James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Public Forum for anyone interested in tracing their roots.
Forum rules
Remember that this forum is publicly accessible. Do not share private information that you wish to remain private on the Ancestral Search forum.

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Roberta Gilbert » Sun Jul 31, 2016 3:33 am

Digging into my tree and emails, I have found:
kit # 499765 John Scott, Kit # 109136 Robert N Livingston & I all come from Jacob, Sr (son of James & Catharina), & Sarah House:
Scott from their son John (1768-1862) & Magdalena Palmatier
I from James (1771-1836) & Susannah Jackson
and Kit # 109136 Robert N Livingston from Jacob (1777-1853), Jr & Sally Van Kleeck
So: the 2 testers I know are from James & Catharina come from the son Jacob, Sr & Sarah House, but from two different sons of Jacob, Sr & Sarah.
kit # 499765 (John Scott) from John & Magdalena, and Kit # 109136 (Robert) from John's brother Jacob, Jr

Don't know if that helps anyone (esp Kyle &/or Andrew) analyze the results
Roberta Gilbert
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Canadian Livingstone » Sun Jul 31, 2016 6:27 am

Hi Roberta,

In the process of consulting with our Clan Maclea Livingstone Society DNA Project people regarding your questions. Yes I think that information may be helpful.

If you have access to the matches page when you log in at familytreedna for the 67 marker test with the list of names of matches to your relative tested there should be an e-mail address included I think in most cases. If you have access to the matches page how many of thoseLivingstons you mentioned in your previous post are actually matching with your relative you had tested? I know that you mentioned one matching are any of these other Livingtons you mentioned in your previous message showing up with your relatives 67 marker matches? I only have access to the matches of my cousin and two other livings tons whom I sponsored, so I don't have the latest precise information on the matches of your specific Livingston family group, but it sounds very encouraging if you have found a Livington match or two with your Livingston relative that was tested.


regards,

Donald
Canadian Livingstone
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Roberta Gilbert » Sun Jul 31, 2016 5:02 pm

Herbert Livingston doesn't show up on John Scott's FTDNA matches. Only in the Project. Robert N Livingston was the match on the FTDNA match page. That's how I learned that he & Scott come from 2 different sons of Jacob L & Sarah House.
Roberta Gilbert
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Canadian Livingstone » Tue Aug 09, 2016 6:18 pm

Hi Roberta,

Sorry I was not able to get back to you sooner regarding your question. I did consult with Kyle on the results regarding the apparent participants that are not matching with your cousin and the other close match with your Livingston cousin and yet have family history info which links them to your ancestor and your cousin's ancestor James Livingston of 18th century Kinderhook Livingstons. All more perplexing because their genealogy as you have states also links them to Jame Livingston of the 18th century Kinderhook Livingston family. I looked at a couple of other families doing DNA testing and it seems to be problem not unique to some of the Livington families being tested.

One thought was adoption. It could be that someone shares a family connection with the others but somewhere along the line there was an adoption or some other occurrence along those lines that of course generations later would show in a DNA test as a significant difference in results when compared with others in the family line who are in fact direct male descendants of the original ancestor. Adoption in the old days was not recorded, so many families doing family research today may not be even aware that one of their ancestors was adopted. The other situation is that sometimes a daughter of a farmer might have a son born out of wedlock and it was not uncommon in times past in that situation for the daughters father and mother to raise that child as if it were their own and the child takes on the daughter's family name. Again years later when the descendant of that child researches their family they find to their surprise that their DNA results do not match other descendants of his family group who have a genealogy paper trail suggesting they are cousins of some sort. Most family researchers probably have no idea whether any of their distant ancestors were adopted or would be able find any surviving records from the 18th or even 19th century indicating that an adoption took place. The odd time going through the old Church of Scotland Parish records I find a minister has included in an baptism entry that the child baptized was "illegitimate" and in later death records in Scotland I found it recorded that a couple of Livingstons were recorded "illegitimate" when they were listing the parents of the deceased. Maybe they were required to include that at the time I don't know.

I don't know that any adoptions etc. occurred in the Kinderhook Livington family group and to be honest there is no way of knowing really that such an event occurred in the 18th or 19th century in any event in many or most cases. So these things definitely happened back then but without any surviving documentation of an early 18th or even 19th century adoption which is probably unlikely, pretty much impossible to prove I would think. But in some cases like this it is a possible explanation.

Over a few years I worked with a interesting family history project with others which involved determining how a non Livingston whose family who were neighbours in the 19th century to a family of Livingstons could be a close genetic match with the family of Livington's next store. In that case there was an old family rumour that one of the children was actually a Livingston. As I went over the information for the last few years i took another fresh look at the census and other info and came to conclusion that for what ever reason a Livingston boy and possible one other child a daughter were adopted and changed their name to the family that adopted them. One of them the boy whose descendant had a Y chromosome DNA test I thought must of been the Livingston adopted into that family that was likely the source of the old family rumour. There were not documents to prove that such an adoption had taken place that and did not seem to me that the Livingston children adopted were fathered by the neighbouring Livingston farmer but most likely I suspect by the Livingston farmer's single brother who lived in the neighbouring County. He disappeared shortly after the children were born and after that apparently they lived with relatives until they apparently adopted by the Livingston farmer's neighbour. So I don't know who the mother was never figured that out. It might have been a daughter of the family that adopted them but I don't think that is the case. I only have good hunch it was the neighbour Livingston's brother in the neighbouring County who disappears seemingly after the children were born that most likely in my opinion was the father. An ancestor of the boy clearly has Livingston DNA which matches him to two descendants of the Livingston farmer who lived the next door to the family that adopted the Livingston boy, so one way or another the DNA results I think suggest some sort of connection with the neighbouring Livingston family through the Livingston farmer's mysterious brother. That being said it is just a plausible theory that I can't state definitely occurred along the lines I suggest as I cannot be certain this is the actual scenario it is just one possible scenario. Anyways no doubt there are other situations in the past like this and years later the details are forgotten by later generations so you just don't know of any kind of adoption situation which may have occurred if indeed it did.

The other less complicated explanation is somewhere along the line someone got it wrong about their ancestors. Some relative may have passed on to them inaccurate family history info. People can be mistaken in their genealogy research regarding who their ancestor or ancestor were and actually belong to another family group unknown to them for one reason or another. It does happen quite frequently. Is it possible someone is in error regarding their ancestral connection in this situation you mentioned? I really don't know Roberta.

regards,

Donald
Canadian Livingstone
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Roberta Gilbert » Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:33 pm

My confusion is that Herbert Livingston #280901 is in our "9- M222 Ui Niall" group in the Livingston/MacLea/Boggs Surname DNA Project, but not on Scott's Y matches. I was wondering how he could show up as a Y match to Scott & Robert in the Project but not show up in Scott's Y DNA matches.
Roberta Gilbert
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Canadian Livingstone » Wed Aug 10, 2016 1:45 am

Hi Roberta,

I have left a message with both Andrew and Kyle regarding your question.

One thought has just come to mind. I don't know if this will help but I had this thought. I don't know if you know that Andrew Lancaster's Lancaster Boggs Maclea Livingstone DNA web page the one I think you are talking about includes livingstons tested by familytreedna and as well other Livingstons tested by other DNA testing companies. These other results from other DNA test companies won't appear on the familytreedna matches list when you go to the familytreedna web page and check the test results that company in Texas has done. I don't know if this is the case in this situation but if that is the case that if some of those descendants of James Livington and Catharine Kuhn are being tested by some other DNA testing company other than familytreedna, you won't find their results on the familytreedna matches. The Lancaster Bogg Maclea Livingstone page for example that has results includes a significant number of Livingstons who were not tested by familytreedna as well as some familytreedna results. Just another thought that might explain why the other web page of results has an additional Livingston match that the familytreedna matches from their website does not. Let me know if that could possibly explain the discrepancy in the matches you encountered between the two different matches lists. It was only other thing I could think of. If not then Andrew and Kyle may be in a better position to answer your question.

regards,

Donald
Canadian Livingstone
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Roberta Gilbert » Wed Aug 10, 2016 2:26 am

Thanks, Donald, I believe that may be the answer!

I accessed the Livingston/MacLea/Boggs Surname DNA Project I was talking about through FTDNA group link. This one: Project Website
Livingston/MacLea www.familytreedna.com/groups/livingston-maclea-dna.

And this is the chart that had the Herbert Livingston match: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/li ... ycolorized

And this is the FTDNA match page I was talking about: https://www.familytreedna.com/my/y-dna-matches.aspx. These are the only Livingston that show up there:
Clarence David Livingston R-M173
Robert Nelson Livingston Jr. R-M269
Roberta Gilbert
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Canadian Livingstone » Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:36 am

Hi Roberta,

Sorry. Wish I thought of that earlier. Sometimes the most simple of solutions are missed. So many inquiries lately on the forum for a change I guess my brain is on overload. So then there are in total two matches with your cousin. Your cousin and one match are with familytreedna and another match with another DNA test company that you noticed was included on the Lancaster Boggs Maclea Livingstone site test participant results list. Does that sound right?

regards,

Donald
Canadian Livingstone
 
Posts: 2626
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Roberta Gilbert » Wed Aug 10, 2016 4:00 am

Yep Sounds right. Thanks
Roberta Gilbert
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:05 pm

Re: James Livingston/Catherina Kuhn ancestry

Postby Roberta Gilbert » Tue Aug 07, 2018 4:58 pm

I just got the FTDNA results from my 2nd cousin once removed (he is the great grandson to my great-great grandfather Giles Livingston), Clifton Livingston kit #859693. He does not match the descendants of James of Kinderhook--John Scott Livingston kit # 499765. :shock: Rather he is a genetic distance of 3 from R1a group John Allan Livingston #31630 and Glynn Barrie Livingstone 110480. So, it seems as if Giles paternal grandparents were not James Livingston & Susannah Jackson of the Kinderhook Livingstons. :(

Back to drawing board--went from one unique group (Kinderhooks, based on info from others of that line) to another one (based on DNA). We know which group is most accurate since DNA doesn't lie.

Would appreciate anyone's help untangling my Livingston DNA web. :?
Roberta
Roberta Gilbert
 
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 5:05 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Ancestral Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests

cron