William Daniel Sr. of Middlesex ("Capt. William") named four sons in his will:
William, Robert, James, and Richard. We currently have DNA test results for three of these sons as shown in the tree below; lines are colored based on matching tests and the test kit numbers are included.
Mouse over a name for some further identification facts.
Of course we are very interested in finding a descendant of Richard and are always hunting. If you can help in this quest please contact Pam.
1. The mismatch:
Note that matching tests from multiple sons of a man prove his DNA "profile". The tests (in red) for William Jr. and Robert match each other, but differ from the tests (in blue) for James. For an analysis of this mismatch and a proposed solution to the discrepancy see here.
2. The branch markers:
A new marker as of Sep 2009
The members marked *37 show 37 at marker CDYb; the modal is 36. These two tests (20231 and N75969) are from two different sons of Josiah (md. Mary Denton), but Josiah's brother shows the modal, so the mutation began with Josiah. Descendants of this branch can be expected to show a 37.
The members marked *23 show 23 at marker #447, which now defines this branch, all the other tests in red show a 22 at this marker. Any descendants of this branch can be expected to show a 23. Future testers with something other than 23 at marker #447 are almost surely not from this branch.
The current tests prove this branching marker at the level of Robert (md. Sarah Mickelborough), son of Robert (md. Elizabeth Carter), son of William Jr. The next challenge is to find a tester from a brother to this branching Robert. If he also shows a 23 at marker 447, it will show that the branch marker actually starts with their father Robert (md. Elizabeth Carter). The eligible brothers, i.e. other sons of the older Robert, are: William (1731/2-1783, md.1 Elizabeth --, md.2 Hannah Wood; John (1733-1772, md.1 Sarah Reid, md.2 Elizabeth Rice; Christopher (1736-1793, md. Mary Mickelborough).
3. Finding the correct fit, correcting previous errors in identification:
a. Like the test of Josiah (#20231) described below, the representing George B. Daniel (marked "anc.dna") shows DNA supporting his almost certain place in the family of James K. Daniel, son of Josiah Daniel. There is already much evidence for this, location and dates, various namesakes, the presence of an unnamed son in early census that fits, etc., but migration at a critical age for this George B. means that one necessary record that clinches it is still to be found. For a very good description of the evidence see the discussion at rootsweb about this George B.. The DNA match makes this placement of George B. almost certain. The test was done with ancestry.com's DNA testing; they test 33 markers in common with Family Tree DNA and this test is a perfect 33/33 match.
b. Test #143930 resolves a longstanding confusion over various William H. Daniel's of Alabama and Georgia, all born in close years (ca 1826); the correct William H. has now confirmed his place as the son of Samuel Daniel and Elizabeth Holloway and thus his Middlesex ancestry by DNA! See Jan's fuller info and happy announcement here!
c. Tests #20231 and N75969, representing James J. and Walter K. Daniel, show DNA supporting the almost certain place of their father Josiah Daniel (b. 1805, md. Mary Denton) in the family of James K. Daniel, son of Josiah Daniel. There is already much evidence for this, location and dates, various namesakes, the presence of an unnamed son in early census that fits, etc., but migration at a critical age for this younger Josiah means that one necessary record that clinches it is still to be found. However, the DNA match makes this placement of Josiah almost certain.
d. Test #48481 represents James Daniel (1747-1820) who md. Sally Cocke. In his counties of Christian KY, Person NC, and Granville NC there is always another (often more than one) James Daniel. Old works melded them and made errors in placing the various James's, resulting in some very "creative" genealogies. These errors became so "written in stone" that, even when the different James's were eventually distinguished by research into their lands, ages and other data from the records, it didn't seem proof enough to overturn the old errors. DNA finally placed this James (48481) in his correct line, as the record evidence showed. For further details on this work see "James Daniel is the Son of James of Albemarle".
4. Getting on the right track:
Tests #13086 and #20707 have previously been thought to come from other lines, but their match shows them to be somehow related to the Middlesex Daniel family. Although there is still a ways to go to find how they fit into the family, at least the searchers now know in which direction to head and which erroneous lines they can now discard.
Placing these tests directly into Middlesex families has proved difficult thus far and the research on them has led both to some burned counties in NC and SC, breaking through has not been possible to date. One question to ponder is whether it's possible these tests actually come from a related line that didn't start in Middlesex, but arrived at a different time and place.
Below are the DNA results for the Middlesex Daniels. The branch mutations at marker #447 and CDYb are shown in bold and outlined together. The significance of the 66/67 Davis match is explained here (This is the same article mentioned and linked to in #1 above.).
PLEASE - If you are a Daniel male, or have a male Daniel relative, please join the DNA project and help all Daniel searchers in their quest! The join site is here.
If you know you are a Middlesex Daniel or if your results match any of ours, I also hope you'll allow me to include them on this page.
Comments or connections?
Email me at
(Sorry, have to copy by hand, the harvesters and spammers have gotten to be too much.)