Is Hannah your ancestor? Please don't go away! Login to collaborate or comment, or
contact
a profile manager, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com
DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Hannah by comparing test results with other carriers of her mitochondrial DNA.
However, there are no known mtDNA test-takers in her direct maternal line.
It is likely that these autosomal DNA test-takers will share some percentage of DNA with Hannah:
Unknown-202399 and Drake-527 appear to represent the same person because: Looks to be same person, same husband, same birthdate. Both profiles are unsourced, however. (The husbands are the same person.) Please review for merge. Thank you.
Drake-3129 and Drake-527 appear to represent the same person because: Different DOB, but same parents and same spouse; all of which also need to be compared and possibly merged.
After looking through my records, I do not believe that "this" Hannah Drake (Drake-491) was the one married to John Hoyt (Hoyt-154) in 1693 in Norwalk, CT. I believe that Drake-424 is the proper Hannah Drake for the spouse of John Hoyt. Query your views.
Mamaroneck History at Wikipedia.
Mamaroneck was first purchased from Indians in 1661. In the history of early colonial America, these land purchases were prior to any settlement.
Note in bio says premerge profile had birth in Fairfield CT in 1660 "without documentation". Well. There's no sources post-merge either.
I'm returning her birth year and location to the pre-merge status. (So much confusion could be save with a little geo-historical googling.)
Thanks