Category: Hartley

Posted on

Hartley ThruLines Part 3

My Hartley Tree at Ancestry ends in John Hartley and Anne Bracewell:

Unfortunately, I do not have good genealogical evidence that these are my correct ancestors past Robert Hartley. There were so many Hartleys born in the area of Colne, that it makes it difficult to figure things out. I say this because when Ancestry looks for ThruLines, it is trying to look for matches to John Hartley and Anne Bracewell.

Summarizing the Hartley/Bracewell ThruLines

I have 7 Ancestry tests to deal with. These are me and four out of five of my siblings. Then there are two of my father’s first cousins.  I’ll start with myself:

Here I have those that are believed to be the children of John Hartley and Anne Bracewell other than James. I have that my family is possibly from the line of James. Then I have the person that I match from that line. I match three from the line of Nancy. Then I have how much I match  those proposed descendants of John Hartley and Anne Bracewell (in centimorgans)

Although this is helpful, I think that it would be more helpful to show this information on a family tree. I have already started such a tree:

This will show the branching of the matches, so I think this is more infomative. At the time I made this tree (2019), I had no matches from the Nancy Line. Now I have at least three:

However, I am now running into a different problem. Notice how there are two John Lees in this tree. It could be that one of these matches doesn’t belong in the tree or that the two John Lees are the same person.

Here is the same level of ThruLines for my father’s first cousin Joyce:

Joyce has three different matches and only one John Lee.

As a side-note, Maury who is my father’s other 1st cousin, does not have the same ThruLines. He shows James as son of Robert instead of John Hartley and Anne Bracewell:

Two John Lees

Before I add to my Hartley DNA/Genealogy Chart, I will want to figure out why there are two John Lees in my ThruLines. I’ll start with my larger match:

Joel and J.S.

J.S. has a nice tree:

Ancestry wants me to follow J.S.’s Line from Crabtree to Lee rather than from Crabtree to Betty Hartley:

It turns out I already made a tree for J.S., but I did not carry it far enough back:

I was following the Betty Hartley Line apparently:

According to an Ancestry Hint, this Betty Hartley Line appears to go to a Nancy Hartley who was from Thornton in Craven. Thornton-in-Craven is not too far from East Marton which is what I was looking at in my previous Blog.

Michael Lee b. 1803

Here is the family in 1841:

They are living in Reedy Moor ‘Folridge’ which I take to be Foulridge.

The faint red arrows points to Reedy Moor Lane which is to the West of Foulridge and North of Colne.

The 1851 Census has Michael born in Thornton, Yorkshire:

The Census is a bit confusing as Alice Crabtree is the daugther of Michael and Barbara Lee. I assume that Barbara had previously married a Crabtree. If this is the case, then Michael should not be the father of Alice as the tree shows above.

Here is Thornton where Michael is said to be born in the 1851 Census:

I think I see my mistake. It appears that Alice was married in the 1851 Census to Samuel Crabtree. Usually husband and wife are listed together, but here Samuel is listed as a lodger rather than a son-in-law. This marriage took place shortly before the 1851 Census:

Here is some more on Michael Lee:

Unfortunately, the marriage record does not give the parents for Michael Lee and there are two choices for his birth. One Michael was born in Harden and one in Higher Hague.

If the map is right, this is Higher Hague:

I think this may be Harden or near Harden Road a bit further North:

Michael Lee has a son Henry, which could favor Michael Lee being the son of Henry Lee of Harden. However, the date of Michael Lee in the Census records favors the later birth.

John Lee

Here is the marriage of John Lee:

Here we see that John is the correct father of Michael as he shows the connection to Thornton in Yorkshire. Expanding the 1851 Census shows John Lee:

John’s daughter Eliza apparently marries a Howorth. This Census is important as it shows that John was born in Colne. Based on his age of 70, John was born around 1781. This would make him 22 at the time of his marriage which is reasonable:

In addition, Ancestry recommends an earlier birth:

I assume this is based on his birth in Colne. However, I assume that Coln is also Colne. The ThruLines has John’s mother as Nancy Hartley.

Here is some more information on Eliza Lee:

She is living in Colne at the time of her marriage in 1841 and her father John Lee is a farmer. Here is some more helpful information on Eliza:

Her mother’s name was Ann. Actually, I alreaady had her as Nancy or Nanny. However, we see that she was born in Foulridge. Now, oddly, the father is a hatter.

Here is John and Family in 1841:

I can’t make out the name of the House he was living at. The two entries before this were Wanlass Wastes and Slipper Hill. My best guest would be Wanlass House. The map is a bit busy, but gives the relative location to the Wanlass Water Farm:

Here is the next page of the 1841 Census:

Was John Lee’s Mother Nancy Hartley?

For this to be true, the John Lee who was shown in the Census to be born about 1881 in Colne would have to be the same as:

Then the Nancy from this baptism would have to be Nancy Hartley. I have already shown that the wife of John Lee was likely Ann or Nancy Wilson, but was his mother Nancy Hartley?

Here we see a Thomas Lee/Nancy Hartley wedding in 1774 and a birth from the same couple later that year.

Who Were Nancy Hartley’s Parents?

We would be looking for a Nancy born aroun 1753, assuming that Nancy was 21 when she married:

  1. This Nancy has a baptism date of 1747/1748 because this was before the time the calenday shifted. The new year used to be March 25, so it would have been still 1747 in February, but more like our current 1748 if I understand it correctly. At any rate, Nancy would have been about 27 at the time of her marriage.
  2. This Nancy would have been 19 at the time of her marriage.
  3. This Nancy would have been 18 at the time of her marriage
  4. This Nancy would only be 15.

These are some more of the children of the couple:

If the traditional naming pattern was used, Nancy would have named her second son after her father. Unfortunately, that would have been John. My first two choices for the father of Nancy were aslo named John Hartley.

There are too many John Hartley marriages to investigate. However, here is a possible scenario. Say I pick the Nancy Hartley who was born in 1754 in Trawden. She could have been the daughter of this couple:

Let’s further suppose that Nancy was the daughter of Anne. They may have named her Nancy to distinguish her from her mother Anne. This seems to be a house of cards, but one that may be gaining support.

I already liked the branching of this ThruLine:

What I mean by that is that there are three different matches all going back to Nancy Hartley. The only thing I would change at this point is that it appears that Nancy was born in 1754 rather than 1752.

A New Hartley DNA/Genealogy Tree

I have found these trees to be helpful. I don’t have immediate access to the tree I showed earlier in the Blog, so I wrote up a simplified version:

I previously had only two lines represented which were my line (James) and the Robert Hartley Line. Now having three lines makes the possibility of my descent from John Hartley and Anne Bracewell seem more likely. The interesting thing about my previous tree is that my immigrant ancestor’s second cousin Richard Holgate had moved from Blackburn to New Bedford. I wonder if Greenwood ever got in touch with him in New Bedford.

Additional Lee Lines

I would like to look at the other two Lee Lines. One should be easy as it has a John Lee from 1779. This is the same John that I had surmised was correct in the previous Line going down to J.S.

John and Joel

My match with John looks like this:

It appears that the only connection I need to look at is between John Lee and Martha Lee. It turns out that I already have an image of the 1841 Census with Martha in it. It turns out that John also has that same reference:

However, DNA match John in his tree, did not make the same connection that I did with Ann Lee being Nancy Wilson. Interestingly, if I had seen John’s tree, I would have focused on the Richard Hartley/Martha Bracewell Line. That shows how helpful these ThruLines can be.

I also see that John and I have a shared match with J.S., but also a Wilkinson. The Wilkinson match is confusing, because I think I am related to the Wilkinsons on the Pilling side rather than the Hartley side.

Here is Martha’s baptismal transcription:

Here is my addition of my 6th cousin John to the Tree:

That is, of course, assuming that I have the correct tree.

Gabrielle and Joel

Ancestry appears to want me to evaluate Gabrielle’s entire line. Gabrielle’s tree goes back to Jane Lee:

The marriage record for Edith Miles gives her parents:

We find the Lee name in the marriage index:

Here is my version of Gabrielle’s tree so far:

Jane’s Anglican Marriage record gives her birthplace and parents:

In the 1871 Census for Burnley, we see that Robert Lee was from Colne:

Here is 11 year old Robert Lee living in Lenches, Great Marsden in 1851 – next to another Robert Lee family:

Here is Robert’s family enumerated on the previous page next to the Shackelton family:

Robert Lee Sr

The above Census has Robert born in Earby, Yorkshire:

In my list of children of Thomas and Nancy Lee above, I stopped at 1788, but the list goes on:

My guess is that these were all from the same family. The only problem is that if Nancy was born in October 1754, she would have been 46 going on 47 when she had Mary. Possible, but somewhat rare. In support of Mary Lee, I see at the start of the Blog that my father’s first cousin Joyce has a ThruLine going up to Mary Lee born in 1801.

Revised Hartley/Bracewell DNA/Genealgy Tree

The tree is starting to fill out:

This tree compares well with my Ancestry ThruLines:

I have the three matches from the Nancy Hartley lineage. I have not checked the Susan Hartley Line yet. I have Paul instead of Nora from the Robert Hartley Line. I will check out the Susan and Robert Hartley Lines in my next Blog.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I started out trying to summarize the ThruLines going back to John Hartley and Anne Bracewell. These were difficult to summarize without trying to verify them.
  • Instead, I looked at the genealogies of the ThruLine matches going back to the Nancy Hartley Line. These three all either checked out or proved to be possible or likely.
  • It was helpful that Nancy Hartley had 10 children
  • I found it significant that the branching for these matches went back to around the year 1800. Two matches were from the UK and one was from Australia.
  • I entered the Nancy Hartley Line onto a Hartley/Bracewell DNA/Genealogy Chart
  • Having these extra matches appear to solidify the likelihood that my ancestors could have been John Hartley and Anne Bracewell. I had earlier identified them as the most likely candidates and the ThruLines seem to back that up
  • I continue to maintain a healthy skepticism concerning the results and want to be open to other possibilities. Going back to 6th cousins opens up a lot of possibilities and other family lines which are out there.
  • In my next Blog, I will follow other ThruLine leads from John Hartley and Anne Bracewell.

 

Posted on

Hartley ThruLines Part 2

In Part 1 of Hartley ThruLines, I looked at my DNA match Paul with proposed common ancestors. I had trouble figuring out some of the details of Paul’s Hartley genealogy. I then looked at a match between my father’s cousin Joyce and the Ainsworth Line. This line was more promising, but I got bogged down. I notice that the first ThruLine remains, while the second one has disappeared at Ancestry for some reason. In this Blog, I will continue to look at proposed ThruLines to see if they lead me anywhere.

Maury’s ThruLines

Maury is my father’s first cousin and his DNA is managed by his daughter. Here is what Maury has:

I know the first two matches are not right as they are on the Pilling and not Hartley Line. The William Hartley shows probably because of this Wiliam I have in my tree:

I had him there because I thought that James and Betty Hartley were the parents of my ancestor Robert Hartley and that they had another son named William. However, I have not been able to prove either. At any rate, Maury shows three possible connections to a William Hartley. However, this William shows as being born in 1804 instead of 1805. Let’s look.

One tree with William Hartley has this information:

This is interesting because this is the same family that I was looking at in my previous Blog. However, I did not have Henry and John Hartley. Here are Maury’s matches:

It looks like Barry and his two children and his brother Russell. They all descend from Jack Whattaker from Australia. I also note that there is the Pilling name in there.

Shared Matches with Maury

When I look at Maury and Barry’s shared matches, I see one and probably two with Hartley ancestry. Norman is one shared match with Barry and here is Norman’s tree:

Norman has Hartleys on both sides of his tree. Norman has a William Hartley who married a Mary Pickles instead of the Jane Pickles that is in Maury’s ThruLines. Interesting, but I won’t look at it further right now.

Checking Out the Whittaker Tree

Hopefully, this should be easy. I’ll start with Russel’s Tree:

When I make my own tree, I see that Russel’s great-grandfather was born in Trawden and his paternal great-grandmother Jane Blackburn was born in Winewall, next door:

Here is my own version of the Whittaker Tree:

Ancestry wants me to choose John Pilling and Ann Hartley as Jane’s parent’s, but I don’t want to blindly accept these hints.

The 1871 Census does note a Jane Pilling living in Winewall:

She was living next to a Blackburn family, but I do not see a Stephen in this particular family at this time. Another interesting thing about this Pilling family is that the mother came from Marton, Yorkshire. In my previous Blog, I was looking at a Hartley ThruLine between myself and Paul:

This seems like too much of a coincidence. The Ann (possibly Hartley) from this Blog was born about 1834 according to the 1871 Census. In my previous Blog, I was also confused as to why Ann Hartley’s father appeared to be Samuel Bell:

Summary to This Point

As all this information is confusing, I will try to summarize to see if I can reduce the confusion:

  • I have a ThruLine with Paul. His ancestry tracks back to an Ann Hartley. For some reason, her father is listed as Samuel Bell, Blacksmith at her marriage to John Pilling in 1853 and she is listed on the Census as born in Marton, Yorkshire. Paul’s tree has Ann later married to a Hartley Blackburn but no sources are given.
  • My father’s cousin Maury has a ThruLine with four people on the Whittaker Line. That Line goes back to Jane Blackburn (married name) married to Stephen Blackburn. According to Ancestry Hints, she is the daughter of John Pilling and Ann Hartley born 1831 and listed above. If this is the case, then the common ancestor between these two trees is Ann Hartley.

It helps for me to create a chart:

On the left side of the chart, there would be more matches descending from Jack Whittaker. The reason this could be important is that both these lines go back to Ann Hartley and I don’t have many Hartley leads in my DNA matches that could give a clue on my Hartley heritage.

More on Ann Hartley

I asked my genealogy friend Elaine who was originally from the Trawden/Colne area about Marton and she sent me this map:

At the top of the map is West and East Marton. Elaine says a canal goes through the Town and down to Colne.

Elaine also came up with this 1851 Census which was helpful:

Recall that at the time of her marriage, Ann was living in Smithy Field. Here she is in 1851 – a few years before her marriage. Here she is after her marriage in 1861 in Trawden with John – although his last name looks like Billing:

Also Joseph Hartley who was Ann’s son is now called Joseph Pilling. This also accounts for the Jane Pilling who I was having trouble finding.

My thinking is that this should be Ann Hartley:

Anne’s mother was Anne Joanna Hartley. Here is another child of Ann Johanna named William Hartley:

William was born September 7, 1829. I am having trouble finding any of these three people in the 1841 Census. This appears to be William in 1851:

He is a lodger in East Marton. He is with Richard Hartley who is the son of Nancy Hartley who was born in Settle:

Here is Settle:

I feel like I am running out of information on Ann Joanna or Joahanna Hartley at this point.

Samuel Bell

At the time of Ann Hartley’s marriage in 1853, she gave the name of her father as Samuel Bell. Could it be that she had information of who her father was? Here is a Samuel Bell living in Barnoldswick in 1861:

Let’s do the math. Samuel was born around 1806. Ann Hartley was born 1832. That means that Samuel would have been 26 years old when Ann Hartley was born. That sounds reasonable. Just to add a little confusion, Samuel lists his father in his 1840 marriage record as what appears to be John Slater:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at DNA matches from ThruLines to a William Hartley. One match was between Paul and myself. The other match was between my father’s 1st cousin Maury and Russel
  • Both these matches had an Ann Hartley. I found this to be significant.
  • Tracing the genealogy of Ann was difficult as she was born out of wedlock. Her mother was Ann Joanna Hartley and I could not find more information on her.
Posted on

Hartley ThruLines

By Hartley ThruLines, I mean that I want to look at ThruLines on my Hartley side. I notice this interesting one:

My ThruLine with Paul is worth taking a look at. If this is right, it would help cement my connection to James Hartley born 1763.

A Tree for Paul

The way I check these is to create my own private tree for my match. Paul has posted a pretty good tree at Ancestry leading back to Ann Hartley:

This Ann Hartley was married to a Hartley Blackburn. However, he has this Ann being from Yorkshire:

Here is a conversation I had with Paul:

This appears to be Paul’s paternal grandmother:

Confusingly, Irene is transcribed at Ancestry as June in the 1911 Census:

The 1881 Census for Nelson is interesting:

It shows that William and Hartley Pilling were Ann Blackburn’s children, born in Colne and Winewall and that Maggie Blackburn was born in Nelson. This suggests to me that Ann Blackburn may have married a Pilling in Colne. Here are two marriages of an Ann Hartley to a Pilling:

Ann would be too young for the first marriage, but there was a Blackburn witness in that marriage.

Here is a entry for Ann Hartley from a tree I found at Ancestry:

This makes sense to me. The same tree has Hartley Blackburn from Trawden:

I also found that a possibility for Ann Hartley was this 1841 Census for Trawden, Lancashire:

In the 1881 Census, Ann was said to be from Marton, Yorkshire. All of this family at least shows as being from Lancashire. Another issue is that I can’t figure out where Marton is.

Another question: if Ann Hartley married as here:

then why would her father be Samuel Bell? Time to look at another Hartley ThruLine and perhaps come back to this later.

Joyce and Ainsworth

Joyce is my father’s 1st cousin:

Here is another connection through a William Hartley. Ruth should not be on this list as she descends from Mary Pilling. Mary had an illegitimate child before she married Robert. Ruth is desended from that child.

Looking at the Ainsworth Tree

The Ainsworth Tree is private, but the ThruLines has a suggested path based on other trees. One tree I found has a photo for John Hartley Ainsworth:

Three Ancestry Trees have John as the father of Olwyn:

Here is the 1911 Census showing a young John Hartley Ainsworth and his family – all born in Nelson:

James and Martha were married in 1901. They apparently lived with the wife’s family that year:

Next, I am trying to verify Martha’s mother:

Ancestry is suggesting Jane Hartley. The 1891 Census for Nelson has Jane being born in Trawden:

I found three trees for Jane Hartley at Ancestry and they all have Mary Hartley as her mother and they do not show a father:

That seems to be consistant with the original ThruLines which shows Jane’s mother as Mary Ann Hartley. This seems to be a good candidate for Jane in the 1851 Census:

Here we have a William Hartley, a Mary Hartley unmarried and a Jane Hartley granddaughter. So far, this is going more smoothly than the previous tree. This family which was all associated with Trawden moved within 8 months to Little Marsden (the time of the birth of Jane Hartley).  My question would be: why is Jane the daughter the Mary. She could have been the daughter of Betty or Alice. Here is the 1861 Census:

There is now a Sarah Hartley listed as daughter, but probably not from 64 year old Jane Hartley. Mary Ann is out of the house – either married or died or otherwise just moved out. It would make sense for the mother of the children to stay and take care of them. Regardless, William and Jane Hartley appear to be the grandparents of Jane and Sarah.

The truth comes out in 1871:

Here we have three generations of Hartleys: William, Alice and then Jane and Sarah. And they are living next door to the Widdup family!

The Census really helped out and is still informative in 1881:

I already had this before, but now I see that Sarah is a sister to Jane and not an Aunt. With what I see so far, I would choose Alice as the mother to Jane and Sarah, but there may be other information out there which would have Mary as the mother. However, to get back to William Hartley, I need to enter one Hartley sister and will enter Mary for now.

Mary Hartley and Her Sisters

We know that Mary Hartley was 23 in 1851. That would put her birth at around 1828 in Trawden. Going from the known to the unknown:

It is clear that this is the family in 1851 in Little Marsden which is just to the West of Trawden. This family had William and Jane as parents. Their children were Mary, Betty, Alice, Jonathan? and granddaughter Jane. Let’s compare the 1841 Census in Trawden where they were all born:

The family goes on to the next page:

This is clearly the same family, so that is good news. Unfortunately, the 1841 Census does not give family relations, but they are usually implied. Ancestry suggests William Hartley and Sarah Pickles as the parents which seems like a good choice to me:

If I decide that Pickles is not the right name later, I can change it.

Who Were the Parents of This William Hartley?

When I look at 3 Ancestry Trees, two have his parents as John and Mary Hartley and one Tree has his parents as James Hartley and Betty Baldwin. However, the one tree is a person I know and may have been influenced by my research? My old Hartley Web Site has this information:

My best guess for the parents of my ancestor Robert Hartley were James Hartley and Betty Baldwin. I also had that couple with a son William born in 1805 which would fit this William. If that is the case, then the DNA match would be my first DNA evidence that My ancestors were indeed James Hartley and Betty Baldwin.

I do note that there was a William Hartley who married a Jane Pickles in 1825:

However, this William was a widower. If William was born in 1805, that would make him a very young widower of 19. Possible but not likely. The other 2 trees had this William:

He would also have been a young widower at 20. We get William’s birth date from his Census records.

  • In 1841, he is listed as 35. However, note:

Please note, when searching the 1841 census, ages up to 15 are listed exactly as reported/recorded but ages over 15 were rounded to the nearest 5 years (i.e. a person aged 53 would be listed on the census as age 50 years).

  • In 1851, William was listed as 46, which is why we think he may have been born in 1804  or 1805.
  • In 1861 William was listed as 57, so he would be born in 1804 or possibly 1803
  • In 1871, William was listed as 58, so it is difficult to nail down a birth year. Now it could be 1803 or 1802.
  • In 1881, he is listed as 76 which puts his birth back to 1804 or 1805.

According to the Death Registration Index, there was a William who died in the Burnley area in 1885 at the age of 80:

This further suggests that William was born in 1804 or 1805. Assuming that this information is correct, I would lean toward William being born in 1804 as this record is for early 1885. Based on this analysis and assuming that William was baptized in Colne, I come up with these candidates:

I don’t know where Newlaith is, but there is a Little Laith listed in Trawden in 1841 Census.

This Wililam appears to be a good choice based on both date of birth and location.

This William who I thought previously could be the brother of my ancestor seems to be born a little too late.

Jane Pickles

Next, I would like to know if the Jane who married William was Jane Pickles. The fact that there was a 20 year old Sarah Pickles living with the William Hartley family seems to add to the evidence that Jane could be Jane Pickles.

Jane Pickles is mentionted in the Non-Conformist records. It appears that there was a Weslyan revival going on in Trawden at some point and many were baptized, including my third great-grandmother Mary Pilling Hartley. Here are the first three entries:

Here are the next two:

Here is a map of where my ancestors lived in 1837 according to the same Weslyan records:

I assume that Trawden means the village of Trawden and Slack Booth was outside the village to the South.

From the Weslyan records, we know that Jane’s father was Henry Pickles and her mother was Mary:

There are two choices for this couple’s marriage:

Molly was a nickname for Mary.

I am leaning toward Mary as the right spouse as opposed to Molly. Here is a birth to Molly:

I have not heard of Whilly End which would not rule her out. Also her maiden name is Pilling, so the DNA match could be on that side if this was the correct ancestor.

More on Wililam Hartley and His Possible Parents

I had as my best guess that William’s parents were John and Mary Hartley. One place to look is the 1841 Census:

I see that there was a John and Mary living next to the James Hartley Family. And the James Hartley Family is listed after the William Hartley Family. Now assuming that this John was the father of William and perhaps James, he would have been born in about 1776. Remember ages over 15 were rounded down to the nearest 5 years. So John could have been born as early as about 1771 – assuming that he was the father.

Next Steps

I’ll keep looking at ThruLines and comparing them. The ThruLines as partially based on the information we put in the trees, so it may be necessary to try other potential ancestors. The goal would be to find a common ancestor with one of the DNA matches that does not have a clear connection on another line such as Pilling which is also a Trawden ancestor.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I first looked at Paul’s Tree. He is a DNA match with me. I got confused going back into the genealogy and had a lot of questions, so I went on to the next ThruLine
  • The next ThruLine was between my father’s 1st cousin Joyce and Ainsworth. The Ainsworth Tree was more straightforward and I got back to a Hartley Family in Trawden, not too far from where my Hartleys were from. This genealogy also bogged down around and before the year 1800. That seems to be a sticky area.
  • The goal is to find common ancestors between a DNA match. The genealogies of the DNA matches, if on the Harltey side, should inform me of the direction to go in my own genealogy.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

My Family’s Connections with the Colonial Hatch Family

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

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

Hatch ThruLines

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

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

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

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

It looks like this couple had eight children:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evidence of DNA matches is rising.

My sister Lori matches Susan like I do:

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

Finally my sister Sharon:

Sharon, like Jon and Heidi, matches Bridget.

Are All These Connections as Shown?

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

Lincoln’s Genealogy

This is what Lincoln has:

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

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

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

Here is Helena in 1930 in Dartmouth, MA:

I see that her brother was quite a bit older.

Here is Carrie’s marriage record:

I am quickly building out the Lincoln’s tree:

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

It looks like we are abut halfway there:

Here is Helena or Helen in 1860 in New Bedford:

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

According to findagrave.com:

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

The same record gives the parents of Olive:

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

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

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

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

Starting My Hatch DNA/Genealogy Tree

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

My Match Susan

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

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

The Findagrave site is helpful again with Anna Dowd:

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

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

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

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

Here is a portion of my tree for Susan:

I already have Isaiah in my Hartley Tree.

Widening My Hatch DNA/Genealogy Chart

Heidi and Bridget

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

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

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

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

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

The father, Arthur, was a bank teller:

The couple married in 1912 in New Bedford:

Here is my tree:

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

Here is the 1850 Census for Falmouth:

John was a ship carpenter.

Who Were the Parents of John H Parker?

According to the NEGHR Vol. 114:

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

The implications:

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

Joyce and KC

I have already done one Drusilla Line:

 

Here is KC’s tree:

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

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

Findagrave strongly suggests that she was a Sawyer:

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

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

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

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

Maury and Priscilla

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

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

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

Albert was a barrel dealer.

Here is an 1894 marriage record for Albert:

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

So many Hatches!

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

The 1860 Census appears to correct the previous one:

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

Jon and Gramps

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

Here is my new Hatch Chart:

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

A Deeper Dive into the Review of A11134 Using BAMsAway

My Haplogroup is A11134. I share that group with 7 people of Hartley Surname (though one changed his name to Hartley, partly as a result of the testing). An 8th BigY tester in the A11134 group has Nutter heritage. His is the most recent results. Here is where Nutter is under A11134 in the lower right below. This shows he shares A11134 with two other Hartleys

My previous analysis of Nutter’s results and other Hartley results has left me with some questions that I would like to look into further. Previously, I had been working on this list of Variants:

BAMsAway

This is a Chrome Browser extension that looks into positions on the YDNA BigY test that FTDNA may not provide information on. Recently, I was looking at Nutter’s Private Variant with Position number 5672076. It appeared from my download that FTDNA had not tested that location for me. However, using BAMsAway, I see this for that position looking at my results:

This shows that clearly I was negative at this position. While I’m at it, I’ll check all my Variants that I previously thought were not covered by my test:

I’m not so concerned about the last three testers, as I know more about their genealogy back to the 1600’s. However, the first two positions that I checked were clearly negative, so that is a good sign.

6906758

This position is interesting as Nutter showed that this was one of his Private Variants at YFull based on his non-FTDNA testing. I show negative for the Variant:

Here is what Nutter’s results show:

I am not sure why Nutter’s results did not show this as a Private Variant at FTDNA. This may be something to look into further.

BAMsAway ‘No Reads Found’ at 13807922

Here is the first Variant that I looked up with no reads found:

Here is how the Browser displays:

However, the position number does not show. I suppose this would make sense if there were no reads. I showed this result in blue on my spreadsheet:

 

I had previously shown this as not tested and ‘no reads found’ is the same thing. This is the first BAMsAway result that confirms what I thought to be the case previously. Here is what Nutter shows at that position:

Here there were only 2 good reads. Many assume that 10 good reads are needed by FTDNA, so this Position has some logic to not being a Private Variant for Nutter.

My Results Adjusted by BAMsAway

Out of 10 positions I showed Not Tested, 8 of those were tested and found negative. 2 of those positions were actually no reads (or not tested). Those two Positions corresponded with Nutter’s Private Variants at YFull which were not considered Private Variants by FTDNA. When I check Nutter’s Position 19374424, I see that there were no reads at FTDNA:

I am thankful to David Vance at the L513 Facebook Page who steered me to BAMsAway.

Updating My Brother’s Results

My guess is that my brother’s BigY BAMsAway results should be similar to mine. After some copying and pasting into BAMsAway, I get these results for Jim:

For Position #13669903, BAMsAway confirms that Jim only had one read (but that was a negative for the Variant).

Updating Steve’s Results

FTDNA shows that Steve has 5 Private Variants:

The arrow points to the BAMsAway extension for the FTDNA Chromosome Browser. When I choose the extension a popup asks me to add the new SNP name or position:

When I do that, a new position is added to Steve’s list of Private Variants:

I choose the user added position to get this:

This shows that Steve is clearly negative for this Variant. He has no mutation from ‘T’. Here are Steve’s results:

This gives clarity to show that Steve is negative for other A11134 testers’ Private Variants. He gets a No Read for 19374424. This is apparently in a difficult to read portion of the Y Chromosome.

John N’s Results

So far, my chart is shaping up well. John has four Private Variants.

I gave John N a questionable for 13807922 as he had only 4 reads. However, they were all negative. I would say negative. John N also has no reads for 19374424.

Summary of Steve, John N and Nutter

These are the three who tested postive for A11134, but did not form a branch below that level. My major question is why Nutter does not have a Private Variant at 6906758. I will likely write to FTDNA to ask why. I had previously checked Nutter’s results to make sure that he was negative for the 7 SNPs in my Haplogroup. Those are the 7 SNPs at the end of the list above.

Michael, Lawrence and John R

These three BigY testers are in a separate genealogical group that I call the Quaker Line of Hartleys. The ancestor of this group escaped persecution in Lancashire, England and came to Quaker-friendly Pennsylvania around the year 1700. The genealogy of this group can be traced to some time in the 1600’s.

Because I had added NTs or Not Tested to their list based on their incomplete downloadable files, I would like to correct that information using the BAMsAway extension. That will corrrect my comparison chart of Private Variants.

Lawrence and Position 7153793

One of the first interesting results is for Lawrence in position 7153793:

Lawrence has three positive reads for this position. I could argue that this result should form a new branch of ‘Quaker’ Hartleys. YBrowse has two SNPs for this position, but the first is a G to C mutation where Lawrence has a G to A mutation:

The second SNP is listed twice for some reason, but has the G to A mutation:

My feeling is that Lawrence should be in a new Branch called MF205420. This is also consistant with the genealogy:

John and Lawrence share a branch. However, Michael would have to be negative for this Variant for this to be a true Branch separate from John and Lawrence. Michael had an older test:

His test did not cover that position. That means that it is not clear whether MF205420 would apply to all three testers or just two. So this is a case where there should be an extra SNP, but it is not clear where it belongs.

Here is the end of what I looked up for Lawrence:

I indicated in the notes that Lawrence had 3 positive reads. For 13807922, Lawrence had 2 negative reads which would be expected.

John R’s BAMsAway Results

I have five more NTs to get rid of. There were no surprises with this recent BigY test:

This is what I have so far. It was interesting to look at the results. You don’t know whwat you will find until you look. It would be interesting (but take a little work) to fill in the rest of the blanks.

More on Lawrence

Larwence has 6 Private Variants:

Here I filled in the rest of Lawrence’s blanks including the SNPs from my branch of Hartleys:

 

 

Quaker Line Michael

Michael took the older BigY500 test. I had missed one of his Private Variants last time, so I will add that in:

Michael may find more Private Variants if he updates to BigY700.

Michael had 2 negative reads for one of Lawrence’s Private Variants. He also had no reads for two of my Branch’s newer SNPs which makes sense.

John R’s Results Completes the Quaker Hartley Analysis

  • Here we see the difference between Michael’s BigY500 test and Lawrence and John R’s BigY700 test. Michael has many more ‘no reads’.
  • Where there is more than one B? in a row, my note at the end is ambiguous
  • I probably should have had different colors for the B? designation depending on whether the low read was positive or negative.
  • Some results are more important than others. For example, the results within the Hartley Quaker Group is more important than comparing the Hartley Quaker Group with the non-Quaker Group as we know that those two are not closely related by genealogy.

Filling In Nutter

I did see one unexpected result here:

Nutter had 7 positive reads for a Private Variant that John R in the Hartley Quaker Group had. I made the notation withing the cell and added that the mutation was G to A. Here is what John R shows:

That means that it looks like John R’s Private Variant is not really Private. That is why it pays to look at each of these positions.

MF205420

This Position describes MF205420 which I mentioned above. Apparently, this could be another Hartley-wide Variant. Now I want to see the results for the other Hartley BigY testers. Here it looks like I have found a new Hartley SNP:

However, to be sure, I need to go upstream one level to Mawdsley:

He has 9 negative reads for this position. What that means is that John R’s Private Variant of 7153793 should actually be SNP MF205420 in the A11134 Hartley Group:

Here I have pointed to where MF205420 should be added. Here John R had at least 10 reads, so the 10 read rule came into play:

I just need to convince FTDNA to add MF205420 to the Hartley Group. MF is apparently the designation for a Chinese Company. So far, it has paid off to look at all these positions.

Filling in John N’s Blanks

I don’t see any surprises here:

Filling in Steve’s Blanks

No surprises here.

Joel and Jim

Any difference between these two brothers should be from testing coverage.

It doesn’t look like a lot, but it took a while to get all this information. The two recommendations are noted in yellow in the Note Column. The yellow BY is the same as the Y for the last 7 SNPs in the list. The BNR is equivalent to what I thought I was getting in my previous list where I had NT for Not Tested.

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • I had tried to do an analysis of A11134 BigY testers using downloadable files. However, the results were confusing and I found out that these files are not complete.
  • I used BAMsAway and found the complete picture
  • From my analysis, Nutter needs one more Private Variant than he has.
  • Also, the A1134 should have one more SNP in it’s group for a total of three SNPs. The new SNP would be MF205420. That SNP is now a Private SNP that John R has from the Quaker Hartley group. However, 5 other testers who had reads all had positive reads for that SNP (though below what FTDNA usually finds adequate).

 

 

Posted on

A New A11134 BigY Test Results: Nutter

The long awaited Nutter BigY test results came in. As expected by previous testing, he is A1134. The tester’s name is not Nutter but changed along the way at some point. I will call the tester Nutter or Michael for privacy reasons. Here is my list of BigY Matches:

After my brother, the new tester, Michael, is my next match. This may or may not be significant. the listing is based on the number of Non-Matching Variants. I have fewer Non-Matching Variants with Michael (other than with my brother) than with other BigY testers. I will be looking at Variants in greater detail later in this Blog.

I and my brother are fifth and sixth on Michael’s match list. The first 7 testers on the list are Hartleys (other than Michael). After that, there are other surnames. This indicates to me that Michael’s ancestors were likely Hartleys at some point in history. Tester #8 on the list Mawdsley and those after likely have a common ancestor before the time of surnames. Also Mawdsley and others have an earlier Haplogroup than the first 7 testers.

Michael in the Block Tree

One way that FTDNA shows test results is in a Block Tree. Here is the Block Tree from Michael’s viewpoint:

The part that says ‘Your Branch’ actually has three people in it: Nutter plus two of his Hartley matches.

I didn’t show that part of the Block Tree that has Mawdsley. He is further to the right under A11132. This shows that:

  • Michael is the only Nutter under A11134
  • My branch of FT225247 on the left has 7 variants under A11134
  • There are 4 variants under A16717
  • Under Michael’s branch there are 3 Private Variants on average
  • The people in the bottom block represent now. That means the time back to the A11134 should be about the same for each of the three branches above.

Michael’s Private Variants

Why are these important? These represent Michael’s Line since the common ancestor of the A11134 group that he is in. Above, note that those in Michael’s group have an average of 3 Private Variants. However, right now, Michael’s results show that he has two Private Variants.

These two Private Variants show as numbers which are position numbers on the YDNA. So far, no one in the world has tested positive for these two positions. Once a match is found to one of these two Positions, they will form a new branch of mankind. This would be a branch that is likely in common with the Nutter name.

Position 15646418

This position is already in YBrowse. That is probably from when Michael tested with another company.

That SNP is named Y354187. The Y designation is from YFull.

YFull gave this SNP a name when Michael uploaded his results there last year.

5672076

I suspect the same is true for 5672076. This SNP is called Y354148:

Comparing Michaels Results with Other A11134 Testers

This part may get a bit boring, but it is necessary. There is only one way to match with another tester. However, there are different ways to not match:

  • One tests postive and one test negative for a SNP
  • One test positive and another’s test does not cover that SNP
  • One tests negative and another’s test does not cover that SNP

Then there are incomplete test results which further complicate matter. Usually there need to be about 10 reads to have a good test result. If there are less than 10 reads or some reads are positive and some are negative, you get into a grey area.

Here is what I have so far in comparing Private Variants:

This shows who tested for what:

  • Y means positive
  • N means negative
  • NT means the test did not cover that position
  • ? means inconclusive

Above, Joel and Jim are A11134 > FT225247; Steve, John N. and Nutter are A11134 and Michael, Lawrence and John R. are A11134 > A16717. I am not sure what the blanks mean.

Here I’ve added a column for Nutter’s FTDNA results as the previous column was for his other test. I was already tracking SNPs Y354148 and Y354187 which I mentioned above. I would also like to add the SNPs in my branch as there are so many.

Here I have shown that Nutter has none of the 7 SNPs in the branch of Hartleys that my brother and I share. Next I went through the Private Variants of the other BigY Testers and checked to see if Michael tested positive for any of those Private Variants:

This shows that Nutter did not test positive for any of the other testers’ Private Variants. For example here is Nutter’s results for 11071280 which was one of Steve’s Private Variants:

Because Nutter’s Genotype is the same as the Reference, that means that Nutter is ancestral or not positive for that Variant. It is confusing, because these results were found in a download called Derived Variants (which is the opposite of Ancestral Variants).

What this means is that no new branches should be formed based on Private Variants. If my analysis was correct above, it also indicates that none of the other 7 Hartley tests covered the Nutter Private Variants. Nutter should have on average 4 Private Variants, so the two that he has are probably right. That means that the Nutter line had mutations about twice as slowly as the average. On the other hand, my Harltey Branch had 7 mutations during the same time period with mutations about as twice as fast as average.

A11134 Time Tree

Nutter is not yet on the FTDNA Time Tree. That Tree estimates that A11134 formed around the year 1450:

Hartley Branches under that formed at a later date. For example, FTDNA says that A16717 formed around 1650:

This date follows closely the genealogy of this branch:

These are the YDNA testers under A16717.

 

It would stand to reason, that other Hartley Branches formed around the same time as A16717 in the 1600s:

I drew an arrow to FT225127 where my brother and I and two other Hartley Lines are. The Nutter Line will be added in that same area.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The new Nutter BigY test shows that he is in the A11134 Branch, a Branch formerly held only by Hartleys
  • Nutter has two Private Variants which defines his own private line
  • Nutter forms a fifth branch under A11134. However, three of these branches are not named yet and won’t be named until they get matches withing those branches
  • My guess is that these branches formed in the 1600’s and represent an explosion of the Hartley surname
  • My interpretation is that this Nutter tester had a Hartley ancestor probably in the 1600’s.
  • The next step is to see the Nutter BigY results added to the FTDNA Time Tree. I don’t know if those results will make a change to the date of A11134.

 

Posted on

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are the totals and averages:

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

My Own ThruLines Numbers

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

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

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

Here I found some surprising results:

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

Comparing Siblings

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

Our numbers were very similar.

Statistics for My Brother Jon

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

My Sister Lori’s ThruLines

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

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

My Last Sibling at Ancestry: Sharon

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

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

I’ll start with Joyce:

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

Here is Maury:

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

 

 

 

Posted on

New YTree Changes at YFull for Hartley, Smith and Nutter at A11138

I was informed recently by a person with Nutter surname heritage that there were some changes at YFull in my area of the YDNA Tree. Here is the current YTree:

YF00890 is Smith. YF106096 is Nutter and the last two ID numbers are my brother and me.  When I press the live button on the tree, I get this:

This is how the YTree looked for A11132 late last year:

This just included Nutter and myself. This must have changed when I added my brother’s kit. Notice that this had a formed date and a TMRCA. Last year’s formed date of 1700 ybp seems way off as that would be roughly the year 300 AD. Here is what FTDNA has:

Changes under A11132

First, I will look at changes under my branch. It makes sense that I would be under a new branch by adding my brother. At FTDNA, that branch is called FT225247. At YFull it is called A11136. What the A11132 tree is telling me that my brother and I share all the SNPs under A11132. They are:

  • A11132
  • A11134
  • A16716
  • A11135
  • A11137
  • A11140

It also tells me that we don’t share:

  • A11133
  • A11136
  • A11129
  • A11130

This is consistant with Variants that my brother and I have under FT225247:

 

The difference is that the Mawdsley BigY tester does not have his results posted at YFull. He is the one that split the previous A11132 into A11132 and A11134. As Nutter tested positive for A11134 and A11135, he would be A11134 also.

A11138 to Y82274

Mr. Smith who was in the former A11138 group would be better positioned to do this analysis, but I’ll see what I can see from my viewpoint. Here is the present (non-Live) view of the YTree:

This shows that Mr. Smith with the low ID# shares his group now with two new memebers. One member appears to be from Australia or have ancestors from Australia. The Tree shows that A11138 has three SNPs:

  • A11138
  • FT22040
  • MF205420

This is interesting because A11138 used to be in it’s own group of one.

Here is the new designation under the ‘Live’ Tree:

Now Mr. Smith is under Y82274 (which is under A11138) and the new testers are under Y82274 at Y445810. Mr. Smith’s Y82274 appears to have 19 SNPs, so would be quite old. Y445810 is in a group of 4 SNPs, so would be younger. These new testers must have not tested at FTDNA as they do not show up there. So, as I was writing this Blog, Mr. Smith who was previously A11138, got pulled down to Y82274, then the two new testers were more closely relataed to each other. They left Mr. Smith at Y82274 and moved down to the newer Y445810. The next step is for YFull to come up with TMRCA numbers. Most people greatly appreciate having those dates. This is one case where YFull has more testers directly under this branch of A11138 than FTDNA has, so their estimates should be more acccurate.

As there are four SNPs in Y445810, that could indicate that SNP is from around the 1600’s. However, it may be earlier if the two new testers have private variants. My guess is that there will be little difference between the date of A11138 and Y82274. YFull previously had A11138 around the 350AD and FTDNA has it at around the year 500AD.

Why So Many SNPs for Y82274?

Or, the question could be, why does Smith have so many SNPs now? My guess is that is because he took the older BigY500 test. This test covered less of the Y Chromosome compared to the newer testing. When the new testers tested, it was clear that they shared many of their SNPs with Smith. Under the older testing at FTDNA, Smith had 11 Private Variants since A11138:

Now, he is showing 20 SNPs at YFull:

In addition, Mr Smith likely has Private Variants in parallel with the 4 extra variants that the new testers have. That means that as a result of the new testing, Mr. Smith’s Variants have about doubled.

Summary and Conclusions

  • R-A11138 is under a state of flux due to two new testers
  • A11138 used to be held by Mr. Smith. He is now at one level down at Y82274.
  • The two new testers are one level below Y82274 at SNP Y445810.
  • YFull has not come out with new date estimates for A11138, Y82274 and Y445810. This will be important as the new testers are not at FTDNA.
  • My brother and I are now shown as A11138. However, FTDNA has many more teseters in this area. That means that their tree and dating should be much more accurate than what YFull has.

 

 

Posted on

111 STR YDNA Results with Nutter-Hartley Connection

I wasn’t sure what to call this Blog. I have been following the YDNA test results of a Nutter descendant with interest. His YDNA results have been showing a connection to my general branch of the Hartley Family. The results of other Hartleys who have taken the BigY test show like this:

All those so far under R-A11134 are Hartleys. One tester who is A11132 is a Mawdsley. The connection between Mawdsley and Hartley could be right around the time that surnames were coming into use.

Nutter’s 111 STR results

While we are awaiting Nutter’s BigY results, I will look at his 111 STR results. STR results are much more difficult to interpret compared to the BigY SNP results. That is because STRs can mutate backwards or forwards. In other words, the mutations can increase or decrease.

Here are the STR results of those Hartleys in my general line who have taken the test and have joined the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA:

My brother and I are in the last group. The group above us are Hartleys with a Quaker ancestor who left England to move to Pennsylvania in colonial days. The top person is Mawdsley who is closely associated with the Hartleys at R-A11132. The rest are Hartleys in the R-A11134 category. The first two in the A11134 group have only tested to 12 STRs which is not very helpful. Note that many of the genealogies get stuck in the 1700’s. It is very difficult to do the genealogy in England at that point due to the number of Hartleys in the Colne, Lacnashire area. This is where many of the Hartleys came from.

I have an arrow in the column where the new Nutter results are. The person above Nutter tested to 111 STRs. The person on the list below Nutter tested to 37 STRs. Nutter and the Hartley below him have a match on this STR:

They both have a value of 20 for DYS458. Of the 12 Hartleys who have tested to this level, only these two have a value of 20 for the STR named DYS458.

Here is a comparison between Nutter and the Hartley tester listed above him:

At STR DYS710, both these two have a value of 36. This may be more difficult to interpret as two of the Quaker Hartleys and the more distantly related Mawdsley tester have this value.

Building a STR Tree

These trees are difficult to build and interpret, but I will give it a shot. These trees are easier to build when the BigY SNP results are in, because those results are so much easier to interpret. Previously I have considered two models to intepret the STR results. Here is the first:

This tree only has six people in it, so I think that some are missing. I count 9 Hartleys who at the FTDNA Hartley YDNA Project who have tested to 111 STRs. I see also that other changes will be needed as I don’t see DYS710 listed in the tree. Also I don’t see DYS458 listed.

Here was my second model:

It looks like a major overhaul of this tree is needed. It looks like I only did the tree for those who took the BigY test.

111 STR YDNA Hartley Tree Overhaul

This appears to be the raw data involved:

I had trouble matching the STR names to the columns. Previously, I had used a program called SAPP to try to analyze these STRs. I’ll try that again. I downloaded the information for all testers in my Hartley group except for the two that tested for only 12 markers. This goes into a text file where the first line is /STRDATA.

Here is what pops out:

The program comes up with four main branches. Here is some further identification:

It seems like the results are generally accurate. Nutter is near the middle of the chart. He is with the other Hartley I mentioned earlier with a DYS458 value of 20 (red arrow). My brother and I are on the bottom row. I would say that the depiction is generally correct. Between Nutter and his closest match on the tree, the Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor is 1750. Here is what FTDNA shows for the GD of 2 between Nutter and his closest Hartley 37-tested STR match:

The third line indicates a GD of 2. FTDNA estimates a aTMRCA of 1650 for that GD. However, whether this is more or less accurate than the SAPP tool, I don’t know.

For the Quaker Hartley group, the TMRCA is 1550 according to SAPP. The known common ancestor is from 1666. However, it is within the SAPP Tree range of 1350-1700. There are more than the usual mutations for this line which make the TMRCA seem older.

The TMCRA for this group of Hartleys is shown by SAPP to be 1550. This does not seem unreasonable to me. I did not include the Mawdsley STRs in this analysis as he is from an earlier SNP group of A11132.

One other point is that there are other adjustments that can be made on the SAPP Tree. One would be to add SNP values where known. Another interesting feature is the thickness of the lines on the tree are meant to indicate confidence of relationship. For example, the thickest line is between me and my brother. The program does not know that we are brothers, but it does know that we both tested to 111 STRs and have a close match.

SAPP Tree with SNP Data

For the kits, I have added this insformation:

This reflects the BigY testing. Here is how the SAPP interprets my input:

Here is the tree that it produces:

Notice that many of the lines are now in darker blue showing more certainty. One somewhat surprising result is that it projects that two of the Hartley kits are outside of A11134. Those are the two yellow kits on the second row above. I had assumed that all Hartleys that were in this group were A11134. Based on SAPP these two kits may not be A11134.

Here is some further output from SAPP:

I watched a video explaining the program. The red numbers in the second chart show the adjusted genetic distance due to parallel STR mutations. So for example, it shows me at kit 275990 as being a GD of 12 from Quaker descendant 617805 instead of the GD of 9 that FTDNA shows. That is because the Quaker descendant had some of the same mutations that I had but they happened in a parallel manner on different branches.

Once Nutter’s BigY results are in, the SAPP Tree could change also as we will have more SNP information. The only further modification would be to add Mawdsley to the tree.

SAPP Tree with A11132 Mawdsley Added

  • Now the Quaker Hartleys are on the bottom left. Oddly, the tree now shows the correct sub-branching for the three Quaker Hartley descendants.
  • Now there are four Hartley testers showing outside the A11134 realm on the third row from the top. These four are in groups of two each.
  • I did not add any genealogical information for the chart. I could have added some for the Quaker Branch, but the program sorted that out before I did that.
  • This seems to be as good as I can get the SAPP Tree with the information that I now have.

Actually, I do have a refinement I could make to the chart as the Nutter descendant is A11134. This is from previous testing at another company. Here is the results:

This pulls Nutter with the ‘B’ kit back into the A11134 realm (both circled). This should be now the best SAPP Tree I can come up with given the information I have.

Nutter Genealogy

I have covered Nutter Genealogy in past Blogs. It appears from the STRs, that Nutter’s closest STR match has Hartley genealogy:

The SAPP tree predicts a common ancestor around the year 1750 which is interesting. That means that either the Nutter genealogy or the SAPP Tree prediction for a TMRCA could be wrong. The Hartley tester who has James Hartley as his ancestor has not posted a further Hartley Ancestry Tree at FTDNA.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The Nutter 111 STR results add important information to a part of the YDNA tree of mankind
  • If correct, the STR results link Nutter with a kit who traces his genealogy back to James hartley born 1788.
  • Running the SAPP Tree with different inputs gave interesting results. One result was that it showed a possibility that not all tested Hartleys are neccesarily A11134 as I had previously supposed.
  • I await Mr. Nutter’s further BigY testing results

 

Posted on

My Father’s Cousins’ New Ancestry DNA Hartley Match

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

Match with a Descendant of a Potential Hartley Ancestor

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

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

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

Sarah’s Genealogy

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

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

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

Arthur Milligan Hartley

Here is the marriage record for the couple:

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

Thomas Arthur Hartley

I see some good news in the 1911 Census:

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

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

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

Joseph Hartley

So far, Sarah’s tree checks out:

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

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

Here is Joseph in 1861 with a large family:

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

The 1851 Census is even more interesting.

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

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

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

A Marriage Record for Joseph Hartley?

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

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

Now I can find Joseph in the 1841 Census:

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

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

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

Here are some more baptism:

Robert Hartley and Susan Crabtree

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

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

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

Here is the area of Salter Syke:

It is to the NW of Laneshaw Bridge.

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

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

Here is my guess for Robert Hartley’s baptism:

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

Here are some other Robert Hartley candidates:

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

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

James Vs Robert Hartley

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

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

Robert Hartley and Nanny

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to the DNA

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

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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