Using Visual Phasing

I did some visual phasing for Jane and her two siblings. Now Jane wants to see how the visual phasing can be used.

Mr Gray’s 8.5 cM Match

Jane’s first question came from a Mr Gray. He matched Jane and her two siblings at about 8.5 cM. Jane had this conundrum:

For me the match points to Beckham, for Heather it points to Beckham but for Alex it points to Hamilton. Unless it is on Mum’s side as indicated by Jackson for all three of us, but then why wouldn’t Mum share DNA with Mr. Gray?

Here is the right side of Jane’s Chromosome 2 Map. Jane is in the middle bar and her maternal side is on the top bar.

Here is where Jane matches Mr. Gray:

The answer for this one is that this is not a real match. Jane’s mother has tested and Jane has two sets of phased results based on her mother’s results. I ran Mr. Gray against Jane’s paternal and maternal kit and got no results. This means that the match is not real. Different analyses have been done for the chances of a certain size match being real or not. Here is one from Roberta Estes:

These studies seem to show that there is about a 50% chance of a 7 cM match being real. This goes up to a 66% chance of being real for an 8.5 cM match. It looks like Mr Gray fell into that 34% range. The only other possibility is that Jane’s mother could have had a false negative match with Mr. Gray. All in all, I would say that these results would be inconclusive. For me, I tend to say if there is no match on the two phased kits, then there is no match.

Second Example: An Adoptee at 23andme

Only Jane and her mom tested at 23andme. Here is how the adoptee matched Jane:

Chromosome 1:     108 to 151     26 cM

Chromosome 2:     225 to 230     8 cM

Chromosome 3:     104 to 145     41 cM

Chromosome 17     5.7 to 9.3      9 cM

By looking at the Visual Phasing Spreadsheet, Jane deduced that this was on her Beckham Line:

Jane is in the middle bar. The bottom of that bar is her paternal side where Bekham is in blue. I assume that Jane’s mother did not match this adoptee at 23andme.

I have Jane’s Chromosome 2 above where she matches Beckham between 225 and 230 on her paternal side.

The match is significant for Jane as the  match between 104 and 155 goes through her maternal crossover at position 110M. That would confirm that this is a paternal side match on Beckham.

Here is Chromosome 17:

It looks like I had trouble identifying the maternal grandparents, but Jane matches this adoptee in her paternal Beckham region. So I would agree with Jane that this match is on her Beckham side. It would help if this adoptee uploads his/her DNA results to gedmatch.com.

Peggy’s Maternal Match on Chromosome 13

Jane reports these results for Peggy’s matches to her and her siblings:

Heather     74 to 103     31.5 cM

Jane          74 to 91       14 cM

Alex – no DNA

Without looking at Jane’s map, it appears that Jane should have a maternal crossover at around 91M.

Jane has a maternal crossover at 90 on the map where her DNA goes from Adair to Jackson. Alex is on the top row. He has a large maternal Jackson segment which explains why he has no match with Peggy. Jane has determined correctly that this match is along the line of her maternal Adair grandmother.

A Paternal Hillock Match on Chromosome 2

This match has a similar pattern to the previous one. Here Hillock matches:

Jane     40 to 79         41 cM

Alex      119 to 208      8.4 cM

Heather – no DNA

Two siblings match Hillock and one does not. However, in this case, the two siblings match at different locations on Chromosome 2.

Jane again is shown on the middle bar. The paternal side is on the bottom where she matches on her Hamilton grandfather. The match with Alex on the top shows that he should be matching on the Beckham paternal grandmother. However, this is a small match. It is time to check Alex’ paternal phased kit against Hillock.

I forgot that I had lowered the threshold and was surprised to come up with this result:

The location of this match is within the orange Hamilton segment for Alex’ top bar. The match that Jane reported for Alex should have been 199-208 (unphased). That means that my red circle above on Alex’ bar above is not correct.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Jane is fortunate to have a mother whose DNA could be tested. This gives her paternal and maternal matches for Jane and her two siblings.
  • It is important to know first whether the match is on the maternal or paternal side.
  • If there is no maternal or paternal match, I consider that to not be a match.
  • Jane’s conclusions appear to be correct as far as on which grandparent line her matches are on. However, it is important to make sure that the position numbers of the matches are correct to match up with the right grandparent.

 

Ronda’s Ellis DNA

I noted a new match for my mother in law, Joan and her sister Elaine at Gedmatch recently. Here is the match between Ronda and Joan:

Here is how Ronda and Elaine match:

This shows 3.5 generations to a common ancestor. That would typically mean that Elaine and Ronda are 2nd cousins, once removed. Ronda tested at Ancestry, so I looked for a 2nd or third cousin there and couldn’t find Ronda. Ancestry has Elaine and Ronda as 4th cousins by DNA for some reason.

Ronda clearly shows at Ancestry as a 2nd cousin once removed to Elaine. Elaine tested at Ancestry, but Joan did not. Here is a record of the common ancestors:

This photo was from Ronda’s tree but originally posted by someone named Richard.

Ronda is a Great Match

Ronda makes a great DNA match for several reasons:

  1. She comes from a line that is very prolific. James Henry Ellis had 12 children if I counted them right. Imagine if he had two children and one of those had two children through the generations down to today. If there was just one descendant left today, there wouldn’t be other 2nd cousins that had their DNA tested, so there would be no 2nd cousin matches on that line. However, there were a lot of children and a lot of those children had a lot of children. Out of those descendants, some had their DNA tested.
  2. Ronda has a tree at Ancestry and tested there.
  3. Ronda uploaded her results to Gedmatch.com, so I can tell how and where the matches are.
  4. Ronda only descends from one Ellis Line. Descending from more than one line can make things complicated. She also does not appear to match Elaine on other ancestral lines which could make things tricky. One exception is the MacArthur Line which I discuss later on.

A Few Mistakes at AncestryDNA

Ancestry made a few mistakes. The first one was that they have Elaine and Ronda as 4th cousins by DNA. This is a good reason to upload your DNA to gedmatch to get a second opinion. Ancestry has a program that removes some of the DNA matches that are too “matchy”. This works sometimes, but I don’t think it worked so well in this case.

The second mistake had to do with the program that Ancestry used to interpret the family trees. Ronda wrote down that James Henry Ellis married Clarinda Gorrill Ellis. In the tree I had for Elaine, I had that she married Clarinda Gorrill. Ancestry’s computer program was not smart enough to figure out that these two women were the same person. As a result, Ancestry has that Ronda and Elaine are 3rd cousins once removed based on the parents of Clarinda Gorrill. Technically, that is not correct, they are just 2nd cousins once removed.

The Ellis DNA Project

Here is what I have for the existing Ellis DNA Project:

These are people that descend from William Ellis born 1771. Robert and Agnes are there twice because they descend from two different children of William Ellis. Elaine, Joan and Melissa are in green currently on the James Henry Ellis Line. That is where I will add Ronda.

Ships Passing in the Night

However, when I compare Ronda to Melissa at Gedmatch, I get a very small match:

It looks like they are 6th cousins, once removed by DNA. That made me think I had the wrong Ronda. However, it may be that Ronda and Melissa don’t match very well. AncestryDNA seems to show the same issue in their DNA Circle (shown below).

Here is Elaine at the top. Ronda is bottom left and Melissa is on the bottom right with one other person. There is no line connecting Ronda and Melissa at AncestryDNA. That helps confirm that I am on the right track and that I have the right Ronda. Ronda had DNA that matched with Elaine and Joan and Melissa had different DNA that matched with Elaine and Joan.

Here is how Ronda, Elaine and Melissa are related:

Note that Eva Ellis was born in 1895 – 21 years after George. This is one case where triangulation of the DNA matches would not work well. Elaine matches Melissa and Ronda, but Melissa and Ronda don’t match very well and not in the same area that Elaine matches Melissa and Ronda.

Let’s Work the DNA at Gedmatch

Ellis Autosomal Matrix

Here is how all the Ellis descendants match each other:

Here the distinction of the different branches are not as clear as one would like. That could be due to matches on different family lines. Also, I didn’t really need Robert as he is the son of Agnes. Agnes and Robert are in both the Mary Ann and Agnes Lines of Ellis.

Ronda and DNA Triangulation

I noted that Ronda would not triangulate within the James Henry Ellis Line, but I did run everyone against everyone else at Gedmatch:

I found one triangulation group (TG) there. Elaine matches Ronda, Ronda matches Margaret and Margaret matches Elaine. It looks like that hunk of DNA is pointing back to William Ellis from the 1700’s:

I do have a line in blue of the MacArthurs. However, I think that the common ancestor for that line goes back even further than the generation of William Ellis and Hannah Tawton, so I’ll say that this is Ellis DNA rather than MacArthur DNA. In the diagram above, Ronda is a third cousin twice removed to Margaret.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Ronda was a great Ellis match for Joan, my mother-in-law and her sister Elaine.
  • Ronda is a second cousin once removed to Elaine and Joan
  • Ronda is a third cousin with Melissa, but their shared DNA dropped off very quickly from their matches with Joan and Elaine.
  • Ronda triangulated with Elaine and Margaret. This appears to identify the DNA of William Ellis and Hannah Tawton from the late 1700’s

My Grandmother’s Picture Book: Frazer, Clarke, McMaster and ?

This should be a different Blog as it will be more on the genealogical side. This is photo book that I recall from my childhood that my grandmother had. It has thick pages, a sort of velour cover with a fancy spring clasp on the right.

I got the idea for this Blog after hearing from Fred. Fred is third cousin on my Clarke Line. My grandmother’s mother was a Clarke. We have the same 2nd great grandparents by the name of Clarke and Spratt. Fred sent me this photo recently.

This was from a small tin type photo that Fred had enlarged and enhanced. According to Fred, “…that appears to me to be a picture of Catherine Clark McMaster, Violet McMaster, George McMaster and Margaret Clark”. This reminded me of the photo book my grandmother had. It had larger photos in the back, but the smaller tin types in the back. I believe that Violet is Fred’s grandmother. He supposed that the photo was taken about 1888. That is interesting, because that would be about four years before Margaret Clarke married my great-grandfather. Margaret probably arrived in the Boston area around 1884 from Ireland at about the age of 18. It would be interesting to find out where she lived before she got married.

The Photo Book

Although I said that this book was my grandmother’s, it has people in it that lived before she was born. The photos seem to favor the Clarke side of the family. My grandmother lost her mother in 1902 when my grandmother was about 8 years old. I’ll try to reproduce the photo book as well as I can.

Page 1

I almost missed the first photo. This photo slipped out of the page easily. Under the photo on the page were the initials Raa. I don’t know if this is random or significant. I might assume that this person was important, being on page 1 of the book. A wild guess would be William McMaster, but I would have to compare this with a known photo.

Here is a photo of William from Fred’s sister’s tree:

This photo is a 3/4 view, so it is difficult to compare. I can’t tell for sure that the two are not the same person.

[Edit: January 2020. I believe that this man is William McMaster 1859-1899. He married Catherine Clarke, the sister of my great-grandmother. This was sent to me by Fred who is a descendant.]

Probably taken around 1882. Reverse of picture indicates that they were engaged “about 1881” and married October 5, 1882.

I take by the note that this is Catherine Clarke in the photo also. This may help in identifying other photos.

Fred also sent me this photo:

This is a better version of the photo above. Fred also sent me a photo I show later in the Blog:

These are William’s children: George, Bert, Fanny and Violet.

While I am off my grandmother’s book, I should bring up this photo which perhaps was in the book:

This is a photo of James Archibald Frazer. I had previously had thought that this was taken after his wife had died and Catherine Clarke’s husband William McMaster had died. However, I now see that James looks too young for that. Also this doesn’t look like the Catherine in the photo above.

Here is a side by side look:

Maybe? Another cosideration is that Catherine married in 1882. James married in 1892. Perhaps the photo on the left is how Catherine looked 10 years later when James married?

Page 2

 

The pages are about 8 inches by 10 inches and the photos are smaller. I’ll try to scan a smaller area.

This is my grandmother’s mother. I am not sure if this would be before, during or after she was married.

Page 3

My guess is that the first two photos could be wedding photos.

PAGE 4

I’m not sure if this is the same woman as the one in the photo from Fred. It looks like I caught a thread of the book in the scan. I know that there was an older Aunt Celia in the area, a sister Celia, Catherine and Margaret. I also thought that there may have been a sister Jane.

Page 5

Margaret again.

Page 6

James Archibald Frazer again. Looks like this could use sume touching up. I haven’t enhanced any of these photos.

Page 7

I’m guessing one of the Clarkes.

Page 8

Margaret Clarke Frazer

Page 9

George William Frazer and her sister ( my grandmother) Marion Margaret Frazer. I seem to remember a large colorized version of this or a similar photo. I don’t know where it ended up.

Page 10

I did enhance this a bit. Another shot of Margaret. My grandmother lost her mother at about age 8, so I’m sure these photos were important to her.

Page 11

I was able to slip this photo out and add a little constrast. My mother’s brother George William was born 1896, so that would put this photo at 1897.

Page 12

This photo was taken at the Elmer Chickering Studio at 21 West St., Boston. I think the original is a bit clearer.

Page 13

Great grandma is stylin’ in this photo.

Page 14

My guess is that these are the same two children that Fred sent me in his tintype picture. If Fred’s photo was 1888, perhaps this was 1889.

Page 15

If I had to guess, I would say another one of the Clarke sisters or Aunt Celia? I quite like the composition whoever it is. It reminds me somewhat of a colonial painting.

Page 16

Again, I am going with my standard Clarke female guess. The man to the left is perhaps a husband? He looks as if he could be a brother, but I have no record of a brother visiting or living here.

Page 17

I’m tempted to call this one the serious baby. I can only assume that this was the baby of one of the Clarke sisters.

Page 18

.

Here is an unusual photo. I might guess that she would have been a maid or nanny for my great grandfather James Frazer. I note that the photo was taken at a different studio. This woman has what appears to be a wedding ring. She is holding a book and has her finger inside the pages as if to say that she is educated. I can’t make out the name of the book except for the word, “power”.

Page 19

I am a bit past halfway in the book.

My guess for this person is Richard Frazer born 1875. According to my web page, ” He married Elizabeth Lenore Rice, daughter of Ivory Fogg Rice and Mary McCartee, on 12 May 1902 at Portsmouth, New Hampshire.” Note that the photo was taken in Portsmout, NH. This could have possibly been a wedding photo.

Page 20 and 21

Page 20 is the same as page 3. Page 21 is the same as page 2. These are the two photos that I supposed to be wedding photos.

Page 22

Can’t have too many photos of one’s great grandfather.

Page 23

Here I’m leaning toward business associate. Here are a few guesses from James’ Naturalization papers dated 18 October 1905:

Page 24

This person is a bit of a mystery. The best clue is that he had the photo taken in Franklin, MA. He also appears a bit older than some of the men in the other photos.

Page 25

Page 25 is the same as page 6.

Page 26

No idea. This person bears no resemblance to some of the others. He appears to be wearing a military uniform.

Page 27

Here there is a clue. The photo was not taken in Boston, but Gorham, NH. All we have to do is search in Gorham, NH for a relative. A search for Gorham shows it to be just North of Mount Washington.

Page 28

I’m hoping that someone will come accross this Blog and tell me who some of these people are. This is the studio where the black woman had her photo taken.

Page 29

I am associating the curley hair with the Clarkes.

Page 30

I think this is a boy? The light hair could go with the guy in the military suit, but there was some light hair in the Frazer family also. I can see a cross on this little person. I also have a photo of George McMaster (brother of Violet) that looks a little similar to this person. I believe that Violet’s granddaughter sent this to me.

I suppose that it might even be possible to look at where each of these studios were to see if that made a difference compared to where some of these people may have lived.

[Edit: January 2020] I see in my McMaster File, I have this photo labeled: George, Herbert, Violet McMaster. I also have the following photo in my McMaster file:]

This photo is named George, Bert, Fanny, Violet. These were all children of William McMaster and Catherine Clarke.

That was the last of the larger photos. Following this are six pages with four smaller photos each in them.

Page 31A

Do I have relatives in Taylorville, Il?

Page 31B

This photo appears to be trimmed down. I can’t tell where the photo was taken.

Page 31C

This is the first tintype. These tintypes give an older look to the photos.

Page 31D

At first, I thought these two were my great grandfather James Archibald Frazer, but now I’m not so sure. I’ll say it is him with his hair part inversed by the tintype

Page 32A

This photo appeared to have been trimmed down from something else. Also a tintype.

Page 32B

Apparently these tintypes are a reverse image. Here is the flip side:

So apparently a Toronto relative. Could this be a Frazer relative?

Page 32C

Another trimmed-down tintype of 2 cute girls – assumed sisters.

Page 32D

Here is a non-tinype among the tintypes. A distinguished self-assured looking couple in Belfast. I’m not aware of any Belfast connection in my ancestry which makes me wonder who these two are.

Page 33

Here is what a typical tintype page looks like in the book:

 

Page 33A

I just need a program with facial recognition.

Page 33B

Page 33C

The guy bottom left looks like the same person that was on P 23. My guess is the best man at the wedding. I would need to find Parish records to find out that type of information.The other two appear to be Margaret Clarke and my great-grandfather, James Frazer.

Page 33D

This appears to be my great-grandmother on the left wearing a Wonder Woman belt. I had thought the woman on the right looked familiar, but now I’m not sure.

Page 34A

These look to me to be two sisters.

Page 34C

34B is missing.

Does she look like the woman on the left above?

Page 34D

Page 35A

Page 35B

Photos like this and the Belfast and Toronto photos raise quite a few questions. In a record I saw recently, my great-grandfather was a tea dealer. Could this photo have something to do with that? This was another non-tintype photo.

Page 35C

Looks to me like Margaret Clarke.

Page 35D

The same as 31C

Page 36A

Is this the same woman as 34A? Perhaps with her husband?

Page 36B

Somebody’s pride and joy.

Page 36C

Same as 33D

Page 36D

Summary and Conclusions

  • A major reason for me putting these photos out there is that I hope that some people will recognize who these are
  • These photos can spur research or direct research. For example, what are my Illinois, Belfast and Edinburgh connections?
  • Taking the photos out and looking at where they were taken was helpful
  • My guess is that most of the photos were from around the time when my great-grandmother Margaret Clarke was in the US. This would have been between about 1884 and 1902 when she died.
  • I have definitely increased the number of photos of people that I know and that I do not know.
  • The photos help to give a picture of the people that my great grandparents knew, even if I don’t know who they are.
  • A next step may be to sort the unknown people by those that look most like each other.
  • I also want to look into facial recognition software.

Jennifer, a Top DNA Match at 23andme

I was in touch with Jennifer at 23andme recently as I wondered how we were related. Jennifer wrote back to me and said that her grandmother was a Gurney. From there, I could tell how we were related.

 

The green boxes have people in them that have had their DNA tested. Jennifer is in the bottom right. All these people descend from James Hartley and Annie Snell who had 13 children. Colleen is Joyce’s granddaughter. She also tested at 23andme and we have been in touch recently.

Jennifer’s DNA

The DNA that Jennifer and I share is from either James Hartley or Annie Snell. We can’t tell which. In order to figure that out we would need to have a match with a Hartley that isn’t related to a Snell or a Snell that isn’t related to a Hartley.

Here is what that DNA looks like on a Chromosome Browser at 23andme:

 

My Chromosome Map

I have been mapping my Chromosomes. That means that I have been keeping track of where my DNA comes from. Here is what I have so far:

The second to the lightest blue is the DNA that I know is from James Hartley or Annie Snell. This would be from all the other people in the green boxes that have had their DNA tested. This appears on the male side of my Chromosomes shown as the top side above. About half of my paternal side DNA should be from the Hartley/Snell side. The other half is Frazer from my father’s mother.

If I superimpose my match with Jennifer with my chromosome map above, there will be places that Jenneifer matches with DNA that I have already gotten from other cousins. There are also places that I haven’t had a match yet. I think that Jennifer will add new Hartley/Snell DNA to my map on Chromosomes 3 and 10.

I have circled the new parts of Hartley/Snell DNA that Jennifer and I share.

Comparing Jennifer with Others at 23andme

The view above is how my DNA compares to:

  • Jennifer in purple
  • Colleen in orange
  • Brian in yellow

I know how I am related to Jennifer and Colleen, but I don’t know how I am related to Brian. Brian is a shared match with Jennifer. That means he probably has a common ancestor somewhere in the ancestry of James Hartley and Annie Snell. I would like to know which ancestor the yellow bar on Chromosome 10 represents but Brian has no ancestry tree.

Chromosome 10 Ancestor, Where Art Thou?

Emily at 23andme also shares DNA with Jennifer and me. She has a bit of a tree at MyHeritage:

The bottom line would be Emily’s parents. The way our DNA is matching, 23andme estimates our relationship to be at 4th cousins. Emily shows all four grandparents. However, that would be the 1st cousin level. The level we may be matching at may be three generations or so beyond that level. The Lee Line appears to be in Scotland, so I would rule that out. That leaves three grandparents at the 1st cousin level:

  • 6 great grandparents – 2nd cousins
  • 12 2nd great grandparents – 3rd cousins
  • 24 3rd great grandparents – 4th cousins

That means that I would need to build out Emily’s line to 24 3rd great grandparents before I might find a common ancestor. I’m too busy, so I’ll look at another matching person.

Shamus’ Tree

I match Shamus at about the same segment that I match Jennifer, Brian, and Emily on Chromosome 10. However, Shamus has a tree at FTDNA. Shamus’ paternal side is Irish, and my Hartley side has no known Irish ancestors. So I’ll look at Shamus’ maternal side:

The first two people are Shamus’ maternal grandparents. So that would be 1st cousin level. Assuming that I am 4th cousin with Shamus, that would be the last column of 16 ancestors. Actually, there are 15 as one is missing. This means that Shamus has done a lot of the work on his tree that I would have had to have done on Emily’s tree and that I couldn’t do on Brian’s tree because I had nowhere to start. Unfortunately, I don’t recognize any of these names as being in my tree.

FTDNA does identify these surnames that are both of our trees:

These are names that go way back to colonial times.

Any Inman Connection?

I did notice that Shamus was missing a mother for Earle Inman. According to one ancestry tree, his mother was Lydia Wheelock born 1812. That same tree has her father as Avis Handy which doesn’t make sense unless Lydia was married more than once.

I did notice that Townsend should not be on my list. For some reason my ancestry tree had Townsend as the father of the Almy family. That wasn’t right, so I changed it.

The Wing Connection

There is a connection between Shamus and me, but it goes back to the 1500’s. That is a long time ago:

John Wing born in 1584 had Daniel Wing who I descend from and Stephen Wing who Shamus descends from. John Wing is my 10th great grandfather. So that would make Shamus and me approximately 11th cousins. I wouldn’t be ready to assign the DNA to the Wing family just yet. However, the DNA seems to come from a colonial Massachusetts source.

My Shared DNA Matches with Shamus

Here are some other people that share DNA at Chromosome 10 from Gedmatch:

All that shared DNA and I can’t figure out where it comes from. The match between me and Shamus is at the top. Then other matches appear to have gotten their DNA from the same place that Shamus and I have.

The other people are:

  • Randy – no tree
  • Don – no tree found
  • Valarie – no tree found
  • Kathy – She had a good tree, but I couldn’t find good matches by both place and name
  • Jessica – no tree found
  • Michelle – can’t find tree
  • Cheyenne – She has a large tree at Ancestry, but no obvious match
  • Sean – no tree

At this point, I’m ready to call it quits.

More DNA Mapping

As I went back and looked at Colleen’s DNA compared to me, I see we have some DNA that I haven’t mapped on Chromosome 9. This would have had to have come from Colleen’s grandmother Joyce. That means that I must have not mapped Joyce’s DNA to my Chromosome Map:

Here is my match with Joyce:

Here is what I had:

Here is the new map:

This filled in some more Hartley/Snell DNA on my Chromosome 9 and in some other areas – most notably Chromosomes 2 and 14.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at Jennifer’s DNA. We are 2nd cousins once removed and we both tested at 23andme
  • Jennifer added new DNA from my great-grandparents that I didn’t know about before.
  • I tried to track down the common ancestors for a shared match on Chromosome 10 but had no luck.
  • I noticed from comparison with Colleen, that I had missed her grandmother Joyce when making my Chromosome map, so I added her results.

 

Bob, a Harbour Buffet Descendant’s DNA Results

I haven’t written about the Dicks family for a while. Clayton told me recently that his cousin Bob had his DNA tested and uploaded to Gedmatch. I had written a Blog about Clayton  here in May, 2017. In that Blog, I found that Clayton did not have a lot of obvious matches to others in the Dicks Project that I was working on. His biggest match of people in that project was with my wife’s Aunt Esther:

Bob’s Genealogy [Note, I Show This to be Wrong Below ]

Here is what I get for Bob and Clayton’s tree:

It would be tempting to think that Clayton and Bob’s John is the same that I now have in the Dicks DNA Project:

At the time I wrote about Clayton, only Esther and Joan were in the Christopher (born 1812) LIne. Now this Line is quite large.

Looking at Bob’s DNA

I’ll run Bob’s DNA against all the people in the Christopher Dicks Line. That is, the line of Christopher born 1812 shown above. If Bob and Clayton are in the John Dicks Line b 1844, they will show as 1st cousins twice removed to Anne above.

More DNA Problems

I circled where the problem is:

Published matching results for 1st cousins, twice removed show that the match should be within these ranges:

Clayton and Bob match Anne at 10.1 and 24 cM. Normally, I could not say that someone is not related by not matching at DNA. However, in this case, I can say that Anne is not a 1st cousin, twice removed to Bob and Clayton.

What Are the Possibilities?

Now that we know Anne is not related to Bob and Clayton in the way that the genealogy was suggesting, what are the possibilities?

  1. Anne’s John Dicks and Bob’s John Dicks may have been two different people. However, Bob and Clayton don’t seem to match other Dicks Lines well by DNA.
  2. It is possible that Clayton and Bob carry the true Dicks Line and that William Dicks was adopted into the Dicks Line. However, this doesn’t seem possible due to the same reason that Clayton and Bob do not have good, consistent matches with other Dicks descendants.
  3. Charles Dicks born 1886 may have been adopted by John Dicks. This seems more likely than scenario #1 or #2. John’s wife may have been married previously and had a child. Many parents died in these days and others raised the children.

An Email to Clayton and Re-Grouping [This is Where the Mistake is Fixed]

I told Clayton my initial results and got some more information. It appears from his email that there was more than one John Dicks. That means that my assumption in #2 above was wrong. Here is what Clayton had to say:

from what I’ve collected is Me 1985-> Dad 1961-> Leslie Dicks 1930 -> Charles Dicks 1886 -> John Dicks 1857 -> David Dicks 1831 -> Chris Dicks 1812.  These records were from two Dicks relatives who had sent my dad their records sometime in the 90’s and he had kept around.   Both of them we’re connected through Henry Dicks 1775. Their info is a little muddy though as David seems to have died in a fishing accident only a few months after John was born so the records on him are basically non-existent.

Clayton sent a screenshot of his Ancestry Tree which was helpful. His understanding of his ancestry was something like this:

Clayton’s tree had his ancestor David (born 1831) as a brother of Catherine Dicks who married Henry Upshall. I added in other lines I’ve been working on. Green means that the person has tested their DNA and uploaded to gedmatch. Now rather than Bob and Clayton being 1st cousins once removed to Anne, they are second cousins three times removed. That is quite a difference. This may not be the right configuration, but it should be closer than what I had. Under this proposed tree, Clayton and Bob are also 2nd cousins three times removed to Esther.

Any Triangulation Groups for Clayton and Bob?

If Clayton and/or Bob are in any Triangulation Groups (TGs) that would give strong evidence to their place in the Dicks Line.

We Have Triangulation on Chromosome 5

This is what a Triangulation Group (TG) looks like. This one has Bob, Dorothy, Grace, Barry, Anne, and Nelson. The gold region indicates those that are in the TG. Actually, Edward, Molly, Howie and Diddie are in a different TG, so I added that also to my list.

In order to draw this TG, I put Bob and Clayton in the Christopher Dicks b 1812 Line:

 

Assuming the configuration is right, these six triangulate on Christopher Dicks born about 1774. Another point is that Bob, Barry and Anne triangulate on the Christopher Dicks born 1812.

TG10A

 

This TG has Clayton, Edward and Diddie in it. I haven’t introduced DIddie to a Blog yet, but she is Marilyn’s Aunt. Note that Diddie is on two Dicks Lines. I favor the Crann Line on the right as my theory is that Christopher, born 1812 married a Crann. However, the TG could be on either one of the lines.

TG10B

The spreadsheet version:

 

Ken is in two differnt Dicks Lines also.

Ken is in the Burton Line on the left and Crann Line on the right. Barry is in the Christopher Line. I mentioned my preference for the Crann line above.

TG18

There are others that almost make it into this TG but the matches must be under 7 cM. Forrest (again from the Crann Line) would also be in a TG with Anne and Randy.

Here is the Bob, Randy, Anne TG

It is difficult to explain why there could be two TGs in the same place. This may be due to intermarriage. The only other non-intermarriage explanation would be that there are maternal and paternal TGs.

Here is the mysterious TG with Forrest, Anne and Randy almost in the same spot as the one with Bob, Randy and Anne. I tried to get Bob to match with Forrest, but had no luck.

If I had to choose one TG over the other, I would choose the second as the match levels are higher. It is possible that Bob’s low matches on Chromosome 18 are false matches. That brings up an interesting point. On Chromosome 5, Bob’s matches are higher outside the Christopher DIcks (born 1812) than inside that group. This may just be the DNA messing with us. However, he does have a lot of matches with people within the Christopher group. They are just smaller matches. That brings up my two laws of genetic genealogy.

My Two Laws of Genetic Genealogy

  1. The DNA is messing with us. DNA has been around for a longer time than we have and wants to prove that it is smarter than we are. It knows that it has random qualities and uses that fact to throw us off track.
  2. The ancestors are messing with us. Our ancestors did things to throw us off track also. They overused the name Christopher, for example. They married very young or very old and had children at a very young or old age. They also decided to move to places where there were no records or where the churches burnt down with the records inside. Then they married cousins, and so on…

As you can see, both of those laws are in play in the case of Bob and Clayton.

TG Summary for Bob and Clayton

  • Bob had low-level matches with others in the Christopher (born 1812) Line, but had quite a few of these matches
  • I found two new TGs that Clayton was in and two new ones that Bob was in. Often at this stage of a DNA project, people will be joining existing TGs, but Bob and Clayton made new TGs.
  • When I looked at Clayton’s DNA previously, I didn’t find him in any TGs. However, since that time new people have been added to the Christopher (born 1812) group
  • Every TG that Bon and Clayton were in had at least one other person from the Christopher Group in it.
  • Clayton was in a TG with Diddie and a TG with Ken. Both Diddie and Ken descend from a Crann Line. However they also descend from two other Lines.
  • I had a few ideas how there could be overlapping TGs on Chromosome 18 that included two of the same people.

One Last Revision

I had some correspondence with Bob following the initial publication of this Blog. He felt that there was some good reasons to have his line under the Robert Dicks/Crann Line. I am not a specialist on Dicks genealogy. This is the line of my wife’s mother’s mother’s father’s mother. That is perhaps a bit obscure for me. I didn’t have a strong feeling from the DNA that the family had to be in the Christopher Dicks Line. I was noting connections to the Robert Dicks/Crann Line. I have also mentioned that I believe that Christopher Dicks married Elizabeth Crann, so there is also that connection.

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • I initially came to a bad conclusion based on a misunderstanding of Bob and Clayton’s family tree. DNA has to work together with genealogy for it to work right.
  • I tend to leave my mistakes in my Blogs as a warning to others (and myself)
  • Thanks to input from Clayton, I got the genealogy more in line
  • Clayton’s best shot at his genealogy put him and Bob further away from other Dicks cousins. This was more in accord with the DNA results I was seeing.
  • By running Bob and Clayton’s results against all the Dicks DNA Project, I found 4  new TGs that Bob and Clayton are in.
  • One of the TGs was confusing as it overlapped with another TG and had two of the same people in each TG
  • The TGs that Bob and Clayton were in always included someone else from the Christopher Dicks (born 1812) Line. That leads me to believe that Bob and Clayton are in the Christopher Dicks Line as proposed by Clayton’s genealogy.
  • I’m quite amazed at the growth of the DNA-tested Christopher Dicks Line in that past year
  • I mentioned the Crann connection briefly and would like to look at that more closely in the future. Perhaps in my upcoming Blog on Diddie.

 

 

 

Visual Phasing of My Canadian Frazer Relatives

One of the Canadian Line of Frazers descends from my 2nd great-grandfather’s brother. His name was Richard Frazer born 1830 in Roscommon County, Ireland:

My 2nd great-grandfather was George William Frazer, born about 1838. Here are the two lines as shown with their descendants that have taken a DNA test:

Visual Phasing

Visual Phasing is comparing the DNA results of three siblings (or more) and figuring out from which of their four grandparents they got their DNA from on each of their chromosomes. I did that with myself and my four tested siblings. Now on the yellow line we have Susan, Doreen and Ken who have all had their DNA tested. I am 4th cousins to Susan, Doreen and Ken. However, by figuring out where we got our DNA from, it will be almost like comparing our grandparents to each other. Richard Price “Pat” Frazer will be compared with my grandmother, Marion Margaret Hartley. These grandparents would have been second cousins to each other. Now we didn’t get all our grandparents’ DNA, but what we did get, we will be able to identify and compare.

Steven Fox’s Excel Spreadsheet for Visual Phasing.

If you do a Google search for Steven Fox and Visual Phasing, you will find a lot of information and blogs of other’s that have used his spreadsheet. It is possible to do Visual Phasing without his spreadsheet, but his spreadsheet makes it easier, more organized and more standardized.

Jumping in with Chromosome 22

Chromosome 22 is the shortest, so some people start with that one. There should be fewer crossovers on this Chromosome. The downside is that there are also usually fewer cousin matches on this short Chromosome.

This image is small but if you click on it, it should get larger. The top bar compares Ken (K) and Susan (S). The vertical lines represent crossovers where DNA received changes from one grandparent to another. The location of these changes or crossovers are important. It is also important to know to which sibling these crossovers get assigned to. The first crossover is found where the match between Ken and Susan goes from HIR or FIR. HIR is Half Identical Region. That means that Ken and Susan both got the DNA from one of their 4 grandparents at that segment. The problem is, we don’t know which grandparent. After the crossover, represented by the first vertical line, Ken and Susan have an FIR. This is a Fully Identical Region. That means that Ken and Susan both got their DNA in that segment from two of the same grandparents. One matching grandparent was on the maternal side and one was on the paternal side.

Finding the Location for the First Crossover

The second crossover is easy to find, because it is at the same place where Susan and Doreen go from no match to a match. This spot is recorded by Gedmatch at 23,564,890. I could call that 24M or 23.6 depending on how exact I want to be. In the case above, I called it 23.6. To get the first crossover, we have to look at the comparison between Ken and Susan at full resolution at Gedmatch.

Here is the first part of Ken and Susan’s comparison at Chromosome 22:

This says that the beginning of Chromosome 22 doesn’t even start until position 14.5M where M is million. Every little ^ is one million. So counting back from 20M, Ken and Susan go from HIR to FIR between 15 and 16M. I’ll call it 15.7M. The pink part is a centromere. Usually this would be at the center of the chromosome, but there must be information at the very start of Chromosome 22 that isn’t used.

One Crossover or Two on the Right Side of Chr22?

Here is a blowup of the last two crossovers. On the top bar, there is a spot where Ken and Susan go from HIR to FIR. However, this does not line up with position 45.4M where Ken and Doreen go from no match to an FIR. However, to be sure, I need to know where Ken and Susan go from an HIR to an FIR.

According to Gedmatch, the end of Ken and Susan’s match is at 49.5M. That means the last ^ is 49M. That means that Ken and Susan’s change from HIR to FIR is between 45 and 46. I’ll say 45.7. This is pretty close to 45.4, so a judgement call. I’ll just leave it as I had it.

Assigning the Crossovers

The crossover usually gets assigned to the person that is in two of the changes. This is easier to see in the second crossover. There is a change in the top and bottom comparisons. The first comparison is Ken and Susan. The last comparison is between Susan and Doreen. Susan is the common denominator, so she gets the crossover.

I gave the first crossover to Ken:

I had forgotten why. Now I remember. I think that there is actually a very small match that doesn’t show up between Ken and Doreen at the beginning of the Chromosome. It is very subtle, but I’d say that there is more green in the beginning of the K&D comparison compared to the S&D comparison. These crossover assignments can be a bit of an art. If I had lowered the match resolution it should have shown up as a blue match there.

The last two crossovers were not easy either:

These changes have to come in pairs. That means that I had to treat the little segment between D and S as an FIR on the bottom comparison. That means that there are two changes for Doreen first making that her crossover. Then there are two changes for Susan (top and bottom comparisons).

Working on the Segments

This image is the end result, but I will say how I got there. First I started with K&S. They have a FIR for the second segment. This shows as dark green. In the image above, that means that Ken and Susan have two of the same colors. They match with one maternal grandparent and one paternal grandparent. Because Ken has no crossover to the right of the second segment, I can extend that DNA all the way to the right end of the Chromosome on both Ken’s maternal and paternal sides. Also in the second segment, Doreen has no matches with Ken or Susan. That means she has the spouse of the other two grandparents in that slot. So instead of orange and purple, she gets blue and green there. She has no crossover to the left and none on the right until near the end of the Chromosome.

At some point I have to deal with a HIR. I did that with Susan after the second segment. Susan has a HIR to Ken and Doreen. I made Susan match Ken’s purple but not his orange. We already knew that Ken and Doreen had no match in the third segment, so Doreen got the opposite colors there.

The last three bars in the image above represent Gladys’ match with Ken, Susan and Doreen. She shows a match with only Ken and not Doreen nor Susan. This has to be in Ken’s orange section as that is the only place along the match with Gladys that one of his segments is different than Doreen’s or Susan’s.

Gladys and Ken only match on the Frazer Line. Gladys has no Gray DNA. That means orange has to be Frazer. The only other paternal side is Gray so blue has to be Gray. I don’t have specific information on Ken, Susan and Doreen’s maternal side, so those are just labeled G3 and G4 for now. Actually, they should be M1 and M2 for maternal grandparents:

Ken and siblings’ father’s name is Stefansson and their mother’s surname is Gudmundsdottir.

How to Use Visual Phasing

Now that we know where Ken, Susan and Doreen got their DNA from on most of their Chromosome 22, what can we do with this information?

Part of the information is educational. Knowing how our DNA recombined by way of our grandparents is interesting. It is a kind of snapshot of what went into our makeup at conception.

Another part has to do with DNA matches. This focus us as to where our matches are. However, there is still one hitch. We still need to know if our matches are on our maternal or paternal side. If we don’t have a parent to compare our matches with, then it is possible to compare matches with known relatives.

Use of Crossovers

The exception to this is if Susan were to have a match that started before her crossover at 23.6 and continued beyond it. For a match that goes through a crossover, it has to be on the other side. So for such a match for Susan, this could not be a Frazer match but must be on her mother’s side.

These visual phasing maps work best when you have downloaded all your matches. Then you will know for every Chromosome which grandparent they will match depending where in the Chromosome your match is. If you have a lot of matches that end at a certain place and then other matches that start up again at that spot, that could be indicative of a crossover.

Separating Real Matches from Far Away or False Matches

Another way to use these results is to tell if a match is real or not. Here is part of mapped Chromosome 22 showing a small match between Doreen and Michael of the Frazer Project:

It shows that Michael only matches Doreen and not Susan nor Ken. Michael’s match is indicated by a blue bar at the bottome right of the image above. However, Doreen has no Frazer DNA in that segment. She only has Gray DNA on her paternal side. So, it may mean that Doreen matches Michael on the Gray line going way back or less likely on the Icelandic Line. But Michael could not be matching on the Frazer Line assuming I have mapped this correctly. As I mentioned, this is a small match of 5.6 cM. Matches under 7 cM have more than a 50% chance of not being real matches.

Comparison with My Visual Phasing

Here is my Chromosome 22. It is mapped along with three of my siblings. I didn’t get around to mapping Lori.

When I compare the two maps, I can see where my siblings have the potential to match with Ken, Doreen and Susan along the Frazer Line. It doesn’t mean we have to match there. For example, my Frazer grandparent DNA also has Clarke and McMaster DNA that Ken, Doreen and Susan don’t have. Likewise, Ken, Susan and Doreen have other DNA in their Frazer line that I would not share.

Extra Chromosome Mapped

While I was at it, I mapped Chromosome 12:

This was a little easier, because more cousins matched on this Chromosome. One interesting thing about this Chromosome is that between about 88 and 104M, there is no Frazer DNA. That means that if any of these siblings have a match in that area, it could not be a Frazer match.

This map had three spots that appeared to go from a no-match to a FIR or from a FIR to a no-match. This is impossible, so there needs to be a HIR transition. That is why there are three places where the crossovers are close.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Visual Mapping shows the process of our makeup based on how our grandparents’ DNA combined to form us
  • This mapping can be helpful in identifying DNA matches
  • Special attention should be made to crossovers. That is where DNA on one side of our Chromosome changed from one grandparent to the other.
  • If a match goes through a maternal crossover, for example, it means that match must be on the paternal side.
  • A lot of genetic genealogy is about separating out the DNA and visual phasing goes a long way in doing this.
  • Other sorting can be done by names or location of matches. As Ken, Doreen and Susan’s mom is Icelandic a clue as to the matches’ names, locations or genealogy can be a hint as far as placing them.
  • Visual Phasing works best when there are good cousin matches on all four grandparent sides.

 

 

 

 

 

Toni’s DNA and Ancestry on the James Frazer Line

I had previously written a Blog about Toni’s sister Penny here.

Toni’s Genealogy

The genealogy I will be looking at will be for those that have tested their DNA. This simplifies the trees.

This is Toni’s Frazer branch going back to about 1821. William somehow made his way from Ireland to Sacramento, California by 1860:

William was a lumber dealer based on the 1860 Census and others. Here is up and coming Sacramento about 1857:

According to William’s will, he had a son Edward F Frazer who was to inherit his lumber business. The will mentions a deceased daughter Mary A Quinton. It mentions a daughter Angelina in Ireland:

Finally, the will mentions William’s deceased daughter, Margaret “Whiton”

Sadly, Margaret died in 1880 at age 33 of puerperal fever. This was a death related to child birth.

The Larger Picture

Here is one step up from William Fitzgerald:

At this point, the trees start getting less certain. Joanna is very keen on finding out about this branch as are other DNA tested descendants. Note the Mary Ann Quinton noted in the Will in the tree above Clyde and Carol.

Perhaps Mary A Frazer’s daughter Grace Angelina was named for William’s daughter Angelina G.

Here is the whole James Line of known DNA-tested descendants:

Penny and Toni are on the bottom left. They descend from an elder son William, son of Archibald who was an elder son of another Archibald, who was an elder son of James at the top of the Line. It would be nice if the DNA could give us some clues as to whether we are on the right track with this tree.

The  Plan

A simple plan is to see how Toni and Penny match the people on the chart:

 

I have taken some reported match figures for the different relationships from an ISOGG web page. I would think that the zero matches may be under reported, so the averages may be high. In the table above, I have Carol and Kathy in italics. That is because they are daughters of Clyde and Charlotte, so any DNA they got, they got from their mothers.

When I compare everyone, I see that there are 17 people tested for DNA in the James Line. I had missed Madeline, Charlotte’s sister in my chart above, so I added her.

James Line Autosomal Matrix

The first tool I use at Gedmatch is the Autosomal Matrix. This compares everyone to everyone else in the James Line.

Here I see something interesting. In this matrix, Penny and Toni are matching with the Thomas Line with larger numbers than within the William Line. That is true except for their matches with Jonathan. I should note that the autosomal matrix uses a smaller cutoff than the general matching number of 7 cM.

How do I explain this?

Here is how I filled in my earlier chart:

I can make a few observations:

  • In general, Toni had higher DNA matches with other Frazers than Penny
  • Penny and Toni’s matches within the William Fitzgerald Line are dependent on Clyde.
  • It seems clear from the genealogy that Penny, Toni, Clyde and Carol are all in the William Fitzgerald Frazer Line. That means that Penny and Toni’s closer matches to the Thomas Henry Line are due to the randomness of DNA inheritance.
  • Penny’s matches with the Thomas Line are a little below average. Toni’s matches with those in the Thomas Henry Line are above average.
  • Toni and Penny’s matches with all others in the James Frazer Line are below average, including within their own William Fitzgerald Line.
  • All matches are within reported matching ranges.

Triangulating in the James Frazer Line

Triangulation Groups are where three or more people’s DNA match each other on the same segment. This should result in a common ancestor. I need to do a major overhaul on the James Line Triangulation Groups (TGs), as I haven’t looked at them in a while.

Chromosome 1

Here *B is Betty on the chart below.

This TG appears to confirm that Achibald born about 1792 (or his unknown wife) is the common ancestor for Toni, Betty and Joanna.

Chromosome 2 and 4: Bonnie, Judy and Gary

This is like one TG that was broken up, so it is now two. Bonnie has an interruption in her match between about position 6 and 10M.

 

Here is a TG with the same people in Chromosome 4:

This TG is from 110 to 123M at a minimum. This brings up and interesting point as there is already a TG on the Archibald side from 11-115M.

How can this be? This could be for many reasons. There is a 50% chance that the Judith/Bonnie/Gary TG could be a Charlotte Davidson TG. That would be the most obvious explanation. The other would be that the Archibald Line TG is a Stinson TG. There are other possibilities.

A TG at Chr 5 and 7?

I questioned this because Madeline and Charlotte are sisters:

Normally sisters are not included in TGs, but here Kathy who is Charlotte’s daughter is included. I would normally include an aunt and a niece in a TG. Plus this shows that if Kathy inherited the segment from her mom, that it is likely to be a valid match.

We have the same situation at Chromosome 7:

I think it’s a valid TG. I’m not sure if everyone would agree with me.

Chr 12, 15, and 16 Frazer or Davidson?

 

Without further information (matches) it is not possible to know if these are Frazer or Davidson TGs as discussed above.

Chr 14 TG

This TG is clearer:

This is quite a long-range TG. It goes all the way back to James Frazer (or his wife). There are other possibilities, but the one I drew seems the most obvious. For example, what if the Archibald  born 1792 married a Knott. Then the most recent common ancestor could be a Knott in the generation after James Frazer. At any rate, the fact that Toni is in the TG means that Gary and Judith should not be matching each other on the Davidson side – assuming Toni has no Davidson ancestors.

TG 16

I think I’m getting near the end. This is a four person TG including siblings Joanna and Jonathan.

This is also a James Line TG. That explains why the matches with Beverly are smaller than the ones between Toni, Joanna and Jonathan. Beverly is a 5th cousin to Joanna and Jonathan and a 5th cousin once removed to Toni. However, Toni is a third cousin once removed to Joanna and Jonathan.

A TG Summary

We now have a good collection of TGs for the James Line:

 

 

The two dark lavender TGs at the bottom go over to the Archibald Line. TG15C includes Paul and TG 17B includes Doug.

The orange looking TGs could be Davidson or Frazer TGs as discussed above. Other than the orange TGs there are no TGs that appear to be specifically Frazer/Knott or Michael Frazer (b 1764) TGs. Beverly is in two TGs, but neither one is in the Frazer/Knott group.

Toni’s DNA testing resulted in five new TGs. The Frazer/Peyton group seems more well-behaved as far as the TGs. That group has TGs that are just within what we have as the Frazer/Peyton Line and wihtin the Achibald 1792 Line below that.  Toni is a good example of why siblings get their DNA tested. Her sister Penny was not in any of the five TGs that Toni was in.

Summary and Conclusions

  • William Fitzgerald Frazer made his way accross the world from Ireland to Sacramento, CA to start a Lumber business and raise children
  • Without understanding of the genealogy and the randomness of DNA inheritance, it might seem that Toni belonged in Joanna’s line (Thomas Henry Frazer) rather than the William Fitzgerald Frazer Line that she is in.
  • William’s second great-granddaughter Toni took a DNA test and matched many other Frazers that descended from the James Line of Frazers
  • Toni’s DNA testing resulted in five new Triangualation Groups
  • Those TGs have shored up the genealogy of the Line of Frazers that descend from William’s Irish father and grandfather.
  • In addition, Toni is in two TGs that appear to indicate a common ancestor with James Frazer going back all the way back to about 1720.
  • I identified a new group of 5 TGs that could be either Frazer or Davidson TGs.

Frazer-Johnston DNA and Genealogy: Part Two

In my previous Blog on the Frazer-Johnston connection, I looked at John’s DNA results. Recently John told me he had uploaded his sister Jamie’s DNA results to Gedmatch.

The Frazer-Johnston Connection on the Frazer/Stinson Line

John and Jamie are in the light blue. This is a good Frazer line as there are some on the line that are in other Frazer lines such as Jane, Michael and the yellow group. John and Jamie as well as the purplish line, Cathy and the bright green line are represent people that are believed to be in the Archibald/Stinson Line only. That gives some surety in what the DNA matches might mean. However, it could result in smaller DNA matches. There is a tradeoff.

The Johnston-Frazer connection is quite old. At the top of the blue line is a Mary Frazer born at the end of the 1700’s. She married William Johnston born about 1790. Having any information from Irish records before 1800 is considered great. I have more detailed genealogical information in my previous Blog.

Let’s Jump Into Jamie’s DNA

Well, not literally. The results are a little surprising:

Jamie is on the row below the top of the solid box in the bottom right. That box represents those that are only in the Archibald Frazer/Stinson Line. This shows that Jamie does not match anyone that is just in that line other than her brother John.  Jamie’s largest match is with Richard who I believe to be the only one that is only in the Philip Line.

We can look at the Jamie/Richard match when I look at the specific matches later. However, there are a few explanations for the match as I see it now:

  • Jamie and Richard would be 5th cousins, once removed through the Frazer side. That is pretty far out. The further out the relationship is, the more random the match is. That is likely why Richard and Jamie have a 31.6 cM match as 5th cousin once removed and why Jamie wouldn’t have a match with some of her 4th cousins that are in the Archibald Frazer/Stinson Line.
  • A second reason would be that Jamie could be matching on a line we don’t know about. We don’t know who the wife of Philip was. Also Jamie doesn’t know the name of the mother of the William Johnston that married Jane Frazer in 1815. I noted in a previous blog that a later Philip Frazer, married a Jane Johnston also in 1815.

Moving across, we see that Jamie matches Emily and Paul who would not be in the Frazer/Stinson Line. However the same reasons apply for them as applied to Richard. Note also that Emily and Paul are of the same generation as Richard, so more likely to match. Here is the whole Archibald Line:

Paul is at the bottom of the third blue column. Emily is shown to the left of Paul in the above image.

Dancing with DNA

Here are Jamie’s specific matches with those in the Archibald Line of the Frazer DNA Project:

 

I tried to put the matches into the appropriate Frazer Lines. Jamie has more matches with those in the Stinson Line. However, Jamie has higher matches with those that are not in the Stinson Line. Anywhere Jamie matches more than one person on a segment, there is a possibility of triangulation. Ir looks like Jamie could triangulate on every chromosome above except for Chromosome 12 with Paul.

Frazer Triangulation

Triangulation should mean common ancestors. This trouble is figuring out who those common ancestors are. As this is a Frazer project, and we all have Frazer ancestry, the assumption is that the common ancestor is a Frazer. However, there are other possibilities.

TG03

This TG can be shown like this:

The theory is that this TG points to either Archibald Frazer or Ann Stinson. Not both. However, we don’t know which unless there is a match to a Frazer that is not related to a Stinson or a Stinson that is not related to a Frazer. I have a spreadsheet that has a compilation of TGs and the triangualtion above I have previously named TG03C. So I added Jamie to that group.

TG17

This is a TG I had found when I looked at Richard’s results. Unless there is some other connection, this TG appears to go all the way back to Archibald born about 1743 or his wife Mary Lilley.

Note that my sister Lori and I are in the Philip Line as well as the Richard LIne. I didn’t put us in the Richard Line to save space. The same with Michael. Only his first ancestor in the Stinson Line is showing in peach color. It is tempting to think that I am matching Richard on the Philip Line and Michael is matching Jamie on the Stinson Line, but that is only one possibility.

More About Chromosome 17

Here is my TG Spreadsheet for Chromosome 17.

I’ve squished it together a bit so it would show better. Note that Doug is in a purple TG with Bonnie and Beverly. Bonnie and Beverly are on the more distant James Line. I also note that Richard matches Doug from 70-74M on Chromosome 17. So something is going on here between the Frazer Lines.

Let’s look at this from Richard’s viewpoint. Here are his matches on Chromosome 17:

This shows that Richard has a large match with Michael. Interesting, but confusing.

A New TG Chromosome 18

This is a little like the previous TG. Is the DNA trying to tell us something? It seems to be saying that there may be a connection the Philip and Archibald/Stinson Lines that we don’t know about. Or, it is just a good match up to the Archibald born in the 1740’s and his wife Mary Lilley.

TG20

Here Jamie is added to an existing TG.

Triangulation Group Summary for Jamie

 

This spreadsheet accentuates what I have been trying to explain in this Blog. It seems like John and Emily have an affinity for the left side of the spreadsheet and not so much for the Stinson side. This could be by chance. However, there could be other explanations. What if Philip who we think may have been born in 1776 married a Johnston? That would tie these families together – I think.

 

Here I tried out my theory. I had a feeling that Michael would not fit in to this cinfiguration. However, his match with Jamie was small at 7.6 cM and could be the one that goes up to the Archibald born in the 1740’s. The tree above seems to fit the DNA. However, I’m sure there could be another explanation.

Here is another, simpler explanation. Under this scenario, Philip did not have to marry a Johnston. This would have Mary as Philip’s daughter instead of Archibald’s. This would require some rejiggering of the genealogy.

The above seems to fit the DNA better, but remember that DNA can be fickle.

My Two Laws of Genetic Genealogy

After looking at genetic genealogy for several years, I have come up with two laws:

  1. The DNA is trying to outsmart you. The matches you have are generally not on the ancestors that you were expecting.
  2. Your ancestors are messing with you. They married relatives and did other things to intentionally confuse us to keep us from figuring out their genealogy.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Jamie’s results gave some different results from her brother John. This is normal and is one reason why we test siblings.
  • Jamie’s DNA results showed no clear affinity for the Archibald/Stinson Line. This could be due to chance DNA inheritance or other reasons
  • I gave two guesses as to the other reasons. One was that Philip born about 1776 may have married a Johnston. The other reason is that the Mary Frazer that married William Johnston could have been a daughter of Philip Frazer rather than Archibald Frazer. I like this option as it seems to explain the DNA matches.
  • There may be other explanations. As always, more DNA testing could bring in more answers.

 

Adding 300 Years of Upshalls by DNA and Genealogy

In my last sprawling Blog, I wrote an Upshall update and had a breakthrough as to the English origins of the Upshalls. In this Blog, I’d like to summarize some areas and expand on some areas of that Blog.

The Key to the Breakthrough: Peter, Sarah, and John Upshall

Martha is an Upshall relative by DNA and genealogy. I have been in touch with her by various avenues. She has suggested a father for Henry Upshall. His name is Peter. She also suggested a mother of Peter named Sarah and a father of Sarah named John.

In the Hazelbury Bryan, Dorset Parish Registers Peter was ‘base-born’ to Sarah in 1800:

Base-born is such a heavy term. It seems like it could be used in some 1800’s English novel. The story seemed to go that Peter, being base-born, likely had no inheritance or much of a future in Hazelbury Bryan, so sought his fortune in Newfoundland. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But how could this theory be verified?

Confirming Henry Upshall’s (born about 1841) Ancestry by DNA

First I looked at my wife’s Aunt Elaine’s DNA matches at Ancestry. I used her matches because she has fewer Newfoundland matches than my wife’s great Aunt Esther. That narrows down the matches to Esther’s Upshall and Dicks ancestry. I checked for Elaine’s Upshall DNA matches.

Things got interesting when I started looking at Elaine’s more distant Upshall DNA matches at Ancestry. One was with Allen. Allen descended from Bethia Upshall who was the grandson of John Upshall born in 1739. Assuming that was the same John that Martha had as Sarah Upshall’s dad, I drew this tree:

From what I can tell, Allen lives in England and has no Dicks relatives. Next, I found Barry from New Zealand. Barry also has the same John Upshall in his tree and is also a DNA match to Elaine.

However, another important thing about Barry from New Zealand’s tree: it shows Sarah Upshall and Allen’s George Upshall as siblings.

 

Here I have circled Ann, Sarah and George Upshall. I also circled their father John. I note that Aunt Esther also matches Allen and Barry by DNA. That means that the person in common by DNA and genealogy with Allen, Barry, Elaine and Esther is John Upshall born 1739. Descendants of these three children apparently ended up in England, New Zealand and Newfoundland. However, the DNA and genealogy ties them back together to Hazelbury Bryan, Dorset, England.

A Ninth Upshall Great-Grandfather for Esther

Previously, Esther had her grandfather Henry Upshall documented and no Upshall before that. Now, thanks to work done by Allen and Barry, she has Upshalls going back to the 1500’s:

The first Upshall in the line is William Upshall born in 1543 – about 300 years before Henry Upshall of Newfoundland. William also lived in Hazelbury Bryan (spelled Haslebury at the time).

300 Years of Upshalls in Hazelbury Bryan

What do we know about Hazelbury Bryan, Dorset? Here is the Church:

I imagine that this is where the Upshalls were born, got married and were buried. Here is some more information from the internet:

Hazelbury Bryan is situated in the Blackmore Vale five miles south west of Sturminster Newton. The Parish was formerly in the hundred of Pimperne and has an area of 2359 acres. Today the village has a population of 800 (2001) slightly more than the 761 recorded in the 1861 census. The village consists of seven hamlets, namely DroopKingstonParkgatePidneyPleckWonston and Woodrow.

In 1201 the village name was spelled Hasebere. The name is derived from the Old English hæsel bearu, meaning a hazel grove or wood, plus the manorial name of the Bryene or de Bryan family; Sir Guy de Bryan, of Woodsford Castle, gave his surname to the village in the 14th century when he married the daughter of the First Earl of Salisbury.

The original settlement in the village is the hamlet of Droop, which is the location of the parish church. The 14th century church dedicated to St Mary and St James is a handsome edifice with a fine square tower. The north aisle is considered a good specimen of the Perpendicular style. Beside the church are dwellings some 400 years old. Miss Violet Cross from the Manor House, a benefactor of the church, gave these dwellings to provide homes for widows and daughters of the clergy.

The parish was also home to a Primitive Methodist Chapel built in 1863 which remains in use to this day, part of the North Dorset Circuit.

That gives some general information. Hazelbury Bryan is old and small is the message I am getting. I suppose that makes it a good place for tracking Upshalls. Here is the 1841 Census with what appears to be Sarah’s brother Benjamin Upshall:

He is living in the Hamlet of Droop. He appears to be an agricultural laborer. The person above Benjamin was listed as a Farmer. I suppose that meant that Benjamin worked on someone elses’ farm. Living with Benjamin was Elizabeth Upshall. She could have been Benjamin’s wife or George’s widow Elizabeth Whiller Upshall or some other relative.

Here is a Droop Farm Cottage for rent. Perfect for Upshall descendants looking to visit their roots:

Summary and Conclusions

  • DNA matches compared with associated trees has pushed the knowledge of my wife’s Upshall line back about 300 years.
  • Base-born Peter Upshall appears to be the first in my wife’s line of Upshalls to travel to Newfoundland.
  • Before relocating to Newfoundland, Peter’s ancestors lived in Hazebury Bryan as long as the Parish records have existed.
  • Tracing ancestors from Newfoundland back to England can be nearly impossible due to the lack of records in Newfoundland. However, the use of DNA matching paired with good on-line Upshall records from Hazelbury Bryan has resulted in a breakthrough in Upshall genealogy.

2018 Upshall Update – English Roots Discovered

 

Upshall is my wife’s mother’s mother’s side. Even more specifically, her mother’s mother’s father’s side. Upshall represents my wife Marie’s Newfoundland heritage.

The Genealogy: It’s Complicated

It’s complicated as Aunt Esther’s ancestry is from Harbour Buffet, Newfoundland. There were only so many families to marry into there. However, in some ways it is simple as we cannot right now go back too many generations:

Above is the tree for Fred Upshall. He is Marie’s great-grandfather, my mother in law’s grandfather and Marie’s 1/2 great Aunt Esther’s father. I can only go back one generation from Fred to Henry born 1841 likely in Harbour Buffet, Placentia Bay, Newfoundland. The records are not that good for Harbour Buffet.

Who Was the Father of Henry Upshall?

One guess is Peter Upshall born in December, 1800:

His mother was Sarah Upshall and he was baptized on the 21st at the Parish of Hazelbury Bryan. I suppose the story could be that Peter, not having a good future in England, set off to Newfoundland. Here is Hazelbury Bryan and its proximity to Bournemouth:

Here is something I wrote on the Upshalls years ago:

“Some of the earlier written information about Newfoundland comes from Edward Wix, an Anglican Missionary. On Thursday, March 5, 1835 in his journal, he mentions both Harbour Buffet (Beaufit) and Upshall (Upshore):

Was up before day-light, and after full service, administered the holy communion to this respectable old planter, who had for many years been desiring such an opportunity. A snow-storm prevented my proceeding to-day to Harbour Beaufit, upon Long Island, where I was very anxious to visit a family whom I had known at Petty Harbour, near St. John’s. I did not allow it, however, to prevent my walking by Red Cove and Back Cove to Famish Gut, which I reached by ten, A.M., and assembled nine adults, besides children, at the winter house of Thomas Upshore, where I held full service, and baptized two children. It was providential that a man, who lived some two miles from his summer house, in the interior, in a spot which it would have been most difficult, nay, quite impracticable, to have found, in the untracked snow, which was falling fast at the time, should have come out for some family supplies to his summer house, just as I reached the harbour. He was delighted at the encounter, and was rejoiced at the opportunity of introducing to the little settlement a minister of his church. By one, P.M., as the weather cleared up, I left this place, and took the ice upon a level lead of ponds, expecting to find my way to the adjoining settlement of Pinch Gut.

In the Anglican records we find that Sarah, daughter of Peter and Margaret Upshore was baptized on March 5, 1835 at Famish Gut, Placentia Bay. Interestingly the same day and at the same place, Joseph Shave was baptized. The following year we find that Elizabeth daughter of Peter and Margaret Upshall was baptized at Famish Gut on September 7, 1836. This Peter Upshall is likely an ancestor or related to Henry Upshall. Famish Gut is probably the current day Fair Haven.”

I suppose that one could say that this Peter named his daughter after his mother. However, that does introduce now a Thomas Upshall. The next record I have is from 1855:

Here we have a sort of census of Harbour Buffet. I no longer see a Thomas Upshall. Perhaps he went back to England or died. Perhaps Mrs. Upshall was Thomas’ wife. There are now 8 Upshalls. My assumption is that the listing is by age. If Peter was the only one having kids, then I could assume that George, Christopher, Henry, Eligh(?), Jane and Joseph were all his children. If Thomas had children also, then that confuses things. Further, if we assume that our Henry was born in 1841, then he would have only been 14 in 1855. Perhaps he was older. The records for the Upshalls give their donations to the Church in quintals of fish. I don’t know if there was a standard age at which donations would be given. Also, considering that most of the names are males, it is curious that there is a Mrs. Upshall and a Jane listed. I might assume that these were heads of households(?)

I note that one tree at Ancestry has a George and Sarah as Henry’s parents:

This tree has this further reference about George:

However, that George appeared to have a son that was living at Sturminster-Newtown in 1861:

For this reason, I would rule out this George.

That leaves the following options for the father of Henry Upshall:

  • Thomas Upshall mentioned in the Wix journal. However, I am not aware of the name Thomas being passed down in the Upshall family.
  • Peter appears to be a good choice. There was a Peter in the Harbour Buffet area in 1835 and 1836. The name Peter carries down
  • To be named later – This would be an unknown Upshall. One source even mentions that the original name of Upshall was Baker and that they changed their name. However, I am not so sure of this. Why would a person change their name and why from Baker to Upshall?

Children of Henry Upshall and Catherine Dicks

I have this list of children at my web site:

Based on DNA, I have added Jessie Kate:

This is a DNA tree of Upshalls, so it only includes DNA-tested people in it that are known to descend from Henry Upshall based on genealogy or appear to descend from Henry Upshall based on the DNA. Karen and Ruby were in the latter group. Unfortunately, Jessie’s marriage record did not give her parents’ names and the birth registrations started around 1891 after she was born. That means that I have 4 children of Henry Upshall on my web site plus Jessie.

Other Ancestry Trees

Some trees have a lot more in them than I do. Here is one that has quite a few:

 

Note that they have Henry passing away in 1891 and Walter being born in 1893, so something is wrong. Assuming I have the right Henry dieing in 1891, that must mean that there is another Henry and Kate.

Perhaps that Walter born 1893 was from the Little Harbour East Upshalls. Quite a few were there in 1921:

That also makes me question the Peter that I have being born at Flat Island in 1885.  Here is a portion of Peter L. Upshall’s death record:

So it appears that if this other Henry Upshall from Little Harbour East didn’t marry a Catherine Dicks, then I’m all set.

A Few Recent Facebook Posts

Here is one post by Martha:

more Upshall mystery: Peter Upshall born 1892/1893 in Little Harbour East (died 1968) married Alice Upshall born 1894 or 1897 in Chants Cove (died 1992) to George Upshall and Bridget Peddle. their children include Thomas, Nelson, George, Blanche, Lizzie, Joseph, Douglas, Ralph, & Gerald. does anyone know who Peter’s parents or siblings were and also who George’s parents were? Peter’s parents may have been Henry Upshall (b.1863) and Elizabeth Smith. 
Thanks.

I don’t have a good answer for Martha, but it answers my question of who the other Elizabeth was from Little Harbour East.

Here is a death record from the New Anglican Little Harbour East Cemetery:

 

Here is the post that got me going on this Blog. This one is also from Martha. I wrote a Blog on Martha here.

Have stumbled on yet another Upshall….. Elizabeth born 1837 to George Upshall and Elizabeth Dicks. Married John W Evans. at least one daughter, Fannie Belle who died in Gloucester, Massachusetts (husband Douglas McLean)

Elizabeth died in Gloucester, too, in 1908 and her parents’ names come from her MA death certificate. am guessing her father / mother would have been born about 1810-1820? her death cert also says father was born in England.

do these Upshalls tie into anyone’s research?
thanks

Gloucester rang a bell with me as my wife’s great-grandfather spent some time there:

But back to Martha. She mentioned a George Upshall. I have this reference:

This mentions a George Upshall settling in Buffett in 1856. Here is the death record that Martha mentioned:

A tree that has Elizabeth in it has a Chelsea, MA marriage record for the second marriage of Elizabeth’s daughter Fanny Tucker. Fanny was 24 in 1890 and said to be born in Fortune Bay, NL. So that would be about 1866.

Back to George Upshall. Assuming that he was born in England, there are a few choices:

Sturminster-Newton is nearer to where Peter may have been from:

Poole is near Bournemouth.

Upshall DNA

The simplest way to check for Upshall DNA is through AncestryDNA. First, I’ll check by my wife’s Aunt Elaine. That is because she has less Newfoundland DNA to confuse things with. Her main two known Newfoundland names are Upshall and Dicks. Elaine’s first two matches by DNA are Aunt Esther and Karen. I mentioned Karen above. I connected her to Henry Upshall through his likely daughter Jessie Kate.

Barbara>George>Peter

Here is Elaine’s third Upshall DNA match. Ancestry thinks Barbara and Elaine could be 4th cousins by DNA. Here is Barbara’s paternal side:

Barbara’s maternal side is also from Newfoundland: Scott and Hodder, but we’ll go with her paternal side as being the likely side where the match is.  Unfortunately, a 4th cousin means the common ancestor is at rhe third great-grandfather level. Peter is Barbara’s grandfather. That means we could be as many as three generations away from a common ancestor. This also gets to Martha’s first Facebook post. I see Martha must have also matched Barbara.

Elaine and M.B. (Administered by Martha)

Here is Martha’s pretty good guess for a common ancestor: Base-born Peter, base born in 1800:

 

That would make Elaine and M.B. third cousins. That is pretty close to where AncestryDNA has them at 4th cousins. However, Martha has uploaded M.B. to Gedmatch. At Gedmatch, M.B. shows a common ancestor with Elaine at 3.9 generations. M.B. shows a common ancestor with Elaine’s sister Joan at 4.1 generations. That averages out to 4.0 generations which would be equivalent to a third cousin. That is the same as shown above. That tells me by the DNA that Peter Upshall is a good guess for a common ancestor. That further tells me that Jane Upshall is probably the sister of Henry Upshall. If Peter is not their father, then whoever is would also be a good candidate for Joan, Elaine and M.B.’s common ancestor. If Barbara would upload her DNA to Gedmatch, it may become more apparent whether she is related on the Upshall Line or not. When I check M.B. and Elaine’s shared matches Barbara does come up, so there must be some common ancestor somewhere.

Elaine and Son of Jacob Neil Upshall, b. 17 Sep 1923, Harbour Buffett

Martha posted on Jacob already, so I’m one step behind her. Here is my guess from the 1935 Harbour Buffet Census:

Next to this family:

This couple looks old enough to be the parents of Edward. I am reminded that Aunt Esther’s father was Frederick Nelson Upshall. Frederick was born perhaps 8 years after this Nelson.

Here is the 1921 Tickles Census:

Nelson is in this Census also but appears not to be living very close by. Here there is an elder Thomas born 1851 and a Peter Upshall born 1854. I guess it would take a while to sort out all these Upshalls.

Here Edward is marrying Martha Temple.

 

John is the witness (his brother?). A guess could be that Peter was the father of John and Edward. This marriage took place after the marriage of Peter and Alice Upshall mentioned earlier in the Blog.

Elaine’s Match with Pat

Pat is Elaine’s Last 4th Cousin by DNA match. Here is where it is helpful to look at Elaine and not Esther as Esther has Shave ancestry. Here is Pat’s paternal side tree:

Pat’s great-grandmother was Margaret Upshall (Sep 1857-15Jul 1924). This time I’m going to cheat a little and sneak a peak at Martha’s tree. Martha has Margaret as daughter of George and she has George as daughter of Peter the base-born.

I’m going to stick Martha’s tree for Pat onto my DNA tree like this:

This is quite small, but I have a Peter up there also. I wonder if this is the same Peter that was in the 1921 Census, born 1854. That would be interesting. That would mean that Margaret wife of the base-born would be 44 when the younger Peter was born. Under this scenario, Elaine would be third cousin once removed to Pat on the lower left. Another possibility is that there is another Upshall between the two Peters.

 

I just moved Peter, Jr. to the right side in case the Peter of the 1921 Census was the son of the Peter at the top. I also color-coded the people that had their DNA tested:

  • Green – people are uploaded to Gedmatch
  • Pat – in AncestryDNA
  • Wallace – at MyHeritage

Elaine’s Distant Cousin Matches at AncestryDNA

Allen from Bethia Upshall

Here are some of the names in Allen’s Ancestry Tree:

The names and places look like they could work. Here is some more from Allen’s tree:

I note that Martha has Sarah, the mother of Peter Upshall, having a father named John. Martha has Sarah born in 1774 in Hazelbury Bryan. That could mean that Allen’s John Upshall III could be the same as the one that Martha has. Here is a possible scenario:


That would make Elaine and Allen 5th cousins, twice removed. From what I can tell of Allen’s tree, Allen probably lives in England.

Elaine’s AncestryDNA Match with Barry from New Zealand

Here is part of Barry’s tree:

I even note that Barry’s tree appears to have the Sarah that Martha and I had that gave birth to the Peter that we believe is an early Newfoundland Upshall.

The John in Barry’s tree sounds familiar, so let’s add him to the tree I made:

It looks like my theory is working out – also Martha’s. This makes Barry and Elaine 5th cousins. Esther also shows as a DNA match with Allen and Barry, but she shows a closer match with Barry which would make sense.

Charles from Peter and Sarah

Now we are back to Newfoundland with Charles. Charles is Elaine’s last DNA match when I search for the Upshall name. I notice some Newfoundland names like Burton, Kirby and Pike. Charles has his line coming down from Peter b. 1800.

One interesting thing about this tree is that it takes the Dicks family out of the equation. Henry Upshall married Catherine Dicks. The Dicks family is large in Newfoundland from what I can tell. So the Dicks family could cause some interference as far as interpretation of the DNA.

Summary and Conclusions

  • It looks like I have found out where in England the Newfoundland Upshalls came from – at least my wife’s branch.
  • The Upshalls appear to have come from a Sarah Upshall from the Parish of Hazelbury Bryan, Dorset, England
  • Sarah in turn was the daughter of a John Upshall III, who would have been the son and grandson of a John Upshall if Allen’s tree is right.
  • This discovery used the AncestryDNA matches and good trees that those matches had. The combination of those two resources work well together.
  • This discovery is quite a breakthrough. Given the lack of records in Newfoundland, I am not sure that this breakthrough would have been possible had it not been through the use of DNA matching.