My Sister Heidi’s Nicholson Match at MyHeritage

I noticed recently that my sister Heidi has a match with Kenneth at MyHeritage. They have a Theory of Relativity that looks like this:

This Theory put Heidi and Kenneth at 4th cousins once removed and the connection goes back to 1765. There are no shared matches between Kenneth and Heidi that I readily recognize. Also Kenneth’s tree is managed by someone else and is private.

Kenneth’s match also is not strong:

Connecting Heidi to Kenneth by Genealogy

I would usually try to connect going from the present to the past rather than the other way round. I see that the manager of Kenneth’s tree is from the UK which is probably a good thing as the Nicholson family was from Sheffield, UK.

I see that this is the Armstrong family in 1901 in Carlisle:

This tends to confirm the Theory at the bottom (more recent) level:

Of course, the Census does not give Mary A’s maiden name. All Ancestry Trees plus a probate record identify Mary Ann as a Lawrence. I’ll just accept the two hints, but the family is still in the Region of Cumberland:

At this point, the road I want to go down is the Hannah Nicholson road, but Ancestry gives me no hints. The 1881 Census has Hannah born in Renwick:

Renwick is quite a hike from Sheffield.

Here is a marriage record from Ancestry:

Here are Hannah and her parents in 1841:

The ‘y’ in the last column indicates that everyone was born in the same county – which would be Cumbria. The connection to Sheffield is not looking good.

Pulling the Plug

At this point, the connection does not seem feasible. The John Nicholson in my tree was married to Martha Jow:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I had hopes that a Theory of Relativity at MyHeritage would lead to an actual connection between my sister Heidi and Kenneth
  • I checked out Kenneth’s tree and his Nicholson ancestors were in Cumbria to the North of England while mine (and Heidi’s) were in Sheffield England
  • MyHeritage did have the confidence as low, and the DNA match was small

My Sister Sharon’s AncestryDNA Match with a McMaster Descendant

Let’s get right to it. Sharon’s match:

I’ll call the match Gibbs. Here is the maternal side of his tree:

No Need for Me to Build a Tree for Gibbs

Very often I will build out a tree for a DNA match. However, I’m pretty sure where this match fits in to my tree:

In fact, if I have it right, William McMaster and Margaret Frazer would be our common ancestors. Here is Gibbs’ version of the same tree:

His children on the second row go for a long, long way. I don’t show them all. This photo of Lucinda was on Ancestry. It shows her with her children:

Adding Gibbs to My McMasteer DNA/Genealogy Tree

I have a large tree already:

This is only one of the McMaster trees I descend from. I need to add Lucenda or Lucinda? here:

Here I’ve added Gibbs:

Sharon and hence me and my siblings are 4th cousins once removed. Gibbs has not linked himself to his tree, so Ancestry will not pick up the connection between our families on Ancestry Trees.

Shared Matches Between Gibbs and Sharon

This has been a short Blog, so I’ll add some bonus information. B.V was the top shared match. That is one reason that I knew that I was on the right track with Gibbs. Here is the connection that Ancestry has between BV and Sharon:

Sharon has a good match with BV – perhaps due to the fact that we are related to Frazers and McMasters in at least two different ways each.

Shared Match Robert

Sharon matches Robert by 48 cM on two segments. Robert has some Irish ancestry:

In the last row, James Hadden appears to be from Ireland. He married a Stewart. According to Frazer researcher Joanna, we should have Stewarts in our ancestry. So that may be the connection. I had put Margaret Frazer as the daughter of a Margaret Stewart, so that may be the connection – though it is a bit ancient:

I could continue on with Shared Matches, but it would be a lot of work to try to make connections. Gibbs does not match my other 4 siblings who I had tested at Ancestry. Gibbs does match a few other people who are in the Frazer DNA project.

Summary and Conclusions

  • If I had not checked my sister Sharon’s DNA results, I would have missed this match to Gibbs
  • Gibbs provides another branch to the line of William McMaster/Margaret Frazer > James McMaster born 1812
  • This is an interesting line as my familiy has at least double ties with both the McMaster and Frazer families
  • Some of these families were large, so I may expect some more matches.
  • One shared match had a Stewart name which is possibly linked to a Margaret Stewart born 1764 – or more likely her parents.


A New YDNA Match to the Frazers of North Roscommon

I was notified by two Frazer relatives recently of a new match to the Frazers who have had their YDNA tested. YDNA is the best test for paternal lines because it specializes in only testing the DNA that males pass down from father to son – all the way back from genetic Adam.

I am not a Frazer, but I am interested in Frazer YDNA because my grandmother was a Frazer, so I had my 2nd cousin once removed Paul tested.

Barker Match to My 2nd Cousin Paul

Here are the list of STR matches at the 111 level that my cousin Paul has:

Barker is the third match to my cousin Paul, but really is tied for second at 4 steps away. Barker took the 111 STR test but not the BigY test.

A Frazer BigY Tree

Based on BigY testing and known or supsected genealogy, I came up with a Haplogroup tree:

The overall North Roscommon Frazer Haplogroup is FT421618. Apparently Dingman knew that his grandfather was actually a Frazer. We believe that he descends from Archibald Frazer from around 1743 and that he also has the North Roscommon heritage identified by FT421618. Next is my cousin Paul and Rick. They are on the overall Archibald Branch (2nd generation from the top) and they are designated as Y85652. From the tree above, this was a new SNP that appeared in either James Frazer or his father Philip. On the right above is the James Frazer Branch identified as Y151390. Both Rodney and Jonathan are in this branch. Y151390 developed in one of the four generations between Thomas Henry Frazer and James Frazer born around 1720.

A Frazer STR Tree

A STR tree is difficult to make due to parallel mutations and back mutations of STRs. However, this is somewhat offset as the BigY test has been taken. That provides a framework for the tree.

In this tree, I brought in a Frazier. He tested, but does not know his genealogy past colonial America. That puts him in a more distant group – going back to Scotland perhaps. The way I have this drawn, Jonathan has the STR profile that is closest to the ancestral Frazer. At Ancestry, here is the Block tree:

Above, the “Your branch” refers to my cousin Paul. The Block Tree looks at the world of SNPs and Barker has tested STRs. Hopefully, Barker will take the BigY test to place him in the group also.

How Does Barker Fit In?

Barker is clearly in the Frazer lineage. Further he is most certainly from the James Frazer (born about 1720) half of the Frazer Tree. Barker matches Jonathan perfectly:

However, perfectly may not always be perfect. That is because of the parallel mutations and back mutations of STRs which I mentioned earlier.  The CDY STR which defines the James Frazer Line is a fast moving STR. That means that Barker’s CDY could have mutated independently of Jonathan’s and Rodney’s line ancestor. However, let’s assume that didn’t happen.

Still the CDY mutation could have happened anywhere between James Frazer born around 1720 and Thomas Henry Frazer born in 1843:

Now the James Frazer in the Tree above was thought to be born around 1720. I believe that the Archibald Frazer with the red DYS710=34 value was of the next generation or from about 1743. If that is the case, it is theoretically possible that the match could even be on the Archibald (1715) side of the tree. However, so far based on the autosomal results so far, that does not seem to be the case.

We know that Barker does not have the same STR that defines Rodney’s branch. That STR is DYS552=24. That means that Barker, based on STRs descends from anyone between James Frazer born about 1720 and Edward Fitzgerald Frazer born 1867. As my understanding is that the father for Barker’s grandfather born in 1901 is unknown. That would make Edward Fitzgerald Frazer the latest possible ancestor of Barker. However, it appears that the autosomal results (see below) are too low for Barker to descend from Edward Fitzgerald Frazer.

Autosomal Results

Right now, we don’t have autosomal results for Barker, but we have some for his nephew. Barker’s grandfather was born in 1901, so he would be probably one generation removed from Rodney and Jonathan and Barker’s nephew would be two generations removed.

Here is a chart I have made up of those who have tested autosomal DNA from the James Frazer Line:

Not all these people have tested at the same company including Barker’s nephew. However, Barker did test at Ancestry which has the largest database, so that is good. At Ancestry, Barker’s nephew matches Madeline, Janet and Jonathan. There may be additional matches.

There are two major sides of the James Frazer Branch. They are the Archibald and Michael sides. From what we know so far from Ancestry, it appears that Barker’s nephew matches on the Archibald side.

Barker’s nephew matches:

  • Madeline at 17 cM
  • Janet and Jonathan at 14 cM

Ancestry usually considers 20 cM to be the cutoff for a 4th cousin, so this match may be a further out level than fourth cousin.

One guess that I had was that Barker may descend from the Edward Frazer Branch on the right side of the chart above. He was the one who married Mary Kirkwood. However, that branch is not well-represented by DNA testing or may just not be a prolific branch. The reason that I chose that branch is that Barker’s nephew matches people from the Archibald Frazer (born abour 1792) Branch at about the same rate. That could mean that Barker could be from a parallel branch. Edward Frazer is a parallel branch to Archibald Frazer.

Next Steps

Next, we can wait for any additional autosomal testing or BigY YDNA testing on Barker’s side.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Based on YDNA testing, It appears that Barker must descend from a North Roscommon Frazer historically
  • Futhermore, Barker appears to descend from the James Frazer (born about 1720) Line of these Frazers.
  • Based on Frazer YDNA tester Rodney, Barker does not descend from Rodney’s ancestor William Frazer
  • Based on autosomal testing of Barker’s nephew, it appears that Barker could be a third to fifth cousin once removed to Jonathan and Rodney. That would have him descending from James Frazer born around 1720, his son Archibald Frazer born 1751 or James’ grandson Archibald Frazer born abut 1792
  • More DNA testing should clarify Barker’s place in the Frazer genealogical tree.

A Schwechheimer Match for My Mom at MyHeritage

There used to be an ad for a jam company that said, “With a name like Smuckers it has to be good”. In this case, with a DNA match with a name like Schwechheimer, it has to be a relative. This Schwechheimer match came up as a DNA match for my mom recently at MyHeritage:

The Scwechheimer Tree

The tree is a bit sketchy:

Dates are only given on the maternal side.

I can try to build out a tree at Ancestry to see if I get anywhere.

My Version of the Schwechheimer Match Tree

I like this suggestion from an Ancestry Tree for Kurt Schwechheimer:

I have written to my mom’s Schwechheimer relative in Germany to see if this is the same Kurt that is in her tree.

Meanwhile, I see that the owner of the tree for Kurt Friedrich Schwechheimer is a match to my mother at ancestry.

My Mom’s DNA Match with Karin at Ancestry

This is a modest match. Here is Karin’s tree:

This tree is unlinked, so Ancestry is not working to see where our common ancestors are. I suppose that I could try and build out the Hirschenhof (maternal) part of Karin’s tree. Hopefully, the vital records are not in Russian for that time. Interesting, I already have a Smits tree going. It must be for a relative of Karin:

This is likely for Karin’s brother.

Delving into a Latvian Genealogical Website

The go-to website is I’ll give that a shot. Here are the Church records for Linden:

However, I think that this is the wrong set of records. I believe that the first Linden below is correct:

Now I am noticing some discrepancies between the two trees above. One has Friedrich born in 1894 and one in 1896. Here is a Schwechheimer record from 1894:

Unfortunately, the record is in Russian. Does Mar mean March?

Meanwhile, I heard from my mom’s Schwechheimer match and Kurt is the same as Kurt Friedrich as I expected.

Looking for Helma Lutz

Entry #32 in the Linden Church records shows an Olga Helma born in 1902:

This entry goes on to the next page:

I’m going to make a guess that this is the correct Helma. This gives us two more names: Johann Jacob Nicolai Lutz and Emilie Friederike Lutz. Here the record keeper was nice enough to put the parents’ names into more understandable (to me) German.

I think that this Johann Jacob (second entry) fits the bill:

Here is the Ancestry transription:

The father’s middle name is abbreviated. Perhaps for Michael.

Here is Emilie Friederike in 1867:

I assume that the right side of the page are sponsors or godparents. The transcription adds the day and month:

Here are Emilie’s parents:

Here the initials before Johann Gustav Lutz are unclear to me. I suppose it could mean that he had been married before?

Above there is a slight discrepancy of the spelling of Gagnus and Gangnus – which is not unusual. I have a book on the Gangnus family which I take to be the correct spelling. It is by Gustav Gangnus written in 2003.

Friederike AKA Anna Friederike Emilie Gangnus

According to Gustav Gangnus’ useful book on page 71 Friederike was born 16 Mar 1843 and Georg Michael Lutz was born 24 Oct 1841:

Looking for Johann Gustav Lutz and Anna Catherine Gangnus

I have Emilie born in 1867. I like this choice for Anna Catharina:

That would mean that Anna Catharina likely was married 1841 or before.

Here is a possibility for Michael:

However this birth was in 1849 and would have Michael at age 18 at the birth of Anna Catharina Gangnus. It seems like given enough time, I could find at least one common ancestor between my mom and this Schwechheimer match, but I will leave this to another time.

Summary and Conclusions

  • A DNA match with a Schwechheimer name is very likely to be a match to my mother
  • Unfortunately, the match’s great-grandparents were born during a time when the birth records were in Russian
  • For Helma’s Lutz’s birth time-frame, the names of the person and the parents were also given in German in the birth records. This was helpful in going back one more generation
  • At the third great-grandparent level, two Lutz ancestors married two Gangnusses
  • Between the Schwechheimer and Gangnus names there are a lot of opportunities to find common ancestors, but those common ancestors have not yet been found.

Dating Some of My Frazer Relatives’ YDNA Haplogroups Using a New FTDNA Tool

FTDNA has a new YDNA tool called Discover:

Here is a tree I made up of my Frazer relatives who have BigY tested:

Here Dingman’s grandfather is a Frazer. However, there is some confusion at the point of John or Richard Frazer in his line. This Branch has the umbrella Frazer Haplogroup of FT421618. It looks like Y85652 should be older than Y151390, but they are in parallel positions on the tree. What it should mean is that there has been more time to develop privant variants on the James Frazer Line of 1804 as compared to the Thomas Henry Frazer Line of 1836.

Here is what all that looks like on the FTDNA Block Tree. This is from the perspective of Jonathan (Joanna’s brother):

Here I went back one haplogroup to bring in the Frazier name. We don’t know how Frazier fits in with the Frazer tree except that the connection predates what we know about the Frazer tree. On the tree above, Paul is my second cousin once removed.

Dating R-Y85652: James Frazer c. 1804

I’ll start with my closest relatives’ Haplogroup.

I’ll zoom in on my image from above:

We know that James Frazer must have been Y85652 and if we have the tree correct above, Archibald Frazer born about 1743 was not Y85652. That means that it is possible that Philip Frazer was Y85652.

Here is the verbal part of the report:

Now I will need you to check my math on this one. It is 2022 and 350 years before that is 1672. I’m not sure how that ended up as 1700 CE. When I checked on my own Hartley dating, it seemed like the years were being subtracted from the date of 2000.

I had assigned FT421618 to Archibald Frazer who we think was born around 1690. This estimate would have him born about 50 years earlier or perhaps 1650. This estimate seems closer to the date we think that Archibald Frazer was born. However, we will have to wait until later in the Blog when I will plug FT421618 into the Discover tool.

Dating Y151390 from the James Frazer Branch

Here, the good news is that FT421618 is 400 years ago. That would have to be consistent.

Here again, I’m baffled by the math, but 150 years ago comes out to about 1900 CE. When I was young, I learned about the rules for rounding numbers and this doesn’t seem to meet those rules. Furthermore, 150 years ago with 150 years either way is a large margin. For example, it would be impossible to have a common ancestor with someone who was born zero years ago. At any rate, we are quite sure that the common ancestor for Rodney and Jonathan was born in 1836:

My guess is that the issue is that there is an average of 5 private variants between Rodney and Jonathan:

It would seem that is a large number of private variants for three generations. Usually, I believe that there should be about one private variant per every two generations or about every 84 years. That is close to one every three generations. It may be worth taking a second look at these Private Variants at some point. I looked that these private variants here in January 2021, but these were still in a state of flux at that time. For example at that time, there were only an average of 4 private variants in this Branch.

Dating FT421618 – The First Frazer in Roscommon, Ireland?

We believe that this Haplogroup represents Archibald Frazer born around 1690 and believed to be the first Frazer in North County Roscommon.

Here, the dates have normalized and they have been subtracted from the year 2000 to get the year 1600 for FT421618. I am quite sure that the large number of private variants that seemed to have occurred later in the two Frazer lines were creating havoc with the dating tool.

Note that above it says that there is 1 yet unnamed lineage. This would be the Dingman Line which still has the designation of FT421618. This report gives the next Frazer Branch going up the line as 600 years ago. That is the Branch that includes Frazier (or Frasher). If that is subtracted from the year 2000, then that date would be around 1400. As we think the 1600 date may be closer to 1690, I would feel comfortable in adding 90 years to 1400 to get 1490. Here is some information on surnames in England, some of which may apply to the Frazers who may have been in SW Scotland around this time.

According to

The custom of applying a man’s by-name to all his children began in the late 12th century and spread slowly, with the manorial classes and the south of England leading the way. The first legal recognition of an hereditary surname is found in 1267; it was de Cantebrigg meaning ‘of Canterbury.’ By 1400 three-quarters of the population are reckoned to have borne hereditary family names, and the process was complete by about 1450 in England. Wales is an exception, in that although they had surnames they were patronymics (derived from the father’s first name) and thus changed each generation.

During this early period a married woman could be known either by her maiden surname or by her husband’s surname with wyf added, as in Mary Walker, wife of Henry Field, or Mary Fieldwyf. The term Mrs. for a married woman was not used until after 1500.

Dating YP6489 – Frazier

This Haplogroup goes back a ways.

As I had thought, this Haplogroup goes back to a predicted year of 1400, though as I mentioned above a somewhat later date by 90 years would not be unreasonable. The later date of 850 years ago or the year 1150 would most certainly be before surnames were commonly used.

YP6488 Includes the Stuart and Grant surnames.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It seems like FTNDA’s new Discover Tool gives Frazer Haplogroups within reasonable time frames
  • The large number of private variants on two of the newer Frazer Haplogroups seem to be giving the tool some problems.
  • I would like to take another look at Frazer Haplogroups and Private Variants in an upcoming Blog.

My Frazer Cousin John at Ancestry

I have had a DNA match with John for a while at Ancestry, but haven’t figured out the connection until today. Here is the match:


John does not have a searchable tree. However, note that John’s test is managed by Dawn. She has a tree and in that tree, her husband John descends from a Frazer.

This is an easy connection, because I know who Hubert Frazer was:

Hubert was my great-grandfather’s younger brother:

My great-grandfather James Archibald Frazer is sitting down on the left. Hubert is standing on the right. James was about 11 yeaers older than Hubert.

Here, I’ll just add in John to my Frazer DNA/Genealogy Tree:

Assuming I have the right John, he is Paul’s first cousin. I had Paul’s DNA sent to FTDNA where he was tested for YDNA which is the male Frazer line. That makes John my second cousin once removed. This is a big discovery, because, as Paul was tested at FTDNA, John is a good representative of this line of Frazers at Ancestry where there are many more matches than at other testing companies.

My Shared DNA Match with John

My last Shared DNA Match with John is with Dianna. Dianna has a basic tree:

The top part of the tree is Belgian and the bottom favors Ontario. As I have traced one part of my ancestry to Ontario, that would be the place to look first.

Building Out a Tree for Dianna

Turns out that there is a marriage record for Abraham Brandon which is helpful:

This brings us back a generation:

Dianna’s ancestors got added as living, so I need to change that. The death record for Kathleen (or Catherine) gives her parents’ names:

This record mentions Ireland, so that puts us in the right part of the World. This is as far as I got with Dianna’s tree:

Many of these ancestors seemed to be from Northern Ireland. I was getting to the point of diminishing returns, so I may come back to this tree later.

Shared Matches Between John and My Siblings

Shared matches between John and my siblings may give more clues. On one sibling’s shared matches, I saw a Johnston in a tree. I don’t know if I am related, but Johnstons did marry Frazers in the area of Ireland where my Frazers came from.

My sister Lori has a much larger DNA match with John compared to me. Lori matches John at 95 cM. Lori shares a match with John and Glen. Ancestry shows that Glen has two Frazers in his direct ancestry:

That saves me building out Glen’s tree. Glen has Maggie from Scotland and Australia:

Here is what I have in my tree:

This Richard Frazer was born in Ireland and died in Glasgow. Glen’s Maggie was from Glasgow. Glen and I share a DNA match with Jane. Here is Jane on my Frazer DNA/Genealogy Chart:

I got in touch with Jane and she has that Margaret Frazer was the daughter of Archibald Frazer and Winifred Conlon. That came out as Winifred Collins on Margaret’s death certificate. This record is from Jane’s tree:

Also from Jane, here is Margaret’s baptismal record:

I’ll add Glen to my Frazer DNA/Genealogy Tree:

That brings us out to 5th cousins through Richard Frazer and an unknown wife.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was glad to figure out a Frazer match based on the tree of his administrator.
  • That gives me a hint to try other matches I’m not aware of based on the administrator’s tree
  • Checking into shared DNA matches is always a good idea as it may bring up new connections
  • John fills in a gap in my DNA/Genealogy tree – especially with respect to AncestryDNA matches as I tested his first cousin at FTDNA.
  • Thanks to imput from Cousin Jane, I was able to add my 5th cousin Glen (and shared match with John) to my Frazer DNA/Genealogy Chart.

A16717 Branch of Hartleys Added to the FTDNA L513 Project Tree

R-A16717 has been part of FTDNA’s YDNA Tree since March 2022. However, this branch did not make it to  the FTDNA L513 Project tree until the end of July 2022. A16717 is a fairly recent branch and is significant as all branches of the YDNA tree are, but this branch is very significant to my particular Branch of Hartleys.

The Big Picture

This is the really big picture. Göran Runström from FTDNA updates these numbers monthly. There should be a new update within a week:

A16717 is only one branch among the 26,742 branches under R and 55,842 branches altogether. R is broken down usually between the larger R1b and smaller R1a group.

Here is the big picture of the R1b group:

At the bottom left of the tree is L513 where my branch of Hartleys are. The larger branch under L513 is S5668. Here is the tip of the iceburg view of L513:

There is an image above representing ‘Celts and other folks’ who were in the British Isles. Hartleys would be under Z16357 which shows as being in England just around or before the time of the Celts.

S5668 Tree

There used to be one L513 Tree when there were fewer branches. Now there are two trees. Here is the S5668 Tree:

This chart is more useful for genealogical purposes as it includes surnames. Hartley is near the bottom left of this tree:

Here I tried to get those under the Z16343 Branch. Under Z17911, Hartley is the only surname with multiple branches. Each branch of Hartley represents two BigY testers.

How This Part of the YDNA Tree Looks Like at FTDNA

FTDNA portrays the results in the form of a ‘block tree’. Here are the results for A11138 and down from my perspective:

This is the more detailed view. I am at FT225247 where I match my brother James. Michael and Lawrence represent a US Colonial Branch of Hartleys who moved to Pennsylvania from being persecuted as Quakers in Lancashire, England. This was the A16717 that was just added to the FTDNA L513 Project Tree above. John and Steve represent an older branch of Hartleys that the other two branches descend from.

More on Dating Haplogroups

FTDNA has come out with some new tools recently. Here is one that is helpful for dating haplogroups:

I put my Haplogroup in and get this:

This is a little small to see. Here is a larger image of the left side:

This says that our common ancestor was born around 100 years ago. My father was born in 1918, so I would say that is pretty accurate. Secondly,
A11134 is said to have branched off 450 years ago. That could also be right as that would be the year 1570. That means that the common ancestor for the six BigY tested Hartleys would be around 1570.

Dating A16717 – An Early American Quaker Hartley Branch

Here we have a date of 1600, so they seem to be subtracting the 400 from the year 2000. I actually have what I think is the actual date for the common ancestor between Michael and Lawrence:


I have that as 1666. This is the better-documented Branch of Hartleys. Surprisingly, the date that FTDNA has for A11134 is only 50 years earlier than A16717 or 450 years ago. If I subtract that from the year 2000 to be consistent, I get the year 1550. To me, that date seems better than subtracting 50 years from 1666 which would be 1616, but who knows?

Dating A11134 – The Hartley Umbrella Branch

But wait, there’s more. I need to add in A11134:

Two Yet Unnamed Hartley Lineages

I just noticed that the explanation for A11134 says that there are 2 yet unnamed lineages. I assume that these are Hartley Lineages for Steve and John.

The Mawdsley Surname

I have already gone over the 1600 date as being representative of the Hartleys. However, this dating goes one step further to the Mawdsley surname and seems to put it at 700 years ago or around the year 1300.

According to

The custom of applying a man’s by-name to all his children began in the late 12th century and spread slowly, with the manorial classes and the south of England leading the way. The first legal recognition of an hereditary surname is found in 1267; it was de Cantebrigg meaning ‘of Canterbury.’ By 1400 three-quarters of the population are reckoned to have borne hereditary family names, and the process was complete by about 1450 in England. Wales is an exception, in that although they had surnames they were patronymics (derived from the father’s first name) and thus changed each generation.

During this early period a married woman could be known either by her maiden surname or by her husband’s surname with wyf added, as in Mary Walker, wife of Henry Field, or Mary Fieldwyf. The term Mrs. for a married woman was not used until after 1500.

Dating A11132 – Mawdsley and Hartley Ancestors

If I use the new FTDNA tool for A11132, it should include Mawdsley (A11132) and Smith (A111138):

By the way, the grayed out portion will always be grayed out as it represents the female portion of the tree and YDNA represents only the male portion.

That means that I figured out how FTDNA dates from the year 2000. I assume that 1300 was before most had surnames, so perhaps Mawdsley was never Hartley – though they do share the ‘ley’ which I take to mean field. That also means that the Smith tester’s results go back to the year 800 – very old indeed. Mawdsley must have an additional lineage since 700 years ago that is separate from the Hartley group of A11134.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Hartley Branch A16717 was added recently to the FTDNA L513 Project Web Site. I had notified the creator that it was missing and he added it.
  • I look at the bigger picture of the YDNA tree to show where my Hartley Branch fits in.
  • I looked at the new FTDNA Discover Tool. This tool takes out some of the guesswork in trying to date YDNA Haplogroups
  • This tool also gives ranges of dates. This is useful when more information is known about the genealogy.
  • I checked the dates that the tool gave for the overall Hartley Branch of A11134 as well as for its two branches.
  • I also checked the dates for Mawdsley and Smith. Assuming the dating is correct using the FTDNA Discover tool, Mawdsley from the year 1300 was most probably never a Hartley name and the upstream Smith was certainly before the age of surnames as the current Smith Haplogroup goes back to the year 800.
  • Finally, I realized that the FTDNA Discover Tool predicts haplogroups that will have additional lineages.


A New Match to My Hartley Part of the YDNA Tree

Someone mentioned to me recently that there was a new match to the Hartley and Mawdsley part of the YDNA tree. His last name is Wolka.

The Hartley and Mawdsley Part of the YDNA Tree

Wolka didn’t take the BigY test but if he did, this is the part of the tree he would be in. He took the 111 STR test.

Here I backed out the tree to Smith who is at A11138. Mawdsley is at A11132. After that are three flavors of Hartleys. Pulling further out, there is this tree:

This tree is half of the L513 tree. Hartley is in the lower right of this part of the tree. Actually the A16717 Branch of Hartleys is missing from this tree and I have mentioned this on Facebook to the author of this tree, so hopefully this will be corrected. There are other Hartleys in other trees, but they are not closely related by DNA to my Hartleys from the above tree.

STR Matches

Here is how I match Wolka by STRs:

At 111 STRs, Wolka is the only non-Hartley that I match. Based on that information alone, it would seem like Wolka could match me somewhere in the A11132 block and may even break up that block. At any rate, it would be interesting to see where Wolka fits on the YDNA tree.

The Wolka Name

The Wolka surname appears to be Polish. It is the name of a place in Poland, so I assume the name refers to someone from that place. The YDNA, however, points to Great Britain as the true heritage for the person who took this test. The most common way for this to happen would be due to an adoption or single mother situation. I don’t think that any other person with the Wolka surname has taken a YDNA – at least as far as I can tell.

In order to compare the Wolka results in more detail, I would need to know what his specific 111 STR results are. I do see that my brother matches Wolka at a closer level compared to my match with Wolka:

That is because I am a one step difference from my brother. Here is a proposed STR tree I drew a while back:

Here I have myself with DYS572 of 16. I also have the Michael and Lawrence branch with a 16 for the same STR. It appears to me now, that this would also be a valid STR tree:

In this scenario, my brother Jim has a back mutation at location DYS572 from 16 to 15 and what I call the Marsden branch of Michael and Lawrence share a common ancestor with my branch with a man who had a 16 value for DYS572. Either way, the fact that Wolka probably has a value of 15 for DYS572 supports the likelihood that this value is ancestral for our group. I suppose that if I was to test one of my second cousins, then it would be clear which scenario is correct.

Any Other Implications?

My brother Jim matches Wolka at one step less than four other Hartleys. This could mean that ancestors of this Wolka YDNA tester were at one time  Hartleys.

Other Hartley Project Members Matching Wolka

Mawdsley’s closest 111 STR match is with Wolka:

Wolka Match to Michael and Lawrence

These two were on a well-documented Hartley Branch going back to a Hartley from the late 1600’s who was a Quaker. One branch of this family moved to Pennsylvania around the year 1700. Unfortunately, Michael took the BigY test at a time when the 111 STR test was not included, so he does not have those results. Here are the results for Lawrence (with some others):

This shows that by 111 STRs, Wolka so far is closest to the Lawrence (Quaker) branch of Hartleys. This is where Michael’s 111 STR test would have come in handy.

Other Wolka Matches

This seems to imply that Wolka is more somewhat more closely aligned with Steve and then Lawrence and Gary. The 67 STR information is not as important when the 111 STR information is available as the 111 STR information is more accurate.

TiP Report

This report gives a bit more accuracy than the genetic distance, so it is helpful. I’ll just look at the 90% confidence level. Here is the full report between myself and Wolka:

I’ll use 19 generations which is around 90%. That is far out. So if a generation is 30 years, then that would be 570 years ago or around 1452. As 90% is a pretty conservative number, I’ll subtract the generations from today rather than from when I was born which was 1956.

Here is what I come up with for the 111 STR test:

Here Steve is the clear winner at 1662. Mawdsley is back at 1452. If the date of 1662 is correct, that means that we are pretty far into the age of surnames. That also seems to imply that at some time in Wolka’s male line history, he should have some Hartley ancestors.

Here is the full report between Wolka and Steve:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Wolka is an interesting new match and should fit in somewhere in the Hartley/Mawdsley YDNA branch of mankind
  • Wolka took a 111 STR test which gets him into the ballpark of mostly Hartleys and one Mawdsley. SNP testing is more accurate than STR testing. That means that a BigY test would be needed to place Wolka within that YDNA tree
  • The branch that Hartley and Mawdsley are go back to England and likely the Lancashire or perhaps Yorkshire area. As Wolka appears to be a Polish name, that means that there was probably a mis-attributed parentage in the Wolka line somewhere in the last 400 years or so.
  • The more people that test – especially the BigY 700 test – the more defined the Hartley/Mawdsley tree is. Also the dates of each of these branches should become more clear.
  • Based on STRs, Wolka appears to be more closely related to Steve’s branch of Hartleys. However, as mentioned above STRs are not the most accurate measure of relatedness.
  • I did a TiP Report comparison which shows that Wolka’s connection to Steve is around 1662 at the 90% confidence level.

A New AncestryDNA Match with Chris on the McMaster Line

Chris is a recent DNA match with me and other siblings. He shows as having a common ancestor with me:

Chris’ tree has the common ancestors as Abraham McMaster and Margery Noble:

My tree also goes back to Abraham McMaster, so I’m not sure why this is not reflected at AncestryDNA:

Here is an extensive tree that I have so far based on Genealogy and DNA matches:

Here is an overview of the ThruLines at Ancestry:

One possible issue is that Abraham McMaster and Archibald McMaster both show being born in 1809.

This Abraham is related to another McMaster Branch. I have guessed at the connection here:

This Margaret Frazer Mcmaster on the left side of the chart moved to Ontario with all of her children except for Fanny. Fanny was my ancestor and stayed in Ireland. Just to confuse things, she married another McMaster (James McMaster Sr from the chart above).

Building a Tree for Chris

My building a tree for Chris would give me more confidence of how we are connected. Here is Sadie McMaster’s birth record:

Here is the start of Chris’ tree I am working on:

Mark McMaster’s Marriage record:

This gives his father’s name as Frank. However, the 1881 Census has the father’s name as Mark:

The 1861 Census for Euphemia, Ontario implies that Mark’s parents were Abraham and Eliza:

The 1861 Census Vs What I Have for McMasters

I have a web site on McMasters and the relevant part looks like this:

Here the difference is that Abraham marries Margery rather than the Eliza in Euphemia, Ontario. Also in my genealogy, James is younger than Mark. Also the timing is a bit off. If Mark McMaster was born in 1817, he would be about 44 in 1861, so we are about a generation off.  My guess is that the Abraham in the Ontario Census could be the 1817 Mark’s brother. So in my genealogy above, a likely scenario would be that there was an Abraham the son of Abraham and this Abraham had children William James and Mark. That is what Chris’ Tree shows:

That means that I would be happy to add Abraham as an older sibling to William and Mark in the family I have the genealogy for above. The earliest Kilmactranny Church records appear to be in 1817, so Abraham predated this time. Here are some transcriptions I received from a McMaster researcher:

If the records are right, there were two McMaster boys born on the same day. A problem I see with Chris’ tree is that Margery probably was not born in 1775 as I have that her daughter Eleanor was baptized in 1828. That would put Margery at 53 when she had Eleanor:

That means that some adjustment may be necessary for Abraham the father of Mark. I’m guessing he was born some time around 1813 to 1815 (before the start of Kilmactranny birth records in 1817). I would say Margery should have been born around 1785. She would have been 18 or 20 when she had her son Abraham and 43 when she had Eleanor in 1828. Genealogy by biology.

However, now there is a new issue. Here is the tree I had at Ancestry:

If I now move Abraham from 1797 to 1785, that puts a 17 year gap between him and William Briton McMaster. Further, there is this record from an Ancestrty Tree to contend with:

This 1812 record lists an Abraham as son of Abraham which most people take to be the ancestor of Chris. This works also:

Likely Margery was born at some time after 1785 that I have her. If Abraham was named after his grandfather, then by popular naming conventions, he would have been the first son. I’ve adjusted Margery to being born in 1787 in my tree. Fine tuning.

My DNA Match with Chris

I match Chris at 24 cM which is probably more than would be expected for a 5th cousin once removed. First I need to add Chris to my DNA/genealogy tree. That involves squeezing three Abraham McMasters into the tree:

Also note that the younger Abraham born in 1809 would have an uncle who was born the same year. This is of course possible. Also, I have two Abrahams who both married a Margery which is also possible but a little suspicious. However, this is the best I can do with the information that I have. It helps to make these charts as the way I have it, Chris is a 5th cousin two times removed:

If we combined the two Abrahams and Margery’s, that would move Chris up a generation, but as I said the configuration above seems to me to be the better choice.

Shared Matches with Chris

When I checked my shared matches with Chris, I see an interesting trend. The first shared match with Robert. Robert and I have this connection:

Recall above, I had this simplified genealogy tree:

I have ancestors on both sides of this tree via William McMaster and Abraham McMaster. I match Chris on the right side of the tree. However, for Chris to have a common match with Robert, it would have to be on the left side of my proposed tree or go further back to Archibald McMaster born in 1730. Of course, that is assuming my hypothetical tree is correct.

The next shared DNA match between Chris and me is a brother of Robert and matches me at 29 cM. Other matches don’t have much in their trees, so I can’t tell where the match is.

Linda: Shared Match Between Me and Chris

As the other two matches are on the McMaster/Frazer side, I will look at Linda’s match. It turns out that Linda’s tree is the same as Chris’ tree so she is likely as sister or other close relative.

That means that there is a tie of sorts between me matching Chris by DNA and the Shared Matches on the McMaster/Frazer Line.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Chris’ AncestryDNA common ancestor seems nearly right. The way I figured it out, it appears that it should be back a generation on his tree from what AncestryDNA has.
  • One problem with the tree I have is that is has two Abraham McMasters in a row married to two Margerys.
  • There were a lot of McMasters and a lot of vital records are missing.
  • I am related to McMasters on two lines
  • I have shared matches with Chris on the second line where I match McMaster (on the McMaster/Frazer Line). This could indicate a more ancient DNA match between Chris and me. Most in this family also moved to Canada.
  • I mentioned a proposed tree that tries to pull the two McMaster lines together.
  • Deed records help in the iterpretation of the genealogies. These typically mentioned three generations. However, they were not always straight father to son lines in the three generations.


A Few Matches to My Mom on the Baker Line

I see a new DNA match my mom has on her Baker Line. The ThruLines look like this:

Ruth is the new match. Looks like I tried a tree for Gwen in the past. The ThruLines above showed Harry Wood’s mother as Rebecca Andress. I had a different mother:

Building a Tree for Ruth

Bassed on the ThruLines, Ruth is two more generations back from Gwen. The tree I have for Gwen appears to go back to Rebecca Andress:

A Social Security record was helpful:

Here is the 1920 Census:

Samuel was a widow at this time. Here a record for Rebecca Andress:

For the ThruLines to be right, Sophia Andress needss to be Sophia Baker. This death record implies that Sophia was a Baker:

Bottom line is that the ThruLines for Ruth appear to be correct:

Summary and Conclusions

  • It is interesting that of my mom’s two ThruLines matches going back to Conrad Baker born 1764, one appear to be incorrect and one appears to be correct.
  • The current match Ruth is two generations closer on the Thrulines than the other match, so that made it easier to verify her connection to Conrad Baker
  • It would probably a good idea to check the connection with Gwen again, but the last time I checked, I couldn’t connect her back to Conrad Baker.
  • If both these matches (Ruth and Gwen) uploaded to Gedmatch, it would be possible to see if they matched each other by DNA. If that were the case, it would be more likely that Gwen would also be descended from Conrad Baker.