top of page

The Connection between the names Berkley - Bartlett - Berkeley -  Barkley

The following is the 'story' of how these four apparently different surnames are in fact all one family.

Through genealogical research and DNA testing (mainly Y-DNA and some autosomal) a confirmed connection has been formed for a group of men that all link back to a common ancestor by the name of William Berkley who died in 1761/1762 in Virginia, USA. This man is normally referred to as William Berkley Sr.

Background

When I first encountered this group of Berkley men there had already been Y-DNA testing of STRs up to 37 for three men – one with the surname Berkley, one with the surname Berkeley and one with the surname Bartlett. With this STR37 testing it showed a possible connection between these three men which supported the genealogical research that showed a possible connection. However, there were still some questions about the Y-DNA connection and the genealogy had gaps. Also, at this point a man with the surname Barkley had also undertaken the STR37 test and showed a possible connection but no genealogy had been presented/found that appeared to show a connection.

 

I first became interested in this group of men because another male bearing the surname Berkley had undertaken Y-DNA testing and had come up matching my male Rutherford line. Jump to present day and it is now confirmed through Y-DNA testing that this Berkley group (descendants of William Berkley Sr.) share a common male ancestor with my male Rutherford Y-DNA group.

 

At present we now have 19 Berkley/Berkeley/Bartlett and Barkley men who have tested their Y-DNA SNPs and up to STR111. For the 11 Berkley, 1 Berkeley, 3 Bartlett and 1 Barkley men (he will be referred to as ‘Tester B’ from now on) who have undertaken these DNA tests they clearly match one another and apart from ‘Tester B’, also have genealogical evidence that shows clearly these men are all descended from sons of William Berkley Sr. In addition to these 16 men there are an additional 3 Barkley men who have undertaken all these tests however not all their results have come back as clear of a match as ‘Tester B’ to all the other testers. The 3 Barkley men’s Y-DNA SNPs showed they are most definitely genetically linked to the other 16 testers however their STR results showed extremely unique mutations that no one else had – only these 3 Barkley men contain these mutations. With these unique results alongside not having any genealogical proof of the exact relationship it was not clear how they were connected to the other testers. All that could be stated with certainty was that they most definitely are related in the male line to all the other testers. Some genealogy researchers thought the place where the Barkley men may be related to William Sr. was under his son William Jr., however this was a theory as no direct proof of this relationship could so far be found.

 

This is when autosomal testing was undertaken for descendants of William Jr. I was hoping all the testers would come back showing links and this would provide additional support for the theory of the Barkley’s being descended from William Jr. This autosomal testing was taken by ‘Tester B’, 2 of the 3 Barkley men and the Berkeley male. When these results came back, they did not shed clarifying light on the situation as ‘Tester B’ did not match either of the 2 Barkley testers, but he did match the Berkeley tester. In addition, the Berkeley tester matched both 2 Barkley testers along with ‘Tester B’. I asked the Barkley genealogical researcher I am in contact with, if there were any possible females shared within the trees of the 2 Barkley testers and the Berkeley tester. As this would allow for the results of the Berkeley tester matching all, but ‘Tester B’ not matching the 2 Barkley testers. It turned out there was a female, she was a sister in the Barkley line who married a Berkeley male in the Berkeley testers direct line. This is one situation that could have given rise to the autosomal results. However, autosomal can be based on chance as you do not automatically inherit all the exact same chunks of autosomal DNA as your siblings do from both of your parents, so especially over the distance of generations the certainty of these results can dwindle. With this randomness in mind another situation that could give rise to the results is that ‘Tester B’’s ancestor never inherited and passed down enough similar chucks of DNA that the Berkeley tester and the 2 Barkley testers ancestors had passed down to them.

Where we are at with the connection between the Berkley - Bartlett - Berkeley - Barkley men

We had three ‘issues’ that would be hopefully solved by all the DNA testing as they, to date, have not been able to be solved through genealogical research. In no particular order they are:

  • Issue One – how was ‘Tester B’ related to the 3 Barkley men;

  • Issue Two – how was the 3 Barkley men connected to the other 15 testers (excluding ‘Tester B’); and

  • Issue Three – how was ‘Tester B’ related to the other 15 testers (excluding the 3 Barkley testers).

 

Issue Three – This issue has been solved using all the DNA testing. The results suggest strongly that ‘Tester B’ is descended under William Jr. as all his DNA results matched either exactly or extremely closely to the other Berkley/Berkeley/Bartlett testers. Even though the genealogical evidence hadn’t been discovered yet for the connection, the DNA tells us the connection. Looking at the DNA results there is no question that ‘Tester B’ is most closely related to the Berkeley tester compared to other testers so ‘Tester B’ is from under the same son of William Sr. as the Berkeley tester which based on genealogy is William Jr.

 

Issues One and Two – Unfortunately all the DNA testing did not provide clarity. After all the testing the only thing that could be stated with certainty was that the 3 Barkley men are related in the male line to all the other testers including ‘Tester B’.

Relook - time to solve

I think after all the genealogical researching over the years by numerous people and all the DNA testing, it is annoying to still have a question mark. I decided to think about what else could be done to clarify this. With the current testers results there was nothing else on the DNA front, so I took another look at the genealogical research available for both ‘Tester B’ and the 3 Barkley men to see if by chance any direct evidence had been missed. I could not see anything, also I did think that knowing how many researchers there are and had been over the years I was pretty sure if there was direct evidence it would most probably have been found by now. So, I decided to try a technique that had worked multiple times in the past within my own genealogical research to get around ‘brick walls’ – I did what I call the sidestep. If you can’t go over or through, then go around. In genealogical terms this means if you cannot find the direct evidence for a relationship you look at what evidence there is for siblings and the sibling’s relationship to the parents.

​

I started looking at the point where ‘Tester B’ and the 3 Barkley men are believed to share a common ancestor (be related to one another), this is the couple John Barkley married to Susannah Burgess. It is believed that ‘Tester B’ and the 3 Barkley men descend from sons of this couple. Other researchers have genealogically proven the 3 Barkley testers descend from Daniel Burgess Barkley a son of John and Susannah Barkley and ‘Tester B’ is genealogically proven to descend from a man referred to as John Talbot Barkley who married Elizabeth Charlton. On a side note – I have no idea where ‘Talbot’ comes from as all the first-hand documents I have seen for this man never include a middle initial or middle name, however, to make it easier to follow I will now refer to him as ‘John T’. Most genealogical researchers believe that John T is a son of John and Susannah, thus a brother to Daniel Burgess Barkley.

 

I looked through various first-hand documents other researchers had located for John and Susannah’s children and for John T’s children. Unfortunately, most of the records did not provide any evidence that could be used with any certainty to assist in this situation. However, through the will of Daniel Burgess Barkley I found two other wills within the same record book. One will for a female called Sarah Barkly (spelling according to her will) which was written in 1846 in Washington County, Tennessee and a second will for a male - Henry P Barkley dated 1854 in Washington County, Tennessee. Other genealogical researchers state Sarah is a sister to Daniel Burgess Barkley and a daughter of John and Susannah, and Henry P Barkley is a son of John T. Both John T and John and Susannah’s families at this time period were in Washington County, Tennessee.

Evidence within Sarah's Will

In Sarah’s will she lists a number of people that she is giving her furniture too (which at the time was within Ebenezer Barkly’s house) and money to. When I looked at this list of people, a clear majority of the names belong to her siblings and/or their children (which have been proven by other genealogical researchers).

​

This is the list of the people included in Sarah’s will. [Where possible, I have added in the brackets the relationship confirmed by most genealogical researchers.]

  • Rebecca Cochrane [married name, a sister to Sarah]

  • George Cochrane, deceased [husband of Rebecca Cochrane]

  • Delilah Tennessee Barkly [niece of Sarah, daughter of Sarah’s brother Ebenezer]

  • Sarah Jane Barkly daughter of John Barkly

  • Emaline Barkly daughter of John Barkly

  • Daniel Barkly [either Sarah’s brother or nephew, both were called Daniel]

  • Jacob C. Cochrane [nephew of Sarah, son of Sarah’s sister Rebecca]

  • John Cochrane [nephew of Sarah, son of Sarah’s sister Rebecca]

  • Daniel Cochrane [nephew of Sarah, son of Sarah’s sister Rebecca]

  • Franklin D. Cochrane [nephew of Sarah, son of Sarah’s sister Rebecca]

  • Samuel Cochrane [nephew of Sarah, son of Sarah’s sister Rebecca]

  • Sarah Jane King daughter of Edward King

  • Sarah Ann Patton [married name, niece of Sarah, daughter of Sarah’s brother Daniel Burgess]

  • Mary Cameron [married name, a sister of Sarah]

  • Sarah Jane Bright [married name, niece of Sarah, daughter of Sarah’s brother Daniel Burgess]

  • Eveline Gammon

  • Susannah Barkly, daughter of Elizabeth Barkly, Kentucky [Susannah is a niece of Sarah, Elizabeth is a sister of Sarah]

  • Sarah Martin daughter of E. S. and Mary Martin

  • Ebenezer Barkly, executor [brother of Sarah]

  • Witnesses – Daniel Barkly [either Sarah’s brother or nephew, both were called Daniel], John B Cochrane [nephew of Sarah, son of Sarah’s sister Rebecca], John Barkly

 

This Will starts to provide possible proof for John T being a close relative of John and Susannah. When you look at the people listed in Sarah’s will there are three girls (two with what to me seem like uncommon first names) Eveline and Emaline. When I looked at the genealogical trees, they have proven daughters of John T by the names of Evalina (different spellings appear in different records) and Emaline. Within these trees they have a confirmed marriage taking place before Sarah’s will for Evaline, she marries a man with the surname Gammon. Why would Sarah have left furniture pieces or money to these two girls, Eveline and Emaline, if they were like the others, her nieces?

Evidence within Henry P's Will

Henry P Barkley’s Will adds strength to John T being a son of John and Susannah. The two witnesses of his verbal Will are included amongst the people listed in Sarah’s Will. They are Rebecca Cochrane (Sarah’s sister) and Sarah Jane Barkley (daughter of John Barkly). If Henry P wasn’t related to these ladies, why would they be his witnesses? Additionally, within his Will Henry P states that he nominates his uncle Ebenezer Barkley to be his executor. This means his father has a brother Ebenezer. Also, within this will Henry P leaves a saddle to his brother John K Barkley.

Conclusions

We need to consider the evidence (direct and in-direct, and these two wills) What is known is that John and Susannah have a son called John, along with Daniel Burgess, Ebenezer, Sarah, Elizabeth and other children and themselves with their children move to Washington County, Tennessee. Where they live and John and Susannah’s children have their own families and some move further afield.

​

These two Wills inform us that a John Barkley has children named Henry P, John K, Evalina, Emaline and Sarah Jane, along with a brother called Ebenezer also he and his named children (within these Wills) are closely associated with Sarah Barkley and other descendants of John and Susannah (children and grandchildren) and also live within Washington County, Tennessee. What is the probability of having two different John Barkley men both with a brother Ebenezer living within Washington County, Tennessee and one being associated close enough to appear in a Will and the other being born into the same family. To me that is not possible, so there is only one John. Thus, John T is a son of John and Susannah.

 

Issue One – I believe we can now say with the genealogical evidence collected (both direct and indirect evidence) that with some certainty the 3 Barkley testers and ‘Tester B’ are related to one another as descendants of John and Susannah – from different sons of theirs. I have also expanded my analysis of autosomal results and have found a female who is genealogically proven to have descended from a son of John and Susannah that matches ‘Tester B’ autosomally. As there is no other possible way for ‘Tester B’ and this female autosomal tester to share any amount of autosomal DNA other than as both being descendants of John and Susannah, this supports the genealogical evidence available.

​

Issue Two – If we add the now proven genealogical connection between the 3 Barkley men and ‘Tester B’ with ‘Tester B’s’ DNA results which prove he is related to all the other testers but especially most closely to the Berkeley tester who descends from William Jr., this now makes me be able to say that all 4 Barkley testers are descended from William Jr.

Additional point of interest linked to this situation

While researching and confirming this situation with ‘Tester B’, the 3 Barkley men and the other 15 testers, I was reminded of a War pension document I had previously come across a few years ago for a William Berkley (son of William Jr, brother to John who married Susannah) where he states that his father liked to use Bartlett, he currently prefers to use Berkley though he still is referred to as Bartlett and his brothers use Bartlett, Barkley/Barcley or Berkley for their surnames.

This is page 6 of the Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application File for William

Image 1: Revolutionary War Pension and Bounty-Land Warrant Application Files, page 6

This statement made by William fits perfectly with what has now been confirmed. We now have different lines from the sons of William Jr. using the different versions as their surnames – Berkley, Berkeley, Bartlett and Barkley.

Sons of William Berkley Sr and the number of descendants that have BigY tested

Chart 1: This chart shows the number of descendent BigY testers and the lines proven by genealogy research 

Research note – from experience when researching various descendants of William Berkley Sr, I must stress that if you are researching any of the descendants you need to look for all the variations of the surname; that is you need to look in documents for Berkley / Bartlett / Berkeley / Barkley, even if the descendants line is mainly known by one version it does not mean there won’t be a record for them in another version.

bottom of page