Does this DNA evidence establish the parents of Susannah Martin Woody despite contrary documentary evidence? [closed]

Question

Two Susannah Martins are currently attached to Joseph and Susannah Chiles Martin as daughters.  I believe that there are two Susannahs who are being conflated and that Susannah Martin Woody should be detached from Joseph and Susannah.   

Joseph https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-4368 and Susannah lived in Albemarle County, VA.  Joseph's 1760 will (probated in 1762) left "to my daughter Susannah Martin https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-72510, 200 Acres on Rocky Creek, and if she die without heir to Susannah Chiles Hammack, daughter of John Hammack and Mary Hammack his wife. "  Joseph died in Albemarle County; his estate was probated in 1762, and the land went to daughter Susannah, so she was not married at that time. 

In October, 1778,  Susannah Martin, a single woman of Orange County, VA, sold that land (clearly identified in the deed as formerly belonging to Joseph Martin) to a man named Jones.  Deed is digitized at FamilySearch at https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS4X-G4CW?mode=g&cat=283051  

In 1761 a woman named Susannah Martin married Henry Woody in St. James Parish, Goochland County, VA.  The parish register kept by William Douglass records the marriage of Susannah Martin and Henry  Woody, "both in this parish."  (Douglas, William,. The Douglas register : being a detailed record of births, marriages and deaths together with other interesting notes, as kept by the Rev. William Douglas, from 1750-1797 : an index of Goochland Wills : notes on the French-Hugeunot [sic] refugees who lived in Manakin-Town. Richmond, Va.: J.W. Fergusson & Sons, 1928.  digitized at Ancestry.com)

They were the parents of several children including John, whose baptism is recorded in the same register as his parents' marriage.  See: "Virginia Births and Christenings, 1584-1917", database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VRR4-9TZ : 28 January 2020), Susannah Martin in entry for John Woodie, 1765.

Henry purchased land in Bedford County in 1784, then sold it and moved to Franklin County, VA in 1792, where he died  in 1807. He left a will naming wife Susannah and children Martin, John, Randolph, Wyatt, Henry, Judith, Susannah, Rebecca, and Polly. (Franklin County, Virginia Wills 1786 – 1812)

If Susannah, the daughter of Joseph, was married to Henry Woody how could she have been living in Orange County in 1778 and selling her inherited land as a single woman.

Comments

As one of the profile manages of Susannah Martin Woody. I agree with Kathy Forbes on her research. I removed Susannah from Joseph Martin and Susannah Chiles this past January 2022. I'm surprised to see parents linked again. My husband, Frank Lawless is a descendant of Susannah Martin and Henry Woody and his DNA has found no link to Joseph Martin or Susannah Chiles. Please see AncestryDNA and GEDmatch listed. Thank you Jilliane Smith for checking on the DNA.

---

I have contacted two long-time Martin researchers (neither one on Wikitree), one a descendant of Joseph and Susannah, one a Woody descendant.  Neither has located any documentation regarding the origins of Susannah Martin Woody.  Researcher Dave Woody has assembled a massive trove of Woody research at http://www.dave-woody.com/  He states:  "Henry Woody married Susannah Martin "both of this parish" Jan. 13, 1761. (A great deal of circumstantial evidence has suggested the Susannah Martin was the daughter of Colonel Joseph Martin whose will was probated 14 January 1762; however this suggestion has been completely invalidated by other recorded evidence.)"

---

I contacted Dave Woody who confirmed that he bases his conclusion on the evidence of the will and the deed showing the sale of land.  He also notes that the Douglas Register, which records the marriage of Susannah Martin and John Woody, includes a large number of Martin families living in the vicinity.

---

Jenny, this was quite a while ago, it is possible that a true descendant has zero matching because it was not a proportion they received. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). What is the relation between your husband and Hans? I do not see your husband attached to your profile.

Answer 1

Thank you everyone for this great input.  In an effort to bring this issue to closure, I will try to summarize the results of the discussion:

(1) the documentary evidence creates a strong presumption that the Susannah Martin who was the daughter of Joseph Martin & inherited land from him in his 1760 will is not the same Susannah Martin who married Henry Woody in 1761.  The daughter of Joseph Martin who inherited that land sold it in her own name in 1778 and under the laws of coverture then in effect in the Virginia colony, the legal identity of the woman who married Henry Woody had merged into his and only he could have conveyed land that she had inherited during the period of their marriage.

(2) the DNA evidence cited as a basis for the opposite conclusion is a triangulated match on the X chromosome between, among others, (1) Hans Nielsen (Nielsen-1304), who claims descent from the Joseph Martin Sr. who made the 1760 will & his wife Susannah Chiles through their son Joseph; and (2) Donna (Seay) Vance (Seay-566) who claims descent from the Susannah Martin who married Henry Woody.  However, the line of descent from Susannah Chiles to Hans Nielsen goes through two successive generations of male descendants (Joseph Jr. and his son Jesse).  Therefore, Hans cannot have inherited any X DNA from Susannah Chiles, and she cannot be the MRCA of this match on his X chromosome.  The triangulated match he has identified on the X chromosome must be an indicator of some other unknown MRCA between those testers.

Based on this, I plan to detach Susannah (Martin) Woody as a daughter of Joseph Martin and Susannah Chiles as Kathie Forbes has proposed.  If I have misstated anything, please correct me.

Answer 2

There are two profiles because you decided to make another one because you didn't agree with the 2015 profile and then unilaterally remove links to the parents from the original profile.  You state that the will for Joseph Martin Sr, probated in 1762 refers to his daughter as showing she was not married.  This when the page states she was married in 1761.  What it doesn't point out is that the will was written in 1760.  This is not the first time that you have created a new profile for someone if you felt like it.  There is now DNA evidence in the comments for her now, including info from a Donna Vance, that states she is a direct descendant of Henry Woody and Susannah Martin.  She is in fact, one of my DNA matches and our match is painted on the X chromosome along with 19 other matches to the Martin family.  The MRCA for these matches being Joseph Martin Sr. and Susannah Chiles.  Circumstantial naming patterns is evidence is that Susannah Martin Woody is the daughter.  She is named after her mother, Susannah Chiles.  She names a son Martin Woody, and a daughter, Susannah.  You have her recorded as dying in Franklin, Virginia even on the new profile you created.  The vast majority of trees available to compare have them as being married.  Since you posted this on g2g, explain your reasons for creating new profiles for the same people.

Comments

Hans, 

Kathie has laid out the evidence, immediately above.

How do you reconcile this point she raises?: "If Susannah, the daughter of Joseph, was married to Henry Woody how could she have been living in Orange County in 1778 and selling her inherited land as a single woman?"  I also see Kathie's additional related point on Susannah's profile (in the comments): "If Henry Woody's wife had inherited land from her father, then Henry would have been the one to sell that land at a later time."

---

Personal attacks are not appropriate on G2G.  Kathie has made a compelling argument from the documents that the Susannah Martin, daughter of Joseph Martin, who inherited land from him in his will was still identified as "Susannah Martin" when she sold that land in 1778 and therefore is not the same Susannah Martin who married Henry Woody in 1761.   We can discuss the DNA evidence which you believe suggests a contrary conclusion without engaging in personal attacks.

I have reviewed your Susannah Martin Woody DNA free space page and have a few clarifying questions.  At this distance, autosomal DNA matches can be misleading, particularly with these early frontier families where there may be endogamy confusing the issue.  Have you identified a set of matches which meets the WikiTree definition of triangulation -- i.e., matches between at least three descendants of Joseph Martin through three different children of that Joseph for which there is a common segment on the same chromosome of at least 7 cM?  If so, can you clarify what those are so we can review them in more detail?  I can see from that screenshot that you posted on your free space page that you have painted several overlapping segments on the  X chromosome which you attribute to Joseph Martin & Susannah Chiles as MCRA but it is unclear who these matches claim to descend from or how reliable their claims may be.  

Thank you - this is a very interesting puzzle.

---

https://wikitree.com/g2g/12274/when-is-it-ok-to-create-a-duplicate-profile

---

I understand that members are not supposed to intentionally create duplicate profiles except in those rare situations.  That is not what happened here.  Martin-72510 was created because Kathie believes that it represents a different person than Martin-22679, the Susannah Martin who married Henry Woody.  The documents she has cited in her original post support that conclusion.  We are trying to understand your DNA evidence which you believe supports a different conclusion.  Could you provide the additional clarification that I requested in my earlier posted about that DNA evidence?

---

Disconnecting parents takes away my ability to do genetic research.  I have identified two DNA matchs from the DNA Connections  which is propogated by wikitree users that input their DNA.  They are Terry Charles and Donna Seay.  The person that unilaterally made a new profile did so without consulting anyone,including the profile managers.  I am still researching.  If the parents are detached I can no longer research names that would propogate due to a MRCA of Joseph Martin Sr and Susannah Chiles.  Information for Terry Charles has been added to the DNA workpage.  

---

Hans, 

Kathie posted her evidence to the profile of Susannah, wife of Henry Woody, back in January 2022. Neither of the two profile managers has ever responded. There was a response from a descendant of Henry Woody and his wife Susannah, and that person concurred with Kathie's findings. Kathie waited over six months before disconnecting the parents (which you then immediately reconnected). 

The disconnection of parents and the creation of a profile that accurately reflects the documentation is hardly unilateral.

I will let others more knowledgeable speak to the DNA aspect of your comment.

---

Hans,

You may want to double check your dna matches.  You speak of Donna Vance, but on the image on Susannah Martin Woody DNA free space page there is listed a Donna Seay and further down is a woman listed as "Martyle Barwick, mother of Donna Seay".  Is it possible you have mixed up who you actually match with?  After a bit of looking into, without actually seeing the matches, these may be two different people you're talking about.  If your chart on the free space page is correct, your x match could actually be the daughter of Martyle Barwick which would be the x line you need to be following.

---

You might want to ask Donna Seay Vance what her relationship is with Donna Barwick Seay.  She states that Donna Barwick Seay's husband, Victor Seay, is her brother.

Wikitree documents Victor Seay as the son of Jerry Seay and Florence Netherland.

Wikitree documents Donna Seay Vance as the daughter of  Tony Seay and Margaret Phillips.  

It does not compute.

---

You're right, it doesn't compute.  I have to side with Kathie's evidence here. It really doesn't matter anyways since you are barking up the wrong X-DNA inheritance tree. The X chromosome follows a strict inheritance pattern. If your tree is correct, you have NO X-DNA line to Susannah Chiles, Jesse Martin being a male would not have inherited any X from his grandmother via his father. Just go to your "Family Tree & Tools" page, scroll down and click on "DNA Ancestors" and scroll down to the X section, Susannah Chiles is NOT on your X list, so your argument about the X match is null and void.

Also your other DNA evidence is lacking since you are using single Ancestry matches to "triangulate" matches more distant than 3rd cousins.  It is impossible to tell where they match up with no chromosome browser, the fact they show as "Shared" does NOT mean they triangulate. Hopefully one of these days Ancestry will get with the program and give us one, but until then we can't triangulate Ancestry matches unless they are on other sites that have a chromosome browser.

I'd be interested to see who the Donna Seay you have painted really is, since you have Martyle Barwick painted as a match listed as Donna Seay's mother. If she is the mother of the Donna Seay you have painted, then your match is to Donna (Barwick) Seay, not Donna (Seay) Vance. And unless there is some major family secret hidden, all records and evidence I've seen shows Donna (Seay) Vance is not the brother of Donna (Barwick) Seay's husband Victor Seay. Two totally different familes from two different locations.  No cross mentions in any of the family obituaries to indicate they are related in any way. I have not gone back enough to see if they connect distantly, but there is no close connection as of yet. If the Donna Seay you have painted is Donna Vance, then I think more research is in order to connect them all up. I obviously can't see everything, but from what I do see, I think you have your Donna Seay's mixed up.

Terry Charles is not conclusive either since he shows up on your Rucker/Reade line as well.  

I'm no expert, just stating the facts as I find them, I have a few DNA based adoptee/unknown parentage under my belt, so I am not just talking blindly here. Hopefully this insight will help lead you in the right direction to figure out who Susannah (Martin) Woody really belongs to.

Answer 3

It is clear from the will of Joseph Martin and the subsequent deed from Susannah Martin selling land inherited from her father that these were two different women. The Susannah Martin who married Henry Woody could not have sold land in 1778 as Susannah Martin, a single woman.

Susannah Martin-22679 should be disconnected as a daughter of Joseph Martin (Martin-4368) and Susannah Chiles-51

Answer 4

I am still not following the DNA evidence described on the free space page so I have tweaked the question to highlight this angle and retagged the post to solicit input from the DNA experts.  As reflected in the comments below, there is strong documentary evidence that Martin-22679, the Susannah Martin who married Henry Woody, cannot be the daughter of the parents she is currently attached to because their daughter Susannah Martin inherited land from her father in 1762 and was still identified as "Susannah Martin" and living in Orange County, Virginia, in a 1778 deed in which she sold that land, whereas the marriage between the Susannah Martin who married Henry Wood occurred in Goochland County in 1761 where they raised a family.  The original post proposed detaching those disputed parents, but a member interested in this family has objected that the parents not be detached because it would interfere with DNA research he is conducting, as described in his comments below.  We need input from the DNA experts to understand if this is an appropriate reason to keep the parents attached despite the contrary documentary evidence.

Comments

Firstly, it seems to me that detaching the parentage was not done in an inappropriate manner or without warning/discussion. However, let's score the match, based on the evidence at hand, shall we?

Opening serve: 

Kathie Forbes says:

Joseph's 1760 will (probated in 1762) left "to my daughter Susannah Martin https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Martin-72510, 200 Acres on Rocky Creek, and if she die without heir to Susannah Chiles Hammack, daughter of John Hammack and Mary Hammack his wife. "  Joseph died in Albemarle County; his estate was probated in 1762, and the land went to daughter Susannah, so she was not married at that time. 

Hans Nielsen volleys:

You state that the will for Joseph Martin Sr, probated in 1762 refers to his daughter as showing she was not married.  This when the page states she was married in 1761.  What it doesn't point out is that the will was written in 1760.

I concur with Hans, the writing of the will at the time of Susannah's single-ness does not prove she was single when it was probated. 

15-0 Hans. 

Karen Raichle serves (must be a doubles game): 

The Susannah Martin who married Henry Woody could not have sold land in 1778 as Susannah Martin, a single woman.

Having read the linked document of sale, I see no mention whatsoever of Susannah's marital status. It is *presumed* by those here that she is single, based on her last name I suppose, and/or the fact that they expected her husband to be the one selling the land. However, I know for a fact that current law in some states affords inheritance to be separate property from marital property, and without knowing the laws of 1700s era Virginia, I cannot assume based on this alone that Susannah is a different person. 

30-0 Hans

The DNA evidence probably needs reviewed further by experts, probably in more detail than provided on the free-space page, but the way I read it Hans shows descendants of both Susannah's son (via Henry Woody, which is not disputed above) and of a later descendant of Henry, who match to him, although possibly not on the same chromosomes/locations (locations where they match him are not given). However, the two also match to each other. 

Since it's not rock solid triangulation, we'll call it 30-15 Hans.

HOWEVER, Hans also has an X DNA match from the Martin side to the Woody side, which looks to tie those two lines together, and are part of a larger group of matches on X. 

40-15 Hans. Game point

There are also additional matches that are unclear as to the location of the match but indicate further matching on the Martin side, we will award no points for those, as that is not quite cricket. Er, tennis, sorry, wrong sport. 

Lastly, Hans points out that Olive (Susannah Martin's sister) is married in the same place Susannah is married, four years after her father's will was written and two years after her father's will was probated. This is an established link between the two locations within the same family, without relying on Susannah for that link.

Game, Hans. 

Set and match to be determined. Although other descendants of the family seem to agree with detaching, I'm not sure I see enough here to warrant a complete dismissal when DNA links still seem to be pointing in that direction. Perhaps the sale of land was just recorded under her maiden name because that is how she inherited it, and the name had to be the same to pass it on to another person free and clear. 

I think it could use a large Research Notes section, or perhaps a link to the free space page where a neutral position is taken to explain both views and indicate further research needed. I'm not sure it warrants a Conflated template, but that is possible also. 

---

  As far as I can see, colonial Virginia retained the English common law in regard to women's property rights. That is a single woman was a feme sole, capable of owning property and conducting her own transactions. A married woman, a feme covert had no such capacity. definition 

( American women got property rights a bit  earlier than their English counterparts but it wasn't until the mid 19th century that the various US states began to give married women some automony. Virginia apparently rejected such a reform in the 1840s. ). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Married_Women%27s_Property_Acts_in_the_United_States. 

---

see also https://genfiles.com/articles/womens-rights/

---

The Susannah Martin who married Henry Woody could not have sold land in 1778 as Susannah Martin, a single woman.

Having read the linked document of sale, I see no mention whatsoever of Susannah's marital status. It is *presumed* by those here that she is single, based on her last name I suppose, and/or the fact that they expected her husband to be the one selling the land. However, I know for a fact that current law in some states affords inheritance to be separate property from marital property, and without knowing the laws of 1700s era Virginia, I cannot assume based on this alone that Susannah is a different person. 

The statement that Susannah Martin was a single woman in 1778 is not an assumption based on her name.  It is a conclusion, as Helen pointed out, based on the laws of Virginia at the time. Susannah Martin, a feme sole, could sell land. Susannah Woody, a feme covert, could not make any such contract.  Any land that Susannah Martin might have brought into her marriage with Henry Woody, inherited or otherwise, would have become the property of her husband.  

---

As everyone else has said, the deed is as conclusive as any evidence can be that Susannah was single when she sold the land. Today's laws have nothing to do the laws of that time.

Answer 5

I don’t have a dog in this fight, but here is the Joseph Martin Will as found in the Albemarle County Will Book https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS4X-G4CW?cat=283051 as opposed to the abstract in the profile. It refers to the 200 acres given to Susannah Martin as lying on “Roccy Creek” which appears to the same as the “Rocky Creek” land in the October, 1778 deed, conveyed by Susannah Martin, of Orange County, VA, (clearly identified in the deed as formerly belonging to Joseph Martin who received it via a Land Grant) to a man named Foster Jones.   Unfortunately there was no acknowledgement which likely would have included her marital status, only oaths by the witnesses to the deed’s execution. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS4X-G4CW?mode=g&cat=283051 

This is probably the land grant referred to in the will and likely in the deed:

Land grant 20 September 1745.

Location: Louisa County.

Description: 400 acres on both sides of Rockey Creek

https://lva.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/fulldisplay?docid=alma990007928880205756&context=L&vid=01LVA_INST:01LVA&lang=en&search_scope=MyInstitution_noAER&adaptor=Local%20Search%20Engine&tab=LibraryCatalog&query=any,contains,joseph%20martin&facet=lds04,include,Lan&offset=0

Here are three of the 1745 land grants including the one at issue https://lva.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,joseph%20martin&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=MyInstitution_noAER&vid=01LVA_INST:01LVA&facet=lds04,include,Lan&facet=topic,include,Martin,%20Joseph.%20grantee&facet=searchcreationdate,include,1745%7C,%7C1762&lang=en&offset=0&came_from=pagination_3_4

On the other hand, I could not find Susannah Martin or Henry Woody in the 1771 final accounting for Joseph https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3QS7-89P7-972G?i=142&cat=279536 , but some of the other children or their spouses (e.g. John Hammack) as well as the Sandidge children per Ann Sandidge’s prenup. Maybe someone could double check this on a desktop with better resolution.

I do agree that “ based on the laws of Virginia at the time. Susannah Martin, a feme sole, could sell land. Susannah Woody, a feme covert, could not make any such contract.  Any land that Susannah Martin might have brought into her marriage with Henry Woody, inherited or otherwise, would have become the property of her husband” so this omission could be significant.

Also, I added by comment to Joseph Martin's profile his will, inventory and final accounting as well as noted that his daughter Martha was a beneficiary. Martha is only a speculative daughter in Joseph's profile. I earlier added the Ann Sandidge (my ggmother) pre-nup (trust) which resulted in her children being including in Joseph's final accounting even though they were not named in the Will.

Answer 6

Re DNA,  I'm not an expert  so could someone else check.my reasoning. I haven't gone beyond the first match,that on the X chromosome between Hans and Donna 

  Hans   and Donna both claim descent from Susanna Chiles and both share some DNA on various chromosomes including the X chromosome. X inheritance has a peculiar pattern of descent and cannot be passed between two successive generations of males.

Simplified ascendancy  from  https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Space:Susannah_Martin_Woody_DNA_page

 Donna is the daughter of Tony .

Tony is the son of Helen .

Helen is the daughter of Matilda 

Matilda is the daughter of Mary 

Mary is the daughter of Elizabeth  

Elizabeth is the daughter of John .

John is the son of Susannah

Susannah is the daughter of Susannah Page (Chiles) Martin This makes Susannah the sixth great grandmother of Donna

 Hans is the son of Carol

Carol is the daughter of Edmund

 Edmund is the son of Ann

 Ann is the daughter of William 

 William is the son of Clarisa

Clarisa is the daughter of Jesse

Jesse is the son of Joseph Martin

Joseph is the son of Susannah Page  This makes Susannah the sixth great grandmother of Hans

  Donna could (if the trail is correct)  have received X DNA from Susannah Chiles. However Hans couldn't have received X DNA from Susannah Chiles.  Hans descent is through Susannah's son Joseph and his son Jesse   so even if the trail is correct,  he wouldn't have inherited Susannah Chiles X Chromosome. 

As Hans and Donna share a match on this chromosome it would seem that they share a relationship through a  different ancestor.  The  various Martins that are said to have been included in the 'Douglas' register may of course have  have been related to one another (or not, there  seem to  an awful lot of Martins that emigrated from England to Virginia that were not related to each other and  have frequently being conflated)

Comments

I agree with Helen's answer, being descended from Jesse breaks the x inheritance for Hans.  What's even more curious, is in the image posted for "Susannah Martin Woody DNA page Image 1" there is also an entry that states "Martyle Barwick, mother of Donna Seay" as another x match.  If I am looking at the correct person (Donna (Seay) Vance) there is a different mother listed.  If Martyle is indeed this Donna's mother, then the x match definitely from a different ancestor on Donna's mother's side.

This could possibly be Martyle, a Donna Kay Seay is listed in the obituary.

Donna Seay Vance and Donna Kay Seay are two different people, do we maybe have a confusion of matches here?