The Y chromosome is passed from father to sons and so can trace a male line, and by identifying mutations these can be classified. My most specific identified Y chromosome haplogroup is R1b-FT85080 (equivalent notation: R-FT85080, R-FT84750, and others). I have a “private” mutation of unknown age not yet assigned a label. A combination of documentary and other DNA evidence shows that my male line connects me to a colonial Rich family, contradicting the documentary claims which trace me as a Ryder. See Ryder paternity.
Specifically, matches indicate a close relationship to the following colonial Rich men:
- Nicholas Rich (
c.1660–c.1723 ), first documented in Salem, Massachusetts, and eventually settling in Preston, Connecticut. He is almost certainly my ancestor. - Thomas Rich or LaRich (
c.1665–1702 ) of Brookfield, MA. - Michael DeRich (
c.1650–c.1690 ) of Salem, MA.
In addition, these two later Rich men have to my knowledge uncertain ancestry but have Y matches to and are likely descended from one of the above:
- John F. Rich (*1780) of New York.
- John Rich (
1811–1884 ) of New York.
DNA evidence shows that Nicholas, Thomas, and John F. form a clade, that is, they are more closely related to each other than to Michael and John. Thomas and John F. descendants, however, have DYS444=13, whereas I and Nicholas descendants have the apparently ancestral value of 12.
Ethnicity
See Nicholas Rich for the evidence that this Rich family originated in Jersey. They presumably would have been French-speaking, as the island had been dominated by the French for several generations.
The name Le Riche is found in Jersey going back to the 13th century. It is not certain this is a single family, nor that my line was there for this long, but it is possible.
As for ultimate origins, it is difficult to say. Jersey was colonized by the Normans before this time, and the name is French-sounding, so my male line may be Norman French. However, this is not proof. Even the surname may have been adapted into French from a similar name.
Only DNA can give any further idea.
DNA
I belong to the large R1b grouping which is pervasive throughout Europe. We can trace successively more specific subclades identified by single mutations (SNPs).
DF27
The DF27+ clade is the smallest subclade of R1b I am in which has been extensively documented. It is dominant in southwest Europe, with parts of Spain having the majority of mean in R1b-DF27. It is much less common in England.
DF27+ is broken into two major groupings: those with the Z195 (aka Z196) marker, and those without, many of which have the less stable ZZ12 marker. I do not have Z195, and so belong to the remainder, which consists of a long archipelago of smaller groupings.
Recently, a marker FTT1 was found to include ten of the non-Z195 clades under DF27+, one of which is mine. There is also a claimed Z46512+ subclade that would fit under FTT1+, which I also belong to, but as far as I can tell it has not been widely accepted as valid.
FGC23071
The grouping I belong to under DF27 (and evidently under FTT1 and perhaps Z46512) is R1b-FGC23071. The Y Full project estimates this mutation at about 4500 years oldref, although this seems high to me, and I suspect it is younger based on the results I have seen.
There is a subclade defined by BY4335, into which all members of R1b-FGC23071 I have access to belong to, although apparently not all do.
So far, all testees of the latter available to me fall into one of two subclades determined by a known SNP. One is the next section. For the other, BY42720+, virtually all testees trace back to the surname Bar/Bär/Bare or other variants in Switzerland. There is only one exception recorded in the current FamilyTreeDNA project, which could be an NPE or other such anomaly. That all fall into this one grouping suggests that this mutation may not be very old, which also informs the age of the sibling and parent mutations.
A skeleton in Cliffsend, Kent, England dated to about 900 BC was tested and found to belong to R1b-FGC23071.ref
This mutation is estimated to date to around 1600 BC to 2500 BC.
BY43335
BY43335+ is a subclade of the larger FGC23071+ of which I am a member. To my knowledge, it is the only identified subclade, and most who have FGC23071 also have this mutation.
Below it, there are four subclades identified by SNPs, with at least one testee not in any of them.
It is estimated to have a most recent common ancestor around 1400 BC.
FGC23067
FGC23067+ is the most specific clade not specific to the Rich family.
It is further subdivided into two clades identified by SNPs, FGC23074+ and BY190577+, the latter discovered in 2023. See below.
As of now, I am the only testee in neither of these subclades. Presumably other members of this Rich family are also in there, and if another tests, I assume SNPs will be found to identify a clade. But this has yet to happen.
Estimates of the origins of this mutation put it close to its parent clade, with it perhaps dating to around 1100 to 1400 BC.
FT84890
The FT84890+ clade, along with the next one, was only identified in 2025, with only two testees besides myself, both belonging to the Rich family. There are about 20 SNPs which are currently “equivalent” to it, but further testing may tease these apart. Likely, some predate the Rich surname (and variants), and some arose within it. Learning about the latter could come from more testing of Rich family members, whereas the former would be more a matter of chance: a non-Rich descendant being tested who happened to share some of these SNPs.
FT85080
The only two testees (another and me) with FT85080+ are descendants of Nicholas Rich. There are two other SNPs only we share, FT84750 and FT85221. With further testing, we may be able to discern which, if any, of these three Nicholas had, and which, if any, occurred in only some descendants. We may also learn which (if any) preceded the mutation DYS393:13→12 and which (if any) came after. Considerably more Rich testing would be needed to answer all these questions.
Related clades
As noted, there are two “sister” clades of R1b-FT84890 I do not belong to under FGC23067+. These are,
- FGC23074+, a large grouping which seems to center around Belgium. Many testees claim descent from Freskin, a Flemish lord who moved to Scotland, and is the putative ancestor of clans named Sutherland, Douglass, and Murray. Other testees claim other descent from Flanders.
- BY190577+, a clade discovered in 2023 which as of this writing has two known testees, of which only one has results visible in an FTDNA project. That testee is surnamed Frick. The other testee is said to be of Belgian origin.
The nexus in Belgium is very suggestive. They may turn out to both be Flemish, pointing to a possible origin for my line prior to Jersey.
One question is which of these is closer to me, or if the two group together with me as the outgroup. Existing SNP testing has failed to answer this question, as no mutation groups any two of the three clades. This is similar to the broader question of which split off first, that is, which mutation is oldest. The FamilyTreeDNA chart suggests the former is much younger, with a most recent ancestor around 800 AD. The YFull chart concurs but suggests an earlier age for the origin of the mutation, as far back as 1100 BC. However, even so, I could in theory group with the latter clade.
I have done some analysis of STR values while attempting to analyze this clade, but with only a single exemplar available for one subclade, any grouping results are tentative.