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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Here is the Block Tree again:
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.
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.
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 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.
- 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.
I tend to write Blogs to figure out what is going on with my DNA results.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Butler researchers Peter and Neil in England have been working hard to tie together the George and Edward Butler families. Both these families lived in Cincinnati for a while. There are genetic ties between the two families as well as circumstantial ties. Neil believes that he descends from (I think) either George’s father or grandfather. Below is my attempt to connect the two families:
I have Henry Butler’s family on the left and Michael Butler’s family on the right. I don’t know the father of either, so this is speculation based on DNA matches between the two families. The DNA matches between the two sides seem to support the tree above. The main family under Henry is George Butler who moved to Cincinnati from Wexford, Ireland. The main family under Michael is Edward (Henry) Butler. He lived in Cincinnati for a while but moved around a bit.
Circumstantial Connections Between the George Butler and Edward Henry Butler Families
Mary A Butler Born 1858 in Cincinnati
My wife’s ancestor Edward Henry Butler married Mary E Crowley in 1855 in St. John, New Brunswick. The family moved after that to Cincinnati. George Butler had a daughter Mary A Butler born in Cincinnati in 1858. She moved to St. John and married Thomas Joseph Murphy in 1878.
Murphy descendants match my wife’s Edward Henry Butler side of the family
Edward Butler, Son of Henry Born 1839 Wexford
Peter found this announcement:
Peter’s research shows Edward as the 7th child of Henry Butler:
Above, the newspaper funeral notice mentioned that the funeral was at 220 California Street, Newton. Here is the Newton Directory for 1993:
I had rejected that my wife’s ancestor Edward could have been a clerk as I thought that he could not read or write. However, he must have picked up reading and writing as the 1910 census says that he could do both.
The Veteran’s Census has Edward H in Newtonville in 1890:
There must have been a connection between Edward H Butler and Edward Butler of Wexford, in order for Edward H to host Edward’s funeral.
A New Holman Connection
Peter has been bringing the Cincinnati George Butler family forward:
Peter asked Neil and me to check for DNA matches to Grogan, Holman and Middendorf. I was able to find a Holman match:
He matched with my wife’s Aunt Lorraine at AncestryDNA. He also matched my wife’s Aunt Virginia. This couple had three boys. The Holman above must descend from one of these three. Here is the new branch on the right:
More on the Holman/Butler Match
The match I will call Holman has shared matches with my wife’s two Aunts at Ancestry DNA. Here are the results:
The two in yellow are also matches to Neil’s nephew who tested at AncestryDNA. In the last column above EHB stands for Edward H Butler and GB stands for George Butler. These are the two lines that are connected by DNA.
It would make sense to do this same exercise with at least Patty and Michael.
I don’t think that gave me any more information. I looked at Michael’s shared matches and didn’t see anything helpful there either.
One Side Benefit
I did put a few close Butler DNA matches on the Butler DNA tree here:
I added in Deborah and Chester on the Alice Mary Butler line.
Summary and Conclusion
- I like to summarize and conclude because while I’m blogging I sometimes get off the subject.
- The main point here is to secure the connection between the George Butler and Edward H Butler Lines.
- The other point is to secure Neil from England by DNA as he appears to be connected to the George Butler Line.
- We were able to make DNA connections between Neil’s nephew who tested at AncestryDNA and one match confirmed to be on the George Butler Line. Neil’s nephew also matches another common match who has no listed tree.
- Through Peter’s research a new George Butler descendant line has been found. A person from the Holman family was found to be a shared match across with Neil’s nephew and my wife’s Aunts. This further solidified the Butler family connections.
In my previous Blog, I finished painting in my second cousin once removed Paul and painted my more distant third cousin once removed Gladys. Gladys’ ancestry does not share my McMaster ancestry, but does share my Frazer ancestry. Emily shares the same McMaster ancestry that Paul and I have. Susan does also with the twist that she has extra McMaster ancestry as her mother is a McMaster. Here are Susan and Emily:
As Susan has tested at MyHeritage and not uploaded her results to Gedmatch, her results will be limited to those who tested at MyHeritage or uploaded their DNA results there.
I’ve already started painting Emily.
I only have two of her ancestral couples painted. I only have painted Paul and Gladys onto Emily’s profile. Emily’s Frazer matches are on her maternal side. Emily is 14% painted now, but I hope to get that number up.
Painting Me and My Siblings Onto Emily
These should be the blue segments. The interesting places are where the blue and red segments overlap:
Here Emily’s match with Gladys overlaps with her match with my brother James but not with Paul. As Gladys does not have McMaster ancestry, my guess is that the place where she overlaps with James indicates that the DNA that James and Emily got there was from George Frazer and not Margaret McMaster. The fact that Gladys’ match above stops short of Paul’s match could mean that Paul’s match is McMaster.
Doreen and Pat
Next on Emily’s Gedmatch list of DNA matches I see Gladys’ relatives, Doreen, Ken, Susan and Pat. Some information was added for Emily here:
However on the other chromosomes, their matches were the same as Gladys’.
Jean, a McMaster Match
At least I think she is.
Here Jean is a 4th cousin to Emily. The common ancestors are technically McMaster and Frazer, but due to the children taking on the McMaster name, we tend to think of this as a McMaster match.
This gets us back to the 1700’s and tells Paul and Emily where that bit of DNA came from. For Paul, this DNA would have come down through Fanny McMaster to Margaret McMaster.
Emily and Jane
Jane is Emily’s fourth cousin:
Jane is also a 5th cousin to Emily, but hopefully most of the DNA sharing is at the 4th cousin level.
In the key, I have put both possibilities in for Jane’s match. However, the most obvious is for Richard Frazer. In Chromosome 6, the DNA for Gladys, Jane, Ken, Susan and Doreen is probably from Richard (or his unknown wife).
Emily and McMaster Relatives
Keith has McMaster ancestry:
Keith adds some new information for Emily on Chromosomes 12 and 14, but no overlap with any of Emily’s matches.
Here is Stephen:
Here, if I have it right, Stephen shows that my siblings James and Lori, as well as Emily,have old McMaster DNA on Chromosome 13.
Emily and the Philip Line
These matches to Emily are on the green side.
On Chromosome 18, Richard appears to fill in a blank for Emily. On Chromosome 21, Emily’s match with Martha tells me that Paul’s match is on his James vs his Violet Frazer side.
Emily and Marilee from the John Frazer Line
Marilee shows on this chart as a 5th cousin once removed to Emily:
I notice the birth date for Philip is earlier on this chart. These dates seem to make more sense based on the John Line in pink.
Here is how Marilee shows up on Emily’s painted DNA palette:
Emily is helping to show that Paul’s DNA in this area is very old. It comes down from either Archibald Frazer or Mary Lilly to Philip Frazer to Paul and Emily.
For some reason, I don’t get that same distinction in Paul’s view of his Chromosome 5:
As this doesn’t make sense, I need to check my information. So forget what I said about Paul. I need to correct his matches on Emily’s profile. I’ll delete Paul from Emily’s profile and then add the correct information back in for Emily’s matches with Paul. Here is what it should be:
Note that Paul has no match with Emily on Chromosome 5:
The takeaway from this corrected view is about James. James or Jim was the last of 6 siblings (including me) to be tested for DNA. Gladys is the other one who had already been painted to Emily. I checked her results and they seem right.
Any More Matches for Emily?
I’m sure there are plenty. I have written three Blogs about Emily. This Blog from 2018 mentions some more matches. Those matches are on the Archibald Frazer/Stinson Line and also go back to Archibald Frazer of 1720 who married Mary Lilly.
Here are a few examples from that Line:
Here is part of the Archibald/Stinson Line:
Fishing for a New Match for Emily
I used a facility at Gedmatch that will find people that match two people. In this case, I used Emily and Keith who matches on the McMaster Line. One of the better matches was Rainah:
Rainah matches Emily by about 46.7 cM and Keith by about 17.3 cM. Rainah tested at FTDNA where I have also tested and I also have a small match to Rainah. Maybe I can figure out how we are all related.
She has a blue tree icon which means she has a tree, so that is good. Unfortunately, I can’t make sense enough of her tree to bring it back to where we might match:
This is why it is difficult to figure out new matches. Everything has to align perfectly.
The painting for Susan will be very basic as it will just include those kits that I administer at MyHeritage. Those are me and my siblings, my cousin Paul and Gladys. I’ll start with Paul as he should be her most important match. I expect Susan will only have two colors on her map. Paul and Susan don’t have DNA matches after Chromosome 15:
I’ll go with Gladys next. Actually, I don’t see Susan on Gladys’ DNA match list. Gladys and Susan are 3rd cousins. According to FTDNA, there is a 90% chance that these two should match by DNA. Unless I missed something, then Gladys and Susan are in the 10% range. That means that Susan’s DNA map will just be one colored for now.
Summary and Conclusions
I was able to get some interesting results looking at the painted DNA for Emily. I had painted Paul, my second cousin once removed and Emily is at the same relative distance to me that Paul is. Emily’s matches fit in as expected and helped pull in the relevant matches from the other Frazer and McMaster Branches.
I was hoping to make a basic DNA map for Susan also. Susan is at the same relative relationship with me as Paul and Emily with the twist that he mother is a McMaster, so she should have more McMaster DNA than Paul or Emily. If Susan decides to upload her DNA to Gedmatch, then I will be able to match her DNA with many other Frazer and McMaster descendants.
In the early days of my DNA research, I had a lot of DNA matches with my Frazer relatives, but not as many with my more distant McMaster relatives. Here is the Frazer side of my family from my paternal grandmother:
I’m doing better with the top right of the tree than with the bottom right. There is an extra Frazer and McMaster at my 3rd great grandparent level. At the 4th great grandparent level, there is an extra Frazer and three unknown surnames on the upper half of the tree.
My Cousin Paul
I had my cousin Paul tested. We share the ancestors of George William Frazer and Margaret McMaster. Paul’s results are at FTDNA, MyHeritage and Gedmatch. I have also painted some of Paul’s matches at DNA Painter. Here is what I have painted for Paul so far on his paternal side:
From here I could try to find some more matches for Paul. the places to look would be FTDNA, MyHeritage and Gedmatch. Paul is not listed at Ancestry, and AncestryDNA does not provide the information to paint chromosomes.
Paul at Gedmatch
I see that Paul matches Michael at Gedmatch. He is related on the Frazer side:
Paul is in the same generation as my father, so I will show him:
Paul and Michael are 4th cousins. Here it says half 4th cousin once removed, but that is actually for me. Also, it probably isn’t half fourth, we just don’t know who the wife of Richard Frazer was at the top of the tree. Here is how Michael matches Paul on Chromosome 1;
What this tells us is that the matches Paul has with Susan, Lori, Emily and Gladys are actually with Violet. This is because Richard is the father of Violet Frazer born 1803.
Paul and Jane
Here is how Paul and Jane match at Gedmatch:
Here is a better view of how Paul, Jane and Michael are fourth cousins to each other:
I figured out I can share files on my home computers, so that helps.
Jane doesn’t add any new DNA to Paul’s profile, but adds some insight. It appears that the light pink DNA that Susan shares with Paul is actually from Richard’s daughter Violet Frazer.
Paul and Richard from the Philip Frazer Line
Out at the level of Philip, the records get sketchy as does the genealogy. Here is how Richard and Philip line up:
Too bad I don’t know who the wife of Philip was. I have this record from the Kilmictranny Church:
Nov 22, 1818 Philip Frazer of Ardcarne parish
Jane Johnston of Kilmactranny
Witnesses: Edw. Johnston, Edw. Johnston
If my tree is right, this was probably the elder Philip’s second wife. Perhaps his first wife was a Johnston also? If the birth date of 1802 is right for the younger Philip, then he would likely be too young to be marrying in 1818.
Here is how Paul and Richard match at Gedmatch:
This is getting interesting, because if I have my tree right, then part of this DNA may be from Philip Frazer born around 1776 and part may be from his unknown wife. I say may be because the genealogy isn’t certain and even if it is, it is possible though not as likely that all the DNA may be from the husband or the wife.
Next, I’ll paint Richard’s DNA match on to Paul. Here is Chromosome 5:
This is interesting as I have no other overlapping Frazer matches here. That could mean that this represents Philip’s wife.
Here is Chromosome 7:
This appears to show the location of the split from where Paul went from inheriting DNA from James Frazer to where he went from inheriting Violet Frazer’s DNA if I am interpreting this correctly. That is because Richard represents Philip Frazer the father of James and Jane Represents Richard Frazer, the father of James’ wife Violet Frazer.
Here is Chromosome 17:
Here this tells me that the DNA that Emily, Richard and Paul share is from James and not Violet Frazer.
Paul and Barry
I have that Barry is Richard’s brother, so let’s look at him also. Barry matches Paul on Chromosomes 12 and 15. Here is the already complicated Chromosome 12:
John in Blue represents McMaster, so Barry would represent Frazer. This is probably the split between George Frazer and Margaret McMaster.
Here is Chromosome 15:
This just shows that Susan has some old Frazer DNA here from the James Frazer side (born about 1804).
Adding My Other Siblings to Paul’s Chromosome Map
Here is how Paul matches my sister Heidi:
Heidi doesn’t add much new Frazer DNA for Paul, but my sister Sharon adds some new DNA on Chromosome 9:
This is interesting as Sharon is filling in blanks on Chromosome 9. These changes could be where Paul has crossovers. Crossovers are where the DNA changes from coming from one ancestor to coming from another. For example, they may represent where Paul was getting DNA from George Frazer vs. his wife Margaret McMaster.
What Did I Learn from Painting Paul?
Part of what I am interested in doing is separating out the Frazer and McMaster DNA. This is somewhat difficult due to intermarriage and unknown spouses in the late 1700’s. I have re-organized Paul’s key:
This points out some problems. I don’t have wives for Philip and Richard Frazer. The green for George Frazer/ Margaret McMaster could be Frazer or McMaster. William McMaster who was the father of Fanny McMaster had a wife Margaret Frazer, so they could technically be on the Frazer side.
There are three other fairly close relatives who are at the same generational level as Paul. These are Gladys, Emily and Susan:
Gladys is good, because she has no known McMaster ancestry. That means that most of her matches should be on the Frazer side. Emily is a good match because she has tested at MyHeritage. I have Paul’s results at MyHeritage also. Susan tested at MyHeritage also. However, Susan has potential to have more McMaster DNA and matches because her mother is also a McMaster.
I like the idea of painting Gladys as we should be looking at Frazer matches and not McMaster matches. That means that where Gladys’ DNA matches overlap with McMaster heavy descendants of George Frazer and Margaret McMaster, those matches should be on the Frazer side.
First I go to the DNA painter profile page. I see that I haven’t already painted Gladys there. I have my mother Gladys painted, so I’ll have to distinguish this Gladys somehow. Here is Gladys starting with a clean slate:
Back to Paul Briefly
Before I start on Gladys’ DNA Painter, I see a few relatives I missed for Paul:
I painted Doreen, Gladys and Susan, but I missed Ken, Pat and Bill. When I searched for these three, I didn’t see them on Paul’s match list down to about 11 cM, so Paul either doesn’t match these three or they fell off the bottom of his list.
Back to Gladys
First, I need to decide whether to include Bill’s results. This will give Gladys’ paternal side, so I guess I will. This brought Gladys up to 20% painted, so that must mean 40% of Gladys’ paternal side:
Next, I’ll add in Pat to get to Gladys’ paternal grandparent level:
I’m walking the DNA up Gladys’ Frazer tree. Now we are up to 48% painted on Gladys’ paternal side. I then added the tree siblings Susan, Doreen, and Ken:
This brought Gladys up to 58% painted on her paternal Frazer side.
The Next Step: Up to James and Violet Frazer 1803
This is actually two steps up the ladder. Gladys’ matches with Emily represent the shared DNA they bother received from James and/or Violet Frazer:
Now the places where Emily’s matches overlap Gladys’ family’s’ DNA will represent Richard Patterson Frazer on Gladys’ side.Here is Chromosome 2:
Emily’s match is on the right in the greenish yellow color. There is no overlap there, so the blue could represent Richard’s Hassard wife.
Chromosomes 5 and 9 have overlap:
Also on Chromosome 18:
Gladys and Jane
The next match for Gladys that comes up at Gedmatch is with Jane:
Now my simple plan is out the window. Jane is a double fourth cousin to Gladys. I circled Bill’s mother as she is at Gladys’ level. However, if Jane is matching Gladys on her Hassard side, that shouldn’t make a difference for my side of the Frazer family.
Here is how Jane matches Gladys. There are a lot of matches, but none of them are too high. That makes sense as the connections are distant but in more than one way.
Here Jane is in a brighter color. I had to put an or in the key as the connection could be in one of two ways. This may resolve somewhat after I add some more DNA matches.
Gladys and the Descendants of George Frazer and Margaret McMaster
Here are the next 10 in Gladys’ DNA match list at Gedmatch:
Of these, all but Martha and Richard are descendants of George Frazer and Margaret McMaster. However, my assumption is that these matches with Gladys will be on the Frazer side. I don’t need to map Heather as she is my daughter and Mel as she is Emily’s daughter.
So I better get mapping. I am surprised that Gladys matches Richard and Martha at the same apparent level as my family as the common ancestor Philip Frazer is one generation further away. I say apparent because sometimes the lists above are not accurate. They need to be checked by the one to one matches.
Gladys and My Sister Sharon
Sharon seems to answer some questions on Chromosome 12:
Before we were unsure about Jane’s matches. However, here the match is likely on the Richard Frazer side. That is because Sharon descends from Violet Frazer the daughter of Richard. This also tells us that Sharon’s DNA here is from her Violet Frazer side and not James Frazer. Further, it tells us that for Gladys, Ken, Susan and Bill, the DNA is from their Richard Patterson Frazer side and not their Amelia Hassard side.
James and Gladys
My brother James also straightens out Chromosome 1:
He does what Sharon did at the right side of the Chromosome where he overlaps with Bill and Jane. In James’ next to the last segment, it is not as specific. We just know that the common ancestor shared between Gladys, Bill, James and Doreen at that location is from either James or Violet Frazer from around 1803.
Paul and Gladys
Paul Shows Bill and Gladys that they are getting Frazer DNA on that segment on Chromosome 8 from James or Violet Frazer. Paul finds out that this DNA is likely Frazer DNA on his side from George Frazer and not from Margaret McMaster.
Gladys and My Sister Lori
On Chromosome 4, just Lori and Gladys match. However, that defines bother Gladys and Lori have Frazer DNA at that location.
Lori does the same thing on Chromosome 14, but this time it applies to Gladys’ nephew Bill also.
Gladys’ Matches on the Philip Frazer Line
Let’s Paint Martha and Richard:
I have Philip Frazer in a darker blue. The matches were between Chromosomes 3 and 20.
Chromosomes 3 and 4
This is interesting because Richard filled in for Gladys what appears to be some ancient Frazer DNA from Philip Frazer in the late 1700’s or his wife.
Richard does something similar on Chromosome 4:
Richard supplies information that his sister Martha did not and Martha supplies information that Richard does not.
Chromosome 18 and 20
I won’t do all the chromosomes:
This shows that Martha and Gladys matches don’t have any places where my family and Gladys matches overlap. That would result in triangulation. That doesn’t mean that Richard and Martha don’t match my family – just that they don’t match n the same areas.
Gladys’ Matches with Jean and Vivien
It looks like Jean is the daughter of Vivien, so I’ll skip Jean. Here is how Vivien matches Gladys, Bill and Paul on Chromosome 8:
This is interesting because Paul does not descend from the Stinson line where Vivien is. Vivien is in the purple group and Gladys in yellow:
That means that this match goes further back on the Frazer line:
The common ancestors are Archibald Frazer and Mary Lilly. However, I don’t know if the DNA goes through James or Violet Frazer. Chances are it is Violet as Bill and Gladys are on the Richard Frazer Line. Confusing.
Summary and Conclusion
- I started out thinking I would be looking for new matches for Paul. Instead, I decided to paint in the existing matches.
- I then decided to paint in Gladys’ DNA. I picked her because she didn’t have any known McMaster DNA.
- Painting in Gladys was fairly straightforward. However, it shed more light on her Frazer line than on mine.
- Next, I will try to tackle Painting of Emily and Susan. Emily is at the same level as Paul. Susan is also at the same relative generational level but she has more McMaster DNA due to her McMaster mother. This next Blog will likely shed some more light on McMaster connections.
Occasionally, I check 23andMe to see if I have any matches. The last time I checked I was happy to find Raimonds. Raimonds lists his location as Riga, Latvia. That got my attention as my mother’s father was from Riga.
How Raimonds and I Match By DNA
Here is how we match by DNA:
Under 23andMe’s advanced DNA comparisons, I see this:
Another thing that jumped out at me was the X Chromosome match that Raimonds and I have. This seemed significant. Here are the places on my tree that Raimonds and I could have an X Chromosome match:
This is the tree of my grandfather who was Alexander Rathfelder. As both Raimonds and Alexander were from Riga, it makes sense to start with Alexander’s tree. X DNA is not passed down from father to son, so that rules out the Rathfelder line. As we go back it eliminates the Gangnus and Lutke Lines. However, with intermarriage, these could possibly be added in later back in time.
I wrote to Raimonds at 23andMe and he was nice enough to write back. Here is what Raimonds told me:
I do see a Carl Heinrich Lutke in my tree. However, based on the X Chromosome inheritance, I don’t think that our DNA match reflects that ancestor. In addition, Raimonds’ maternal Lutke grandfather would have not gotten any X Chromosome from his father. That means that the X Chromosome match could as easily be on Raimonds’ maternal grandmother’s side.
So How Am I Related to Raimonds?
The answer appears to be at the Raduraksti Web Page that has a lot of the Latvian Church records. I think that the records are listed under the Linden Church at that web page. Here is the Linden Church:
Here are two links that are in the right time period:
Unfortunately, I don’ t know what the L (l, v) means. Also the more recent records are in Russian. I also checked the Linden Church in 1890 for Lutke. Here is one entry:
However, this is not Johann.
I then went back a year to 1899:
This appears to be the birth and baptismal dates for Johannes Ernst Lutke. He was the son of Johann Marcus Lutke and Wilhemine Catharine Schwechheimer. I left out the sponsors names from the next page:
Here is a Lutke marriage from 1910:
It seems like this Johann is different than the one above. I read Johann Jacob Lutke married to Emma Maria Apollonia Gempfer.
Here is an 1891 birth to Johann Marcus Lutke:
That is what I found looking through 1889 – 1891 births and baptisms.
Things Are Moving Fast
I got another message from Raimonds:
That means that I can draw a Lutke DNA tree. Here is what I have so far:
I just need to add Raimonds. He has told me who his grandfather’s grandparents were, but who were his grandfather’s parents? Based on what Raimonds says, we should be third cousins once removed.
MyHeritage has an Instant Discovery for me:
Ironically, the hint they want me to use has a photo that I have on my Gangnus web page:
I think MyHeritage wants me to pay them money before I can use their “discovery”.
I did find a tree on Ancestry with a Johann Otto Lutke:
He was born 1879. Raimonds thinks his Johann was born around 1885.
Painting in Raimonds’ DNA Match
I use a utility called DNA Painter to track my identified DNA. I don’t have all the documentation, but Raimonds says that our common ancestors are Lutke and Fuhrmann. Here is part of what I have so far on my maternal side:
This shows that I am 34% painted maternally. Overall (paternally and maternally combined), I am 43% painted. In the key above, I have a color for Lutke/Fuhrmann already, but also one where I wasn’t sure, because I was related to the person both ways. For some reason, Patrick is in the second category and his mother is in the first. I’m not sure if this is a mistake or not on my part. I don’t know enough about Raimonds’ genealogy to know which category he will be in. For now, I’ll put him in the first category also.
Here are the segments that Raimonds has added. These matches don’t currently overlap with existing DNA matches, so Raimonds is in uncharted territory. I didn’t add Raimonds’ X Chromosome match as that is unlikely to be on the Lutke side. It looks like I need to change some colors due to the similarity of the blues of Schwechheimer and Lutke. Once I find out how Raimonds and I are related on our X Chromosome, I will paint that in also.
Here I made the color change and moved Silvia to the more ambiguous Common Ancestor Group:
Overall, this upped my overall painted percentage to 44%:
An Update from Raimonds’ Granddaughter
Raimonds’ granddaughter sent me a family tree showing how our Lutke Lines connect. This information was from someone that Raimonds had gotten in touch with through MyHeritage. This person apparently has done a lot of work with Hirschenhof genealogies. Here are Raimonds’ maternal grandparents:
All I have to do is find Johann Peter Woldemar’s birth in 1881. Fortunately for me, he is on the first page of the Linden Church Register:
Actually this may be the 5th page of the Register for the year. I didn’t see pages 2-4. There is a lot of information here. For some reason the last name is given as Lütken. Before the father’s name is the occupation. But I’m not sure what it is.
Going Back a Generation
This connects with the tree I have for Silvia and Patrick.
I re-typed the Lutke DNA tree:
So it turns out that Raimonds is more closely related to Silvia and Patrick than me. Silvia and Patrick tested at MyHeritage. That also means that some of what I wrote in my Blog about Patrick applies to Raimonds. This also means that I am doubly related to Raimonds like I am to Patrick.
Raimonds and the Gangnus Connection
I don’t want to re-type this tree, but here are two more ways I am related to Raimonds:
The first way is through Johann Jacob Gangnus and Biedermann. This is important because it is at the same level as my Lutke/Fuhrmann match with Raimonds. The second way we are connected is two generations further back, so that connection is not as important as far as the DNA matching goes.
Back to the X Chromosome
Now that I see how we are related on the Gangnus side, I can see how the X Chromosome match between Raimonds and me may have happened:
It actually worked out quite well. Note that between me and Biedermann above, I go male, female, male, female, male female. That is the way I would get the most X Chromosome DNA from the furthest back. Normally autosomal DNA will recombine. However, when a father gives his X Chromosome to his daughter, he only has one Chromosome to begin with. So when Johann Philip Gangnus gave his one X Chromosome to his daughter Maria Elisabeth Laura Gangnus, it was the same one that his Biedermann mother gave him. Also, it is important that I descend from the male Johann Philip Gangnus. Because of that we know that the X Chromosome that he got could only be from his Biedermann mother. That means that the X Chromosome that Raimonds and I share is likely from the Biedermann side. I say likely, because there is a small possibility that it may come from an ancestor of Antonie Elise Marie Schiller. I haven’t looked into that line and Raimonds doesn’t know about that side.
Fixing DNA Painter
Here is some more information on Biedermann:
I took out the entry for Lutke/Fuhrmann at DNA Painter. Now I just have Lutke/Fuhrmann or Gangnus/Biedermann. Now I will need an entry for Anna to paint the X Chromosome match that Raimonds and I have.
Unfortunately, I have pink on pink for Biedermann, but I have painted Biedermann onto the X Chromosome. Notice that this segment overlaps with my maternal first cousin Rusty. That means that this part of Rusty’s X Chromosome must also be from Anna Biedermann. Here is a better color:
Summary and Conclusions
- I was happy about finding this DNA match with Raimonds
- It is rare that a X Chromosome match works out so well. So many things have to align correctly in both my ancestry and Raimonds.
- It is also rare that I am able to figure out who our common ancestors are so quickly – especially with Latvian genealogy. This was due to information I already had plus genealogies that Raimonds was able to get through MyHeritage.
- I am glad to see that a lot of the Linden Church records are back on-line. These are the records for Hirschenhof residents.
- If Raimonds uploads his DNA results to Gedmatch.com and MyHeritage, he will find more DNA matches.