Hello all! Could anyone help with information about early Parker immigrants found in Middlesex, Massachusetts?

I have found a group of DNA matches to my dad's sample over on Ancestry that have all listed the common ancestor John Parker (1591-1622 in Middlesex, Massachusetts) with wife Joanne Drake (1590-1624 in Hartford, Connecticut). This family is found in Chelmsford, Middlesex, Massachusetts, at one point… and spreads out to other locations from there. These DNA matches are unique in that many of them are attached to full trees that contain no other shared surnames with mine (unusual given that we are all found early in Middlesex, Massachusetts).

Many of those trees list the children of this John Parker and wife Joanne as Thomas (b. 1609), Abraham (b. 1612), William (b. 1614), John (b. 1615), Capt. James (b. 1617), Mary Ann (b. 1620), Joseph (b. 1622), Anne (b. 1623), Jacob (b. 1625), and Joshua (b. 1630).  I have not documented this information yet, but merely extracted it from the trees of the DNA matches as a "first step" in investigation. Is there by chance an identified group in the Parker DNA project that includes this immigrant? Or perhaps a recommended and reliable published genealogy for this family?

I am also wondering if there is a group over on the Parker DNA Project for a different John and Joanna... John Parker (1615-1686) and wife Joanna unk (1623-1688) found in Newton, Massachusetts. This John Parker sailed from England to the American Colony in 1636, arriving in Boston, Massachusetts. He settled first in Hingham, Massachusetts. By 1646, he was in Plymouth, Massachusetts, where he married Joanna. In 1650, he removed with his family to Newton, Massachusetts, where he was counted among the founders of the settlement. Their children are usually listed as Mary (b. 1647), Martha (b. 1649), John (b. 1651), Jeremiah (twin - b. 1653), Joanna (twin - b. 1653), Thomas (b. 1657), Sarah (b. 1659), Isaac (b. 1662), Jonathan (b. 1665), and Lydia (b. 1667). Or, if there is no DNA group for him in the project, is there a recommended and reliable published genealogy for this family?

Thanks for any assistance or information you can offer!

Evey :-)

You need to be a member of Parker Heritage to add comments!

Join Parker Heritage


  • ... and you had a second comment where you already knew what I just told you. Gar Watson is the guy to ask about DNA. I'm not going to put his email out here in public. Drop me a line and I'll share it with you.

    Jack Parker
  • Apologies, I don't get out here enough. This would be Parker Family Group 10 you are describing. Capt James is on Wikitree at https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Parker-493 - his brothers are all connected to him there. Family Group 10 also has a website here: parkerfg10.dyndns.org/ and, of course, a group here on Parker Heritage.

    Jack Parker
    James Parker Sr. (abt.1617-abt.1700) | WikiTree FREE Family Tree
    Is this your ancestor? Compare DNA and explore genealogy for James Parker Sr. born abt. 1617 Great Burstead, Essex, England died 1700 Groton, Middles…
  • So, I just found the Family Group for John Parker found in Chelmsford, Middlesex, Massachusetts... FG #10. Their Haplogroups are more diverse than many of the family groups. Most men assigned to FG #10 are Haplogroup R-M269 (27 participants, just like my dad's sample), but I also see people in FG #10 with RA-8039 (4 participants), RA-8045 (4 participants), R-BY96555 (3 participants), R-BY208974 (2 participants) and RP-25 (1 participant). Can someone please tell me what this means? I'm not well versed in the intricacies of the DNA, but do know that some Haplogroups preclude any paternal relationships with others. I'm assuming that since these all begin with R, there is some compatibility that makes it reasonable to group them all together. Is there a crash course I can read in all of this?

    Past having the same Haplogroup as the majority of samples assigned to Family Group #10, dad's sample only has a direct match in 36 markers out of 67. His other markers are all 1 off (either under or over). Again, I am not well versed in this, so I have no idea what this means... other than that dad does not belong in F.G. #10. As they say, "Close, but no cigar!!!"
This reply was deleted.