Why are William & Thomas Harvey of Taunton MA, not connected?

Question

I noted that William Harvey-243 and Thomas Harvey-1871, both PPP, are not connected as brothers.  Both show the same mother, Joan Collier.  One shows the father as Thomas Harvey Sr.,  One shows a known ancestry for Joan Collier. I descend froom Thomas 1871, and have always read about them as brothers of Ashill, Somerset, England.  I remember the Harvey Book being a bit fact free on these earlier generations. As this may have been a subject here before, I am asking my question why these known brothers are not connected before I do so.  Thank you.

Answer 1

William Harvey has mother Joan Collier-488

Thomas Harvey has mother Joan Collier-1106

So the two Joans need to be merged. But I would read all the DNA stuff on the two pages. There seems to be reason for doubt.

Comments

Thanks, as a Thomas descendant I had not read the William data as closely.  I thought there must be a good reason they were not connected.  The DNA discussion answers that.

Answer 2

After some quick checking around on a line which is not mine, I would ask you how do you know they are brothers?  I will concede this has been published since the 1850s but as far as I can tell there is absolutely no proof of this other than the same last name. I can’t tell you how many early English immigrants are called brothers based on a same name and have later prove to be false.  Now with the DNA evidence strongly suggesting they are not brothers it would not be right to link them without further proof.

Second, how do you know that either of them is a son of Thomas Harvey of Ashill.  The English ancestry is based on the will of Agnes Clarke of Ashill who “bequeath unto William Harvey the son of Thomas Harvey deceased, my kinsman, now in New England.”  This is a great clue however there were three William Harvey’s in New England, and there is no way to know who the will referred to.  William Harvey of Boston is said to the person in question; William Harvey of Taunton is said to the person in question – which one is it?  An analysis of the problem by the well-known genealogist Mary Lovering Holman concluded that the William Harvey referred to in the will of Agnes Clarke was almost certainly William Harvey of Boston who married Martha Copp, and that this William was not the same person as William Harvey of Taunton.

Third, there is no such person as Joan Collier.  If it is anyone it has to be Joan Colles who married a Thomas Harvye on 22 June 1612 in Ashill.

Maybe these questions are easily answered by someone familiar with Harvey research ( but I don’t think so).  Until they are, rather than linking these profiles together, I would disconnect all parents from both William and Thomas Harvey, and also not link them as brothers.

Holman, Mary Lovering,. Ancestry of Charles Stinson Pillsbury and John Sargent Pillsbury. unknown: unknown, 1938.

Comments

Joe, well said but with one correction i.e. : two William Harveys in early Boston - not three.  One William H married Joanne Hucker in April 1639 - lived in Boston until after 1645 when he moved to Taunton where his last child, Jonathan Harvey's birth is recorded as being  in 1647.  This William H b. 1614, d. 1691 was the one noted as being a proprietor of ancient Taunton.  His Y-DNA haplogroup can only be assumed at this point as it has only been confirmed by testing thus far to descendants of  his purported gr-grandson, Zachariah Harvey b. 1711 (a 2 generation test gap).  The proven Y of Zachariah does not match with either the proven Y of the reputed brother Thomas Harvey b. 1617 or with the proven Y of the second William Harvey d.1658 in Boston.

The second William H married Martha Copp in Boston and d. there in 1658.  His Y-DNA haplogroup does not match the Y-DNA haplogroup of the reputed brother, Thomas Harvey b. 1617, or the assumed  Y-DNA haplogroup (as explained above) of William Harvey b. 1614 d. 1691. 

So---  the issue is still in doubt until the generation test gap is closed by testing of descendants of the father or grandfather of Zachariah Harvey or by testing of descendants of earlier ancestors of William Harvey b.1614 d. 1691.  The ultimate solution may lie with the SNP research being advanced by whole genome sequencing.

---

Thank you William, I am sure you are right.  The real point I was trying to make is that the English ancestry is unproven despite a lot of published secondary sources to the contrary.  And, there is enough uncertainty around the different William Harvey's that it is best to leave their parents as unknown unless new research (perhaps DNA) reveals otherwise.

The DNA testing is very interesting.  It says either William and Thomas are not brothers, or there was a non paternal event very early on.

---

Possibly a remarriage for one or both of the parents. Perhaps the explanation of the different Y-DNA for William and Thomas, is nothing more complicated than a second marriage after the deaths of previous spouses..Children in blended families call each other brother or sister even though they have different biological parents.

The stunning question for me, is, - why do the two men/brothers belong to such starkly different haplogroups? Thomas Harvey is R-M269- common in 80% of Western European men. R-M269 gets even more common as we move west to  Britain; R-M269 is most common in  Ireland and Wales.  (98%) of Welch men carry the R-M269 Haplogroup markers. For the Harvey family located in Somerset (west England/Welch border), Thomas Harvey's R-M269 Haplogroup is logical. William's Haplo group is E-M84 - Semitic, Arab, Southern Italian, Palestine, etc. Not expected from an Anglo-Saxon/Norman/French Puritan man settling in Plymouth Plantation 1636. Are there any other Great Migration descendants with E-M84 markers?

Can the Y-DNA testing be contaminated? William Harvey's unexpected haplogroup result makes me wonder if we should question the validity of the testing, and not the blood relationship. Many questions that need answers.

---

Considering the time period involved here, your thinking is logical if a previous wife dies after having sons (Harveys) and is replaced by next wife (widow of surname X)  who brought sons with her who are subsequently known by their stepfather's surname (Harvey).  (unannounced &/or informal adoption)

In the reverse situation, where the Harvey husband dies after siring (Harvey) sons who follow along with their mother into her next marriage, the sons, unless nearly mature, would probably be known by the new husband's surname. (Y)

As for the starkly differing haplogroups - we know of several historical events - for example - Roman military occupation &/or Norman conquest that could have easily introduced E-M84 into R-M269 dominated territory.  Recorded English history of Harvey ancestry indicates that a Herveus/Herve line was brought to England with William the Conqueror in 1066.

As for - "Can the Y-DNA testing be contaminated? William Harvey's unexpected haplogroup result makes me wonder if we should question the validity of the testing, and not the blood relationship. Many questions that need answers."  Please read again the detailed Y-DNA comments for both William Harvey b. 1614 (Harvey-243) and Thomas Harvey b. 1617 (Harvey-1871).  If you do you will see that matching and confirming Y-DNA test results have been found from descendants of three sons of Zachariah Harvey b. 1711 (purported gr-grandson of William Harvey b. 1614).  These tests were taken separately over a time period of ten years by widely dispersed cousins ranging from 4th to 6th cousin 1XR.  The specter of DNA contamination is not a possibility in this instance.