• 68 members

About us

December 2010


With the resultsnow in on a more diverse base of Kingsbury, Kingsborough, Kingsbery, and Bracebridgeparticipants, the specific ancestral lines are really beginning to takeshape.  And with each new test result,more of the mysteries and research questions are being answered.  However, as with any quest of this nature,new questions are also being raised by these same results and the moreparticipation we have the better.  Ourheartfelt thanks go to all that have already participated and made this studypossible.  And if anyone else would liketo join the group, please let me know. We also invite your comments and observations on the test results andevaluations.


When we firstinitiated this DNA project, we had two strong theories that we wanted totest.  The first theory is that there isonly one Kingsbury family and that regardless of the spelling of our surname,we all have one common ancestor.  Thesecond personal theory is that our family has a biological connection to theBracebridge family that for centuries were the lords of Kingsbury Hall in Warwickshire, England.  Thepossible conclusions will be discussed as we examine the specific results ofour DNA study.


Some historicalinformation needs to be given here so everyone will be aware of our goals.  First let us discuss the possible Bracebridgeconnection.  What can be said of theBracebridge DNA project thus far is that there is definitely more that onefamily group with this surname currently in or from England. Recognizing the political power emanating from the village of Bracebridge in Lincolnshire around the 10th century, thisdoes not seem all that surprising. People during this period did not have what we would recognize asstandard surnames and one of the most common practices for this period was touse the village name as your surname. Thus early in 2006 we broke theinformation on the Bracebridge participants out into a separate web site andeveryone is welcome to study the results there. We did keep the one Bracebridgesignature that seems to confirm a link to the Kingsbury family in both groups


 Surnames really did not become significant orfixed until after the Reformation in the 16th century.   Sowhen we read about Ralf of Bracebridge in 975 we know that we are reading aboutan important family in the village of Bracebridge just to the south of Lincoln.  Then,in the year 1130, the prominent Sir Peter de Bracebridge (meaning fromBracebridge) married the equally prominent Lady Amecia de Arden, GreatGranddaughter of the Lady Godiva, and they made their home in Kingsbury Hall,the great three storied manor of Kingsbury in Warwickshire.  The Bracebridge family would go on to serveas the lords of Kingsbury Hall for over 450 years and as members of this greatfamily moved to other locations they would change their surname to de Kingsbury.  Thus is born the theory of a biologicalrelationship between the present families of Bracebridge and Kingsbury.  It is our opinion at this point that thistheory has been neither proven nor disproved. So our quest continues!


Next we note theappearance of two prominent individuals in our family history.  The first is John de Kyngesbury who appearsas a prominent landowner in Kentelesworth, Dorset, England in the year 1312.  Where did he come from and what is themeaning of his surname?  Is there a tiebetween this individual and Kingsbury Hall, or could it possibly be anotherprominent family perhaps from Kingsbury Episcopi, Somerset, England nearby? We currently suspect it is the latter and this became a distinctKingsbury family that may have spread to Ireland, Scotland, Australia, New Zealand, and other parts of the world.  The next individual of note to our familyhistory is William de Kyngesbury who appears as the lord of Waldycroft Manor inLittle Cornard, Suffolk, England in the year 1369.  Once again we are not sure where thisindividual came from, but there does seem to be some evidence that he had aconnection to the Bracebridge family of Kingsbury Hall.  We do know that he became the patriarch of alarge family in Suffolk County that would eventually have emigrants by thename of Henry and Joseph Kingsbury that sailed to America in the 1630s.  It is our conclusion today that we do in facthave more that one Kingsbury family because this is what the DNA study seems tobe telling us.  Actually we would suggestthe DNA evidence indicates there are multiple Kingsbury families. However,relying upon the notion that our surname is a place name, I wouldpropose that we all descend from families in the three locations of England that bear our name (Warwickshire, Somerset, and Herts).  Our task now is to try and define the diversefamily groups.  However, it can also besaid (and I would concur with this thought) that regardless of origin, we are Kingsbury family.





We currently have atotal of 12 signatures in this group and the consistency gives us a strongindication of the DNA signature for this line. Only 2 of theseparticipants limited themselves to the 12 marker basic test and they have aunique mutation in allele DYS#389II(30). This gives them an 11/12 match to the others in this group. Of all thosein the 25 marker set the majority have a 25/25 match and only two are a 24/25match. Four participants are in the 37 marker group and they have either a34/37 or 35/37 match which is very strong considering the number of generationsfor many before there is a common ancestor.


Before we begin ourcomments of this line we should mention an obvious, but often overlookedhistorical fact.  Henry Kingsbury of Ipswich and Haverhill, Massachusetts is the nephew of Joseph Kingsbury of Dedham, Massachusetts and thus one generation after Joseph.  We need to be mindful of this and not push togive more emphasis to either the Henry or the Joseph line as we try toestablish our Modal Allele Values. 


One of the firstthings we look for in this group is the markers that seem to distinguish theHenry line from all the other Kingsbury lines in our DNA Group. Our attention is drawn to DYS#449 with the allele value of 26, DYS#464a with the allele value of 15, and DYS#464d with an allele value of 18  as the three markers that seem to define theHenry line.  It is fantastic for futureresearchers that this group seems to be so consistent. Henry Kingsbury had atotal of six sons and thus far we have representation from 3 of the 6 sons,namely Samuel Kingsbury his 3rd son, James Kingsbury his 5thson, and Joseph Kingsbury his 6th son.   The other mutations in this line seem to allstem from recent generations and will definitely help all of us as others jointhis group.


In the three 37marker signatures, each has a subtle difference in the 26-37 marker range thatseem to define the branches in the Henry line that begin with hisgrandchildren. This is to be expected and is a wonderful help to us inconfirming lines that may be questionable. This has in fact confirmed at leastone line that we were originally in question about.


Kingsbury #16881deserves a special discussion here.  Heis not listed with the Henry Group.  Whenthis person joined the group we had very credible historical documentation thathe was a member of the Henry line (Henry Kingsbury who came to America in 1630 as part of the Winthrop Fleet and settledin Ipswich, Massachusetts). The DNA test proves however that this individual has no biologicalconnection to the others in the Kingsbury group and in fact appears to be ofScandinavian descent.  This could meanonly one of three possibilities occurred in this line:

1.    Therewas an adoption of a male child in this branch which may or may not besupported by the proper legal documentation

2.    A malechild had a biological father other than the Kingsbury father that raised himand gave him the Kingsbury surname

3.     A male child born was born where the mothernever made any indication of who the biological father may have been.


Inthe case of this Kingsbury the situation is complicated by the fact that overseveral generations there was only a single male child born to eachfamily.  Thus we can not have anothermember of this branch of the family participate in the testing to determinewhen this split occurred.  The personinvolved and I have agreed that the most logical conclusion is option two andwe have reasons to believe that we know when this occurred.  Now the serious search is on to locate thehistorical evidence.




As we begin to lookat the Joseph Kingsbury of Dedham, Massachusetts line we need to again mention the fact thatJoseph is the uncle to Henry and thus we will give a little more weight to thisgroup as we determine the modal allele values. Of the three sons born to James and Ann (Francis) Kingsbury in Boxford, England (Henry the Elder, Joseph, and John), onlyJoseph and his Nephew Henry Kingsbury jr. had any heirs. Thus it is common forus to speak of the majority of Kingsburys in America today as belonging to either the Joseph orthe Henry lines.


At this point, ourJoseph Kingsbury group seems to break up into three special segments.  Joseph and Millicent (Ames) Kingsbury had four sons and three of thesecontinued to produce male heirs.  Thesecond son, John Kingsbury died very young leaving only one daughter.  We do not have any signatures from the eldestson, Joseph Kingsbury Jr. at this time, but the third son, Eleazar Kingsbury,and the fourth son, Nathaniel Kingsbury, and well represented.


We currently have atotal of 10 signatures in this group and half are 37 marker participants. Thisis wonderful because it tells us so much about this group. Notice the uniquemutations for the descendants of Nathaniel Kingsbury (23042, 40105, and 22413)with DYS#389I (14) and DYS#389II (30). This seems to be a clear distinctionfrom the descendants of Eleazar Kingsbury.




The next group isalso descendants of Eleazar Kingsbury, but this group demonstrates severalmutations, all of which seem to have occurred with Abijah Kingsbury, the GreatGrandson of Eleazar.  The historicalevidence is strong that these participants are part of the Joseph line, but areonly a 22/37 match to that line. Yet the group itself has a very strong 37/37match amongst the group itself. Even signature #17127 (the Canadian branch) isa 37/37 match which means we all relate back to Abijah in one way or another.We have not made the specific connection for this Canadian branch yet, but wecan be reasonably assured from the DNA evidence that they are closely related.


Because of themutations in this group we can now affirm that Abijah Kingsbury, the firstchild of Theodore and Mary (Towne) Kingsbury is not the biological son ofTheodore.  We are conducting furtherresearch to determine the exact parentage of Abijah, but for now we do not reallyknow for sure.  All that we can say isthat Theodore Kingsbury raised him as a son and gave him the Kingsbury surname,so a Kingsbury he is!




Our Irish group inthis DNA project has grown once again and we nowhave 7 participants that are definitively part of this group. What we can nowsay is that there are two very different Kingsbury families that trace theirancestry through Ireland. We have separated the two on our DNA chart so you are able to see them clearly.The first group would be #13688, #89509, and #23575 and they settled in the Armagh County region of Ireland.  Theearliest ancestor of this group seems to have been born about 1730 inPortadown, Armagh, Ireland and this branch seemed to prefer theKingsborough spelling; By the 1820s this family emigrated to Canada and from there several descendants wouldeventually settle in various northern states in America. The second branch of this family seems tohave settled in Monoghan County, Northern Ireland around 1660 and we have some indication oftheir origination in Worcestershire County, England which would lend credence to the notionthat the Irish family came from Somerset-Dorset, England. We have four participants in this group(#118448, #45546, #85159, and #189213). Because the markers for these four arealmost identical we have been able to determine that John Kingsbury, AndrewKingsborough, and John Brown Kingsbury must be brothers and we have thus beenable to blend these families together for the first time. This particularbranch of the family seems to have use both the Kingsbury and the Kingsboroughspellings at different times.




.We haveestablished the Scottish group for the first time, but there are only twosignatures (44386 & 44727) and they both descend from the Captain HoratioKingsbury branch. The records indicate that Horatio was born to parents from Scotland, but we have been unable to confirm this atthis point. Our theory is that before Scotland, this ancestor originated once again fromone of the three Kingsbury locations in England. We say this because we all share theR1b1b2 Haplotype.




We have grouped thenext 6 signatures under the caption of International Kingsbury Group because weare still working to try and sort them out. This group may represent 5 totallydifferent family groups and our theory would be they each will trace back toeither Somerset-Dorset or Herts.




We have included Bracebridgetest #13518 in this International Group primarily so everyone can see thepossible DNA connections.  We will not gointo further detail here other than to once again mention that the results areinconclusive at this time.  Again wedesperately need more individuals to participate in the program.  Those that wish to see more on theBracebridge Project are directed to the Bracebridge Surname Group web site.




Anyone desiring theAnalysis Chart for this group with the MODAL values should contact the Group Administratordirectly (Ken Kingsbury).


If you have anycomments on this summary I would really appreciate hearing from you.  Also if you know of someone else that mightlike to be included in our mailing list, please let me know.  If you would like to receive the invitationform to enable you to join this DNA study group by participation in the DNAtesting, simply send me an email message indicating your desire and I will seethat you receive an invitation.  You maycontact me at: