Subject: Re: Lake Family @ Early New Netherlands Settlers At 07:13 PM 7/8/2009, Perry Streeter wrote: > > Marshall & Annette: > > > > Have you seen the source cited at... > > > > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~rclarke/page3/lake.htm ? > > > > I am presuming the claims regarding the origins of John Lake of Gravesend > > are false unless you tell me otherwise :) "T.S.& A.F. Truesdell" wrote: > Perry, > > I know Dayne Lake, author of "A History of John Lake". He and I have > met many years ago and have exchanged viewpoints on several occasions in > the past. However, I haven't spoken to him in quite a few years so I'm > not sure just where he is now. His "History" is a non-published work. > I have a copy of it somewhere here and will have to dig about for where > I've put it. He's obviously distributed it to other folk. > > Bottom line, he found a baptismal record in England dated 15 Sep 1627 at > Barnstable, Devonshire for a John Lake, son of a John and Margarie Lake. > He has concluded that because our John of Gravesend named a daughter > "Margaret", this is evidence that she was named after her maternal > grandmother, Margarie. To the best of my knowledge, he has no primary > evidence. I told him at the time that the best thing would be to try and > find any living descendants of the Devonshire LAKEs and have them submit > a DNA test to see if there was any match to the Gravesend folk (of which > Dayne is one). It's unlikely that any search for them has happened. > > In one of our conversations, I also suggested it may be a possibility > that Thomas Lake of Stratford could be the same Thomas Lake that is one > of the culprits of the cat being tied to the mare's tail episode found > in Gravesend court records. I said that we need some DNA evidence to > support or refute this. Well, I guess Dayne decided that circumstantial > evidence was enough and he included it as fact in his writing. From what > I've seen in Marshall's DNA database, a descendant of Thomas of Stratford > submitted a test and it does NOT match the Gravesend family. I would > be nice if another descendant submitted a test as well to confirm the > result, but based on the one test, the hypothesis regarding Thomas of > Stratford being part of the Gravesend family is not accurate. > > So, the data as far as I'm concerned, is not supported by research that > is accompanied by evidence. > > Annette "Marshall Lake" wrote: I can't speak to Dayne Lake's book, but it does seem that we have two descendants of Thomas LAKE of Stratford in the LAKE DNA Project. One of the participants has not been able to trace his lineage back to Thomas of Stratford with a paper trail. However, his results match up exactly through the first 37 markers with the proven Thomas LAKE descendant (the only markers which the participant with a paper trail has tested). This tells me there's a very high chance that Thomas LAKE of Stratford is a direct ancestor of both participants. Also, the test results of the two Thomas LAKE descendants are so very different from the Gravesend LAKEs that it shows that the two groups (the Stratford LAKEs and the Gravesend LAKEs) are not closely related at all. But still, as Annette says, it would be nice to have other descendants get tested.