In memory of my mom’s first cousins on her mother’s side. This photo was taken circa 1940:
Siblings – Ann Shirley Holst (1936 – 1994) and Robert Perry “Bobby” Holst (1932 – 2009)
Neither had any children.
In memory of my mom’s first cousins on her mother’s side. This photo was taken circa 1940:
Siblings – Ann Shirley Holst (1936 – 1994) and Robert Perry “Bobby” Holst (1932 – 2009)
Neither had any children.
Some of my Wright collateral kin lived in Monroe County, Indiana in the early 19th century, but I haven’t yet figured out how all of them tie to my own direct line. A case in point is the William Wright whose estate was settled in the early 1850s, administered by Pleasant Fossett.
I worked a bit on this problem late this past summer (Aug/Sep 2018) but had to put it aside as I was taking the online BU Certificate for Genealogical Research course. There is a Philbert/Filbart Wright living in Monroe County in 1820, who would have been born ca 1751. It is possible — but pure speculation at this point! — he is the father of William and William’s siblings named in William’s estate. It is also possible — but again, there is nothing definitive — that the Filbart/Philbert born ca. 1751 was a son of Peter Wright (1717 – bef. 1767) and uncle of Richard Wright (c 1726 – c 1784).
Philbert is not a name used everyday, even in this era (1720 – 1820) and it was used a lot in this particular Wright family. Hence, the idea that these folks are related collaterally to my line (descending through Richard Wright 1726-1784).
Here is the document of the final settlement, retrieved from FamilySearch.
Here is my transcription, and all my own comments and notes to it are in red. Names of the deceased’s kin are in blue:
February Term M Probate Court 1852 6th day p 473-474
William Wrights Est.
Pleasant Fossett, Admn.
Of William Wrights Est.
Vs. Petition to sell real estate to pay debts
William Wrights heirs
To the hour F. L. Butter Judge of the Probate Court of Monroe County in the State of Indiana
The Memorial of Pleasant Fossett Administrator of the Estate of William Wright deceased who died intestate, Respectfully showeth that the personal estate of the said intestate which has come into his hands accounts to the sum of $2.10 that the whole thereof is now remaining in the hands of your petitioner, and that the same is insufficient for the payment of the expenses of Administration and taxes, that have been accrued on the real estate of said intestate as appears by the account herewith produced & that the said intestate at the time of his death was the owner of Certain real estate, situate in the County of Monroe in the State of Indiana and known as the North East quarter of the South East quarter of Section Twenty Nine, in Township Seven North of Range Two West, containing forty acres be the same more or less, which land of the said intestate held by certificate from the land office held at Vincennes & in the state of Indiana. The probable amount of said real estate is ($125) dollars.
[This land of William’s is in the same section as land purchased in 1827 by Peter Wright (b 1795) who is in the 1860 census living with Pleasant Fossett’s family. Sec 29 of T7N R2W is also where Pleasant and his father John Smith Fossett bought land. Not only is Mary Ann (Crum) Fossett Peter’s niece, but their property is adjacent.]
There was no debts due or owing by the decedent at the time of his death as far as your petitioner can ascertain but the costs of Administration and Taxes on said real estate as far as your petitioner can ascertain at this time are as follows to wit.
1st clerks fees including all of them up to this time $3.00
2nd printers fees for advertising, taking out letters for administration & sale of
Personal property $2.00
3rd Administrator’s fees including taxes on said real estate &
Other expenses necessarily incurred $8.00
Making together 13.00
Amount of personal estate as per sale bill now on file is 2.10
Leaving a deficit to be paid out of the real estate of 10.90
That the said William Wright deceased left as his heirs and legal representatives,
Rachel Right and Peter Wright his sister or brother adult persons and both of the County of Monroe and State of Indiana [this Peter Wright is born ca 1795 in NC and is at Indian Creek, Monroe in 1850/1860/1870. Rachel, born ca 1777 in NC, is in Peter’s household in 1850. He bought land in Sec 29, above.]
And also Elijah Wright, Jacob Crum, John H Crum, Mary Ann Fossett and David Crum adult persons, and all of whom are brothers and sisters children of the said deceased, all of the before named heirs are of Monroe County and State of Indiana. [probably children of Sally Wright and John Crum. Mary Ann Fossett is married to Pleasant Fossett, the Administrator. Elijah may be a brother of William, b 1800 NC, living in Monroe Co.]
Also Anna Rawley a sister of the said deceased an adult person who has a legal guardian to wit John Rawley
[Anna Wright married Evans Rawley. She was living with son John Rawley in Lafayette Twp, Owen County, IN in 1850.]
& probably Andrew Fry, and Rawley Wright William Crum Mary Greenwood, Nancy Fry, Elizabeth Christ or Christy [Criss], and Sarah Clark Adult persons all of whom are brothers and sisters children, and all of them probably living in the County of Owen and State of Indiana.
[These are mostly siblings – William Crum may be a cousin – of a brother of William, name unknown.]
Also Philbert Wright and Peter Wright adult persons who are brothers children of the deceased and are living in the county of Green and State of Indiana
[These 2 men are in Greene County in 1850. Philbert born ca 1802, Peter born ca 1811. The document reads as though they are the children of one of the decedent’s brothers. Peter married Elizabeth Fossett in 1832 in Monroe County (?)]
Eliza Cooper [nee Crum, apparently daughter of John and Sally (Wright) Crum] an adult persons whom are a sisters child of the deceased and are probaby living in the County of Wayne.
And Sarah Sinks Christena Sares, Mary Inyard, Nicy Fine, Lavina Flood, Rachel Starr, and Matilda her husband’s name not known, all adult persons who are sisters children of the deceased whom are probably living in the State of Illinois the county not known.
[all siblings, likely children of unknown Sears and wife Mary Wright]
The foregoing named persons as your petitioner believes are all the heirs and legal representatives of said decedent. Your memorialist therefore prays your honor to grant him an order of the aforesaid real estate, or so much thereof as will be sufficient to discharge the said taxes that have accrued on said real estate and the expense of Administration, and other legal demands that may be made against said real estate, and such expenses as may hereafter accrue, Also your memorialist prays your honor to appoint suitable men to appraise the foregoing real estate.
June the 2nd day 1851. Pleasant Fossett, Admnr.
Order of Appraisement
State of Indiana February Term 1852
Monroe County, SS
On the application of Pleasant Fossett administrator of the estate of William Wright deceased late of the county aforesaid. It is ordered that Joseph Pennington & William Ragain be appointed appraisers to appraise the N.E. qr of the S.E. qr of Section 29 T7 R2 West with its improvements lying in the County aforesaid, it being the real estate of said decedent, and make report of such appraisement to this court at this term.
And said appraisers being duly sworn returned into Court the following appraisement to wit.
We the undersigned appointed by the within order to appraise the premises therein described having been sworn according to law, do report that on our Consideration of the premises we are of opinion that the said land with its improvements is worth One hundred and twenty five dollars, and do appraise the same accordingly.
Joseph Pennington William Ragain
Allowed one dollar each $200 for both
Transcribed by Cathy Dempsey on 9/22/18; all comments in red are mine. – cd
Monroe County, Indiana, Circuit Court, Probate Order Book Volume F:473-474, William Wright estate settlement; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007663444?cat=213753 : accessed 17 September 2018), image 646.
Prompt for 2019, week 4 — I’d Like to Meet…
Just as an aside, since I started the 52 Ancestors prompt series back in October, I’m off kilter with the “official” 2019 calendar, and mixing / matching prompts from this year and last year.
The current week’s prompt led me to realize that I don’t have just one ancestor I’d like to meet. It’s a cop-out, though, to say I want to meet them all (although, of course, I would — back through the mists of time), so I’ll list just a few back through the generations and why I’d particularly like to meet them.
So, I could go on up a few generations, but I’ll leave off with these six ancestors for now. Ask me on a different day and you’ll probably get a completely different answer!
What about you? Which ancestor or ancestors would you most like to meet?
 California Department of Health Services, death certificate state file no. 11-034498, Ellien [Eileen or Helen] Colbert (1911); Center for Health Statistics and Informatics, Sacramento.
 Church baptismal record for Helen Houlihan, 24 Mar 1877, church not named, Parish: Athea, County: Limerick, Father: Charles Houlihan; online transcriptions (http://limerick.rootsireland.ie : accessed 27 Sep 2012).
 See Cathy Dempsey (cathymd) “DNA_Direct Ancestors” tree, Ancestry.com.
 “Arizona, County Coroner and Death Records, 1881-1971”, Benjamin Franklin Copple, death date: 7 July 1911;Ancestry.com, digital database (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=60874 : accessed 15 August 2017) > Yavapai > Death > 1865-1928. Note that date of birth conflicts with censuses during Ben’s lifetime (1840 – 1910) which gave an approximate birthdate of 1832.
 “Missouri Marriage Records, 1805-2002,” Franklin Copple and Plebe [Phebe] Harvy, 21 Dec 1851; database with images, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=1171 : accessed 13 June 2016) > Jasper > Record Images for Jasper > 1841-1874 > img 122.
 “Arizona, County Marriage Records, 1865-1972,” Benjamin Franklin Copple and Marena [Marova] Jane Johnston, 28 May 1880; database with images, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=60873 : accessed 13 June 2016) > Yavapai > Marriage Records, Index, 1871-1928 > img 1426.
 “Summons 16967 in the Superior Court of Arizona, County of Yavapai”, Prescott Evening Courier (Prescott Arizona), 26 June 1947, p 15:4; digital images, Google News (https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=MNNNGtAgD4EC&dat=19470626&printsec=frontpage&hl=en : accessed 21 Aug 2014).
 “B.F. Copple and son Bert Copple, ” Healdsburg Tribune, Enterprise and Scimitar (Healdsburg, California), 10 September 1908, page 2, column 2; digital images, California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside, (http://cdnc.ucr.edu : accessed 30 October 2018).
 Find A Grave, database (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 20 January 2017), memorial page for Margaret Blalock Copple (1809-1892), no. 91276187, citing Fidelity Cemetery, Fidelity, Jasper County, Missouri, USA; created and maintained by Dona (Wilcox) Cupp (contributor 46971570). Margaret was buried in Jasper County, Missouri, but was living in Newton County as of the 1880 census enumeration. See: 1880 U.S. census, Newton County, Missouri, population schedule, Enumeration District 98, Marion Township, (handwritten) page 12D, (stamped) page 398, dwelling 102, family 108, Margaret Coppy [Copple] household; digital image, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=6742 : accessed 29 October 2016); citing National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) microfilm publication T9, roll 705.
 “Missouri, Wills and Probate Records, 1766-1988”, estate of Jacob Copple, file 475, Newton County, Missouri; digital database, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=9071 : accessed 20 October 2017) > Newton > Probate Case Files, No 450-485 > imgs 940-981.
 Find A Grave, database (https://www.findagrave.com : accessed 20 January 2017), memorial page for Margaret Blalock Copple (1809-1892), no. 45709964, citing Old Mill Creek Church of Christ Cemetery, Salem, Washington County, Indiana, USA; created by jpmgs (contributor 46910169); maintained by Bill Myers (contributor 46945321).
 “Kentucky, County Marriages, 1783-1965,” Phillip Copple and Anne Wright, 1804; database with images, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=61372: accessed 13 June 2016) > Wayne > 1801-1860 > img 27.
Samuel A Englehart was born in March 1852 (or possibly 1853) in Missouri, likely in Jasper County, and traveled with his family to California in 1856. The family settled in Healdsburg, Sonoma County, and Sam lived out the rest of his life there, growing up, getting married in December 1878 and raising a family, and finally dying in November 1925. He gave his age as 26 on his marriage record, dated 22 December 1878. His daughter Hazel gave his birthdate as 21 March 1852 for his death certificate and his age at death as 73 in various obituaries, which, for a November 1925 death, would correspond to an 1852 birth date. However, other records (discussed below) seem to imply an 1853 birth date. No document yet found names his mother, who reportedly died on the California Trail. However, it is very likely his mother was Hannah Hill, (born circa 1828 – died 1856) whom his father James married in Guernsey County, Ohio, in 1846.
James, the Probable Father of Sam
After Sam’s father James Englehart died on 29 March 1890, an obituary was published in the Sonoma County Tribune, which gave a brief biography of James’ life and named his 3 surviving children: Sam, his older sister Eliza, and his older brother, Andrew. James’ late wife is not mentioned.
The obituary’s biographical information was likely provided to the Sonoma County Tribune by one of James’ children, probably Sam or his sister Eliza. Other salient facts in the obituary include:
Therefore, we could expect to find James Englehart in the Healdsburg area for the 1880, 1870 and 1860 census enumerations, and somewhere in Missouri for the 1850 census enumeration, when he would have been 28 years old, and quite likely already married. He was either married in Missouri or in Ohio.
James Englehart died intestate, and in the Decree of Distribution of the Estate on 26 Jan 1891, the administrator, Joseph Winder, names James’ three surviving children: Andrew Allison Englehart, Samuel Adams Englehart, and Mrs. Eliza Ellen Winder. The property inherited by and distributed to the three children is also listed, specifically land: the South half of the Southwest Quarter of Section 15, the Northeast quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 21, and the Northwest quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 22, all within Township 9 North, Range 11 West of the Mt. Diablo Meridian. This acreage is the same land that Sam sold to his father on 27 Nov 1886. Sam originally received this land on 10 October 1882, under the Homestead Act of 1862.
On the same day Sam sold his homestead land to James, James in turn sold a lot in the town of Healdsburg to Sam. The lot sold to Sam was adjacent to a lot James deeded also on the same day to his daughter Eliza Ellen Winder . In deeding the lot to Eliza Ellen, James specifically refers to her as his daughter, giving her the land “in consideration of the love and affection which [James] bears for [Eliza Ellen]”.
Census Enumerations for the James Englehart household
Turning to the census enumerations for the period of 1850-1880, can we link Samuel, Eliza Ellen and Andrew with James Englehart, and potentially a wife? Sam’s relationship to James (as James’ son) is identified in the 1880 census enumeration. While the informant for this census is not known – it could be James, Sam, or Sam’s wife Libbie — the 1880 census is the only document yet found which states the relationship between Sam and James, and was created during James’ lifetime.
The information provided for James correlates with his obituary; he was listed as being born in Pennsylvania, and was 58 years old, which is correct for a June 1 enumeration date if he was born on June 17. He was also listed as widowed.
|1850 Census||1860 Census||1870 Census||1880 Census|
|James Englehart, 28, Penn||James Englehart, 37, Penn||James Englehart, 49, Ohio||Jas. Englehart, 58, Penn. Widowed.|
|Hannah Englehart, 22, Ohio|
|Andrew Englehart, 2, Ohio||Andrew Englehart, 13, Ohio||Andrew Englehart, 22, Ohio|
|Eliza E, 10, Missouri||Eliza E, 19, Missouri|
|Samuel A, 7, Missouri||Samuel A, 17, Missouri||Sam A., 27, Missouri. Son|
|John E R, 5, Missouri|
|Libbie, 18, Calif., dau-in-law|
In 1870, the census taker arrived at the house on 15 July. James was already 49 at that point, and his birthplace is given as Ohio – where he did reportedly live – so it is possible one of his children provided the information on his behalf. Also on this census, the 3 children named in the probate decree are residing with James. Sam, at age 17, was exactly 10 years younger than in 1880, and very likely to be the same person as the Sam who resided in the James Englehart household in 1880.
In 1860, the information provided to the census taker is in line with the family information as enumerated in 1870. There is a fourth child, John, 5 years old and born in Missouri, who was not enumerated in later censuses. He died in December 1865, at the age of 10, and is buried in Healdsburg’s Oak Mound Cemetery, where his gravestone inscriptions states he is the “son of Jas. & Hannah Englehart”. Sam was listed as aged 7, which corresponds to an 1853 birthdate, if he was born in March (as his daughter Hazel Holst stated in his obituary). Sam consistently aged by 10 years for the two censuses following 1860. If he (or his father) provided the information, it is inconsistent with Sam’s marriage record, and the information provided by his daughter Hazel Holst after his death, in that it implies an 1853 birth year.
Finally, in 1850, the James Englehart household consisted of James and Hannah, as well as a 2 year old child Andrew, almost certainly the Andrew enumerated with James in 1860 and 1870, as well as named as surviving heir and child of James in the probate distribution decree. A marriage record for James Englehart and Hannah Hill, married 10 December 1846, was found in Guernsey County, Ohio. This marriage date is in line with a first child being born sometime in 1848 (month unknown) and Andrew Allison Englehart appears to be that first child.
Summing up with a compilation of the stated and implied relationships of Sam and his siblings to James and to Hannah, the wife of James, in the chart below points to the likelihood that Hannah (Hill) Englehart, born circa 1828 in Ohio, and who died on the trip out to California in 1856, was the mother of all of James’ children.
|Child’s Name||Relationship to James||Relationship to Hannah, wife of James|
|Andrew Allison Englehart||Named as James’ child in James probate decree. Sibling relationship with Eliza and Sam implied.
Is in the James Englehart household from 1850 through 1870.
|Resided with Hannah and James in 1850 per the census.
Hannah, as wife of James, is the implied mother of Andrew.
|Eliza Ellen (Englehart) Winder||Named as James’ daughter in 27 Nov 1886 deed. (James the likely informant.)
Named as James’ child in James probate decree. Sibling relationship with Andrew and Sam implied.
Is in the James Englehart household in 1860 and 1870.
|No document found directly associating her with Hannah, but she lived with Andrew, who was enumerated with Hannah in 1850, and also with John, whose gravestone states he is son of James and Hannah.|
|Samuel Adams Englehart||Named as James’ son in 1880 census. (James the possible informant.)
Named as James’ child in James probate decree. Sibling relationship with Andrew and Eliza implied.
Is in the James Englehart household for the census year 1850 through 1880.
|No document found directly associating him with Hannah, but he lived with Andrew, who was enumerated with Hannah in 1850, and also with John, whose gravestone states he is son of James and Hannah.
Implied sibling relationship with Eliza per her obituary; information likely provided by Sam himself.
|John E Englehart||Named as James’ son on his gravestone.
In same household in 1860 with James, and the 3 children named as James’ children in probate in 1891.
|Named as Hannah’s son on his gravestone.
In conclusion, Sam was named as James’ son in the 1880 census, and in James’ probate, and was linked with James particularly in census records and land records. He was also linked with Eliza Ellen (Englehart) Winder, named as James’s daughter, throughout his life. As stated in his obituary, his sister was the “late Mrs. David [sic] Winder” and Sam lived on the Winder property in the last few years of his life, and Eliza Ellen deeded the property to him just before she died. Reference to this deed was found in a Healdsburg newspaper online. However, Sonoma County deeds after 1901 are not online, and would have to be accessed in Santa Rosa, California. The deed would be worth reviewing on a future research trip to see if Eliza Ellen names Sam as her brother.
Given that James Englehart married Hannah Hill, and their youngest child John is identified as a son of James and Hannah, and their oldest child Andrew was found in the household with James and Hannah in 1850, and Eliza Ellen was identified as James’ daughter during his life in conveying property to her, and Sam was named as James’ son in the 1880 census enumeration, it is likely that the mother of Sam was James’ wife, Hannah (Hill) Englehart.
 “Pioneer Dies After Seventy Years Here, ” Healdsburg Tribune (Healdsburg, California), 7 November 1925, page 1, column 6; digital images, California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside, (http://cdnc.ucr.edu : accessed 30 October 2018).
 Sonoma County, California, Marriage records, Volume F, page 205, Sam Englehart and Libbie Jewell, 22 Dec 1878; digital image, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939V-MJ1N-R?i=19&cc=1804002 : accessed 29 October 2018), image 20; citing FHL microfilm 1,031,224.
 Sonoma County, California, death certificate state file no. 25-053875, Samuel A. Englehart (6 November 1925), informant Hazel Holst; Sonoma County Clerk-Recorder, Santa Rosa.
 “Sam Englehardt Resident for 70 Years, Crosses, ” Sotoyome Scimitar (Healdsburg, California), 7 November 1925, page 1, column 6; digital images, California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside, (http://cdnc.ucr.edu : accessed 30 October 2018).
 “Pioneer Local Woman is Dead, ” Healdsburg Tribune, Enterprise and Scimitar (Healdsburg, California), 11 March 1920, page 6, column 3; digital images, California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside, (http://cdnc.ucr.edu : accessed 30 October 2018).
 Guernsey County, Ohio, Marriage records, Volume D 1844-1864, page 100, item 5033, James Englehart and Hannah Hill, 10 December 1846; digital image, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/004701460?cat=265414 : accessed 29 October 2018), image 83; citing FHL microfilm 894,936.
 “Obituary – James Englehart, ” Sonoma County Tribune (Healdsburg, California), 5 April 1890, page 3, column 6.
 Sonoma County, California, Probate Minutes [of] Superior Court, volume 14, p. 44-47, Decree of Distribution of Estate of James Englehart, 26 January 1891; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/007601408?cat=614908 : accessed 29 October 2018), images 350-351; citing FHL microfilm 1,428,306.
 Sonoma County, California, Marriage records, Volume F, page 205, Joseph Winder and Eliza Ellen Englehart, 15 Sep 1878; digital image, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/004666584?cc=1804002&cat=239451 : accessed 29 October 2018), image 638; citing FHL microfilm 1,031,223.
 Sonoma County, California, Deeds 102:581-582, Sam Englehart to James Englehart, 27 November 1886; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS5L-2QD5-J?i=831&cat=613304 : accessed 29 October 2018), images 833-834; citing FHL microfilm 1,420,591.
 Samuel A. Englehart (Sonoma County) homestead file, final certificate no. 8307, San Francisco, California, Land Office; Land Entry Papers, 1800-1908; photocopy of file in possession of Cathy Dempsey; Record Group 49: Records of the Bureau of Land Management; National Archives, Washington, D.C.
 Sonoma County, California, Deeds 102:583-584, James Englehart to Sam Englehart, 27 November 1886; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS5L-2Q6Q-D?i=832&cat=613304 : accessed 29 October 2018), images 833-834; citing FHL microfilm 1,420,591.
 Sonoma County, California, Deeds 108:81-82, James Englehart to Eliza Ellen Winder, 27 November 1886; digital images, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS52-R9TL-8?cat=613304 : accessed 29 October 2018), images 693-694; citing FHL microfilm 1,420,597.
 1880 U.S. census, Sonoma County, California, population schedule, Enumeration District 128, Healdsburg, page 1A, (stamped) page 183, dwelling 8, family 8, Jas. Englehart household; digital image, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=6742 : accessed 29 October 2018); citing National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) microfilm publication T9, roll 84.
 1850 U.S. census, Jasper County, Missouri, population schedule, District 41, page 53 (penned), page 385 (stamped), dwelling 354, no family number, James Englehart household; digital image, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=8054 : accessed 29 October 2018); citing National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) microfilm publication M432, roll 402.
 1860 U.S. census, Sonoma County, California, population schedule, Mendocino Township, page 80 (penned), page 467 (stamped), dwelling 640, family 640, James Englehart household; digital image, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7667 : accessed 29 October 2018); citing National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) microfilm publication M653, roll 69.
 1870 U.S. census, Sonoma County, California, population schedule, Healdsburg, Mendocino Township, page 20 (penned), dwelling 175, family 161, James Englehart household; digital image, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=7163 : accessed 29 October 2018); citing National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) microfilm publication M593, roll 91.
 Ancestry, Find A Grave, database with images (http://www.findagrave.com : accessed 29 October 2018), memorial 43428210, John E Englehart (1855- 1865), Oak Mound Cemetery, Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California; gravestone photograph by Susan Faught.
 Guernsey County, Ohio, Marriage records, Volume D 1844-1864, page 100, item 5033, James Englehart and Hannah Hill, 10 December 1846; digital image, FamilySearch (https://www.familysearch.org/search/film/004701460?cat=265414 : accessed 29 October 2018), image 83; citing FHL microfilm 894,936.
 “Pioneer Local Woman is Dead,” Healdsburg Tribune, Enterprise and Scimitar, 11 March 1920, page 6, col. 3.
 “Sam Englehardt Crosses, ” Sotoyome Scimitar, 7 November 1925, page 6, col. 1.
 “Deeds, ” Press Democrat (Santa Rosa, California), 17 March 1920, page 12, column 2; digital images, California Digital Newspaper Collection, Center for Bibliographic Studies and Research, University of California, Riverside, (http://cdnc.ucr.edu : accessed 30 October 2018).
There are more and more good visualization tools available for clustering your DNA matches with the intent of discovering a new ancestor. Recently I’ve been using a clustering tool created by Evert-Jan Blom at Genetic Affairs (more on that tool in an upcoming post).
The DNA Color Clustering method used by Dana Leeds clustering methodology is straightforward, and especially effective for those persons who have many 2nd and 3rd cousin matches on Ancestry — which I don’t. (Although it actually works quite well for more distant cousins, in my opinion, especially if you’ve been working on clustering your matches for several years!) You can find out more about Dana’s method here.
Despite these cool clustering methods — and others — in the end, I keep returning to my trusty Excel spreadsheet and my list of “ICW” (In Common With) matches from Ancestry.com which I download using the DNAGedCom client tool (available here via a yearly subscription).
I’m sharing my way of clustering my matches — or, more specifically, my mother’s matches and my father’s matches — because the “best” method is the one that makes the most sense to you, or seems the most “intuitive”.
Some of Mom’s shared matches with “Cousin B”, on Ancestry
Let’s say I’m working with my mother’s DNA matches from Ancestry.com. Using the DNAGedcom Client tool, I will download a list of all her matches, and then download a list of all her “ICW” matches into CSV format.
Once I have the two files, I use the VLOOKUP tool in Excel to associate (Cousin) Range and SharedCM to the primary match, and then to the In Common With matches. The result is a combined file like that below. The combined columns are highlighted in green.
The “Mtch cM” and “Mtch Cousin” columns associate to Cousin B; the “icw cM” and “icw Cousin” associate to the ICW match: me, my brother, and cousins C, D, E, F, G, and H. Shared cM (centiMorgans) = shared DNA; see my previous post here for more on centiMorgans.
For purposes of clustering, though, all we really care about is that in general, the more DNA you share, the closer you are related — at least in the case of 2nd cousins or closer. You can see that to some extent with Ancestry’s predicted ranges in the green highlighted columns.
The In-Common-With (ICW) list is basically a subset of your matches list. My mom’s paternal first cousin — let’s call her “B” — has also tested at Ancestry. So, Mom’s ICW list for “B” would include me, my brother, and six other cousins: C, D, E, F, G, H. (Mom’s father was a first generation American, and “B”‘s father was born in Italy — not a lot of our Italian side, many still residing in Italy, have tested their DNA on Ancestry. Hence, we don’t have a lot of matches.) The critical point is that C, D, E, F, and G as well as my brother and I would show up on Mom’s match list AND on B’s match list — we are the “in common” matches.
So, if Mom and cousin “B” are first cousins, their Most Recent Common Ancestor(s) (MRCA) would be their shared set of (Italian) grandparents: Guiseppe Diamantini and Maria Bolognesi. Obviously that same couple would be the great-grandparents of my brother and me. But my brother and I are not the interesting cousins in the ICW cluster. Cousins C, D, E, F, G and H are the key here.
Let’s look at the example above. I “cluster” my mom’s DNA matches by adding two columns (shown here highlighted in red). Because I know my mom and Cousin B share the same set of grandparents, I put the MRCA couple’s name in the “Mtch MRCA” column for each row where there is an In Common With cousin. (Note that, despite Ancestry’s prediction that my mom and Cousin B are 2nd cousins, they are in fact 1st cousins.)
The amounts of DNA shared, shown in the “Match cM” column and the “icw cM” column are the amounts Mom shares with these cousins. We cannot determine from the information shown here how much, if any, “B” shares with “F”, or “C” shares with “D”. We only know C, D, E, F, G, H not only share DNA with Mom, but MUST also share some amount with Cousin B because Ancestry has given us that information.
I then look at each of the ICW cousins: that is, my brother and I, plus cousins C through H. I note that my brother and I are children, which means our DNA amounts won’t have any new information to determine cousin clustering — because whatever we share, we inherited from Mom. (You can always exclude known children of a DNA match when you’re working with clustering, because they will always be a subset of their parents — if you have your parents or grandparents tested.)
Cousins C and D are two people whose place in my mother’s family tree I already know — therefore I include their MRCA information (Fortunato Camillucci and Maddelena Serafini). They are my mother’s cousins on her Diamantini line. Since the Diamantini line is my mother’s paternal line, I shade it blue for male.
Cousins E, F, G and H are unknown to me. In this case, none of them have trees on Ancestry which might give me more detailed information as to how they relate to my mother. The amount of DNA shared is fairly small, so it is possible the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) with Mom is quite a few generations back. So I note them as “Diamantini or Bolognesi” (as I don’t yet know whether they share on the Diamantini line or the Bolognesi line) and also shade the cell in blue. I leave those notes unbolded, since I’m not certain of how the cousin actually fits into our tree.
I then do the same thing with each of the other cousins listed here. Below is a screen shot of the In-Common-With listing for Mom and Cousin C. Note that there is some overlap with the In-Common-With listing for Mom and Cousin B, but there is one person who shares DNA with Mom and Cousin C, but who does not share with Cousin B. I labeled that person Cousin J (highlighted in bright yellow.)
Because the Most Recent Common Ancestor between Mom and Cousin C is the Camillucci & Serafini couple, I then use those names to populate the cell in the icw MRCA column, as shown below.
Mom doesn’t have that many matches on Ancestry.com to her paternal side, in part because her father was a 1st generation American. A better example of the clustering is shown below, with one of her 4th cousins. The shared Most Recent Common Ancestor between Mom and cousin “K D” is Jacob Copple and Margaret Blalock.
I have hidden the names of the In-Common-With cousins, but you can see the amount of DNA they share with my mother. What this screenprint shows is how the different In-Common-With cousins have different Most Recent Common Ancestors with Mom. But all of them are related in some way to either Jacob Copple or Margaret Blalock. Philip Copple and Patsy Wright, for instance, are the presumed parents of Jacob Copple. Patsy Wright’s presumed grandparents are Richard Wright & Ann. Ben Copple is the son of Jacob Copple & Margaret Blalock, while Nicholas Copple & wife are the likely paternal grandparents of Jacob’s father Philip.
A different cousin of Mom’s who also descends from Jacob Copple & Margaret Blalock possibly inherited some of Margaret (Blalock) Copple’s DNA. You can see that in the ICW MRCA column below, where some of the In-Common-With cousins (names are whited-out) appear to have Blalock / Blaylock lineage. One of the cousins who shares DNA with both Mom and “M M” is fairly closely related to Mom; you can tell that by the amount of DNA shared (140.4 cM) and the MRCA = Sam Englehart and Libby Copple. Libby Copple is the granddaughter of Jacob Copple & Margaret Blalock.
All in all, this is just one more method of using color coding and Most Recent Common Ancestor information to figure out how your unknown matches may be related to you. It’s not an absolute — it’s just a hint. But it gives you something to work with.
Are you sure that the segment of DNA you share with your DNA match is due to your common 3rd great-grandparents Joe and Sally (Harper) Booth (that’s a fictional couple, by the way) — and not due to a common ancestor you may not yet have found? How complete is your tree?
Recently, Blaine Bettinger posted in Facebook’s Genetic Genealogy Tips and Techniques group, about the completeness of your genealogical tree being critical to accuracy in ascertaining the correct common ancestor with your DNA matches. He referenced a post by Amberly Beck (see here) in which she discusses the completeness (or lack thereof) of her maternal line.
Rather than looking at just my maternal line or just my paternal line, or even just looking at my whole tree at once, I decided to review my results by grandparent.
I “found” 9 ancestors last year on my maternal side without using DNA at all! Instead, I used DanishFamilySearch.com, a site which has been transcribing Danish census records, and allowing registered users to post their family tree information on their site, and the newly online Danish census records (in Danish, of course!) at familysearch.org
So, yay!, that was success for my grandmother’s line. I now know 4 more of my maternal grandmother’s 16 2nd great-grandparents, and 5 more of my grandmother’s 32 3rd-great grandparents.
As for my 3 other grandparents, there was no change in the past year. Not surprising, because I spent time on the BU Certificate course for 15 weeks (during which I spent little time on my own genealogy), and I also spent some time continuing to validate with DNA matches my Copple line (which is also on my maternal grandmother’s tree).
Meaning, as I build out collateral relative trees for my Copple ancestors and find I have — more accurately, my mother has — DNA matches with descendants of those collateral relatives (siblings and 1st cousins of my own ancestors), that is slowly strengthening the case that the DNA shared belongs to the Copple line and not some other unknown line. (Well, until I am able to build further back; the shared DNA may actually relate to, say, the wife of my most distant Copple ancestor, and not to him.)
I’ve done nothing really on my maternal grandfather’s line — I know the Italian town he came from and his grandparents’ names. I also know I would likely find records on their parents via the local Catholic church. As it would likely require assistance from a researcher over in Italy or a trip to Italy myself, it just has not been a priority for me. Perhaps someday.
Like my maternal grandfather, my paternal grandmother was a first-generation American. Her uncle was Con Colbert who was executed for his role in the Easter Uprising in 1916. Consequently, he is somewhat famous in the Republic of Ireland; therefore, some of his family history was researched by a professional genealogist for the centenary in 2016. So, I have a bit more on her kin than on my maternal grandfather’s kin. I’ve also been fortunate two years ago to find some of the baptismal and marriage records for her maternal line ancestors (also Irish) online — one such place is here.
I have a “brick wall” at my great-great grandfather Patrick Dempsey. Per his obituary, he was “of King’s County”. That’s now County Offaly, but that doesn’t mean he was born and baptized there. It may just mean he was from there last before coming to America circa 1850 or so. There are about a half-dozen potential Patrick Dempseys baptised in Co. Offaly when he was thought to be born (ca. 1830), but I have no oral history as to his family. Maybe his parents and siblings died in the Famine?
This year, I’d like to find out more about my paternal grandfather’s maternal grandparents: Anderson and Ermine (Farnham? Farley?) Lamburth — Grandpa Dempsey’s one line that has reportedly been in the U.S. since at least 1800. Of course, I’d also like to break the brick walls of my 3rd great-grandmother (aka my maternal grandmother’s great-grandma) Phoebe Harvey — or her mother-in-law Margaret (Blalock) Copple. We’ll see.
How about you? Do you have a particular line you’re thinking of researching next?
My great-granddad Charles Holst was one of 3 great-grandparents who were alive when I was born, and one of 2 I can actually remember, although the memory is fuzzy. Grandpa Charlie (so-called by my aunt and uncles to differentiate him from the other grandparents) was born in Healdsburg, Sonoma County, California, on 18 October 1884, to Peter Holst, who was 37, and Caroline (Thomsen) Holst, who was 41.
Charlie had an older sister, Annie, born in 1875, an older sister Mary born in 1881. Another son, named Peter, was stillborn a year before Charlie was born. Reportedly, there was another brother, George, who was born in 1885, but I have found no records backing up his existence.
The Holsts did not live in town, but instead on a ranch on Dry Creek Road, about 4 miles from Healdsburg proper, back in the hills. Charlie’s father had a vineyard and a winery; the winery remained in production until Prohibition.
Grandpa Charlie’s parents were ethnically Danish, having both been born in the Duchy of Slesvig near Flensburg – an area which is now in Germany, and, in fact, became part of Bismarck’s Prussian Empire before they immigrated to the United States.
There is little I know about my great-grandfather. I don’t know if he spoke Danish in addition to English. I don’t know where he went to school, if he went to school at all – presumably there was a local school in the Healdsburg area. I don’t know how he met the woman he would marry, Hazel Hannah Englehart, but possibly it was through her father, who reportedly built (or painted?) the Holst farm house, as he was a painter and carpenter.
In any case, I had always been told that Charlie and Hazel married in January 1908, in Marin County, just south of Petaluma. But when I ordered a copy of their marriage record, I discovered they married on 28 January 1909. Their firstborn, a son named Charles (Junior) and called “Sonny”, was born just 6 months later on 2 August 1909.
Their next child was my grandmother, Elizabeth, born in June 1914. Another son, William, was born in 1921, and then a stillborn baby girl in 1928.
With Prohibition arriving in 1920, Charlie and his father ripped out all the vineyards they were cultivating, and starting growing plum trees. Charlie’s father, a viticulturist, died before the repeal of Prohibition, as did his mother. Charlie remained on the land, and made a living off the land until he died in 1968.
His children grew up and moved away, one serving in World War II and another having a family in Sonoma County, then divorcing his wife, and later moving to Oregon with his second wife.
Their land off Dry Creek Road was where we visited when I was a four year old. I remember the pink house they lived in, the sunshine, the hills which seemed to hug the house they were so close. I remember going outside, and seeing my great-grandpa in the vegetable garden they had alongside the house, wearing denim overalls. Although my mom tells me both my great-grandparents saw me as a baby, before we moved to Florida, that is my only memory of my great-granddad. He died 2 years later in April 1968, and is buried in Oak Mound Cemetery in Healdsburg.
My Copple line was one of my “brick wall” lines, meaning I did not know the identities of my great-great grandmother Libbie (Copple) Englehart’s parents, not to mention the fact I did not know for certain Libbie Englehart was even a Copple! Thanks to DNA testing, it appears that the family oral history that Libbie was in fact a Copple appears to be true.
Below is a chart which shows Libby’s likely paternal grandparents Jacob and Margaret (Blalock) Copple, her father Ben and some of his siblings who have living descendants who have DNA-tested AND who match my mom.
I say “likely” paternal grandparents, meaning they are the best possible candidates for her grandparent
This particular data visualization is called the “McGuire Method” after Lauren McGuire, who developed it; her explanation of the chart can be found here.
What does this chart tell us? It gives us an straightforward visualization of how the various descendants of Jacob and Margaret, my 4th great grandparents, relate to my mother and to me.
Jacob and Margaret are listed at the top, and are shown as the parents of Ben F Copple, Sarilda Copple, Jacob W Copple, and Sanford H Copple. (Jacob and Margaret had 5 other children who reached adulthood, but those children either don’t have any descendants alive today, or don’t have descendants who have tested AND match my mom.) Matching my mom is critical, if we are to use the DNA matches to validate the “paper trail” of documentation for the ancestors back to Jacob and Margaret.
Ben Franklin Copple is my 3rd great-grandfather, and the eldest son of Jacob and Margaret. He was married twice — first to Phoebe Harvey, the mother of his 4 (possibly 5) daughters, and then to Susie, the mother of his 3 sons. Libbie, my great-great grandma, and her sister Mary have descendants alive today who have gotten their DNA tested and match my mother and me. In addition, a descendant of Ben’s son Nathan has tested and matches my mom.
Ben’s sister Sarilda has a descendant who has tested (called “M” on the chart), as does Ben’s brother Jacob Washington Copple. Ben’s brother Sanford Howard Copple has numerous DNA-tested descendants, not all of whom are shown here. Tested matches include descendants of Sanford’s daughter Margaret and Sanford’s son William.
The two lines at the bottom of the chart are the key to the “McGuire Method” of visualization. The first line shows the amount of DNA (in total centiMorgans) that my mom “A” shares with the tested cousin(s). What is a centiMorgan? The most simplistic explanation is that it’s a logical — not physical — unit of length of an unbroken sequence of the bases (adenine (A), thymine (T), cytosine (C), and guanine (G)).
Your longest unbroken string of base sequences for each of your chromosomes would be shared with your mom and your dad — that is, from one end of each chromosome to the other. More distant relatives, like 3rd cousins, may share only one or two segments of DNA — or none at all. (For more detail on centiMorgans, see here, here and here.)
Amounts of shared DNA highlighted in yellow on this chart are based on the AncestryDNA test; amounts highlighted in purple are based on FamilyTreeDNA’s test. Below the centiMorgan (cM) amounts is the relationship (e.g., “4C” = 4th cousin, “2C1R” = 2nd cousin one generation removed).
Below my mother’s shared DNA amounts is my own shared amounts with those same cousins. With certain matches, I inherited less than half of mom’s shared DNA; in other cases, I inherited essentially all of it.
Since I first created this chart, a descendant of another of Ben Copple’s sons — brother to Nathan shown on the chart — has had their DNA tested and shares DNA with my mom. In addition, at least one descendant of a third child of Ben’s brother Sanford has tested, and they, too, are a match. As additional descendants test — and match — my mother, this strengthens the case I am making (based on the paper trail) that this is Libbie (Copple) Englehart’s family — her dad, her paternal aunts and uncles, and her paternal grandparents. And hence my mother’s family and my own as well.
My granddad was the youngest of 3 sons, born to Giuseppe Diamantini and Maria (Bolognesi) Diamantini in Sonoma County, California, on 16 October 1914. My mother — his daughter – always said he was born in Calistoga, which is in Napa County, or in Mark West Springs, which is in Sonoma County. The California Birth Index lists the county as Sonoma; I still (!) need to order the actual certificate, so I guess we’ll see.
The U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936 – 2007, database online at Ancestry.com lists Grandpa’s birth place as Santa Rosa South, and his name as James Diamantine. He made his application in 1942, and at this time, he and his brothers were Anglicizing their name from Diamantini to Diamantine.
I knew my grandfather’s name to be James Eugene, but I do not know the name he was born with. According to the California Birth Index, a first name for my grandfather is not listed on the birth certificate. However, on the 1920 census, his name is given as Trenton (which doesn’t sound very Italian to me, nor is it a family name that I know of.)
My granddad’s two older brothers were Gaspare Antonio (aka “Gilbert”), born in 1904, in Italy, and Francis Angelo (known as Frank), born in January 1909, in Healdsburg, Sonoma, California. Although the State of California required registering births as of July 1, 1905, there is no certificate for Frank. My great-grandparents, just recently in the U.S. – they arrived in 1908 – likely did not know “the routine”. However, I do have a copy of Frank’s Social Security Application, on which he states his date and place of birth.
I have not been able to find the family on the 1930 census (yet), but presumably they were living near Healdsburg, as my grandfather attended Healdsburg High as a member of the Class of 1934.
While in high school, my granddad played football, and also met my grandmother, Elizabeth.
James and Elizabeth married on 22 November 1934, in Healdsburg, and then went to live in Tracy, California, where they worked at the service station owned by James’ older brother Gil. My mother was born within two years of their marriage, and life was good, until Elizabeth died in 1940, after giving birth to a stillborn daughter.
After my grandmother’s death, my grandfather came back to the Hayward area, where his parents were living. They fixed him up with an Italian woman his age who lived down the street from them, and the two were married in May 1941. James and Jean (“Nonna”) had 6 children in the next 10 years.
Grandpa worked in the shipping yards during World War II, and later worked with his brothers, who owned a lumberyard. He was also a beekeeper, and, in the early 1970s, he and Nonna moved out to Manteca, California, where they had a ranch, and where he cultivated a vineyard.
But Grandpa began to suffer from Parkinson’s during the late 1970s, and so he and Jean decided to sell the Manteca property, and move back to Hayward. I only saw my granddad a few times when I was growing up, and didn’t go out to California to see my mom’s relatives at all for a period from about the age of 10 to the age of 25.
Grandpa’s Parkinson’s got worse over the years, to where he could barely walk and talk. He died in May 1995, at the age of 80, in Hayward, and is buried at Holy Sepulchre Cemetery in Hayward, near his parents and his brothers.
Social Security Administration, “U.S., Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007,” database,
Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=60901 : accessed 11 January 2016), entry
for James Diamantine, 1995, SS no. 567-24-6586.
Social Security Administration, “U.S., Social Security Death Index, 1935-2014,” database, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=3693 : accessed 11 January 2016), entry for James Diamantine, 1995, SS no. 567-24-6586.
1920 U.S. census, Sonoma County, California, population schedule, Enumeration District 152, Santa Rosa, sheet 4, page 12B, dwelling 83, family 84, Joe Diamantini household; digital image, Ancestry.com (https://search.ancestry.com/search/db.aspx?dbid=6742 : accessed 20 December 2018); citing National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) microfilm publication T625, roll 151.
“California Birth Index, 1905-1995,” database, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VGQF-SHV : accessed 7 July 2016), Diamantini, 16 Oct 1914; citing Sonoma, California, United States, Department of Health Services, Vital Statistics Department, Sacramento.
What is this picture telling us? It is from a tool called DNA Painter (https://dnapainter.com/) I am focusing on a specific set of segments on chromosome 2 on my mother’s side (hence the wide bar for chromosome 2 and the pink color for the chromosomes shown.)
Before using this tool, I had already gotten my DNA tested, as had both my parents, 2 of my siblings, and numerous known 1st, 2nd and 3rd cousins. (Second cousins share a pair of great-grandparents; third cousins share a pair of great-great grandparents.) In addition, I’ve already worked on determining who is the Most Recent Common Ancestor (MRCA) between my DNA match and me, using census records, vital records (marriage, birth, death), land deeds, and so on.
Based on my “paper” research and my DNA matches, each cousin (represented by a single color bar, except for cousin K in purple who has two bars) matches me, matches my mom, and matches each other. This is known as triangulation (if A = B and B = C, then A = C) and is indicative of a shared ancestor (or ancestors) at some point back in time. The paper research points to Richard Wright and his wife Ann (maiden name unknown) being the MRCA for all of us.
For some of the cousins above, the MRCA couple for them and me is Anna Patsy Wright and her husband Philip Copple (key = turquoise). For other cousins, the MRCA couple is Richard Wright and his wife Ann (maiden name unknown) (key = orange). Anna is the granddaughter of Richard and Ann, so in actuality, the segments assigned to her are segments she inherited from Richard or Ann. (Thus, all the turquoise segments could in fact be colored orange.)
The point of using both turquoise and orange is to show that some of the people who match me are also descendants of Anna Wright, and other cousins (whose MRCA with me is Richard and Ann, rather than Anna and Philip) are descendants of someone other than Anna – specifically, from one of her paternal uncles or aunts. (If they had descended from one of Anna’s own siblings, then the MRCA would not have been Anna’s grandfather but instead her father Amos Wright.)
Cousin K is being highlighted in purple to emphasize K’s two segments shared with me. (If I were keeping to the color coding, one segment of K’s would be chartreuse, and one would be turquoise.)
Notice how the segments seem to be staggered; their starting ends line up. These represent crossover points, here indicated by the vertical dark lines. Since I inherited the entire segment from my maternal grandmother, it’s more likely these crossovers occurred sometime in the past, and represent segments inherited by her from different ancestors on the Wright line.
The teal segments, representing matches who have a Wright ancestor from Buncombe County, North Carolina, are unexpected matches. Meaning, my maternal Wright line has no (apparent) tie to Buncombe County, NC –that’s too far west of where “my” Wright line lived. That being said, because they match me and match the other cousins who are known to be Patsy Wright’s descendants and/or Richard Wright descendants, they must be relatives. Our common ancestor likely goes back further than Richard – the fact that the segments are shorter than the others would seem to confirm that assumption. (That being said, due to the randomness of DNA inheritance, there is not always a correlation between length of segment and distance of relationship.)
The as-yet-unknown ancestor segment is in chartreuse, and represents the segment of chromosome 2 from the first crossover (vertical line) to the second crossover. I’ve labeled it “Waymire or Wright” in the legend, as it likely relates to my Wright line, and cousins who share this segment have Waymire/Wehmeyer ancestors in their tree. And that matters because the Waymire and Wright families lived right next door to each other in Randolph County, NC circa 1770’s. It’s the tiniest of clues to go on, and may not be accurate; more research, and more cousins tested, is needed to solve the puzzle.
The red arrow points to the “Richard Wright and Ann” segment. What’s important to mention here is that I call it the “Richard Wright and Ann” segment because that’s as far back as I can determine. Therefore, it’s a convenient label. However, it may not actually have been inherited through the Wright line. If the segment was passed down through Richard, but he inherited it from his mother, then it would technically be a “Becraft” segment, as Richard’s mother was Esther Becraft. If the segment was passed down through Richard’s wife Ann, it wouldn’t be a Wright segment at all – but we don’t have a surname for Ann, so it’s easier to label this segment on chromosome 2 as a “Wright” segment.
The fun of mapping segments, though, is that it assists you in quickly figuring out how your DNA match may be related to you. If I get a new match tomorrow, say, on MyHeritage, and they match me maternally on one of the segments shown above, I know they are related to me through my Wright line, and how far back is really the only question. I don’t need to consider any of my other maternal ancestors.
Mapping can be done at a much closer level – assigning your 4 grandparents to segments of each of your chromosomes (1 – 22, and the X). You’ll need your siblings to test with you. I will cover that in a later post.
My cancer fighting journey
Family History with DNA & Memories
Digging through the stacks to find my family's history
incorporating DNA in genealogy research
My Search For My Scots & Irish Ancestors
Discovering their stories
exploring the family trees of the South
Helping others discover their roots
Genealogy tips and discoveries from genealogist Liane Jensen.
blogging our past