Genetic Tests

It has been wrongly alleged by Jenny Jerome's sisters that the father of John Spencer-Churchill was not Randolph Spencer-Churchill, but Evelyn Boscawen (Anne Sebba, American Jennie: The Remarkable Life of Lady Randolph Churchill, Norton, 2008; Anne mentioned in her conclusion the desire to pursue a genetic analysis). The evidence for these claims has been examined in detail by Celia and John Lee's books (The Churchills - A Family Portrait (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), Winston & Jack - The Churchill Brothers (London: Mackay, 2007)). They conclude that much of the evidence for John's non-Spencer Churchill paternity was a combination of political libel by specific individuals, and journalistic exaggeration of Jenny Jerome's life. The wikipedia entry on John Spencer-Churchill makes the unscientific observation that Winston and John Spencer-Churchill looked similar in youth, as a basis for their common parentage by Randolph Churchill. A more accurate assessment is by Mary S. Lovell (The Churchills: A Family at the Heart of History - from the Duke of Marlborough to Winston Churchill (New York: W.W. Norton, 2011)), who makes the observation that John Spencer-Churchill had a closer resemblance to some of Winston's children than Winston himself, and in turn the same can be said that Johnny Churchill resembled Winston more than John. Further below, I provide definitive and conclusive evidence that John Spencer-Churchill is the son of Randolph Churchill, and that Jennie Jerome was faithful to her husband.

The essential sequence of events, as reconstructed from various accounts listed above and in the accompanying bibliography at the end of the website, is that Winston Churchill was born at Blenheim in 1875. Following a scandal involving Randolph Churchill's brother, the family relocated to Dublin, Ireland. Jennie Jerome would hunt frequently, which offered her plenty of opportunities for carousing, but letters between her and Randolph Churchill indicate continued genuine intimacy, which suggest otherwise. Randolph frequented between Dublin and his Parliamentary duties in London. John Spencer-Churchill was born in 1880. In 1885, Randolph Churchill is thought to have contracted syphilis from a Parisian courtesan, There are alternate accounts, less reliable, that Randolph contracted syphilis while at Oxford University, or with a maid at Blenheim, both before the birth of Winston Churchill. Jennie Jerome did not contract syphilis, falsifying those earlier accounts, which is good indicator that they actually ceased intimate relations shortly after Randolph's self-diagnosis of syphilis.

The genetic evidence is that John Spencer-Churchill is the son of Randolph Churchill, son of the 7th Duke of Marlborough, and that Jennie Jerome was therefore faithful to Randolph Churchill. M Schofield / Spencer-Churchill (grandson of John Spencer-Chuchill) has an 8 Cm link to a descendent ("A. M-G.") from a common ancestor, George Spencer, the 4th Duke of Marlborough. "A. M-G." (1954-) is a sixth cousin once removed from Julian Spencer-Churchill (son of M Schofield / Spencer-Churchill). Put simply: to show that John Spencer-Churchill was the son of Randolph Churchill, we need to find a genetic link between a descendant of John Spencer-Churchill and a descendent from an ancestor of Randolph Churchill. A genetic link between the descendants of Randolph Churchill is not optimal, since this link could be traced as common descent from Jennie Jerome, although the strength of this link may still be tested. We then need to ensure that the genetic link is not the result of an alternative non-Spencer-Churchill family link, and this is done by mapping out both family trees within autosomal detection range, which is approximately 400 years. Finally, the proposed alternative fathers of John Spencer-Churchill need to be tested, by seeking genetic links with their descendants, and where these expected genetic links are absent, making a probability estimate of a false positive result of a non-finding. All of these steps are demonstrated below.

"A. M-G." 's family pedigree was mapped out (from ancestry.ca, geni.com, and thepeerage.com) to control for alternate genetic paths, and none were found, although there are links to a dozen shared noble families reaching to the Middle Ages (Pennant, Oliphant, Lascelles, Swinton, Butler, Bedell, Huntly, Villiers, Egerton, Bagot, Molyneaux, Darcy), which are typically beyond the detection range of autosomal techniques. The expected Cm value is 0.75 Cm (assuming step level values with a 40% Cm value between siblings), which is within a magnitude range of 8 Cm. 38% of detected individuals with a genetic link of 8 Cm are likely to be false positives, in the absence of a family tree link. However, the probability of an 8 Cm genetic link with someone expected to be within the range of 8th cousins, so that the 8 Cm genetic link is the result not of shared DNA, but a random matching coincidence, is statistically remote.

What follow are auxilliary attempts to examine the question of John Spencer-Churchill's paternity in light of genetic evidence from two DNA sites. The main problem with both tests is that they are conducted with living descendants of candidates, all of whom may have been from cuckolded lineages. There are a number of persons that we are related to genetically, but whose extensive family trees demonstrate no common ancestor, clearly due to error or ancestral deception (for example Anne Hamilton). Cuckoldry among the nobility in the 19th Century is assumed in the academic literature to be lower than the rate among the general population, about 2.5% generally in the British population. Nevertheless, parents of the British nobility married their children strategically for money and power, and children were therefore instrumental and often neglected, poorly parented and therefore poorly behaved, and this cycle was efficiently reproduced, but giving little incentive to mothers to remain faithful to their marriage vows.

There are a number of methodological issues. The first is that members of the English peerage generally do not submit their DNA for tests on recreational ancestry sites, unless they have reason to suspect their ancestry, or are accessing health, ancient haplogroup, or ethnicity features, as are available on 23&Me. Most members of the nobility have easy access to extensive records of their ancestors at their home, through Burke's peerage, or through thepeerage.com. Furthermore, propertied peers do not typically wish to risk a loss of their wealth, now that genetic principles of relations can be used to determine property rights in Britain. The consequence is that nobles tend to be significantly under-represented on these websites, and the family pedigrees must be mapped in order to correctly identify members of the family that no longer carry the paternal family name. The second issue is that large segments of the British nobility are interrelated (cosanguine) within 650 years, which is the oldest surviving bloc of common chromosomal commonality I have found. Given that the vast majority of relatives, associated at 20 Cm or less, are likely related through blocs of DNA that demonstrate these disproportionately strong associations, it becomes almost impossible to disentangle with certainty, the precise common ancestor.

In summary, the first test examines the strength of DNA relations between three descendants of Winston Churchill and one descendant of John Spencer-Churchill through two models: one in which the relationship is as half-cousins, with Jennie Jerome and a second unknown candidate as parent, and a second model in which Jennie Jerome and Randolph Churchill are the parents, and the Centimorgan evidence supports the second proposition. The second test clearly falsifies Evelyn Boscawen as a candidate, but leaves other candidates less certainly falsified.

John Thornton Rogers was examined because all of my father's (M's) closest 33 relatives are ancestry.com have known distant origins, as well as 85% of his closest 285 relatives, except for one large Anglo-Irish block (research for which we received generous assistance from his descendants). This was therefore also subjected to tests below. It is still not clear how the two families are related, despite a connection of 50 Cm.

The third test examines the likelihood of whether M. Spencer-Churchill, father of Julian, is the son of either Johny Spencer-Churchill and Peregrine, and concludes that the prevalence of the evidence points to Peregrine as father. The fourth test examines the basis for claims by the Churchill family of their North American indigenous roots, and tentatively rejects claims that there was no such ancestry.

Genetic Test #1 of John Spencer-Churchill's Paternity with and without Randolph Churchill

Here I run a simple test of our descent from Randolph Churchill (Winston and John Spencer-Churchill's father) by comparing M's DNA with four other of Randolph's descendants, in two categories: as if he were, and were not, our ancestor. The presence of a strong genetic link is not, alone, conclusive of descent from Randolph Churchill, the son of the 7th Duke of Marlborough, since the genetic link may be traced through Jennie Jerome. The test below concludes that the Centimorgan values indicate that we are full cousins rather than half-cousins with the individuals below. This test concludes that we are therefore descendent from Randolph Churchill.

If No Randolph If Randolph Churchill is M's great-grandfather

M's Cm Step Bettinger Step Shared Detect Bettinger Conclusion

C.S. 125 106 73 170 123 112 129 Exceeds most indicators

D.S. 63 53 61 85 56 74 Intermediate Range

J. S. 43 26 0 42 57 Exactly as predicted

G.R. 133 26 0 42 57 Exceeds value

If No Randolph If Randolph

C.S. Half 2nd Cous 1 Rem 2nd Cous 1 Rem

D.S. Half 2nd Cous 2 Rem 2nd Cous 2 Rem

J.S. Half 2nd Cous 3 Rem 2nd Cous 3 Rem

G.R. Half 2nd Cous 3 Rem 2nd Cous 3 Rem

Sources: Bettinger, Shared Cm Project, DNA Detectives. Legacy Tree (this last resource is in error).

Step Level calculations are 6800 Cm reduced by half every generation step, except that siblings share 40% common Cm (empirically derived and reduced from 50% deduced step values), and half-siblings share 25% Cm values.

The 125 Centimorgan value for C.S. exceeds the empirically derived values from the Shared DNA, DNA Detectives, and Bettinger sources, although the values are closer to an alternative to Randolph Churchill as M's great-grandfather when compared to the deduced Cm values. The 43 Centimorgan value for J.S. falls within the Step ranges, and is closer to the indicators for a relationship by M to Randolph Churchill than to another great-grandfather. The test does not achieve the full cousin threshold for D.S., but nor does it fall to the 1/2 cousin value range, indicating indeterminacy with this link. The extremely strong Centimorgan value of 133 with G.R., indicates the unusually high similarity of a shared DNA block from Randolph Churchill, that was passed down through Winston Churchill to his own son, Randolph Churchill (1911-1968). However, there is an autosomal link that is detected through cluster links for the G.R.s that indicate a non-Spencer-Churchill link to that family. This may account for some portion of the strong autosomal values. However, this association has not been traceable, as the G.R. family tree has not yet been produced. For the first two measured cases, C.S., D.S. and J.S., there are no alternate genealogical sources for common ancestry, except at ranges that exceed the 650-year reach of Autosomal DNA.

Genetic Test #2 of John Spencer-Churchill's Paternity

A genetic comparison made on ancestry.com and 23&Me between ancestors of the principal candidates for the paternity of John Spencer-Churchill are presented here. The finding of a genetic relationship between M (John Spencer-Churchill's grandson) and J.M., through their common ancestor of the 7th Duke of Marlborough, indicates that Jenny Jerome and Randolph Churchill are the parents of John Spencer-Churchill. The evidence also rejects alternative parentages for John Spencer-Churchill. There are four alternative principal candidates, in the popular literature (cited above), for John Churchill's paternity: Edgar Vincent, Evelyn Boscawen, John Strange Evelyn, and John Thornton Rogers. Each of their pedigrees, showing known descendants, is in an excel file at the bottom of this page.

E(Cm) Individual Family P(-Cm)

53 (2c1r) A.M. S.-C. Boscawen 0.1%

53 (2c1r) R.A. S.-C. Boscawen 0.1%

53 (2c1r) M.R.-D. B.-S. Boscawen 0.1%

3 (3c3r) A.P. J . Strange >30.7%
6 (3c2r) P.O.-G. J. Strange 30.7%

E(Cm) = expected Cm given relationship

P(-Cm): probability of a false negative (related but zero Cm): source: https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics

No cousins of Edgar Vincent[2] were found to have submitted DNA to any of the top five commercial ancestral DNA companies (he had no descendants).[3] He therefore could not be definitively falsified, although he was the least frequently proposed paternity candidate.

Three descendants of Evelyn Boscawen[4][5] (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 (which applies to the descendants of M) [6]. This is a conclusive rejection of Evelyn Boscawen as a candidate, and raises questions about the judgment of Jennie's sisters.

Two descendants of the cousins of John Strange Jocelyn[7] (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 a relationship with M, between 30.7% and 69.8% likelihood of a false negative for a relationship with M's children, and between 80-90% likelihood of a false negative for a relationship with M's grandchildren (albeit these results are not independent). There is substantial narrative evidence that Jocelyn is not a likely paternity candidate because of his general absence, his age difference with Jennie, and because he was a good family friend of Randolph Churchill's father; John Spencer-Churchill's middle name was "Strange", which has been taken by some observers are as an indicator of paternity, although it is more obviously explained by the fact that he was John Spencer-Churchill's god-parent.

A fourth candidate, suggested by genetic evidence, is John Thornton Rogers (1834-1900).[8] The nature of the evidence is a large independent cluster of interrelated relatives of M. Spencer-Churchill (father of Julian Spencer-Churchill) with a strength of 50 Cm. He was a frequent visitor to Marlfield House outside Dublin (now a resort), and in 1879-1880, at the time of John's conception, estranged from his wife. He is a plausible individual that Jennie Jerome would have encountered on her hunts during her stay in Ireland, although his recreational habits are unknown. Two of John Roger's descendants (C.B.D.) 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. More precisely, John Thornton Rogers may be related to the Spencer-Churchills via the Dormer ancestors, and although there are multiple links, those confirmed links are many centuries old.

Based on these test results, it is extremely unlikely that Boscawen, and given cumulative probabilities (albeit not independent), unlikely that Jocelyn Strange, were John's father.

A final test was conducted to control for the confounding common ancestry of Jennie Jerome, by comparing the autosomal DNA of the six descendants of John Churchill (albeit not independent) with five descendants of the 7th Duke of Marlborough 1822-1883 (who are not also descendants of Randolph Churchill), John Spencer-Churchill's grandfather. These include members of the A., M., and d.l.V., families. These relationships ranged between 3rd cousins to 3rd cousins once removed. One Cm relationship was found, with J.M. . According to data from Blaine DNA, Shared Cm Project 2017, DNA Detectives, FamilySearch.org, zero scores are probable at this range. However, DNA Detectives estimates that 10% of 3rd cousins will be undetected. The P(-Cm) reports more detailed estimates of a false negative, which are low. The results here indicate not that there is a 10% likelihood of non-detection of 3rd cousins, but rather an 80% likelihood of non-detection. C.F.M. and J.M., who are siblings, have the same likelihood of demonstrating a link to M. Spencer-Churchill, but do not. A tree was built for J.M. to search for confounding links, particularly through Dormer or Bertie lineages, but these were not found, except at time distances of 500 years in the shared Scottish genealogy. The low likelihood of a false positive given that the corroboration of genetic and family tree with regard to J.M. and M Spencer-Churchill, indicates a clear link, and rejects the hypothesis of a non-association. The totality of the evidence is that they fail to reject the genetic link between John Spencer-Churchill and the 7th Duke, and essentially indicate that Jenny Jerome and Randolph Churchill are the parents of John Spencer-Churchill. The 8 Cm genetic link between "A. M-G." (1954-) demonstrates that there is a high probability, at ranges of 3rd cousins and beyond, of there being a detected genetic link with cousins at the range of the 4th Duke of Marlborough.

E(Cm) Individual P(-Cm) Descent From Actual Centimorgan Relationship

21 (3c1r) C.F.M. 12.1% 7th Duke of Marlborough 0 Cm

21 (3c1r) J.M. 12.1% 7th Duke of Marlborough 12 Cm (97% probability of a link)

21 (3c1r) R.D.A. 12.1% 7th Duke of Marlborough 0 Cm

21 (3c1r) T.-B.A. 12.1% 7th Duke of Marlborough 0 Cm

42 (3c) G.W.d.l.V. 2.3% 7th Duke of Marlborough 0 Cm

0.75 Cm (6c1r) A. M-G. Not avail 4th Duke of Marlborough 8 Cm (62% probability of a link)

E(Cm) = expected Centimorgan value, given a positive genetic link

P(-Cm): probability of a false negative (related but zero Cm): source: https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics

Although John Churchill's (1650-1722) X-Chromosome haplogroup is available (source unverified though), 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 [9]. 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, because none of these descendants communicated to me their autosomal strength with these distant cousins. If the descendants of Winston Churchill are themselves not related to the descendants of the 7th Duke, then there is another problem entirely of establishing a genetic link past five or six generations, the usual limit of autosomal DNA linking.

[1] All of the individuals referred to were self-identified on public fora
[2] · https://www.thepeerage.com/p23310.htm#i233094 Retrieved Feb 10 2020
[3] · https://www.ancestry.ca; https://you.23andme.com/; https://www.familytreedna.com; https://www.myheritage.com; https://www.gedmatch.com
[4] · https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Boscawen,_7th_Viscount_Falmouth
[5] · https://www.thepeerage.com/p5033.htm#i50323 Retrieved Feb 10 2020
[6] · https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics
[7] · https://www.thepeerage.com/p3377.htm#i33767 Retrieved on Feb 10 2020
[8] · https://www.geni.com/people/John-Rogers/6000000009770078866 Retrieved on Feb 10 2020; The peerage.com reference is in error: https://www.thepeerage.com/p26551.htm#i265508 Retrieved on Feb 10 2020
[9] https://faculty.washington.edu/eathomp/Anonftp/Papers/tpb83_kp_donnelly.pdf

Genetic Test #3 Estimates of Iroquois Ancestry

I examined the indigenous DNA in Julian and his father M, to determine the plausibility of the Churchill family story that the line descends from Iroquois ancestry through Anna Wilcox (1761-1813), an ancestor of Jennie Jerome. A battery of tests for indigenous ancestry available on GedMatch were applied (available in a file entitled "Summary of Indigenous Test Results" and "Indigenous Amerindian" posted below), and most of the observed values fit with the predicted values. A few of the tests found no indigenous results at all in M, but in these instances, the tests were using the Amerindian category as a control rather than as a category of interest.

Julian's DNA is approximately 2/3 similar to M's DNA with respect to segments that derive from M's paternal line. Consequently, M's North American indigenous genetic percentage indicators are 50% higher, rather than double, of Julian's values. The values being in the correct direction, and M's values confirming that the genetic measures for Julian's Hungarian ancestry (the Siberian and East Asian components are sometimes confounded with Amerindian genetics) are good controls, demonstrates that M does indeed have North American indigenous DNA.

However, credible genealogical evidence from 1951 indicates that Anna Wilcox had non-indigenous ancestry, so the story of indigenous ancestry may have been a warping of an earlier account, and there may be another source for the indigenous ancestry. This is problematic because every post-Colombian ancestor of Jennie Jerome is accounted for as having European ancestry, and every post-Colombian American ancestor of the Berties are also accounted for (some European Bertie ancestral lines do not extend to the pre-Colombian period), meaning that the indigenous ancestry, which must have a source, has been concealed. If Anna Wilcox was illegitimate because of her mother, Experience Martin, then Anna would likely be of Mikmaq ancestry, as she was born in Nova Scotia. Her father, Joseph Wilcox, served in a ranger unit composed mostly of Mohawk warriors deployed at Fort Sackville, Nova Scotia. So if Experience Martin had an illegitimate affair at this later period, Anna could be Iroquois-Mohawk. If Anna was herself involved in an illegitimate affair while living in Palmyra, New York state, then her offspring, Clarissa Hall, would be Cayuga-Iroquois.

Genetic Test #4 Estimates of Paternity: Peregrine or Johnny Spencer-Churchill

M. Spencer-Churchill's paternity is conceivably either from Johnny Churchill or Peregrine Churchill, both sons of John Churchill. To make a determination here, both genetic and biographical reconstruction methods are used. The genetic test consists of triangulating the Autosomal DNA between Julian Spencer-Churchill, his father (M.), his first brother (D.) and his second brother (A.), and his two children (J. & V.), with the DNA of a known great grand-daughter of John Churchill (E.). These are not independent cases, as Julian's, D's, A's, J's and V's Centimorgan values derive from M's genetic values with E. The cousin relationships are as follows in the two cases:

Relationship with E. via Paternity of Johny and via Paternity of Peregrine by various Ranges

Observed Cm If Johnny Paternity Ancestry.com Liberal Conservative Step

M. 486 Half-niece 650-1300 500-1446 575-1330 1700

Julian/D./A./Avg 343/190/142/266 Half 1st Cousin 340-650 137-856 215-650 850

J & V./Avg 191/64/127 Half 2nd Cousin 90-200 9-397 30-215 425

Observed Cm If Peregrine Paternity Ancestry.com Liberal Conservative Step

M. 486 Half 1st Cous 200-340 57-530 75-360 425

Julian/D./A./Avg 343/190/142/266 Half 1st Cous 1 rem 0-127 0-341 75-360 212

J & V./Avg 191/64/127 Half 2nd Cous 1 rem 0-94 0-165 0-165 106

Discussion:

Julian's Cm values, on their own, can be discarded, as his Cm value seems to over-represent M's genetic similarity with that line of the family (his values should be half of M's), and an average of Julian's and his siblings' Cm value is used instead. Julian's children's Cm values are also therefore inflated. The Step level analysis is simply reducing each relation step by half, starting from 6800 Cm, but with the qualifier that siblings are 40% related in Cm, on average (a value of 50% is used). By Step analysis alone, Peregrine is the father of M, as the Cm values of the relationship with E., of all three generations, fits that conclusion best. Ancestry.com provides far more reliable, empirical and simulation-based estimates, of Cm range values for a given relationship. While M's values do not fall into either range, the value exceeds the range indicating that Peregrine is M's father. The Cm values of the sons of M also fall within the two ranges, although, because of the aforementioned distortion, the Cm values of Julian's children indicate Peregrine as their great-grandfather. The Conservative values come from DNA Detectives (Christa Stalcup 2016), and are also empirically-based data. M's CM value falls outside both of those ranges, but without preference for either, indicating an indeterminate test. The Liberal values come from the Shared Cm Values project (Blaine Bettinger 2017), and are also empirically-based. This test indicates that M. is within the range of Cm values for Peregrine as his father, and not in range for Johnny as his father. Including the Step analysis, the preponderance of the evidence is that M.'s relationship with Johnny is too weak to be his father, and his Cm relationship through Peregrine, seems to provide a strong indication of his paternity.

Lifestyle Evidence:

Given the moderate findings of M's Peregrine paternity by the genetic tests, what follows is a lifestyle analysis of the lives of Peregrine and Johnny leading up to the moment of conception of M. in early 1943. Two sources are used to build the timeline and the personality judgments: Mary Horlock, Joseph Gray's Camouflage (London: Unbound, 2018), and John Spencer Churchill, A Churchill Canvas (Boston: Little, Brown and Coy, 1961). I will start with profiles of four individuals.

Cecil Schofield (1908-1967): husband of Valerie Munn, and three years her junior. A handsome publicist and according to Mary Horlock (p.216): "Joe [Gray] thought Cecil a fantastic fellow - gregarious, generous and charismatic - but Mary found him slippery as an eel. She felt he exploited Joe and she didn't approve of how he took Valerie for granted. There was some talk of other women. 'Cecil & V seem to have a workable arrangement which suits him, though it wouldn't suit many people,' Joe concluded, by which he meant Valerie spent a lot of time at home whilst Cecil gallivanted off in the blackout." Major Joe Gray was the leader of a military research unit that helped develop the very successful use of steel wool as camouflage during the Second World War, that involved Cecil Schofield, and Johnny and Peregrine.

Valerie Munn (1905-1978). 37 years old, in mid-1942, at the time of conception. Horlock describes Valerie in April-May of 1943 (page 217-218): "...Valerie, is also impeccably dressed. She is much smaller than Mary, with soft round features and blond hair curled up under an elaborate hat. She wears a fox fur round her neck despite the gloriously sunny day and holds her baby [M.] proudly, who is clad in swaths of white lace and frowning as if embarrassed. John Mollo, Eugene Mollo's son, identified Valerie instantly. 'I remember they were awfully flash. If I'd dressed an actress in a wartime film like that I would have been hooted off the set.' And he is an Oscar-winning costume designer so he knows whereof he speaks."

Johnny, a well traveled and technically articulate muralist, was certainly experienced with the ladies, as evinced subtly in his autobiography, cited above. He had perhaps met Cecil Schofield at the Better Homes Exhibition in the 1930s, and this network led them to work in the same Camouflage unit during the Second World War. They met again in July of 1939 in anticipation of the war, and on September 8 1939 on the Royal Engineers Signal Board. Johnny was deployed to Douai, France and Belgium with the BEF (British Expeditionary Force) in January 1940, and escaped Dunkirk in May. In June he was assigned to AA Command, at which he would work on camouflage for the next three years. There he met 25-year old Mary Cookson, who he would marry on May 20 1941, at the age of 32. Mary worked at a munitions factory at Edgeware in London. Johnny was also preoccupied with visiting his daughter S. Gray's text describes Johnny as adoring Mary Cookson in 1942, 18 months after his wedding, at the time of M's conception. Johnny (age 36) and Mary Cookson (age 30) agreed to withhold on having children until the end of the war, but after they purchase a house in 1945, they encountered fertility problems, attributed to Mary. It is as likely that Johnny suffered infertility due to Varicocele, the effects of which worsen with age, and which some of his cousins suffer. In 1943, Johnny refused a posting to Italy, which is surprising given his enjoyment of Italy's art and as an artist when he was a young man. This choice may either be because of his involvement in the conception of M., or more likely, because of his young wife. Johnny was never described in Horlock's book as having ever socialized specifically with Cecil Schofield, but there are pictures of Johnny at Holworth House, Peregrine's country home, but its unclear whether he was there when either Cecil Schofield or Valerie Munn were there. M. was conceived during the time when Johnny and Mary would presumably have been most infatuated with each other, making it unlikely Johnny was engaged in a risky relationship with Valerie Munn. However, Horlock does quote Joe's memory of a comment made by Peregrine immediately after the wedding that: " 'Johnny won't stand a suburban villa life for more than six months.' Peregrine, with his dark eyes, a funny chap but a good one. He had a habit of always being right." Horlock tempers this interpretation, dated to May 1941, in the month of their wedding (page 180): "Even Johnny Churchill and Little Mary, who loved each other deeply, fought like cat and dog. Johnny still went out all night, which caused tremendous rows. Johnny blamed his star sign, which was Gemini... Perhaps it was because he was an artist - artists were surely the worst." Johnny's autobiography indicates a lively life of travel and relationships, but it does not indicate a Bohemian lifestyle in place of serial monogamy. In 1944, Johnny was deployed to Suchteln, Holland. It is consequently very unlikely Johnny was the father of M.

Peregrine, a Cambridge engineer, age 26 in 1939, was engaged with the Air Ministry as a civilian technical expert. According to Horlock (page 216): "Cecil Schofield had rented Moulsford Grange for the duration of the war... Schofield lived there with his wife Valerie, and the taciturn Peregrine as an irregular lodger." M. challenges this fact, and suggests instead that Schofield and his wife lived at Cobham in Workingham, likely also with Peregrine as a lodger. Peregrine was 29 years old at the time of the conception of M., during which time Valerie was 37. Post-war, Cecil Schofield and Peregrine went into business together, at least until the late-1950s. Cecil and Valerie, along with M., were frequent visitors to Peregrine's cottage, Holworth House, on the Dorset coast, where they would stay many days at a time. Peregrine spent time with M. in various maintenance projects, which appealed to both of their interests. Peregrine therefore had the opportunity in the form of frequent co-location with Valerie.

Discussion:

This raises some questions, the first of which is why would a man seek to avoid their son. The preponderant autosomal link to E. indicates that Peregrine is M.'s father. Two sets of compared explanations will be applied. It is firstly possible that the individual responsible was unaware of the conception, especially if the conception involved a relationship over an extended period. However, the continued involvement of these individuals in the joint camouflage project until at least 1944 meant that the appearance of a child would not have gone unnoticed, especially as Valerie, as mentioned above, put M. on display. It is therefore unlikely that the birth was unknown to Johnny, and even less likely that it would have been unknown to Peregrine, who lodged with the Schofields.

It is also very unlikely the conception was over in a single event because the probability of conception per act for a woman of 37 years is approximately 5%, though it is possible. Valerie Munn had conceived 17 years earlier, when she was 20, in 1926. In Johnny's case, his early caregiving of his daughter S. in the midst of the Spanish Civil War, after his wife left him, indicates that while Johnny was not a very present father, he nonetheless sought and enjoyed being a father associated, at some distance, with a child. He would be expected to at least try and investigate a birth that would be linked to him, even if he would not contribute much to it. If Johnny was concerned about any likelihood of a financial obligation, it would not explain Johnny's distance from M., once the latter reached adulthood, and had children of his own, and after Cecil Schofield passed in 1967.

It is also possible that the individual did not want to be a father, and that the conception was unintended and undesired. Yvonne, Peregrine's second wife, was alleged by S. to have said that Peregrine did not like children, and this was one of the reasons he was so remote from the descendants of Johnny. However, Peregrine expended great efforts in representing the family, as a family advisor on a BBC production of Jennie Jerome, in successfully litigating Martin Gilbert's assertion (Winston Churchill's official biographer) that John Spencer-Churchill was a bastard, and in commissioning the works by Celia and John Lee to challenge the misconceptions of Randolph Churchill's illness and the paternity of John Spencer-Churchill. He is further shown to have taken photos of Churchill children with Yvonne, as shown in Celia Sandys, A Churchill Family Album. It is possible that Peregrine did not dislike children, but was selective about which part of his extended family he maintained contact with. It seems unlikely that Peregrine would not have taken an interest in a son, given his commitment to the importance of the family, but it is also possible that in pursuit of the reputation of the Churchill family, he would have avoided association with a child out of wedlock. This then leaves unexplained why Peregrine would agree to be M.'s Catholic godfather, and why he would associate with a pre-adolescant M.

It is possible that M. was the lovechild of Johnny, who had come to dislike Valerie as likely threat to his ongoing relationship with Mary Cookson, and that Peregrine's sympathy for Valerie and uncle connection to M. led him to invite him to work on the maintenance projects at Holworth House. As well, at that time and for that social class in England, children were typically sent off to boarding school (Ampleforth in the case of M.), so that neither Peregrine nor Johnny were expected to interact intimately with children, regardless of their provenance. It is likely Valerie would not want Johnny, due to his known unreliability and tendency to carouse and cavort, to be the father in place of Cecil Schofield. While Johnny did possess a small furniture and interior decorating shop that has persisted successfully to at least 2018, perhaps his prospects seemed comparatively less promising than Schofield in the 1940s (though Schofield's fortunes would fail in the 1960s). Perhaps Valerie intended to tell M., but was interrupted by her sudden accidental death. Peregrine's sense of responsibility of supervising M. may have diminished after his falling-out with Schofield in the late-1950s. Johnny may have lost touch with both Valerie and M. after her death in 1978, and been unable to contact M. before his death in 1992.

Cecil Schofield died in 1967, and Valerie went successfully into her own catering business, until she died suddenly, and by accident, in 1978. Johnny died in 1992. Peregrine died in 2002. Yvonne died in 2010. Valerie never mentioned to M. the identity of his paternity, though her daughter-in-law was somehow informed. Johnny was divorced from his fourth wife (1958-1972), Lullan Janson Boston, by 1972, and therefore would not have suffered personal disruption to his life if he contacted M. Furthermore, after 1967, M. had moved to Quebec, far from any possible scandal. Peregrine, on the other hand, at the age of 41, was married to Patricia Somerville in 1954, who died shortly thereafter, and then at the age of 44, he married Yvonne Henriette Mary Jehannin (1924-2010), until his death. It is likely that this established happy marriage, and his desire to forget his youthful indiscretion and avoid any disruption to this arrangement, kept Peregrine from approaching M. He became distant from M. around the time of his marriages.

Peregrine had the opportunity to conceive because he jointly lodged with Valerie in circumstances in which Cecil Schofield was frequently absent, for a period 3 years before (1940), until the acrimonious dissolution of Peregrine's business partnership with Cecil Schofield, in the late 1950s. That Peregrine was M.'s Catholic godfather (M.'s protestant godfather was F.F. Worthington: see Larry Worthington, Worthy (Toronto: Macmillan, 1961) ) does not necessarily indicate surrogate paternity, but certainly indicates close and available proximity to Valerie, at least significantly closer than Johnny.

Based on apparent personality, a more believable explanation is that Johnny had a one-night stand with Valerie, and Peregrine was somewhere on the spectrum, and did not care about offspring, and either feared Valerie to be predatorial, especially if the event was the result of either taking unfair advantage of the other, or did not want to be burdened by an already married older woman. In contrast to the contemporary period, where fathers lavish attention and instruction on their children, they may not have had the same upbringing, for lack of a comparable example. Of they simply didn't know they had a child, as M. suggests, given the Bohemian culture of the camouflage organization during the war.

Genetic Sources

The following websites are useful genetic resources with regard to this family. The original family tree of 31,221 individuals was developed at, and exported from, ancestry.com, and differs from the family tree excel file on the first page of this website in two respects. First, it is primarily focused on the last 700 years, so it is more thorough in terms of recent family, and secondly, it contains a far more liberal interpretation of connections through illegitimate children, particularly to the royal Stuart dynasty. I have erased these links where I have found them, given the prevailing evidence against them. This family does not descend from the English Stuarts. None of these sites contain Spencer-Churchill, Bertie, or Dormer participants, who are confined to participating on 23&Me and ancestry.com, but they do have large cohorts of Jeromes.

www.geni.com: contains a family tree of 10,000 individuals, that is linked to all of the other family trees on the website, forming a network of over 140 million people. Geni.com has a fascinating feature where it will search and display a path of ancestors between any two individuals in this network.

www.gedmatch.com: contains the raw genetic file: WH6130853 that may be accessed for comparison with other files, with a battery of sophisticated ethnicity estimator software.

www.myheritage.com: contains access to the raw genetic file, and an efficient cluster feature which automatically groups persons together by autosomal genetic similarity.

www.familytreedna.com: contains a family tree of 10,000 of the most recent ancestors, as well as the most efficient visual chromosomal display for identifying genetic comparisons.