BigY Update On R1a Frazers

The Frazers originating from North Roscommon, Ireland are R1a in YDNA terms. That makes them a bit of an oddball compared to other Frazers. Most other Frazers spell their name Fraser and are R1b. Our Frazer branch is L664 under R1a. That group of people lived around the North Sea according to the L664 YDNA Project administrator.

That means that at some time our Frazer ancestors probably moved from the Netherlands or Germany up to Denmark or Norway and then over to Scotland. Or they may have gone directly to Scotland or up through the England. We don’t know. We do know that this probably happened before the time when surnames were used. Once in the area of present day Scotland, they mixed with the earlier Britains who were R1b. Perhaps this is the area where they lived when they took on the Fraser/Frazer name:

The map above shows Fraser, Chisolm, Grant and Stewart. All these names have been found to be related to Frazer by YDNA. Hayes is also related by YDNA, but I think Hayes may actually be a Grant around the year 1600 or after. Here is a closeup of the Fraser Lands in 1587, showing proximity to the Chisolm and Grant Lands:

Stewart Update

In my previous Blog on BigY, I had drawn a STR tree without Stewart. Here is the new one with him included:

Stewart/Stuart is in red above. He is important, because his STR signature is the same as the common ancestor for Grant, Hayes and Stewart. If I had room, I would draw another line to the bottom of the page with Stewart showing no STR changes. Here is Stewart added to the SNP Tree:

The Stewart on the chart has expressed interest in BigY testing, so there should be more updates to come.

Grant Update

I was pleasantly surprised to see the results of a recent Grant BigY test. In the SNP tree above, the bolded names have taken the BigY, so I will need to update Grant. In my STR tree, I had two Grants. The one that took the BigY test had his most distant ancestor as:

James GRANT “of Carron”, 1728 – 1790

Here is my STR update for Grant of Carron. All I did was make it more clear which Grant was which:

Grant of carron BigY

The Grant BigY test threw me off a bit as the results showed that he was one SNP away from Paul and Jonathan. Usually, I am looking for a zero SNP difference. Grant of Carron shows a L1012 SNP that Paul and Jonathan do not have. Unfortunately, I don’t know why that is the case. Also I don’t know much about the L1012 SNP. It could be that the L1012 SNP was tested in error, or that Paul and Jonathan should have that SNP or that the L1012 SNP is branching below the green box where I have Grant on my SNP tree. The last option does not seem likely as I don’t have named SNPs in the green box, so there shouldn’t be named SNPs below the box.

Grant matched Paul and Jonathan on Variant 23614618. However, Hayes did not match on that variant. That could lead to this tree:

This change pointed out an earlier mistake I had made. I had 23619535 in the Archibald Line and in the orange box. I should have had 23614618 in the orange box. At any rate, that variant is now moved up to the Frazer/Grant mustard colored box. Another option would have been to move 23614618  to the green box of Hayes, Grant and Stewart. This would be assuming that Hayes should have been positive for 23614618 but had a poor test result. All these trees are preliminary until I wait for the R1a Administrators to come up with a more official tree. Another option would be to wait for the YFull analysis. However, that is dependent upon testers using their service. At any rate, it is good to have fewer SNPs in the orange box as we are bumping up against a likely Frazer date of 1690. The final change in the SNP Tree has to do with Chisolm. We don’t have a BigY for this YDNA relative. That means I don’t know if Chisolm goes with the mustard box or the orange one. I’ll leave him with the orange right now as there are so many SNPs there.

Summary and What’s Next

  • I have added Stewart to my SNP Tree and STR Tree
  • A BigY Test for Grant pointed out a mistake I made earlier for one of the variants on my proposed tree
  • The Grant BigY results may result in a small node where the Grants and Frazers had a common ancestor.
  • Once the R1a and L664 administrators are done with their analysis, I would like to see three or four levels below the official level of R-YP432 for Frazer. These would include branching for Hayes and Grant also.
  • I’m a bit unsure of Patton. He tested positive for R-YP5515 but is missing some of the other variants that are seen in other BigY results. However, that would not make a difference in the overall structure of the SNP Tree.
  • I am looking forward to a BigY test for the Stewart/Stuart in the group.

More On Early Butlers In the US

In my previous Blog on the subject, I noted how two Cincinnati Butler families were connected by DNA. These were the George Butler family and the Edward Butler family. Edward Butler is an ancestor of my wife. Since then, with the help of Peter Butler, I have expanded the George Butler tree a little. Now it looks like this side by side with the Edward Butler tree.

Previously, I was hoping that Edward and George were brothers and that they would have the same fathers. However, that now does not look likely. However, it could be that George and Edward were first cousins. If that is the case, that would make Lorraine, Richard and Virginia 4th cousins to Pat and 4th cousins twice removed to Uncle Naffy.

DNA Connections Between the George and Edward Butler Families

The tree above is pared down to include only those in lines that have had their DNA tested. Uncle Naffy tested at FTDNA and uploaded his results to Gedmatch. Lorraine, Richard and Virginia are also at Gedmatch, but Uncle Naffy matches only Richard and Lorraine. Here is the Uncle Naffy’s match with Richard which is the same as his match to Lorraine.

Assuming Richard and Uncle Naffy are 4th cousins twice removed, this was a fortunate match as the chance of them matching is only a little over 10%.

By comparing Lorraine, Richard and Virginia to each other and with the help of matches with Uncle Naffy and a paternal second cousin, I was able to map out the DNA for these three siblings:

Here I presumed that the Uncle Naffy match was on the Butler DNA side of my in-law’s family. That meant that the paternal cousin’s match below had to be Kerivan as that is the only other paternal grandparent my in-law’s have. Further, the paternal cousin Gaby only matched Lorraine on the left side of the pink segment, so that meant Gaby and Lorraine had to match on their Butler side DNA.

Lorraine and Virginia match Patty

Lorraine, Virginia and Patty all tested at AncestryDNA and match each other. Lorraine and Patty are predicted 4th cousins at AncestryDNA. Unfortunately, Ancestry doesn’t show on what Chromosome the match is like Gedmatch does. Virginia and Pat also show as 4th cousins. Further Pat, Lorraine and Virginia have shared matches with those on the blue line of the tree above. All of this confirms the DNA connection between the George and Edward Butler families.

Life For the Butlers in Civil War Era Cincinnati

I would not like to have lived in Cincinnati around the time of the Civil War. For one thing, there was a war going on. For another thing Cholera outbreaks were rampant. Here was a Mrs. Butler that died of cholera in 1866:

This could have been George’s first wife Mary Whitty – except the address seems off. At this time, people didn’t understand that cholera was the result of drinking contaminated water. At this time there was a George Butler, laborer listed in the Cincinnati Directories as living at 890 East Front Street. Perhaps around here:

The 17 on this 1869 map is for Ward 17 where George Butler lived in 1860 and 1870. My research friend Peter was able to obtain a copy of George Butler’s second marriage to Margaret Sinnott.

I have the greatest sympathy for the transcriber who wrote down Surwott for Margaret’s maiden name. The marriage was on November 11, 1866 at All Saints Roman Catholic Church in the Fulton area of Cincinnati. I’m not sure where Fulton is, but there is a Fulton Avenue in the map above. Apparently Fulton was a Town in the area that got incorporated into Cincinnati around the 1840’s.

Edward Butler and Family

According to the 1860 Census, Edward also lived in Ward 17. The Cincinnati Directory of 1860 lists a laborer named Edward Butler living at the c. (corner?) of Goodloe and Leatherbury. I was interested in this location because during the same year there was a listing for George who was also a laborer b. (boards?) Reed and Leatherbury. Here is the 1869 Ward 17 map again:

Here Leatherbury is spelled Litherbury for some reason. The Street above “Continued” is East Front. The Street below “Continued” may be Goodloe. For some reason, it gives me pleasure to figure out where ancestors lived. In this case, my wife’s ancestor Edward Butler and his likely cousin George Butler.

Edward: 17th Ward to the 3rd ward

For some reason, Edward Butler and family moved to the 3rd Ward where they are listed in the 1870 Census.  When I was looking at the Ward 3 map I found the All Saint’s Church. It looks like the Church also had a school.

It is near the T and L of LYTLE’S in the bottom right of the map above. The Church appears to be in Ward 1 and Whittaker’s in Ward 3. Here is how Wards 1, 3 and 17 connect:

Edward Butlers in the Cincinnati directory

There appear to be more than one Edward Butler in Cincinnati at the time. Here are some of my listings from 1859 to 1869:

The most consistent listing is for 66 Avery, but I don’t think that is our Edward. I mentioned that I liked the 1860 listing of Goodloe and Leatherbury. Then in  1862 928 R. Front looks good. After that, in 1865, Front and Whitaker looks good. That location is on the Ward 3 Map above. That listing matches up with his Civil War service that I have elsewhere. Here are some more listings from 1870 to 1876:

I had forgotten that I had ruled out Avery in the past as I have that Edward had a son George who was believed to be born in Chicago in 1873. Here the 1870 listing of e. 3rd is a possibility. The southern half of East 3rd is in Ward 3 which is consistent with Edward Butler’s 1870 Census listing. High Street in the Ward 3 map above is also 3rd.

The takeaway story could be that Edward lived near his cousin George in Ward 17 when he first moved from St. John, Nova Scotia to Cincinnati. He moved to nearby Ward 3 to work for the Navy at the end of the Civil War. He stayed in Ward 3 until moving out of Cincinnati. This move was probably around 1870 as his son George was believed to be born in Chicago in June 1873.

Edward Butler Family 1880 Census

That leads me to the 18880 Census. I had found this Census a while ago and have gone back and forth as to whether it is my wife’s Edward Butler family or not. There is a lot right and a lot wrong with the Census record.

I’ll look at each thing that appears wrong:

  • The mother is listed as Ellen rather than Mary. However, I have her as Mary E. Crowley. Mary’s mother was Ellen which is likely her middle name.
  • Ellen is listed as widowed which I don’t believe she is. She is also listed as what appears to be wife, though possibly transcribed as ‘self’.
  • Ellen is listed as being born in Illinois. However, her parents are shown as being born in Ireland which would be correct.
  • Edward Butler is not listed. Perhaps he is traveling or working away from home?
  • I have no record of Cornelius but he may have married in the area or died. He would have been born around 1871, so this agrees with the apparent early move date to Illinois for the family.
  • Henry born in 1875 could be Edward Henry
  • I have no other record of John being born in 1879, so he may have died young or stayed in the area.

This means that I am convincing myself that this is a valid document. I notice that other related Butler researchers have used this Census as a reference in their Family Trees. This does not place the family in Chicago, but at least they are in Illinois.

Milton, Illinois

Here is a Google map of Milton:

Milton is a lot closer to St. Louis than it is to Chicago. According to Wikipedia, Milton is in Pike County.

1920 Census: A nail in the coffin for Milton

On the other hand, there is the 1920 Census. This shows that we had the wrong family in Milton in 1880:

Here we have the same Ellen, Cornelius, George and John. However, this cannot be my wife’s family as the mother Mary (Ellen?) was dead by now and George and Edward Henry were living in Massachusetts. However, that is helpful as there is no need to further pursue Milton, Illinois. We still need to find the family in 1880.

where was the edward butler family in 1880?

I have been looking for census records for quite some time. I have basically lost track of the family between 1870 and 1890. I have the Cincinnati Census of 1870. I have indirect evidence that they were in Chicago for the birth of George Butler in 1873 and Edward Butler in 1875, but no direct records of the family being in Chicago. Here  is the Cincinnati Edward Butler family in 1870.

Here is Edward Butler 20 years later in Massachusetts.

This is from FamilySearch. The top says Newton. However, the bottom of the handwritten schedule says Newtonville. The transcription on the bottom says Watertown. All these places are very close.

The search continues.

 

Comparing Frazer Big Y Tree With STR Trees

Recently, I have written some Blogs on Frazer BigY results. Here is the most recent BigY Blog. My cousin Paul’s results are in and Jonathan’s results are in. These two people represent the major Frazer lines from North Roscommon, Ireland in the early 1700’s. Maurice Gleeson was one of the first people to compare BigY results and STR results. His video on the subject is here:

Building a Family Tree with SNPs, STRs, & Named People (Maurice Gleeson)

BigY Frazer Results: Looking Into the Future

I have built a tree based on the initial two Frazer BigY results. I call this looking into the future as the variants shown as just numbers below, will be the future SNPs which people will test to find out what branch of the YDNA tree they are in. Here is the SNP tree I have so far:

This is a compressed zig zag tree to save space. The tree is with the reference of the Frazers as those are the tests I’m familiar with. This doesn’t mean that Frazer descended from Hayes who descended from Patton. Patton and Hayes should have their own branches descending down also. This tree means that at the Hayes level, Frazer and Hayes shared the same ancestor (and variants). Likewise, at the R-YP5515 level, Patton, Hayes and Frazer all shared the same common ancestor in the quite distant past.

STR Trees: What About the Grants?

My distant cousin on the James Line of the Frazers wondered what happened to the Grants after we did the BigY test. She wondered because the Grant name was the one that came up quite consistently as a Frazer STR match. Well, I don’t think that the Grants that matched Jonathan have taken the BigY test, so they didn’t show up there. However, the closest non-Frazer match in the BigY test was a Hayes. Here is a first shot at a Frazer/Grant/Hayes STR Tree with dates:

The idea behind making a STR Tree is to find the common STR values. These become the ancestral STRs at the top of the tree. Then find the fewest changes going down to create a tree. Finally, make a guess as to the dates. At the 67 STR level, I think there is a chance of a new STR every 150 years or so. However, this varies. Also, as in the SNP tree above, I know that the common ancestor between Paul and Jonathan is about 260 years ago. This STR tree should correspond roughly with the SNP Tree up to where the Hayes come into the picture. That means the 700 year guess for my STR tree corresponds with the SNP tree of 260-760 years plus 348-900 years or 608-1660 years. What the second tree does is to help calibrate the dates. As the SNPs are more set in stone than the STRs, the SNP tree also sets the structure for the STR tree. The STR tree has to follow the SNP tree.

The STR tree also points out that Paul and Jonathan should be equally related to Grant1, Hayes and Grant2. That is because, if the tree is drawn correctly, they all have the same Frazer/Grant/Hayes ancestor. This is despite the fact that Grant1, Hayes and Grant2 have different genetic distances to Paul and Jonathan. This is also assuming that they all have about the same number of generations to the common ancestor.

The other thing that the STR tree shows is that Hayes should be more closely related to Grant than the Frazer family.

On the Chisolm Trail

Now that I see that the SNP tree supported the Frazer/Grant/Hayes STR tree, I will add Chisolm to the STR Tree. Two names that are on Paul and Jonathan’s STR match list are Chisolm and Stuart. I had looked at Stuart before and the Stuart STRs seem to fall in line with Grant and Hayes. However, after my first look at the Chisolm STRs, it appears that Chisolm is more aligned with the Frazers.

Chisolm STRs

Here are some of the Chisolm STRs at the Chisolm YDNA Project page:

The first line is the Chisolm mode. The mode is the most commonly occurring STR value. The next four lines are R1a Chisolms. The Chisolm that matches the Frazers is on the bottom line. Note that any of the highlighted STRs indicate a variation from the mode. That means that this Chisolm is not a very good match to the other Chisolms. Here are some of the Chisum/Chisolm STRs on the bottom row compared to Frazers, Grants and a Stuart:

Most notably, Chisum is aligning with Frazer at position 389b = 30 and 534 = 14 rather than with Grant, Hayes or Stuart. This appears to be leaving 447 – 24 as a signature Frazer STR.

New STR Tree with chisolm

This is a bit of odds and sods tree with four different surnames.

Paul/Chisolm Parallel mutation

Paul and Chisolm have a parrallel mutation at 576=19. This has the effect of the STR test making it look like Paul is a closer match to Chisolm than he really is. Chisolm shows up as Paul’s closest STR match after Paul’s match with his cousin Jonathan. FTDNA show that both Paul and Chisolm have a value of 19 for STR 576. However, assuming the STR Tree is correct, Paul and Chisolm both developed that STR mutation independently. Regardless, if my STR tree is correct, then Chisolm is a closer match to Frazer than to either Grant or Hayes. I had not expected this result.

Where Do We Go From Here?

Ideally, a BigY test for Grant and Chisolm would sort things out.

Based on the STR tree, I have put in where I think Grant and Chisolm would be on the SNP tree. If Chisolm were to take the BigY test, then it would be clear which of the orange variants are Frazer variants and not Chisolm and which new variants are Chisolm and not Frazer. A BigY test by one of the Grants would also sort out the Grants and Hayes variants. By the way, a Stuart match STR match should be included with Hayes and Grant on the above SNP Tree.

Summary and Observations

  • In broad strokes a SNP change should happen about at the same rate that a 67 STR marker would happen. This means that a SNP tree should mimic a STR tree in both shape and the rough number of mutations of both STRs and SNPs.
  • A SNP tree should be the undisputed tree when comparing SNP trees and STR trees. This is because a SNP is a one-time event. A STR mutation may be a one time event, a back mutation or a parallel mutation.
  • Comparing SNP trees and STR trees can be helpful in calibrating dates of trees. A known common ancestor date is certainly helpful also.
  • When considering dates, it is important to know when the use of surnames became common practice. One reference I read for Scotland was that the date was the 16th century. That date is interesting as my STR tree guesses at a common ancestor for Chisolm and Frazer at about 1400 A.D.
  • The same reference says that in the Highlands and northern isles of Scotland surnames did not fully take root until the year 1800. If Hayes and Grant were from the Highlands, this could explain the different surnames.
  • This late date of adoption of surnames could explain why the surnames are not matching well with the YDNA testing. A late-adopted surname would not have time to build up a head of steam or a large amount of descendants.
  • I will be looking forward to FTDNA adopting the R-YP5515 SNP. FTDNA also needs at least two more levels of SNPs. One at the Hayes/Frazer level and one at the Frazer level.

Frazer Big Y Results: Archibald Line and James Line

I have previously written Blogs on my cousin Paul’s Big Y results here and here. Paul is my 2nd cousin once removed. He is from the Archibald Line. Archibald and James are believed to be two Frazer brothers living in North Roscommon in the early 1700’s. Just yesterday, Jonathan’s Big Y results came in. Jonathan is from the James line.

Paul is two steps below Hubert on the left and Jonathan is one step below Walter on the right hand side.

What is a Big Y?

The Big Y is an expensive YDNA test that looks at SNPs. SNPs are stable locations where mutation occur on the male Y Chromosome. These mutation happen around every 150 years. The could happen more quickly or more slowly, but 150 years would be an average. Like a laser beam, these SNP mutations make a map straight down the Frazer male line heading toward the distant past. The special feature of the Big Y is that it discovers new SNPs that have not been previously discovered. These newly discovered SNPs are helpful in verifying genealogical trees – especially when taken in tandem like we did with Paul and Jonathan.

In my previous Blog, I had looked at these SNPs for my cousin Paul and came up with a tree that looked like this:

FTDNA that does the Big Y testing has Paul as R-YP432. They don’t yet have listed YP5515 which YFull has. YFull is a service that looks a Big Y and similar results for a fee. Using that information, they create YDNA trees, date the connections, and do other things. Just yesterday I sent Paul’s Big Y results to YFull for analysis.

All the numbers in the green boxes above are SNPs. The numbers with no letters are SNP positions that haven’t been named yet. The bottom green box is for Paul. He has more unique SNPs that I didn’t include in the bottom box. I would expect that out of these SNPs, Paul will share some with Jonathan and that Jonathan and Paul would have their own unique SNPs that happened since the two branches split in the early 1700’s.

Let’s Compare Paul and Jonathan’s SNPs

According to FTDNA Paul and Jonathan share 36 Novel Variants. However, many of those shared between Paul and Jonathan are not uniquely shared. In other words they would be shared with Patton or especially Hayes above the Frazers. First, I’ll add in the SNPs that were only Paul’s before Jonathan’s results came in:

I compressed the tree above to save space. There is still a Patton block of SNPs and under that a Hayes block of SNPs. The orange SNPs under Hayes were Paul’s unique SNPs before Jonathan had his Big Y results. When I compare the 36 SNPs that Paul and Jonathan share, only six of those are in the orange block above. When I separate out Paul’s newly unique SNPs, I get the Archibald Line:

The brown box labelled Archibald Line is Paul’s version of the Archibald Line. If others were to do this test in the Archibald line, there would be some shared and some unique SNPs again. Those SNPs would represent the different branches in the Archibald Line. The orange box shows all the SNPs that are shared by the Frazers in the DNA Project. These SNPs represent the father of the Archibald and James Lines who was probably another Archibald. Note that Paul has 5 mutations since the lines split. That would be more than expected. If we use the average of 150 years, that would put the common Frazer ancestor at 750 years ago. As we believe that the common ancestor lived about 300 years ago, then there must have been a mutation in Paul’s line about every 52 years or every other generation. I am guessing that there will be fewer mutation on Jonathan’s James Line side.

Jonathan’s SNPs

I’m curious to see how these come out. Jonathan has 28 Novel Variants (the same number that Paul now has). From what I can tell, FTDNA calls the unnamed SNPs Novel Variants. Here is my spreadsheet showing the overlaps and unique SNPs between Jonathan and Paul:

Paul’s 5 unique SNPs are shown in blue. Jonathan’s 5 unique SNPs from Paul are shown in yellow. However, I have a note. The note is that Hayes shares 9510807 with Jonathan. Hayes is upstream from the Frazers SNPs. That means that Paul should have also had 9510807. That means that Jonathan has 4 unique SNPs compared to Paul.

Now For the Complete Frazer Y SNP Tree

I put the SNP that Jonathan had in common with Hayes up in the Hayes Block with an asterisk. That is the SNP that Paul should have had but didn’t test positive for.

A Problem With Dating the Frazer Common Ancestor

Let’s assume that the common Frazer Ancestor, the parent of Archibald and James was born in 1690. Let’s further assume that Paul and Jonathan were born in 1950. That leaves 260 years. I will double that for the two lines and divide by the total number of unique SNP which is 9. That gives me roughly 58 years per mutation. That seems to push down the rough estimate of 150 years per mutation quite a bit.

I do get a little consolation in the fact that if our genealogy is right, Paul is 8 generations from the Frazer common ancestor and Jonathan is 7 generations away. That means that Paul’s line had one more generation to form an extra SNP compared to Jonathan – which he apparently did.

Let’s assume that 150 years per mutation is correct. That would mean that the common Frazer ancestor would be 6-700 years ago. To me, this seems unlikely. We have two male Frazers living in North Roscommon in the early 1700’s. We also have a documented Frazer widow, believed to be the mother. Family tradition has the father of Archibald and James as an Archibald born around 1690. Also we have autosomal DNA matches between the Archibald and James Lines. These have not been proven to be linked to the Frazer common ancestor, but seem likely.

It figures that this Big Y test created additional questions! We will have to await more analysis from YFull and the R1a YDNA Project Administrators. Here is one more try at adding dates using the 58 years per mutation versus the 150 years per mutation:

Oddly enough, this makes me feel better. The reason is, that even with 150 years per SNP, I am getting up to 4200 years ago up at the YP432 Level. This is more than the 2800 years what YFull currently has for a most likely time to a common ancestor at YP432.

Summary

  • The Big Y test for Paul and Jonathan resulted in more unique Variants than expected for both Paul and Jonathan
  • Using average years per SNP mutation, this would push back the common ancestor for the James and Archibald lines quite a way into the past.
  • Future analysis may resolve this issue. YFull will be one company analyzing the Frazer Big Y test. I will also ask for advice from others.
  • There is one other Frazer from Canada who is expecting YDNA STR results. These results may also help
  • Once the James Line and Archibald Line SNPs are named and tests developed for those SNPs, male line Frazer descendants will be able to determine their Line by testing the new SNPs. Certain SNPs could also define sub-branches below the Archibald and James Lines.

 

Two Cincinnati Butler Families

One of my Butler genealogy breakthroughs happened with a DNA match between my father in law and someone I called Uncle Naffy. I wrote a Blog on that in 2015.

Prior to that breakthrough, I had trouble tracking my wife’s immigrant ancestor Edward Butler. Uncle Naffy was from St. John, New Brunswick and told me his great great grandmother was Mary A Butler. She was living in Cincinnati and moved to St. John. There she married. Armed with that information, I was able to find the marriage record between my wife’s ancestors, Edward Butler and Mary Crowley in St. John. The record was found in scrawly handwriting on a microfilm that was in the New England Historical and Genealogical Society Library in Boston.

This St. John/Cincinnati connection confirmed the research that I had done that had located Edward Butler and family in Cincinnati in the 1860 and 1870 censuses.

Uncle Naffy’s Great Great Grandmother Mary A Butler

Recently it occurred to me that it would be a good idea to create a tree for Mary A Butler to see if we could match up the two Cincinnati Butler families (George and Edward).

This was my first attempt. As I show later, the older children of George Butler would be from a second wife. My hope was that I would find that the George Butler above was the brother of my wife’s ancestor Edward Butler. One good thing is that I have that George Butler above, married Mary Whitty. Whitty is a less common name than Butler. A search for George Butler at Ancestry turned up this as a clue:

Here is a George Butler and Mary Whitty that gave birth to an Anne Butler on March 31st 1850 in the Parish of Ferns, Wexford. The good news is that the George Butler Family in 1860 in Cincinnati also had a daughter named Ann born about 1850 in Ireland. This is a good match.

A little more searching revealed a marriage between George “Butta” and Mary Whitty:

The transcriber saw Butta, but I can also see Butler there. I doubt that Butta is a very common name! As in the birth of Anne above, there is a Whitty and Hendricks as witness. The additional information is that they lived in Mountain Gate. I was curious as to where Mountain Gate is and was able to find a Mountaingate:

I have panned the map out a bit to show the relationship between Mountaingate and Mooncoin. They appear to be about 25 miles from each other. In one of my previous Blogs, I pointed out the my wife’s ancestor Edward Butler is listed as being from Wexford on one of his son’s death certificate.

Another Wife for George Butler?

There is also a tree at Ancestry that has Margaret Sinnett as George Butler’s wife. It appears to me that Mary Whitty died sometime between 1860 and 1870 and that George remarried.

Here is it clear that Mary must be from the first marriage as she was born before 1860 when Mary Whitty was still around. I could guess that Henry would be the son of Mary Whitty as there are 7-1/2 years between him and Rebecca. However, I cannot be sure just from the Censuses. So my basic take is like this:

I’m missing some children from George’s second marriage to Margaret Sinnett. I was having a hard time making this family come out right on the Ancestry Tree.

One last point about Margaret is that Pat has her mother Catherine as being from Killaspy, County Kilkenny. Here is a map showing an arrow where Killaspy is:

This was interesting to me because with the help of a Butler researcher in England, my wife’s Butler family has been located near Mooncoin on the top left of the map above. Mooncoin appears to be about 5 miles away from Killaspy.

Another Cincinnati Butler DNA Match

The previous image brings up another interesting point. My wife’s two Aunts have had their DNA tested at Ancestry. They both match Pat who descends from Rebecca Butler b. 1869 above. My father in law matches Uncle Naffy at Gedmatch. That makes a good case that George Butler is related to Edward Butler, my wife’s ancestor who also lived in Cincinnati.

Here is Rebecca Butler’s Certificate of Death showing her two parents.

This could be a case where the death record is not the best source of a birth date as Rebecca was shown as being 6 months old in the 1870 Census and born in October. So the day and month only are probably right in the death certificate.

Here is how my wife’s Aunt Lorraine matches Pat:

Pat matches my wife’s Aunt Virginia a little less: 29.9 cM across two segments.

Another Shared DNA Match At Ancestry

Pat and my wife’s two Aunts also have two shared DNA matches. These matches have this tree:

I’m not sure if it was Donna that took the AncestryDNA test. It appears that more than one in the family did. At any rate, the match is much higher. It is now at 183 cM across 9 segments. The average amount of DNA shared between a 2nd cousin once removed is 129 cM.

In comparison, here is Lorraine and Virginia’s tree next to the previous tree:

In the above scenario, Lorraine, Richard and Virginia would be 2nd cousins once removed to Donna and family. I’m not sure if Cornelias and John in Donna’s tree are right. Also, Donna’s tree has Henry, where I have Edward Henry. They are apparently the same person.

So Where Does That Leave the Butlers?

Here is a partially combined tree:

I say partially combined, because I haven’t connected the orange with the green side by genealogical research. I slimmed the tree down to just include the direct lines of those who have had their DNA tested. Uncle Naffy matches Richard at Gedmatch. Pat and Donna’s lines have not uploaded their results to Gedmatch. Pat and Donna’s line have shared DNA matches at AncestryDNA where they tested. Pat also matches Lorraine and Virginia at AncestryDNA. In addition, Donna matches Lorraine and Virginia. Richard and Uncle Naffy have tested at FTDNA, so unless Donna’s line and Pat upload to Gedmatch, those matches won’t be made known.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The George and Edward Butler families are linked by new and old world locations and DNA
  • More work is needed to link the George and Edward Butler families by paper research.