George G. Brewer, I - Ten children named in will. Any others?

A previous Discussion in 2011 says:

According to the Tree George G. Brewer, Sr.
George G. Brewer, I

Had two wives,
one Sarah Brewer (Lanier) (1686-1727)
Sarah Brewer (Lanier)

The other
Alice Burwell (1700-1744)
Alice Brewer (Burwell)

IS THIS CORRECT??

Sarah's children were
Oliver Brewer (1708-1792) Oliver Lanier Brewer
Henry Brewer (1710-1799)Henry Lanier Brewer
Thomas Nathaniel Brewer (1712-1804)Nathaniel Brewer, Sr.
Lanier Sr Brewer (1716-1795)Lanier Brewer, Sr.
George G Brewer, Jr.(1718-1757)George G. Brewer, II
Nicholas Brewer (1720-1792)Nicholas Brewer, Sr.
John IV Brewer, IV (1724-1767)Unknown Profile
Joseph Brewer, I (1731-1732)Joseph Brewer, I
William Brewer (1706-1799)William Lanier Brewer
Sarah Brewer (1714-1789)Unknown Profile
Ambrose Brewer (1724-d)Ambrose Brewer
Nathan Brewer (1710-d)Unknown Profile
VEEDIES BREWER
Sarah Vick (Brewer)
Howell Brewer (1722-1816)Howell Lanier Brewer, I

Alice's Burwell's children are
Burwell Brewer, Sr. (1730-1799)Unknown Profile
Boyce Brewer (1733-d)Unknown Profile

That date on the second tree, 2011, because it is old now shows you how inaccurate it is. That was much of what I saw on the George Brewer descendants on Geni when I joined in 1/2018. Ambrose has been proven by his ydna to be not so closely related as most of the others are. I doubt there was a Nathan, never hear of him. Then Thomas Nathaniel Brewer was the given name on Geni when I joined and I believed he had a son named Thomas. Then I saw that every genuine source and Brewer tree did not use the Thomas name with Nathaniel. So I deleted Thomas there on Geni leaving it just Nathaniel Brewer. The various Olivers are all mixed up. Erica Howton is curator on the Olivers and has rejected the diversity of ydna one or two possess.

Rejecting the 2011 children group may be caused in my brain by the experience I have had with the Mendenhall family. A William Mendenhall died 1853 compiled and recorded in birth order an enormous genealogy of the entire Mendenhall family both coming to America and his line from Francis Mildenhall which remained in Wiltshire, England. HIs sources were limited, especially going way back to the 1600s. So he had problems figuring out that century of Mildenhall/Mendenhall. Still his book is now accessible on the Internet and copies of his book are all over the world. So I have to tell people who want to use the first (William) Mendenhall book that the ancient history in it is wrong. New research has changed our views on it quite a bit. However, William was using primary sources for the genealogies of the 1700s and 1800s and they could be trusted and used. I hope that puts light on the subject of recent research.

Gary Allen Singleton should there be a Burwell Brewer attached to Alice Brewer ?

I would keep Burwell Brewer as a son of Alice and George (G) Brewer with the given name coming from his mother's previous relationships. His son Lt. William Brewer, a DAR approved vet of the 1776 war is the rock solid anchor for Group D Brewer Project ydna. Admin Hank says that he will keep Group D in with the Lanier/Brewer families even considering the activity feed posting of fellow admin David Brewer, David seems to totally dismiss what we have on Geni for George (G) and family. David even suggests that Burwell might be a son of Nicholas, forgetting that Nicholas was a well known son of George. But David says that Nicholas might be a son of a William (????). Burwell's profile came from Lloyd Doss Jr. and Lloyd is great at defining a composite picture of all the profiles in the Lanier/George Brewer groups on FTYdna which includes Burwell's Group D and his son Lt. William died 1818. I shall ask David if he could look up the SNP Pathway for Lt. William and publish it for all of us on the activity feed to see or email it to me. It should agree with the Group G Lanier group SNP pathway if they are both sons of George G. or a brother in there somewhere. Burwell has a lot of descendants on Geni and so we should be careful about this. I have worked with one of them on his line over the past year. I have also worked with a descendant of Nicholas and have worked with him on his line. Burwell does not come from the line of Nicholas. FT surname admins are using the SNP pathways from the BigY700 now because it is more precise and definite. It has worked wonders in our FT Singleton Project defining the separation of the 4 lines we have coming from different locations and English profiles.

Burwell Brewer, Sr.

There is a 12th child connected who shows to be an infant but no sources: Joseph Brewer, I

Oliver and Henry should be listed as sons of George and Sarah, not Alice, since Sarah did not die until between 1724 and 1727. So she was the mother of those born before 1725 including then Oliver and Henry. Do you agree, Cynthia?

Oliver Lanier Brewer, Sr.
Henry Brewer

:D

Henry Brewer is under 12 years old for the birth of his child Hubbard Brewer Hubbard Brewer

The birth order has always been seen to come from the Will order at the top that you posted. Wm 1706, Oliver 1708, Henry 1710, Nathaniel 1712, Sarah 1714, Lanier 1716, George 1718, Nicholas 1720, Howell 1722, and John 1724. Then the repeat of Oliver and Henry at the end is just simply out of order because they were the second and third born. You have accepted Nicholas, Howell, and John as sons of Sarah born from 1720-24 and that is correct because Sarah died with the birth of John and then there was a gap until George remarried. George does name his younger children coming from Alice in his will, right? So there is your Burwell, the deceased Joseph, and possibly Nathaniel (but I should not be the last word on Nathaniel since my Thomas is still connected to him). Alice probably had more children besides these from George. This then also solves the problem with the 1729 birth of Hubbard to Henry.

Meant to say, "George does NOT name his younger children coming from Alice in his will, right?"

Uncertain.

Agreed.
Since Alice was living when he wrote his will, makes some sense he didn't specify anything go to particular children. Assuming he felt she would divide them when she died and provide for them while they were in the home.
Her children (the younger children of George) would have been under a certain age (I would have to look at their marriage date, etc---) Did SHE leave a will>?

Sorry-- I am multi tasking
:)

I just read the will of George again and I really believe the 10 children named in the will were the children of Sarah by George. He left out the children of Alice saying that they were left with the same estate as their mother in order to be supported by it. The gun idea is just fanciful. George could do as he wished and obviously felt that the younger children's inheritance should be left up to the future that their mother gave to them. Then he did a lot of specific gifts of land to his older sons including William, the land on which he lives now, then to Oliver, Henry, and Nathaniel, + So please change it as you will.

Geni.com trees have tended to concentrate all of our attention upon linking to George G. But there were many, many sibling lines back in those days before George was born.

Senior Admin, Hank Graham, of the FTYdna Brewer Project has emailed me the following: "SNP Y182422 is a marker that appears in all descendants of George Brewer.

On FTDNA George Brewer Descendants are Haplogroup I-Y15300+15 SNPs >Subclade I-Y182422 (one SNP Y182522)> several subclades including I-Y23708, I-Y29640, I-Y48399 and men without an additional private variant match I-Y182422*. These L/B Family Units are A ( I-Y182422*descendants of George Brewer and his son John?), F (I-Y23708 and subclades descendants of George Brewer and his son Howell?), G (I-Y29640 and subclades, descendants of George Brewer and his son Lanier?), and H (I-Y48399 descendants of George Brewer and his son Henry).

BigY participants who have the ancestral (negative) form (C) of the marker are NOT direct descendants of George Brewer- they could be a very close earlier relative but not a direct descendant. Both L/B Family Units D and E grouped men are ancestral/negative form (C) at that chromosome position, ChrY 15572568 (Hg38) and do not descend from George Brewer."
So Groups A, F, G, H are all descendants of George with the last 3, F, G, H, having subclades downstream of Y182422. So your Howell is in the George groups. I must disconnect my group E from Nathaniel. I will attach my Thomas line to the Thomas line descending from John II Brewer, grandfather of George. On Geni we now have Group A (Brewer Project) if represented by Wilson born 1801 as descending from Nicholas.

Do we have enough people in Geni?
We may need to add an unknown and attach children

Thomas Brewer ?

Gary Allen Singleton , further back, this ancestor of Thomas who is Thomas 1639 Thomas Brewer, Sr. is showing on Geni as my 10th great uncle: https://www.geni.com/path/Cynthia-Curtis-A183502-US7875087-Tree-bui... .
Does this look correct as per the Y/tree? Is the relationship good/correct?
It will be a good idea to get some of these profiles MP'd to provide a solid foundation to build on and can help keep them correct once they are

George G. Brewer, I is your 22nd cousin thrice removed.
George G. Brewer, II is your 22nd cousin four times removed..
William Lanier Brewer is your 22nd cousin four times removed
Nicholas Brewer, Sr. is your 22nd cousin four times removed.
Lanier Brewer, Sr. is your 22nd cousin four times removed.
Joseph Brewer, I is your 22nd cousin four times removed.
John Lanier Brewer, I is your 22nd cousin four times removed.
Howell Lanier Brewer, I is your 22nd cousin four times removed.
Henry Brewer is your 22nd cousin four times removed.
Sarah Vick is your 22nd cousin four times removed.
Thomas Brewer, Sr. is your 22nd cousin twice removed.
Nathaniel Brewer, Sr. is your 22nd cousin four times removed.
Thomas Brewer is your 22nd cousin 6 times removed.
Hubbard Brewer is your 22nd cousin five times removed.
Burwell Brewer is your 22nd cousin four times removed.
Oliver Brewer is your 22nd cousin four times removed.

https://www.yfull.com/chart/tree/I-Y15031/
Hank Graham sent the above yFull block chart of the configuration of the Brewer subclades showing the relationships. AS far as I have compared, all of the subclades come from males still with the Brewer name and direct descent from the Chard/London/Virginia line of the 3 Johns who came with the immigration to Virginia leading to the sons of John III including George G. Yes, Cynthia, your relationship result to Thomas Sr. b1639 is correct and is the 5 generation line of Thomas's leading to subclade I-Y21524. Eventually I will be able to pull up in my download files the research done by one of the Brewer Project participants which I received from my cousin Bill Brewer. He asked me to look it over because it backs up and some what proves our line coming from John II and son Thomas Sr. b1639. It needs to be studied by us again. But for now I have the YFULL beautiful chart given above which has all the subclades seen in the Brewer Project Lanier/Brewer groups bunching them together with also the downstream subclades. Hank also sent me the complete Haplotree chart for all of them in one download. All that was exactly what I wanted. Thank you, Hank. It shows that we all have the same SNP pathway and come from the same Brewer family line from Chard, Somerset, England. We have had the same success at the Singleton Project where group SY02 includes all the ydna tested results which all descend from the ancient line of Uchtred de Singleton of Broughton, Lancashire, England. They have the same type of Block Chart which clearly has them all together under 5 subclades with 8 different testers. But they all come from Uchtred b1140-1 and his father Huck the Reeve of Singleton. There is another group called SY01 which has an equal number of participants. They have a completely different SNP pathway compared with SY02 and we have found they came from immigrant Henry Singleton whose Singletons came from Singleton Village, Susses, England in 1637 to Virginia.

Yesterday, Cynthia asked the following: further back, this ancestor of Thomas who is Thomas 1639 Thomas Brewer, Sr. is showing on Geni as my 10th great uncle: Is this correct as per the Y/tree? Is the relationship good/correct? I answered you somewhere a couple hours ago that it is correct and the relationship is good as per the SNP pathways coming from the YDNA testing. More later when I finally access the download in my computer on the Thomas Brewer line for when they lived in Halifax County, NC and mother, Mary Martin was born there.

Gary Allen Singleton , I am so excited to see your posts and am thankful

<smile>

Changes from 3/1/2024 at 14:54 to yesterday at 3:42

'''https://www.familysearch.org/tree/pedigree/landscape/L89R-5ST

'''Y DNA of Lanier Brewer, Sr. & Oliver Lanier Brewer, Sr. does not match, So one of them has wrong parents (George Brewer, of Brunswick County & Sarah Brewer)

Disconnecting “Oliver” based on Lanier name.

Ref: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/BrewerDNA?iframe=yresults
----
So difficult to glean from the Revision and history tabs!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There have been merges and disconnects from parents in the revision but I cannot tell when one was just disconnected from a dupe parent who would later be merged or what....
Give me a minute to digest the events and look more closely but Gary may know right away

https://www.geni.com/discussions/199455
Erica Howton C
7/25/2019 at 12:00 PM
Report
The Y DNA mismatch tracks to Lanier Brewer, Sr. &
Oliver Lanier Brewer, Sr

I’ve disconnected Oliver.