Six Ways to Sunday 

~ A TALE OF THE GENETIC DISTILLATIONS 

        

(Author's note: This has been bugging the crap out of me for nearly two years now. It was time I got to work and at least attempted to figure it out. Please forgive the charts. Please forgive my use of AI, and please forgive the prose. Peace out.)

                                                               **********                   

As always, genetically, unedited. 

God, I do hope this post will make sense.

We all know I have written about this before. It's about the how and why of a DNA match to a stranger that has led us both (I believe) on a remarkable journey of discovery. From babies switched in mid-America hospitals in the 1940s (yeah, not us!) to the hallowed halls of lineage societies, and even up until a few days ago, when between the two of us we identified the family jeweler and silversmith, it's been a wild journey getting to know "Cousin Dan." 

Reputed to be some combination of half-third cousin or fourth cousin per the algorithm, it's been a genetic tie that makes little to no sense. On the outside (and believe me, all of this makes my head hurt from my lack of knowledge), this would mean that Dan and I share a common set of third great-grandparents, or at least one. So I figured with only thirty-two third great-grandparents to comb through, initially I felt that "getting through the thirty-two" couldn't be all that difficult to find the ancestor (or culprit) in common. However, I combed and combed, looking for some genealogical crossover event to no avail. I looked at Quaker mishaps. I followed geographical migrations out of New England and the Mid-Atlantic that led, well, not where I needed them to. It didn't make sense.

The question remained: Just who is Cousin Dan?

Okay, I know, I know, Dan is Dan, and I'm me, and a big "whatever" to the genetic mix. But, still, it's nagged at me.

In the back of my mind, though, it came back to me that I have seen (at least on paper) how and where Dan and I are related in what they used to call a manner of "Six-ways-to-Sunday." In other words, and at least per family trees, I knew that we had a lot of common ancestors. I wasn't sure exactly how many, and I knew that they (the ancestors) went way back in time, but still, it got me wondering, just how many of them were there exactly?  

 So I counted. And I counted. And I counted until I got to fourteen and stopped.

Could it be that Cousin Dan and I share fourteen ancestors in common? (And that is a conservative estimate.) 

But before I get into all of that, I thought I'd list out those fourteen ancestors that Cousin Dan and I do have (at least on paper). Now I haven't vetted each of these lines. They are largely gleaned from published sources, but all of them feel at least anecdotally correct in that there is a paper trail leading from any one of them forward to me or to Dan.

Now there is a lot of information here.  I have done my best to chart it as accurately and to make it as easy to read as possible. I doubt that I have been all that successful. I've done my best to list the shared ancestor in common (by couple), the degree of relationship for either myself (JR) or (DW), the nearest line of decent through that couple, whether or not the relationship to either Dan or myself falls on our maternal or paternal side, and also the nearest family line at the "end or the tail." 

Because there are so many and so much information, I had originally shown this information as one contiguous chart. However, I want it to make as much sense as possible, so I have broken the chart up into several pieces of our "shared ancestors," hoping for a clearer view or intake result for the reader.

(Good luck, Jeff.)

I have also interlaced some textual images of these ancestors' lives to break up the monotony of the chart. 

I very much appreciate your patience. I hope the "key categories" will make sense. 

As I did this though, it caused me to postulate (gotta love that word) a question: 

If one shares a plethora of "ancestors in common" with someone else, albeit distant (eighth to eleventh great-grandparents' distance), was it possible that these two individuals had each inherited enough small pieces of DNA that they could resemble fourth cousins or closer simply by volume?

Am I even saying that correctly?

   

             

I don't know the answer to the question.

 Of course, I posited the question to AI, "who," patronizingly explained to me why I was correct in my assumption. I argued with the AI a bit that it was excluding any "false positives" while it (the AI) painted some picture of distant DNA running down some fluvial river to illustrate why I was correct in my assumption. Correct in my assumption that shared DNA with multiple distant ancestors may cause the algorithm to think that the cumulative effect resembles fourth cousins.

 Still, pretty AI pictures really don't do it for me.

 (Even with as much as I believe I am right.)

Note: There is an error in the chart below. Walter Palmer's children, Hannah, Nehemiah, and Gershom, are all by his 2nd second wife, Rebecca Short.

Paperwork wise, this journey to identify my common connection to "Cousin Dan" appears to quickly reveal that the DNA algorithm's prediction of a "fourth cousin" was a statistical mirage.

Instead of finding a single set of the normal shared third Great-Grandparents expected for fourth cousins, my research into published sources uncovered ten distinct ancestral paths (I think that's right!) that Dan and I share, with our closest common ancestors being our eighth great-grandparents:

 William Buckman and Elizabeth Wilson. :)

Cheers to Bill and Liz!

In essence, I believe that the genealogical truth is that we (Dan and I) are genetic cousins fourteen times over, with the closest documented connection dating back over 300 years. 

This overwhelming volume of shared distant ancestry is the key to the mystery, proving that the DNA match is real,

... but the relationship label is misleading.

Remember: Per AI there are fourteen lines here with ten distinct genetic paths.

The reason these distant lines show up as such a strong match is a phenomenon known as "Genetic Distillation" or "Pedigree Pile-Up." The DNA testing software at Ancestry.com measures only about the total amount of shared DNA, measured in centimorgans (cM). 

While a single tenth cousin relationship is like a small, isolated stream, it has a near-zero chance of passing down a detectable segment of DNA; BUT having ten+ separate opportunities to inherit DNA from a common ancestral pool fundamentally changes the statistics. 

(Or so says AI and a couple of cited sources below)

These many tiny, individual segments—too small to register on their own—add together.

I gotta say, I still find it pretty amazing (?) marvelous (?) don't you?

This cumulative effect is what pushes our total shared "cM" count into the range that the algorithm is programmed to label Dan and me as: "Likely fourth cousins." 

Therefore, our genetic connection is the literal sum of centuries of shared heritage. 

I "postulate" that this research provides somewhat definitive proof: the Ancestry.com DNA test measured the volume of shared genetics, and my chart documented the 10+ sources of that volume.

     

       

Frankly, it's like the connections just don't stop.

Okay, that's all well and good, and that was fun, BUT, just who are these people in relation to Dan or me? It's interesting that "the folks" presented here on Dan's mother's side are related to my father, and the folks on Dan's biological father's side are related to my mother. They are almost like mirrored halves. I wonder if this holds true genetically?  

(Well, Old Dan got the better halves...lol) 

There are no cross-overs, i.e, where we have a relationship that is both paternal and maternal for us both at the same time.

Curious too, is our ancestor mutual Walter Palmer (with Dan's four lines of descent from Walter), has two individual lines down to Dan, with one being one for his mom and one for his biological father. 

I found it cool that there are also a couple of multi-generational relationships here, as with the Thomas Brown and the Henry Collins families, that extended the connections to Dan and me even further. It was interesting for me personally that Dan is related to three of my four grandparents, so I wondered why not the fourth? 

Hmmmm...

In the end, I get that this is all fairly useless information. It does (or at least I hope it will) clarify Ancestry's algorithm in that it is likely adding the cumulative DNA together for its causal relationship, or that this appears to be the case.

Very curious.

Kinda brings new meaning to the whole word "cousin," huh?

And on that note, I suppose I should close for now.

But before I go...

Remember Cousin Dan, "Dan" is just "DNA" re-arranged. lol. ✌

Wink!

IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN, 

AND IN THE PILGRIM SPIRIT OF THIS THANKSGIVING SEASON, I GIVE THANKS FOR THOSE WHO HAVE COME BEFORE US.

Notes and Queries: Is the statistical illusion a real thing?

Yes, the statistical illusion described in the post—known as Pedigree Pile-Up or Genetic Distillation—is a real and well-documented phenomenon in genetic genealogy.

The core concept is entirely correct: a DNA testing service may assign you and a match a "close" label (like 4th cousin) based on the total amount of shared DNA, even if the closest shared ancestor is actually many generations further back.

What It Is: Pedigree Pile-Up

The phenomenon is most commonly referred to by genealogists as Pedigree Pile-Up or Stacked Ancestry. The blog post's term, "Genetic Distillation," refers to the same cumulative effect.

The Mechanism

This "illusion" occurs because DNA testing algorithms measure only one thing: the total amount of shared DNA, typically expressed in centimorgans (cM).

1. Distant Ancestry: For very distant relatives (e.g., 8th or 10th cousins), the probability of inheriting a single, detectable segment of DNA from that common ancestor is close to zero.

2. Cumulative Effect: If you and your match share many distinct ancestral couples, the math changes. Each shared distant couple provides a tiny, independent chance to pass down a fragment of DNA.

3. The "Pile-Up": When you accumulate 10, 14, or even more tiny, trace segments from multiple distant lines, their total combined length (cM) can be high enough to cross the testing company's threshold for a closer relationship, such as a 4th or 5th cousin. The shared DNA is real, but the predicted relationship label is a statistical average based on the total cM, not the most recent common ancestor.

This effect is particularly common among people whose ancestors came from the same small, geographically isolated communities over centuries, leading to a high degree of endogamy (marrying within a local group).

Querry:

But if the chance of inheriting from such distant ancestors is near on zero how can this be true?

The Lottery of DNA Inheritance

While the average chance of inheriting DNA from a single ancestor drops very quickly, the actual inheritance is a random process called recombination.

1. The Low Chance is for a Single Ancestor

It is absolutely true that the expected amount of DNA inherited from an 8th great-grandparent is extremely tiny—on average, around 0.003% of your total DNA. This means the probability of passing down a single, detectable DNA segment (usually defined as 7 centimorgans or more by most testing companies) is indeed near zero.

The Power of the "Pile-Up"

The illusion becomes reality when you factor in the cumulative effect of sharing multiple distant ancestors, which is what the blog post referred to as Pedigree Pile-Up (or Genetic Distillation).

2. The Many "Tickets"

Think of inheriting a DNA segment from an ancestor as winning a lottery.

• The chance of winning with one ticket (one distant ancestor) is near zero.

• However, if you and your match share 10 to 14 different sets of distant ancestors (as the author did with Cousin Dan), you are both essentially buying 10 to 14 separate lottery tickets from the same ancestor pool.

3. Cumulative Shared DNA (cM)

Even though any single segment you inherit from one distant ancestor might be too small to be recorded, the key is that these tiny, individually insignificant fragments add together.

When you sum up 14 or more of these minuscule segments shared across multiple distinct ancestral lines, the total centimorgans shared can reach a level—such as 20 cM to 50 cM—that the testing algorithm interprets as a much closer relationship, like a 4th or 5th cousin.

The DNA is real, but the relationship label is misleading, as it's generated by the total volume of shared centimorgans from many distant sources, not a single recent source.

Sources: (1) Bettinger, Blaine T. "The Shared cM Project—Version 5.0 (March 2024)." The Genetic Genealogist. Last modified March 2024.

              (2) International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG). "Endogamy." ISOGG Wiki.

 All Hart               

(Author's note: Family history can be a journey. This post deals with a particular Anglo-Irish line of my cousin Dan Wells, and a couple of his ancestors I met along the way.)

As always, unapologetically, unedited.

There are times in genealogy when I simply become lost. Not in the usual sense of "lost." No, it's more like falling into an abyss of obsession, or one of those Through the Looking Glass moments of family history. It's here where some old ghost calls out to me across time and says, "Do you think you could tell my story too?" In response to such a beguiling query, I am then quite hooked. From there, I'm all in - and endeavoring to know and understand just who this man or woman was. 

                   

                                               

I can't tell you why. It just happens. Beware the old genealogist awaking ghosts.    

This week, that's been the case with a couple of Irishmen, "and theirs." It started out simply enough - that is, with me trying to push a line out to the furthest limit, and pushing it out to one Irishman in particular, a Mr. Hugh Hart. From there, the line moved onto Hugh's daughter, Mary Hart, and then bled over into Mary's husband, Dr. William Cummin, of whom further. I don't know what it was about Hugh Hart that caught my eye. Was it that he was an Irish immigrant to America arriving well ahead of schedule of the usual Irish immigration and who arrived in the mid to late 1700s, or was it the startling bequests to his family contained in his will, I can't say. 

Indeed, there is so much about Hugh Hart that has called me back to ask, just who was this guy?

Then there is a rumor of his poetry. Frickn' poetry?!?! Egads!

Really, just a wisp of a rumor about Hugh Hart's beautiful poems, which has surely been an intoxicating idea for any reasonable person or some wannabe genealogist like me to fall victim to. Yet it was hard for me to picture this guy, Hugh Hart. How was it that I was encountering a very wealthy Irish immigrant poet in late eighteenth-century Pennsylvania Society?

What had brought him here? How? Why?        

The accounts of Hugh are few, save for the airy recollections of his children or grandchildren or the notices of his civic-mindedness in the newspapers. I kept asking myself, What was the source of his fortunes? 

Okay, so I was a little curious. It's the nature of the beast.

And further, did he publish or leave behind The Lost Poems of Hugh Hart, still gathering dust on some backwater Philadelphia bookshelf? Can't you just see it? Leather-bound and sitting on some dusty antiquarian's shelf? I simply must have a copy. I've searched local library catalogs and archives in Philadelphia/Belfast for any possible poetry attributed to Hugh Hart with no success. Perhaps it was a family joke, or his poems exist only in the forgotten letters of his children...

I can only say that I wish I knew more. 

But my ability to research over and beyond the pond into the scarred and scattered depths of Scots-Irish ancestry is limited. I guess I don't speak the language. The only thing I can do about Hugh Hart is to record his life as best as I can, to notate it, and yes, to stumble.

But I do see you, Hugh Hart. I do hear you. 

Truly, though, old ghost, you simply gotta speak up a little louder.    

    (1816)  

                     

                        (1811)

Most of Hugh's life is gleaned from County Histories, obits, and biographies, and certainly not from any vital records. I find no immigration record or marriage record, though his 1795 marriage to Mary Ard is anecdotally well recorded. Still, you get to me, Hugh Hart. You are such a curious man with all your "poetic to-do" and all your seemingly great Irish wealth. 

You are such a curious man with all your unclaimed letters at the post office. 

Had you absconded with something that did not belong to you, Hugh Hart? Did you leave a family behind or rob your King and Queen?

For shame! lol.

                                 (1795)

I just cannot fathom who you were, old man. Show yourself, Hugh Hart.             

That you loved your daughter, Mary Hart, seems quite evident in your will. You seem to have wanted her to have the best of everything, and if I read the will correctly, perhaps even the lioness's share of your fortune. This tells me that you must have vetted her suitors, or, at least, in understanding your absence or future demise, compelled your sons and brothers to do so for you. 

You left her (in today's money equating to) over $50,000 in 1836. This amount was in addition to your other bequests. 

Not exactly a potato farmer fleeing famine, eh, Hugh Hart? 

Did you acquiesce lightly or grumble when she accepted the offer that she should marry the widower Dr. William Cummin, lately graduated from the Belfast Institute? Mary was beautiful. Why did she entertain this widower? You must have missed notating or thought it irrelevant (wherever you were) that he was, after all, a doctor. You must have wondered about him, though, that Dr. William Cummin, or taken in letters you tried to ignore from Your Family of Harts sent from the old country on his behalf. Did you live long enough to see your Mary consider this upstart? I have to check. You must have wondered what Dr. William Cummin could possibly know about life in America. He'd arrived so many years after you had. Did you live long enough to see her betrothed?  

Did the good doctor even read proper Irish poetry? 

Was he adept enough to appreciate Swift, or was he an acolyte of that debauched Goldsmith? 

It's been so hard to say.

                                                                     II.

The story of Hugh Hart may remain a riddle, but his legacy flowed directly into the life of his daughter, Mary, and the man she chose: the promising, but short-lived, Dr. William Cummin.

Of Dr. William Cummin, I will admit, I have been a bit enraptured too. He strikes off a branch of the Harts with vigor, quickly assembling in his own industry a dynasty of well-wishing late nineteenth-century Main Line Pennsylvanians. However, fate wasn't necessarily going to be kind to Dr. Cummin, and hence to poor young Mary Hart. Could you have known, Hugh Hart, that your son-in-law would die at the tender age of forty-two and leave your Mary with three children from his previous wife, the beleaguered Margaret Steele, and three by your Mary? 

               

Yes, there has seemed to be as much to know about the good Dr. William Cummin as there has been about his father-in-law, the elusive Hugh Hart. 

   

                            (1890)

So...I decided I had to get down to it a bit.

That is, I decided that I needed to dissect what records there were about Dr. Cummin to see if I could get a better idea of who he was during his short life. 

Some of my research here is ongoing, as my emailed queries haven't been answered just yet. 

      

     (1846)

I started out with his education, that is or Dr. William Cummin. It says that he was educated at the Belfast Institute, and so, believing that an ancient school like this must surely contain some record of his attendance, I contacted them. Unwittingly, I contacted Queen's University Belfast, believing it to be one and the same as the Belfast Institute. They replied that they took over collegiate-level learning in 1845 from what would have been called the "Belfast Institute" and referred me back in time to the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, which predates them. These folks were quick and kind in their reply, too, but sent me packing, and referred me on to the PRONI (sounds like a disease) and said that "some of their older records had been moved here 15+ years ago..." This is the "Public Records of Northern Ireland," and the website landscape is hard. The academic era I am looking for is likely the 1820s-1830s. It's anybody's guess what they might still have. Still, to know the good Dr., and on behalf of my new friend Hugh Hart, I gotta try.

So I've written off to the Great Halls of Belfast's Public Records in high hopes that they will take pity on an old man's inquiry. My electronic reply is that it will take them twenty business days from yesterday to "process" my request. 

One never knows what might show up. It is a bit like kismet, that is, genealogy. As they say, Stranger Things...

Still, I have to wonder, what brought you here, Dr. William Cummin? What is a letter from the Harts? What was the draw to leave the relative comforts of Belfast or Londonderry, Ireland, for a life in Londonderry, Pennsylvania? 

What did the Harts promise you?

In the meantime, it's been a bit less than dope in my learning much more about you, dear Dr. Cummin - that is, as I have scoured the web in search of "Dr. William Cummin" to see what might be revealed about our Belfast boy - and usurper of the daughter of Hugh Hart.

Oddly enough, I find mention of our boy William, and indeed mention of his father-in-law, the indomitable Hugh, together in volume sixteen, and mentioned in these other clippings of your life pictured below.

Did someone know something, or make up something along the way? 

    

(1818)

(1830)

Indeed, in the volume below:

However, wouldn't you know it, volume sixteen is still under its 1951 copyright and harder than "Holy Hart" to get at. The Google snippets imply wonderful things like "Royal Irish Pedigrees" next to "Cummin-Hart" and imply at least a decent fabrication of royal lines. Are they true or not? Aye, they certainly will make for some fun reading - if only one can get at them. 

It seems for now they will have to remain a part of Hugh, and part of William, and most assuredly a part of the no "tell-tale-hart." 

Crazy. You can't even buy a copy; it is so out of print.

    

A cousin of President Adams?

I mean, how could one not want to see these forgotten or forbidden pages? A delicious ancestry. Would or will those pages within prove to be a bust? In my spare time, I may go back and delve into what little clues there are among the snippets, but in the meantime, I have written away to the Mid-Continent Genealogical Library for copies of the applicable pages. I can't get my hopes up too high here...tracing the Cummin line back to the folks shown below would be a Herculean task. Still, why not see what they have to say? Perhaps some mid-century modern socialite may have revealed some hidden genealogy gems as yet unverified.

   

 Above: Winifred Cummin Westfall 

Whose mother was (quite curiously) Lavinia "Hart" who married Thomas Stinson Cummin - and likely the contributor of the pedigree to the Colonial and Revolutionary Lineages...

Apparently, Harts and Cummins were naturally betrothed even a century or so later.

Perhaps contained in all that Hart-Cummin chapter, there will be a clue as to The Lost Poems of Hugh Hart.

Aye, Hugh, I did not forget ye!

       

John "The Red" Comyn

In the meantime... There is the curious tale of the Cummin family (Comyn) and John "The Red" Comyn and the dastardly (?), brave (?), arrogant (?) Robert the Bruce. I mean, this is right out of the late Middle Ages, and abounds with murder and intrigue. Good stuff - in retrospect anyway. (Nasty business between the Comyns and the Bruces if you ask me...)

Is this what the old times will choose to reveal? To link up the Hart/Cummin line to John "The Red?" It remains to be seen as we wait for word from Belfast about William's academic records, and as we attempt to glean what we can about Hugh Hart.

I have to say that this is an interesting section in Dan's family tree. 

Heck, they've even made a few of the classics about these folks along the way. Stay tuned, though, this post is somewhat fluid, and I will add back into this blog post what answers come out of Belfast, or are contained in the pages of Colonial and Revolutionary Lineages, that is, if they, the Great Genealogical Gods, choose to favor me.

And, of course, if Hugh Hart and the good doctor truly want the story told.

🕊     

PostScript #1: Word received today that the Mid-Continent Genealogy Library does not have "volume sixteen" of the series above... they are referring me to the NYPL.  

New York??? Pray I don't get lost. 

PostScript #2: The NYPL was great to work with. The volume (16) of Colonial and Revolutionary Lineages is stored off-site, but they say they will scan the applicable chapters and email scans to me in two weeks. How awesome is that? 

PostScript #3: Copies of the pages from Colonial and Revolutionary Lineages arrived today. They have some additional information - but not much. Now we wait for something from Belfast.

  

 The Mayflower "Pye-atts" 

(Author's note: This is just a genealogical tale of "how did we get there from here." You know, much like they must have thought one day in, say, "1620." All the best.)

As always, thankfully unedited.

There's no reason to tell this tale. After all, genealogically speaking, it barely qualifies as hearsay. However, isn't it equally as wrong to ignore a genealogical whisper as it is to repeat it? I've written before about the value of legend and lore in family history, but that was personal— and (usually) my own lore. But what about someone else's? Is it wrong to share with them the rumors you see in their own family tree? Is it just supercilious or silly?

Yeah, probably.

We all know I am, if nothing else, a Mayflower geek. This means I am always on the hunt for ties to the passengers who landed in 1620, and any of the descendants of those folks who came to help create whatever the American dream is supposed to be (along with a little bit of chaos and plunder along the way). As I do genealogy, I'm continually looking for one of these ancestral lines, no matter if it's true, real, or debunked. I can't tell you how many times I've come across those "almost" lines from a Mayflower passenger. I guess, then, that the telling of all this is, well, just a part of the process.

So here goes. You be the judge. Remember, at this point, it's all just genealogical hearsay.

In this case, it involves Mayflower passenger Edward Fuller.

                                                  *********

Recently, while working to clarify some of the ancestral lines of my father's VA caregiver, Rebecca Moore, I noticed something strange. It was a marriage of curious names; the marriage of a Mr. John Pruitt (1806-18730 to a Miss Catherine Pyaett (1801-1865). I'm not sure why, but the combination of those two names struck me as funny, and I decided to chase them both down the genealogical rabbit hole to see where each of them led.

Hey, it's what I do, right?

Now, Rebecca's Pruet family line was interesting, but - and we'll get to how it all ties in together in a bit - however, it was in her Pyeatt family lines that the true mystery began to evolve, and where the hearsay of a Mayflower connection to passenger Edward Fuller begins to take root. Could it possibly be a real line? Could it be proven? It sure didn't look like it - but - I wanted to know more.

To do this, I decided to take each generation descending from Edward Fuller 

As shown below, the first five lines verify out just fine:

1.) EDWARD FULLER, c.1675-1621, of the Mayflower, and his wife Ann, whose maiden name is unknown

2.) SAMUEL FULLER, c.1612-1683, of the Mayflower, who married Jane Lothrop

3.) Hannah Fuller, 1636-1686, who married Nicholas Bonham

4.) Mary Bonham, 1661-1742, who married Edward Dunham

5.) Ephraim Dunham, 1686-1749, who married Phebe Smalley

So as far as lineage goes, we're okay so far coming down from Mayflower passenger Edward Fuller, at least in terms of published sources. But from here it's about to get interesting.

6.) ELIZABETH DUNHAM, 1730-1789, who married Jacob Piatt III

          

The trouble here is that while we can verify these first now, six generations, there is no marriage record that Elizabeth Dunham ever married Jacob Piatt - or rather, there is no record of Jacob's wife's maiden name as "Dunham" - though we do know that she was "Elizabeth." 

So this sixth generation becomes the first problematic issue for the line. However, there is a small bit of hope. I found it here on the FindAGrave.com memorial for Elizabeth...

           

Now I have no reason to believe that the person who posted this isn't telling the truth, but the first part of any verification for Rebecca's line would be to contact the General Society of Mayflower Descendants and verify that this is the case - "that is that" DNA has confirmed "the tie" between Elizabeth Dunham and Jacob Piatt/Pyeatt, III. 

However, assuming that this is correct, we can move on to the next generation, that of Jacob Pyeatt, IV, who is mentioned here below in the image of his father's will, and mentioned along with his wife, Elizabeth.

THIS IS STARTING TO GET VERY FUZZY GENEALOGICALLY:

7.) Jacob Piatt, IV, 1749-1816, who married, at some point in time, Nancy David Adams

Now, there is some mention that Jacob IV did have a wife named Nancy. The timeline here is vague at best, and any marriage date for Jacob and Nancy hasn't been well-documented, at least insofar as it relates to the next generation, their presumed son, John Piatt.

However, here goes what I did find: 

Is this the right John Pyeatt, son of Jacob?

8.) John Piatt, 1769-1827, who married Martha "Patsy" (?) Hildebrand - VERIFICATIONS NEEDED. 

Below is an image of a whole lot of genealogical salad. One has to simply pick out the croutons and hope the tomatoes were ripe when picked.         

                 

9.) Catherine Piatt, 1804-1865, who married John Pruet                           

    

Okay, while not perfect, proving things out should start to get easier right about here:

10.) Mary Ann Pruett, 1835-1909, who married Newton Jesse Stice            

              

11.) Lewis "Van Buren" Stice, 1856-1912, who married Lizzie Mabie

                  

12.) Edna Olena Stice, 1893-1926, who married Stephen Walter Cobb

           

              

13.) Freeda Vonnie Cobb, 1915-1987, who married, as her first husband, Richard E. Johnson

    

14.) Nancy Johnson-Mills, 1945 -   , who married Gary Allen Moore

15.) REBECCA L. MOORE, 1966 - 

So there you have it - a proposed but very much unproven Mayflower line from MP passenger Edward Fuller. It is in no way "gospel." It is a rumor in a family tree - a whisper of something possible. As I said at the start of this post, it seems wrong not to mention it, even with its status being so very murky.

                       

I guess the only thing to do here is to honor passenger Edward Fuller a bit, to study his and the lives of all the pilgrims, and perhaps muse on all things possible. In the meantime, we will wait for better proofs and definitely a better wannabe genealogist to come along and tell us the truth of it all - a genealogist better than I will ever be.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

And may all your family histories be as sweet as Pyeatt... I mean, pie!