I hope the title makes sense. I just finished working on Joanna’s Shared Clusters here. It turns out I generated more questions than answers in that Blog. One question had to do with the lack of DNA matches that Joanna had with Madeline’s line.
Here are Madeline and Joanna. They show as third cousins. Third cousins should match each other about 90% of the time according to FTDNA:
However, in my previous Blog, I didn’t see consistent matching between Joanna and Madeline’s branch which should have showed up in Shared Clustering.
Madeline’s Shared Clustering
I’ll just jump into Madeline’s Shared Clustering. The good (and bad) thing about that is that I’ll need to know a little more about Madeline’s genealogy. It looks like I have access to Madeline’s sister Charlotte’s DNA also. Well I’ve already downloaded all of Madeline’s matches, so I’ll go with her.
Here are Madeline’s matches according to the Shared Clustering Program:
Here is Madeline’s sister Charlotte’s tree:
The basic things I need to know is that Madeline’s and Charlotte’s four grandparents are:
I’ll start with the basic matches for Madeline at 50 cM or greater. This was a bit basic as it gave me just one embryonic cluster.
I say embryonic, because I can see things happening within Cluster 1 and outside of it. Next I’ll ratchet Madeline’s matches down to 35 cM.
Madeline’s 7 Shared Clusters at 35 cM
This is everything you need to know about Madeline’s AncestryDNA matches at 35 cM and above:
Madeline has a large Cluster 4. The next step is to do some basic identification of the Clusters and narrow down to Madeline’s Frazer side. The easiest way to identify common ancestors is by the Common Ancestors column in the image above.
Cluster 4 appears to be on Madeline’s paternal side which is Crowley and Cronin. Kathy who is Charlotte’s daughter has done some work and she has the small Cluster 1 as Frazer:
Kathy’s code for pink in the second colored column is for Catherine Matilda Frazer and the reddish color in Cluster 1 is labeled Frazer.
The next Cluster that has mostly Frazer is Madeline’s Cluster 7:
However, Kathy has Lyall coded as yellow which is Crowley.
Madeline’s Clusters at 27 cM
Ancestry’s shared matches go down to 20 cM, so 27 cM is about halfway down from 35 cM. Kathy shows some possible Frazer connection in Clusters 5, 8 and 9.
Madeline’s 20 cM Clusters
This is the lowest level Ancestry has Shared Matches. The Shared Clustering Program calls this ‘all visible shared matches’. At this level, Madeline has 45 Shared Clusters. Now Madeline has some clusters with identified Frazer common ancestors:
One thing I notice is that the clusters with Frazer common ancestors don’t have affiliated clusters. That is the last column before the colored columns. The other observation is that the Cluster 8 Frazer is separated from the Frazers at the bottom of the list in Clusters 38 and 40.
Madeline’s Cluster 8 match is Clyde:
I see that I also have access to Toni’s AncestryDNA matches. In order to see this tree from the sides of the three brothers (William Fitzgerald, Edward Wynn and Thomas Henry Frazer, it would be a good idea to look at Toni’s shared clusters also. However, due to changes at AncestryDNA, it has been difficult to download to Shared Clustering lately, so this third analysis may have to wait.
More on Cluster 8 and David
David from Cluster 8 has a Fraser in his ancestry, so let’s take a look:
Hopefully this is more than a coincidence. I’ll see if I can build out David’s tree. According to the 1930 Census,
Keith’s father was from Canada and mother from Ohio.
Further, I see from the 1910 Census, that Augusta’s parents were from Ireland. That means I may have been on the wrong track with the Fraser lead:
It turns out that the Wilson side was from Ireland also:
The clusters are easy, but the genealogy is a pain. I did find this information at Ancestry, but I don’t know if it is accurate:
This family would have been in an area of County Roscommon that would not have been too far from where the Frazers lived.
Gerald From Cluster 8
Gerald is the only other match from Cluster 8. I notice that Gerald has Michigan ancestry which makes me curious.. That means that I get to build out Gerald’s tree. Fortunately, I don’t enjoy watching TV much. This is what Gerald has:
That means in Madeline’s Cluster 8, we see 100% of the matches have trees. Here is where I got with Gerald’s tree:
The paternal side seemed to be going to French names, so I looked at the maternal side and found Gertrude Dwignan. This sounds like the Duigan that I found above.
Here is Getrude “Dwignan” in the 1900 Census:
Things get a little complicated with the extended family. Gertrude is living in her husband’s mother’s house. There is a boarder named William Duignan also living in the house who is likely Gertrude’s brother.
Here is Gertrude in 1880:
We see Gertrude’s brother William and her father John also. Unfortunately, her father was a widower at age 30. You may recognize Augusta from the previous genealogy I did above.
That leads me to this tree:
I have seen Henry Fry from a marriage certificate. I have seen Abigail Knott in many trees, but I have not verified that. However, my assumption is that Madeline’s Cluster 8 goes back to the Knott name. Here is one Archibald Frazer who married a Knott:
All this to say that it appears that Cluster 8 could be a Knott Cluster. I notice that Clyde who matches Madeline from Cluster 8 has a William Knott who married Elizabeth Knott in her tree also – though not as a direct ancestor.
Taking Shared Clustering Down to 6 cM
This doesn’t add new clusters, but adds matches around the clusters that are associated with the clusters. For Cluster 8, there was not a lot of change:
Madeline’s unaffiliated matches above Cluster 8 are associated with Cluster 7. Madeline’s unaffiliated matches below her Cluster 8 are affiliated with Cluster 9 except for two matches. These matches were above 20 cM, so could have been in a cluster but they didn’t have enough matches. Again, Cluster 8 is not associated with any other cluster, so that makes me think that it could be an old cluster, perhaps going back to a Knott or other Irish ancestor.
Madeline’s Clusters 38 and 40
I had identified these two Clusters as having Frazer common ancestors:
However, as I look at Cluster 38, I see some connection with Cluster 37 and no connection with Cluster 36. That means that it would make sense to look at Cluster 37 also.
Let’s see what we are dealing with in this Cluster first. Madeline has two matches: SC and LC. From checking AncestryDNA, I see that these two are siblings. Here are Madeline’s ThruLines for her common ancestor James Frazer born in the early 1700’s:
LC and SC are shown above. My claim to fame in the James Line is that I descend from Margaret Frazer. I am also a match to CK. I am pretty sure that this is the line that Margaret Frazer fits into.
Some SC Genealogy
This is what SC’s administrator has for a maternal side tree for SC:
This answers a question I had as Kathy had a category for Catherine Matilda Fraser and mentions her a lot. Here she is above in SC’s tree.
Here is Catherine in Leeds, Ontario in 1871:
This shows that George and Catherine were born in the United States, which may be wrong. Here is Catherine and family in 1851 in Leeds, Ontario:
Now she shows that she was born in Ireland. There appears to be some confusion as to the parentage of Catherine Matilda Frazer. Ancestry suggests that her mother could have been Mary Wooleghan and that Mary Wooleghan’s father was Michael Frazer. However, I am not seeing an obvious connection there. The tree that has Mary Wooleghan has this:
From this tree, it looks like Mary is the daughter of Michael Frazer and Margaret Stuart. I assume that the intention was to have William the son of Michael Frazer and Margaret Stewart.
Claire from Cluster 38
I’m hoping that Claire will shed some light on Cluster 38:
I took a guess on building out Claire’s maternal side. I got a little lazy and accepted some of Ancestry’s suggested hints. On that side I saw three of Claire’s ancestors from Ontario:
I have that Fanny Bellows was from Beachburg, Ontario. Beachburg is WNW of Ottawa. I have that Crysler Cook and Susan Wallace were from Stamford Township, Welland County, Ontario. Here is Susan Wallace in 1851:
Susan’s father appears to be Alex ‘Wallis’ a Presbyterian from Ireland. Crysler’s father was a Baptist named Abner who was born in Canada. I see that Madeline has Wallace in her tree but she was on the Emmet side.
Madeline’s Cluster 40
The next and last Cluster that Madeline has with Frazer common ancestors is Cluster 40.
This is a fairly small cluster with five people in it. However, there are many people outside the cluster. Those outside the Cluster have a low DNA match below 20 cM which could mean a more distant match that 4th cousin. Ancestry uses 20 cM as its cutoff for 4th cousin and for shared matches.
Here is Gail:
By the chart, Madeline and Gail are third cousins.
NB and BZ
NB has the largest match with Madeline in the cluster (33.9 cM). She has a large tree, but unfortunately, it is private. BZ is Betty on the chart above.
DO and PO
D.O.’s tree is confusing because the tree opens up to one person who I assume is DO’s spouse. Here is the tree I get for the spouse:
I assume that the O in the DO is for O’Hair, but I can’t be sure. Here is the Henry name mentioned as a possible common ancestor between Madeline and Gail:
Archibald Frazer, Mary Ann Henry (?)
Here is what DO’s tree has for Anne Henry:
If the connection is with Henry, then that could mean that Cluster 40 is a Henry Cluster and not a Frazer cluster. Also I see Palmer in the tree which is also in Gail in Betty’s tree.
PO is one generation younger than DO. Here is PO’s tree:
This means that Madeline matches PO on POs paternal side.
Matches Affiliated with Cluster 40
From the small sampling of matches in Cluster 40, the common denominator could be Henry. Let’s look at some of the other matches affiliated with Cluster 40 that are genetically more distant.
Toni does not have a tree, but I have her in my tree here:
Toni and Madeline have a small match of 7 cM.
Madeline also has a match with SH of 16.2 cM. SH shows as the child of Walter Frazer along with Gail here:
Kay appears to be Betty’s niece and matches Madeline by 17 cM:
Going down the list of those affiliated with Cluster 40, I see WG. WG only matches Madeline by 7 cM. As WG should be Madeline’s second cousin once removed, this seems like a very small match.
According to AncestryDNA, this is the chance of WG being Madeline’s 2nd cousin once removed:
The closest shared match between WG and Madeline is Sandy. Sandy and Madeline share 188 cM. Sandy is in Madeline’s Cluster 16 where Madeline has a White and Burrows common ancestor:
Here is Sandy’s tree:
I see that I already made my own tree for Sandy, so I must have gone down this road before:
These ancestors have New York State births, so fit in geographically with Madeline’s ancestors. However, I don’t see the specific matches as I probably didn’t go back far enough in time. The name of Susan Price is interesting as there was a Susannah Price who married a George Frazer who was born in Martinsburg, NY in 1858. However, he was from a different Frazer line.
Remember Sandy is in Cluster 16. She is not in Cluster 40 like WG, but is related in some secondary way.
Timothy is next in the list of small matches above Madeline’s Cluster 40 that are affiliated with that Cluster. Here is his tree:
Here I notice a Mary Fraser married to Hugh McKay. I have come across Mary in the past and have built my own tree here:
Above is the paternal side for Timothy. There is even a photo for Mary M Fraser. I have that she was born in New York, but I think that Canada is a possibility also. The last time I looked at Mary Fraser, I was looking at the Michael Line:
However, I don’t think I made the genealogical connection.
Patricia is the 6th person associated with Cluster 40, but outside the cluster due to her DNA match of less than 20 cM with Madeline. Here is her tree:
The maternal side of Patricia’s tree goes back to a Mary Armstrong who was born in Manorhamilton. Patricia has her mother as Margaret Palmer.
Joanna’s Brother and Sister
Madeline also matches Frazer researcher Joanna’s brother and sister in the group of DNA matches that is affiliated with Cluster 40. They should be third cousins, but by the DNA they would be less than that.
One of Joanna’s siblings matches Madeline at 9.4 cM and matches four out of five in Cluster 40. The other sibling matches Madeline by DNA at 10.0 cM and matches 3 out of 5 in Cluster 40. However, it is not totally clear to me that the match is on the Frazer side. Note above that Patricia also has a Palmer ancestor as does Joanna’s family. Kimberly also shows between Joanna’s two siblings but does not have a tree.
SW shows this connection to Madeline:
SW is not on my chart.
I’m not sure if SW is the daughter of Sharon or of another daughter of Walter James Frazer. However, SW would be a second cousin once removed to Joanna. SW matches Joanna at 93 cM across 5 segments, which is about right for a 2nd cousin once removed. That tells me that something strange may be going on in the Edward Wynn Frazer line as Madeline has a low match with WG and a low match with Joanna’s family.
After SW there is a small match with WW, but I can’t figure out WW’s tree.
Below Cluster 40
Below Cluster 40, Madeline has four matches affiliated with Cluster 40:
Dean and Dot
Dean has a large tree, but it is private. Dot has a smaller tree, but I can see it:
Dot’s maternal side goes back to Henry. That was a possible spouse for Archibald Frazer born about 1795. I see there is some circumstantial evidence for the Palmer name also:
I’m too lazy too do my own tree for Dot, so I’ll skip that part.
Pamela and Christy
Pamela has no tree. Christy has this one:
A quick look at this tree shows Buchanan in common with the previous tree. Francis was from Belfast and his two parents are listed as being from Ireland.
Where Are Madeline’s Frazer Matches?
Madeline is one quarter Frazer, so theoretically one quarter of her matches should be on her Frazer side. As I saw above, it seems like some of the matches that are attributed to Frazer could be explained by matches to other ancestors. The problems seem to start here:
Madeline has normal matches to Mike, Charlotte, Kathy and Mary, but the match to WG is small.
At one step out, the matches on the to Thomas Henry Frazer Line are small also.
Let’s check WG, to see how this person matches others. Madeline has shared matches with WG:
David has no tree. NB has a large private tree. NB and DO are managed by the same person. BZ is the great grandaughter of Thomas Henry Frazer. It seems significant that none of Madeline’s very close relatives match WG – at least not at 20 cM or more.
An Analogy from My Own Genealogy
Actually the analogy is from my mother’s genealogy. My mother’s mother was a Lentz. My mother is one quarter Lentz and one quarter Nicholson. However, a lot of the closer matches are both Nicholson and Lentz, so it is difficult to separate the two. Here is my Lentz DNA/genealogy tree:
The Lentz/Nicholson relatives are on the left. The common ancestors go back to Jacob George Lentz and Annie Nicholson. The were born in the 1860’s. The DNA matches that are only Lentz have an common ancestor that goes way back to 1792 or three generations further back. It would be possible that Madeline has this same type of issue with her Frazer ancestors. However, Madeline’s situation seems a little different in that she has WG that she should match and doesn’t also other Frazer branches that should match more closely do not. But they do match faintly, so it gets confusing. Madeline could be matching on a more distant Frazer line or a more distant line that is collateral to the Frazers.
Summary and Conclusions
- The small DNA matches suggest that something could be amiss with Madeline’s Frazer side genealogy.
- However, she does have some small matches which suggest a match further back in time on the Frazer side or on lines that married the Frazers.
- Madeline has a very small match with her second cousin WG. If WG matched other Frazer lines, that that would tell me that his genealogy is right and that Madeline’s is wrong. However, he doesn’t, so that means that there could be a double problem in the genealogy.
- I had looked at Joanna’s line [Thomas Henry Frazer] in a previous Blog. I had also wanted to look at the Willliam Fitzgeral Frazer Line (born 1821) to see how they fit in with the other two lines, but there was a trouble with Ancestry working with Shared Clustering, so that will have to wait.