Talk:Jack Churchill (1880–1947)

message: The current revision says nothing about the subject's career after the First World War. I was particularly interested to learn what he was doing during the Second World War but really all of it is interesting. Can anyone find a source for his life post-1918? 79.68.163.30 (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion request

message: A misread above. V. Joe (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Oops

message: Did he really use the double barreled surname?  My understanding was that his father removed the hyphen for himself and his descendants. john k (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spencer-Churchill 

message: Please can people stop moving this article all over the place? The bots do not always catch up with the double, triple, quadruple redirects that get created, and dab pages, templates, etc need to be updated. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moves 

message: Wonder if this is a portrait of Lady Gwendoline Theresa Mary Bertie by John Lavery Lotje (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: A genetic comparison made on ancestry.com and 23&Me between ancestors of the principals of interest, suggests that the paternity of John Churchill remains indeterminate. DNA was made available from six individuals, over three generations, descended from two of John Churchill's offspring. Five of John's six descendants have high-confidence autosomal genetic links with three direct descendants of Winston Churchill, two from the Sandys line and one from the line of Randolph Churchill, his son. These links confirm a common descent through Jennie Jerome, but do not confirm a common descent through Randolph Churchill, her spouse, the son of the 7th Duke of Marlborough.
There are four principal candidates for John Churchill's paternity. No cousins of Edgar Vincent were found to have submitted DNA to any of the top five commercial ancestral DNA companies (he had no descendants). Three descendants of Evelyn Boscawen (all 2nd cousins once removed at their closest) were found to have no genetic relationship with the descendants of John. There is a 0.1% likelihood of a false negative at the position of 2nd cousin once removed (one individual), and a 2.3% likelihood of a false negative for a 3rd cousin (two individuals) https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics. Two descendants of the cousins of John Strange Jocelyn (his line ended within three generations), whose closest position (through his father Robert Jocelyn 1788-1870) was 3rd cousin twice removed, were also not found related. There is a 30.7% likelihood of a false negative for the closest individual, between 30.7% and 69.8% likelihood of a false negative for the next two closest individuals, and between 80-90% likelihood of a false negative for the two farthest individuals. It is extremely unlikely that Boscawen, and given cumulative probabilities (albeit not independent), unlikely that Jocelyn, were John's father. 
A fourth candidate, suggested by genetic evidence, is John Thornton Rogers (1834-1900). He was a frequent visitor to Marlfield House outside Dublin, and in 1879-1880, at the time of John's conception, estranged from his wife. Two of John Roger's descendants related genetically to three of John Churchill's descendants, with Centimorgan values in the expected range of second cousins. However, the strength of the genetic evidence is undermined by the complete absence of a relationship with three of the other of John Churchill's descendants, which has only a 2.3% likelihood of being a false negative. Although John Rogers' descendants clustered in near isolation from other lineages (with a cut-off of 20 Cm), there remained confounding effects from multiple common ancestors at least two centuries prior.
A final test was conducted to control for the confounding common ancestry of Jennie Jerome, by comparing the autosomal DNA of the the six descendants of John Churchill with four descendants of the 7th Duke of Marlborough, John Churchill's grandfather. These relationships ranged between 3rd cousins at their closest, to 4th cousins at their most remote. No relationships were found, which produced the likelihoods of a false negative ranging from 2.3% in one case, to 12.1% in five cases, and 30.7% in the residual cases. Although John Churchill's (1650-1722) X-Chromosome haplogroup is available, R1b-M260, given the absence of a surviving male heir, this haplogroup did not match the one available for one of John Churchill's descendants. This is moderately suggestive that John Churchill is not a descendant of Randolph Churchill, although the likelihood that a true cousin is found to be unrelated is 10.3% at 3rd cousins and 54.1% at 4th cousins http://faculty.washington.edu/eathomp/Anonftp/Papers/tpb83_kp_donnelly.pdf. The analysis was unsuccessful in subjecting the autosomal links between the descendants of Winston Churchill with those of the descendants of the 7th Duke of Marlborough, as a further control. If the descendants of Winston Churchill are themselves not related to the descendants of the 7th Duke, then these genetic results may be brought into question. 
Julian Spencer-Churchill (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic Evidence of John Churchill's Paternity