Category: Hartley

Posted on

Hartley ThruLines Part 6

In the past five Blogs on Hartley ThruLines, I have looked at the ThruLines coming down from my potential ancestors John Hartley and Anne Bracewell through their children Nancy Hartley and Robert Hartley:

In this Blog, I will look at the ThruLines by way of Susan or Susy Hartley born 1755. These are the ThruLines my father’s cousin Joyce has through Susan:

There are pb, nx and Sheryl. Nx is a new match as seen by the blue dot. I looked at Sheryl in a 2019 Blog that got me thinking that John Hartley and Anne Bracewell could very well be my ancestors.

pb and Joyce

pb’s Ancestry Tree is private, so I cannot look at it but he and Joyce have Sheryl as a shared DNA match, so that  is promising. I’ll try creating my own tree for pb to see if it matches up with his ThruLines. The findagrave entry was confusing, so I looked at the social security record for pb’s mother:

That means that we have to get this family from Kansas back to Colne, Lancashire.

Here is the family in 1930 in Lone Elm, Kansas. Vera’s mother Olive was a grade school teacher:

Findagrave is more helpful for Oive:

My ancestry tree for pb is starting to fill out:

Following the Bracewell Line

Here are some Bracewells from the 1870 Iowa Census:

Father Starkey or Starky was born in England and they have a son named Hartley. Here is a photo of ‘Starkie’ from Ancestry:

The 1880 Census transcribes his name as Ataskis. However, I see Starkie:

Fortunately, Starkey is a fairly uncommon name. Here is Starkey in 1841 in Foulridge:

It looks like he was born at Hey Mill? My best guess for Mary is Mary Starkie:

I wish that the marriage record mentioned the father of John Bracewell. ThruLines has that John Bracewell was borno in 1778, but if he was 45 in 1841, then he would have been born in 1796. If he was 79 rounded down to 45, he would have been born about 1792.

One of the ThruLine sources gives this information for Susan or Susy Hartley:

They have Susan the daughter of John Hartley and Ann (who I interpret to be Bracewell). They have that Susy and Joseph Bracewell had a son named Hartley Bracewell. I take this Hartley to be the witness at the marriage of John Bracewell and Mary Starkie. I would further guess that John and Hartley Bracewell were brothers.

This Tree has John as the son of Joseph Bracewell and Susan Hartley:

However, they have John born 1796 based on the Census. I believe that John must have been born earlier:

Again, I have not proved this line, but have shown that it could be possible.

The James Hartley witness could be my ancestor. This appears to be Susy’s baptismal transcription:

Adding pb to my tree:

I mentioned at the start of the Blog that pb and Joyce aslo match Sheryl, but I have not added her to the tree yet.

Adding Sheryl to the Tree

I will assume that my work that put Sheryl on this tree in 2019 still applies.

This is interesting because pb and Sheryl are 4th cousins to each other. This also shows that the only likely way that pb and Sheryl could match Joyce would to be through the Bracewell or Hartley Lines.

Joyce and nx

It appears that the match between Joyce and nx should provide additional branching:

All I have to do is show that nx has ancestry back to John Bracewell born in 1834. NX also has a private tree, so I will have to use the ThruLines to check his Line.

Here is William from findagrave:

Here is Winnie in the 1900 Census for Iowa:

Here is NX in my tree:

NX and Joyce also have a shared DNA match with Sheryl which makes sense as Sheryl and NX are 3rd cousins.

Joel and Gillian

I also have a ThruLine with Gillian:

Gillian’s Line appears to go through Hartley Bracewell born in 1788. One odd feature of this tree is that it goes from hartley Bracewell to Jane Bracewell to John E Bracewell. I would have expected to have three male Bracewells in a row.

This Gillian’s tree:

Somehow Ancestry has figured out her descent from John Hartley and Anne Bracewell from other sources. It appears that I started a tree for Gillian previously, but didn’t get very far:

Hints from the ThruLines tell me that Philip and Ernest were from Burnley:

Here are Ernest and Mary in 1939 in Burnley:

Here is the family in 1901 in Burnley

This appears to be John in 1871:

John’s mother Jane is from Colne, so I won’t give up yet. This is my guess for the marriage of William and Jane:

This appears to be the young family in 1851:

At this point, I am ready to give up on the Gillian Line as it is too complicated.

Here is the full Hartley/Bracewell Tree so far:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I now have the lines of four of the children of John Hartley born 1730 and Anne Bracewell
  • In this Blog I looked at and added three lines from daughter Susy Bracewell born 1755
  • I looked at an additional line, but was unable to get it to connect to the Susy Line.
  • I still have at least one more Blog to write on this topic.
Posted on

Hartley ThruLines Part 5

From my previous Blog, here is my Hartley DNA/Genealogy Tree:

These are people that match either me by DNA or my father’s 1st cousin Joyce. Except for Paul. I can’t remember where he came from. All these people also have a possible connection to John Hartley and Anne Bracewell who are my possible 5th great-grandparents.

In this Blog, I will look a little more into the Line of Robert Hartley born 1758. I have mentioned Elaine in a few of my previous Blogs on Hartley ThruLines. She helped me with some local geography in the area around Colne. I connected with one of her genealogy trees which helped me on the Mary Lee born 1801 Line above. She is a friend also. And she also appears on my father’s cousin Joyce’s ThruLines:

Karen also shows up there. I have a Paul on my DNA/Genealogy tree also, but don’ t recall who matched him.

Elaine and Joyce

Unfortunately, Elaine’s tree does not show the same connection as the ThruLine:

At the point where ThruLines goes Thomas > Robert > John, Elaine’s tree goes from Thomas > James > Thomas. I’ll take a look to see how these two trees differ.

Here are Albert and family in 1891:

Here is Robert with his family in 1871:

Here is my simple reconstructed tree so far:

In 1861, Thomas Hartley was living at Laneshaw Bridge in Colne:

Here is some more information on Thomas Hartley:

Here is some more information:

This is interesting as the 1841 Census took place before this time. Elaine shows this as the 1841 Census for the family:

Here father Thomas is shown as a weaver rather than a farmer. Back to a weaver at son Thomas’ birth:

Who was the Father of Thomas Hartley?

I have a feeling that Elaine’s answer will be better than Ancestry on this one. Both the ThruLines and Elaine’s tree have a Thomas Hartley born 1788. When I check for the evidence of Thomas Hartley in the ThruLines, I get this:

There is one member tree, but when I look at clive’s tree, it is the same as Elaine’s. Here are some baptisms for Thomas in 1788:

Is this the same person?

At any rate, none of these Thomases are the son of a Robert Hartley. Here are the only Thomases, sons of Roberts I could find:

If there was a connection, it would have to be with the second entry, as I have that Robert married Peggy, a nickname for Margaret. Having said that, I see that the Mary I have on my tree is here:

This was the match with Paul that I cannot remember entering:

For now I’ll leave Elaine off my DNA/Genealogy Chart. I have only showed that she could fit into that chart. It occurs to me that there are many other ways in which we may be related. However, I have shown, at least in a quick overview, that it is possible that her genealogy could connect with John Hartley and Anne Bracewell. As I review this line further, more information may come to light.

Joyce and Karen

On Karen’s tree, she has traced her ancestry back to a Robert Hartley:

Assuming that Karen’s tree is correct, it appears that the Robert in her tree could be the one from the ThruLines. That is, based on the date of hte birth of John Hartley in 1796. However, on closer inspection, I see that Hannah Hartley was from Rawtenstall:

Rawtenstall is several miles from Colne and closer to my Emmet ancestors who lived in Bacup:

Time to check out Karen’s tree. Here is a young Charles Harvey and his family:

Charles’ father Richard was a quarry man. Here is my specific tree in progress:

However, it is Betsy that we are intrerested in. According to the 1911 Census above, the whole family was born in Rossendale. This appears to be a general area including Rawtenstall:

This appears to be the marriage registration index for Betsy Terry:

Here are Betsy’s family in the 1871 Census for Rawtenstarll. Betsy is on the next page:

Hannah Hartley Terry

It appears that Hannah Terry was born in Rutt Lee? The 1881 Census shows that Hannah has passed away:

So Hannah should be born around 1826. According to the 1861 Census, Thomas either had a different wife, or Hannah also went by Nancy:

Here is an interesting entry for a Hannah Hartley:

I should note that I have Howorth in my ancestry. However, Ancestry has this hint:

I see that as a good choice due to this bapstismal entry:

The problem (or good news) is that this brings the family back to Colne. The reason that I like Rough Lee is that it sounds like Rutt Lee from the 1871 Census. It looks like this was a large family. Here they are in Mill Gate, Lower Booths, Rawtenstall:

Actually, this looks like two families. I can’t make out the name of the second family. Lower Booths is to the North of Rawtenstall:

These two additional baptsims from Colne further tie this Rossendale family back to Colne:

I was despairing of finding a connection to Colne, but this appears to be the connection. From the 1841 Census, my guess is that the 28 year old Mary Hartley could be the child of Jane as she is older than John.

Was John Hartley the Son of Robert Hartley?

Assuming the ThruLines from Ancestry, John Hartley the son of Robert Hartley should have been born in 1779. This John Hartley was 45 or older at the time of 1841 Census. That means that he could have been born between and about 1792 and 1796. That means that he would not be a very good match if his age was reported accurately in the 1841 Census.

I do note that John named a potential eldest son Robert. That means that he could have been named for John’s father. Assuming that John’s father was a Robert, I come up with these potential parents for John:

Karen’s ThruLine Hints for John Hartley

The ThruLines hints for Karen and Joyce were more straightforward than the hint for Joyce and Elaine:

Here, I chose the Schofield Family Tree with 24 records on John Hartley:

Here we see Robert and Peggy as John’s parents. Here are some more details from the tree:

Of interest is that he shows John’s father Robert Hartley dying in Haslingden in 1845. Under this scenario, the Robert Hartley who was 80 in 1841 in the house of John Hartley in Rawtenstall must be his father Robert.

Here is more of the Schofield Tree:

Updating the Hartley/Bracewell DNA/Genealogy Tree

As I mention above, it seems possible that Elaine and Karen could be added to the Tree. I’ll put them in to see how it looks. If Elaine and Karen match each other by DNA, then that would also help to solidify the tree. Here I have added Karen:

I still hope that I can figure out who Paul is. Here is Elaine added in:

I checked at least one tree at Ancestry and it showed that Robert above born 1758 did have twins.

 

Finding Paul

I finally found Paul in this Blog from 2019. I built his tree out from a tree that only had five people in it (but two parents):

His parents were from New Bedford which is where my Hartley ancestors ended up. I found Paul in an interesting way. He was a shared DNA match betwen my father’s cousin Joyce and Kristin:

Because Paul was a shared match with Kritin and Joyce, that meant that his connection went back to 1861 or earlier. When I did the genealogy, it appeared that the connection went back to John Hartley from 1730. Another connection with Sheryl along the Susy Hartley Line of 1755 seemed to confirm the tree. Sheryl was another shared DNA match between Kristin and Joyce. As a result, I put John Hartley and Anne Bracwell into my Ancestry Tree. Fast forward more than four years later and now there are many more DNA connections with possible genealogical connections as shown in Ancestry ThruLines.

I just need to add in Kristin and Joyce, and I should be done with this Blog:

And the tree is not yet finished. I will continue in a later Blog.

Summary and Conclusions

  • In this Blog, I looked at ThruLines between my father’s cousin Joyce and Elaine and Karen
  • Both Elaine and Karen had possible links to Robert Hartley born 1758 who married Peggy Sellers. Robert appears to be the son of John Hartley and Anne Bracewell.
  • I hesitated adding Elaine to the tree as she has her own differing tree. Also I had trouble figuring out from the Ancestry evidence how Elaine was added to the ThruLines.
  • The mounting evidence seems to be that these many DNA matches support the theory that John Hartley and Ann Bracewell are my ancestors. This is good news, because going on the genealogy alone, it was too difficult to narrow down my Hartley ancestors.
  • I then reviewed match Paul who is not on the ThruLines. I had found him in 2019 and also traced his line back to Robert Hartley born 1758 and John Hartley born 1730.
  • Because Paul was a shared match between Joyce and Kristen, that meant that he was more likely to have an older Hartley connection.

 

Posted on

Hartley ThruLines Part 4

I have been having good results in my previous Blogs. In my previous Blog, I looked at ThruLines from John Hartley and Anne Bracewell through their daughter Nancy. She had 10 children, so potentially, a lot of descendants. In this Blog, I will look at more Nancy Hartley ThruLines through my father’s cousin, Joyce.

Joyce is a good choice because she is a generation earlier than me and should have twice as much Hartley DNA compared to me:

Here is the Hartley/Bracewell DNA/Genealogy Tree I have so far:

Here are Joyce’s ThruLines through Nancy Hartley:

Laura’s tree ends in Jesse Howorth:

It turns out that I already have a tree for Laura:

However, I had stopped the tree at Eliza Lee. This tree was made back in 2018 before I knew about Joyce’s ThruLines apparently.

Joyce and Laura

This line should be easy as I already mentioned Eliza in my previous Blog. She identifies her father-in-law in the 1851 Census:

I’m feeling good about Nancy’s 11 children, so I added them to my Ancestry Tree:

So here, John has Eliza who has Jesse. It appears that Laura’s tree checks out.

Adding Laura to My Hartley Tree

Laura adds another piece to the puzzle. Obviously, a lot is riding on the fact that Thomas Lee’s wife Nancy was Nancy Hartley the daughter of John Hartley and Anne Bracewell.

Joyce and Robin

Here Ann Lee shows in white on Robin’s side. This is probably because I just added Ann to my tree. I get this hint in my tree for Ann:

Robin has an extensive tree which I will assume to be accurate at this point. Here is her maternal side:

I will add Robin to my Hartley/Bracewell Tree:

Unfortunately, I don’t show Joyce on this tree, but she would be in the same generation as my father. So Joyce is 5th cousin once removed to Laura and Robin.

Joyce and Shaz

All the ThruLines seem to be working out so far:

Interestingly, shaz shows to be descended from Mary who Nancy Hartley Lee had when she was almost 47 years old. Shaz’ tree stops at James Wilkinson:

If I can show that James Wilkinson was the son of Mary Lee, that may be good enough. It turns out that Mary is in the tree of my genealogy friend, Elaine:

Elaine has saved me some time in connecting Mary Lee to James Wilkinson. This connection is good enough for me:

Here the tree is getting wider, reflecting the large family that Nancy Hartley Lee had.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My father’s first cousin Joyce showed three ThruLines from the Nancy Hartley Line. These all appear to check out.
  • Evidence is mounting that we have many connections to Nancy Lee who appears to be Nancy Hartley and the daughter of John Hartley and Anne Bracewell.
  • I previously had not documented these Nancy Hartley descendants and now show 6 DNA matches between myself and my father’s cousin Joyce.
  • I will continue working on Hartley/Bracewell Thrulines in subsequent Blogs.

 

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.