Capt. Francis Drake, of Devon & Piscataway - Yes, the likely son of Robert Drake

Thanks for the post. There is a lot there. I have some questions. I list them in the numbered paragraph order they are first mentioned (8 paragraphs).

#1 - Why is the DNA "supposed"? If there controversy in how it was tested? Check the actual source of the DNA results and see what it says. Sometimes the results are reported incorrectly from 2nd hand sources. You would want to check the validity of the living test takers in relation to the proof of their lineage from each Drake. The lineage is looked at very differently if the DNA evidence is strong or weak/flawed.

#2 - Do you mean Robert's son John went to NJ, or that Francis' son John went. If John is Robert's son, then under your hypothesis, John would also have been left out of the will.

#3 - The 1 letter makes all the difference. (See #1)

#4 - He could also be living with them because he agreed with their religious idea that New England was intolerant of. There are numerous examples of people living in the same small town/village of approximately the same age with the exact same name (and many times with a wife of the same name and children with some same names) - which is why people get mixed up when looking back in the records.

#5 - This directly relates to how was the DNA test done and what was the basis of their lineage at that time. See #1.

#6 - "Also listed in error" Where is it listed in error? In the GENI tree? The GENI tree is only as good as the people making the connections and the sources provided. If you come across an "error" you should contact the mgrs of the profile and shown them your evidence... Just in case it is a common misconception like #4 or there was some new research published that maybe you haven't seen yet. If it is actually wrong, it should be changed. The NEHGR is always publishing articles correcting past mix ups or errors in commonly believed connections. Particularly when the source materials are referenced and a typo or some misreading is found.

#7 - Like #6, do you mean in the GENI tree? If so, then be aware that there are NUMEROUS unsourced, unverified, and probably wrong connections in the tree. Check on the various Projects with people actively finding mistakes and trying to clean up the tree. Like you said in #5, something could be wrong in the genealogy that someone has and don't know it because it wasn't properly confirmed. If on the other hand, you have proof to a confirmed immigrant with proven royal lines, then that is different.

#8 - This is like #7, it isn't provable unless it is sourced correctly, with confirmed with retained written records (very rare), and reinforced with a solid DNA analysis.

I agree, no matter which way you go, if the DNA (#1) shows that it isn't a match, then most likely it isn't. The primary research you can do at this time is to investigate the DNA Claim of #1 and decide if it is reasonable or not. I have come across a number of people (in GENI and elsewhere) who don't understand DNA for genealogical purposes and are doing it wrong.

Post what you find out. Sounds interesting. I had to do something similar to show the Mayflower Society that an ancestor's "official" line was wrong because there were 3 wives, not 2. The 1st and 2nd had the same first name. Also, the family moved away with wife #1, then she died and the marriage to wife #2 was in a different town, and then the family moved back when wife #2 died and wife #3 was married. So it was a combination of record confirmation, alignment of siblings (some of who moved with them and stayed there), and DNA done correctly.

I have Y-DNA match with the Piscataway Drakes at 67 markers but lose them at 111 markers. I am not even a Drake but I match the Drakes of Devon closer than descendants of William Drake. There is more than a 1 letter difference between R1b and R1a. Drakes of Devon will always have DYS388=10 identified by the SNP's CTS4385 and L664. About 6500 years ago the main branch of R1a-M417 splits into 2 branches, R1a1-CTS4385 and R1a1-Z645.
Nearly all members of haplogroup R1a (>99%), who live today, belong to one of these two branches. Our branch R1a-CTS4385>L664 survived until today, but is relative very small in number. In our FTDNA R1a1-project only 5% belongs to R1a1-CTS4385>L664 and therefor 95% belongs to R1a1-Z645.

Thanks David, so specifically applying that info to this Frances Drake profile. His About comments state that the R1a is from the Robert and Nathaniel Drakes mentioned in paragraph #1 above. And it says that Francis is associated with R1b.

So if R1a split about 6,000 years ago. How much further were R1a and R1b apart??

Of course that assumes that the DNA analysis and the supporting proof of lineage was done appropriately. There are a number of people I have come across on GENI who use segments smaller than 4cm as though that proves something more than random data.

Well, the DNA aside, the rest of the circumstances with both Francis and his descendant, James John, keep me from believing their connections to the Virginia family.
I don't see enough here to convince me, but I would be delighted if you can prove it is true.
Even the split in the family line that created the 2 lines has me question the DNA evidence since they both descend from the same individuals... that are not 6,000 years apart.

I should say that I am a firm believer in DNA evidence.
But am I descended from the man I called my father?
Overwhelming circumstantial evidence proves that I am, but the only way to be sure is to have his body exhumed and check his DNA.
In these two cases (Francis and John) the overwhelming circumstantial evidence disagrees with the purported DNA evidence that only goes back a generation or so.
If we could have Robert's and William's bodies exhumed and have their DNA checked, we could settle the question of who is related to whom. But trusting DNA evidence over the existing logic of circumstantial evidence is a crooked path.

I wonder if there is a connection from Capt Francis Drake and the Cotton family of Portsmouth, NH.

https://archive.org/stream/cottonfamilyofpo00cott/cottonfamilyofpo0...

"William Cotton married Elizabeth, daughter of "William and Honor
Ham. William Ham came probably from Devonshire, in a fishing venture
to the coast of Maine, whence, in 1606, he came to Portsmouth, or possibly
tirst to the Isles of Shoals and soon alter to Portsmouth."

9 Oct 1572 - John Drake had been killed in an attempt to plunder a Spanish ship - Nombre de Dios, Colon, Panama. (Date of death - 8 month discrepancy)His brother Joseph also died at some point during this voyage.

12 Feb 1574 - Francis Drake named executor of will

29 Nov 1575 - John Drake's will cancelled and administration granted to Alice Cotton (John's wife). (Alice remarried and filed suit against Francis.) The Cotton family with whom Alice allied herself may have been either mercantile or sea-going ; the name occurs frequently under both heads.

James, the other circumstances are just a coincidence if the DNA reveals something else. If, however, the DNA analysis is weak/flawed, then your social history gives more clues and in instances like that if you can find a primary document like a letter, will, deed, etc, it brings it to being more reliable than the weak DNA.

You will be best served in your research to investigate how the "DNA evidence" opinion got started. If it actually is very strong, then that basically answers the question.

There are many ways to analyze DNA, and exhuming bodies isn't the only way. How do you know that the body wasn't misidentified when buried? or the burial location mixed up? There are a number of proven mistakes (typos and/or misunderstandings at the time) found in Massachusetts Vital Records.

Here are 2 easy to follow explanations of DNA for genealogy. They have illustrations that help understand how it is possible to get a negative result with someone you actually are related to and get a positive result with someone you aren't.

http://smithplanet.com/stuff/x-chromosome.htm

This next one is a little more dense.. but if you just read through to the end and look at the illustrations, the conclusion and context at the end will be understandable - even if the details aren't.

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2014/12/the-folly-of-using-sm...

and this is a good post about the problem with using DNA for genealogy for people beyond your great grandparents and 3rd the 4th cousins (3 to 4 generations)

https://thegeneticgenealogist.com/2017/01/06/the-danger-of-distant-...

David,
You could use GENI to figure it out by locating the two profiles that you want to find out how they are related and see if the trees are filled in enough to provide that clue. Otherwise, you could complete their trees to the point they would need to cross.

In case you don't know how, the easiest way is to go to the first profile you want to match. At the upper right click on the push pin to find relationships from that profile to others. Then go to the other profile you want to check,, and then click on the Blue button at the top of the profile about the connection. Check both. That will show you how they are linked within GENI as of how the tree is filled in. That doesn't mean it is true, only that people have linked the families in that way.

First you test the existing path,,, and then you can go generation by generation to check that the family groups are completed (siblings, cousins, spouse parents/in law, etc).. It's a slow process but I find 2nd and 3rd cousin marriages all the time.

You basically married to someone you were related to (a cousin of some sort) or the sibling of one of your brothers or sisters in laws... or their cousin. Or the child of a step parent, or their cousin. The neighbor kids, etc. People from church. The neighbor kid is one of the elements with James's hypothesis.

Or you married someone from your church or social group. That happened often until after the Civil War when by the later part of the 1800s social changes due to a number of reasons caused people to marry strangers they got to know

GENI has me related to Capt Francis Drake as my 8th grandfather and William Cotton as my 7th cousin 12 times removed. But I know they are not related to each other.

Right now, the GENI tree only maps this relationship between the two.

William Cotton is Capt. Francis Drake, of Devon & Piscataway's granddaughter's husband's great aunt's husband's sister's husband's aunt's husband.

William Cotton

Capt. Francis Drake, of Devon & Piscataway

you could try Wikitree and see if they have a different connection in their tree.