NOTE: We are in the process of redoing the whole website using a different program. Please bear with us while we make changes. You will not see the improved pages for a while for it won't be uploaded from our new program until all the pages are finished. In the meantime, this present page will give you the needed information.ROSE FALY DNA PROJECT

FLASH!!
The Rose Family Association DNA project is among the largest surname projects in the world! The Rose Project at this time is close to 450 participants, and as such, is among the largest of the projects in the U.S. with the Houston company handling many family projects. We invite you to become a part of this important study on Roses.

EXPLANATION OF DNA PROJECT
The Rose Family Association has a very large DNA family study. The Project Administrator David W. Brown, with others, organized a study and successfully proved the ancestry of their Samuel Rose of Dutchess County, New York and Bennington County, Vermont. Subsequently they agreed to continue the project for the Association. As Administrator of the Rose DNA study David is handling the results, and answers questions. Assisting him with the ordering of kits is Iris Rose Guertin. The Rose Family Association is contacting various male descendants of Rose families to ask if they are interested in participating. In the article following, David Brown explains how the study works.

What do we hope to learn? And what has been discovered so far? Just a few examples will demonstrate why we are excited. John Rose (Sr.) had a son John born in 1750 in Southampton Co., Virginia, and a son Sterling Rose born 1757 in King and Queen Co., Virginia, well proven by the revolutionary pension affidavits of these two sons. By other records, two additional sons were established, i.e., Benjamin Rose and Hosea Rose. The latter went into eastern Tennessee in the 1770s, and among his children were sons McKenzie Rose (Roane Co., Tenn.) and Elisha Rose (Knox Co., Tenn.). Years of research on Hosea's family had not established the ancestry of John Rose Sr., though it was assumed they were descended from one of the early Virginia Rose immigrants. In our DNA project, a male Rose descendant of each of the above named sons of Hosea Rose were tested. And much to the surprise of everyone, they closely match DNA from a descendant of the early Robert Rose family of Branford, Connecticut! None had suspected a connection to New England in this southern family. The match would indicate a connection BEFORE the families came to the colonies, but nevertheless, is important for research. Now the descendants can work to establish the link to each other, which would probably never have been considered without the DNA. Further, a descendant of Frederick Rose of Wayne and Hardin Counties, Tennessee, Orange County, North Carolina and Sussex County, Virginia has tested showing a relationship to the Rose family of Branford, Connecticut. It is possible that John Rose, (father of Hosea Rose) and Frederick Rose, are still descended from William 1 Rose of Surry County, Virginia, but that William 1 Rose is somehow related to Robert Rose of Branford, Connecticut. More tests are in the works on these families.

In another instance, a descendant of Bennett Rose of King George Co., Virginia (who went into Surry Co., North Carolina and his son Abner later to Tennessee) was tested and matched closely to a Rose in Canada who has proven ancestors from Invergordon, Scotland. Thus, the Bennett Rose family can now pursue those leads.

These are examples of the surprises and leads that can come from DNA testing. More will be posted as information is received. For more explanation of the project, cost, and who's eligible.

The purpose of our Rose Family DNA Project is to assist any Rose family members interested in using this new technology to further their efforts to ascertain their ancestry. We are also very interested in establishing any relationships that may exist between the early Roses that emigrated to America, and anything that can be gained regarding their origins.

These tests can only be done on all-male Rose direct descendants, thus only males still carrying the Rose surname (or a variation of it, i.e. Roosa). If you are not such a Rose, you may have a close relative who is, which would in essence verify your own connections, and those of other relatives.

Family Tree DNA (FT DNA) of Houston, Texas is doing the testing for us. We are recommend the 25 marker test to our participants,. The cost is $148.00 (plus $2.00 shipping in the U.S.). To get this special group prices, your kit must be ordered through the Rose project.

The testing is done on DNA from the "Y chromosome" which is found only in males. This DNA is passed directly from father to son, with no input from the female parent. It, and the "markers" on it, remain virtually identical for many generations, with only very slight mutations over time. Thus, anyone descended directly, all-male, from someone up to at least 500 years ago will have extremely similar Y-DNA markers. The testing procedure is very simple, amounting to brushing the inside of the cheek with a sterile brush provided in the kit. Complete instructions, an invoice and a waiver form are also included with the kit.

Through the many Rose tests to date, we have been able to establish "Y-DNA fingerprints" of several early Roses. Your results can be reasonably expected to have "matches" among these, thus proving relationships to them, through a common Rose ancestor. Note, this testing cannot show exactly what the relationship is, nor the lineage back to the progenitor, from your earliest known. However, they can certainly provide a focus for further research. For example, if you have a "dead end" Rose during the 1800's, it can prove if you are associated with Robert Rose of early Connecticut, or one of many others.

The kits are sent out directly by FT-DNA, and returned directly to them at their Houston firm as well. Results are provided directly to you, the testee, and also to us. We review them, not only for matches, but close similarities, and notify you of the earliest known ancestry of any matches or close matches that are found. Your results are also kept for potential matches in the future, of which you will be notified as well. The Rose Family Association does not benefit financially from this DNA study - all funds are for FT-DNA for their analysis of the tests and are sent directly to them. The Rose Family Association is not a part of the FT-DNA organization, and only uses that firm to conduct the testing. The Association is not responsible for any of the actions of FT-DNA, but has been well satisfied with the handling of the testing by that firm. The names and addresses of all testees will be known to the editor of the Rose Family Association, and to the Administrators. Those handling the results for the Rose Family Association will however only use the assigned number of the test kit and the name of the earliest known Rose for publication (in print or on the web).Your own identity is kept confidential by the Association even in contacts with other Rose descendants unless you prefer differently. Only the name of your earliest known ancestry is provided to others. The only exception is that if there is a match or close match, the Association will send your email address to those who are closely matched. (The waiver of FT-DNA should be signed and returned to them with the kit. With that waiver FT-DNA will provide you with the email addresses of those with an exact match.) Though the Rose Family Association will not post or publish your name, the testee is free to give out the information from his own test to anyone he wishes, either privately or publicly. Many prefer to do so, in the hope that the information will assist other researchers.

Historical relationships established is of general interest to all Roses, and will be described in future issues of the Rose Family Bulletin. We will also publish tables of results so each participant can see them for comparative purposes and further understanding.

It is certainly hopeful that this would not only be helpful to those who participate, but also establish many heretofore unknown relationships between early Rose families. It has, in fact, already done so in some cases.

 

If you have any questions, or wish to order a kit, please contact: Iris Rose Guertin or David W. Brown.

The project is not limited to Roses of the United States. Anyone in any other country who meets the above criteria (male Rose of a continuous Rose line) can participate.

SEEKING SOME FAMILIES
Though we seek male descendants (carrying the name of Rose or its variations) of all families, additionally, we seek descendantsof the following:
Gottlieb Rose of Jefferson and Bullitt Counties, Kentucky

John McRose of North Carolina and Dickenson Co., Virginia

Reuben Rose of Claiborne Co., Tennessee

Joanna 1 Rose of Stonington, Connecticut (we have one test but need another)

ALSO NEED TESTS FROM OTHER COUNTRIES!!
We seek Roses still living in Scotland, England, Germany, Holland, Ireland, or any other country. Your DNA may not only match others of your country, but with those of another country, providing clues on origin. Do you live in England? Your DNA may match the Scottish group. If you live in one province in Germany, your DNA may match with a Rose or Roos of another province, giving you both valuable leads. Or, if you live in another country, you may match those of some U.S. Roses. If so, the U.S. branch would get clues on their origin in another country, and the Rose of the other country would get clues on a U.S. branch that may have "disappeared." You might find "long lost" American branches by participating in the project!

BUT REMEMBER
Though we do have a need for tests on specific families as above indicated, we ALSO seek tests from all other Rose families. Males who are from a direct line of Rose, father to son, are eligible for DNA testing. (In a few cases they might not ebven be now carrying the name of Rose if there was an adoption, etc. The important point is that they are from an unbroken Rose father to son line. That is, the biological father was a Rose.

NEW OPTION FOR PAYMENT!!
For those who want to pay through PAYPAL, just email to The Rose Family Association
and let us know. The Rose Family Association will then send you an email with the total cost and you can then use the link in the email to arrange the PAYPAL payment. You do not need to be a registered member of PAYPAL to do this. Or, if you prefer, when you order the kit FamilyTreeDNA, the Houston firm, will bill you and you can then either send them a check or use their credit card payment.

INTERESTING NOTE FROM OUR PROJECT ADMINISTRATOR: David Brown, our Project Administrator, reports that the Rose project is in December 2007 the sixth in ranking (number of tests) on the list of surname projects with Family Tree DNA. The first four on the list are among the ten most common surnames; the fifth is the twenty-ninth most common surname; and ROSE, the sixth, is the 156th most common surname. That indicates a high participation of Roses in DNA testing! Furthermore, David tells us that of the most common names tested, there are a high incidence of no meaningful matches because of that commoness. But, in the ROSE project, 86% of the Roses tested have at least one meaningful match. Truly an amazing percentage. As David says, "There are plenty of Roses to get a good cross section of the various families that may be involved, and yet the sources are not so widespread that only a few will not find meaningful matches." In other words, your chances of finding a match are good, but even if not, your DNA test added to our large Rose database could well have a match for the future. Do join the project, no matter in which country you live. We all benefit, even the descendants (females and males not bearing the Rose surname). Why? Any female or male not bearing the surname who can prove a connection to the same early ancestor of a male Rose who did take the test, then knows that he or she is of the same family as that group.

Update March 15, 2008
A major surprise! A descendant of Emanuel Rose who married Margaret Hise and Amanda Norris, born c1794, lived Cherokee County, North Carolina and Fannin County, Georgia, through son Enoch Rose (Polly Crisp), matches with Group K (the Long Island Roses). Emanuel would have been expected to match with Roses of Cherokee County, North Carolina, but the descendant is a perfect 25/25 with the core of this Long Island Group.

Update March 6, 2008
1. Exciting news! We now have three tests from descendants of Thomas 1 Rose of Scituate, Massachusetts, all matching. David Brown, our Project Administrator, will be assigning them a Group number but in the meantime this is great news for those who think they may be related and want to be sure. Any tests in the future of any Rose that matches this group will know they are from Thomas of Scituate!
2. A descendant of John and Rebekah (Bowen) Rose through Powell Rose (who married Nan Ingram), of Fayette Co., Pa. is a match to Group K1.
3. A descendant of Henry Rose who married Mary Bowen, through their son Francis Rose 1888 Washington, D.C. matches Group S, the Capt. Joseph Rose group of New York City.
4. A descendant of Benjamin an Melinda (Turnbow) Rose of Giles Co., Tenn. match Group C, as expected. Benjamin was a son of Francis M. Rose of that county.

Update February 14, 2008
A descendant of McKenzie Rose of Roane Co., Tenn. through his son Elisha Napoleon Rose (who m. Lucinda Wilson) matches Group A-1.

Update January 18, 2008
A most interesting connection to Group G, this Canadian Rose family have a connection to the Roses of Kilravock in Scotland. This line descends from Hugh Rose (the 9th Baron of Kilravock) b1485 who married Margaret Urquhart, parents of Hugh Rose (the 10th Baron) b1507 who m. Catherine Falconer, and William (the 11th Baron) b1545 who m. Lilas May. The line continues with David b1592, James b1642, William b1682, James b1708, and Donald b1752 who m. Ann Fraser.

Update January 2008
There is a match of a descendant of Samuel 1 Rose, of Dutchess Co., New York and Bennington Co., Vermont, through his son Samuel jr. who m. Chloe Canfield, and John Levi 3 Rose b. 1788 m. Isabella Boulton to
Group T.
Group K has another match from a BROWN descendant, making two matches to the John and Rebekah (Bowen) Rose family from evident adoptions.

Update December 22, 2007
A descendant of John Johnson Rose, probable son or grandson of Samuel Rose, born 14 March 1816, married first, April 1836, Rebecca Henly/Hemby; m. 2nd, 1860, Margaret Louisa (Chambers?) Powell, a widow, matches Group M-1. John Johnson Rose was of Macon and Cherokee Cos., North Carolina.
Also, a descendant of Nathaniel 1 Rose (of Estill Co., Kentucky), John 2 Rose, Lorenzo 3 Rose matches
Group I.

Update December 2007
Usually we only post matches to this website (though we publish the results of all tests twice yearly in the quarterly Rose Family Bulletin). However, we just received the results of an important test. A descendant of a family who we believe represents the Thomas 1 Rose family of Scituate, Massachusetts has just been received. The testee does not at this time have a match to any other Rose group, but the significance here is that he does not match descendants of Group I, the Joseph Rose family of Marshfield, Massachusetts. Early historians thought that these two were closely corrected.
There is somewhat of a problem. The testee appears to have a clear line back to Zebedee Rose b. 1767 in Dighton, Mass. who married Anna House, through Zebedee's son Cyrus Rose. It appears that Zebedee Rose is Zebedee 5 Rose (Thomas 4, Gideon 3, Thomas 2, Thomas 1) but the early line does have a weak link in Gideon 3 Rose. More documentation is needed to strengthen this line, but if indeed the line is from Thomas 1 Rose of Scituate, Massachusetts as is believed, the fact that it does not match Joseph Rose (mentioned above) is important. One interesting thing about this line - our Project Admistration David Brown states that the testee is from a very rare haplogroup, named "G2." One famous person from this same haplogroup is Thomas Jefferson, although any connection would be many hundreds of years ago, and they are not related in modern times.

Update October 2007
A test of a descendant named Rosa who lives in in the Czech Republic matches with ROOSA tests of our Rose DNA project! It may never be possible to find the actual link, but nonetheless this is very exciting.

We usually only post the results of tests which match to this website, but in this case, we are including an important test even though it did NOT match. This is a test from a descendant of Aaron Rose of Roseburg, Oregon, previously of Ulster County, New York and Michigan. Aaron Rose was the son of John and Hannah (Palmiteer) Rose of Ulster County, New York. This test effectively proves that Aaron Rose is NOT a descendant of the ROOSA family of Ulster County, which had already been suspected since records indicate that his father John's family came out of New Jersey before Ulster County. However, at this point, neither does the test match with any others. We seek another test from this family of Rose., for comparison.
The above is only a brief listing of recent tests. The full results of all the markers, grouped by families, appears twice yearly in issues of the quarterly Rose Family Bulletin, June and December.

This group of Roses descend from the immigrant Robert Rose, b. ca 1594, m. Margery,lived Wethersfield and Branford, Connecticut. Those tested include the following.
1. Descendant of Robert 1, Daniel 2, 3, Jehiel 4, Timothy 5 Rose
2. John Wesley Rose, 1830,. of Erie and Monroe Cos., New York
3. John Rose (m. Phylinda Norton) of Mich. and Iowa, f/o John Rose of Madison, KS.
4. Josiah Rose b. 1831, of Monroe, Orange, N.Y., and Ill.
5. Robert Rose of Branford, thrugh the later Justus Rose branch.
6. John Rose , 1789, liv. Elkhart, Ind.
7. Freeman Henry Rose (m. Jane Bailey), parents of Henry Freeman Rose b. 1835 (m. Mary Hocum), parents of John Frederick Rose b1882 (m. Gertrude Grace Olmstead). Fa mily lived in Cook Co., Illinois, Pennington Co., South Dakota, Wisconsin, and other localities.

FURTHER NOTE ON THE BRANFORD, CONNECTICUT ROSES BELOW.

It now seems clear that this group in our DNA testing project belongs to William 1 Rose of Surry County, Virginia. The excellent paper trail of the line through William 1, Richard 2, and Richard 3, is very strong. It is that strong paper trail of the above which establishes that this group is the William 1 Rose of Surry County, Virginia family. The result is that anyone who can solidly prove a connection by paper to either of the above would belong to this Group A-1. That connection can be through strong documentation to either of the above, or through DNA testing that would match.
This group also has some type of tie to the Branford and Wethersfield, Connecticut Roses, through DNA testing. However, the connection is evidently before their removal to the colonies. The actual connection is not known.
Those associated with Group A-1:
a. Elijah Rose of Dinwiddie Co., Virginia
b. Frederick Rose of Wayne and Hardin Cos., Tenn. (son of Richard Rose of Sussex Co., Va.)
c. John Rose of Va., and Surry/Wilkes Cos., N.C. (father of Benjamin, John, Sterling and Hosea Rose); this includes descendants of Hosea's son McKenzie Rose, John Rose, and Elisha Rose.
d. Robert Rose of Edgecombe Co., N.C. (father of Reuben and Matthew of Robertson Co., Tenn., and others). Includes tests from descendants of Reuben Rose of Robertson Co., Tenn., known son of Robert Rose.
e. Theophilus Rose of 1762-1765, liv. Wayne Co., N.C., m. Christiana --
f. Micajah Wm R (m. Eliz Ogdon) 1830 Edgecombe NC/KY/IL (possibly from Wm M Rose 1755VA; Micajah 1798NC) is a perfect 25-25 match with most of Group A1.
g. Andrew Jackson Rose b. c1825 S.C., d. 1878, m. 1st Caroline Mathes, 2nd Elisabeth Walson, 3rd Margaret A. (Wilmoth) Ragan. Of Johnson Co., Ill.

One 37 marker test and two 12 marker tests from Friedrich Roose (1712-1785) and his wife Christina, who came on the Osgood (Rotterdam to Philadelphia) 9/29/1750, match closely with Group A1, the Virginia group descended from William 1 Rose of Surry County, Virginia. These Roose descendants trace this family back to Melchoir Ruoss 1 (c1600-1665) of Wittershausen, Baden-Wurtemberg, Germany, through Mattheaus 2, Johannes 3, Friedrick Roose 4. All are actually descendants of his grandson John by three different sons. This GroupA-2 is also closely matched with Group A, the New England Rose family of Robert Rose, though their match is even closer to the Virginia group.
This is more than surprising, and also appears to indicate the Robert of New England and the Virginia group (probably from William of Surry) could have been from the continent much more recently than the Anglo-Saxon invasion. (Or, that the Roose family on the continent immigrated there from England.) The Group A2 test at 37 markers matches one of the tests from Group A1 on 22/25 markers, and 32/37.

Three tests, two from the son Anthony Rose of Pickaway Co., Ohio and one from a brother of Anthony Rose match. John Rose (the father) m. Dorothy and was an early settler in Fairfield County, Ohio, coming from the Shenandoah valley in Virginia. The family is believed to tbe German. See also Group BX below.
In August 2006 an exciting new match - this one through William Templeton Rose, born ca 1823, liv. Ohio, Taney Co., Mo., married 1st Hester Ann Odell, m. 2nd Irena Tabor, m. 3rd Deborah Clark.
In another test in August, 2006, a descendant of Jesse Rose (wife Mary), he b. c1835, father of Jesse A. Rose b. 1875, is a close match to this group. Evidence indicates this Jesse is related to William Templeton Rose above.
A descendant of John Rose of Pickaway and Fairfield Counties, Ohio, through Jacob Rose (Jr.) born 1816, married Mary A. (---) Beach, and through the latter's son Theodore J. Rose, matches with this group.

We now have two tests from descendants of Abraham Rose who m. Sarah Mooney, he b. ca 1805, lived Keokuk, Iowa. It had been thought that Abraham was a son of John and Dorothy Rose of Shenandoah Valley, Virginia and Fairfield Co., Ohio (Group B). However, though the two tests of descendants of Abraham match each other, they do not match descendants of John and Dorothy. This suggests that if there is a connection to John Rose of Group B, as had been thought, it may be that Abraham was adopted. (One of these tests has been upgraded to 37 markers, and further confirms the high liklihood that Abraham Rose was a Good/Goode. He may have been adopted or lived with the family of Abraham Rose.)

This family group is becoming a significant group as more and more tests from heretofore unknown Roses are matching!
DNA from a descendant of William Rose (b. early 1700s, d. ca 1785) of York and Surry Counties, Virginia, father of John, Benjamin and James Rose who went into Johnston and Wayne Counties, North Carolina, matches DNA with a descendant of James Rose (b. 1804-05, w. Mary) of Lee County, Virginia, Claiborne County, Tennessee and Grundy County, Missouri. Two tests - one through William's son John and another through William's son Benjamin match. If a descendant of James Rose wishes to take a test, it would round out the testing through the three sons.
A descendant of Thomas Rose b. ca 1776, who lived in Sumter Co., South Carolina is a match with a descendant of William Rose of York and Surry Cos., Virginia (wife Martha). There had been no indication previously of any connection to South Carolina Roses. Also connected in some manner to this group is James Rose of Claiborne Co., Tennessee,Grundy Co., Missouri, and Lamar Co., Texas.
Another very big surprise. A descendant of Samuel Rose b. 1780-90 (wife Sally Freeman?) of Madison and Jackson Counties, Kentucky matches with this group.
And, a major surprise, Francis M. Rose (2nd wife Betty Cutbirth) of Giles Co., Tennessee, is also a match to this group of Roses. Francis was previously of North Carolina, probably of Burke County, and was also in Knox Co., Kentucky for a short time before removing to Tennessee.
Another test by a descendant of Francis M. Rose of Giles Co., Tennessee brings William Rose of York & Surry Cos., Va. even closer to Francis M. Rose of Tennessee.

Descendant of Robert Rose of Harrison Co., Ohio (m. Sarah and/or Sophia), previously of Lancaster Co., Pa.
A descendant of William Rose 1806 Ontario, Canada, wife Mary Ann, father of Patrick Rose b. c1842, matches with this group.
A descendant of Andreas Roos of New York and New Jersey through his son John/Johannis Rose of New Jersey and Pennsylvania.
A descendant of Andrew Rose of Bucks and Mercer Cos., Pa. (m Hannah Chapman) matches with this group. This was a huge surprise.
A descendant of Joanna Rose (husband may be a Thomas Rose) of Stonington Connecticut in mid-1600s. Connection would be very distant, probably Middle Ages. Experts in the field made this determination.
A descendant of Harvey Rose of Sandy Co., Pa. (wife Emily) matches with this Group D. Harvey was a known descendant of Andrew Rose of Mercer and Bucks Cos., Pa.

A descendant of William Rose who married Sarah Elmendorf, is NOT a Roosa. There had been speculation as to whether this William Rose was a Roosa because of location, but DNA confirms that he was not. The descendant who tested DOES match with a descendant of Jonathan A. Rose whose family went into Pennsylvania (Luzerne County area). There had been speculation that William Rose who married Sarah Elmendorf was the same William who was son of William Rose and Annatje Wolven of Ulster County, New York. However, there were doubts on that connection, which are now reinforced by a descendant. It appears that William Rose who married Sarah Elmendorf is not connected to William Rose who married Annatje Wolven. This leaves the possibility still open that William who married Annatje Wolfen IS a Roosa. DNA is needed from a proven male descendant of the latter for comparison.
A descendant of Vincent Franklin Rose (son of Benjamin Rose and Sarah Whaling) b. ca 1845, of Guernsey Co., Ohio, matches with Group E, the William Rose who m. Sarah Elmendorf family of New York. This was a complete surprise!
A descendant of John William Rose (m. Eva ?Harbot) Ulster NY, father of Charles Henry (m. Ruth Fosket) 1920) matches closely with Group E, William Rose & Sarah Elmendorph.

GROUP F
THOMAS ROSE SR. OF GRANVILLE CO., NORTH CAROLINA
THOMAS ROSE OF WILKES, ELBERT AND FRANKLIN COS., GEORGIA
COL. WILLIAM ROSE OF GILES CO., TENNESSEE, son of
JOHN ROSE OF BRUNSWICK CO., VIRGINIA
WILLIAM ROSE OF SMITH CO., TENNESSEE
ANDERSON ROSE OF MECKLENBURG CO., VIRGINIA; PERSON CO., N.C.
HENRY ROSE OF GA., KY., AND POPE CO., ILLINOIS
DRURY ROSE OF FRANKLIN CO., GEORGIA

Several who have tested match as members of the Thomas Rose Sr. family of Granville Co., North Carolina. It has become one of the significant early groups of Roses with some surprising matches. However, it should be noted that the ancestry of Thomas Rose Sr. is not known. He is not from William 1 Rose of Surry County, Virginia (see Group A-1).
1. Descendant of William Rose (m. Elizabeth Merritt) of Whitley Co., Kentucky. He was a revolutionary pensioner. William was son of William and Amy (Langston) Rose, and grandson of Thomas Rose Sr. of Granville Co., North Carolina.
2. Descendant of Drury Rose of Wilkes/Elbert/Franklin Co., Georgia, probable son of Thomas Rose. It is unclear if this Thomas Rose is Thomas Rose Jr. of Granville Co., North Carolina (m., perhaps 1st, to Lydia), or whether he is son of a Thomas Rose Jr., son of Thomas Rose who married Lydia. Drury therefore may be a grandson of Thomas Rose of Granville Co. who m. Lydia, or a great-grandson.
3. Col. William Rose of Giles Co., Tennessee and Brunswick Co., Virginia, born 1779, (married Elizabeth Winfield Meredith), lived Giles Co., Tennessee. (This match was a major surprise.) Since Col. William Rose was a son of John and Elizabeth (Davis) Rose of Brunswick County, Virginia, that identifies that family, too.
4. Descendant of Thomas Rose (m. Ann Bronner/Brawner in 1809 Franklin Co., Georgia), later of Pope Co., Illinois.
5. Descendant of William Rose of Smith Co., Tenn. (m. Parthena Chandler) tests with the above Granville Roses. Another surprise!
6. Descendant of Thomas Rose of Vanderburgh Co., Indiana, through his son Henry Rose, matched with other Grnaville County Roses. This Thomas had three marriages and almost thirty children.
7. Descendant of Anderson Rose of Mecklenburg Co., Virginia and Person Co., North Carolina matches with the Granville County group.
8. A test from a descendant of Henry Rose (b. 1750-60, m. Jemima) of Wilkes/Elbert Cos., Ga., Ky., and later of Pope Co., Illinois tests with Group F. In fact, according to our Project Administrator David Brown, he believes from the markers that Henry Rose was very closely related to Anderson Rose of Mecklenburg County, Virginia and Person County, North Carolina (see Group F). It could even be possible that they were father and son! A real surprise.

A descendant of Alexander Rose of Scotland and Person County, North Carolina is a close match to a descendant of John Rose and Margaret Smith of Angus, Scotland, though the connection is probably back in Scotland. Additionally, these Roses are a close match to James Rose (w. Margaret McBean) of Inverness, Scotland, and with the well-known Rev. Robert Rose of Morayshire, Scotland and Colonial Virginia.

We have three tests with matches, descendants of William Rose of Lawrence Co., Ohio through his 2nd wife Winnifred Neal. These tests show a connection to each other, but thus far, do not show a connection to other Roses. We do not yet have a DNA test through one of William's sons by his first marriage to Mary Adkins.

A descendant of Thomas Rose (b. ca 1800) of Montgomery Co., Virginia and Lawrence Co., Ohio matched with Nathaniel Rose of Estill Co., Kentucky (who m. Esther [Dorton?]). There had previously been no indication that these families were connected. And, in a further development, Thomas Rose and Nathaniel Rose (who match 25/25) also match 23/25 with a descendant of William Rose born 1817 New York, lived Dodge Co., Wisconsin and Marion Co., Iowa. And, another New York connection has surfaced. A descendant of Thomas Harlow Rose b. 1814 and who lived in Monroe and Orleans Cos., New York is a match. And, in a new development, a descendant of the St. Lawrence Co., New York Roses (who descend from the early Joseph Rose of Scituate, Massachusetts) also matches this group.
In another match, a descendant of Thomas Harlow Rose (b. 1814, lived Monroe and Orleans Cos., New York and in Michigan) is related to Nathaniel Rose (m. Esther Dorton, lived Estill Co., Kentucky) and Thomas Rose (m. Margaret Neal) b. 1800, of Montgomery Co., Virginia and Lawrence Co., Ohio.
Another match: John Rose born 1775 or earlier who m. in 1790 Elizabeth Stephens, of Montgomery Co., Virginia and Gallia Co., Ohio. This John is possibly the son of an Edward Rose.
A descendant of Zachariah Taylor Rose (m. Elizabeth Mercer) of Muhlenberg Co., Kentucky matches this Group I. The background of Zachariah Taylor Rose is not known but clearly there is a connection to this group of Roses.
The DNA of the above families indicate the possibility of Native American in their background. Further, there is a match here with Joseph Rose who lived in the 1660s in Marshfield, Massachusetts!
The following is information from David Brown, Project Administrator of the Rose DNA project, regarding the above Group I. David has carefully worked with the tests on this group, interpreting them and obtaining assistance of a Population Geneticist. David tells us that Joseph Rose's DNA Pattern (Haplogroup Q) is very rare in Northwest European populations, and often connected to Native Americans. In fact, for the first couple years of the Rose project tests, the geneticists advised that Joseph Rose was actually from "Q3" which is exclusive to Native American. This was a shock, says David, "as the facts surrounding Joseph certainly strongly inferred English heritage." These conclusions were then found to be in error, correcting them to Haplogroup Q, which allows for the possible English connection. This was largely established by special tests being completed on the samples from three descendants of Joseph Rose. David continues: "Although we still cannot say with absolute certainty that his [Joseph Rose's] recent origins were Native American or British Isles, it appears more likely the latter." David is hopeful that the ongoing project by the National Geographic Society and Family Tree DNA will provide a test that will be definitive on that point in the next couple years.

A descendant of Benjamin Rose b. 1760 Ct. or R.I., lived Otsego Co., N.Y., m. Judith Clark, matches with a descendant of Henry Rose b. 1805, of Onondaga Co., N.Y.
And a further surprise - a descendant of Lemuel Rose born 1754 in the Town of Huntington, Suffolk Co., New York (Long Island), who married Amy Wicks, is also connected to the Otsego/Onondaga County Roses.
In another test, a descendant of Jermiah AROSE (spelled that way) of 1762 Long Island, New York, family later to South Amboy, New Jersey, matches this group. Of the group, he more closely matches Lemuel Rose above.
A descendant of Charlie Byrd Rose (m. Fan Carter), Va., father of Willis Rose, Bridgton, N.J. matches this group but the common ancestor may be back 300-400 years ago.

25 marker tests on several early Roses closely match several families, all of whom appear to have Long Island connections.
1. David Rose (m. Hannah Par) supposed to be from Long Island. Documented in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania and Washington County, Maryland. Family later to Trumbull and Mahoning Counties, Ohio.
2. Ezekiel Rose (m. Mary Fidler) of Hunterdon County, New Jersey (and including descendant Charles Rose of Monongalia Co., Virginia)
3. Robert Rose (m. Johana --) of Frederick County, Virginia, and probably earlier of Hunterdon County, New Jersey. (Robert was father of Tychicus Rose of Washington County, Pennsylvania; two tests from descendants of Tychicus match this group)
4. Israel Rose (m. Phebe) of Orange County, New York
5. John Rose (m. Rebeckah Bowen) of Harrison Co., Va.; Wolfe Co., Ky. [There are also some Brown DNA matches, from one or more adoptions.]
6. John Rose b. 1703, m. 1st Mary, 2nd Elizabeth, liv. of Salem Co., N.J., probable brother of Ezekiel Rose above who m. Mary Fidler
7. William Rose b. 1747, m. Mary DeWitt (she of Ulster Co., N.Y.), liv. Orange Co., N.Y. - he matches with the Roses who appear to be from Long Island
8. John Rose b. 1764, of Greene Co., Pa. (w. Hannah Addleman). John's parentage unknown.
9. Charles Rose b. c1819, liv. Somerset Co., Pa.
10. Descendant of Charles Rose (b. prob. 1759-1765), m. Rebeckah Mulliner, liv. Monongalia Co., Va. and previously Hunterdon Co., N.J., matched Ezekiel and Mary (Fidler) Rose of Hunterdon Co., N.J.
11. Samuel Rose (b. at least by 16 May 1714, m. Anna Duckworth, lived Burlington Co., N.J.) matched perfectly with several of the Long Island Roses. Samuel MAY be a son of Ephraim Rose, though not proven.
12. A descendant of Matthias Rose b. c1727, lived Albany and Saratoga Cos., New York and Canada, matches with Roses known to have come from Long Island, New York Roses.
13. Abraham Lacy Rose who m. Sarah Rose (daughter of Phillip Rose of Franklin Co., Ohio and granddaughter of Jachonias Rose of Westmoreland Co., Pa.) tested to be from the groups connected with Long Island Roses. It had been reported many times that Abraham Lacy Rose was not related to his wife Sarah Rose, and this test probably re-affirms this. [Additional note: A test from a descendant of Phillip Rose (through his son Stephen Rose) now does match with other Roses. See Group Y.
14. A test through Ezekiel Rose (m. Sarah Tharp/Thrap), believed to be a son of Ezekiel Rose (w. Mary Higgins, brother of Tychicus Rose). This test matches Ezekiel Rose's descendants with that of Tychicus Rose. There is no question that Tychicus Rose is related to Ezekiel Rose who married Sarah Thrap, based on DNA.
15. William Rose (m. Ruth Comstock) liv. Otsego Co., New York, father of George Washington Rose b. 1821 (m. Maria Balch) of LaSalle Co., Illinois. Appears because of a mutation to be most closely connected with Charles Rose (who m. Rebeckah Mulliner) of Group K.
16. Jeremiah "Arose" of Long Island and South Amboy, New Jersey most closely matches Lemuel Rose of Group K.
17. Samuel Rose (m. Sarah Caton), b. c1795, Sidney, Ontario, Canada, father of George W. Rose (m. Amy Ketcheson).
18. William Rose (m. Sarah Resides) b. c1840 Centre, Pa., matches especially closely with some of the tests from the John Rose who m. Rebekah Bowen group.
19. A descendant of Daniel Rose (b. c1792, m. Lucinda --, he b. Maryland or Maine) lived Randolph County, Arkansas, matches with Group K, the Long Island Roses. The testee descended from Daniel's son Napoleon Bonaparte Rose.
20. Another branch of the John Rose of Salem Co., N.J. family - this one through Abraham 2, Wm 3, William S. 4, George Washington 5 Rose; family of Union Co., Indiana.
21. A descendant of Henry Matthias Rose bc1835 New York, later lived Barron Co., Wisc., m. Mary Gumbert) is a match to Group K, the Long Island Rose families.
22. Emanuel Rose who married Margaret Hise and Amanda Norris, born c1794, lived Cherokee County, North Carolina and Fannin County, Georgia, through son Enoch Rose (Polly Crisp).

The above Roses match closely in 25 marker tests, indicating a relationship. These tests would give weight to the consideration that all the above families had Long Island connections.
COMMENTS: In an exciting result of a DNA test, the exact generation of a relationship was determined! This is unusual, but it did happen to this "lucky" testee. According to David Brown our Project Administrator, this came about as the result of two tests.
First, a test was conducted on a descendant of Ezekiel Rose of Hunterdon Co., N.J.. (b. ca 1705, m. Mary Fidler) father of Ezekiel Rose (b. sometime before 7 Aug. 1747, m. Mary Field), father of Ezekiel Rose (b. 1779, m. Francine "Frankie" Brittain). This test showed close matches to other Rose families known to have Long Island, New York connections.
In a later test, the testee descends from Jonathan Rose (b. ca 1807, wife Jane, lived Hunterdon Co., N.J.) whose death record shows his father as John Rose. Nothing further was known. But through the testing, we now know that John was a son of Ezekiel Rose who married Mary Field.
David (David Brown, our Project Administrator) explains that there was a mutation and that the testees of the two families mentioned above are the ONLY ones of the Long Island matches that have this mutation. David further explains that the mutation had to occur upon the birth of the Ezekiel Rose (b. before 7 Aug. 1747) and thus, the two testees would be be descended from a son (or two sons) of this Ezekiel. In this case, since the death record of Jonathan Rose whows his father to be named John, it is determined that John and Ezekiel (m. Francine Brittain) were brothers.

See also Group L1
Bennet Rose b. 1730/31 Stafford Co., Virginia (King George Co.) area (St. Paul's Parish Register), born to John and Lucy (Bennet) Rose - one of his descendants matches closely to the William Rose (m. Elizabeth Alton) who was born ca 1755 in Maryland, and lived Westmoreland and Fayette Cos., Pennsylvania. And, William Rose's descendant is a close match to a Rose in Canada whose family is out of Invergordon, Scotland, though the connection could be be back a number of generations.
Bennet Rose's descendants also match a descendant of John Rose (b. ca 1770 N.C., m. Phebe) who lived in Surry County, North Carolina and White County, Tennessee.
Bennet Rose's descendants also matche a descendant of Benjamin Rose (b. ca 1770-75 N.C., m. Mary) who lived in Robertson Co., Tennessee.
Bennet Rose's descendants also matches a descendant of John Rose (b. 1802, m. Catharine) who lived in Centre Co., Pennsylvania.
A descendant of William H. Rose who m. Elizabeth DeVault in 1842 Ross Co., Ohio matches with this group. It is believed though not totally proven that William H. Rose was a son of Lewis and Sarah (Birdsong) Rose of Brunswick Co., Virginia who moved into Ross Co., Ohio. William H. was later of Greene Co., Illinois. This match was a complete surprise!
A descendant of Donald Rose of Perthshire, Scotland is a 22/25 match with a descendant of Bennet Rose mentioned above. Donald was born in the 1840's in Perthshire, Scotland died in the 1920's. He and his wife Annie Wood had among their children a son James Wood Rose born 22 February 1882.
Project Admininstrator David Brown comments that the descendant of Donald Rose of Perthshire has a 78% change of being related within 24 generations to the descendant of Bennet Rose, and the estimated time of their common ancestor would be about 400 years ago, plus or minus. The results of the Donald Rose descendant test places that descendant between the test of Bennet Rose's descendant and that of a Canadian Rose who descends from the Roses of Invergordon, Scotland.

SEE ALSO GROUP L1 below which is also connected with Group L, but further in distance of generations.

This group closely matches Group L.
William Rose of Fayette Co., Pa. b. ca 1755 (m. Elizabeth Alton). Previously of Md. and Westmoreland Co., Pa.
Isaac Rose b. ca 1755, of Braxton County, [West] Virginia (m. Margaret Forsythe). He also lived in various other Virginia counties.
Alexander Rose, b. ca 1750, m. Isabel McKenzie, of Invergordon, Scotland, family to Canada.
A descendant of William A. Rose and his wife Charity of New Jersey, father of Charles E. Rose who m. Elizabeth Fitzroy, b. 1857, Connecticut, matches with Group L1.
A descendant of Alexander J. Rose (m. Catherine Cameron?) b c 1827 NS Canada, to Boson, Mass., father of James A. Rose (m. Elizabeth Stephens) is a perfect match with Alexander Rose above (b. ca 1750, m. Isabel McKenzie, family of Invergordon, Scotland).
A descendant of Alexander Rose (m Isabel McKenzie) of Invergordon, Scotland, through his son John Rose (m. Bella Calder) 1775 to Nova Scotia, and his son David Rose, matches this group.

New input November 2005: David Brown, Project Administrator, discussed the Group M and M1 families at length with one of the experts at the FamilyTree DNA conference. After providing the expert with the results of all of the participants in Group M and M1, and with extension of markers to 37 in some of these tests, the changes of a relationship between Groups M and M1 are very high. (Group M1 was previously labeled as Group N, but now, because of the relationship, has been redesignated as M1.)
There is a close match of a descendant of Green Rose of Cocke Co., Tennessee (m. Lydia Black and Charity Taylor) to the George Rose Family (b. 1790 S.C.) of Polk Co., Tennessee. Also closely matched is a descendant of Tormut 1 Rose of Block Island, Rhode, here by the 1660s. The descendant who tested on this line has lived on Block Island all his life. And,in a new match in November 2005, a desendant of George Rose of Laurens Co., South Carolina matches this group.
In addition, there are some close matches that may indicate a relationship. A descendant of William Stillwell Rose Sr. b. ca 1826 (m. Abigail VanHise) of Monmouth Co., New Jersey matches fairly close. There is also some indication that this group MIGHT be connected to Francis Rose (m. Elizabeth Ford) of Buncombe Co., North Carolina who had branches in Polk Co., Tennessee.
In new develops January 2004, Isaiah Rose of Washington Co., Tenn., Cherokee Co., N.C. and Winston Co., Ala. tests with the Buncombe Co. group, as does John Rose of Burke Co., N.C. (father of Wilson, Samuel and Elias and related to John Mc Rose). These recent tests also put the whole group closer to the Tormut Rose of Block Island, R.I. and Polk Co., Tenn. group.
A descendant of Isaiah Rose of Washington Co., Tenn., Cherokee Co., N.C., and Winston Co., Ala. matches with descendants of Francis Rose of Buncombe Co., N.C.
A descendant of John Rose of Burke Co., N.C. also matches this group. (This is the John Rose who was father of Elias, Wilson and Samuel Rose, and related to John Mc Rose.) The results of these recent tests also put these Roses even closer to Polk Co., Tenn. and Tormut Rose of Block Island, R.I.

New input November 2005: David Brown, Project Administrator, discussed the Group M and M1 families at length with one of the experts at the FamilyTree DNA conference held in the Washington DC area in November. After providing the expert with the results of all of the participants in Group M and N, and with extension of markers to 37 in some of these tests, the changes of a relationship between Groups M and M1 are very high.
This is an interesting group, tying together Francis Rose of Buncombe and Burke Counties, North Carolina (who married Elizabeth Ford and later lived McMinn County, Tennessee and other locations) to Samuel Rose, revolutionary pensioner of Buncombe and Macon County, North Carolina (his probable father).
Also connected is John Rose Jr. of Burke County, North Carolina, born ca 1755-1774, who may have married Mary Stafford and/or Mary Hancock. He was father of Wilson Rose b. ca 1807-1808 (m. 1st Virginia "Jennie" Vance, 2nd Bethany Mullins), Samuel Rose b. ca 1807-1808 (m. Margaret "Peggy" Cantrell) and Elias Rose b. ca 1797 (m. Nancy Hill).
Isaiah Rose was born ca 1795, lived in Washington County, Tennessee, Cherokee Co., North Carolina and Winston County, Alabama. He 1st to Cassa Long, 2nd to Rachel Brown. Among his children was a son Nathaniel Rose of Arkansas and other localities.
Jacob Rose born 1765-17704 was a War of 1812 soldier, and died in that war leaving a widow Lydia Burchfield. They married in Burke County, North Carolina. After his death his widow moved with her family into Kentucky, living in Carter County and other Kentucky locations.
Also tied to this group is Robert Rose of Carter Co., Ky. who married Melinda Dyer. It had been thought that this Robert Rose could be connected to Jacob Rose who married Lydia Burchfield, but the exact tie is not know. However, DNA confirms there is a relationship.
A descendant of Thomas Wesley Rose (m. Bessie Osborne), of Va. is connected with this group. Thomas Rose may be a son of John Rose and Mary or Nancy Harper, but other records indicate his parents were A. C. and Wilner Rose. Family had Wise Co., W. Va. connections. Thomas d. 1943 Monroe Co., W. Va.
A descendant of Samuel Rose (b. ca 1757, m. Lydia Sizemore), through their son Charles Rose born ca 1780-1800 who had a wife named Priscilla, matches this group. This family lived in Wilkes and Ash Counties, North Carolina.
John Rose b. ca 1800 North Carolina, married Abigail Vanover, and lived in Pulaski and McCreary Cos., Kentucky has a match with Group M1.
A descendant of John Johnson Rose, probable son or grandson of Samuel Rose, born 14 March 1816 (Bible), married first, April 1836, Rebecca Henly/Hemby; m. 2nd, 1860, Margaret Louisa (Chambers?) Powell, a widow. John Johnson Rose was of Macon and Cherokee Cos., North Carolina.

Isaac Rose, revolutionary pensioner, m. Margaret Leyda. Isaac lived in Washington and Mercer Cos., Pa. There are two matches through different sons, but so far no match to other Rose families.

A descendant of the early George Rose (who m. Delphia Taylor and Dicey Marlow) of Essex Co., Virginia matches with descendants of Robert Rose of Montgomery Co., Md. (father of Benjamin F. Rose later of Texas). This family MAY be descended from Thomas Rose of Bedford Co., Va.
Descendants of Richard Rose, revolutionary pensioner of Virginia, (m. Elizabeth Morris) who lived in Kentucky, Hancock Co., Illinois and Scott Co., Indiana, through his sons Francis Rose (m. Mary Hale) and Adam G. Rose (who m. Denise Wilson). (For Stephen Rose, raised by Richard Rose, see Group OX.)
A descendant of Richard Rose of Kentucky, Scott Co., Indiana etc. (m. Mary Hale) is of this group. He may be a son of Richard Rose, the revolutionary pensioner mentioned above.

It had been thought that Stephen Rose, named as one of the "children" in the revolutionary pension affidavit of Richard Rose of Scott Co., Indiana, Hancock Co., Illinois and Virginia was a son, but DNA shows otherwise. He may have been adopted, or raised by Richard Rose. Five descendants are in this Group OX.

A descendant of William Rose (of age by 1753) of Edgecombe and Halifax Cos., North Carolina is a perfect 25/25 match with a descendant of Joseph Rose (m. Catherine Bowsman/Bausman) of Montgomery and Giles Cos., Virginia. Also matching William Rose is a descendant of Aaron Wesley Rose (b. 1869) of Montgomery Co., Tennessee.
A descendant of Aaron Wesley Rose who was b. 20 September 1869 and whose family lived at one time in Montgomery County, Tennessee matches with descendants of William Rose of Halifax County, North Carolina. Though the connection was not heretofore known, it is not unexpected since a branch of William Rose's family did move to Montgomery County, Tennessee. It is now believed that Aaron Wesley Rose may be the Aaron W. Rose who was son of Isaac J. Rose (listed 1870-1880 Montgomery County).
Also connected is Thomas Rose of Frederick Co., Va. and Warren Co., Va. who married Mary "Polly" Murphy and was father of James Rose b. ca1810. This had not been known.

A descendant of John Rose b. 1772 (m. Rhoda Crippen), matches with a descendant of Lawrence Rose (b. 1787) who married Thankful Reynolds. John Rose is believed to be a son of William and Elizabeth (Schoolcraft) Rose of Germany and Schoharie County, New York. Lawrence Rose was of Rensselaer County, New York and Ohio. This match was unexpected!

James Rose born ca 1810, and who was in Wayne County, Tennessee by 1840, matches with a Charles Rose who was born about 1804 and also lived in Wayne County. Their origins are unknown but they are not related to the large Frederick Rose family of Wayne County.

A descendant of John Calvin Rose b. 1859, lived Nashville, Tennessee matches with a descendant of Thomas J. Rose b. ca 1823-24 in Kentucky, lived in Missouri and in Bourbon County, Kansas. This Thomas J. Rose's 1st wife unknown. He married 2nd to Elizabeth M. Daughtey. (It is possible but not proven that John Calvin Rose was the son of a C. A. Rose.)
And in another unexpected match, Samuel Rose b. ca 1821, lived Berkeley Co., West Virginia, Hamilton Co., Ohio, and VanBuren and Lee Cos., Iowa also matched this group. Samuel married Mary Ann Bloomer.
And, a complete surprise, a descendant of Nathan Rose, born ca 1805, who married in 1829 Burke County, North Carolina to Rebecca Rowan, and later of Bount County, Tennessee, matches with this group. This match was a complete surprise.
A descendant of Henry Rose who married Mary Bowen, through their son Francis Rose 1888 Washington, D.C. matches Group S, the Capt. Joseph Rose group of New York City, and other Roses.

Many matches have been made to the early ROOSA family of Ulster County, New York. One of the latest matches is that of a descendant of William Rose of Montgomery and Saratoga Counties, New York (d. 1883; father of Moses Rose, later of Jefferson County, New York).
A descendant of John Rose (b. ca 1740) who married 1st, Lucy Boardman, and 2nd, Katherine Wheeler, and who lived in Broome Co., New York, tests as a ROOSA. John was previously in records of Litchfield County, Connecticut.
Descendants of John R. Rose of Ulster Co., New York, Greene Co., Pennsylvania and Meigs Co., Ohio, who married Annie Cox, confirm that John's descendants are members of the ROOSA family of Ulster County.
A descendant of Allen Theodore Rose of N.Y., b. 1846-50, m. Elizabeth Jones, lived Union Co., Iowa, matches with the ROOSA family.
In addition, a number of tests on descendants of Samuel Rose of Dutchess Co., New York and Bennington Co., Vermont (m. Sarah Reynolds) prove that Samuel is a ROOSA, connected to Roosa of Ulster Co., New York. The tests represent several sons of Samuel, i.e. Samuel Jr., Abraham, Joel and Joshua.
A descendant of Gilbert Rose of Ulster County, New York is proven to be a ROOSA descendant. It is suspected that Gilbert was a son of William and Annetje "Hannah" (Wolven) Rose of Ulster County, New York. It is hoped that more tests will be taken from other branches of this family, for further confirmation. Any males carrying the name of Rose/Roosa who have a proven line to William who married Annetje Wolven would be welcome to take the DNA test.
A descendant of Aldert 1 Roosa, Jan 2 Roosa, Aldert 3 Roosa (m. Rebeccha Schepmoes), Abraham 4 Roosa (m. Elizabeth Rutsz), Jacob 5 Roosa (m. 1st Elizabeth Louw, 2nd Catrina Feltie), of Hamilton County, Ohio, is a match.
A descendant of Elisha and Rebecca (Hubbel) Rose of Ontario Co., New York, son Elisha m. 1st Olive McLellan and 2nd Amelia/Milly Haws and lived Indiana, matches with the Ulster Co., New York ROOSA family, Group T.
A Rosa living in the Czech Republic matches Group T of our DNA project! It may not be possible to learn of the exact relationship, but nonetheless, this is exciting and interesting news.
There is a match of a descendant of Samuel 1 Rose, of Dutchess Co., New York and Bennington Co., Vermont, through his son Samuel jr. who m. Chloe Canfield, and John Levi 3 Rose b. 1788 m. Isabella Boulton to Group T.
NOTE: The Rose Family Association and the DNA Project Administrator have received inquiries as to whether the Roosa of Ulster County, New York have Middle Eastern [or Jewish] connections. The DNA pattern clearly indicates very early Northwestern European connections, and is not indicative of any Middle Eastern origins, either directly or indirectly. [This has nothing to do with religious beliefs.]
Following is a communication that David W. Brown, our Project Administrator, sent to Roosa descendants. This is quite exciting, for it shows the tremendous value of DNA. In this case, the America Roosas have been connected with their Dutch family.
"For several months I have been in contact with Cor Selders in Holland, who played a major role in the preparation of a history of the Roosa/Rosa/Roza family in Dutch some time ago. He cooperated very closely, and arranged for a DNA test to be completed on a descendant of his line, a cousin Willem Roza. The most recent common ancestor our American Immigrant Aeldert [Roosa] was supposed to share with him was Gijsberts Geurts, born about 1550 AD, grandfather of Aeldert, as Willem is descended through his uncle Abraham.
"The complete results of this test arrived ... and are a perfect match with most of the 22 previous tests we have had from Aeldert's descendants! This proves beyond any doubt that this connection is valid, and Aeldert was very closely related to this Abraham! Their Dutch book also provides lineage back two more generations past Gijsberts, to about 1500.
"It is actually quite unusual to have a perfect Y-DNA match over that period of time, as slight mutations can be expected. There are none in this case, as the DNA pattern of our Roosa family is extremely stable. So much so, that for anyone that provides a test, we are able to define very easily whether or not they are indeed a part of our family."

James Rose (m. Sarah) b. ca 1793 England; father of James Jr. b. 1814 of Surry and Cumberland Cos., England matches with Richard Rose b. ca 1811 Virginia, d. 1848 Knox Co., Indiana, father of James Harvey Rose b. 1847, of Harrison, Indiana.
Further, George Washington Rose of Jackson Co., Alabama and Tennessee also matches others of this group.
Additionally, James Rose (wife Mary Shafer\Schaefer) b. 1810 Va. matches.
In a new test in 2005, from a descendant of Thompson Rose who m. Mary McCoy, there is a very close match to James Rose (m. Mary Shafer/Schaefer) indicating that surely these two Roses are related closely in the Thompson Rose family. It is believed that James (who m. Mary) is a brother of John (who m. Jane Sharrock) though that specific relationship must be proved. Also connected through DNA is Clarence W. Rose of Poweshiek Co., Iowa who appears to be son of John W. Rose, and possible grandson of George W. and Hannah (Robbins) Rose of Guernsey Co., Ohio.
A descendant of John Rose who married Martha Huffman (ca1810 Va-1895) through his son John Rose matches with this group. Family lived Tippecanoe Co., Indiana and other localities.
[These lucky descendant, in matching with a Rose of England, now know where to look further for their ancestors!]

Montgomery Rose (wife Rebecca) was b. ca 1815 in Tennessee; later of Pulaski/Wright Counties, Missouri matches with Alexander Rose was b. ca 1810 in either Pennsylvania or Tennessee, married Rachel Pruitt, and later lived Hempstead County, Arkansas.

John Rose (m. Elizabeth Caves), of Harrison Co., Ohio matches with Samuel Rose (wife Amy Matson) of Berkeley Co., West Virginia; Harrison Co., Ohio. [Interestingly, another Samuel Rose of Berkeley County, West Virginia, later of Iowa, does not match this group.]

A descendant of Charles Rose of Gallatin Co., Ky. (born 1756 King George Co., Va., died in Gallatin Co., Kentucky, m. 1st Miss Hutchison, 2nd Lucinda 'Goings) did not match with any Roses, but did match with three Thorntons in a Thornton DNA project. This confirms information which some of that family's branches had that there was an adoption in this group of Roses. In this case, it seems clear that Charles Rose was a Thornton by birth, and thus the reason he named one of his own sons Thornton Rose. This testing shows again the power of DNA tests, which in this case confirmed a family's tradition.
A descendant of George Rose of Fayette Co., Kentucky is very closely connected to Charles Rose of Gallatin Co., Kentucky. The latter, Charles Rose, was a Revolutionary soldier, previously of King George Co., Va. but later of Gallatin Co., Kentucky. Charles' descendant matched perfectly with three THORNTON men, indicating that his surname was Thornton, not Rose. However, there still exists the possibility this family had a Rose in their ancestry for it could be that that the mother or grandmother was a Rose. George Rose, the ancestor of the recent testee, was born sometime before 1755, and married Jane Nixon. Among his children were: Leroy b. 1776-1780 m. Judith Cloud; Isaac b. 1780-1790 m Alsey Kirkpatrick; Lewis bc1798 m Margaret Kirkpatrick; Lucy m. Nicholas Morgan. Agewise, it is possible that George Rose and Charles Rose were brothers.

A descendant of Franklin Rose b. 1860 Ill.,(wife Clara Calcell), who lived Bates Co., Mo., matches with a descendant of Jaconias Rose of Westmoreland Co., Pa. (father of Phillip Rose of Franklin Co., Ohio). This was unexpected and provides a new avenue of search.
A huge surprise. A test from a descendant of what we have thought was Robert 1, John 2, Martyn 3, Zaccheus 4 Moses 5, Simon 6 Rose of Long Island does not match with Group K, but matches with Group Y. More investigation is needed on this lineage.

A descendant of David and Abigail (Busby) Rose of Philadelphia matches with a descendant of William L. Rose of Vanderburgh Co., Ind. William L. is likely the William L. listed with Joseph Rose of 1850 White Co., Illinois whose family came out of Vanderburgh Co., Indiana. This Joseph Rose appears to be a part of the Joseph Rose family of Cumberland Co., Pennsylvania and Sullivan County, Tennessee who had members who went into Vanderburgh Co., Indiana.

Two tests have matched, both descended from this progenitor. Jesse Rose married Julia Clark (the line which tested) and also had other wives. The tests were from the line of his son William.

Tests of descendants, through the son Allen Rose, and through son Edward Rose, have matched. William Rose c1715 (wife Mary) left a number of descendants in this area.

Tests from descendants of Adam Rose (c1779-1847) who m. Elizabeth Helsel) and one from David Rose (c1833-64) who m. Elizabeth Seese) match. And, a descendant of George Rose b. ca 1850 in Germany, m. Helen L. Shaw, and lived Middlesex Co., N.J. matches this group.

In an exciting match of two Roses whose ancestors were from England, there is a perfect 25/25 match with a descendant of Thomas Rose (wife Ann Leonard) 1806 of Bucks, England to Erie, NY in 1837, and a Rose descended from Walter W. Rose 1881 (m. Florence Lycett 1909) of Birmimgham, England.

Two tests from descendants of Henry Roosa (Mary Hawkins)1793-1880 Sullivan NY/Lorain O; through son James. However, they are not related to all the other Roosas of Ulster County, New York.

A descendant of Benjamin Rose (b. ca 1808-09) of Virginia and Putnam and Macon Cos., Missouri, though son Benjamin R. Rose, is a match with a descendant John, another son of Benjamin. Benjamin 1 Rose married 1st to Sarah Ann Holman, and 2nd to Elizabeth Ann Robbins. This group has a rare haplotype.

A descendant of Isaac Rose of Washington and Mercer Cos., Pennsylvania, who married Margaret Leyda, does not yet have any matches. BUT, the lack of a match is very helpful on this family for we had thought he might match to a Roosa since Margaret Leyda came out of one of the Dutch families of Ulster Co., New York. Now that has been eliminated, and it still may be possible that Isaac Rose of Pennsylvania is related to Andrew Rose of Bucks and Mercer Counties, Pennsylvania.

The Rose Family Association

• To return to Top of this Page
• To return to the Rose home page
• To go to the Site Locator