The deed of 20 October 1798 identifies Adam’s children and their spouses while arranging the division of his property. It refers to an intended will that had not been completed. It is valuable direct family evidence, but should not be described as a proved will.

The corrected readings are Martha, widow of Robert Elton, and John Hanna with Jane/Jean. The identification of these children is distinct from the hypothesis that their father Adam was a son of Robert Guthrie and a Darlington woman.

Source: W2:52–54, recorded 1 June 1802; associated recitals in W2:54–56 and Z2:406–407.

The Research Tree gives both Phebe and Mary Ann a birth range of 1800–1814; it does not assign either a fixed birth in 1800. Mary’s petition, endorsed 3 May 1815, describes all four children as under fourteen. If accurate, that statement narrows their births to after 3 May 1801, within the broader tree ranges.

The sons’ reported dates are John, 1807–1874, and Adam C., 1809–1858. The 1810 census attachment records only one boy under ten, so its identity and columns need checking against those proposed births. No child’s date has been silently changed.

Three reviewed Y-DNA participants descend through Adam Guthrie and Mary Elton; two have Big Y-700 results. Those two tests represent separate sons of that younger Adam, but they do not provide independent coverage of the elder Adam’s sons William, Robert, or John.

Autosomal testing also represents Sarah Guthrie’s Thompson descendants. The DNA Participation table identifies the tested lines and the remaining gaps.

November 1759 — S:521–524, recorded 15 March 1775: Adam Guthrie and Mercy his wife joined William Irwin and Grace, Archibald Irwin and Margaret, John Irwin and Isabel, Jared Irwin, Sarah Irwin, Mary Irwin, and Leticia Irwin in releasing interests to George Irwin. The parties are identified as children and children-in-law of the deceased George Irwin of West Nantmeal.

The deed recites George’s will, 13 April 1748, recorded 29 November 1748. Land had been provided for Jared and Alexander; Alexander subsequently died in his minority. The will recital mentions 250 acres, while the surveyed description gives 268½ acres with allowance. Those figures should remain attached to their respective clauses.

This is direct evidence for Mercy’s Irwin parentage and the couple’s marriage by 1759. It does not establish Jane Matlack as her mother or identify Adam’s parents. The exact November day is not sufficiently clear to publish.

Additional title leads: K:462, the 1757 sheriff’s deed; W2:50–51, John and Margaret Irwin’s 8 June 1768 conveyance; and the 8 June 1774 William and Catharine Wilson conveyance recited in later deeds. The 1757 abstracts differ between 17 May and 30 August; that comparison remains open.

An undated original East Caln ledger, pp. 156–157, lists Adam Guthrey with 180 acres, buildings, two horses, four cattle, and six sheep. James Guthrey also appears; Robert Darlington is on the facing page. The supplied image does not establish its year or a biological relationship among these taxpayers.

A Pennsylvania Gazette notice labeled 14 July 1768 advertises a 27 July auction of 68 acres belonging to James Irwin’s estate, bounded by Adam Guthrie and others. Adam is an adjoining owner, not the debtor whose land was advertised.

The 1786 septennial list includes Adam, James, and William Guthrie in East Caln. The 1798 direct-tax page, pp. 56–57, separately names John Guthrie as occupant of property owned by James Guthrie and William as occupant under a ditto for James. Adam and another William have blank owner fields. Those blanks should not be carried down as additional James ownership. The list is alphabetical; proximity is not proof of neighboring farms.

The 1791, 1793, and 1799 indexes distinguish a William who was a farmer from a William who was a smith or blacksmith; in 1799 the acreages are 80 and 99 respectively. These are important leads for separating the Branch B/F/I families. The 1799 Adam entry likewise cannot establish that the elder Adam survived his documented 1798 death.

The reviewed original papers include the packet cover, administration bond and endorsement, and inventory with its filing endorsement. The inventory was appraised and affirmed on 3 July 1798, naming Adam as deceased, late of Brandywine. Appraisers were George Walker and Joshua Mendenhall; the affirmation was before Matthew Stanley. Filing followed on 21 August 1798.

The 6 July 1798 administration bond names younger Adam as administrator, with James and William Guthrie also bound, for a penal sum of £1,000. That sum is not the estate’s appraised value. The endorsement cites Book B:434; the existing docket citation 2:434 should be retained as a separate citation form. The index’s 8 July date differs from the original bond.

The personal estate totals £235 2s. 6d. Items include clothing, beds and bedding, drawers, a chest, tables, kitchen furniture, a saddle and bags, horses and colts, a cart and wagon, oxen, cows and young cattle, sheep, lambs, swine, plow and harrow gear, rye, oats, tools, cider vessels, dried beef and bacon, books, and obligations owed to Adam.

The inventory does not name his wife or children, identify the books as a Bible, or value his real estate. The bond’s shared surnames do not specify the bondsmen’s relationships. A completed, proved will should not be inferred from these administration papers.

Chester County estate packet 4643; Pennsylvania Wills and Probate Records, Estate Papers 4553–4652, 1797–1798, supplied viewer images 789–793. Only the supplied portion of the packet has been reviewed.

• 28 March 1798 — R2:34–37: Adam to William, £600, 90 acres 51 perches plus a separate one-acre parcel; recorded 30 May 1798. The original establishes 1798 rather than the earlier 1789 index entry.
• 20 October 1798 — W2:52–54: family release to younger Adam. The instrument names the ten children and spouses and recites an unfinished intended will dated 26 June. The disposition includes John’s interest in the Wilson tract and Adam’s home plantation; it should not be reduced to an undifferentiated transfer of 140½ acres.
• Acknowledgments: parts of the settlement were acknowledged in 1799 and 1802. Robert and Margaret’s Washington County acknowledgment offers a locality anchor. John Thompson and Sarah, John Guthrie, and Elizabeth appear in the 2 February 1802 acknowledgment. Recording followed on 1 June 1802.
• 2 February 1802 — W2:54–56: Adam and Mary to John Thompson of Hereford Township, Berks County, innkeeper, £700, 81 acres 59 perches with allowance, part of the 90½-acre parent tract; recorded 1 June 1802.
• 2 February 1802 — Z2:406–407: Adam and Mary to John Guthrie, house carpenter, 50 acres 27 perches, for five shillings; recorded 31 May 1806.

The heirs’ text reads Robert Elton as Martha’s deceased husband and Hanna as Jane/Jean’s married surname. Earlier assistant readings of Abel and Hammond were transcription mistakes, not evidence for additional marriages.

New Garden Monthly Meeting, Committee on Suffering Cases, 1777–1791, pp. 46, 56, 58: entries describe property taken from Friends by Adam Guthrie. Page 58 explicitly identifies him as a collector of militia fines. Other entries name James Guthrie in a similar taking role. Neither the collection title nor the seizures establish that the Guthries were Quakers, converted to Quakerism, or resided in New Garden. The specific Adam still needs correlation.

James M’Clune’s 1885 church history: the reconstructed 1792–1796 pew list, pp. 202–203, includes Adam and James Guthrie. The 1794–1795 graveyard-wall subscription list, pp. 206–207, includes Adam, James, and William. The author acknowledges imperfect early records. These entries support association with the Forks of Brandywine congregation, without proving a particular burial or resolving senior and junior identities.

Philadelphia marriage register: the supplied Second Presbyterian Church image places Adam Guthrie and Mary Elton together on one line. The date column is outside that crop; two indexes give 30 November 1792. They may derive from the same underlying entry and are not two independent marriages.

M’Clune, History of the Presbyterian Church in the Forks of Brandywine (1885) · Searchable text. The reported Seceder Cemetery burial remains a separate question.

F3:87–88, 14 June 1811: William senior, farmer, and Hannah conveyed 32 acres 95 perches to William junior, farmer, from land received from Adam on 28 March 1798. Adam Campbell is an adjoining owner. The deed does not expressly call the two Williams father and son.

O4:168–169, 1 April 1837, recorded 5 April: Hannah, widow and relict of William, sold 2 acres 58 perches to John Birch for $250. Once her identity is correlated, this establishes that her William was deceased by that date.

The tree’s Hannah, 1777–1861, does not fit every older female category in these candidate households. A woman 45+ in 1810 cannot be the same accurately aged woman who was 50–59 in 1830. Household identity, possible remarriage, age reporting, and the wife’s profile all require comparison before dates are changed.

The supplied Bio extract, reflecting American Guthrie and Allied Families, pp. 171–174, itself treats the proposed connection to William of Centre County tentatively. It reports wife Ann, “probably” Iddings, children George, Hannah, Iddings, Mary Ann, William, and Eliza, an 1826 Potter Township purchase, 1832 committee proceedings, an 1836 sale, Ann’s 1843 death, and William’s death on 14 December 1844. These belong to a proposed continuation, not a settled identification of the 1811 junior.

Additional land leads include the 1819 Q3:304–306 conveyances by William, farmer, and Hannah to John, carpenter. William of Tredyffrin, storekeeper, in M3:380–381 is another identity to separate. Neither a surname suffix nor one occupational label settles parentage.

Hannah and Adam Campbell: the profiles and 1800 West Caln, 1810 Brandywine, and 1820 Brandywine census extracts offer a candidate sequence. The 1781 tax note reports 94 acres, one horse, and two cattle. The four unnamed children in the tree are census-based placeholders. In particular, the boy aged 10–15 in 1800 should not automatically become the man aged 26–44 in 1810.

Adam and Mary Elton: the 1800 Brandywine household has five residents, including one boy under ten and two additional young adults. The 1810 Moon Township candidate has a man aged 26–44 and two boys aged 10–15, with no boy under ten. That differs from the tree’s Adam born about 1762 and son Adam born about 1804. The attachment cannot establish their residence in Moon, survival after 1810, or a later move to Ohio without further evidence.

The known descendant lines are Robert Elton Guthrie (1795–1846), married Eva Catherine Spawr, and Adam Guthrie (about 1804–1872), married Phoebe Mercer Jones. The older compilation’s proposed death about 1806 and the son’s reported Ohio family history remain leads. The profile’s Rachel White will reference—witnessed 7 February 1801, proved 5 May 1807—also needs its underlying record.

Robert and Margaret: the reviewed census indexes form an age-compatible candidate sequence: St. Clair in 1800; Moon in 1810 and 1820; Lackawannock in 1830 and 1840; Wilmington in 1850. The 1850 entry gives Robert 86, a Pennsylvania-born farmer, and Margaret 71. The earlier adult age bands fit approximate births of 1764 and 1779. Original schedules, associates, and land or probate records are still needed to connect the entire sequence to Adam’s son.

Robert’s proposed daughter Sarah / Sathelius Middleton Crail and the other unnamed children remain hypotheses. Do not merge this Robert with the man associated with Margaret Wilson and Ruth Wilson, or infer every child from the household age columns.

The tree gives Mary’s birth as 15 March 1770, compared with 18 March in an earlier account, and cites a 14 April 1770 baptism naming father Adam. The baptism original has not been shown at readable scale. Their reported marriage is 18 October 1791; Mary’s death is reported as 20 September 1849.

The ten children retained in the family research are Martha (1792–1879), Elizabeth (1794–1837), Thomas (1796–1879), Sarah Ann (1798–1858), John Adam (1800–1883), James McClure (1804–1880), Robert (1807–1838), Hannah (1809–1894), Mary (1811–1883), and Rebecca (1814–1823). These are profile dates requiring their individual sources; Martha’s year is 1792, not the earlier 1702 transcription.

Thomas Love’s will, 6 May 1825, proved 2 January 1826, pp. 251–252: names wife Martha, sons John and James, son-in-law Gabriel Morrison, and Morrison grandchildren. It directly supports James’s father Thomas. It does not give Martha’s maiden name or prove her proposed Branch H Guthrie ancestry. This is Thomas’s will, not James’s.

Fagg’s Manor elders register, p. 3: records James’s ordination or installation on 20 September 1829. The altered death entry appears to read 30 October 1854, while the tree gives 20 October. Both readings remain open for verification.

Census review: the 1800 and 1810 extracts broadly fit a growing family. The original 1800 West Fallowfield septennial list separately names Thomas and James. James’s ages 59 in 1830 and 79 in 1850 fit a 15 June 1770 birth because census day preceded his birthday. The 1830 female 50–59 differs from Mary’s expected 60. The 1840 attachment is a much poorer fit: oldest male 50–59, with no woman old enough for Mary. Its original columns and identity need checking.

The 1830 extract includes one additional resident recorded in the “Free Colored Persons” category; the questionable 1840 household includes two. Their names and relationships are not supplied and should not be invented. In 1850, Sarah Ann, Hannah, and Mary Love have ages differing from their profile birth years; William Alexander is also listed, without an expressed relationship.

Berks County letters of administration and bond, p. 71, 29 April 1816: expressly name Sarah Thompson, widow of John of Hereford Township, and William Thompson, a son. The original date is 29 April, although one index gives 9 April. The £2,000 bond is a penal obligation, not a valuation of John’s estate.

The reported children are William H. (1791–1823), John J. (1796–1820), Joseph M. (1800–1867), Samuel C. (1807–1857), and an unidentified daughter. William’s wife is identified in the project lineage as Mary Ann Herb. John’s probate directly names son William; it does not supply the entire child list.

The 1800 and 1810 Hereford census indexes contain additional unnamed adults and children that cannot all be assigned to this list. The 1800 entry also includes one resident in “All Other Free Persons.” In 1850 and 1860, West Marlborough, Sarah appears with Joseph M. Thompson. Her ages 77 and 87 fit a 22 August 1772 birth; the index-calculated 1773 is not a conflicting original birth date.

Gerberich compiled entries, pp. 120–121: give Sarah’s dates as 22 August 1772–18 September 1861, associate her with Doe Run and son Joseph, and give Joseph’s dates as 27 March 1800–31 March 1867. These are compiled entries, not contemporary birth certificates.

Samuel C. Thompson’s cemetery transcription, p. 6: identifies him as son of John and Sarah, 14 June 1807–22 September 1857. It is Samuel’s burial entry even when retrieved under his father’s name. The separate memorial indexes place John at Huffs Union Church and Sarah at Coatesville Presbyterian Cemetery. Their different burial places are not inherently contradictory; Sarah’s added middle initial J remains unconfirmed.

Martha: W2:52–54 explicitly calls her the widow of Robert Elton by 20 October 1798. Her profile’s 1774 birth and 10 April 1794 Lancaster marriage remain separately sourced claims. The 1790 Robt Elton household in Brandywine has ten residents and no visible junior suffix; it cannot automatically be assigned to her future husband or his father. The 1793 Robert Elton junior tax-discount index, book 1790–1799, p. 59, says “Gone,” without identifying a destination or proving death.

Jane/Jean: the heirs’ deed supports her marriage to John Hanna. The later family profile proposes children Elizabeth (1799–1858), wife of Thomas Alexander, and William (1801–1876), husband of Mary Ann McCreary. The list is not established as complete.

Bethany Cemetery transcription, p. 3: gives Jane, wife of John, in her 73rd year, 28 March 1848, and John in his 81st year, 23 September 1853. These are typed memorial-style entries, not original gravestone photographs. The maiden surname Guthrie is not supplied there.

Census attachments: 1790 West Nottingham remains a possibility; the 1830 Fayette adult ages are compatible. The 1840 Pine entry indexed John Harma has no adult older than 29 and is incompatible as indexed with the proposed older couple. The 1850 South Fayette John Hanah, 76, appears among Alexander entries, but the original page boundaries and relationships still need checking.

Which John Hanna? The 1784 East Fallowfield will abstract names wife Abigail and sons John and Jacob, but no maiden surname or son’s later spouse. The research profile says Abigail Watson; the separate published genealogy says Abigail Wilson. The Hanna genealogy on p. 509 also proposes, expressly as probable, that Jane Guthrie married John, son of James Hanna and Elizabeth. These candidates must remain distinct.

12 April 1814: the administration abstract names Mary Guthrie as administrator for John of Brandywine. It is not a will dated that day. Mary’s original petition, endorsed 3 May 1815, identifies her as John’s widow and names four children—Phebe, John, Adam, and Mary Ann—all under fourteen. The appointed guardian’s surname appears to be Rea, but that reading remains tentative.

Both daughters have tree birth ranges of 1800–1814. The petition potentially narrows those ranges; it does not contradict fixed 1800 births, because no such fixed births were supplied. The 1800 John census index shows a one-person household; the 1810 Jno Guthria entry shows one boy and one girl under ten with two adults. The latter needs comparison with the sons’ reported 1807 and 1809 births.

1798 direct tax: John occupies property owned by James Guthrie. That is a property association, not proof that he was James’s son. Z2:406–407 names a John who was a house carpenter. M3:545–546, 25 February 1820, also names a living John, house carpenter, as grantor to William, yeoman. He cannot simply be treated as the John already deceased by 1815. Nor should he automatically become that man’s minor son.

I4:73–74, 20 August 1833: John, blacksmith, and wife Mary Ann convey to Adam, carpenter. The deed recites the deceased carpenter John’s children, including Phebe, wife of Francis Armstrong. The published account’s Joseph Armstrong differs; that husband’s identity requires verification. The mother Mary, daughter Mary/Mary Ann, and younger John’s wife Mary Ann must remain distinct.

The profile’s 14 November 1816 marriage of widow Mary to Joseph Smith is a church-record lead. The 1834 I4:71–72 conveyance names Joseph Smith, Mary his wife, and Mary Guthrie. Later recitals connect these parties with Adam’s land, but the original marriage entry and each deed’s precise share should be compared before compressing the chain.

Elizabeth, the elder Adam’s daughter: her 1798 settlement participation and 2 February 1802 acknowledgment are firm life anchors. Her reported 1776 birth, later marriage, descendants, and death remain unresolved.

The wider comparison set also retains H3:52, Y3:70, Y3:72, E4:324, K4:245, E3:21, E3:225, M3:380, S3:413–414, Y3:191, Z3:505, Z3:506, and I4:348. These John, William, James B., trust, sheriff, and other transactions should not all be assigned to Adam’s descendants without correlation.

The complete shared grantor and grantee register, including later records and alternate index links, is retained with the Branch B family records. This child page highlights their relevance without converting the register into a proven pedigree.

American Guthrie and Allied Families remains an important compiled guide: Adam’s family at pp. 169–178, the Irwin discussion at pp. 543–544, and the Love families at pp. 557–561. The supplied Adam/Mercy research PDF and William Bio extract preserve useful earlier research, but their assertions must be compared with the original deeds and newer project results.

Could a hypothetical son be placed in the wrong family? The question remains open. The 1798 occupant/owner relationships, conflicting John chronology, distinct William occupations, wives’ names, and land chains offer concrete comparisons. Close Y-STR matches alone cannot decide which closely related household contains a particular son.

A Darlington middle name in a later generation and the local Darlington family are research clues. Neither establishes the proposed wife’s identity or justifies combining Elizabeth, Rebecca, Elizabeth Rebecca, or Rebecca Elizabeth Darlington into one documented person. Each name and relationship needs a source of its own.

Unresolved date and identity comparisons are retained for verification rather than silently corrected. Research Tree statements, original readings, and published alternatives should remain distinguishable as the investigation continues.

Guthrie Research Tree · Branch B family hub · Three Brothers Tradition