Broket DNA Project

Written records will never make connections between some Broket Groups and Clans, but Y-chromosome analysis can.

Please email if you want to take part.

So far 16 people with the surname—'Subjects'—have taken part in this project. While maintaining strict confidentiality of all living persons, basic details of their lineage are in the Notes below. Here in brief are the Subjects' oldest known ancestor:

These numbers correspond to the samples in the next sections.

This table lists the repeats of the markers from the samples taken from inside the cheeks of 16 men with the surname:

The Wikipedia (31 Dec 2006) gave the following descriptions of these haplogroups:

The 16 samples show at least 7 entirely different Brockett Groups. It's illuminating that so many can emerge from such a small island.

1. Thomas of Lambeth, London, b 1809-14

Thomas of Lambeth was probably born in Bexley, Kent.

2. William of Norfolk, Virginia, probably bap 1654 Wells, Somerset

William of Norfolk entered a 4 year indenture in Bristol on 6 Aug 1668, bound for Virginia.

3. Benjamin of Craven County, North Carolina, c 1725-58

That the father of William 1748-1821, who married Martha 'Patsey' IVES in new Bern NC in 1771, was Benjamin is seen from a 1773-4 deed from Craven Co, NC (l 12). Piecing together surviving documents from North Carolina, it had been deduced that Benjamin descended from Francis II, probable younger brother of Joshua, ancestor of Subject 2. The earliest surviving record of Benjamin is from Craven Co, NC, in 1743. This was less than a day's journey from Pasquotank Co, NC, home to Joshua and Francis. Benjamin's wife, Sarah, was apparently a daughter of William Stevens of Pasquotank Co, and they named their first child William after him, according to the custom. So despite the lack of actual documentary evidence, given the history and geography of the colonial settlements, it seems likely that Benjamin was one of the Pasquotank clan. Yet the large number of differences between the DNA of Subjects 3 and 2 make it impossible for Subject 3 to descend from so near a common ancestor as Francis II. Indeed for our purposes the two cannot be said to be related. The same could also be said of the impossibility of Subjects 3 and 6 having a common ancestor in William 1748-1821 (see Subject 6 below).

EJ Brockett had placed William 1748-1821 who married Martha IVES in new Bern NC in 1771 as s/o Elisha of Wallingford, CT, a descendant of John of Newhaven:

As in much of his book, EJ Brockett's sources were largely undocumented, and while William and Patsey certainly had a son Elisha (see Subject 6), William's father was Benjamin, not Elisha, and John b 1685 isn't recorded as having a son Benjamin. The Genealogy of the Ives Family suggests also that Martha descended from IVESes from Virginia and that the CT Thomas IVES died childless (AC Ives 1932).

Moreover, Subject 3 has four differences from Subject 5—a descendant from John of Newhaven:

A match resolution of 39/43 'indicates that it is unlikely that the two men share direct paternal-line ancestry in fewer than 20 generations' (www.relativegenetics.com May 2007). Subject 3 can therefore safely be said not to descend from John of Newhaven, 11 generations back from the Subjects. By contrast, Subject 6 below, also a descendant of William and Martha 'Patsey' IVES—through son Elisha—can definitely be said to descend from John of Newhaven. This opens up questions which can only be answered by more Subjects from this grouping.

Subject 5's sample tested 43 markers, whereas Subject 4's sample tested 40, 452 being one of the missing ones. It is most likely that 452 of Subject 4 would be 14 like Subject 5. But if this isn't assumed, and the wilder assumption is made that 452 of Subject 4 would be 15 like Subject 5, then 3 differences indicate 'that the two men presumably share direct paternal-line ancestry', but statistically this would be further back in time than John of Newhaven himself.

4/5/6. John of Newhaven, Connecticut, b 1610-20

John sailed from London to Newhaven, Connecticut in 1637. It had previously been thought that John may have descended from the Dunton clan, but since Subjects 8, 9 and 10 descend from them, John of Newhaven will have a different origin.

Subject 4 descends from John of Newhaven through Ebenezer and Esther HOADLEY, Subject 5 through Stephen and Hannah GOODSELL and Subject 6's line is yet to be determined:

The samples presented on this webpage have been analysed by DNAHeritage except Subject 4. DNAHeritage samples tested 43 markers, whereas Subject 4's sample, analysed by the Sorenson Molecular Genealogy Foundation—'SMGF'—tested 40, as of Jan 2007. In those 40 markers Subjects 4 and 5 have only 1 mismatch: GGAAT1B07, with 11 and 10 repeats respectively. With matches of 42 out of 43 markers 'two men share direct paternal-line ancestry statistically in fewer than 8 generations' (www.relativegenetics.com May 2007). With matches of 39 out of 40 markers it can safely be said that Subjects 4 and 5 both descend from John of Newhaven. Subject 6 differs from Subject 5 in the same way that Subject 4 does: GGAAT1B07, with 11 and 10 repeats respectively. Subject 6 therefore is probably identical to Subject 4.

The line of descent of Subject 6 from John of Newhaven, although confirmed, has yet to be determined by name. As mentioned under Subject 3 above, EJ Brockett gave it as:

But Nash (2000) found documentary evidence that William 1748-1821's father was Benjamin of Craven County, NC, c 1725-58, not Elisha, and that John b 1685 wasn't recorded as having a son Benjamin. Prior to this DNA test it had therefore been thought that Benjamin was one of the NC Pasquotank clan and probably descended ultimately from William of Norfolk, Virginia, probably bap 1654 Wells, Somerset (see Subject 2 above). But this DNA result now proves this incorrect. If Subject 6 definitely descends from William 1748-1821, then Benjmain of Craven County, NC, c 1725-58, must descend from John of Newhaven.

A further complication arises in that Subject 3 is also thought to descend from Benjamin of Craven County—through an older son of William 1748-1821—but Subject 3 differs from Subject 6 in the same three ways as from Subject 5, making a relationship for our purposes between Subjects 3 and 6 impossible. See the discussion under Subject 3 above.

The haplogroup Q of Subjects 4 and 5 was determined by the Whit Athey Haplogroup Predictor.

7. John of Newhaven, Connecticut, b 1610-20

Subject 7 descends from John of Newhaven through a younger son of John of Newhaven: Samuel and his wife Sarah BRADLEY:

But the numerous differences between Subject 7 and Subjects 4, 5 and 6, mean that Subject 7 is not related to them through John of Newhaven.

8/9/10. William of Hitchin, b c 1490

Subjects 8, 9 and 10 are all descendants of William and Ann HALL of Guilden Morden, and so also of William of Hitchin, b c 1490. Subject 8 is from John and Martha JERMIN's line and Subjects 9 and 10 from William and MARY BUTCHER's line.

Over 200 years there has been only one variation: Marker DYS458 has 17 repeats with Subjects 8 and 9, and 16 with Subject 10.

11. William of Kempston, d 1740, and Sarah ...

12. John of Colworth and Bedford, b c 1798

That there is only one variation between Subjects 11 and 12—Marker DYS458 has 18 repeats with Subject 12 and 14 with Subject 11—shows that the two descend from a common ancestor. Coincidentally, this is the same marker which differed in Subjects 8, 9 and 10.

13. John of Kimbolton, b c 1771, and Elizabeth PAIN

Subjects 12 and 13 are identical. This suggests that John of Kimbolton was more closely related to John of Colworth than to William of Kempston. It also proves what had been thought likely before this DNA testing but unprovable because of the lack of written records—that the large 19-21 C Lincolnshire Clan is part of the Bedfordshire Group.

14. James of Carnwath, bur 1699

Subject 14 has 6 differences from Subject 16, with whom he is therefore unrelated:

This means that there at least two different Scottish Broket groupings.

15/16. John of ?Lesmahagow, b 1706 or 1709, and Janet SMYTH

Subjects 15 and 16 are both descendants of sons of John Wilson of Penicuik 1837-1911, who descended from John of ?Lesmahagow, b 1706 or 1709, and Janet SMYTH. The large number of differences between the two Subjects shows that they do not descend from the same ancestor, probably proving that William, b 1860, was adopted—as noted in the 1871 census.