{"id":27546,"date":"2025-10-26T23:45:18","date_gmt":"2025-10-26T23:45:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/?p=27546"},"modified":"2026-04-06T14:54:15","modified_gmt":"2026-04-06T14:54:15","slug":"hartley-genealogy-and-playing-with-ancestrys-custom-clusters","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.jmhartley.com\/HBlog\/2025\/10\/26\/hartley-genealogy-and-playing-with-ancestrys-custom-clusters\/","title":{"rendered":"Hartley Genealogy and Playing with Ancestry’s Custom Clusters"},"content":{"rendered":"

Quite a while back, I took a sample from my father’s cousin to get a better representative sample of Hartley DNA. I will look at Joyce’s custom clusters. In the past, I have built a Hartley\/Bracewell Tree on the assumption that that could be the correct genealogy:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The tree looks promising in that it is large, but I have trouble proving the genealogy. The part that is proved is on the Burrows > Rasmussin Line:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This gets the common ancestors back to Hartley and Emmet. The common matches also filter out the large number of Snell relatives. Kristen has a good match to Joyce, so would be a good pick for custom clusters:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

A Custom Cluster between Joyce and Kristen<\/h2>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

There are 4 small clusters. The first cluster:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This has Kristen and Emily who have been identified, but also Jennifer who I have been unable to place. The next cluster:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Zachary and Rachael are related to Jennifer. They are niece and nephew. I do see from previous correspondence that Jennifer’s father was John Williams:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Jennifer’s father or grandfather could be the John B Williams born in 1906. Here is the family in 1906 in Fall River:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

But perhaps that is the wrong family. This is John A. Here is John B. Williams in 1940:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

This could be the same family if John Williams remarried. This is John Burroughs Williams in October, 1940:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Here is 291 Maple Street:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Earlier in the year, the family lived here:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I won’t clear up where Jennifer fits in, but it is clear it is part of the Williams’ family.<\/p>\n

Here is the next Cluster:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Kristen is the match in common with the others.\u00a0 Ruth fits in on the Pilling family:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Mary was a single mother, so that means I do not know who the father of John Pilling was. Perhaps that adds some uncertainty to the Cluster. [Actually, it would not, as I do not desend from the unknown father of John Pilling.]<\/p>\n

Here is the last cluster:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

I guess that Emily down and to the right is a Pilling Cluster. That means that Sheryl up and to the left could be a Hartley Cluster. Interestingly, Sheryl’s match shows this:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

In this Blog<\/a>, I questioned the connetion shown above. That leaves me with confusing DNA and confusing genealogy.<\/p>\n

Maurey and Kristen<\/h2>\n

Another of my father’s cousins has tested his DNA at Ancestry. I can try the same shared clusters with Kristen as I did for Joyce. This resulted in three clusters. I’ll skip to the third:<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Derek and Ruth are on the Pilling Line. Jane and Catherine are related on the more recent Hartley\/Snell Lines.<\/p>\n

Summary and Conclusions<\/h2>\n