Hellen Primett 1693-1768 (and John Furrian)


We have a son and mother DNA link to CJO and Philip. The mother is:

L.O. Managed by Mark Shepherd

She and her son have Thomas Primet(1774-) + Ann Peck (1778-) on their tree.

Using this single tree: https://www.ancestry.ca/family-tree/person/tree/78277807/person/44533693898/facts

I have been able to connect Thomas Primett to Hellen Primett 1693-1768.

Thomas Primett (1774-) + Ann Peck(1778-)
Robert Primett (1738-) + Catherine Kingsley (1747–)
an aside:
Catherine’s parents are Jonathan Kingsley(1700-) and Elizabeth Crouch(1706-1765)
Robert Primett (1714-1760) + Mary Hobbs(1721-)
Robert Primett (1688-1757) + Elizabeth Gutteridge(1691-1731)
Robert Primett (1654-1713) + Susan(1659-1711)

Robert Primett and Susan had a daughter:

Hellen &/or Eleanor Primett 1695–1768
BIRTH C1695 • Hertfordshire/Bedfordshire, England
DEATH 1768 • Pirton, Hertfordshire, England

who married according to the above tree:

John Furrian 1687–1731
BIRTH C1687 • Pirton, Hertfordshire, England
DEATH AUGUST 1731 • Pirton, Hertfordshire, England

PROBLEM is there is not a single piece of documentation in the tree! Maybe it was assembled like DJO and I did from the paper church records. ALSO the DNA link is likely also through Jonathon Kingsley(1700-) and Elizabeth Crouch(1706-1765). In RRTKKKK OR RRTTKKK KINGSLEY-CAIN/BRITTIAN MARRIAGE we found the parents of John Kingsly (1729-), who married Mary Cain, were Jonathan Kingsly and Elisabeth. It is entirely possible there is a DNA match because :

Jonathon Kingsley(1700-) and Elizabeth Crouch(1706-1765)
are the same couple as :
Jonathan Kingsly and Elisabeth

We have the small valley problem, expect here it is a village and environs problem: namely inbreeding makes DNA less easy to interpret.

What is interesting from a DNA point of view is LO is linked to Phil, Tom, cjo. While KINGSLEY-CAIN/BRITTIAN MARRIAGE group were linked to Vanessa, Phil, Tom, cwo and cjo. As expected the strength is lower for LO than the KINGSLEY-CAIN/BRITTIAN MARRIAGE group , because it reaches back a generation further. Do not take me too seriously, but the strength of LO is half of Martin_Prutton80. That is what we would expect, on average, for going back one generation further (divide by 4) and having two lines (multiple by 2).