Category: DNA General

Posted on

Looking for Parents for Robert Hartley born in Colne Parish 1803-1804: Part 2

A few Blogs ago, I had shown the possible births of my ancestor Robert Hartley:

  1. Betty was my choice on my Hartley web page. I had also guessed that Betty Baldwin was the Betty. On the plus side the couple was from Trawden. However, the Betty name did not get passed down in the family. Perhaps because she died young?
  2. This Robert lived in Reedy Moor.

The faint red arrow near the word ‘Tunnel’ is where Reedy Moor Line. This is a little way from Trawden. However, the name Ann comes down in the family as the only daughter of Robert Hartley

3. Bough Gap is in an area near Trawden.

In order to give this Robert a chance, I will have to change his birth date and place in my Ancestry Tree. This is what I currently have:

I was a little unsure as to how to enter Bough Gap as it appearst to be part of Winewall which is part of Trawden.

Next, I wait to see if any ThruLines appear. My mistake in my earlier Blog, was that I did not change the birth of Robert Hartley on my family tree. I also need to remove the old birth reference that I had:

Re-Playing Out the James and Mary Scenario

Here are potential marriages for James Hartley and Mary

  • Mary Holmes would be around 44 when she had Robert if she was 20 when she married
  • The James Mary Stansfield married was a weaver. However, I suppose there were many Hartley weavers
  • The James that Mary Berry married was a widower
  • A witness for the marriage of Mary Robinson was John Shackleton. Mary Pilling’s mother was a Shackleton. Mary Pilling’s grandfather was named John Shackleton.

Based on the above, I am leaning toward Mary Robinson in this scenario. Here are some baptisms for Mary Robinson:

None of these place names sound familiar. Here is Barrowford:

I must say that ‘ye Call’ and other locations sound mysterious, but I do not know where that is.

Bough Gap Robert, Son of James and Mary Hartley

I think I now have what I was trying to achieve in my previous Blog:

It looks like it took a while to baptize this Robert. He was born in May and baptized in July:

I have left Robert’s mother vagues in my Tree as just Mary and the father is James Hartley.

ThruLines Compared

I can only look at ThruLines for DNA testers that I have access to. An important testers is my father’s cousin Joyce.

Joyce has only one ThruLine for Helen and that is through William who I supposed would be a son of James and Betty, so that doesn’t really count.

However another of my father’s cousins who has a tree showing Betty Baldwin as the mother of Robert fares no better:

Here the extra Robert Hartley Line should be a Pilling Line.

MM’s ThruLines do better a generation earlier where the tree has John Hartley as the father of James:

Here MM has four ThruLines. This could mean that:

  • John is right, but Betty Baldwin is wrong
  • James and Betty Baldwin had few children
  • Going back a generation gives the chance of there being more Hartleys to have ThruLines for even though they are wrong.

The other two ThruLies are Brian and Sue:

I like the chances of John Hartley being a Hartley ancestor based on the DNA matches of my father’s cousin Maury.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Due to the number of Robert Hartleys from the area of Trawden around the birth of my ancestor Robert Hartley in about 1803, it is difficult to try to find out which Robert is which.
  • My father’s cousin Maury’s DNA administered by his daughter has a genealogy which includes John Hartley and Ann or Anna Bracewell.
  • This couple appears to have a good series of DNA matches.
  • If this John Hartley is indeed my ancestor and had a large family, that could account for the number of DNA matches.
  • If this John had a son James who had a small family or a smaller number of descendants who had their DNA tested, this could account for a smaller number of descendant DNA matches.
  • It may make sense to try to start with John Hartley and Anna Bracewell as the grandparents of Robert Hartley and try to fill in the middle with a likely son James being the father of Robert Hartley.

 

Posted on

A Sketch of Ann Hartley Cockrill Born 1835

I have not looked into the life of Ann Hartley Cockrill for some time. This is what I have on my Hartley Web Page:

Sadly, Ann’s father Robert dies before she is born.

Here is the burial record for her father Robert:

Interestingly, at the time of Ann’s birth her father’s occupation is given as weaver even though he was already dead. Ann may have been named for Mary Pilling’s mother Nancy or possibly from Robert’s mother. However, Robert’s mother has not yet been nailed down.

In 1837, Mary Pilling Hartley and her son John get baptized at the Weslyan Weslyan Chapel in Trawden:

Greenwood and Ann were been baptized at the Colne Church, so no need for them to be re-baptized in 1837. I believe that the Weslyan Chapel is also known as Skipton Road Weslyan Methodist:

This photo is from Genuki:

A little less than 2 years later, Mary Pilling Hartley marries Robert Wilkinson, a widower.

This results in a large blended family as Mary had a child before marrying Robert Hartley. Here is the 1841 Census for Trawden:

As the Census was held on June 6, Ann would not have technically been 6 yet. This shows that Ann had a half sister Mary who was her same age. At this point, Mary Pilling Hartley Wilkinson has 5 children of her own and 5 step children. Here is Hollin Hall where the blended family lived from a book by Jack Greenwood:

In 1851, 10 years later, the family is living at Underbank, Bacup:

Ann and her older brother Greenwood were power loom weavers as was their step father Robert Wilkinson.

Now it is time for Ann Hartley to get married. I have that she married at Christ Church Bacup on 26 June 1858. The couple were living at Underbank, Bacup in 1861:

Ann has two sons:

Joseph is baptized at Bacup, Wesley Place Methodist Chapel:

I see his birth place as Scarbottom also known as Scar End Hey. This location appears to be in Weir:

This is just North of Underbank:

Underbank is below Broad Clough on the right side of the red road which runs North and South.

In 1873, a second son is born:

He carries the name of Ann’s brother who has left for Massachusetts with his family about 4 years prior to this time. Here is where the Church was:

Here is the family in 1881:

The Census appears to say they live at Newline. That must be this street:

Here is some specific burial information for Ann:

When I look up Bacup Cemetery:

This could be a future destination:

I assume that Ann would be in the Church of England Section D. However, the record above mentions Unconsecrated Ground, so perhaps she was in General D. According to the internet:

People paying for 1st and 2nd class areas for their burial were able to choose the specific plot they wanted. The 3rd class had no choice where they were allocated. There are usually fewer headstones in the third class area because people could not afford to pay for them.

So there may not be much to see if I were to visit there.

Life After Ann for the Cockrill Family and an Ulterior Motive

The ulterior motive is that it would be nice to find a descendant of Ann Hartley Cockrill who has tested for DNA.  In the light of this motive, I did a search for Elijah Cockrill in Ancestry trees. I found this one which was interesting:

This tree was for Roland and he shows Cockerell on his maternal side. However, I do not have a record of Elijah and Ann having a daughter born. This Alice would have been born 4 years before the couple married and does not show up on the Census. Although there are 25 trees with Elijah Cockrill, some appear wrong, for people I already know about who are related in other ways (such as Pilling only) or they have Elijah on collateral lines.

Elijah Cockrill After Ann

Here is Elijah in 1891:

Elijah has a new wife, Mary from Stockport in Chesire. The first three in the family are listed as cotton weavers and William is a woolen weaver. They are living on Westmoreland Street in Great and Little Marsden, Nelson, Lancashire. Here is what Google shows for that location if I have it right:

The door on the right is 37, so I assume that #35 is to the left of that door.

This was not far from Colne and Trawden.

This marriage record must be correct:

This appears to say that Elijah’s father was a gentleman. I do not think that is correct. Here is Elijah’s burial record:

He apparently died at the location in the Google Map Photo above and was buried at the same Section and number as his former wife Ann Hartley.

I see also his name is spelled a bit differently in the burial record.

Joseph Cockrill Born 1870

Here is a summary of his life up to his marriage:

Here are the couple on Gordon Road, Nelson in 1901:

Perhaps coincidentally, in the previous listing is a John Wilkinson from Trawden. Josesph is on 13 Gordon Road, not far from Westmoreland Street:

This is Gordon Road in current times:

I can fill this out a bit:

The 1921 Census reveals a problem:

Ada has passed away and Joseph and Alec are living with Ada’s brother. I could not find a 41 Whitchall Street in Nelson, but there is a listing for Whitehall Street:

It looks like both Joseph and his brother were in the wood business, but also may have been out of work. Interestingly, Joseph had worked for H Hartley.

Here is Joseph in 1939:

I think this is Henley to the West of London:

Alec Llewellyn Cockrill Born 1907

I have not found any evidence that Alec had any children.

He appears to be living with one of his wife’s relatives in 1939:

William Greenwood Cockrill Born 1873

Ann perhaps missed her brother Greenwood who had been gone for 4 years at this time. William had a shorter life than Alec:

Here is where William passed away in 1929:

William has two children, so more chances of descendants. I wonder if there is any significance in the name William. Traditionally, the mother’s second son could reflect her father’s heritage. Elijah’s father was William, so that name was probably for Elijah’s father and Greenwood for Ann’s paternal side. Which makes me wonder where the first born Joseph’s name came from.

Tom Widdup Cockrill Born 1905

Here is a nice photo from Ancestry:

Here is the 1921 Census:

One tree I found shows this:

Tom has three daughters who marry and have offspring. This appears to be a good place to look for DNA matches.

Vesta Irene Cockrill Born 1909

From what little information I have, it appears that Vesta ended up in Australia:

She apparently marries Harold Howarth:

Here father has passed away but her brother Tom is a witness.

In 1939, Harold is a tobaccanist dealer in Rochdale, Lancashire:

Harold dies in 1951:

It is unclear why Vesta moves to Australia. Perhaps because of her son? Here is Vesta in 1977:

Frank is possibly a son?

Here is Rockingham near Perth in Western Australia:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I recommend researching collateral lines. It is interesting in itself, but may also lead to interesting DNA matches.
  • Ann Hartley born 1835 does not appeaer to have many descendants. I have not found any that have taken a DNA test. Those descendants would probably be 4th cousins to me.
  • I found it interesting that Ann Hartley’s husband remarries, but then is buried where Ann was buried in Bacup. It would be nice to visit the Cemetery if I ever get a chance.

 

Posted on

Looking for Parents for Robert Hartley born in Colne Parish 1803-1804

In my last Blog, I was looking at Mary Heap as a possible mother for Robert Hartley born in Colne Parish about 1803-1804. I realized that she was married too early to be a good candidate.

Here is the possible birth for my ancestor Robert Hartley:

This is the possible marriage of the couple above:

I see that I have added possiblilty to possibility, but I have not many choices here. The question is, why would James have married Mary Berry from the Parish of Kildwick?

Joyce and Kildwick

When I choose my father cousin Joyce’s maternal matches and search for ancestors from Kildwick, I get about 68 matches. This seems unusual to me. According to Wickipedia, Kildwick had a population of  194 in 2011. As a comparison, I will check to see how many matches Joyce has with ancestral connections to Trawden. Joyces has 65 matches on her maternal side. However, that includes a lot of closer relatives who know they have Robert Hartley in their ancestry from Trawden. Also Trawden had a 2011 population of 2,765 which is over 10 times that of Kildwick. Either this is a huge coincidence or I may have Kildwick ancestors. However, the actuala Parish of Kildwick was much larger. According to Wikipedia:

Ancient Kildwick Parish was unusually large for it included the townships of Kildwick, Bradley Both, Cononley, Cowling, Holden, Eastburn, Farnhill, Glusburn, Ikornshaw, Silsden, Steeton, Sutton and Stirton and Thorlby.

Here is a map, though it is quite busy:

Genuki further supplies this information:

In 1822, the following places were in
the Parish of Kildwick:

“BRUNTHWAITE, in the township of Silsden, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles N. of Keighley, 8 from Skipton.”

“CARR HEAD, (the seat of Richard Bradley Wainman, Esq.) in the township of Cowling, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles from Colne, (Lanc.) 6 from Skipton.”

“CONONLEY, in the township of Farnhill with Cononley, and parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; (Cononley Hall, the seat of John Swires, Esq.) 3 miles S. of Skipton, 6½ from Keighley, 10 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. included in Farnhill.”

“COWLING, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 5 miles NE. of Colne, (Lancs.) 6 from Skipton, 8 from Keighley. Pop. 1,870.”

“CRINGLES, a hamlet in the township of Silsden, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles from Skipton and Keighley.”

“CROSSHILLS, in the township of Glusburn, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles from Keighley and Skipton, 8 from Colne, (Lanc.)”

“EASTBURN, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s Fee; 4 miles NW. of Keighley, 5¾ from Skipton, 10 from Colne. Pop. included in Steeton.”

“EDEN, a hamlet in the township of Sutton in Craven, and parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe; 4 miles from Keighley.”

“FARNHILL, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 4 miles S. of Skipton, 5½ from Keighley. Pop. including Cononley, 1,350, which being united, form a township.”

“GLUSBURN, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 5 miles S. of Skipton, 5½ from Keighley, 8 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. 787.”

“HIGH BRADLEY, a hamlet in the townships of Bradleys both, and parish of Kildwick, and liberty of Cliffords-Fee; 3 miles from Skipton. Pop. included in lower Bradley.”

“ICKORNSHAW, (or Cornshaw) in the township of Cowling, and parish of Kildwick, east-division and liberty of Staincliffe; 4 miles from Colne, (Lanc.) 7 from Skipton, 5 from Keighley.”

“KILDWICK GRANGE, a hamlet in the township and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe, 5 miles from Keighley.”

“LOW BRADLEY, in the township of Upper and Lower Bradley, and parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 3½ miles from Skipton, 6½ from Keighley, 12 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. including Upper Bradley, 506, which being united, form the township usually denominated Bradleys both.”

“MALSIS HALL, a single house in the township of Glusburn, and parish of Kildwick, 5½ miles S. of Skipton and 5 from Keighley.

This was formerly the seat of a family of the name of Copley, and according to Whitaker’s Craven, was considered as the Manor house of Sutton, “for, by inquisition taken 34 Henry VIII. it was found that Alvary Copley was seized of the Manor of Sutton, or Malseyes, held of William Vavasour, Esq. as of his Manor of Addingham.” It is now the residence of Mr. William Spencer.”

“SILSDEN, (and Silsden Moor) in the parish of Kildwick, east-division and liberty of Staincliffe; 4 miles from Keighley, 7 from Skipton, 12 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. 1,904. The Church is a perpetual curacy, dedicated to St. James, in the deanry of Craven, value, p.r. !£86. Patron, the Earl of Thanet.”

“SILSDEN MOOR, a hamlet in the township of Silsden, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 4 miles from Skipton.”

“STEETON, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division and liberty of Staincliffe; (Steeton Hall, the seat of William Sugden, Esq.) 2 miles NW. of Keighley, 7 from Skipton, 11 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. including Eastburn, 753 which being united, form a township.”

“STONE GAPPE, a single house in the township of Glusburn, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 4½ miles S. of Skipton.”

“STOTT HILL, a hamlet in the township of Cowling, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 5 miles from Colne, (Lanc.)”

“SUTTON IN CRAVEN, in the parish of Kildwick, east-division of Staincliffe, liberty of Clifford’s-Fee; 5 miles NW. of Keighley and Skipton, 9 from Colne, (Lanc.) Pop. 1,092.”

“SWARTHA, (or Swarthey) a hamlet in the township of Silsden, and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 4½ miles N. of Keighley.”

“TOM’S CROSS, in the parish of Kildwick, and wapentake and liberty of Staincliffe; 4 miles NE. of Colne.”

“WOODSIDE, scattered houses in the township and parish of Kildwick, liberty of Staincliffe; 4½ miles from Keighley, 4 miles S. of Skipton.”

I copy this information as it gives the distance from Colne for some of these places.

Here are the top five matches:

Jennifer and R.M. must be related as their trees are the same length. When I check shared matches, R.M. is Jennifer’s daughter. Here is Jennifer’s tree:

Jennifer shows as a second cousin to Jenny in shared matches. Here is Jenny’s tree:

This should narrow down where to look. Further, I See from Jennifer’s tree taht CHarles Bell and Sarah Jones are from Yorkshire. Here are more names along that line from Jennifer’s tree:

Further, the Bell and Caygill lines are the ones in Yorkshire.

Goodby Mary Heap; Hello Mary Berry

I will replace Mary Heap with Mary Berry in my Ancestry Tree, to see if anything shows up on DNA matches:

I gave her a birth date of 1775. That would put her at about 26 when she married James Hartley, widower. There was a Mary Berry born in Colne and baptized in March that year:

This appears to be the best gues for Mary’s birth.

Summary and Conclusions

  • When you don’t know who your ancestors are, you have to make many guesses to see which guesses are most likely
  • I assumed that the parents of my ancestor Robert Hartley were James and Mary of Bough Gap, Colne Parish Lancashire
  • I further assumed that the Mary who married James Hartley was a Mary Berry from Kildwick Parish, Yorkshire, not far from Colne
  • A check of my father’s cousin Joyce’s matches revealsed that many of them had ancestry from Kildwick.
  • The closest match had a very large tree but no Berry names from that area in her ancestry.
  • I have put Mary Berry into my tree, to see if there are many or any DNA matches that show up.
  • Although I am skeptical that Mary Berry is the right ancestor, I think I have a fairly good procedure to check on potential ancestors. That is, whether there are many DNA matches on the ThruLines.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

More Hartley ThruLines

I need to modify my Hartley genealogical tree. My earliest verified ancestor was the widower Robert Hartley who married Mary Pilling, a single mother:

 

This marriage was in 1830. However, finding the father of Robert Hartley has proved to be difficult.

ThruLines Gone Wrong

When I took out my best guess for Robert Hartley’s father, ThruLines or Ancestry added in Moses Wilkinson as the father:

I am quite sure that this does not make sense as Mary Pilling married a Robert Wilkinson after Robert Hartley died. I have that Mary’s second husband Robert Wilkinson had Moses Wilinson and Jane Shaw as his parents.

Adding Robert’s Father Back In

My idea is to add just a father in at this point. Here is Robert Hartley’s burial record:

The best information I have is that Robert was 31 years old when he died in 1835. That means that he could have been born in 1804 or 1803 after August 6th. There were four Robert Hartleys born in Colne Parish in 1803-1804:

All fathers of these Roberts were named James Hartley. That means that I can a great degree of confidence say that Robert’s father was James Hartley. In addition, all these James Hartleys were weavers. I’ll just add in James Hartley as a father to Robert and see what sorts out with the ThruLines.

It may take a while for the ThruLines to recalculate. This is what it looks like now:

Robert Wilkinson was taken out, James Hartley has not been put back in. But because I did not pick a spouse for James Hartley, Jane Shaw is still showing up. I suppose that it would make sense that the Wilkinson family would show up, because I am related to the Wilkinson family – but only because Robert Wilkinson married my ancestor Mary Pilling.

It has now been a few days since I added in James Hartley and now have this:

James has been added but no descendants are connected. Also, ThruLines seems to preferentially chosen Jane Shaw as a potential ancestor.

My Father’s Cousin’s ThruLines

My second cousin has tested her father who is my father’s first cousin. She has a different tree than I have and has these ThruLines:

She has chosen James Hartley and Betty Baldwin as parents of Robert Hartley. It is possible that James and Mary of Bough Gap may be a better choice. Here is a map of Bough Gap and Bough Gap Mill from about 1844:

Also, from a previous Blog, I believe that Robert Hartley’s first wife was Barbara or Barbary Heaton who died in Well Head. I believe that Well Head was in Winewall.

Robert Hartley and Mary

This next step is to find a Robert Hartley who married a Mary:

Here, I have another 4 choices. Unfortunately, a location is not given for these couples other than the Chapelry of Colne. Assuming the couple married in Colne, Mary would have been 24, 30, 32 or 44 when giving birth to Robert.

Here are some children born to James and Mary Hartley:

More were born in Gilbert Clough, but I do not know where this is.

Gilford/Gilbert/Guildford Clough

There appears to be a great amount of confusion as to the spelling of this place. Here is part of a helpful detailed walking tour description from Wycoller to Trawden:

After taking in my fill of comprehensive views from Lad Law I began my descent by following a good path on Bedding Hill Moor towards the Trawden Valley. I was drawn to look at Upper Coldwell Reservoir and Lower Coldwell Reservoir below to my left. Further west I could see the east of Burnley but these views disappeared as I descended further off the moor and were gone completely by the time I reached the first discoveries of Trawden Brook at Gilford Clough. The moor was now behind me as I followed upland pasture in the direction of Hollin Hall and the village of Trawden. Near Alder Hurst End the field path ended and I followed a lane past some lovely rows of cottages to the village.

Here is a map I found that appears to match that description:

This location looks promising. The question is, did James and Mary live in Bough Gap, have Robert and then move to Guildford Clough and have more children? Also notice the mention of Alder Hurst in the walking narrative. I believe that the Pilling family lived there.

1841 Census

There are a James and Mary in the 1841 Census in Winewall:

It is not clear if this is the same James that gave birth to Robert. It is definitely not the same Mary as she is born about 1801. She is possibly a second wife.

The oldest resident of Alderhirstend was John Hartley:

Bough Gap has many Hartleys:

Henry Hartley, 45, may have been a relative of Robert Hartley from Bough Gap? His parents appear to be William and Margaret Hartley.

Adding a Mother for Robert Hartley

I added back James Hartley for Robert’s father. Now I will add in Mary Heap. She is a logical choice, and my cousin already have Betty Baldwin (perhaps from my Hartley Web Page). Having two different mothers may be helpful to compare. Another interesting connection is tha there is a Heap living at Alderhist Head:

Adding Mary Heap will be better than having a Wilkinson wife in my ancestry.

Here is what my ThruLines now show:

However, there are no matches for either person. This could be because I have no birth date for either or because they are the wrong ancestors?

My Cousin’s ThruLines

I mentioned above that my second cousin posted her father’s results at Ancestry. But she used James Hartley and Betty Baldwin as Robert Hartley’s parents.

These ThruLines have 35 matches. Robert Hartley is listed twice, but it sort of makes sense as the second Robert Hartley was not the father of John Pilling Mary Pilling had a child before she married Robert Hartley. The ThruLines get more interesting with what my cousin has for James Hartley’s parents:

Even more matches appear on the Bracewell side:

Going back a generation, there are even more matches:

This seems to indicate that this tree is on the right track – either right or close enough to right that there are a lot of DNA matches.

Give Heap a Chance

Before I add birth dates to James Hartley and Mary Heap, I’ll try something else. I took DNA from another of my father’s cousins named Joyce. I’ll look at her Hartley side and then search for DNA matches with Heap in the ancestry. First I filter on Joyce’s maternal side which is her Hartley side. Then I search for:

The top match is Brian, but his Heap connection is too far back and in the wrong part of England:

He also has Shackleton ancestors, so that may be a more likely connection.

The next match is Andrew:

Accrington seems to be about the same distance as my Hartley ancestors from Colne and my Emmet ancestors from Bacup.

The next Brian has a shared match with a potential  Emmet side common ancestor.

Steve’s Heap ancestor was from Chesire, but he also has Shackleton, Hartley adn Howorth in the mix. I am not seeing a lot of good results for Heap so far.

Maria’s 13 cM match Heap is from Burnley. I do notice the Pollard name showing up in some of these trees.

Abigail’s Heap is from Haslingden.

A Baldwin Experiment

What if I try the same experiment with Baldwin? I proposed Betty Baldwin as an ancestor many years ago:

Again, using Joyce’s maternal matches.

Kristen

Kristen is a known match. She has built a different Hartley tree far out:

Kristen has James Hartley and Elizabeth Taylor as the parents of Robert Hartley. Elizabeth would have been about 39 when giving birth to Robert under this scenario. Kristen’s Baldwin is from the 1600’s.

Cathy

Cathy has a Baldwin from New Jersey in the 1700’s. Shared matches show common ancestors on my Snell side with Massachusetts colonial ancestors.

Dennis

Dennis has a Baldwin ancestor from Connecticut in the 1600’s.

Lee

Lee has been on my radar for a while. He has Baldwin ancestors, Hartley ancestors and ancestors from Trawden.

So this experiment was perhaps more hopeful, but not the best either. Perhaps the most interesting aspect was Kristen’s proposed ancestry tree for Hartley.

The Taylor Tree Scenario

If I were to look for Joyce’s maternal matches with Taylor in the ancestral tree, I fear I would get too many matches. Kristen has this for James Hartley:

This is interesting as I had Betty Baldwin and Kristen has Betty Taylor as Robert’s mother.

Kristen does not provide a marriage date for James and Betty Taylor.

This does not appear to work out well as Betty would have been 59 when she gave birth to Robert. By Kristen’s timeline, she would actually have been 58 when Robert was born:

I would rule out Betty Taylor based on her age. It is interesting, however, that Kristen chose a Betty as the wife of James Hartley. Now that I think of it, Mary Heap would have been quite old had she been the mother of Robert Hartley

Better Choices for Mary

  1. Mary Holmes – perhaps in her mid 40’s giving birth to Robert
  2. Mary Stansfield – this James was a weaver which is probably a plus
  3. Mary Berry – from Kildwick
  4. Mary Robinson – this James is also a weaver. A witness of John Shackleton is interesting.

Here is Kildwick:

At this point, I would like to end the Blog and pick it up in a subsequent Blog. An initial look at my father’s cousin Joyce’s Kilwick matches shows that there are quite a few matches from this area.

Summary and Conclusions

  • When I took away my best guess for Robert Hartley’s parents, ThruLines gave me parents that I knew were wrong.
  • I made a guess that Robert’s parents could have been James and Mary
  • Unfortunately, the Mary I chose was married too early, so I ruled out Mary Heap
  • I then started to look at other Marys that married James Hartley in the right time period to have a Robert Hartley born 1803-1804.
  • As this could take a while, I will start a new Blog.

 

 

 

Posted on

My Wife’s mtDNA

I was interested in finding out my wife’s mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA, so I tried to get results from her late mother’s test. The sample was apparently no longer good. I then tried to get results from my wife’s old test. This sample was also inadequate, so she took a new test.

My Wife’s Maternal Lineage

This is what I have for my wife’s maternal line:

It goes from Ellis to Daley to Rhynold to Sandwich. However, there is some ambiguity as the suggested father for Mary Sandwich is a Daly and the mother is a Snyder. Here is the 1891 Census for Crow Harbour, Guysborough, Nova Scotia:

This shows that Mary was born in Nova Scotia. It also has her father born in Ireland and mother born in Nova Scotia. The 1871 Census for the same place gives Mary’s origins as Irish, but that does not necessarily mean that she was born there:

I do see this record:

However, I assume that this George is the son of George Rhynold. The younger George was 22 in the 1891 Census. However, according to this genealogy at genealogy.com, the elder George did remarry:

The key here would be to find the records for St. Joseph’s Church, Port Felix.

Perhaps this is a hint:

This birth record indicates that the parents George Rainold, fisherman and Mary Sandwich were married in 1858 at White Haven:

Here is a different transcription of the same event:

However, I do not see the Landrich. The r in Landrich is clearly a w. That leaves the name as Landwich or Sandwich of which Sandwich is more probable. That seems to be the best I can do with the information I can find now.

The mtDNA

The results appear to be still coming in:

Let’s see if this is in SNP Tracker:

According to SNP Tracker, the connection is very old, going back to the Iron age and apparently ending up in the British Isles.

I wonder how this compares to my own mtDNA:

This did not work, perhaps it is too new, I had to choose my old designation of H5’36:

This is really old by comparison. This is quite a discrepancy from what FTDNA shows on their Time Tree:

This puts me clearly in the Roman Period.

Back to Marie:

Marie has one exact match and several two step matches. Perhaps a new SNP will form based on Marie’s one match.

When I choose the Discover Haplogroup Reports at FTDNA, I get this message:

I will write another Blog when these results are available.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was curioius as to what was going on with my wife’s mtDNA results. I had to change her password to check
  • Marie is in the U category. H is most prevalent in the British Isles from what I understand which is what I have. However, U appears to be located in the British Isles at a very early date if I am interpreting SNP Tracker correctly.
  • Marie has one exact match for her mtDNA. I wonder if that match will form a new group.
  • I am also interested in seeing the Discover Reports when they are available.

 

Posted on

My New Nicholson 4th Cousin ThruLine

ThruLines are at Ancestry. They look at DNA matches that also have potential common ancestors in the two lines. I have not been getting many new ThruLines lately, so I will look at my newest possible connection with Sarah:

Sarah shows as a 4th cousin once removed. Apparently, I have her great-grandmother Clara Nicholson in my tree already.

Here are Nellie, Clara and Clara’s father Walter in 1921 in Sheffield:

Nellie would be my mother’s third cousin. Here is Clara’s marriage record:

Here are Nellie’s baptism and birth information:

It appears that all is in order and that Ancestry has the right connection.

Sarah’s DNA

Sarah and I must match by more than the usual DNA for fourth cousins once removed. My late mom matches by even more DNA:

My Nicholson DNA Tree

I have quite a few Nicholsons on the tree already. I’m ready to add Sarah. Here is part of my existing tree:

It will be good to add some branching to this line. Here is what my ThruLines look like:

This does not match well with my current Nicholson DNA Tree:

I have Louie and not Nancy. I wrote a Blog about Nancy and Louie here. In that Blog, I wrote that it would be interesting to see if Louie and Nancy match each other by DNA. It turns out that Louie is a match to my sister Heidi. Here is the match between Saray and Nancy on my sister Heidi’s shared match list:

Sarah and Nancy match by a large amount of DNA (190 cM). That makes me think that Nancy should be on my Nicholson DNA tree.

Louie also has a good match to Sarah.

Here, I’ve added in Sarah to my Nicholson DNA Tree:

More Nicholson Lines to Add?

Here are two more matches on my sister Heidi’s ThruLines:

They are Angela, Andrew and Nancy. For some reason, it appears that I do not have Joseph born 1872 in my Nicholson Tree. I already have a tree for Nancy:

This tree has Joseph’s father as Henry Nicholson, not Walter Nicholson. However, the DNA shows that Nancy should be connected to Sarah. Let’s take a closer look. I assumed that the Ellen in the 1911 Census was Mary Ellen Nicholson born about 1904:

As Henry was the first born son, it would make sense that Joseph’s father would be Henry also. This is the 1881 Census:

However, the 1891 Census shows this:

Here there is a Joseph who is a Carter like the Joseph in 1911. The mother’s name is that same as the 1881 Census, but the father is now George Nicholson. This brings up varioius possibilities:

  1. There were two different familities
  2. Henry Nicholson died and Mary A married George Nicholson
  3. Henry Nicholson also went by the name of George Nicholson
  4. The Census taker got the information wrong.
  5. Joseph may have been living with George Nicholson and Mary A in 1891, but not be their son.

So, for now, I will leave out the Joseph Nicholson Branch out of my Nicholson DNA Tree, even though there are DNA matches.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My sister Heidi and I (and perhaps others) had a match with Sarah. Ancestry shows that Heidi and Sarah have the common ancestors of Nicholson and Clayton
  • I added Sarah to my Nicholson DNA Tree
  • Ancestry also shows that Heidi has matches to three other people who potentially descend from Nicholson and Clayton
  • I was unable to match these DNA matches up genealogically, so I left them off my Nicholson DNA Tree for now. It is possible that there is a Nicholson connection but further back in time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted on

A New mtDNA Haplogroup Confirmed

auaI had an email today from FTDNA notifying me that I have a new maternal mtDNA Haplogroup. This was welcome news, and ahead of what I was expecting.

I was H5’36 and now have the unwieldy Haplgroup of H5’388’449’450+4092. I am interested in the Match Tree:

There are now Haplogroups on either side of me which explains all the apostrophes in my Haplogroup. I believe the apostrophe is meant to account for an earlier Haplogroup being found after a later branch has been found. So previously, there was a very large Haplogroup called H5. When my Haplogroup was found upstream of H5, they named it H5’36 so H5 through H36 would not have to be renamed. Now above me (though apparently parallel to me – not upstream) are H450 and H388. The confusing part is that I do not see H449 in this screen shot.

More on the Match Time Tree

These are the people in my group. Notice that there are six lines. Two of those lines have a group. They are F2467090 and F8638614. I am in the first group with my first cousin Russel and Elisabeth. When I hover over the groupings, I get this message:

I think the purpose of the note is that, due to hte fast mutating markers, there can be a lot of variability in the results. This would include, I assume, back mutations. I note that these matches may not be necessarily closer, but then again, they may be. Certainly my first cousin is a closer match. I am not sure of Elisabeth. I should try to contact her. She gives her maternal line as coming from Austria, but has no information other than that on her genealogy. Austria seems to be an outlier as the most popular ancestors countries are Ireland and England. It would make sense for me to at least reach out to Elisabeth. I just wrote, but my match with her goes back to 2018, so a lot could have changed since then.

Here is a view of the Time Tree, but I do not see another H449 anwhere:

This is a good graphic showing how far my new Haplogroup moved in time from what it was previously (before 4,000 BCE).

mtDNA and YFull

In my previous Blogs, I looked at a new group I was in at Yfull along with Steve. Steve is four up from the bottom on the Match Time Tree:

Steve and I are at the end of a very long tree at YFull:

YFull has fewer tests than FTDNA. At YFull, Steve and I are simply H5’36e rather than H5’388’449’450’+4092 that FTDNA has. However, I believe that these two haplogroups are intended to represent the same thing. That holds true with the TMRCA of 1850 ybp at YFull compared with the 100 CE of FTDNA:

I would like to point out that even though the TMRCA or time to most recent common ancestor is 1850 years, obviously it is much less for my cousin and me. Our common ancestor was our maternal grandmother who was born in the hear 1900.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I am glad that FTDNA decided to update thier mtDNA tree.
  • This brought my branch of the tree over 4,000 years closer in time to the present.
  • My particular Haplogroup is confusingly named and seems overly complicated
  • I think that the new haplotrype clusters are interesting. I am in one with my first cousin and another person who has maternal ancestry from Austria. I have contacted her to see if can find out anything more about her ancestry. Austria is a long way from Sheffield, England.
  • My new haplogroup has an differently named but equivalent haplogroup at YFull.

 

 

Posted on

Another Look at My mtDNA

I have written two Blogs recently on my mtDNA. Currently my official Haplogroup at FTDNA is H5’36, but that will be changing. At YFull, my Haplogroup is H5’36e:

If I interpret YFull correctly, the SNP that defines H5’36e is G4092A. However, this screen shows that H5’36e has an additional SNP:

From this, I take it that C456T defines H5’36.

A Cool Screen at YFull

I like this one:

This is called MTree matches on the MReport. The interesting thing is that it appears to trace my line and my mother’s line back all the way to genetic Eve. Here is a closer view:

I don’t know what the different colors mean. There are green, red and grey SNPs.

Here is what SNP Tracker shows:

Here is some more information from SNP Tracker:

This shows the ancient 9,760 years before present for the most recent common ancestor for H5’36. According to YFull, this was reduced to 1850 years before present for H5’36e. It is also amazing how few mutations it takes to get from 155,000 years ago to 9,760 years ago. It looks like there were about 62 mutations. That appears to be about one mutation about every 2,000 years. That would make mtDNA not very useful for genealogical purposes. Also that would make the TMRCA date of 1850 years ago make sense.

What’s Next?

I expect that there will be branching under the present H5’36 which I thought would be H5’248, but now I see it is not:

Apparently H5’36 was replaced with H5’248 which now has been replaced by H5’388’449’450. I guess there is a lot going on in this part of the mtDNA world. I’m watching you FTDNA. The good news is that this shows progress in my part of the mtDNA tree. This seems like an awkward designation. Let’s see what is upstream of H5’388’449’450.

This goes right back to plain H.

This shows 4 named and 11 unnamed lineages from H5’388’449’450 if I am reading it correctly. I know that I am not H5, so that means that I must be H388’449, H450 or H5’388’449’450+4092. From a previous Blog, I see this from the FTDN site:

My take from this screen is that 4092 is an unnamed SNP as just a position is given. [However, see below.]

T310TC!! and G4092A

When I search for G4092A at mitomap.org, I see this:

Apparently, this is at location 4092 which is one of the lineages mentioned at FTDNA: H5’388’449’450+4092. That could mean that I am in the branch with the long name.

Here is something I note from FTDNA:

I assume that !! indicates a double back mutation. I could see where this could be problematic – especially as it occurs at the end of the line. What I would be interested in knowing is whether these two SNPs go together or if they might represent two separate branches on the mtDNA tree.

H5’388’449’450+4092

I am going to go out on a limb and assume that this is my new Haplogroup:

This shows the Imperial Age (100 CE) which seems consitent with YFull. Also, it looks like Ireland has the most chance of where the ancestors came from on the face of it.

I know that my female ancestor line goes back to England. Could that be my English flag? I do not know what F8638614 is – perhaps an initial grouping?

I see no British flag under H388’449:

However, I do see additional branching.

Here is H450:

Again, no UK. This tends to confirm that I belong in H5’388’449’450+4092.

Summary and Conclusions

  • My intention in writing this third Blog on mtDNA was to tie up any loose ends I may have missed before FTDNA comes out with the new H branch of mtDNA
  • While doing this I came upon an update of FTDNA’s MitoTree which gave me the new name of my current branch and gave a hint as to what my new Branch name would be
  • Further snooping around shows that I would likely be in the long-named H5’388’449’450+4092
  • Along the way, I learned quite a bit about mtDNA. I had heard recently about back mutations in mtDNA, but looking at my own makes it more real. 
  • I appreciate FTDNA updating their mtDNA tree and am looking forward to further updates.
Posted on

More on Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)

In my previous Blog, I started to look at what FTDNA was doing with their new MitoTree and how that was changing my haplogroup. I had to trick out the query as my old Haplogroup of H5’36 is going away. I had to query H5 which was a popular haplogroup under H5’36. When I did that, I found our that the new Haplogroup above H5 will be called H5’248. Even though, my last Blog had Mitotree in the title, I never looked at the actual tree:

Here I shrunk down the H5’248 Time Tree to get it all in. Here is a larger view of the top of the tree:

There should be more branching under H5’248 once the FTDNA analysis is done (I hope). The above images are meant to show that the branching under H5’248 is small except for H5 which is large. I suppose that means that at some time in my maternal history before 4,000 BCE there were two sisters. One sister had a lot of descendants (including the H5 Haplogroup) and the other (my maternal ancestor) not so much. I suppose that problems in my maternal line could have been due to famine, plagues or wars.

If I go upstream one step, I see this:

I see someone from Hungary and someone with an unknown ancestry under H5’248^. From my last Blog, I learned this:

The ancient connections screen shows this:

Talk about a distant relative.

More from YFull

At some point, I uploaded my mtDNA results to YFull. YFull gives analysis of DNA that is independent of FTDNA.

Thanks to someone else who uploaded to YFull, I am in a new Haplogroup there called H5’36e. I am not sure how to read this screen. It gives a TMRCA of 1850. I assume that means 1850 years ago. If I understand this correctly, our common ancestor was in the year 150 approximately. Very interesting. At least this is much more recent than 4750 BCE. This screen confirms what I had thought:

I will next look at the first tab which is Known SNPs:

Again, not a lot of explanation here, but my assumption is that I share with one other tester two SNP:

  • T310TC!!
  • G4092A

Here is another rerport from YFull:

Again, I am flying in the dark a bit here. On the bottom line, this shows C456T after H5’36. Is that what gets me to H5’36e? But this seems to show that there is a match below H5’35e which are the two SNPs I mentioned above. Would these two SNPs form a new mtDNA Haplogroup under H5’35e? Another interpretation is that the two SNPs at the end of the last line are unmatched SNPs waiting to be matched with someone else. According to YFull:

On the “MTree matches” tab, all mutations are divided into groups. In particular, they include those that match other samples and those currently unique.

This does not help my understanding. Two screens ago, it appeared that the last two SNPs were part of H5’36e, so I will have to go with that.

YFull’s MTree

I touched on this in my previous Blog. Interestingly, I see this YFull view from a 2023 Blog tht I wrote:

At that time, the common ancestor was over 13,000 years ago. I also note that in 2023, I had the only id with a YF designation. I am not sure what thee other lettered prefixes mean. Compare that with my new Haplogroup:

I am at the bottom of a very long list. A green subclade or haplogroup with red around it means that it is new. This view seems to indicate that G4092A is the defining SNP for H5’36e, so I remain confused. Also the SNP is very old at over 12,000 years, but my common ancestor with this match is 1850 years before present or about 150 AD. So the new YF match has made a big difference in the TMRCA date.

I see a link at the bottom of the MTree:

This suggests that Ian is involved with the MTree and that they got some of their data for the tree from 23andMe. When I look at that 23andMe link, I see 7 samples listed as H5’36. I also see this:

I have since contacted my new match at YFull and he was not aware that YFull dealt with anything other than YDNA. So I am not sure how his information got on mtDNA got to YFull. Perhaps through 23andMe or another source.

My Match Steve

The person I wrote to who is in YFull is named Steve, from Canada.  He mentioned that he had no known ancestors from Sheffield where my mother’s mother’s mother’s family came from. However, if our common maternal ancestor is 1,000 or more years old, then it would not be likely that the common location would be Sheffield, England.

Here is a map with my matches at FTDNA:

I see I have a red flag near me which means and exact match. When I click on that flag:

 

Hey, it’s Steve, so I guess he did test his mtDNA at FTDNA. That is good news, because that means that hopefully we will also be in a new Haplogroup at FTDNA when they roll out the H line of mtDNA. Apparently, that is such a large line that they will do that after they finish the rest of the branches. I am hoping that in a month or so, we will see more results at FTDNA.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It is interesting to compare what is happening at FTDNA in the area of mtDNA compared to what YFull is doing
  • A match I had at YFull gave us a new Haplogroup there and a much more recent common ancestor.
  • It turns out that Steve who is my new YFull match also tested at FTDNA and his stated ancestor is closest to me geographically. Leeds and Sheffield are relatively close to each other on the map.
  • Based on the matches on the map, it would appear that my maternal line back in the British Isles going back to about the year 150 AD or earlier. There may be some testing bias in this if only people from that area tested. However, it still seems possible that this is true.
Posted on

A New FTDNA Mitotree

I was notified recently via the Facebook Page, Mitochondrial DNA for Genealogy that something big was happening. The big thing is that FTDNA has a new Beta Mitotree for Mitochondrial DNA or mtDNA. MtDNA is the DNA that women receive from their mother’s mother’s mother’s line and so on. This is passed down to daughters but also to one generation of sons.

My mtDNA: H5’36

I took the mtDNA Full Sequence test in 2014 so over 10 years ago. I am currently H5’36, but apparently all tht could change with the new Mitotree. Roberta Estes was involved with the new tree and wrote a good Blog on the Mitotree here. When I put my current Haplogroup into the FTDNA search, I get this message:

My guess is that either H5’36 is being shuffled around and/or being renamed in update or that the search is having trouble with the ‘ charachter. Instead, I will type in plain old H5:

Now I should point out that I am not H5, but H5’36. H5’36 predates H5 but was added in later as it was discovered after H5. The H5 story continues:

This screen shot is interesting as it shows H5’248 as the precursor to H5. I assume that H5’248 may be my new Haplogroup – or an equivalent to what I have now. It is interesting that these two Haplogroups have the same date of 4750 BCE – really old. The following timeline does not add much information, but just displays it in a different way:

Am I Now H5’248?

This is my assumption, but it is unclear why the change from H5’36 to H5’248 was necessary unless there is now a new naming protocol. All this seems to be laying the groundwork for new branches under H5’248. The next logical step is to do a search fo H5’248.

Again H5 is the popular descendant of H5’248 which I am not part of.

Here is another new Haplogroup called H5’248^. I guess there was a lot going on around 4800 BCE with my mom’s side mitochondrial DNA. Of interest above, is that H5’248 is the parent to H5, H248 and one yet unnamed lineage. As I am not H5, that means that I am likely H5’248, H248 or an unnamed lineage.

Here is another view:

I like this view because it shows over 1,000 H5 testers which I am not part of below me.

However, I would think that there would be more branching under H5’248. From a Blog I wrote 2 years ago, I had this possible tree:

This tree was based on information at YFull.

YFull’s MTree

Apparently, the chart I drew 2 years ago is now outdated. I am now H5’36e according to YFull’s MTree:

I am at the very bottom of the MTree for H:

Note that this is a new subclade:

I am wondering how much YFull’s MTree was responsible for FTDNA’s Mitotree. Here is my interpretation of what YFull’s MTree is showing now:

The over 1,000 testers under H5 obviously have many branches that I did not show. H5’36-b and H5’36b have some branching, but the other H5’36 branches have no further branching under them. I am a bit surprised how far behind FTDNA got in it’s Mitotree. I suppose that is why it may take a while for them to get up to speed.

FInally, I note from FTDNA:

Updates are rolling out over the next few weeks, with Haplogroup H coming after the other haplogroups since it is so large.

My Wife’s mtDNA

I tried to test my wife’s later mother’s mtDNA, but the test failed, so I am now trying to test my wife’s which is also an old sample. It turns out that this is an old sample also. I see from FTDNA:

Standard Average Processing Times
  • Family Finder™: 2 to 4 weeks.
  • mtFull Sequence: 6 to 8 weeks.
  • Y-DNA (excluding Big Y): 3 to 6 weeks.
  • Big Y-700: 6 to 10 weeks.

That means that I should be expecting her results in 2-4 weeks. It is also a good time for her to be testing with all these new changes.

Naming mtDNA

I found an article at the FTDNA Help Center called Understanding mtDNA Haplogroups.

This applies to my branch. So what H5’248 means is that it is the common parent of H5 and H248. That also suggests that there are a lot of new branches since H36 (or that a lot of room is being left for new branches?).

I was curious about the caret as I do not remember seeing that before.

This is perhaps more than many want or need to know. However, one of the things I like about FTDNA is that they do not tend to hold back on giving information to people who are curious. There is more on the FTDNA Help page that is interesting and instructive.

I assume that the Interim Haplogroup section is important at this time when FTDNA is looking to totally revamp their mtDNA Tree.

Summary and Conclusions

  • A lot has happened in the world of mtDNA in the last two years – including in my little branch of the Tree
  • I am now playing catch up in mtDNA
  • The bottom line is that it seems like the H part of the tree which is quite large will be updated last
  • I picked a good time to have my mother-in-law’s DNA tested. Although that has failed, my wife’s sample is now being tested. I hope to see the results in a month or less.
  • I had to trick the new Beta MitoTree to figure out where FTDNA seems to be heading with my branch of H5’36. The branch apparently will be renamed and hopefully I will be on a new branch under that.
  • Knowing the naming conventions helps to figure out what is going on with the new FTDNA Beta Mitotree.
  • It is helpful to have YFull as a check to what is going on in the mtDNA world.