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.


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

Toni and Madeline have a small match of 7 cM.


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


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


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 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 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 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.


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.



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.



Waiting for My Brother Jim’s BigY: 111 STRs

I noticed on the BigY Facebook Page that people are starting to get their 111 STR results from the recent round of BigY testing due to this year’s DNA Day sale at FTDNA. I checked my brother Jim’s results and found that he also had his 111 STR results. This is not bad considering the BigY was batched a little over two week ago.

My Brother’s 111 STR Matches

Here are my brother’s matches:

Jim has five 111 STR matches. I am the first match. I am a little surprised that I am a GD of 1 from my brother. I am guessing that I have a STR mutation that Jim doesn’t have.

Here are my matches for comparison:

For some reason I only have three matches. I am one STR further away from matching Steve but one STR closer to matching Ross. Also I don’t match Mervin or Gary, so I must exceed the matching threshold for these two. Jim is at the maximum matching at a GD of 10 at the 111 STR level. That leads me to believe that I have the mutation that Jim doesn’t. Having said that, it doesn’t explain why I am a closer match to Ross.

Comparing My Brother’s 67 STR Matches with Mine

Here are my 67 STR matches:

Here I pick up John, Mervin and Lawrence. I picked up John and Lawrence because they only tested to this level.

Here is what Jim has:

I was expecting that Jim would have more matches than me at this level, but he had fewer. However, he does have one lower GD than me to John, Steve and Mervin. I match Lawrence and Jim doesn’t. This may be an issue of sharing – what settings Jim has and the fact that I haven’t singed him up for any YDNA projects yet. Or, this may be due to the STR difference between my brother and I that I discuss later in the Blog.

Jim and I Have the Same Matches at the 37 STR Level

Here are my results:

I won’t bother posting Jim’s results as they are the same as mine except for the match dates. Notice now that I also have a GD of zero to Jim. That means that the glitch must have occured in between marker 38 and 67.

It’s Not a Glitch; I Do Have a Different STR Than My Brother at DYS534

That was helpful, because I found the different STR:

Jim has a 15 at DYS534 and I have a 16. Each of these STRs have a different mutation rate. There are different studies trying to determine what these mutation rates are. This STR has a chance of mutating in every 5-8 times per 1,000 generations. That is actually one of the faster mutation rates. That means that if a STR was going to mutate, it makes sense that it was this one.

I have done quite a bit of STR analysis in the past, so it is helpful to look back on that.

This shows that of the four Hartleys tested, three had 15 for DYS534 and I had 16. At the time, I assumed that this was the signature of my Trawden, Lancashire branch of Hartleys. I didn’t realize that this was what now appears to be a new STR as of 1956 when I was born.

More on DYS534

In the image above, DYS534 is coded as blue meaning that it is not considered a fast moving STR. FTDNA shows the fastest moving STRs coded in red. Furthermore, the image above is somewhat skewed in that it is only looking at the Hartley testers who tested for 111 STRs.

When I look at the 67 STR test results, things get more complicated. Here are the full results from the Hartley YDNA Project:

The first three numbers in each group is just the minimum, maximum and the mode. The first green group are people who the administrator is asking to do more testing. There are two in this group, so the mode is not significant. There are four in the second group of green. In the first group, the mode was 15 and in the second group the mode was 16 even though there was an even amount of 15’s and 16’s in both groups.

In an older Blog I wrote, I tried to find ancestral values for these STRs by going back to earlier SNPs that were ancestral to the Hartley SNP of A11132:

Parallel Mutations and Back Mutations

So how do we explain the confusing situation for DYS534? The answer is in parallel mutations and back mutatations. This would be an example of a back mutation. Say the value for DYS534 was 15 prior to the Hartleys and the Hartleys was 16. If a later Hartley had a value of 15, that would be a back mutation. In this case, that would mean that my brother Jim had the mutation that went back from 16 to 15. I don’t think that is the case. That is because there are other Hartley that have 16 and 15. Also in Jim and my closest matches, I am a further GD from those matches. This suggests that I am the one who has the mutation.

I think that my situation could be due to parallel mutations. That is where two people had the same mutation on a line that are independent of each other.

Comparing Jim with Other Hartley YDNA Testers


According to this Chart, based on the STR mode, my brother Jim has the oldest Hartley YDNA in this group. The ultimate solution for this group would if everyone took the BigY test to see where the lines sorted out.  The STRs that have the orange number below them are the slowest mutating STRs. That is why in my previous STR trees, I have tended to separate these two groups by STR #445.

Explaining the Differences in Matches Between Jim and Me

Back at 111 STRs I have three matches and Jim has five. Jim matches three people at a GD of 10 or a match of 101 out of 111 STRs. Two of those (Mervin and Gary) went off the chart as I have a STR mutation that Jm doesn’t have (DYS534). However, how does that explain Ross? I have a lower GD with Ross than Jim does. The difference must be due to DYS 534. Ross must have the same number of repeats as I have: 16.

Finding Ross

The problem with finding Ross is that he does’t have ancestors listed on my match list. On the Hartley YDNA project list, Ross’ name isn’t listed. It may be possible to find Ross by the precoess of elimination. The ones who have tested to 111 markers at the Hartley YDNA Project have these ancestors:

  • William Shephard Hartley 1851 (Mervin)
  • Thomas Hartley 1769 (Gary)
  • Robert Hartley (me)
  • David Hartley (Steve)

That means that Ross is not in the Hartley YDNA Project. In the R L513 YDNA Project, there are four Hartleys. It may be that Ross is not part of a YDNA project. After snooping around a bit, it appears that Ross is my Hartley #3 above:

[Note: Where I have Ross above in the Chart, it should actually be Lawrence. That means the STR results apply to Lawrence. However, the genealogy below does apply to Ross.]

It turns out that Ross is very important indeed, especially if his genealogy is right. Ross’ genealogy goes back to 1628. Ross has this genealogy:

It turns out that Roger Hartley is the father of Edward Hartley, so that would put him as a relative of the BigY tester I have in the chart above highlighted in gold. The gold was meant to show that these testers also tested for the BigY.

Ross’ Genealogy

In this Blog, I looked at the other Quaker genealogy in some detail. I did this to prove to myself that the genealogy seemed reasonable. In other words, I was trying to seeif I could replicate the genealogy of one of the other Hartley BigY testers. Now I would like to do the same for Ross.

My normal procedure is to create my own tree to see if I come up with the same conclustion. I don’t think that I have created a tree for Ross before, so now is a good time to start. It shouldn’t be too difficult as I am just looking at father to father:

Ross’ grandfather was Park Douglas. His birth is listed as 1880, but there is a 2 year old in the 1880 record.

Also the 1900 Census shows he was born in May 1879:

However, I don’t think that there were a lot of Park D Hartleys around, so I’ll say this is right. This could be the right information from the WWI  draft:

Ross has his name as Park Douglas. I guess that sounded better than Drear. So at some point Park moved from Indiana to Kansas.

John Hartley

Here is a marriage transcription I found:

Here is John P in 1885:

The youngest was born in Kansas, but the rest of the family was born in Indiana, so that dates the family’s move. John was part of a fraternal order. Here is his death date:

Elisha Hartley

The 1850 Census says that Elisha and his wife Sarah were born in Virginia. At this point, I took the Ancestry hint that Elisha was the father of John Hartley. The 1850 and 1860 Census don’t say that John was the the son of Elisha, but I think that it is implied.

Plus someone has posted a nice photo of Elisha and Sarah. If the Census is right, then Elisha was born about 1800, but we still have to get back to Marsden in Lancashire in the 1600’s. Here is part of a biography of John’s brother Thomas:

Here is Elisha in 1830 in what is now West Virginia:

Here are a few more Hartleys on the same page in case they are related:

Here is Monongalia County to the South of Pittsburgh:

Here is something posted from a F.A.G (FindAGrave?) Memorial:

If this is true, it is interesting as it mentions Bucks County, Pennsylvania. Also, Elisha appeared to be living next to Benjamin Hartley in the 1830 Census.

Benjamin Hartley 1766 and Cassandra Robinson

Now we are back to about the Revolutionary War. Here are some Hartleys in the 1800 Census for Bucks County, Pennsylvania:

More on this Early Hartely LIne

I found a Hartley web page put togethery by M.J.P. Grundy.

Children of Thomas Hartley and his wife Elizabeth (Paxson)[31]

i. Sarah3, b. 7 Tenth Month (Dec.) 1726; d. 29 Jul 1795 in her 69th year; m. ca. 1746 Jacob BEANS (he d. 13 Nov. 1807); 8 children. Jacob m(2) widow Hannah IDEN. He d. 13 nov. 1807 in his 87th year.[32]

ii. Mary, b. 19 Eleventh Month (Jan.) 1727/8; d. 15 Seventh Month (Sept.) 1746; unmarried.[33]

iii. Thomas, b. 6 5th mo. (July) 1729; d. 2 2nd mo. (Apr.) 1736.

iv. Anthony, b. 3 Tenth Mo. (Dec.) 1730; d. 1 May 1811; m(1) 29 Oct. 1755 Elizabeth SMITH of Wrightstown. Anthony and Elizabeth had 7 children. Elizabeth d. 3/8m/1769). Anthony m(2) 17 Apr. 1771 Sarah BETTS. She was b. 14/4m (June) 1747, daughter of Thomas and Sarah (Smith) Betts of Buckingham. They had 6 more children.

v. William, b. 15/2m (Apr.) 1732; d. during the night of 31 Dec. 1807-1/1m (Jan.) 1808; m 30 Nov. 1757 Catherine FISHER at Buckingham MM. Catherine b. 28 Apr. 1740.[35]

vi. Elizabeth, b. 16/11m (Jan.) 1733/4; m. 1753 John FELL at Buckingham MM. John Fell was b. 1 Apr. 1730; 5 children, including Rachel (b. 10 Oct. 1770; m. John Paxson).[36]

vii. Martha, b. 26/6m (Aug.) 1735; m. Luke WILLIAMS and had 5 children.[37]

viii. Anne, b. 8/5m (July) 1738; d. 28 Feb. 1758; m. 1757 James HILL.[38]

ix. Rachel, b. 2/5m (July) 1740; m. 12 June 1765 Ephraim SMITH under the care of Buckingham MM. He was the son of Thomas2 and Elizabeth (Sanders) Smith, and a grandson of William1 and Mary (Croasdale) Smith. Rachel and Ephraim had 8 children when they were granted a certificate of removal to East Caln MM in Chester Co., Penna. on 6 May 1783.[39]

x. Joseph, b. 18/8m (Oct.) 1742; d. 9 Jan. 1824 in Monongalia Co. [now West] Va.; m(1) Sarah RICHARDS 1 son; m(2) Elizabeth WASSON (she was b. 12 Oct. 1747; d. 6 Oct. 1834); had 10 children.[40]

xi. Benjamin, b. 6/10m (Dec.) 1745 in Lahaska; d. ca. Aug. 1804; m 12 Apr. 1769 Elizabeth SIMCOCK, at Buckingham MM.; she d. 13 July 1827.[41]

xii. Mahlon, b. 21/5m (July) 1749; d. 1824; m 12 February 1772 Hannah MOON, daughter of Roger, at Falls meeting house.  Hannah was b. 29 Aug. 1749. Mahlon was received at Falls Monthly Mtg. 5/2m/1772, with a certificate from Buckingham Monthly Mtg. On 7/9m/1796 Mahlon and Hannah and their children Thomas, Edward, Mahlon, Roger, and Hannah, were granted a certificate of removal from Falls Mtg to Westland Monthly Meeting. [42]


So this page didn’t follow Joseph the father of Benjamin down. However, from what I’ve read Benjamin was the son of Joseph’s first wife who died very young.

A Tree Connecting Ross and Michael

At this point, even though I haven’t fleshed out all the genealogy, I would like to create a tree that shows that possible connection between Ross who did the 111 STR YDNA test and Michael who did the Big Y test. Here is the Ross side of the tree:

Here I wanted to go two generations above the common ancestor of Ross and Michael because I and other with Hartley ancestry that stayed in England longer would likely fit in somewhere before Edward Hartley born 1666. This seems like a long time ago, but YDNA is good at going back thousands of years.

Here is how Ross and Michael are likely related:

This shows Ross and Michael as 7th cousins. One interesting thing is that the tree shows that some distant Hartley relatives were both in Kansas at the same time.

Hartley Genealogy and YDNA

The above genealogy tells me that there are the Quaker Bucks County Pennsylvania Hartleys and the Hartleys who had ancestors who stayed in Lancashire and Yorkshire longer. The Pennsylvania Hartleys have the better defined genealogy. They also have a specific common ancestor. In this case, that specific ancestor was Edward Hartley born 1666.

It also occurs to me that the common ancestor of those in the following table would be before 1666:

That branching should look like this:

Below, I have put the Pennsylvania Hartleys on the bottom of the list:

The problem with this grouping is that it has parallel mutations for marker 455. This is a slow moving marker and the chance of it changing in two different branches would seem to be low.

Here is what I was thinking:

I noticed that both Ross and Michael had STRs 449 at a value of 32 and 458 at a value of 16. I used that for the STR signature for Edward Hartley. From what I can tell is the overall Hartley Mode is the same as the Hartley Branch from England Mode.

How Does the English Side of the Hartley Family Branch Out?

That is a good question, because there is no known connection for these remaining 4 Hartley families other than the YDNA. It would help if each branch descendant had taken a BigY test and then had tested a known relative. I have done that with my brother Jim to describe our particular branch of Hartleys in Massachusetts.

At this point, I am looking at a combination of SNPs and STRs which is OK to do. Actually, we only have one SNP right now which is A11132, but more will be named when my brother’s BigY results come in.

This tree is helpful for a few reasons. This shows the date of the common ancestor of the Pennsylvania Hartleys who was Edward Hartley born in Masden, Lancashire in 1666. When I asked Steve to take the BigY test, my assumption was that our common ancestor would be later than 1666 and that we would form a new SNP branch. Assuming that FTDNA did the analysis correctly, that did not happen. That could mean a few things. One is that Steve and my common Hartley ancestor is right around 1666. That would mean that Edward Hartley was also A11132. Another perhaps more likely scenario is that the connection between Steve and I is further up the tree. That would mean that if Ross or another Pennsylvania Hartley Branch descendant took the BigY test, then that would define a new branch for those Hartleys.


The other thing that the tree shows is that I have a new mutation at DYS534. That STR will only apply to me, my son and his two babies.

Parallel Mutations for DYS534

This is a good example of parallel mutations. Because I have the same mutation as Ross and Michael, it looks like I am more closely related to them than I really am. However, they have had a value of 16 for DYS534 since at least 1666 and I have have mine only since I was born in 1956 almost 300 years later!

A Possible STR Tree for A11132 Hartleys

First, I am assuming that all these Hartleys are A11132. So far three of these Hartleys have taken the BigY, so it is a reasonable assumption:



Here I corrected my chart to show that the STRs aapply to Lawrence. I had wanted to show that English Branch 1 is older than the Edward Hartley Branch. It doesn’t look that way by the way the chart came out, but that could still be the case as I have no dating for the left hand side of the chart except for my recent mutation in 1956. In all this it is good to remember that STRs can be confusing due to parallel mutations and back mutations. However SNPs are not subject to these two phenomena. That is why SNPs are preferable in defining the male line.

Lawrence, A Third Descendant from the Bucks County, PA Hartleys

In looking back over this Blog, I see that I didn’t address Lawrence. He was the one that I matched at 67 STRs and my brother Jim did not. He also shows ancestry which should go back to Edward Hartley born in Marsden, Lancashire in 1666. Here is his tree from FTDNA starting with his grandfather:

Now I need to figure out what his STR results were. I see that I made a mistake and put Ross’ name on Lawrence’s STR results above. The good news is that it will be easy to add Lawrrence to the Pennsylvania Hartley tree:

From this I can see that Lawrence and Ross are third cousins. I will amend my STR chart to include Ross:

Here I have a placeholder for Ross in case I figure out where his STR results are.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was happy to see that the first part of my brother Jim’s BigY test has come in. That consists of the YDNA 111 STR test.
  • That test showed a surprise for me in that I didn’t match him in all 111 STRs. That means that I had a mutation in STR DYS534.
  • In looking back at STR results for other Hartleys, it appeared that one of those Hartleys is Ross who has the common ancestor with Michael of Edward Hartley born 1666 in Marsden, Lancashire. The family was persecuted as Quakers and moved to Pennsylvania shortly before 1700.
  • I later found out that the STR test belonged to Lawrence who is also on the Edward Hartley Line. I did the genealogy for Ross and added in Lawrence’s to a tree later.
  • That information put the testers into two groups and was helpful for grouping Hartley descendants based on YDNA testing of STRs and SNPs. These two groups were the descendants of Edward Hartley born 1666 and those Hartleys who stayed longer in England.
  • My assumption is that A11132 is an older SNP and that if another descendant of Edward Hartley were to test for the BigY, that would define a new SNP for all the descendants of Edward Hartley and the Pennsylvania Branch of Hartleys.
  • I tried to build a STR tree combining the Pennsylvania and English Hartleys. However, this presented some difficulties due to the possibilities of back mutations and parallel mutations.
  • I’m still looking for the STR results for Ross.

Looking At Joanna’s Frazer Shared DNA Matches and Shared Clustering

Frazer genealogist Joanna recently expressed some interest in Shared Clustering, so I thought I’d take a look at her shared DNA matches and shared clusters. I won’t go into how shared clusters work, but the output is supposed to organize your DNA matches into ancestral lines.

Joanna’s Ancestry

I am mostly interested in Joanna’s Frazer ancestry, as I am distantly related to her on at least one of her Frazer lines. Here is what I see for Joanna’s tree:

Joanna is divided into four parts: Frazer, Seymour, Dickins and Williams.

Shared Clustering

Shared Clustering has a basic 50 cM setting. Here are Joanna’s matches sorted at 50 cM and above:

Cluster 1 looks like Joanna’s Williams side. Cluster 2 is Joanna’s close relatives and Dickins side. Cluster 3 is Joanna’s Frazer side. I didn’t see anyone from Joanna’s Seymour side. That means that she doesn’t have close matches on that line or not enough close matches to make a cluster. Because Joanna has many close relatives tested, the demarcations between the clusters don’t show up well. Close relatives will be in all clusters. I put a yellow box around the Frazer Cluster 3.

At 30 cM Joanna Has 7 Clusters

Here is a shrunken down image of all of Joanna’s matches and how they are clustered into 7 groups:

The places where the red markers go a long way in a line are Joanna’s closest relatives.

The Cluster that I recognize at this level is Cluster 2 – Gail and Sharon are in this Cluster. They are Joanna’s second cousins with common ancestors Thomas Henry Frazer and Eliza Jane Palmer. Gail and Sharon also show that they have a correlated cluster in Cluster 1. I take that to mean that Cluster 1 could be a Palmer Cluster.

More on Joanna’s Cluster 2 at 35 cM

Joanna’s Cluster Two is a bit of a compound Cluster:

The first part of Cluster Two is somewhat separated from the second part but not totally.  Let’s look at my Frazer DNA/Genealogy Chart:

Here I’m at a bit of a loss as I am not an expert on Joanna’s side of the Frazer tree. However, one interpretation is that the two sides of Cluster Two could be for William Fitzgerald Frazer and Thomas Henry Frazer. The question could then be: what happened to the descendants of Edward Wynn Frazer born 1830? There has been a problem with Joanna’s family matching this branch in the past, so let’s keep an eye on this branch. I see that I have permission to look at Madeline’s DNA, so it may make sense to look at her shared matches to see how they fit in. This will probably require a separate Blog.

Kelly in Cluster 2

Joanna has a match in Cluster 2a with Kelly who has Frazer genealogy. Let’s take a look. Cluster 2a is the William Fitzgerald Frazer Branch.

Here we see that Kelly shows her ancestry goes back to a William Frazer born 1824. Also notice that Kelly’s ancestor has a middle initial of W. Here is how Joanna shows Kelly’s ancestor:

So while I was thinking that Kelly would fit into the William Fitzgerald Line, the genealogy shows that she is in the William Wynn Line. Here is Kelly’s ancestor grave marker:

This seems further supported by the 1851 Census of Ontario:

That leaves me with this possible interpretation of Joanna’s Cluster:



This shows that Joanna matches Thomas Henry closely (through second cousins). She matches William Fitzgerald descendants who are third cousins once removed. Then she matches a group that appears to be descended from William (not Edward) Wynn Frazer. This is probably William Frazer:

That leads to this crazy situation:

This shows that Joanna is a 5th cousin twice removed to Kelly. I say it’s crazy because the relationship is so far out. Joanna matches Kelly on two segments which means that they could be related on more than one line. For example, Joanna doesn’t have a wife for her ancestor Archibald Frazer born 1792. Perhaps his wife was a Knott. Or Kelly and Joanna just have a randomly large DNA match considering the relational distance.

A Transitional Clustering at 30 cM

I already ran this Shared Clustering for Joanna, so I’ll show it.

Here, Joanna’s second cousins popped out into their own Cluster 3. Cluster 2 now appears to just be William Wynn Frazer and Kelly and William Fitzgerald Frazer in the lower right part of the Cluster.

Thomas From Cluster Two

Because I only have one known person (Kelly) in the first part of Cluster Two, I’ll look at Thomas. He has an Alexander Frazer in his tree from Pennsylvania. I’ll take what Thomas has and see if I can make a connection:

This appears to be Alexander and family in 1920:

Alexander’s brother William was said to be born in Connecticut. Here is Archey’s Declaration of Intention:

Archibald was transcribed as being born in “Roocommon”.  That narrows it down. It appears that Joanna was ahead of me and already has this line:

However, this is in a different Frazer Line than Joanna is in, so more mystery. I’ll be glad to add him to my Frazer/Stinson Tree:

So the mystery deepens. Joanna, what is going on? Again, I suspect that there could be a non-Frazer connection somewhere. The question now is how Kelly and Thomas are related?

Joanna also matches Emily on this Line. My guess is that Emily is Thomas’ daughter. In fact, that is how Joanna has Emily.

Taking Joanna’s Shared Clustering Down to 20 cM

At this level of DNA matches, Joanna has 31 Clusters. Let’s see what they show.

Emily, Thomas and Kelly are still in the same Cluster, but now it is Cluster 22. The fact that these three are still in the same cluster tells me that this could be a fairly old set of common ancestors. This is one possibility in addition to this being a non-Frazer cluster (or a cluster that has Frazer and another common ancestor).

Going Down to 6 cM for Joanna’s Clusters

Doing this doesn’t create any new clusters, but it shows people that probably would be in clusters if clusters did go down that low. I am setting my expectations low here. I am just hoping for not too many more questions to come out of this.

The extra matches that Joanna has are above and below Cluster 22. Here are the ones above:

What I find interesting is that the top part of Cluster 22 has a pink designation. Joanna has this as McMaster/Frazer/Haire/Bowles if I am reading it right. The green is Frazer.

Here are the extra matches at the bottom of Cluster 22:

They form at transition between Clusters 22 and 23. Cluster 23 has Toni from the William Fitzgerald Frazer Branch. Notice that Joanna’s pink designation has mostly gone away for Cluster 23.

Joanna’s Other Clusters

Joanna’s Cluster 26 is the McPartland Cluster:

There are only three in that Cluster. That McPartlands can trace back to an Ann Frazer. Here is where Joanna has Ann:

However, this is genealogy is just a guess at this point. I have written many Blogs about the McPartland including one on Joanna’s sister.  However, after looking at how the clusters are associated, I can see where Joanna would come to the conclusion that this is the place to put the McPartland family in her genealogy. The McPartland Cluster 26 has an affinity for Joanna’s Cluster 27:

Cluster 27 and Different Common Ancestors

Here is another thing to sort out. Cluster 27 and matches associated with that Cluster have differrent common ancestors:


As per above, the McPartland Cluster had common ancestor Archibald of Tullynure. That Cluster had an affinity for Cluster 27. It looks like all the Common Ancestors that are in Cluster 27 proper have Archibald of Tullynure (or Thomas Henry Frazer). It doesn’t seem normal that there should be a group that is associated with Cluster 27 includes Palmer in Notley. If these were really Palmer and Notley, I would assume that these matches should be associated with Palmer and Notley Clusters. That leads me to believe that could be some relationship between Archibald of Tullynure (or his wife) and Palmer or Notley (or their spouses).

Here I have filtered Joanna’s clusters and matches by Palmer and Notley common ancestors:


I also included the row number to the left. Cluster 1 has a Notley common ancestor in the cluster. Cluster 10 has a Thomas Palmer common ancestor. Then rob has a Notley common ancestor associated with Clusters 1 and 10 which makes sense. I’m saying that it doesn’t make as much sense that Claire, Alexander, etc have Notley and Palmer common ancestors that are associated with Cluster 27 which is a Thomas Henry or Archibald of Tullynure Cluster.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Many Blogs I set out trying to solve all the genealogical problems, but in reality I end up inching toward the truth
  • The Blog raised more questions than providing answers
  • One question: How does the Edward Wynn Frazer/Ismena Jane White branch fit in as the DNA connection is not clear? I hope to look at the DNA from this branch in my next Blog
  • Next questions: Joanna is in a cluster with Kelly who appears to be a 5th cousin twice removed.
  • This Kelly is also in a Cluster with Thomas who is in an even more distant Line of Archibald Frazer/Stinson. How are these two connected?
  • My last question had to do with Joanna’s Cluster 27 at the lowest resolution of clustering. She had many matches with Palmer or Notley ancestors in a Cluster which had her ancestor Archibald of Tullynure. This suggests that the two families could be related.
  • I looked at a small McPartland Cluster. This cluster seems to support the way Joanna has this family in her genealogy. However, I also match this family through X Chromosome matches. It would be interesting to try to integrate the connections between Joanna, McPartlands and my family.

Continue reading “Looking At Joanna’s Frazer Shared DNA Matches and Shared Clustering”

My Sister’s Ancestry DNA Match with Philip (and John) Fraser/Frazer Ancestry

I am interested in anyone with a Philip Fraser or Frazer in their ancestry, because I believe that Philip Frazer is one of my ancestors. Here is where Philip comes in for me in my Frazer grandmother’s paternal tree.

Philip Frazer was an educated guess as an ancestor for me based on the fact that James Frazer born 1804 seemed to fit in well there and other reasons.

I have built a tree based on DNA matches and probable genealogy:

My Sister’s DNA Match with LS

My sister matches with someone who shows up at AncestryDNA as LS. LS’s tree got my attention with some of the people in the paternal part of LS’s tree:

The other interesting thing is that LS has George James and Philip Fraser as being from Sligo where my ancestors came from. In addition, this family was in Ontario where a lot of my Irish Frazer and McMaster relatives ended up. I’ll get into the genealogy more later. Right now I’ll look at the DNA:

My sister and LS also match Karen. Karen is a closer relative to my sister (third cousin):

More on LS’s Genealogy

One way for me to check someone’s genealogy is to try to recreate that tree. I’ll try that for LS:

Getting back this far was fairly easy. The tricky part is making the connection from Canada to Ireland. Here is an obituary for David Watt. His wife is referred to as Jane Frazer with a ‘z’ which I prefer.

Here is Woodstock, Ontario:

George James Fraser

This appears to be George in the Woodstock Census of 1891:

However, his daughter Mary Jane or Jennie had left home by this time. G.J. was listed as an Inland Revenue Officer. This appears to be George also:

There are several of these lists. I believe that this list is from 1900. This gives a precise birth date for George. I believe that he should have been baptized at Kilmactranny Parish in Southern County Sligo. The records unfortunately are missing from that Parish for 1841 and for about 10 years before that. Having those records would have cleared some things up.

1881 Census

Here is George in 1881:

Unfortunately, George is incorrectly transcribed as G.B rather than G.J. It looks like George had a full house:

Here we see Jennie who was soon to be married at age 18. Also there is an apparently eldest son Philip who was likely named for G.B.’s father. Interestingly, this Philip marries a Johnston:

I say interestingly, because of the Johnstons in my tree above:

The Philip above is Philip Frazer born 1800, son of another Philip Frazer.

Back to Philip, son of George James. He died in 1925. On his death certificate, it is stated that his father was born in County Sligo.

1861 Census

In 1861, George was a 21 year old school teacher:

This is likely around the time that George made the move from Ireland to Ontario.

1871 Census

This appears to be George but is just from an index:

The birthdate is off, but the rest of the information seems right. I had no further luck finding this family in the 1871 Census for Ontario.

Getting From George James Fraser to Philip Fraser/Frazer

I looked at the various trees on Ancestry. Out of the 10 trees, four had Philip Fraser and Mary Gray as his parents. However, I couldn’t figure out how they got to that conclusion. I can make an educated guess as to where George James fits in.

Here is what I have at my Frazer Web Page:

However, I am not sure I have constructed the genealogy correctly. It is possible that the elder Philip married Jane Johnston in 1818 after his first wife died. I think that the timing works better for that.

Here is how I had the next generation:

My modified genealogy would only really have an effect on Jane above who may have been the daughter of the elder Philip.

Fitting My Tree with the Ontario Fraser Family

One thing I can tell is that the Philip Fraser of the DNA match’s tree doesn’ fit with my genealogy by date. That tree had Philip born in 1815. I have a Philip born in 1825 and the generation before that would have been born about 1800. The generation before that was born around 1776, if I have it right. George Fraser was born in 1841, so Philip born in 1825 would only be 16 then. The first Philip was born about 1776. He would have been 65 which is possible but not as likely as the middle Philip.

I’ll just put that into my DNA match/genealogy tree to see if it at least makes sense. One problem I see already is that I have Philip Frazer born 1800 being married to a Mary Taylor not Gray. That could mean:

  • Taylor and Gray are both wrong
  • Either Taylor or Gray are right
  • Both are right: Philip had two wives both named Mary

Here is my proposed tree:

Now I have found a place-holder for LS’s line which seems to make sense. It would be nice if LS matched Martha, Richard and Barry by DNA on the green line. That would help shore up the tree. These people may want to check to see if they do match by DNA.

The unfortunate part is that both Ann Frazer and George James Frazer were born during the silent years of the Kilmactranny Parish Registers. It is possible that they had other siblings born between 1832 and 1841.

A Marriage Record for George and Jane?

This seems out of sequence but it is in order of how I am finding things.

According to the above FamilySearch transcription, John P. Frazer is the son of Philip Frazer and Mary Gray and it was he who married Jane Burgess. This is confusing. Did John P Change his name to George James? At this point FamilySearch would like me to look through 677 pages of information.

I was able to find the record on Page 166 of Volume 1:

Jane was born in Canada. John Cameron(?) was the witness. Here is Brant, not far from Woodstock:

Two Jane Burgesses?

The Jane Burgess in the marriage document above was the daughter of John Burgess and Janet Black. The Jane Burgess of the LS tree was the daughter of William Burgess and Elizabeth Ann Watt:

That means that it is possible that there were two Jane Burgesses in Ontario who married two Fraser/Frazers. So what happened to John P Frazer and Jane Burgess?

The Jane Burgess of LS’s Tree

A logical next step would be to check the Jane Burgess in LS’s tree. As per above, LS has Alexander Watt and Elizabeth Breen as the parents. That appears to come from a death record for Jane Fraser dated 1 Mar 1920. This record does have her father as William Burgess. There are some problems with the record. One is that it seems to indicate that Jane was married at the time of her death. However, her informant is Nellie Robinson, her daughter. This indeed appears to be her daughter.

Her parents are given as Jane Fraser and George J Fraser:

John P Frazer

I’m surprised that I haven’t come across John P Frazer before. I’m not so sure his middle initial is P. I couldn’t find out any more information about this John Frazer. So now I’m stuck again. I can’t find a marriage for George James Frazer and Jane Burgess. I can find a marriage for John P or G Frazer to Jane Burgess but the parents of Jane are different than the Jane married to George Fraser.

Another George James Born in Lambton County, Ontario

While I was not finding what I wanted to find, I found this birth record:

Here is a George James born to a Philip Frazer in Lambton County, Ontario in 1870. By names, there seems to be a connection. I might as well follow this Philip:

This Philip is interesting as he could be the Philip from my web page born in 1825:

In 1871, he was a farmer:

This family lived in Plympton, Lambton County near Lake Huron:

Philip’s daughter Mary died in 1920 and lists her mother’s name as Jane Hayward:

My working theory is that this Philip was the brother of George James and probably John G Frazer. Here is Philip and family including Rebecca in the 1881 Census:


So looks like I’m stuck on this line.

Back to the DNA and Shared Clustering

Shared Clustering is a program that i use to analyze AncestryDNA matches. Unfortunately, I have not run one of these for my sister Sharon. According to the Shared Clustering, here is Sharon’s information:

That is quite a few matches but less than some people’s. The matches take a long time to download, but the wait can be worthwhile. The DNA shared matches may give me a clue as to whether I am on the right track with LS. As I could not find a record matching LS to Philip Frazer, I would like to see if I can find some more confirmation. The shared match Karen was one, so three is not a bad number for genealogical confirmation but one more is always better.

Shared Clustering gives a different viewpoint than the Shared Matches at Ancestry. For example, Sharon and LS’s shared matches are:

  • Charles – He has no tree, but I wrote to his wife and she said her step daughter knows something about the family history. I found her at AncestryDNA and Charles has a Johnston in his tree which is a familiar name associated with Frazer.
  • Karen – I know who she is and we share the same second great-grandparents:  George Frazer and Margaret McMaster
  • YK – She has a branch from Ontario, but I haven’t connected with any known surnames.

After I downloaded my sister Sharon’s matches, I ran the Shared Clustering Program at 20 cM and found this:

At this level of matches (20 cM), Sharon has 40 Clusters. My third cousin Karen is in Cluster 38, while yk, Charles and LS are in Cluster 39 by themselves. However, note that Charles has a note that he correlates with Cluster 38.

Whitney in Cluster 38

I see that I have Whitney already on my Frazer DNA/Genealogy Tree:

I need to add her into my Ancestry Tree so AncestryDNA can figure out how she is related to me and show that we have Common Ancestors. I assume that Ancestry was having trouble picking up the match because it was on Whitney’s maternal side. I have written to Whitney before, but she didn’t get back to me.

Back to Cluster 39 and Charles

What Cluster 39 seems to be telling me is that yk, Charles and ls are in one Cluster, but that Charles is associated with Cluster 38 that has three known matches on my Frazer side. As I have new information on Charles’ tree, I will take a look at that. For me that means that I should create my own tree for Charles. Here is what Charles’ daughter has for Charles’ tree:

Of interest to me is Isabelle Johnston. The Johnston name comes up a lot in my Frazer genealogy, but I haven’t been able to make a connection. Also above, I mention that a Philip Fraser from LS’s tree married a Johnston.

The 1930 Census tells me that Charles Richard Beach born 1886 had a father born in Canada. In 1900 he was living with extended family (presumably his mother’s side) in New York:

I appears that Charles was living with his brother George, and his mother Ellen. The other guess is that Mary is Ellen’s mother? Here is the transcription of the death record for Ellen’s husband:

This appears to be Charles birth record from Quebec:

I’m not ready to buy in to this record, though it looks promising. It would be nice to have some confirmation. Here is another confusing document. This is an 1871 Quebec Census:

Here George is still a carter, but his wife is now Mary and born in New Brunswick. At this point, I’ll use a technique called walking away from the tree. I may come back later to take a look.

One More Shot At the DNA and Shared Clustering

This will be the everything clustering. That means, it is similar to the previous one, but it includes matches down to 6 cM.

Here, I have a lot of room for further research. Keith in the second row above is related to me on my McMaster side. He shows a correlation to Cluster 15 which is a McMaster/Frazer Cluster. Below Cluster 38 are two people with common ancestors. They are associated with Cluster 38 which is a Frazer Cluster. They should be in that cluster but they aren’t because AncestryDNA Shared Matches only go down as far as 20 cM. Michael and SM match Sharon below that level.

TT At Cluster 40

I notice there is a TT in Cluster 40 with a good tree. This tree includes a John Frazer.  I wonder why I haven’t looked at this before or why I haven’t put TT into a Frazer group. Here is TT’s maternal side:

This gets me back to the genealogy:

Here is Minnie (Amelia in the tree above) in Missouri in 1880. She was born in New York and her father was born in Ireland.

Here she is in 1860. She apparently also went by Emelia or Amelia:

Here she is said to be born in Ohio.

Here is the 1855 Census in Troy City, NY:

This puts John in the US  in Vermont at about 1838. At this point, I’ll cheat a little and look at my web page.

The note about John going to the USA before 1830 is from an old genealogy.  Here is a tree from the same old genealogy:

Here is a John Tree I drew a few years ago when I wrote a Blog about Marilee:

I also found this expanded view tree that I made:

When I add in TT’s Line, I get this:

If I have guessed correctly with my tree, TT would be my sister Sharon’s 5th cousin once removed.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I would have liked to have tied up the loose ends from this Blog, but at least I have put the research out there.
  • My sister Sharon had a DNA match with someone who had George James Fraser, son of Philip Fraser and Mary Gray
  • I was able to trace the genealogy back to George James Frazer but could not find any evidence that his parents were Philip Frazer and Mary Gray. Perhaps it is from local family knowledge.
  • I was able to to find a marriage record for a John G or P Frazer son of Philip Frazer and Mary Gray. He was married to a Jane Burgess but the parents of this Jane Burgess were different than the parents of the Jane Burgess in the tree of my sister’s DNA match.
  • Running the Shared Clustering Program for my sister gave some additional hints.
  • One extra hint involved TT with John Frazer Ancestry.
  • I gave a possible connection for TT going back to the Frazers of North Roscommon County, Ireland.



A New Nicholson DNA Match with Robert at MyHeritage

MyHeritage occasionally sends me updates on my new DNA matches. Robert was one that stood out recently. Here is how my DNA match looks like with Robert:

Robert and I match on the above 5 chromosomes.

Robert’s Genealogy

Because of past experience, I know that I will match Robert on his maternal side. I believe that Martha Pote is a daughter of a Nicholson. Here is the relative spot where Robert fits in on my DNA matching/Nicholson Genealogy Tree:

I say relative place,  because I don’t know for sure whether Robert is Sadie’s father or uncle. If they had both tested at MyHeritage, I would be able to tell. Actually, I may be able to tell, because I have Sadie’s DNA painted. Either way, Robert is my third cousin and we share Nicholson and Ellis DNA – specifically from William Nicholson and Martha Ellis.

DNA Painter

Here is Sadie at DNA Painter. This is how she matches me:

If Sadie only had DNA matches that contain Roberts, she is most likely his daughter. If she has DNA matches that are different than Robert, then Robert is likely not her father. This is based on the fact that Sadie got all the DNA that matches me from her father. When I check DNA Painter, Sadie’s DNA is contained in Robert’s DNA matches, so it is likely her father. Plus I see Sadie’s email listed for Robert at Gedmatch, where his results also show up.

I have quite a few Nicholson matches already, but Robert adds some new DNA (see circled below):

The new areas of Nicholson/Ellis matches are on Chromosomes 1 and 5.

Here are some other matches on my maternal side Chromosome 1:

I have left out the names for privacy, but Robert is the purple match. He is right over Judith who is a closer match under Lentz/Nicholson. This tells me that my match with Judith is on her Nicholson side and not on her Lentz side.

Here are all my maternal matches:

Note that Robert’s purple match on Chromosome 1 is obscured by the green matches. Expanding Chromosome 1 shows the details.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Robert descends from Sarah Nicholson who was the older sister of my great grandmother Annie Nicholson, making us third cousins
  • I was able to paint Robert’s DNA onto my Chromosome map. This DNA represents the DNA Robert and I share from either William Nicholson or Martha Ellis. This couple was born in Sheffield, England and moved to Pennsylvania.
  • Robert’s DNA added to my Nicholson/Ellis DNA as well as adding to my mother’s DNA profile and my siblings’ chromosome maps.
  • In one case, due to a matching overlap, I was able to tell that a closer Lentz/Nicholson match was actually on the Nicholson side.
  • When we match an ancestral couple, the DNA is actually from one or the other of the couple, but we usually don’t know which. For the example of the match with cousin Judy, Robert identified that the DNA was from Annie Nicholson and not her Lentz husband.



Getting Ready for a New Hartley BigY Test

During the DNA Day YDNA sale I ordered a BigY test for my brother. Bob Wood of the FTDNA – BigY Facebook Page promotes a rule of three. That means test yourself, test a distant relative and test a close relative for BigY. That combination gives good branching for your surname – in this case Hartley. In this Blog, I’ll talk about the current state of my Branch of Hartley YDNA and what I might expect from this new test.

The Current Situation of My Branch of Hartley BigY DNA

I say my branch because there are many different Hartley branches that are not closely related. Here is where I am now with two other Hartley testers and one Smith:

Hartley and Smith

The Smith is on the right and is at R-A11138. That is where I used to be before another Hartley tested for the BigY. The common ancestor between Hartley and Smith appears to go back 13 SNPs. These SNPs were formed about every 83 to 144 years. Either number would bring the Hartley/Smith ancestor back to over 1,000 years ago.

A Hartley BigY Tester with Quaker Ancestry

The first BigY tester after me is important as he has the oldest genealogy. His Hartley Branch was of the Quaker faith and fled to Pennsylvania due to persecution in Lancashire County England . This Quaker ancestor was from Marsden which is quite close to Trawden in Lancashire, England. I have been able to trace my Hartley ancestors back to Trawden to around the year 1800.  As the Quaker ancestor was born about 1666, I would guess that our common ancestor was born possibly around the year 1600. That means that, even though the location of my Hartleys is close we are about 200 years apart in connection our genealogies. The fact that this Hartley Quaker ancestor lived in Marsden suggests that my Hartley ancestors may have been in the same Parish for those 200 years.

A Third BigY Tester

Not too long ago, a third Hartley from the same branch had a BigY 700 test. I also upgraded my BigY 500 to BigY 700 so we would get consistent results. I had thought that this new tester would result in a new Hartley Branch. However, as a result of the new test, FTDNA did not determine that there was a new branch. Assuming that FTDNA was right, that would mean that we all share the same SNP (A111320) within the period of time in which a SNP would form. That time is anywhere between 83 and 144 years. A male generation is between 31 and 38 years or say about 35 years. That means that the three of us would all descend from Hartleys within  two or four generations. In addition, we must all three descend from one particular person. This person is likely to have been a Hartley but that is not sure.

What I Expect From My Brother’s New BigY Test

It will be a while until the BigY test for my brother is expected. FTDNA predicts that the STR results will be done in June this year and the BigY completed in July. After that there is likely to be a manual review which will take longer. The result of my brother’s test will be at a minimum to put the two of us into a new YDNA Branch. This branch will likely be formed from most or all of my now private variants. I say part or all, because having a new Haplogroup with 6 new SNPs in it seems like a lot. It seems like a lot because between the three Hartley BigY testers there are an average of 4 private variants. If there is an average of 4 between 3 people there must be about twelve total private variants between the three of us. That means that I have half the private variants between three people which seems high.

My Six Private Variants

My six private variants are here:

This is the pool of SNPs from which my brother should match me. I’ll look these positions up at YBrowse:

That means that four of my private variants have been around waiting for a match since 2016 and none have been found. That is where my brother comes in. His test will show where he matches me. As a result of my upgrade to BigY 700, I now have two more private variants. I’m not sure why they are listed in different years, I suppose they were both found around the turn of the year.

The new tree will look like this:

The Block of SNPs will have to have a SNP name that will represent the new Block. For example A11131. I have many second cousins. That would bring the tree back two more generations. It is possible that testing one of these second cousins would also create a new branch.

More On My Butler Brother-In-Law’s BigY 700 17 Private Mutations

My brother-in-law’s BigY 700 test results came in on February 14th this year. One thing that seems strange to me is that he has 17 private variants. This leads me to believe that FTDNA has not yet finished it’s manual review. In my previous Blog, I didn’t have access to my brother-in-law’s results. Now I do.

Private Variants

Normally there should not be any private variants or perhaps one at the most between a father and son. So where did these come from? My guess is that they could be from earlier YDNA branching. Private variants show as position numbers on the Y Chromosome. Here are the first 10 belonging to my brother-in-law:

I’ll check the first position at YBrowse, to see if there is any more information there:

This is interesting, because this appears to be a new, unnamed SNP. Here are my brother-in-law’s test results:

They look like good results. I’m starting to guess now, but perhaps my brother-in-law picked up a new SNP that no one has ever tested for before.

Let’s try the next position:

This looks new also.


This position at least gave me a SNP number:

Here are some more details:

This tells me that this is a named SNP, but it is a new one as of 2020. This SNP was probably named as a result of my brother-in-law’s BigY test.

I’m beginning to see a trend here. Here is Richard’s csv file for that position:

Richard’s test didn’t cover as many YDNA locations as it was an older test. So the position that his son tested for is new.

Here is a spreadsheet for looking at my brother-in-law’s new private variants:

I’m going down the list. The private SNP at 26M was discovered earlier by a different company:

Summary of My Brother-In-Law’s New 17 Private Variants

Notice the last column. That is the one that says that Richard’s test never covered the position or new SNP that his son has. That explains the 17 new private variants.

Spreading the Net Wider to England

The next logical step is to check my brother-in-law’s private variants against the other BigY Butler tester in England.

Now I’m getting somewhere. The question mark means that EB was tested for the position number but that the results were inconclusive. EB was not tested for the first two position numbers, so they remain without a SNP name. I assume this is where my brother-in-law could match his father or theoretically have a new private variant. That means that my brother-in-law could end up with two private variants down from 17.

In a previous Blog, I had predicted that these new SNPs may go in the Block above Batt under I-Y128591 or even above that. This is still a good place for these 15 SNPs.

Going Up a Level To Batt

I can go one level further. This sheds some further light:

The question marks mean that there was not enough information to say that the tester was positive or negative for a mutation at the location. However, the fact that Batt had a possible mutation at every position of my brother-in-law’s private variants suggests that my brother-in-law will end up with zero private mutations. Mystery solved.

Summary and Conclusions

  • A comparison between my brother-in-law and his father showed that my brother-in-law had 17 private variants. However, that was because those 17 locations were not covered in my father-in-law Richard’s BigY test.
  • A comparison between my brother-in-law and his next closest Butler match showed that match had been tested at 15 of those locations, but the results were inconclusive.
  • I then went out another level and found that Batt had been tested at every location of my brother-in-law’s private variants, but the results were inconclusive at all of those locations.
  • It is likely that my brother-in-law’s test results will confirm each questionable test and that he will end up with no private variants.
  • I guessed where the extra 17 SNPs will end up, but I don’t have enough information to be sure that they will be in the I-Y128591 Block or above that.