Thank you Robert. Just based on the little bit of understanding that I’ve been able to gather about genetic genealogy, I suspected it would be the case that Harry and Dave would be determined not to have a family relationship based on the DNA results. Unfortunately, the report from Ancestry says:
“There are several known subgroups of R1b. We're not yet able to tell you which (if any) of these subpopulations you match to, so we'll tell you a little about a few of them. Population genetics is a rapidly advancing field, and new data may allow us to match your DNA to a specific subgroup in the future. We'll notify you by email if more advanced results become available.”
I assume that statement means that further testing for a subgroup is not an option. Is that the way you understand it?
It’s interesting that you mention option #3. Harry took the Y-DNA test about 5-6 years ago when Ancestry opened this field up to the public. Could Harry’s report be in error? I do have a fourth male being tested. I’ll call him Rodney. I should get his test back in the mail this week and then off to Ancestry which seems to be able to turn around in about a week. Hopefully, he will match Harry or Dave and help to identify where my problem is.
Rodney and Harry are cousins who are believed to descend from 2 brothers whose father was one of the two sons of Burlingham Rudd. Rodney is 7th generation and Harry is 8th generation.
As far as the genealogy is concerned, without getting into the long history of our Rudd progenitor, I can tell you that he was sentenced to transportation in 1728. He was born in 1707. For almost 40 years we looked for his family back in Norfolk, England. Last Spring the parish registers were transcribed and place online. Based on the information in those registers, he was the only male of his father to reach adulthood. His father b. 1681 was the only male of his family group to reach adulthood. His grandfather was married in 1666, but too many possibilities to identify when he was born. However, the great grandfather was married 30 years prior, in 1636. The grandfather is the only child listed in the register with the great grandfather as parent. There may be other males at that generation because the register is in bad condition but it doesn’t look like that is the case. From there back, there are too many Rudds in Norfolk to determine the line backwards at this point. The surname is prevalent in Norfolk back to the beginning of the parish registers for the Church of England in mid-1500s.
I agree with you that there are many hobbyists in family genealogy. I myself have spent many years untangling bad research and myths propagated as facts in this family history. And because of that, I know the history of our Rudd family very well. So it’s not the case of a published history that I’ve adopted. I’ve researched, analyzed and documented this history myself. Of course, a NPE is a possible explanation and could have happen anywhere along the line from Burlingham to the 8th generation males that I’m now testing. Hopefully, Rodney’s DNA will point me in the right direction.