Each column in the chart below shows one of the family lines where we have a DNA test result. Only five lines are included because we do not yet have a DNA volunteer from either the Worplesdon or West Sussex line. The generation counter in the first column, counts the generations backwards in time. Generation 1 is the person who took the test. The Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) number in the column headers shows the number of generations, counting from generation 1 in that column, where we should expect to find the first common ancestor with the Chobham – Windlesham branch of the family (shown in the table as 'Line 2').

Colour coding is used to show the degree of certainty. A white background shows that the lineage has been confirmed by documentary evidence. The coloured backgrounds show the expected relationships based on the MRCA from the few DNA results available so far. Likely ancestry (yellow background) is shown based on known individuals, but without full documentary proof. More uncertain individuals are shown in green, and complete unknowns in red. But we really need more data to be certain. Ideally we would like at least 3 tests from each family.




Certain (i.e. confirmed from documentary sources)

i     It is plausible to propose an “atte Felde” ancestor at Chobham in the mid-14th century because the Chobham Court Rolls 1327-1348 contain numerous references to persons with this name. 
       See http://www.chobham.info/ca_court_roles.htm
ii      A possible explanation for such an early branching of the Attfield family may be the “Attfield alias Ripley” line, mostly associated with the Parish of Worplesdon. This alias was used from at least the 1540s and possibly much earlier. Its origins are shrouded in mystery, but it remained in use by the family until the 19th century. Perhaps an “atte Felde” migrated  from Chobham to Worplesdon at an early date? 
Ii    Harry Atfeelde, carpenter of Chobham; his will dated 1555 mentions his son “Harry”; the will is witnessed by Walter Atfeelde, possibly his brother
iv    Walter Atfelde of Chobham; his will dated 1573/74 mentions several children including son Nicholas
v       A succession of several generations of Henry Field or Attfield of Fellow (or “Velley”) Green, Chobham, is described in Robert Schueller’s “A History of Chobham”, pages 74-75. But the link to this Henry from the preceding “Harry” is speculative
vi      Hedge, son of Nicholas Attfeild, is mentioned in the will of Henry Hedge of Bagshot, 1596. The will of Hedge Atfeild of Woking, victualler, dated 12.1.1665/66,  mentions his son Nathaniel
vii     The line of descent from Nathaniel Attfield, “farmer of the Park”, Woking, to the present is confirmed thanks to the work of Roger White and Merion Burt. 
      See http://farnham.attfield.de/index.html
viii     Lease between Humphrey Feild alias Attfeild of Bisley (uncle and heir of Henry Attfeild, late of Velley Greene) and Henry Feild alias Attfeild of Little Aite [Ayot], Hertfordshire, his eldest son and heir, 1683. A Henry Feild married Martha Birch at Ayot St Peter in 1668. Edmond, son of Henry & Martha Atfield, was baptised at  Windlesham on 9.2.1681/2. The will of   Henry Field of Windlesham, 1717, mentions his sons Henry, John and “youngest son” Edmund
ix     Henry, John & Edmund are three sons of Henry Field & Martha (previous generation). John is mentioned in Henry’s will, 1717, but has not been further identified. The will of  Edmund Atfield of Windlesham, dated 1749, mentions his “youngest son” Henry. Another Henry Feild, son of Henry & Martha, was baptised at Ayot St Peter, Herts, in 1675. The will of  Henry Atfeild the Elder of Windlesham, dated 1745, mentions his “eldest son” Henry Atfeild. The identification of “Henry the Elder” as the son of  Henry & Martha is also based on the fact that he named his own daughter Martha
x     Our only knowledge of James comes from his son William’s marriage certificate in 1850 which names his father as James Attfield, carpenter, deceased. James has not been identified, but a James Attfield, son of John, was apprenticed to Henry Webster of Merrow, wheelwright, in 1752. This James may have been the son of John Attfield alias Ripley, victualler of the Green Man, Worplesdon, who wrote his will in 1754. See Note 2 above
xi    The earliest definite reference to Joseph Attfield is his marriage to Anne Gilbert at Winkfield in 1748. A Joseph Attfield, son of William & Susannah, was baptised at Byfleet, Surrey, on 15.12.1723. He could also be an unidentified son of Edmund Atfield or of Henry Atfeild “the Elder”, or perhaps of another of Henry & Martha’s sons (Henry’s will also mentions a son John who remains unidentified). The line of descent from Joseph to the present is known to be correct
xi      Henry Attfield was born in Windlesham, as confirmed by a Poor Law examination at Chipping Barnet in 1770. The only source for his birth date of 1722 is the Attfield  Family Tree compiled by Prof. John Attfield in the 1890s. The Windlesham baptism records for 1722-23 are missing. Henry could be the eldest son of Henry Atfeild “the Elder” or the youngest son of Edmund Atfield. The line of descent from Henry to the present is known from Prof. Attfield’s tree  See http://www.familytree.john-attfield.com/html/family_tree.html
xii    William Attfield (police officer and later coal merchant) gave Woking as his place of birth in the 1851 census. His date of birth (c.1789) is based on age of burial, 66 years. No baptism record has been traced. The line of descent from William to the present is known to be correct
xiv     We know about James from his marriage to Ann Harris at Albury on 31.12.1776 and his burial, also at Albury, on 9.9.1813 at the age of 58. His father-in- law John Harris paid various amounts for parish rates for “Attfield's field” between 1776 and 1791. The marriage register gives his abode as “Bookham” and his surname is spelled as shown. No baptism record has  been traced and there is no DNA match to other Attfield lines, so he may have been adopted or born out of wedlock. The line of descent from James to  the present is known to be correct