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

Intertwining families. Hmmm. I'm thinking about that, even before you ask. This will seem all too fuzzy, but the research to support it would send us sprawling in too many directions.

There are certain blue blood Virginia families. They all intermarry. If you look at them over the course of many years, you get a sense for the "rhythm" of their intermarriage. You recognize the family names.

My sense from this "gut impression" is that something is wrong. Maj. John of Northumberland Co doesn't quite fit. His mother is a Cocke. HIs wife is a Semmes. He leaves money to Harrisons. He should be a closer relative of the prominent Wests. Instead, his dad is just an immigrant and the Harrisons in his will are just some people who lived in Virginia at the same time.

And, there is Maj. John of Gloucester. A prominent, early West. An officer, which means gentry. Connected to Cockacoeske and Toby West, so somehow related to the family of Gov. West.

I"m not at all opposed to the idea that there might have been more than one West family in Virginia, or the idea there has been massive confusion. But, a West at the level of the Cockes and Harrisons -- that early -- really should be one of The Wests.

Move Jane Harrison maybe. Her relationship to Cockacoeske seems to rest on circumstantial evidence anyway, Remove that, and she's no longer half-sister of John Gloucester Co, which isolates him from her husband's Harrison family, But then, there seems to be no way to insert her into the family of John of Northumberland's family so his legacies to the Harrisons are just random charity.

If these two are not the same man, they should be very close associates and relatives. I'm not a fan of guesswork or working by gut, but when the relationships fall out illogically, as they are beginning to do here, something is wrong.

Let me try that again, without making an effort to hedge it with so many vagaries and caveats that it becomes incomprehensible.

Ignore the other evidence. Just for a minute.

Look only at the 1716 will of John West, of Stafford County, Gent.. He mentions the Capt. Thomas Harrison several times. Thomas is made assistant executor of the will, and there are legacies to Thomas Harrison's wife "Seth", and to his sons Burr and William.

They're friends and neighbors, and obviously close associates as well. But in the social context of the time this intimacy would often mean they were also related in some way. Particularly in light of tight matrimonial network among the gentry.

So, what is the connection? It's not clear. But, if this John West was a relative of the prominent West family, and particularly if he is connected to Cockacoeske in some way, then there is an obvious suggestion.

Jane, the wife of a different Thomas Harrison is supposed to have been a daughter of Cockacoeske. This earlier Thomas Harrison was an uncle of the Thomas Harrison who was a friend of John West, he of the 1716 will.

So, John West could have been a relative of the Thomas Harrison in his will. You'd probably have to dash off a quick diagram to make sense of it, but if John West of Northumberland was, say for now a son, of Cockacoeske then the Thomas Harrison in his will was the nephew of his sister.

Once you've seen that possibility, you can move the pieces all over the chessboard. Take away Jane as a daughter of Cockacoeske and there's no longer anything to play with. But keep her there, and move John West of Northumberland to different places on the board, certainly including the possibility he was the same person as John of Gloucester Co, and some interesting possibilities come out.

Take it from me, Justin, there were *several* West families in early Virginia. Most of them were *not* de la Warrs.

Take the (numerous) descendants of Anthony West of Accomack, for instance. No way *he* was a de la Warr, but his descendants made important enough connections to get him labeled FFV anyway. :-)

Maven, that's not something that bothers me. Seems likely enough. The DNA seems to show it. Not the point.

Re: https://www.geni.com/discussions/169645?msg=1158578

That's more or less the way I interpreted the family & was taken aback to find it different. I think we have to take apart the land records geographically. And there's a third John West of this generation (Unity's son) also.

Luckily Maven's west people are easier to distinguish.

What about military records?

There's something to be said for geographic isolation. :-)

NO, I DO NOT SEE ANY CONFLICTING CLAIM AND I DON"T SEE HOW ANYONE ELSE WOULD. This earlier claim of 67 identical marker values (by about 35 submitters) was ten years ago. Some of those 50 have now upgraded their results to 111 markers and a few of them to Big Y matches in subclaves of the same SNP marker And this group has now increased to 53 members.out of 800+ in the surname group. There are no rules as to when a marker will mutate, though there are some suggested time frames given for each particular marker. There are surnames that have had no change in 67 or 111 markers for hundreds of year and other surnames that mutate much sooner. And that's not counting those mutations that are caused by outside environmental issues. There just are no hard rules that determine if and when a marker will mutate. As you said, its just the luck of the draw.

Tom, think of it this way. If your ancestor and someone else's ancestor lived in the same county, it's a leap to think they must have been brothers. They could have been 1st cousins. It's easy to see why that might be. If your markers are unchanged for 300 years, why would you suppose everyone else's ancestors have one mutation in 67 markers about every generation?

As a side note, there is actually a possibility that your markers have not remained unchanged at all. One of your ancestors could have had a mutation increasing or decreasing the number of STRs, then his son or grandson could have had a mutation changing the number back to its ancestral value. No way to know.

I recommend using the comparison charts at FTDNA itself. They've kept up with the science.

https://www.familytreedna.com/faq-markers.aspx

Look at Table 1, Probability for Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA)

If you match someone on 67 out of 67 markers:

- There is 50 percent probability your common ancestor was no more than 2 generations ago

- There is a 90 percent probability your common ancestor was no more than 4 generations ago

- There is a 95 percent probability your common ancestor was no more than 6 generations ago

See the difference in how to approach the question? Even 6 generations ago there is still a 5 percent chance you haven't reached the common ancestor.

And because this is all chance and probabilities you can never reach 100 percent probability. There will always be extreme outliers.

For example, in one of my surname projects I have two men who match 67 out of 67. Their ancestors did not ever live in the same county. One belongs to a well-defined tree whose family has been in the US since the early 1700s. The other is a 4th generation immigrant from a German family with the same surname. At a minimum their common ancestor must have lived 10 generations ago.

That is only your opinion that does not reflect what FTDNA states. The only way a STR or a SNP haplo subgroup would change is from further refinements in the sequencing programming as FTDNA had done frequently or the governing genetic board decides that a certain subclave is needed to explain difference in certain haplogroups which is also frequently done.
FYI, there are differences in the marker values of SOME of the grandchildren of these two brothers but not all of them and none from the dozen of them named West. We have sufficient numbers of members to know when most of the natural mutations in the line occurred and pin point where a certain member had a non genetic mutation.
And your 4th generation emigrant from Germany may have been a direct descendant of one of the 1700 generation that returned home to live so their common ancestor would have been someone from your well defined tree after 1700.

Tom! You're tying yourself in knots here. It's not just my opinion. It's exactly what FTDNA DOES say. Look at the link again.

At this point, we are hijacking a thread intended for another subject. I will send you a private message explaining where you've gone wrong here, and ask you not to post further on this thread unless it's on topic. You are welcome to open another thread devoted to your ideas about DNA.

Whatever thread you two end up on, tag me. It is good to know everything you have said. It has helped.

Thanks. I'll forward you the private message I sent Tom. And I'll be sure to tag you if he begins a new thread.

Throwing this out for consideration.

We've been talking about whether "Sonne to the Queen of Pamunkey" John West was really the son of Col John West, II, but it's worth noting that Wikipedia assumes the dispute is about whether he was son of that John or of that John's father Captain John West.

> "Cockacoeske's only documented child was her son, John West, born probably around 1656-57 and "reputed the son of an English colonel."[7] On the basis of his name, and birth after her husband's death, he has often been considered an illegitimate son of John West, who established a plantation (now the town of West Point at the confluence of the Mattaponi and Pamunkey Rivers, where they form the York River), or his son John West."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_West_(governor)

We've noticed this before, just in passing, but it's worth calling out again. The Governor was the one who was originally granted the tract at Pamunkey "bordering uppon the cheife residence of ye Pamunkey King the most dangerous head of the Indian enemy". He was also the one for whom West Point was named.

Many of the same arguments apply. There would still be, for example, still the same problem of half-brothers both named John.

BINGO. That is what the National Park Colonial Park pro's came up with....I agree.

Problem is this, that ydna of I versus R for the Interim Gov are not the same.
Also, that chart show relationship over all but I think the relationship is with the Harrison via a female, like the chart on all of it currently shows. And, that means N.N. bio dad option for Maj James West, Indian, has a mom who is slipping out on Toby while he is fighting a war and dying in it. I think the patent of land originated as a patent and in Glouchester and it was not an original will, just a patent. I was sold on this argument until I saw the FTDNA chart.

We need some clean up around John West, of Stafford County, Gent., I think.

Two men might have been conflated here. The About text seems to show this profile is intended to be the John West who called himself "of Stafford County" in his will. That's the John who married Elizabeth Semmes and Susan Pearson.

It's important to note here that this is the John West is one of the men who all the fuss is about. If his parents were known, this discussion would be over.

But on Geni he is supposedly born in Wisbech, Cambridge, son of John West and Susannah West.

If there is evidence for that assertion someone needs to bring it forward, otherwise disconnect him. If there was another John West who was their son and was born at Wisbech, we need a new profile for him.

He's not merged. I don't think he is connected, right? Let me check.

Rianna,

I'm leery of this DNA data.

Yes, DNA can be a valuable tool, but it always rests on assumptions that don't get made explicit often enough.

Here, we are looking at modern samples for lines that claim a particular descent. Then, armed with those samples, we are extrapolating the results of West men who lived in the 17th century.

That's a hole big enough to drive a truck through. How can we know that we have the right DNA? There are 400 years of possible Non-Paternal Events (NPEs).

The standard way around this problem is through triangulation. If descendants of two, and better three or four, sons all share the same yDNA then it's pretty safe to assume we're looking the DNA for their common ancestor. If you can't come up with sons, then maybe a possible paternal cousin or paternal nephew.

Bottom line, we always, always, always want independent verification.

The problem I see here is that this is the most mis-matched mess imaginable. Lines that seem like they should match, don't. And this is compounded perhaps by the Pamunkey custom of loaning their wives to visitors. It's entirely possible in the context of the time that Capt. John West, sonne to the Queen of Pamunkey, was "legally" the son of Toby West or Gov. John West or Col. John West, but really the son of someone else entirely.

Just a little side story. I have a man in one of my surname projects who did not match the other men with his surname. He was devastated. I was at a loss for words. What did he think was going to happen? He had already traced his line to a man who was illegitimate and took his mother's name. We knew before he tested that he had the surname but would not match the men for whom it was their paternal line.

I keep going back to the West DNA sites to see if a pattern clicks into place for me. So far, nothing.

I can ask our Pro Genetic Genealogist who does this type of analysis for a living to give an opinion. Awaiting the SNP Group triangulations on the 11 Harrisons to the growing number of De La Warr kits up to 5 now.....keep awaiting more De La War Kits....any day now. Will ask and also will contact the West Project admins. With only 10 Warriors on the census for Pamunky Warriors in 1669 per historical record, I don't think the loaning culture was a priority.

The thing about "status" - and about her strategies - is what's bothering me about the "high status" wives being attached to Northumberland John.

If you read more in the eyewitness accounts of the signing of the 1677 treaty, the English fussed over "my sonne John West." They ordered up fancy clothes for him. They described him in glowing terms, in fact more flattering then they described his "Regal" mother. I got the impression that 1) his mother knew exactly what she was doing & 2) was letting the English think he was her heir.

Further records confuse the military exploits between the various John's. But you really want to look into them, in my opinion, because the English really wanted Pamunkey warriors on their side.

In other words, would this woman have married her (only) son off to a not known English woman? You think?

I don't know if "Jane" was her daughter but that Harrison marriage was a darn good one. And if she controlled Susanna Dabney's marriage, which I would guess she did, she married her off to her interpreter - smart move.

This is the work of a leader.

I also had two men with proven mothers with his surname but no father. The first DNA proved he was in fact a son of the same surname while the other matched several Smith brothers c1820. The Death Certificate of the man said his father was David, so it has been assumed that he was a David Smith, but he had married later and had only daughters, so that DNA in this case only pointed to his brothers.

Here's where I am with the DNA.

Looking back at this site:
http://web.utk.edu/~corn/westdna/west5.htm

First Group 7
http://web.utk.edu/~corn/westdna/west5.htm#FG7

The notes for group 7 give a good idea what's going on here. This group developed around the descendants of Thomas West 1735 Fairfax Virginia. Too late for us. It looks they probably have good triangulation for R1b as the probable DNA of the claimed ancestor Thomas, although without linked genealogies it's very hard to be sure.

Then, they have some members who claim the same line but are I1. That's a huge mess, so they ended up splitting into 7a, 7b, 7c.

Some of this is just gut impression but I think this pattern shows bad paper genealogy rather than an NPE. Four men who claim ancestor Thomas who are R1b and four who claim ancestor Thomas who are I1, and those I1s just happen to match other West lines not descended from Thomas?? Gimme a break. If this were an NPE we wouldn't be seeing matches to another West family. We'd be seeing a surname disjunction.

Then, as a further complication, the i1 lines in this group 7 match a claimed descendant of Maj. John West (the one who married Susan Pearson). Notice that this is the only sample that provides a genealogy that could be checked, but even then it's just the first few generations. No triangulation. We have to trust the paper trail back to Maj. John, and without anything to triangulate, it just stands there in isolation.

The other West I1s in group 7b are obviously relatives of this line, but all we can really say is that these are West lines. They match two English West samples, so these are West lines, certainly. Probably no NPE here, but whether it's Maj. John West's line is open to doubt.

Then, skipping down to Group 22.
http://web.utk.edu/~corn/westdna/west5.htm#FG22

This group is I1, but the members of this group do not match the I1 Wests in group 7b.

On the surface this group looks like a well-triangulated group of Gov. West's descendants, but it's not. It's two men who claim descent from the governor, but no details on their lines and no indication how closely related they are. Are they distant enough for triangulation to be useful? The other two men belong to West lines that can't be explicitly connected to the governor's line but they're obviously part of whatever line this is.

Bottom line, this DNA information is a mess because it's so poorly supported. It doesn't prove anything at this point. It looks like there is a possible I1 line for Maj. John West, although it hasn't been verified or triangulated. And it looks like there is a possible I1 line for Gov. John, although it also hasn't been verified or triangulated.

If (and it's a very big if) this is the right DNA for Maj. John and it's also the right DNA for Gov. John West, then Maj. John did not belong to the governor's male line. But that still doesn't mean there wasn't an NPE somewhere among Maj. John's descendants, or that Maj. John was not believed at the time to belong to this family.

Erica, you are going straight the heart of the matter. We have to consider the social and political environments of the time, and as well not make the mistake of thinking it was a static world.

Some of the benchmarks I'm thinking about:

1657 approximate birth of Cockacoeske's John West. In this period the the loaning of Pamunkey wives to visiting dignitaries was probably still common. Meaning there is (probably) no conflict between Cockacoeske as wife of Toby West and her having a child by someone else. From the meager evidence, it seems likely the Pamunkey were "poorly Christanized". The child of such a union was probably named by the mother, paternity attributed as seemed likely and a surname assigned. Baptism would come later.

1677 the treaty with the Pamunkey. It's clear the English really, really wanted Pamunkey warriors to enlist on their side. This is the period of Bacon's Rebellion (1676-77). Rianna says the 1669 census shows only 10 Pamunkey warriors but Cockacoeske's support must have meant much more than just those 10. It's pretty clear why the English would make a fuss over Cockacoeske's son. They ordered up fancy clothes for him? That's a pretty clear indication he was to them just another half-breed until they had a reason to court his mother. His subsequent career, if any, was all predicated on that.

1691 the first Virginia miscegenation law. What happens socially to someone born when miscegenation is still legal, but is now illegal? I would guess it depended on how much money you had. But what impact on inheritance? What are his marriage prospects and the marriage prospects for his children? Under English common law a bastard had no parents and could not inherit. The normal way around that was the name the person in a will or deed but omit the relationship.

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week03/VAlaws1643...

Ran across a little something that may help in disambiguating

http://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/west/11230/

In reference to the "Publications", indicating Capt John WEST, Son of the Queen of Pamunkey, as one and the same, as Major John WEST, of the Stafford Co., Virginia Records, the Genealogist may be helped in identifying individuals of the "Days of Yore", by the "Signatures" they left behind, in various Official Depositories.

ITEM:

1677 - The Articles of Peace, sometimes called The Treaty of Middle Plantation, contains the "Signatures" of Queen Pomunckey on behalfe of herselfe, & the severall Indians under her Subjection: [1]

.................................An Exaggerated "W"...................

It also contains that of Cap't John WEST, sonne to the Queen of Pamunkey.

................................."/ W"......................

ITEM:The following denotes the various "Signatures" used by Major John WEST of the 17th Century in Stafford Co., VA., and ending with his Will Written 16th November 1716.

1.1688 October 11th - Stafford Co., VA Deeds & Wills, 1699-1709, pgs 278-279 [2]

Know all men, that I John WEST of Stafford County Planter have sold unto John WAUGH of Stafford County................

............................................Signed:John WEST

2.1704 November 8th - Letter of John WEST to Col. George MASON, ordered to be recorded by Stafford Court:[3]

(a bibliography is listed)

----

So did "my sonne John West" who signed, at 20 years or so of age with a W, evolve into Jno. West, planter of Stafford County?

Here's the letter & a descent line from The William and Mary Quarterly, Volume 10
edited by Lyon Gardiner Tyler, Richard Lee Morton, page 65, "The West Family"

https://books.google.com/books?id=sCUjAQAAIAAJ&lpg=PA65&ots...

Thanks. Saw that the other day. Totally failed to realize its possible significance.

Did you find a site with the facsimile signatures? I had an idea such a thing exists but couldn't find it.

Funny side note. The author says LS means "Legal Signature". No, no, no. It stands for "Locus Sigillum", the place of the seal. A carry over from the day when documents had to be both signed AND sealed. If you didn't have a seal you drew a little squiggly circle, wrote LS inside it, and that was your seal.

That Wm & Mary article. Interesting tidbit on the previous page:

I just disconnected Maj. John West from parents John West and Susannah Cocke because no one was coming forward with evidence. But here's something real.

"In the records of Northern Neck there is in 1698 a grant to Susannah West, widow of John West, deceased, for land with a remainder to her son John West, who is stated to be the 'eldest son' of said John West, deceased. The land was given to said John West, deceased, by the will of Richard Cocke, of Northumberland county." (page 64, note 1).

That accounts for that. So now the question remains whether this John West in Stafford County was that John West, or whether this is further confusion.

I admit I haven't been looking all that hard but I can't find any sign of "Indian" john West after the 1777 treaty signing.

BTW I definitely have to go back to a reference several times before it sinks in!