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

Primary source quote / citation right on the Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cockacoeske#cite_note-tm-7

Thomas Mathew, whose history of cheating the Doeg and Susquehannock Indians who lived in Maryland across the Potomac River, may have actually led to the raid that kills his overseer,[6] described Cockacoeske's behavior when summoned to Jamestown and told to honor treaty obligations by supplying warriors against the other tribes:[7]

"Our commitee being sat, the Quenn of Pamunkey (descended from Oppechankenough a former Emperor of Virginia) was introduced, who entred the chamber with a comportment gracefull to admiration, bringing on her right hand an Englishman interpreter, and on the left her son a stripling twenty years of age, ....."

7. https://www.loc.gov/collections/thomas-jefferson-papers/about-this-...

And other primary source, text of the 1677 Treaty, signed by "Cap't John West, sonne to the Queen of Pamunkey" (VMHB 14(1906):289-296.

https://books.google.com/books?id=otIRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA295&lpg...

References that include her liason with Col John West here on page 263

https://books.google.com/books?id=o1MgHKSi5NgC&lpg=PA243&ot...

Powhatan's Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, M. Thomas Hatley U of Nebraska Press, 2006 - History - 550 pages

Yes, I had attached that page to his profile (from the Powhatan Museum). Was trying to crop to show just the W he signed with.

I don't think there's a question that Cockacoeske was with John West, is there?

Conflict: two Jane sisters with different dates & husbands

Jane Anderson & wife of Thomas Harrison

Also another unsourced sister Susannah Anderson

The ydna disproves the Maj John West is the son of John West II and so it is worthy of having the "father" status for Col John West II not have Maj John West as his bio child on geni.

Ok on the conflict of the two Janes; but, removal of Col John West II of the fatherhood of Maj John West saves one problem at a time. Is it okay for you to remove him as the bio dad of Maj John West? The Anderson and Harrison descendants are gathering at the autosomal study and will check cousin-ness, ongoing. Right now, we are running 15 kit numbers.

The Swann's are not responding yet to invitations for confirm cousin-ness. Have put the word out to everyone on here and on the internet.

Private User, I not sure it does prove that. Certainly it seems to, but unless someone has examined the lines in detail I'd be skeptical of any claims either way.

In so many places we insist on using primary sources in genealogy but then so often it all goes out the window and we end up relying on what are really just unsubstantiated claims of Internet trees.

On the subject of Harrison, there is a Family Search source for Jane Harrison.
That group has sent in 10 Gedmatch kits to put in the group study. The Davis group has sent in 4. The Swann group, none. The Anderson group, none. The descendants of Col West II so far represent the other few that are trickling into a Gedmatch group study.

Justin, since Maj John West has I3 and not R, he can't be the son of Col John West II, right?

I think the point made is the hapologroup predicted for the ancestor is only as good as the pedigree submitted by the tester. So how do we know the group for Col. John West is correct?

I don't want to wade in the Toby waters, but we don't have any children for Cockacoeske except Capt / Major John, so I'd like to cut the Jane daughters loose. I thought I had recognized Susannah Dabney, she's not a daughter, maybe a sister.

Riana, I hope I'm being the voice of moderation here, and not the voice of obstruction.

But no. That's not what I see.

Using this page as a reference:
http://web.utk.edu/~corn/westdna/west5.htm

Group 7a - R1b, descendants of Thomas West 1735

Group 7b - I1, descendants of the same Thomas West 1735, plus a descendant of Maj. John West 16450 (and others)

Group 7c - R1b, a descendant of the same Thomas West 1735, plus a descendant of a different Thomas West 1750

The three groups are different clusters. Not just because the admin grouped them that way but because each one is different enough from the other two that they fall out naturally in this way.

The 7a and 7c groups could be "fairly closely" related but the STR differences are enough to create substantial doubt. STR dating can be tricky but it would be quite a push to think these two groups could really have the common ancestor Thomas 1735 attributed to them.

So, we have three groups all with members claiming Thomas 1735 as their ancestor. That should be a red flag. Everyone is saying Maj. John is R1b but that's not what the chart says. It has him in the I1 group (7b), which is bracketed by two R1b groups.

Group 7b (supposedly Maj. West) and Group 22 (supposedly Gov West, so also his son Col. John) are both I1, although they can't be very closed related either. But it's suspicious to have

When I see a mess like this, my first thought is to freeze. No one make any sudden moves until someone looks at the actual paper trails to see where the problem might be.

Erica, you said:

> I'd like to cut the Jane daughters loose

I think it might be prudent to wait just a bit. What concerns me here is that there seem to be several clusters of contingent arguments we haven't excavated yet.

In an ideal world this whole cluster of profiles should not have been linked without better evidence, but that's the way of Geni. People put in what they "know", often without evidence, and then we fix it later. I'm personally far more comfortable when we wait to make changes until we've actually churned through the evidence.

Private User can you tell us more about wife of Thomas Harrison ?

The other Jane has a birth date of 1615 and a husband who is probably David Anderson, Sr.

That's just too messed up for me to leave on the tree.

At least Family Search has the Harrison Jane and 10 of their kits are in the triangulation study as we speak. I think we should wait on their cousin-ness to more Col West II kits. We are going to need more Col West II kits.

Erica, the Thomas Harrison who married Jane West, supposedly daughter of Toby, was supposedly the Thomas Harrison you curate. No family for him yet. I've supposed that's because you must have reservations about the line. Is it simpler than that -- just haven't looked at yet?

I would have no reason to develop the line. If that's a merge I'll be glad to do the work, or wait for Terri.

Arturburn family kits x 10 sent to me; they have no documentation to the Harrison they believe is theirs. They are not on Geni. FYI

Private User are descendants of the two John Wests entered as profiles on geni? geni links from ftDNA (free). It could make it easier.

There is no Group 7b shown on the West DNA Results page, only 7 and 7c. Also there is no Group 22 that you claim is for Gov John West. But as I said the progenitor claimed for each kit my not be accurate or something the submitter copied from another undocumented source without taking the time to research the claim in the original records, without reading into them some that is not said.

That's odd, because I found both group 7b and 22 with no trouble at all.

As for paper trails, they need to be cross-checked seventeen ways from Sunday because there may be uncaught errors (and, occasionally, fraud). It's actually very common for people to jump to the conclusion that just because they have a West in their family tree, they "must" be related to the de la Warrs.

It ain't necessarily so.

I don't want to copy it all out, here's the claimed earliest ancestor in the groupings on http://web.utk.edu/~corn/westdna/west5.htm#FG22

  West Family Group 22

... [xxx] descends from John WEST, who was governor of Virginia 1635-37.

West Family Group 7

... The oldest ancestor of [xxx] is "Major" John West who was born in Virginia about 1650. John married first Susannah (Sarah) PEARSON, and second to Elizabeth Simmes TURLEY. "Major" John WEST died in Stafford County, Virginia, and his will was probated on 13 February 1716 (OS)/1717 (NS).  This is a very exciting match for Family group 7.

Is the later info suggesting that wife Elizabeth Rose & son John West, of Wayne County do not belong to John West d 1716?

http://web.utk.edu/~corn/westdna/delaware.htm shows the three lines for the De La Warr's. I am not thinking any of these lines are showing an I ydna, the way I am reading it.

> they need to be cross-checked seventeen ways from Sunday

Maven, my thoughts, exactly. And double-check for possible loopholes.

A good rule of thumb for any genealogical work -- if you're deciding the evidence favors giving you an older, more prestigious line in a disputed area you're probably not being as impartial as you think ;)

.....except the Maj John West line....

And Erica, I can ask the Harrison crew to join Geni; but, like I say they have a missing link from their Arterburn to the Harrison. About that Pearson line and Turley, that is what is on Family Search. And I could check again; but, I think I remember Elizabeth and Robert belonged to Judith Armistead.

Riana, on those three lines for the West barons -- the haplogroup appears at the end of each line of STRs.

W115 - haplo I1

W136 - haplo R1b1b

W229 - haplo I2b1

The page makes the important point that these these three lines do not match each other but all three claim to belong to the same family.

I don't see that we know what the "real" line should be. Instead, we just have a lot of very bad genealogy.

By the way I read it, I .mean by the numbers to the right of the screen shot picture of the FTDNA study, The numbers match for the De La Warr's and not for Maj John West. I don't know how to read the numbers so I highlighted the matching numbers and you can see on my screen shot in the media section that Maj John West's part is not highlighted. I don't know much; but, I think that means he is not matching. I am only putting credence on the screenshot of the FTDNA as the De La Warr report is not the FTDNA report.

Continuing on this comment that all three claim to belong to the same family ...

W115 and W136 both claim to descend from the Thomas West (2nd Baron de la Warr) who married Alice Knollys. This is a prominent couple claimed as ancestors by zillions of Virginians and New Englanders both. For many people this is the gateway to medieval royalty. Every medievalist will recognize this line on sight.

What is not obvious from these charts is that this Thomas West (2nd Baron) is a male-line descendant of the Sir Thomas West who heads the pedigree for the ancestry of W229.

In other words, these three lines converge on the same paper trail. They absolutely should match. The fact they don't creates serious doubt that the DNA signature of this line is known. And that makes a hash of any attempted match against the the descendants of Maj. John.