I: James Guthrie & Miss Bissell
Guthrie Family Group 2A · Branch I · Family Hub
James Guthrie & Miss Bissell
The Three Brothers Tradition · LRG’s Presumptive Family
Branch I begins with the James Guthrie and “Miss Bissell” of the Three Brothers Tradition. Laurence R. Guthrie gathered four men—James, Robert, Thomas, and William—into a presumptive family beneath this couple. Their placement preserves a historical research theory; the parent couple and these parent–child connections have not been established by the records reviewed.
The principal family studies follow James Guthrie and Ann (MNU) and William Guthrie. James’s work as a tailor, farmer, and inn and tavern keeper, and William’s history as a trader and soldier, give their stories substance beyond the uncertain origin account. Robert and Thomas remain part of the discussion so that readers can follow the evidence behind their different DNA classifications.
A note on the names: “Miss Bissell,” also encountered as Bussell, belongs to the traditional account. Ann’s maiden name is unknown. These two women and the two James identities should not be treated as an established pair of generations.
The Family at a Glance
James Guthrie
The elder James of the traditional account
- Identity
- Not securely distinguished from James Guthrie, husband of Ann, in the records reviewed.
- Parents & Ancestry
- Unidentified. His placement as a brother of Robert Guthrie of Branch B and John Guthrie Sr. of Branch F remains traditional.
- Birth & Origins
- Date and birthplace not established.
- Marriage
- “Miss Bissell” in the family account; no confirming marriage record identified.
- Occupation
- Iron manufacture is part of the Three Brothers story, not an independently established occupation for this elder James.
- Death & Burial
- Not established.
Miss Bissell
A wife named in the tradition
- Identity
- Given name unknown; surname also appears as Bussell.
- Parents
- Unidentified.
- Birth
- Date and birthplace not established.
- Marriage
- Traditionally assigned to the elder James Guthrie; date and place unknown.
- Children
- The four men displayed below belong to LRG’s presumptive arrangement, not a documented list of her children.
- Death & Burial
- Not established.
LRG’s Presumptive Family is retained here as the organizing framework of the historical account. It allows each associated line to be examined without converting the arrangement into a proven household.
James Guthrie and Ann are documented people. Their existence does not, by itself, establish another James in the preceding generation. William’s identity and ancestry require their own examination. DNA findings distinguish the Robert–Caldwell and Thomas–Howell paternal lines from GFG2A.
The Four Associated Lines
Select a linked name to follow the family or its evidence.
| Name & Family Study | Marriage | Family Connection & DNA |
|---|---|---|
| James Guthrie | Ann (MNU) | A documented household; James was a tailor, farmer, and inn and tavern keeper. The tested paternal line matches GFG2A. His placement beneath James and Miss Bissell remains unproved. |
| William Guthrie | See the William family study | The trader and soldier remains a principal Branch I study. The identification of records across places and years must be evaluated separately from his proposed parentage. No representative Y-DNA kit was confirmed in the reviewed notes. |
| Robert Guthrie | Eliza Jane Caldwell | Officially GFG2C. Descendants of two different sons represent a paternal line genetically unrelated to GFG2A. His parents and the Guthrie household in which he grew up remain unidentified. |
| Thomas Guthrie | Mildred Howell | The tested line belongs to GFG5. This Thomas may have been confused with a man of the same name in Pennsylvania records. Neither identification establishes a son of the elder James. |
What Does This Arrangement Establish?Separating people, households, and inferred relationships.
The elder couple
No reviewed record securely establishes James and Miss Bissell as a separate couple with these four sons. The heading preserves the traditional family’s identity for research.
The documented families
Records belonging to James and Ann, William, Robert and Eliza Jane, or Thomas and Mildred must be assessed on their own terms. A document naming a man does not necessarily identify his parents.
The DNA distinctions
GFG2C and GFG5 should remain clearly labeled wherever their stories are discussed. Their inclusion in this historical arrangement does not make their Y-DNA profiles part of GFG2A.
Historical Highlights
Trades, Travel & Family Tradition
The origin story places James Guthrie among three immigrant brothers associated with iron manufacture. The other two are Robert Guthrie of Branch B and John Guthrie Sr. of Branch F. Their supposed Edinburgh origins, brotherhood, and marriages have been repeated through generations of family histories, but the combined timeline does not establish the family configuration.
James Guthrie and Ann’s documented household provides a firmer starting point. James’s work as a tailor, farmer, and inn and tavern keeper connects skilled labor with land and hospitality. The 1757 apprenticeship complaint naming James Gutthrey as a tailor is one of the records considered in tracing this man. Later land and estate papers follow his household; they do not supply the missing proof of an elder James and a Bissell wife.
William’s story carries the investigation into trade, travel, and military service. LRG associated a William at Fort Pitt in 1761 with the later Westmoreland man. That identification must be tested before using the combined narrative to argue for his parents or brothers. Shared names, places, and associates can guide research, but they are not interchangeable with a stated relationship.
The printed tradition also needs its own timeline. Seymour Guthrie’s account, published long after the immigrant generation, remembered an immigrant John who died in 1730 leaving four sons. Those sons—John and three unidentified brothers—belong to a different generation from the supposed immigrant brothers Robert, John, and James. The two sets must not be blended.
Dunn & Dunn and, later, Laurence R. Guthrie brought additional regional families and accounts into print. LRG’s presumptive arrangements preserved research possibilities alongside valuable documentary material. Repetition in later trees can obscure the difference between his evidence and his interpretation. Similar stories may also reflect earlier publications rather than independent family testimony; that possibility should be investigated, not assumed.
DNA has changed the interpretation of two associated lines. Robert Guthrie and Eliza Jane Caldwell’s descendants belong to GFG2C, genetically unrelated to GFG2A. Thomas Guthrie and Mildred Howell’s line belongs to GFG5. These findings resolve their paternal-group classifications while leaving questions about household connections and the identities of same-name men.
The purpose of this hub is to follow James and Ann, William, and the two historically associated lines while keeping those distinctions visible. The wider Three Brothers review compares Branches B, F, and I; evidence from other GFG2A branches also matters when assessing shared associates and the deeper paternal ancestry.
Follow the family timeline below →
Read The Three Brothers Tradition →
Explore the records and DNA evidence →
The Family Timeline
These entries follow the documented and historically associated lines, then the later publications and DNA findings. They do not establish a single household. Estimates, proposed identities, and unresolved connections are identified alongside the dated material.
-
About
1730–1731Estimated birthJames, Husband of Ann
A reported death on 24 October 1799 at age 68 suggests a birth about 1730–1731. This is an estimate derived from the reported age, not a birth record.
Source: James Guthrie death-notice information in the family research.
-
1749–1763Tax references
James in West Caln
LRG used early West Caln tax references in considering an older James. The age estimate for James, husband of Ann, raises a question about these entries; it does not settle the taxpayer’s identity or establish a father–son relationship.
Source: AGAF, pp. 215–216; West Caln tax references.
-
1757Apprenticeship
A Tailor Named James Gutthrey
An apprenticeship complaint names James Gutthrey as a tailor. This occupational evidence belongs in the investigation of James and Ann’s household, with its identity and chronology assessed alongside later records.
Source: AGAF’s account and the apprenticeship material reviewed for Branch I.
-
1761Trade
William at Fort Pitt
LRG associated the William Guthrie at Fort Pitt with the man later found in Westmoreland County. Establishing that these are the same man is a separate question from identifying his parents.
Source: AGAF, p. 301.
-
1765Land warrant
James in the Land Records
A land warrant provides another dated reference in the investigation of James Guthrie. The land sequence can help distinguish same-name men, but the warrant does not itself establish the elder James–Miss Bissell couple.
Source: James Guthrie land-warrant material in the Branch I research.
-
1777–1779Pennsylvania records
A Thomas Guthrie in Pennsylvania
Military and tax references identify a Thomas in Pennsylvania. His identification with Thomas Guthrie, husband of Mildred Howell, remains uncertain. The Pennsylvania records should not automatically be assigned to the GFG5 household.
Source: Pennsylvania military and tax references discussed with AGAF’s Thomas account, p. 267.
-
1792–1793Virginia records
The Thomas and Robert Households
Virginia material involving Thomas, Mildred, and John, and a transaction involving Robert and Jane with Caldwell connections, helps trace these households. These references do not identify the elder James as either man’s father.
Source: AGAF appendices, including p. 703; the Virginia transactions reviewed for these families.
-
1798–1799Will & death
James Provides for His Family
James’s will is dated 11 August 1798, with a codicil dated 13 August 1799. His reported death on 24 October 1799 follows those instruments. The will and codicil provide household relationships that can be examined independently of the immigrant story.
The probate date remains unresolved
The reviewed material differs between 8 and 18 November 1799. The original probate entry needs comparison before choosing an exact date.
Source: James Guthrie will and codicil; AGAF and the reported death notice.
-
1889 &
1898Published accountsThe Tradition in Print
Seymour Guthrie’s account and the later Dunn & Dunn compilation preserve family traditions at a considerable distance from the immigrant generation. Their wording and named generations must be compared before treating repeated details as independent evidence.
Source: Seymour Guthrie (1889); Dunn & Dunn (1898).
-
1933Family compilation
LRG’s Presumptive Family
American Guthrie and Allied Families gathers documentary extracts, correspondence, and family traditions. Its presumptive arrangement of James, Robert, Thomas, and William remains a research framework rather than a demonstrated list of siblings.
Source: AGAF, pp. 215–216, 252, 267, and 301; appendices, pp. 701–703.
-
DNA reviewPaternal lines
Three Different Group Findings
The reviewed project information places James and Ann’s tested line in GFG2A, Robert and Jane Caldwell’s line in GFG2C, and Thomas and Mildred Howell’s line in GFG5. William’s representative testing coverage was not confirmed in those notes.
Source: Guthrie DNA Project notes supplied for this review; see testing coverage below.
The chronology must also be compared with Branches B and F and with other GFG2A families sharing places or associates. Continue to Explore the Records →.
Explore the Records
Read the household records, published reconstructions, and DNA results together while keeping each kind of evidence distinct. A dated record may establish a person’s presence without identifying a parent, sibling, or place of birth.
The Guthrie DNA Project
The tested James Guthrie–Ann line matches GFG2A. Robert–Caldwell and Thomas–Howell retain their separate classifications. The historical arrangement above them does not override the genetic findings.
| Family Line | Classification | Recorded Coverage |
|---|---|---|
| James & Ann | GFG2A | Kit 253355: Y111. No Big-Y result in the reviewed snapshot. |
| William | Not established here | No representative kit confirmed in the reviewed notes. |
| Robert & Jane Caldwell | GFG2C | Two Y-DNA descendants through different sons. Big-Y coverage not established here. |
| Thomas & Mildred Howell | GFG5 | Group assignment established in the project research; test levels not specified here. |
Coverage reflects the project information supplied for this review, including the participant notes dated 15 October 2026. It is not a live testing roster. An unlisted result does not establish that no descendant has tested.
What the DNA Does—and Does Not—EstablishGroup identity and documentary parentage are different questions.
GFG2A results support a shared paternal lineage for the tested James–Ann descendant and other matching Guthrie lines. They do not name James’s father or prove that the Three Brothers tradition describes his immediate ancestry.
GFG2C is the official designation for the Robert–Caldwell line. It is retained as an associated genetic-mismatch subgroup in the project’s classification, while its Y-DNA profile is genetically unrelated to GFG2A. The subgroup label does not imply biological descent from GFG2A.
Big-Y connections across the wider GFG2A group must be considered beyond Branches B, F, and I. A shared genetic branch can guide documentary comparison without supplying the names of missing generations.
Family Records & Open Questions
James Guthrie & AnnA documented household; an unproved earlier generation.
The apprenticeship, land, will, and codicil material supplies evidence for James’s adult life and family. The reported age at death suggests a birth about 1730–1731, but cannot substitute for a birth record.
LRG’s discussion of the West Caln tax entries raises the possibility of an older James. Before treating that possibility as a separate person, the entries need comparison with ages, locations, property, occupations, and associates. Even two distinct men would not, by themselves, establish a father and son.
The will is dated 11 August 1798 and the codicil 13 August 1799. The reported death is 24 October 1799. The conflicting 8 and 18 November probate dates remain unresolved.
William GuthrieSeparate the identity question from the parentage question.
LRG’s account links the William at Fort Pitt in 1761 with a later Westmoreland man. This identification and William’s placement beneath James and Miss Bissell are two separate inferences. Neither should be used as proof of the other.
Records for William and the following generation should be compared with other Guthrie branches sharing the same associates. A connection elsewhere could change the family reconstruction without making every detail of William’s own history incorrect.
Robert Guthrie & Jane CaldwellGFG2C: genetically unrelated to GFG2A.
Y-DNA descendants of two different sons represent the Robert–Caldwell paternal line. Their results do not match the established GFG2A profile; the project retains the designation GFG2C.
The rare reported match to a Smith surname in the Netherlands is a lead for the paternal-line investigation. It does not establish Robert’s birthplace, parents, or the Guthrie household in which he grew up.
Robert belongs in this discussion because researchers encounter him in LRG’s presumptive family. His inclusion explains that historical placement without treating it as a proven relationship.
Thomas Guthrie & Mildred HowellGFG5 and the Pennsylvania namesake.
The Thomas–Howell line belongs to GFG5. The family research favors a Virginia origin for this Thomas, while Pennsylvania records identify a Thomas who may have been a different man.
Separating those men does not prove that the Pennsylvania Thomas was a son of the elder James. There may have been such a son, but the family connection remains unestablished. AGAF’s family narrative and appendix records should be read for the relationships they actually state.
Reference Sources & Further Reading
Published Accounts & Research CollectionsRead the presumptive arrangements alongside the documentary extracts.
- Laurence R. Guthrie, American Guthrie and Allied Families (1933): pp. 215–216 for the elder James discussion; p. 252 for Robert; p. 267 for Thomas; p. 301 for William; appendices, pp. 701–703, for related documentary material.
- Seymour Guthrie, A Brief History of a Branch of the Guthrie Family (1889), including p. 7. Distinguish the immigrant-brother account from the four sons attributed to immigrant John.
- Dunn & Dunn, Records of the Guthrie Family (1898), for comparison of the regional families and transmitted accounts.
- The Three Brothers Tradition: the shared review of Branches B, F, and I, the origin accounts, and their unresolved connections.
- Guthrie DNA Project participant notes and lineage information supplied for this review. Group classification and testing coverage are distinguished above.
The Guthrie Research Tree brings together family reconstructions and source leads. A tree placement remains subject to the evidence attached to it.
Most Wanted Documents
These are the questions that additional evidence could address. The needed records may never have been created or may no longer survive.
Documents That Could Clarify the ConnectionsPriority questions for Branch I.
- A distinct elder James. A contemporary record separating him from James, husband of Ann, and identifying a wife or children.
- The Bissell identity. A marriage, church, estate, or family record connecting this name with the correct James.
- James and Ann’s earlier history. Records that link the apprenticeship, tax, and land references and identify James’s parents.
- William’s identity across the record sequence. Evidence connecting the Fort Pitt and Westmoreland references, followed by independent evidence of parentage.
- Robert’s household of origin. A record explaining his Guthrie family connection without assuming that it belonged to GFG2A.
- The two Thomas identities. Records that distinguish the Pennsylvania man from Thomas, husband of Mildred Howell.
- The wider Three Brothers chronology. Contemporary relationships and shared associates that test the traditional generations against Branches B, F, I, and other GFG2A lines.
Every family holds a piece of the story
Help Build the Family Story
Branch I brings together the documented lives of James Guthrie and Ann, William Guthrie, and the Robert–Caldwell and Thomas–Howell families with the older story that placed them beneath James Guthrie and Miss Bissell. Their records preserve trades, journeys, households, and descendants. The precise connections in the traditional arrangement remain unresolved.
What might your family add? A letter, Bible entry, deed, estate paper, or source for a family recollection could clarify an identity or connect people across communities. Share the names, dates, places, and the origin of the information. Corrections and discoveries are welcome with or without DNA results. Descendants interested in testing can also explore joining the Guthrie DNA Project.