About us
The initial results show just how different the Y-chromosome DNA of Kendrick and some related families can be.
Group 1 also of Haplogroup R, but though they are of the same Haplogroup they are significantly different from group 2, and therefore not closely related to the family of William and Sarah.
Group 2 are of Haplogroup R and are very similar. The known genealogy of some of these men suggests that William Kendrick (b.c.1704) who married Sarah Jones, or a close relative of his, may be a common ancestor. The DNA results support this view. Certainly they are closely related.
Group 3 has three members who are closely matched, but without a known common ancestor. It is recommended that they upgrade to at least 67 markers.
Group 4 is of Haplogroup I. Two of its three members are very similar, suggesting that they are distant cousins. This result was not expected, but their relationship has since been confirmed. The 3rd is also of Haplogroup I, but is sufficiently different for us to be able to say that this is not a close relative of the other two
Group 5, also in Haplogroup R, have very close matches. Two of them share a known common ancestor, while the other member has not been able to make a connection with them other through DNA testing.
Group 6 is interesting in that it contains two members that are of Haplogroup E which is usually associated with Mediterranean countries. This group has been found previously in parts of Wales which were once the sites of Roman encampments, suggesting that the male line ancestors of these three men descended from Roman occupation forces or settlers. However, a recent publication in the Journal of the Clwyd Family History Society proposes an alternative explanation, namely that copper mining in this area might have attracted miners from Spain where early copper workings have been found. There is also an E in group 7. The remainder are in Haplogroup R. However, none of either Haplogroup have close enough matches to consider them closely related, if at all. It is recommended that they upgrade to at least 67 markers.
Group 7 members, with the exception of one member in Haplogroup E, are in Haplogroup R. However, there are no close matches among them, and no other common denominators have been found.
Group 1 also of Haplogroup R, but though they are of the same Haplogroup they are significantly different from group 2, and therefore not closely related to the family of William and Sarah.
Group 2 are of Haplogroup R and are very similar. The known genealogy of some of these men suggests that William Kendrick (b.c.1704) who married Sarah Jones, or a close relative of his, may be a common ancestor. The DNA results support this view. Certainly they are closely related.
Group 3 has three members who are closely matched, but without a known common ancestor. It is recommended that they upgrade to at least 67 markers.
Group 4 is of Haplogroup I. Two of its three members are very similar, suggesting that they are distant cousins. This result was not expected, but their relationship has since been confirmed. The 3rd is also of Haplogroup I, but is sufficiently different for us to be able to say that this is not a close relative of the other two
Group 5, also in Haplogroup R, have very close matches. Two of them share a known common ancestor, while the other member has not been able to make a connection with them other through DNA testing.
Group 6 is interesting in that it contains two members that are of Haplogroup E which is usually associated with Mediterranean countries. This group has been found previously in parts of Wales which were once the sites of Roman encampments, suggesting that the male line ancestors of these three men descended from Roman occupation forces or settlers. However, a recent publication in the Journal of the Clwyd Family History Society proposes an alternative explanation, namely that copper mining in this area might have attracted miners from Spain where early copper workings have been found. There is also an E in group 7. The remainder are in Haplogroup R. However, none of either Haplogroup have close enough matches to consider them closely related, if at all. It is recommended that they upgrade to at least 67 markers.
Group 7 members, with the exception of one member in Haplogroup E, are in Haplogroup R. However, there are no close matches among them, and no other common denominators have been found.