My Family’s Connections with the Colonial Hatch Family

I remember Lincoln in High School. I think he was a year ahead of me and grew up in the same small town that I did. He is not a match to me, but he matches my sister Heidi and my brother Jon:

The proposed common ancestor between Lincoln and Heidi goes back to colonial Massachusetts. It would be interesting to see if this connection makes sense.

Hatch ThruLines

I see that I have one connection going back to Nathaniel:

These matches are interesting and at the far end of where Ancestry does common ancestors – at the 6th cousin level.

I have tested my father’s 1st cousin Joyce and she has one Hatch connection:

It looks like Nathaniel could have had a large family. Here is his marriage record:

It looks like this couple had eight children:

So far we have seen Druzilla, Isaiah and Prudence in potential DNA match lines. One interesting thing is that there appear to be a Nathaniel and a Nathaneal baptized in Falmouth, MA in the 1740’s. Was the 1742 Nathaniel illegitimate?

Also, is Bethia the same of Bashaway in the Falmouth marriage records?

Another of my father’s cousins has tested at Ancestry. He matches Priscilla on the Nathaniel Hatch Line:

Here Isaiah Hatch is in green because MM is from my second cousin Holly and she must not have Isaiah in her tree.

My sister Heidi shows a match to Bridget who descends from Rebecca Hatch:

My brother Jon, mentioned earlier has three DNA matches with Hatch descendants:

The evidence of DNA matches is rising.

My sister Lori matches Susan like I do:

However, Lori matches her a bit less than I do: 7 cM vs. my 12 cM match.

Finally my sister Sharon:

Sharon, like Jon and Heidi, matches Bridget.

Are All These Connections as Shown?

Genetic experts tend to point out that it is often difficult to prove that from 7 generations out, the actual DNA from Nathaniel Hatch (or his wife Olive Bearse) is the DNA that you match with. In order to show this, you would need to build out your tree and the match’s tree for 7 generations and eliminate all other possibilities. However, I am not going to do that. I will just look at the matches to see if the genealogy supports their descent from Nathaniel and Olive. Then my goal is to build my own composite tree with descendants.

Lincoln’s Genealogy

This is what Lincoln has:

I am thinking that the Lincoln that I knew could have been in the second private. But that is OK. If that is the case, then I wouldn’t be related to the Lincoln I knew but from the mother of his son. OK. Note that this tree does not show the mother of the son. Somehow, Ancestry was able to figure that out. However, the son’s mother was born in 1924, so maybe the son was the one I knew. I’ll build my own tree to try to figure it out.

I think I see the issue already. For some reason, the tree that Lincoln’s mother is taken from shows this:

Pehaps Lincoln entered his tree incorrectly. I found an obituary record that shows Lincoln as the daughter of Helena, so this appears to be correct. All this to say that I should be realted to the Lincoln I knew through his mother. I have put a message in to Lincoln to make sure.

Here is Helena in 1930 in Dartmouth, MA:

I see that her brother was quite a bit older.

Here is Carrie’s marriage record:

I am quickly building out the Lincoln’s tree:

According to the initial tree for Lincoln, Helen Gardner should be Helena Sawyer. We see this to be the case from Carrie’s marriage record:

It looks like we are abut halfway there:

Here is Helena or Helen in 1860 in New Bedford:

Next, we are looking for Stephen Sawyer’s mother.

According to findagrave.com:

They have Stephen’s mother as Olive Hatch Potter. Seeing the Hatch in her name makes me think we are on the right track. Olive dies in Medford, MA in 1898:

The same record gives the parents of Olive:

Olive’s father was from Westport and her mother, Druzilla Hatch, was from Falmouth.

The final step is to get Druzilla or Drusilla back to Nathaniel Hatch, Jr. It turns out that I already have Druzilla in my Hartley Tree:

For some reason, Drusilla went by Dilley in the New Bedford Marriage records:

In the 1850 Census for New Bedford, we see that Drucilla was a ship captain’s wife:

Starting My Hatch DNA/Genealogy Tree

I believe that I have proven the genealogical connection. There is also a DNA connection, but I have not proved that the DNA match is definitetively from the Hatch/Bearse Line. While my line came to Rochester in the 1800’s, Lincoln’s came to the same Town in the 1900’s. I hope to further expand this tree.

My Match Susan

According to Ancestry, I should look at Susan’s maternal side. Here is the tree Susan has:

The tree matches what Ancestry has up to Susan’s grandmother Anna M Dowd:

The Findagrave site is helpful again with Anna Dowd:

Susan’s maternal grandmother was buried in Wareham which is the next Town from where I live. This is my tree for Susan so far:

Ancestry thinks that Lillies is a Hillman, so I need to confirm this. Someone at Ancestry made this easy with an obituary from the Wareham Courier:

Next I am looking for Robert Hillman’s mother who is supposed to be a Hatch. From Robert’s marriage record, I see that his mother was Tabitha. This transcription identifies Tabitha’s last name:

Tabitha’s death record gives her parents as Isaiah and Lucy:

Here is a portion of my tree for Susan:

I already have Isaiah in my Hartley Tree.

Widening My Hatch DNA/Genealogy Chart

Heidi and Bridget

I’ll stay on my sibling Hatch DNA matches for now.

Here is the line I am trying to look into. Interestingly, I also have some Parkers in my ancestry, so that is something to consider.

Here is the Barstow family in 1950 living in Falmouth, MA:

By the Ancestry Tree above, I am thinking that Miriam’s last name was Allen. According to Social Security, that is right:

In 1920, The Allen family was living on Summer Street in New Bedford:

The father, Arthur, was a bank teller:

The couple married in 1912 in New Bedford:

Here is my tree:

This suggests that Rebecca Hatch married Sylvanus Parker. This is interesting because my ancestor Prudence who was Rebecca’s sister married Isaac Parker.

Here is the 1850 Census for Falmouth:

John was a ship carpenter.

Who Were the Parents of John H Parker?

According to the NEGHR Vol. 114:

From this, it appears that this Rebecca was different from the one in my tree. That also means that I need to correct my tree:

The implications:

  • There appears to have been two Rebecca Hatch’s living around this time
  • It is possible that the reference to John Hatch Parker’s mother being the daughter of Isaiah and Lucy Hatch could be wrong, but it seems to be the best information to go on at this time.
  • Until I find more information, I will not add Bridget as being descended from Nathaniel Hatch, Jr.
  • The DNA my family shares could still be from the Parker or Hatch side, or some other colonial Massachusetts Line.

Joyce and KC

I have already done one Drusilla Line:

 

Here is KC’s tree:

I’m guessing that this tree should end with Drusilla Hatch. I’ll just double check KC’s tree to make sure it makes sense. Here is what I have so far:

Arthur was born in New Bedford, MA and died in Los Angeles. However, I need to next find out who has mother Clara was.

Findagrave strongly suggests that she was a Sawyer:

Interestingly, her father was Stephen Potter Sawyer. So that matches up with my previous yellow Hatch DNA/Genealogy Chart. I need go no further. Here is the new Chart:

This is good as we like to see branching other than just at the top level. I need to also add in Joyce:

Here we see that Joyce and KC are 5th cousins. But Ancestry has them as 5th cousins once removed. That means I missed someone in KC’s Line:

It takes a while to get things right, but double-checking helps. This is a long while for autosomal DNA to survive, but apparently there were a lot of Hatch descendants, so the odds were in their favor.

Maury and Priscilla

According to AncestryDNA, Maury and Priscilla should be 5th cousins:

I don’t have anyone on the Isaiah Branch yet, so let’s build another tr. Mee for Priscilla. Mabel’s paternal side tree is here:

Mabel’s tree stops at her great-grandmother Mabel Hatch. Here is the Albert Jordan Family in Somerville in 1920:

Albert was a barrel dealer.

Here is an 1894 marriage record for Albert:

This record is thorough enough to give his mother’s maiden name as Mabel P Hatch. Mabel’s wedding record from Sandwich gives the first names of her parents:

So many Hatches!

The 1850 Census for Sandwich shows that Isaiah was from Ireland:

The 1860 Census appears to correct the previous one:

The ditto marks refer to Massachusetts. The Somerville death record for Isaiah gives his father’s name as Isaiah – so he was apparently not the son of Nathaniel:

Jon and Gramps

If Ancestry has this right, gramps is Lincoln’s 1st  cousin once removed. I may not need to make a tree for gramps. The only confustion is that I show a Henry Gardner where gramps shows a Hervey. Here is Hervey’s WWII Draft Card:

Here is my new Hatch Chart:

I corrected Hervery’s sister Carrie as I had her as a Sawyer instead of a Gardner.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Looking at the ThruLines has advanced my knowledge of some of the Hatch family descendants in the range of 6th cousins to my family
  • I looked at the genealogies of 6 descendants of Nathaniel Hatch Jr. who was born in 1747 according to some Ancestry trees.
  • I found that four of those lines from Ancestry’s ThruLines were accurate
  • I made a DNA/genealogical Chart for the Hatch Family. These are lines that I have looked at and they either match my siblings or my father’s first cousins.

How Many ThruLines Matches at the Third Great-Grandparent Level?

In my previous Blog, I looked at matches that my mother had with one of her third great-grandparents. By matches, I mean matches that are from siblings of the second great-grandparent in your line. Here is the example:

Here, John A Lentz is my mother’s third great-grandfather. She has 7 matches under Eliza Lentz and William Andrew Lentz.

I don’t count my mothers Jacob Lentz line. This is the type of ThruLine that I am not counting:

Above, there is no branching under Carl Lutke, so I am counting that as zero extra matches at the third great-grandparent level.

Counting My Mom’s ThruLine Matches to Third Great-Grandparents

I am a fan of Excel, so I will use that program. I’ll start simply:

Everyone should have 32 third great-grandparents. Or, 16 pairs of great-grandparents. Technically a match may descend from one and not the other. Here is my list of third great-grandparents from my mother’s ThruLines

Here I have my mother’s paternal side with a full 16 third great-grandparents. For some reason there are only 12 third great-grandparents on my mother’s maternal side. My guess for a reason: because my mother’s paternal side was from a German Colony in Latvia, there was more intermarriage and therefor more DNA matches.

The yellow surnames are the ones I am not sure of and added in for this excercise. Next, I will go through the 28 3rd GGPs.

Interestingly, the Lentz line which I thought was poorly documented by DNA has the largest number of matches at 7.

Here are the totals and averages:

If I took out the zeroes, the averages would be higher. Also as these numbers are in effect doubled due to pairs of 3rd GGPs, the totals could be shown as half as much.

My Own ThruLines Numbers

Here I’ll want to compare to siblings, so I’ll sue a slightly different format:

This will also be a generation more recent, so there could be more ThruLine matches potentially. This time, I am up to 30 3rd GGPs:

I am missing one pair of ancestors. I wonder which one. The problem is that I don’t know the parents for my 2nd great-grandmother Jane Spratt.

Here I found some surprising results:

I only had Thrulines matches (the way I defined them) in 11 of the 30 3rd GGP Lines. My mother had matches in 20 of her Lines. I’m not sure of the reason why. When I adjusted to the Non-Zero Averages, the numbers were similar to my mother’s:

Comparing Siblings

I’ll start with Heidi, who is listed first at Ancestry:

Our numbers were very similar.

Statistics for My Brother Jon

Jon gets honorable mention in the Bradford/Hathaway Line. This is an important line as it leads back to Governor Bradford of the Mayflower. I have a note that Wilkinson was omitted under Robert Hartley. That is because Robert Hartley died, Mary Pilling remarried a Wilkinson. So this match should not be under Robert Hartley.

My Sister Lori’s ThruLines

I have four siblings who have tested at Ancestry. I also have my father’s cousin who I had tested at Ancestry and another of my father’s cousins. It would be interesting to look at their Hartley side ThruLines.

Lori excelled at Baker and Faunce with the largest number of extra lines from the 3rd great-grandparents.

My Last Sibling at Ancestry: Sharon

This shows that on average there is about one match per ThruLine. However, there are matches in only about one in three ThruLines, because of the ThruLines where there were matches there was an average of about three matches. That is still pretty good for the 4th cousin or further matches where it is not likeily to get a DNA match.

My Father’s Cousins’ Hartley ThruLines at the 3rd GGP Level

I’ll start with Joyce:

Joyce had a lot of Snell matches. She also had those important Pilgrim Bradford matches. Of of 16 Hartley side ThruLines, Joyce had 6 with multiple line matches.

Here is Maury:

Unfortunatley, Maury’s tree has the wrong parents for Harvey Bradford. There were two Harvey Bradfords and the tree has the wrong one. This is understandable as the documents are confusing. I had to check land deeds to sort out the family. Here is the correct ThruLines:

It is interesting that Joyce’s ThruLines go back to a man who was born in 1755.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The exercise gave me an idea of the areas where there are matches from descendants of 3rd GGPs in my family
  • Some ThruLines were not accurate or misleading, but on the most part they appeared to be accurate
  • Most Lines had no extra matches. Some Lines with extra matches were highlighted.

 

 

 

 

My Father’s Cousins’ New Ancestry DNA Hartley Match

Two of my father’s cousins have tested at AncestryDNA. One I had tested (Joyce), and another was tested by his daugther who is Maury. I will look  at Joyce’s new Hartley DNA match.

Match with a Descendant of a Potential Hartley Ancestor

What this means is that Joyce has a match with Sarah who has a Hartley ancestor which has not been previously identified as a Hartley ancestor. Let’s look at Joyce’s ThruLines Match:

Sarah shows as Joyce’s 6th cousin which is pretty distant. It is interesting that Sarah shows all Hartley relatives going way back. Here is what Sarah shows for her tree at Ancestry:

Ancestry connected other trees to get the connection from 1778 to 1707. Ancestry suggests that I evaluate Sarah’s tree, so I will do that.

Sarah’s Genealogy

I’ll do my own version of Sarah’s tree. This tree will be private at Ancestry. Sarah has her father from Ilkley:

Ilkley is not too far from Trawden where my ancestors lived. So that is a good sign. Right now, I’ll follow the Hartley line.  Ancestry gives me hints for Peter’s parent. I’ll assume that they are consistent with what Sarah had and that Sarah knew about her grandparents. Here is the next in line of the Hartley side:

Unfortunately, we are getting away from the Colne area, but let’s keep going.

Arthur Milligan Hartley

Here is the marriage record for the couple:

This shows that Arthur’s father was an Auctioneer named Thomas Arthur Hartley, but that he was deceased at the time of the marriage in 1929. That is consistant with Sarah’s tree.

Thomas Arthur Hartley

I see some good news in the 1911 Census:

This document indicates that Thomas was born in Carleton, Yorkshire. If I have it right, Carleton is part of Skipton:

Apparently Thomas’ son Arthur was born in Nottinghamshire and the family moved back to West Yorkshire. In 1881, Thomas was living in Colne with a retired Saddler:

I assume that Luke was his older brother. We find Thomas’ parents in this document:

Joseph Hartley

So far, Sarah’s tree checks out:

It would be nice to find Joseph and Thomas in a Census together. Sarah shows that Joseph was born in Colne and that he married Hannah Lund of Carleton. I see what happened:

Joseph died young, and thomas was raised by his mother who was an Innkeeper. We see Luke here also as Thomas’ brother as I guessed.  Joseph must have died between about 1866 and 1870 based on the age of his daughter Hannah.

Here is Joseph in 1861 with a large family:

All the pieces fit together. Joseph was born in Colne.

The 1851 Census is even more interesting.

Joseph was an Innkeeper and also a farmer of 50 acres. He was born specifically in Laneshawbridge.

This area is close to Trawden where my ancestors lived. His wife was from Lothersdale:

These places were all close to each other. A house servant named Elizabeth Wilkinson worked for Joseph and she was from Trawden. I make note of this as my ancestor Mary Pilling who married Robert Pilling married secondly Robert Wilkinson. They had a daughter named Elizabeth Wilkinson, but she was born in 1850 and was living in Bacup in 1861. There was also a William Hartley who was a farm laborer. Perhaps he was related to Joseph. He was from Shawhead.

A Marriage Record for Joseph Hartley?

From the 1851 Census, it appears that Joseph’s eldest child, Elizabeth was born about 1843 in Carlton. That could put a marriage at about 1841 or 1842. Again, Sarah’s tree is correct:

Joseph’s father was an Innkeeper named Robert Hartley. That would mean that Joseph was single during the 1841 Census. From this information, I can find Joseph’s baptismal record:

Now I can find Joseph in the 1841 Census:

The ‘do’ on the left refers to Laneshawbridge. Robert may have been older at this time:

The census takers were instructed to give the exact ages of children but to round the ages of those older than 15 down to a lower multiple of 5. For example, a 59-year-old person would be listed as 55. Not all census enumerators followed these instructions.

As Joseph was born in 1816, he was about 25 at the time of the Census. Here is Margaret’s baptismal record:

Here are some more baptism:

Robert Hartley and Susan Crabtree

It appears that this couple had eight children altogether. Also notice that Robert’s occupation went from farmer in 1802 to Innkeeper in 1803. I would be looking for a marriage record for this couple around 1801 or before. Here is a good guess:

Unfortunately, parents names were not given in these marriage records. At this point, the genealogy gets much more difficult.

Here is a candidate for the baptism of Susan Crabtree. I had noted that she is listed as age 60 in 1841. That means that she should be born in 1781 or within 5 years before that time. That narrows down Susan to this baptism:

Here is the area of Salter Syke:

It is to the NW of Laneshaw Bridge.

Here I accepted the suggested parents for Susan Crabtree. This appears to be Susan in 1851:

Two of her daughters are living with her and it appears that her son Robert is in a nearby dwelling.

Here is my guess for Robert Hartley’s baptism:

The date of the birth looks about right and here is a place called Robert Laith on a modern map which I take to be the same as Roblaith on the 1776 baptism above:

Here are some other Robert Hartley candidates:

At this point, my research departs from the ThruLines suggested by Ancestry:

Where I have the arrow, I would have another Robert Hartley. However, this does not dampen my enthusiasm for the match as I am not very sure of right side of the tree above for James Hartley born 1763 and above.

James Vs Robert Hartley

Here is the support that Ancestry uses to include James in the tree:

That’s a lot of trees. However, I was not impressed with the first tree cited. That tree has the younger Robert born about 1779 serving in the military, living in Great Marsden and dying in Preston. I don’t think that any of that information is correct. The next tree does not have a spouse for the younger Robert born 1779. The third tree on the list does not show the elder James Hartley having a son Robert. The fourth tree is no better than the others. I suspect that there are not many good examples in the 52 trees cited. However, I am not inclined to review all of the trees.

Robert Hartley and Nanny

Perhaps I could find a marriage record for Robert Hartley and Nanny. Here is more information on the Robert and Nanny Hartley family:

Of interest we see that the family moved from Robert Laith to Laneshaw Bridge some time before 1784 when Susanna was born. Laneshaw Bridge was on the main road, so would be a good place for a business. As ‘Pillis’ was baptized in 1773, let’s look for a wedding around 1772. I see two good choices:

I am favoring the second choice with Ann Emmott (last above). My thinking is that this man was an educated man. He signed as well as his wife where the 1769 Robert and Ann did not. While I am on thin ice, I will look for that parents of this Robert Hartley. If he married in 1773, he would have been born around 1752 assuming he married at age 21. Here are some candidates:

Unfortunately, there are more Roberts here than I am willing to research. Part of the problem is that I am unfamiliar with many of these locations. If I knew where all these places were, I would likely lean toward the one closest to Robert Laith. Having said that, my assumption is that Robert and Nanny’s son Robert born in 1776 was the eldest son. That means that he may have named his first-born son after his father Robert. I’ll assume that to be the case and say that the family was the last one above from Cock Leach.

However, if this is Cock Leach, then we are on the wrong side of Town:

That means that I am stuck for now on this line of genealogy.

Back to the DNA

My father’s cousin Joyce has a match with Sarah. However, it is not known whether the match is on the Hartley side or on a collateral line. For example, Sarah has a Susan Crabtree in her ancestry. The match could be on the Crabtree side.

One sure-fire way to figure out how we are related on the Hartley side would be if Sarah had one of her male Hartley relatives test for YDNA. The YDNA tests just the male to male line all the way back to early man and would show how we are related on the Hartley line.

Here is a tree of those on my Hartley Line who have taken the BigY YDNA test at FTDNA:

I believe that all those unde R-A11134 are or should be Hartleys. A11132 is a Mawdsley surname. This connection may be just before the time of surnames. R-A16717 is from a Quaker Hartley Branch that moved in colonial days to Pennsylvania. I and my brother are at R-FT225247

Summary and Conclusions

  • I have shown that the Hartley genealogical connection between Sarah and my cousin Joyce is wrong – at least as shown at Ancestry
  • However, Sarah and my father’s cousin Joyce may match on another Hartley line or a collateral line where our lineages appear to converge in the Colne area of Lancashire
  • A sure way to tell how we are matched on the Hartley side is for Sarah to have one of her male Hartley relatives test for YDNA at FTDNA.

 

Tracking Down Shadlock Genealogy on My Hartley Side

I have a DNA match with a few people with some Shadlock genealogy. These matches are important because they have shared matches with people that appear to go deep into my Hartley ancestry. Here is one of the matches with my father’s cousin Joyce:

Shadlock Genealogy

This is the tree of the match on her maternal side where Lillian Jess is the match’s maternal grandmother:

I had started my own Shadlock research and would like to look further.

Elizabeth Ellen Shadlock Born 1875

Here is Elizabeth:

My possible relative. She married Manuel Jesse in New Bedford, MA in 1894. That record gave her parents names:

In 1900, Elizabeth was living on Belleville Ave in New Bedford with her family.

We see that her mother was living with them also at the time.

Alice died in 1903 in New Bedford:

Here her maiden name is given as Alice Walker and her husband as William Shadlock. This is a bit of conflict with the Mariiage record where Alice’s father is given as John Shadlock. This is further confused where her death record gives her father’s name as Shadlock:

I believe that her Father’s name would likely have been Robert Walker and her mother’s name Elizabeth Fouler (or Fowler).

[Edit: After looking at other entries of the New Bedford Death records, I see that the name in quotes is actually the maiden name and the first name is the married name. However as Elizabeth and her daughter went by Shadlock, it is possible that Elizabeth never married her daughter’s father – or if she did, she kept her maiden name for some reason.]

Here is the record showing mother and daughter traveling to Boston in 1887:

Ancestry gives this 1861 Census hint for Mary Shadlock:

If Mary was a Shadlock, that would likely mean that she was single mother. This record appears to apply to Elizabeth Ellen Shadlock:

This means that Elizabeth Ellen was born later than thought or that she was baptized at about age 4 and that her death record in New Bedford would be correct. Another possibility would be that Mary Alice was a single mother and that she later married William Walker Shadlock?

Here is the actual record showing she was born earlier:

I suppose that one interpretation would be that Mary Alice was a single mother and that William Walker was the father that she is naming in the baptismal record..

A Marriage Record for Mary Alice Shadlock?

The records for civil registrations of marriages for January through March 1875 show this entry:

Following the Robert Shadlock Line

Let’s assume that the Robert Shadlock in the 1861 Census is the same as the one mentioned in Alice’s death record. I now have this tree:

The potential parents in green do not sound familiar. That means that the Hartley connection could be with William Walker – assuming that he is really the father of Elizabeth Shadlock. Here are a few possibilities for William:

The Accrington Connection and Ashton-under-Lyne

Here is Accrington:

My Emmet ancestors were from Bacup in the SE portion of the above map. My Hartley ancestors were from Trawden in the NE portion of the above map. Perhaps I was looking in the wrong place as the later location for the Shadlocks was in Ashton-under-Lyne:

Here is William Walker in the 1871 Census:

Note that in the top right, the Parish is St. James which is where Elizabeth Ellen Shadlock was baptized. That puts this William as the best guess for Elizabeth’s father. He is a coal miner and his father (also William) works for a butcher.

Playing Out William Walker’s Genealogy

Here is the 1861 Census:

William’s mother was Jane, but I can’t make out where she was born. The transcription has it as “On the Sea of Kent”.

Here is the 1851 Census:

Again, I can’t make out where Jane was born. The second part seems to say “Irish Channel”.

Here is a possible marriage for the elder William:

Unfortunately, there were many Janes who married William Walkers in the Manchester area.

Here is my best guess for a family tree for Elizabeth:

More on Shaerd Matches

My father’s cousin has a shared match with this Shadlock descendant:

Here the connection is through Pilling only as Wilkinson was a second marriage after Hartley (my connection). That means that the Shadlock descendant genealogical match is likely going back to Pilling at some point. Mary Pilling was from Trawden Lancashire. So that likely places where the connection is.

Summary and Conclusions

Although I have not found a genealogical connection corresponding to my DNA match, I have a better understanding of why I cannot find the connection. It appears that Elizabeth’s father was William Walker. However, Elizabeth did not take the family name. Further, Walker is a farily common name, so difficult to trace. If more could be found on the birthplace of Jane Walker, that could shed some light on the genealogy. It seems that the census records are saying that she was born on board a vessel at sea.

In summary, it seems that there was no father in life of Elizabeth Shadlock and no husband around for her mother Mary Alice Shadlock. This perhaps caused economic hardships. My guess is that Mary Alice thought that she and her daughter would do better in New Bedford, so they moved there in 1887.

 

 

Painting My Brother Jim’s DNA

For some reason, I have not gotten around to ‘painting’ my brother Jim’s DNA. This is what I have so far for Jim:

I’ve only gotten Jim up to 2% painted overall and that is just on the paternal Frazer side. It would be fairly easy to improve that.

Jim’s X Chromosome

For fun, I’ll start with Jim’s X Chromosome. This is just inherited from his mother. Jim matches our two Latvian cousins Inese and Anita. That DNA had to come from his great-grandmother Maria Elisabeth Laura Gangnus:

That is because Alexander Rathfelder only got X DNA from his mother Maria. I only painted Inese, because I believe that her sister’s match is very similar.

Jim and Cindy

Cindy is Jim’s first cousin. Normally I would not map 1st cousins as it would just give the maternal side. However, Cindy’s father is Bob and he just got his X Chromsome from his mother, who was Emma Rathfelder. It took me a little while to remember that trick. Here is the match between Jim and Cindy:

Jim is now 3% painted:

Back to Autosomal Matches

The fastest way to populate Jim’s chromosomes is by 2nd cousins. He has a lot of Hartley second cousins at Gedmatch. I’ll just go down Jim’s list of matches at Gedmatch.

Jim’s Hartley 1st Cousins Once Removed

Thes common ancestors between Jim and these older cousins go back to Jim’s great-grandparents: James Hartley and Annie Snell. First, I’ll paint in Joyce:

I picked a washed out color for Hartley/Snell as there will be so many of these. Jim is now up to 8% painted. Actually, Jim’s third Hartley match was with a second cousin. Beth brings Jim’s painted percent up to 12%:

2nd Cousin Catherine on the Rathfelder Side

So far, I have only added maternal DNA to Jim’s X Chromosome. That has Jim only 2% maternally painted. Here is the addition of Catherine in a sort of grey:

This has Jim 7% painted on his maternal side and 15% painted overall.

3 More on the Rathfelder Side

Jim is now up to 19% overall:

I haven’t used the grey color before, so this is new.

Kathy, Judy and Carolyn

I haven’t been able to figure out how I am related to Kathy. I’ll leave her out for now. She is likely a descendant of William Nicholson like Judy and Carolyn are:

However, Judy has closer common ancestors in Annie Nicholson and Jacob George Lentz.

Jim is getting more color and I have added a line between the paternal and maternal side in the key. Jim is now mapped at 21% overall.

Pat, Joan and Martin

Pat is a 2nd cousin on my Hartley side. Joan is on the Nicholson side and Martin is on the Rathfelder side. I know how Pat, Joan and Jim are related. I’ll have to look up Martin. I see that he knew little about his father due to the cold war.

Paul, Robert, Michael, Faye and Ken

Robert is on the Nicholson side, while Paul, Michael, Faye and Ken are on the Frazer side. Michael adds another Frazer ancestral couple:

This shows how Michael and I are related as Jim is not at Ancestry. Richard Frazer has an unknown wife. Ancestry has a guess at Mary Patterson. These matches bring Jim up to 25% painted using the online DNA Painter Program:

Here, I’ve sorted Jim’s key into his four grandparent groups:

Summary

With not too much effort, I have gotten Jim’s DNA Painter Map from 2% to 25%.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Playing with the AutoKinship Tool at Gedmatch

Gedmatch has a new Tier 1 tool called AutoKinship. This is an interesting tool that creates different trees from your DNA matches, based on AutoClusters. I put down the $10 to try this new tool at Gedmatch. Roberta Estes wrote a good article on how to use the tool. I used that when I was stuck, but preferred to try to play with it on my own.

Running, Downloading and Extracting

An important step that Roberta emphasizes is the extracting part. It is easy to run the tool at the suggested levels. It was easy for me to download the zipped file. However, opening the file doesn’t work correctly unless everything that you have downloaded is unzipped. Here is what I used:

After I extracted all the files, I opened a file that gave me AutoClusters:

This is the file minus the names. There were 19 Clusters. I recognized some of the names.

Upping the Matches to 250

I am now on my laptop and will try this again with 250 matches. This report is taking a little longer. Roberta says that there is a 10 minute limit on these reports. This time I have gone from 19 Clusters to 45. Yikes.

This time I got a more interesting analysis:

Now I have 3 AutoTrees, Common Locations and about 20 of my clusters with AutoKinship. I’ll start with a known quantity. Pink Cluster 16 has some of my well known and documented Frazer relatives:

This is near the start of the gray squares. The gray squares indicate that these clusters are inter-related. That is due to my Protestant minority ancestors in Catholic Ireland. They tended to marry others from the Church of Ireland. I have three known Frazer Lines and two known McMaster Lines in my ancestry.

The AutoKinship Tree looks like this for Cluster 16:

Things are a little mixed up, but are within the right ball park. For example, Paul is my 2nd cousin once removed, but I should be more removed than he is. Paul is actually 2nd cousin with Emily, not 1st cousin once removed as shown. Here are some of the relationships shown differently from one of my Blogs from 2018:

I’m not sure why Bill was not included. I was never sure how Shelly fit in. She has no tree at Ancestry.

I’ll use Cluster 16 as a springboard to jump to Cluster 20:

This is still in my Irish Region:

I note that the probability for this tree has an E-6 which I take to be better than the previous tree which was in the vicinity of E-12. The only person I am aware of in this AutoKinship Tree is Mel who is Emily’s daughter from the previous AutoKinship Tree. I looked for Deborah at AncestryDNA, but could not find her. I found Annette at FTDNA, but my match with her is on Chromsome 20 which on my paternal side has been out of control in that there have been so many matches on that Chromosome.

Some More Known Rathfelder Relatives on Cluster 44

Cluster 44 also has an AutoKinship Tree:

Here is the DNA tree that I have for Rathfelder:

The AutoKinship Tree is off a bit. Catherine and I should be on the same level. Anita and Inese should be a generation after me. Donna is a special case. Donna is my 2nd cousin once removed. Even my chart does not show things perfectly. That is because Donna and Iain are 1/2 second cousins with Anita and Inese. Donna and Iain are also half 1st cousin once removed with Catherine. AH shows as 4th cousin once removed to me on the AutoKinship Tree and in my DNA/Genealogy Tree.

How Does Otis Fit In?

I have Otis in this Tree:

Otis is actually in this tree twice. However, I don’t think I have a tree in it with both AH and Otis. Donna and Iain should be in this tree also under Leonhard Rathfelder. If the AutoKinship Tree is correct, then I may suspect a Schwechheimer connection for AH or a Rathfelder connection for Otis.

My Cluster 1 AutoKinship Tree

So far, I am liking the AutoKinship Trees because they give context to the AutoClusters. Also there appears to be an element of triangulation in making these Trees which gives me an additional sense that these trees are based on science. However, I after reading Roberta Estes Blog, I am not sure that the trees are based on trianulation.

This is an interesting tree. I know that my 1st cousin once removed and 2nd cousin have the correct relationships. That leaves Deb. I was able to find her on AncestryDNA. Debra and I have a shared DNA match with Rebeka:

It is difficult to figure out where the common ancestor is between Debra and myself. One pair of common ancestors is Jonathan Hatch b 1621 and Sarah Rowley. There may also be a Palmer connection in Rhode Island.

For fun, I will paint in Debra’s DNA using DNA Painter:

Debra’s DNA does not fill in any blank spots on my Chromosome 14. However, it does identify the right-hand part of Chromosome 14 in that it is Massachusetts Colonial DNA and not English Hartley DNA. I have a lot of green Hartley-Snell DNA identified, but not a lot of it is identified as to whether it is on the Hartley side or Snell side. This DNA is most assuredly on the Snell side. The top two choices for the identity of this DNA are Hatch and Palmer. Both of these connections go back to the 1600’s which is also interesting. Maury in my painted Chromosome 14 is mmg in the AutoKinship Tree and Pat is also there.

Cluster 3 AutoKinship Tree

Lee in the second row is a person that I have been following. Lee has ancestry in Colne. This is the area where my Hartleys came from. Lee also has Hartley ancestry which is not uncommon in Colne as Hartley has been one of the most popular name in that Parish over the last several centuries. The AutoKinship Tree connects myself with Lee, Geoff and Heather.

Heather tested at 23andMe.  I have written to Heather and Geoff to see if they would share their Ancestry trees with me. Now, one report at the AutoKinship Utility has Lee matching Audrey:

Audrey tested at FTDNA and has a shared match with Tracey at FTDNA. Tracey at least has a partial tree with some ancestors from Brampton, Ontario:

However, it appears that this tree only covers one side of Tracey’s ancestry. However, Tracey has a shared match at FTDNA with Amy. Amy also has Parr ancestry. Here is how Amy in blue and Tracey in red match me on Chromosome 11:

Here is part of Amy’s tree:

Amy and Tracey have the common ancestors of Joseph Parr and Calra Morrison. That means that I may have shared ancestors going back from one of these two.

Creating a Tree – But it Leads to the Wrong Line

I haven’t had much luck with these trees in the past, but I will create another tree. It turns out that this connection is on a different line:

Loughead is from County Sligo where my grandmothers Frazer and Clarke families were from. That means that either my connection with Lee is through Sligo. I do notice that Lee has Clark ancestors, but as Clark is a common name, could this be a coincidence? Lee doesn’t show any ancestors in Sligo. Lee also matches my father’s 1st cousin who has no Clarke ancestry, so I tend to think that the Lee connection is on my Hartley side.

I have heard back from Heather, so there may be a lead there.

Cluster 4 AutoKinship Tree

This is also on my Hartley side, but whereas I believe the previous tree goes back to my English Hartleys, I believe that this tree goes back to my Snell side and Colonial Massachusetts. I show a close match as a 1st cousin twice removed to two people. These are actually my second cousins. That means that I should be roughly 4th cousins with the other matches. Of course, that is based on typical matching amounts. It could be that others who matched less are not showing and that these matches could go back further in time – perhaps like the 1600’s match I mentioned above.

It helps showing these trees as it gives me hope that I may find a common ancestor or ancestors. Ned has a pretty good tree at Ancestry:

I find the Shared Surname List useful. Here is one connection:

Here we are in the early 1600’s again. Ned descends from Mary Hathaway and I descend from John Hathaway. In my previous DNA/Genealogy tree, I have gone as far back as Simon Hathaway from 1711. This is at Simon’s great-grandparent level, so back another three generations.

Adding Ned to DNA Painter

This is an interesting possibility, because Sarah Cooke’s father was on the Mayflower. Here is how Ned shows up:

This is interesting because Ned shares more DNA in this area of my paternal side Chromosome 16 than my 1st cousin once removed Maury. I didn’t paint in Jed, but he would be in about the same area.

Adding Ned to My DNA/Genealogy Tree

This should be interesting. Here is my existing Hathaway DNA matching Tree:

All I have to do is go up three generations to Arthur and Sarah Cooke and then down to Ned. Here is the connection by itself:

Of course, the connection is a bit dubious, but it is what I have. I notice that there is a Mayhew in the line which may be another connection going way back.

Cluster 6 AutoKinship Tree

This tree has an E-23 probability which seems incredibly small to me. However, of some interest to me is that there re two siblings near the top of the tree and two siblings at the bottom. If correct, then I at the 3rd cousin once removed level with Kimmy and mostly 3rd cousin level with the other DNA matches.

I found Carl at Ancestry. He has a Hannah Pontus Churchill born in Virginia in 1651. I have a Hannah Churchill in my tree born 1649 apparently in Plymouth, MA as the daughter of John Churchill and Hannah Pontus. So if my information is right John Churchill born perhaps in 1620 and Hannah Pontus would be our common ancestors. However, from above, I had that my Audrey connection was on an entirely different line going back to Ireland. Time to move on to Cluster 8

Cluster 8 Tree

Here at least I have Beth, my second cousin and the probability on this tree is not as low as the previous tree. Beth and I descend from James Hartley and Annie Snell. James Hartley had one sister. Annie was from a larger family, so my guess is that this tree could be on the Snell side. I note that GPR is a new match at Gedmatch, but I was unable to make the connection to Ancestry.

Cluster 37 Tree

This is a tree that I am familiar with:

Let’s see how accurate the AutoKinship Tree is:

 

This shows that, at least in this case, AutoKinship had each relationship closer by one-half step. The one exception is between me and Judy. The program then guesses at different possibilities:

Tree 4 seems to get it right:

The problem here is that Robert shows as a 2C2R to me where he is a 2C1R. However, the structure of the tree is more or less right. I don’t know that any of the trees got it perfect. There were just better trees and worse ones. Although this AutoKinship Tree does not give me any new information, it gives me an idea of how the Tree works.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It seems that the AutoKinship Trees help give some context to at least some of the AutoClusters
  • Looking at the AutoClusters in this way gives some hope that a common ancestor could be found some some of the unidentified clusters
  • Looking at the AutoClusters in terms of trees gives a fresh look at some old matches while also picking up some new matches that have been added to Gedmatch.
  • The real help is also in the reaching out to those I haven’t reached out to yet to try to make genealogical connections.

My AutoSegment Report

There is a new report on Gedmatch called AutoSegment. From my understanding it clumps together triangulated matches into clusters. If I were creating this report, I might have called it AutoTriangulator or something similar. I figured it was worthwhile putting down $10 to get one month’s worth of Tier 1 Subscription at Gedmatch

Running My AutoSegment Report

I ran it and was not sure if I was supposed to get an email back with the results. The first time I didn’t get any results, so I ran the report again and got results on the same page where I ran the report. I was asked to download files, so I did. My downloaded file looked like this:

I opened up the file and got this:

 

The first html file is the one to open:

That gave me 26 clusters of triangulated matches. I am quite sure that the purple cluster is my Chromosome 20 matches. That chromsosome is out of control for some reason. I have written about this before in 2016.

Chromosome 20

There is a more detailed report below:

The purple Cluster is # 24. This Cluster involves three chromosomes. Chromosome 20 has a part to play in four clusters. That makes sense as Chromosome 20 has a paternal component and maternal component.

Identifying My Triangulated Clusters

I recognize the first two matches in Cluster 1. They are two of my Hartley second cousins: Beth and Mike. That relationship goes back to my Hartley/Snell great grandparents. It looks possible that those connections could carry down through Cluster 11.

The other matches are:

  • Charles – He shows up twice and tested at 23andMe
  • Lori and Phyllis – These two are at Ancestry and are administered by the same person.
  • Edith – Administered by the same person who administers Lori and Phyllis but Edith tested at FTDNA.

Lori has the best tree at Ancestry, but I don’t see any obvious connctions. It is possible that building out her tree would give some clues as to the connection.

Pat in Cluster 4

Pat is related to me in two ways. One is as a second cousin in my Hartley/Snell side. The other is Bradford/Hathaway as 4th cousins:

So from Pat’s point of view, she is related to me as a 2nd cousin on her mother’s side and 4th cousin on her father’s side.

A Cluster Spreadsheet

Here I put some of the information into a spreadsheet:

The matches are 2nd cousins except for Jim. These matches go back to Hartley. This family was from England. Or they go back to Snell who were Colonial Massachusetts. Cluster 5 is interesting as at least one match (Matt) is recently from England.

An Out of Place Cluster 8

Cluster 8 is between my paternal clusters but I believe that it is a maternal cluster:

Joshua is the first person in the light green Cluster 8. He matches with Mike in Cluster 1 and his sister Tracy in Cluster 6. Here is where I have Joshua on my mother’s side:

That fact that Joshua matches Mike and Tracy was a bit misleading. The other person in Cluster 8 is Brittany. It is possible that if I built out her tree, I would get back to Nicholson or Lentz.

Lee in Cluster 11

I would like to connect to Lee in Cluster 11:

Lee has Hartley ancestors from the same part of England where my Hartleys are from. That does not necessarily mean that the connection is through those Hartleys, but may be through another set of ancestors. This appears to be the end of the Hartley Clusters for now:

Martin in Cluster 12

Martin is on my mother’s side. His ancestry is from Latvia, so that goes to my mother’s father who was also from Latvia. The connection is on Martin’s paternal side, but his genealogy stops with his father who was born in Latvia.

Cluster 17 – Rathfelder

Cluster 17 is easy as I can identify all Rathfelder relatives there:

Martin was in the green cluster above. I find it interesting that this group contains triangulation in the X Chromosome:

Clusters 18 an 19 – Nicholson

The light green and light blue clusters above are both Nicholson Clusters. I am not sure why they are separated:

Without getting into the specifics, my guess is as follows. Matches and triangulated matches go back to one of the two common ancestors. That means that for each segment where I match any of these people, the DNA we share is actually either from William Nicholson or Martha Ellis. Let’s say that my match with Carolyn favors the Nicholson side. That would mean that the other matches might favor the Ellis side. That would also mean that one cluster is a Nicholson Cluster and the other one an Ellis Cluster.

More on Cluster 19

Cluster 19 has Carolyn, Joan and Iain. Iain has contacted me and I told him the general direction of where the DNA was leading (to Nicholson in Sheffield). The other match tested at FTDNA and appears to be Joan. Joan has a tree at FTDNA. However, it is very basic. I can build this out to see if there is a connection. Joan’s roots are in Alabama mostly:

I make my trees at Ancestry, and here is how Joan’s tree is shaping up:

According to the 1910 Census, Tilden’s father was from North Carolina:

My attempt to make a connection by building out Joan’s tree failed:

This is not unusual. If the connection with Joan is at the fourt cousin level, then the connection would be out one level beyond what I have above. If it is at the 5th cousin or perhaps 4th once removed, it would be out two levels from what I show. The other problem is that the female line identifications become more scarce the further out you go.

Steve in Cluster 22

The next person I recognize is Steve:

Steve (or Stephen in my chart above) is important, because his primary connection with me is on the Clarke Line. I’m a bit stuck on this line beyond John Clarke. Unfortunately, Steve connects on my McMaster side also further back. Steve is a fifth cousin on that line. When I hover over Cluster 22, I see this:

It looks like Susan is the next largest match to Steve.

Finishing the Clusters with Known Names

I mentioned Cluster 24 as the large cluster. Cluster 25 is on my Frazer side also:

Susan, Doreen and Ken are in the orange square and G is Gladys in the yellow area. Our common ancestors are James Frazer and Violet Frazer. Gary is from an area near the Frazers and Shelly has not shared her ancestry to my knowledge. This is what I have so far:

I have 7 clusters on the paternal side and three on the maternal side. I have Lee who seems to be on my paternal side.

Checking by Phased Results

I have some phased kits that a genetic genealogist Martin made for me, so I can tell by the matches at least what grandparent side these clusters should be in.

Joshua’s Confusing Match on Cluster 8

My phased Hartley grandfather kit shows to match Joshua. However, the genealogy shows that he matches my mother’s mother’s side. Here is some more detailed AutoSegment information for Joshua in Cluster 8:

This indicates that the two triangulate with each other and me. Next, I’ll check my paternally and maternally phased kits. These were generated at Gedmatch based on my mother’s DNA test. Joshua matches me there on my maternal kit. When I recheck, it appears that Joshua does indeed match on my mother’s mother’s phased kit. So I don’t know what I was seeing before. I keep these mistakes and corrections in my Blogs to remind myself how easy it is to get off track with all the information out there.

Here is a continuation of my spreadsheet:

Here I have also color coded the grandparents. Haretly and Snell are blue, Frazer/Clarke is green. Lentz/Nicholson is orange and Rathfelder/Gangnus is yellow.

Clusters 14-16: Frazer Side

Cluster 14 seems to favor the McMaster side:

The first blue line in each case is Marshall and the second is Craig.

The key is with Keith. My common ancestor with him is with James and Fanny Mcmaster. My common ancestor with Susan and Katherine are Frazer/McMaster. However, their overlap with Keith seems to mean that the connection is on the McMaster side. Marshall and Craig have a match overlapping with Katherine but starting at 15M, a little later than Katherine’s which starts at 7M.

Margaret is in Cluster 16. She has some ancestors near Enniskillen:

This location comes up a lot. This may be on my Clarke side or from an unidentified Frazer wife’s family. She also has a Henderson and MacGregor in her tree:

Henerson was a second wife of Clarke (though not known to be related to me). McGregor comes up as a possible ancestor on my ThruLines at Ancestry:

From what I can tell, the MacGregor name comes from a George MacGregor Frazer who is in some people’s Ancestry Trees:

Filling in the Rest of My Spreadsheet

Here I have under the GP column, blue for Hartley, green for Frazer, yellow for Rathfelder and orange for Lentz. It looks like I only have four clusters to go.

Cluster 20

Cluster 20 is on Chromosome 4. Another way to check on these clusters is by DNAPainter or Visual Phasing.

The match seems to go through a maternal crossover, so my guess is that this match is on my paternal Frazer side. The last of the trhee matches in Cluster 20 is Gabrielle. She tested at Ancestry. At Ancestry, her match is reduced to 18 cM. She shows no shared DNA matches, probably due to the low match level.

From DNAPainter, these Cluster 20 matches are probably from my Clarke side:

This is a side with a brick wall.

Cluster 21

Cluster 21 is from Chromosome 22.

That area between the two arrows is not well mapped on my Chromosome 22. Orange Cluster 21 is medium sized:

Although the are of Chromosome 22 is not well identified, I can identify that the connection is through my Frazer grandmother.

Cluster 23

This Cluster has two triangulated matches at the beginning of Chormosome 18:

The matches are with Patricia and Carl.

I’m leaning toward Patricia and Carl being in the Clarke/Spratt section of my DNA. I have Patricia on my paternal side so that means I must be right.

Cluster 26

That leaves one last cluster.

The first three matches are from Ann and her close relatives. From my spreadsheet of matches, Ann is on my Lentz side:

That match is around the red arrows and would be more specifically on my Nicholson/Ellis side.

The Completed Key

Based on Visual Phasing, my match spreadsheet and DNAPainter, I was able to identify all my clusters at least back to one grandparent.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Out of the 26 clusters, 6 were maternal clusters.
  • Of the remaining 20 clusters, they were split fairly evenly between Hartley and Frazer
  • It seems like I could have differentiated my Hartley clusters more.
  • Every tool seems to give some new understanding to my DNA matches
  • It would be interesting to look at other of my 5 siblings’ AutoSegments to see how they differ from mine

An Updated Look at Hartley and Related Theories

In this Blog, I would like to update my Hartley Theories and beyond. I have about 10 DNA results that I have uploaded to MyHeritage. MyHeritage has Theories based on DNA matches that also have possible genealogical matches. Here is a chart I made and updated last August:

I highlighted 2 because of similar names that showed up. I also made a dstinction between paternal and maternal theories. I see that I did not include my cousin Paul’s results. This may be better sorted by common ancestors:

Looking for New Theories

Next, I need to add to the list. For me, that appears to be Jane. Jane shows a possible connection with Clarke and Bachelour:

The problem with this connection is that I have that the father of Thomase Clarke was John Clarke. That makes two matches that I have that show this apparently wrong common ancestors.

Heidi and Wolf

I previously had Wolf on my Biedermann tree and not my Gangnus tree:

This is more in line with Wolf’s tree:

The question is, which is the right Theory: MyHeritage’s or mine? I tend to want to go with my own analysis. I wrote a Blog on Wolf here.

Sharon’s Theories

My sister Sharon has the most Theories so far:

Go Sharon. I didn’t see any new Theories for Sharon.

Brother Jon’s Theories

Here is a new one:

Although the Theory seems wrong, I should double check MyHeritage’s reasoning. Also this could be a case of where there is smoke, there is fire.

I need to check the genealogy for Leonie, Jane and Susan. If they all truly go back to the same ancestors, then either:

  • Their genealogy is right and mine is wrong
  • Mine is right and theirs is wrong
  • We have a different common ancestor but near the place where it seems like our common ancestors are showing in this Theory

I think I’ll wait to analyze this later.

Lori and Jim’s Theories

I either missed Lori or had her mis-labeled as Jon. I deleted the extra Jon, so now I need to add in Lori’s Theories.

This Theory looks new for Jim. It is his last:

Ashley is from New Zealand and adds to the Clarke mystery.

Checking the DNA on Jim’s Clarke Match

Jim has 2 small DNA matches with Ashley:

These are Chromosomes 9 and 18. If these are truly Clarke or related DNA matches, then these DNA matches should be in areas mapped for Jim under his Frazer grandparent side. Here is Jim’s Chromosome 9:

Jim’s match with Ashley on Chromosome 9 is between 80 and 85M. I put an arrow where that would be. Jim’s map shows that he should have Hartley DNA in that area – assuming the match is on Jim’s paternal side.  That means that this match cannot be a Clarke match.

That match is consistent with Chromosome 18 where Jim has his paternal side mapped as all Hartley shown in orange:

Jim and Leonie

While I have Jim’s visual phasing maps out, I’ll look at his match with Leonie:

Jim shows a lot of Frazer in blue on his Chromosome 1:

On Chromosome 7, the formatting is off, but Leonie’s DNA maps to Jim’s Frazer side:

Checking Jon and Lori against Leonie

I checked Jon and he had no Theory with Leonie. That means that I had to redo Jon’s list. He has the fewest Theories of any of my siblings at 6 now:

Lori matches on the Frazer side on Chromosome 7:

Lori doesn’t match on Chromosome 1 even though that portion of her Chromosome maps to Frazer.

At this point, I’ll move on to people other than my siblings. Between my siblings, the average number of Theories we have is 12 if I have it right.

 

My Mom’s Theories

Right now, I have that my mom has 11 Theories based on my spreadsheet. When I check MyHeritage, she has 10. The issue is with matches with mulitple theories:

Wolf and Patrick have multiple Theories. It is possible that others do also. Here my mom’s theories are all on her father’s side. There are two with Lentz, but they seem off. There is another issue in that 5 Theories that my Mom does not have that at least one of her children do have. This seems a bit off. Also, it seems like my mom is the only one who seems to have the theory that I verified with Biedermann and Lautenschlager. I am not sure why her children didn’t include this theory, but they did include the Gangnus Biedermann connection that I have not been able to substantiate.

My Father’s First Cousins: Joyce and Jim

These two should help to push back further on my Hartley side. These two have many theories, but I will only look at the ones on their Hartley side. When I check Joyce, I see that I had three mentioned on my spreadsheet, but two of these I no longer see as theories. When I reviewed Jim’s results, he still had the one Theory on his Hartley side. Here is the chart so far:

Summary and Conclusions

  • MyHeritage’s Theories are worth looking at
  • The Theories seem to be in four categories:
    1. Those are obvious,
    2. those that are close to be being right, but the actual common ancestors are nearby,
    3. those that I can’t prove are right are wrong
    4. those that are obviously wrong
  • I think that some Theories have disappeared
  • I’ll keep looking at MyHeritage’s Theorys. Ancestry’s ThruLines seem better but Ancestry doesn’t show DNA segment information
  • Using other tools to test the Theories is a good idea. I used visual phasing in this Blog to show one Theory could not be right based on the DNA.

Painting My Sister Lori’s DNA

In previous Blogs, I have painted my other two sisters’ DNA. Now I would like tp include Lori. This will finish the painting of all three of my sisters. I will be using a utility called DNAPainter. This is what I have done so far:

Lori is at 4% painted. I would like to get her up into the 30’s. It looks like I was just looking at Lori’s paternal side. This makes sense as my mom has tested for DNA. For some reason, I don’t have a match name for the Mary Pilling DNA.

Adding Cindy’s X Chromosome Match

Cindy is a first cousin. I don’t usually add first cousins, but because the connection is through Cindy’s father, that means that Cindy’s X Chromosome match must be through Cindy’s father’s mother. She was Emma Lentz:

This was a large 100 cM match on the X Chromosome and is the first maternal match that I have painted for Lori. This brings Lori up to 5% painted.

More Gedmatch Matches

There will be a lot of Hartley matches for Lori at Gedmatch:

These Hartley matches are in light blue and bring Lori up to 17% painted, or about half of my goal for Lori.

Filling in Some More X Chromosome at Gedmatch

Notice that Cindy and Carolyn overlap but have different common ancestors. That is because that DNA that Cindy and Lori share from their grandmother Emma Lentz born 1900 is the same DNA that Lori and Carolyn share from either Nicholson born in 1836 or his Ellis wife.

Continuing with Lori’s Autosomal Matches at Gedmatch

Here is Lori at 26% painted:

 

In the key, I now have the ancestors divided into Lori’s four grandparent groups.

Lori’s Matches at MyHeritage

Lori has this important match at MyHeritage, but the relationship is shown at AncestryDNA:

Stephen is also related:

Ron and Steve are also related through the McMaster line but further back in time.

The McMaster Connection

When I paint Ron and Stephen, I see a connection to Emily who has Mcmaster ancestry:

That means that on Chromosome 13, the connection is most likely on the McMaster side:

I could add another pair of common ancestors to DNAPainter, but I’ll leave it as it is for now.

Marilee’s Theory at MyHeritage

I have  adifferent interpretation:

Marille is in the bottom left of this chart and I am in the blue section. Here we are 6th cousins instead of MyHeritage’s 5th cousins. I painted a segment for Marilee that was 6.7 cM. DNAPainter’s default is to paint only segments of 7 cM and more.

The small segment is in Chromosome 20. The jury is still out on Marilee’s ancestry. I think that I have the best guess. However, I think that MyHeritage’s Theory may be adding some bad information to the internet.

Lori and Warwick on the McMaster Line

I’m never quite sure about some of these older McMaster connections, but I’ll assume this one is right.

Assuming that Margery was not also a Frazer, this puts Paul and Susan’s green matches in the McMaster camp.

Lori at 28% Painted

This is a bit short of the 30% or more I wanted to have for Lori, but I may fill in more later:

Adding Astrid

I forgot Astrid on the Rathfelder Line:

Comparing Lori’s Common Ancestors to Other Mapped Siblings

In a previous Blog, I started this chart:

The coverage of common ancestors for Lori looks good except for Howorth.

Also I see Lori could have more matches under Nicholson and Ellis.

After adding four matches I missed, Lori is still at 28% painted:

This could mean that Lori has a larger percentage of unidentified common ancestors.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I mapped Lori out thinking that I would be able to get in the 30 percent range.
  • I was only able to get up to 28% mapped for Lori
  • It is possible that her unidentified regions are the areas where I have trouble identifying ancestors such as on the Clarke, Spratt and Hartley Lines.

 

More Mapping of My Father’s 1st Cousin Joyce

Here is my father’s cousin Joyce’s ancestry:

I’m interested in Joyce’s maternal side through Annie Louisa Hartley. That is the side we connect on. I was also wondering if I could find any Hartley side X Chromosome matches. Joyce recieved an X Chromosome from her maternal and paternal side.

I only have 4% of Joyce’s DNA mapped out using DNA Painter:

I only have 2% of Joyce mapped out on the Hartley side that I am interested in:

Looking at Joyce’s X Chromosome Matches

The easiest place to look for Joyce’s X Chromosome matches is at Gedmatch:

The first match is Joyce’s match with herself. The second match is with Joyce’s first cousin. The third match won’t appear at Ancestry as the match is only on the X Chromosome. The fourth match is at FTDNA and I don’t remember Joyce’s password there. The fifth match is at Ancestry. I painted her on, but I had already painted her brother and she added no new DNA.

Joyce at MyHeritage

MyHeritage has Theories of Relativity. That is where there is a DNA match an a genealogical connection. I don’t think that I have painted Candee. Here is her ‘Theory’ at MyHeritage:

This is on my Hartley/Snell side, so that is good. Here is the new segment mapped:

The segment is near another Snell ancestor, so that tells me that the genealogy could be showing the correct DNA segment. This little segment gets Joyce up to 3% mapped on her maternal side.

James at MyHeritage

Joyce has this Theory with James:

This adds a new pair of ancestors for Joyce on her paternal side. However, I am not related to Joyce on that side.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Joyce still has a lot of mapping to go
  • Most of Joyce’s matches seem to be on her paternal side
  • There may be more matches for Joyce at FTDNA, but I have either not uploaded her results there, or I have forgotten her password.
  • Joyce has a lot of first cousin matches on her Hartley side, but I generally map only to the second cousin level.