Beasley DNA Update 6
Doug to Mark Sun 4/5/2009 12:33 PM
Now that I read this more closely… this is news to me: that the Essex County Beasley’s are ruled out by Haplotype. I guess I didn’t catch that. It certainly clears out the brush quite a bit to know that. Have you read Anton’s description of how and why Beasley’s left England? I wonder if that is a story of the Essex County Beasley’s?
I think one of the things I’d like to know about the early lines we are considering is social status and social connections. I get the idea that the Essex County Beasley’s are fairly high class, plantation types and more likely slave owners. There are also quite a few Beazley’s in that category. On the other hand, there are relatively few Beezley ancestors that show up on the slave owner’s lists, but I’m not saying that is proven.
I spoke about this with John Beatty at one point and he sees that the Beezley’s tended to be more interested in migration than in staying put… more “backwoods” types. This is what leads me to believe that “most” people who use the Beezley spelling might actually prove to be related. Notice that all known Beezley lines originate in Virginia, but hardly anyone stayed there. Even the southern lines spent brief times in Alabama or Tennessee, but ended up in Texas and Missouri almost exclusively. It was the Beasley’s who stayed in the coastal south through the 1800’s and many even today. Even among the few Beezley’s currently living in the south, everyone I’ve talked to has come there within the last few decades from the western US.
Likewise, among the Beasley’s, there must be some cultural clues that would distinguish one clan from another.
Incidentally, I might point out that there are a couple Beezley lines that either carried through the Beasley spelling or changed back. The Beasley’s in my line mostly “daughtered out” but there are a few who would probably show a DNA test in the blue group due to a connection with my line in the 1800’s.
| < Prev |
|---|