Category: DNA General

Posted on

Another McMaster Connection at Ancestry

Morgan is a DNA match to me at Ancestry. We match at 20 cM. Here is what Morgan has for a tree at Ancestry:

The connection to my tree is likely through Francis McMaster. Here is the tree that I have for Francis (or Frances):

Frances descends from at least 5 McMaster lines. Plus, the hint for Mary Johnston has as her mother Esther McMaster. This is truly a complicated genealogy. However, the closest place that Morgan and I connect are through James McMaster and Fanny McMaster.

A Partial DNA/Genealogy McMaster Tree

Here is part of one of the trees that I have of McMasters that match by DNA:

Note that I have a space for Jane who Married Archie McMaster. I believe that Morgan would fill in under this line:

This shows that Morgan is my 4th cousin. However, I suspect that we are related as 5th cousins also or more distantly on other McMaster lines.

My Shared DNA Matches with Morgan

Matthew is a DNA match that Morgan and I share:

I did not put Matthew on my McMaster tree to keep it simpler. Matthew must be on my Frazer DNA/genealogy tree.

Trudy with Johnston/McMaster Ancestry

Trudy is also a share match with Morgan and me. Here is the maternal side of Trudy’s tree:

This must be the Esther McMaster that I mentioned above as a hint in my tree. I’ll assume that the hint is correct, and add it in to my tree as an ancestor to Frances McMaster:

I think that Esther may be a daughter of Abraham McMaster.

Tammy – Another Shared Match

Tammy matches Morgan and me. She also has a Johnston in her ancestry which suggests a connection on the McMaster side. Here is Tammy’s tree on her paternal side:

Someone else’s tree at Ancestry has this person for John Johnston’s father:

This suggests that Thomas could be a son of Robert Johnston and Esther McMaster.

Summary and Conclusions:

  • The McMaster tree is often complicated with McMasters marrying into other McMaster lines.
  • My Match with Morgan is defined at the 4th cousin level, but there are other McMaster connections at a more distant level
  • Shared DNA matches help confirm that the genealogy is on the right track.
  • Two shared DNA matches between Morgan and me seem to confirm a  connection with Eshter McMaster born in or around 1793

 

Posted on

New 111 STR Hartley YDNA Test Results and the SAPP Tree

New results are in for a Hartley YDNA 111 STR test. These STR tests were in included in a BigY test. The BigY test results are not in yet. There are different Hartley YDNA lines, but this is the line that my Hartleys are on (and several other Hartleys). Here are the new results:

This image is from the Hartley YDNA Project page at FTDNA. The new tester is the one at the top. The tester has ancestry in common with Roger Hartley born 1628 and died 1714. This is an important line as it represents the oldest verifiable Hartley line in this group of Hartleys. This group of Hartleys were originally Quakers. They were persecuted, so they left Lancashire County England for Pennsylvania where Quakers were welcome. That doesn’t mean that the other lines descended from this line, but that this line is closer to a Hartley common ancestor. The two tests on the bottom are for myself and my brother, so R-FT225247 represents a newer YDNA Branch.

Some Hartley Genealogy

Here is a tree I worked out for the Quaker Branch of the Hartley family:

John Robert is the new tester. Assuming I have the tree right, he shows as 6th cousin to Lawrence and Ross and 7th cousin to Michael. At the 111 STR level, John’s two closest matches are with Lawrence and Ross. John shows as a three step difference to these two. Michael does not show up. He took the older BigY 500 test which did not include the 111 STR test at the time. Lawrence took the newer BigY 700 test. Ross took the 111 STR test without the BigY test. The above tree shows Lawrence and Ross to be third cousins to each other.

John’s YDNA STR Matches at the 111 Level

Here are John’s matches of those Hartleys who have tested to the 111 STR Level:

Lawrence and Ross are at the top of the list. Interstingly, I am on the list but my brother Jimmy is not. He must have one more difference which put him over the top of what is reported. All the above have the Hartley surname except for Wolka. This likely means that this Wolka line was at one time a Hartley line.

A 111 STR Tree for Hartleys

Again, these are for the Hartleys in my group. These are the 9 people that are in the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA. Ross and Wolka are not in that project, so they are not represented below. When I look at the STRs that have changed within the Hartley group, they are these:

When creating a tree, the easiest way is to assume that the mode is the oldest value of the STR. When I color the outliers, they look like this:

This chart represents 8 Hartleys and one Mawdsley. The bottom two lines are myself and my brother. I moved John Robert next to Lawrence. These two are above my brother and me. They descend from the older Quaker Hartley Line.

Looking at just the Quaker Line of Hartleys, I see this:

These are the three differences between John and Lawrence in that line. John has a DYS390 value of 24 and a DYS549 value of 12. Lawrence has a DYS641 value of 11. As these are unique to the Quaker Line, they are most likely mutations within that line:

This image is meant to show that somewhere along the Anthony Hartley line, these two STRs appeared which are unique to that line. Likewise, sometime along the Joseph Hartley line a unique value for one STR occurred which describes that line. Unfortunately, I don’t have Ross’ results as he is not in the Hartey FTDNA YDNA Project.

STR Structure within SNP Structure

There are two aspects to YDNA testing. One is STRs and the other is SNP testing. The SNP testing is less subject to interpretation. This is because STR values can go up and/or down whereas a SNP mutation is a single mutation. As such, the SNP is more useful for creating trees.

Here is the reliable SNP tree from my perspective:

John Robert’s BigY results have not yet completed, but his results should be within R-A16717 based on genealogy. So far all Hartleys in this Line are under A11134. The connection for Mawdsley goes further back in time – probably before the time when surnames were finalized.

Two Models for Hartley STRs

In a Blog I wrote earlier this year, I considered two different models to explain the STRs:

and,

In these depictions, I didn’t mean to show that Steve and John have a more recent common ancestor. They should have their own separate lines from the early Hartley ancestor. The boxes were added place them on an equal footing with the other Hartleys. Here is a better representation:

It also appears that what I had as DYS572 should actually be DYS534:

It is easy to get confused with 111 STRs. Here is a corrected version of the first tree:

FTDNA’s New Time Tree

FTDNA has a new representation for those who have taken the BigY test:

The person at the top right is a Smith. The common ancestor between Smith and our Hartleys was around the year 500. This was certainly before the time of surnames in England. The next person going down the column is Mawdsley. The common ancestor between Mawdsely and the Hartleys was some time around the year 1100, though the dashed line gives a larger range. Assuming the year of 1100 is correct, I would say that common ancestor lived before the age of surnames also.

The next 6 are Hartleys who have taken the BigY test. From the Time Tree above, we see that all Hartleys are R-A11134. These Hartleys had a common ancestor who lived probably in the 1400’s. Actually, it looks like these had a common ancestor, but they really had a common SNP. This SNP could have occurred within, say three generations on average. However, there was a Hartley who originally developed this particular mutation which was carried down all other Hartleys.

The two that are still R-A11134 are John and Steve. They have not had other matches yet which further define their lines. Chronologically, the next group is R-A16717. These are the Quaker Hartleys shown in my genealogical chart above. R-A16717 dates from the Time Tree from around 1550. By genealogy, the common ancestor from the group was born in 1666. That means that either the Time Tree is a bit early, or an ancestor of Edward Hartley born 1666 first had the mutation of R-A16717 (or a combination of both). Finally, I tested my brother and myself, so R-FT225247 represents my father who born in 1918.

Using SAPP to Generate a Hartley Tree

David Vance developed a software to analyze STRs. I’ll use this for the Hartleys in my group who are also in the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA:

This is the first time that I have used this tool. It uses STR testing of any length which is interesting. Also I did not put in information about SNPs. That would have been helpful to refine the tool. Here is the top box of the chart:

This is in line with the start of the Hartley surname. Here the year 1350 is given. The Time Tree based on SNPs gave a date about 75 years later. This method is a lot easier than trying to create a tree by hand. Next, I’ll look at my section:

I am on the right side of the tree. My brother and I are in the last two boxes on the bottom of the tree. Our common ancestor (our father) has a date of 1900 which is close to his birth year of 1918. The next one up on our branch is John Nicholas. He took the BigY test. I had thought that he would have formed a new Hartley SNP branch, but that did not happen.

The two other boxes are for Tim and Steve. Steve has also taken the BigY test. My guess is that Tim is Steve’s brother as the common ancestor date given is around 1950.

A Second Run of SAPP

My first run showed that I had 112 STRs for some testers, so I ran the program again using the Notepad software for the results as suggested in the instructional video. This time I came out with 111 STRs:

Above, the number of STRs are shown in bold blue on the diagonal.

Here is the corrected SAPP Tree:

This tree now shows five brances from the top instead of four and now the STR names are correct:

This now shows that the difference between my brother and me is STR 534. The program interprets that it was I that had the mutation to 16 from the ancestral value of 15. This new tree also has my brother and I having a common ancestor with John Nicholas in the year 1700.

The Quaker Hartley STR Testers and One Other Hartley Tester

These four are on the left side of the newer tree:

 

Here the bottom middle person is John Robert. That means that this is the Quaker Line of Hartleys. An older date of 1450 AD is given for the common ancestor. Michael, John Robert and Lawrence are in the bottom row. Because Michael has so many mutations, I believe that they set the common ancestor date back to 1450.

Confusingly, the person in the top left is another John Robert (not the subject of this Blog). He only tested for 37 STRs and is shown in a branch by himself.

Mawdsley

I cut the first number off of Mawdsley’s ID by mistake. He was grouped with Gary. This probably should not be so as I presume that Gary is A11134 and Mawdsley is A11132

A Hartley SAPP Tree with SNPs Added

Before I go too far with the current SAPP tree, I would like to add some SNP information to the current tree, to see if that refines the tree at all. I added these SNPs:

473291 A11132*
372104 A11134*
293533 A11134*
117349 A16717*
617805 A16717*
757486 FT225247*
275990 FT225247*

The astierix indicates that the named SNP is the current terminal SNP for the tester.

Here is how SAPP interpreted my input:

This looks correct to me. Here is the new SAPP Tree:

Here we are back to four branches. However, the second branch is quite large and includes all those known to be in A11134. The first branch is the John Robert who is not in the Quaker Line. The box at the top represents A11132 which includes Mawdsley. This tree assumes that for the non-BigY tested Hartleys, we don’t know whether or not they are A11134.

The Quaker Line

I like the branching better with the new configuration:

This puts John Robert and Lawrence in one branch and Michael in another which parallels what we have for the genealogy:

This puts Thomas Hartley born 1700 at Node #19 and Edward Hartley born 1666 at Node #20.

My Hartley Group

This SAPP Tree puts me in a new group:

Again, my closest match by the SAPP Tree is with John Nicholas. Based on the Tree, we have a common ancestor born around 1700. If that is correct, then there is a chance we could find a common ancestor using genealogical research. Also on this branch are Steve and Tim. According to this tree, our common ancestor would be further back (around the year 1600). I tend to think that a common ancestor with John Nicholas and myself in 1700 is unlikely.

This is because my SNP which is FT225247 includes a total of 7 SNPs and the beginning of that SNP group should start about the same time as A16717. The SAPP Tree has A16717 starting around the year 1550.

An Unlikely Node #23

Here Node #23 is dated at 1950. However, there are 6 STR changes beneath it for Mervin. Normally one person would only have one STR change. Beneath Node #15 are Joseph and Robert. These two appear to be brothers, but they have only tested to 12 STRs. That means that they could actually be dsitantly related.

The Mawdsley Group

As before, Mawdsley and Gary are grouped together for some reason.

One More SAPP Tree without Mawdsley

I’ll take out Mawdsley as he is from a SNP group which is further back in time:

This gives a slightly different variation.

Comparisons with a 2021 Analysis

At the end of last year, Robert Casey did an analysis of Z16343. This is the parent SNP group of the Hartleys:

I added arrows to where the Hartleys are. Here is a closeup:

Casey uses a designation of A11132>. I assume that means he believes that all Hartleys should be A11132 at the top of their tree. He also has a designation of <FT225247. This is my terminal Haplogroup. I assume that designiation means that these should be upstream of FT225247. Finally, my brother and I are at FT225247 which I assume means our terminal Haplogroup. Note that this analysis was done before the Haplogroup of A16717 came out for the Quaker Hartleys of Lancashire and Pennsylvania.

Michael is in the branch at the top left. That is now A16717. Several Hartleys are missing from the analysis. Under Node #91 is John Nicholas. Under Node #85 are Gary and Lawrence. That is probably not right as I have that Gary is not part of the Quaker Hartley group. Steve is under Node #94. Then my brother Jim and I are bottom right.

Summary and  Conclusions

  • While waiting for the BigY results of John Robert of the Hartley Quaker Line, I looked at his 111 STR results
  • Ross from the Quaker Line and a Wolka are not in the Hartley FTDNA YDNA project, so I didn’t include them in the anlysis
  • On the Quaker Line, it is farily easy to see which STR mutations go with which branch of that Line
  • I looked at the SAPP Program which analyzes STRs
  • When I added SNP information, the program gave a more accurate rendering of the Hartley Quaker Line for some reason
  • There were some parts of the program which didn’t make sense, so even though the SAPP Program is very easy to use, there is still a need for manual construction of STR Trees
  • SNPs are much more accurate than STRs. However, not all Hartleys have taken the BigY test
  • Further BigY testing of Mervyn, Gary, John Robert and Wolka would be helpful in understanding the history of this branch of the Hartley family

 

 

Posted on

Three New Latvian Matches at MyHeritage

I was pleasantly surprised recently to get three rather close DNA matches to myself and my family on my mother’s side. The three Latvian matches are Normunds, Elina and Zanda. Normunds is the father and Elina and Zanda are the daughters. These three matches are on my Rathfelder side.

Adding the New Matches to My Rathfelder Tree

I keep a combination genealogy/DNA match tree. This is what I have so far for the Rathfelder tree:

I need to add the three matches under Vera:

this shows that my mother and Vera are first cousins. that means that my siblings and I are 2nd cousins with Normunds and 2nd cousins once removed with Elina and Zanda. I have this photo of Vera from my cousin Anita:

How We Match by DNA

For some reason, I can’t see the detailed DNA results for Normunds or Zanda. I do see results for Elina:

DNA Painter

This information can be added on to my DNA Painter profile. This is how it looks now:

This shows that I am ‘painted’ overal 52%. This means that I have identified 52% of my DNA by known matches. On the representation above, the paterrnal side is the top part of each chromosome and the maternal part is the bottom of each chromosome. Here is just my maternal side:

This shows that I am painted 45% on my maternal side or a little less than half.

When I add Elina, this gets my maternal side up to 47%:

That also raised my overall ‘painted’ level to 53%.

Normunds DNA

At first I couldn’t see the specific matches for Normunds’ DNA but Zanda made the corrections, so I can now see his results. Here they are:

I’m interested to see how this will have an effect on my DNA Painter Profile. A second cousin is usually the best person to have for a match because they represent the DNA of one grandparent  – in this case, my grandfather Alexander Rathfelder. It turns out that there is no overall effect for Normunds. This is perhaps because he overlaps with other Rathfelder matches. There was a difference, but not enough to bring the painted percentage up overall or on the maternal side.

Here is Chromosome 15:

This would indicate that Carolyn’s match is spurious. She matches at 8 cM and a certain percent of small matches are inaccurate or false matches. The other orange matches all have Henry [Heinrich] Rathfelder and Maria Gangnus as common ancestors.

Here is what MyHeritage shows between myself and Normands:

This turns out to be more than average DNA for 2nd cousins to share:

This study shows that 229 cM would be average.

Normunds and Gladys Rathfelder

As Normands has as much or more Rathfelder DNA than his daughters and as my mother has more than her children, I’ll look at the match between Gladys and Normunds:

 

Normally, I don’t paint my own first cousins’ matches. This is because a first cousin normally just distinguishes between paternal and maternal side. However, for my mother, it looks like I painted hers:

Here the blue color is Rathfelder/Gangnus (1st cousins). This is just my mom’s paternal Rathfelder side. Also I usually have a lighter color for closer relatives, so the more distant, darker color relatives can shine through. My mom is currently at 40% painted on her paternal side and 35% painted overall. Let’s see if Normunds makes a difference.

Here I changed Rathfelder/Gangnus DNA to a more subtle yellow. This got my mom painted up to 44% on her paternal side and 37% painted overall.

Normunds adds some new DNA to my mother’s profile on Chromosome 1:

On Chomosome 2, Normunds overlaps with Angelina. I am not sure of her ancestry, but from her DNA, it is clear that she had ancestors from Latvia::

On Chromosome 7, Normunds has an overlap with Rudi:

Rudi has ancestry going back to 1723.

However, when I check MyHeritage, there are other possible relationships to Rudi. This one is called Theory 1:

This relationship would be on my mother’s paternal grandfather’s side, whereas the previous relationship would be on my mother’s  paternal gramdmother’s side.  Plus, I don’t know if I have checked out these different relationships. Altogether, MyHeritage has 4 Theories. It would be beyond the scope of this Blog to check them all out. The bottom line is that I thought that the match with Rudi on Chromosome 7 would give me more definition as to where the match that my mom had with Nornunds came from. However, in this case, due to intermarriage in the Colony of Hirschenhof, it is not clear.

Perhaps Normunds match with my mom on Chromosome 17 will tell us something:

Normunds has a partial overlap with Astrid and a complete overlap with Otis. This is giving a mixed message perhaps also:

Otis’ ancesetry goes back to Schwechheimer (1772) and Gangnus (1780). Astrid goes back to Rathfelder and Biedenbender. Otis has uploaded his DNA results to Gedmatch. If Normunds uploads his results there, perhaps this will reveal something.

Meanwhile, Astrid shows triangulation with my mom and Normunds at MyHeritage on Chromosomes 17 and 19:

Triangulation means that these people all match each other. That means that I would tend to think that the DNA matches between the three of us represent DNA from Johann Jerg Rathfelder born 1752 and his wife Juliana Biedenbender born 1755. Here is Gladys’ DNA profile on Chromosome 19:

Astrid’s Genealogy

In order to sort this all out, I will need to take a closer look at Astrid’s genealogy. Here is what MyHeritage shows:

Ancestry shows this relationship, which I have assumed was right:

The W Rathfelder is Wilhemina Rathfelder. As I recall in other research, there was more than one Wilhemena Rathfelder. I think that the custom was to name the godchild after the godparent, so that may be the source of the duplicate names. Another confusing thing is that Hans Jerg had two children named Johann Georg:

These two Johann Georg’s were born about 15 years apart. That in formation was from this publication:

Based on the underlining, the first Johann went by Johann and the second went by Georg. The father Hans Jerg was also a Johann Georg.

Checking Astrid’s Tree

The best way to check Astrid’s tree is to build my own tree for her. Astrid has that her mother was baptized here:

At the Raduraksti website, I see this Church:

At this site, I found some information on the Spengle family, but I didn’t see Astrid’s mother or grandmother:

This would take a long time to check, so I’ll just assume the connection is right. My suspicion is that there are other connections than just the obvious ones.

Normunds, Gladys and Eva

I wrote a Blog about Eva here. She is my third cousin. Here is where Normunds, Gladys and Eva triangulate on Chromosome 1:

The theory is that shared amount of DNA comes from either Johann Rathfelder or Rosine Schwechheimer:

In that Blog about Eva, I mentioned this family chart:

Did My Great-Grandmother Have a Second Husband Who Ran Away?

The Gustav Rathfelder family lived in Riga and attended St. Paul’s Lutheran Church. I wonder if the +1918 means that my great-grandfather Heinrich died in 1918. I have that he died before 1921. I put this image out to the Latvian Genealogy Facebook page and got these two responses:

“Abgang” is essentially departure — e.g. the +1918 means that Heinrich died in 1918 (and therefore “departed from” the church congregation). I’ll try to take another look at the rest later.

The note next to Marie’s name (above the +1918) says, “married to a Kroeger, missing”. Her husband (first husband? second husband?) is presumably the one who’s missing.
The fact that one of Gustav’s sons is also named Heinrich doesn’t necessarily mean that he was named after Heinrich, though it’s possible. It was a pretty common name, and names often appeared multiple times in the same family without being namesakes in the sense that we’d think of it.

It sounds like Maria Gangnus Rathfelder had a second husband which would make sense if the first one died. He apparently deserted her if I understand the record correctly.

Concerning the comment on naming, I have seen that a child often had the same name as the Godparent. Here is the birth record for Robert Nicolai:

I take #1 above to be the godfather, Nicolai Rathfelder. Further, I believe him to be Johann Philip Nicolai Rathfelder born 1874 to my great-grandfather Heinrich Rathfelder.

Here is a photo of Marie. I assume that it is during Christmas and that she is with some of her relatives:

Marie is second from the left. She was born in 1856, so she would be quite old here.

Gladys, Normunds and Peter

These three people also triangulate at MyHeritage. That means that they all have common ancestors:

This triangulation happens on Chromosomes 7 and 18. Here is my mom’s DNA profile for those two areas:

These two areas represent ambiguous genealogies. Remember Rudi had about 4 ways that he could match. Also Silvia and Patrick could match on two different lines.

Peter’s Genealogy

MyHeritage shows this:

I can try to build a tree to see if I can get any further. I’ll start out on the paternal side. This marriage record is helpful:

However, this has Oleg’s mother as Emilie Grassman rather than Berta. Social Security has this information:

It seems like Oleg has a sister Vera. Find a Grave has more on Emilia:

My tree so far:

Here we see that Emelia was born in Riga:

This could be the connection that I was looking for.  This is likely Emilie traveling from Lithuania to New York in 1955:

That’s as far as I can get now. The connection appears to be with Emilie Grossman or Grassman. One tree at Ancestry has her parents:

Normunds, Gladys and Deborah

Perhaps I don’t know when to give up, but I’ll look at Deborah. These three triangualte on Chromosomes 1 and 9:

Deborah has a meager tree at MyHeritage:

It turns out that I already started a tree for Deborah. However, I couldn’t easily find anything new. Aparently Brigitta was born in Riga.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was happy to find out about another branch of Rathfelder relatives in Latvia through DNA matching.
  • Normunds is my mother’s first cousin once removed.
  • I was able to ‘paint’ Normunds on to my DNA profile as well as my mother’s. It would be possible to add him also to my siblings’ profiles
  • In some cases, due to matches with more distant relatives, it is possible to tell where certain portions of DNA matches between my mother and Normunds come from
  • In other cases, it is difficult to tell for certain to intermarriage in the Colony of Hirschenhof where the Rathfelders and their ancestors lived long ago.
  • I looked at some common matches that Normunds and my mother Gladys have at MyHeritage
  • I relooked at the match of Eva. I found the family record kept by the Lutheran Church for Eva’s great-grandparents. He great-grandfather was the younger brother of my great-grandfather. This record gave the death date for my great-grandfather Heinrich Rathfelder. It also suggests that my great-grandmother remarried a Kroeger who went missing.
  • It appears that there could be more research of the DNA and genealogy to pull these families together.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

FTDNA’s Time Tree for YDNA BigY Testers

FTDNA has a new Time Tree which is interesting. I have three trees that I am interested: Frazer from my father’s mother’s side, Hartley from my side and Butler from my wife’s side

Frazer Time Tree

The Time Tree is under Discover More:

Then there is a menu on the left:

Here is the Frazer Time Tree:

I didn’t take the tree all the way back. I thought that back to the time of Christ was probably far enough.

A Closer View

Here we can related more and focus in on the genealogical timeframe. I assume that between the years 1200 and 1400, the clans were forming as the top 6 BigY testers are five Frazers and on Frazier/Frasher. The Frazier tester has an American Flag as the genealogy is colonial and cannot be traced back – though it likely goes back to Ireland or Scotland. This branch of Frazers is called R-YP6489. Down from Frazier on Time Tree above is Dingman. Then there are Rick and my by cousin Paul. Then there are Rodney and Jonathan.

Here is how I have the North Roscommon Branch of BigY-tested Frazers:

Dingman on the left has the generic North Roscommon Frazer Haplogroup of R-FT421618 because no one else on his branch has tested.

This is how the ‘Block Tree” at FTDNA looks like:

Here I have Frazier also in the image. By comparing the two previous images, there are some interesting things:

  • Jonathan and Rodney share an average of 5 private branches. That would seem to indicate the potential for some branching below R-Y151390 which is the branch for Thomas Henry Frazer born 1836. There is also a spare SNP which is FT421607. This is available for branching between James Frazer born about 1720 and Archibald Frazer born about 1792.
  • Rick and Paul show an average of three Private Variants. These would be for branches below James Frazer born 1804. The Private Variants in this case and for Rodney and Jonathan are not as important as the genealogy is better known in these two lines where these Variants would be applicable.
  • Perhaps what seem unexplainable at this time is why R-Y85652 has two additional equivalents. That would imply that, if my tree is right, that Philip Frazer would have had two mutations. I don’t think that is very likely. As these are equivalent SNPs, the other potential, given the above tree would be that Philip had one mutation and James had two mutations. I posed the question to the BigY Facebook Page as to whether one man could have two variants or SNPs. Some thought that two mutations in one person was possible.
  • Dingman’s line has four Private Variants. They would have ocurred in the seven generations since Archibald Frazer born about 1743.

Hartley Time Tree

This is from my own family.

The man in red represents my father as he is the one my brother and I have as a common ancestor. The man with the blue cross is a Smith. We have a common ancestor around 500. It is not clear as to whether our ancestors were from Scotland or if his branch moved North. Going up a branch, it would seem that most of the people from this line were in the area of England. A few testers in the branch above had ancestors from Wales:

For reference, the blue circle three from the bottom of the above image is Smith.

Hartley and Mawdsley

The top tester above is a Mawdsley. There had been some question as to whether this person should have been a Hartley. If we go with this timing with a common ancestor between Hartley and Mawdsley of around 1100 AD/CE, then there would be no need to group the two as surnames were not common at that time for the average person. I like to quote FamilySearch on this topic:

The custom of applying a man’s by-name to all his children began in the late 12th century and spread slowly, with the manorial classes and the south of England leading the way. The first legal recognition of an hereditary surname is found in 1267; it was de Cantebrigg meaning ‘of Canterbury.’ By 1400 three-quarters of the population are reckoned to have borne hereditary family names, and the process was complete by about 1450 in England. Wales is an exception, in that although they had surnames they were patronymics (derived from the father’s first name) and thus changed each generation.

The Hartleys seem to fit this general statement as the first Hartley common ancestor (if FTDNA’s estimate is correct) is shown to be:

In general terms, the Hartley “Time Tree” shows two major branches of Hartleys. The first group branches off from R-A11134 and the second group branches off from R-A16717:

This branch is about 140 years more recent than R-A11134. The common ancestor of this branch was born, according to the tree in 1572. This date is about 90 years off from the to the actual genealogy. However, it could be that A16717 first ocurred in the grandfather or great-grandfather of Edward Hartley:

I call this the Quaker Branch of Hartleys. Edward Hartley from Little Marsden came to Pennslyvania and started the US branch of this Hartley family. There is another YDNA tester who is considering the BigY test who descends from the Thomas Line above. This is the line from the Hartley researcher I have corresponded with:

>Edward Hartley born 16 May 1666 married? Sarah Midgley
>Thomas Hartley b. 29 Dec. 1700 Solebury, Bucks County Pa. married Elizabeth Paxon
>Anthony Hartley b. 3 Dec. 1730 married Elizabeth Smith
>Jonathan Hartley b. 221 Octoner 1761 married Elizabeth Bunting
>David Bunting Hartley b. 28 Sep. 1786 married Phoebe Park
>Hiram J. Hartley b. 27 March 1824 NJ married Rebecca Church Lee
>Harry Lee Hartley b. 9 June 1864 married Emma Bell Leach
>Robert Hartley b. 17 June 1896 married Grace Maloney Roberts
>John Robert Hartley b. 4 August 1922 married Alice Buren Wrighy

One way to look at it, is if the Quaker Line is about 90 years too old on the tree, then perhaps we could move the other branches ahead 90 years. That wouldn’t work for my father’s branch as the timing on that is so close. Here is my tree with the John Robert line added:

Butler Time Tree

My wife is a Butler and there are a few Butlers who have taken the BigY test:

On this line, it doesn’t take much to get back to over 3,000 years ago. The Frazer lines were R1a, The Hartley lines were R1b. This line is in the I Haplogroup. Let’s start with the red Haplogroup I-FT241245. The two testers are my brother-in-law and father-in-law. In this case, my father-in-law is the common ancestor who has FY241245. The estimated date for that Haplogroup is 1907 or close enough to 1932 when my father-in-law was born.

The next person up on the tree is Butler researcher Peter:

This tree is showing that Peter and my in-law’s have a common ancestor born around 1557. In a Blog I wrote on 1 March 2021, I came up with these dates:

That’s a difference of about 125 years.

Next Branch Up

The next Branch going back in time includes a Whitson and a Batt.

The date that FTDNA gives for the common ancestor at I-BY50783 is 1449. This is interesting as it seems like only one SNP separates these two ancestors. That comes up with 108 years per SNP in this case. That is about what I was using in my guess – 100 years per SNP.  But I came up with a different result somehow.

Comparing the Three Time Trees

I am impressed with the regular branching on the Time Tree that the Frazers are on:

This is true especially starting after 900 CE with some sort of branching in every 200 year period following. This may be a result of the fact that many people with Scottish origins tend to have their YDNA tested. Another explanation would be lines that were successful and prospered.

The Hartley Time Tree does not have the same regularity in its branching:

Here we see no branching between around the years of 500 and 1100 CE. This could be due to fewer testers and/or lines that were not doing as well. Intermediary lines may have died out. This could be due to wars, famine, disease or simply famiilies have no males born.

The Butler Time Tree has even less branching:

There are two main branches that ocurred before 1,000 BCE. After that there was no addition branching until almost 1500 CE. That is about 2,500 years without branching. This line is probably severely undertested and/or went through very tough times. This is picked up somewhat at the SNP Tracker Website:

Notice that whole eras are skipped. Medieval and Iron Ages are missing.

Summary and Conclusions

  • FTDNA has a new helpful representation of a timeline for BigY testers. This is not the final say, but a helpful tool to compare with other estimates and with genealogy where available.
  • I looked at the trees that I have looked into. Those are Frazer, Hartley and Butler
  • I compared the three trees to each other. I noted that the Frazer Time Tree has the most consistent and regular branching going back in time. The Butler Time Tree has the sparsesest branching going back before the time of Christ.
  • As a result, I would ten to have the most faith in the Frazer timelines. There is good branching and somewhat of a check as we believe that common Rocscommon Frazer ancestor represented by R-FT521618 was born around 1690. I feel the Hartley Time Tree is slightly less reliable due to fewer branches but we have the genealogy for the common ancestor for the ‘Quaker Line’ born in 1666. In my opinion, the Butler Time Tree could be the least reliable of the three due to no ancient genealogy to check and the fact that branching in the line is sparse – especially before the genealogical timefrane.
  • FTDNA is continuing to calibrate its age estimates. One good example of how FTDNA’s Time Tree can be calibrated is with Edward Hartley born 1666. If this person is reported to FTDNA, they will be able to use that information to correct their current estimate of a common ancestor of 1572.

 

Posted on

Another Frazer Heard from

I guess that is an awkward title. I heard recently from a Frazer with Irish roots who is certainly related to a large group of Frazers that I have been looking at. He sent me an interesting tree which his family had worked on.

A Frazer Tree

Here is the tree that I got from John:

I blurred out some information at the bottom left. John is the last John bottom left. John was a bit confused as to how the tree fit together. I told him that the right of side of his chart should go up to James brother of Archibald. John has his line coming from the John Frazer Line at the top of the chart. I think that he should be coming from the Archibald Line. I have that Archibald married Ann Stinson and John has a 2nd great grandfather Alexander Stenson Frazer.

I sent John a copy of my Frazer Genealogy/DNA tree. That tree has Frazers who have had their DNA tested.

John thought that he might fit in on the left hand side of my chart, but I think that he should be in the Stinson section. That would be the bright green line.

Here is where John fits in on my Frazer Web Page:

John’s ancestor is Edward Lillie born 1854 at the bottom of the image above.

More on John’s Tree

Here is Edward Lillie in 1891:

He is now in North Leeds married to Adelaide Cooper. Edgar H. Frazer is in this Census. He is next in line in John’s genealogy. Here is how I make the connection:

The good news is that John has sent me photos. These always liven up a dry Blog on genealogy. Here is Edgar Hamilton:

 

John says this is :

Edgar Hamilton Frazer leaving Buckingham Palace with his wife Margaret Frazer (née Dale) dated 1932 having been awarded an OBE

I have that Edgar was born about 1885, so that would make im about 47 in the photo.  Here is Edgar’s wedding record from 1912:

The woman in the photo above must be Margaret Dale.

Edgar’s Father Edward Lillie Frazer

 

He was the younger brother of Frazer researcher’s Doug’s ancestor Archibald of Shanvoley:

Looking at these photos, I would have a hard time saying that these two were not brothers. As older brother, Archibald would have stayed on the ancestral lands in Ireland and the younger brother Edward sought his fortune in England. Here is Shanvoley in North Roscommon where Archibald and Edward were born:

My ancestors would have known them as they lived in Derrycaster to the Northeast of Shanvoley. This map shows the boundaries between the two Townlands:

 

I believe that my ancestor James Frazer lived on parcel 12 and leased other lands nearby.

Here is how some of these Frazer lines fit together:

I am a 6th cousin to Doug. John is one generation up so we are 5th cousins once removed. However, John’s ancestor Alexander Stinson Frazer and my ancestor James Frazer were first cousins.

Frazer DNA

The above chart is based on Frazer descendants who have taken an autosomal DNA test. Five Frazer men have also taken the BigY DNA test. This test is a male only test and test the DNA that was passed only from father to son. That makes it a good test for a surname studay such as Frazer. Here is how the Frazer YDNA tree looks like so far:

There are currently about 59,000 branches of the male line identified and Frazer have three of those 59,000 branches. These branches form better in pairs. The general Frazer haplogroup is FT421618. I had a cousin Paul test and R-Y85652 defines the James Line of the Archibald side of the tree. Rodney and Jonathan tested on the James Line side and found out that at least the Thomas Henry Branch of the Frazer Line was named R-Y151390. If John were to test or someone else on the Archibald side, they may end up naming another Frazer Branch. This testing is important as it can clarify confusing genealogy at times. For example, I don’t have proof that my James Frazer ancestor had Philip as a father. In the Dingman side, we couldn’t be sure if Archibald’s father was John or Richard Frazer.

Alexander Stinson/Stenson Frazer

Here is the third photo that John sent me:

This is Alexander Stinson Frazer born in 1806. My understanding is that Alexander Stinson Frazer made his way to England before his death. I believe that this is Alexander’s burial record:

Here is the Census for Edgbaston in 1881:

Here we see Mary who was Alexander’s wife and some of her family – mostly born in Ireland. It is likely that one of Alexander’s children in England had his painting done.

This Alexander is important as he would be a brother or first cousin to many other Frazers who have many more descendants today. In my family he was first cousin to my ancestors James Frazer and Violet Frazer.

The John Frazer Will

One Frazer researcher has posted a most interesting will at Ancestry. I will copy it below:

The transcript which follows is one of those documents most beloved by family historians. In it John Frazer, younger brother of Archibald Frazer one of my GG Grandfathers, gives details of most of his family and his extended family. Read on.

This is the last will and testament of me John Frazer of Stockfield Hall Tyseley in the parish of Yardley County of Worcester Manufacturer I direct payment of all my just debts funeral and testamentary expences as soon as convient after my desease I appoint James Frazer of Stackfield hall aforesaid William Frazer of Westley Brook Warwick Road Acocks Green in the County of Worcester manufacturer and Edward Lilly Frazer of 16 Spencer Place Roundhay Road Leeds (hereinfter called my trustees) to be the Executors and Trustees of this my will. I give to John Wesley Johnstone of Hay Mills in the parish of Yardley aforesaid a clerk in the employ of Frazer Bros Hay Mills aforesaid if he shall be in their empoly at the time of my decease the sum of twenty five pounds and I direct my trustees in case the said John Wesley Johnstone is not in the employ of the said Frazer Bros at the time of my decease to pay or withold the said legacy as they may think fit. I give all that residence known as Stockfield Hall in which I now reside to my brother James Frazer together with my share in the furnishing of same and my private and personal bellongins. I devise and bequeath all my real and personal Estate not otherwise disposed of unto my trustees upon trust that my trustees shall sell (or value) call in and convert unto money the same or such part thereof as shall not consist of money and shall invest the same in the business of Frazer Bros or such other investment as my trustees shall think desirable upon the following trusts viz 1. As to six hundred pounds in trust to pay same to Maria Anne Donohoe of Buffalo New York in the United States of America Daughter of my sister Eliza. 2. As to six hundred pounds in trust to pay same to Samuel Dowlex of Canada son of my sister Eliza. 3. As to six hundred pounds in trust to pay same to Mary Martha Hassard of Toronto Canada daughter of my sister Anne. 4. As to six hundred pounds in trust to pay same to Florence Hassard Toronto Canada daughter of my sister Anne by installments of Two hundred pounds each but without interest at the expiration of five ten and fifteen years after the date of my decease. My trustees shall set aside yearly such part of the income as would be equal to interest at 2 1/2 per cent per annum upon the whole ammount invested In trust to pay divide and distribute yearly out of such income 1. the sum of £10 per annum to my sister Mary Ward of Worcester during her life 2. £15 per annum for the first five years after my decease to Maria Annie Donohoe aforesaid, £10 per annum for a further period of five years and £5 per annum for a further period of five years 3. £15 per annum for five years to Samuel Dowlex aforesaid £10 per annum for a further period of five years and £5 per annum for a third period of five years 4. £15 per annum for five years to Mary Martha Hassard aforesaid £10 per annum for a further period five years and £5 per annum for a further period of five years 5.£15 per annum for five years to Florence Hassard aforsaid £10 per annum for a further period of five years and £5 per annum for a third period of five years 6. £10 per annum for five years to the Trustees of the British and Foreign Bible Society, 146 Queen Victoria Street london. 7. £10 per annum for five years to the Church of England Missionary Society, Salisbury Square, Fleet Street London. 8. £10 per annum for five years to the Church Association of 14 Buckingham Street, Strand, London. And I give my trustees the power with reference to the shares of income and principal heretofore given to Maria Annie Donohoe and Samuel Dowlex to withhold the share of income and principal payable to Maria Annie Donohoe and to pay the same to Samuel Dowlex or vice versa at the discrection of any two of my said Trustees if circumstances seem to them to call for such a course to be adopted and as to the remainder of the interest at 2 1/2 per cent per annum to pay devide and distribute same every year between and amonst the following persons in equal shares 1. John William Frazer of hay Mills aforesaid son of my Brother Archibald 2. Edgar Hamilton Frazer of Leeds son of my brother Edward. 3. Alexander Stenson Frazer of Leeds son of my brother Edward. 4. Douglas Villiers  Frazer of Leeds, son of my brother Edward. 5. Hector Mc Kenzie  Frazer of leeds, son of my brother Edward. 6. Vera Adeliade Lilian  Frazer of leeds Daughter of my brother Edward. And upon the death of any person entitled under this my will to a share of income as aforesaid leaving issue such issue shall be entitled to their deceased parents share of income. And in case their is no issue the share of such deceased person shall be divided equally amonst the remaining persons participating in the division of income as aforesaid. And I direct & empower my trustees (should they so desire) notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained limiting the interests of any person participating under this my will to income only to pay to any one or all of the said participants any sum or sums from the said principal money invested as aforesaid and from the date of such payments to reduce the payment of income proportionately and as to the remainder of income in excess of the 2 1/2% per annum arising out of the principal moneys invested as aforesaid upon trust to pay the same to James Frazer, William Frazer, Edward Lily Frazer and John William Frazer in proportion to the amount of capital which each of them shall then have invested in the said business of Frazer Bros. And should any member of the firm of Frazer Bros (or after his death his Executors or trustees) withdraw in any one year from the business of the said firm any part of his capitol (besides his profits) in excess of 5% of the amount standing to his credit in the books of the said firm I direct my trustees at their discretion to withdraw from the amount invested by them as aforesaid with the said Frazer Bros an equal sum or at the discretion the whole amount they have invested with the said firm. In trust to reinvest the same and apply the income as aforesaid or in their discretion to distribute the principal money in discharge of their trust and I expressly declare that any member of Frazer Bros who may withdraw such amount as aforesaid without the consent of a majority of the other partners of the firm they and their descendants shall be excluded from any benifit whatever under this my will and I further declare that in case any person interested under this my will shall take precedings to set aside this will or shall commence any action against the trustees (except to recover any ammount due to him under the terms of this my will) or shall instruct any procedings whatever for the purpose of having the intention and construction of this will defined by a court of law they and their descendants shall be excluded from any benifit whatever hereunto in witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand to this my will contained in this and the two proceeding sheets of paper this 13th day of November One thousand nine hundred and two.

Signed by the said John Frazer the testator as and for his last will and testament in the presence of us both being present at the same time who at his request in his presence and in the presence of each other have hereunto set and subscribed our names as witnesses. John Frazer
Arthur G Tanfield Solicitor, Birmingham
Frank Albert his clerk
On the twenty first day of october 1904 probate of this will was granted at Worcester to James Frazer,  William Hamilton Frazer and Edward Lilly Frazer the executors

This document is important for the relationships which it sets out. I will try to sort out the relationships:

  • The will is of John Frazer who is the son of Archibald Stinson Frazer.
  • After looking up trees including John Frazer at Ancestry, the three trees I found have him dying in Ontario which seems odd as he is here from “Stockfield Hall Tyseley in the parish of Yardley County of Worcester”
  •  James Frazer is listed as John’s brother
  • John has another brother named Archibald who has a son John William Frazer
  • John has a brother Edward who has a son named Edgar Hamliton Frazer. That Edward must be Edward Lillie. Their two photos are earlier in the Blog.
  • Other children of brother Edward listed are: Alexander Stenson Frazer, Douglas Villiers Frazer, Hector McKenzie Frazer, and Vera Adelaide Lilian Frazer
  • John had a sister named Eliza
  • Eliza has daughter Maria Annie Donohoe of Buffalo, NY and son Samuel Dowlex of Canada
  • John had a sister named Anne
  • Had had two sisters named Mary Martha Hassard and Florence Hassard
  • John had a brother named Archibald. This must be the Archibald of Shanvoley, Ireland
  • Archibald has a son named John William Frazer

I’ll go over some of these names in more detail. I’m curious to see how all lthese people fit together.

John Frazer

This record has his death in Ontario:

The year of death makes sense based on the will above, but I question that he died in Ontario. Here is a directory from 1883 in Birmingham:

James Frazer

John’s brother James ends up getting his house. This James is listed in the 1881 Census above. He was 34 then, so born around 1847.

Fellow Frazer researcher Joanna has this photo of Stockfield Hall:

This is the house James inherited from his brother John Frazer. Her note says:

photo taken in 1941 when it was used as a boarding house. Now demolished.

Archibald and Son John William Frazer

Archibald is Archibald of Shanvoley (photo above given from Doug’s web site). Ancestry gives me this hint for John William:

Someone else posted this photo of John William with credit to Frazer researcher Doug:

Edward Lillie and Children

Here is Edward and family in 1891:

These are the first three children listed in the will out of five. This is the general area the family was living:

Here is the family in the same place in 1901:

This shows the five children of Edward L. Frazer. It appears that two sisters are living next door: Ann Robinson and Mary Robinson, but this may not be reported correctly.

Eliza and Children in North America

I have this record for Eliza (or Elizabeth:

I thought that Dowlex was a funny name. It should be Dowler. Here is the marriage record for Eliza’s daughter:

Hassard Daughters of Sister Anne

I have come across the Hassard name before, so I find this interesting. This appears to be Anne’s marriage information:

Here is the family in 1891:

The children are Minnie, Albert and Florence. Is Minnie a nickname for Mary? I don’t see Albert listed in the will above. Here is the 1881 Census:

Here is the transcription:

Sister Mary Ward

It is easy to miss people in a will and I initially misssed Mary Ward. First, I do not show on my tree that John Frazer had a sister named Mary:

This may be Mary in Worcester in 1901:

I found one tree with a Minnie Emma Frazer married to Berrow Ward:

I guess I didn’t know that Minnie was a nickname for Mary.

I don’t know if Jane was the first daughter. She may have been named for Mary Hamiltons mother. Then Ann would have been named for Alexander’s mother Ann Stinson. Next Minnie or Mary was probably named for her mother.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was glad John Frazer got in touch with me
  • His family tree was a little off. He had Alexander Stinson in the John Frazer Branch. His Alexander should be moved up to the Alexander in the Archibald/Stinson Branch
  • His photo of his painting of Alexander Stinson Frazer is likely one of the earliest representations of one of the Frazers from North Roscommon
  • The transcription of a will of a John Frazer (brother of John’s great-grandfather) shed some light on family relationships in this branch of Frazers
  • I was able to update my Ancestry Tree on this branch of Frazers
  • John is interested in taking a DNA test which will further solidify this branch of Frazers
Posted on

New DNA Match Derek at Ancestry with Possible Ellis Ancestry

I checked recently for unviewed DNA matches at Ancestry with a common ancestor and came up with Derek. He matches me at 15 cM:

Derek has a tree with 49 people, but shows no Ellis ancestry:

However, Derek’s tree shows that his parents were from Sheffield which is where my Ellis ancestors lived. Here is the connection that Ancestry shows:

Derek shows as a 4th cousin once removed to me.

My Shared Matches with Derek

If we have an Ellis shared ancestor, then we should have shared DNA matches with others who descend from the Ellis family. When I check that, there are about 4 people that I know descend from the Ellis family:

Checking Derek’s Genealogy

Derek’s tree does not show a link to the Ellis family. However, I would be interested in checking out Ancestry’s ThruLines:

Derek is the only one showing descending from James Ellis on my ThruLines.

I’ll check out Derek’s genealogy by creating my own tree for him:

This gets me out to about the level that Derek had. Here is William H Pullen in the 1871 Census for Sheffield:

They are living in Nether Hallam and William’s father is listed as a saw grinder. Unfortunately, Ancestry has the surname transcribed as “Gullen’. William’s mother is listed as Emma. She is born about 1839 in Sheffield.

It would be nice to have a marriage record for father William Pullen. Here is a record but it is to a Tattershall:

One Ancestry tree I have shows Emma’s mother as a Tattershall:

That is confusing. Here is another tree:

This tree has the wedding date for Emma and William. I might assume that Emma was previously married. However, this Emma appears to have been a spinster:

Here is where I believe that St Philips Church was based on a current map:

The 1881 Census

The 1881 Census appears to be the key for Emma being an Ellis:

Here we have William Pullings which I take to be the same as Pullen. He is married to Emma. Living with them is father-in-law James Ellis and brother-in-law Harry Ellis.  That should connect Emma to her father James Ellis and Emma to her brother Harry Ellis. That means that this is likely Emma in the 1851 Census:

Here is the 1861 Census showing Emma still single:

The census was taken on 7 April 1861. So, if Emma Ellis is the same as Emma Tattershall, then she could have married later in the year at the end of July.

Conflicting Evidence?

It appears that there is some conflicting evidence. One possibility is that there were two William Pullens. Although, it does not seem that Pullen is a common name, that is possible:

Here are two different people by the name of William Pullen. One is in Sheffield and one is in Ecclesfield. Ecclesfield is 4 miles to the North of Sheffield:

However, for this to work out, I suppose that the two Williams would have had to have married two Emmas. Also possible, but less likely. [Note: Based on conclusions below, the correct William was from Sheffield son of William based on the marriage record between William and Emma Tattershall.]

Are Emma Ellis and Emma Tattershall the Same Person?

Here is a record for the wedding of James Ellis and Caroline Tattershall. Here is an entry from a Sheffield area Newspaper published on 21 May 1842:

This gives a wedding record for James and Caroline. Also we see that James’ wife was a Tattershall. It appears that Emma could have taken on her mother’s maiden name. Here is a timeline for Caroline Tattershall:

If I have things right, this is showing that Emma was born about three years before James Ellis and Caroline Tattershall were married. This brings up the possibility that James Ellis may not have been the father of Emma. That brings up the question of why there would be a DNA match then.

Here is an interesting record:

This baptismal record gives Emma’s full name as Emma Ellis Tattershall. Could this suggest that James Ellis was the father of Emma? I think that this is about all that the records will reveal to me at this time. The rest must be based on speculation. I would guess that connection that Ancestry has would be correct, but it would be nice to see connections through some of the other siblings of Emma. The fact that Emma’s middle name was Ellis in addition to the DNA match suggest that James Ellis was likely her father.

Here is my best guess for the connection between Derek and myself:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Derek and I match by DNA. Ancestry traces that DNA match to possible common ancestors of Charles Ellis and Ann Roebuck
  • Derek and I have shared DNA matches with other Ellis descendants
  • Derek’s genealogy was confusing as his ancestor married an Emma Tattershall not Emma Ellis
  • The record shows that Emma was baptized Emma Ellis Tattershall about three years before her mother Caroline Tattershall and James Ellis married
  • My guess is that James and Caroline had Emma before they were married and married later and had more children. This guess is based on DNA matches and Emma’s middle name of Ellis.
  • I created a tree showing how the two lines got to be about a generation apart over the years.

 

Posted on

My Sister Heidi’s Nicholson Match at MyHeritage

I noticed recently that my sister Heidi has a match with Kenneth at MyHeritage. They have a Theory of Relativity that looks like this:

This Theory put Heidi and Kenneth at 4th cousins once removed and the connection goes back to 1765. There are no shared matches between Kenneth and Heidi that I readily recognize. Also Kenneth’s tree is managed by someone else and is private.

Kenneth’s match also is not strong:

Connecting Heidi to Kenneth by Genealogy

I would usually try to connect going from the present to the past rather than the other way round. I see that the manager of Kenneth’s tree is from the UK which is probably a good thing as the Nicholson family was from Sheffield, UK.

I see that this is the Armstrong family in 1901 in Carlisle:

This tends to confirm the Theory at the bottom (more recent) level:

Of course, the Census does not give Mary A’s maiden name. All Ancestry Trees plus a probate record identify Mary Ann as a Lawrence. I’ll just accept the two hints, but the family is still in the Region of Cumberland:

At this point, the road I want to go down is the Hannah Nicholson road, but Ancestry gives me no hints. The 1881 Census has Hannah born in Renwick:

Renwick is quite a hike from Sheffield.

Here is a marriage record from Ancestry:

Here are Hannah and her parents in 1841:

The ‘y’ in the last column indicates that everyone was born in the same county – which would be Cumbria. The connection to Sheffield is not looking good.

Pulling the Plug

At this point, the connection does not seem feasible. The John Nicholson in my tree was married to Martha Jow:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I had hopes that a Theory of Relativity at MyHeritage would lead to an actual connection between my sister Heidi and Kenneth
  • I checked out Kenneth’s tree and his Nicholson ancestors were in Cumbria to the North of England while mine (and Heidi’s) were in Sheffield England
  • MyHeritage did have the confidence as low, and the DNA match was small
Posted on

My Sister Sharon’s AncestryDNA Match with a McMaster Descendant

Let’s get right to it. Sharon’s match:

I’ll call the match Gibbs. Here is the maternal side of his tree:

No Need for Me to Build a Tree for Gibbs

Very often I will build out a tree for a DNA match. However, I’m pretty sure where this match fits in to my tree:

In fact, if I have it right, William McMaster and Margaret Frazer would be our common ancestors. Here is Gibbs’ version of the same tree:

His children on the second row go for a long, long way. I don’t show them all. This photo of Lucinda was on Ancestry. It shows her with her children:

Adding Gibbs to My McMasteer DNA/Genealogy Tree

I have a large tree already:

This is only one of the McMaster trees I descend from. I need to add Lucenda or Lucinda? here:

Here I’ve added Gibbs:

Sharon and hence me and my siblings are 4th cousins once removed. Gibbs has not linked himself to his tree, so Ancestry will not pick up the connection between our families on Ancestry Trees.

Shared Matches Between Gibbs and Sharon

This has been a short Blog, so I’ll add some bonus information. B.V was the top shared match. That is one reason that I knew that I was on the right track with Gibbs. Here is the connection that Ancestry has between BV and Sharon:

Sharon has a good match with BV – perhaps due to the fact that we are related to Frazers and McMasters in at least two different ways each.

Shared Match Robert

Sharon matches Robert by 48 cM on two segments. Robert has some Irish ancestry:

In the last row, James Hadden appears to be from Ireland. He married a Stewart. According to Frazer researcher Joanna, we should have Stewarts in our ancestry. So that may be the connection. I had put Margaret Frazer as the daughter of a Margaret Stewart, so that may be the connection – though it is a bit ancient:

I could continue on with Shared Matches, but it would be a lot of work to try to make connections. Gibbs does not match my other 4 siblings who I had tested at Ancestry. Gibbs does match a few other people who are in the Frazer DNA project.

Summary and Conclusions

  • If I had not checked my sister Sharon’s DNA results, I would have missed this match to Gibbs
  • Gibbs provides another branch to the line of William McMaster/Margaret Frazer > James McMaster born 1812
  • This is an interesting line as my familiy has at least double ties with both the McMaster and Frazer families
  • Some of these families were large, so I may expect some more matches.
  • One shared match had a Stewart name which is possibly linked to a Margaret Stewart born 1764 – or more likely her parents.

 

Posted on

A New YDNA Match to the Frazers of North Roscommon

I was notified by two Frazer relatives recently of a new match to the Frazers who have had their YDNA tested. YDNA is the best test for paternal lines because it specializes in only testing the DNA that males pass down from father to son – all the way back from genetic Adam.

I am not a Frazer, but I am interested in Frazer YDNA because my grandmother was a Frazer, so I had my 2nd cousin once removed Paul tested.

Barker Match to My 2nd Cousin Paul

Here are the list of STR matches at the 111 level that my cousin Paul has:

Barker is the third match to my cousin Paul, but really is tied for second at 4 steps away. Barker took the 111 STR test but not the BigY test.

A Frazer BigY Tree

Based on BigY testing and known or supsected genealogy, I came up with a Haplogroup tree:

The overall North Roscommon Frazer Haplogroup is FT421618. Apparently Dingman knew that his grandfather was actually a Frazer. We believe that he descends from Archibald Frazer from around 1743 and that he also has the North Roscommon heritage identified by FT421618. Next is my cousin Paul and Rick. They are on the overall Archibald Branch (2nd generation from the top) and they are designated as Y85652. From the tree above, this was a new SNP that appeared in either James Frazer or his father Philip. On the right above is the James Frazer Branch identified as Y151390. Both Rodney and Jonathan are in this branch. Y151390 developed in one of the four generations between Thomas Henry Frazer and James Frazer born around 1720.

A Frazer STR Tree

A STR tree is difficult to make due to parallel mutations and back mutations of STRs. However, this is somewhat offset as the BigY test has been taken. That provides a framework for the tree.

In this tree, I brought in a Frazier. He tested, but does not know his genealogy past colonial America. That puts him in a more distant group – going back to Scotland perhaps. The way I have this drawn, Jonathan has the STR profile that is closest to the ancestral Frazer. At Ancestry, here is the Block tree:

Above, the “Your branch” refers to my cousin Paul. The Block Tree looks at the world of SNPs and Barker has tested STRs. Hopefully, Barker will take the BigY test to place him in the group also.

How Does Barker Fit In?

Barker is clearly in the Frazer lineage. Further he is most certainly from the James Frazer (born about 1720) half of the Frazer Tree. Barker matches Jonathan perfectly:

However, perfectly may not always be perfect. That is because of the parallel mutations and back mutations of STRs which I mentioned earlier.  The CDY STR which defines the James Frazer Line is a fast moving STR. That means that Barker’s CDY could have mutated independently of Jonathan’s and Rodney’s line ancestor. However, let’s assume that didn’t happen.

Still the CDY mutation could have happened anywhere between James Frazer born around 1720 and Thomas Henry Frazer born in 1843:

Now the James Frazer in the Tree above was thought to be born around 1720. I believe that the Archibald Frazer with the red DYS710=34 value was of the next generation or from about 1743. If that is the case, it is theoretically possible that the match could even be on the Archibald (1715) side of the tree. However, so far based on the autosomal results so far, that does not seem to be the case.

We know that Barker does not have the same STR that defines Rodney’s branch. That STR is DYS552=24. That means that Barker, based on STRs descends from anyone between James Frazer born about 1720 and Edward Fitzgerald Frazer born 1867. As my understanding is that the father for Barker’s grandfather born in 1901 is unknown. That would make Edward Fitzgerald Frazer the latest possible ancestor of Barker. However, it appears that the autosomal results (see below) are too low for Barker to descend from Edward Fitzgerald Frazer.

Autosomal Results

Right now, we don’t have autosomal results for Barker, but we have some for his nephew. Barker’s grandfather was born in 1901, so he would be probably one generation removed from Rodney and Jonathan and Barker’s nephew would be two generations removed.

Here is a chart I have made up of those who have tested autosomal DNA from the James Frazer Line:

Not all these people have tested at the same company including Barker’s nephew. However, Barker did test at Ancestry which has the largest database, so that is good. At Ancestry, Barker’s nephew matches Madeline, Janet and Jonathan. There may be additional matches.

There are two major sides of the James Frazer Branch. They are the Archibald and Michael sides. From what we know so far from Ancestry, it appears that Barker’s nephew matches on the Archibald side.

Barker’s nephew matches:

  • Madeline at 17 cM
  • Janet and Jonathan at 14 cM

Ancestry usually considers 20 cM to be the cutoff for a 4th cousin, so this match may be a further out level than fourth cousin.

One guess that I had was that Barker may descend from the Edward Frazer Branch on the right side of the chart above. He was the one who married Mary Kirkwood. However, that branch is not well-represented by DNA testing or may just not be a prolific branch. The reason that I chose that branch is that Barker’s nephew matches people from the Archibald Frazer (born abour 1792) Branch at about the same rate. That could mean that Barker could be from a parallel branch. Edward Frazer is a parallel branch to Archibald Frazer.

Next Steps

Next, we can wait for any additional autosomal testing or BigY YDNA testing on Barker’s side.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Based on YDNA testing, It appears that Barker must descend from a North Roscommon Frazer historically
  • Futhermore, Barker appears to descend from the James Frazer (born about 1720) Line of these Frazers.
  • Based on Frazer YDNA tester Rodney, Barker does not descend from Rodney’s ancestor William Frazer
  • Based on autosomal testing of Barker’s nephew, it appears that Barker could be a third to fifth cousin once removed to Jonathan and Rodney. That would have him descending from James Frazer born around 1720, his son Archibald Frazer born 1751 or James’ grandson Archibald Frazer born abut 1792
  • More DNA testing should clarify Barker’s place in the Frazer genealogical tree.
Posted on

A Schwechheimer Match for My Mom at MyHeritage

There used to be an ad for a jam company that said, “With a name like Smuckers it has to be good”. In this case, with a DNA match with a name like Schwechheimer, it has to be a relative. This Schwechheimer match came up as a DNA match for my mom recently at MyHeritage:

The Scwechheimer Tree

The tree is a bit sketchy:

Dates are only given on the maternal side.

I can try to build out a tree at Ancestry to see if I get anywhere.

My Version of the Schwechheimer Match Tree

I like this suggestion from an Ancestry Tree for Kurt Schwechheimer:

I have written to my mom’s Schwechheimer relative in Germany to see if this is the same Kurt that is in her tree.

Meanwhile, I see that the owner of the tree for Kurt Friedrich Schwechheimer is a match to my mother at ancestry.

My Mom’s DNA Match with Karin at Ancestry

This is a modest match. Here is Karin’s tree:

This tree is unlinked, so Ancestry is not working to see where our common ancestors are. I suppose that I could try and build out the Hirschenhof (maternal) part of Karin’s tree. Hopefully, the vital records are not in Russian for that time. Interesting, I already have a Smits tree going. It must be for a relative of Karin:

This is likely for Karin’s brother.

Delving into a Latvian Genealogical Website

The go-to website is https://www.raduraksti.arhivi.lv/. I’ll give that a shot. Here are the Church records for Linden:

However, I think that this is the wrong set of records. I believe that the first Linden below is correct:

Now I am noticing some discrepancies between the two trees above. One has Friedrich born in 1894 and one in 1896. Here is a Schwechheimer record from 1894:

Unfortunately, the record is in Russian. Does Mar mean March?

Meanwhile, I heard from my mom’s Schwechheimer match and Kurt is the same as Kurt Friedrich as I expected.

Looking for Helma Lutz

Entry #32 in the Linden Church records shows an Olga Helma born in 1902:

This entry goes on to the next page:

I’m going to make a guess that this is the correct Helma. This gives us two more names: Johann Jacob Nicolai Lutz and Emilie Friederike Lutz. Here the record keeper was nice enough to put the parents’ names into more understandable (to me) German.

I think that this Johann Jacob (second entry) fits the bill:

Here is the Ancestry transription:

The father’s middle name is abbreviated. Perhaps for Michael.

Here is Emilie Friederike in 1867:

I assume that the right side of the page are sponsors or godparents. The transcription adds the day and month:

Here are Emilie’s parents:

Here the initials before Johann Gustav Lutz are unclear to me. I suppose it could mean that he had been married before?

Above there is a slight discrepancy of the spelling of Gagnus and Gangnus – which is not unusual. I have a book on the Gangnus family which I take to be the correct spelling. It is by Gustav Gangnus written in 2003.

Friederike AKA Anna Friederike Emilie Gangnus

According to Gustav Gangnus’ useful book on page 71 Friederike was born 16 Mar 1843 and Georg Michael Lutz was born 24 Oct 1841:

Looking for Johann Gustav Lutz and Anna Catherine Gangnus

I have Emilie born in 1867. I like this choice for Anna Catharina:

That would mean that Anna Catharina likely was married 1841 or before.

Here is a possibility for Michael:

However this birth was in 1849 and would have Michael at age 18 at the birth of Anna Catharina Gangnus. It seems like given enough time, I could find at least one common ancestor between my mom and this Schwechheimer match, but I will leave this to another time.

Summary and Conclusions

  • A DNA match with a Schwechheimer name is very likely to be a match to my mother
  • Unfortunately, the match’s great-grandparents were born during a time when the birth records were in Russian
  • For Helma’s Lutz’s birth time-frame, the names of the person and the parents were also given in German in the birth records. This was helpful in going back one more generation
  • At the third great-grandparent level, two Lutz ancestors married two Gangnusses
  • Between the Schwechheimer and Gangnus names there are a lot of opportunities to find common ancestors, but those common ancestors have not yet been found.