James Blount (1634 - bef. 1686)

Robert thank you for your response. As you are aware from our various email exchanges. Richard I Blount whom matches me on 636 out of 642Y DNA markers is not as you say descended from Captain James Blount, and we have not claimed as such but from Thomas Blount II, whom is unlike Captain James Blount definitively descended from Walter Blount England, whom Captain James Blount is not proven to be other than the references of a will and some coat of arms. Hence yet again the parentage of this Captain James Blount is in question. DNA does not lie. There is currently zero evidence from yDNA that the R-BY67530 SNP that is from Captain James Blount is via a descendant from the Blounts of Guisnes. Until a Blount/Blunt from England that is a proven ancestor of the Kinlet Blounts yDNA tests does the claim of the USA Blounts is frankly full of issue. I note technically the only Blount/Blunts tested so far in England and outside of USA of this line is zero. Whereas two tests in England, One in Belgium, one in USA and one in New Zealand prove my logic. Even the FTDNA evidence is that this R SNP that is Captain James Blounts was formed in England pre 1066. Meaning it is impossible that is from the Blount lines of France. There is plenty of evidence that the SNP G-BY177609 that I and Richard I Blount have is from French Normans. Among other things the SNP above us is G-FGC5081 which has been proven to be the SNP of the French and English Plantagenet Kings. Equally there is a SNP off the G-BY177609 SNP that Richard and I have that is today in France and Belgium that is dated pre 1066 and is the home of the Blounts of Guisnes. As you have written and I too nothing calls into question any descendent of Captain James Blount as a descendant of him. However, you have not answered or explained how it is possible that I and Richard I Blount can have a common ancestor as defined by FTDNA within the last 500 years (you even said 400 years) and given he is definitively descended from a James Blount born 1714 (his own family had wrongly this date as 1721) in North Carolina that is also outlined in all the research you have provided. It is impossible that Richard I Blount is descended from a Brunt after 1735. And there are zero Brunt men in the Americas until1850. And all the men that have yDNA tested in the FTDNA Blount name group as yourself said are R Haplos and are all descended from Captain James Blount. Equally that I am descended from a John Blount b 1517 in Warwickshire whom is descended from the Blounts of Kinlet England. And that Thomas Blount II I referred to above is also descended from the same Blounts of Kinlet. So I and Richard I Blount have proven Blount Ancestors in England in the 1500s. There is not a single Blount in the USA that is of your Captain James Blount lineage that can yet prove this. Hence why you and all the descendants of Captain James Blount are haplo Rs and all the Blount descendants from France are Gs. Meaning yet again Captain James Blount is not descended from the French Blounts and is clearly a Naturalised child. As always happy to discuss. Just for reference I have proven yDNA descent and paper records from the Blount/Brount/Brunts from 1517 Midlands England unlike Captain James Blount descendants.

Aaron Gilmore’s post August 18 below included the following erroneous statement: “There is currently zero evidence from yDNA that the R-BY67530 SNP that is from Captain James Blount is via a descendant from the Blounts of Guisnes. Until a Blount/Blunt from England that is a proven ancestor of the Kinlet Blounts yDNA tests does the claim of the USA Blounts is frankly full of issue.”

The following is provided to correct Aaron’s comment.

Most of the Family Tree DNA Blount surname members in Group 01, Haplogroup R-BY67530, are descendants of Captain James Blount who emigrated to Colonial America in 1655. There are however two members, Kit 2634 and Kit 780934, in Group 1 from England whose Y-DNA and genealogy confirm they are descended from the Blount family lines of Soddington and Kinlet.

Blount surname project member Kit 2634 was born and died in England 1930-2015. His earliest known ancestor is Peter Blount born 1688 Old Swinford, Worcestershire and died 17 March 1765 Cleobury-Mortimer, Shropshire. Y-111 DNA results for Kit 2634 match 22 members of the Group 01 Blount surname project at the Y-37, Y-67, and Y-111 marker levels. Kit 2634 is a proven descendant of the Blount family Soddington line.

Another Blount surname project member Kit 780934 great-grandfather Alfred William Blount 1885-1952 emigrated to the United States from Ludlow, Shropshire, England. His earliest known ancestor Thomas Blount 1860-1931 was born and died in England. This Blount Y-DNA kit from England, whose ancestor emigrated from England 200 years after Captain James Blount, is unmistakably linked genetically to the Soddington line of Blount’s in England as described below.

During October-December 2021 I collaborated with Terry Baker who contacted me about two Baker DNA study members, kits 267315 and 267316, who were Y-37 DNA matches to Blount kit 780934 but not Baker. The two Baker’s in question traced their ancestry to William Baker 1705-1772 an architect who remodeled Morville Hall and worked for Francis Smith who also built Mawley Hall. Common practice of the day was for the architect and his family to live at the property during construction. Morville Hall and Mawley Hall were both owned by Edward Blount the 4th Baronet of Sodington.

Terry Baker’s December 10, 2021, email included the following statement concerning Blount surname kit 780934: "At the end of the day though, there is an unmistakable yDNA links between you and Edward Blount , 4th Baronet of Sodington, who died in 16 Feb 1758. He is the very probable father of the children [born 1739-1744] of William Baker the architect who did building work for Edward Blount in 1739."

In total are 20 members of the Group 01 Blount surname project that are Y-DNA matches to the two Baker Y-37 kits that have “unmistakable Y-DNA links” to Edward Blount, 4th Baronet of Sodiington. This Edward Blount is the 6th cousin, twice removed of Captain James Blount’s father who is descended from the Kinlet line of Blount’s. The Soddington and Kinlet line of Blount’s have common origin through Sir John Blount of Soddington who married Isabella Cornwall, heir of Kinlet.

Robert, everything you have posted and all the yDNA evidence shows that Richard I Blount and I are descendants of French Normans. You have not disputed his descent in the USA because he is 100% from a man from the Blounts of England. You can not dispute my match to him and my descent match to him as DNA does not lie and I am descended from a John Blount b1517 in Warwickshire hence our yDNA match. Your R yDNA line was from English men that has been proven was from 600AD in England aka your "Captain" has zero genetic connections to G noble French or Flemish lines like i and dick does. So Captain has zero chance of being from the Blounts of Guisnes, where I have both connections. aka you and your captain are like most usa lines from cuckoos.

Aaron Gilmore’s most recent post states that I do not dispute his descent claims concerning his connections to the Blount family in England and the US and his attempts to discredit the R-BY67530 haplogroup descendants of Captain James Blount. Nothing could be further from the truth.

I do not dispute that Richard I Blount and Aaron Gilmore share the same confirmed haplogroup G-FTB55824 and that their Y-DNA tests only matches men with the surname Brunt or descended from Brunt ancestors including Aaron Gilmore.

I emphatically dispute the following descent claims made by Aaron Gilmore in emails to me or posted on this website: 1) Captain James Blount 1634-1686 and his descendants were via him as a naturalized child. 2) Thomas Blount who died 28 March 1706 in colonial America was the son of Sir Walter Blount 1st Baronet 1594-1654 not the son of Captain James Blount. 3) Richard I Blount is descended from Thomas Blount d 1706, Thomas Blount, Jr 1687-1729, James 1714-1776, James Blount Jr, 1740-1805, Joseph Blount 1765-1795, Samuel L. Blount 1784-1842. 4) Captain James Blount and his descendants “has zero chance of being from the Blounts of Guisenes” because they from an R-haplogroup.

Claim 1 was concocted by Aaron because proven Y-DNA tested descendants of Captain James Blount are from haplogroup R-BY67530 instead of his haplogroup G-FTB55824.

No proof is offered for Aaron’s claim 1 and no legitimate rebuttal is offered for the proof of Captain James Blount’s lineage and sonship by the will of his uncle Charles Blount dated Dec. 19, 1655. For Captain James Blount’s direct lineage through the Blounts of Kinlet serious researchers are referred to Lillian Carpenter’s Blount Family History or Virginia Westergard and Kyle Van Landingham’s Parker and Blount in Florida.

Claim 2 is the false notion that Thomas Blount who died 28 March 1706 was Captain James Blount’s brother not his son. This claim has already been debunked by the work of Helen Blount Prescott and others. The most recent and very thorough discussion with proof that Thomas Blount who died 28 March 1706 was Captain James Blount’s son is included in Beverly Ramsey’s book The Blounts of Mulberry Hill, Volume 1, pages 72-76.

Claim 2 was concocted to maintain a path through which Aaron’s one G-haplogroup match in the US can claim a connection to Alexander Croke’s Blount family genealogy while using claim 1 in an attempt to discredit all other descendants of Captain James Blount who are R-haplogroup. In claim 2 Aaron also confuses Walter Blount 1st Baronet from the Soddington line of Blounts with their cousins the Kinlet line of Blounts through which Captain James Blount descends.

Claim 3 attempts to link Richard I Blount’s lineage to the Kinlet line of Blounts. Richard I Blount’s descent from Samuel L. Blount 1784-1842 is not disputed. However, the connection between Samuel L. Blount 1784-1842 and Joseph Blount 1765-1795 is not supported by any documentation.

Also following Joseph Blount 1765-1795 lineage back to Thomas Blount who died 28 March 1706 would put Richard I Blount’s ancestors in the middle of many thoroughly documented descendants of this same Thomas Blount who have been Y-DNA tested as being part of R-BY67530 haplogroup instead of G-FTB55824. One in particular is Samuel Masters Blount, Jr. a descendant of Thomas Blount, Jr 1687-1729 whose Y-37 DNA does not match Richard I Blount’s Y-37 DNA at 29 of the 37 Y-DNA markers. Therefore, Richard I Blount cannot be a descendant of Thomas Blount who died 28 March 1706.

Concerning claim 4 the following paragraphs disproves Aaron’s contention Captain James Blount and his descendants “has zero chance of being from the Blounts of Guisenes” because they from an R-haplogroup.

The progenitor of the Counts of Guisenes through was Sigefried a Viking from Denmark who invaded Guines around 928AD. The Blount family connections to the Counts of Guisenes are presented by Alexander Croke in his book, The Genealogical History of the Croke Family, Originally Named Le Blount, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1823), VoI, 14-42.

A genetic study of the Vikings, from which the Counts of Guisenes descend, published by Margaryan et al. 2020 in Nature magazine includes a high percentage with an R-haplogroup. One particular sample from that genetic study Rantzausminde 2 is cited by Family Tree DNA as an ancient connection from haplogroup R-U198 to the Blount family haplogroup R-BY67530.

The FTDNA ancient connection states “Rantzausminde 2 was a man who lived between 850-900 AD during the Viking Age and was found in the region now known as Grave, Funen, Denmark. He was associated with the Viking Denmark cultural group”. The dating and origin of this sample supports an R-haplogroup origin for Sigefried who arrived in Guines around 928AD.

The Counts of Guisenes ruled in an area of the medieval Duchy of Normandy where the Normans arose from the intermingling of Norse Viking settlers and the indigenous population. Looking at the DNA results for the Family Tree DNA’s Normandy Y-DNA project reveals a high percentage of the participants have an R-DNA haplogroup. In summary Aaron Gilmores contention that the Blounts of England cannot be from an R-haplogroup is obviously false.

Hello Robert,

I don't want a bad relationship with you and I follow your comments here.

But there are something that's wrong about your haplogroup R. Your haplogroup R, you can find them a lot on FTDNA such G.

Haplogroup R is the most common in the EU. My father-in-law wear your haplogroup, his ancestors and other are clearly european but R is the most common haplgroup in EU and was not found in Turkey...

If you have a look on haplogroup G, it's rare in EU. So, I was looking about the potential ancestors of the Guisnes family. I've found on a french website about the ancestors of Guisnes family and potential ancestors line. I've found also some proofs on papers that some men Blount family lived also in France and England between 1000 and 1900. On a french genealogy website, they prove the following lines an' an old connection between the Guisnes with Turkey.:

Haplogroup G is from Turkey and followed Germany, went to the North of Europe (Scandinavia) through France who's related to haplogroup G. they are some study about that too and this way is connected to the Guines family.

I'm sure, you'll certainly write again a comment that will prove that's false.

The important line that you always saying till now in your comments and you are sure: You estimate that genetician Spencer and FTDNA with dates are false with the dates because your haplogroup R-BY67530 is related to Blount family born around 1000.

If we have a look on SNP tracker on this month (september 2023), there are an evidence that your ancient haplogroup is clearly english and is from a english ancestor born before 1066. It's so many year before the birth of the Blount family and even before Christ. That could be the same for us but if you have a look, a lot of people are british for you haplogroup, that's not the case for our haplogroup G, they are from some differents countries.

If you are not agree with the dates + countries of our both haplogroup and suppose that your haplogroup is Blount and was created before 1600, then write to FTDNA and Spencer and tell them, they're wrong. I'm sure they will be happy to answer you.

I can even accept that you don't want to accept that Blount family is from haplogroup G if you don't want to be agree with us till now.

But remember a thing that the Blount were born in France and was named in french "le Blond" and came to England in 1066. Guisnes is a locality in France where they are from. I have the same haplogroup than Aaron and my ancestors are from France + the name of my ancestors are a variant of family of Aaron. I also match with Richard Blount on Y-DNA.

Till now, Blount+Brunt+Brunotte are from France and England. We got with Aaron some proofs by mail that some Blount from USA has the haplogroup G and were tested. They also sent me some documents about the same captain James Blount.

There are also a good number of Blount of haplogroup G that were tested and have the same documents that attest are from the Blount family in US. So there also, you could tell that they are not Blount but then who's are the real Blount family in US because you both have some documents about that?

But !! Till now: no one of your haplogroup R concerning Blount and variants was tested in France so we can conclude that people don't like often to accept the truth but DNA is there. Blount family is for now G. There are no reason to discuss about that and write a ton of message to contest.

If you want to contest anything in our lines, remember just on thing:

I don't want to telll that you proofs are false but if you really want to prove you are a natural Blount, then, accept opinion from other now and when you'll be sure at 100%, you must prove that a french man named "Blount/Blunt" even "Brunt/Blount" was born in France and live still there + is connected to your haplogroup R-BY67530 and your studies or comments will be true and our comment could be contested. In that case about that French man with haplogroup R with the name of Blount, write it here.

Robert further to your comments which are yet to be based upon science but myth. FTDNA has the R SNP of ALL the men in the Blount name project in the USA that are R haplos that is about 20 men as at best dating back to 1630 CE ie the same date as Captain James Blount. That is not me but FTDNA. ie all your men's claims pre then are as you say erroneous. The G SNP that Richard i Blount and I are from dates exactly back to a common man at the right place in the Blount family tree as 1500 and his family line matches the paper records of your tree provided as per the Prescotts down to James Blount b1714 d1776 North Carolina. Hence there is no paper NPE on his line. Equally you have refused to answer even if you reject the USA arm of the argument how it is possible that I am descended from John Blount b 1517 from Warwickshire. Even if one ignores the science of yDNA and runs with your idea. there is zero chance of your R haplo forming in france pre 1066 where the Blounts came from, while my G haplo did. There is also only one yDNA test required from anyone of the 2,000 men living in Europe that will for sure prove the argument. Given the last 3 tests in Europe helped my argument and not yours and that at least one of the branches of the noble Blounts have adopted the G haplo of mine I wish you the best of luck in the myth vs science approach. I also note I provided you a reasonable paper of the science on all this have given you 2 weeks to respond and you chose not to at all. So again I am assuming you prefer myth to science.

What does Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) Y-DNA science actually say and how does it line up with Aaron’s most recent comments?

For continuity I will continue the previous list of Aaron’s claims 1-4 that I refuted in my last reply.

Claim 5) Aaron states that “The G SNP that Richard I Blount and I are from dates exactly back to a common man at the right place in the Blount family tree as 1500…”

The FTDNA scientific details for G-FTB55824 haplogroup that Richard I Blount and Aaron Gilmore share has a Time to Most Recent Ancestor (TMRCA) mean date of 1681. This is the estimated birth date for Richard and Aaron’s most recent ancestor that is 180 years more recent in time than Aaron’s purported common ancestor date of 1500 disproving his claim.

Claim 6) Aaron’s statement from claim 5 continues “ and his family line matches the paper records of your tree provided per the Prescotts down to James Blount b1714 d1776 North Carolina. Hence there is no paper NPE on his line.” The lineage claim to James Blount is the same as claim 3 that I refuted in my last reply to Aaron. What about Aaron’s claim of no NPE (non-paternal event) for Richard I Blount?

How can Aaron explain two Blount men of haplogroup R-BY67530 who are FTDNA autosomal DNA matches to Richard I Blount family who is haplogroup G-FTB55824 with only Brunt Y-DNA matches? For instance Blount kit no. 829610 autosomal DNA matches 36cM with Richard I Blount, 37 cM with Richard’s son, and 10 cM with Richard’s sister and also, kit no. 964414 autosomal DNA matches 17 cM of Richard’s documented 3rd cousin. These autosomal DNA matches are evidence of a 4th- 5th cousin relationship with Richard and clear genetic evidence that an NPE event occurred in Richard’s lineage.

4th- 5th cousins have a common 3rd – 4th great-grandparent. Richard’s lineage is well documented to his 3rd great-grandfather, Samuel L. Blount 1784-1842, but there is no documentation for his 4th great-grandparents who are assumed by some to have origins in Pasquotank County, North Carolina around 1760.

Were there Brunt neighbors to the Blount’s of Pasquotank County, North Carolina? A quick search of Ancestry.com finds Thomas Brunt in Pasquotank County in a 1769 tax list and Richard Brunt’s Will recorded in neighboring Currituck County in 1769 with sons Thomas, Richard, John, and James. My intent is not to trace Richard’s ancestry but to point out that even a quick search of genealogical records supports the autosomal DNA scientific evidence of an NPE event in Richard I Blount’s lineage explaining his use of the Blount surname. I also encourage Richard I Blount’s descendants who are serious about genealogical research to continue the search for the origins of Samuel L. Blount 1784-1842 in light of his proven Brunt paternity.

Claim 7) Aaron states “I am descended from John Blount b 1517 from Warwickshire.” Although Aaron consistently makes this claim, I have not seen anything he has offered to support it or the change from Blount to the surname Brunt through which he traces his descent. Family Trees on Ancestry & Family Search are all a dead end with zero sources for John Blount b 1517 from Warwickshire and show no descendants.

Claim 8) Aaron states “I also note I provided you a reasonable paper of the science on all this have given you 2 weeks to respond and you chose not to at all. So again I am assuming you prefer myth to science.”

I chose weeks ago to stop responding to Aaron’s emails to me as he simply repeats the same claims ad nauseam, but I do feel compelled when he misrepresents genealogical facts and attempts to discredit the family heritage of other Blount surname project participants. I will let those who read his comments and my responses judge who prefers myth to science.

Robert,

I propose you to read the french book " Nouveau dictionnaire historique et critique, pour servir de supplement ou de continuation au dictionnaire historique et critique, de Mr. Pierre Bayle"' or in english if you want "New historical and critical dictionary, to serve as a supplement or continuation to the historical and critical dictionary, by Mr. Pierre Bayle" dated of 1750... You write about a tree created in 1902... Much later after this book of 1750. They're other french books that mention it before 1902.

here's what it is written in the french book dated of 1750...

They explain the following lines about Blount family and I translate to you the first lines:

"Blount family: old and noble family that comes from le Blound, the Lords of the Guisnes in Normandy who went to England with William the Conqueror..." (sheet 32) Another line still in the book "Jean Blound was also a knight of the town of Aquitaine in France". By the way, on a french genealogy website and english papers, we've found some records of some french Blount men born and marrried in France between 1000-1800, some immigrated from France to England around that time too + I've found a man with the surname "Brunt/Brun" who was the son of a "Blount" in England on french genealogy website that speaks about a english record... That proove, there are some variants of the name. Brunt surname can also be a variant of Brount, who could be also a variant of Blunt, variant of Blount s.o...... Have a look on this.

For information Normandy is in France not in UK. like your FTDNA line is british.

Have a look about french genealogy and have a look about french old books, they will tell you again that the origin of the name of Blount (le Blond) come from Guisnes not from any english countries.

Once again, prove a DNA test that have been done in France and a haplogroup created around 1000 and you'll prove that we're wrong and we come from another line than your Guillaume le Blond/William + Robert le Blount that were born in Guisnes, Pas-de-Calais, France/ Flanders, Belgium in that period of 1000CE.

Robert you don't want to follow that line. Now continue to claim your american/english Blount line, follow your line and we'll write ours and people are free to write their own Blount haplogroup.

Have a nice day.

Gosh Robert you appear to be getting angry with science.

The date you refer to as 1681 is actually the mean of a very left skewed aged distribution which if you know anything about statistics (I did a masters degree in it) looks alot different than that you are outlining. And that is actually out by 90 years as it based on tests today not Richards birth date. By the same measure your R snp was formed in 1618 and in England and then has a series of SNPs all in England going back 1000 years. Meaning you can not be from French Blounts that came from a Germanic Frankish Noble that was a vassal to Danes. The Blount line from Seigfried "the Dane" has been proven from French records that he was not a 'viking', but a Frankish noble of likely Germanic descent, but he was indeed a vassal to the King of the Danes, not uncommon for the area and time. I suggest you may want to spend some time doing some more research on this. There is plenty of easily found material in a google search. I note that I have sent you a detailed dendrogram of your SNP history assisted by Robin Spencer of SNP innovation showing the most likely anglo-saxon history of it and around 30 current English families on FTDNA matching back along your line with lots of common English genetic ancestors in the period between 200-600 AD and none in France or even Scandinavia, strongly indicating arrival into England well prior to 1066.

Richard I Blounts family dates back to a man born in USA either 1721 as his family said or 1714 like the records show. There is not a 'Brunt' man of my line that even went to the USA in the period after 1680 till 1800s. Again even the random men you have found do not match the line or timing or the yDNA.

I can provide the complete listing of Brunts in the UK and their descendants of our line from 1600. I note that there are Brunt named men in alot of places around the world that are not Gs.

There are indeed 'Brunts/Brents' in the UK dating back to 1216. None of them are yet yDNA matches to us. Frankly the Brunt/Brent line is alot more famous than the Blount. So personally would prefer that is where we would be. The other Brunt/Brents I note are also from noble French Normans and are indeed also Gs but a very different branch.

Autosomal DNA has nothing to do with the issue of yDNA. How you seem to be linking how a R man autosomally links to someone proves that there is a not a yDNA match is quite a novel thing without questioning again the ancestry of Captain James Blount at the same time. Again I am not the first person to question it. I am just using yDNA. Is there an Autosomal match of Richard I Blount to a USA Brunt line, of which there a few. No. Is there autosomal DNA matches of him to other people that have also lived in the same small area for the last 300 years, shock horror yes.

John Blount of Warwickshire b1517. Son of Edward Blount. He had two sons Thomas and Henry. Strangely both are in English records. Both sons even did the same profession. Indeed Family search does list this. I am descended from this Henry whom had two sons one called Henry and another son called William Brount. His son was named William Brunt. All three were buried as the same family at St Modwins Church Burton Upon Trent. Then 450 years of Brunts. Recent other yDNA tests in England have proven this line. I am sorry for your anger.

You still seem to ignore the issue of your own yDNA SNP dates and how can a SNP dated 600 in England with 300 testers in England that is clearly Anglo Saxon be from a French Norman Family that only arrived into England in1066?

Again, there is only one more yDNA test required to prove or disprove all I have said. Ideally we will have some from the other Blunt/Blount branches in Europe test. Strangely they are all already using the G haplogroup I have and not your R one!