The Elizabeth Hundred enumeration groups people by age and sex rather than recording family households. Its ages support approximate birth years, but do not identify parents, spouses, or birthplaces.

The associated names include Robert, 49; Esther, 46; Ann, 21; John, 20; Pheeb, 18; Mary, 16; James, 14; Sarah, 11; Richard, 9; Robert, 6; and Sarah Jane, 1. Mary Gutry, 61, is another unresolved person. She should not be assigned as Robert’s mother or Francis Sr.’s wife solely from these lists.

Esther Giles remains the name used for this family study. Her surname is under investigation as Giles versus Skiles. Guthrie–Skiles associations, daughter Mary’s marriage to Ephraim Skiles, and the use of Giles in a descendant’s name are research clues. None independently establishes Esther’s maiden surname or parents.

Robert’s will names her as Ester/Esther but supplies no maiden surname. A marriage record, parental estate, family Bible, or other record explicitly identifying her birth family would carry greater weight than surname proximity alone.

Rockbridge County Will Book 1, page 329: signed 28 February 1788; proved 7 April 1789.

• Esther: one-third of the real and personal estate during her lifetime, followed by distribution under the will.
• John: fifty acres in the northeast corner, where he already lived, toward Cedar Creek and adjoining Ebenezer Branham.
• Phebe and Sarah: one-twelfth each of the real and personal estate.
• Mary: one-fifteenth of the real and personal estate.
• John King: £5, expressly described as a grandson.
• Richard and Robert: the remaining land, divided equally according to quality, with the remaining personal-estate provision.
• Executors: Esther and Richard.

The will does not name Ann, identify John King’s parents, or explain James’s absence. Those questions require additional records.

The purchase describes 220 acres, while the sons’ later deed describes 290 acres and refers to Hugh Braford’s old survey. Robert’s will also separately gives John fifty acres.

The records connect the property and family, but do not yet supply a complete acreage history. Another acquisition, a resurvey, or a different explanation must be established from additional documents; none should be assumed.

Washington County, Maryland, was created from Frederick County in September 1776, effective 1 October. A later Washington County description does not mean the family moved when the boundary changed, and it should not be used as Esther’s contemporary birth jurisdiction in 1730.

The verified purchase and heirs’ deed belong to Rockbridge County, Virginia. Later Montgomery County events are separate. Several Johns appear in the Virginia records; “Senior” and “Junior” distinguish namesakes but do not alone establish father and son.

The group’s broad haplogroup is reported as R-M269. The project’s Big Y research refines the paternal branches beyond that broad classification. A branch assignment should be checked against the current project results before attaching a terminal SNP to an individual descendant line.

John’s line: kits 8393 and 44350 are listed through John and Mary’s son William. Kit 8393 is listed with Big Y and Family Finder participation.

Richard’s line: kit 206677 is listed through Richard and Elizabeth’s son William. Additional autosomal pedigrees follow Richard’s children William and Cassandra.

The comparison supports the family’s paternal grouping. The documentary reconstruction must still distinguish the related men named Robert, John, Richard, and William.

Autosomal matches can help compare descendants through different children and investigate the Giles and Skiles associations. A match must be considered alongside the complete pedigrees and any other shared ancestors.

Neither a shared surname nor a cluster of matches alone identifies Esther’s parents. Descendants through the daughters can be especially useful when evaluating connections that do not follow the Guthrie paternal line.

• Robert’s father: the Francis Sr. placement rests on the reconstructed chronology and wider family evidence; an explicit parent-child record remains desirable.
• Ann and grandson John King: the will confirms the grandson but does not state his parentage.
• James: his omission from the will does not establish death before 1788 or the absence of descendants.
• Sarah and Sarah Jane: their identities and the application of the later Davis and Van Lear records need careful correlation.
• The younger Robert: his later history is unresolved. The Giles County, Tennessee, Robert associated with GFG13 and Rev. Robert “Hodge” Guthrie of GFG2A are distinct research lines.

Contemporary Records and Published Record Copies

• Robert Guthrie’s will and probate, Rockbridge County Will Book 1, page 329; DGS 007646171, image 500. Signed 28 February 1788; proved 7 April 1789.
• Hugh and Mary Braford to Robert Guthrey, Rockbridge Deed Book A, page 699; DGS 007898606, image 363. Deed dated 1 December 1777; recorded 1 April 1788.
• Richard and Robert Guthrey to James Robertson, page 251, and page 252, Rockbridge Deed Book C; DGS 007898607, images 463 and 465. Dated 27 May 1794; final proof 5 April 1796.
• Lancaster County tax records, 1748–1855; Colerain Township entries for the 1750s.
• Gaius Marcus Brumbaugh, Maryland Records, volume 1: Elizabeth Hundred lists. Published record transcriptions, arranged by age and sex.
• Maryland State Archives: Washington County’s 1783 assessment; compare the digitized assessment and transcript.
• Maryland allegiance-oath compilation. A published research source for the reported Robert and John entries; identities require correlation.
• John and Mary Guthrie to Felix O’Neill, Rockbridge Deed Book E, page 465, July Court 1805. A priority source for the next generation’s land history.

Family Studies and Research Context

• Robert and Esther in the Guthrie Research Tree. Consult the individual record attachments and their provenance.
• John Phillips, A History of the Guthrie Family (1936). Access may be restricted; treat family conclusions as claims to compare with records.
• The Forgotten Sons · GFG3 Theories, Part 1 · Part 2. These explain the development of the reconstruction; later evidence may refine earlier proposals.
• Maryland State Archives: Washington County history, for the county’s formation date.

The collaborative family research includes contributions and discussions by Sharyn Guthrie, Rachelle Child, and Diana Guthrie.

• A record explicitly connecting Robert to Francis Guthrie Sr.
• A marriage, parental estate, or family record identifying Esther’s maiden surname and parents.
• Elizabeth Skiles’s actual will, Frederick County Liber A1, pages 340–341, to verify the reported Guthrey witnesses.
• The missing title or survey evidence reconciling the 220-acre purchase, John’s fifty-acre bequest, and the heirs’ 290-acre sale.
• Evidence identifying grandson John King’s parents and explaining James’s later history.
• A contemporary record confirming Esther’s reported death and burial, and documents tracing the younger Robert after 1794.