kenchington line reached Britain during the Migration Period, around 500AD, though whether the migrating ancestor was a Saxon, a Jute or a member of some other tribe will remain unknown until far more population-wide research has been done. (There are other possibilities: Our paternal ancestor may have reached Britain as a pilgrim bound for Stonehenge, a mariner sailing to the port which then lay at the mouth of the Avon or as one of the Belgiae, who fled across the narrow seas to escape the expanding Roman Empire.) Further exploration of such longer history requires data on SNPs -- the next big step for this Project.
Meanwhile, this Project continues to need more volunteers from all branches of the family -- especially the South Stoneham and Fawley Kinchingtons!
For further details, please contact the Project Adminstrator, who can supply a draft history of the family based on documentary sources and a more extensive interpretation of his own DNA. Or else wait for more data to be posted!
The results shows that Kit 158140 has the current best estimate of the ancestral form of Kenchington DNA. It differs in only a single marker from each of the others, which differ from one another in two markers each. It is now almost certain that the distinctive DNA of these four Kits has been passed down, father to son, since at least the time of John Kensington (born 1728), who left Salisbury for London in the 1740s and very probable that it has marked the men of the family since Tudor times (if not earlier). If the Damerham sub-branch has retained the ancestral form of the Kenchington DNA, then there has been one mutation in each of the other lineages leading to volunteers tested to date.
The lineages leading to Kit 158140 and Kit 153521 diverged in the 1730s -- or so the documentary record claims. FTDNA's calculator, in contrast, finds that the single most likely relationship between those two Kits is one with a Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) two generations back. It suggests that there is a 20% chance of our sharing the same grandfather and a 56% chance that we are no further separated than three generations. The calculator claims that there is only a 5% chance of our MRCA being as far back as the documentary record claims. Between Kits 158140 and 183639, the single most likely MRCA is again only two generations back, while there is only a 13% chance of the documentary record being correct. For Kits 158140 and 203490, the single most likely is, yet again, an MRCA two generations ago, while the genetics shows only a 0.5% chance of the lineages having been separate for as long as they are known to have been different.
There are only three possible explanations for these disagreements:
1: Over the centuries, there has been much less Y-Chromosome mutation in amongst the Kenchingtons and Kensingtons than is normal for other families.
2: The FTDNA calculator misrepresents the average rates of mutation and implies closer relationships than typically exist.
3: At least three and perhaps all four lines included a "false paternity" event that created cross links: Either a Kenchington wives had sons by Kenchington men in the other lines or four Kenchington wives had sons by the same closely-related men, who may not have been Kenchingtons at all.
The third explanation might be stretched to include all three Kits of Fordingbridge origins, since there was only a small pool of families from which "false paternity" DNA might be draw. It is not, however, plausible that Kit 203490 is the end result of any such cross-link -- certainly not since the birth of the 1728 John and very likely not for some generations before. Hence, the third explanation can be rejected. Either Kenchington mutation rates are exceptionally slow or the FTDNA calculator gives erroneous results.
In terms of "deep genealogy", all four Kits fit into the "Atlantic Modal Cluster" and are only one mutation away from the Atlantic Model Haplotype. Indeed, they fit into what is sometimes called the "Frisian Modal Haplotype" and, in confirmation, the FTDNA database finds a higher proportion of exact matches on the first 12 markers in the Netherlands than it sees anywhere else. That is a strong indication, though by no means proof, that the ancestral Kenchington line reached Britain during the Migration Period, around 500AD, though whether the migrating ancestor was a Saxon, a Jute or a member of some other tribe will remain unknown until far more population-wide research has been done. (There are other possibilities: Our paternal ancestor may have reached Britain as a pilgrim bound for Stonehenge, a mariner sailing to the port which then lay at the mouth of the Avon or as one of the Belgiae, who fled across the narrow seas to escape the expanding Roman Empire.) Further exploration of such longer history requires data on SNPs -- the next big step for this Project.
Meanwhile, this Project continues to need more volunteers from all branches of the family -- especially the South Stoneham and Fawley Kinchingtons!
For further details, please contact the Project Adminstrator, who can supply a draft history of the family based on documentary sources and a more extensive interpretation of his own DNA. Or else wait for more data to be posted!