In his letter dated may 5 1866, George Haines states that Indian traits are only showing up in the male descendants of Mary Carlile. And that the female descendants show no sign of Indian blood. But genetically this is precisely what one would expect to find if Mary were indeed an Indian. I am going to be a little technical here, but please bare with me. If Mary was an Indian maiden she would pass on the Indian gene in both her XX (chromosomes) In her sons (YX) there would be no X from the father to cancel out the Indian traits, so the SONS would show clear signs of Indian blood. The daughters however would carry two (XX) chromosomes from both father(X) and mother(X) with the fathers dominate gene cancelling out the Indian traits passed on from the mother. But half their daughters would pass on the Indian gene to their children. This same pattern would continue generation after generation up until the present day with the Indian gene showing up randomly, but only among the male members of the Family. Precisely what George Haines observed.
I can attest to the truth of this because my grandfather, Charles Bozarth Haines clearly had some Indian characteristics. Even to the point that my uncles would often refer to him as "Cherokee" I never understood why until now
That's interesting, many thanks, but I thought Richard Haines Jr. and Mary Carlile were married before 1700? I have all of his children listed as born before 1720. Isn't that what J.W. Haines's book indicates or not? Could there have been another wife first?
typo on my part. sorry.
The information I read recently that indicates that Mary Carlile, who married Richard Haines Jr., was supposedly not an American Indian is on rootsweb Quaker Roots-L Archives for June 14, 1998, posted by Dorothy Burt. She refers to an article posted in Jan. of 1998. The reference is made to J.W. Haines book where he discusses the pros and cons of whether or not Mary Carlile was an Indian, but says he ultimately did not believe she was. It's a bit garbled but somewhat convincing, although not totally convincing by any means. I'm not sure of course, and perhaps someone else here could look it over and see what they think of that information?
I have read that. It's before the era of DNA genealogy.
I know that I, as well as my mom and my 3rd-5th cousins, all show Native American on our DNA results. The only possible ancestor is Mary Carlile.
Of course, everyone can argue about it. But ultimately, science doesn't lie.
That makes sense to me that your family does have the Indian ancestry, but I show no American Indian ancestry, and I feel sure other descendants of Mary Carlile may not either. That interests me, which is why I wondered about the admixture analysis you spoke of. I found the entire chapter RE: "Mary Carlile" that is from the Richard Haines book, pp. 33-36, so I can see more clearly what the difficulties are that people argue about. Some people think the Mary Carlile that Richard Haines Jr. married was the daughter of that family from England, and others think that she was a Lenni-Lenape/Delaware Indian who converted and became part of the Carlile household and then married Richard Haines. In this case I think I have to go with the preponderance of family tradition in that her grandkids said their grandmother was Lenni-Lenape and they were proud of it. It seems to me to be prejudice that indicates she could not have been an educated Indian convert. One of the sources for the English Mary says they married in England which they clearly did not. People are reading the same info and making a prejudiced decision which parts to believe it seems to me, while it is evident that the family itself understood her native ancestry and were proud of it. I do believe that science sometimes does lie, however, but not generally DNA results.
Who do you descend from again? Was it Bethanah or another of the children?
I wonder if any of us are related to the brave aid worker David Cawthorne Haines who was executed by ISIS?