Posts

Posted on

More of My Sister Heidi’s Common Ancestors at Ancestry

In my previous post, I had good luck at looking at one of my sister Heidi’s DNA matches with a proposed common ancestor at Ancestry. Heidi and Sonja went back to Nicholson ancestry. Sonja’s Nicholson ancestor moved to Hartford while my her ancestor’s brother, my ancestor moved to Philadelphia.

Heidi and Thelma

Going down the list of Heidi’s unviewed distant relatives with proposed common ancestors at Ancestry, I see:

Here is the proposal:

Based on a new theory, I have suggested that my ancestor Robert Hartley could have been an Ann. This has turned up some Halstead genealogy. Here is Thelma’s tree:

Thelma has Alice Halstead from Didsbury:

I think that this is the place:

Another tree has this:

Heidi and Mike

This connection also leads to a possible Halstead connection:

This connection leads to two Halstead families on Mike’s tree:

There seems to be something going on with this Halstead connection. However, I would prefer to look at this in a separate Blog.

Heidi and Mr

MR has a private tree with 4 people in it. Shared matches between MR and Heidi are inconclusive. However, MR’s mother is in the shared match list. MR’s mother has a shared match with Carolyn who is a known relative on the Nicholson side:

Further, it appears that the proposed John Nicholson in Ancestry’s common ancestor tree was living right next to his sister in 1860 Hartford. I talked about her in my previous Blog:

John and his brother-in-law Thomas were both hardware dealers at the time. Sarah A is likely Sarah Ann Nicholson Hield. Interesting. That means that the Mary shown above could be the Mary in the Ancestry Common Ancestor Tree. However, if this is right, then my tree may be inaccurate:

I have John marrying Margaret Reaney.

Ancestry suggests this for the 1851 Census in Sheffield:

Mary was born outside Yorkshire. It appears that this is the correct marriage record:

Here is my corrected tree:

It appears that the elder John Nicholson died young in 1863:

I won’t go through all the genealogy, but I expect that this connection should work out. Here is a Social Security extract:

Heidi and Robert

Here is another potential Halstead connection:

My Nicholson DNA Tree

I’ll just update this tree:

This is a large tree and above is only part of it. Actually, I need to go up a generation:

This Matthew Nicholson had a lot of children and died at the age of 41:

My DNA Tree above only represents three of these children.

Here are my sister Heidi’s ThruLines:

That means I need to add the John and Sarah Lines. Here is the John Line:

MR’s great-grandmother was Ruah which is an interesting name. Apparently her son moved to Little Rock, Arkansas:

The Sarah Ann Line

Sonja was the subject of my previous Blog. Here the two Connecticut Nicholson Lines are added:

I was previously unaware of these two Lines coming forward. I probably would have otherwise assumed that these families remained in England.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I found a few of my sister Heidi’s DNA matches with proposed common ancestors
  • Those ancestors were Nicholson and Halstead
  • Halstead is more problematic as this is based on a new theory. I decided to wait on those matches.
  • The Nicholson match was interesting as two siblings of my Nicholson 2nd great-grandfather were living next door to each other in Hartford, CT in the 1860 Census
  • I added the two lines descending from the two siblings of my Nicholson 2nd great-grandfather to my Nicholson DNA Tree

 

 

 

 

Posted on

A Nicholson Line Connected by Ancestry’s Common Ancestors

Right now I am looking at my sister Heidi’s DNA matches with Common Ancestors.

These 7 matches could keep me busy for a while. Three maternal. Three paternal and one unassigned. These are all listed under distant relatives.

Heidi and Sonja:

Sonja has her Hield ancestor as being from Connecticut, so no obvious connection there. I need to know if Sarah married a HIeld and moved to Connecticut. I do know that Sarah was living in Sheffiled in 1851:

Sarah’s father had died young and her mother was a beerhouse keeper to make ends meet. Here is Sarah Hield in Hartford, Connecticut in 1860:

We can see that Sarah’s daughter Sarah was born in Connecticut, so that puts the move from England between 1855 and 1858. Sonja has that Esther was born in 1861 so that explains why she does not appear on the 1860 Census.

Here is the possible marriage:

Unfortunately, the father’s name were “dead” which is not very helpful. However, I do know that ‘my’ Sarah’s father was dead. Here is PIttlsmoor:

Sonja’s DNA Connection: Shared Matches

Here are some of Sonja and Heidi’s shared matches:

Melinda is my maternal 1st cousin’s daughter. Carolyn is my mother’s second cousin on the Nicholson side. The other matches seem to be related on the Nicholson side or Clayton side. The DNA indicates that the Common Ancestor clue from Ancestry is probably right. This gives encouragement to continue along the lines of the Common Ancestor match.

Nicholson ThruLines

Here are Heidi’s ThruLines:

Back to the Genealogy

The Hield family seem to move around a bit. The first son, John William, was born in the Wicker, Sheffleld:

The name John Willam also gives circumstantial evidence to relation to the Nicholson family:

William was Sarah’s younger brother. John was her grandfather. We are not sure of Thomas Hield’s ancestry, but Sarah’s second son was named Thomas. As a guess, Esther could have been Thomas’ mother:

Let’s look at the proposed timing.

  • Sarah Ann marries Thomas Hield in 1852
  • They have children and move to Hartford, CT around 1856 or 1857
  • Sarah’s younger brother William arrives in the US about 1868 with his family and settles in Philadelphia.

I’ll add Sonja to my tree as floating tree and likely connect her later.

Sonja’s great-grandfather was an interior decorator in 1920 in West Hartford, CT.

Here is the family in 1900. There were a lot of Russels:

This Russel was a stock broker. However, at this point, it is Esther that I am interested in. From the Census, it appears that Esther married about 1880.

Here is ab obituary from August 11, 1928:

Recall above that Esther had a brother named Thomas. Circumstantial evidence again. This leads us back to Brooklyn:

Sarah A HIeld is 39 in 1870 which means she was born about 1861.

Here is the Sarah Ann in my tree:

I’ll say that is close enough for a match. I just need to merge the two trees. Here is part of my new tree:

My ancestor William Nicholson was about 5 years younger than Sarah Ann. I wonder if William and Sarah Ann ever connected in the US.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I started at looking at my sister Heidi’s unviewed Common Ancestors at Ancestry
  • Heidi’s first match with possible common ancestors was Sonja
  • Sonja’s tree went back to Connecticut with her ancestor Esther Hield
  • Ancestry suggested that Esther Hield’s mother was Sarah Ann Nicholson, the sister of one of my Nicholson ancestors
  • Based on Shared DNA matches between Heidi and Sonja, as well as genealogical clues, the match appeared to be right
  • It would still be nice to find the smoking gun genealogical clear evidence, but the inferred evidence from the DNA and genealogy was enough for me to agree that Ancestry’s proposed common ancestors were correct.
  • That leaves 6 other proposed comon ancestors that Heidi has at Ancestry to investigate

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

Playing with My Unused ProTools at Ancestry

I say unused ProTools because I have used the clusters and Shared Matches a lot. I have not used some of the other ProTools.

Familyhistorydaily.com has a good article on ProTools. On my Tree menu at Ancestry, I see this Pro options:

There is a Tree checker and Charts and reports.

Looks like I have 9483 people in my tree. This includes my wife’s Butler family.

Here are some filters and stats:

Despite all these errors my tree gets an 8.9 rating.

If I choose direct family line, all possible errors, I get 178 entries. If I choose duplicates under all possible errors, I get 32 people. That seems like a manageable number:

Let’s look at Thomas Clarke on my list:

If I hover over the ‘i’ in a circle to the right, the note says, “possible duplicates”. There are also some hints, but I am not concerned with that right now. I press the ‘i’ in the circle and it goes to profile view for Thomas Clarke in a new window with this note to the right:

I want to review this to see if I agree:

Scrolling down, I see that this Thomas Clarke has the right wife:

This is his second wife, the one I do not descend from. At this point, I will take it on faith that if I merge these two people it will solve more problems than it will solve. Now I am down to 31 direct ancestor duplicates.

Finding Direct Ancestors of Other People

I would like to find direct ancestors on my wife’s side. How do I do this? I do not see an easy way to do this. I suppose that is one of the problems of having my wife’s tree connected to my tree. I can try a workaround, but it is not very good.

My wife’s father’s mother was French Canadian. I can filter for Quebec:

Unfortuantely, this does not give me all the people who lived in Quebec, just the ones that I specifically designated as being from Quebec in my tree:

Also, these are not necessarily my wife’s direct ancestors. I do know that Joseph Pouliot is my wife’s ancestor. Isn’t an ancestor a direct ancestor?

When I choose Joseph Pouliot to evalutate, I get this message:

Joseph married a Josephine. Could that be the issue?

Also this 1700’s Joseph Pouliot has no birth date:

Here is birth date:

Here, fils or son is underlined. After making that change, I still see a duplicate for Joseph, so the confusion must be for his wife. I guess I’ll have to live with some Ancestry possible errors that are not really errors.

Using the same logic, I sorted by lived in Prince Edward Island:

I recognize James Henry Ellis as a ‘direct’ ancestor of my wife:

The sketchy right hand of the comparison has Henry Ellis and one child, but they match, so I will merge the two. When I do that and refresh my list, there are only two who lived in PEI that have possiible errors.

Map View

The article I mentioned above shows how to use Map View.

Here are my direct line ancestors:

A lot from the US.

Direct line paternal:

England, Ireland and the US.

Direct line maternal:

Latvia, Germany, England and the US.

Back to Duplicates

In my Summary and Conclusions, I mention that finding duplicates may help in inaccurate ThruLines. I often have trouble on my Hartley Line:

This could be the source of my problems. Further, I am not so sure that Robert was born at Bough Gap. That was a possible guess. When I choose the ‘i’ in a circle, I see this:

This is exactly my problem that I am trying to fix. Robert Hartley was certainly not Robert Wilkinson. Robert Hartley’s wife was Mary Pilling. Robert died and Mary remarried Robert Wilkinson. I will be glad to choose ‘not a duplicate’ and hope that will correct many ThruLine errors. I get balloons for pushing those two links:

View all errors for this tree just brings me back to my unfiltered tree error list.

I am honestly baffled as to why Ancestry computers thought that Mary Pilling’s second husband was the same as the first – especally after the first husband died.

Frazers on My Duplicates List

I am familiar with my Frazer ancestry:

My Second Great-grandfather George William

The George on the right looked good until I got to wife and children.

After working a bit on the list, this is what it now looks like:

Summary and Conclusions

  • This Blog covered some of the Pro Tools that I have not used yet
  • Duplicates are always a problem. I suspect that I should go through my 31 remaining direct line possible duplicates to try to fix those. This may even help in some of the ThruLines. After I wrote this I did find something above in my Hartley Line that was apparently causing a lot of problems.
  • I can find some of my wife’s ancestors but not a comprehensive list of her direct line ancestors due to the way that I set up my Ancestry Tree. It would be an improvement if Ancestry gave you a focus person choice and then you could look at their direct line ancestors.
  • Now I just have to review a little over 600 other potential errors.

 

 

 

Posted on

Theories on My Mother’s (Rathfelder) Side

I started looking at my mother’s MyHeritage Theories in my previous post and will continue here.

Hannah

I would say the Theory between my mother and Hannah cannot be correct:

For one thing, there are 112 years difference between first cousins Johnn and Ottilie. I was able to find Hannah’s Ancestry tree:

One way to check this is by my Gangnus genealogy book by Gustav Gangnus published in 2003. As far as I can see, Hannah’s tree checks out. That would add a line her on my Gangnus DNA Tree:

Here I have added in Hannah:

Hannah shows as my mother’s 4th cousin three times removed. This makes more sense than the MyHeritage Theory.

Hannah at DNA Painter

Hannah’s match tells us something about a different match:

Notice that Hannah’s DNA match overlaps with Otis. Otis matches my mom in several ways. However, for this segment, the match must be on the Gangnus side. So while the blue segment says Schwechheimer/Gangnus this match is really through Gangnus or specifically through Anna Charlotte Maria Gangnus born 1780:

Hanni

This Theory does not look familiar:

MyHeritage proposes that Hanni from Germany is a third cousin twice removed.

Hanni’s tree has two Gangnus Lines:

Hanni is in another Theory which does not make sense:

Under this Theory, Johann Lutz has a daugther when he is one year old. I’ll skip this one. Theory one is wrong also as the father of Lutke in my mom’s line was Lutke. That means I’m on my own.

Genealogy for Hanni

I will add Hanani to my tree and see if I can connect her. Hanni has her mother born in Hirschenhof which is interesting:

I see in Hanni’s tree that Lydia’s mother should actually be Alide Gangnus.I see several entries for Alide in the 2003 Gangnus Genealogy Book. One of the most interesting is on page 57. This page shows three Gangnus lines. It appears to trace the farms that they lived on in HIrschenhof. Alide shows ther born in 1905 married to Stahl.

Page 129 of the Gangnus Genealogy book shows Alide as the last child of of Johann Conrad Gangnus and Marie Whilhelmie Gangnus. From here is should be easy to trace Hanni’s Gangnus heritage. The first Gagnus to connect with one of my mother’s Gangnus ancestors wins the prize.

So far, my tree is following Hanni’s:

I also have three out of four in the last column with hints at Ancestry. Unfortunately, Johann Georg Gangnus was a very popular name in Hirschenhof:

Actually, I now see where Hanni fits in on my Gangnus DNA Tree:

I see that Philipp Gustave Gangnus is already in my tree, so I can link Hanni’s tree to him. It took a while to fix my Ancestry Gangnus Tree, but I think I have it right now.

Hanni Added to the Gangnus DNA Tree

She and Michael are 4th cousins twice removed to my late mother.

What About Gustav?

I still need to fill in parents for Gustav born in 1809. I do not have to go far to find his father:

Gustav’s father is Johann Georg Gangnus born in 1781. However, Gustav is the son of Johann Georg’s second wife Maria Magdalena Gagnus.

The good news is that the common ancestors are the same:

That means that Hanni and Gladys are 2 times fourth cousins twice removed.

Hanni on My Mom’s DNA Painter Profile

Hanni’s match overlaps with Ruta’s on Chromosome 11. I had trouble figuring out exactly where Ruta fit in as she descends from Gangnus/Muller and Gangnus/Niclas. This tells us that this match with Ruta must be from Gangnus/Niclas. Not that it probably matters, but it is interesting that we can know that from the DNA match.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at Hannah and Hanni. They both descend from Gangnus LInes
  • I was able to fit both of them into my mother’s (hence my) Ancestry Tree as well as into my Gangnus DNA Tree
  • The Gangnus family was prolific. In addition there was a lot of intermarriage of these Gangnus Lines in Hirschenhof. That adds up to a lot of potential for DNA matches and criss-crossing genealogcial trees
  • It is possible to sort out which DNA matches are associated with which Gangnus Lines if we get matches that overlap on a particular segmant on the chromosome.

 

 

 

Posted on

MyHeritages Updates of Theories: Part 2

In my previous Blog I looked at some Theories for myself, my Frazer cousin Paul and my mother. In this Blog, I will continue to go down the new theories list.

My Frazer Theory with Christopher

I have done a lot of work on Frazer DNA and genealogy, so let’s check this one out:

Christopher has an American Flag by his name, but he shows his parents were from Australia. Christopher’s paternal side tree goes back to Mary Frazer:

I feel like Christopher will connect, so I will build a floating tree for him in my family tree and then connect it – assuming he fits in. According to Ancestry, it was Christopher’s grandfather who moved from Sligo to Australia:

I would expect to find grandfather Thomas in the 1901 Ireland Census:

He was in Kilmactranny Parish where my Frazer ancestors lived.

According to Google, the Townland is actually Drumsoghla bordering Loch Arrow and County Roscommon:

My relatives live on the NE side of Loch Arrow. As expected, Thomas’ father is George Acheson. And it is George’s mother that I am looking for.

Here is the family in the same place in 1911:

I assume that it was George who did not want the Frazer name to be forgotten. All the boys in the house have a Frazer in their name. It appears that George also made his way to Australia:

Here is George’s

burial place in Tasmania:

How to Get from George to Mary Frazer?

This is some of the information on Christopher’s tree:

From fellow Frazer researchers I have this information:

There were two Mary Frazers born in 1828. The one that Christopher has was apparently the daughter of John Frazer and Isabella. It looks odd that William was born 12 July, but Mary was baptized 22 July. I am looking at my old Frazer Genealogy Web Page and see this:

That means that Isabella would have been the sister of Violet Frazer who was my 3rd great-grandmother. That means that Christopher descends from the Richard Frazer and Archibald Frazer Lines. That puts Christopher most closely related to Michael in my Frazer DNA Trees:

This is the side I am more closely related on:

 

Here I am a 4th cousin once removed to Michael.

Here is some more information from my web site:

OK, I guess I’ll go with what I have. I connected the my floating tree for Christopher with my own tree. I now just have to add Christopher to two of my Frazer DNA Trees:

Christopher and I are 5th cousins on this tree:

Now Michael is not so lonely on his branch. I am one generation further out on the Archibald Line as we descend from Archibald father of Archibald.

DNA Painter

I have a lot going on in my 7th Chromosome:

The red match at the beginning of the Chromosome is where I match Christopher. It is possible I match him a generation further back at Archibald, but more likely it is from Richard Frazer. There appears to be a little overlap with Susan and Ken. However, they descend from James and Violet Frazer. Likely the overlap indicates that the DNA shared with Susan and Ken is from Violet who is the daughter from Richard Frazer as is Isabella. It is interesting that I connected to someone on an Acheson Line as I know I have at least one other Acheson DNA match that I haven’t figured out yet.

Going Through my Sister Heidi’s Theories

I am just looking for Theories that are likely to be real. I see Inguna from my last Blog, so I can add her to Heidi’s DNA Painter profile. Heidi already matches these 2nd cousins on Chromosome 11:

Here is Inguna added:

Heidi and Bill

Bill was one of the early matches. We are 4th cousins and the match goes back to James Frazer and Violet Frazer. This is Heidi’s DNA match with Bill:

Bill overlaps with and confirms other Frazer DNA matches:

Heidi and Alans

Alans is not new, but I have not added him to Heidi’s profile at DNA Painter:

Alans’ big match is on Heidi’s maternal Chromosome 3.

Wrapping Up with My Mom’s Theories

I’m ready to end the Blog, but want to check to see if there are many new Theories for my mother. Gladys’ first new theory is listed as having low confidence:

At Ancestry, I have that Elizabeth was a Rihl:

A further look at Pathways 1-4 of the Theory above has the Renner siblings born in Tenessee.

This seems unlikely as my mother’s family was from Philadelphia.

Mom and Ruta

This looks promising:

I like genealogies with photos. I also have a Gangnus Genealogy book written in German which is helpful. By the looks of the Theory, if it is right, mom and Ruta should be half third cousins. Ruta’s Tree is also helpful:

I’ll add Ruta to my tree as a floating tree and then connect the float assuming she fits. Ruta’s Tree is managed by Robert. Here is Robert at Ancestry:

He shows as descending from Philip J G Gangnus. I have him here on my Gangnus DNA Tree:

Robert shows to be related twice to my mom. That is why these DNA charts are helpful. The Theory has Ruta desecending from Gangnus and Biedermann which would be the third row from the top – the couple that is circled.

Robert has Ruta’s father moving from Riga, Latvia to Cleveland:

Heinrich’s comfirmation record includes his birth date and first names of parents:

This record looks helpful:

Here we get the mother’s name of Gagnus = Gangnus. Heinrich appears to be named for Heinrich Gagnus if I read the record correctly.

According to the Gangnus book written by Gustav Gangnus and published in 2003, Alma was one of 7 children.

Based on Robert’s tree Ruta is most likely his mother (though an Aunt is possible):

That being the case, I can just add Ruta in two places on my Gangnus DNA Tree:

The interesting thing about Ruta (and her relatives) is that they are related on my mother’s paternal grandfather (Rathfelder) and grandmother’s (Gangnus) sides.

Next, I want to connect Ruta to my tree. However, I see I already have her family in my tree:

Also, I spelled Heinrich wrong. I combined Heinrick and Heinrich.

Also when I search for Maria Magdalena, I see I have a duplicate:

These trees are a headache!

So basically, the Theory is wrong, but ny one generation on one side. That means the actual common ancestors are one above Gagnus and Biedermann as shown on the Theory.

Painting Ruta to My Mother’s DNA Profile

Ruta matches my mother here:

Here are the numbers:

The Chromosome 1 match is just under the standard thresshold of 7 cM that DNA Painter adds.

Chromosome 5

I think that this is telling me that Ruta is related on the Gangnus/Niclas side due to the overlap with Gangnus/Biederamann (in bright green):

I could change this segment in DNA Painter to reflect that, but I don’t think I will right now.

Ruta’s matches to my mom on the other chromosomes are not as clearly identified:

The other good news is that Ruta gets my mother’s DNA paternal painted DNA percent up to 50 from 49:

Robert and Long-Term Research

Many years ago, I would see Robert’s match show up at Ancestry and wonder how we were connected. I finally figured out the answer to my question. I wrote that up in a Blog in 2019 which can be seen here. Robert had his Latvian great-grandmother as Magnus rather than Gangnus. Robert corrected his tree, had his mother tested at MyHeritage and here we are. Cooperative research.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I found an interesting new Frazer/Aceshon relative
  • I added some DNA matches to my sister Heidi’s list
  • I found an interesting Latvian match for my mom that added a lot of DNA to her DNA profile
  • It appears that the well has not yet run dry on my mother’s Theories, so I will continue to look at them in a subsequent Blog.

 

Posted on

MyHeritage’s Update of Theories of Relativity

MyHeritage has recently had an update on Theories of Relativity. These are similar to what Ancesty does with ThruLines. It combines the DNA matches with potential genealogical matches.

Wolf’s 3 Theories

I am sure that I have looked at Wolf before. He shows as new, but perhaps some of his theories are new. Here is the first theory:

This must be a half relationship as Anna as shown is born in 1807 and Anna Niclas has died years before this time. Here is what I show for Philip Jacob’s second wife:

Wolf has a different second wife for Philip:

When I look again at my tree, I see this in agreement with Wolf’s tree:

At any rate, the theory does not seem to match up with Wolf’s tree. The Theory has Johannes Hassenfuss lived for only two years from 1849-1849 and had Gagnus as his mother. Here is Wolf’s tree:

He has Johann’s mother as a Biedermann.

Theory 2

This also does not make sense:

This also does not make sense as Anna Biedermann is the daughter of Joahann Pfeif.

Theory 3 with Wolf and Me

As I mentioned above, this does not square with Wolf’s tree.

In 2018, I came up with this connection with Wolf:

Also this;

Further, I descend also from my mother’s paternal grandmother from Schwechheimer line:

This likely explains why Wolf and I share so many DNA segments:

A major advantage of MyHeritage over Ancestry is that MyHeritage has a Chromosome Browser that shows on which chromosomes and where on those chromoses two people match. If I were to map these segments, should I have them as Schwechheimr, Biedenbender or both? The likelihood is that they should be Schwechheimer, but there is no guarantee.

Some matches are under 7 cM so they will not map by default:

Here is Wolf added to DNA Painter on Chromosome 1:

I have him as Schwechheimer or Biedermann.

Paul and Bill

Paul is a second cousin on my Frazer side. Bill is here:

Bill is a 3rd cousin once removed to Paul. The MyHeritage Theory is more concise:

I will paint the DNA match to DNA Painter:

Bill’s match adds a small amount off previously unmapped DNA on Chromosome 8 Chromosome 1 confirms that Violet Frazer descends from Richard. The match on Chromosome 8 may be on the James Frazer side, but we cannot tell for sure without other matches. I should change the label for Gladys. Although she is from the Philip Line, she is also from the Richard Frazer line.

A Frazer Theory that Cannot Be Right

I know who my grandmother’s mother was and it was not Anne Lewis. I will reject this Theory. Sharee is a shared match with Shani:

Here is Shani at Ancestry:

Shani also matches me further back on my McMaster Line.

Sharee matches me here:

That match would be here on my DNA Painter profile:

That match overlaps mostly with Zoe but also with Ron. I have Zoe mapped as Clarke or McMaster.

For some reason, I have a lot of Theories showing my grandmother had a Lewis mother. Actually her mother was Margaret Clarke.

A Latvian Theory with Inguna

This match looks more likely:

My mother’s father had Schweccheimer on both his paternal and maternal sides:

It looks like he had Gangnus on his paternal and maternal side also. The good news is that there must be a connection. The bad news is that there could be many connections.

Here is Inguna’s paternal grandmother’s tree:

She has a Juris Schweccheimer in her tree where the Theory has Johann Georg Schweccheimer. Perhaps these two are the same person.  I am willing to add Inguna to my tree as a floating branch and then add her if I can find the connection.

Here is the Schwechheimer DNA tree that I have:

It seems overly simplified as it does not have my grandfather’s mother’s line. That would bring me down a generation on the tree from where I am now. Here is where I have Anna Elisabeth Schwechheimer on my Ancestry tree:

She shows up as the youngest in the family. Here is the updated Schwechheimer DNA Tree:

This feels more complete. So, for example, I am 5th cousin and a 5th cousin once removed to Otis and Sane. Confusingly, as Otis is their twice, I am related to him in 4 ways on the Schwechheimer Line.  This is why it is helpful to create a chart.

Back to Looking at Inguna’s Tree

Ancestry does not have many good recent Latian records, so I will go by Inguna’s tree for a while. Fortunately, the Lutherans kept good records, and I found this one at Ancestry:

Here, Erna is born 30 June 1889. Her husband is Johan Alexander Lutz. From the next page, it appears that Alexander was confirmed in Hirschenhof and Erna in Riga in 1908.

Here is a marriage banns record:

It appears that the Theory is following what I am seeing.

This appears to be the birth record for Johann Georg son of Gerhard Schwechheimer:

However, the theory has he was born in 1859.

Let’s go back to the daughter to see if there are any clues. Here is a marriage record:

I think these were in Russian, but the German names are in parentheses. This is from 1912.

Here is part of Erna’s confirmation record:

Now her mother is known by Emilie than Cathernine Ernestine.

Here is a non-private tree that MyHeritage used to help create the Theory:

Here we have that Erna’s mother is Catharina Emile Hermann. This is a Veckaln’s tree, so likely one that Inguna used. As I look at this tree, I see that Georg’s mother would have been about 44 when Georg was born.

I do see this record:

However, I see the date at the top of the page as 1853. That makes more sense to me. So basically I agree with the Theory, though the review could have been more rigorous. The best way to check is through the Revision Lists as that should list family units if the timing of the lists are right.

Updating the Schwechheimer DNA Tree

While working on the DNA Tree, I found this record:

For some reason, the birth date for Georg is off, but I am going with what I had above. The names seem to fit in.

That makes Inguna most likely my 4th cousin once removed.

DNA Painter for Inguna

Here is the match I have with Inguna:

By default, the second segment will not map as it is less than 7 cM. However, it seems like is should be valid due to its proximity to the first segment.

This match fills in some empty space on Chromosome 11.

Inguna and my mother have a larger DNA match:

Here is my mom’s new DNA Map for Schwechheimer:

There is no overlap with Otis’ matches. I don’t know if that is a problem or not. It is possible that Inguna may not match Otis at the 4th cousin once removed level. She does share a match with Sane.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at two Latvian Theories, a Frazer Theory that could not be right and a Frazer Theory with my cousin Paul that was right
  • I mapped the correct theories on DNA Painter
  • I found the Schwechheimer genealogy very complicated due to large families and similar names.
  • I had a chance to tell MyHeritage that many of the Theories for my Frazer grandmother were wrong.
  • I will likely continue to look at the MyHeritage Theories updates.

 

 

 

Posted on

Ancestry Frazer and McMaster Clusters with My Two Younger Sisters

I have already looked at some of my own clusters and those with my older sister and brother. To finish the cycle, I will look at Lori and Sharon’s Clusters at Ancestry.

Lori and Mabel

Lori and Mabel are 2nd cousins once removed. Their common ancestors are George Frazer and Margaret McMaster:

They have quite a few clusters together:

One thing that is unusual is that they have two clusters with exactly the same number of matches. I don’t recall seeing that before.

9 Match Cluster

This must be a McMaster Cluster as Keith has no known Frazer ancestry:

Actually, Keith has this Frazer ancestor:

James McMaster married Fanny McMaster and I have her mother is Margaret Frazer.

Cluster of 10 Matches

This tree adds Brad. I do not know exactly how he fits in. Ancestry thinks that John could be his great uncle:

Based on Brad’s last name, he must descend from John’s sister.

12 Match Cluster

Whitney and Stephen are added at the top. They are only the previous Frazer DNA Tree descending from Richard Frazer born 1875. The pink cluster shows how the Frazer and McMaster lines intertwine, I suppose.

The First 13 Match Cluster

Here, BV is added:

BV is an older match going back to William McMaster and Margaret Frazer, so a generation earlier than the common ancestors of Lori and Keith. To confuse things, Margaret McMaster was from the James Frazer Line. Archibald and James were two brothers born in the first half of the 1700’s. I am from both lines, but mostly from the Archibald Line.

The Second 13 Match Cluster

Perhaps Ancestry computers were working overtime on this one. Now BV is gone, so this is not as ancient a connection. It should also be theoretically less confusing. Here Brad is put back in for some reason.

A 14 Match Cluster Bringing Back BV

I feel that BV has a big effect on these clusters:

Ramping Up to a 44 Match Cluster

This is a bit overwhelming:

Here are some possible clusters within these 44 matches that I see:

The first 2 matches are Lucy and Michael. Here is how Lori and Michael are related:

I have been in touch with Michael and Jane who both descend from Richard Frazer:

Here is a new and improved take on this Cluster:

  • The first large cluster descend from Richard Frazer who was born in the later half of the 1700’s
  • Gladys and the small cluster descend from James Frazer and Violet Frazer where Violet is the daughter of Richard Frazer.
  • The next large cluster are descendants of McMasters and Frazers.
  • The cluster within that cluster are Lori’s (therefor miy) more recent relatives descending from George Frazer born about 1836 and Margaret McMaster
  • There should be another box including BV. This is for the more distant connections descending from William McMaster born about 1790 and Margaret Frazer
  • Below BV I see Marshall who has McMaster ancestry. Perhaps he is related on the McMaster side only and not on the Frazer side.
  • Looking at the clusters followin Marshall, they seem to have more affinity to the McMaster or McMaster/Frazer side than the Frazer only side

Lori and Mabel’s 49 Match Cluster

This is a variation of the 44 match cluster:

Here is a simple interpretation:

In between the two clusters is Marshall who I had guessed had only McMaster ancestors without a Frazer connection.

Sharon and Mabel

Sharon is my last sibling tested at Ancestry to Blog about. I also picked her Mabel connection to Cluster:

Where Lori had 8 clusters, Sharon has 6 but of similar size.

As expected, the first cluster has relatives in the 2nd or third cousin range descending from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster:

Correction. Keith is a 3rd cousin once removed on the McMaster side only at that level. That has to make this a McMaster cluster.

10 Match Cluster

Here Whitney and Stephen get added. I believe all these except Keith descend from Frazers:

Stephen is the uncle of Whitney, but I have not added him to my McMaster DNA Tree.

15 Match Cluster

The first cluster is mostly Frazers but descending from the McMaster side based on inclusion of Keith. the second do not have McMaster ancestry and probably descend from James Frazer and Violet Frazer who were born in the first decade of the 1800’s (as were James and Fanny McMaster – the common ancestors between Keith and Sharon).

16 Match Cluster

Very similar to the previous cluster:

47 Match Cluster

Here we have a large leap:

This is a different look. I must not look at Sharon’s results often as some of these names seem new to me. For some reason, with Sharon’s clusters, the Richard Frazer descendant relationships are not highlighted.

Lucas

One interesting match in the first large cluster above is Lucas. He shows this tree:

Lucas shows his paternal line going back to Michael Frazer born 1764. This would be an important connection if true. Here is my great-grandfather’s ancestry:

I have his maternal line going back to Michael Frazer also. My Frazer researcher friend in Scotland also has Lucas in her tree with the same ancestry showing as Lucas. She also shows a DNA match medalion next to his name.

Here is my Frazer DNA Tree for that branch:

If the tree is right, then Lucas should be a close relative to Bonnie. I have access to Bonnie’s results and yes, he does show as her 1st cousin once removed. Based on that, and the DNA connection between Bonnie and Lucas, I will add him in to my Michael Frazer Branch DNA Tree:

It seems a bit random that Lucas would have shown up in this cluster.

I think this is what Sharon and Mabel’s clusters are telling me:

For some reason, Matthew has a lot of matches with all red-boxed clusters.

Mynew

The last match in the cluster group is Mynew:

Here is my Philip DNA Tree:

This seem to be the right connection to my ancestor James Frazer who as I have as the brother of Philip Frazer at the top of the green chart above. I just wish that there were more DNA matches. At the 5th cousin level, it is difficult to get this.

49 Match Cluster

This one is similar but it has LS:

 

However, LS does not show as a match to Mynew. (last match who also descends from Philip Frazer. Based on my green DNA chart above LS and Mynew should be 4th cousins, so there is a good chance that the two may not match each other.

Diane

Diane is also in the cluster with LS. Here is her paternal side tree:

I see she has an Isabella Johnston in her tree This Isabella was born around 1830, lived in Canada, but was born in Ireland. Possibly the relative of an ancestor.

This could be the same Isabella in 1851:

 

Baptiste is possibly her brother – though Baptiste does not seem like an Irish name.

Alannah

Alannah appears as a match just above the cluster that LS is in. Here is Alannah’s tree:

Alannah shows a Frederick Taylor married to a Catherine Johnston from Ireland. In my Philip Frazer Tree I have this:

Philip Frazer at the top who was the son of aonther Philip Frazer who I believe I descend from married a Mary Taylor and/or Gray. Sharon and I could be related to Alanna on either the Johnston or Taylor Line or both.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at the last of my two siblings’ Frazer Clusters at Ancestry
  • I was surprised at how many of the clusters highlighted the Richard Frazer Line except for my sister Sharon. For some reason, her clusters steered clear of this line.
  • it was certainly helpful looking at 5 sets of clusters (mine and my 4 siblings) rather than just one set
  • I was interested in any matches which descended from the Philip Line. This line appeared to marry into the Johnston family and many of the Irish moved to Canada.
  • In some cases it is possible to see in the clusters the familiies of ancestors. In other cases where the families are not easily identifiable, there could be hints as to where the genealogy is going as in the case above with the Johnston and Taylor families of Ireland.
Posted on

My Siblings’ Frazer and McMaster Clusters at Ancestry

In a previous Blog, I looked at some of my own Ancestry Clusters on my Frazer side. One of my conclusions was that my siblings may have better matches than I do.

Heidi and Mabel

I chose Mabel as she has a good match with Heidi:

Here are the clusters:

Here is the 9 match cluster:

As Keith is in this cluster, I will call this a McMaster Cluster. Here is part of my McMaster DNA Tree:

Keith and Heidi are 3rd cousins once removed.

Morgan

Morgan shows this tree:

Fortunately, the McMaster side is best represented. According to Shared Matches, Morgan could be a first cousin once removed to Keith above. I will try to add Morgan to my Ancestry tree.

For another tree, I see that Violet was born in Tobercurry:

It looks like I already have Frances Jane McMaster in my tree:

Here there are two places where I could connect on the McMaster side. Here are the common ancestors I recognize:

It turns out I already had Morgan in my McMaster DNA Tree:

He is a fourth cousin to Heidi and her siblings.

The 11 Match Cluster

This is also a McMaster Cluster:

However, there are many Frazers in there, but they also descend from Margaret McMaster. Whitney is new to this cluster but descends from Margaret McMaster.

The 18 Match Cluster

Here we have a double cluster. The closer relatives are at the bottom right. Keith and Morgan are the McMasters and the others are in the 2nd cousin range of Frazers. The top left are the Frazer only relatives that are more distant.

The 37 Match Cluster

Here is what I see in general:

BV has been added to the first cluster. Here is the connection:

This gets back to an older McMaster/Frazer connection. After looking more closely at some of the matches, I see that this is the way the clusters should sort out:

This means that it looks like Heidi has more Frazer matches with McMaster connections than without McMaster connections. The second box has Jane as the first match. She matches on two Frazer Lines.

From Jane’s tree showing her grandfather, the lines go back to Archibald Frazer and Anee Stinson and Richard Frazer. The most direct route is on the Richard Frazer Line.

Jane is a fourth cousin once removed to my sister Heidi and her siblings. That is through Violet Frazer on our line who married James Frazer.

Gladys is also in that second cluster. She is a third cousin once removed:

The cluster we are looking at is good because it has 2nd, third and fourth cousins in it. There are many unidentified relatives in the clusters also.

The 38 match cluster is very similar to the 37 match cluster.

Jonathan’s Clusters with Faye

Jon is my brother. Jon and Faye have a good match with each other even though they are 3rd cousins:

I don’t know who NF but he must be in the same relationship range as Faye:

Next, we are up to 7 matches:

This adds in Whitney and Stephen. Here they are in my Frazer DNA tree:

Jumping from 7 to 26 Matches

As above, I am seeing a distinction of two types of Frazer. One does not clearly include McMasters and one includes McMasters. For example, here is the last match, Goosie, who descends from William McMaster and Margaret Frazer:

Jeanette

Jeanette is an interesting match with Jon. Here is her paternal side tree:

Fraser in the cluster is Jeanette’s father. One clue at Ancestry is that Robert Johnston married Ann Frazer. I have Ann in my DNA tree:

I would like to add Jeanette to my Ancestry tree and to my DNA tree. Here is Lethbridge where Jeanette has her grandfather passing away:

I don’t find a lot of clues for Jeanette’s grandfather, so I will have to go with her tree.

Here is Jeanette’s great-grandfather in 1931:

Alexander is buried here:

Here is the family in 1901:

Ancestry has this going back to Ann Frazer (as a suggestion):

Here is Clarence in 1881:

I am thinking that Robert Johnson’s first wife had died by this time as the present wife is only 37. When I add in Robert W Johnston, I get another suggestion:

I do notice this record:

That could be why Michael is in a tight group with Fraser and Jeanette:

Michael descends from the Archibald and Anne Stinson Line through John Frazer:

I have that John was a brother of Mary who married William Johnston. It turns out I had this Line of the Archibald DNA Tree also:

I’ll change the color of this line for consistency:

This is part of the Archibald Frazer/Stinson Line. Michael is on the right in the red circle and I have added his sister Susan.

Here is an old chart I just updated by putting a green box on the right to show another relationship to the Johnston Line It shows the three Frazer brothers:

 

There should be another green line on the right for Mary Frazer who married William Johnston. So, if I have it right (and that is a big if):

  • The Johnston Line is under Philip Frazer and Archibald Frazer
  • My Line (blue) is under Philip Frazer and Richard Frazer
  • I’m not sure if the purple line is right (Falconer)
  • The duller green line with Jane is under Richard and Archibald Frazer.
  • The yellow line (Frazer/Hazzard) is also under Richard and Archibald Frazer
  • Same with the Fraser-Allen Line in a pinkish hue.
  • The least documented line seems to be the Philip Line. I think it is right based on naming patterns and DNA matches.

Here I have added Jeanette’s Line to my tree at Ancestry:

Here is Jeanette’s Line added under my Philip Frazer DNA Tree:

Here she is on the Archibald Line:

Summary and Conclusions

  • It was helpful to look at my older sister and brother to see what some of their Frazer clusters looked like
  • My brother’s clusters added a Johnston Line that I did not have on my Frazer DNA tree previously. This reminded me that the Johnstons are related through the Archibald Line as well as the Philip Frazer Line.
  • This also helped me to work on the Ancestry Tree to update my Johnston connections.
  • I still have two younger sisters who have tested at Ancestry. They may reveal slightly different clusters.
Posted on

Clusters from One of My McMaster and Frazer Lines

From studying Frazer DNA matches, I was able to locate one of my Frazer Branches that was more obscure than my obvious line. Here is the closest way to my Frazer ancestry:

My grandmother was Marion M Frazer and her father was James Archibald Frazer. It appears that James’ father George had two Frazer parents. To confuse things more, James’ mother was a McMaster whose maternal great-grandmother was a Frazer. It is this Frazer/McMaster Line that I would like to look at.

My Match with BV

I have a pretty good match with BV considering that she is a 3rd cousin twice removed. Perhaps because of the different ways we are related. Margaret Frazer was married to William McMaster. The family moved to Ontario from Ireland. However, my ancestor, Fanny remained in Ireland and married yet another McMaster.

My Clusters with BV

Here are the DNA clusters that I have with BV:

Before I get into it, it seems my best DNA tree is on the McMaster side:

A 3 Match Cluster

Sometimes simple is better. Here is Robert:

Robert is from the James McMaster Line I was mentioning above. mt must be Robert’s sister:

Here is part of my McMaster DNA Tree:

I added in mt today.

A 4 Cluster Group between BV and Me

I hope that this cluster will be as easy as the first. ck manages B.V.’s kit and is her daughter. It is not obvious to me how Steven and Alannah fit in. Alannah has a pretty good tree:

Johnston is a name associated with Frazer in Ireland. This could be the connection. I have this connection in my tree:

Catherine could be a daughter of William and Mary or John and Jane.

Moving on to a 20 Match Cluster

Here I see 4 clusters. But clusters three and four overlap on Clif and Cluster 1 and 2 overlap on BV and John. This is not surprising considering the Frazers and McMasters intermarrying in my ancestry.

Cluster 1

This is similar to the 3 match cluster above going back to William McMaster and Margaret Frazer. The difference is the addition of Matthew. I know who Matthew is:

Matthew is my third cousin.

Cluster 2

Matthew gives a hint as to Cluster 2. They should be descended from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. They are all in my Frazer DNA tree already:

I left out my branch, as those matches would be closer than I set the DNA limits.

Some overlap makes sense as we have a McMaster/Frazer cluster next to a Frazer/McMaster cluster.

Cluster 3

I know who Gladys is:

Our connection goes back to two Frazers. Namely, James and Violet:

Kathryn is first cousin or niece to Sandra:

 

It appears that most of the others that I can’t figure out in this Cluster are close relatives to Sandra and Kathryn.

Next is Clif who straddles Cluster 3 and Cluster 4. Here is his tree:

He is also shown as related to Gladys and could be her 1st cousin twice removed. I assume that his connection is on his paternal side which is missing some information.

Clust’er 4

I don’t have a good handle on this cluster. I have been in touch with the administrator for CA’s DNA and she says there is a Frazer connection on her maternal side.

A 26 Match Cluster

These 4 clusters seem someewhat discrete. Cluster 4 does not match with Cluster 3 and Cluster 4 does not match with Cluster 2 except for Clif who I have already mentioned above.

Each cluster seems to go back a generation. Does that mean that Cluster 4 is even older? One common name in that cluster is Acheson. That family lived near my ancestors.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I am still having fun using Ancestry Clusters
  • It is quite helpful being able to choose a person of interest as that focuses the clusters to the area one is interested in.
  • There were no outstanding new revelations, but it is helpful to look at the DNA in a different way
  • There are still other Frazer lines that I may like to cluster.