A New Frazer STR Tree with Associated Families

First, I don’t like to make STR trees. They take a while to build and then when the SNP results come out, I can be proven wrong with my previous STR trees. Nonetheless, I’ll forge ahead based on the new 111 STR results from a Frazier relative.

First, Who Are the Associated Families

My understanding is that our Frazer ancestors came to Scotland at some time around the time of Christ. They probably formed a small group of people around the Inverness area. At the time when people were taking on surnames, they probably took on the surnames of the people who were surrounding them at the time. This would likely account for the names of Riley, Hayes, Stuart, Grant and Frazer/Frazier below. There were likely other names adopted. The name of Chisolm comes to mind and perhaps other names that haven’t had YDNA tests.

Building a STR Tree

First I extracted STR results from Frazers and other more distantly related families:

These are 25 STR results for Riley, Hayes, Stuart, Grant and Frazer/Frazier. From this, it appears clearly that a DYS447 of 24 defines Frazer/Frazier and a DYS447 of 25 defines the families above. It appears that the value of 25 is older as there are more of that number and it is applied to three different families.

Without getting into the details, here is a simple tree:

The important thing here is that our most recent Frazier tester falls solidly in with our North Roscommon Frazers.

Further, there is a clear break between Riley and Hayes/Stuart/Grant:

This is just with 25 STR testing.

Frazer and Related Families at 37 STRs

Here is the testing up to 37 STRs:

I took out the markers that were all the same. There was a further distinction I didn’t note above in the first 25 markers that identifies the Archibald line of the North Roscommon Frazers. That is a DYS391 of 11. This is where I was before Richard’s 111 STR results came in. It looked like he was fairly closely related to the Roscommon Ireland Frazers. At the 37 STR level, one of the Stuarts drops out as he only tested to 25 STRs.

111 STRs

At this level, some more families drop out:

There is still one Riley and one Stuart left. In the last column, there was a 16, 17 and 15 for results. In that case, I assumed that the 16 was the ancestral value and that Riley mutated up and Stuart mutated down. I made a similar assumption in the column that had 12, 13 and 14.

It is in the lighter blue 38-111 STRs that Richard shows some of his differences from the North Roscommon Frazers in DYS710, 717 and 712. These are the three markers that appear to put Richard further back as a match with our Roscommon Frazers before they were in Roscommon. Again, the SNP results should give a better idea if this is indeed the case.

This is my best guess for a STR tree:

The big question is whether Richard is under Archibald Frazer or further back as I have it in the above diagram. The main reason for putting Richard’s common ancestor with Archibald Frazer descendants back before the Irish Frazers is that Jonathan’s matches with other known Irish Frazer descendants appears to be closer than with Richard. Here are Jonathan’s STR matches:

Jonathan matches known North Roscommon Frazer descendants at a GD between 1 and 4. He matches Richard at a GD of 7 which is about the same level at which he matches two Stuart descendants.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I built a Frazer STR tree which tries to take into account other related families of Riley, Hayes, Grant and Stuart.
  • Frazier seems solidly in the Frazer camp based on one of the STR markers
  • However, based on genetic distance, it seems like Richard should have a common ancestor with the North Roscommon Frazers at some point before they moved to Ireland.
  • These findings seem consistent with what I looked at in my previoius Blog on Richard’s 111 STR results
  • My guess is that Richard’s BigY SNP results will confirm what appears to be happening with his less reliable STR results

 

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

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

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

Manuel Pimental Born 1890

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

Actually I need the family members also:

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

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

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

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

Manuel Pimental’s Naturalization

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

 

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

The Azores

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

The population in 2011 was 436.

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

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

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

These columns can be helpful:

Manuel gave as a reference, his neighbor:

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

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

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

Mother and daughter Maria were born in Achada:

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

Records from the Azores

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

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

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

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

This cemetery is on Allen Street:

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

Also:

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

Some 1903 Marriage Discoveries

Here is marriage #4 for Achado:

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Azorean Baptismal Records

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

A Possible Baptismal Record for Manuel Pimental

Here is Record #68 from October 1886:

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

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

Jose Mendes Born 1892

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

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

There were more children on the next page.

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

Here are Collette Street and Sawyer Street on a map:

Jose’s WWII Draft Registration Card is helpful:

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

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

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

Next is the 1920 Census:

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

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

Here is Jose’s burial marker:

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

More on Jose Mendes

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

Passenger Lists for Jose Mendes

This looks like Jose’s record:

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

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

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

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

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

Three Joseph Mendes on Coggeshall Street

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

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

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

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

Here is the correct record again in context:

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

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

However, it is actually Nabais:

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

I’m sure the area is rich with history:

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

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

Melo Vital Records

FamilySearch has records here:

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

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

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

DNA Support for My Children’s Warren Ancestry

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

Heather’s DNA and Genealogy Match with Eileen

Here is Heather’s match with Eileen:

In addition, Ancestry suggests this Warren connection:

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

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

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

Ancestry transcribed Bridget as Pridy for some reason.

Francis or Frank J Sullivan

Here is Frank in 1900 in Lowell with Daughter Blanche:

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

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

Any Other DNA Matches for Heather?

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

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

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

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

JJ’s Warren DNA Matches at Ancestry

Here is JJ’s DNA match with Robin:

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

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

Here is the family in Lowell in 1930:

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

JJ and Eileen

Here is JJ’s smaller match with Eileen:

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

JJ’s Shared Match with Eileen and Robin

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

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

Putting It Together

Here is how all the DNA matches fit together:

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

Summary and Conclusion

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

Post Script

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

Here is the Ancestry transcription:

My New Hartley YDNA Branch of R-FT225247

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

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

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

FT225247

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

My Previous Prediction

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

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

A11130 and FGC6800

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

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

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

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

BY26739

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

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

Here are my brother’s results for this SNP:

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

Next Steps

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

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

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

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

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

My Sister’s DNA Match with LS

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

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

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

More on LS’s Genealogy

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

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

Here is Woodstock, Ontario:

George James Fraser

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

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

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

1881 Census

Here is George in 1881:

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

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

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

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

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

1861 Census

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

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

1871 Census

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

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

Getting From George James Fraser to Philip Fraser/Frazer

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

Here is what I have at my Frazer Web Page:

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

Here is how I had the next generation:

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

Fitting My Tree with the Ontario Fraser Family

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

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

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

Here is my proposed tree:

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

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

A Marriage Record for George and Jane?

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

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

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

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

Two Jane Burgesses?

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

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

The Jane Burgess of LS’s Tree

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

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

John P Frazer

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

Another George James Born in Lambton County, Ontario

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

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

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

In 1871, he was a farmer:

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

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

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

 

So looks like I’m stuck on this line.

Back to the DNA and Shared Clustering

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitney in Cluster 38

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

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

Back to Cluster 39 and Charles

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

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

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

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

This appears to be Charles birth record from Quebec:

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

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

One More Shot At the DNA and Shared Clustering

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

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

TT At Cluster 40

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

This gets me back to the genealogy:

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

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

Here she is said to be born in Ohio.

Here is the 1855 Census in Troy City, NY:

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

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

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

I also found this expanded view tree that I made:

When I add in TT’s Line, I get this:

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

Summary and Conclusions

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

 

 

Update on the New Butler Haplogroup

In my previous Blog, I looked at the new Butler Haplogroup. It turned out that these were actually two new haplogroups.

The two new SNPs are both in the I2 Haplogroup. They are I-Y129564 and I-FT241564. Here is what the genealogy looks like on the Richard Butler side.

I’m not sure I did the tree right, as technically, Richard’s son should be below Richard. I just meant to show that they both had the two SNPs shown above.

These two SNPs formed between the time of birth of the common ancestor between Richard and the Butler from England. I don’t know when that common ancestor was born. I’ll say it was 1700 to be conservative. Richard was born in 1932. The means that these two SNPs formed in about 200 to 232 years. As SNPs form on average between 83 and 144 years, this time period makes sense.

English Butler Private SNPs

The English Butler who is I-Y128364 has 2 private variants:

Here they are:

If the English Butler has a close relative who does the BigY test, these two Private Variants would form their YDNA Branch.

13619832

I’ll use YBrowse to find out more about the English Butler’s private variants:

Thiss position number shows up as BY122010

This SNP was discovered when the English Butler did his BigY test in 2018:

15906031

For some reason, this SNP was discovered a year earlier:

I retyped the tree for what is a likely outcome for the English Branch of Butlers:

At the top is the Butler/Whitson ancestor. The Butler tree is on the left. Now I have Richard’s son below Richard. This shows four BigY testers. Notice, sometimes I put an I before the SNP name and sometimes not. Either way is OK. All these are within the I2 Haplogroup. There is a 30,000 year difference between I1 and I2:

The above depiction is from the Eupedia website.

Batt

The Batt Line from I-Y128591 has 5 Private Variants:

I could do the same exercise that I did for the English Butler, but I won’t. If a close relative of Batt were to take a BigY test, that would likely name the 5 SNPs that have formed in the previous 700 years.

My Brother-In-Law’s Private Variants

My Brother-in-law still has apparently about 16 private variants. I haven’t seen them yet, but his father Richard has 0 private variants and the average private variants between father and son is 8.  From Richard’s Non-Matching Variants:

These are Richard’s non-matching variants compared to his son, the Butler living in England and Batt. The fact that both my brother-in-law and EB (English Butler) have BY28891 and BY29432 seems significant. The fact that Richard doesn’t share these SNPs with his son or EB suggests that his son and EB share these SNPs with each other.

Here is Richard’s results for this SNP:

This shows Richard had only one positive read out of about 10 for this SNP. EB, on the other hand, had about 13 good reads:

Let’s take this SNP up a step to Batt:

Batt actually had 9 good reads, but because Richard had a lousy test, it was not originally included. That means that this SNP should be added to the Butler/Whitson Block:

The SNP could even be further upstream, but it is likely where I show. Putting a new SNP in this Block would not increase the distance between Butler and Batt, but would increase the number of years between Butler, Batt/Whitson and the next closest YDNA relative on the tree. These next matches are quite distantly related and have ancestors from Scotland and the Russian Federation:

BY29432

I’ll check this SNP, to see if it follows the same pattern. In this case, Richard has a much better read:

There is a little arrow at the location of the read.

EB has a bit of a wild read:

I say wild because the Genotype is C and the mutation shows as changing first to A and then to G, but mostly to G like Richard’s results.

Next, I’ll check Batt:

This shows some confusion in the test:

Batt’s faded reads were low quality and the mutation apparently also called the genotype came out as T. There were more than 10 reads of C > G. There is also tow more pages of results for Batt:

Above is the last page. The second page had some more faded T’s. This last page has a good read for a C > A which appears to correspond to EB’s C > A reads, though I think EB’s reads were lower quality. Bottom line is that I think that FTDNA should also add this SNP to the Butler/Whitson Block, but I don’t know all of FTDNA’s standards. If they do, my brother-in-law’s results would be the tippng point.

This is the kind of manual review that FTDNA will be doing with my brother-in-law’s new BigY 700 results. This, in addition to looking at his Private Variants.

Looking At the Butler YDNA Project and Ancestry

There are 599 members of the Butler YDNA Project. There are 5 members who mention Wexford in their ancestry:

  • Two Butlers are I1,
  • two are I2 and
  • one is R1b. R1b is traditionally Irish, though more detail would be needed as this could include England or other parts of Europe also.

Richard is not included in the Wexford Butlers, even though his ancestry probably goes back there. I have him in the YDNA Butler Project as having Kilkenny ancestry as that is as far back as I’ve gotten in the genealogy.

Butlers with Kilkenny Ancestry

I also see five Butlers who show Kilkenny Ancestry:

  • One I2 – This is Richard, but he probably will end up being listed as from Wexford.
  • One R1a – R1a could indicate Scandinatvian origin.
  • Three R1b’s – However, two of these have the Fitzpatrick name

That means that, in this unscientific survey, Wexford Butlers are more likely to be I2 or I1 but less likely R1b. Due to the results including Fitzpatricks, the results for KIlkenny seem inconclusive.

All-Ireland YDNA

When I expand the list to Ireland, I get this:

This seems to indicate that the further away from Wexford you get, the more likely it is that your Butler ancestor will be from the R1b group. There is only one R1a which I would associate more with the I1 and I2 Groups. The R1a ancestor is from Glenmore which is interesting as it seems to be in the area where my wife’s Butlers were from:

Glenmore is in the area of Kilkenny that is near Counties Waterford and Wexford.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I looked at the Private Variants for a BigY Butler tester from England. He is the closest BigY match to the two American Butler testers.
  • It is believed that the common Butler ancestor for these three BigY testers is in Wexford. I drew a BigY tree for what would likely happen if the a close relative of the English Butler BigY tester was to also do the BigY test.
  • The next closest BigY tester has the Batt surname, but can trace his ancestry back to England under the Whitson surname.
  • I looked at some non-matching Variants between my brother-in-law, father-in-law, the other Butler Tester and a Batt BigY tester and showed where they may fit in.
  • I looked at the YDNA data for the FTDNA Butler Project. This suggests that the Wexford Butlers are more likely to the I1, I2, or R1a as compared to R1b. R1b is considered a more native Irish YDNA type. I1, I2, and R1b came later in Irish history – perhaps as part of a Norman conquest.
  • I’m still waiting for FTDNA to finish their manual review of my brother-in-law’s Private Variants.

 

 

 

A New Terminal YDNA Subclade for My Wife’s Butler Family

I have been testing my late father-in-law’s YDNA since 2015, so this has been a long journey. Recently my brother-in-law also had his YDNA tested. He went all out and got the BigY-700 test. This was good because once two people who are closely related both have this test done, then it defines the terminal subclade for that specific family.

So, What is the New Subclade?

The new Subclade is:

Here is how it looks in FTDNA’s Block Tree:

Previously my father-in-law, Richard was I-128364. The odd part about this is that the figure still shows 8 Private Variants between Richard and his son. I don’t see any private variants for Richard. That must mean that his son has about 16 private variants as this is an average of the two. My guess is that FTDNA has not updated the Private Variants yet.

SNP Tracker

The SNP Tracker has not yet tracked I-FT241245. However, this is what it now shows for I-Y128364:

This tracks the migration that the Butler family took since the dawn of time. Note that the Roman period is skipped over and this just brings us up to Medieval times. The Roman period must be bound up in the block of 23 SNPs that are listed here under I-Y128591:

I-FT241245 Is Not the Terminal SNP I Was Expecting

David Vance from the Big Y Facebook Page points out that:

By the way this also says that the father and son both share two variants that are unique to their line, FT241245 and Y129564. Those are two separate SNPs that apparently occurred on the father’s line after his most recent common ancestor with the Butler in England. FT241245 is at position 4195963 and Y129564 is at position 20968182.

This surprised me a bit as previously, I thought that Richard would have one SNP. This is based on the fact that Richard previously had one private variant. My guess is that either the manual review is not finished yet, or Richard’s son had a SNP at position 4195963 resulting in and that Richard had that also, though perhaps they weren’t sure before that Richard had it

I have found that YDNA can be full of surprises.

FT241245

I looked at Richard’s CSV file and found this:

This shows that Richard already tested for this SNP but that there was a question. this is shown as a known SNP because this is a new CSV file. I assume that the original file only showed this as a position number.

The FTDNA Y Chromosome Browsing Tool shows this for Richard:

Richard had only two reads for this SNP and several more reads are needed before they are accepted.

This was accepted based on his son being positive for this SNP:

The other question I can’t answer is why they chose this SNP to name the branch and not Y129564.  I might have chosen Y129564 due to the testing problems for Richard of FT241245.

Y129564

Here is how Richard tested for Y129564:

 

Why Do Richard and His Son Have Two Terminal Subclades?

Here is the tree I had before Richard’s son tested:

I-Y128364 appears to represent the Wexford Butlers. At least that is the opinion of the Butler researcher from England. That makes sense because my wife’s ancestor, though he was probably born in Kilkenny, was born near the Wexford border. The George Butler family from Cincinnati who my wife’s family is related to by autosomal DNA was originally from Wexford. Also the English researcher’s family was from Wexford.

Above, the 225 years before present date is important. Here is the new tree:

The English Butler and the American Butlers shared a common ancestor around 225 years ago. This date could be earlier based on known research. However, since that time, the American branch of Butlers has had 225 years or so for new SNPs to form. New SNPs form at about the rate of every 83 to 144 years depending on the coverage of the BigY test taken. So in those 225 years or more, there was time for two SNPs to develop in the American Butler Line. Unfortunately, without further testing, we don’t know which SNP formed first.

This would be a good place to look for additional BigY testers:

Richard had a Great Uncle George born about 1873. This George had 8 sons. We just need to find a surviving male Butler from that line to test. This descendant of George Butler would probably be either I-FT241245, Y129564 or less likely neither. If he was neither, that would mean that the two new SNPs happened only on the line of George’s brother Edward Henry Butler born 1875.

Private Variants

Here is the Block Tree again:

Richard

Richard’s Private Variants do not show. However, he presently has 0 private variants. Before Richard’s son tested, Richard had one private variant. However, we now know that he should have had 2 private variants. One of those private variants had ambiguous results. Those 2 private variants formed I-FT241245 and Y129564.

Richard’s Son

I can only assume that Richard’s son has about 16 Private Variants as Richard has 0 and the average private variants between the two is 8. I have asked Richard’s son for his private variants. I assume that these may be bad readings or false readings or matches with Batt or the England Butler or new SNPs from up the tree. The other issue is that Richard’s son has taken the BigY 700 which has more coverage than the other BigY testers. That means that Richard’s son may have new SNPs that were not previously discovered.

Butler (England)

This Butler has two private variants which is consistent with Richard’s two New SNPs. If this tester finds a close relative to test the BigY, he will likely have his branch named with two new SNPs. If he finds a more distant relative, he may define one out of two of his now private variants.

Batt

Batt has 5 private variants. He shows his ancestry going back to Joseph Whitson in England in 1615. If we say that the SNPs were formed every 144 years for this older BigY test, that gets us back 720 years. That is roughly the year 1300, so quite a while ago. That suggests that the common ancestor between Butler and Whitson was in England at this time. Perhaps one line stayed in England and became Whitson, while another line went to Ireland and became Butler.

Next Steps

  • FTDNA is likely looking at Ken’s private variants. These should get down to one or zero for Ken.
  • We will want to check the SNP Tracker to see if it picks up the new SNPs for Richard’s line. I don’t know if they wait until FTDNA’s manual review is over or not.
  • It would be nice to have additional BigY testers.

 

 

Hartley BigY 700 Update: Part 3

I tend to write Blogs to figure out what is going on with my DNA results.

Private Variants

The main purpose of the BigY tests are to find and identify SNPs. SNPs are excellent markers to place you in the YDNA tree and hopefully identify family surname groups like Hartley. The Private Variants are those SNPs that don’t (yet) match other testers, so would not be included in the YDNA tree.

In my first Blog posted on January 28th, there were 12 an average of “private variants” shown between me and the other two A11132 testers:

However, these were not really private variants as FTDNA was still matching these SNPs with other testers. While I was writing my first Blog, the number of private variants went down to 10.

In my second Blog posted on February 17th, I noted that my number of private variants for the three A11132 testers had gone from 10 to 6. I wish that I had posted a screen shot of the average number of private variants. However, I did show that these were my own list of private variants:

Presently, I still have these 6 private variants. In order for there to be an average of 4 private variants between me and the other two testers, the other two testers must have a total of 6 private variants between them.

The A11132 Block

The three Hartley BigY testers are all in the A11132 Block. Here is what it looks like presently:

In the first image at the top of the Blog, this A11132 Block had 7 SNPs. Now it has 9. Here are the two new SNPs:

In order for these two SNPs to be added to the A11132 Block, they must be shared by all three testers.

A16716 and FT226983

In a previous Blog, I had noted that I shared this with the new BigY 700 Hartley tester and that the position number was 13658297.

However, I don’t see FT226983 on the list. This must be a newly named SNP. When I search at YBrowse for this SNP, I get this:

It does show as a new SNP from this year:

This is a little confusing, because in a previous Blog, I had that the new BigY tester had a private variant at position 14981376 but that I didn’t. Also here is what I get when I search for this SNP under my named variants:

So what that tells me is that FTDNA’s manual review is still in process or that something is not right. I dove in a little deeper and downloaded my BigY csv file. That showed this:

I assume that from this they couldn’t tell if I was FT226983 or not. This was probably a new position that was tested as it is listed in YBrowse under 2020. That means that the other Hartley tester who had the older BigY test wouldn’t have been tested for this.

My Private Haplotree

Bob Tipton from the FTDNA – BigY Facebook group had some more tips for me. He showed me how to get to my reads.

This shows only one read for FT226983. Usually, they want many reads for me to be positive (around 10?).

Here is another Bob Tipton tip. If you click on your confirmed Haplogroup badge you get to your private haplotree:

According to Bob:

The one for FT226983 should be yellow for Presumed Positive, but currently is probably gray for Presumed Negative. This is a bug in their system that has been reported, but not yet fixed.

The system highlights the line, so it is difficult to tell the color of the dots, but they appear to be gray. Another surprise is that BY16416 is also in gray. This SNP has been around since there were only two Hartley BigY testers.

BY16417

I have had this since before the new Hartley tester. Bob Tipton from the BigY Facebook Group points out that this is actually an indel. Bob explains that an indel is an insertion or deletion rather than a mutation. In the case of BY16417 it was the insertion of an A in the DNA.

Has the Manual Review Been Completed?

After the BigY results come out FTDNA does a manual review. One of the frustrating parts of this review is that FTDNA does not tell you if the review is in progress or if it has been completed. I have tried to figure this out by posting at the FTDNA – BigY Face Group, but have gotten mixed opinions. I wrote an e-mail to Dave Vance who is a co-administrator to my Haplogroup and he said that I could check with FTDNA to see if my manual review had been completed. He also gave some suggestions on how to do my own manual review. This involves checking on the Private Variants for the other Big Y testers and comparing them.

I wrote to FTDNA and they said that my kit has been reviewed and there are no further changes to be made. That means that none of the men below A11132 have any private variants in common. Based on this, I get the impression that there was no manual review. Manual reviews are for when there FTDNA believes that a new branch should be formed.

The Implications of No Change of Haplogroup for the Three Hartley BigY Testers

Assuming that FTDNA came to the right conclusions and we are still A11132, there are implications. The obvious implication is that the three of us have a Hartley ancestor within a certain period of time. That period of time has been quoted as 144 years. However, with the newer BigY testing, that period of time could be as low as 87 years. Previously I had an average of two private variants between myself and the other Hartley Big Y tester. That should have meant a common ancestor about 288 years ago. I was born in 1956, so that would be going back to the year 1688. This date was off because the person I matched with had an ancestor named Samuel and/or  Edward Hartley born in 1666. He married in 1693 and moved to Pennsylvania in the early 1700’s. Assuming he brought his children with him, that means that the latest common ancestor probably would have been that Hartley’s father presumably born around 1640.

Now with the addition of an additional tester there are an average of 4 private variants between the 3 of us. If we use 144 years per variant, that is up to 576 years. That would bring us back to the year 1380. I think that date is too far back. That seems to support using a lower number of years per variant.

Non-Matching Variants

I thought that I would take another look at my Non-Matching Variants to see if they revealed anything. Here are my non-matching variants with the new tester and the previous tester:

This stuff gets tricky. With the newer tester, I have highlighted all my present 6 private variants. However, notice that only 4 of the 6 are non-matches with the older tester. The ones that are missing from the older tester are at positions 4317527 and 26539382. Now the tricky part. Just because I am not a non-match to the older tester does not mean I match him. He may not have been tested either way for those two positions. According to YBrowse 4317527 was named in 2019 and 26539382 in 2020.

Checking the New BigY Tester’s Private Variants

I asked the new tester to see his private variants now that the review has been done and got this:

FGC6800 and A11130

These are two more SNPs that I have that the other two BigY Hartley testers don’t have. FGC6800 is a strange one as it is listed under I2 and I am R1b. I think there is a name for this phenomenon, but I don’t know what it is. I guess that this SNP got ignored by FTDNA due to the weird result.

The next SNP is A11130. This was named by the Hartley YDNA administrator in 2016. As no one else has claimed this, I will say it belongs to me under A11132. I plan to have my brother tested for the BigY, so that should confirm it.

What Is Left?

For the other two testers, there are 7 non-named private variants. It is my understanding that FTDNA uses these unnamed variants when they do their averaging. I have 6 private variants and the other two testers have a total of 7 for a grand total of 13 private variants. Divide these by 4 to get the 12 average private variants under A11132.

Summary and Conclusions

  • The BIgY is simple in theory but complicated in application
  • I had thought that, based on looking at the somewhat unreliable STRs and more reliable SNPs, that the new tester and I would form a newer YDNA branch.
  • It is likely that I was anticipating that the two new SNPs in the A11132 Block could have formed a new branch between the new tester and myself. However, I don’t have enough information to evaluate how it was determined that the previous Hartley BigY tested had A16716 and FT226983.
  • David Vance has a program to compare BigY csv files. However, I would have to get the BigY csv files from the two other testers to do this.
  • When a sale comes up, I would like to get a BigY test for my brother. This would probably force a manual review from FTDNA.

 

 

Comparing My Family’s Common Ancestor Results at AncestryDNA: Part 1

Recently, I was looking at my sister Heidi’s Common Ancestor results at AncestryDNA and noticed that she had a lot of new ones that I wasn’t aware of. In order to find these, I go to DNA matches, then I filter for common ancestors. Because I like to count things, I’ll put the results in a table. It will be interesting to compare the results for me and my 4 siblings who have tested at AncestryDNA. Here is a chart starting with me:

Also The numbers are good, but it is the actual common ancestors that are interesting. I guess I should add the mother’s side also. Ironically, my mother isn’t listed as being on my mother’s side, but my siblings are. That’s OK. Also, I don’t know if the mother’s side works for distant cousins:

Here is the filled out chart:

The comparison is interesting:

  • I have the fewest DNA matches with common ancestors.
  • My sister Lori has the most DNA matches with common ancestors
  • Maternal side matches are not given for Distant Cousins
  • My mother’s 4th cousin matches and Distant Cousin Matches are important ones. Many of these would not be covered by my and my siblings’ matches.

Looking At My Mother’s Common Ancestors

First, I went through my mother’s 4th cousin and Distant Relative Common Ancestor matches and put a colored dot with the ancestor to designate the branch. I have had trouble identifying Lentz ancestors previously, but now I notice quite a few, so I would like to take a look at those matches.

Shoring Up the Lentz Common Ancestors

Here is the Lentz DNA matching chart I have so far:

The left part of the chart has Nicholson matches and there are a lot of them, so I would like to augment the right-hand side of the chart. Green means that the DNA match is listed in a place where I can tell where on the chromosome the match is. This is usually at Gedmatch.com. My mom’s top non-Nicholson match is Radelle. She linked her DNA results at Ancestry to her mother, so that is a little confusing. What that means is that Radelle is actually a 4th cousin to my mom instead of the 3rd cousin once removed that AncestryDNA shows. Radelle and my mom have one shared DNA match, so I sent a message to that match. The match had no Ancestry Tree.

My mom’s next match is with Deborah. She is also on the chart, though she has a lower DNA match. Deborah is on a branch with more connections. However, I didn’t see that Deborah and my Mom have any shared DNA matches.

Now that I have a purple dot for Lentz, I am able to filter by that dot:

Radelle and Deborah were the first two matches with Lentz common ancestors out of eight.

The next match is another Deborah and appears to be the mother of the previous Deborah. She also has no shared matches with my Mom.

Back to George Adam Lentz Born 1770

I’ll need to add an extra level on my chart for the next match. Here is what AncestryDNA shows for the connection:

Of course Ancestry wants me to evaluate the connection. I notice that TL’s tree goes up to a Lantz instead of a Lentz, so that is a little suspicious. The other suspicious part is that by this tree, George would have been 13 years old when Sarah was born. I’ll leave TL off my chart for now. From another tree at Ancestry, here are Sarah’s parents:

There is a probably a connection somewhere, but it doesn’t appear to be here.

John to John

This tree seems more reasonable as it goes up to Eliza Lentz. I’ll be a bit lazy and I won’t evaluate this tree. It is consistent with my chart with the Glenn surname. Here is John added in:

So if this is right, John is Radelle’s second cousin twice removed. It’s nice to have some company on the Eliza Lentz line.

Betty on the William Lentz Line

Betty appears to be related to the two Deborahs:

Another Bogus George Adam Lentz Connection

I had hope for these connections, but they didn’t pan out:

Mary Lantz was born when my ancestor George was 7 years old.

The last person on my list is Al who is already on my Lentz DNA match tree. So of the eight people I identified, 4 were already on the Tree. Two didn’t match by the AncestryDNA suggested genealogy and two were added.

My Mom’s Baker and Faunce Lines

Here is my chart so far:

In a sense my siblings and I are not as important as my mom should have more DNA than we do for these matches. Here is my mom’s top DNA match on that line:

The Baker family was large, so that means many descendants with DNA matches.

Adding Peter and Justin to the Baker DNA Tree

Now I’m up to four Baker Lines. Justin adds another generation going down.

FL On the Catherine Baker Slater Line

I just looked up Annette. She was a match on MyHeritage. FL at AncestryDNA is on that Line also.

This is beginning to look like a real surname DNA project now.

An Older Faunce Match with Lauren

Now I need to figure out how to get Lauren onto this tree. Actually, I need to build a new Faunce Tree:

I just didn’t add all the others under Catherine Faunce from above. Hopefully, I’ll find more matches here also.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I started by comparing my siblings’ common ancestor DNA matches with mine and my mother’s common ancestor DNA matches.
  • This comparison showed that I should look at my siblings’ results.
  • I then saw that my mother must have more common ancestor matches to look at.
  • I looked at two different Philadelphia lines and matches that my mom had showing common ancestors.
  • The two matches my mom had with common ancestors going back to George Adam Lentz didn’t pan out. I would still like to find some matches there – though this is going back to about as far as a DNA match would be expected.