A New Frazer DNA Test on the Stinson Line

It has been a while since there has been a new Frazer test. With the results of Doug’s Aunt Rita in on the Stinson Line, the Frazer DNA Project has roared back into life. Here is the Stinson Line of the Frazers:

I tried to air brush out some of the last names for privacy. Doug and Aunt Rita are on the green line. They share 1,894.6 cM of DNA which is a bit higher than the average posted on the ISOGG Web page:

Note that in comparing those in the chart above, that they may match on the Frazer Line or the Stinson Line. However, in matching those outside this chart, they would be more likely to match on the Frazer Line.

The Numbers, Please

Now it’s time to run the numbers. I found a cool new tool at Gedmatch for doing this. First I added all the Frazers to a group.

Then I just had to choose that group for different analyses. Here is the Autosomal Matrix. This is like ordering the “everything” pizza. This Matrix has ALL the Frazers:

This is also known as the Frazer eye test. I have the Frazer/Stinson group in yellow. These Frazers are only in the Frazer/Stinson Line. Then, there is the green group. They are in the Stinson Line but also in at least one other Frazer Line. There are some good matches where green and yellow intersect, notably with Jane. These are more likely to be Frazer/Stinson Line matches. Where the green intersects with green, it will be difficult to tell if the DNA is from the Frazer/Stinson Line or from another line. The names in white are from my family. I recently had my sister Lori tested. Now there are 5 siblings tested in my family. Paul is a second cousin, once removed. Purple represents the James Line of the Frazers. There is a purple Jonathan and a white Jonathan. Scanning the yellow names from left to right, they match my family a bit more than the James Line Frazers in purple. There are a few exceptions where there are higher matches. This may be due to a match on a collateral line. Or this may be due to the effect that if a match is going to break through a distant relationship it can just as well break through as a somewhat larger match than as a smaller one.

Triangulation Groups

I like to use Triangulation Groups to sort out some of these families. A Triangulation Group points to a particular ancestor which should point to a particular Line of Frazers. The problem in this was alluded to above. That is, what if some Frazers are from more than one line? In order to somewhat get around this, I’ll make special note of the Frazers that are known to be only in the Frazer/Stinson Line. Namely, Rita, Cathy, Ros, Doug and Vivien.

Chromosome 1

In Chromosome 1, I see a Frazer/Stinson  Line Triangulation Group (TG). I previously had my brother Jon in that group, but that appears to have been a mistake:

Here is the what the TG likely looks like:

I say likely, as Jane and Michael also descend from the Richard Frazer Line. However, that would put the common ancestor as Archibald the father of this Archibald Frazer which would be a less likely match.

Chromosome 3

The next TG is also difficult to explain:

Here we have Michael and Rita, both in the Frazer/Stinson Line. They both match Prudence from the somewhat distant James Line of Frazers. I had to double check to find the match between Michael and Rita to finalize the TG. Here is a possible rendering of that TG:

I pulled Michael (pink box) off the Richard Line as he wasn’t put into the Frazer/Stinson Line on this chart to save room. This particular representation forces our attention to the parents of the James (on the right) and Archibald Lines (on the left above). However, a slightly later unknown common collateral line would also be possible. For example, Prudence has a Peyton ancestor. If Michael and Rita also had the father of Prudence’s Peyton ancestor as their ancestor, that would put the top circle one level down. The TG is sure. The interpretation of who the TG represents is not as sure due to holes in the genealogy near the top of the chart.

Chromosome 4

Here is a new TG with Jane, Cathy and Rita:

This TG is important because it is most certainly a Frazer/Stinson Line TG. I had to take down the Gedmatch levels to get the match between Jane and Cathy. If I were to map out the Frazer side grandparents for Rita, Cathy and Jane, they might look something like this:

As you compare Cathy and Jane’s green sections with each other, you can see that the Frazer overlap is relatively small.

Chromosome 5

In Chromosome 5, there is a similar situation with Pat, Cathy and Jane:

Again, I had from my Gedmatch download that Cathy matched Patricia and Cathy matched Jane. What was missing was the Cathy to Jane match. I lowered the Gedmatch thresholds and found a Cathy to Jane match right in the expected area between 73 and 76. Note that the Patricia to Cathy match ended at about 77M. The Jane and Cathy match started about 73.

73 is the crossover for Jane from McBride to Frazer. It is the number that Jane has in common with both her matches. Likewise, Patricia’s crossover from her Frazer grandparent to her Gray grandparent is at 77M. It is the number that she has in common with both her matches. So that tells me something is going on there (i.e. a crossover). The area between 73 and 77 is where Patricia and Jane match.

In reviewing my past work, I see that I had shown a TG with Gladys, Pat and Cathy in this area. To see that, I need to go further up my spreadsheet:

So let’s map out Gladys’ DNA from her grandparents. It looks like her match with Cathy and Patricia tell me that she has Frazer DNA from 54M to 134M. But where is her match with Jane? When I run a one to one match at Gedmatch between Gladys and Jane, I get this:

5 73,514,449 76,680,718 5.3 842

With this information, I’ll draw a revised Chromosome 5 Map:

It was a little tricky to draw this map. I think that what happened was that Patricia and Gladys share the common ancestors: George Frazer and Susannah Price. Notice that Patricia and Gladys have a large match. I think that match is picking up the older crossover in Patricia of George Frazer and Susannah Price at position 77M. Well, you can see I’m still working these things out!

Chromosome 9

Here is a new Frazer/Stinson TG at the end of Chromosome 9:

In it, we have Doug, Rita and Patricia. Interestingly, Ros, Vivien, Gladys and Bill don’t appear to be in this TG. They seem to be busy being related to each other on their non-Frazer sides.

Anything Else, Summary, Conclusions?

  • I found it interesting that Rita matched Prudence. Rita’s match with Prudence was a little larger than any found so far and Rita and Prudence are on the two most distant Frazer Lines of Archibald and James.
  • It is interesting to look at the autosomal matrix for the Frazers as the higher number indicate family groupings. Overlaps in the families where Frazer cousins married cause even higher cMs in the matches.
  • A focus on the Frazer/Stinson TGs helped shore up that line of the Frazers. In cases where a TG could be from one line or the other, the addition of a Frazer/Stinson only Line tester gave more evidence that those TGs were more clearly in the Frazer/Stinson Line.
  • I did some Chromosome mapping based on the TGs. The TGs gave clear indications of crossovers. However, it was not always clear as to which generation we were mapping to as far as specific ancestors.
  • Here is an update of the Frazer TG Matrix:

More Frazer/McPartland DNA and the Mush Move

Since my last post on the Frazer/McPartland connection, one of the McPartland descendants, Charlene, has uploaded her DNA to Gedmatch. Basically, the McPartlands have in their genealogy that they had a Frazer ancestor. This Frazer ancestor is thought to be related to the Frazers that lived in North Roscommon, Ireland. This relationship has been made more sure by the fact that the McPartlands lived near the Frazers and that McPartlands and Frazers have matching DNA.

Here are some of the McPartlands:

I am focusing on the green part as those are the ones that have had their DNA tested and uploaded the results to Gedmatch. The McPartland/Frazer connection is seen at the top where Owen McPartland married Ann Frazer. From this chart, we can also see that Charlene is a 3rd cousin to Karen and Chris.

Charlene’s X Chromosome

When I look at Charlene’s X matches at Gedmatch, I see something very interesting. Her top match is to my sister Heidi:

And here is how Charlene matches her 3rd cousin, Karen:

Notice how close these two matches are. Just to close the loop, here is the huge X match between Heidi and Karen:

The above comparison shows an X triangulation. This, to me, is proof that the three are related.

Here is a possible Frazer McPartland tree which could explain the above X matches:

For this to work well, the Frazer at the top would most likely have two wives. Margaret would have been born from the first wife and from the second wife. The other solution would be to have another generation between Ann and the top Frazer. However, that also introduces problems as the X Chromosome does not travel from father to son. That scenario would require Ann Frazer’s mother to be a Frazer which would mean Ann’s father would also be a Frazer.

Here is a late breaking update on Ann Frazer from a McPartland researcher:

Hi Joel,
Ann was born between 1818 and 1823 (1901 census age 78, and her death registration, also 1901, age 85).
The 1823 date seems likelier, since her last child was born in 1866, and she might well have personally given her age to the census taker, while with the death registration, we’re depending on her son John, with whom she lived, to give the correct date.
All the best,
This is good news as it would now not require the Frazer at the top of the tree to have had two wives. If the top Frazer’s wife was born in 1780, she could have had Margaret around 1800 when she was 20 and Ann in 1823 when she was 43. I could narrow that down even a bit further. She could have been born in 1783, had Margaret in 1803 when she was 20 and Ann in 1823 when she was 40.

Who Is the Unknown Frazer? By James Line Genealogy

One way to look at this is through the existing Frazer genealogy. There is the Archibald Line and the James Line. My past assumption has been that this unknown Frazer is in the James Line. But what James Line Frazer would fit the bill? If our genealogy is right, then the sons of James were born to soon to fit the bill of someone born around 1780
JAMES1 FRAZER was born circa 1717 at Aghrafinigan, Ardcarne, Roscommon. He married Katherine Fitzgerald in 1745.
He was a farmer.
Children of James1 Frazer and Katherine Fitzgerald were as follows:

  •       i.   (–?–)2 was born circa 1746.
  •       ii.   ELIZABETH was born circa 1748. She married William Knott.
  •     2.  iii.   ARCHIBALD was born circa 1751. He married Catherine Peyton, daughter of John Peyton and Hannah Wynne, in 1780. He was buried on 13 Aug 1835 at Ardcarne.
  •       iv.   PATRICK was born circa 1755 at Aghrafinigan, Ardcarne, Roscommon. He died in 1831 at Aghnasurn.
  •     3.  v.   MICHAEL was born circa 1764. He married Margaret (–?–). He died on 17 Mar 1837 at Ardcarne.

The children of the above were born too late. The only one who could have fit the bill is John Peyton, son of Archiald But he doesn’t have known Frazer descendants:

JOHN PEYTON3 FRAZER (Archibald2, James1) was born circa 1781. He married Frances Carlton. He died on 22 Nov 1865; aged 84.
Children of John Peyton3 Frazer and Frances Carlton both born at Ardcarne Parish Church, Roscommon, were as follows:

  •       i.   FRANCIS CARLTON4 was baptized on 10 Jun 1824.
  •       ii.   KATHERINE PEYTON was baptized on 20 Dec 1829. She married David Burns, son of Stephen Burns, on 8 Oct 1849.

The Unknown Frazer By Archibald Line Genealogy

By genealogy, it appears that the Archibald Line has more potential for our mysterious link between the Frazers and McPartlands.

Our genealogy has these four Archibald Line brothers born around 1780. That could put any of them as potential candidate to be Ann and/or Margaret’s father.

A Little McPartland Genealogy

Here is the 27 October 1860 Baptismal record that Joanna (a Frazer researcher) found in the Aghanah Catholic Parish record:

This is a record of the birth of Cath. Janam (Jane) [Mc]Partland daughter of Eugene and Ann Frazer. It appears that a Patrick Partland and a Healy were there and that the family lived in Annagh. Annagh is a very popular place name in Ireland. However, the closest Annagh to Dereenagan appears to be here on the shores of Lough Key:

Annagh is in the lower left of the map above. This is a bit confusing as one branch of the Frazer family had an Annagh House (or Lodge) in the Townland of Aughnacloy in County Sligo. To further confuse things, an Ireland Townlands website has Annagh further to the East and North:

It looks like my first choice may have been the better one. Here is a Roman Catholic Parish map of Ballinafad which historically was Aghanagh. This map was taken from the Leitrim-Roscommon Genealogy web page.

Still, I wouldn’t be surprised if there was another explanation! It gets confusing with overlapping parishes. I think that the Civil Parishes are equivalent to the Church of Ireland Parishes. The NLI website has Aughanagh Parish in County Sligo.

Back to the DNA

Above, I established that Heidi, Charlene and Karen all matched on the X Chromosome. It looks like my sister Sharon also matches. Here is how Charlene matches Heidi, Karen, and Sharon on the X Chromosome:

Back to Autosomal dna

Charlene matches Karen autosomally. They are known 3rd cousins. Charlene and Heidi don’t match autosomally. Charlene and my sister Sharon do match on Chromosome 9 from position 22-36M:

Here is Sharon’s Chromosome 9 map showing why she matches Charlene and Heidi and I don’t:

Lighter red is Frazer DNA. Sharon got a full load of that on her Chromosome 9. Heidi and I got nearly all Hartley DNA (darker red) on this Chromosome.

triangulation groups

With the McPartland/Frazer matches, I would like to focus on triangulation groups as they have a good chance of indicating a common ancestor.

Here are Charlene’s matches with my cousin Paul and my sister Sharon on Chromosome 9:

According to my last Blog, Karen and Chris also had matches in the same area. This indicates a common ancestor:

I have the Frazer at the top with a question mark as we are not sure which Frazer this is. It is quite likely to be a correct scenario. I base that on the combination of X Pattern matches and the triangulation. Although the match shows with Heidi, the actual match in this case was with my sister Sharon. Also note that Paul had no X match as he has two male Frazers above him and X does not travel from male to male.

The prudence triangulation group (TG)

Here Charlene matches Prudence, Chris and Karen:

#4 is Betty who is a cousin of Joanna’s family. From my last Blog, Prudence also matched Karen and Chris to complete the triangle. Here is Prudence’s tree.

How can we fit the McPartlands in here? Prudence is on the James line. Earlier in the Blog, I had mentioned John Peyton Frazer as a not likely person of interest. I’ll re-consider him here:

What if John had two other daughters: Margaret and Ann? They would fit in. The problem with this is that I have a baptism of and Ann and a Hannah already in 1823 that may fit the bill. They were born to an Archibald and a James Frazer respectively. There are many possibilities. One would be that the match is through the Peyton side.

The Anne above had a White mother. Perhaps Catherine Peyton had a sister than married a White and had Anne? What if the James above was an unknown James Line descendant? He would fit the bill also.

Here is the simple portrayal of my first scenario:

Here I just mushed the two trees together where this could be seen. In this scenario, The Frazer on the McPartland part would be John Peyton Frazer (or perhaps the James that I know little about). That would make Prudence, Charlene, Karen and Chris 4th cousins, once removed. Under this scenario, Paul and my family fall out from DNA matching as we are a generation or two below the McPartlands.

Joanna’s TG – Chromosome 15

This figure shows Charlene’s matches with Joanna and her sister Janet. After that is Joanna’s cousin Betty. Finally is my cousin Paul. The green section is not a TG as Janet and her sister only count as one in a TG. The yellow section is a TG. Paul does not appear to be in the TG. Is this showing us that Paul’s match with Charlene is on a different line than Joanna’s TG?

Time for my two family mush move (again for illustration purposes only):

This would be a scenario similar to the Prudence TG above (except I forgot to add the ?????). In this scenario the relationship would be 3rd cousin twice removed. This is slightly closer than the 4th cousin once removed Prudence TG scenario.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The addition of Charlene’s McPartland/Frazer DNA to gedmatch has resulted in some interesting comparisons
  • The X match between the McPartlands and my family gives a strong indication of a match along the Frazer line.
  • This X match has also been backed up by a four way Triangulation group between two McPartland families and two Frazer families (my family and my cousin Paul)
  • I used a new (to me) technique called the mush move. This is where in a TG I mush the two trees together.
  • Even thought the connection was not proven, it gives an indication of where the connection likely is.
  • In the comparison between the Prudence TG and the Joanna TG, it shows that Joanna’s higher level of DNA matches are the result of a likely closer relationship with the McPartlands.
  • The mush move technique is helpful in seeing possible links between families as well as possible problems of links between families.
  • In the beginning of the Blog, I was favoring an Archibald link between the McPartlands and the Frazers. At the end of the Blog, I was favoring the James Line. It seems like the existing paper genealogy favors Archibald Line and that the DNA seems to favor a James Line connection. One possible way to reconcile the two would be to have James (wife of Margaret) be the missing James Line Frazer. In that scenario James’ eldest daughter Margaret (my ancestor) would have been named after her mother which would have been traditional.
  • Perhaps more research will bring something to light concerning James Frazer who married Margaret and had Hannah in 1823.

The Frazer/McPartland Connection: Genealogy and DNA

It all started around 1850 in Ireland when Owen McPartland married Ann Frazer. Owen (or Eugene in the Latin) was Roman Catholic. Ann was from a traditionally Church of Ireland Frazer family. Perhaps this caused waves. Perhaps Owen and Ann had to go out of the area to marry. At any rate, this couple produced offspring and we have the DNA and genealogy to prove it today.

Frazer/McPartland Genealogy

I’ll start in 1901.

This enumeration is for the small Townland of Derreenagan in the North of Roscommon. By this time Owen McPartland has died and left his wife Annie with her son John and their young family. Annie is said to be 78 at the time, so we suppose that she was born in 1823.

Who were the parents of Annie Frazer?

This is a common question that genealogists are always asking. I have two candidates:

This is from a compilation of vital records from Michael of the Frazer study group. These two Frazer girls were born very close in time to each other. I don’t know much about James and Margaret. Richard Frazer born around 1777 was believed to have a son – probably the eldest – named James. Then the Archibald I have above was probably the son of John Frazer born around 1775. Both these families were from the Archibald Line of the Frazers.


Here is a map of Derreenagan -where the  McPartlands lived:

Derreenagan was in the historical Frazer area. Frazers lived in the surrounding Townlands of Derrycahel, Derreentunny, Shanvoley, Cleragh and Aghrafinigan.

Griffith’s valuation

This Valuation published about 1858 for Derreenagan is important due to the lack of an Irish Census for that time period.

Here we see Edward Frazer as the major occupant. Next to him is Patrick Partland who I take to be a McPartland. William Frazer was the only lease holder for this Townland. He and Edward Frazer were likely brothers from the James line of the Frazer family.

Here is the Griffith’s Valuation Map showing Derreenagan:

Alexander Frazer lived in Shanvoley. Edward Frazer should have the largest house in Derreenagan based on his assessment. I’m not sure where Patrick Partland lived.

McPartland genealogy: Shuffle off to buffalo

One of our Frazer researchers, Joanna, writes:

I have found a couple of baptismal records in Aghanagh Parish (Catholic records) Ballinafad Co Sligo – for Catherine Jane bap 27 Oct 1860 parents Eugene McPartland and Anna Frazer.  Eugene is apparently Latin for Owen.  Also a John McPartland – same church bap 23 Feb 1866 parents Eugene McPartland and Elizabeth Frazer – either she was Anna Elizabeth or there was another marriage to another Frazer in the meantime. 

A review of Ancestry Trees shows:

  • Mary Ann a daughter of Eugene and Ann may have died in Buffalo, New York
  • John McPartland (above b. 1866) had sons James and Patrick who died in the Buffalo. [I have mentioned a Patrick and a James above. Could these be hints for the parents of Owen and Ann?]
  • John had another son Eugene who died in San Francisco
  • Catherine Jane (Jennie) McPartland is the daughter of Owen. Her great granddaughter matches Joanna of the Frazer DNA Study group. Jennie also lived in Buffalo.

Here is a McPartland partial family tree:

The two on the bottom left have taken DNA tests. I didn’t follow the tree down on the right as I don’t believe that this line has tested for DNA. The bottom two McPartland/Frazer descendants are 3rd cousins to each other.

Now, the Frazer/McPartland DNA

I have previously blogged about the X match my two sisters have with Karen. Karen descends from the Maryann McPartland Branch of the family. Karen matches my two sisters by more X Chromosome DNA than her own brother. However, there is a reason for that. Karen’s brother Chris gets no X Chromosome from his dad Walter – only a Y. The match that Frazer descendants have with Karen is through Walter. Karen’s X Chromosome that she got from her father is the entire X Chromosome that he got from his mother Agnes. That helps to explain the large X Chromosome match between Karen and my sisters.

Above are Karen’s X-DNA matches with her mother, my sisters Heidi and Sharon and her brother Chris.

Here is the route of Karen’s X-DNA:

The red arrow indicates that Karen’s DNA from Walter is the same he received from Agnes.

Here is a possible way Heidi and Sharon got their X-DNA from the Frazer side:

Note that the route is a bit longer. Also it goes from Frazer to McMaster and back to Frazer again. Imagine that Margaret Frazer (circled in the bottom right of the image above) had a brother who had Ann Frazer. This could account for the X-DNA match between Frazer and McPartland. Another interesting thing is that Sharon got one X Chromosome from her dad which is the same that he got from his mother. Let’s take it one step further. My grandmother also got an X DNA from her dad which is the same X-DNA that he got from his mother. That should mean that my sister Sharon has a chance to get a large chunk of X-DNA from her 2nd great grandmother Margaret McMaster – which is apparently what happened.

Non-X, Autosomal DNA matches

Here are some of the other matches between the McPartlands and the Frazers:

Jonathan is Joanna’s brother. He is in a small Triangulation Group with Chris and his 2nd cousin Betty – a Frazer descendant. A Triangulation Group (TG) is a sure way of knowing that those in the group have a shared ancestor. However figuring out who that common ancestor is can be difficult.

In the blue area above, there are small matches between Karen and Chris on the McPartland side and Jane, Melissa, Charlotte and Judith in the Frazer DNA Study Group. Charlotte also has an X match along with Sharon, Heidi and Karen, tying the four of them together. It should be noted that some of these common matches may not be Frazers, but spouses of Frazers.

In the green is a larger TG between Karen, Paul and Sharon. Paul is Sharon’s second cousin once removed. That means that Sharon’s second great grandparents are the same as Paul’s 1st great grandparents: George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.

Finally, we see some good matches between Karen, Chris, and Prudence. Prudence descends from Edward Frazer who is believed to have lived in Derreenagan. OK, what was going on in Derreenagan in the 1800’s?

Here is part of the James Line working tree for the Frazer DNA Project:

This is quite a busy chart. Charlotte and Madeline both have X matches to Karen. Edward Frazer who lived in Derreenagan is circled above Prudence. Most of these circles go up to Archibald Frazer b. 1751. I’m not sure how Judith fits in. Probably through James Frazer at the top or a Frazer spouse’s Line.

I don’t have Jane on this Chart as she is on the Archibald Line – a different chart. I’m not sure how Melissa fits in. I had a note that she may be related to Margaret Frazer.

So, Where Are We?

The above genealogy and DNA have given a lot of food for thought:

  • My genealogy summary left me looking at two sets of parents for Ann Frazer that appear to be on the Archibald Line of the Frazers
  • The DNA matches seem to favor the James Line of the Frazers (Jonathan, Joanna, Betty, Charlotte, Madeline, Judith and Prudence)
  • If the match is through a collateral Frazer spouse, then that could account for both lines. Unfortunately, many of the Frazer spouses names are missing
  • The largish match between Prudence and McPartand descendants Karen and Chris looks suspicious given that Prudence’s ancestor probably lived next to the McPartlands.
  • Further, there was a Patrick Partland in Derreenagan. He could be the father of Owen/Eugene McPartland.


A New Tested Frazer Descendant: My Brother

My last Blog on Frazer DNA had to do with a newly tested James Line person – Madeline. My brother is on the Archibald Line of our Roscommon, Ireland Frazer Study Group. I had brought a DNA kit to my Hartley Family Reunion at the beginning of August, thinking to get a sample from one of my dad’s cousins. I didn’t end up doing that. So, later, I asked my brother if he would take the test. He did and the results are in.

Missing Frazer Segments from the Hartley Family

M MacNeill – prairielad_genealogy@hotmail.com has been mapping Chromosomes based on my family’s raw DNA data. That has shown that, on some chromosomes, even with 3 tested siblings, there is some Frazer DNA missing. Here is Chromosome 3, for example:


The bottom 3 lines are my DNA and my 3 sisters. The lighter red is Frazer and the darker red is Hartley DNA. In the middle part of the Chromosome, my 2 sisters and I only inherited Hartley DNA. That means that there is some Frazer DNA missing. My father’s DNA is on the top line. The cross hatch area shows the Frazer DNA that he is missing there because by chance his 3 children below didn’t inherit any in that area. My brother Jon may not help fill in this particular gap, but he may fill in some of the gaps.

Looking for new Frazer DNA from jon

What I did was look at Jon’s top matches. Then I ran those top matches through the One to Many Utility at gedmatch.com. From there I looked at Jon’s match’s matches to see if Jon came up by himself. That would be the new Frazer DNA. Jon’s top Frazer match is our second cousin, once removed Paul. I didn’t see any obvious new DNA with that comparison. Jon’s 2nd or 3rd top Frazer DNA project person is Michael. When I go to Michael’s match list, Jon comes up as Michael’s top DNA match. That is a good sign. Here is Michael’s Chromosome Browser matches for Chromosome 2:


Here Jon is #1.

It is not a large match, but the key here is that it is by itself. That makes it new as my 2 sisters and I don’t match Michael at that spot.

Phasing Brother Jon

Seeing the match above, it reminds me that I need to Phase Jon by Gedmatch. That means that gedmatch takes my brother’s results and splits them into the DNA it thinks Jon got from my mom and the DNA it thinks that he got from my dad based on my mom’s results. Before I do that, however, I uploaded my mom’s AncestryDNA results to Gedmatch.com. Her FTDNA results are already there. This is why I also uploaded her AncestryDNA results. The chart below shows the results you get when you compare one company’s DNA results to another’s or even a different version of one company’s results to another version of that company’s results.


Jon’s new results are Anc2 results. That means that now Ancestry is testing different areas of the Chromosomes. However, it looks like I didn’t need my mom’s AncestryDNA results after all. Comparing Jon’s Anc2 results with my mom’s FTDNA results still gives me more SNPs (426,923) than comparing Jon’s Anc2 to Anc1 (424,150). Now I’ll have to mark my mom’s Ancestry kit as research only at Gedmatch as it is not good to have 2 results for one person there.

Now Jon has 2 phased kits (maternal and paternal). My little side trip was to check Jon’s Paternal Phased Kit with Michael. Here are the results:


Next I run Jon’s maternally phased results with Michael:


They have a borderline maternal match. That means that Michael matches Jon on his maternal side as well as Jon’s paternal side. How can this be? The answer is that they probably have a very distant match or match in the general population. My mom is German,  but about 1/4 English also. Michael lives in England. The key for this project is to disregard this Chromosome 7 Segment match as it is not likely a Frazer match.

Any more New Frazer project DNA for Jon?

Next on Jon’s list of Frazer DNA Projects is Gladys. Here is Gladys’ chromosome 1 showing her matches with Jon and his siblings.


Jon on Line #1 doesn’t have a new match here, but his match is longer. Numbers 2 and 3 are my sisters Sharon and Heidi. This is in an important part of Chromosome 1 where there are a lot of Triangulation Groups (TGs). It looks like Jon’s Frazer DNA got a bit less broken up compared to his sister Sharon’s match in the area from about 182-202M on Chromosome 1 above. Here is MacNeill’s Chromosme 1 map of Heidi (#3 above) and Sharon (#2 above):


Sharon’s (#2) small match is represented by the right end of the lighter blue bar above. Where the bar changes from red to dark red, Sharon’s DNA changes from Frazer to Hartley. What Gedmatch shows above is that when his DNA is mapped, the lighter red bar will go further to the right than Sharon’s red bar. Heidi’s (#3) small match is represented by the left side of her 2nd lighter red bar.

Jon and the Everyone Comparison

This next image will compare the matches Jon has with everyone in the Frazer Project. I left out those with parents that have tested.


This is like when you order the Everything Pizza. The square in the top left left has the Archibald Line matches. The square in the bottom right has the matches of the James Line of the Frazer DNA Project. People with green matches should know each other already. My brother Jon from the Archibald Line matches Jonathan of the James Line. This seems appropriate as Jon’s middle name is Frazer.

More Detail: GEDmatch Matching Segment CSV

For the same people that I chose for the comparison above, I wanted more segment detail, so I chose an option called Gedmatch Matching Segment. This puts all the matching segments between all the people above into an Excel spreadsheet. While looking at those segment matches, I found a new TG that Jon was in.

New Chromosome 9 TG with Jon

Here is my Frazer DNA spreadsheet:


The first line is for 2 close relatives in the James Line, so the match may not be on a Frazer line.

Can you see the TG? It is difficult to see. The TG is between Pat (PB), Gladys and Jon. It is confusing as there is a lot going on there. Here is what Gladys’ Chromosome Browser matches looks like for her Chromosome 9:


Where the lines represent Gladys’ matches with:

  1. Bill
  2. Pat
  3. Jon
  4. Sharon

But remember I said above that the TG was with Gladys Pat and Jon. How did Bill get in there? Note that Jon matches Pat at 8.8 cM. Perhaps Jon and Bill match below thresholds. I lowered the thresholds at Gedmatch to see if Jon and Bill would match, but still no match. Perhaps there is another explanation.

First the TG we do have. And it is a beautiful thing.


Pat, Gladys and Jon had a double shot at being in a Frazer TG as they have Violet as an ancestor and James, believed to be her 1st cousin. We may not know which Frazer the TG is for, but we know that it is a Frazer TG.

Why isn’t bill in this TG?

Yes, why not? Here’s my guess. As you likely know, we carry a set of chromosomes from our Mom and another set from our Dad. Gladys, above, had a set of Frazer Chromosomes and Webber Chromosomes. Perhaps the match Gladys showed with Bill was a Webber match. There is a way to test this theory. Bill also does not match Pat in the area of the TG that we are looking at. In my spreadsheet above, Bill has a few matches with Pat but they are in different regions. Bill may be matching Pat on the Price Line. Note that Pat and Bill share a Price ancestor.

Another Question: Why isn’t my sister Sharon in this tg?

The answer to this question is easy. She should have been in this TG all along. In my spreadsheet I have that Pat and Sharon match at 8.4 cM. I missed the larger match between Sharon and Gladys.


By the way, of my mapped siblings, Sharon has a lot of Frazer DNA in her Chromosome 9:


Sharon’s Unrecombined Frazer DNA

Thanks to the results of M MacNeill’s beautiful mapping work, Sharon’s  lighter red bar on the bottom of the image above is all Frazer DNA. That means her paternal chromosome #9 did not recombine. She has the same Frazer DNA in that Chromosome that her dad got from his Frazer mother. But how did Dad get his DNA from his mom? My guess is that the DNA my dad got from his mom did recombine. That means that grandma passed down a combination of her parents’ DNA. That would be her paternal Frazer DNA and her maternal Clarke DNA.  What I know for sure is the places where Sharon matches other Frazers would be the Frazer segment of my dad’s DNA. That would be at least the 85 to 100M range of Chromosome 9. So my dad’s (maternal) and Sharon’s (paternal) Chromosome 9 could have looked like this:


That leads to my modified spreadsheet for Chromosome 9:


The gold is intended to stand for the TG leading to Violet and James Frazer. Note that a lot of changes happen around 85M on the spreadsheet. My guess was, and still is, that there was a change from Frazer to McMaster DNA at that spot for Paul and my family. Both Paul (PF) and my family descend from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. That would explain why other Frazers stop matching Paul and my siblings at that spot.

Hopefully, this image will explain it better. This is what Sharon’s and my dad’s Chromosome 9 could look like as it passed down to my dad. A generation earlier, in my grandmother’s DNA a McMaster probably recombined in there also.



  • Sharon should have gotten a chromosome from her dad’s mother and father recombined
  • However, At Chromosome 9, she only got her paternal grandmother’s DNA (Frazer) – so she got one long segment
  • My father’s Chromosome could have looked like the image I had with Clarke and Frazer that he got from his 2 paternal grandparents.
  • My grandmother got her paternal Chromosome 9 from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. Her Paternal Chromosome likely had a break in it at position 85M where her DNA went from McMaster to Frazer. This carried down to Sharon. Her paternal Chromosome 9 wouldn’t have had Clarke as this was her mother. The Clarke DNA was on my grandmother’s Maternal Chromosome 9.

So in Summary:

  • Jon is in a previously undiscovered TG at Chromosome 9
  • The TG points to Violet and James Frazer
  • Sharon got her entire Chromosome from her dad un-recombined
  • My grandmother passed down her DNA to my dad probably recombined with some of my dad’s grandfather’s Frazer DNA and Grandmother’s Clarke DNA
  • There is a stop in my family’s Frazer matches right at the point where there is a start in a match with my Frazer 2nd cousin once removed (location 85M). That leads me to believe that this is the spot where our match goes from 2nd great grandfather Frazer to our shared 2nd great grandmother McMaster.
  • Sometimes when working on a family DNA project such as this Frazer one, it is possible to find non-Frazer ancestor’s DNA.
  • Chromosome mapping is a big help in visualizing which ancestor likely contributed DNA to which descendant.

Bonus Feature: Archibald and James Line Frazer TG Update


I hope that I got this right. At least it should be generally correct.

  • There were a lot of new TGs that I noted in my previous Blog on the James Line side that I updated in lavender.
  • A preliminary observation is that Joanna and her family seem to favor Charlotte, Madeline and Mary more than Judith, Bonnie and Beverly.
  • This shows that all in our Frazer DNA Group except for one is in a TG. That is pretty exceptional.
  • There are 24 in the TGs. Each of these people averages about 4 Frazer TGs
  • I was an underachiever, as I’m only in one TG
  • The number of times one is in a TG is likely subject to many things including:
    • Random DNA inheritance
    • Distance you are to the common ancestor – the closer you are, the more likely you are to have a match
    • endogamy. Some groups have 2 or 3 Frazers in their ancestry. The Price group have 3 Frazers in their ancestry and the most TGs. Each Frazer/Price descendant is in almost 15 TGs each, though 5 of those are likely Price only TGs
    • number of descendants your common ancestor had. This will increase the odds of a TG as there are more descendants to triangulate
  • The 5 likely non-Frazer TGs are in a raspberry color and are likely Price TGs.
  • I have a note that the yellow TG could be for either Violet or James Frazer. I am leaning toward James as Violet descends from Richard Frazer as does Michael and Michael is not in this TG. James is believed to be the son of Philip b. around 1776 who was a brother of Richard b. around 1777.






Finally, Triangulation Groups for the James Frazer Line of Roscommon County, Ireland

Recently, Kathy from the James Line of our Frazer DNA Project notified me that her Aunt Madeline had been tested for DNA and would I look at the results? I will take a look at the results in this Blog. Here is where Madeline fits in on the James Line Tree. She is on the second row from the bottom and the 3rd box from the left.

New James Line Chart

Above, the James Line Descendants that tested their DNA are in red. So now there are 14 people that have tested. There is one person below Clyde on the bottom left that I don’t show. I don’t analyze the children of people that have tested their DNA because they got all their DNA from their parents. Betty hasn’t uploaded her results to Gematch.  As a result, I am comparing 11 people to each other on the James Line.

Let’s Triangulate

First, I’ll say that I won’t bother triangulating Charlotte, Madeline and Mary. That triangulation would only point to the parents of Charlotte and Madeline and they already know who their parent are. Plus one of their parents is not a Frazer.

Chromosome 2

Here are the matches that Madeline has on Chromosome 2:Mad Chr2

Madeline’s sister Charlotte is #1 in red. Notice a large match. Madeline’s niece Mary is #2. As expected, the matches are smaller and more broken up, but still fairly large. #3 is my 2nd cousin, Paul. He is actually on the Archibald line, but I believe that he and I have some James Line ancestors that haven’t been identified. Paul has a very small pink match with Madeline and Charlotte and another fairly small blue match with Madeline, Charlotte, and Mary.

I won’t go down to the pink level at this time but will look at Paul’s blue match. Even that is below the normal gedmatch.com threshold of 7 cM. In order for this to be a true triangulation group, Paul would also have to match Charlotte and Mary. And Charlotte and Mary would have to match each other. Paul’s blue match is at position 174 to 178M on the image above. We already know that Charlotte and Mary match each other in that region.

Chralotte and Mary match

Here are Paul’s matches with Charlotte:

Paul Charlotte Chr2

Note that on Chromosome 2 where we wanted him to match Charlotte (around 175M). he doesn’t. At least not down to 4 cM and 400 SNPs. This match does appear to be in Paul’s pink match area that we didn’t consider.

Just to make sure, I will see if Paul matches Mary.

Paul and Mary

Here there are no matches at Chromosome 2, so I would say there is not a triangulation group there and Paul’s match with Madeline was by chance. Let’s move on to another Chromosome.

chromosome 4

Mad Chr4

Again, the top 2 matches to Madeline are her sister Charlotte and her niece. #3 is Clydie (also known as Clyde). #4 is my sister Heidi, but we won’t consider that match right now. Here is how Cyldie matches Charlotte:

Clydie Charlotte

Unfortunately, there is no match on Chromosome 4. Again, there is no match between Clydie and Charlotte’s niece, so no triangulation at Chromosome 4:

Clydie and Mary

chromosome 5 – Two TGs

Mad Chr5

  1. Mary
  2. Charlotte
  3. Bonnie
  4. Judith
  5. Jane (from the Archibald Line. I’ll ignore this small match for now.)

Here is more TG potential with Bonnie and Judith, both of whom have a paper trail on the James Frazer Line. From previous testing, Charlotte and Bonnie match in the area of Chromosome 5 that we are interested in:

Mary Bonnie Match

Here we have our first James Line only TG. This means that Madeline, Charlotte and Bonnie all have a common ancestor. It would be tempting to think that this DNA comes from James Frazer:

New James Line Chart Bonnie TG

However, there are other possibilities. We don’t know the spouse of Archibald Frazer born around 1792. That could be area of the match. Alternatively, one of the genealogies could be wrong.

Next, let’s look at Judith’s small match. Here is where she matches Charlotte:

Charlotte Judith Match

Here is how our new Chromosome 5 TG could look:

Judith TG

Again, there are other possibilities. Note that Charlotte and Madeline are 5th cousins to Judith – assuming we have the chart right. Also, taken together, these 2 TGs infer a common ancestor between Charlotte, Madeline, Mary, Bonnie and Judith.

Chromosome 6

Mad Chr6

  1. Charlotte
  2. Mary
  3. Jonathan
  4. Janet

Here is the comparison between Jonathan and Charlotte:

Charlotte Jonathan

So this does not look promising for triangulating. I compared Mary and Jonathan – no match there either. As Jonathan and Janet are siblings, there should be no match between Janet and Charlotte or Janet and Mary.

Chromosome 7 – a non-James Line TG?

Chr7 TG

Above are Madeline’s matches with Charlotte, Mary and Bill from the Archibald Line. It appears that Madeline, Charlotte and Bill are in a small TG. Bill has a small match with Madeline right at the area that he needs to (from position 127 to 130M) in order to form a TG.

TG at Chromosome 10

Chr10 TG

Here are Madeline’s matches with her close relatives Mary and Charlotte, and her matches with her more distant relatives Jonathan and Janet. It looks like there should be a TG between Madeline, Mary, Jonathan and Janet.

Here I don’t even have to lower the Gedmatch thresholds for the match between Mary and Jonathan:

Mary and Jonathan

The match between Mary and Janet is slightly smaller at 9.0 cM. This is another case where Madeline has tipped the scales and resulted in another TG.

Chr10TG Chart

Chromosome 12

Chr12 TG

Above is the representation of Madeline’s matches with Mary, Charlotte and Prudence. Let’s look for a match between Charlotte and Prudence:

Prudence Charlotte

They do have a good match right where we need them to to form a TG. This is an important TG as it adds a new line:

TG12 TG Chart

On paper, Charlotte and Madeline are 4th cousins with Prudence. The Edward Frazer Line is well documented, so this supports the genealogy that links Charlotte and Madeline up through Archibald Frazer and Catherine Peyton.

Chromosome 15



As usual, Madeline is matching with Charlotte and Mary. The next 2 blue segments represent Madeline matching siblings Jonathan and Joanna. If Joanna and Charlotte match, that will be one TG. They do:

Joanna and Charlotte

Now, we need to check if Jonathan matches Charlotte and Mary. He doesn’t match Charlotte on Chromosome 15:

Jonathan Charlotte

Chances are, he won’t match Mary here either. I checked and he didn’t. This is why it pays to check each connection. From the Chromosome Browser above, it looked like Jonathan could be in a TG, but only his sister Joanna was.

Joanna TG

Chromosomes 16-22 only have matches between Madeline, Charlotte and Mary.

The X Chromosome

The X Chromosome can be confusing as the male only inherits an X Chromosome from his mother. The female inherits and X from both parents. That means where there are 2 male Frazers in a line of inheritance, the X cannot represent a Frazer match. That is, unless there is intermarriage of the Frazers. Just to show I’m not afraid of being confused, here are Madeline’s matches on the X Chromosome:

X of Madeline

As above, I’ll ignore the small pink matches. The first 2 of Madeline’s matches are again Charlotte and Mary. The 2 yellow matches belong to my sisters Sharon and Heidi. In the past, I have explained these by an unknown Frazer in my ancestry that is likely in the James Line. #8 is Bonnie. #10 is Clydie. This is an interesting match because it is almost 20 cM. Also Clydie does not have 2 Frazers in a row in her ancestry until before William Fitzgerald Frazer and Margaret Graham. This means that Madeline, Charlotte and Clydie could have a Graham in common or perhaps an ancestor of Margaret Graham in common.

Summary of the Five New TGs

Here is the summary of the new James Line TGs not including the X Chromosome:

James Line TG Summary

The numbers in the top right are the Chromosomes where the James Line TGs are. The names in the bottom left indicate the likely common ancestor(s) for the TGs. For simplicity, I left out the new TGs that had James and Archibald Line people in them.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The addition of Madeline to the James Line DNA Test Group tipped the scales and resulted in previously unknown TGs for the James Line.
  • Out of the 11 people, considered, 9 were in James Line TGs.
  • The newest member of our James Line DNA Group, Madeline, was in the most TGs: four
  • Charlotte helped form 3 new TGs
  • Even though Mary is a niece of Madeline and Charlotte, she also helped form 3 new TGs
  • Bonnie, Judith, Jonathan, Janet, Prudence and Joanna were each in one new TG
  • The 2 that weren’t in TGs were Clydie and Beverly. However, Clydie was in an X Chromosome TG. Beverly shows as a 3rd cousin to Bonnie and Judith. As a result, her relationships can be inferred through them.
  • These new TGs add certainty to the relatedness of those on the James Line.

Looking for Frazer DNA in All the Right Places

In my last Blog on Frazer DNA, I summarized all the Frazer Triangulation Groups (TGs) that I knew about. Since that time, I ordered a Big Y test for myself. I also wrote some blogs on the DNA of my wife’s Dicks family from Newfoundland. I used a more methodical way of looking for TGs with the Dicks family. Also I was able to conclude more about the TGs that I did find. As a result, I thought that I would take a fresh look at the Frazer TGs.

Summary of the Previous Frazer TG Summary

  • There were 11 TGs
  • 14 people were in those 11 TGs
  • Those 11 TGs represented 7 groups. Those 7 groups were 7 different Frazer ancestors – or ancestral couples that were born between about 1690 and 1803. These Frazer ancestors were mostly on the Archibald Line. However, one TG was believed to represent the founding father of the Frazers in Ireland. He was Archibald Frazer born about 1690.

New and Improved Frazer TG Analysis

This time I looked at some of the extra people that have been shown to match our group, but aren’t sure where their Frazer ancestors fit in. I compared all the project Frazer descendants in a Gedmatch utility called Multiple Kit Analysis. I downloaded those results into a spreadsheet. That resulted in 1280 segment matches between all those that tested. I have 27 testees in the current study. I left out daughters as their mothers (Charlotte, Vivien and Clyde) had the better DNA for analysis.

archibald Line testees
  1. Bill
  2. Pat
  3. Gladys
  4. Heidi
  5. Joel
  6. Sharon
  7. Paul
  8. Michael
  9. Jane
  10. Ros
  11. Cathy
  12. Doug
  13. Vivien
  14. David
James Line Testees
  1. Prudence
  2. Charlotte
  3. Mary
  4. Jonathan
  5. Janet
  6. Joanna
  7. Judith
  8. Bonnie
  9. Beverly
  10. Clyde
Testees unsure of their frazer ancestry
  1. Karen
  2. CA
  3. Jenn
  4. Melissa
  5. Stephanie

The Ground Rules For the Frazer Triangulation Groups

  • As I mentioned above, I didn’t include any children where the parent would provide as good or better DNA
  • I didn’t include siblings in a Triangulation Group. I used them individually, but not together. So for example, there are 2 sets of 3 siblings in the project. They would obviously triangulate with their own parents as common ancestors. Or if 2 siblings’ DNA matched another person in the group, I would not count that as a TG. The reasoning is that siblings all get their DNA from their parents and they are treated collectively as one person for the purposes of triangulating.
  • I did use niece/nephew to aunt/uncle relationships in triangulating. The reasoning here is that they are getting their DNA from different sources. I found in the previous study that I did, very often the niece would be in the TG and the aunt wouldn’t, for example.
And the answer is:

Rather than go through every TG individually, I will just give the final answer.

New Frazer TG Summary

  • Now I’m up to 29 TGs from a previous 11 TGs
  • Due to overlapping TGs in different generations of ancestors, there were 2 TGs that I counted in my previous analysis that I didn’t count here.
  • There are 24 People in these TGs
  • The Frazer TGs are indicated in green
  • Blue could be McMaster TGs – which is confusing as my McMaster ancestor had a Frazer grandmother
  • Pink could be Price TGs. The only people in these TGs descend from George Frazer b. 1858 and Susanna Price.
  • There are 5 groups of people.
    • The first descend from Richard Frazer b. 1777 (or from his brother Philip, but for simplicity, I left him out)
    • The second group descend from Richard Frazer b. 1777 or from Archibald Frazer b. 1778. These people have ancestors in both groups.
    • The 3rd group descends from Archibald Frazer b. 1778
    • The 4th group are not sure of their Frazer descent
    • The 5th group descend from the James Line of Frazers.
  • Note that TG01A is probably an Archibald/Stinson TG. This is because Vivien descends from Archibald and not Richard. That brings Michael and Jane (who descend from either Richard or Archibald) into Vivien’s Archibald camp.
  • TG01B is probably a Richard 1777 TG. This uses the same logic. Heidi and Paul descend from Richard and not Archibald, so they pull Michael and Jane into the Richard camp.
  • Other TGs’ ancestors can be guessed at using the same reasoning
  • Where there are people in a Richard 1777 TG there are not people in an Archibald 1778 TG and vice versa. This makes sense as people in those 2 groups descend from either Richard or Archibald.
  • TG12 is popular with 7 people in this group.

Highlighting Some James Line TGs

tg02A & TG02B – Paul, Heidi, Sharon, Jonathan and Stephanie

Jonathan had a small match that put him in the first of these 2 TGs:

TG02 Jonathan

Here there are 2 TGs, but they are difficult to see. The first one I didn’t have before as it required me to lower the thresholds for Jonathan’s match to Paul. So the first TG includes Paul, Heidi, Sharon and Jonathan. The second TG, I didn’t have in my previous TGs, because I didn’t include Stephanie. She is in the second Triangulation Group and Paul is out. On my first chart, I have these 2 TGs in blue as they may go back to my McMaster ancestor (whose grandmother was a Frazer)

McMaster Ancestry

TG15B – Charlotte, Mary, and Paul


Here, I noticed that Charlotte and  Mary matched. This was not surprising as they are aunt and niece. Also Charlotte and Paul matched. However, I wasn’t showing a match between Mary and Paul which would make the last link of the TG. I lowered the thresholds between Mary and Paul and found the missing link. In my master chart, I show this TG in blue as this could also be a McMaster match. This is combined with the fact that Charlotte has an X match with my 2 sisters. The X cannot travel from a father to a son, so is not a good indication of a male line (in this case the Frazer Line). However, as shown in the Ancestry tree of my grandmother above, there could be an X connection between my sisters and Charlotte to a Frazer via the McMaster Line. Paul would not have this same X match as he got his X Chromosome from his non-Frazer mother and no X from his Frazer father.

TG17 – Doug, Bonnie and Beverly


Here, again, I lowered the threshold and found that Beverly and Doug did match, forming a TG. I don’t know if Doug has any ancestors along the Knott line, but there are many other possibilities where these 2 families could match up including Archibald Frazer born about 1690.

Richard 1777 or Archibald 1778?

Here is an interesting TG. It is made up of Bill, Gladys and Jane. As far as we know, these 3 are both descended from both Richard and Archibald. However, look at the details:


Here it is important to note who isn’t in the TG as well as who is. Cathy and Michael match, but are not in the TG – even though they match on a segment where they could be in the TG. Cathy is the only one out of the 5 above that does not potentially descend from Richard Frazer born 1777. This means that the Michael/Cathy match would be on the Archibald/Stinson Line. This further means that the TG with Bill, Gladys and Jane is more likely to be on the Richard Frazer Line.

In a less likely scenario, perhaps Michael and Cathy only got the Stinson DNA and Bill/Gladys/Jane and Michael got only Frazer DNA. Or vice versa. The last scenario would be difficult to prove unless one group matched a Stinson who wasn’t related to a Frazer. Nothing is easy.

And Finally, the Puzzling TG09A-D

TG09A & B don’t look too complicated:


They look like the standard Bill/Gladys/Pat [Frazer/Price] TGs. However, adding in TG09 C & D:


It looks like there is a blue TG nested inside the gold TG. Then inside them both is a non-TG match between Ros and Vivien which is on a different line –  the John Parker Frazer (born 1827) Line.

A closer look at Chromosome 9: Sharon, Paul, Pat and Gladys

Here is Sharon’s Chromosome 9 map. She is on the first row. I am on the second row and my other sister Heidi is on the third.

Chr9 Map

Sharon’s DNA is represented by the top orange/purple bar. I show her with no crossovers. I also show that she received her paternal (top bar) and maternal (bottom bar) grandmothers’ DNA intact. Now Sharon’s Frazer grandmother got her DNA from her 4 grandparents. These would be: Frazer, McMaster, Clarke, and Spratt. Paul only matches with Frazer and McMaster. Bill, Gladys and Pat only match with Frazer.

Note that Bill and Gladys and Pat and Gladys match from about 1-90. This would indicate a large chunk of DNA that they inherited from George Frazer, born 1858. Then out of that large chunk, George got his DNA from his 4 grandparents. In this case, two of his 4 grandparents were first cousins, Violet and James Frazer.

Let’s follow Sharon’s matches down the list.

  • From 4-9, she matches Paul and is not in the TG with Bill, Gladys and Pat
  • From 38-78, she is in a TG with Paul and Karen. These 2 matches could be a McMaster match as  Sharon, Paul, Karen are not matching Bill, Gladys or Pat in this segment
  • From 18-23, she matches her sister Heidi, but this is a non-Frazer maternal match
  • From 85-90, she is in a TG with Pat and Gladys. Their common ancestors are James Frazer and Violet Frazer.
  • So, even though Sharon could have matched Bill, Gladys and Pat from 0-90 where they had a large match with each other, she didn’t. She only matched them starting at location 85. Something happened there. This is the precise point where I surmise that she went from matching on the McMaster Line to the Frazer Line.

This is how it could look mapped out on Chromosome 9

Chr 9


  • Sharon appears to have all her Chromosome 9 from her Frazer grandmother
  • Pat and Gladys match from 12-90. They are also in a TG which would indicate by itself a common ancestor of either George Frazer b. 1858 or his wife Susanna Price. As Bill and Gladys also match between 1-90, I could have shown the purple segment as going further to the left.
  • However, Sharon is in a a TG on a portion of this same DNA segment (see the red above).  That red TG identifies Gladys’ purple segment above as being Frazer and not Price. The common ancestors between Gladys and Sharon in red are James Frazer or Violet Frazer. I drew the red to the 100 mark as Gladys and Sharon match each other from 85 to 100.
  • Sharon matches Paul from 22-86. However, this match does not match with Gladys in the same area of her Chromosome 9 where we have established she has a long Frazer DNA segment. Sharon and Paul have as common ancestors George Frazer b. 1838 and Margaret McMaster. As Sharon and Paul don’t match Gladys in this Frazer region of Gladys’ DNA segment, the match between Paul and Sharon must be through the McMaster side. There aren’t any other options left. [See the chart below.]
  • Violet Frazer descends from Richard Frazer. As there are no other matches of Richard Frazer descendants in this [red] TG, it would be more likely that the common ancestor is James Frazer, Violet’s first cousin.

Here is how the red TG09D looks like on the Frazer Chart:


Violet-James TG

I don’t have any photos of James and Violet Frazer, but here is their house in Derrycastle (or Derrycashel) Roscommon:

Derrycashel House

My cousin, James Frazer and my wife were checking out the front doorway in 2004. Without the help of my Frazer relatives in Ireland, I would not have been able to locate this house.

A brief note on the importance of triangulation groups

In my blogs, I tend to put a lot of emphasis on Triangulation Groups. They are important, but especially so for relationships where we have little to no paper documentation. When I first found Bill as a relative, I had to convince him that we were related. I was only really guessing as I didn’t have definitive proof myself. Now, with DNA, we see that my guesses were accurate.

TGs have less importance where the relationships are known and documented. It is interesting that Bill, Gladys and Pat are in TGs, but whether they are or if they just match singly, they already know how they are related to each other. The same is true of Vivien and Ros in my last example. They are not in a TG with each other on Chromosome 9, but they know that they are related and who their common ancestors are.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My recent work with my wife’s Newfoundland side of the family resulted in many more TGs than I had found in the Frazer DNA Project. Many of those TGs resulted from Aunt and Uncle relationships. Armed with that information and looking at the Frazer Project matches in a more methodical way, I found many more TGs
  • I also found some TGs where there were 2 people in a triangle and a third didn’t match. By lowering the thresholds at gedmatch.com, it became clear whether the third person would match the other 2 or not.
  • By looking at who is and isn’t in the TGs, as well as looking at nested TGs, it is possible to make educated guesses of which ancestors a TG represents. This comes in especially handy when a TG that could be from more than one Frazer Line.
  • Only 4 people in the project did not triangulate. They are Judith, Joanna, Prudence and Clyde – all from the James Line. That may be due to the fact that the relationships tend to be more distant in that Line. Also there are no known Frazer cousin marriages in that line. One other person in the unknown group, Melissa, did not triangulate.



Summary of Frazer Triangulation Groups

Here I will attempt to summarize the Frazer Triangulation Groups (TGs). Not all the Frazer TGs in the World. I will be looking at just the Frazer TGs from this Project.

How to Organize TGs?

In organizing the TGs for this Project, I have a lot of options:

  • In the order they were found
  • In the order of chromosomes
  • By family
  • By level of relationship

And the answer is: by level of relationship. This perhaps isn’t as intuitive as by family. I would like to look at the closer relationships first and then those that are not as close. The reason I would like to do this is that the closer relationships are the most certain ones and the TGs representing the further out relationships would be the less certain. It is generally a good idea to go from the known to the unknown (or certain to less certain).

Unfortunately, I started out looking at level of relationship, but it seems too disjointed. I’ll organize this blog by order of chromosomes, but consider the relationship levels as I go.

Frazer DNA Project Participants

At a certain point, TGs are not needed. For example, I form a TG with my 2 siblings. The common ancestors are my 2 parents. Now if my parents were unknown, the TG would be more useful. Perhaps a look at the relationships that we have in the project would be useful. First, who is in the project? The core of the project are those that have built out Frazer genealogies and are related by genealogy and DNA. A second group is related by DNA and have a Frazer ancestor from the area of North Roscommon, Ireland, but can’t really place that ancestor. The third group is related by DNA but don’t even know of a Frazer ancestor or perhaps even an Irish ancestor.

We have:

  • 27 Testers – These are split into the 2 Frazer Lines of 14 Archibald Line testers and 13 James Line testers
  • 9 of the Archibald Line Testers have multiple Frazer ancestors

Frazer Chromosomes By the Number

Chromosome 1 – The Triangulation Super Group

I call this a super group for a few reasons. It was the first one found. It was very easy to find due to the large matches that made it seem obvious.

TG 1A: Violet frazer b. 1803 tg – Third Cousin level

This TG is thought to represent Violet Frazer who was married to James Frazer. I’ve guessed that the TG was specifically for Violet as she is the daughter of Richard Frazer and this TG is also in the middle of a Richard Frazer TG. She is my third great grandmother.

Violet TG

Here my sister Heidi (HHM), my second cousin Paul, once removed Paul (PF), Bill and his Aunt Gladys are in a TG. We all descend from Violet Frazer as well as James Frazer her husband. Each of these 4 people are related to the other three in overlapping areas of Chromosome 1. That is what makes up the TG.

TG 1B: The richard frazer tg on chromosome 1 (4th Cousins)

Here I have widened the net a bit to include others that are out at about the 4th cousin level with a common ancestor of Richard Frazer born about 1777:

TG 1 Richard

Note at the bottom, I added Bill, Gladys and Pat. These last 2 entries are not part of the TG. At this point, it is likely that other factors took over. One possibility is that this could represent the Price DNA that Bill, Gladys and Pat share. Note that the TG stops at 230.2 and the possible Price DNA starts at about 230.7. This is what is called a crossover point. If Michael or Jane were mapping their DNA, they could map a fairly large slice to Richard Frazer on this Chromosome.

TG 1C: the third TG at chromosome 1 – out to the mid 1700’s

There is yet another TG on Chromosome 1. This one is out to Archibald Frazer b. 1743 and his wife Mary Lilley. Now we have a solid chain of evidence. I have mapped my sister Heidi’s DNA to our grandmother Marion Frazer, b. 1894. We know Paul and our family have a common ancestor of George Frazer b. about 1838. We have a Triangulation Group identified for Violet Frazer b. 1803. We have a TG for Richard Frazer, her father. Then we go one step further out.


In this old TG, we have Jane (US), Vivien (AUS) and Michael (UK).

Jane Michael Vivien TG

I find this quite interesting. A few points:

  • How do I know that Jane, Michael and Vivien are matching as shown and not as part of the Frazer/Stinson Line on the right? This is because Jane is in the Richard Frazer TG as well as this TG. She is the bridge between the two TGs.
  • This shows that Michael, Jane and Vivien could have matched as 4th cousins (and probably do on the Frazer/Stinson Line) But on Chromosome 1, they are matching here as 5th cousins. This gets to the Frazer endogamy discussed in my recent Blog.
  • Note that Vivien’s 5th cousin matches with Jane and Michael above are smaller, indicating a more distant relationship. This does not always hold true as also note that there are small matches with Gladys and her family representing a 3rd cousin level relationship. A smaller match at a closer relationship can be due to the DNA crossovers that I mentioned earlier.
  • I mentioned that there is a sort of chain of custody going back to Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley. Now that we know that, there is also a chain of Frazers going from top to bottom. That means that because we know the same DNA came down, that the middle TG represents Richard Frazer and not his unknown wife. Likelwise, the newer TG represents Violet Frazer, daughter of Richard and not James Frazer who was Violet’s husband.

Chromosome 4 – Two TGs



Here is a problem. There are really two TGs here. One is for Bill, Gladys and Pat. The second has Jane, Gladys and Bill. Then there are Ros and Vivien who don’t appear to fit in the TG. The first larger TG is easy. That is just for the common ancestor of Gladys, Bill and Pat who is George Frazer b. 1858. The second one is more difficult. This is because Jane, Bill, Gladys and Pat all are believed to descend from the same two lines. Now note that Ros and Vivien have a small match to each other. Let’s assume that is a valid match even though it is quite small. If that is the case, then this TG 4A would have to be on the Richard Line and not the Frazer/Stinson Line. However, due to TG 4B, this could also be a Frazer/Stinson TG.

TG 4B – The Frazer/Stinson line

TG 4B is easier to figure out.


I have noted before that Doug (DV) has very few matches but he has made them count by being in a Triangulation Group. Also note that Michael (MFA) and Jane should be 4th cousins, not 4C, 1R as I show above. Here is how their  Chromosome 4 TG looks on our genealogy chart:

Frazer Stinson Line

TG 7 – Does This Represent the First Frazer in Ireland – Born Around 1690?

I mentioned this TG last month in a blog called A New Frazer TG and a New Gedmatch Tool. This is the only known TG with someone from the James Line and the only known TG between the James Line and the Archibald Line.

TG 7

Janet is from the James Line. Michael and Vivien are from the Archibald Line. I need to pull out the big chart for this one. Note that Michael descends from 2 Frazer Lines, so he is included twice.

Whole Frazer TG

Here is how the TG matches look on the Frazer DNA relationship chart:

A-J TG on Rel Chart

  • The blue matches are the 2 places where Michael could match Janet and Vivien. He only matches once, but we can’t tell which.
  • The match between Janet and Vivien is in red as they only had one known chance to match by DNA.
  • The area within the square are the matches between the Archibald and James Line of Frazers. In that box there are 13 James Line people related to 26 Archibald Line People. That is a potential of 338 matches. There were actually only 2 matches in our TG. That represents about 0.6% of the possible matches between the Archibald and James Lines.
  • The matches to the left of that box are Archibald line matches. The 2 blue matches in that area are the 2 places where Michael and Vivien could match each other.
  • The matches below the box are James Line only matches.
  • Michael and Vivien would be related to Janet by 6th cousin once removed under this scenario.
  • There is also a possibility that they could be just 6th cousins. This is because the box in the top left representing an additional Archibald on the genealogy chart was added to try to make better sense of dates. However, if that person does not belong there, the relationships will be slightly closer. This would result in the whole left side (Archibald Line) moving up a step with respect to the right side (James Line).
  • Another option is that these three may be triangulating on a collateral Line. That is, a line that married into the Frazers. However, as we are all descended from the Frazer line, I would tend to go with the Frazer option first.

TG 8 – A Double TG

Here is another case where we have a chain of custody so to speak. We will start with the newer TG, which in fact is not that new.

TG 8a with Bill, gladys and vivien


Here are the three in this TG on the Archibald/Stinson Chart:

TG 8A Chart

That was the easy one. TG 8B is a little more difficult to see.

TG 8B – Archibald frazer and mary lilley


Here I zoom out a bit on my previous chart. That previous chart is just the right hand side of the chart below.

TG 8B Chart

Look at all the chances to match by DNA. My guess here is that Paul is matching Bill from the left hand blue line where to the right hand yellow line. The reason I think that is:

  • The earlier TG that Paul was not in was through the Frazer/Stinson Line on the right.
  • Michael and Jane are not matching with Vivien. Michael and Jane are not in Paul’s blue line on the left.

Confusing? Yes.

Chromosome 12 TG – Back To the Richard Frazer Line

Here is a double TG also. TG 12A would have as common ancestors James Frazer and Violet Frazer b. in the early 1800’s. TG 12B is Richard Frazer b. about 1777 who was the father of Violet Frazer. So that means that TG 12A should only include Violet Frazer.

TG 12

  • TG 12A has Joel, Heidi, Sharon, Bill and Gladys
  • TG 12B has the above plus Jane and David (DF) from Canada.
  • Cathy, Ros and Vivien  have DNA in the same areas of Chromosome 12, but don’t match the others in this Richard Frazer TG. Their DNA is perhaps from another Frazer line or a collateral line (perhaps a spouse of one of the Frazers).

TG 12 Chart

TG 18: Back to the Archibald/Stinson Line

Chr 18 TG

Frazer Parker TG

That’s last TG that I see for now. This could be a Parker TG as we have no proof that it is specifically a Frazer TG. If there was another TG on Chromosome 18 to the Frazer/Stinson Line, that would prove that the TG above would have to be a Frazer TG.

Summary by the Numbers

TG Summary by Chromosome

This chart shows the TGs by Chromosome. GBP means Generations before Present. I used the people in blue for this number as they were a little closer to the common ancestors than the others. The cousin level used was also for the people in blue. For example, I am 2nd cousin once removed with my cousin Paul, because I am one generation further away from Violet Frazer than he is.

  • This chart above shows 11 TGs
  • This represents 7 groups of TGs as there are 2 purple groups (TG01 and TG12) and one green group (TG08) with overlapping TGs.
  • The chart shows that 14 people from the project are in TGs 45 times.
  • As expected, the people in blue are usually in TGs more than the ones that aren’t. Bill was an exception to that rule.
  • The people that have more than one Frazer ancestor are more likely to be in the TGs. Vivien was an exception to that rule.
  • The first purple group contains 3 overlapping TGs. As these TGs go back to an early Frazer, we expect that the middle TG is for Richard Frazer and not his unknown wife. Likewise, the later TG is for Violet Frazer, Richard’s daughter and not for James Frazer, Violet’s husband.
  • TG04A is not colored in, because I can’t tell which line the TG is for. In addition, I can’t tell if the TG is for a Frazer or the spouse.
  • TG04B, I can tell that the TG is for the Frazer/Stinson Line, but I can’t tell if the TG is for the Frazer or Stinson Line.
  • TG08A I can tell that the TG is for Archibald Frazer b. about 1778 and not his wife, because there is an overlapping TG for Archibald Frazer’s parents
  • TG18 I don’t have colored in, because I can’t tell if the TG is for Archibald Frazer or his wife Catherine Parker.

Here is the same chart sorted from newer TG to older TG:

TG Summary by Age

This basically shows that most of the TGs that have been found for this Project are at about 5 generations before present or at the 3rd cousin level.

Things Learned About TGs

  • A critical mass of testers is needed to form a TG.
  • TGs are formed more easily when people have more than one Frazer in their ancestry
  • For overlapping Frazer TGs we can tell that the newer Frazer TGs have to be for Frazers also and not the spouses’ lines.
  • An Archibald Line/James Line TG seemed improbable due to the distance of relationship of the matches. However, that seems to have been overcome by the sheer mass of potential matches (338).











More Fun Counting Frazer Relationships

Two blogs ago, I started looking at how many Frazer relationships there were. I looked at some of the cousin marriages and how that might effect the number of relationships. I proposed this formula to count the number of relationships

Number of testers minus one plus extra relationships due to intermarriage

I discussed the definition of a relationship and how it can be based on a common ancestor. Based on that, the formula could be:

Number of testers minus one plus extra common ancestors due to intermarriage

In the Frazer DNA project, there are 27 testers.

Number of Additional Relationships

The first tester I looked at had 38 relatives and I enumerated each of those relationships. I also checked that number by the formula and was able to find 2 mistakes that I had made. Above, I reasoned that the second tester would have one less relationship as her relationship to the previous tester would already be listed. Going down the line I used the same reasoning for each of the 27 testers. I added the testers and got 675 relationships. I then checked to see how many relationships there would be if there were no additional common ancestors/relationships. I found out that due to the cousin marriages in the first decade of the 1800’s there were 324 extra relationships in the project.

any questions?

I felt a little uncomfortable using that number after just trying it out on one person. For one reason, the person I used had no known extra Frazer ancestors. I thought that I had better try this on Bill, one of our testers. He along with others in his family have 2 extra Frazer ancestors. I was worried that I might be counting too many or too few. For example, am I counting Bill being related to himself? Should I be? Or if Bill descends from 3 Frazer Lines, then should I be counting each version of Bill as he descends from those lines and relates to everyone else? This would be something like taking all the testers (27) subtracting one and then multiplying by 3 to get the ways that Bill relates to all of them? 26 time 3 is 78. This is quite a bit more than the 38 I came up with in my previous blog. But then I would think that Bill should not be counting his closer relative 3 times.

Let’s field test bill

Here is the simplified chart I am using to check Bill’s relationships:

Frazer chart

I say ‘simplified’ because Bill is actually in the first blue column with me but he isn’t shown. In addition, my cousin Paul isn’t shown there.  Bill’s cousin and aunt aren’t shown. Paul and my family aren’t shown on the first yellow long to save space. Two of Ros’ cousins aren’t shown on the purple line. Michael’s 2nd salmon line was abbreviated but actually continues down to him. The group that isn’t colored in is the James Line. In the Archibald Line on the left, I needed the color coding to keep the cousin marriages sorted out. If this was drawn true to life, the colored area would be a lot more built out.

Ground rules
  • I won’t count Bill’s relatedness to himself as that seems weird. This mimics DNA testing also as you don’t find matches of yourself to yourself.
  • I’ll try not to count duplicate relationships that shouldn’t be counted
  • I will count each of the 3 versions of Bill as he is descended from Philip, Richard and Archibald Frazer and how he is related to everyone else in the project.
  • I’ll look for a formula to keep everything straight – and save time for future counting.

I have a feeling that I’ll be close to my 78 number above.

Bill from Blue Line (PHilip)
  1. Bill to Patricia – 2C
  2. To Gladys – Aunt
  3. To Paul – 3C, 1R
  4. Joel – 4C
  5. Sharon – 4C
  6. Heidi – 4C
  7. Jane – 5C, 1R
  8. From Richard: Patricia – 6C
  9. Gladys – 5C, 1R
  10. Paul – 5C, 1R
  11. Joel – 6C
  12. Sharon – 6C
  13. Heidi – 6C
  14. Michael – 5C, 1R
  15. From Archibald: Ros – 6C
  16. Jean – 6C
  17. Vivien – 5C, 1R
  18. Cathy – 5C, 1R
  19. Jane – 5C, 1R
  20. Michael – 5C, 1R
  21. Doug – 6C
  22. Patricia – 6C
  23. Gladys – 5C, 1R
  24. Carol – 8C
  25. Clyde – 7C, 1R
  26. Kathy – 7C, 1R
  27. Charlotte – 6C, 2R
  28. Mary – 7C, 1R
  29. Betty – 6C, 2R
  30. Joanna – 6C, 2R
  31. Jonathan – 6C, 2R
  32. Janet – 6C, 2R
  33. Prudence – 6C, 2R
  34. Beverly – 6C, 2R
  35. Bonnie – 6C, 2R
  36. Judith- 6C, 2R

So there, I’m up to the 38 minus the 2 times I didn’t have Bill related to himself.

Bill from first Yellow line (Richard)

Now I have to make sure I don’t repeat any relationships. I’m tempted to call this 36 times 3 and call it quits. However, when I get to those within the yellow line (Patricia, Gladys, Paul, Heidi, Joel and Sharon) I think I need to skip them as the descent from James and Violet Frazer is pretty much the same as from Violet and James Frazer.

  1. From Philip: Gladys – 5C, 1R
  2. Carol – 8C
  3. Paul – 5C, 1R
  4. Joel – 6C
  5. Sharon – 6C
  6. Heidi – 6C
  7. From Richard: Jane –  Now closer at 4C, 1R
  8. Michael –  Now closer at 4C, 1R
  9. From Archibald: Ros – 6C
  10. Jean – 6C
  11. Vivien – 5C, 1R
  12. Cathy – 5C, 1R
  13. Jane – 5C, 1R
  14. Michael – 5C, 1R
  15. Doug – 6C
  16. Patricia – 6C
  17. Gladys – 5C, 1R
  18. Carol – 8C
  19. Clyde – 7C, 1R
  20. Kathy – 7C, 1R
  21. Charlotte – 6C, 2R
  22. Mary – 7C, 1R
  23. Betty – 6C, 2R
  24. Joanna – 6C, 2R
  25. Jonathan – 6C, 2R
  26. Janet – 6C, 2R
  27. Prudence – 6C, 2R
  28. Beverly – 6C, 2R
  29. Bonnie – 6C, 2R
  30. Judith

I think I did that right. The difference was we didn’t count the James and Violet descendants again.

Let’s Try Something Different

Rather than go one by one I decided to look at all the relationships in a grid. Gedmatch uses grids for some of their comparisons, and it seems like a good idea. My first version of this blog disappeared, so I’ll spare you from some of the previous mistakes I made.

Relationship Grid Revised

In the above grid, I finished the descendants of Philip and started with the descendants of Richard in yellow on the left. I decided not to repeat the relationships between Bill’s family and mine here. That is because they are the same relationships and are from the same common ancestors of James Frazer and Violet Frazer that had already been counted from the blue section.

The last column is the sum of the relationships in a row.

Archibald Rel Grid

Above is the start of the (green) descendants of Archibald. I only colored the areas where there were multiple descendants. Here I don’t include Bill’s 2nd cousin and Aunt as they were included previously with the same common ancestors – even though those common ancestors descended from different lines. However, I did include an extra relationship between Bill and Jane and Michael. Even though the relationship of 4th cousin once removed is the same as before, this time they have different common ancestors (Frazer/Stinson vs. Richard Frazer). I had mentioned that relationships are defined by the common ancestors, so I am trying to keep that definition consistently used.

And the Answer Is: 704

Somehow, I got the number of relationships up to 704 from 27 testers. Here’s the handy-dandy 704 relationship grid that no Frazer Project tester should be without:

704 Relationship Grid

Poor Judith at the bottom has zero relationships. Not really. Her Project number is 39, so her relationships can be read from the top right. This grid is a little bulky, so I decided to take out Jean from the Archibald Line and Carol and Kathy from the James Line. They have all had their mothers tested. So technically, their own results would not be as useful as their mother’s. Here is what the grid looks without them.

Grid wo 3

It doesn’t look much different, but it gets the number of relationships down to 593. [The correct total is in the next grid.] With the 3 taken out, that makes 13 Archibald Line testers and 11 James Line testers for a total of 24. If there were no additional relationships due to intermarrying with this number of testers, that would result in 276 relationships. So the early 1800’s Frazer marriages resulted in about 320 extra relationships in our project.

Grid wo 3

Here I have colored in the matches between the Archibald Line and the James Line (inter-line matches). Some observations:

  • The shaded area is 11 by 25. That means that there are 275 ways for Archibald Line and the James Line testers to match each other.
  • If our genealogy is right, the relationships between Archibald Line and James line is between 6th cousin, once removed and 7th cousin once removed.
  • The triangle to the left of the shaded area represents matches between Archibald Line testers and other Archibald Line testers. The triangle beneath the shaded area represents matches between James Line testers to other James Line testers.
  • The relationships favor the Archibald Line (larger triangle) which helps to explain the number of Triangulation Groups as well as overall matches as compared to the James Line.
  • The James Line has 55 relationships counted (for matches just with other James Line testers).
  • The Archibald Line has 263 relationships just among the Archibald Line. That’s about 5 times the potential relationships compared to the James Line
  • I know that I have one other Frazer ancestor line, but I can’t place it. Is this all the extra Frazer Lines that are out there, or are there many more?
  • The James Line relationship triangle is all filled in. This is due to no known cousin marriages there.
  • The Archibald Line relationship triangle has people in it more than once and blank areas where I tried not to count duplicate relationships or one’s relationship to oneself.
  • These relationship levels are based on genealogy which has not always been proven. However, the number of relationships should still be the same.
  • It would be interesting to tabulate the numbers of different relationships per Line, tester, etc. This may also help to explain the matches that we have.
  • There doesn’t appear to be a simple formula that could get us to this 704 number of relationship matches. My previous formula was an OK estimate.
  • I haven’t verified every relationship.
Test driving the grid

Grid Test Drive

Here is where the rubber hits the road. I want to see if the grid works.

  • How many matches do I have? I add up my 2 horizontal Joel Lines for 30 and 22. Then I add up my vertical lines (#5 and 12). Those columns have 4 and 6 matches. That gives me a total of 62 relationship matches.
  • How many times do I match Bill? I have highlighted 5 relationships. Logically one might think there would be 6, but I eliminated the extra relationship we had under James and Violet Frazer. That is where more of the dashes are. What are the 5 relationships I have with Bill? The first is 4th cousin (represented by the aforementioned James and Violet). The second is Bill’s descent from Philip related to my descent from Richard. The third is my descent from Philip to Bill’s descent from Richard. Note that both these last 2 relationships also had to go through James and Violet. So why did I add them? I look at it this way. Do your parents have common ancestors? Mine don’t that I know of. So I descend from them once. James and Violet had common ancestors, so that is why I am adding those common ancestors as my common ancestors resulting in an extra relationship. Finally my descent from Philip and my descent from Richard connects to Bill’s descent from Archibald to form the last 2 relationships. If I’m wrong, you can sue me for breach of relationship.
Well, I may be wrong: more on endogamy

In my previous blog, I wrote more on endogamy and relationships. Let’s take Bill and me for example. Bill and I are 4th cousins on the face of it. We are also 6th cousins. The below figure shows 6 of our 6th cousin relationships. Remember cousins are defined by the number of common ancestors they share. Here we share the same common ancestors 6 times. It looks like 5 times, but it there are 6 combinations or relationships between Bill and me: B1-J1, B1-J2, B2-J1, B2-J2, B3-J1, B3-J2.

Bill Joel 6C

Here is Bill and me with our 4th cousin relationships.

Bill Joel 4C

I tried to point my line to James in the first match and Violet in the second match. These are not endogamous relationships but there are 2 non-endogamous 4th cousin relationships that we have through common ancestors. It may seem like these were counted in the previous example, but they weren’t. That chart was counting 6th cousin relationships with the common ancestor of Archibald and Mary Lilley.

As a result, it looks like I am related to Bill 8 times, not the 5 I mentioned above. Unfortunately, my relationships chart above, only has room for 6 relationships. Rather than revise my chart, I think I’ll just bump Bill and my relationships up to 6 from 5. I’ll make that 2 – 4th cousins and 4 – 6th cousins.

taking it one step further

Now what about my cousin Paul and I? We are 2nd cousins once removed. We both have as a common ancestor George Frazer b. about 1838. He is in the blue line and the first yellow line. Am I related to him once or twice? According to the Segmentology blog, it appears that it should only be once. Here is a screen shot from the Segmentology Endogamy I Blog, that I didn’t cover in my previous Blog:

No Endog

And here is my ancestry showing that George Frazer appears in my ancestry only once:

JA Frazer Ancestors

The colored charts I had above made it confusing as it looked like George was in my ancestry twice, but that was because I had him coming down from two lines. Those lines actually merge into [one] George William Frazer as shown above. The bottom line is that I should only be counting my relationship with Paul once. This would also apply to Bill, his Aunt Gladys and his cousin Pat.

So all that work and I only added 3 relationships. There are other relationships out there, but I guess we only count them for the purposes of endogamy and extra DNA matches.

Final? Count of 707

I’ll stick to this chart for now.

Final Relationship Chart







More On Frazer Endogamy

I had written a blog quite a while back (July 2015) on Frazer Endogamy. In the Archibald Line of the Frazer DNA Project at least, there were some Frazer ancestor cousins that married. This creates more DNA for the project and more confusion in figuring out what DNA came from which ancestor. Since my earlier blog, Jim Bartlett has written two interesting blogs on Endogamy at his Segmentology Blog site.

I actually started out trying to write a blog on Frazer Triangulation Groups.

As a part of writing about Triangulation, I tried counting all the Frazer relationships. This was not as easy as I thought.

Then I saw that I needed to understand endogamy better before I could look at either Triangulation Groups or Frazer relationships. In this Blog, I’ll go through the Segmentolgy Blog from December 2015 called Endogamy: Part I. I will insert Frazer examples in place of the theoretical examples used.

Here’s a simplified view of the Archibald Line:

Archibald Line for Endogamy

For example, it doesn’t show that George Frazer, my second great grandfather in the middle blue box is the brother of Richard Frazer in the first middle yellow box. Here are the Archibald Line testers from the Frazer DNA Project. Jean is the daughter of Vivien, so isn’t included here:

ALine Testers

The testers in the colored groups are in more than one line so they appear more than one time. That’s the endogamy part. Here is the Segmentology Blog’s Figure 1:

Seg Fig 1

This shows the case with no endogamy.  The chart has a lot of information on it. It shows how much DNA one gets from one parent (half). It shows how much DNA siblings share (half).  In every generation, the theoretical amount that is shared by you and your match is 1/4 of the previous generation.  In the Frazer project, a lot of our matches are in the 4th cousin or 5th cousin level. Between these two levels of matches, the level of average match goes from 13.75 cM to 3.438 cM. As many of you know, 7 cM is a normal threshold for establishing matches. Fortunately, these are averages and we do have matches at the 5th cousin level in many cases.  I won’t be using Columns 6-8 in my example.

Frazer Endogamy by the Numbers

Frazer E1 example – no endogamy

For this example, we will have to choose a match between Ros, Vivien, Cathy or Doug as the other testers descend from multiple Frazer Lines. I’ll pick Ros and Cathy. I have that they are 3rd cousins, once removed. Here is how they actually match:

Ros Cathy Match

Their common ancestor (Anc) is Archibald Frazer and Catherine Parker. I have to pick an ancestor for the example, so I’ll pick Catherine Parker.

Frazer E1

I tried to make this chart look like Jim Bartletts, but added in actual ancestors on Ros and Cathy’s sides. This says that their assumed ancestor Catherine Parker passed down 220 cM of DNA to Ros and 440 cM to Cathy. However, the amount that we share with a match is much less than the total DNA that we inherit. Ros and Cathy share halfway between theoretical 55 cM and 14 cM shown in the chart above. Halfway is about 34 cM which is pretty close to what gedmatch showed for an actual match between the two at 31.4 cM. Gedmatch thought that Ros and Cathy should be 4.4 generations to a common ancestor. They are actually a tiny bit further out at 4.5 generations.

Frazer E2 example – Two ancestors (a little endogamy) [e2]

Again I’m borrowing Jim Bartlett’s Segmentology Blog wording and adapting it for the Frazer Program. Here is Jim’s Figure 2 from his Endogamy Blog:

Jim's E2

Here he added an extra column and a splash of color. The example here has one person with a double descent from an ancestor matching or being related to another person. This happened when two second cousin married and had children. It is important to know that the A1, A2 on ‘your’ side and A on the match side above are all the same ancestor being matched. Here the same DNA gets passed down to all the children, but the amount that gets passed down to the children of parents that are related to each other is doubled. This has the net result of doubling the expected match also. The yellow represents second cousins that married. In our example, we will use 1st cousins.

For the Match Column on the right, we will need to pick from those who don’t have multiple Frazer ancestors. Let’s try Cathy with one Frazer ancestor and Michael with 2 Frazer ancestors.

MFA CR Match

Here Cathy and Michael share 16.7 cM on Chromosome 15. Their Most Recent Common Ancestors (MRCAs) are as shown. This is where it can get a little confusing. (I sure was.) They only share those ancestors in a non-endogamous way – that is, in the E1 example above. To get to the endogamous situation, we have to back another generation. Michael’s ancestors, John and Isabella Frazer married. They were 1st cousins, so their common ancestors were their grandparents. Those grandparents were Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley. Here is what I get:

E2 Figure

When Isabella was born in 1841, she got a double dose of Frazer DNA from her parents. This is shown in the net column.

Michael and cathy are non-endogamous Fourth cousins and endogamous Fifth Cousins

Note that there are 2 different things going on here. First, Michael and Cathy are related as fourth cousins through Archibald Frazer b. about 1778 and Ann Stinson. This is not endogamous as neither of those ancestors appear multiple times in Michael’s ancestry. However, because this relationship is closer at 4th cousin, the expected match would be around 14 cM as per figure 1. Here, the further out endogamous relationship only results in a suspected match of about 7 cM which is right about at the level one would even start seeing a match. If not for endogamy, this match would only be half that amount. So which match are we seeing? I would expect that it would be the closer 4th cousin match.

Here is a representation of the issue:

E2 FigureR

The left red line actually goes through the Richard Frazer box on the second row. The middle red line goes through the Archibald in the uncolored box in the second row on the right. This shows how Michael and Cathy are 4th cousins once, but 5th cousins twice by endogamy. What happened here is that the endogamy boosted the 5th cousin theoretical shared amount by 2.  In summary Michael and Cathy’s theoretical average matches would be expected to be:

  • 4th Cousin [E1] – 14 cM
  • 5th Cousin [E2] – 7 cM
Frazer E2 example (second try) – Two ancestors (a little endogamy) [e2]

While out on a training run, I came up with a better idea. I’ll take my cousin Paul, who doesn’t descend from the same group on the right and match him with a non-endogamous Frazer tester. That will be much clearer. Here is Paul from the Philip and Richard Lines and Vivien from the Archibald/Stinson Line.

Paul Vivien Match

They are both 5 generations from Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley. Gedmatch shows them at 4.9 generations. The chart looks the same:

Endog 2nd try

The path of the relationships is clearer:

Paul Vivien Chart

Perhaps, were it not for endogamy, Paul and Vivien would not have matched by DNA at all. Here there theoretical match would be about 7 cM (vs. about 3.5 cM without endogamy). Their actual match was 15 cM.

Three Frazer ancestors (a little more endogamy) [e3]

Here, we will take Gladys who descends from 3 Frazer Lines and compare her with Cathy. Again, we will have the issue where Gladys and Cathy will be 4th and 5th cousins. Let’s just look at the 5th cousins as that is where the endogamy is. Gladys and Cathy match like this:

Gladys Cathy Match R

Gedmatch has them at a little better than 4th cousins.

Here is our Segmentology Example:

Segment Fig 3

The above chart represents 2 cousin marriages shown in yellow. Second cousins marry in Gen 3 and then their child marries another cousin in Gen 4. This is sort of what happened in Gladys’ ancestry. She had first cousins James and Violet Frazer (also my ancestors) marry. Then their son Richard married Amelia Hassard who was the daughter of Ann Frazer. Ann Frazer was another first cousin of James and Violet Frazer. So Richard Frazer married his 2nd cousin. However, due to Richard’s parents being cousins, Amelia was his second cousin twice – or two different ways.

Here’s our Frazer E3 Example:

E3 Chart

I still have chosen the common ancestor as Mary Lilley (though it could be Archibald Frazer). I don’t have Gladys’ ancestors by name as there are 3 sets of ancestors there. The end result is that Gladys and Cathy should share a total of 10.3 cM through this 5th cousin endogamous relationship. Normally 6th cousins would share 1/3 this amount.

Where did the matching dna come from?

E3 Frazer Chart

There are 3 chances to make it to a total of 10.3 cM in the endogamous red line 5th cousin relationships. That means a possible 3 different segments of about 3.5 cM each. There is only one chance that Gladys could match Cathy at 4th cousin for a 14 cM likely match. As Gladys and Cathy match on one segment, I think that the match may be from the 4th cousin relationship shown by the blue lines above. That non-endogamous relationship should average a match of about 14 cM. Gladys and Cathy had an actual match of about 15 cM.

Two frazer ancestors X 2 (more endogamy) [e4]

segment e4

What has happened here? We see a situation where one person has ancestors that were 2nd cousins matches another person who has ancestors that were 3rd cousins. Looking at the 3rd row, those ancestors were A1 through A4. The catch is that A1, A2, A3 and A4 are all the same ancestor. I’m sure we have a similar situation in our Frazer DNA Project. One example of that would be Paul matching Michael. Here is how they match:

Paul Michael Match

E4 Chart

According to Gedmatch, Paul and Michael look like 3rd cousins based on the level that they matched by DNA. Based on our genealogy charts, they are 4th or 5th cousins. Above I show the E4 Endogamy situation. That is, Paul with Archibald (top box) as his ancestor twice is related to Michael (who has red lines going twice to Archibald in the top box also). Those all represent 5th cousins. In addition Paul and Michael are 4th cousins going up to Richard Frazer. I don’t show that as it would get too messy.

E4 Chart

Actually, the 5th cousin relationship doesn’t explain the large match. The 5th cousin E4 only results in 14 cM. Paul and Michael are also 4th cousins also, but it is not an endogamous match. The best I understand this is that Paul and Michael should share:

  • 14 cM due to a non-endogamous 4th cousin relationships with Richard Frazer as Common Ancestor
  • A total of 14 cM due to an E4 engamous relationshipe with Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley as common ancestors.

To show that Paul and Michael are not a fluke, here are some other matches:

Chr 1 4C matches

These are all project member in a Triangulation Group with E4 Endogamy and 4th cousin or 4th cousin, once removed relationships. As Michael (MFA), Jane, Paul (PF) and my sister Heidi (HHM) all have similar match numbers and are all in a Triangulation group, we can assume similar endogamy and ancestors for each. In fact, Jane was added to this group early on in the Frazer DNA Project due to the Triangulation.

Let’s move on to the next level of endogamy, to see if that makes more sense.

Three frazer ancestors; Two Frazer Ancestors(more endogamy) [e6]

Again, I borrow the figure from the Segmentology Endogamy Part I Blog:

Fig 5 E6

Fortunately, the Frazers also have this situation. We can use Gladys on the left hand side. One the right we have the choice of Michael or Paul. I’d rather use Michael, as Gladys and Paul are related in additional ways that might make the example more confusing.

E6 Frazer Diagram Gladys Michael

The above chart shows 6 endgamous 5th cousin relationships between Gladys and Michael. There are also two 4th cousin non-endogamous relationships between the two (represented below). One has Richard Frazer as the common ancestor. The other has Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson as common ancestors.

E6 Frazer Diagram

I enter Gladys and Michael in at Gedmatch at get:

Gladys Michael Gedmatch

Now that is a surprise. An E4 at 5th cousin got an actual match of 54. This E6, 5C match got only 7.4 cM?

E6 Frazer Chart

In summary, Gladys and Michael have:

  • 6 – 5th cousin relationships for a theoretical total of 20.6 cM
  • 2 – 4th cousin relationships of about 14 cM each

To satisfy my curiosity, I ran Gladys and Michael at a low threshold of 3 cM and got many matches at gedmatch.com.

Gladys Michael Low Threshold

I expect the matches above 6 may be valid. The Chromosome 1 match is in a defined Triangulation Group (TG) with the common ancestor of Richard Frazer. The Chromosome 7 match is in an area where there is already a match with Vivien of our project. She has as her ancestor Archibald Frazer and Ann Stinson. So the Chromosome 7 match above likely represents those common ancestors. The Chromosome 15 and 17 matches over 6 cM also likely represent the Frazer/Stinson Line. All this is to say at the 8 potential relationships we showed above for Gladys and Michael, we can find DNA evidence for 4 DNA matches.

So that is enough on Frazer endogamy for now.

Some notes and summaries
  • Endogamy from the Archibald Line of the Frazer project account for many additional relationships and chances for DNA matching
  • The theory of endogamy as set out in the Segmentology blog seems to be consistent with the Frazer relationships and DNA matches
  • One set of matches that endogamy did not account for was the many high Frazer matches that also form a Triangulation Group in Chromosome 1. These actual DNA matches were well above what would have been predicted
  • By lowering the gedmatch thresholds, it may be possible to see additional endogamous matches where they were predicted by additional endogamous relationships
  • These extra endogamous relationships seem to be responsible for the many Triangulation Groups in the Frazer DNA Project
  • This exercise reinforces that relationships are based on Common Ancestors.
  • This Blog has also helped to sort out some confusing relationships and clear up which relationships are endogamous and which ones aren’t – and at what level of cousin-ship they are at.












Counting Frazer Cousins: Who Knew It Could Be So Difficult?

I started out writing a blog summarizing all the Frazer Triangulation Groups (TGs) in a Frazer DNA Project. In order to look at these TGs, I thought that it would make sense to figure out how many relationships there are in the Frazer DNA Project. Who knew it could be so difficult? The problem is that there are 3 testers that appear to have a least two Frazer cousins that married each other in their ancestry. There are 3 testers that are descended from 3 related Frazer Lines.

Here are some ancestors of some of the Frazer cousins I am counting:


A Brief Summary

The project is broken up into 2 Frazer Lines: The Archibald Line and the James Line. These are 2 very likely brothers that were living in proximity to each other in North Roscommon, Ireland at the time of the Elphin Census in 1749. The Archibald Line has descendants that have the cousin ancestors. The James Line does not have any known cousin marriages. There are 14 testers from the Archibald Line and 13 from the James Line for a total of 27 testers. Here is a view of some of the Archibald Line:

Archibald Frazer Line Chart

The Problem

Bill (along with his aunt and second cousin who have tested) is descended from the blue line and the 2 yellow lines. That means he descends from 3 Frazer brothers: Philip, Richard and Archibald. Here are the testers with multiple Frazer ancestors:

Multiple Frazer Ancestors

I added in Archibald at the top to show that he is the father of Philip, Richard and Archibald.

The Answer I Came Up With

When in doubt, I go to the ISOGG Web Page. According to the ISOGG Page on Cousin:

“A cousin is a relative with whom a person shares one or more common ancestors.”

There you have it. I was tempted to count the relationships more than once as my cousin Paul and I were both descended from James Frazer and Violet Frazer. However, those are not common ancestors. The common ancestors would be the grandparents of James Frazer and Violet Frazer: Richard Frazer b. about 1777 and his unknown wife.

Archibald Frazer Line Chart Common Ancestor

The red circle is the point at which I start to count the extra relationships. However, this still seems to be complicated. Let’s just look at VO from Australia. She is on the purple line (further down for privacy). She does not have any known multiple Frazer ancestors.

VO’s Archibald Line relatives are:

  1. Daughter Jean (purple)
  2. 1C, 1R Ros (purple)
  3. 3C Cathy (orange)
  4. 3C Jane (green on the right) to Common Ancestor (CA) Archibald Frazer who married Catherine Parker
  5. 4C Michael (salmon on the right)
  6. 4C Gladys (yellow on the right)
  7. 4C, 1R Bill (yellow): CA Archibald Frazer/Ann Stinson
  8. 4C, 1R Patricia (same yellow)
  9. 5C Michael (salmon): CA is Archibald Frazer/Mary Lilley
  10. 5C Paul as he descends from Richard
  11. 5C, 1R me (Joel)
  12. 5C, 1R Heidi
  13. 5C, 1R Sharon
  14. 5C Jane
  15. 5C Gladys as she descends from Richard
  16. 1R Bill
  17. 5C, 1R to Patricia
  18. 5C Paul as he descends from Philip
  19. 5C, 1R me (Joel)
  20. 5C, 1R Heidi
  21. 5C, 1R Sharon
  22. 5C Gladys as she descends from Philip
  23. 1R Bill
  24. 5C, 1R Patricia

The method I used was to go up each line to a common ancestor. Due to cousin marriages, there were multiple lines for some people going up to Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilley. Bill and his 2 relatives come up 3 times as they have 3 Frazer ancestor lines.  Six others come up 2 times because they have That method resulted in finding 24 relationships for VO just on the Archibald Line. Then there would be additional relationships on the James line for those 13 testers. Having said that, let’s move on to the James Line

Is 24 the Right Number?

Sometimes I like to check my work. With 14 testers, there should be 13 relationships as you are not related to yourself. In my chart of multiple relationships, I had 21 relationships with 9 people. That should be an additional 12 relationsips. 13 + 12 = 25. I seem to be missing one. I went through my list again, and see I missed Doug. Sorry, Doug. That makes the total 25. Always check your work.

VO is 4C, 1R to Doug

The premise still stands: Who knew it could be so difficult to count relatives? The Chart I was looking at above was made before Doug tested. I need to add him in there.

James Line Relatives

There are a couple of problems here. One person has pointed out that the James Line Chart that I have been using is inaccurate. No chart is perfect, so I use it as a working model. As more testing and analysis is done, as well as more genealogy, there may be minor or major adjustments made to the chart. There is also something on the Archibald Line Chart that effects the relationships. Note in the colored chart that above Archibald and Mary Lilley there is is another Archibald. This Archibald wasn’t there in the original research done 50 or so years ago. My understanding is that he was added more recently to make more sense with the dates. But if that Archibald doesn’t belong there, it would make the relationships between the two lines closer. All this is to say that there are a lot of variables in comparing DNA to genealogy.

Here is the James Line Chart:

James Line

In the above chart, there is hot dispute as to whether Archibald who married Catherine Knott should be under Michael or rather under the Archibald that married Catherine Peyton. However, with regards to VO from the Archibald Line and her level of relationships with testers from the James Line, these specific issues should not be so important.

VO and her James Line Relationships

I use VO from the Archibald Line of the Frazer DNA Project to continue the example. I am keeping the ‘extra’ Archibald on the Archibald Line that was added to make sense with the dates. Without him, the relationships will be a little closer and move all the relationships up half a step. I wonder if perhaps that extra Archibald should not be there. That might help explain the number of DNA matches between the two lines. Or are the number of matches between the two lines due to the cousin relationships on the Archibald Line? Or perhaps both reasons apply?

James Line matches to VO:

6C, 1R (6C if we take out the added Archibald on the Archibald Line)

  1. Charlotte
  2. Betty
  3. Joanna
  4. Janet
  5. Jonathan
  6. Beverly
  7. Bonnie
  8. Judith

7C (Or possibly 6C, 1R – see above)

  1. Clyde
  2. Kathy – as a daughter of Charlotte, her DNA results don’t get used
  3. Mary

7C, 1R

  1. Carol – as a daughter of Clyde, her DNA results don’t get used

The Grand Total

I get a total of 37 relationships for VO from Australia (25 Archibald Line plus 12 Archibald Line). Recall that she is just one of 27 Project testers. Hopefully, all the testers will not have 37 relationships.  I chose VO somewhat randomly, but she was a good choice. I mention her in 2 of my fairly recent blogs

Note that Triangulation Groups came up in both the above blogs about VO. So VO (or less impersonally, Vivien) will be mentioned in my upcoming blog when I discuss all the Frazer DNA Project Triangulation Groups.

Rechecking the James Line

As I said above, always check. There are 13 James Line testers, so there have to be 13 relationships there. I missed Prudence at 6C, 1R. That means we are up to a total of 25 Archibald relationships and 13 James Line Relationships for Vivien for a total of 38. Note that the effect of intermarriage increases the number of effective relationships by a factor of almost 2 in the Archibald Line (25 vs. 13).

In formula form the total is:

Number of testers minus one plus extra relationships due to intermarriage


That is my final answer (until proven wrong).