My Wife’s Theories of Relativity and DNA Painting

My wife Marie has Butler, Ellis, Lefevre and  Upshall. Butler is originally from Ireland, Ellis from PEI, LeFevre from Quebec and Upshall from Newfoundland. I have uplaoded Marie’s DNA results to MyHeritage. They have a utility called Theories of Relativity. This matches DNA with family trees. Once I get those connections, I can map Marie’s DNA using DNA Painter an online utility.

DNA Painter

I have already mapped quite a bit of Marie’s DNA here:

This shows that Marie is 30% painted or mapped. I’d like to improve this by looking at MyHeritage’s Theories.

Marie’s Theories of Relativity (TOR)

Marie’s top TOR is already mapped. That is Fred. Marie’s second TOR is Jo-Ann. Their common ancestors are Hopgood and Watson:

Marie and Jo-Ann match here:

I downloaded the details of this DNA match and entered them in at DNA Painter. I didn’t have these ancestors at DNA Painter, so I added them along with a new suggested color:

When I do this, I notice a potential problem:

This indicates that Jo-Ann’s match is bumping into Sarah’s match. That makes me suspect that I have mapped Sarah wrong. Sarah may have Hopgood/Watson ancestors also that I didn’t notice.

Another Look at Sarah

Sarah’s results are at AncestryDNA and Gedmatch. This is how I have Sarah at Ancestry:

That means that there is a mix-up somewhere. The reason I suspect it is on Sarah’s side is because the DNA match for Marie and Sarah is high for a 4th cousin once removed. I don’t want to try to fix this at this time, so I’ll just note the discrepancy. The problem is that one shared segment should represent one shared common ancestor. In this case it represents two.

Even with the overlaps, Jo-Ann brings up Marie’s mapped DNA to 31%.

Caroline and the LeFevre/Boure Line

Next is Wallace who I already mapped. Then Caroline. TOR shows a common ancestor with this couple:

This tree is also not without its problems. How could Charles Lefebvre be born in 1891 and have a daughter born 1870? This Ancestry Tree from Marie’s cousin has a Charles:

When I checked details on Caroline’s tree, it said that Charles was born before 1891. So I’ll say Caroline’s tree is OK. Caroline doesn’t add much new DNA, but doesn’t conflict with other DNA

Caroline overlaps with orange and pink but those are also LeFevre matches from more recent generations:

Pierre -Luc and an Older Pouliot Ancestor

Here is how MyHeritage shows the connection:

My suspicious side says that there could be other ancestral connections, but my lazy side says, put this in as is. Pierre-Luc’s DNA doesn’t bump into anyone that it shouldn’t bump into.

Pierre-Luc bumps into Joe and Patricia but they have common ancestors with Marie of LeFevre and Pouliot. That means that Joe and Patricia’s pink segments above Pierre are most likely Pouliot DNA. That means that if I wanted to get fancy, I could re-assign those two Joe and Patricia segments to Emma Pouliot. But I won’t.

The Problem with Daniel: Too Many Ancestors

Here is how MyHeritage shows Daniel:

But also like this:

DNA Painter may help figure out which DNA goes where. First, I’ll put Daniel in ambiguously:

Here are the hairs we are trying to split:

On Chromosome 2, we still can’t tell where Daniel belongs:

 

First I had to change Daniel’s color to green so he would show up better. In order to tell where Daniel belongs, we need an older match. The pink, orange and blue matches are too recent. That means that I entered Daniel correctly as Methot or LeFevre. For brevity, I left out the spouses. Sorry, spouses.

Daniel’s DNA matches with Marie were just under the limit of 7 cM, so they didn’t get painted:

Irma with PEI Ancestry

Matches on Chromosomes 2 and 3 will be too small to paint:

Painting this brings up more problems:

Here we have some bad overlaps between Ellis, Hopgood and MacArthur. One may be explained in that Irma has a different path to Ellis:

The Hopgood segment was one we just mapped from Jo-Ann – but with reservations.

Here is another path for Jo-Ann:

Here is a more likely, but slightly more distant relationship:

 

The Problem with Marie’s DNA Matches

Marie has four grandparents as do we all:

  • Ellis from PEI – Island genealogy and intermarriage, but the records are pretty good
  • Upshall from Newfoundland – More intermarriage like in PEI, but the records are not as good or missing
  • Butler from Ireland – No known intermarriage but very few relatives who have tested or posted genealogies
  • LeFevre from Quebec – Very good genealogies but a lot of intermarriage

Summary and Observations

  • Marie has confusing intermarriage issues on three out of four sides of her tree. This makes analyzing her genetic genealogy difficult
  • The further back the match is, the more possibility there is that the DNA could represent multiple sets of common ancestors
  • DNA Painter points out some of these issues. However, it is possible that DNA Painter could also sort out from which ancestors these DNA matches come from where there is more than one possibility.
  • I may come back to this later and try to sort this out.

 

 

Aunt Esther’s Newfoundland Ancestors, MyHeritage’s Theories of Relativity, and DNA Painter

I’m surprised that I have never written about my wife’s Aunt Esther’s Theories of Relativity (TOR). MyHeritage takes DNA matches and matches them up with ancestral trees. I’ll go through Esther’s Theories of Relativity.

Esther’s Top TOR – Wallace

I have Blogged about Wallace before. Here is how Wallace and Esther’s TOR looks like:

Esther and Wallace are 1st cousins once removed. I have already painted Wallace’s DNA onto Esther’s chromosome map.

Wallace accounts for some of the Esther’s green DNA above which represents DNA from either Henry Upshall or Catherine Dicks. The above map shows Esther’s paternal side which is 50% mapped.

TOR#2- Marilyn

Esther and Marilyn show as third cousins twice removed. The common ancestors are Christopher Dicks born about 1784 and Margaret. I don’t see Christopher Dicks on Esther’s Chromosome Painter Map. However, there is a problem with the match between Marilyn and Esther. The problem is that these two match by too much DNA for this relationship:

Marilyn and Esther share 151.5 cM. That puts them off the chart for 3C2R. However, there is a 0.46% chance of this being right. The more likely reason is that Marilyn and Esther match on more than one line. This is common with people who have Harbour Buffet genealogy. I’ll just ignore that for now and sort it out later, perhaps.

However, I see that Esther and Marilyn have this other match:

Marilyn descends from two of Christopher Dicks’ children: Robert and Rachel Dicks.

Here is how Marilyn and Esther match:

Here is the addition on Esther’s paternal side:

This brought up Esther’s paternally mapped DNA up 1% to 51% and her entire mapped DNA up 1% to 30%.

There is a utility at Gedmatch called ‘Are your parents related?’. Esther’s parents are related on several chromosomes. Here is one spot on Chromosome 2, where Esther matches Marilyn also:

I see that Wallace also matches Esther in this region.

TOR #3 – Annie

In the past, I have not looked much at Esther’s maternal side. That is because my mother-in-law is Esther’s half niece and is not related on Esther’s maternal side. However, I’ll look at Esther’s maternal side now.

I’ll just paint Annie’s match onto Esther. This is what Esther’s maternal side looks like so far at 8% painted:

The addition brings Esther’s maternal map back to the late 1700’s:

That gets Esther’s maternal side up to 10% painted.

I do see one problem at Chromosome 1 already:

Violet and Annie both match Esther on the right side of Chromosome 1. That segment cannot be for both shared ancestor couples. It could be that Violet has Shave and/or Parsons ancestors or some other similar explanation. This is another reason I haven’t looked into Esther’s maternal side!

TOR #4 – Josiah

Josiah looks like he could be Annie’s Uncle:

That also makes Josiah, Esther’s third cousin.

Josiah has a similar issue with Violet, but on a different segment of Chromosome 1:

I’ll file that under the category of ‘sort it out later’.

TOR #5 – Frederick

Frederick appears to be Annie’s brother. His Theory of Relativity is missing a generation, so I won’t show it. It turns out that Frederick didn’t add any new Shave/Parsons DNA to Esther’s map that his sister and uncle didn’t already have:

Frederick’s matches show up in grey cross-hatch above.

TOR #6 – Jacqueline

Esther also has Kirby ancestors, but this shows only the Shave/Parsons common ancestors.

I decided to change Shave/Parsons to yellow. Jacqueline adds quite a bit:

TOR #7 – David, Another Pafford Descendant

This could take a while as Esther has a lot of matches:

Stephen adds a large match to Esther’s Chromosome 1:

Esther’s maternal side is now 15% painted. Esher’s entire chromosomes are now 33% or one third painted:

As far as I know, MyHeritage does not show X Chromosome matches. That means that we have to go to Gedmatch to get X Chromosome matches.

Marilyn and Esther’s X Match

I mentioned Marilyn above. I know that her DNA has been uploaded to Gedmatch. The X Chromosome is a special case and follows a specific inheritance in that the X Chromosome is never passed down from father to son. That means that the X Chromosome match that Marilyn and Esther share was passed down from Margaret, the wife of Christopher Dicks. We can know that because of Esther’s tree:

Above, I had that Margaret may have been a Burton, but in looking at other trees, I don’t see that as much of an option.

Now Esther has a little color on her paternal side X Chromosome. That is the side that men don’t have. I could do much more, but I’ll get back to the Theories of Relativity.

TOR #8 – Rowena

Rowena takes us back a generation on the Dicks side:

I don’t know when this Christopher was born, but I’ll say about 1750. I’ll paint this match and see what happens. I see a few potential problems. One is that these segment sizes are quite large for such an old match:

The other potential problem is that Rowena and MB have a match with Esther that overlap on Chromosome 2:

Rowena’s common ancestor with Esther is Christopher Dicks and MB’s common ancestors are Peter Upshall and Margaret.

TOR’s #9 and 10 – Another Wallace and Valetta

This is not the same as the earlier Wallace but seems to be another brother of Annie:

As such, he did not add any more Shave/Parsons DNA to Esther’s map. TOR #10, Valetta appears to be Wallace’s sister.

TOR #11 – Laurie

Here is someone with a more recent Shave ancestor:

However, MyHeritage also shows this possible match:

To make things more confusing, Laurie has a Joseph Dicks in her tree which may be the same Joseph I have on Esther’s maternal side:

It may be that further DNA analysis could sort this out, but I’ll skip Laurie for now.

TOR #12 – Janet

Janet also has two TOR’s – one on Esther’s paternal side and one on her maternal side, so I’ll skip her for now also.

TOR #12 – Harold

Harold is forging into new old territory:

I’m not sure what to make of this. I’m tempted to add the Pike name to Esther’s maternal side.

As a follow-up, I could check on Esther’s likely maternal Pike ancestors.

Summaries and Conclusions

  • MyHeritage’s Theories of Relativity lend themselves to the DNA Painter program.
  • I had some problem when the Theories of Relativity were on Esther’s Paternal and Maternal sides, so I chose to ignore those situations.
  • One shortcoming of MyHeritage is that they don’t show X Chromosome matches. Those are important for showing specific common ancestors.
  • I could follow up on Esther’s DNA painting by looking for more Gedmatch matches.
  • It appears that Esther has Pike ancestry on her maternal side based on one Theory of Relativity

 

 

 

Mervyn’s Newfoundland DNA: Proceed With Caution

I don’t mean to single out Mervyn for proceeding with caution. You need to proceed with caution with most people from Newfoundland who have had their DNA tested. Due to the small isolated locations in Newfoundland, some re-intermarrying of families happened.

Mervyn got in touch with me because he matched my wife’s 1/2 great Aunt Esther. Esther’s parents were both from Harbour Buffett, so Esther matches most people by DNA who have Harbour Buffett Roots.

Mervyn and Esther Show Common Ancestors at Ancestry

Here is what AncestryDNA shows:

Ancestry thinks that based on the DNA match Mervyn and Esther have a 2% chance of being second cousins twice removed:

Mervyn and Esther appear to be related at least three different ways. Here is the ancestry of Mervyn’s maternal grandfather:

Peter Upshall is a shared ancestor twice. William Shave and Margaret Burton are also shared ancestors.`

Here are the AncestryDNA Thrulines for Peter Upshall from Esther’s viewpoint:

These add up to a lot of Upshall matches for Esther. I counted 45 matches above for Esther. But as I suggest above, how do we know that they are for Upshall or Shave? Or they could be for Burton.

Joan To the Rescue

Joan is my mother-in-law. She is Esther’s 1/2 niece. That means that Joan is related to Esther only on Ether’s paternal side. Here is Esther’s tree:

Esther matches Mervyn on Esther’s paternal and maternal sides. However, Esther matches Joan on Esther’s paternal side only. One complicating factor is that Esther has Dicks on her paternal and maternal sides. Mervyn has Upshall, Shave, Burton and Dicks on his maternal side. This is where my title comes in: Proceed with Caution.

Joan’s Peter Upshall ThruLines

Here is how Joan matches Mervyn:

Joan matches Mervyn at 30 cm.

The Upshall Genetic Genealogy Tree

I created this tree that mixes Upshall genealogy and DNA matches:

This is a work in process. The ideal people on this tree would also have their DNA uploaded to Gedmatch. Fortunately, Mervyn has done that.

Here Esther and Mervyn are in green as their DNA is at Gedmatch. I have pretty much the same problem, in that there is the potential to match on different lines.

After some more finessing:

Above, MB is important as I don’t see any Dicks in her ancestry. Karen is a special case as the tree followed the DNA testing rather than the genealogy. We have no record that Jessie Kate was the daughter of Henry Upshall, but she fits in well there. Also I haven’t added in my mother-in-law Joan or her sister Elaine.

Looking At Gedmatch

Let’s look at how Mervyn matches MB, Esther, Joan and Karen.

Here are the DNA matches between Mervyn and Esther:

Mervyn and MB

Mervyn and Joan

Mervyn and Elaine

I also had Joan’s sister Elaine tested:

Mervyn and Karen

Esther’s Matches

Esther and MB

From this, I deduce that Mervyn’s match with Esther on Chromosome 17 is an Upshall match.

Esther and Joan

This one almost goes off my computer screen:

This brings up an interesting point. The common ancestor for Joan and Esther is Esther’s father. However, this also represents the DNA of Esther’s maternal grandparents Henry Upshall and Catherine Dicks. I had painted this so far onto Esther’s Chromosomes using a web tool called DNA Painter:

Here Esther is 17% painted and 25% paternally painted. Let’s add in Joan’s DNA matches:

Now Esther is 45% paternally painted and 26% painted overall:

 

While I’m at it, I can add in the matches between Esther and Elaine:

This gets Esther up to 29% painted and 50% paternally painted.

A Side Trip to Esther’s X Chromosome

I note that above, I have nothing mapped for Esther’s X Chromosome. According to Gedmatch, this is her largest match:

This Fran seems to be this person at Ancestry:

This Ancestry page has that Caroline is the daughter of Moses Burton Dicks:

The Dicks Genetic Genealogy Chart I have shows this:

I’ll add in Fran:

A Snag On Esther’s Side

Here is Esther’s tree:

The interesting thing is that the X match could be on Esther’s paternal or maternal side. It seems like the match has eliminated a Dicks common ancestor. That is because the elder Christopher Dicks did not pass down an X Chromosome to either son Christopher or Joseph – assuming I have the genealogy right. That means that this match likely represents Burton or some sort – again assuming that the Margaret who married Christopher Dicks was a Burton. So, although I still have not painted in any of Esther’s X Chromosome, i did learn something about this match.

Mervyn’s Dicks Side

Mervyn says his genealogy is a work in progress and aren’t they all? I had some questions about Mervyn’s Dicks side. Ancestry shows these possible connections between Mervyn and Esther:

It turns out that Ancestry found some connections and a possible connection. Here is how Ancestry shows the Dicks connection:

One problem is that Frances Dicks show that she gave birth to Margaret at about the age 14.

This match-up seems more likely:

However, as my wife and mother-in-law are not related on this side, I am not looking so much at these matches.

Mervyn and Joan’s Unlikely Shave Connection

Here is a new one on me from AncestryDNA:

I’m not sure how Ancestry came up with this. My best guess is that Elizabeth could be Elizabeth Crann. Look at the ThruLines:

For one thing this shows that Joan’s ancestor Elizabeth was born in 1820 and was a sister to George Alfred Shave born 47 years later! Also Elizabeth would have been born when her father was negative 5 years old. Further, Joan and Esther have the same Newfoundland genealogy, so how could they descend from siblings? Let’s forget about this screwed-up line. I hope that Ancestry didn’t deduce this from anything I have on my Tree at Ancestry.

Summary and Conclusions

  • I was all over the place with Mervyn’s genealogy and DNA matches. However, as I said, Newfoundland genealogy and DNA matches are confusing.
  • Even Ancestry seemed confused with its genealogy. Perhaps it is pulling from something in my tree or someone else’s tree that is off.
  • Overall, I did a brief summary of Mervyn’s genealogy and DNA matches. There is a lot there.
  • There would be more room for doing analysis at Gedmatch to try to parse out the different lines from Mervyn’s ancestry. It looks like it could be a lot of work to do this.
  • I was glad to improve my Uphall genetic genealogy tree and use my existing Dicks genetic genealogy trree. I see that I need to spruce up the Upshall Tree.
  • I took a diversion to ‘paint’ some more of Esther’s DNA and look at her top X Chromosome match.
  • Esther is Mervyn’s top match. However, Mervyn is number 17 on Esther’s Geadmatch match list. That is because Esther is of an older generation. Also because other of her closer relatives have tested their DNA.

Esther’s Newfoundland ThruLines at AncestryDNA

Esther is my wife’s 1/2 great Aunt and has Newfoundland Ancestry on both sides. AncestryDNA’s ThruLines takes DNA matches and matches those up with Ancestry Tree matches. Let’s take a look at Esther’s ThruLines to see what they show.

Esther’s Parents

Here are Esther’s Parents:

Here are the ThruLines for Fred Upshall:

These people are not related on the Shave side, so the relationships show correctly as half relationships. These people are my mother in law, Joan, her sister Elaine, my wife Marie and Marie’s niece Tina. These four should show up in Esther’s more distant Upshall side ThruLines.

Esther’s Grandparents

 

Very quickly, Esther is back to 1841 with her Upshall grandfather. I am more interested in the Upshall and Dicks side as that is the side where my wife and her mother are related.

Here are the Henry Upshall ThruLines:

On the right is Karen. I have written Blogs about her family. I put her great-grandmother Jessie as the daughter of Henry Upshall based on DNA evidence even though there was no genealogical evidence. This was a bit dicey, but based on the amount of DNA shared between Esther and Karen, it seems like the right thing to do. According to Ancestry DNA, that amount of shared DNA is most likely to be a 1st cousin, twice removed relationship:

Nicholas and Esther

How does Nicholas fit in? For one thing, 1st cousin four times removed goes right off the chart:

I would think that a 1st cousin four times removed would be similar to the 2nd cousin once removed. Either way, the chances of this being right are <1% according to AncestryDNA.

Nicholas’ Genealogy

Here is the expanded view of ThruLines:

One problem is that Nicholas’ parents and grandparents are shown as living, so I don’t have information on them. Nicholas’ tree is managed by Kara. She has Gladys Uppshall Knight as Nicholas’ maternal great-grandmother. From there, Stephanie’s tree kicks in with Theodore the father of Gladys.

Here is the 1935 Census for St John’s West:

The assumption is that this is the same Gladys in 1945:

Here is a replacement birth record for Malcolm:

This shows that Malcolm’s mother was a Shave. That makes it more surprising that Esther and Nicholas don’t have more matching DNA as Esther’s mother was a Shave.

Here is another after the fact record for Malcolm’s brother:

This could be William in the 1945 Census living next to his brother:

Was Alexander the Son of Henry Upshall?

I have it that way on my Ancestry Tree, but not on my Upshall Web Page. I don’t see any genealogical evidence that would put Alexander as the son of Henry Upshall. It is that way in some on-line Trees. Based on the low amount of DNA match and the shaky genealogical evidence, I would call into question this particular ThruLine at this time.

Esther’s Upshall Great-Grandparents

Here, things get more interesting as there is no known genealogical evidence for Esther’s great-grandparents. These ancestors are a best guess scenario. Here are the ThruLines for best-guess Peter Upshall:

At first look, it seems as though there are a lot of different DNA matches for these likely children of Peter Upshall.

George Upshall Branch 1829

Here, note that Pat, like Nicholas has Shave and Upshall in her ancestry. I note she also has Burton which Eshter has, so perhaps other names also. 280 cM is a huge match for a 2nd cousin twice removed:

Ancestry says that Pat and Esther look like 2nd cousins. However, that is assuming that they are not related on other lines which they are.  For comparison, I had mentioned above that Nicholas’ match to Esther should have been equivalent to a 2nd cousin once removed. Another thing I’d like to do is to see if these people have shared matches with each other. I note that Nicholas does not have a shared match with Pat. That means that he shares less than 20 cM with Pat.

Checking with Joan and Elaine

One way to check these matches is by Joan and Elaine. They are Esther’s half nieces. That means that they match on the Upshall side and not the Shave side. Here is what Joan shows:

Now the DNA matches are quite a bit different. When I look at the numbers for Joan and her sister Elaine, I get this for the proposed George Upshall Branch:

Sarah Upshall Branch 1831

Here Esther has 10 DNA matches on the Sarah Upshall Collett Branch:

Here are the results for Eshter, Joan and Elaine:

  • I added in a Maximum % column, so we could see what the highest likelihood is for the DNA match
  • Green indicates that the DNA matches got that highest mark
  • This seems to indicate that Esther does not match this Sarah Upshall Collett on other lines.
  • None of the numbers seem unreasonable. The <1% can be explained by matching on many other lines and getting too high of a match.
  • Joan and Elaine match Sarah and Esther doesn’t. That means that Florence (who is Joan and Elaine’s mother) got DNA that her sister Esther did not.
  • Esther went off the chart with the 2nd cousin 4 times removed category.
  • To do this right, I would need to check all the genealogy. I didn’t. The genealogy is likely good up to the children of Peter and Margaret Upshall and then missing.
  • All these numbers seem to confirm that the trees are likely trees.

Jane Upshall Branch

Jane appears to be well documented by DNA. Esther has 14 matches to Jane’s descendants along the Tulk Line. I have noted close matches to Tulk in the past, so this may explain those DNA matches.

Jane also has a rare Upshall birth record:

However, I find it odd that she was born in November and baptized in September. Perhaps she was born in 1838. I assume that there was only one Peter and Margaret Upshall at the time. Burin was about 90 miles away from Harbour Buffett, so I assume there was a travelling minister who performed these baptisms on 29 September 1839. I have that Jane was born in Burin which is not accurate. She was born in Garnish Gut according to this record. I’m not sure where Garnish Gut is, but I assume that it is part of or near Harbour Buffett.

An additional confusing point is that Peter was the father of Christopher Upshall also in 1833:

This means that Peter may have had a first wife Mary or the transcription may have been off. Christopher doesn’t show up on the ThruLines. I don’t see many trees for Christopher. Here is one:

This person shows Margaret as the mother and the birth at Famish Gut which perhaps makes more sense. Perhaps there were few descendants on this line.

So far the matches for the descendants of the three potential children of Peter and Margaret Upshall looks like this:

The evidence looks pretty good. I added Karen from the more recent Henry Upshall Line to show how good her numbers were.

Susan Upshall Born 1848

This Line is a little more confusing:

Roy’s grandmother is Margaret Collett. That begs the question of Elizabeth Webber. Shouldn’t she be a Collett also? Here is some information from http://www.collettfamilyhistory.net/Part-32-The-Newfoundland-Line-Rev.12.htm:

The same web page has this on Elizabeth:

According to this information, Elizabeth Webber is really Elizabeth Collett.

Here is the last of Esther’s ThruLines at this level:

This was a bit of an annoying exercise, but it does seem to verify the trees for the descendants. However, I have not tried to disprove the theory. That would take a bit of work. I do recognize interfering influences of the DNA matches through intermarriage.  I showed some of those effects by comparing Esther’s matches to her half nieces Joan and Elaine. The main interferences could be other relationships with the Dicks, Shave and Burton families. The other thing I didn’t do was to check the genealogy of each line. This would take a while to do. The last confirmation would be to check to see if each of these matches match each other. The best way to do that is with Genetic Affairs’ AutoClusters.

Esther and AutoClusters

Here is a ‘basic’ AutoCluster I ran for Esther.

Esther has all Newfoundland ancestry, so almost all her clusters match other clusters. This AutoCluster ran January 9, 2019 between the match levels of 50 and 250 cM. I checked my Chart above to see which clusters the matches were in:

It turns out that the Jane Upshall Tulk Line were all in Cluster 14. In the other Lines, there was not enough information or the matches were outside the range. However, the other two Clusters found were 8 and 11.

This means that while Esther is matching Cluster 14 by Peter and Margaret Upshall, all the 10 in my Chart are matching each other by Jane Upshall and her Tulk husband.

Esther’s ThruLines With Christopher Dicks Born 1812

Christopher was married to Elizabeth. My best guess is that she was Elizabeth Crann. Esther has 12 new DNA matches on the Christopher Dicks Line. These matches could have gotten their DNA from Christopher Dicks or from his wife Elizabeth or both.

The matches under Catherine Dicks have already been looked at. Compare this with the Gedmatch Tree I have been working on for the Dicks Family:

ThruLines has a David Branch that I don’t have and I have a Christopher Branch that Thrulines doesn’t have.

The David Dicks Branch

Here is a partial opening of that Branch:

One interesting thing here is that Frances is also related to Esther through the Jane Upshall Tulk Line:

That is because Caroline Dicks married Edwin Kingwell Tulk according to the trees at Ancestry.

Cathy in the David Dicks Branch

Here is how ThruLines shows Cathy:

I had Cathy in a different Branch. However, if the ThruLines are right and I am right, she could be in two Dicks Branches of Frances Dicks Burton and Christopher Dicks:

Here is a summary of the David Dicks Branch:

It seems like everything checks out OK. Esther was matching too high to Newf due to matches on Esther’s maternal side. Joan isn’t related to Esther on Esther’s maternal side, so that took the extra DNA out of the equation. I skipped checking Joan’s sister Elaine’s results to save time. Joan matched one person David, who didn’t match Esther.

Going Up One Generation to Christopher Dicks Born about 1784

The Dicks family was huge and then spread out from there.

Here are nine children of Christopher who have matching DNA with Esther:

  1. John Michael – before 1808 – I haven’t been following this Branch. Has some Joseph’s in this Branch
  2. Elizabeth – 1809 – Married Thomas Adams
  3. Joseph – born 1810
  4. Frances born 1811 – Married Charles Burton
  5. Christopher Born 1812 – covered in previous section
  6. Rachel born 1817 – married James Joyce
  7. James Dicks born 1830 – also has a Joseph Dicks son. I haven’t been following this Branch either.
  8. George born 1832
  9. Robert born 1824 – so should be above

I trace six children in my Dicks Gedmatch DNA project. I didn’t have John Michael, James or Joseph. Altogether, there are 77 DNA matches represented in these 8 proposed children. That would be too many matches to check for this Blog.

Joseph Dicks

Although I don’t have Joseph Dicks on my Dicks DNA Chart, I have that Esther descends from Joseph Dicks on her maternal side:

I have Joseph Dicks born at Famish Gut in 1810 to Christopher and Margaret. However, this does not appear on Esther’s ThruLines or on my own Dicks DNA Chart.

I’ll look at the genealogy behind the John Michael and James DIcks Branches as I am unfamiliar with them.

John Michael Dicks Born 1808

The ThruLines Profile for John Michael shows this:

This information is a bit sparse. It shows that John Michael would have been over 105 years old when he died.

In a previous Blog I note this Joseph:

My thought was that this was a more likely ancestor for Esther.

Joseph Dicks and Violet

After changing Esther’s Jane Ann Line, I noticed that ThruLines did have a Joseph Dicks Branch with one large match:

However, this follows from the way I had Esther’s tree. Violet has a huge match with Esther at 359 cM. Here is a much closer relationship between Violet and Esther at 2nd cousin:

My mother-in-law, Joan also has a good match with Violet:

Violet’s Tree

Now I’m suspicious that Tulk may be related to Upshall.

Upshall of Dorset ThruLines

Newfoundland is too complicated with the intermarriages and lost records. Lets go back to Dorset, England:

My current thinking is that Peter Upshall born in 1800 in Dorset was the daughter of Sarah Upshall. Sarah is shown here with three of her siblings. This Dorset, England ThruLines appears to confirm that Sarah was the sister of Joseph, George and Charles who shows a Private above. This is a chance to find out what my wife’s Upshall relatives have been up to since 1737. Judy above is probably in Australia. Margaret’s paternal grandmother was born in England and died in Rhode Island.

The Charles Upshall Branch

Ross and Peter’s parents were both from Dorset, England.

Here is one of the trees I had been working with:

For some reason I am missing the Jane Upshall/Tulk Branch. I also need to go up two levels to John Upshall.

I had previously added an additional sibling Ann Upshall due to a match with my wife’s Aunt Elaine. Due to the fact that none of Peter’s Aunts or Uncles did not live in Newfoundland, my guess is that the DNA matches represent John and Elisabeth Upshall.

Here are some potential siblings to Sarah Upshall that I took from an online Ancestry Upshall Tree:

After quite a bit of typing, I get this:

This is a small version of the Upshall DNA match tree. I didn’t add in Ann Upshall or many of the Newfoundland Upshalls.

Shared DNA Matches

When I check how Judy on the bottom left of the chart above matches Esther, I get these shared DNA matches:

Many of these shared matches are with descendants of Newfoundland Upshalls.

Elaine and Joan’s Hazelbury Bryan Thrulines

One of Elaine’s Hazelbury Bryan Thrulines is with Peter on the Charles Upshall Branch shown above. The other is with Hazel on the Joseph Branch.

It looks like Hazel’s Branch stayed in England while Judy’s branch went to Australia:

Joan also has a ThruLines match with Hazel.

More of Esther’s English Upshall Shared DNA Matches

Elaine and Margaret from the George Upshall Branch have a shared DNA match named Trenton. Trenton has a good sized tree:

Trenton’s father’s mother’s father was Peter Upshall Boutcher. This sounds suspicious. There must be an Upshall in Peter’s ancestry. The Collett Genealogy that I referred to above is very helpful:

Here is one relationship that ThruLines didn’t figure out, but it helped in conjunction with Shared DNA Matches:

Putting the Upshall’s Together

Here I added a representative person from the Upshall/Tulk Branch:

Based on the ThruLines there are over 10 matches each on the Sarah Upshall Collett and Jane Upshall Tulk Branches. So the above tree is just a skeleton.

One Last Shared Match Between Esther and Judy

I don’t want to leave too much low hanging fruit. AU is a shared match with Dorset descendant Judy and Esther. Here is his three person tree and his DNA match:

AU and Esther have a DNA match of 69 cM. Here is Jacob in 1935 in Harbour Buffett:

Edward and Martha married in 1916:

Unfortunately, I soon got stuck at the level of Edward Upshall:

Summary and Conclusions

  • Going Through many of Esther’s ThruLines was a large undertaking. I may have been better off just looking at the Upshall ThruLines.
  • It was helpful have two of Esther’s 1/2 Nieces to compare the results. This is because Esther matches on many intermarried lines and Joan and Elaine only match on Esther’s paternal side.
  • Esther’s ThruLines complemented and expanded upon the previous DNA work I have done on the Upshall and Dicks Families.
  • I compared Esther’s Upshall ThruLines with her AutoCluster results. The Jane Upshall/Tulk Line showed clearly in one of Esther’s Clusters.
  • I brought Esther’s ThruLines back to John Upshall born 1737 in Dorset, England and his wife Elisabeth Ellis. To me, the results clearly show that Esther descends through John Upshall and his daughter Sarah Upshall to Peter Upshall who was an early settler in Newfoundland in the Harbour Buffett area.
  • I was a little surprised that Esther had four DNA matches going back to a common ancestor who was born in 1737
  • ThruLines work well with Shared DNA Matches. I was able to find at least one new Upshall Line using Shared Matches to ThruLine Matches.
  • In the future, I would like to concentrate more on the Upshall Branches and build them out in my Excel spreadsheet.
  • It may be helpful to also check to see how many Upshall descendants have their DNA at Gedmatch, FTDNA and MyHeritage. This would allow for more detailed DNA analysis.
  • ThruLines are able to put together many trees and DNA matches in order to see a possible big picture solution to some genealogical problems.

 

 

Some Upshall and Hollett Genealogy

I recently had this request from Shirley:

My Mother was Lillian Florence May Hollett who was born in Montreal, but her father was Samuel Hollett from Spensers Cove Placentia Bay NL.
My father was Cecil Llewelyn Upshall, born in Harbour Buffett NL.
Can you give me any information on either of those backgrounds?

This could be the couple in 1945:

Cecil was born in Placentia and Lillie in Canada according to this Census. Here is Grand Falls where the couple were in 1945:

The 1921 Census

This gives some more information. Cecil’s parents were Isaac and Rebecca. Cecil’s grandmother was Lizzie Hann from Harbour Buffett. Here is the marriage record for Isaac and Rebecca:

Isaac was a fisherman. Both Isaac and Rebecca were living in Harbour Buffet at the time of their marriage. Before this, the genealogy gets a little shaky:

Martha shows that Isaac’s parents were Peter and Hannah. Martha has this further information:

Martha has Peter dying in Kingwell:

Here is the tree I have for my wife:

My wife’s ancestor Henry Upshall was born around 1841. Perhaps Peter was a brother or other relative to Henry.

Shirley’s Hollett Side

So far Shirley’s tree looks like this:

Here is the marriage record for Samuel and May:

This couple married in a Methodist Church in Montreal. Samuel was a carpenter and his parents were John and Susan Butcher. It appears that Samuel was born at Sound Island in 1860.

This is not too far from Spencers Cove.

 

Records have his death at Botwood:

Botwood is to the Northeast of Grand Falls. Samuel is listed as 84 years old in 1944. The number next to the cause of death is for something else. He shows as being born in Burin. This record for another Hollett birth appears to tie things together:

This shows that Sound Island was in the District and Parish of Burin. I was not aware of this connection previously:

Sound Island and Burin appear to be about 100 miles away from each other.  It is a good thing that the Holletts were Methodists as those records appear to have survived better than some of the other records.

Here is the tree that I have for Shirley:

Due to missing records, it may be helpful for Shirley to take a DNA test. This could help to solidify existing connections and perhaps suggest some new connections.

 

 

 

AutoClustering Aunt Esther’s Newfoundland DNA

In previous Blog, I looked at the autoclustering of my mother-in-law Joan’s DNA. Esther is Joan’s half Aunt. That means that Joan and Esther have a connection on only one of Joan’s grandparents. All of Esther’s four grandparents were from Newfoundland. I am hoping that the AutoClustering process will make sense of Esther’s Newfoundland DNA.

Esther’s AutoCluster

This is the overall chart:

The 54 clusters are difficult to see because Esther has 612 matches. I set Esther’s autoclustering limits between 30 and 600 cM and was a little surprised at how many matches Esther had at that level.

Esther’s Family Tree

There are a few holes in Esther’s family tree:

The Peter Upshall born 1800 above is also a guess.  I’m not as familiar with the Shave and Kirby sides as my wife is not related on that side. The Clusters should identify some of them.

Here is a spreadsheet that I will need to fill in.

My wife is at the top of the list with the largest match in Cluster 1. In a way that is not good because my wife will be related to two of Aunt Esther’s grandparents: Henry Upshall and Catherine Dicks. Perhaps that is why the Cluster 1 is so large. I will try another AutoCluster for Esher between 40 cM and 250 cM. That should be clearer. Also Marie’s niece Tina is the top match for Cluster 6. Tina will also share Upshall and Dicks matches. However, lowering the upper match limit to 250 cM will not solve all the problems. Even though Marie and Tina share both Upshall and Dicks, it is possible that many in the clusters will only have either Upshall or Dicks DNA. Or they will have more Upshall than Dicks or the other way around.

Esther’s Shared Ancestor Hints (SAHs)

At AncestryDNA, Esther has some Shared Ancestor HInts. Here is one:

Pat is a 2nd cousin once removed. Esther and Pat share the common ancestors of Shave and Burton. I was looking for easy answers but got thrown for a loop because Pat is in Cluster 1. She is in Cluster 1 with Marie who is not related on the Shave side. Interesting.

Here is some more of Pat’s paternal side lineage:

This tells me that perhaps Pat is in Cluster 1 because of her Upshall match and not her Shave/Burton match. That could mean that Margaret Upshall is a sister to Esther’s grandfather. If that is the case, then Esther and Pat may be 2nd cousins once removed on the Upshall side also. It’s a possibility.

A Kirby/Emberley SAH

Here Esther and M.B. are shown as 3rd cousins. AncestryDNA thinks they share enough DNA to be 2nd cousins, so something is going on. Not only that, M.B. is also in Cluster 1. Martha is the administrator for M.B. Look at Martha’s tree for M.B.

There is Upshall again. I have been in touch with Martha and we both agree that Peter is a pretty good potential ancestor. He was born to Sarah Upshall who was a single mother in Haselbury Bryan, Dorset, England.  So far, I’m thinking that there is more than meets the eye to these SAHs.

This Just In: Another AutoCluster for Esther

While I am thinking about the Upshalls in other SAHs, I’ll look at another AutoCluster for Esther. Things are still a bit muddy. I changed the lower limit to 40 and the upper limit to 250cM and got almost 300 fewer matches for Esther. However the picture is still muddy:

Esther is down to 33 clusters, but the grey dots between clusters represents crossover in ancestral lines. M.B. who was previously in Cluster 1 is now in Cluster 19. Changing the thresholds changes the delicate balance of the clusters and the relationship between the clusters apparently.

Which AutoCluster Version Should I Use?

It seems like Newfoundland genetic genealogy is already complicated enough. There are intermarriages of lines and missing lines. I have just put in for a third AutoCluster for Esther at the default thresholds of 50-250cM. I am hoping that those thresholds will simplify things.

Take 3 with Esther’s AutoCluster

You can’t say I’m not trying.

This looks more manageable with 20 clusters and 220 matches. I’m ready to rock this AutoCluster.

Cluster 1: Dicks?

My notes for many in this Cluster indicate the Dicks family. D.M. in Cluster 1 has a good match and Dicks on her maternal side:

I was able to build out D.M like this:

However, I have been proposing that Elizabeth Collier could be Elizabeth Crann. That is something to keep in mind. It looks like D.M. matches Esther on Kirby, Dicks, Dicks wife Elizabeth, Shave and Burton. That is quite a bit.

Cluster 14 – Kirby/Emberley

My notes for this Cluster say Kirby and Emberley. AutoCluster sorts the clusters by size of match and this cluster has the second largest match.

Cluster 8 – Upshall?

I’d like to make a guess that Cluster 8 could be an Upshall Cluster. There are a lot of high matches but not a lot of answers there:

I’ll make it a working theory. The first person on the list is Jane. I couldn’t see any connection to Esther in her tree. The second person James said that his grandmother was Laura Upshall.

Laura Upshall’s Tree

I found a Laura Upshall from England and a Laura from Newfoundland born in Harbour Buffet. So I chose the Laura from Harbour Buffet and built out a fast tree at Ancestry:

Assuming this tree is right, Esther and James are 2nd cousins twice removed with the common ancestors of Peter Upshall and Margaret Burton. While I’m at it, I’ll add Margaret Burton to Esther’s tree. The good thing about Laura’s tree is that I don’t see any Dicks in it. This could rule out Cluster 8 from being a Dicks Cluster. Here is what I have so far:

I still don’t see any Shave Clusters.

Another Cluster 8 Tree

Next down on the list of Esther’s matches on Cluster 8 is someone I call Hat. Here is what I think is his tree:

I think the person taking the test is the son of Ella Grace Upshall, but I’m not sure. Again, I don’t see Dicks in there which is good. One other thing is that these trees also have Shave. So that is a possibility.

Cluster 8: Shave Or Upshall?

One way to tell might be by comparing Esther to her half Niece Joan, my mother-in-law. Joan is related on Esther’s Upshall side but not her Shave side. The Jane that I couldn’t connect to Esther from Cluster 8 is in Joan’s Cluster 41. I had that listed as an Upshall Cluster for Joan. James is also in Joan’s Cluster 41. Finally Hat is in Joan’s Cluster 41, so that is three for three.

A Tree for Eileen from Esther’s Cluster 8

Christina has a short tree, but her mother’s Reid name looks like a possible Newfoundland name. I assume that Christina’s mother Eileen is the one that took the test. I see from the 1940 Census that Eileen’s father was born in Newfoundland, so I guessed right:

Will Flint, Michigan lead back to Upshall?

The answer is no.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Sarah Ann Dicks was born in Harbour Buffet as I couldn’t find records for her birth and Harbour Buffett records are poor. I have that William Reid was born in Harbour Buffett in 1811.

Here is a tree for Lorna in Cluster 8:

I don’t see Upshall here. But Margaret Burton may have married Peter Upshall and she may be the daughter of Charles Burton. She did name what appears to be her second son Charles. It would have been customary to name the wife’s second son after her father. I know, a lot of if’s.

Christina From Cluster 8 and Her Tree

Christina’s tree looks hopeful.

Here is Madge and family in 1935 St. John’s West:

I can’t tell if Hattie is the same as Ethie. Unfortunately, I wasn’t able to get much further than Christina’s tree.

A Possible Upshall Tree

Now that I’ve reduced the possibility of Cluster 8 being Shave, it is more likely an Upshall Cluster. I’ll build a theoretical tree for Upshall with theoretical but possible common ancestors Peter Upshall and Margaret Burton:

 

I put this out there to see if it makes sense genealogically and with the DNA evidence.

Summary at Mid-Point

Here is my spreadsheet so far:

Subject to change.

An Upshall in Cluster 11

Here is Barbara’s paternal side of her tree:

Peter and Alice Upshall married in 1916:

Here is a marriage for Henry Upshall to an Elizabeth Smith:

Henry was said to be living at Little Harbour at the time of the marriage.

Madonna’s Cluster 11 Tree

Madonna shows her maternal grandparents at Ancestry:

I recognized the Collett name and built out Madonna’s tree with some help from other Ancestry Trees:

It’s not my greatest tree as I didn’t build out Susan Collett. I see a record showing a Peter Collett marrying a Susanna Hann in 1905:

That gives me a new line for my horizontal Upshall Tree:

B,A. On Cluster 11

B.A. appears to have an Upshall on his tree. I say appears because there are many trees posted by B.A.’s administrator. I picked the tree that most looked like B.A.’s initials and it had an Upshall in the line:

Solomon Upshall 1921

In 1921 Solomon was living among many Upshalls in Little Harbour:

I wasn’t able to build out past Henry Upshall. I did note one Ancestry Tree had this:

I suppose that is possible.

Cluster 10 and Phyllis’ Tree

Phyllis is missing her paternal side, but her maternal side has some familiar names:

A lot of these names are beginning to sound familiar after a while.

Building out Phyllis’ tree:

Dicks is a common ancestor, but there are other possibilities. With these clusters, I am looking for trends. The clusters are saying to me, in a particular cluster the DNA says that you are more related within this group than outside of this group. So in a sense, the clusters may be clearer than what the genealogy is showing.

Another Cluster 10 Tree: Not All Trees Are Created Equal

This tree is better, in a way, than Phyllis’. Tha maternal side is England and Toronto. That leaves the paternal side:

I built out this tree and found some common ancestors:

This person goes by ‘it’ for short at Ancestry. It is 2nd cousin once removed to Esther. I prefer it’s tree because it is less ambiguous. It’s one Shave/Burton line is the one that is in Harbour Buffett where Esther’s ancestors lived. Where was Shave on Phyllis’ tree? Shave may have been on her paternal side that Phyllis didn’t show

Richard’s Cluster 10 Tree

I could use another tree to confirm, even though I am pretty sure of Shave/Burton already. Richard has a small, but high-grade tree:

The reason I like his tree is that maternal side and paternal side are shown. Also it narrows down to a name I know instead of expanding out to many ambiguous matches. I sort of cut off Lucy Shave. Sorry, Lucy. Richard’s Tree shows two lines of connections:

However, the closer Shave/Burton connection puts Richard also at 2nd cousin once removed to Esther. Cluster 10 represents Esther’s fourth grandparent Line of Shave:

A Shave/Burton Tree

 

Here is Esther’s Cluster 10 Shave/Burton Tree:

Cluster 4

Cluster 4 is next on the GeneticAffairs Report. Daisy is Esther’s first match with 177 cM. Her tree says that she shares the Dicks ancestral name with Esther.

Daisy has a good tree:

Daisy has Joyce and Dicks at her 2nd great-grandparent level above. Here are two more generations on Daisy’s Tree:

This shows Christopher Dicks and his wife twice. Daisy descends from Rachel and Robert Dicks. I’m sure there is a Crann connection also, but this should be overshadowed by the Dicks connections.

That means that Esther and Daisy are 4th cousins once removed twice on the Dicks Line.

Match #2 on Cluster 4 – Julie

Julie shows her two parents on her Ancestry Tree. My first attempt to build out Julie’s tree was a disaster. I think that Julie attached her DNAresults to her mother’s side. I was able to fix this by going into Julie’s tree and going down one lever from her mother. This worked better and I came up with a Newfoundland Tree for Julie’s paternal side:

None of the names sound familiar, but at least I’m in Newfoundland instead of Ireland. I built out Julie’s tree a bit but didn’t find a connection to Esther.

I was able to build out Julie’s tree a little more:

The tree has William Henry Dicks from England. That means that the match could go back to England or that a descendant of Christopher Dicks moved back to England and then back to Newfoundland.

I’m ready for a new cluster.

Cluster 12 – Bridget and bam

I’ll start with bam because he has Newfoundland ancestors in his tree. Here is my build-out based on some Ancestry suggestions:

 

There are a few interesting things about this tree. First, it is possible  that this Charles Burton could be an Uncle or father of Esther’s ancestor Margaret Burton born 1825. Also The Frances Dicks could be the Frances Dicks I have as daughter of Christopher Dicks. I have this tree, roughly based on DNA testing:

However, I see that the first George in the tree must be wrong. He should be in a later generation. Also there is a discrepancy on the birth date of Frances Dicks. I have her here are born 1811, but 1805 may make sense also.

That still leaves the question as to whether this is a Burton or Dicks Cluster (or something else!). I think I may be able to figure out the answer to that question, but not today.

Cluster 20

This could be the last Cluster for now. The top match with a tree is G,K. Here is a clue from AncestryDNA:

G.K. and Esther both have a Joseph Dicks in their tree. I had added in Joseph on Esther’s maternal line. She had a Jane Dicks there that I couldn’t place. The Dicks on Esther’s paternal side were easier to place.

My Theory on Joseph Dicks

I think that the Joseph Dicks in G.K’s tree and the one in Esther’s tree could be the same person. In G.K.’s tree Joseph is born in 1818 in Oderin and has son Michael in 1869 with Mary Murphy. She could have been a second wife. In Esther’s tree, Joseph is born in 1810 in Famish Gut and has Jane Ann Dicks with Mary Griffith in 1841. If I’m right, that would make Esther and G.K. half third cousins. I had that Esther’s Joseph descended from Christopher Dicks. However, the tree that I made for G.K. has Joseph’s parents as John Dicks and Mary Corbett. That may make more sense.

One point is that the tree I make for G.K. has Joseph Bulley Dicks born in 1818:

However, G.K. has Joseph born in 1849.

Jerome’s Cluster 20 Joseph Dicks Tree

I notice that Jerome follows G.K with a later birth date for Joseph Dicks:

It appears that Jerome is 2nd cousin to G.K and they both descend from different daughters of Michael Dicks.

Beth in Cluster 20

Beth in Cluster 20 also has a Joseph Dicks tree but with the earlier Joseph Dicks birth date:

Esther’s Cluster Summary

This is a start:

I’m sure that the more I work on this, the more it will come together:

In general the matches between clusters seem fewer as you go down and to the right. That would mean that if I am right with Joseph Dicks, then that is one of the more unique lines. Cluster 20 represents a Roman Catholic Line also, and I believe that most or all of the other lines are Church of England. I see that I already had a 14 and 15 Cluster label, so my newer label for Cluster 15 should refer to the lower right of the green box.

Summary and Conclusions

  • Looking at Esther’s 20 Cluster Report was helpful. It was also a lot of work to build out and analyze trees.
  • I forgot to mention the Crann connection in New Zealand. This is the small Cluster 2. I believe that the younger Christopher Dicks married Elizabeth Crann, so it may be fitting that the small Crann Cluster was next to the large Dicks Cluster 1.
  • The clusters help to focus on where to look when comparing trees. The clusters at least suggest that the ancestors should be along the same line as each other.
  • Clusters are a good place to try out theories on ancestors. The theory I had on Joseph Dicks seemed to play out well. From my previous Dicks DNA project, I had tried to connect Esther’s Joseph Dicks line and was unsuccessful. This would explain the fact that the Joseph Line appears to be differenrt than the Chirstopher Dicks Lines.
  • I hope to continue looking at Esther’s DNA clusters at some point and comparing them with her half-niece Joan’s. For example, I would not expect that Joan would be matching Esther’s Cluster 20 as that is Esther’s maternal side and Joan matches Esther on Esther’s paternal side.
  • A lot of the progress is from reviewing the matches’ trees, but the AutoClustering helps focus and direct the analsysis of trees.

 

 

 

 

My Mother-In-Law and Her FTDNA AutoClustering

Joan’s Genealogy

I find Joan’s DNA fun to work with. Even though Joan has Canadian background, she has no French Canadian which can muck up the works. I don’t mean to sound prejudice in a DNA sort of way. Joan is 1/4 Newfoundland, 1/4 Daley which is from Nova Scotia and the other half is from Prince Edward Island. Out of Joan’s four grandparents, the Daley side seems to be most obscure. However, the Newfoundland side is problematic due to poor records there. The Church in Harbour Buffet burned down at one point.

  • Ellis and Rayner – PEI
  • Upshall – Newfoundland
  • Daley – Nova Scotia

AutoClustering Joan

For some reason, Joan’s results came through as untitled text files:

I was able to change the first two files to csv files and the last one to an html file and that solved the problem. I chose a range between 12 and 400 cM.

How Many Clusters?

Joan had so many clusters that they ran off the graph:

I’ll say Joan has over 80 clusters. 

This represents about the first 25 of Joan’s clusters. Here is the total at the bottom of the report:

I forgot that FTDNA add small segments to make the matches larger, so I should have had a higher bottom cutoff point.

Joan’s Cluster #1 – Newfoundland

A journey of 1,000 miles starts with one step. Joan’s top match is Ken. I’ve looked at his DNA before and had trouble figuring out where all of his DNA came from. If you look real close, you will see Ken’s grey dots going toward other clusters. Those are other places where he is related to Joan. I mentioned that French Canadians mucked up the works with intermarriage. This would be true of islands also – like Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.

Joan’s #1 AutoCluster Match: Ken

Ken and Joan both descend from Christopher Dicks born in the 1780’s and his wife Margaret. I have run a DIcks DNA project and I recognize a lot of people in this Cluster.

Joan and Nancy

I didn’t recognize Nancy’s name in the group. Here is her tree:

I don’t get a lot of Upshall leads, so this is interesting. I assume that Nancy also has Dicks ancestry at some point. See, AutoClustering leads to good things.

That was quite easy. Here is the spreadsheet I use to keep track:

Cluster 2: PEI

I recognize some PEI descendants in Cluster 2. I have written about Glenda. She descends from Elllis and Rayner and matches Joan equally on those lines. That means I need to look at other Cluster 2 people and their trees.

Barbara and Lee

Barbara and Lee from Cluster 2 both have McArthur or MacArthur in their trees. That would seem to favor the Ellis side over the Rayner side:

However, I am just matching surnames, I am not matching actual shared ancestors. That would take more work.

Agnes’ Tree

It seems that there a lot of good trees at FTNDA. Agnes matches on the Rayner side.

Agnes’ maternal side has an Edward Rayner. His parent are the Edward John Rayner and Mary Watson in Joan’s tree. Of course, that favors the Rayner side. However, I note that there is an Ellis on Agnes’ Rayner side also.

Jane’s Tree

Here is where I need Ancestry to pull the trees together for me:

Jane has McArthur and Ellis on her paternal side.

I guess I’ll call this cluster Ellis/McArthur for now.

I spent a bit of time on this cluster, but it is Joan’s second largest cluster.

Joan’s Cluster Three People Don’t Look Familiar

Unlike the first two clusters, I don’t recognize these matches. There were four trees for the 13 people in this cluster. I think I’ll skip this one. By the little dots to the left and above this cluster, I would say there is some connection to the previous PEI cluster. It seems like an odd group. At least one tree was from New Zealand and one was from Ireland.

Skipping on to Cluster 4

As I look at the names and trees, it appears that this Cluster is from Newfoundland. I’ll just call this a Newfoundland Cluster:

That also gave me an idea for a name for Cluster 3.

DNAPainter to the Rescue?

I’m getting stuck on these Clusters, so I’ll take a look at what I have already painted for Joan. Here is the key to Joan’s painted Chromsomes:

One problem I see with this is that DNAPainter takes from many places – not just FTDNA.

Melissa in Cluster 34

Melissa has a common ancestor of Ellis/Gorrill with Joan.

I’m not so sure about the other two matches in the group. So I didn’t find a lot by that method.

The Clicking on Trees Method

Next, I’ll just click on trees to see if anything shows up. This resulted in a few general discoveries. I then clicked on the highest cM button to try to overcome FTDNA’s over-counting of their DNA matches.

Here are some of the clusters partly identified:

Summary and Conclusions

  • I had trouble finding specific ancestors for many of these clusters. I think it may be related to FTDNA having higher cM matching than is warranted. This may be partially fixed by raising the lower threshold to 20 cM when running an AutoCluster Report at FTDNA.
  • At Joan’s 2nd great-granparent level, I can identify 16 ancestors. In this analysis, I got 92 clusters. That is too many. 
  • Even though the cluster identification was difficult, it was good to take a fresh look at Joan’s FTDNA through the eyes of AutoClustering. I have at least one new lead to follow up on.
  • Another issue that makes Joan’s cluster identification difficult is that her ancestors come from two islands: PEI and Newfoundland. There was some intermarriage going on there. Joan is also once quarter from Nova Scotia. I’m not aware of intermarriage there, but matches with these relatives are relatively rare (no pun intended). 

Brenda’s DNA from the Dicks Family of Harbour Buffett

Brenda came up as a new match recently at Gedmatch.com. She is a good match to my mother-in-law Joan at 9th on Joan’s match list. Brenda tells me her great great-grandfather Samuel Dicks was from Harbour Buffett where my mother-in-law Joan’s maternal grandfather came from.

Joan’s and Brenda’s Genealogy

It would make sense, then, if Joan and Brenda connected on the Dicks Line.

Here is Joan’s maternal side tree:

Joan’s 2nd great grandfather was Christopher Dicks. He married an Elizabeth. I have theorized that this Elizabeth could have been a Crann. This complicates matters, as I have this tree for Brenda’s paternal side:

This shows that Brenda’s great-grandmother was a Crann. This is pretty normal for Newfoundland genealogy. I’ll try to connect Brenda and Joan by the Dicks family and see if there is a possible Crann connection also.

Joan’s 1/2 Aunt Esther

I have also tested Joan’s 1/2 Aunt Esther. Joan and Esther match on Esther’s dad’s side but not on Esther’s mom’s side:

I’ve circled some places where Brenda and Esther could match. Notice that Esther also has a Dicks on her maternal side. Joan doesn’t match Esther on her maternal side, but if we went back far enough could match somehow with this Dicks Line also.

More on Brenda’s Genealogy

My tree for Brenda has that Samuel Dicks married a Julia. Here is the 1935 Census:

This does not state, but seems to imply that Julia is Stanley’s mother. She would have been about 44 at the time of Stanley’s birth. If Julia’s age is right, she would have been born about 1857. Here is a marriage record for Flat Island:

This shows a Samuel Dicks marrying an Eliza Joyce who was 16-1/2. That would put her birth at 1857. Many online trees show that Samuel Dicks married Julia Rodway.

Here is the birth of Albert George Dicks:

This shows that Albert’s mother was Julia, but doesn’t give Julia’s last name. It is possible that Eliza died and Samuel remarried Julia. This record would support that:

 

Here a Samuel was born to Eliza and Samuel Dicks in 1877. Here is Samuel’s marriage to Juila Rodway:

Samuel Dicks Father Was?

All the trees I found on Ancestry support the following:

So I’ll go with that. Note yet another Crann in the line. This brings me up to the Dicks DNA Project that I have been working on.

The Dicks DNA Project

Here is part of the tree of the people descending from Christopher Dicks who have had their DNA tested:

The Robert Dicks/Crann Line is on the right. Joan and Esther descend from a brother of Robert named Christopher and go off the above image to the left.

Here is Brenda added to the Robert Dicks/Crann Line:

Brenda is 4th cousins to everyone on her level. She is third cousin once removed to Kenneth Albert and Diddie and 4th cousin once removed to Sandi. One issue is that this DNA tree does not match exactly with the tree I just made.

However, I just used someone else’s tree to get the above tree. William Henry matches on both trees. Also Priscilla and Samuel are on both trees. I don’t see John and Rebecca Dicks on the Ancestry tree.

Looking at the DNA Matches

First, I’ll compare all the descendants of Christopher Dicks born about 1784 to each other. Theoretically the DNA will sort out to these five different lines:

The green boxes represent those who have had their DNA tested. I say the DNA theoretically sorts out. However, some people are in more than one line, and some people are related on other family lines such as the Crann family that I have mentioned. Further, the DNA can get a bit fickle.

These are all the comparisons, though I may have missed a few. The way it is supposed to work is that the brighter colors would be within the outlined boxes. This worked for the Adams, Christopher and Joyce Lines. Not so well for Frances and Robert Dicks.

Dicks Triangulation Groups (TGs) and Brenda

Next, I look at Triangulation Groups. These are groups of three people or more that match each other on the same segment of Chromosome. This is supposed to indicate a common ancestor. To simplify things, I’ll concentrate on the TGs that Brenda is in.

TG02

This TG is made up of Forrest, Brenda, Joan and Esther.

Here is how it would look:

This has the lines going up to Christopher Dicks born 1874. However, I suspect that Esther’s great-grandmother was Elizabeth Crann, so this TG may be from the unproven Crann side on Esther and Joan’s side. Later I hope to bring in some people who are only related on the Crann side to see if I can tease any of this DNA out.

TG03: Brenda, Randy, Forrest and Joan

These are interesting TGs as they are from such far-flung families. These are actually the best TGs. I think of them as having a broad, steady base. Also, like the previous TG, there is a good possibility that the connection could also be on the Crann side.

TG06 – A Simpler Triangulation Group

This TG only includes three people.

The TGs between these two groups tend to confirm my theory that the unknown Elizabeth on Barry’s Line is a Crann.

TG06 – Another Far-Flung TG

In this case, there is not another additional Crann family involved, so this is more likely to be Dicks DNA. This tree is between the Adams Line and the Crann Line of Dicks.

TG07 – On Robert Dicks or Jane Crann

TG08 – Another TG from the Christopher Line

Again, it is possible that this is a Crann DNA match. Another thing is, that I was expecting Brenda to be in the Christopher (born 1812) group as her Dicks ancestor was from Harbour Buffet. It wouldn’t hurt to check the genealogy at some point also.

TG09

This TG is from three Lines of Dicks and more likely to be just Dicks DNA.

TG11 – Another Dicks or Crann TG?

I won’t bother putting up the circles and lines. This is another TG with Christopher Dicks descendants Esther, Joan, and Elaine.

An Interesting Possibility for TG16

Here Brenda is in a TG with Brenda, Esther, Molly and Howie. However, Karen matches Esther in the same area of the TG, but isn’t in the TG. My understanding is that Karen matches Esther on Esther’s paternal side – that is, the Upshall/Dicks side. That could mean that this TG represents the Dicks from Esther’s maternal side. I haven’t figured out where the Joseph Dicks Line fits in yet. The Joseph Dicks was also partially a guess based on a suggestion from a Dicks genealogist.

I have Esther’s maternal Dicks going to Joseph Dicks. He was supposed to have been born in 1810 at Famish Gut.

TG16B – Howie, Diddie and Brenda

This should represent the same more recent common ancestors as TG07.

TG18 – Diddie, Nelson, Brenda, and Esther

Apologies to Diddie as she went off the page to the right. This is most likely an older Dicks TG.

TG20

This is like TG18, except Nelson is not in this TG and Kenneth is. Kenneth could be in the Burton or Crann Line, so that makes this one confusing.

More on the Cranns

In my analysis above, I was having trouble figuring out often which DNA was Crann and which was Dicks. There is one possible way to determine this. That is to look at things through the Crann side. Here is a tree I have:

This is a Crann tree that I came up with based on, again, guesses, suggestions and DNA. The green line on the right is especially interesting. That is because these two lines are in New Zealand. That means that they have had no intermarriage with Newfoundland people. There is also a Samuel Crann Line. The Jane Crann/Robert Dicks Line is now outdated. Here is an updated tree:

Brenda Has Two Crann Lines

This is if I have my Dicks chart right:

Brenda descends from John Crann twice because Albert George Dicks married Jane Eliza Crann. Jane Eliza also descends from John Crann through Henry William Crann.

Looking at Crann DNA

I have already looked at Crann DNA in the past. At the top of the page, there is a caterogry for Crann Blogs. In a previous Blog, I started with Chromosome 22 as many people matched there. Why not start with the most complicated?

From what I can tell the people in orange or gold are in a Crann TG. Heather, Wayne and Marjorie have no Newfoundland ancestors as they are from New Zealand. Here is how I have it:

The ones in orange have as their common ancestor Henry Crann born 1757 and her wife Elizabeth Collens. Ironically, I haven’t proven this relationship by genealogy. I did show somewhere that there was an Elizabeth Crann who could have married Christopher Dicks. Now Brenda and Richard are not in the TG. Richard is interesting as he is a Crann descendant with no known Dicks ancestry. It looks like the connection between Richard and Brenda would be on the wife of John Crann born 1791. One good thing about genetic genealogy is that very often there are only two choices. We have two of each chromosome, so if it is not one chromosome then it is the other. If Brenda and Richard had Crann DNA at this segment of Chromosome 22, it should have matched with the other Crann DNA. Another interesting point is that Richard matched with Esther from position 17-22M on Chromosome 22. This would technically be Crann DNA as Esther is in the Crann TG at that point. At position 22, Richard’s DNA switched from Crann DNA to John Crann’s wife Elizabeth’s DNA.

TG02 – On to Simpler Things

There is some irony in this TG. Karen was put into the Christopher Dicks Line by DNA and now she is put into the Crann Line by DNA. I won’t bother drawing this out. However, the presence of the people from New Zealand highlighted in green brings the common ancestors back to Netherbury, Dorset, England.

Crann TG04

This is one of those triangles with a very stable base. I suspect that Brenda’s actual path of DNA should be through her great-grandmother Jane Eliza Crann as she is a much closer relative than her third great-grandmother Jane Crann.

Crann TG08 – No Dicks Required

Richard is the only one on the left side of the chart with no Dicks ancestry:

Crann TG10

We generally want a relationship further away than a sibling for a TG. Heather is the one that isn’t a sibling and she makes this a TG:

Molly and Howie are in more than one Dicks Line. This segment of Chromosome 10 identifies which lineage this is.

Crann TG11 – Heather, Esther and Joan

Crann TG18 – Very Similar

Here Elaine fills in for her sister Joan. There is one difference. It appears that Ken, Richard and Barry are in a TG. This looks a lot like TG22:

So if we ever want to figure out who married John Crann born 1791, we may be able to find out through other people that match on these segments of Chromosomes 18 and 22 that didn’t match our New Zealand friends.

Next Painting Joan’s Chromosomes

I have been painting Joan’s chromosomes. Perhaps there is some more painting I could do here. I’m not sure if I should just paint the Dicks DNA or also the Crann. I’ll go for both. Here is where Joan matches Brenda:

However, there is a problem. I have a Crann Tree and a Dicks Tree. If these trees are right, then there may be more of a chance that Brenda would match Joan along Brenda’s two Crann Lines. I guess I’ll skip that for now. Joan’s matches with New Zealand seem more unambiguous, even though I haven’t proven the genealogy.

Here is where Joan and Heather match:

Here is what I have so far for Joan:

In the key, the part below the line is Joan’s maternal side. I have up to Christopher Dicks. I’ll add Crann and Collens with Heather’s matches to Joan:

On Chromosome 8, there is new DNA. On Chromosome 11, the DNA is overlapping with Fred Upshall.

That is not a problem. It is telling me that Joan matches her Upshall grandfather there, but her grandfather got at least that portion of his DNA from Crann or Collens on Chromosome 11.

Adding Anne

Anne is a good match to Joan:

Unfortunately, I left her out of the Crann analysis. Sorry, Anne. I’ll paint her in as Dicks/Crann:

I just included Joan’s maternal side above for clarity. This shows that Joan’s maternal side is 37% painted in.

Others in the Dicks/Crann Line:

Randy

I circled that part that was not overlapping with others. Actually Chromosomes 14 and 21 overlap with Fred Upshall’s DNA, but Chromosome 3 is totally new.

 

Edward

Karen

Karen is a special case as she was added based on her DNA match more than documented genealogy. She should also have Upshall and Dicks DNA. It looks like I hae already painted Karen to Joan’s DNA. Chromosome 9 is interesting. The fact that Edward matches there tells me that long segment is DNA from Catherine Dicks. That is because Edward matches on the Dicks side.

Wallace

Wallace is someone else, like Anne, that I forgot.

I think that Wallace is on MyHeritage, so that makes it difficult to compare with others that have uploaded to Gedmatch.

Painting in Christopher Dicks Born 1784 Married Margaret

I’ve got the matches. I might as well paint them onto my mother-in-law’s chromosomes. That will give me a new color.

The Adams, Burton and Joyce Lines

I’ll assume that a match with someone from the Adams Line will have as their common ancestors Christopher Dicks or his wife Margaret.

The first match in the Adams Line is with Sandra:

Sandra showed a new maternal segment on Chromosome 2 for Joan. One Chromosome 11, Sandra shows that the matches above her are from Dicks and not Crann.

Judy is the first that I mapped on Joan’s chromosomes from the Burton Line. Judy seems to have an affinity to Wallace:

The Other Wallace

Next I painted Wallace from Burton Line. I was glad I did because the DNAPainter showed that I had already painted in this Wallace under Upshall Dicks by mistake. There are two Wallace’s: one on the Dicks/Burton Line and one on Joan’s Upshall/Dicks Line. Judy’s affinity to Wallace should have been where Wallace was in Green, not blue.

I corrected my mistake and now have a Wallace L on the Dicks/Burton Line and Wallace C on the Upshall/Dicks Line.

Now that I corrected my mistake, Joan is up to 30% mapped overall and 41% mapped on her maternal side.

One Step Back on the Dicks Line

Then there is the father of Christopher Dicks. I think his name was Christopher Dicks also, but I’m not sure. One tree has him born 1748 and his wife as Susannah. Here he is on top of the Henry and Christopher Dicks Lines:

That means that if Joan matches people on the Henry Dicks Line, one probable set of common ancestors would be Christopher? Dicks born 1748 and Susannah. That added a little to the map:

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • First I looked at Brenda’s family tree. There are two places where Brenda could match my wife’s family on the Crann Line. There is one place on Brenda’s tree where they could match on the Dicks Line.
  • Next I looked at Triangulation Groups. There were a lot of Triangulation Groups found between the Dicks/Crann Line that Brenda is in and my wife’s family’s Christopher Dicks Line. Based on DNA, I suspect that Christopher Dicks born 1812 married Elizabeth Crann.
  • Next I looked at trees from a Crann perspective. The advantage of this was that there were Crann descendants in that group that did not have Dicks ancestry. Matches with them would be on the Crann side. The down side was that I did not look at other people outside those I suspected of having Crann ancestry. I also note that the common ancestors from Dorset, England also had a Collens name. I don’t know if this Collens is the same as the Collins from Newfoundland.
  • Finally I looked at DNA Painting for my mother-in-law Joan. By painting the matches it was also possible to separate some lines where the DNA could be from one common ancestor or the ancestor’s wife. I was also able to correct a previous DNAPainting error that I had made.
  • This exercise helped me to re-start the DIcks DNA Project and update it.

Bob, a Harbour Buffet Descendant’s DNA Results

I haven’t written about the Dicks family for a while. Clayton told me recently that his cousin Bob had his DNA tested and uploaded to Gedmatch. I had written a Blog about Clayton  here in May, 2017. In that Blog, I found that Clayton did not have a lot of obvious matches to others in the Dicks Project that I was working on. His biggest match of people in that project was with my wife’s Aunt Esther:

Bob’s Genealogy [Note, I Show This to be Wrong Below ]

Here is what I get for Bob and Clayton’s tree:

It would be tempting to think that Clayton and Bob’s John is the same that I now have in the Dicks DNA Project:

At the time I wrote about Clayton, only Esther and Joan were in the Christopher (born 1812) LIne. Now this Line is quite large.

Looking at Bob’s DNA

I’ll run Bob’s DNA against all the people in the Christopher Dicks Line. That is, the line of Christopher born 1812 shown above. If Bob and Clayton are in the John Dicks Line b 1844, they will show as 1st cousins twice removed to Anne above.

More DNA Problems

I circled where the problem is:

Published matching results for 1st cousins, twice removed show that the match should be within these ranges:

Clayton and Bob match Anne at 10.1 and 24 cM. Normally, I could not say that someone is not related by not matching at DNA. However, in this case, I can say that Anne is not a 1st cousin, twice removed to Bob and Clayton.

What Are the Possibilities?

Now that we know Anne is not related to Bob and Clayton in the way that the genealogy was suggesting, what are the possibilities?

  1. Anne’s John Dicks and Bob’s John Dicks may have been two different people. However, Bob and Clayton don’t seem to match other Dicks Lines well by DNA.
  2. It is possible that Clayton and Bob carry the true Dicks Line and that William Dicks was adopted into the Dicks Line. However, this doesn’t seem possible due to the same reason that Clayton and Bob do not have good, consistent matches with other Dicks descendants.
  3. Charles Dicks born 1886 may have been adopted by John Dicks. This seems more likely than scenario #1 or #2. John’s wife may have been married previously and had a child. Many parents died in these days and others raised the children.

An Email to Clayton and Re-Grouping [This is Where the Mistake is Fixed]

I told Clayton my initial results and got some more information. It appears from his email that there was more than one John Dicks. That means that my assumption in #2 above was wrong. Here is what Clayton had to say:

from what I’ve collected is Me 1985-> Dad 1961-> Leslie Dicks 1930 -> Charles Dicks 1886 -> John Dicks 1857 -> David Dicks 1831 -> Chris Dicks 1812.  These records were from two Dicks relatives who had sent my dad their records sometime in the 90’s and he had kept around.   Both of them we’re connected through Henry Dicks 1775. Their info is a little muddy though as David seems to have died in a fishing accident only a few months after John was born so the records on him are basically non-existent.

Clayton sent a screenshot of his Ancestry Tree which was helpful. His understanding of his ancestry was something like this:

Clayton’s tree had his ancestor David (born 1831) as a brother of Catherine Dicks who married Henry Upshall. I added in other lines I’ve been working on. Green means that the person has tested their DNA and uploaded to gedmatch. Now rather than Bob and Clayton being 1st cousins once removed to Anne, they are second cousins three times removed. That is quite a difference. This may not be the right configuration, but it should be closer than what I had. Under this proposed tree, Clayton and Bob are also 2nd cousins three times removed to Esther.

Any Triangulation Groups for Clayton and Bob?

If Clayton and/or Bob are in any Triangulation Groups (TGs) that would give strong evidence to their place in the Dicks Line.

We Have Triangulation on Chromosome 5

This is what a Triangulation Group (TG) looks like. This one has Bob, Dorothy, Grace, Barry, Anne, and Nelson. The gold region indicates those that are in the TG. Actually, Edward, Molly, Howie and Diddie are in a different TG, so I added that also to my list.

In order to draw this TG, I put Bob and Clayton in the Christopher Dicks b 1812 Line:

 

Assuming the configuration is right, these six triangulate on Christopher Dicks born about 1774. Another point is that Bob, Barry and Anne triangulate on the Christopher Dicks born 1812.

TG10A

 

This TG has Clayton, Edward and Diddie in it. I haven’t introduced DIddie to a Blog yet, but she is Marilyn’s Aunt. Note that Diddie is on two Dicks Lines. I favor the Crann Line on the right as my theory is that Christopher, born 1812 married a Crann. However, the TG could be on either one of the lines.

TG10B

The spreadsheet version:

 

Ken is in two differnt Dicks Lines also.

Ken is in the Burton Line on the left and Crann Line on the right. Barry is in the Christopher Line. I mentioned my preference for the Crann line above.

TG18

There are others that almost make it into this TG but the matches must be under 7 cM. Forrest (again from the Crann Line) would also be in a TG with Anne and Randy.

Here is the Bob, Randy, Anne TG

It is difficult to explain why there could be two TGs in the same place. This may be due to intermarriage. The only other non-intermarriage explanation would be that there are maternal and paternal TGs.

Here is the mysterious TG with Forrest, Anne and Randy almost in the same spot as the one with Bob, Randy and Anne. I tried to get Bob to match with Forrest, but had no luck.

If I had to choose one TG over the other, I would choose the second as the match levels are higher. It is possible that Bob’s low matches on Chromosome 18 are false matches. That brings up an interesting point. On Chromosome 5, Bob’s matches are higher outside the Christopher DIcks (born 1812) than inside that group. This may just be the DNA messing with us. However, he does have a lot of matches with people within the Christopher group. They are just smaller matches. That brings up my two laws of genetic genealogy.

My Two Laws of Genetic Genealogy

  1. The DNA is messing with us. DNA has been around for a longer time than we have and wants to prove that it is smarter than we are. It knows that it has random qualities and uses that fact to throw us off track.
  2. The ancestors are messing with us. Our ancestors did things to throw us off track also. They overused the name Christopher, for example. They married very young or very old and had children at a very young or old age. They also decided to move to places where there were no records or where the churches burnt down with the records inside. Then they married cousins, and so on…

As you can see, both of those laws are in play in the case of Bob and Clayton.

TG Summary for Bob and Clayton

  • Bob had low-level matches with others in the Christopher (born 1812) Line, but had quite a few of these matches
  • I found two new TGs that Clayton was in and two new ones that Bob was in. Often at this stage of a DNA project, people will be joining existing TGs, but Bob and Clayton made new TGs.
  • When I looked at Clayton’s DNA previously, I didn’t find him in any TGs. However, since that time new people have been added to the Christopher (born 1812) group
  • Every TG that Bon and Clayton were in had at least one other person from the Christopher Group in it.
  • Clayton was in a TG with Diddie and a TG with Ken. Both Diddie and Ken descend from a Crann Line. However they also descend from two other Lines.
  • I had a few ideas how there could be overlapping TGs on Chromosome 18 that included two of the same people.

One Last Revision

I had some correspondence with Bob following the initial publication of this Blog. He felt that there was some good reasons to have his line under the Robert Dicks/Crann Line. I am not a specialist on Dicks genealogy. This is the line of my wife’s mother’s mother’s father’s mother. That is perhaps a bit obscure for me. I didn’t have a strong feeling from the DNA that the family had to be in the Christopher Dicks Line. I was noting connections to the Robert Dicks/Crann Line. I have also mentioned that I believe that Christopher Dicks married Elizabeth Crann, so there is also that connection.

 

Summary and Conclusions

  • I initially came to a bad conclusion based on a misunderstanding of Bob and Clayton’s family tree. DNA has to work together with genealogy for it to work right.
  • I tend to leave my mistakes in my Blogs as a warning to others (and myself)
  • Thanks to input from Clayton, I got the genealogy more in line
  • Clayton’s best shot at his genealogy put him and Bob further away from other Dicks cousins. This was more in accord with the DNA results I was seeing.
  • By running Bob and Clayton’s results against all the Dicks DNA Project, I found 4  new TGs that Bob and Clayton are in.
  • One of the TGs was confusing as it overlapped with another TG and had two of the same people in each TG
  • The TGs that Bob and Clayton were in always included someone else from the Christopher Dicks (born 1812) Line. That leads me to believe that Bob and Clayton are in the Christopher Dicks Line as proposed by Clayton’s genealogy.
  • I’m quite amazed at the growth of the DNA-tested Christopher Dicks Line in that past year
  • I mentioned the Crann connection briefly and would like to look at that more closely in the future. Perhaps in my upcoming Blog on Diddie.

 

 

 

Adding 300 Years of Upshalls by DNA and Genealogy

In my last sprawling Blog, I wrote an Upshall update and had a breakthrough as to the English origins of the Upshalls. In this Blog, I’d like to summarize some areas and expand on some areas of that Blog.

The Key to the Breakthrough: Peter, Sarah, and John Upshall

Martha is an Upshall relative by DNA and genealogy. I have been in touch with her by various avenues. She has suggested a father for Henry Upshall. His name is Peter. She also suggested a mother of Peter named Sarah and a father of Sarah named John.

In the Hazelbury Bryan, Dorset Parish Registers Peter was ‘base-born’ to Sarah in 1800:

Base-born is such a heavy term. It seems like it could be used in some 1800’s English novel. The story seemed to go that Peter, being base-born, likely had no inheritance or much of a future in Hazelbury Bryan, so sought his fortune in Newfoundland. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. But how could this theory be verified?

Confirming Henry Upshall’s (born about 1841) Ancestry by DNA

First I looked at my wife’s Aunt Elaine’s DNA matches at Ancestry. I used her matches because she has fewer Newfoundland matches than my wife’s great Aunt Esther. That narrows down the matches to Esther’s Upshall and Dicks ancestry. I checked for Elaine’s Upshall DNA matches.

Things got interesting when I started looking at Elaine’s more distant Upshall DNA matches at Ancestry. One was with Allen. Allen descended from Bethia Upshall who was the grandson of John Upshall born in 1739. Assuming that was the same John that Martha had as Sarah Upshall’s dad, I drew this tree:

From what I can tell, Allen lives in England and has no Dicks relatives. Next, I found Barry from New Zealand. Barry also has the same John Upshall in his tree and is also a DNA match to Elaine.

However, another important thing about Barry from New Zealand’s tree: it shows Sarah Upshall and Allen’s George Upshall as siblings.

 

Here I have circled Ann, Sarah and George Upshall. I also circled their father John. I note that Aunt Esther also matches Allen and Barry by DNA. That means that the person in common by DNA and genealogy with Allen, Barry, Elaine and Esther is John Upshall born 1739. Descendants of these three children apparently ended up in England, New Zealand and Newfoundland. However, the DNA and genealogy ties them back together to Hazelbury Bryan, Dorset, England.

A Ninth Upshall Great-Grandfather for Esther

Previously, Esther had her grandfather Henry Upshall documented and no Upshall before that. Now, thanks to work done by Allen and Barry, she has Upshalls going back to the 1500’s:

The first Upshall in the line is William Upshall born in 1543 – about 300 years before Henry Upshall of Newfoundland. William also lived in Hazelbury Bryan (spelled Haslebury at the time).

300 Years of Upshalls in Hazelbury Bryan

What do we know about Hazelbury Bryan, Dorset? Here is the Church:

I imagine that this is where the Upshalls were born, got married and were buried. Here is some more information from the internet:

Hazelbury Bryan is situated in the Blackmore Vale five miles south west of Sturminster Newton. The Parish was formerly in the hundred of Pimperne and has an area of 2359 acres. Today the village has a population of 800 (2001) slightly more than the 761 recorded in the 1861 census. The village consists of seven hamlets, namely DroopKingstonParkgatePidneyPleckWonston and Woodrow.

In 1201 the village name was spelled Hasebere. The name is derived from the Old English hæsel bearu, meaning a hazel grove or wood, plus the manorial name of the Bryene or de Bryan family; Sir Guy de Bryan, of Woodsford Castle, gave his surname to the village in the 14th century when he married the daughter of the First Earl of Salisbury.

The original settlement in the village is the hamlet of Droop, which is the location of the parish church. The 14th century church dedicated to St Mary and St James is a handsome edifice with a fine square tower. The north aisle is considered a good specimen of the Perpendicular style. Beside the church are dwellings some 400 years old. Miss Violet Cross from the Manor House, a benefactor of the church, gave these dwellings to provide homes for widows and daughters of the clergy.

The parish was also home to a Primitive Methodist Chapel built in 1863 which remains in use to this day, part of the North Dorset Circuit.

That gives some general information. Hazelbury Bryan is old and small is the message I am getting. I suppose that makes it a good place for tracking Upshalls. Here is the 1841 Census with what appears to be Sarah’s brother Benjamin Upshall:

He is living in the Hamlet of Droop. He appears to be an agricultural laborer. The person above Benjamin was listed as a Farmer. I suppose that meant that Benjamin worked on someone elses’ farm. Living with Benjamin was Elizabeth Upshall. She could have been Benjamin’s wife or George’s widow Elizabeth Whiller Upshall or some other relative.

Here is a Droop Farm Cottage for rent. Perfect for Upshall descendants looking to visit their roots:

Summary and Conclusions

  • DNA matches compared with associated trees has pushed the knowledge of my wife’s Upshall line back about 300 years.
  • Base-born Peter Upshall appears to be the first in my wife’s line of Upshalls to travel to Newfoundland.
  • Before relocating to Newfoundland, Peter’s ancestors lived in Hazebury Bryan as long as the Parish records have existed.
  • Tracing ancestors from Newfoundland back to England can be nearly impossible due to the lack of records in Newfoundland. However, the use of DNA matching paired with good on-line Upshall records from Hazelbury Bryan has resulted in a breakthrough in Upshall genealogy.