Comments on Duncan (Campbell) Campbell IInd of Glenurchy [closed]

Question

YDNA testing by the University of Strathclyde Glasgow along with the genealogists at the Strathclyde Institute for Genealogical Studies and the Campbell DNA Project have concluded that Sir Duncan is not the biological son of Colin Campbell 1st of Glenorchy. The press release of this finding was published October 2023 and is below.

The reason for my comment is that the YDNA test of one of the partcipants is on WikiTree (see above) and is propogating down unrelated Campbell lines like the Campbells of Auchinbreck among others making the WikiTree YDNA feature useless to genealogists on WikiTree and misrepresenting their work. A simple change to Duncan's profile marking his father as non-biological would fix this and keep the profile intact. This is a pre-1500 profile so not just anyone can fix this. So what do we need to do to update Duncan's profile? Do we need to provide something else from the Clan Campbell Society (North America), Society Genealogist, Jules Anderson, MSc, QG, FSAScot or from the genealogists at the Strathclyde Institute for Genealogical Studies? Looking forward to a timely response

Article: https://www.strath.ac.uk/studywithus/centreforlifelonglearning/genealogy/geneticgenealogyresearch/scottishclansandfamilies/campbellfamily/

Comments

The study has not necessarily shown that Sir Duncan was not a biological son of Colin, but rather has shown that the Glenorchy branch of the Campbells and the chiefly line (Argyll) do not descend from a common male ancestor. Where exactly the break was cannot yet be determined with certainty, but it is possible that the break is at Sir Duncan and Colin. It's also possible that the break is in the chiefly line. Sir Duncan is identified in primary sources as a son of Colin, though.

Edit: further detail provided below show my comment here is mistaken.

---

The Campbell DNA Project Team has used Y-DNA samples from other participants to narrow down the NPE, with reasonable certainty, to this likely generation.  The analysis is too detailed for this forum, but the Campbell DNA Team stands by this conclusion.

Kevin Campbell

Campbell DNA Project Administrator

---

Yes, "with reasonable certainty," and "likely." Very important modifiers of the claim that "Sir Duncan is not the biological son of Colin Campbell 1st of Glenorchy." Discussion of this study needs to be incorporated into Sir Duncan's profile, as long as it includes the caveat that we can't be sure that is where the non-paternity event took place, only that it was approximately and probably at that generation. Further evidence may change how things look.
 

Edit: further detail provided below show my comment here is mistaken.

---

---

Can we get someone with the pre-1500 certification to add the following research note in the profile for Duncan Campbell-2352, and then set the father for this profile as non-biological? This will keep the Y-DNA under Duncan the 2nd from propagating above him in WikiTree.

== Research Note ==

The following press release explains how the Campbells of Glenorchy are not biologically related to the Campbells of Argyll within the timeframe of surnames, based on Y-DNA evidence. Additionally, the Campbell DNA Project Team has used Y-DNA samples from other participants to narrow down the NPE, with reasonable certainty, to the likely generation of Duncan Campbell, 2nd of Glenorchy. We have DNA signatures under Duncan's father [[Campbell-2358|Sir Colin Campbell, 1st of Glenorchy]] that match Argyll, but the DNA under his son Duncan Campbell, 2nd of Glenorchy matches the separate line as discussed in the press release.

https://www.strath.ac.uk/studywithus/centreforlifelonglearning/genealogy/geneticgenealogyresearch/scottishclansandfamilies/campbellfamily/

---

Thanks for the further information. I was mistaken about just how much has been determined from this study.

---

It would be great if we could enlist a member who is a DNA "expert" and who is also Pre-1500 badged and experienced in Scotland research take a look at this and comment.  I've just re-tagged the post with pre-1500 to hopefully alert some folk who might be able to help.

---

@Jared said, " It's also possible that the break is in the chiefly line."

If this was the only sample in the study you might be able to make that claim, However, it is not the only sample in our study with a verified lineage. The break is not in the chiefly line. (ps I am a CCSNA Campbell DNA Project member at FTDNA as well as Kevin G Campell the OP).

---

Hi @Susie - I'm trying to understand your comment. Are you suggesting that Alasdair McDonald and Graham Holton at the University of Strathclyde are not "expert" enough in DNA and Scottish genealogical research?

---

Thanks. As I already said back on Feb. 15 in this thread, I was mistaken about just how much has been determined from this study. There can be no doubt where and when the break occurred -- it is as the study determined.

Personally I'm somewhat interested in this question because I have two lines of descent from Sir Colin, 1st of Glenorchy, legal but now known not to be the biological father of Duncan, 2nd of Glenorchy. However, neither of those lines (one through Campbell of Murthly, the other through the Stewarts of Baldorran) is through Duncan, so the break does not affect them.

---

Are they members here who can evaluate and update the profile?  

I am not disputing anyone’s expertise.  I am trying to facilitate an outcome.

---

The Clan Campbell DNA team, that includes Chris, Adam, and Kevin on this thread, works closely with the Clan Campbell Society of North America (CCSNA) Genealogist (who as an aside is also a lecturer at the University of Strathclyde).  I would venture to say Suzie that with respect to Campbell Genealogy, you are engaged with the A Team.

Answer 1

Everyone, this profile was updated Feb 16th making Duncan the "non-biological" son of Colin Campbell and the requested note was placed under sources instead of research notes. Either way this has been resolved. Thanks!

Comments

Consider marking the post as closed, then?

---

I did not know I could do that so thanks for calling my attention to that.

---

Having said that, a Disputed Origins section is missing. It should explain the nonbio status of the unknown relationship of the "father," and why the father IS attached.

Also NPE should be spelled out at first use of the acronym in the profile.

---

The difficulty is that without a pre-1500 certification we are relying on others to update the profile.

---

Write the changes out as a top level answer with a request for pre-1500 edit coordination (and re-open, to help expedite until the edits are acceptable), then?

---

Some considerations to also incorporate?

Consider adding: {{Disputed Parents}} , and since 

"There are multiple theories but one theory is more likely than others" Link/URL

1. Connect the most-likely parent(s), and
2. mark the connection(s) Uncertain [/non-biological], and
3. use the Uncertain Family and Disputed Parents Research Note Boxes (put {{Uncertain Family}} and either {{Disputed Parents}} or {{Disputed Parents|father}} or {{Disputed Parents|mother}} above the Biography), and
4. explain in Research Notes.

Answer 2

Can any of the Y-DNA test takers add their Y-DNA information and mitoYDNA IDs to WikiTree?

Comments

One tester, a descendant of Duncan has added his test which propogated up to Duncan and then down again to all that have a connection. We need to break that connection at Duncan as he is not the biological son of Colin. This test should only propogate up to Duncan but not to Colin and non bological brothers.