Beaumont Y-DNA Summary

by Gary Beaumont

Nearly a thousand years ago, William de Bellomonte/Beaumont appears in West Yorkshire, England, under the patronage of the Constable of Chester, or Roger de Lacy (c.1165-1211), a well-known baron who inherited the Honour of Pontefract in 1194 CE. By the 1841 Census of England, there were nearly 2,900 individuals with the surname Beaumont living in Yorkshire, mostly around Huddersfield in West Yorkshire. So, the family grew and prospered and, today, descendants can be found in locations around the world. With this in mind, is it possible to use Y-DNA to determine the origins of this family and to prove that William was indeed the progenitor of it?

History is recorded in the Y-DNA of living males, so this story starts with living males and goes back in time to answer these questions. By combining the results of the first systematic study of Beaumont Y-DNA as well as the historic paper trail, powerful argument exists that our Beaumont ancestors traveled through time and place – from Britain, to Normandy, back to Norman England, and finally West Yorkshire – the place where William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (fl. 1194-1227) settled and became the progenitor of many, but certainly not all, modern-day Beaumonts with roots centered around Huddersfield.

The Y-DNA of William de Bellomonte/Beaumont is unavailable, but his history lives on in the DNA of his descendant -- Edward M. Beaumont. Edward is a distant relative of Richard H. Beaumont (1749-1810) (RHB), who held the Whitley estate in his lifetime and was in possession of the earliest family documents. These documents allowed RHB to create a family tree starting with William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (WBB).

RHB was familiar with the work of the antiquary Roger Dodsworth (c.1585-1654), who had visited Whitley Hall in 1629 and made notes from the deeds there, most of which were still in RHB's possession. Subsequently, some of these deeds were deposited at Huddersfield Library, but they are now at West Yorkshire Archive Service. Also, some original Beaumont papers are in the Bodleian Libraries, Oxford.

Figure 1. A paragraph extracted from a family tree, in RHB's own hand, which in 1796 CE, he sent to a member of Edward M. Beaumont's family.[6]

Edward M. Beaumont [7]
Private
Richard H. Beaumont (1865-1952) Nottingham & Southwell
George Beaumont (1825-1899) East Bridgford	Lascelles Hall Beaumonts
George Beaumont (1796-1882) Winthorpe & East Bridgford	R.H. Beaumont (1749-1810 d.s.p.) Son of Richard (1719-1764)
Richard Beaumont (1761-1828) Birmingham	(RHB created of an early family tree for the Beaumonts)
George Beaumont (1725-1773) Nottingham, 2nd of George/Frances	Succeeded by Richard (1719-1764), Younger brother Henry (1716-1743)
Thomas Beaumont (1724-1783) Eldest son of George/Frances	Henry (1716-1743 d.s.p.) Son of Richard (1670-1723)	Whitley Beaumonts
George Beaumont (1696-1736) Darton                             married >	Frances Beaumont (1704-1735) Eldest dau. Richard (1670-1723)	Succeeded by Thomas Beaumont (1606-1668)
George Beaumont (1663-1712) Chapelthorpe	Richard Beaumont (1670-1723), grandson of Richard (1638-1706)	grandson of William and Rosamund (from column 2)
William Beaumont (1638-1713) Darton	Richard Beaumont (1638-1706) Lascelles Hall	Richard Beaumont (1574-1631 d.s.p.) End male line
George Beaumont (c. 1600-1664) Darton	Thomas Beaumont (1606-1668) Mirfield & Whitley	Edward Beaumont (c.1537-1574) Second son of Richard below
	Richard Beaumont (1570-1656) Mirfield	Richard (d. 1535 d.s.p.)First son of Richard below
Thomas Beaumont (1556-1614) Over-Flockton	William Beaumont (d.c. 1621) Lascelles Hall  >>>>>married >>> >	Rosamund Beaumont …  Only daughter of Richard below
	Richard Beaumont (d. 1569) Emley & Mirfield	Richard Beaumont (c.1518-1573) Whitely
Humphrey Beaumont (c.1515-1568) Flockton	Thomas Beaumont (d. 1561) Mirfield & Kirkheaton	Roger Beaumont (c.1490-1528) Whitley
John Beaumont (c.1490-1521) Netherton & Almondbury	John Beaumont (d.1542)	Richard Beaumont (c. 1459-1540) Whitley
Lawrence Beaumont (fl. 1472) Crosland Foss	John Beaumont (c.1430-1490) Lascelles Hall	Thomas Beaumont (d. 1495) Whitley
John Beaumont (fl. 1442) Crossland Foss & Honley	Henry Beaumont (d. 1468/9) Lascelles Hall	Richard Beaumont (d. 1471) Whitley
Roger Beaumont, 2nd son [8]	John Beaumont, 4th son [9]	Henry Beaumont (c. 1380-1425)  (eldest son) [10]
		Henry Beaumont (c. 1335-1400) Crossland & Whitley
		John Beaumont (c.1315 - c.1371)
		Robert Beaumont (d. 1330) Crossland
		William de Beaumont III  (fl. 1298) Huddersfield & Crossland
		William de Bellomonte II  (c. 1200 - c. 1294)
		William de Bellomonte/Beaumont  (c. 1170 - c. 1230) 1/8th knight’s fee

Table 1. Edward M. Beaumont’s male lineage, including his connection to the Whitley Beaumonts. It is complicated and requires explanation.

Table 2. Timeline to Most Recent Common Ancestor

EMB	#392890	#214129	#270842	#IN96915
Private	Private	Private	Private	Private
	Private	Private	Private	Private
Richard H. 1865-1952	Joshua 1861-1928 NZ	Charles H 1883 TX 1965 CA	George 1869-1899	Frederick T 1869 NY 1920 Leeds
George 1825-1899	Joseph 1827- 1892 NZ	Peter CS 1832 IL 1910 TX	Charles 1836-1895	Joseph 1832- Yorkshire
George 1796-1882	Joshua 1800-1876 Netherthong	Samuel S 1795 NC	William 1807-1880	George 1796- M. Reb. Singleton
Richard 1761-1828	John 1777-	James 1769 NC 1833 IL	Joseph 1767-1839	Thomas 1765- Rough Lee, Marsden M. Martha Shaw
George 1725-1773	Thomas 1738-1802	John Beaman May 1743 Almondbury 1819 NC	Thomas 1729-1780	George 1736- Golcar M. Mary Bierley
George 1696-1736	Joseph 1710/11-	James Beaumont 1700 - 1749 Almondbury	Ebenezer 1690-1764	Joshua 1695/6-Glocar M. Mary Bailey
George 1663-1712	John Apr 1679 Kirkburton	Family Finder Match	John Beaman 1649-1739	John 1670- Golcar M.Mary Bottomley
William 1638-1713	Abraham Beaumont 1634-1707		Gamaliel Beaman 1623 England 1699 MA	Thomas Beaumont ~ 1640 M. Elizabeth Holt Golcar
George 1600-1664
Thomas 1556-1614	R-FT41***2 1550 CE
Humphrey 1515-1568 FTD8***4
John c.1490-1521		FTC4***6 MRCA 1500 CE
Lawrence fl. 1472 FT3***91	FT3***91 MRCA 1450 CE
John fl. 1442
Roger
Henry 1335-1400
John			FTA7***5
Robert
William III
William II
William de Bellomonte FT3***51	FT3***51 1150 CE	FT3***51 1150 CE	FT3***51 1150 CE	FT3***51 1150 CE
A18420	A18420	A18420	A18420	A18420

Table 2. This table shows a select group of Y-DNA matches that illustrate the various branches of the West Yorkshire Beaumonts. Family trees are also included based on public trees on Ancestry. Some information has been omitted or obscured for privacy.

As the first systematic Y-DNA study of the Beaumont paternal line, the table focuses on West Yorkshire and the time period that the Beaumonts are known to have lived there.

Edward M. Beaumont (EMB) is the proxy for this paternal line. To date, he matches more than 30 individuals in the surname project. Most of these matches have the surname Beaumont, a variation of the surname Beaumont, or a proven connection to the surname Beaumont. The individuals with a different surname have a shared SNP, which is a guarantee of a shared paternal ancestor.

Most of the testing has been Family Tree DNA’s (FTDNA) basic Y-37 test. Although limited, it is valid in determining a Y-DNA connection because of the large number of tests available for comparison. The FTDNA’s advanced Big-Y test, however, has produced the greatest insight into this paternal line.

The Beaumont surname project now has 21 completed Big-Y tests. This test identifies SNP mutations that are permanent mutations in the Y-chromosome. A Y-chromosome mutation occurs randomly, so these SNPs are difficult to precisely date, but each new mutation that occurs is a once-in-all-of-human-history event, making it unique to a single male and all of his male offspring. So, each new SNP starts a new branch of the paternal line.

The sequence of SNPS for a paternal line is called a Y-DNA Haplotree. The Y-DNA Haplotree for West Yorkshire Beaumonts is: R1b > R-M269 > R-L23 > R-L151 > R-P312 > R-Z290 > R-L21 > R-DF13 > R-Z39589 > R-FGC35996 > R-BY9003 > R-BY81032 > R-BY115264 > R-A18420 > R-FT3***51.

Four main branches of the West Yorkshire Beaumonts are identified by 1) R-FT3***51, 2) R-FT3***91, 3) R-FTC4***6, and 4) R-FTA7***5. More branches could exist, but for now the number of branches is holding steady. Do the branches in Table 2 correspond to the three branches in Table 1?

R-FT3***51 is the oldest branch. By that I mean, so far, everyone in Table 2 shares this SNP. FTDNA dates R-FT3***51 to 1150 CE. FTDNA says, “The man who is the most recent common ancestor of this line is estimated to have been born around 1150 CE.” So, this branch is the earliest of all the branches, going back to the very beginning of the Beaumont family in West Yorkshire.

Two individuals share R-FT3***51 as their “terminal” SNP: #IN96915, and Louis Bickel (deceased). Again, EMB is the proxy for the paternal line of the Beaumonts of West Yorkshire. FTDNA says, “Based on a Genetic Distance of 9 at the Y-111 test level, #IN96915 and Edward M. Beaumont are estimated to share a common paternal line ancestor who was, with a 95% probability, born between 950 and 1650 CE. The most likely year is rounded to 1350 CE.” This means that the common ancestor with Edward would have been born in the time range of Henry Beaumont (1335-1400), or perhaps one or two generations earlier.

R-FT3***91 defines a branch that is clearly EMB’s branch (Table 1, Column 1). It includes FTD8***4 and R-FT41***2, which are downstream of R-FT3***91. Six individuals in the table share R-FT3***91, and FTDNA estimates that it dates to about 1450, which would be downstream from Henry Beaumont (1335-1400).

Conclusions about the remaining two branches are more speculative.

Regarding the branch R-FTC4***6, does it correspond to the male line of the Lascelles Hall Beaumonts (Table 1, Column 2)?

Richard H. Beaumont (1749-1810) died without issue. His brother, John (1752-1820), inherited. John’s son, Charles (1777-1813), died before his father, so Charles’ son, Richard Henry (1805-1857), inherited. The male lineage of this paternal line died with the passing of Richard Henry in 1857. Then, his godson, Henry F. Beaumont (1833-1913), inherited the Whitley estate. Henry F. was a descendant of Thomas (1724-1783) in Table 1, Column 1 and a cousin of EMB. As a result, there is no known living male from the Lascelles Hall Beaumonts, so it is not possible to compared Y-DNA to establish a connection to this paternal line.

The surname project does have a descendant of Charlotte Beaumont (1779-1815). Charlotte was the sister of Charles (1777-1813) and the aunt of Richard Henry (1805-1857). In 1857, by Royal authority, her son, Richard Henry John Beaumont McCumming, was licensed to “assume and use” the surname Beaumont. Obviously, his male descendants would not match the West Yorkshire Beaumont Y-DNA profile because the paternal line would be McCumming. In any case, the ancestor is #B1054617, and he has autosomal (transferred) results on FTDNA. To date, however, he has no matches with anyone in the surname project. This means, if R-FTC4***6 is connected to the Lascelles Hall Beaumonts, then the connection would be much earlier.

It is fairly easy to identify where the paternal lines died out in Lascelles Hall Beaumonts between Thomas Beaumont (d. 1561) and Richard Henry (1805-1857). Of course, a “natural birth” could have occurred anywhere in this time period and before.

FTDNA dates SNP R-FTC4***6 to a man born about 1550 CE. John Beaumont (d. 1542), in the Lascelles lineage, satisfies this estimated date. He produced five sons: Thomas (heir who died 1561), Nicholas, Richard, Edward and Henry. SNP R-FTC4***6 could be connected to one of these sons and represent the only surviving male from of the Lascelles Hall Beaumonts. It would be difficult and probably impossible to prove it, though.

Similarly, for R-FTA7***5, the Whitley Beaumont branch (Table 1, column 3), there is a dead zone between Thomas (d. 1495) and Richard (1575-1631). In other words, there are no other sons who could have created a twig off this branch. Earlier, Richard Beaumont (d. 1471) produced five sons. So, one of his non-inheriting sons (Robert, Christopher, Richard, or William) is the likely progenitor of this branch, which is consistent with the estimated age of SNP R-FTA7***5 at 1500 CE.

The exception to this might be for the paternal line of Gamaliel Beaman (1623-1700), which is in the branch of SNP R-FTA7***5.

The only Whitley Beaumont alive at the time of Gamaliel’s birth was Richard Beaumont (1575-1631). The only Lascelles Hall Beaumonts alive at the time of Gamaliel’s birth were Thomas Beaumont (1606-1668) and his father, Richard Beaumont (1570-1656) of Mirfield.

The paternal line of the Whitley Beaumonts ended with Richard Beaumont (1574-1631) who died without a male heir. In his will, he named Thomas Beaumont (1606-1668) of the Lascelles Beaumonts to inherit the Whitely estate, and Thomas’ line went extinct in 1857. As a result, comparing Y-DNA with a living male descendant is not possible.

In the absence of Y-DNA evidence, it is necessary to turn to circumstantial evidence, including motive, means, and opportunity. Here, we explore Gamaliel Beaman, the ancestor of FL Beaman, #270842. In May 1623, at the age of twelve, he embarked on the ship Elizabeth & Ann to be transported to New England. Who had a motive, the means, and the opportunity to send a twelve-year old boy, alone, to America?

The name Gamaliel, which means the “recompense of God,” suggests he was illegitimate – in other words God’s payment for one’s deeds . One fact that seems to support this – Gamaliel’s wife, Sarah, presented her children for baptism because she was the “member in whose right they were baptized.” For Gamaliel, there does not seem to be a baptismal record in West Yorkshire, or for that matter, in all of England. But, I suggest that his father was Richard Beaumont (1575-1631), who certainly had a reputation as a bounder and was apparently dubbed the “Black Dick of the North” by King James I.

Richard (1575-1631) died 4 years before Gamaliel immigrated, and it was the family of Richard (1570-1656) that potentially had a motive to send Gamaliel to America, especially if it was thought that he threatened the inheritance of the Whitley estate.

Regarding means, Richard (1570-1656) certainly had the power and money to hide illegitimacy and ship the “problem” to America. He also had a relationship with Richard Saltonstall (1586-1661).

Richard Saltonstall married Grace Kaye, November 1609 in Almondbury, Yorkshire. In 1629, he was appointed chairman of emigration “adventurers” for the Massachusettes Bay Company. After the death of his first wife, he sold his estate in Yorkshire and, with his children, sailed to America on the Arbella (Winthrop Fleet), landing at Salem in June 1630, and establishing Watertown, Massachusettes. In March 1631, he returned to England. He continued to hold property in Massachusettes and Connecticut, and he was responsible for sending groups of people to America, some of whom managed his properties there.

Richard’s son, Richard Saltonstall (1610-1694), was baptized in Yorkshire and lived at Woodsome, near Almondbury. He married in 1633, and in May 1635, he, his wife, Muriel, and their child, sailed on the Susan and Ellin, from London to Massachusetts Bay. In the same expedition, Gamaliel sailed on a sister ship, Elizabeth and Ann (May 1635).

Edward Beaumont (1537-1574), lord of Whitley Hall, Yorkshire, was the son-in-law of Samuel Saltonstall (1560), father of Richard (1586-16610. And Richard Saltonstall (1586-1661) owed £20, “forced loan,” to Richard Beaumont (1574-1631), lord of Whitley, Yorkshire, according to a letter dated 7 July 1608.

Figure 2. Folger Digital Image Collection. Source Call Number: X.d.330 (https://luna.folger.edu)

Motive, means, and opportunity -- Threat to an inheritance of the Whitley estate; rich and powerful people stacking the deck in their favor, and a £20 debt owed by the individual organizing the voyage to America. It’s the stuff about which novels are written. Like in novels, there is a dead body that could provide clues. Richard Beaumont (1575-1631) is buried at St. John the Baptist, Kirkheaton, Yorkshire. The available Y-DNA evidence does not negate this theory, but it is still just a theory.

Other Factoids

One unique Y-DNA match of particular interest is #240331, even though he does not appear in this table. He and his family have a long and early history in Scotland. At first glance, this match would seem to be a mistake. How can #240331 from Scotland be related to the Beaumonts of West Yorkshire? #240331 shares SNP R-A18420 and is 9 steps different from EMB at Y-111, suggesting that his most recent common ancestor was William de Beaumont III (fl. 1298). This same William is known to have fought in Scotland because he appears in the Galloway Rolls. He took out a letter of protection for service in Gascony in 1294. Beaumont is listed there in the company of the household banneret, William de Ryther and is referred to as “Ryther’s Socius.” In this context the term “socius” was a synonym for “companion-in-arms.” Beaumont appears to have served with Ryther on the Falkirk campaign of 1298 and was definitely with him in the king’s household division in 1301. So, the SNP R-A18420 could have evolved in West Yorkshire. It is also one more piece of evidence that the Haplotree is dated correctly and, if correct, provides a Y-DNA connection all the way back to the grandson and heir of William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (1170-1230).

For branch R-FTC4***6, there are Family Finder connections to Squire Boone, father of Daniel Boone, which corroborates oral family histories. Squire Boone led a group of people from Pennsylvania to North Carolina in the mid-1700s. And Daniel Boone led settlers through the Cumberland Gap into Kentucky later in the 1700s.

People being people, there is evidence of various assignations or unexpected paternal events, which is not surprising given the fact that we are talking about a period of 800 years or more. So, individuals in the surname project have the surname Beaumont, but they do not match the shared Y-DNA profile. And there are individuals in the surname project who do not share the surname, but they do share the Y-DNA profile. The reasons? In the surname project there are two confirmed cases of illegitimacy, but there are probably more unconfirmed cases. Already mentioned is a surname change. There is also the possibility of infidelity and secret adoption.

In fact, EMB’s closest match is #991001. They match at SNP FTD8***4. Since the surname does not match, it is likely that a woman with the surname Durrance gave birth to a son whose father was a Beaumont, and that son retained the surname Durrance. Or a woman became pregnant by a Beaumont, and then she married a Durrance, giving the surname Durrance to the son. Although Humphrey (1515-1568) in EMB’s column is assigned SNP R-FTD8***4, he isn’t necessarily the common ancestor. The common ancestor could be from one generation before or after Humphrey.

Family Trees

It may be possible to fill in the blanks on the various family trees back to the late 1500s. However, there are many roadblocks.

Generally, family trees are fairly accurate from the present back to the first Census of England, compiled in 1841. In these cases, Church records can be paired with census records to give a geographic context that helps distinguish one family from another.

Prior to 1841 CE, church records are the only available source of genealogical information, and they have several problems. One I call the “problem of John.” “John Beaumont” is such a common name in West Yorkshire, and they all lived in close proximity, so it is difficult to distinguish one John from another. For that matter, there is a similar problem with numerous other given names such as William, Thomas, George, Abraham, etc. Period church records simply do not contain enough information to differentiate between individuals with the same given name, similar birth dates, and living in close proximity to each other.

There are also gaps in church records. For instance, church records at All Hallows, Almondbury, start in 1557. However, the records at St. Michaels and All Angels, Thornhill, don’t start until 23 years later, 1580. And the image for 1580 is unreadable. Gaps exist in the records at Thornhill, too. There is a gap between 1584-1586 and 1594-1599 as well as other years.

Finally, births were not recorded, only baptisms, and for a variety of reasons, not everyone appears in the baptismal records. For instance, Gamaliel Beaman does seem to appear in any baptismal record anywhere in England.

The abbreviation “MRCA” in the table stands for ”time to the most recent common ancestor.” It represents a FTDNA estimate based on STR differences between EMB and other individuals. A MRCA dated to around 1350 CE is at least 200 years before church records appeared, and the common ancestor could be anyone from any of the branches, the various major and minor sons, and possibly the illegitimate sons. It is, therefore, highly unlikely, with an MRCA of 1350 CE, that one could name their common ancestor to EMB. In these cases, Y-DNA may be the only genealogical clue to the origins of some branches of this paternal line.

It should also be noted that FTDNA’s dating of the various SNPs and STR matches is not precise. Even at Y-111, “the most likely year” is rounded and the range for that date is plus 150 years and minus 200 years. The same is true for dating SNPs. Also, FTDNA is continually updating the dates based on new testing, so the dating process is a constantly moving target.

In isolation, these DNA results do not necessarily offer many insights into one’s family history though. It’s in comparing and contrasting with others that a clearer picture emerges. That’s has been the goal of the Beaumont surname project on FTDNA. DNA doesn’t lie. Also, by combining Y-DNA, the historic paper trail, the surname “Beaumont,” the location “West Yorkshire,” we know, with a high level of certainty, the individuals in this table are paternally related with the likely progenitor being William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (c. 1170-c. 1230).

Ancient Connections

Y-DNA is like a time capsule, and so it has even more to offer about the ancient origins of this paternal line. Prior to the FTDNA surname project, one might have speculated that the Beaumonts of West Yorkshire had Norse Viking roots in Normandy, France, and that they were somehow involved in the Norman Conquest of England. As a reward, they were given control of a fiefdom in England. This may be true, but with a twist.

All men alive today share a common male ancestor known as Y-chromosomal Adam, who lived an estimated 200,000 years ago. All Y-DNA, or human paternal lines, evolved from him. Subsequently, 18 Y-DNA branches evolved from Adam, represented by the letters A through R. In visual form, they look like a standard family tree, but instead of names of individuals, the tree is made up of SNPs. For a paternal line, the SNPs are Y-DNA SNPS, and this Y-DNA tree is called a Y-DNA Haplotree. Embedded in a Y-DNA Haplotree is the history, through time and place, of a male lineage.

Again, the Y-DNA Haplotree, or SNP progression, for the West Yorkshire Beaumonts is: R1b > R-M269 > R-L23 > R-L151 > R-P312 > R-Z290 > R-L21 > R-DF13 > R-Z39589 > R-FGC35996 > R-BY9003 > R-BY81032 > R-BY115264 > R-A18420.

• R1b-M269 is the most common European haplogroup (100 million modern individuals) with increasing frequency from east (Poland 22.7%) to west (Wales 92.3%). It formed about 10,000 years ago.

• R-L21 is associated with the Early Bronze Age in Britain and Ireland. Its introduction was part of a large genetic transformation associated with the Bell Beaker culture, which largely replaced Britain's earlier Neolithic population.

So, the Beaumont Haplotree is Celtic, or the people who migrated from the Continent to the British Isles during the Bronze Age. The Y-DNA of Celts is still present in the British Isles, with especially strong representation in Ireland, Scotland, Wales, and northwest England.

Archaeological Finds

FTDNA’s “Discover Haplogroup Reports” provides a summary of archaeological finds relevant to this paternal line that appear in peer-reviewed research. FTDNA is continuously updating the “Discover” page with new archaeological findings, but currently the finds include SNPs that are part of the Beaumont Haplotree, including R-Z39589, R-FGC35996 and R-BY9003.

• R-Z39589’s paternal line was formed when it branched from the ancestor R-DF13 and the rest of mankind around 2500 BCE. It is associated with the Bell Beaker culture named after the inverted-bell beaker drinking vessel used during the early Bronze Age.

• R-FGC35996’s paternal line was formed when it branched from the ancestor R-Z39589 and the rest of mankind around 2450 BCE. The man who is the most recent common ancestor of this line is estimated to have been born around 2300 BCE.

• R-BY9003's paternal line was formed when it branched off from the ancestor R-FGC35996 and the rest of mankind around 2250 BCE. The man who is the most recent common ancestor of this line is estimated to have been born around 1900 BCE. There are currently 76 DNA tested descendants at FTDNA, with concentrations in Western Scotland and Wales.

	R-Z39589	R-FGC35996	R-BY9003
Bronze Age 2500- 800 BCE	Yarnton 2445 2325-2040 BCE Yarnton, Oxfordshire Rodean Crescent 14553  1954-1749 BCE Rodean Crescent, Sussex Inchagreenoge 134 1270-1040 BCE Inchagreenoge, Limerick, Ireland
Iron Age  800 BCE-43 CE	Bottle Knap 27382 774-540 BCE Bottle Knap, Dorset Stockbridge 17260 800-400 BCE Stockbridge, Hampshire Harlyn Bay 16380 800-43 BCE Harlyn Bay, Cornwall North Berwick 16499 337-43 BCE East Lothian, Scotland Howe 2799 152 BCE-65 CE Orkney Islands, Scotland Ballyglass Middle 44 80-420 CE Kiltullagh Hill, Mayo, Ireland	Thornholme 22062 50 BCE-116 CE  Thornholme, East Riding of Yorkshire	Kent 19909  381-197 BCE Kent, England
Roman Era 43-410 CE	Driffield 18 100-400 CE Driffield Terrace, York
Viking Age 800-1050 CE	Birsay 78 54-668 CE Brough Road, Orkney, Scotland

Table 3. Selected archaeological finds summarized in FTDNA’s “Discover Haplogroups Reports.” [7]

There are many more archaeological finds listed in “Discover” resource. Given the age of these finds, and the fact that they are so widespread in the British Isles, it’s difficult to say much more about these except they are cousins of the Beaumonts and clearly Brythonic Celts.

The surname “Beaumont,” on the other hand, is French. It harkens back to origins in Normandy, before the Conquest. The next section focuses on the Beaumont family after the Conquest and before its appearance in Yorkshire as well as its connection to Normandy.

Before Yorkshire

The Beaumont surname project documents, in detail, the West Yorkshire branch of the Beaumonts. It starts with William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (fl. 1194-1227) and continues to the present day. The next phase of this research will try to determine the location of William’s family before West Yorkshire.

More than a hundred years passed between the Battle of Hastings (1066) and William’s land grant near Huddersfield, Yorkshire (c. 1205). This gap translates into three or four generations.

Since Y-DNA contains hints about the historic time and place of a paternal line, the work already completed has implications for the time period before the Beaumont presence in Yorkshire. There may be gaps in the historical record, but there are no gaps in the Y-DNA tree.

To review, the Y-DNA tree of the West Yorkshire Beaumonts is: R1b > R-M269 > R-L23 > R-L151 > R-P312 > R-Z290 > R-L21 > R-DF13 > R-Z39589 > R-FGC35996 > R-BY9003 > R-BY81032  > R-BY115264 > R-A18420.

Assuming that SNP R-A18420 (1050 CE plus or minus 200 years) evolved in West Yorkshire, that means SNP R-BY115264 (1000 CE) evolved earlier than 1194 CE, which is the date of the first historical record associated with William (fl. 1194-1227). Besides the West Yorkshire Beaumonts, two additional individuals share SNP R-BY115264 as their terminal SNP: Benfield, B98833, and Flavel, 935316.

Benfield (Gamble), B98833

Virtually all Benfield’s Y-DNA matches are Beaumonts. His closest STR match is a “Genetic Distance of 10 at the Y-111 test level,” which suggests a shared common paternal line ancestor who was, with a 95% probability, born between 800 and 1600 CE. The most likely year is rounded to 1250 CE. This date is an estimate based on genetic information only.”

Benfield also shares SNP R-BY115264. FTDNA dates R-BY115264 to a “man who is the most recent common ancestor of this line is estimated to have been born around 1000 CE” -- plus or minus 200 years. SNP dating is more accurate than STR dating and there is a range associated with it because SNP mutations are random and can span multiple generations, so this is a ballpark figure.

Benfield, #B98833, has a family history that goes back to the 1500s with the surname Gamble (male line) in Rougham and West Acre, Norfolk. Castle Acre, Rougham, and West Acre are very close to Kerdiston, Norfolk. So, one possibility is that the origin of this paternal line came from the Norfolk Beaumonts, i.e. the family of Godfrey de Bellomonte (fl.1090).

While not listed in the Domesday Book, Godfrey gave tithes at Fulking to Lewes (East Sussex) and tithes of Kerdiston to Castle Acre (Norfolk). Castle Acre priory was a cell of the Lewes priory. Godfrey’s chief lord was William de Warenne, but Kerdiston was likely held under Ralph de Chesney (Quesnay). This would make Godfrey a third-tier individual in the Norman hierarchy. There is a complicated but solid Yorkshire connection here, too.

William de Warenne was known to have fought under William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings. Domesday records show that he held land in 13 English counties, including the Rape of Lewes, Sussex; the major manor of Conisbrough, Yorkshire; and Castle Acre, Norfolk, which became his headquarters or caput. In Yorkshire, the Warenne honour actually overlapped the honour of Pontefract.

In 1193 CE, Robert de Lacy, 5th Baron of Pontefract, died with no children. His wife was Isabella de Warenne, daughter of earl Hamelin de Warenne (1130-1202). In 1194, assuming the surname de Lacy, Roger (1170–1211), Constable of Chester and 7th Baron of Halton, inherited the honour of Pontefract from Robert. In the same year, we find William de Bellomonte/Beaumont (fl. 1194-1227) in Roger’s inner circle.

There are no historical records that place William in the service of Roger before 1194. There are no historical records that associate William, or a Beaumont family, with Halton, Cheshire, or Lancashire, which was Roger’s turf either. However, in West Yorkshire, there was already a Beaumont, Godfrey (fl. 1206-1234), Constable of Sandal, who was associated with the Warenne honour. Sandal Castle is a mere 10 miles from Huddersfield. The geographic proximity shouldn’t be downplayed.

In this theory, Godfrey de Bellomonte (fl. 1206-1234) was a grandson (degree unknown) of Godfrey (fl. 1090). William (fl. 1194-1227), then, could have also been a legitimate or illegitimate grandson (degree unknown) of Godfrey (fl. 1090), making him a cousin or a brother of Godfrey (fl. 1206-1234). It is difficult to piece together an exact family tree from this era with no birth, marriage, death, or census records. But the association with the Warenne Honour and the surname make the connection.

The relationship between Roger (1170-1211) and William may have been one of convenience – William being available in the right place (Yorkshire) at the right time (1194). It could have been an advantageous relationship for the Warennes, too, as a way of looking after their interests in the area. Roger may also have sought out an independent “soldier” as a companion as he entered a new environment with a well-established group of elites. Maybe all three motives were in play.

Flavel, 935316

Virtually all of Flavel’s Y-DNA matches are Beaumonts. His closest STR match is a “Genetic Distance of 8 at the Y-111 test level,” which suggests a shared common paternal line ancestor who was, with a 95% probability, born between 1100 and 1700 CE.” The date 1100 is probably closer to being correct. He also shares SNP R-BY115264 from a Big-Y test.

Flavell reports that his oldest-known male ancestor was Thomas Flavel, born in 1829 and married in Antrim, Ireland. It is known that Armagh was populated by English settlers during the Plantation of Ireland, which began in the early 1600s under King James I, but the English Kings had been trying to subdue Northern Ireland for centuries before that.

Flavell is a rare surname, so would it be possible to find a Flavell in England who was related? A simple count of births and marriages was done for the surname Flavel (16th century England based on an Ancestry search). The Flavells had an early presence in the Midlands, specifically, the counties surrounding Birmingham, England. The highest concentration of 16th century Flavells was recorded in Warwickshire, with ten Flavell marriages and thirteen Flavell baptisms.[12] Just as important, the surname Flavell is absent from 16th century birth or marriage records in Devon or Norfolk, where it is known that 12th century Beaumont families lived. The are no 16th century Flavells in Yorkshire either.

Flavell, IN142108, completed a Y-DNA test. His family goes back to the 1500s in Staffordshire, England. His DNA test revealed a rare Haplogroup, G-M201.

This negative correlation between Flavel, 935316, and Flavell, IN142108, suggests a parental event that occurred in Northern Ireland rather than England. Again, there is an Ireland connection to the Norfolk Beaumonts -- Robert de Bellomonte (fl.1210-1216 ), another grandson (degree unknown) of Godfrey (fl. 1090).

In July 1210, at Carrickfergus, Ireland,[13] Robert was taken prisoner by King John King John (1166-1216), who was intent on subduing several recalcitrant barons there. In this complicated story, William de Braose had fled to Carrickfergus.[14] He was sheltered by William Marshall, lord of Leinster and earl of Pembroke, who was exiled in Ireland. Robert was in service to one of the barons there, perhaps de Braose.

In 1214-15, “The K. to his bailiffs and faithful subjects. On the petition of John Marshall has pardoned Robert de Beaumont, taken in the castle of Carrickfergus. Protection for him. Cirencester.[15] 

In 1216, at the siege of Framlingham Castle (Norfolk, England),[16] Robert was stated to be kinsman and intended hostage for William Lenveise, but he died soon after and was replaced.[17]  

Needle in a Haystack

There is some benefit in describing the Beaumont not related to the Yorkshire Beaumonts:

The de Brienne Beaumonts started using the name “Beaumont” with Henry (1270-1340), a younger son of Louis de Brienne and Agnes. Agnes was the heiress of the Vicomtes of Maine, who took their name from Beaumont-sur-Sarthe. Being a younger son, Henry did not have an inheritance, which explains why he went to England and served Edward I in the campaign to conquer Scotland. In this case, the surname Beaumont comes from Henry’s mother, so the de Brienne Beaumonts are not paternally related to the various branches of Beaumont found in Devon, Yorkshire, Norfolk, Warwickshire, or Leicestershire. That said, it is possible that there are living males with the surname Beaumont from the de Brienne line.

Roger de Beaumont ( -1094) was one of two Beaumont families mentioned in the Domesday Book. He was a powerful Norman nobleman. He had at least two sons: 1) Robert de Beaumont ( -1118), 1st Earl of Leicester, and 2) Henry ( -1119), 1st Earl of Warwick. Robert fought at the Battle of Hastings -- one of the few known companions of the Duke. This was at the highest level of Norman hierarchy, much higher than the Yorkshire Beaumonts ever were. For that reason alone, a relationship is unlikely. Furthermore, the family stopped using the surname Beaumont was they arrived in England. The moniker was used later by medieval historians. The male line of the family went extinct in the 13th century, but Thomas  (1229-1242), the great great grandson of Henry, was buried at the Collegiate Church of St. Mary, Warwick, which provides the highest probability of finding DNA.

Robert de Beaumont (fl. 1089) is another Beaumont mentioned in the Domesday Book. He was lord over “the peasants” in Ashford, Landcross, Shirwell, Whitestone, Loxhore and Lower Loxhore (Devon). He “paid tax to the tenant-in-chief (Baldwin the Sheriff).” (See Appendix 2.) He is often confused with Robert, 1st Earl of Leicester. To no avail, numerous attempts were made to find an individual who matched the Beaumont Y-DNA and also had an early presence in Devon. The male line of the Devon Beaumonts went extinct in the 16th century. Family members were buried at St. Peter’s Church, Shirwell, Devon. And the last of the male line was Hugh Beaumont ( -1507).

Beaumonts in Normandy

There is a large time gap in the historical records for Benfield and Flavel. Also, in truth, there is no definitive test to answer the questions, “Is the shared ancestor a Beaumont? Or a Benfield? Or a Flavell? But taking all the evidence together, the balance of probabilities points toward a paternal connection to the Beaumonts.[18] This analysis is very complicated. It will never be black and white with 100% certainty, and future DNA testing might offer new insights. However, it is the best theory currently available. It isn’t totally conjecture and coincidence either because it is based on Y-DNA SNPs.

A SNP is a permanent mutation that occurs in a single individual. That individual starts a new branch of a male lineage. No other human being on earth except our common male ancestor would have SNP R-BY115264. So, a single male with SNP R-BY115264 started the branch that includes Benfield, Flavell, and all the Yorkshire Beaumonts. With the highest level of probability, there is a shared paternal ancestor between Benfield, Flavel, and the Beaumonts in spite of the mismatch of surnames. And the best theory available at the moment is that Godfrey de Bellomonte/Beaumont (fl.1090) is the common ancestor. All three branches have been associated with a grandson of Godfrey in the appropriate timeframe and at the appropriate location. If correct, it leads to speculation of the origin place of the Beaumonts in Normandy.

William de Warenne ( -1088) was among the few known to have fought under William the Conqueror at the Battle of Hastings. He held extensive lands in 13 counties according to the Domesday Book. He was born in Varenne, Normandy. Also, Ralph de Chesney (Quesnay) was from Quesnay, Normandy, leading to speculation that Beaumont-le-Hareng was the origin place of the Norfolk Beaumonts.[19]

If the Beaumonts came to England from Normandy, and they are Brythonic Celt Y-DNA, how does this this mesh with the fact that Vikings were the dominant culture in Normandy after 900 CE?

Actually, the Celts inhabited Normandy between the Bronze Age and the Roman occupation, predating the Normans. So, one possibility is that the family was already in Normandy when the Vikings arrived.

The Romans conquered Normandy in 56 BCE and called it Gallia Lugdunensis. After the fall of Rome in the 5th century, the Franks became the dominant ethnic group in the area. It is also important to remember that, with pressure from the Anglo Saxon in England, Britons migrated to Brittany, France. Their territorial control reached North, into the Cotentin, and perhaps further. Again, maybe the Beaumonts were already in Normandy before the Vikings arrived.

The Vikings Northwest France in the 8th century and devastated it in the late 9th century. Once settled there, they continued to battle the Franks and the Bretons of Brittany, but they also intermarried to assimilate and formed various alliances to make peace. In the end, Normandy was a hodgepodge of different people. Thinking differently is an oversimplification. This is especially true with regard to Y-DNA Haplogroups. For one, all Scandinavians are not all of the same Haplogroup. Four distinct Haplogroups (I1a, R1b3, R1a1, and N3) account for about 80% of Scandinavian men.[20]

The rhetoric of the Norman period emphasized a common history and ethnicity, however. Chronicles of the time spoke of “one bloodline under the Dukes,” or “Danish-born,” or “speaking the language of Old Norse.” Fraser McNair suggests that this was political rhetoric to essentially “rally the troops,” citing the fact, for instance, that “Ralph of Ivry[21] … would be a good person to have a duke-focused idea of what being Norman actually entailed … he was Richard I’s half-brother, and therefore closely tied to a family that emphasized its Scandinavian blood. But he was not biologically Scandinavian at all: his mother, Sprota, was Breton, and his father, … Esperleng, was Frankish.” [22] Furthermore, if Sprota was a Briton, and if she was William’s great, great grandmother, then Willima was part Briton.

In the end, the only real constant in all of the evidence is that a “Norman” was a person who obeyed the duke and was ready to raise his sword in battle to support him. It seems, in a warrior society, the sword was one’s passport. When he invaded England in 1066, if fact, William, Duke of Normandy, brought 7,000 men with him. One-third identified as Frankish. Another third identified as Bretons and were led by Alan of Richmond.

So, did the Beaumont paternal line sail with the Vikings before their presence in Normandy? It is known that, over an extended period of time, Vikings came into contact with Celts throughout the British Isles, including England, Ireland, Scotland, and Wales.[23] The Vikings and Celts fought each other, but they also coexisted and made alliances. And the genomics of the Viking world shows that they assimilated other people, intermarrying with them, too. [24] 

Conclusion

The Normans brought significant political and social change to England. Their feudal system was heavily male dominated. As a result, a family could advance itself by simply producing sons. The more the better. Y-DNA is particularly good at identifying male lineages, especially Y-DNA SNPs.

The Y-DNA and the archaeological data is clear. The Beaumonts were Brythonic Celts. They lived in England as early as the Bronze Age, displacing earlier Neolithic populations. Somehow, the Beaumonts ended up in France, where they adopted the surname. After the Conquest, one branch of the family was awarded land in England, and the family grew from there.

The surname makes its first appearance in the Domesday Book as well as other post-Conquest historical records -- well before the widespread adoption of surnames. By the mid-1500s, when church records began, Beaumonts can be found in virtually every county of England. By the first Census of England, in 1841, there were nearly 5,500 Beaumont living in England with more than half of those living in Yorkshire.

While the focus of the surname project began with West Yorkshire Beaumonts, it now demonstrates that, if one shares the surname, or some variation of it, and if one matches Y-STRs at virtually any level of testing, there is a 95 percent probability of a shared paternal ancestor. Also, a shared SNP, regardless of the surname, produces a high probability of a shared paternal ancestor. Finally, Godfrey de Bellomonte/Beaumont (fl.1090) of Norfolk, England, was likely the first identifiable male in this paternal line to appear in England’s recorded history. And his family likely originated in Beaumont-le-Hareng, France.

The End

Part 1: The Medieval Origins of West Yorkshire Beaumonts with references.