Posts

Posted on

My Daughter-In-Law’s Genealogy: Part 2

In my last post, I looked at my daughter-in-law Sarah’s Vezina heritage back to France. I also started looking at her Portuguese side. In this Blog, I’d like to look more into the Portuguese side. This is as far as I got in her tree for Sarah’s paternal side:

All the green leaves are hints. However, some are just directory listings. I have that all of Sarah’s paternal great-grandparents were born in Portugal. It would be nice to pin a specific place to these people.

Manuel Pimental Born 1890

I have that Manuel was a barber. Here in the 1930 Census. In that Census, I am interested in the Immigration year and Naturalization status for Manuel and his wife Mary or Maria:

Actually I need the family members also:

That is so I can make sure I have the right family in the 1920 Census:

The daughter Mary was born in Portugal. Now the immigration year is the same for Manuel and the two Marys wich makes more sense. Now the oldest three show as aliens. It may be that Manuel got his naturalization between 1920 and 1930.

In 1920, the family was living at 74 Hope Street in New Bedford:

From the Census, it appeared that many families were living at this address.

Manuel Pimental’s Naturalization

This should be the key to linking Manuel back tot he old country:

 

As a bonus, there is a photo of Sarah’s great-grandfather.

The Azores

I believe this is it. Perhaps JJ and Sarah will visit:

The population in 2011 was 436.

It appears that Sarah’s Pimental’s roots were in a remote village on a remote Island.

The naturalization record leads to a shipping record dated 15 April 1910 which can tell us a lot:

First, Maria appears to have been born when her mom was 15. Also the spelling here is Pimentel. I’m guessing that this was the original spelling. Manual’s signature seems to spell his name the same way on his Declaration of Intention above.

These columns can be helpful:

Manuel gave as a reference, his neighbor:

Here we also have the proper spelling of Achada that agrees with the Google Map above. The intended destination after arriving in New York was New Bedford.

Manuel arrived with $15. He noted that he had visited New Bedford twice before the current trip:

Once Manuel got to New Bedford, he planned on staying with his brother-in-law on Coggeshall Street:

Mother and daughter Maria were born in Achada:

On Manuel’s Declaration above he was said to be born in ‘Achado’. Here he appears to be born in Rehada. I’m not sure about the ‘R’. Perhaps they all say Achada but were written differently for some reason.

Records from the Azores

There are records from the Azores but they are difficult to read. I go to this website and find this form:

To get to Achada Baptisms, I made the following choices:

I have that Manuel was born on October 12, 1887:

According to the above, he was also married on his birthday October 12, 1893. According to the findagrave.com website, Manuel was born in 1886:

This cemetery is on Allen Street:

According to this web site on Azores Genealogy, I should be able to find out a lot of information from these records:

Also:

I tried looking at some of these records and was having trouble figuring them out. Perhaps marriage records would be easier as suggested above. However, the dates are a bit confusing. Maria is listed as 19 years old when she arrived in New York in 1910. If she married in 1903, she would have been about 12 or 13! Further, Maria’s birthdate is listed as August 30, 1893. Does that seem right? That means that I have a lot of information and dates, but are the dates accurate?

Some 1903 Marriage Discoveries

Here is marriage #4 for Achado:

I’m reading something like Maneul Rego Pimental and Dona Rosada ? Franco. Marriage #6 from November of the same year had a Maria Franco married to someone else, but was Franco her middle name?

 

Let’s concentrate on Marriage #4. Here is the Achado Church:

The first four lines of the marriage record appear to include the date and information about the Church:

Outubro is October in Portuguese, so the month is right. I don’t know how to read the day.

I would like to find out the names of the parents of Manuel and Dona (aka Maria). Here is my best guess for Manuel’s parents:

Legitimo means legitimate – or we may that Manuel was the natural son of Manuel Rego and Dona Maria de Lur. At least it looks like Lur.

That leaves this for Manuel’s wife’s parents:

Julio de Medeiros Franco and Dona Maria Rosa de Men? Unfortunately, the surname went on to another line. Here is the end of the record:

That would be Manuel’s signature I assume. The others are perhaps witnesses or even the priest? There is a lot of information on the record. I imagine that some information had to do with occupations. If Sarah has some Portuguese-speaking connections, we may get a better read on this record.

Azorean Baptismal Records

Now that I have broken the Portuguese record barrier by getting some basic information from a marriage record, I would like to find birth records for Maria aka Dona Rosa Franco and Manuel Rego Pimentel. I am guessing that the Rego could be an important hint due to the number of Portuguese Manuels.

A Possible Baptismal Record for Manuel Pimental

Here is Record #68 from October 1886:

In the margin, there is a note about America. However, the parents look different than for the marriage record above:

That means that either I had the wrong marriage above or more likely, I have the wrong baptismal record here.

Jose Mendes Born 1892

I’ll take a break from Sarah’s Pimental side and look at the Mendes side. Jose was Sarah’s great-grandfather:

In 1940, Jose was a weaver at the Sowle Mill living at 55 Collette Street.

There were more children on the next page.

Sowle was the Ancestry transcription. It was actually the Soule Mill on Sawyer Street:

Here are Collette Street and Sawyer Street on a map:

Jose’s WWII Draft Registration Card is helpful:

I am looking for Jose’s European roots. Here, he reports he is from Melo Portugal. Here is what Google Maps shows me for Melo:

The Draft Card also gives a different name for Jose’s wife. The Census had her as Elvira. Here she is Elrida. The 1930 Census shows much the same information. However, the immigration columns are important:

Jose, his wife and eldest daughter are listed as aliens. This also shows that Jose came to the US first and his wife and daughter came the next year which would not be unusual.

Next is the 1920 Census:

In 1920, Sarah’s grandmother Isabel was a baby. This shows that Jose had immigrated in 1916 and that he was an alien. They lived at 381 Coggeshall Street:

Here is 397 Coggeshall, so I guess the building is no longer there:

Here is Jose’s burial marker:

It looks like the Elvira name stuck for his wife. They were buried in St. John’s Cemetery where Manual Pimental was buried.

More on Jose Mendes

There area 10 trees at Ancestry that mention Jose Mendes. Two have parents for Jose:

Passenger Lists for Jose Mendes

This looks like Jose’s record:

This was from May 12, 1913 on the Caledonia. Note that Jose’s middle name was Augusto which is what the tree above had for Jose’s father.

Jose gave his last address as Mello Portugal. He lists wife Maria as his closest relative. I think it says her address is d’Annuciae? Sousa, Mello. His destination is New Bedford. The ship left from Scotland and landed in New York City. Jose’s plan was to stay with a friend on Coggeshall Street:

Jose was five foot three and gave his birthplace as Mello:

That is good news, because that menas that this WWI Draft Registration is also Sarah’s Jose:

However, Jose gives a different birthday here than he does on his WWII Draft Registration. Also here he gives Cambezes, Portugal as his birthplace. He also says he is single, so possibly there were two Jose Mendes? [Note: This was the wrong guy – see below.]

Three Joseph Mendes on Coggeshall Street

I was a little surprised to find three Joseph Mendes on Coggeshall Street in the 1919 New Bedford Directory:

Isn’t that confusing? Clearly Sarah’s Joseph was living at 381 Coggeshall Street. Soon after he moved to Collette Street because that is where we find the family in the 1925 Directory:

In the previous column there were a Jose and Joseph living on Coggeshall:

That means that the WWI Registration Card for Jose Ahes Mendes is not for Sarah’s great-grandfather. Also the shipping record for the Jose Augusto Mendes from Villa Cortez, Portugal was also the wrong person. I can weed out that record.

Here is the correct record again in context:

The second M in the column menas that Jose was married. The no and no meant he could not read or write. Antonio Viegias may have been a relative as Jose’s wife name was believed to be Elvira Conccica Viegas. However, his Portugal contact from this record appears to be his wife listed as

Maria d’Annuciaedo Souza. Confusing. He was from what looks to be Nabaes:

However, it is actually Nabais:

By the way, one of the other Joseph Mendes’ was from Vila Cortez Da Serra. Also note Melo not far from Nabais. Probably less than a mile and a half away. Here is a photo of Melo now that I’m sure I have the right place:

I’m sure the area is rich with history:

Melo is part of the municipality of Gouveia in the district of Guarda.

Melo was known for farming and historically for sheep and weaving. When Jose Mendes came to the New Bedford, he was listed as a weaver in a cotton mill there.

Melo Vital Records

FamilySearch has records here:

It looks like my only choice for Melo is the Parish of Santo Isidoro. I have that Jose was born on 5 March 1891, so let’s give that a shot:

When I choose Batismos, Matrimonios 1787-1910, I get this message:

It appears that I am out of luck as far as at-home research for Melo, Portugal.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was successful in getting Sarah’s Pimental line back to the Azores and her Mendes line back to Portugal.
  • Parish records exist online for the Azores but the specific records that I was looking for were difficult to find
  • I couldn’t find Parish records online for Melo, Portugal
  • Sarah had heard about her background from mainland Portugal but was unaware of here Azorean roots.
  • Both of these places look like they would be interesting to visit.

 

Posted on

My Daughter-In-Law’s Genealogy

I have never looked into my daughter-in-law’s genealogy, but would like to do that now. Sarah is Portuguese and French Canadian. It would be nice to get back to Portugal and Canada with her heritage and find out some more about it. Sarah’s recent ancestry is in New Bedford. My ancestors were also immigrants to New Bedford but from England.

Starting Sarah’s Genealogy

I didn’t have to add a new tree for Sarah. I just added her onto my existing tree at Ancestry:

This is how far I got yesterday working through Ancestry on my phone. I blurred out some of Sarah’s mom’s information. I’ll have to ask Sarah more about her maternal grandparents. Sarah has roots in New Bedford as both her parents were born there.

Joseph Pimental

I lifted Ken’s parents from another Ancestry tree that focused in on the Mendes side. I checked with Sarah and it was right. Ken was born when his parents were older. Here is Ken’s father’s Joseph’s World War II Draft Registration:

He lived on Coffin Ave in New Bedford and named his mother as a contact.

The house on the right has a 194 on it.

Joseph worked at the Nonquitt Mills:

There was also a Census in 1940:

This Census tells us that Joseph’s parents were born in Portugal and that they owned their own house. There were two more children on the next page, so a total of 7 kids in 1940.

It looks like Manuel was a barber and Joseph was a cleaner at the factory in 1940.

Here is Joseph’s service record:

Sarah’s Mother’s Side

Sarah’s mother’s side is French Canadian. Sarah’s mother’s father was Joseph Roland Vezina. Here is young Roland in the 1940 Census:

He was living at 1012 Victoria Street in New Bedford. His father Roland was listed as a salesman for a baking company. The Census also says that Roland and Beatrice lived in Fall River in 1935.

This is the photo that Google maps has for that address:

Roland Vezina Sr

I’ll quickly jump back to Roland Vezina Sr. As per above, he was born in Fall River in 1910:

Both of Roland’s parents were born in Canada. Roland was from a large family:

They lived at 698 South Main Stree in Fall River in 1910:

Roland’s father George was listed as a tea merchant.

A Tale of Two George E Vezinas

George was born in Canada. Here is one page of his Naturalization records:

The good news about this record is that it gives his birth place. I think that he was from L’Ange Gardien. My first search for this place came up with this:

I may be way off on this based on the 1871 Census:

This shows George in St Michel, North Bellechasse.

That means that it would be a good idea to figure out where the place is listed on George’s Naturalization papers. Here is the 1881 Census:

I assume I have the right George here. It would help to have a marriage record or birth record for George. Fortunately, I found George’s baptismal record in L’Ange Gardien in 1862:

That means that the Census that I had for 1871 and 1881 showed the wrong George Vezina. Here is the right one in Salem in 1880:

Here is 144 Congress Street:

Further, we learn from George’s baptismal record that his mother’s full name was Marie Zoe Lefrancois.

Where Did the Vezinas Live in Canada? Looking for L’Ange Gardien

All indications point to L’Ange Gardien, but where exactly was this place? Here is a death record for an Albert Vezina. I assume that he was a priest:

He gives his birth place as Danville, Canada. Google Maps show Danville next to Asbestos Quebec:

Another trick is to look at the beginning of George’s baptismal book. This is a short book of about 12 pages:

This tells me that George was baptized in Montmorency. I had trouble finding a map of L’Ange Gardien.

This place is close to a tourist area which is the Montmorency Falls at Boischatel. I believe that Sarah’s husband, my son, has been there. L’Ange Gardien looks like a large place but it is not really. It is just highlighted on the map. Here is the view of L’Ange Gardien from the St. Lawrence River:

My French teacher wife tells me L’Ange Gardien means Guardian Angel.

Here are the Montmorency Falls:

In real life, they are more dramatic.

Here are some of Sarah’s ancestors so far:

I tried to pixelate some of the information for Sarah’s mother and grandmother as they are still alive. This shows out to two of Sarah’s third great-grandparents: Regis and Zoe.

More on the Vezina Family

Things are going pretty well, so I might as well see how far back I can get on the Vezina Line. Here is an 1860 marriage record for Regis, transcribed by Ancestry as Pregis – probably due to the handwriting.

This seems like a longer than usual marriage record.  Right now, I’m just following up on the Vezina line to see where it takes me. This marriage record gives the parents of Regis as Pierre and Elizabeth Côté. Here is Regis’ intention to become a citizen of the US:

Regis was a carpenter. Sometime between 1880 and 1887, the family moved from Salem to Fall River.

Pierre Vezina

On the marriage record above, Pierre is listed as Regis’ father. Here is Pierre’s marriage record from 1823:

This marriage took place at Chateau Richer:

According to Google Maps, Chateau is a small town not far from L’Ange Gardien:

At the time of Pierre’s marriage, he was a farmer.

Vezina in the 1700’s

From the marriage record above, Pierre’s father was also a Pierre. Pierre Vezina and Marie LaBerge married in 1795 in good old L’Ange Gardien:

This Pierre was the son of another Pierre Vesina. If the Pierre from the marriage record was 25 when he married, he would have been born around 1770. His mother’s name appears to be Marie-Anne Morray.

Next Pierre Vesina

Here is another marriage made in L’Ange Gardien:

This is the transcription. Here they have Marois for Marie Anne instead of the Morray I had guessed at from their son’s marriage record, but I think that is pretty close. I’m not coming up with a good guess for this Pierre’s mother:

However, I am getting Jean for the father. I have been waiting for the point where some of this information is written into books. This may be the point:

This shows Pierre as Pierre-Francois. The mother’s name that I couldn’t figure out was Marie Bernadine Roy. Notice that Vezina has gone to Vesina and now to Vesinat. It is not clear to me how the Tanguay Collection works, but my guess is that Francois was the father of Jean and another Pierre was the father of Francois. [Note: After further review, it appears that Pierre would be the father of Bernadine.]

Tracing Vesinats Back to the 1600’s

Now I am spoiled by the Tanguay Collection:

It looks like Francois who was born in 1681 had several children. This couple married in 1703:

That must be Francois’ signature above.

Here is the next Francois going back:

Here is another listing:

Now I see that the 1679 in bold must be the marriage date. I am not sure why there are two entries here. Here is some information from a website called Geni:

I assume that the reference to Cadet means the younger Francois as there appear to be two brothers named Francois.

La Rochelle

LaRochelle is an interesting place:

My understanding is that La Rochelle was a holdout of Protestant rebels. These rebels were besieged by the French government and starved. There was a TLC TV show called Who Do You Think You are? that highlighted this historical event. The show was about the ancestry of Tom Bergeron in Season 6, Episode 6. Here is one link that discusses the episode. Basically, Bergeron was surprised to find that he had a Protestant ancestor from La Rochelle. This ancestor converted to Catholicism amidst pressure and became a fille du roi. These were daughters of the king but not literally. They were women recruited to go to New France (Quebec) to help with the shortage of women there. It would be interesting to delve into Sarah’s La Rochelle connection sometime.

My Wife’s Vesina Connection

It turns out that my wife is connected on the Vesina side also. Her dad’s mother was French Canadian. Here is my wife’s paternal grandmother’s mother’s tree:

On the right is Marie Anne Vesina. Marie-Anne’s father Pierre was different than Sarah’s ancestor Pierre:

However, Pierre’s father was Francois Vesinat. Pierre Vesinat and Jeanne LeTartre married in 1701:

Two Francois Vesinats?

My interpretation of this Tanguay book is that there were two Francois Vesinats. My wife, Marie must be descended from the first (although I don’t see Pierre listed as a child) and my daughter-in-law descends from the second. The other thing is that both of these Francoises had Jacques as a father. That means that either there were two Jacques Vesinats or one Jacques who had two sons named Francois.

Here is one interpretation at Geneanet:

Putting It Together

My best guess is that Marie and Sarah are 10th cousins once removed going back to La Rochelle France.

That’s a lot of history.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I started with some basic genealogy on Sarah’s Portuguese side.
  • I quickly switched over to Sarah’s French Vezina/Vesina/Vesinat history. By the way, my wife tells me that an ‘s’ between two vowels is pronounced as a ‘z’. Perhaps that is why the Vesina name changed to Vezina.
  • Sarah’s Vezina family has deep roots in L’Ange Gardien, not far from the Montmorency Falls NE of Quebec City.
  • The first Vesinat to come to Quebec from France to Quebec was Jacques Vesinat. He was a master barrel maker which I am sure was an important trade in Quebec.
  • By using someone else’s work, I was able to get the Vezina Family back to La Rochelle, France. This was a hotbed of Protestantism. The French King squelched this movement for religious and political reasons in a brutal way.
  • I tried to connect Sarah’s genealogy to my wife’s as she has a Vesina in her ancestry. I ran into problems due to two apparent brothers both named Francois Vesinat. I came up with a likely connection for Sarah and Marie.
  • It would be a lot to fill out all of Sarah’s French Canadian ancestry. Sarah has two Frenh Canadian grandparents. At the level of Jacques Vesinat she would have over 2,000 French ancestors.
  • I’d like to look more at Sarah’s Portuguese ancestry to try to find out where in Portugal her ancestors lived.

 

Posted on

A New Frazer BigY Test Ordered

A new BigY 700 YDNA Test has been ordered for Rick. This is big news for my Irish branch of the Frazer family. This branch can be traced to the Northern part of County Roscommon in the early 1700’s. Rick had taken the 67 STR test previously, but not the BigY test until now.

The Two Roscommon Frazer Branches

The two Frazer branches are divided into the Archibald branch and the James Branch. These two were likely brothers living near the Northern border of County Roscommon in the early 1700’s. Here are the four Frazer YDNA testers:

Rick is on the lower left. His second great-grandfather Richard Patterson or Paterson Frazer left Ireland for upstate New York. From there the family moved to Canada where many of his Frazer descendants live today. Paul is my second cousin once removed. That means that Paul’s great grandfather George Frazer was my 2nd great-grandfather. Paul’s grandfather Hubert moved from Ireland to the Boston area after my his brother, my great-grandfather moved to Boston. This branch moved to America a generation after the Richard Patterson Frazer family.

History of Frazer YDNA Testing Back to 2015

YDNA testing for our branch of Frazers began in 2015. At that time, STRs were tested. A STR is a Short Tandem Repeat. These repeating markers have values that may go up or down. The combination of differences of these STRs can define a group of people. However, the STRs are not a accurate or precise as a SNP. A SNP only mutates once. The STRs were used to predict SNPs. I believe that Joanna’s brother Jonathan was the first of our Frazer group to test for 37 STRs. This put him into the very general R1a SNP group.

The R1a group is a bit of an oddball SNP for Frasers or Frazers. Most Frasers going back to Scotland are in general R1b. That means that before there was a Frazer surname our Frazer ancestors arrived from Scandinavia to the Inverness area to join a group of people that were to become Frasers/Frazers. This probably happened about 2,000 years ago. So there are the old Scot Frazers who were already in present day Scotland before 2,000 years ago. These would be the R1b Frazers/Frasers. Our ‘newcomer’ branch is R1a.

Here is my wild guess on the movements of our branch of Frazers:

Because YDNA reaches so far back, it is possible to know the general areas that Frazer ancestors lived thousands of years ago. Based on YDNA matches with other clans, it appears that the Frazers lived in the Inverness area since before the time that surnames were adopted. After that, family tradition says that our Frazers probably lived in Southwest Scotland before moving to Ireland.

I had my 2nd cousin Paul tested and he was a match with Jonathan. This showed that we were on the right track and that the Archibald and James Lines were connected. Paul’s testing seemed to indicate that his YDNA had changed more than Jonathan’s over the past 300 years or so. That means that Jonathan’s YDNA should be more representative of their common ancestor who was Archibald Frazer born perhaps in 1690.

Frazer YDNA 2017

In May 2017 Paul’s BigY results came in. This moved his Haplogroup down the R1a Tree to R-YP432. This SNP was still very old. The common ancestor for this SNP was 2800 years old, but this was an improvement on Paul’s previous STR testing. Based on that testing his common ancestor was over 14,000 years old!

In June 2017, Jonathan’s BigY results came in. These seemed to indicate that Paul and Jonathan should move down at least one step to R-YP5515. However, the company YFull was ahead of FTDNA in that analysis. Around July 2017, The R1a Administrator for FTDNA with expertise in the Frazer area of R1a came up with this tree in 2017:

This put the Frazers down the tree three levels below R-YP5515 and gave a common ancestor date for the two Frazer lines of about 1600 AD. This is certainly in the area of when we think Archibald, the father of the Archibald and James Lines was born (around 1690).

Rick tested for 67 STRs and his results came in also in July 2017. Rick’s closest match was with Paul. This makes sense as both Paul and Rick are on the Archibald Line and both descend from James Frazer born about 1804.

Here is a possible tree I made based on the STR testing:

The State of Roscommon Frazer YDNA to This Point

Basically, we have four YDNA testers. Three of these testers have taken the BigY test and one, Rick is in the process of having his BigY taken. When Rodney and Jonathan had their BigY, I was hoping that they would have a matching SNP that Paul did not have that would define the James Branch of the Roscommon Frazers. However, that did not happen. There could be a few reasons for this. The most likely reason is that no new SNPs formed between about 1690 when we think Archibald Frazer was born and Jonathan and Rodney’s common ancestor who was Thomas Henry Frazer born 1836:

That means that between Paul and Rick, I will be hoping to catch a new SNP between Archibald Frazer born about 1720 and James Frazer born about 1804.

Paul’s Private Variants

One of the reasons that I think that there may be a new SNP on the Archibald Branch is that Paul has four Private Variants:

FTDNA lists the private variants as position location numbers until they get a match.  So far, Paul’s Private Variants do not match any that Rodney or Jonathan have on the James Line of Frazers. That means that Rick, if he has any of these Private Variants, will match with Paul. Then that matching variant will be named and will be the new name for the Archibald Branch of the Frazers of Roscommon. So getting one more SNP will put a cap on the process. The BigY describes a person’s SNPs from genetic Adam up to present day. This last SNP will be the closest to present day for the Frazer Line. Also Rick will be the first Frazer to take the newer BigY 700 test which is more accurate and complete. The previous three testers took the BigY 500 test. I don’t feel any need to upgrade Paul at this point as he already has four private or unknown variants.

If Paul and Rick match on one of their Private Variants, that will be good news for those on the Archibald Line of Frazers. That will mean that, assuming we got the genealogy right, the new SNP will be from either Archibald Frazer born about 1720, Philip Frazer, or James Frazer born 1804.

Next Step: Waiting

Next up is waiting for Rick’s BigY 700 results to come in. Once they are in, we need to wait again for FTDNA to do a manual review on Rick’s results. There is also a chance that someone else will decide to have the BigY test done.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The history of YDNA testing for our branch of Frazers is about 5 years.
  • This 5 years of testing has resulted in several thousands of years of Frazer history going back way before surnames were being used. Tracing those results show where Frazer ancestors likely lived in pre-historic times.
  • Additional testing is needed to bring the Frazers into more modern times. It appears that we have a SNP that is so far, at least specific to the Frazer or North Roscommon surname. That SNP is R-YP6489.
  • It is hoped that Rick’s BigY 700 test, in conjunction with Paul’s BigY results, will give a name to the Archibald Line of Frazers. This is one of the main Frazer Branches that formed in the early 1700’s. The other is the James Line.
Posted on

My Pilgrim Connection to Kim

I have known Kim for quite a while. We both lived in Lexington, Massachusetts at the same time for a while and we both attended the same Church in Acushnet years ago. I recently posted a photo of the Mayflower leaving New Bedford Harbor and she told me that she descended from two of the Pilgrims, so I thought that I would look at that connection in this Blog.

My Cooke Connection with Kim

Kim says she has a connection to Pilgrim Francis Cooke through two of his daughters. Kim also gave me access to her Ancestry tree:

If I count correctly, Francis Cooke is Kim’s 10th great-grandparent. When I check my tree, Francis is also my 10th great-grandparent. I think that means that Kim and I are 11th cousins on this line. Here is my top-down look:

I can tell already that things may get complicated. I descend from John Cooke who married Sarah Warren. Kim tells me she descends from the Warren Pilgrim line also. Kim descends from Mary Cooke who was born about 20 years after John. John was probably born in Leyden and Mary saw her first light in Plymouth. I see in my Mayflower Families Book on the Cooke family that John had a falling out with the Pilgrims on theological issues and ended up in Dartmouth, Massachusetts. This seemed to be an area of Massachusetts where dissenters ended up. Mary appears to have lived in Barnstable for a while where her husband John Thompson served in public office and she died in Middleborough.

The Next Cooke Generation

I’m going about this backwards as genealogy should properly go from the present to the past:

 

My ancestor Sarah Cooke married Arthur Hathaway and probably died in Dartmouth. Kim’s ancestor married Thomas Swift in Weymouth.

Speeding Up the Process

I had some problems getting all the ancestors onto an Excel Spreadsheet, but here is Kim’s side:

Kim’s line went west from New York to Ohio to Oregon. Here is my side:

My ancestors all stayed in the same general area. Plus I’m off a generation from Kim. That means we must be 11th cousins once removed.

Kim’s Richard Warren Connection

Kim’s connection to Richard Warren is through the wife of Thomas Swift above. Her name was Rachel Stockbridge:

On my side, I descend from Joseph Warren in my most direct path, but I also descend from Mary Warren his sister more than once. Then I already mentioned Sarah Warren above:

Here I color coded Kim’s line in orange. Here is the next generation:

My ancestors were all born in Plymouth. Kim’s ancestor Hannah was born in nearby Marshfield. Here is the next generation:

This is taking more work than our Cooke Tree. In the next generation, I add another branch:

 

Actually, I added two branches because I missed Joseph Bartlett back in 1639. Now I can say I’m related 6 ways to Richard Warren. I’ve got to get all of these ancestors down to Hannah Bradford. She is my second great grandmother who has all the Pilgrim ancestors. Next I’ll add what we had from the Cooke analysis above:

On the Warren side, Kim and I are 12th cousins. So we are 1/2 generation further out than on the Cooke line.

Here is the Warren Tree filled out:

This shows I have these relationships to Kim on the Warren line:

  • Once a 10th cousin twice removed
  • Three times an 11th cousin once removed
  • Two times a 12th cousin

Looking for Kim’s Other Cooke Ancestor

Kim told me she descended from two daughters of Francis Cooke. Kim’s other Cooke ancestor was Jane Cooke:

These two were born 22 years apart. I take it that her mom, Hester Mahieu was a robust woman and made it through many difficulties.

A Question of Genealogy

So far, I haven’t looked into any of the genealogy. The Mayflower Families Book on Francis Cooke brings Kim’s Jane Cooke line into question. Kim’s tree has Jacob Mitchell as the daughter of Jane Cooke. The Mayflower Book shows that Jane had Elizabeth, Thomas and Mary with Experience Mitchell. However, at some point, Jane dies and Experience Mitchell marries Mary. Mary’s last name is unknown as is her marriage date and Jane’s death date. So things are quite uncertain. The reason for assigning the last five children to Experience and Mary Mitchell is that there is a gap between Experience’s first three children and the last five.

Here is where Francis Cooke lived:

This is in the center of current day Plymouth. Here is what it looks like today:

The Cooke property was probably near the present-day Court House Museum which is the white building in the photo above.

Here is a map of where Richard Warren lived closer to the Harbor:

Summary

  • I’m related to Kim 6 ways on the Richard Warren Line
  • I’m related to Kim 1 way on the Francis Cooke Pilgrim Line. Kim had another potential Cooke ancestor, but that ancestor has not been verified.
  • I showed where Francis Cooke and Richard Warren lived on Leydon Street
  • Francis Cooke and Richard Warren must have known each other. Also their children who Kim and I descended from must have known each other and probably down to the next generation. At some point I’m sure they lost touch.
  • I’m sure I have these Pilgrim connections going back 400 years with other people that I know who live in the area. Kim was more of a surprise as she did not grow up in Plymouth County.

 

 

 

 

Posted on

DNA Support for My Children’s Warren Ancestry

In some of my previous Blogs on my children’s ancestry, I have noted a discrepancy. It appears that one of their grandparents who was a Cavanaugh should actually be a Warren. I mention how I came to that conclusion in this Blog and elsewhere. In that Blog, I gave strong evidence that Heather and JJ’s grandmother’s father John Edward Cavanaugh was actually a Warren. Although I had strong evidence for that, I was missing some evidence, including DNA correlation. That is, until recently.

Heather’s DNA and Genealogy Match with Eileen

Here is Heather’s match with Eileen:

In addition, Ancestry suggests this Warren connection:

These are ThruLines. Ancestry suggests evaluating the ThruLines. Here is Eileen’s tree on her maternal side:

Eileen has back to Blanche Sullivan. I have Bridget Warren who married John Sullivan in 1855 in Lowell:

That means that I just have to make the connection. Here is Bridget in 1880 with her family including Francis:

Ancestry transcribed Bridget as Pridy for some reason.

Francis or Frank J Sullivan

Here is Frank in 1900 in Lowell with Daughter Blanche:

This appears to be the birth record for Blanche from 1889 in Lowell:

And, to tie it all together, here is the marriage record for Francis Sullivan:

Any Other DNA Matches for Heather?

I checked to see if Heather had any shared matches with Eileen and I didn’t see any. I did see this more distant DNA match that Heather had with Robin:

I’ll need to star that as Ancestry plans to take away the smaller matches under 8 cM. Here is how Ancestry shows the connection:

That means that Robin and Eileen must be 2nd cousins. Ancestry wants me to evaluate, but I think that Robin likely knows who his mother is. Here is a bonus with Heather and Robin’s shared DNA matches:

This shows that Heather’s brother JJ matches Robin at a higher level. JJ may also match Eileen at a level under 20 cM.

JJ’s Warren DNA Matches at Ancestry

Here is JJ’s DNA match with Robin:

When I look at Robin’s tree it only shows his mother and father. However, I think that Anestry has it right:

This shows that Mary H Dwyer and Mariam Hazel Sullivan were born on the same day.

Here is the family in Lowell in 1930:

Mary Hazel’s daughter Mary Jaqueline apparently went by Jaqueline. That seems to make the connection in Robin’s tree.

JJ and Eileen

Here is JJ’s smaller match with Eileen:

This match is over 8 cM so is not in danger of being stripped away by Ancestry.

JJ’s Shared Match with Eileen and Robin

I’ll just call him N. Here is N’s maternal tree:

N is on the Dwyer Line, so he is more closely related to Robin. I’m not sure why Ancestry didn’t pick up N as having a shared ancestor with JJ. Perhaps one will come up eventually.

Putting It Together

Here is how all the DNA matches fit together:

N is 2nd cousin once removed to Eileen and Robin and 4th cousin once removed to Heather and JJ. The confusing part from what I can tell, is that Louisa Gatley was actually Louisa Cavanaugh at the time she had John Edward Cavanaugh. She was a widow and John J Warren was a widower at the time. John J died not too long after John Edward was born in an accidental drowning.

Summary and Conclusion

  • The match between Heather and Eileen was a good find as it provided additional evidence that John J Warren was the father of John Edward Cavanaugh.
  • That means that even though Heather and and JJ’s maternal grandmother was Agnes Cavanaugh, they don’t really carry any Cavanaugh DNA. That is because John Edward’s mother was only a Cavanaugh by marriage and his father was John J Warren.
  • Heather, JJ, Eileen, Robin and N form a genetic cluster which gives further evidence that the tree is correct.

Post Script

In my previous Blog, I noted that perhaps a baptismal record would show up for John Edward Warren/Cavanaugh. Here is the record from St. Peter, Lowell in August 1880:

Here is the Ancestry transcription:

Posted on

My New Hartley YDNA Branch of R-FT225247

It has been a while since my YDNA subclade has changed. I have been A11132 since 2017. My subclade changed recently because I had my brother tested for the BigY 700. Here are the results:

In 2017, I went from A11138 to A11132. Just recently FTDNA has put my brother and me in the same new subclade of R-FT225247. My brother and I have no private variants. That would be the usual case. David Vance, who is a YDNA expert points out the difference between the private variants shared between the A11132 Hartleys and the number of SNPs in my branch. He takes that to mean that my branch mutated much faster. My guess is that it did but that the A11132 testers mutated more slowly than average also. That means that if that these Hartleys had a common ancestor born in 1600, that would be 350 years from 1950 which would be around the time when some of these BigY testers were likely born. That would mean that on my branches the mutation rate was 50 years per SNP and 175 years per SNP on the A11132 branch. As the actual mutation rate as been estimated at between 83 and 144 years, the average between my two estimated Hartley SNP rates is about 113 years. So it all averages out.

This also explains why when the last Hartley tested, no new Hartley branch was formed. We must have all branched off the same Hartley tree around 1600 or so.

FT225247

FT225237 is the name given to my group but the name is actually representative of 7 SNPs.

My Previous Prediction

In my last Blog on Hartley YDNA, I looked at my private variants and my brother’s private variants. We both had 6 private variants which I thought would make up the new subclade. That means that I was mostly right. These were my private variants previously:

A quick comparison between that and the new FT225237 block shows that I was missing A11130. For some reason, this was not shown as a private variant previously. I guess it should have been a private variant.

A11130 and FGC6800

In my previous Blog, I noted that when I looked at my A11132 matches, there were SNPs in common including A11130 and FGC6800. As can be seen above, A11130 is now incorporated in my FT225237 Block. But what about FGC6800? Here are my brother’s non matching variants with the two A11132 Hartleys:

Notice that FGC6800 appears in both A11132 Hartleys. As both my brother and I have tested for FGC6800, I am not sure why it is not in the FT225237 Block. The answer appears to be here:

According to my brother’s results, FGC6800 is already on the Y Tree. According to YBrowse:

This SNP is part of the I2a-L801 haplogroup. As I am R1b, that explains why this wasn’t added to my results. This appears to be an anomalous SNP.

BY26739

Next, as I check my brother’s matches, I notice that we have this non-matching variant:

My brother didn’t test positive for this, so that must mean that I have this SNP. Here is what YBrowse shows:

Here are my brother’s results for this SNP:

It looks like the results were inconclusive. There were some poor reads here. Some showed a mutation. The high quality reads showed no mutation. I actually addressed this in my previous Blog and thought that my brother would be considered positive for BY26739. But apparently, that didn’t happen. If Jim really is positive for BY26739, then that SNP should be added to our FT225247 Block.

Next Steps

So far, we know that there are three different Hartley families who have had the BigY test. We all branch out quite early – probably around the year 1600 or before. It wold be nice to find a branch of our Hartleys that was somewhat newer. I have reached out to someone on my 67 STR match to see if he would take the BigY 700 test.

Summary and Conclusions

I was surprised at finding out so soon that I have a new subclade. This is a large old subclade, but thanks to testing with my brother it is now on the books. This goes back to really old Hartleys who were probably born before 1600 so it would be nice to split out the branching to a later date. This would require more Hartley testers.

 

Posted on

My Brother Jim’s BigY Results Are Starting to Come In

When I checked on my brother’s BigY results today, I saw this message from Family Tree DNA (FTDNA):

That was good news. I noticed yesterday that the Haplogroup for Jim had changed from a basic haplogroup to a specific Hartley haplogroup. However, I believe that a manual review will put us in an even more specific haplogroup.

Jim’s BigY Matches

Jim matches with me first, then two other Hartleys, then a Smith and a Pillsbury. My guess is that the Hartley matches go back to after the use of surnames and Smith and Pillsbury represent common ancestors who were before the advent of surnames. Here are the Hartley matches:

Jim and Me and BY26739

Theoretically, I would think that Jim and I would have no differences in variants. There is a few reason we would have a non-matching variant. One is that Jim or I formed a new SNP. In that case there would be a new branch of Hartley’s. Another reason may be that one of our tests did not cover that SNP or didn’t test conclusively positive for that SNP.

I’ll check for this SNP at YBrowse:

This SNP appears to be at the right end of the Y Chromosome.

This SNP was named in 2018. Here are Jim’s results:

It looks to me that Jim had six good reads, but that wasn’t enough to make him positive for this SNP. I think that when a manual review is done, that Jim will be positive for this SNP. My guess is that I will have more reads for this SNP than Jim:

Well, it looks like I guessed wrong. Do I get another guess? The genotype is C and the reference is A. I have two good reads of A to C. Then there are a lot of (11) what appear to be low quality reads of A to C. In Jim’s good quality reads, it showed that he had A at that position. However, his 9 low quality reads showed A to C. As  BY26739 is not a non-matching variant with my other BigY matches, I can assume that they also have this SNP. That means that there is no new Hartley YDNA branch between Jim and myself.

STR Differences Between Jim and Me

In my previous Blog on STRs, I discussed a STR difference Jim and I had in the 111 STR test. Now Jim and I have an additional difference. Here is my match with Jim:

This shows that out of 586 STRs Jim and I have a difference of two. From my previous Blog, I found that Jim had a 15 at DYS534 and I have a 16. That means that at this marker I had one additional repeat compared to Jim.

DYS548

Jim and I have different values for DYS548. In order to find this, downloaded my STRs and Jim’s STRs. I transposed the results in a spreadsheet. Then I subtracted one value from the other. When the value was 1, that meant there was a difference.

Jim and I don’t match on two STRs out of 586, but we were tested for about 830 STRs. In these 15 least STRs, I didn’t have results for two STRs and Jim was missing results for 6 STRs. That means that 7 out of these 15 STRs could not be compared. Also, I do not know whether Jim had the mutation at this location or I did. To figure this out, I would need access the results of at least one of our other close matches. I may ask my other close BigY match at some point for his STR results out of curiosity.

Any Predictions?

I like to make predictions as to what might happen one there is a FTDNA manual review. Here is the situation now:

Under R-A11138 there is one branch. A11132 only has Hartleys. A11138 is quite old. The common ancestor between Hartley and Smith is probably 1,000 years old or more. If Jim and I match on a SNP or SNPs that the other two Hartleys don’t have, we should form a new Hartley Branch.

Here are my matches:

I have already discussed BY26739. I think that will go away. As I compare, my matches I see that match 2 and 3 have some variants in common. They are:

  • FGC6800
  • 11535449
  • 12707325
  • 15438401
  • A11130
  • 7048756

However, the fact that these variants are listed could mean one of two things. It could mean that Steve and Michael have these and Jim and I don’t. Or it could mean that Jim and I have these variants and Steve and Michael don’t. Or, more likely, it could be a combination of the two.  

Based on previous work, I had listed these as my private variants:

Here are the ones that are listed above:

That seems to indicate that Jim and I should have the highlighted variants. But what about the two FT variants? I’ll think about those later. The ones left from my original list are:

  • FGC6800
  • A11130

It appears that these should be the two SNPs that Steve and Michael Share that Jim and I don’t have. That is, unless FTDNA renamed these two SNPs. First, I’ll look at FGC6800. From FTDNA’s Chromosome Browser, it seems like I do have that:

That is at position 9,309,609, so it wasn’t on my previous list. I better check my private variants:

They seem to match what I had. Next I’ll check my brother Jim’s Private Variants:

Well, that’s good. We have the same private variants. It seems like these should make up our new branch.

Next, I wonder about A11130. I am checking JIm’s results:

Jim shows he has this as well. I am sure I do also. As I recall a ways back, it was thought that A11130 would be my Haplogroup until others in my group were found not having it. So the group became named for A11132 instead. I guess here is where I get confused between FTDNA calling some SNPs private variants and some named variants.

I guess Private Variants are what they say they are. They are private for a person until they have a match. In this case my brother and I do match, but we are awaiting a manual review to tell what to do with the private variants.

FT225247 and FT135932

These were my two other private variants that I said I’d get back to. FTDNA would refer to these as their position numbers while they are private, but they all really have names. These were the two variants that did not show up as non-shared variants with my other BigY matches.

Summary and Conclusions

In this Blog, while I was waiting for FTDNA’s results, I made some guesses as how those results might come out. The results appear to out now, so I’ll take a look at those in my next Blog.

 

Posted on

Looking at Madeline’s AncestryDNA Frazer Shared Clusters

I hope the title makes sense. I just finished working on Joanna’s Shared Clusters here. It turns out I generated more questions than answers in that Blog. One question had to do with the lack of DNA matches that Joanna had with Madeline’s line.

Madeline’s Genealogy

Here are Madeline and Joanna. They show as third cousins. Third cousins should match each other about 90% of the time according to FTDNA:

However, in my previous Blog, I didn’t see consistent matching between Joanna and Madeline’s branch which should have showed up in Shared Clustering.

Madeline’s Shared Clustering

I’ll just jump into Madeline’s Shared Clustering. The good (and bad) thing about that is that I’ll need to know a little more about Madeline’s genealogy. It looks like I have access to Madeline’s sister Charlotte’s DNA also. Well I’ve already downloaded all of Madeline’s matches, so I’ll go with her.

Here are Madeline’s matches according to the Shared Clustering Program:

Here is Madeline’s sister Charlotte’s tree:

The basic things I need to know is that Madeline’s and Charlotte’s four grandparents are:

  • Crowley
  • Cronin
  • Emmet
  • Frazer

I’ll start with the basic matches for Madeline at 50 cM or greater. This was a bit basic as it gave me just one embryonic cluster.

I say embryonic, because I can see things happening within Cluster 1 and outside of it. Next I’ll ratchet Madeline’s matches down to 35 cM.

Madeline’s 7 Shared Clusters at 35 cM

This is everything you need to know about Madeline’s AncestryDNA matches at 35 cM and above:

Madeline has a large Cluster 4. The next step is to do some basic identification of the Clusters and narrow down to Madeline’s Frazer side. The easiest way to identify common ancestors is by the Common Ancestors column in the image above.

Cluster 4 appears to be on Madeline’s paternal side which is Crowley and Cronin. Kathy who is Charlotte’s daughter has done some work and she has the small Cluster 1 as Frazer:

Kathy’s code for pink in the second colored column is for Catherine Matilda Frazer and the reddish color in Cluster 1 is labeled Frazer.

The next Cluster that has mostly Frazer is Madeline’s Cluster 7:

However, Kathy has Lyall coded as yellow which is Crowley.

Madeline’s Clusters at 27 cM

Ancestry’s shared matches go down to 20 cM, so 27 cM is about halfway down from 35 cM. Kathy shows some possible Frazer connection in Clusters 5, 8 and 9.

 

Basically Clusters 5-9 may have a connection with each other. However, still no common ancestors have been identified by AncestryDNA.

Madeline’s 20 cM Clusters

This is the lowest level Ancestry has Shared Matches. The Shared Clustering Program calls this ‘all visible shared matches’. At this level, Madeline has 45 Shared Clusters. Now Madeline has some clusters with identified Frazer common ancestors:

One thing I notice is that the clusters with Frazer common ancestors don’t have affiliated clusters. That is the last column before the colored columns. The other observation is that the Cluster 8 Frazer is separated from the Frazers at the bottom of the list in Clusters 38 and 40.

Madeline’s Cluster 8 match is Clyde:

I see that I also have access to Toni’s AncestryDNA matches. In order to see this tree from the sides of the three brothers (William Fitzgerald, Edward Wynn and Thomas Henry Frazer, it would be a good idea to look at Toni’s shared clusters also. However, due to changes at AncestryDNA, it has been difficult to download to Shared Clustering lately, so this third analysis may have to wait.

More on Cluster 8 and David

David from Cluster 8 has a Fraser in his ancestry, so let’s take a look:

Hopefully this is more than a coincidence. I’ll see if I can build out David’s tree. According to the 1930 Census,

Keith’s father was from Canada and mother from Ohio.

Further, I see from the 1910 Census, that Augusta’s parents were from Ireland. That means I may have been on the wrong track with the Fraser lead:

It turns out that the Wilson side was from Ireland also:

The clusters are easy, but the genealogy is a pain. I did find this information at Ancestry, but I don’t know if it is accurate:

This family would have been in an area of County Roscommon that would not have been too far from where the Frazers lived.

Gerald From Cluster 8

Gerald is the only other match from Cluster 8. I notice that Gerald has Michigan ancestry which makes me curious.. That means that I get to build out Gerald’s tree. Fortunately, I don’t enjoy watching TV much. This is what Gerald has:

That means in Madeline’s Cluster 8, we see 100% of the matches have trees. Here is where I got with Gerald’s tree:

The paternal side seemed to be going to French names, so I looked at the maternal side and found Gertrude Dwignan. This sounds like the Duigan that I found above.

Here is Getrude “Dwignan” in the 1900 Census:

Things get a little complicated with the extended family. Gertrude is living in her husband’s mother’s house. There is a boarder named William Duignan also living in the house who is likely Gertrude’s brother. 

Here is Gertrude in 1880:

We see Gertrude’s brother William and her father John also. Unfortunately, her father was a widower at age 30. You may recognize Augusta from the previous genealogy I did above.

That leads me to this tree:

I have seen Henry Fry from a marriage certificate. I have seen Abigail Knott in many trees, but I have not verified that. However, my assumption is that Madeline’s Cluster 8 goes back to the Knott name. Here is one Archibald Frazer who married a Knott:

All this to say that it appears that Cluster 8 could be a Knott Cluster. I notice that Clyde who matches Madeline from Cluster 8 has a William Knott who married Elizabeth Knott in her tree also – though not as a direct ancestor.

Taking Shared Clustering Down to 6 cM

This doesn’t add new clusters, but adds matches around the clusters that are associated with the clusters. For Cluster 8, there was not a lot of change:

Madeline’s unaffiliated matches above Cluster 8 are associated with Cluster 7.  Madeline’s unaffiliated matches below her Cluster 8 are affiliated with Cluster 9 except for two matches. These matches were above 20 cM, so could have been in a cluster but they didn’t have enough matches. Again, Cluster 8 is not associated with any other cluster, so that makes me think that it could be an old cluster, perhaps going back to a Knott or other Irish ancestor.

Madeline’s Clusters 38 and 40

I had identified these two Clusters as having Frazer common ancestors:

However, as I look at Cluster 38, I see some connection with Cluster 37 and no connection with Cluster 36. That means that it would make sense to look at Cluster 37 also.

Cluster 38

Let’s see what we are dealing with in this Cluster first. Madeline has two matches: SC and LC. From checking AncestryDNA, I see that these two are siblings. Here are Madeline’s ThruLines for her common ancestor James Frazer born in the early 1700’s:

LC and SC are shown above. My claim to fame in the James Line is that I descend from Margaret Frazer. I am also a match to CK. I am pretty sure that this is the line that Margaret Frazer fits into.

Some SC Genealogy

This is what SC’s administrator has for a maternal side tree for SC:

This answers a question I had as Kathy had a category for Catherine Matilda Fraser and mentions her a lot. Here she is above in SC’s tree.

Here is Catherine in Leeds, Ontario in 1871:

This shows that George and Catherine were born in the United States, which may be wrong. Here is Catherine and family in 1851 in Leeds, Ontario:

Now she shows that she was born in Ireland. There appears to be some confusion as to the parentage of Catherine Matilda Frazer. Ancestry suggests that her mother could have been Mary Wooleghan and that Mary Wooleghan’s father was Michael Frazer. However, I am not seeing an obvious connection there. The tree that has Mary Wooleghan has this:

From this tree, it looks like Mary is the daughter of Michael Frazer and Margaret Stuart. I assume that the intention was to have William the son of Michael Frazer and Margaret Stewart.

Claire from Cluster 38

I’m hoping that Claire will shed some light on Cluster 38:

I took a guess on building out Claire’s maternal side. I got a little lazy and accepted some of Ancestry’s suggested hints. On that side I saw three of Claire’s ancestors from Ontario:

I have that Fanny Bellows was from Beachburg, Ontario. Beachburg is WNW of Ottawa. I have that Crysler Cook and Susan Wallace were from Stamford Township, Welland County, Ontario. Here is Susan Wallace in 1851:

Susan’s father appears to be Alex ‘Wallis’ a Presbyterian from Ireland. Crysler’s father was a Baptist named Abner who was born in Canada. I see that Madeline has Wallace in her tree but she was on the Emmet side.

Madeline’s Cluster 40

The next and last Cluster that Madeline has with Frazer common ancestors is Cluster 40.

This is a fairly small cluster with five people in it. However, there are many people outside the cluster. Those outside the Cluster have a low DNA match below 20 cM which could mean a more distant match that 4th cousin. Ancestry uses 20 cM as its cutoff for 4th cousin and for shared matches.

Gail

Here is Gail:

By the chart, Madeline and Gail are third cousins.

NB and BZ

NB has the largest match with Madeline in the cluster (33.9 cM). She has a large tree, but unfortunately, it is private. BZ is Betty on the chart above.

DO and PO

D.O.’s tree is confusing because the tree opens up to one person who I assume is DO’s spouse. Here is the tree I get for the spouse:

I assume that the O in the DO is for O’Hair, but I can’t be sure. Here is the Henry name mentioned as a possible common ancestor between Madeline and Gail:

Archibald Frazer, Mary Ann Henry (?)

Here is what DO’s tree has for Anne Henry:

If the connection is with Henry, then that could mean that Cluster 40 is a Henry Cluster and not a Frazer cluster. Also I see Palmer in the tree which is also in Gail in Betty’s tree.

PO is one generation younger than DO. Here is PO’s tree:

This means that Madeline matches PO on POs paternal side.

Matches Affiliated with Cluster 40

From the small sampling of matches in Cluster 40, the common denominator could be Henry. Let’s look at some of the other matches affiliated with Cluster 40 that are genetically more distant.

Toni

Toni does not have a tree, but I have her in my tree here:

Toni and Madeline have a small match of 7 cM.

SH

Madeline also has a match with SH of 16.2 cM. SH shows as the child of Walter Frazer along with Gail here:

Kay

Kay appears to be Betty’s niece and matches Madeline by 17 cM:

WG

Going down the list of those affiliated with Cluster 40, I see WG. WG only matches Madeline by 7 cM. As WG should be Madeline’s second cousin once removed, this seems like a very small match.

According to AncestryDNA, this is the chance of WG being Madeline’s 2nd cousin once removed:

The closest shared match between WG and Madeline is Sandy. Sandy and Madeline share 188 cM. Sandy is in Madeline’s Cluster 16 where Madeline has a White and Burrows common ancestor:

Here is Sandy’s tree:

I see that I already made my own tree for Sandy, so I must have gone down this road before:

These ancestors have New York State births, so fit in geographically with Madeline’s ancestors. However, I don’t see the specific matches as I probably didn’t go back far enough in time. The name of Susan Price is interesting as there was a Susannah Price who married a George Frazer who was born in Martinsburg, NY in 1858. However, he was from a different Frazer line.

Remember Sandy is in Cluster 16. She is not in Cluster 40 like WG, but is related in some secondary way.

Timothy

Timothy is next in the list of small matches above Madeline’s Cluster 40 that are affiliated with that Cluster. Here is his tree:

Here I notice a Mary Fraser married to Hugh McKay. I have come across Mary in the past and have built my own tree here:

Above is the paternal side for Timothy. There is even a photo for Mary M Fraser. I have that she was born in New York, but I think that Canada is a possibility also. The last time I looked at Mary Fraser, I was looking at the Michael Line:

However, I don’t think I made the genealogical connection.

Patricia

Patricia is the 6th person associated with Cluster 40, but outside the cluster due to her DNA match of less than 20 cM with Madeline. Here is her tree:

The maternal side of Patricia’s tree goes back to a Mary Armstrong who was born in Manorhamilton. Patricia has her mother as Margaret Palmer.

Joanna’s Brother and Sister

Madeline also matches Frazer researcher Joanna’s brother and sister in the group of DNA matches that is affiliated with Cluster 40. They should be third cousins, but by the DNA they would be less than that.

One of Joanna’s siblings matches Madeline at 9.4 cM and matches four out of five in Cluster 40. The other sibling matches Madeline by DNA at 10.0 cM and matches 3 out of 5 in Cluster 40. However, it is not totally clear to me that the match is on the Frazer side. Note above that Patricia also has a Palmer ancestor as does Joanna’s family. Kimberly also shows between Joanna’s two siblings but does not have a tree.

SW

SW shows this connection to Madeline:

SW is not on my chart.

I’m not sure if SW is the daughter of Sharon or of another daughter of Walter James Frazer. However, SW would be a second cousin once removed to Joanna. SW matches Joanna at 93 cM across 5 segments, which is about right for a 2nd cousin once removed. That tells me that something strange may be going on in the Edward Wynn Frazer line as Madeline has a low match with WG and a low match with Joanna’s family.

After SW there is a small match with WW, but I can’t figure out WW’s tree.

Below Cluster 40

Below Cluster 40, Madeline has four matches affiliated with Cluster 40:

Dean and Dot

Dean has a large tree, but it is private. Dot has a smaller tree, but I can see it:

Dot’s maternal side goes back to Henry. That was a possible spouse for Archibald Frazer born about 1795. I see there is some circumstantial evidence for the Palmer name also:

I’m too lazy too do my own tree for Dot, so I’ll skip that part.

Pamela and Christy

Pamela has no tree. Christy has this one:

A quick look at this tree shows Buchanan in common with the previous tree. Francis was from Belfast and his two parents are listed as being from Ireland.

Where Are Madeline’s Frazer Matches?

Madeline is one quarter Frazer, so theoretically one quarter of her matches should be on her Frazer side. As I saw above, it seems like some of the matches that are attributed to Frazer could be explained by matches to other ancestors. The problems seem to start here:

Madeline has normal matches to Mike, Charlotte, Kathy and Mary, but the match to WG is small.

At one step out, the matches on the to Thomas Henry Frazer Line are small also.

Let’s check WG, to see how this person matches others. Madeline has shared matches with WG:

David has no tree. NB has a large private tree. NB and DO are managed by the same person. BZ is the great grandaughter of Thomas Henry Frazer. It seems significant that none of Madeline’s very close relatives match WG – at least not at 20 cM or more.

An Analogy from My Own Genealogy

Actually the analogy is from my mother’s genealogy. My mother’s mother was a Lentz. My mother is one quarter Lentz and one quarter Nicholson. However, a lot of the closer matches are both Nicholson and Lentz, so it is difficult to separate the two. Here is my Lentz DNA/genealogy tree:

The Lentz/Nicholson relatives are on the left. The common ancestors go back to Jacob George Lentz and Annie Nicholson. The were born in the 1860’s. The DNA matches that are only Lentz have an common ancestor that goes way back to 1792 or three generations further back. It would be possible that Madeline has this same type of issue with her Frazer ancestors. However, Madeline’s situation seems a little different in that she has WG that she should match and doesn’t also other Frazer branches that should match more closely do not. But they do match faintly, so it gets confusing. Madeline could be matching on a more distant Frazer line or a more distant line that is collateral to the Frazers.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The small DNA matches suggest that something could be amiss with Madeline’s Frazer side genealogy.
  • However, she does have some small matches which suggest a match further back in time on the Frazer side or on lines that married the Frazers.
  • Madeline has a very small match with her second cousin WG. If WG matched other Frazer lines, that that would tell me that his genealogy is right and that Madeline’s is wrong. However, he doesn’t, so that means that there could be a double problem in the genealogy.
  •  I had looked at Joanna’s line [Thomas Henry Frazer] in a previous Blog. I had also wanted to look at the Willliam Fitzgeral Frazer Line (born 1821) to see how they fit in with the other two lines, but there was a trouble with Ancestry working with Shared Clustering, so that will have to wait.

 

Posted on

My Nicholson Ancestors in Liverpool

I was recently looking up information on my mother’s grandmother Annie Nicholson and found a baptismal record for her and her sister Agnes from Liverpool. In that record, her father was listed as a saw maker. This was too much of a coincidence not to be true.

Nicholson Genealogy

Here is what I have at my Nicholson Web Page:

Ann is child 3 and Agnes is child for. This information is now probably wrong as I have them both being born in Sheffield. I had just assumed that they were born there as the Nicholson family history went back quite a ways in Sheffield. My assumption was that they emmigrated from Sheffield to Philiadelphia.

From Sheffield to Liverpool

The time that the Nicholson family was in Liverpool was not caught on the Census as the family was in Sheffield in 1861:

 

Parkwood Springs was part of Brightside:

It looks like Brightside is actually to the West of where I circled. At this time, William and Martha had a daughter who was 9 months old.

Not too long after the 1861 Census which was taken on April 7, the family moved to Liverpool. Sarah Ann was baptized there on January 19, 1862. I can’t make out William Nicholson’s profession other than he was a saw maker:

[Based on my research below, this says Fontenoy Street where the family lived in Liverpool before they moved to Bootle. ] This record is taken from the Bishop’s Transcript. That means that it was copied from another record. Sarah Ann’s sister Emma was baptized on the same day:

Here is a drawing of the downtown Liverpool St Peter’s Church from 1800:

 

My assumption is that Sarah Ann was born in Sheffield and Emma was born in Liverpool.

Ann Eliza and Agnes D

Ann Eliza was my great grandmother. Here is her baptismal record from St. Peter from 1865:

Ann Eliza was born in March and baptized in August. Also of interest is that the family lived in “Bootle”. Or Booth. But it looks like Bootle to me. Maybe the Beatles lived there. Bootle. Beatle. Here is Bootle to the North of Liverpool:

Bootle appears to be a little less than a mile from downtown Liverpool. My guess is that Ann Eliza and Agnes were born in Bootle.

Here is the baptismal record for Agnes:

This took place also at St. Peter’s Church in Liverpool on March 9, 1869.

From Bootle to Philadelphia

There was a tight time-frame for the family getting from Sheffield to Bootle. Now there was another tight time-frame for the Nicholson family moving to Philiadelphia. Here is the ship record for Martha and her children when they arrived in New York City:

William was likely already in Philadelphia at this time. Also it is interesting that Ann went by Eliza at this time. This record tells a story. Martha here traveling without her husband and her four girls from Liverpool to Queensland to New York City. From there they must have gone to Ellis Island and then made their way to Philadelphia where William must have prepared a place for them. My guess is that William missed the US Census that was held on June 1, 1870. However, according to the 1900 Census, William immigrated in 1868:

Let’s see what the 1910 Census says:

This shows he immigrated in 1870, and that he is naturalized. His wife also has an immigration date which doesn’t make sense as she is shown as being born in Pennsylvania.

Some More Parish Records from St Peter’s in Liverpool

My research friend in England reminded me that the Lancashire Online Parish Registers covers LIverpool. So I took a look there. Here is a confusing entry:

This looks like William and Martha were living in Liverpool in 1860 when Maria Baxter Nicholson was baptized. Here is a photo from 1901 of Fontenoy Street:

Here is an 1860 map showing Fontenoy Street:

Here is a modern map including the Beatles Statue:

However, the 1861 Census shows that my ancestors were living in Sheffield. William and Martha were married in 1856, so that would have given them time to have a daughter born in 1858. I can’t think that there were too many saw makers named William Nicholson who were married to a Martha who baptized their children in the same Church (St Peter, Liverpool).

Here is Maria in the 1861 Census in Liverpool The Baxters and others were living at 25 Fontenoy Street:

I might as well get more confused. Here Maria is a boarder or lodger at the house of William Baxter who is also a saw maker. Living in the house was Ann Ellis widow aged 66. So did William move back to Sheffield and say, “William take care of my daughter who I named after you”? And who is Ann Ellis? Martha’s mother was Nancy Roebuck born in 1795, so this could be the same person. That means that Ann Baxter must be Ann Ellis born about 1822:

This could also explain the Sheffield/Liverpool connection.

I see I left an important detail from the Baxter 1861 Census. That is where everyone was born:

Everyone in that Census was born in Sheffield except for Ann Ellis who was born in Thorne.  I have that my ancestor Nancy Ellis was born in Thorne, so this makes sense. That is what I like about the Census. It shows a lot of family relationships and gives a lot of information in a little space.

William Baxter and Ann Ellis

I feel I have enough information to go on to make a case that William Baxter’s wife Ann was actually Ann Ellis. Here is the family in 1851 in Nether Hallam to the West of Sheffield:

William was listed as a saw smith.

More On Ann Roebuck Ellis

Here is Ann in 1871 back in Sheffield:

Ann is listed as a lodger with Elizabeth Roebuck. As Elizabeth is listed as widowed, she could be a sister-in-law. Elizabeth is listed as born in Sheffield and Ann in Thorne.

What I Have Learned So Far

Perhaps a chronology would help

  • April 1858 Maria Baxter born to William Nicholson and Martha Ellis in Sheffield
  • June 1860 Sarah Ann born to William Nicholson and Martha Ellis in Sheffield
  • August 1860 Maria Baxter Nicholson Baptized, Liverpool
  • 1861 Census William, Martha and Sarah Ann living in Sheffield
  • 1861 Maria Baxter Nicholson living with Uncle William Baxter, Aunt Ann Ellis Baxter and grandmother Ann (Nancy) Roebuck Ellis
  • So it is not clear whether William and Martha Nicholson were present at the baptism of their daughter Maria Baxter. I had assumed that they were.
  • Dec 1861 – Emma Nicholson born, probably in Liverpool.
  • Jan 19, 1862 – Emma Nicholson baptized at St Peter’s in Liverpool.
  • Jan 19, 1862 – Sarah Ann Nicholson baptized at St Peter’s  in Liverpool. Emma’s and Sarah’s address is given as Fontenoy Street, Liverpool.
  • March 1865 – Birth of Ann Eliza Nicholson presumed in Boote, Lancashire.
  • August 1865 – Baptism of Ann Eliza at St Peter’s, Liverpool
  • Feb 1869 – Birth of Agnes D Nicholson in Bootle
  • March 1869 – Baptism of Agnes D at St. Peter’s, Liverpool
  • Nov 1870 – Martha Nicholson travels from Liverpool to New York City with her four daughters: Sarah Ann, Emma, Eliza and Agnes. The girls are between the ages of  and 11.
  • 1871 – Martha’s mother Ann Roebuck Ellis now 76 years old is living with Elizabeth Roebuck in North Sheffield.

That seems to summarize about 13 eventful years for the Nicholson family.

A Few Loose Ends

I haven’t found William Nicholson’s shipping record or naturalization records. This may be Maria’s death record from 1866:

Though the family should have been in Bootle by then.

I found out some things about Ann Ellis. I could fill more blanks in with her or her siblings. Here are her siblings:

Summary and Conclusions

  • While I was filling in my brother’s maternal side ancestry for DNA testing, I came upon a few interesting records that indicated my Nicholson ancestors may have lived in Liverpool before moving from Sheffield to Philadelphia
  • I checked the records and they did live there. In fact, my great grandmother Ann Eliza and four of her sisters were baptized in Liverpool.
  • I also found my third great grandmother living in Liverpool with William and Ann Baxter in 1861. This Ann was probably Ann Ellis, Martha Ellis Nicholson’s older sister. For some reason Willliam and Martha Nicholson’s youngest daughter was living in the Baxter house also in 1861 while William and Martha were in Sheffield with their infant second daughter.
  • I left with some follow up work to fill in some of the blanks.
  • I didn’ know last week that I had something in common with the Beatles. Now I know that I do.

 

 

Posted on

Charles: A Hartley Second Cousin at 23andMe

I see that 23andMe shows that I have a DNA match with a second cousin twice removed named Charles. After a little snooping around I think I know who it must be.

Charles’ Genealogy

I keep a DNA/Genealogy tree. These are for people that are related to me and have had their DNA tested. Here is part of the Hartley tree that I have so far:

Jennifer is my second cousin once removed. So Charles will be down an extra layer. James Hartley at the top of the tree had 13 children, so the more descendants I can get the better. I believe that Charles is on the Greenwood Line. Greenwood, also known as Green was born in 1897 in Rochester, MA.

Here is where Charles comes in:

It is good to have DNA from a different line because Greenwood, who was born in 1897, had a different mix of DNA passed down to him from his two parents than any of his other siblings. Chrales represents a fourth generation of DNA testers who have descended from James Hartley and Annie Snell.

My DNA Match with Charles

Here is my matches with Charles at 23andMe:

We match on 5 different chromosomes. I can ‘paint’ that match onto my chromosome map. This is what I have already:

I have a paternal side and maternal side for each of my chromosomes. I match Charles on my paternal Hartley side. Charles will paint in as green as that represents our common ancestors James Hartley and Annie Snell. Right now I am 44% painted overall and 54% painted on my paternal side. I have already painted 13 Hartley/Snell descendants. Let’s see if Charles adds anything unique.

Turns out he doesn’t. And it turns out I had already added his DNA to my chromosome map using DNAPainter which is the program that produces the graphic above. I have already mentioned Charles in a Blog here.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I thought I didn’t know where Charles, my DNA match, fit in, but I had figured  out where Charles fit in before.
  • I now have a note at 23andMe showing where Charles fits in and I have him on my Hartley DNA/genealogy chart.
  • Although Charles could have added new DNA that came down from James Hartley and Annie Snell, he didn’t. That DNA was already covered by twelve other DNA matches who are also descendants of Hartley/Snell.
  • Charles represents a fifth child of Hartley/Snell with DNA matches to me. James Hartley had 13 children. The first child got half of his parents DNA. The second child, combined with the first represented a total of 75% of their parents’ DNA. The third child combined with the first two would have inherited a total of of 87.5% of their parents’ DNA. That means that adding this Greenwood line added a theoretical extra 3% of DNA from James Hartley and Annie Snell.