Gipsy Dan Boswell

[panished]

Hi Don
           I also thought that Richard could be a Boswell by birth or is Ancestors were, so i looked for a Richard, there was a Richard in the Taylor family married into the Locks from one of my DNA matches trees but that was later down the line, i think he had a nick name to, like longsnout, but keep in mind all Richards evan in later years for this may turn out to be a good clue, i am at present looking at all my DNA matches that have Locke's Locks in their tree, i have only found one male Lock who shares fragments of old DNA with me, but the trouble is he doesn't give much away but the person who managers his DNA page seems to come from America,  the Locke male DNA match to me in the cousin sequence as the name  B.. Locke, i have several people connected to me through DNA with the Locke's in their trees, i am looking for Locke's from the 1600s that could be an older relative to Richard, i thought the record that was found in the Locke family Bible may have had Richards older relatives name on it, and that could be the reason you have not found it, you may be searching for the wrong Locke, as in first name, or even last name, it may also say that the record comes down from the female line with a maiden name contained within, keep in mind also how the Woman of the past were treated, even in the 1900s England they had to fight hard just to have their name on a ballot paper, i have found about three Locke's so far from connected trees to me through the Cousin sequence that Ancestry send me that are from the 1600s, i only share tiny fragments of ancient DNA with my matches but we do share and connect somehow, the Locke's in my matches trees end up in today's names that are Davies and Smith and such from round the Gloucester way, i will show you more later, no doubt you already have what i may find, plus some of my DNA matches end up in married out names that no one knows of in this day and no doubt to some of them have totally lost touch or did not even know about the Gipsy's in their past, yet when i look into their trees i see very old Romany's way back in time, i will show you what i have found later.

Leahcim

[LockeRoots]

Before I say another word, I wanted to tell you thank you for all the hard work you have put in to the Boswell family history and sharing it with the world. What you are doing is very important work and sharing every tid bit of information you have found is exactly what is needing to be done. I am so enjoying reading this thread.

Just know, even if it isn't often enough said to you, myself and many others truly do appreciate all the hard work you are putting in and sharing that research for the world to see.



While the family bible belonged to Rev. Jacob Lock son of Richard Lock & Mary, he did include his parents names and death dates at the top of the Death records page in the family bible.
The family bible was being passed down through the male side of the family up until the most recent generation when it was passed down to one of the daughters. But, she has since passed it on to one of her male Locke family members, to ensure the bible remains in the Locke family.

The female cousin whom owned the family bible, took wonderful photos of the birth, marriage, death pages in the bible even though the bible is in pretty rough shape and some information is missing. Between she and I, we were able to fill in the missing information so we now have a very good translation of the people and dates named in the bible. The pages in the bible are quite frail and even if the remaining pages finally do turn to dust, we have very fine quality digital images of the pages which I have shared on my genealogy facebook page in .pdf format.

It only took me the better part of 30 years of searching before the family bible was found, but try as hard as I have, the British record still has never been found. This is why I decided to share the record information with you and everyone else, just in case someone happens to run in to a similar court record and remembers that I was looking for such a record.

I keep an open mind that anything is possible when it comes to Richard Lock, he may have used an alias surname and Lock may not be his given birth name for all I know and or his first name was an alias, but Richard is a name he stuck with in all the records I can find him being named in, and the name Richard has been passed down through the generations.

While I know quite a lot about Richard Lock, there is also a lot of things that remains unknown about his past. I am sure some of my questions could be answered, if only the record could be found here in the states, but after 30 years of searching, I hold very little hope that it is still in the family.

Like many folks, I tend to have far more questions then answers. lol.

Again many thanks for your time and thoughts.
Don

[panished]

 
 Hi Don

  This is the way i hope to try and help you

Through looking at my DNA matches that are unique to me i just write in the name Locke in the cousin search menu, like i have said only one person of that name comes up as a distant cousin 6th to eighth range, his name is B.. Locke whose profile is managed by June13...... June13 does not put up information about the Locke male yet when i click on her name it shows she is from America and is also searching about the family named Locke and Savage, i do not share DNA with June13.

So i go back on B.. Locke's page and where it says shared DNA i find i share DNA with B.. Locke   and four other people all in one cluster all four of them are from my Maternal side of my DNA and all four of them have the Indian DNA two of them in the 20% range which is a high amount from what i have come to know through my own way of researching.

these are the four people who share DNA with me and the Locke male

DNA Maternal side
Heather  ......
2nd – 3rd Cousin
   
.....aapsolv
4th – 6th Cousin
 
J.B.
Managed by worden.....
4th – 6th Cousin
 
Rebecca ....
4th – 6th Cousin

So Don i look through my cousin matches and see if there is anything that may help you and i find,   
Worden.... who managers J.B page is from Rock Hill, York, South Carolina, USA and on their page is this information.

Romany Family Tree
 
Worden Family Tree
 
Worden/Bigham 
    
Wharton Romany Family Tree
 
Bailey Family Tree
 
Research Interests
Bigham
1770-2000
Chester, South Carolina, USA

 So i was thinking that J.B could be a Bingham, i match to several Wharton's Wardens in other clusters, and the Baileys i do not match to this Warden who managers J.Bs page yet i was thinking these are the names you write about.

Now this is how i may be able to help you, if i write to the male Locke whose DNA matches to me and who also shares DNA with me and what may turn out to be a Bingham and ask them to write to you and help you, they may not answer me and this male Locke may turn out to be one of the Locke's that do not have the H in their DNA, i was looking at some of the photos on June13 ancestry page and saw some Locke's from years back so i just googled their names and found some have the R in their DNA not the H, there is a Weldon Locke in a photo, i have not seen their DNA on-line but i am sure the photo matched a photo i saw on line with is life story this is just an extract " S.....  Weldon Locke was born on September 4, 1946 to Ralph and Memory Locke in Chicago, Illinois". These Locke's may be R DNA Locke's, i am sure one had a L DNA, so without actually writing to my Locke match we will never truly know who he is, i find if you collect the whole story of everything you get the bigger picture of life, this male Locke may in his ancestry have a family connection to let's say a Stanley from the 1860s and that is the DNA that is now joining me and this Locke male in these times with the four other people in the cluster who all share Indian ethnicity, somehow i have lots of Stanley's and such names from America who share DNA with me i do wonder though why is this, then i think the Gipsy peoples were in the British lands for hundreds of years so the DNA Criss crossed between them, i see through the cluster sequence on my Ancestry page how they interlink the clusters, also one person in one cluster with more old family ties then jumps into another cluster and so on until they all link up into one big cluster, you do get some who only have one person sharing with them, maybe they are at the end of their family's in a timescale, you also see how some people share DNA with you and over a hundred others, maybe they have come from and are  linked to many of the old Romany's of the past times i do not really know and i am just trying in my own way to understand there could be several types of combinations, i do know as a fact in my own clusters that the clusters only link to each other, in my Maternal line of DNA you will see other Cousin Clusters far smaller than the Gipsy clusters yet they never Criss cross each other, i have tried to be as open and honest in everything i have wrote to you in the knowledge i have been reading, try not to get disappointed in your long years of researching, remember to when you are gone to this world others reading your words will expand on your writings and find more truths, maybe you will never find all you seek and it is destined for another who comes after you to find and help in your research, i think this is just the way of it in the land of the researcher.


Don
  i will look at my other matches who share DNA with me who also have the Locke's in their family tree, i will look for secrets and things and get back to you, one at a time i will do over the weeks ahead, or months but just keep looking in now and then, you don't need to keep writing to me, but you must say if anything is of interest and whether you would like me to write to anyone on your behalf, like i say they may not answer, but i least we tried

good luck Don.






 

[LockeRoots]

This is likely the wrong subject for this message board for this discussion, but I will hit the DNA subject anyway lol.

As long as the Lock / Locke male is a biological son of a Mr. Locke, 100% of the males born to the same common male ancestor, will all share the same Y chromosome. In other words, it does not matter if 2 Lock / Locke men are brothers, father and son, 1st cousins or 10th cousins, because they all shared the same common male ancestor back in their family tree, they will all share the same Y chromosome.

Every biological Lock / Locke male born to the same paternal tree, share the same Y chromosome.
It is physically impossible for 2 Lock / Locke men to be in different Y Haplogroups because they can not have shared the same common male ancestor.

We can Y DNA test 100 biological Lock / Locke men whom are say the direct male  descendants of Richard Lock & Mary, and all 100 men as longs as they are a biological descendant, will all share the same Y chromosome. Now it is always possible there are cases of what is known as NPE, Non Paternal Event, meaning adoption, surname change from a step son taking on his step fathers Locke surname or any number of other situations that proves he is not a biological descendant of the Locke family he grew up in. In such a case of NPE, he would carry a different Y Haplogroup, he is a Lock / Locke in name, but he can never carry the Y Haplogroup of the Locke paternal lineage that he grew up with.

All 3 branches of the Lock family tree have proven to carry Y Haplogroup H-M82.
The male descendants of the following branches, all carry H-M82.

1. Richard Lock & Mary.
2. George Lock & Sarah Hiatt
3. Matthew Lock & Remberance Boswell

It does not matter which of the three Lock branches we Y DNA test, every biological Lock / Locke male born to those specific Lock family's, as long as he is a biological descendant, should all carry
Y Haplogroup H-M82. This is exactly how we know who is related, and who is not related, by comparing a Lock / Locke male Y chromosome against all other men of of the Lock / Locke surname whom have also Y DNA tested.

A Locke in Y Haplogroup R* can not have shared a common male ancestor with a Locke in Y Haplogroup H*, physically impossible to be related to the same paternal ancestor. IE: Meaning no paternal kinship between those 2 Locke men.

The same basically applies to every paternal lineage regardless the surname being looked at, every paternal lineage has their own SNP ( Y Haplogroup ) making each paternal lineage distinct from other paternal lineages of the same surname.

The same would apply to the Boswell family. We know 3 Boswell / Jackson males have Y DNA tested and are positive for Y Haplogroup H-M82, and any other male of the Boswell surname whom are not in Y Haplogroup H-M82 can not have shared a common male ancestor with those 3 Y DNA participants.
And because the 3 Boswell / Jackson Y DNA participants do Y DNA match each other, we know those 3 specific men must have shared the same common male ancestor some where back in their family trees.

Imagine this, I can at random pick out a Mr. Lock / Locke in my family tree from any branch of the family tree and I would know if he were Y DNA tested, he too would carry Y Haplogroup H-M82 because he and I share the same common male ancestor. We can Y DNA test 12 men, 50 men even 100 men of the same surname born to the same paternal lineage of the same surname, and know he will share the same Y chromosome as the rest of the men in the tree whom have been Y DNA tested.

For many folks, that is a hard thing to grasp and visualize, but it truly does not matter how 2 men of the same surname whom are born to the same paternal lineage are related, they will share the same Y chromosome even if they are as distantly related as say 10th cousins.

If we review the same 3 Lock branches whom have proven to be a Y DNA match to one another, I will show you the Y DNA test results.

1. Richard Lock & Mary have 12 Lock / Locke males Y DNA tested, all 12 are in Y Haplogroup H-M82
2. George Lock & Sarah Hiatt have 4 Lock / Locke males Y DNA tested, all 4 are in Y Haplogroup H-M82
3. Matthew Lock & Remberance Boswell have 2 Lock / Locke males Y DNA tested, both are in Y Haplogroup H-M82

The 18 Lock / Locke Y DNA participants known as Group 2 in the Locke Y DNA project, are all a Y DNA match to each other, proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that they all shared the same common male ancestor some where back in their family trees.

The kinship between Richard Lock and Matthew Lock, is a kinship that had to have taken place back in the UK in the late 1600's to early to mid 1700's era. But regardless this old kinship between the 2 Lock men, it is clearly evident they both shared a common male Lock ancestor some where in both Lock family trees because the direct male descendants share the same Y chromosome.

That is the beauty of Y DNA testing, the Y DNA participants are either a Y DNA match, or they are not and we can rule out any direct paternal kinship between 2 men of the same surname if they do not share the same Y chromosome. Y DNA testing proving a Y DNA match, allows us to focus our genealogical research time specifically on those paternal lineages of the same surname because they have proven to be a Y DNA match.

[panished]

Hi Don

          I used to listen to Vince and Linda plus the Burton man talking about the subject of the Y DNA, in fact lots of people used to talk about it, i remember one fellow who knew so much about the history of the Gipsy's, he had knowledge of the old language in a great way, he learned of all his family history in a modern sense but then the DNA just hit the town running and was a revelation to everyone, this fellow had the test thinking he had the unbroken male line but the result came out different, i never once over the years ever have known of him talking on-line again, i felt sorry for him if he thought bad of his situation, there can be no doubt that all the evidence is true that a male line if left untouched unbroken is a true line of descent in the biological history of a male person, so if the oldest member of that family line in relatively modern history as a male was from the people known as the Romany in today's talk then the evidence is easy to understand, thank you for explaining to everyone, there may be people who read these words for the first time.

Don i am just trying to find clues in peoples shared DNA, i understand it is not the Y H DNA i am sure there are many clues out there, as you know there will be far more people without the Y H DNA than with it, yet those people will still connect, i am looking for clues through peoples family trees with or without the Y H DNA, i know a male line of Romany Locke's must all share the same Y Haplogroup H-M82. i have always known that for several years now Vince was very proud to learn of this as was the others they were very proud to know that they are from the oldest of the Romany in a direct line right back to the lands known in this time as India, and they should be proud to, if i had the Y DNA of the Romany Gipsy's i would also be proud, i hope i may be of help to you and will try my best.

Leahcim

[LockeRoots]

I try to explain things not just for you, but for everyone whom maybe interested.

I built a chart a few years ago using my own cousins as the example of how DNA recombination plays a roll in our autosomal DNA test results.

Laura ( mother is a Locke )
Laura is a 4th cousin to Donald D., they are not a match
Laura is a 3rd cousins 1x removed to Donald G Jr., they are a match
Laura is a 2nd cousins 2x removed to Jacob, they are a match
Laura is a 5th cousin 1x removed to Crystal, they are not a match
Laura is a 4th cousin to John, they are a match
Laura is a half 1st cousin to Debra, they are a match
Laua is a half 1st cousin to Allison, they are a match
Laura is a half niece to David, they are a match
Laura is a 4th cousin 1x removed to Kenneth, they are not a match

Donald G. Jr. is a 2nd cousin 3x removed to Jacob, they are not a match
Donald G Jr is a 3rd cousins 1x removed to Laura, they are a match
Donald G Jr is a 4th cousin to Donald D., they are not a match
Donald G Jr is a 6th cousin to Crystal, they are not a match
Donald G. Jr is a 4th cousin 1x removed to John, they are not a match
Donald G. Jr. is a 3rd cousin 2x removed to Debra, they are not a match
Donald G. Jr. is a 3rd cousin 1x removed to Allison, they are a match
Donald G. Jr. is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to David, they are a match
Donald G. Jr. is a 4 cousin 2x removed to Kenneth, they are not a match

Donald D. is a 4th cousin to Laura, they are not a match.
Donald D. is a 4th cousin to Donald G Jr, they are not a match.
Donald D. is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to Jacob, they are a match.
Donald D is a 5th cousin 1x removed to Crystal, they are not a match
Donald D. is a 1st cousin to John, they are a match
Donald D. is a 4th cousin to Debra, they are a match
Donald D. is a 4th cousin to Allison, they are a match
Donald D. is a 3rd cousin 1x removed to David, they are a match
Donald D. is a 4th cousin 1x removed to Kenneth, they are not a match

Jacob is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to Donald D., they are a match.
Jacob is a 2nd cousin 3x removed to Donald G Jr., they are not a match
Jacob is a 2nd cousins 2x removed to Laura, they are a match
Jacob is a 3rd cousin 3x removed to Crystal, they are not a match
Jacob is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to John, they are a match
Jacob is a 2nd cousin 2 time removed to Debra, they are not a match
Jacob is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to Allison, they are a match
Jacob is a 2nd cousin 1x removed to David, they are a match
Jacob is a 3rd cousin 1x removed to Kenneth, they are not a match

John ( mother is a Locke )
John is a 4th cousin 1x removed to Donald G. Jr., they are not a match
John is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to Jacob, they are a match
John is a 1st cousin to Donald D, they are a match
John is a 4th cousin to Laura, they are a match
John is a 5th cousin 1x removed to Crystal, they are not a match
John is a 4th cousin to Debra, they are a match
John is a 4th cousin to Allison( no information yet )
John is a 3rd cousin 1 time removed to David, they are not a match
John is a 5th cousin 1x removed to Crystal, they are not a match
John is a 4th cousin 1x removed to Kenneth, they are not a match

Debra is a 4th cousin to Donald D. they are a match
Debra is a 3rd cousin 2x removed to Donald G. Jr, they are not a match
Debra is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to Jacob, they are not a match
Debra is a half 1st cousin to Laura, they are a match
Debra is a 4th cousin to John, they are a match
Debra is a 5th cousin 1x removed to Crystal, they are not a match
Debra is a half sibling to Allison, they are a match
Debra is a half niece to David, they are a match
Debra is a 5th cousin 1x removed to Crystal, they are not a match
Debra is a 4th cousin 1x removed to Kenneth, they are not a match

Allison is a 4th cousin to Donald D., they are a match
Allison is a 3rd cousin 1x removed to Donald G. Jr, they are a match
Allison is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to Jacob, they are a match
Allison is a half 1st cousin to Laura, they are a match
Allison is a 4th cousin to John, they are a match
Allison is a 5th cousin to Crystal, they are not a match
Allison is a half sibling to Debra, they are a match
Allison is a half niece to David, they are a match
Allison is a 4th cousin 1x removed to Kenneth, they are a match

David is a 3rd cousin 1x removed to Donald D., they are a match
David is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to Donald G. Jr., they are a match
David is a 2nd cousin 1x removed to Jacob, they are a match
David is a half uncle to Laura, they are a match
David is a 3rd cousin 1x removed to John, they are not a match
David is a half uncle to Debra, they are a match
David is a half uncle to Allison, they are a match
David is a 4th cousin 2x removed to Crystal, they are not a match
David is a 4th cousin to Kenneth, they are a match

[LockeRoots]

I share this autosomal DNA information to show everyone that there are limitations in the autosomal DNA test that everyone may not fully be aware of.

Every one of those cousins that I just shared with you all, are paper trail proven to be directly related and I show exactly to the very degree of kinship they are to one another, and as you will see in that post, not everyone is an autosomal DNA match due to DNA recombination.

[LockeRoots]

In that example of what I shared, I used cousin Crystal in that example because while she is a direct descendant of the same paternal Locke ancestor, she descended from a different son of the common male ancestor and she is not an autosomal DNA match to any of her cousins whom descended from another brother.

Other then Crystal, the other autosomal DNA participants all descended from the same branch of the Lock family tree, while Crystal's branch is a brother to the ancestor of all the other autosomal DNA participants. Some of the male autosomal participants have also Y DNA tested and even though some of them are not an autosomal DNA match, they are a Y DNA match!

Had they all solely relied on autosomal DNA, some of the Locke's would never have found one another, it took the use of the Y DNA test to help find one another. In our case, we already knew we were all related long before we DNA tested. But again, had some of us only relied on the autosomal DNA test, it became painfully clear to me that using autosomal DNA alone, some of us would not have found each other because not every cousin is an autosomal DNA match and it took including the use of Y DNA testing to prove they are a Y DNA match.

[LockeRoots]

The whole point to this is, autosomal DNA is a great DNA test, but people need to understand that there are limitations due to DNA recombination, we may be an autosomal DNA match to some cousins, but not a match to all the cousins. You would never know you had more cousins autosomal DNA tested with the same DNA company you had used, because thanks to DNA recombination, they are not an autosomal DNA match to you.

I am the prime example here, I am Donald G. Jr. from that chart.
And as you all see, I am not an autosomal DNA match to my male Locke cousins, Jacob, Donald D. and Kenneth. Yet myself, Jacob, Donald D. and Kenneth also Y DNA tested and we are in fact a Y DNA match to one another. So regardless what we learned or didn't learn through autosomal DNA, it took a different DNA test the Y DNA test to help us prove kinship, even though we knew in advance that we were all related to one another years before we got involved in DNA testing.

Donald G. Jr. is a 2nd cousin 3x removed to Jacob, they are not a match
Donald G Jr is a 3rd cousins 1x removed to Laura, they are a match
Donald G Jr is a 4th cousin to Donald D., they are not a match
Donald G Jr is a 6th cousin to Crystal, they are not a match
Donald G. Jr is a 4th cousin 1x removed to John, they are not a match
Donald G. Jr. is a 3rd cousin 2x removed to Debra, they are not a match
Donald G. Jr. is a 3rd cousin 1x removed to Allison, they are a match
Donald G. Jr. is a 2nd cousin 2x removed to David, they are a match
Donald G. Jr. is a 4 cousin 2x removed to Kenneth, they are not a match