Part 21: Swinfield DNA update

We have the result of another DNA test which adds significantly to our knowledge of the relationship between the larger branches of our family. Andrew Swinfield of Sydney, New South Wales, commissioned a 37 marker test through Family Tree DNA. The results are now in. You can see and compare the results that we now have on the Swinfield DNA &Genealogy page hosted by FTDNA. What do they tell us? I have discussed these results in detail there.

To summarise what we know, we now have three men who have been tested. They are:

Andrew John Swinfield                       born 1957   Sydney, NSW          Family 3A         
Derrick George Joseph Swinfield        born 1928   Leicester                  Family 5F
Paul Frederick Swinfield                     born 1957   Crayford, Kent         Family 4 & 13

Andrew & Derrick match at 29 of 32 markers

Paul & Derrick match at 31 of 32 markers

Andrew & Paul match at 34 of 37 markers

Wolvey church

Only two of them are known to be related through genealogical records. Andrew is the 4^th cousin, once removed, to Paul, both being part of the extensive family which is designated as Family 3 & 4. They both descend from Thomas Swinfield and Elizabeth Hackett who married in the parish church of Monks Kirby, Warwickshire, on 21^st August 1803. They named their children in the neighbouring church of Wolvey from 1804 to 1820 before moving on to Mancetter where they named their last three sons from 1822 to 1827.

Andrew’s ancestor was William (1804-1876) who emigrated to NSW in 1848. He is the forebear of all living Swinfields in Australia. Paul’s great-great-grandfather, George Swinfield (born 1825), remained in England after his two oldest brothers, William and John (1806-1874), travelled to the other side of the World.

Derrick is part of my branch of the Swinfields, Family 5, an equally large lineage. Unlike me, through the unfortunate illegitimacy which resulted in my great-grandfather, in 1841 (see Part 6 of the blog), he would appear to have a “typical” Swinfield Y-chromosome. He has inherited this from his direct male ancestors. His almost exact match with the two representatives of Family 3 & 4 strongly argues that the two largest pedigrees are branches of one much larger family tree. If only records had survived from that early, it would be possible to show that all those named Swinfield descend from a single ancestor who assumed our surname in about the 13^th century when names became hereditary. 

It would appear that the "Swinfield haplotype" is:  

DYS	Value				DYS	Value
393	13				448	19
390	24				449	30
19	14				464a	15
391	10 or 11				464b	16
385a	11				464c	16 or 17
385b	14				464d	17
426	12				460	11
388	12				GATA-H4	11
439	11				YCAlla	19
389a	13				YCAllab	23
392	13				456	15
389b	29				607	14
458	17				576	19
459a	9				570	17
459b	9 or 10				CDYa	35
455	11				CDYb	36 or 37
454	11				442	12
447	24				438	12
437	14

We now need to test men from other branches to see if they have the same haplotype too. Volunteers please raise your hands! 

Part 6: It's all in the science!

So who was the real father of William Swinfield, my great-grandfather, who was born in 1841? Although, on paper, he was born legitimately to Thomas and Sarah Swinfield, who had married at Trowell in 1829, there was overwhelming evidence that Thomas had left his family behind by as early as 1839 and was living at Calverton. In that year, his new partner, Maria Cooper, had his child, whom they named Elizabeth Swinfield Cooper.

Sarah Swinfield remained in Earl Shilton and produced two illegitimate issue in 1843 and 1845, whom she named Joseph and Sarah. The evidence leads us to believe that the father was her long-term partner, Thomas Brown. Could genetic tests be used to determine if Thomas was also the father of my William?

My 37 marker haplotype certificate

By testing the Y-chromosome, which is passed from father to son and which makes children male, it is possible to produce a profile for any man. There are many marker sites along its length which can be “scored” for the number of meaningless repeats of very short sections of DNA known as short tandem repeats (STRs). By comparing the STR profile (called the haplotype) of two or more men, an assessment can be made of how closely they are related. Usually, this is done for men who share the same surname, adopted as a family name about 1300.

Graham's 37 marker haplotype 

Joseph Swinfield had three sons and from them there were many lines of male descent. His great-grandson, Graham Albert Swinfield, my 3^rd cousin, was traced. He kindly agreed to provide a sample of his DNA and that was compared with mine using Family Tree DNA (FTDNA). The results can be viewed on the Swinfield DNA & Genealogy Group page.Amazingly, we were identical at 35 of the 37 marker sites tested.  Not only that but we also had an extremely rare haplotype for English men. We certainly shared the same male ancestor. Whoever was the father of Sarah’s illegitimate child in 1843 was also the genetic father of my great-grandfather. The evidence put the ball very much in Thomas Brown’s court! 

Paul's 37 marker haplotype

We have also tested two other Swinfields, one of whom was “on paper” my 4^th cousin, Derrick George Joseph, the man I had met on my first day in a record office (see “My First Step in Genealogy” below).  He has a completely different haplotype which is almost identical to that of Paul Frederick Swinfield (of Family 3 & 4). They only differ at one marker out of the 32 for which they have both been tested.  This is a type of Y-chromosome which would be found frequently amongst over 70% of English men. They must have a common male ancestor and it proves that Families 3 & 4 and 5 must be related if only we can find the document that proves it!   

After nearly 40 years of collecting any information, that I could lay my hands on, relating to the surname of Swinfield, I had proved conclusively that I am not one. I should have been researching Brown instead!