Sir James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow - James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow, now believed to be the offspring of a non-paternal event

Curious what "offspring of a non-paternal event" means. I have never met anyone who didn't have a father. Seems like an odd term. Perhaps, I am taking it too literally. I could not open the document.

Non-paternal event (NPE) means the presumed father is not the biological father. I’m sorry the link isn’t working for you, I just tried it and it works for me.

The bottom line is that hundreds of Hamilton males submitted Y-DNA test results. The well documented descendants of James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow, formed a group with similar results and were designated Group B. The well documented descendants of earlier Hamiltons had a different Y-DNA profile in common and they were designated Group A. Because of Group A’s closer proximity to Walter fitz Gilbert it was concluded that James 5th was not the biological son of John Hamilton, 4th of Cadzow.

If you search for “Hamilton dna results” you should be able to find the reported results, that’s how I get there.

Here’s another link, to an article about the NPE concept:

https://dna-explained.com/2019/07/18/concepts-what-are-npes-and-mpes/

I got interested in the rate of unexpected DNA test results recently and find it to be a fascinating part of genealogy and history now.

Susanne, I believe the term has been in use since the early 2000s. I find it a bit of an odd term too and think the term may become modified eventually as more people become aware of its use. I saw “misattributed parental event” mentioned as an alternative. I think “misattributed paternity” or “misattributed maternity” could also be good specific substitutes.

One more significant fact, the well documented descendants of James 5th’s brother Walter possess the Group A result, meaning the two were half-brothers. That combined with the descendants of earlier Hamiltons being Group A is what specifically leads to the declaration that James 5th was not the biological son of John 4th.

Private User, thanks for the explanation. That will be tearing up some family trees for sure. Seems you and I are related later that the "non-paternal event."

I was able to access it tonight. Not sure what the problem was earlier - operator malfunction, probably.

After reading, it appears that Janet had a lot going on for a 15th century noble.

Thanks for posting this. I'm adding the link to the DNA research to the Sir James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow profile page.

I, too am related, but via Sir James Hamilton (James1). If his mother, Janet Douglas was, in fact born about 1375 and married in 1388, she was only about 13 at the time of her marriage. In fact, the peerage link says she was contracted to marry Sir John Hamilton in 1381, while still a child. I see no verified birth date info for James1, but it is curious that his wife, Janet Livingston, seems to have been as old as 27 at the time of their marriage.

Thanks for adding the link. It might be useful to point out that the parentage issue is discussed in section 8 of the report so folks can go straight to it if they want.

The DNA report led to by the original link I posted includes the following link to an article explaining the situation and speculating about who the biological father of James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow, may have been:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/a/gah4/HamDNA/AD.htm

It is interesting that both Alexander Hamilton and James Hamilton, 1st Lord Hamilton are born in 1415. Possible, but interesting. Stressful on a woman so young. I just shake my head when I read the statistics of birth, marriage, childbirth and oftentimes death.

I see you are referring to brothers. It seems unlikely they were born in the same year. A quick internet search yielded a source that says James was born circa 1415 and his brother Alexander was born after 1415. Unfortunately anything without a cited source cannot be relied upon.

Yes, Private User, I wondered about that too.

Um, I don't have much to discuss here or am personally related to this so yeah. Don't include me.

It would be interesting to see any other family trees (to compare to mine) leading to the stated "apparent" conclusions as to the parenthood of James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow.

MDH, can you elucidate? I don’t really understand what you mean.

Hugh Hamilton , I have a family tree leading to James 5th of Cadzow (and beyond) with verified Y DNA connections for 8 (eight) generations (with hundreds of verified DNA connections) including Claud Hamilton of Tyrone (my 5th Grandfather) (Male line, Y-DNA R1b1a2a1a2d , L238/S182, R-BY3451 , subclade of R1b1a1a2 ) born 1719 in Tyrone, Ulster Province, Northern Ireland and died 1798 in Ireland (he was the 7th great-grandson of James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow). Of the research that was published at http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/a/gah4/HamDNA/AD.htm
I did not see any family trees to verify the findings of the psu.edu information and therefore do not believe the research could be called well documented. Certainly, there are some other Hamiltons available with family trees that actually show their ancestors of Hamiltons in connection to the psu.edu information. As it stands now, the psu.edu seems lacking. As the topic seems so important to a lot of Hamiltons, there needs to be verifiable sources for the connections, not just a list of Haplogroups with what seems to be an almost random assessment to various people. And stating that everyone should discount (possibly attempting to discredit the life of) James Hamilton, the actual 5th Lord of Cadzow as not being the son of John Hamilton 4th Baron of Cadzow seems fairly selfish and short-sited, just because there are people who would like to state that their DNA matches the male Hamilton line, especially when there are "well documented" researchers that state James was the son of John. The information I have gathered with the help of other researchers can be found at Michael Dwayne Hamilton Family Tree on ancestry.com. Here is a link to the tree: https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/pt/RSVP.aspx?dat=NzU2NDk0Nzc7O...==

Hello, Michael. Did you read Section 8 of the Hamilton DNA Project results discussion in full? It is here:

http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/a/gah4/HamDNA/Results.html#eig

The author, Gordon Hamilton, very explicitly provides a detailed explanation of how Groups A and B were determined, and provides information on the lineage of the groups as well. James 5th of Cadzow is believed to be the progenitor of Group B. His brother Walter is believed to be the progenitor of Group A, which includes the Hamiltons of Raploch, Abbotstown, James Hamilton 1st Viscount Clandeboye, and others.

Your R1b result would place you in neither Group A nor B, which are both I-M253. There are 36 distinct R1b groups enumerated by the project managers. You might be in one of those groups, or you might be in an as yet undefined 37th R1b group. You could submit your DNA test results to the project and see what the project managers say.

The results as published seem like good science to me and I think the project managers have done an excellent job of explaining their interpretation of the results.

These three paragraphs from Gordon Hamilton's published results discussion are quite precise:

"One thing that the current results prove conclusively is that the Sir James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow, who was born about 1390, married Janet Livingston and died about 1440 had the Group B DNA profile. According to virtually all published genealogies of the Hamilton family, this Sir James Hamilton (subsequently referred to as James1) has been considered to be a gg grandson of Walter Fitzgilbert de Hamilton along the senior male line. One can conclude that James1 has the Group B DNA profile because he is the most recent common ancestor of participants H-139, H-188, H-203, H-230, H-256, and H-360, all of whom have the Group B profile, and all of whom have well documented lines back to James1. Thus, all male line descendants of James1, including those of his son Sir James Hamilton, the first Lord Hamilton (subsequently referred to as James2), would have the Group B DNA profile. James2 is the Hamilton (born about 1415 and died in 1479) who married Princess Mary Stewart, daughter of King James II of Scotland. This marriage brought the Hamiltons close to the throne of Scotland in the 16th century. Since King James VI of Scotland (King James I of England) is a descendant of this union, all Group B Hamiltons can thus claim kinship to the current British royal family and through them to virtually all the royal houses of Europe.

"One of the well documented Hamilton lines in Britain is the Raploch line which current evidence (see, for example, the 1933 book “A History of the House of Hamilton” by George Hamilton) indicates was initiated by Walter Hamilton, a brother of James1. The DNA profiles for four well documented descendants of the Raploch Hamiltons (H-190, H-201, H-267 and H-420) have now been determined and they match the Group A profile. Thus, James1 (Group B profile) and Walter, the patriarch of the Raploch line (Group A profile), could only have been half brothers, not full brothers. This indicates that one of the brothers must have been fathered by someone other than a Walter Fitzgilbert all male line descendant, but which one was it?

"This question was answered by determining that well documented descendants of lines that branched off from the Walter Fitzgilbert line prior to James1 have the Group A profile. One of these lines is the Preston line; H-217 of Group A is a well documented descendant of this line. The patriarch of the Preston line is Sir John of Hamilton, Lord of Fingalton, born about 1337. Sir John is a grandson of Walter Fitzgilbert de Hamilton, in other words two generations closer to Walter Fitzgilbert than the James1 discussed previously. Another early branching line is the line to the Olivestob Hamiltons; H-103 of Group A is a descendant of this line. The patriarch of the line to the Olivestob Hamiltons is George Hamilton who is a great grandson of Walter Fitzgilbert so he is one generation closer to Walter Fitzgilbert than James1. The only possible explanation for the observation that Preston and Olivestob descendants, as well as the Raploch descendants, all have the Group A profile while James1 and his descendants have the Group B profile is that the break in the senior male Hamilton line occurred in the conception of James1; someone other than a Walter Fitzgilbert all male line descendant was the father of James1."

Hugh,
I have read all of the available information presented by Gordon "Hamilton". on that site.
I believe some people are possibly making claims without providing a factual family tree. Without such information, I certainly will question any possibly obscure results and claims. For instance, I have a family tree that is open and easily viewed which leads to Sir James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow (and far beyond). The tree provides DNA matches and other evidence concerning the possible, probable and actual Y-DNA and paternity of Sir James. It can be viewed at ancestry.com. The tree is called Michael Dwayne Hamilton Family Tree . I have seen many trees that alluded to a paternal relationship to the Hamiltons only to be disappointed to find that the relationship to the Hamiltons was non-existent or was a maternal association. No doubt these are still wonderful family trees, but the research was lacking, as in the case of the psu information. In other words, the psu research by Gordon "Hamilton" has a lot of pretty words, but no pictures or a list. One thing I learned in school is that a list is necessary to prove the route or in this case the direction of an action and again in this case, the lineage. Most people who participate in genealogy seem to show this lineage. The psu "research" did not show a lineage, therefore it is not valid. And I was so hoping there was more to it.

As to the paternity of Sir James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow's brother Walter of Darngaber HAMILTON who has been used by many genealogists as the brother who was the biological son of John Hamilton, 4th of Cadzow.
William Douglas 1st Lord of Drumlanrig (2nd husband of Janet Douglas , is the possible father of Walter of Darngaber HAMILTON) (my 15th,17th,18thGGF) A "Black" Douglas 1370–1424. Which might explain a lot of the confusion with his descendants being paternally of Douglas lineage. Even Wikitree does not list William Douglas 1st Lord of Drumlanrig as a husband of Janet Douglas. The PSU research does.

Again, a thorough list or a chart of ancestors from start to finish is needed. Not just a group people determining the Haplogroups (of Hamiltons).

One point: Why was it so difficult to determine that there are named and unnamed Douglases in the Hamilton paternal line? If the Y-DNA Haplogroup of I1-L338 was so similar to the Douglases? As an example: Willem I Lord Douglas ( William ) (I2-L1193 y-Haplogroup I2a2a1 was Born approximately 3500 BC) (#1 in text) (my 21st, 22ndGGF).

And the last point for today: As an example of verified Y-DNA with a family tree there is John Hamilton of Glasgow (1603) Y-DNA Z17557 SNP of R1b1a1a2a1a2c1a5c1b1a1 (9thGGF) Ancestor of my father's mother, his brother is ancestor of my father's father.
John Hamilton, of Glasgow

His brother is George Hamilton 1st Baronet of Donalong and Nenegh (#29 in text) (R1b1a1a2a) (8thGGF) (a part of my direct Male line).
BIRTH 1610 • Tyrone, Ulster Province, Northern Ireland.
DEATH 16 AUG 1680 • Tyrone, Tyrone, Northern Ireland.
who (along with his brother) is also the 4th great-grandson of James Hamilton 5th Baron of Cadzow.

This is well documented. As are the ancestors of James Hamilton 5th Baron of Cadzow.

If you believe the Hamilton project at Family Tree DNA to be incorrect, I'd suggest you take your concerns directly to the project administrator, Gordon Hamilton, or co-adminstrator, Don Glossinger. Their contact information can be found here: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/hamilton/about

I continue to find their evidence and conclusions to be compelling. The published results clearly indicate that the administrators considered published pedigrees and the DNA test results to reach their conclusions. I believe they have provided enough information about the project participants, their alleged earliest known ancestors, and their relationships to each other to validate their conclusions.. In addition to the details mentioned in the discussion of the project's results, the ancestral information is here: http://www.personal.psu.edu/faculty/g/a/gah4/HamDNA/EAnc.html

No amount of brandishing a paper pedigree can refute the results of DNA testing. If you wish to prove the conclusions wrong you must do so by demonstrating that the tests themselves are flawed or the analysis that lead to the published results is incorrect. In my opinion you have done neither.

Gordon Hamilton, administrator of the Family Tree DNA Hamilton surname project, is a retired professor of chemistry who earned his masters and doctoral degrees at Harvard Universary. As such he is particularly well qualified to administer such a project. His retirement from Penn State University was published in an online faculty/staff newsletter in 1998. You can find the original here:

https://www.psu.edu/ur/archives/intercom_1998/Feb19/news4.html

Here's a pasted copy for convenience:

"Professor emeritus of chemistry was pioneer in enzyme reaction research

"Gordon A. Hamilton, professor emeritus of chemistry, has retired from the Eberly College of Science after 31 years of service. After receiving a bachelor of arts degree in chemistry, with honors, from Queen's University in Canada in 1956, then master's and doctoral degrees in organic chemistry from Harvard University in 1957 and 1959, he joined the Penn State faculty in 1966 as an associate professor of chemistry, becoming full professor in 1972.

"Hamilton initially concentrated his biomedical research on determining the mechanisms of various enzyme oxidation-reduction reactions (redox reactions), especially those that include oxygen as a reactant. Hamilton was one of the first investigators to apply a thorough knowledge of mechanistic organic chemistry to enhance the understanding of enzymatic redox reactions.

"Among his many awards, Hamilton currently is a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and has held a Sloan Foundation Fellowship and a National Institutes of Health Special Research Fellowship. He has authored or co-authored nearly 100 research publications and has served on several college and University committees, including the University Faculty Senate and the faculty/staff achievement awards committee.

"Hamilton plans to continue teaching and participating in his favorite activities, including golf, travel and genealogy."

Hugh. Thanks for the information. I initially contacted Gordon years ago when I noticed my Haplogroup was incorrectly placed in "I" or "H", which was then corrected on Family Tree DNA. His experience in chemistry seems illustrious. I have a minor degree myself in chemistry. His paper "Oxidation by Molecular Oxygen. I. Reactions of a Possible Model System for Mixed-Function Oxidases"
with Robert J. Workman, and Laura. Woo published by the Journal of the American Chemical Society in 1964 (when I was 10 years old) was especially prestigious. Unfortunately, it seems he has not published any articles related to chemistry since June 1996. After his approximately 86 years on earth, I applaud his efforts to delve into what might seem to him to be an ever-changing world of genealogy (filled with so many unknown characteristics) and personal discovery. And (also unfortunately) genealogy, unlike chemistry, has not been assayed for each and every person's personal composition, which when attempted to be analyzed has more (known and unknown, but possibly assumed, incorrectly) variables involved than all of the chemicals in the periodic table of chemical elements.

When I noticed your statement of "refuting the results of DNA testing", all I can do is to present the facts of my own family tree which is evident enough in itself. I cannot refute anonymous DNA testing of assumed descendants as presented on the Family Tree DNA Hamilton surname project especially when there are no direct, proven connections to families mentioned. There are no complete trees, unlike a chemical reaction where there is a beginning and an end.

If I have further information, there might be more consideration. But for now, I do not believe in assumptions.