Col. John West of West Point, Virginia - @Colonel John West II

Tom, I think you might be misunderstanding some aspects of canon law, as well as the canon law of names.

In the middle ages canon law was a jumble of mandates from church councils and the papacy, diocesan policies, and decisions by church courts. After the break with Rome, Anglicans generally continued the canon law of their Roman past except as modified by its own decisions.

In English law down to the 1900s a child's baptismal name was its name for life and could not be changed by the courts (unlike surnames). It was a custom, no more than that, that children might be given the baptismal name of a godparent or the saints day on which the child was born.

I don't see any evidence that anyone "invented" a baptismal name, or that the baptismal name was intended to allow duplication.

I never said that the Catholic Church INVENTED the baptismal name to allow duplication, only that it invented the baptismal name of using saints or godparents names. The saints name could be any saint, not necessarily the name of the saint whose day the infant was born on in the church calendar. I've seen baptism records that had almost all males with the baptismal name of John or the females with Maria or Anna. In the Catholic Church this baptismal name was not one always carried in later life, with many using their middle name or one late given at Confirmation. In some Catholic Churches the baptismal name was first followed by a given name, in others these name were reversed. And in some churches of several hundred years age the names were reversed when a new pastor was appointed.
It would still appear to me that Cockacoeske intentionally named her son at the Treaty Council as the son of Col West as an attack on both Col John West and his wife Unity Croshaw. to show her indiference to the wishes of the Council. There are NO documents made at that time that actually said that this Capt John West was the son of Col John West. You are all just assuming that the words of Cockacoeske were
meant to say the "son of Col JOHN West" That is pure conjecture and has no basis in fact!

I didn't realize you were looking at an idea that "Indian" John West was a son of Toby West. In reading about Cockacoeske and her political wiliness, your point has merit in either case, as it might be that she was related to Unity Croshaw (?) and saw "her" as a rival.

Tom, let's see if we can tighten up the arguments here.

You said "That's why they invented the baptism name that could be duplicated." That's what I'm arguing about.

Your comments are very misleading in the context of this argument. You using later Catholic and continental practice to argue about post-Reformation English names in the colonies. Always, these arguments have to be very specific and targeted to the community. You're missing that mark.

What you're saying now is that even Christian child had to be given a Christian name -- which was so universal and commonplace as to be irrelevant to any discussion about whether brothers could have the same Christian name. Moreover, your examples of children where all sons are named John or all daughters Anna or Maria, are drawn from German and Continental customs, not English.

But really, we need to focus on this sudden turn you've taken.

You started by arguing DNA couldn't prove this relationship, now you've done an about face and want to argue "Cockacoeske intentionally named her son at the Treaty Council as the son of Col West as an attack on both Col John West" and that Capt. John West was really a son of "cousin Toby West who had a proven relationship with Cockacoeske".

That's quite a different kind of argument. And its one where your earlier arguments about mtDNA and autosomal DNA were never even relevant.

Erica, it's an interesting theory but it seems to fall apart almost immediately.

The yDNA for reported descendants of Maj. John West is haplogroup I, a European group. If any of these were actually descendants of a different man named Capt. John West who was son of Toby, they'd have to have a Native American haplogroup. There are no Native American haplogroups reported in the FTNDA West surname project.

That wouldn't be an insurmountable barrier if you consider a possible scenario where Capt. John left no male line descendants. But then we have to struggle with the problem of why Maj. John held lands that belonged to both his grandfather and to Toby West. And that leads to the counter-argument that it could have been Toby who left no male line descendants.

DNA won't help us here.

It's very hard to make a case against the written record, as Tom is trying to do. While the written record, as it exists, doesn't prove the relationship conclusively, we would need very clear and definitive evidence to think we can disregard the record that exists because of a theory that someone lied. Fun to play with, but how can you prove it?

No. I am using actual Catholic Church Baptism Registers from the late 1500's to the early 1800's that I have personally copied from both in England, France and Germany., and 1700 to present in the US.. No, i am not saying that all Christians be given a Christian name. Only all Catholic children and that name was not necessarily their first name or even their given name as many abandoned that baptism name when they grew to adulthood, especially when all of their brothers were baptised as John or their sisters Maria as their first name. You are trying to read into what I said with you own ideas and assumptions. I work only on proven documentary evidence..

Again, you are reading into my words, things that I didn't say. It is true that DNA can never prove the claimed relationship of this Maj John West to Cockacoeske or to Col John West. At best the yDNA can only at best show is a relative of Col John West, but I wouldn't place money on it. And the mtDNA can only show that his mother may have been of Indian blood, but not Paumnkey. Autosomal testing cannot indicate, show or prove anything.
NO DNA TEST CAN PROVE ANYTHING BUT A RELATIONSHIP. IT CANNOT TELL IF A MALE IS THE SON OF A CERTAIN PARTICULAR PERSON OR A FEMALE THE DAUGHTER OF SOME PARTICULAR PERSON. In each case, it could be the brother, father or male siblings of his brothers who were the actual father and the sisters, mother or daughters of these sisters who were the actual mother. Generational data
is no use since the average of 25 years is standard for the results, but not actual in practice. To put it more succinctly, yDNA and mtDNA cannot prove anything, it can only verify a paper trail that is well documented. You do not have a well documented paper trial for DNA to verify, therefore all of this discussion is mute. So both my argument that DNA could not prove this relationship was right on the money with the comments about Maj John West, showing that DNA could not prove either one. It's the same argument. though I forgot to mention that Cockacoeske may have been lying about the father being a West.

Interesting topic as I've recently just started following Colonel John West. I am a direct descendant to Margaret West daughter of John West and Anna Saunders. My ancestry connects to Col John West as my 9th Great Grandfather, however, I've only completed the Ancestry DNA and have not done any of the extensive studies. My Ancestry DNA results did not show any Native American connections for me, although I have many. Justin, or someone more knowledgeable explain this for me? Should I do the FTDNA test?

According to https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=137571059

Toby "Chief Totopotomoy" West

"He was the son of Thomas West, third Baron de la Warr, and "Rachel" Powhatan. .... After his death, Toby West's property passed to Cockacoeske's son, Maj. John West. ..."

So even if Cockacoeske was messing with everyone by giving her son a name suggestive of paternity, DNA testing may not be able to sort that out, correct?

Tom, my goal here is to get you to focus on your actual arguments rather than going off on misleading riffs.

Catholic naming practices in France and Germany are not relevant to English naming practices in Virginia. We don't need to consider canon laws that did not exist. Autosomal DNA does not lose its accuracy by 50 percent each generation. Analysis of STRs is not something that can be applied to mtDNA. On and on.

We are agreed on the basic point here -- DNA can support but not prove a paper trail.

However, you are quoted across the Internet as saying it can. At Wikitree, for the Harris line, you say the DNA proves two men are brothers. Elsewhere, you consistently use the misleading term "DNA blood groups." I want to be sure we are not importing this type of fuzzy reasoning into Geni.

There is a good but not perfect paper trail for Maj. John West as a son of Cockacoeske. I think anyone can reasonably disagree, and I think anyone can reasonably suggest other scenarios. But, we need to focus on the actual question and the actual evidence, not go rabbiting off with misinformation.

Private User, you could do the FTDNA test if that interests you but it probably won't answer this question.

The problem, always, is that DNA begins to "wash out" after about 5 generations. At that point it starts becoming more likely you do not have DNA from a particular ancestor rather than being likely you do.

It becomes "luck of the draw" whether you have any DNA from a particular distant ancestor. For example, I calculate my percentage of Native American ancestry at about 1/64 or 1.5 percent. The various testing companies come up with somewhere between 1 and 3 percent, which is about right. But many of my relatives have none, and some have as much as 5 percent from this same line. Again, luck of the draw.

Erica,

A caution about Toby. I was on the sidelines of a skirmish about him many years ago.

Some people are convinced he was son of 3rd Baron West. Others are convinced that's a myth created by descendants in Virginia to snag a more exalted ancestry.

Blood on the floor. You know that kind of debate ;)

On Geni we have two versions:

Totopotomoi, Weroance of the Pamunkey (son of f Opechacanough)

Totopotomoi, Weroance of the Pamunkey (Father unknown)

Wikitree has a profile:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Pamunkey-1 (father unknown)

Findagrave thinks his father is Thomas, 3rd Baron West:

https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=137571059

Justin, you are saying the Canons of the Church of England were directly imported from the Catholic Church. So why do those Catholic Church Canons NOT apply to the Church of England? The Catholic Church in Germany and France all abided by the same set of canons that the entire Catholic Church Worldwide adheres to so why is that not relevant to the Church of England that you say imported their canons from the Catholic Church?. I have copies of English Catholic Church Baptism Registers from the early 1600's that show this same repetitions of the use of John and Mary as the first baptismal name followed by a given name which is the one later records show this person used.
If you had ever looked at a autosomal report from FTDNA you would see that the first five generations are guaranteed 100% accurate, with possible sixth generations matches at only 50% accurate. They do not guarantee further than this for the simple reason the the genomes tested are 50% of being accurate thereafter for each generation going back as it gets impossible to tell whether the genome markers come from the male or female side. Since they start with 22 genomes with half from the father and half from the mother, you can calculate how many genomes that leaves from each of your five gr grandparents. Given that it takes at least 111 yDNA markers to define scores of unique surnames, imagine what it would take if you only had less than one genome to work with at 10 generations. In one comment above you say the autosomal does not decrease by 50% each generations yet in a later comment you state that DNA washes out after five generations yet you won't admit to the actual figures published by FTDNA. If you had ever attended one of our Genetic Conferences in November each year, you would have known this.
I am not interested in who was the father of Toby West, only who he married, so none of the sources you cite make any difference to this discussion. Whether he was actually a West is not the issue. The real question that has not been proven is who are the actual parents of Maj John West and was he actually a West by birth?

Why do those Catholic canons not apply to the Church of England?

Dating, Tom. It's all about dating, as well as regional variations. The Roman canons you are talking about date largely from the Counter-Reformation. The English church was already taking a different direction. Earlier there had been a diversity of local practice. Those differences sharpened after the Reformation.

Immediately following the Reformation, the English church condemned the giving of two baptismal names as a Popish practice. It was later allowed, although with reservations and initially with disfavor from many church authorities.

For a guide to actual practice in Virginia, you would need to look at Virginia's Anglican baptismal records from the 17th century. Not the 18th century. Not German and French. Not Catholic.

You might be interested in this bit from a formal study on the subject:

"Prior to 1660, the Virginia Settlers Research Project found “only 5 persons out of over 33,000 had genuine middle names.”3 Not one person born by 1715 in St Peter’s parish of New Kent County sported a middle name. Surry County’s records, which are unusually complete for the latter part of the 17th century, record only one person who used a middle name. Other studies of public records confirm that seventeenth-century parents gave their children more than one name so rarely that the practice was essentially nonexistent."

http://www.genfiles.com/articles/middle-names/#footnote_2_346

A footnote adds:

"By the 15th century, Germans were giving their children two names: a spiritual name (usually a favorite saint) and a secular name (the name by which the child was known)"

This is what you are thinking of, it seems. A great many articles written in the past 20 years make exactly the same points, over and over and over.

As a side note, I have plenty of German ancestors in the 17th century where all sons had the first given name (usually Johan) and who then used what we would call their middle name thereafter. That was not the English practice. In fact, you don't find that in Virginia until the Pennsylvania Germans began moving into the Shenandoah Valley in the 18th century.

Tom,

You are misunderstanding an important element of autosomal matches, and because you misunderstand it you are reading what you think I'm saying rather than what I'm actually saying.

There is no doubt autosomal DNA washes out after ABOUT 5 generations. And there is no doubt the piece inherited from each ancestor decreases by ABOUT 50 percent each generation.

Those two things are not contradictory. Here's why.

You certainly get 50 percent of your DNA from your father and 50 percent from your mother. But! Recombination is random. After that it's all probabilities. You probably get about 25 percent from each grandparent, but the percentage isn't exact. At the extreme, is is possible to get 50 percent from your mother's mother and 0 from your father's father. The probabilities are against it, but it could happen.

Same with your great grandparents. Odds are you got about 12.5 percent from each one, but in practice you might get much more or much less. And if you get more or less, it's possible your parent or grandparent also got more or less. But not necessarily. Because it's a crap shoot.

Once you understand this basic concept you can easily see what's wrong with your argument that FTDNA guarantees the accuracy for 5 generations, then drops to 50 percent certainty.

No, no, no.

FTDNA doesn't know HOW you are related to your matches (unless you tell them). FTDNA isn't dropping their accuracy estimate because it's past 5 generations. Absolutely not.

What FTDNA is doing is something very different. They are GUESSING your relationship to someone based on how much DNA you share. If you share enough DNA in large enough blocks, they'll guess, say, that person is somewhere in the range 2nd Cousin - 4th Cousin. And, if they share that much DNA then FTDNA will put them in one of the relative buckets -- Close Relative, Distant Relative, whatever.

My weakest match in the Distant Relative bucket is a predicted 3rd Cousin - 5th Cousin (total 59 cM, largest block 13 cM). FTDNA doesn't have any idea if we're really relatives, but if we match that closely it's safe to guess we probably are.

If you don't share a certain threshhold of DNA with someone, FTDNA will put that person is the Speculative Relative bucket, and guess that person is something like a they are something like 4th Cousin - Remote Cousin or a 5th Cousin - Remote Cousin.

My closest Remote Cousin is someone with a shared total 71 cM, longest block 11 cM. My most distant Remote Cousins is someone with total 53 cM, longest block 9 cM.

Do you see the difference here? FTDNA is predicting accuracy based on a certain number of generations. Instead, they're doing it based on genetic distance.

Finally, just a brief note about Toby West. His paternity matters a great deal if it becomes a matter of constructing a yDNA argument. Since he has no known sons, his yDNA is likely undiscoverable. However, if he happened to be the father of Capt. West and if Capt. West is someone other than Maj. West, then it could become a pivotal issue.

Looks like their is a DNA results project here. I don't know the West trees well, so please check what I think I'm seeing:

http://web.utk.edu/~corn/westdna/west5.htm

Family Group 7b   "Major" John WEST, abt 1650 VA, Haplogroup I1

 I'm not sure of the comparison groups for descent from Unity Croshaw, but looking like R1b?

Yes this Group 7b does not fit the profile for being the son of Col John West born 6 Jun 1632 or his father Gov John West born 14 Dec 1590. In fact there are several other groups that reflect this John West born 1650 as its progenitor. And the Group 22 of John West b1590 appears to be the correct one being in I1but none of those progenitors may be correct depending on the accuracy of the documentation of each of those DNA tested. Any or all of them may have copied wrong data from an undocumented claim which is a prevalent problem in all of the FTDNA Surname projects. Even in my Harris DNA Group 4 for which I am the lead researcher, over half of the 60+ members have huge errors in their pedigrees, even though the line is well documented in a 1995 book by another professional genealogist. There are two known progenitors of this group that have matching marker values. At one of our Genetic Conferences here at FTDNA many years ago I ask Bennett Greenspan for his opinion of the relationship of two men with the same surname living in the same county at the same time with identical 67 markers. He stated that these two had to be brothers as the time to a common ancestor for them would be one generation. As the CEO of FTDNA I have taken Bennett's statements as proof of this relationship, not because the DNA proves it, but rather that Bennett Greenspan said it was true. There has never been found any record of whom their parents were and further testing at 111 markers has confirmed that nothing has changed except closer dates for the common ancestor have been determined.
And NO, Ancestry drops the accuracy 50% per generation because there are fewer makers to sequence from the original 22 genomes at each stage. Fewer markers means lesser accuracy since at that level scores and even hundreds of different surnames are identified, so even at six generations the makers values may be the same for scores of surnames, which is why as you say that the DNA washes out.
It doesn't really wash out, it just becomes impossible to identify as belonging to one particular surname. The same goes the opposite way with many yDNA and mtDNA,
results. At 12 markers you may have thousand of surnames with the same marker values, at 35 markers hundreds of matching surnames, and by 111 markers only a handful of matching surnames. So I always ignore match results of less than 111 markers for my Surname Projects. Anything less than that is not worth my time and effort to investigate unless a surname pops up that may have been an out of marriage happening as occurred twice in one Surname Project. At least the Harris project has a page for each of each 60+ groups with the lineages and documentation supplied by those tested (whether accurate or not) and combines it all into one gedcom that is published on RootsWeb World Connect web site for all to see.

Riana Carver [6000000051703084026] is working with a team on the Pamunkey DNA project. See https://www.facebook.com/Kosciusco/

Private User

Do not and never will join facebook.

Since this is not a Family Tree DNA Surname Project Group, I would doubt the accuracy of anything posted there.

One doesn't need to join FB to view the page, Mr. King. I was just referring you to a site that might be of interest based upon this discussion.

I uploaded an image to his profile

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000062316373972&

Inscription of roadside marker place by the Virginia Historic Commission:
" Cockacoeske became the Queen of the Pamunkey after her husband Totopotomoy’s death in 1656 fighting as an ally of the English at what became known as the Battle of Bloody Run. She signed the Treaty of Middle Plantation in 1677 in the wake of settler attacks upon friendly Indian tribes during Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676. The treaty with the English subtly placed Cockacoeske as leader over certain tribes, defined the Indian tribes as tributaries to the English, and ushered in peaceful relations between the colonists and Indians of the Virginia coastal plain. She reigned until her death about 1686."
From this it appears that the son John West age 20 at the 1677 signing of the Treaty was a posthumous son of her husband Totopotomoy (Toby West).

Or of someone of European background, name unknown. ?

Can Erica and Tammy remove John West II as the father of Maj John West, at this point?

Erica,

That's one of the pages I looked at yesterday when I was thinking about the problem of Toby West. Another one is the project at FTDNA:

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/WESTDNA?iframe=yresults

The site you referenced makes a point of directing users to the FTDNA site for updated haplogroup assignments.

I looked at this site but didn't get much out of it. It's clear that their groups 7b and 22 aren't a close match for each other. They are both I1 but they won't share a common ancestor as recently as 1600.

The core members of Group 7b claim to have a paper trail to Maj. John West. The core members of Group 22 claim to have a paper trail to Gov. John West. Both groups contain other members whose paper trail does not go so far back but whose DNA results seem to place them as possible descendants.

Where does that lead? Not very far, without further information. Fictitious paper trails are a dime a dozen on DNA sites. People often claim illustrious ancestors. We've seen that so often on Geni. A guy claims the Tudor DNA is known because he's a a direct descendant of Henry VIII so it must be true ;)

Best to treat all such claims with a touch of skepticism pending a detailed investigation of the actual paper trail. Here, there is a further wrinkle. Members of Group 7a and 7c claim the same ancestor as members of Group 7b, but belong to Haplogroup R1b rather than i1. They aren't the same people who claim a paper trail to Maj. West, but it suggests some major problems somewhere in those lines.

There's another snag, too. Groups 7b and 22 can't both be descended from Gov. West, but also it doesn't work to suppose Maj. West was a son of Toby West if Toby West was supposedly a son of 3rd Lord West. The DNA relationship still isn't close enough to make that work either.

I think we can safely ignore the evidence of the roadside marker. These markers are notoriously problematic. They're usually based on early 20th century research, which might or might not be good. Better to cite the primary sources behind the marker rather than the marker itself.

It is a go then, to remove Maj John West's dad as being Col John West II because it is not possible that he can be.

I've taken the following actions.

- removed Cordelia Clark from this family group. That falls under "bone headed error."

- added a placeholder proflle as partner / parent N.N. directing to this discussion

I read the reference to John West, son of the Queen of Pomankey, as being a strapping youth of about 20 years of age, in a primary source quote, late the other night. I imagine it won't be hard for someone to find that again and create a proper citation. And, of course, it's not giving a birth date so could be a mistaken source to begin with.

The descent tree of John West is also problematic according to the FindAgrave page. Hopefully those with good source data can fill it in. It's not my parts of Virginia & it's getting out of my "first arriver" period, so I'm not going to be of a great deal more help.