Waiting for My Hartley Big Y 700 Manual Review: Part 2

My Big Y 700 upgrade results came in on January 16, 2020. I had upgraded because another Hartley had tested for a new Big Y 700. Steve’s results came in on January 21, 2020. I wrote Part 1 while awaiting my Big Y manual review here. My thinking was that if Steve and I both had the Big Y 700 test done, then our results would be more consistent. I now see that I would have been better off testing my brother for Big Y.

Big Y and the Rule of Three

Bill Wood from the FTDNA BigY Facebook group developed what he calls the Big Y Rule of Three. Here is the short version of the Rule of Three:

The first candidate was me. So I’m all set there. These slides are from Bill Wood:



This is where I should have had my brother tested. The importance of this test is that my brother should match me on all or nearly all of my SNPs. These matches will then result in a terminal haplogroup for my branch of Hartley. So my next step will be to have my brother tested. Here is what I understand to be current pricing for Big Y:

Big Y is $449. I must have paid about $189 for my upgrade.


Here I have a lot of 2nd cousins, so that could have worked. One other person, Michael had already taken the Big Y (now called 500) test. Now we have Steve also. Steve and Michael are both greater than 4th cousin to me, but I don’t know exactly how we connect genealogically.

Alex Williamson and the Big Tree

I mentioned the Big Tree in my previous Blog on Hartley YDNA. On January 13, 2020, an administrator for the R L513 and Subclades FTDNA group wrote a message requesting that Big Y 700 results be posted to the Big Tree:

I posted my new results and they showed up at the Big Tree under my Unique Mutations. My new results are under the heading of BigY3:

My understanding is that the entries with a plus sign are the important ones:

That means that the SNPs numbered 26539382, 13658297 and 4317527 are newly detected for me by the Big Y 700 test. 13658297 is interesting because in the previous test, it was rejected.

** indicates “REJECTED” with just a single variant

Also 13658297 is important as it is listed as being in the combBED Region.  My understanding is that the combBED Region is a highly reliable region for SNP detection. This is indicated by a Y in the second column of Y’s.

Of the above three unique mutations, two show up in my FTDNA Big Y list of Private Variants:

What About 13658297?

I used to show 13658297 as a private variant, but it is no longer on the list:

That could mean that it is no longer a private variant, because Steve also has that variant. I suppose that means that FTDNA is working on its manual review. I previously had 10 private variants. Now I have 6.

Where Does That Leave Me and the Hartley YDNA Tree?

This is the chart that I came up with previously:

I had highlighted in gold those matches that I had with Steve. There are 6 variants that are not highlighted which is what I now show as having for Private Variants now at FTDNA. I don’t see any matches between Steve and Michael. I take that to mean that Steve and I will be named on a newer Hartley Branch and that Michael will remain on the older branch of A11132. We will have to wait to see what the new branch is named.

Summary and Conclusion

  • FTDNA’s manual review of Steve and my Big Y 700 results seems to be moving along
  • The upload of some of my Big Y 700 results to the Alex Williamson Big Tree web site was helpful in my understanding what some of the results meant.
  • I will be seriously considering getting Big Y 700 results for my brother when a new sale comes along. These results will get me a terminal haplogroup for my very specific branch of Hartley’s.
  • My prediction is that Michael will retain the A11132 designation and Steve and I will have a new downstream haplogroup. It will be interesting to see how many SNPs make up this new haplogroup.

Getting Ready for BigY 700 Results

According to Family Tree DNA (FTDNA) my BigY 700 results are in, but it appears that the analysis has not completed.

I am told that it can take two weeks to perform a manual analysis once the results are in. The good news is that FTDNA does this analysis. The BigY Facebook Page reports this manual review could take as long as 12 weeks.

My Block Tree

One way I can tell that things are still changing is by looking at my Block Tree results:

Above I highlighted the private variants. Yesterday I had an average of 10 shared variants. Today I had 12 shared variants. That tells me that things are still happening.

At the same time that I upgraded my BigY from 500 to 700, DNA relative Steve also did a BigY 700 test for the first time. Previously, there were only two people in my branch of the Hartley YDNA tree that had taken the Big Y test. They were Michael and myself. By getting Steve to test, we should be able to get a tie-breaker. By STRs, it seems that I am more closely related to Steve than to Michael, but STRs can be unreliable. The Big Y produces new SNPs which can place us in a different Hartley branch. As the Hartley YDNA branch seems to be fairly old, it is important to find more recent branching. I know that Michael’s genealogy goes back quite far. He has Hartley Quaker ancestors that moved out of the area that my ancestors were living in to find peace from persecution. They moved to Quaker-friendly Pennsylvania. Michael’s ancestor was Edward Hartley. He was born in 1666. He married in 1693 and moved to Pennsylvania probably in the early 1700’s.

Private Variants

Previously, I only had an average 2 private variants between myself and Michael:

The Private Variants are the ones I have and Michael does not have (or that Michael has and I don’t have). This is an average, so it may be two for each, one for one and three for the other or four for one and none for the other.

How Did We Get From 2 Private Variants to 12?

The first answer is that the BigY 700 tests SNPs that were not tested in the BigY 500 test. That means that the new test may be finding new SNPs along the route between Michael, Steve and myself as well as new upstream SNPs. However, I would imagine that the further upstream these SNPs are going back to genetic Adam, the more likely it is that these SNPs have already been discovered by thousands of other BigY testers.

SNP Matching Details

Here are the details of how I do and do not match Michael and Steve:

Looks like a bunch of numbers. From this, I take it that Steve’s test finalized 5 days after mine. If I add up all the Non-Matching Variants and divide by 2, I should get 12. When I add the two, I get 31, so that must be the wrong way to do it.

I put the non-matching and Shared Variants into a spreadsheets:

The only thing that did was show which variants I have that don’t match with both Steve and Michael versus those that don’t match with only Steve or Michael.

FTDNA’s Y-Chromosome Browsing Tool

Under the BigY Results tab, I find this:

Under named variants, I had no results which is confusing because under the BigY matching tab, I had 10 non-shared variants with Michael. Then I had 6 non-named non-shared variants with Michael. With Steve, I had more non-named non-matching variants than named non-matching variants. So I could say that I have no match between my non-matching variants and my Private Variants.

The browser above basically gets at the quality of the SNP. I like to look up positions at YBrowse. Here is what I get when I do that:

According to this list, I have two totally new Private Variants out of 17. Five were previously named by William Hartley – probably when I took my first Big Y. The rest have been named by FTDNA or Full Genomes Corp. The ones that FTDNA and FGC named, they didn’t know where these SNPs appeared on the haplotree. Here is the last SNP I looked up at YBrowse:

When I click on the circled SNP, I get this further information:

Under ycc_haplogroup for the FGC and FTDNA SNP, the comment was ‘unknown’.

My take-away is that I have 17 Private SNPs. There are an average of 12 private SNPs between Michael, Steve, and myself. That would be a total of 36 Private SNPs. That means that Michael and Steve must have a total of 19 Private SNPs between them.

Next, I looked at my non-matching variants and looked those up at YBrowse:

This told me that of my 17 Private Variants, 5 were the same as Non-Matching Variants between me and Steve. I suppose that makes sense because Steve just took a new test and I just upgraded mine.

Now I see my named variants. I must have missed them before or they weren’t there yet:

The list doesn’t say if they are matching or non-matching variants and there are 1775 of them. One issue that I have is with A11130, for example. It shows as non-matching to Michael and Steve, yet it does not show up as a Private Variant for me. Originally when people were naming SNPs, someone thought that A11130 would be a good name for my branch. However, it was later found out that this was a private SNP. That is why people wait for other Big Y matches before they name a branch. That brings up another point. My current SNP name is A11132:

However, A11132 is only representative of the above 7 SNPs. It looks like A11132 was chosen as it was the lowest number in the group.

Alex Williamson’s Big Tree

The Big Tree was used as the model for FTDNA’s Block Tree. Although the Big Tree is slowly being phased out, it still has useful information in it. This is what the Big Tree as my ‘Unique Mutations’:

The BigY2 was from my BigY 500 test where I uploaded additional information.

Here are some notes from the Big Tree Website:

In the table above, the meaning of the confidence field depends on whether the data comes from an FTDNA kit or an FGC kit. For FTDNA kits, + implies a “PASS” result with just one possible variant, * indicates a “PASS” but with multiple variants, ** indicates “REJECTED” with just a single variant, and *** indicates “REJECTED” with multiple possible variants. ‘A*’ are heterozygous variants not called by FTDNA, but still pulled from the VCF file. For FGC kits, + indicates over 99% likely genuine (95% for INDELs); * over 95% likely genuine (90% for INDELs); ** about 40% likely genuine; *** about 10% likely genuine. Manual entries read directly from a BAM file will be either + indicating positive, or * indicating that the data show a mixture of possible variants.

For the FTDNA kits, the BED data is encoded in the background color of the cells. Those cells with a white background have coverage, those with a grey background indicate no coverage in the BED file, and those with a pink background indicate the mutation is on the edge of a coverage region. These pink regions often indicate that the individual may be positive for a SNP even if there is no corresponding entry in the vcf file.

The good thing about the Big Tree is that it also shows details for Michael. Here are his unique mutations:

Here are some further notes:

The mutations unique to this man are summarized in the table below. Those with a ‘+’ or ‘*’ confidence level are considered by FamilyTreeDNA or FullGenomesCorp to be high quality SNPs/INDELs. For completeness, all other mutations of lesser confidence are included as well. These additional mutations may be useful for distinguishing between very closely related men.

I don’t know how much further light this sheds on the situation. It appears that both Michael and I have have 5 SNPs marked with a ‘+’. However, our average number of unique SNPs used to be three at FTDNA but this later went down to 2 for some reason. Also note that Michael shows A16717, but with a ** designation. The BigY 700 showed that I had A16717 as a Non-Matching Variant with Michael. That could mean that we are both positive for that, but that Michael didn’t have a good read, so it was rejected on his side. I suppose that these are some of the issues that FTDNA needs to sort out.

Shared Variants

While we are being confused, I’ll add this in. FTDNA shows that I have one Shared Variant with each of my five matches.

I don’t know what this means. However, going to the learning center explains it:

I think this should have said “…the number of known variants…” I probably used to know this. The confusion is that the column before this is Non-Matching Variants and the position number or name of the Variant. I interpreted the Shared Variants to be a uniquely shared variant with the position number. However, this is the number of variants I share. For example, with Steve we have both taken the Big Y 700. So out of 695, 105 variants or SNPs we share 675, 590. I share much less with Michael as he has not upgraded to BigY 700. Here, it would help if FTDNA told you if your match took the old BigY 500 or the new BigY 700. That makes one thing I understand.

Checking My Logic On Non-Shared Variants

According to the FTDNA Learning Center:

I take this to mean that this list does not just include variants or SNPs that I have and my match doesn’t have, but could include variants or SNPs that my match has and I don’t have.

FTDNA – BiGY Facebook Group

This Facebook Group has been helpful. They have a document there called: BiGY-700 I am a Newbie. The last bullet on Page 13 of that document says:

Check your Private/Unnamed Variants, and see if they are found in
your BiGY Matches’ Kits. If so, your Haplogroup will change after a
Manual Review.

Here are my Private Variants:

All I have to do is ask Steve if he has any of these and the ones that match with me should form a new Branch. However, I already know that the Variants in blue will not form a new branch. That is because the SNPs or Variants in blue are already on the list of Non-Matching Variants between Steve and myself. I really need clear instructions like the ones on the BigY Facebook Page because the terminology is so counter-intuitive. Why would I even think of finding a match with my Private Variants list? How are they Private if they match?

News From Steve

Steve wrote back to me with his private variants:

Steve has 19 altogether. The following is actually his first 10 Private Variants:

This is almost like looking at a secret decoder ring.

I put Steve’s Private Variants next to mine and found quite a few matches:

The matches are in gold on my list. The blue Private Variants are ones that are specifically listed in the Non-Matching Variants between Steve and myself. There are 11 Private Variants that match between Steve and me.

Next, I just have to wait for FTDNA’s manual review to see if a new Hartley YDNA Branch is formed.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The purpose of Steve and I doing this BigY test is to see if a new Hartley Branch forms from YDNA.
  • My assumption was that Steve and I are more closely related to each other than to Michael. If Steve and I form a new Hartley Branch and Michael stays in the existing Haplogroup, then that will prove my assumption to be true.
  • YDNA is basically a simple concept. However, the terminology and instructions make things more complicated than they really are. The only part that probably is complicated is the interpretation of the quality of the test results.
  • The FTDNA BigY Facebook site has some good information which counteracts some of FTDNA’s confusing information.



Where Did My William Bradford Ancestors Live?

As I have mentioned in a previous Blog, the 400th anniversary of the Pilgrims landing in Plymouth will soon be upon us. As I update this Blog it is now upon us. As a result, I’m struck that I’ve had ancestors living in Plymouth County where I live for the last 400 years. I have written a few Blogs on where my Bradford ancestors lived. My previous one was on Hannah T Bradford born 1838.

William Bradford Born Before December 1686

This William Bradford was the last William Bradford in my line leading down from Governor Bradford. His line of descent is from his great-grandfather Governor William Bradford to his grandfather Major William Bradford to his father William who married Rebecca Bartlett.


Here is William going back from Hannah Bradford:

Hannah was my 2nd great-grandmother. That makes William my 6th great-grandfather. I assume that William owned land and it is possible that I may be able to trace that land to a current location. According to my Mayflower Families book, William was probably born in Plymouth. He married in Plymouth and he died in Kingston. As William had three more William’s in a row to get back to Governor Bradford, the genealogy can be a little confusing.

One other way to identify these William’s is by their spouses. Unfortunately, I cut off the last wife who was Elizabeth Finney. I also cut off the wife of the William Bradford who was born in 1654. This was Rebecca Bartlett.

William’s Father Dies When William Is Young

Here is more of the story:

William was one of three children and he was the only boy. His father William died when William was only 1 or 2. None of the dates for the children are sure. Alice’s birth is from another book. William was born before December 1686 and Sarah’s birth year is based on her death record. The elder William died in a cart accident.

William Bradford: From Plymouth to Kingston

Here is William’s wife and children:

The first five children were born in Plymouth. That is up to my ancestor Josiah born in 1724. The last three children were born in 1726 or after. That would put William’s move to Kingston at about 1725. Or did the boundaries change? I note that Kingston was incorporated in 1726.

William First Mentioned in a Deed Dated 1687

When William was still a toddler, he was mentioned in a deed by his grandfather William Bradford (born 1624). According to the Mayflower Families Book:

On 23 April 1697 William Bradford in consideration of the natural love he bore for his grandchild William Bradford, only son of his son William Bradford deceased, gives to his grandson one parcel of upland on which his son had built his house “Given unto me from my father William Bradford Esqr”

So it seems this deed mentions four generations of William Bradford’s. This also indirectly mentions where William’s father built his house.

William’s Grandfather Major William Bradford Born 1624

It is usually best to go from the more recent to the less recent in genealogical research. However, in this case, Major William Bradford and his father Governor William Bradford are so famous, that a lot is known about them. For example, Major Bradford’s house is still around, so that will give us a foothold. I have this representation on my web site:

Here is a location on a current map:

Whose house is it?

I may have been wrong. As I look at the website, it appears that the house belonged to Major John Bradford son of Major William Bradford.

Looks like I have it wrong on my web site, so I’ll have to fix that. So it pays to look into these things. Major John Bradford was the brother of the William Bradford who died in a cart accident.

Looking for Where Governor Bradford Born 1589 Lived

I’ll start at the beginning. Here is where Governor Bradford lived in Plymouth:

Hey, someone put a furniture store on Governor Bradford’s property:

I have this rendition on my web site:

I’m not sure how accurate this rendition is, but it does appear to show the church next door. Records say that Bradford held Town meetings at his house. Here is another angle:

Burial hill is to the left in this photo. Governor Bradford lived where the brick building is. However, he also had farm land in present day Kingston. His wife was Alice (Carpenter) Southworth.

In a History of Kingston Massachusetts By Rev. Josiah Peckham, 1867:

For a time Gov. Bradford had his residence in Stoney Brook, near the dwelling of the late Francis Drew. The cellar of his house is still visible. His son, Deputy Gov. Bradford, lived, and died upon the same spot. A “High-Top Sweeting,” the last tree of the orchard, set out by the son, is still standing by the lane leading to Dea. Foster’s. Mr. Henry Colman speaks of it as “planted in 1669, and as bearing in 1838, thirty bushels of good fruit.” If this account of its age is true, it bids fair soon to enter upon its third century. Joseph Bradford, another son of the Governor, settled a little south-east of the Landing. 

Here is an old map of Kingston:

There is a Bradford shown to the North of Stony Brook. There is another S Bradford shown and highlighted to the South or SouthEast of Stony Brook. Today’s Stony Brook looks to be Halls Brook:

According to the Will of Governor Bradford dated 1657:

I have Desposed to John and Willam alreddy their  proportions of land which they are possesssed of;

Major William Bradford Born 1624

Here is an excerpt from an 1850 article on the Bradford Family:

This account appears to differ with the account above concerning where Deputy General William Bradford lived. Or perhaps he lived both places at different times. Here is a portion of the 1820-1830 map of Kingston South of the Jones River showing three Bradford locations:

Another Kingston Clue  in the Willett House

According to the Kingston Historical Commission:

Willett House update, 27 Wapping Road. Jack provided a historical overview, noting the house was likely built in the 1630s, perhaps in 1638, and describes it as having the best provenance of any house in town. Willett, who sold it to Governor William Bradford in the 1650s, came over on the second Mayflower voyage in 1629.

Based on further Commission notes, this house is in private ownership. This excerpt is from the Massachusetts Historical Commission:

The ownership history has been thoroughly researched and indicates the (house and?) land was sold to Governor William Bradford in 1653. It remained in the Bradford family when it was willed to his son, Major William Bradford, who built the “Bradford House” on Landing Road, and then to Samuel and Gershom Bradford. In 1747, the land was sold to Reverend William Rand and later to John Faunce, in whose family it remained for quite some time. From December 1936 to July 1937, a Historic American Buildings Survey team recorded the site and listed the owner as George Higgins. Shortly thereafter, a Mrs. Peabody owned the property and it was under her ownership that the house underwent a restoration by Strickland & Strickland in 1946. The current owner has not significantly altered the appearance of the house since she bought it and it appears very much as it did following the 1946 restoration.

Here is 27 Wapping Road, Kingston:

This is to the South of Jones River. I’m not sure if the previous reference to Stony Brook is accurate or not.

Here is a photo of the house:

The original house from the 1600’s is the one in the back and the ‘newer’ part is on the front dating from the 1700’s. Here is some more information from the Massachusetts Historical Commission:

The main block of the Willett House, in its current configuration, is a typical early 18th century saltbox. Town records indicating a land grant to Capt. Thomas Willett in 1639, including forty acres of “upland and meadow” and seven acres “on which to build his house,” have served as the basis for dating the rear ell. In The Story of the Thomas Willett House, Gordon Massingham of the Kingston Historical Commission assumed that the ell was built around 1640 and it apparently served as a model for a precise, although somewhat larger replica built at Plymoth Plantation in 1994. HABS field notes suggested a slightly later 1653 date, apparently based on town histories published in 1884 and 1920. Abbott Lowell Cummings visited the house in 1996 and, according to the owner, stated that the rear ell did show evidence of 17th century construction (based in part on sheathing exposed at the time) and that the saltbox was probably built around 1700.

It helps to have famous ancestors who have been well-researched. On the 1820-1830 Kingston Map, the house appears to be labelled as belonging to the Widow Faunce:

Chronology for the Williett House

Governor Bradford buys the Williett house in 1653. It is not clear to me if he lives in it or not. The Massachusetts HIstorical Commission [MHC] says it was willed to his son Major William Bradford. However, Governor Bradford died in 1657. His Will says he already gave land to his two sons prior to the Will. My guess is that if the Governor ever lived in the house it was for a very brief time or only to visit his son. According to the MHC, “It remained in the Bradford family when it was willed to his son, Major William Bradford, who built the “Bradford House” on Landing Road, and then to Samuel and Gershom Bradford. In 1747, the land was sold to Reverend William Rand…” That means tha the Willett house was a Bradford house between 1653 and 1747. 

The Samuel mentioned above, born about 1667, was the son of Major Bradford. Gershom, born 1691 was Samuel’s son. This Gershom was probably the same Gershom who in 1741 was appointed guardian of my ancestor Josiah Bradford (born about 1724) after Josiah’s father William Bradford died in a carting accident. That means that Josiah possibly lived at this location also when he was young.

The Bradford House on Landing Road

Am I going in circles? Above it says that the Willett House was willed to Major William Bradford who built the Bradford House on Landing Road. Wasn’t this the house that was listed as the Major John Bradford Homestead above? Major William Bradford died in 1687. The John Bradford house was built when?

According to Wikipedia:

The Bradford House, also known as the Major John Bradford Homestead, is a historic house at 50 Landing Road in Kingston, Massachusetts. The Jones River Village Historical Society owns the house, and operates it as a historic house museum. The oldest portion of this 2-1/2 story wood frame house was built c. 1714; this was the western portion of the house, including what is now the central chimney. Documentary evidence suggests the building was expanded to its present width c. 1750.

Apparently there is some confusion. So if Major William Bradford died in 1687, he couldn’t have built a house in 1714, unless there was a different house in this area that he built. According to a Major John Bradford Biography at the Jones River Village Historical Society web site:

Maj. Bradford’s home in Kingston, built in 1675, is still standing and open to the public today. According to tradition, the Indians attempted to burn John’s house during King Philip’s War. The Major discovered the fire. He spied an Indian on Abrams Hill waving a blanket and shouting to his fellows, and shot him. But on approach, he could not find the body. After the war, the Indian met Bradford and showed him the scars of his wound.

Based on this earlier date of construction, the house would have been built when John Bradford was 22 years old.

Here is another reference from a 1920 Biography on Governor William Bradford by Albert Hale Plumb that further confuses the issue:

Based on what I have learned so far, I am a little skeptical of the above Biography.

Some History of Kingston

According to Wikipedia:

Originally part of Plymouth, Kingston was first settled by Europeans shortly after the landing of the Pilgrims at Plymouth Rock in 1620. It was settled once more in 1635.[2] During 1675, several bloody battles during King Philip’s War are believed to have occurred within Kingston’s borders and the residence of Governor Bradford, which is now part of Kingston, was raided by Wampanoag warriors.

In 1685, the area was placed within the boundaries of Plymouth County and for a brief time, between 1686 and 1689, the borders of Kingston were within the Dominion of New England.

Kingston was first established as Plymouth’s northern precinct in 1717 upon the creation of First Parish Kingston, now a Unitarian Universalist church in the town’s center.[2] Kingston was incorporated as a distinct town on June 16, 1726, following a tax dispute between the residents of north and south Plymouth, when the parish was known as the upper class portion of Plymouth.

I would question that the residence of Governor Bradford was raided in 1675 as Governor Bradford died in 1657. If this is referring to Lieutenant Governor William Bradford, this would make more sense.

William Bradford Born Before 1654

According to the Mayflower Families he was probably born in Plymouth. But recall the boundaries were different then. This was the William who married Rebecca Bartlett and died when a cart he was driving overturned and killed him. I am hoping there will be some information on him that will clear things up. Here is a representation of my four William Bradford’s who lived in Plymouth as it is easy to get these William’s mixed up:

As the result of William’s untimely death in 1687, there are some records.

John Bradford was the administrator of William’s estate. I assume that this was the Major John Bradford who had the house I showed earlier in the Blog.

John’s job was to see what assets William had and pay off outstanding debts. Then he would see if anything was left over.

If I could read the above, it might give a clue to the kind of work William did. My assumption is that William had some sort of carting business as he died in a carting accident.

Here are the people that William owed:

According to to the book, “William Bradford of the Mayflower”:

On 23 April 1687 William Bradford in consideration of the natural love he bore for his grandchild William Bradford, only son of his son William Bradford deceased, gives to his grandson one parcel of upland on which his son had built his house “Given unto me from my father William Bradford Esqr.” Before acknowledging the deed on 4 Sept 1696, William added a paragraph saying that when his grandson William reached the age of 21, he “shall enjoy the lands without Interruption.” On 29 Oct. 1709 John Bradford, Samuel Bradford, Israel Bradford, Ephraim Bradford, David Bradford, and Hezekiah Bradford all of Plymouth County gave their right in a cedar swamp to their kinsman William Bradford, son of their brother William Bradford deceased. This deed was not acknowledged until 26 Marcy 1747.

What I gather from the above is that the carting William lived in a house that he built on land of his father Major William Bradford. This land was given to the Major by Governor Bradford. My guess is that the Major intended the carting William’s son William to be able to continue to live in the house that his father built. However, it does not seem that the younger William would own the land that the house was on.

From the book, “The Descendants of Elder William Brewster”:

The children of William and Rebecca (Bartlett) Bradford were remembered in the will of [William’s uncle] John Richards of Boston dated 1 April 1694 and proved on 10 May 1694 that mentioned that “the children of William Bradford Fr. of Plymouth were to receive the share fo their grandfather Major William Bradford, which was to be equally divided between them.” The children’s names were not mentioned.

The three children of William Bradford Jr., late of Plymouth, deceased, namely, William, Alice, and Sarah, made choice of their “uncle” Mr. Joseph Bartlett and Mr. Nathaniel Warren to be their guardians on 18 December 1700. Each child would have been over 14 years of age to be allowed to choose their guardian. A bond in the amount of 100 pounds was posted by the guardians “to ye orphaned Children.”

I wonder who Joseph Bartlett and Nathaniel Warren are? Rebecca Bartlett Bradford had an Uncle Joseph Bartlett (1639-1711). This Joseph also had a son Joseph (1665-1703). Nathaniel Warren seems even more obscure. Rebecca’s great-grandfather was Richard Warren. The titles Mr. are important. At the time, Mr. would have indicated a person of status and wealth.

Here is a helpful article from Illinois.edu from the Plymouth Colony Archive Project:

D. Guardianship

Guardian agreements are another type of agreement that I will only briefly mention here. The Court Records demonstrate that by 1660 guardian agreements were more common in the records than service and apprentice agreements. No recorded laws governed these agreements. Guardian agreements were written in a contract form similar to that of a servant’s indenture. Often a child would “pick” one or two adults to serve as their guardian until they were adults. A typical guardian agreement reads as follow: “Att this Court, Hannah Hull made choise of Joseph Holley and Nathaniel Fitsrandall to be her guardians, which was approved by the Court” (PCR 5: 52). In this case it is uncertain as to whether or not this childððs parents are deceased. However, other agreements specifically mention that the child’s father or parents were dead (PCR 5: 124). In some instances guardian agreements explicitly stated what goods the chosen guardian was to provide for the child while others asked that the guardians manage the estates inherited by their new wards (PCR 4:39).

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a guardian as “one who has or is by law entitled to the custody of the person or property (or both) of an infant, idiot, or other person legally incapable of managing his own affairs” (Electronic Text Center: UVA). The Plymouth Court Records indicate that this was how Plymouth residents defined guardians. Guardian agreements thus became a type of social welfare for orphaned children or children who can from dysfunctional parents. We may never know the manner in which guardians dealt with their wards. Did the guardian treat them like their own children, or did they treat their wards like servants? Most likely, the treatment of wards was highly varied. One record from 1659 involved a complaint made against John Williams, of Scittuate, for the “hard vsage of a daughter of John Barker, deceased” (PCR 3:160). The child was removed from William’s house and given to Thomas Bird until the next Court session could look into the case further. In the meantime, Williams was required to pay a fine. The final sentence of the record was particularly intriguing as it revealed a kin relationship between Williams and the daughter of the deceased John Barker. The record stated that “the said Thomas Bird is to appeer att the next Court to giue in what testimony hee can produce to cleare vp the case betwixt the said John Williams and his kinswoman, the said gerle” (ibid.). Here we see that Williams was probably the guardian of Barker’s daughter, and yet he had mistreated her and used her like a servant.

This record concerning the treatment of a ward is on the one extreme. In other cases a ward may have been treated like the guardian’s child. A future project might entail looking at the wills of men whom we know were chosen as guardians. Are the children they were assigned to look after listed in their wills? Are they listed as servants? These are just a few questions which might help us to understand the social roles of both the guardian and the child.

Apprentice, servant, and ward all entered into a common law contract with a master or guardian. These indenture agreements were viewed as unbreakable contracts and were enforced by the Plymouth Court. Any changes in indenture agreements — from the trade of a servant and the withholding of food or clothing to the misdemeanors of a servant — were brought before the Court. The next several sections will explore the manner with which change and divergence in indenture agreements was dealt.

It appears that the children would live with the guardians and would be treated along the range between servant to child. This doesn’t surprise me, as I believe that natural children were aslo treated along the same spectrum between child and servant.

From “William Bradford of the Mayflower”:

John Richards of Boston, merchant, in his will dated 1 April, proved 10 May 1694, named, among others, the children of his late sister Alice the wife of Major William Bradford of Plymouth; Thomas Bradford of Connecticut; Mercy the wife of mr. Steel of Hartford, [Conn.]; Alice the wife of Major James Fritch of Norwich, [Conn.]; Hannah the wife of Joshua Ribpley of Norwich; Melatiah the wife of John Steel of Norwich; the children of Willima Bradford Fr. of Plymouth to receive the share of the grandfather Major William Bradford to be equally divided among the; John Bradford; Samuel Bradford; Mary the wife of William Hunt of Wymouth; Sarah the wife of Mr. Baker of Duxbury; and Elizabethe Adams the daughter of Alice the wife of the late Rev. William Adams of Dedham.

John Richards was Major William Bradford’s brother-in-law.

Two Generations of Bradford Guardianship

The last William Bradford in my line born before 18 December 1686 chose, along with his two sisters to be under the guardianship of “their uncle Mr. Joseph Bartlett and Mr. Nathaniel Warren”. This William died 9 March 1729/30. According to “William Bradford of the Mayflower”,  “On 29 Nov 1736 George Partridge of Duxborough was appointed guardian of Sarah and Jerusha Bradford, over 14, and of Mercy and Josiah, under 14. On 21 May 1741 Gershom Bradford was appointed guardian of Josiah”. Josiah who was my ancestor was born possibly 1724.

Who Was George Partridge?

My assumption is that Josiah went to live with George Partridge in what I assume would be today’s Duxbury between 1736 and 1741. According to a 1915 Partridge genealogy:

Perhaps Josiah didn’t care for being restrained and was able to choose Gershom Bradford as his guardian as of 1741.

Summary and Conclusions

  • For the most part, I did not get very specific with the location of various Bradford ancestors
  • A specific location is known where Governor Bradford’s first dwelling house was in Downtown Plymouth.
  • I also guessed as to where Josiah Bradford lived when he was under the guardianship of Gershom Bradford in Duxbury.
  • In general, for the time period that I looked at, my Bradford ancestors lived to the North of Plmouth mostly in what is now Kingston.
  • The study of where ancestors lived and the lands they owned goes beyond the basic birth, marriage and death records and can be complicated. On the other hand these land records are sometimes better recorded than other records. When people moved, it was often for a reason and adds interest to the family history.






A New R1b-L513 YDNA Tree for Hartley

Well, the tree isn’t just for Hartley. This is a new tree that my branch of Hartley happens to be in.

The Old L513 Tree

Here is a Tree from 2016:

Hartley was about in the middle where I put an arrow. That Tree is pretty old. Here is a newer Tree from 2018:

Between 2016 and 2018, my Hartley branch moved down two levels from Z17911 to A11138 to A11132:

Updated 2020 L513 Tree

I was surprised that when I found my Hartley Line on the 2020 L513 Tree that I wasn’t in the middle anymore:

That is because the L513 Tree has been split in two. This makes sense due to more people taking the Big Y test. There were a few more changes. One is that the country of origin is no longer shown. Instead, there is a timeline on the left. The larger part of the tree is in green which is starting about 1,000 AD. Right below that is the genealogical Timeframe. To me, the most important part is the part where the SNP represents a particular Surname.

Here is Part 2 of the L513 Chart – the part that Hartley is not on:

SNP Tracker

There is a web site called SNP Tracker which tries to trace the history of your SNP through time:


  • A New L513 Tree Chart shows Hartley in a different format than previously
  • This new Chart splits the previous L513 Tree into two parts
  • The old Chart’s country of origins is replaced by a timeline

Shared Clustering for My Father’s First Cousin Joyce

Shared Clustering is a program that was brought to my attention by Jim Bartlett. As Joyce is my father’s first cousin, I share common ancestors with two out of four of her grandparents:

However, once I go down this route, I need to know something about Joyce’s Gurney and Rounseville sides to make sure I’m not going down the wrong path.

Jumping Into Joyce’s Shared Clustering

I had thought that I had downloaded Joyce’s matches from Ancestry already, but I guess it didn’t save the results. I’ll need to try again:

Joyce has quite a few matches – over 84,000. This could take a while to download. The advantage of using Joyce’s matches is that she is one generation closer than me to get matches from my great-grandparents. Stated another way, her Hartley and Snell matches should be about twice as strong as mine.

Now that Joyce’s matches are downloaded, I can begin to cluster. I’ll choose a lower limit of 50 cM:


I’ll put the results in a chart:

The good news is that all four of Joyce’s grandparents are represented in the chart above. There were six clusters. There were two more on the Gurney side that I didn’t enter.

Joyce’s 40 cM Clusters

Going from 50 to 40 cM adds two clusters:

The split is pretty even between Gurney in the upper left and Hartley in the lower right. Joyce’s Hartley mother was one of 13 children, so she has a lot of close relatives.

When I compare the clusters at two levels in MS Access, I get this:

Hartley was Clusters 5 and 6 previously. This shows that old Cluster 5 mapped to Cluster 6 and Cluster 6 mapped to new Clusters 6 and 7. That shows that the clusters are reorganizing.

Victoria in Cluster 6 with Howorth Ancestry

One person in Cluster 6 has Howorth ancestry. It would be worth looking into Victoria’s tree:

This is Victoria’s paternal side. I’ll try to recreate Victoria’s tree.  I want to focus on Margaret Howorth. According to the 1910 Census, James’ mother was Margaret and Margaret’s father was from England:

The 1910 Census has her born in Iowa in about 1878. Here is some information about Margaret from her marriage record:

Edmund Howorth from England

In 1880, Edmund was living on a Farm in Iowa with his family:

This appears to be Edmund living with his parents in Ohio in 1850:

The next record which is a hint at Ancestry seems to be a leap of faith except that one of my ancestors attended this same Baptist Church:

The record makes it clear that Edmund’s mother’s maiden name was also Howorth:

That means that Joyce could be related on either side of the family or both.

Edmund the father was a weaver in 1823. I’m not sure where Long Bridge is or was. I assume in Bacup. This also matches Edmund’s birth on the 1900 Census:

By 1856 the elder Edmund had made his way to Crawford, Iowa:

Howorths in England

It appears that the Howorth’s should have been in England in 1841 for the Census. This could be the younger Edmund:

He was living at Waterside which I assume is in Bacup with perhaps his grandmother and Uncles?

Back to Iowa for Edmunds 1861 Will

Edmund mentions first his daughter Sarah, then his wife Mary:

Next. he mentions his four children and finally his brother Daniel and his son Daniel executor:

The son Edmund is not mentioned. However Edmund is referred to as Senr. which I take to be Senior and thus the son Edmund is implied in the will.

Liverpool to New York in 1842

This appears to be the Howorth family traveling to New York in 1842:

However, some of the family appears to be missing. I assume that the elder James was a brother of Edmund.

Connecting the Howorths

I would like to connect this family to my line:

Perhaps more DNA review will help clear this up. These two lines are from Australia on the left and the US on the right and are connected by genealogy and DNA.

On To Joyce’s 30 cM Clusters

At 30 cM, Joyce has 21 clusters. Using Access, I get the new cross-cluster comparison:

I’ll try this for now:

However, there were two Cluster 6’s last time, so I’ll have to check. Also, I’ll want to see if there are any new Hartley side clusters.

Gurney Clusters 7 and 11

I have a note that one of the people has many of my ancestor names, but the DNA match is in a Gurney Cluster. That tells me that I should not pursue the ancestry of this one match. That is, unless this match has other DNA matches on my Hartley side.

There is a similar situation at Gurney Cluster 11. However, this Cluster has common ancestors from Joyce’s maternal and paternal sides.

First, if there is more than one common ancestor, I tend to go with the closest common ancestors.

Hartley Cluster 13

This is the big Cluster this time:

It also has a funny bump at the bottom. The top left of the Cluster is a part I’m interested in.

I already looked at Victoria’s tree above. That is the tree with two Howorth Lines. Above are my Greenwood Hartley matches. Here is Greenwood and his wife Ann Emmet:

It was Ann’s mother who was a Howorth.

Of the 7 I show in the first part of Cluster 13, I have already been tracking the last 5. I have Kristen and Emily in a tree already:

I have been unable to figure out where saudet fits in. Jennifer doesn’t have a tree and I haven’t been able to get in touch with her. Perhaps the first two matches, Janet and Stephen, will help place saudet.

From comparing trees, it is clear that saudet is related to Stephen. So I will look at Janet’s tree:

It appears that both sides of Janet’s tree are from Lancashire. I see that James Stott was born in Cloughfold, to the West of Bacup:

Janet had this marriage for James:

I’ll assume that Janet knows her genealogy.

Here Janet has James mother as Malley Stott. The 1881 Census mentions a Sarah Stott. So there is some confusion. Was Malley a nickname? So I didn’t make the genealogical connection but now Janet is on my radar. I did make a geographical connection.

The Other Side of Cluster 13

In the middle of Cluster 13 are a lot of close relatives. It comes out of that on someone named Bessey. I’ll take a look at her tree:

It’s a bit skimpy, but I get some hints:

Althea was married to a Fearing. I thought that I was related tot he Fearings through the Snells and this shows how. We both descend from Bradford and Snell.

It looks like I was already tracking a Katherine. This person must be the same person or a sister:

The part of the Cluster in green is Snell:

Moving on to Joyce’s 25 cM Clusters

This gets Joyce up to 43 clusters.

Cluster 2

Cluster 2 is broken into two major parts and a small part at the end. The first part is probably Snell/Bradford. The second part is probably Hathaway/Clifton. The third small part seems to merge back into Gurney (not related to me).

Running the 25 cM Clusters Through Access

Access makes reviewing the clusters easier:

This is only part of the answer. Looking at the last two columns, this tells us that the previous Cluster 1 mapped to Cluster 2 at the 25 cM limit. However, that is not the whole story:

When I sort by new Cluster 2, I see that it comes from other places. Usually the clustering is going from few to many. In this case, it went from many to one. From the chart above, at 50 cM, Clusters 3 and 4 are Gurney Clusters. This may be a result of the way I did my Access query or have to do with relatives of relatives.

Here is my Access query:

It starts with the 25 cM Clusters. There is a right handed arrow which means to include all the 25 cM Clusters plus the clusters where the 25 cM clusters are the same as the 30 cM clusters. I do that the same way down the line. I tried to query a slightly different way and got the same results.

Here are Clusters 3, 4 and 5 from 50 cM:

Clusters 3 and 4 are Gurney matches and Cluster 5 shows Hartley matches.

I can simplify my Access Query by only including those Hartley Clusters I considered at 30 cM:

Interestingly when I restrict the 30 cM Cluster, I no longer show Gurney Clusters 3 and 4 at the 50 cM level. This shows that previous Cluster 13 may now be 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 9. Cluster 2 is interesting in that it also came from Cluster 1.

Here is another way to slice and dice it:

Cluster 5 at 50 cM was my Snell side. Cluster 6 was my Hartley side. That means that Clusters 6, 7, 9, and 25 should be on the Hartley side. This is generally true except for Cluster 25:

There is someone there who is related to Joyce on her Gurney side. However, he also has a Howorth ancestor which would be on Joyce’s and my Hartley side. I had discussed this some above.

Restricting Members

In my previous Blog I restricted my wife’s large French Canadian clusters to 40. I wonder what would happen if I restricted Joyce’s clusters? One of the great things about the Shared Clustering Program is that it only takes a minute to see what happens. I tried it and it didn’t help. I only lost one cluster and I lost the English Hartley Clusters that I am interested in. So where it helped in one case, it didn’t help here.

Looking At Clusters 2, 6, 7, 9, 25

Actually, I already mentioned that Cluster 25 is a Gurney Cluster, so that is confusing. I already looked at Cluster 2.

Plus, Victoria’s tree with the Howorth families is now in Cluster 6. After shuffling things around a bit, I get this:

This also has Cluster 5 which I missed above. It takes a little bit to sort these out.

Cluster 4

I haven’t mentioned Cluster 4. This also came from busy previous Cluster 13. Cluster 4 is hanging off of the top left of Cluster 5:

There are only 6 matches in Cluster 6, but two are associated with Cluster 5 and one with Cluster 9. As Cluster 5 and 9 both have Snell’s in them, that tells me something about Cluster 4. Here is one tree in Cluster 4:

I’ll fill out this tree to see if I find any common ancestors:

Now if Ancestry could have figured this out, it would have saved me some time. Here is my tree:

Our common ancestors are Snell and Head. However, my guess is that there are other connections. I see also Palmer in LPs tree. I had to extend my existing chart from Isaiah Snell:

This is how LP matches Joyce:

More Snells in Cluster 5

Joyce’s first match in Cluster 5 has a very large tree. Joyce and John’s ancestors go two steps beyond the tree above to Thomas Snell. I might as well add in John. However, it will make the names tiny. That makes John and Joyce 8th cousins:

The other Snell match who I know of is OT:

Here is OT added in:

Cluster 7 From Lancashire

Cluster 7 has an interesting shape:

New in this Cluster is Ruth. Joyce and Ruth’s common ancestry go back to Pilling.

Ruth is in yellow as are the other 2 in this Cluster. One theory is that the overlapping clusters in Cluster 7 are for Hartley and Emmet. As Ruth has no known Emmet DNA, that could mean that Kristen is related to Joyce more on the Hartley side and Emily is related to Joyce more on the Emmet side.

Cluster 8

This Cluster is situated between my Hartley and Snell Clusters. There are only three in this Cluster. One match, LD, has a tree:

Here is my buildout on LD’s maternal side:

I’m curious about this part of the tree:

I did a genealogy on the Snell’s years ago and didn’t have that Samuel had a son named Peter. This Peter was from Freetown and Samuel was from Tiverton. So there must be a Snell connection, but perhaps not through Samuel. Also looking at Cluster 8, there are some matches to Cluster 9 which is a Snell Cluster.

Taking Joyce’s Clusters Down to the Minimum at 20 cM

This involves correlated matches that are down to 6 cM. This gets me 104 clusters. At the 6th cousin level, Joyce has 128 5th great-grandparents. However, I have already mapped out a match for Joyce at the 8th cousin level. At this level, Joyce has 512 7th great-grandparents. That is far back and old.

Comparison in Access

I brought part of the cluster spreadsheet into Access and compared it to the two previous cluster runs. I set the previous run to only include non-null values. Then I sorted by new cluster number:

So that tells me that the new Cluster 1 and 4 came from the old Cluster 6. Cluster 6 is the one I had as Howorth previously.

Here the new Cluster 1 has many notes on Howorth. However, I have no notes on Clusters 2, 3, and 4. Cluster 4 extends down quite far with a lot of small matches.

Starting at the Top – Joan’s Tree

There are some names above Cluster 1:

  • Sammy doesn’t have a usable tree
  • Ann has a common ancestor with Joyce of James and Mary Howorth
  • Joan has a tree with three people

Here is Joan’s tree:

Here is Mary Jane in 1940:

I think I already tracked this family. Here is Victoria’s tree:

Joan’s tree matches up with Edmund and Sabrina:

Actually, I have a guess for Edmund at the top:

This is from the Ebebezer Baptist Church in Bacup where my Howorth were baptized. Edmund mentions his brother Daniel in his will. That must be his brother Daniel above.

Here are the dates of the births:

The Tong Connection

Edmund and Ann’s children were born in Tong. I mentioned Tong in a previous Blog. Here are the children of my ancestor James Howorth:

This timeline is confusing becuase there are two Betty’s. Also Abram is another name for Abraham, so there appear to be two of those. Esther is my ancestor. I have that her youngest two siblings were born in Tong. Tong is to the East or SouthEast of Bacup:

Cluster 1

Cluster 1 adds Sara:

Sara’s tree already made the connection with Edmund Howorth of 1823.

Gretchen has an unlinked tree:

Now that I’ve gone down this route, I feel obliged to check for a Howorth connection:

I have a feeling the connection is through Hetty Nuttall, but I had trouble figuring out where in England she was born.

From Bacup to Trawden: Cluster 1 to Cluster 54

Cluster 53 has a Snell/Bradford common ancestor. Then there are some closer cousins. Then there are two with Hartley/Emmet ancestors. So Cluster 53 is a compound Cluster. Cluster 54 has some Hartley/Emmet common ancestors. Below that, there is a Sarah Pilling ancestor that I would like to look at. The first person in Cluster 55 has a Hartley ancestor from the area where my Hartley’s lived. The first person in Cluster 56 has Hartley also but no tree.

Sarah Pilling Common Ancestor

A match associated with Cluster 54 shows Charles and Joyce as having a common ancestor with Sarah Pilling:

I would like to take a look at this connection. In my tree, I have that Sarah Pilling was a single mother:

Charles’ tree stops short of the older Sarah Pilling:

Apparently, Ancestry made the connection based on my tree:

This is the record I had for John:

I don’t know if Charles got his/her information from my tree or if it was gotten independently. apparently, there was a record that John was the illegitimate son of Sarah. I had assumed that Greenwood Pilling was also an illegitimate son of Sarah who was not baptized (or at least I found no record).

Also, I note that if I have my tree right, there would be Stansfield in this line:

I have come up with Stansfield connections in other DNA matches, so that is something to consider.

Cluster 55

Here is how these Clusters compare in Access with Clusters from earlier runs:

That check that by walking it forward. By forward, I mean from the 20 cM run to the 25 cM run to the 30 cM run. 55 goes to Cluster 1 then Cluster 14. The problem is, I haven’t been tracking these Clusters.

The previous Cluster 1 was under the radar with only three matches:

This further mapped back to Cluster 14 at the 30 cM cutoff. That was also under the radar:

However, since Cluster 55 below has a Shackleton, perhaps it would be be worthwhile to look at Claire’s tree. Claire is also in Clusters 55 and 1.

Claire’s Cluster 55 Tree

This tree has dates but no places. I’ll be making my own tree. My tree shows that this family was from Wharfesdale which is between Ilkley and Otley:

I brought Claire’s tree back to 1823 int Otley. There I found an Elizabeth Hartley:

The clues for Elizabeth’s parents lead me to John Hartley of Colne and Sarah West of Otley. Here is Elizabeth’s birth and baptismal record:

The 1851 Census says that John Hartley was from Colne:

Here is Elizabeth in 1841:

Elizabether’s father, John, is listed on the previous page as an agricultural laborer. He apparently became a paper maker because of his father in laws. Also there is a George Hartley living next door – perhaps a brother of John who was born in Yorkshire.

Here is George’s birth in 1815 to Samuel Hartley:

It looks like I am stuck on John Hartley.

Lee’s Cluster 55 Tree

Lee also has a Hartley in his tree:

Confusingly, Margaret’s father is given as Lawrence Halstead:


Rebecca’s Tree

Rebecca in Cluster 55 has a tree with Shackleton:

Ancestry has shared surnames in green. Here some more of Rebecca’s tree:

The tree I built out for Rebecca also has a John Shackleton:

I’ll look into Rebecca’s tree. In 1871, Thomas Shackleton with his father Henry and family were living in Harden, Yorkshire, but were born in Heptonstall:

Here is Henry’s marriage record:

Beyond that, I cannot be sure.

Summary and Conclusions

  • In this survey on Joyce’s clustered, I focused mostly on the Hartley side. However, I looked at a few Snell matches
  • I used the clusters to identify new people in them with new trees that I could build out. It helps to know that you are looking for a certain branch of the family that lived in or probably near a certain location.
  • I didn’t have any major breakthroughs but attempted more contacts and got closer to finding out more about my ancestry.

Some New Hartley STR Results

My last major Blog on Hartley STRs was about 2 and a half years ago. Things don’t always happen quickly in the realm of YDNA. However, as a result of my distant Hartley cousin Steve taking a BIg Y test, he now has new 111 STR results.

Steve, whose Big Y test is processing is now my closest Hartley STR match at the 111 STR level.

My Previous STR Tree

STR trees are difficult to draw and the results can be ambiguous. That is why the Big Y test which uses less ambiguous SNPs is a better test overall. Here is the tree I made over 2 and a half years ago:

Note that there were three Hartley’s who had taken the 111 STR test at the time. My guess is that one was too distant to be considered a match. I am Trawden Hartley in the diagram.

These people are also listed at the Hartley YDNA Project site:

I have highlighted the Hartley’s in my group who have tested to 111 STRs. The difference between the upper and lower group is that the administrator wanted the upper group to do a Big Y or more SNP testing.

  • David Hartley 1797 – this is for Steve who is awaiting his Big Y results
  • William Shepherd Hartley Lancashire 1851 – This is Wray Hartley in the diagram above
  • Thomas Hartley about 1769 – This is the Thornton Hartley in the diagram above
  • Robert Hartley – This is me, Trawden Hartley in the diagram above

In my 2015 Blog, I had this three person Hartley 111 STR signature:

In that signature, I tried to take account of the older SNPs to get the ancestral values. This time, I just took the simple mode of the four tests:


I was having trouble figuring out who Ross was. The reason for this is that he doesn’t appear to be in the Hartley YDNA project. I match the David ancestor above at a GD of 7. I match the other two at more than 9. The problem with doing it by hand is that it is easy to miss things. Fortunately, there is a way in Excel to choose differences.

Also notice that Excel interprets some of the values as dates, so care must be taken to format and copy and paste as text. Excel otherwise interprets 11-14 as 14-Nov.

Here is the new and improved version:

There were some discrepancies between what I did before I what I have now. I’ll go with my new chart for now:

Here I have a new Hartley A11132 Hartley 111 STR Mode. When there was a tie on the mode I used the higher value as I noticed that was what FTDNA did. It may be more accurate to consider the other testers for the first 67 STRs or go back to an earlier SNP as I did previously. For DYS447, I had a Hartley mode of 25 previously, so I’ll use that.


I’ll also change the marker before DYS447 which is DYS445. The older SNPs upstream of A11132 had a value of 11, so I’ll use that for the mode. This actually makes a big difference. DYS445 is a very slow marker changing at a rate of 0.16 per 1,000 generations. A male generation is 35.0 years. That means that this marker has a 16% chance of changing every 35,000 years or one chance of changing every 218,750 years! That tells me that the marker should be 11 because the chance of this changing to 12 for Hartley and then back again would take over 400,000 years. However, in another paper, I see a rate of:

DYS445 0.00216

I take that to be 2.16 per 1,000 generations. So that is a big difference. I also see this:

DYS445 0.000918

And I see that the 0.00216 was a mistake. At least I’m not the only one who makes mistakes.

Analyzing the Numbers

Here if a STR value went up, I gave it a pink. If it went down from the mode, I gave it a blue.

Here is some more information on rates:

I think the green, yellow and ornage color-coded numbers are old, but I like the colors as it gives a relative speed of mutation.

Rebuilding the A11132 Hartley STR Tree

The line that I have for the mode is considered to be the oldest value – though there is no guarantee – especially for the faster dark green markers. I added a column on the right for distance from the mode:

That means if I did it right, Steve at the top is closest to the mode or has the oldest combination of STRs. I am next with 4 differences from the mode. I’ll refigure myself with Steve:



Part of why I wanted Steve to take the Big Y test is because he seemed more closely related to me. I already saw that Steve and I shared the older value of 11 for DYS455. I think that is the major split for this group. Then I see that Steve and I also share the newer value of 26 for SYS447. Then after that Steve and I will split off from each other. Steve has the very slow moving newer marker of DYS435 and I have two other newer faster moving light green markers. I may ignore the darker green STRs for now as they could back-mutate more easily.

Here is the first cut:

Above is the Hartley Mode. I’m not sure if I displayed this the best way. At some point, an ancestor of William and Thomas had a mutation in marker 455 from 11 to 12. This split the A11132 Hartley line into two lines. Likewise, the assumption is that at some point, an ancestor of David and Robert had a mutation of 447 which went from 25 repeats to 26 repeats. Alternatively, an ancestor of David and an ancestor of Robert could have had parallel independent mutations. However, I think that this would be less likely. We don’t know which mutated first – 447 or 455 so I have them at equal levels.

Finally, everyone ended up on their own branch.

Fine-Tuning the STR Tree

Next, I can add in the fast markers. While doing that, I see one of my mutations that I missed:

Here is the new tree:

The other thing that I gather from this tree is that the common ancestor of David and Robert Hartley could be more recent than the ancestor of William and Thomas. That is because David and Robert have fewer mutations on their line. David and Robert have a total of 6 William and Thomas have a total of 10. I have from a previous Blog that STRs mutate at the 111 level on average every 125 years. I’m not sure if that is still a valid number.

I’ll take the average STR mutations for each branch, multiply by 125, then add about 50 years for average age (maybe low as I’m 63):

Assuming that was right, I’m not sure how to date the Hartley Mode.

Cross-Checking Dates Using Big Y

I currently match one other Hartley at FTDNA under A11132:

This shows that we have an average of 2 private variants between us. We used to have three, so that number went down for some reason. Perhaps the analysis was refined. The rule is that you can multiply this number by 144 years to get the years to common ancestor. That would be 288 plus my age of 63 or about 350 years ago. That means that it is possible that our common ancestor was as recent as 1670.

That is getting near the Big Y’s ancestor Samuel and/or Edward Hartley born 1666:

An interesting thing about this Big Y tester is that his DYS455 value is 11 and his DYS447 is 25. That brings about this unlikely scenario:

Here I have the other Big Y tester with 1666 ancestor on the left as his 455 is 11 and his 447 is 25. So that puts him above the common ancestor of David and Robert Hartley. That means that if I made the tree right, My common ancestor with Samuel Hartley could be around 1600, my common ancestor with the David Hartley Line could be around 1700 and the Hartley Mode could be around 1500. That would put the common ancestor of the William and Thomas line too early at 1345. That could possibly also be at 1600. Something to think about.

Here is my rough guess:

I think that the relative dating holds together somewhat. It still seems that the David and Robert Line (Steve and I) have the most recent common ancestor in this group.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I played around with Steve’s new 111 STR results and created a possible STR tree
  • The dating was interesting but it ran into a fairly recent proposed date based on Big Y testing. This Big Y dating could be more refined if the tester had uploaded his results to YFull. YFull has had a good reputation in the dating department.
  • I was able to priortize some of the STRs based on their speed of change. The more slowly changing STRs should be the most important ones.
  • I came up with some rough guesses on dating based on a lot of assumptions.
  • The newer more recent Big Y tester’s common ancestor dating makes review of the other Big Y tester’s genealogy more relevant.
  • A lot of this work is in anticipation of Steve’s upcoming Big Y results.
  • The STRs are not as accurate as the SNPs produced by the Big Y, but they are interesting to play around with in making predictions. They can also be used in conjunction with the Big Y information.









My Father’s Cousins’ Ancestry Thru-Lines: Part 2 – Bradford

I would like to look at my father’s cousin Joyce’s Bradford Thrulines. Our most recent Bradford ancestor was Hannah T Snell:

Hannah was born in Wareham in 1838 and married Isaiah Snell. This family lived in Rochester, MA where I grew up. The DNA that Joyce shares with these people is half Snell and half Bradford.

Harvey Bradford ThruLines

Harvey was born about 1808 in Plymouth, MA:

Harvey only had two children. Patricia is my second cousin on another line. These relationships are fairly close, so no evealuation is needed.

Samuel Bradford 1755

By the third set of Bradford ThruLines, we are already back to 1755. Harvey was the youngest son of Samuel. Samuel is important as the link between him and Harvey is weak. There is no known birth record for Harvey. Harvey is linked to Samuel through land records.

Robert and Joyce have a 9 cM match. In the expanded view, Ancestry is suggesting I evaluate Robert’s mother and grandfather:

The link between Barbara and her son would be a little difficult to prove. I assume he knew who his mother was. He and his brother are mentioned in an obituary. Barbara is listed as 11 months old in the 1920 Worcester, MA Census:

That is a little at odds with her posted birth of 1917. Here is her birth record:

This also shows that her father was born in Boston:

Oscar Bradford

Someone helped me out by saving this record:

This shows Oscar’s father as Alexander O Bradford. Here is the family on Washington Street, Boston in 1900:

I like how someone did a great job researching this family:

Here is Alexander the father in 1870 in Cambridge:

Too bad all my research isn’t this easy:

Now we have a middle initial and are getting back to Stephen Bradford and Hannah as parents to Alexander.

Here is Alexander W in 1850 in Duxbury:

Stephen Bradford was a cooper. I believe that Stephen’s father Samuel took over his father-in-law Stephen Churchill’s cooper business. So then he likely passed it down to his son Stephen. Here is a record I transcribed:

So easy with all the research others have done. As I mentioned above, Stephen is very important as being the brother of my ancestor Harvey Bradford. Here is some information I already had for Stephen on my own tree:

That confirms the ThruLInes between Joyce and Robert. The genealogy holds together. The DNA adds evidence that nothing got messed up along the way.

I should note that my cousin has a competing ThruLine that traces the lineage up through Harvey Stetson Bradford. I will probably look at that at some time.

Heading Up a Level to Josiah Bradford Born 1724

This is interesting:

Joyce shows 2 DNA matches through William Bradford and 10 DNA matches through an additional Samuel Bradford. That sounds confusing. That implies to me that 10 people got their genealogy wrong or that Joyce matches 10 people that descend from a different Samuel and Ancestry connected the trees in the wrong way (or perhaps a combination of the two).

Starting with William Bradford Born 1749

This looks like the easy part:

This shows that Liz is and Michael are 2nd cousins to each other and that they both match Joyce. Liz and Michael share a common ancestor of Josiah Bradford with Joyce. Ancestry would like me to evaluate these two lines. I’ll start with Liz and create my own tree for her:

Above is the family in Colleton, South Carolina. I’ve got to get them back to Bradford in Massachusetts. Richard’s mom above is supposed to be a Bradford. Here they are in 1880:

According to this Census, both of Amanda’s parents were born in South Carolina. That’s OK, it is still a while to get back to 1724. Here Richard is transcribed as Harven. I suppose for his middle initial.

Amanda’s death certificate is important as it gets us back to Bradford and Plymouth, MA:

That means that the 1880 Census was probably not correct.

Here is the 1850 Census – still in Colleton, S.C.:

So apparently Jesse was the one making the jump from Massachusetts to South Carolina. I wonder where that put the children during the Civil War?

Here is a flowery obituary for Jesse:

Jesse Bradford Born 1790 and Maria

The tree that Liz created has Maria as a Thornton. An Ancestry suggestion has her as Lovell:

I think that I would tend to go with this record, but it doesn’t really matter as I’m trying to find out more about Jesse.

Here is where I have Jesse on my Ancestry Tree:

This is the information for William Bradford born 1749 in Plymouth. William was the brother of Samuel Bradford, my ancestor. The bad news is that there is not a lot of information out there about Jesse. The good news is that the DNA matches give supporting evidence for the trees that we do have.

Michael’s ThruLines

Michael’s tree is not as extensive as Liz’s tree:

The 1910 Census joins Frampton with the Liz’s Wichman family above:

Now, the Other Samuel Descendants on the ThruLines

It turns out that the other descendants, I already know about. They descend either from my great-grandmother Annie Snell Hartley or one generation back. The Mayflower Families, which is one of the best resources for Bradford genealogy, has no birth date for Samuel Bradford. So differences in his birth date would be expected. In either case, he is still the son of Josiah Bradford and Hannah Rider.

ThruLines to William Bradford Born 1686

Now this is going out a ways. But let’s try it:

This shows as two matches for Joyce, but really amounts to one. CH is related more closely through Hannah Bradford. It is just spelled differently in his tree. I’ll try PK’s tree. PK’s tree goes up to Mary Bradford:

I’m not sure if the DNA test goes with the daughter or granddaughter of Prescott. From the ThruLines, it looks like the daughter. This Thru-Line would also support that my line goes up through Harvey to Samuel to Josiah to William Bradford. The ThruLines shows PK as a half 6th cousin. Ancestry doesn’t always get the half relations right, so I’ll check that out also.

I get a bit stuck before 1860 with my own tree:

Here is Charles and his mother in Boston. The father is presumed dead by this time. One tree had this reference:

That same tree has reference to an Averill Family Genealogy Book:

Here is more from the same book:

Here is some more on Daniel Averill from that book:

The section on Daniel mentions no Mary Gardner and no Charles Averill born in Boston. In fact all these children of Daniel are born in New Hampshire. PK’s tree has Charles born in 1845 to a Daniel who was born 1762. That would make Daniel quite old at Charles’ birth. 83? I’ll pull the plug on this ThruLine. There may be a connection, but I don’t see it right now. Another way to look at it is from the top down. William Bradford born 1686 had a son William born 1726, but he died the same year according to the Mayflower Families Through Five Generations.

My Father’s Cousin’s Harvey Stetson Bradford ThruLines

I had mentioned above that my second cousin shows different ThruLines for the same ancestors. I would like to look at this. There are only two Harvey Bradford’s that could be our ancestors. I have one and she has the other. I think mine is right, so I would like to disprove hers.

Here Holly has her line going up through her father Maury to Harvey to Charles Bradford. In the ThruLines I looked at earlier in the Blog, I had this:

That means that they can’t both be right.

My guess in the match between Maury and David is that David’s tree may be right but Holly’s may be wrong. Here is David’s tree in more detail:

For some reason, both trees go through Harvey S Bradford. David’s actual tree stops at Anna Maria Bradford:

Ancestry put the rest together.

A Tale of Two Harvey Bradford’s

Findagrave.com has this information for Harvey Stetson Bradford:

Here is some more on Harvey Stetson Bradford:

Another cousin took this photo:

This is from the Sherman Cemetery in Rochester, MA:

It appears that both these Harvey Bradford’s were born in 1809. Hence the confusion. However, one was buried in Illinois and the other in Rochester, MA.

So I have proven that Harvey Stetson Bradford was not my ancestor. I still don’t know if David above descends from either Harvey. However, as my ancestor only had two children (Henry Clay and Hannah Thomas), I would say that David did not descend from my ancestor Harvey Bradford:

Summary and Conclusions

  • The most important ThruLine I looked at was between Joyce and Robert. They show a DNA match and a common ancestor with Samuel Bradford (born about 1755) who was the father of Stephen on Robert’s side and Harvey on Joyce’s side.
  • It was easy to show the connection from Robert up to Stephen and Samuel based on research that had already been done.
  • I tried to connect Joyce to PK who showed a potential common ancestor in William Bradford born 1686. However, I found too many problems with PK’s tree to make that connection.
  • Finally I looked at Thrulines connecting another of my father’s cousins Maury to David. This showed ancestry to Harvey Stetson Bradford. But I showed that that Harvey Stetson Bradford was not my anctestor. There were two Harvey’s born in 1809. Harvey Stetson Bradford was born in Maine and died in Illinois. My ancestor Harvey (not Stetson) Bradford was Born in Wareham, MA and buried in Rochester, MA.












My Father’s Cousin Maury’s Hartley Ancestry Thru-Lines – Emmet and Howorth

In my previous Blog, I evaluated a Baldwin Thruline that my father’s cousin Joyce had. Turns out it wasn’t right, but lead to some interesting refinements in our shared Shackleton Line. My father’s first cousin Maury has this suggested person in his ThruLines:

A 3rd great-grandmother doesn’t seem that far back, so let’s take a look. Here is my great-grandfather’s tree:

I have that Edmund Emmet was married to a Sarah, but I don’t have the last name. Here is Isaac’s baptismal record:

I wonder where Soo Clough is. A clough is apparently a ravine:

(Northern England, US) A narrow valley; a cleft in a hillside; a ravineglen, or gorge

Apparently I had previously identified this in a Blog:

In the 1851 Census, Isaac gives his birthplace as Sou or Sow Clough:

I did find this Padiham marriage of Edmund to Sarah Collins, but this would have been after the children were married:

Padiham is near Burnley, so the date and place is off. Edmund Emmot is from Newchurch in Rossendale. Here is Newchurch in relation to Sowclough Road:

The above marriage is likely reflected the last birth below:

Habergham Eaves is South of Burnley.

Here is a tree with Sarah Broughton:

There are some problems with these dates. I have that Edmund Emmot was born 1759. I don’t know when Sarah was born, but I made a guess at 1765. If George Broughton died in 1692, it would have been difficult for him to have a daughter anytime in the 1700’s.

I did find this burial record from May 30, 1801:

This appears to be Lane Head above Bacup:


If I have this right, then the family moved and had a death of a young child. Actually, this area may be the better choice:

Next Victim: Mary Bridge

This is a new name to me. Here is Maury’s ThruLIne:

Maury matches Diana by a small amount of DNA and they show as potential 4th cousins. I’ve never heard of the name of Mary Bridge. In my tree, I have a Mary as the wife of James Howorth born 1768. I do have that James and Mary Howorth had a son named Abram born in 1814.

I’ll try to re-create Diana’s tree and see if I come up on the same place. Pretty soon on Diana’s side I am back to her maternal grandfather:

I have him born in 1869, but Diana has him born in 1878 in Stacksteads:

Here is Fred and family in 1871 in Bacup:

Here is Diana’s tree:

I’m trying to work towards Abraham Howarth on Diana’s tree. Here is an important marriage record:

I find this interesting because Elizabeth was living at Underbank, Bacup at the time of her marriage in 1859. My 2nd great-grandfather was living at Underbank when he married Ann Emmet in 1851. Ann’s mother was Esther Howorth. Small World. This makes me think I am on the right track or that there are a lot of coincidences.

So in 1859, Elizabeth was 21, so born about 1838. Diana has Abraham marrying Lavinia Clegg in 1844, so that is not right. However, Lavinia was Abraham’s second wife:

Parting Ways At Abraham

Here what I have for Abraham in my tree:

Abram was born in 1798 in Hogshead, South of Bacup. This appears to be him in 1851:

For some reason, his children only get initials this year. After a little searching, here he is in 1841 at Greens:


Next page:

Betty above is 4. She is hte one we were looking for. Fast forward to 1861. Here is Elizabeth saying she was born in Greens:

Drawing Out the Relationships

At this point I put all the people into a chart. But first, I have to fix my old chart:

Unfortunately, I have to send Lavinia back to Manchester. For some reason, I had two Abram’s in my tree. One was 1798 and one was 1814. Above, I was looking at the 1798 Abram. It seems like I remember writing to someone about Fred Taylor. I guess I’ll have to get back in touch. I created the above chart when I wrote this Blog.

Here is the correction:

I have Diana in yellow to distinguish from the green testers who have uploaded their results to Gedmatch for analysis. At least I don’t think she has.

Next, I’ll put the tree in chronological order:

I see I never looked into Mary Bridge. Maybe some other time.

Summary and Conclusions

  • This Blog went fairly well. I was unable to prove the first suggestion of Sarah Broughton in my line.
  • In the second part, I never got to Mary Bridge, but I did straighten out the Abram/Abraham Howorth Line.
  • The Taylor and Hartley branches had somewhat of a parallel history except that the Taylor branch went to Australia and the Hartley branch went to Australia.
  • I would still like to assess Mary Bridge. Also the Abraham line needs a last name for his wife Ann.











My Father’s Cousin Joyce’s Hartley Ancestry Thru-Lines: Part 1 – A Baldwin Leads to a Shackleton

I have been looking recently at Ancestry’s Thru-Lines. These include ancestral connections suggested by family trees and DNA matches. My father’s cousin is Joyce and she matches me on her maternal side:

So that is the side I am most interested in right now. Then I am more interested in Joyce’s maternal grandfather James Hartley’s side as that side is less defined than the Snell side.

Here are the ancestors of James Hartley born 1862 in Bacup, Lancashire, England:

Joyce’s Thru-Line suggestions start at her fourth great-grandparent level which is represented by the last column on the right above. However, I am not convinced of all the people that are already in that column – especially John Hartley, Anne Bracewell, Nathaniel Baldwin and Margreatt Baldwin. Part of the reason I’m not convinced of them is that I’m not totally convinced I have their children right: James Hartley and Betty Baldwin. They were just my best guesses.

James Hartley 1763 Thru-Lines

Ancestry shows the Thru-Lines for James Hartley incorrectly:

Joyce does match Ruth by DNA but John Pilling was likely not the father of John Pilling. John’s father was Mary Pilling who later married Robert Hartley. That would make Joyce and Ruth 1/2 3rd cousins once removed. The Thru-Lines for Mary Pilling is half right:

Richard is shown as a half relative which is right, but Ruth is shown as a full relative which is wrong.

Baldwin Thru-Lines

It would be interesting to look at the Baldwin Thru-Lines as Betty  Baldwin was a best guess that I made years ago for an ancestor. If I have the right ancestor, she was born in Bradley:

This appears the same Betty Baldwin that I picked to be Robert Hartley’s mother. She was born in Bradley. Here is Bradley at the orange circle below. Turns out that Nelson which didn’t used to exist grew up around it:

My thinking is, that if we can show a DNA match to the right Baldwin family, that would lend credence to my guess that I descend from Betty Baldwin.

Here are the Nathaniel Baldwin ThruLines:

My 2nd cousin Holly should be in the first column with Joyce. Let’s look at the two DNA matches on the right. It will be important to evaluate them:

Marilyn and Steve both match Joyce. Let’s look to see if their genealogy matches with what I think mine could be. When I click on the child of Nathaniel Baldwin, it goes to a site that has many trees managed by Helen. The first tree has over 50,000 people in it. I’ll look at that one. Here is part of her big tree:

Unfortunately, her daughter of Nathaniel is listed as private. Nathaniel’s wife is Margaret, so that matches with the birth record I had for my Betty Baldwin. Next, I have to look for a marriage for James Farrar. Here is one:

Here we have some competition for Betty. If this was the same Betty born in 1771, then she would have been 21 at the time of her wedding to James Farrar.  How do we reconcile that marriage with this one?

This is 9 years later, so if this was the same Betty Baldwin, she would be 30. There seems to be a few possibilities:

  • This Betty married twice, but wouldn’t she then be a widow rather than a spinster the second time?
  • These were two different Betty’s

My guess was that this could have been James and Betty living in a section of Trawden called Hole in 1841:

Now, I don’t know if this James and Betty are the parents of my Robert, or if they are another James and Betty. Dates for the 1841 were rounded up to the nearest 5 years. So if this is the same couple that got married in 1801, they would have been at the oldest 39 and 29. If this was a 70 year old Betty Baldwin in Hole in 1841, then that could fit in with her birth in 1771. That would mean that James Hartley would be between 76 and 80 at the time of the 1841 Census and would hae been born between about 1761 and 1765.

There were about four James Hartley’s baptized in the Parish of Colne between 1761 and 1765:

Ollin Hall is interesting because the family did live in the Hollin Hall area of Trawden. However, this was an Inghamite baptism. As far as I know, my Hartley ancestors were baptized at the Church of England.

A Few Maps

Here is a map showing Hole (near the bottom of the map), where a James and Betty Hartley lived in 1841:

In 1837, it appears that Mary Pilling (now Hartley) was living in Slack Booth:


If I read Mary’s baptismal record correctly, her Pilling parents were from Seghole:

The James Hartley from the 18441 Census is probably this James:

That would have this James born around 1863, which would most likely be the son of John and Anne Hartley born 1863. Here is a more original version of the burial record:

This is Little Lathe, which I take to be also Laith. Here is Little Laith:

Here is a confusing burial from 1840, a year before the 1841 Census:

This has Betty Hartley from a Hole House dying in that year. If she died in 1840, how is it that she appears to be living in 1841? Perhaps after she died, another Hartley relative named Betty came to live at the house to help out? At any rate, this Betty Hartley, if this was correct age, would have been born about 1775.

Next, I check out Little Laithe in 1841. It turns out that there was a different James Hartley living there:

Hartley’s, Hartley’s everywhere. This James was a little younger than the one at Hole.

Back to the ThruLines

I tried going from the top of the tree down – which is usually a bad idea. I’ll try the other way. I’ll try building a tree for Marilyn and Nellie Farrer. Nellie’s dad was Ernest. When he came to Ellis Island, the ship record listed his home as Accrington. Here he is in Accrington in 1901 at age 16:

Of interest here, Ernest’s mother was born in Colne.

She was a Foulds which I recognize as a Colne name. Here is the marriage record from Accrington:

I’m already back to the 1840’s:

Here is Alice in 1851 in what looks like Call in Great Marsden:

Alice’s mother was Alice Kippax:

One tree at Ancestry suggests that Alice’s grandmother was a Shackleton:

That is a name that is in my ancestry:

Henry Farrer Born 1847

The 1901 Census had Henry born in Brierfield. It turns out that this is not too far from Colne:

This appears to be Henry in 1861:

His widowed mother Christiana is heading the household. Henry is shown born in Marsden. His older brother is a railway porter. In 1901 Henry worked on the railway. In 1871, Henry was a railway engine fireman living in Colne:

Now I am starting to get stuck, because the tree suggestions for Henry give his mother as Sarah Greenwood – not Christiana:

If Sarah was the mother of Henry, she would have been about 51 when he was born. Here is some more information:

This clearly gives Henry’s father as Joseph. This must be Joseph’s marriage record:

This branch does not appear to bring me to Colne right now. Here is Deane and Over Hulton in relationship to Manchester:

This is likely Richard Farrar’s marriage record:

So my tree seems to go against the suggested trees at Ancestry. Here is Marilyn’s maternal side:

My guess so far, is that Joyce could be related to Marilyn on the Foulds branch. Hopefully the connection is not non Marilyn’s paternal side or on her maternal grandmother Bentley’s side.

Back to James Foulds

One of the trees above had John Foulds and Mary Shackleton for James’ parents:

Here we even have a Hartley as a witness. Here is the entry for James:

James was born in August of 1796 and baptized 22 January 1897. This is possibly Mary Shackleton:

Notice that there was a death of a Mary Shackleton less than a year before this baptism. Here is what I have so far:

Here is my tree for comparison:

There is a potential that Mary Shackelton born 1764 could be the sister of Nancy Shackleton born 1781. It looks like my tree could use some work:

I have Elizabeth born after both her parents died, so that can’t be right.

I also have that she was born in Hey Thorn. I don’t know where that is, but Hey is likely in Foulridge:

Bsaed on this exercise, I’ll take Elizabeth Shackelton out of my tree.

Also there was more than one John and Mary Shackleton, so that was confusing. On my Shackleton web site I have:

Very little is known about this family other than the father was a weaver. This family is not to be confused with the John and Mary Shackleton of Pasture. This John was a gentleman. He had 2 daughters that died fairly young with no children. According to Dennis Cairns, “Pasture House which is situated between Barrowford and the village of Roughlee. Our Shackletons lived at Pasture Meadow which is to the South of Trawden and Southweast of Hollin Hall.

Here is Pasture House:

Barrowford is to the West of Colne. Here is Pasture Springs:

I have that my John Shackleton died at Stone Edge, but that appears to be near Barrowford, so I may have the wrong person. Here is Pasture House in relation to Stone Edge:

Here is the 7 September 1788 will for this Gentleman John:

Will of John Shackleton of Pasture House, gent. — messuages called Stone Edge, Upper Lands or Burnt House and New House, and cottages called New Houses, all in Barrowford, with other specified properties there, to Trustees for daughter Jennet. To daughter Mary messuage called Fidling Clough in Thornton, co.York; also £1000. Pasture House, Whitticroft and other specifeid properties in Barrowford and Colne, to trustees for wife Mary for life, then to daughter Jennet, subject to annuity to mother-in-law Margaret Cowgill. To wife messuage in Thornton called Windle Field, and messuage in Kildwick, co. York, for life, then to daughter Mary. Etc. (Copy-)

Here is Jennet:

This must be daughter Mary:

Here is an excerpt from a book, Man’s Estate: Landed Gentry Masculinities, 1660-1900:

This book mentions John’s father and second wife, but not his two daughters. Here is John, son of Christopher:

All this shows, that the John I have in my tree is wrong:


Perhaps this marriage has a hint:

I don’t know if this helps or makes things more confusing. I had that Richard Farrar was the father of Joseph Farrar above, but that was on a different line. This could be the John of Pasture House:

The John may be the John of the marriage above, but that would make him only about 19 at the time of marriage.

This appears to represent three different branches of Shackelton:

Here is Park Hill:

I have noted Salter Syke above. Wicoller is part of Trawden, so more likely related to my branch of Shackleton. Also note the spelling is a bit different.

Just to confuse things further, a John Shackleton from Heptonstall married someone from Great Marsden. Let’s hope he moved back to Heptonstall:

Summary So Far

First, I showed that my connection to Marilyn’s ThruLines was not through my supposed Baldwin ancestor. Instead, it could be that the connection could be on my Shackleton side. Along the way, I ruled out the birth and death of my ancestor John Shackelton as that pair of birth and death dates belonged to another John Shackelton. That means that means that Christopher should also not be on my tree:

So that makes it interesting that Nicholas and Joyce show a ThruLine based in Christopher Shackelton:

Here is Nicholas’ tree:

Again, Ancestry wants me to evaluate Nicholas’ tree. Nicholas has his ancestor from Kirkby, Malham near Skipton, Yorkshire:

I think I’ll skip Nicholas for now as I don’t think my Christopher is right.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I went through an exhausting review of Marilyn’s tree to see if her supposed Baldwin line matched with my supposed Baldwin Line
  • I was unable to get Marilyn back to Baldwin
  • I was able to find a Shackleton in Marilyn’s line who lived in the area where my Shackleton ancestor lived.
  • I also was able to refine my Shackleton Line. Through additional research, I was able to separate a different more famous Shackleton Line from mine.
  • I found an additional ThruLine for Joyce with an erroneous Shackleton ancestor I had in my tree and decided not to follow that up.
  • ThruLines were helpful in correcting errors in my tree in this case.
  • There may still be a connection between Marilyn and Joyce on the Shackleton Line.







Some More A11132 Hartley Genealogy

In a previous Blog, I looked at some A11132 Hartley Genealogy. That Blog was prompted by an email from Michelle whose husband had tested positive for the YDNA SNP of A11132. As far as I know, all A11132 men have male Hartley ancestry. I didn’t include Michelle’s husband’s genealogy in my previous Blog as his YDNA testing had been minimal as far as STRs, so it would be difficult to tell which Hartley genealogy he would be closest to. Also Michelle’s husband’s genealogy goes back, so far, only to the US. However, in this Blog, I decided to take a shot at lookig at this branch’s genealogy.

This is the tree Michelle sent:

Here is a close-up of William Hartley:

All we need to do is to connection William Hartley in Kentucky with the other A11132 Hartley’s in the area of Lancashire, England:


We know that is where William’s ancestors belong, but how do we get them back there? Another question we may ask is, “Why did William’s ancestors want to leave in the first place?” A typical answer could be for religious or economic reasons.

The A11132 Hartley Genealogy Summary to Date

Here I have given the Hartley’s in the Hartley YDNA Project numbers. Michelle’s husband is 4.11. 4.11 shows an earliest Hartley ancestor Richard Hartley born 1720. My understanding is that there could be some questions on the genealogy between William of 1814 and Richard of 1720. I’m no expert on genealogy, but I can offer a second set of eyes. Plus, it’s fun doing Hartley genealogy that is not my own.

William Burton Hartley Born 1857

I found William at findagrave.com:

It looks like he got around a bit from a birth in Missouri to a death in Nebraska. According to findagrave.com, William had quite a few children:

William B married in Iowa. This Iowa marriage record gives a lot of information:

William was a farmer living in Kansas. He was born in Missouri to Willam Hartley and Margaret Muse (according to the transcription).

Here is young William B in 1860 in Kansas Territory:

William Hartley Born 1814 Kentucky

Back to findagrave.com:

In 1840, there was a William Hartley in Nicholas, Kentucky:

This could not have been the same William as the above William would have been 26 in 1840:

The ages in this house go from the 40’s down to the teens. Perhaps a relative?

Here is William in 1850:

I don’t see Eliza and John. They were in the 1860 Census above. Here is William’s 1839 Fleming County, Kentucky marriage record:

In 1837 or 1839, William Hartley purchased some sheep and hogs from the estate of William Kirk:

Who Was the Father of William Hartley Born 1814?

So far the only name for William’s father is from findagrave.com. That name is Benjamin John Wesley Hartley born 1781. There were 10 trees for William Hartley. 7 gave Benjamin John Wesley Hartley as the father, one gave Benjamin Hartley as the father and the remaining two had no father. Assuming the name is right, I would take this family to be Wesleyan Methodist.

According to findagrave, this stone is in the Hartley Cemetery:

Looks like a peaceful place:

Here is the stone for Mary Hartley:

According to findagrave.com, the Cemetery is:

Located abt 1 Mile off Ky 32 on Routt Rd in Goddard, Ky. Across from Goddard Covered Bridge.

Here is Goddard:

Remember William Hartley married Margaret Muse, so Muses Mills could be a good hint. Here is the covered bridge:

There is a Church to the right and cemetery. Here is Routt Road. One mile from Route 32 would be near “Our Tiny Nut House”:

Assuming this was a family cemetery, this could be the location of the old Hartley homestead. However, going through the Cemetery list, the only Hartley’s lisrted are Benjamin and Mary:

A lot of Gardner’s and Hurst’s are listed, so perhaps they married into the family, or bought the farm?

Finally, some Kirk’s are buried here:

Recall above that William Hartley (assumed son of Benjamin Hartley) bought some livestock from the estate of William Kirk in 1837 or 1839. So we have circumstantial evidence of a connection between a William Hartley and a Benjamin Hartley.

Here is the marriage transcription:

Married by a Holmes:

Here is a Benjamin Hartley in Elizaville in 1820:

If Benjamin was born in 1781, he would have been about 39 in 1820. This could have been Benjamin, his wife and five children at the time.

This is likely the family in 1830:

I don’t know where the Eastern Division was:

I think that Goddard was around the word Plains above.

Benjamin Hartley – Making the Leap (Backwards) From Kentucky

Good research goes from the known to the unknown or from the more recent to the less recent. The overall goal is to get this Hartley family back to England, but before that we need to get Benjamin out of Kentucky. The prevailing Ancestry hints have Benjamin back in North Carolina, so let’s look at that.

Benjamin in 1810 North Carolina

In 1810, Benjamin would be 29. This household has 3 Males 16-25. However, I got Benjamin’s birth date from findagrave.com. They list him there as born in 1781. However, his grave stone shows that he died in 1838 at age 59. That would put his birth at about 1779 and would mean that he would have been 21 in 1810. This house had 3 males of the age of 16 thru 25. I’ll just change Benjamin’s birth year to 1779 until a better date comes along.

However, I see a fly in the ointment. If Benjamin was part of the Hartley household and not the head, he would not have been listed in 1810 in Rowan County. The Benjamin mentioned in that Census was likely 45 or older. Possibly Benjamin’s Uncle if we have the right location?

Here is Rowan County:

We can walk there in about 112 hours. Of course, it probably took a lot longer back then. Based on this scenario, Benjamin was 21 on August 6, 1810 when the Census was taken. He makes his way to Kentucky. Say it took a month to get there. He finds Mary Gilbert and marries her on Septermber 11, 1811.

Was Benjamin’s Father Thomas (1762-1842)?

I get a hint at Ancestry that Benjamin’s father should be Thomas Hartley. Having nothing better to go on right now, I’ll try that:

It turns out Thomas has an impressive stone:

I like the Heartley spelling. This stone is from Davidson, North Carolina, not far from Rowan County. findagrave.com narrows this down to Tyro, NC:

According to findagrave, this is Sandy Creek or St Luke’s Lutheran Cemetery. There are other early Hartley’s buried at this Cemetery.

Here is a transcript of the marriage bond for Thomas in Rowan County, NC:

Moore was the bondsman and Macay the witness.

So far, I feel pretty good about Benjamin being the father of William Hartley. I suppose one argument against this is that William didn’t appear to name any of his children after his father. However, now I am looking for more proof that Benjamin was the son of Thomas from North Carolina.

Thomas H(e)artley Will and Probate

There is a lot of paperwork involving Zilpha H(e)artley wife of Thomas. She felt she didn’t get her fair share after Thomas died on the 10th of October 1842. In one document, she mentions the following:

However, I see no mention of Benjamin Hartley. However, that makes sense as Benjamin died before his father.

Ancestry Trees for Thomas Hartley

I found 10 Ancestry Trees for Thomas Hartley. Eight of those trees included Benjamin. Seven of those trees gave a second wife of Zilpha or equivalent. All of the trees had Jefferson and Richmond as sons. Most of them had a John as a son and most of those John’s were listed as John Wesley. Here is the first tree listed:

This tree doesn’t have Benjamin, but has an extra wife:

I’m not sure about this Emilie.

Here is Zilpha or Zelpha:

Thomas to Benjamin – the Weak Link

Right now I see the Thomas to Benjamin Hartley as the weak link. I have not yet seen strong evidence to support it. This is where DNA testing could come in handy. Here is the tree so far:


We know from legal proceedings that John, Jefferson and Richmond are sons of the Thomas of Tyro, North Carolina. By finding male descendants of these sons, and testing for YDNA we could show if this tree is possible. Another possibility is testing for autosomal DNA. We could add in the descendants of Jane Hartley for this test.

Note that in the tree above, Benjamin would have been born when Thomas was 17.

Another option is to look to see if any other Hartley’s went to Kentucky with Benjamin. And if so, were they siblings of Benjamin?

The Other Benjamin Hartley

I had mentioned another Benjamin Hartley above in the 1810 Census. I find this at WikiTree:

Benjamin Heartley, b c1760 in MD d 1829 in Davidson Co. He married Joannah (?). A planter, he amassed 850 acres before his death. By 1820 two of his sons moved to Ind and IL. By 1837 the widow and the remainder of the family moved to Pike Co IN, excepting one son. Laban, who stayed in NC.

Benjamin had a rather large plantation in the Jersey Settlement in Davidson County, North Carolina in an area now called Tyro.

If our Benjamin was the son of Thomas, then the Benjamin above could be Thomas’ brother.

An Ancestry Message Board Post

I found this 2011 message at Ancestry:

My husband is Benjamin and Mary Hartley’s great great grandson thru their son, Reuben and his son, Joseph and his daughter, Gladys Hartley Raider. From my records, I have Benjamin’s parents as Thomas Hartley 1762-1842 and Mildred “Milly” Burgess Hartley 1764-1838. I have Thomas Hartley’s parents as John Richard Hartley 1730 – 1781 and Mary E Beckett Hartley 1735-1837. Then John Richard Harley’s parents are Waighstill Hartley 1709 – 1765 and Mary Margaret Hodges with no dates. Mary Beckett’s parents are John Beckett 1709 – 1760 and Ann Jones – b 1710. Hope this helps!

My daughter and I go genealogy together. We can connect the dots but we also like to know WHERE they are so this has started us looking for burial sites. We have found stones that are unreadable, broken or just not there anymore. We take pics of the stones and mark where in the cemetery they are buried so that future generations will know. We feel that we are not only perserving our heritage but we spend quality time together. Would you happen to know where Benjamin and Mary are buried?

Any help that you might be able to give would be greatly appreciated. Also, if you have any photos that you would like to share would be terrific!

I think that Michelle mentioned someone who brought her husband’s genealogy back to Waightstill Hartley.

Waightstill Hartley and YDNA

Waightstill Hartley opens up a can of worms. Apparently more than one line claims this ancestor. This is where the Hartley YDNA Project at FTDNA comes in handy. Here is someone in the I1 Haplogroup that claims Waightstill as an ancestor:

Keep in mind that I1 is separated by R1b (where A11132 is) by tens of thousands of years.

Scroll down to Hartley 7.1

I assume that these two testers are both referring to the Waightstill Hartley born in 1709. At least they have the power of numbers here. Here is R-PH165 according to YFull’s YTree:

I find Hartley 7.1 to be confusing as the people on YFull’s YTree are from Turkey, Bahrain and Albania. It would help if Hartley’s from the 7.1 Group uploaded their results to YFull. At any rate, according to YFull, R-PH155 formed a little over 20,000 years ago. We are talking old again. That means that there are people who claim the ancestor of Waightstill Hartley that are in YDNA groups that are both tens of thousands of years separated from A11132. If I were to accept that Waightstill is the ancestor of Hartley 4.11 also, that would make it a three-way tie. YDNA cannot always prove a common ancestor. However, it is very good at disproving common ancestors. There is no way that Hartley 1.2, 4.1 and 7.2 can have common ancestors any later than cave man times. All this to say that it is possible that Waightstill is the ancestor of Hartley 4.11, but not likely. The only thing that is sure is that Waightstill  Hartley cannot be in more than one Hartley YDNA group. Another way to look at it is that if the Waightstill ancestry was to be disproved for the other three YDNA testers, then the Waightstill ancestry would be more likely for Hartley 4.11.

Any Other Leads?

At this point I’m not doing a lot of my own genealogy. I’m looking at work that has already been done and seeing if it makes sense. My feeling is that a lot of rocks have already been turned over looking at the genealogy. It makes more sense to me to track down male Hartley descendants and have them take a YDNA test. These are the new stones that have not yet been turned over.

Richard Hartley From WikiTree

This appears to be the Richard mentioned on Michelle’s husband’s test at the Hartley YDNA Project Site:

Here Richard is the father of Benjamin Hartley. That would be the Benjamin in the 1810 Census, not the later Benjamin. It would make sense if he was also the father of Thomas Hartley.

I get this hint at Ancestry for the father of Thomas Hartley:

It appears that there is a lot of unravelling that is needed. Here is a land record hint from Ancestry:

This is apparently a summary. It is vague on details though I assume N.C. is North Carolina. This appears to indicate that John Hartley fought in the Revolutionary War and received a War Bounty Land Grant. According to the information above, John Richard died in 1783, so the land went to his heir Thomas Hartley. Now the second record is confusing as the land amount is the same and the John Hartley is the same, but this time the land is going to heirs. The WikiTree biography above mentions Richard willing land to sons Laban and Benjamin. Assuming that there was one John Hartley, then both could be true. Again, YDNA testing of descendants could help.

That leaves me wondering if John and Richard are the same person reconciled as John Richard above.

John Richard Hartley 1721-1784

I’m just plugging on, because my feeling is that this Hartley Tree should be resolved with YDNA. One source says that Richard was born in 1721 in Worchester Maryland and one says he was born in 1735 in Shrewsbury, Shropshire, England. That is quite a difference. I see Michelle has Richard as possibly from England.

This brings up a few questions:

  • If Richard was from England, how long after coming to the Colonies did he fight against the British?
  • Was this normal for recent British arrivals to fight against the British?
  • What was his reason for coming to the Colonies?

Summary and Conclusions

Well, my review of this line of genealogy has somewhat petered out. The hope was to try to get back to England with the genealogy. However, that has proved to be difficult.

  • I hadn’t realized that there are YDNA testers in two different YDNA groups claiming Waitlstill Hartley as an ancestor. The 4.11 Hartley, the subject of this Blog, had also considered Waitstill as an ancestor in the past. The YDNA does not disprove that Hartley 4.11 does not descend from Waitstill Hartley. The YDNA does prove that all three groups cannot descend from Waitstill. One group is likely right and the other two wrong. I’m not sure if any group has a solid genealogical link to Waitstill Hartley.
  • The genealogy for Hartley back to John or John Richard Hartley born 1835 seems to be as about as good as it can get. It could be strengthened (or perhaps disproved) by targeted testing of the YDNA of descendents of known children of Thomas or John Richard Hartley.
  • I thought I might find clues as to this Hartley Line’s religious background as that may have been a reason for leaving England. I found one ancestor that seemed to favor the name John Wesley and another that was buried in a Lutheran Cemetery. So, I see no clear indication in my limited look at this family as to religious affiliation.