Author: joel@jmhartley.com

Posted on

MyHeritage’s Update of Theories of Relativity

MyHeritage has recently had an update on Theories of Relativity. These are similar to what Ancesty does with ThruLines. It combines the DNA matches with potential genealogical matches.

Wolf’s 3 Theories

I am sure that I have looked at Wolf before. He shows as new, but perhaps some of his theories are new. Here is the first theory:

This must be a half relationship as Anna as shown is born in 1807 and Anna Niclas has died years before this time. Here is what I show for Philip Jacob’s second wife:

Wolf has a different second wife for Philip:

When I look again at my tree, I see this in agreement with Wolf’s tree:

At any rate, the theory does not seem to match up with Wolf’s tree. The Theory has Johannes Hassenfuss lived for only two years from 1849-1849 and had Gagnus as his mother. Here is Wolf’s tree:

He has Johann’s mother as a Biedermann.

Theory 2

This also does not make sense:

This also does not make sense as Anna Biedermann is the daughter of Joahann Pfeif.

Theory 3 with Wolf and Me

As I mentioned above, this does not square with Wolf’s tree.

In 2018, I came up with this connection with Wolf:

Also this;

Further, I descend also from my mother’s paternal grandmother from Schwechheimer line:

This likely explains why Wolf and I share so many DNA segments:

A major advantage of MyHeritage over Ancestry is that MyHeritage has a Chromosome Browser that shows on which chromosomes and where on those chromoses two people match. If I were to map these segments, should I have them as Schwechheimr, Biedenbender or both? The likelihood is that they should be Schwechheimer, but there is no guarantee.

Some matches are under 7 cM so they will not map by default:

Here is Wolf added to DNA Painter on Chromosome 1:

I have him as Schwechheimer or Biedermann.

Paul and Bill

Paul is a second cousin on my Frazer side. Bill is here:

Bill is a 3rd cousin once removed to Paul. The MyHeritage Theory is more concise:

I will paint the DNA match to DNA Painter:

Bill’s match adds a small amount off previously unmapped DNA on Chromosome 8 Chromosome 1 confirms that Violet Frazer descends from Richard. The match on Chromosome 8 may be on the James Frazer side, but we cannot tell for sure without other matches. I should change the label for Gladys. Although she is from the Philip Line, she is also from the Richard Frazer line.

A Frazer Theory that Cannot Be Right

I know who my grandmother’s mother was and it was not Anne Lewis. I will reject this Theory. Sharee is a shared match with Shani:

Here is Shani at Ancestry:

Shani also matches me further back on my McMaster Line.

Sharee matches me here:

That match would be here on my DNA Painter profile:

That match overlaps mostly with Zoe but also with Ron. I have Zoe mapped as Clarke or McMaster.

For some reason, I have a lot of Theories showing my grandmother had a Lewis mother. Actually her mother was Margaret Clarke.

A Latvian Theory with Inguna

This match looks more likely:

My mother’s father had Schweccheimer on both his paternal and maternal sides:

It looks like he had Gangnus on his paternal and maternal side also. The good news is that there must be a connection. The bad news is that there could be many connections.

Here is Inguna’s paternal grandmother’s tree:

She has a Juris Schweccheimer in her tree where the Theory has Johann Georg Schweccheimer. Perhaps these two are the same person.  I am willing to add Inguna to my tree as a floating branch and then add her if I can find the connection.

Here is the Schwechheimer DNA tree that I have:

It seems overly simplified as it does not have my grandfather’s mother’s line. That would bring me down a generation on the tree from where I am now. Here is where I have Anna Elisabeth Schwechheimer on my Ancestry tree:

She shows up as the youngest in the family. Here is the updated Schwechheimer DNA Tree:

This feels more complete. So, for example, I am 5th cousin and a 5th cousin once removed to Otis and Sane. Confusingly, as Otis is their twice, I am related to him in 4 ways on the Schwechheimer Line.  This is why it is helpful to create a chart.

Back to Looking at Inguna’s Tree

Ancestry does not have many good recent Latian records, so I will go by Inguna’s tree for a while. Fortunately, the Lutherans kept good records, and I found this one at Ancestry:

Here, Erna is born 30 June 1889. Her husband is Johan Alexander Lutz. From the next page, it appears that Alexander was confirmed in Hirschenhof and Erna in Riga in 1908.

Here is a marriage banns record:

It appears that the Theory is following what I am seeing.

This appears to be the birth record for Johann Georg son of Gerhard Schwechheimer:

However, the theory has he was born in 1859.

Let’s go back to the daughter to see if there are any clues. Here is a marriage record:

I think these were in Russian, but the German names are in parentheses. This is from 1912.

Here is part of Erna’s confirmation record:

Now her mother is known by Emilie than Cathernine Ernestine.

Here is a non-private tree that MyHeritage used to help create the Theory:

Here we have that Erna’s mother is Catharina Emile Hermann. This is a Veckaln’s tree, so likely one that Inguna used. As I look at this tree, I see that Georg’s mother would have been about 44 when Georg was born.

I do see this record:

However, I see the date at the top of the page as 1853. That makes more sense to me. So basically I agree with the Theory, though the review could have been more rigorous. The best way to check is through the Revision Lists as that should list family units if the timing of the lists are right.

Updating the Schwechheimer DNA Tree

While working on the DNA Tree, I found this record:

For some reason, the birth date for Georg is off, but I am going with what I had above. The names seem to fit in.

That makes Inguna most likely my 4th cousin once removed.

DNA Painter for Inguna

Here is the match I have with Inguna:

By default, the second segment will not map as it is less than 7 cM. However, it seems like is should be valid due to its proximity to the first segment.

This match fills in some empty space on Chromosome 11.

Inguna and my mother have a larger DNA match:

Here is my mom’s new DNA Map for Schwechheimer:

There is no overlap with Otis’ matches. I don’t know if that is a problem or not. It is possible that Inguna may not match Otis at the 4th cousin once removed level. She does share a match with Sane.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at two Latvian Theories, a Frazer Theory that could not be right and a Frazer Theory with my cousin Paul that was right
  • I mapped the correct theories on DNA Painter
  • I found the Schwechheimer genealogy very complicated due to large families and similar names.
  • I had a chance to tell MyHeritage that many of the Theories for my Frazer grandmother were wrong.
  • I will likely continue to look at the MyHeritage Theories updates.

 

 

 

Posted on

Ancestry Frazer and McMaster Clusters with My Two Younger Sisters

I have already looked at some of my own clusters and those with my older sister and brother. To finish the cycle, I will look at Lori and Sharon’s Clusters at Ancestry.

Lori and Mabel

Lori and Mabel are 2nd cousins once removed. Their common ancestors are George Frazer and Margaret McMaster:

They have quite a few clusters together:

One thing that is unusual is that they have two clusters with exactly the same number of matches. I don’t recall seeing that before.

9 Match Cluster

This must be a McMaster Cluster as Keith has no known Frazer ancestry:

Actually, Keith has this Frazer ancestor:

James McMaster married Fanny McMaster and I have her mother is Margaret Frazer.

Cluster of 10 Matches

This tree adds Brad. I do not know exactly how he fits in. Ancestry thinks that John could be his great uncle:

Based on Brad’s last name, he must descend from John’s sister.

12 Match Cluster

Whitney and Stephen are added at the top. They are only the previous Frazer DNA Tree descending from Richard Frazer born 1875. The pink cluster shows how the Frazer and McMaster lines intertwine, I suppose.

The First 13 Match Cluster

Here, BV is added:

BV is an older match going back to William McMaster and Margaret Frazer, so a generation earlier than the common ancestors of Lori and Keith. To confuse things, Margaret McMaster was from the James Frazer Line. Archibald and James were two brothers born in the first half of the 1700’s. I am from both lines, but mostly from the Archibald Line.

The Second 13 Match Cluster

Perhaps Ancestry computers were working overtime on this one. Now BV is gone, so this is not as ancient a connection. It should also be theoretically less confusing. Here Brad is put back in for some reason.

A 14 Match Cluster Bringing Back BV

I feel that BV has a big effect on these clusters:

Ramping Up to a 44 Match Cluster

This is a bit overwhelming:

Here are some possible clusters within these 44 matches that I see:

The first 2 matches are Lucy and Michael. Here is how Lori and Michael are related:

I have been in touch with Michael and Jane who both descend from Richard Frazer:

Here is a new and improved take on this Cluster:

  • The first large cluster descend from Richard Frazer who was born in the later half of the 1700’s
  • Gladys and the small cluster descend from James Frazer and Violet Frazer where Violet is the daughter of Richard Frazer.
  • The next large cluster are descendants of McMasters and Frazers.
  • The cluster within that cluster are Lori’s (therefor miy) more recent relatives descending from George Frazer born about 1836 and Margaret McMaster
  • There should be another box including BV. This is for the more distant connections descending from William McMaster born about 1790 and Margaret Frazer
  • Below BV I see Marshall who has McMaster ancestry. Perhaps he is related on the McMaster side only and not on the Frazer side.
  • Looking at the clusters followin Marshall, they seem to have more affinity to the McMaster or McMaster/Frazer side than the Frazer only side

Lori and Mabel’s 49 Match Cluster

This is a variation of the 44 match cluster:

Here is a simple interpretation:

In between the two clusters is Marshall who I had guessed had only McMaster ancestors without a Frazer connection.

Sharon and Mabel

Sharon is my last sibling tested at Ancestry to Blog about. I also picked her Mabel connection to Cluster:

Where Lori had 8 clusters, Sharon has 6 but of similar size.

As expected, the first cluster has relatives in the 2nd or third cousin range descending from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster:

Correction. Keith is a 3rd cousin once removed on the McMaster side only at that level. That has to make this a McMaster cluster.

10 Match Cluster

Here Whitney and Stephen get added. I believe all these except Keith descend from Frazers:

Stephen is the uncle of Whitney, but I have not added him to my McMaster DNA Tree.

15 Match Cluster

The first cluster is mostly Frazers but descending from the McMaster side based on inclusion of Keith. the second do not have McMaster ancestry and probably descend from James Frazer and Violet Frazer who were born in the first decade of the 1800’s (as were James and Fanny McMaster – the common ancestors between Keith and Sharon).

16 Match Cluster

Very similar to the previous cluster:

47 Match Cluster

Here we have a large leap:

This is a different look. I must not look at Sharon’s results often as some of these names seem new to me. For some reason, with Sharon’s clusters, the Richard Frazer descendant relationships are not highlighted.

Lucas

One interesting match in the first large cluster above is Lucas. He shows this tree:

Lucas shows his paternal line going back to Michael Frazer born 1764. This would be an important connection if true. Here is my great-grandfather’s ancestry:

I have his maternal line going back to Michael Frazer also. My Frazer researcher friend in Scotland also has Lucas in her tree with the same ancestry showing as Lucas. She also shows a DNA match medalion next to his name.

Here is my Frazer DNA Tree for that branch:

If the tree is right, then Lucas should be a close relative to Bonnie. I have access to Bonnie’s results and yes, he does show as her 1st cousin once removed. Based on that, and the DNA connection between Bonnie and Lucas, I will add him in to my Michael Frazer Branch DNA Tree:

It seems a bit random that Lucas would have shown up in this cluster.

I think this is what Sharon and Mabel’s clusters are telling me:

For some reason, Matthew has a lot of matches with all red-boxed clusters.

Mynew

The last match in the cluster group is Mynew:

Here is my Philip DNA Tree:

This seem to be the right connection to my ancestor James Frazer who as I have as the brother of Philip Frazer at the top of the green chart above. I just wish that there were more DNA matches. At the 5th cousin level, it is difficult to get this.

49 Match Cluster

This one is similar but it has LS:

 

However, LS does not show as a match to Mynew. (last match who also descends from Philip Frazer. Based on my green DNA chart above LS and Mynew should be 4th cousins, so there is a good chance that the two may not match each other.

Diane

Diane is also in the cluster with LS. Here is her paternal side tree:

I see she has an Isabella Johnston in her tree This Isabella was born around 1830, lived in Canada, but was born in Ireland. Possibly the relative of an ancestor.

This could be the same Isabella in 1851:

 

Baptiste is possibly her brother – though Baptiste does not seem like an Irish name.

Alannah

Alannah appears as a match just above the cluster that LS is in. Here is Alannah’s tree:

Alannah shows a Frederick Taylor married to a Catherine Johnston from Ireland. In my Philip Frazer Tree I have this:

Philip Frazer at the top who was the son of aonther Philip Frazer who I believe I descend from married a Mary Taylor and/or Gray. Sharon and I could be related to Alanna on either the Johnston or Taylor Line or both.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at the last of my two siblings’ Frazer Clusters at Ancestry
  • I was surprised at how many of the clusters highlighted the Richard Frazer Line except for my sister Sharon. For some reason, her clusters steered clear of this line.
  • it was certainly helpful looking at 5 sets of clusters (mine and my 4 siblings) rather than just one set
  • I was interested in any matches which descended from the Philip Line. This line appeared to marry into the Johnston family and many of the Irish moved to Canada.
  • In some cases it is possible to see in the clusters the familiies of ancestors. In other cases where the families are not easily identifiable, there could be hints as to where the genealogy is going as in the case above with the Johnston and Taylor families of Ireland.
Posted on

My Siblings’ Frazer and McMaster Clusters at Ancestry

In a previous Blog, I looked at some of my own Ancestry Clusters on my Frazer side. One of my conclusions was that my siblings may have better matches than I do.

Heidi and Mabel

I chose Mabel as she has a good match with Heidi:

Here are the clusters:

Here is the 9 match cluster:

As Keith is in this cluster, I will call this a McMaster Cluster. Here is part of my McMaster DNA Tree:

Keith and Heidi are 3rd cousins once removed.

Morgan

Morgan shows this tree:

Fortunately, the McMaster side is best represented. According to Shared Matches, Morgan could be a first cousin once removed to Keith above. I will try to add Morgan to my Ancestry tree.

For another tree, I see that Violet was born in Tobercurry:

It looks like I already have Frances Jane McMaster in my tree:

Here there are two places where I could connect on the McMaster side. Here are the common ancestors I recognize:

It turns out I already had Morgan in my McMaster DNA Tree:

He is a fourth cousin to Heidi and her siblings.

The 11 Match Cluster

This is also a McMaster Cluster:

However, there are many Frazers in there, but they also descend from Margaret McMaster. Whitney is new to this cluster but descends from Margaret McMaster.

The 18 Match Cluster

Here we have a double cluster. The closer relatives are at the bottom right. Keith and Morgan are the McMasters and the others are in the 2nd cousin range of Frazers. The top left are the Frazer only relatives that are more distant.

The 37 Match Cluster

Here is what I see in general:

BV has been added to the first cluster. Here is the connection:

This gets back to an older McMaster/Frazer connection. After looking more closely at some of the matches, I see that this is the way the clusters should sort out:

This means that it looks like Heidi has more Frazer matches with McMaster connections than without McMaster connections. The second box has Jane as the first match. She matches on two Frazer Lines.

From Jane’s tree showing her grandfather, the lines go back to Archibald Frazer and Anee Stinson and Richard Frazer. The most direct route is on the Richard Frazer Line.

Jane is a fourth cousin once removed to my sister Heidi and her siblings. That is through Violet Frazer on our line who married James Frazer.

Gladys is also in that second cluster. She is a third cousin once removed:

The cluster we are looking at is good because it has 2nd, third and fourth cousins in it. There are many unidentified relatives in the clusters also.

The 38 match cluster is very similar to the 37 match cluster.

Jonathan’s Clusters with Faye

Jon is my brother. Jon and Faye have a good match with each other even though they are 3rd cousins:

I don’t know who NF but he must be in the same relationship range as Faye:

Next, we are up to 7 matches:

This adds in Whitney and Stephen. Here they are in my Frazer DNA tree:

Jumping from 7 to 26 Matches

As above, I am seeing a distinction of two types of Frazer. One does not clearly include McMasters and one includes McMasters. For example, here is the last match, Goosie, who descends from William McMaster and Margaret Frazer:

Jeanette

Jeanette is an interesting match with Jon. Here is her paternal side tree:

Fraser in the cluster is Jeanette’s father. One clue at Ancestry is that Robert Johnston married Ann Frazer. I have Ann in my DNA tree:

I would like to add Jeanette to my Ancestry tree and to my DNA tree. Here is Lethbridge where Jeanette has her grandfather passing away:

I don’t find a lot of clues for Jeanette’s grandfather, so I will have to go with her tree.

Here is Jeanette’s great-grandfather in 1931:

Alexander is buried here:

Here is the family in 1901:

Ancestry has this going back to Ann Frazer (as a suggestion):

Here is Clarence in 1881:

I am thinking that Robert Johnson’s first wife had died by this time as the present wife is only 37. When I add in Robert W Johnston, I get another suggestion:

I do notice this record:

That could be why Michael is in a tight group with Fraser and Jeanette:

Michael descends from the Archibald and Anne Stinson Line through John Frazer:

I have that John was a brother of Mary who married William Johnston. It turns out I had this Line of the Archibald DNA Tree also:

I’ll change the color of this line for consistency:

This is part of the Archibald Frazer/Stinson Line. Michael is on the right in the red circle and I have added his sister Susan.

Here is an old chart I just updated by putting a green box on the right to show another relationship to the Johnston Line It shows the three Frazer brothers:

 

There should be another green line on the right for Mary Frazer who married William Johnston. So, if I have it right (and that is a big if):

  • The Johnston Line is under Philip Frazer and Archibald Frazer
  • My Line (blue) is under Philip Frazer and Richard Frazer
  • I’m not sure if the purple line is right (Falconer)
  • The duller green line with Jane is under Richard and Archibald Frazer.
  • The yellow line (Frazer/Hazzard) is also under Richard and Archibald Frazer
  • Same with the Fraser-Allen Line in a pinkish hue.
  • The least documented line seems to be the Philip Line. I think it is right based on naming patterns and DNA matches.

Here I have added Jeanette’s Line to my tree at Ancestry:

Here is Jeanette’s Line added under my Philip Frazer DNA Tree:

Here she is on the Archibald Line:

Summary and Conclusions

  • It was helpful to look at my older sister and brother to see what some of their Frazer clusters looked like
  • My brother’s clusters added a Johnston Line that I did not have on my Frazer DNA tree previously. This reminded me that the Johnstons are related through the Archibald Line as well as the Philip Frazer Line.
  • This also helped me to work on the Ancestry Tree to update my Johnston connections.
  • I still have two younger sisters who have tested at Ancestry. They may reveal slightly different clusters.
Posted on

Clusters from One of My McMaster and Frazer Lines

From studying Frazer DNA matches, I was able to locate one of my Frazer Branches that was more obscure than my obvious line. Here is the closest way to my Frazer ancestry:

My grandmother was Marion M Frazer and her father was James Archibald Frazer. It appears that James’ father George had two Frazer parents. To confuse things more, James’ mother was a McMaster whose maternal great-grandmother was a Frazer. It is this Frazer/McMaster Line that I would like to look at.

My Match with BV

I have a pretty good match with BV considering that she is a 3rd cousin twice removed. Perhaps because of the different ways we are related. Margaret Frazer was married to William McMaster. The family moved to Ontario from Ireland. However, my ancestor, Fanny remained in Ireland and married yet another McMaster.

My Clusters with BV

Here are the DNA clusters that I have with BV:

Before I get into it, it seems my best DNA tree is on the McMaster side:

A 3 Match Cluster

Sometimes simple is better. Here is Robert:

Robert is from the James McMaster Line I was mentioning above. mt must be Robert’s sister:

Here is part of my McMaster DNA Tree:

I added in mt today.

A 4 Cluster Group between BV and Me

I hope that this cluster will be as easy as the first. ck manages B.V.’s kit and is her daughter. It is not obvious to me how Steven and Alannah fit in. Alannah has a pretty good tree:

Johnston is a name associated with Frazer in Ireland. This could be the connection. I have this connection in my tree:

Catherine could be a daughter of William and Mary or John and Jane.

Moving on to a 20 Match Cluster

Here I see 4 clusters. But clusters three and four overlap on Clif and Cluster 1 and 2 overlap on BV and John. This is not surprising considering the Frazers and McMasters intermarrying in my ancestry.

Cluster 1

This is similar to the 3 match cluster above going back to William McMaster and Margaret Frazer. The difference is the addition of Matthew. I know who Matthew is:

Matthew is my third cousin.

Cluster 2

Matthew gives a hint as to Cluster 2. They should be descended from George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. They are all in my Frazer DNA tree already:

I left out my branch, as those matches would be closer than I set the DNA limits.

Some overlap makes sense as we have a McMaster/Frazer cluster next to a Frazer/McMaster cluster.

Cluster 3

I know who Gladys is:

Our connection goes back to two Frazers. Namely, James and Violet:

Kathryn is first cousin or niece to Sandra:

 

It appears that most of the others that I can’t figure out in this Cluster are close relatives to Sandra and Kathryn.

Next is Clif who straddles Cluster 3 and Cluster 4. Here is his tree:

He is also shown as related to Gladys and could be her 1st cousin twice removed. I assume that his connection is on his paternal side which is missing some information.

Clust’er 4

I don’t have a good handle on this cluster. I have been in touch with the administrator for CA’s DNA and she says there is a Frazer connection on her maternal side.

A 26 Match Cluster

These 4 clusters seem someewhat discrete. Cluster 4 does not match with Cluster 3 and Cluster 4 does not match with Cluster 2 except for Clif who I have already mentioned above.

Each cluster seems to go back a generation. Does that mean that Cluster 4 is even older? One common name in that cluster is Acheson. That family lived near my ancestors.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I am still having fun using Ancestry Clusters
  • It is quite helpful being able to choose a person of interest as that focuses the clusters to the area one is interested in.
  • There were no outstanding new revelations, but it is helpful to look at the DNA in a different way
  • There are still other Frazer lines that I may like to cluster.

 

 

Posted on

Mapping My Wife’s French Canadian Side with DNAPainter

In my previous Blog, I wrote about my wife’s French Canadian Clusters at Ancestry using her late Aunt Lorraine’s results. This got me interested in mapping my wife’s French Canadian side using DNA Painter. While Ancestry is very useful, it is not useful in mapping DNA as it has no chromosome browser.
That means that it does not have specific information on what Chromosome your DNA match is on.

Marie’s Dad

Richard’s maternal side or French Canadian side:

Richard is 45% mapped. I would like to get this up to 50%. In my last Blog, I was running into problems due to incorrect trees and intermarriage on the French Canadian side.

I’ll start with FTDNA as that site uses the X Chromosome also. I wonder if I can figure out more about Richard’s X Chromosome. Rejeanne has an X Match with Richard:

I actually found Rejeanne at MyHeritage and there is a Theory for her:

This theory looks plausible. From Richard it goes all the way back on the maternal side. Rejeanne has one man, but that is possible, because he would have received his X Chromosome from his mother and passed it intact to his daughter. For this to work, it appears that Louis Girard would have to have had two wives (or perhaps the genealogy is wrong).

Here is the closest link I could find at Ancestry:

This assumes that Pierre-Louis Girard is the same as Louis Marie Henri Girard. Also Louis Marie Henri would have had to have been about 14 or 16 when he married Emerance. This does not seem likely.

Trying Gedmatch

I can see why I have so little matched as it is difficult to track these matches down. Here is Diane at Gedmatch. She is also at Ancestry:

.

Here is her match at Gedmatch (to Richard).

I can now accept Diane’s connection to Lorraine or see if she fits into my wife’s family tree as suggested. I’ll add Diane to my tree as a floating tree and then connect her if it works out.

 

This is Diane’s mother’s marriage record. Unfortunately, her mother’s mother’s last name is transcribed as Semena. I see Simard, though the i is not dotted.

Here is the marriage record for Virginie;

Everything is going smoothly so far:

Except Ozias and Mathilde should not be living. Next, I am looking for Ozias’ mother. Here is the family in 1861:

Genealogists have to appreciate the maiden name of the mother showing in the Census. I’m coming down the home stretch:

The marriage records are quite helpful:

This couple marries in 1842 in St. Urbain:

Next, I need to connectj Jean Baptiste to Jean Marie Tremblay. The writing for Jean Baptiste’s 1819 marriage record is not all that clear:

I will be happy to take the transcription suggestion:

The writing gets even worse for the marriage of Jean Tremblay and Constance Poitvin:

Time to Paint Donna

Here is Donna on Richard’s Chromosomes 2 and 9:

Dona paints a new area on Chromosome 2.

Here are Chromosomes 16 and 22:

There is some conflict on Chromosome 16 as Christine represents Delisle on the Lefevre side. So it is possible I got that connection wrong or there may be more than one connection.

Here is how my wife’s Aunt Lorraine matches Diane at Gedmatch:

Diane adds to Lorraine’s Chromosome2 and 4:

Diane’s match also overlaps with some more recent Pouliot matches on Chromosome 6.

Diane is consistent with other matches on Chromosome 16 and provides Lorraine’s first maternal match on Chromosome 22.

My Wife’s Aunt Suzy

Suzy’s real name is Virginia, just to add to the confusion.

Suzy has a smaller match with Diane at Gedmatch:

Donna paints new regions of DNA on Suzy’s chart:

I like to have lighter colors for the more recent common ancestors and darker colors for the more distant common ancestors, but this takes a while to work out.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It seems like it should be easy to paint to one’s chromosomes, but when I go to try it, it is quite difficult
  • In the past, the best options have been looking at Gedmatch for someone who has their information at Ancestry. That was the case here also with Diane
  • I may want to try to paint some more on my Hartley side next time.
Posted on

Looking at My Wife’s Side French Canadian Clusters at Ancestry

I’ll start by looking at my wife’s Aunt Lorraine’s Clusters. Lorraine’s mother was French Canadian:

Perhaps we will see some Lefevre, Methot, Pouliot and Fortin Clusters.

Here are Lorraine’s Clusters including paternal:

The connected clusters 1, 2, 3, 7, and 8 are maternal or French Canadian. Clusters 4, 5, and 6 are on the paternal or Irish side.

It took a while to go through Cluster 1:

I looked at all the common ancestor suggestions and assumed that they were right. Out of 28 matches there were 17 common ancestor suggestions. They all included Lefevre, so I assume that this is a Lefevre cluster.

Here is the overall picture:

Clusters were paternal, so I did not look at them. Lefevre or 1873 had two wives. My wife descends from the Pouliot wife and not the other, so the blank wife (CA2) indicates a half relationship.

The last Tremblay/Bouliet result does not go well with the Methot/Angesrs descendant match as Tremblay is in a different part of the tree:

What I see is that most of Lorraine’s Standard Clusters are on the Lefevre side. A few are on the Methot/Angers side. There are some on the Lefevre/Pouliot side, but those relations are too close to be helpful. This would be at the 1st cousin level. Usually, one looks for the 2nd cousin level or further out to track.

Pouliot Clusters

I can force Pouliot clusters by choosing a person of interest:

I’ll choose 2nd cousin Belharuk. I’ll choose a match level between 30 and 150 cM:

I don’t know why sometimes I get a large cluster to see and sometimes I do not. Here is the first match in the 10 match cluster:

Robin is on the Lefevre side, but her grandmother is a Pouliot. This is very confusing. Here is a situation where I can identify with the Ancestry computers as they are confused also. I better go to Fred’s tree. He is one of my wife’s relatives and I trust his tree:

Fred does not actually descend from Lefevre. That explains Lorraine’s clusters above. Many that are called Lefevre are actually Pouliot. Fred’s tree shows on his paternal side.:

Here is a Pouliot DNA tree I made a long while ago. I believe that it correctly shows the Pouliot relationships:

Here we see Belharuk, Robin, Fred, and Lorraine. Fred, Belharuk, and Lorraine are 2nd cousins to each other and not related on the Lefevre side. The confusing part is that Joseph Martin Lefevre also marries Mabel Ford:

And that is what causes a great deal of confusion.

I am not sure how to fix this at Ancestry.

Here is John in Cluster 1:

He is the third match down. According to Shared Matches at Ancestry, he is the son of Judy. Here is Judy’s tree on her maternal side:

Here, I have added Judy and John to my Pouliot DNA tree for the next time I get confused by what Ancestry is showing:

Back to Lorraine’s Standard Clusters

I just remembered that I can filter Lorraine’s standard clusters by her maternal side:

Cluster 3 is actually Pouliot:

This explains the mystery as to why Lorraine had so many Lefevre clusters. Not all the Lefevre clusters were really Lefevre clusters.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I assumed that the Common Ancestors shown in the close relationships of the  Standard Clusters were right, but many were not.
  • I found this out when I went looking for Pouliot Clusters
  • That means that I should not always accept the close common ancestor suggestions that Ancestry has.
  • This Blog has me thinking about mapping my wife’s aunts’ French Canadian DNA using DNA Painter.

 

 

 

Posted on

Looking for Pilling Clusters at Ancestry

In this Blog, I would like to look for Pilling matches. I have a motive for this. Those who are descended just from Pilling will not be descended from Hartley. Theoretically, I could eliminate some of my matches from my Hartley ancestor search. As it is, when I look at many of my Hartley DNA matches, it seems like some of them could be Pilling relatives.

So as I think of the matches, it occurs to me that going forward in time from Mary Pilling, there would be matches that descend from Mary Pilling. However, going back from Mary Pilling, there should be no Hartley descendants that match us unless it is by coincidence. Hmmm…

Pilling Genealogy and ThruLines

I believe that my genealogy is right for Mary Pilling:

However, when I look at the ThruLines for my father’s 1st cousin Joyce, I see this:

This shows Horsfall coming from Robert. Robert died in 1835. May Pilling Hartley remarries Robert Wilkinson and has more children. I thought that the ThruLines were more messed up than they are. When I look at Joyce’s ThruLines for Mary Pilling, it looks correct:

That means that Ruth would be a great person of interest in looking at Pilling Clusters.

When I look at another of my father’s first cousins’ ThruLines, I see this:

Derek has an even larger match with Maury at 42 cM.

Maury’s Pilling Clusters

Maybe my chances of finding Pilling Clusters would be better with Maury than with Joyce.

I was thinking I should see an overall cluster, but I don’t see it.

The first group is the closest group of matches:

EB has a private tree, but according to shared matches, he is a nephew of Derek.

Cluster 2 includes two people from the Wilkinson Line:

Cluster 3

This seems to expand past the children of John Pillng born 1822 for the first three matches of this cluster. This tells me that there are two different groups, but Norman appears to be matched to both. This appears to be where the matches have gone from the known (Pilling and Wilkinson) to the unknown.

Cluster 4

Now that I have not figured out Cluster 3, I will move on to Cluster 4:

This represents the ultimate representation of Pilling clusters that I am aware of on my side’s matches. This would be one interpretation:

I was thinking that the first cluster were people who descended from Mary Pilling. However, George is a new match.

When I look at George’s shared matches, he comes out close to the Wilkinson side. Perhaps I can fit him in. George has an unlinked tree:

George’s mother is from Massachusetts. Perhaps that is a clue.

I don’t know if I have a better Pilling DNA tree, but this one looks like it could use some updating – especially on the Wilkinson side:

I’ll add George to my tree as a floating tree.

I’ll go with the findagrave hint at Ancestry for Barbara – Geoge’s mother:

In 1950 George Nelson is a Taxi Driver living in New Bedford:

His sister Barbara A Nelson is listed in the same household on the next page:

The house is in the Sassaquin neighborhood of New Bedford:

Here is Barbara in one tree at Ancestry:

That same tree has father George Nelson dying before 1930. However, if that is the case, how can he be the father of Barbara Ann Nelson born 1931? This appears to indicate that George died in 1930:

Here is the family in 1940, but where is Barbara? She should have been about 8 or 9 at the time.

It appears that it is not easy for me to trace this match back to Wilkinson and Pilling.

More on William Wilkinson

Shared matches seem to indicate that the George match above could be a 2nd cousin to Richard and Paul:

That could mean that they both descend from William Wilkinson born in 1879. Here is Willia a death certificate for Wilkinson in 1936:

At the time, he was living at Lindsey Street, New Bedford:

Lindsey runs between North Street and Court Street. That confirms that this must be William in the 1930 Census:

According to Paul’s Tree at Ancestry, William had a second wife:

Back to the Clusters

George is somehow connected to the Wilkinson side, but I do not know how exactly. The next cluster is from from Ann Hartley. She was the daughter of Greenwood Hartley who was the son of Mary Pilling.

The Third Cluster

  1. Elliot
  2. Talia
  3. Jane
  4. Catherine

Jane and Catherine are in the order of 1st cousins to Maurey.

They descend from James Hartley. Cluster 2 descend from James’ sister Ann Hartley Burrows.

Elliot and Talia

Elliot’s family appears to be from Tasmania:

As Elliot’s tree only goes to about the year 1900, it would take quite a bit of work to trace it back to the Pilling family.

Cluster 4

The last person in the last cluster has this possible connection:

Victoria fits in with the theory that these should be Pilling clusters. However, the tree goes back quite far. The further a tree goes back, there are more possible ways that something could have gone wrong. Here is the earliest Howorth that Victoria has:

The information looks a little vague. I don’t mind trying a quick tree to see what I get. It looks like I already checked this out in 2019:

I have Edmund’s son Edmund born in Bacup. This is interesting as this is where the Emmet side of family lived. After a quick look at the ThruLines, I do not see an easy connection.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Looking at the Pilling Clusters gave me a different perspective on this family and their descendants
  • The largest result gave me four clusters. These were: Pilling/Wilkinson, Descendants of Ann Hartley Burrows, descendants of James Hartley her brother and a fourth presumably earlier group of Pillings.
  • My assumption was that I would get a list of Pilling descendants that I could eliminate from my list of earlier Hartley descendants. It did not seem to work out that way and/or I did not look at a list to subtract them from
  • I found an interesting match to the Wilkinson line, but could not figure out how he is connected.

 

Posted on

An Overview of Upshall Clusters for My Wife’s Great-Aunt Esther

My wife has a late great-aunt Esther who is actually a half Aunt. That means that she matches by DNA on only half of my mother-in-law’s maternal side. This is my mother-in-law’s tree:

My mother-in-law and Aunt Esther match on the Upshall side and not the Daley side. Fred Upshall first married Elizabeth Daley. She died in the Flu Epidemic. He then married Margaret Shave and Esther descends from her.

Here is Esther’s tree:

Esther’s grandfather was born in 1841. That was before there were good records in Harbour Buffet, Newfoundland where the family lived. I believe that a church burned down which did not help in the record department. There are Burtons and Dicks on both sides of Esther’s tree and her parents were related to each other in some way or ways.

Esther’s Standard Clusters

Here we see 5 clusters. Clusters 4 and 5 look like they could be connected.

  1. In this cluster, I recognize everyone as farily close family to my wife except for Stephen
  2. This Cluster has my wife’s aunt – my mother-in-law’s only sister.
  3. I don’t recognize anyone right away. It is a paternal cluster as are all the clusters.
  4. My later mother-in-law Joan is in this cluster. She matches all people in all clusters by at least 65 cM except for Grace
  5. I don’t recognize anyone right away in this three match cluster.

Here is Esther’s paternal side:

After briefly reviewing the clusters, this is what I get:

  • In cluster 1, the matches were too close except for Stephen
  • In Cluster 3, the was one Upshall suggestion and one Dicks suggestion

Stephen in Cluster 1

Stephen’s closest matches with suggested common ancestors are Danielle and Catherine. Here is Danielle:

Neither Danielle nor Catherine are on Esther’s Stard Cluster chart.

Here is Catherine:

So this could be a Dicks Cluster. De

Summary and Conclusions

  • All of Esther’s Standard Clusters are on her paternal side. This could be because many who have tested are also on her paternal side.
  • Esther’s parents were related to each other, so some of the DNA results could be confusing
  • Delving more into the extended clusters would give more results on Esther’s maternal side. However, that is of less interest to my wife’s family as they are related to her on her paternal side.
Posted on

Clusters on My Mother-In-Law’s Side: Ellis and Uphsall

Let’s look at Joan’s standard clusters. Here is Joan’s tree:

Joan’s ancestors are what I would call Canadian Maritime.

Here are the standard clusters:

The note at the top suggests she has over 100 matches, so there is no overall display.

I’ll start from the bottom and work up.

The 3 match cluster is Rhynold.

The first 4 match cluster from the bottom suggests Dicks as it has this match:

Checking Shirley’s Tree

I’ll create a floating tree for Shirley and then connect it to mine if it looks right.

Shirley has a private tree, but I am guessing that her father and grandfather at least could be right. Ancestry suggests this source, perhaps from Shirley’s tree:

Here is a clue for Ignatius also:

Here is Rushoon compared to Harbour Buffet where Joan’s ancestors came from:

Here is the 1921 Census showing where Joseph was born:

This is my guess for the marriage of Joseph Dicks:

However, the marriage is in a Methodist Church and Ignatius was apparently Roman Catholic. The name Ignatious would be Roman Catholic. In addition the 1921 Census says the family was Roman Catholic.

This is probably where the match would occur on my Dicks DNA Tree:

I can see that I am getting into too much detail at this time, so I will try to give an overview of Joan’s standard clusters at Ancestry starting from the smaller clusters to the largest.

Joan’s Standard Cluster Summary

These will be based where available on the suggested common ancestors. Here are the first 8 clusters starting with the smallest on the bottom;

#CA means how many matches show potential common ancestors at Ancestry. Interestingly for Cluster 8, three had Rayner/Hopgood from 1849 and one had Hopgood Watson. That tells me that is likely a Hopgood rather than a Rayner Cluster.

Here, I have added some paternal/maternal coloring:

Here is the entire list:

I had thought the results would get more complicated as the number of matches went up. However, the largest cluster was a fairly recent one. I expect that is because there were some fairly large Ellis families. Under ThruLines, Joan has 44 matches under Ellis/Gorrill:

These matches are under 10 children of this Ellis couple.

I have a note under Burton/Lawrence. That is a pair of potential ancestors. I note that Esther was a match there. She was a half Aunt to Joan.  On the half side that she doesn’t match Joan, there are extra Burton ancestors if I remember correctly. Joan’s paternal side was from Prince Edward Isle, so going back in time, there would be some intermarriage. Also on Joan’s maternal side, many were from Harbour Buffet. This was an isolated place with intermarriage.

Summary and Conclusions

  • This was a survey of Joan’s larger matches. She has over 100, so the overall cluster did not show at Ancestry
  • I perhaps made a mistake in getting into the ancestry on one of the proposed common ancestors. This takes a while and was not really needed for this overview.
  • Perhaps because these were close matches, every cluster had suggested potential ancestors from Ancestry. There are actually more known common ancestors, but Ancestry only shows the ones that have trees and of those only those who have linked trees.
  • 6 of Joan’s clusters were maternals and 9 were paternal. I am not really sure why this is not more even. My guess is that is due to there being more descendants that tested DNA on the paternal side.
  • The cluster that I didn’t identify could be that there were multiple common ancestors around the same time.
  • It would make sense to look at Aunt Esther’s clusters as she is a half Aunt. As a result she only matches on the Upshall side.

 

Posted on

Playing with My Children’s Expanded Clusters at Ancestry – French Morrow Side

Expanded Clusters are a good new genetic genealogy tool at Ancestry.

I am more interested in my children’s maternal side as I know more about the paternal side (me). Here is my children’s mom’s tree:

The top half is polish and the bottom is Irish (Warren), English (Gatley) and French Canadian (Morrow/Tacy/Tessier).

Morrow

As I look at my daughter Heather’s ThruLines, I see this:

That is not very encouraging as it is such a small match. I can try clusters based on Erica, but many of these clusters work on a 20 cM match and Erica only matches by 12 cM. I’ll try to cluster on Erica anyway.

This results in 2 clusters. Not bad.

Therese is probably Erica’s niece. Therese has a larger match to Heather, but no tree.

Going back to the larger cluster, it seems everyone is related:

It seems like there are a lot of holes in this side of the tree:

So perhaps I need the genealogy to find more matches and more matches to support the genealogy. At this point, I am skeptical concerning Mary A Cassion’s surname. I did a surname search under Heather’s DNA match names and got no results.

Morrow Genealogy

The 1880 Census for Lowell seems significant:

Here older brother Dennis Morrow has married Sarah Whalen. But where are Dennis’ parents? He is now the head of the househould with his two younger brothers and a brother-in-law. If I can find the birth record for any of these three brothers, I should have the names of the parents.

I was able to find the Roman Catholic record for Dennis’ marriage:

Both witnesses are on the Whalen side.

Apparently Dennis remarries in 1916:

Here we have the mother of Dennis:

My best reading is Mary A Casson. At any rate, she dies in 1876. Her husband dies in 1879. That explains the 1880 Census above.

I asked Google if Morrow is a French Canadian name:

I find it frustrating that I am not able to find this family in Quebec. According to Dennis, he was born in Quebec:

Here is his brother Joseph:

The death record for Joseph in Providence gives some more information:

Here we have his middle name and a different name for his mother. Also, this indicates that his mother was from Ireland. Here the mother’s name is given as Rose Cassin from what I can tell. Another interesting thing is that Joseph dies of gas poison “probably” accidentaly. The informant is his daughter Nellie Glancy. This death record appears to contradict some of the other records concerning Mary or Rose Cassin.

Here is a stone from St. Patrick’s Cemetery in Lowell, MA:

While looking through Naturalization papers I found a different Joseph Morrow who was naturalized in Maine but from New Brunswick;

This is a possible hint to his last name.

Back to the Cluster

MK on the Heather’s cluster above has a tree with a little over 70,000 people. Here is one branch of his tree:

There is even a Jean- Baptiste in the line. I suspect that Joseph Frederick’s father was a Jean-Baptiste (John B.). Here is Louis from MK’s tree:

Here is another tree for Louis at Ancestry:

Actually, this is a Joseph born around the time I was looking for a John B.

Another thing is, that this match with Erica could be on the Tessier side:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I tried to use Heather’s expanded clusters to ferret out some more genealogy on her Morrow side
  • I had trouble with the genealogy as it appears the Morrow name could have be Moreau, Morin, Morot, Morault or something else perhaps.
  • There was one small match between Erica and Heather of 12 cM. This seems small for a 3rd cousin and JJ did not match Erica at all
  • One shared match suggests that the Morrow name could have been Morin. However, the match could also be on the Tessier/Tacy side which is not known to be related to the Morrow side.
  • While researching Joseph Morrow I found some interesting details about his death.