A will helps identify the household

This Adam’s published chronology runs through Virginia and eastern Tennessee to Cumberland County, Kentucky. His commonly estimated birth in the 1740s and reported Irish origins are not a located birth record.

1 May 1825

The reproduced will of Adam Guthery names James, George, Thomas, Polly, and Nancy, and includes property on the French Broad River in eastern Tennessee.

20 August 1827

The accompanying clerk’s certificate records the will’s proof at the August court term. This is probate evidence, not an exact death date.

The will supplies a useful family-and-property combination. Compare that combination with a proposed match rather than relying on the heading “Adam Guthrie.”

The Scottish-born Adam in the GFG9 family

The existing case identifies this Adam as born about 1761 in Scotland, a son of Thomas Guthrie and Jean Duncan. The family’s migration history leads to Georgia and South Carolina.

The GFG9 study places Thomas and Jean’s family in Georgia in September 1774, followed by South Carolina. That family history should remain attached to their household—not transferred to the Anderson-line Adam.

No descendants are identified for this Adam in the existing case. That is a research limit, not a reason to assign him another Adam’s children.

The other Virginia–Kentucky family

The existing family account identifies Adam Guthrie, 1762–1826, husband of Hannah Polke, as the son of James Guthrie and Elizabeth Dunlap.

Their children are identified as Elizabeth, Edmund, James, John Berry, Mary, Sarah, Nancy, and Hannah. Keep that household together rather than importing its children into the Anderson family.

Both Kentucky Adams have Virginia connections. That overlap explains why geography alone does not settle the question: the spouses, children, and associated records must travel with the correct man.

The published 1762–1826 chronology belongs with the Guthrie–Polke profile. It should not replace the Anderson-line Adam’s dates merely because both men appear in Kentucky research.

A paternal-line distinction—not a replacement pedigree

The Guthrie DNA Project places the Anderson line in GFG7 and the Thomas Guthrie–Jean Duncan family in GFG9. The reported results do not support the proposed father-to-son connection between those families.

The GFG9 summary identifies its Thomas–Jean evidence as coming through descendants of their son John Guthrie, including two separate sons of John. It is not presented as a test from a known descendant of their son Adam.

Keep that distinction with the correction. Excluding a proposed paternal line does not identify the Anderson-line Adam’s missing parents, and it does not establish that two families could never be related through another route.

Nor should the Guthrie–Polke Adam receive either group designation simply because his name appears in this case. Each assignment needs evidence for that particular line.

7 June 1786

The family study gives this as the reported Virginia marriage date for Charles Guthrie and Mariah. The existing case describes the attribution as likely. Retain that qualification rather than presenting a newly verified marriage entry.

23 March 1801

The Carteret County reference names Charles Guthrie and Mary Hendrickson, with John Marshall as bondsman and Saml. Leffers as witness.

What the record needs

Keep the date attached to the event actually documented. Review the original bond and any associated marriage return before treating an indexed date as an independently verified ceremony date.

The bondsman and witness are useful people to investigate when identifying the Carteret groom. Their appearance does not, by itself, establish a family relationship to either spouse.

Do not solve the discrepancy by making Mariah a first wife and Mary Hendrickson a second wife of the Kentucky Charles without evidence. That preserves the same mistaken attachment in a different arrangement.

A separate question inside the correct family file

The published comparison distinguishes the Virginia–Kentucky line from the Carteret family descending from Daniel Guthrie and Mary Little. Several men in the Carteret family were named Charles.

The existing study offers two possible placements for Mary Hendrickson’s marriage:

Charles Guthrie Jr.

Given in the study as 1748–1809 and associated with Mary Morse. A later marriage to Mary Hendrickson is proposed conditionally, not established.

His son Charles

Given as approximately 1764–before 1820 and associated with a wife named Nancy. He is the alternative proposed groom.

The study makes those alternatives dependent on resolving the earlier wives’ death dates and the men’s marriage histories. Neither candidate should receive the 1801 marriage simply because his name fits.

Keep the correction separate from the remaining identification. Removing the Carteret record from Mariah’s profile does not mean that every detail of Mary Hendrickson’s husband has been settled.

A public WeRelate profile provides a visible example of the disputed combination. It presents Mariah Hendrickson, with a Kentucky death and burial, as the wife of Charles Guthrie, approximately 1760–1840.

Its sources include the 23 March 1801 Carteret County references for Charles Guthrie and Mary Hendrickson. The profile therefore shows the record attached to the Kentucky identity—not merely a general warning that such an error might occur.

This demonstrates an online association, not its first appearance or the route by which it spread. It also does not turn the contributed profile into independent evidence of Mariah’s maiden surname.

Several database citations for the same event do not supply several independent reasons to assign that event to a particular person. Check the underlying record and the family connection separately.

Suggested research-note wording—not a quotation from a historical record. Add your citations and the date of your revision.

This profile represents Mariah, wife of Charles Guthrie of the Caswell County, North Carolina; Halifax County, Virginia; and Kentucky family. Her maiden surname remains unidentified.

The Carteret County reference dated 23 March 1801 names Charles Guthrie and Mary Hendrickson. It is not retained as evidence of this couple’s marriage or Mariah’s surname. The combined names Mariah Hendrickson and Mary Mariah Hendrickson are preserved only as disputed identifications in this note.

The reported 7 June 1786 Virginia marriage remains qualified pending verification. Mary Hendrickson’s precise placement among the Carteret County Charles Guthries is a separate unresolved research question.

Review each child’s supporting records before changing a mother’s identity. Do not use the 1801 date alone to divide the children between two supposed wives of one Charles.

1847 · The officer

American Guthrie and Allied Families gives 20 June 1847 for the captain’s wounding and 20 July 1847 for his death. These are separate events, a month apart.

1860 · Alabama

The Winston County census abstract identifies Edwin, a farmer, with Elizabeth and their household at Township 12, Range 10, post office Eldridge.

1870 · Alabama

The Houston post-office household is abstracted under Edward, with Elizabeth and family. This is the later household associated with Edwin—not a reason to create the combined name “Edwin Edward.”

1880 · Alabama

Elizabeth Guthery appears as a widowed mother-in-law in the Martin household. The resulting death interval is an inference from the correlated households, not an exact death date.

The dates do the separating. Once the later household has been identified with the farmer, the officer’s earlier death rules out combining their lives. A matching name cannot overcome that chronological conflict.

Name variations still deserve attention. Compare the spouse, children, residence, and neighboring households before deciding whether “Edwin” and “Edward” represent a recording variation or two different people.

The form Thomas Edwin Guthrie circulates with Mary Elizabeth Cagle in online pedigrees. The longer version Thomas Edwin Edward Guthrie combines still more name forms.

Neither construction supplies the missing evidence that these names belonged to one man. A combined profile needs to be separated, not explained by continually extending its name.

Keep the two Elizabeths with their own husbands

There is a separate Thomas Guthrie–Elizabeth Cape marriage reference, dated 19 August 1827 in Hall County, Georgia. It must not be repurposed as the marriage of Edwin Guthrie and Mary Elizabeth Cagle.

Compare the whole couple. Similar surnames, a shared county, and wives called Elizabeth make a promising search result—not a completed identification. Cape and Cagle should not be treated as interchangeable simply because both fit an existing tree.

Parent attachments need the same treatment. Removing the added “Thomas” does not validate parents that entered the profile through the Thomas identity. Recheck the relationship itself before keeping it.

The existing case research reports 27 June 1808, Buncombe County, North Carolina, attributed to a published transcription of 1867 Winston County voter and loyalty-oath material. The census abstracts instead give South Carolina.

Keep those statements attached to their sources. The family study reports that the voter-registration image does not contain the birthplace information. The original loyalty oath still needs to be located and checked before the detailed birth information can be treated as verified from that document.

Do not tidy away the disagreement. Record the competing information and what still needs checking. Choosing the more precise-looking birthplace does not resolve the source conflict.

This uncertainty concerns the farmer’s origins. It does not make the deceased officer a candidate for his later Alabama life.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your record citations and the date of your revision.

This profile represents Edwin Guthrie, husband of Mary Elizabeth Cagle. Records belonging to Captain Edwin Guthrie, husband of Adaline Jewett, have been separated from it. The captain’s death on 20 July 1847 does not belong to the farmer whose household is identified in later Alabama censuses.

The combined “Thomas Edwin” and “Thomas Edwin Edward” names are not retained as established names. The separate Thomas Guthrie–Elizabeth Cape marriage reference is not evidence of the Guthrie–Cagle marriage. Dates and parent relationships previously attached through either mistaken identity require their own supporting evidence.

The farmer’s exact death date and the conflict between the reported North Carolina birth information and South Carolina census birthplaces remain unresolved.

After separating the profiles, check their children and attached sources as well. Changing the heading alone will not repair a family whose records are still mixed.

Laurence R. Guthrie’s American Guthrie and Allied Families places this George in the Robert–Bridget family and describes his marriage to Margaret Campbell during the 1770s. The author revised his earlier birth estimate of about 1746 to about 1751; these are estimates, not competing birth entries.

The family account identifies children James, William Campbell, Sara, and Jane, with an additional daughter discussed in connection with Robert Provines. Its possible extra sons should not be treated as established identities.

Follow the Pennsylvania records

27 April 1803

The published abstract reports letters of administration on James Guthrie’s estate granted to George Guthrie. The family study identifies James as his son.

March 1813

George released his interest in a tract of land to Robert Provines, according to the cited Huntingdon County deed reference.

13 November 1813

Letters of administration on George Guthrie’s estate were issued to Robert Provines. This is an administration date, not an exact date of death.

The 1933 family account gives George’s death as October–November 1813. Keep that account distinct from the dated administration reference.

Work backward through the descendants

The GFG14–Branch A study identifies descendant lines through John Ernest Guthrie, husband of Susannah Hodgkinson; Richard Guthrie, husband of Mary Van Scoyoc; and Samuel Guthrie, whose wife is identified as Mary, maiden surname unknown.

It also discusses William Guthrie and Hannah Guthrie, wife of Isaac Slater. William’s proposed census identification and birth estimates remain qualified in that study.

These are the family connections to investigate. They should not be combined with George and Margaret Campbell’s children merely because both histories contain familiar Guthrie names.

The descendants’ Ohio residences do not establish that their father accompanied them. His own final residence, death, and burial remain unresolved in this research.

Henry F. Guthrie’s 1946 account

The source trail leads to Henry F. Guthrie’s The Early History of the Guthrie Family (1946). The project’s research identifies Henry Franklin Guthrie as a grandson of Richard Guthrie and Mary Van Scoyoc.

Extracts attributed to that paper preserve the name George Nelson Guthrie and a story of the family leaving the Revolutionary War’s combat area while brothers remained behind in military service.

Guthrie Genealogy’s discussion of the source trail identifies an earlier Genealogy.com presentation, Wade Gunter’s Ancestors, as a source of the extracts. The complete original paper has not been examined for this case.

This is a source for George Nelson’s family tradition—not proof that he was Robert and Bridget’s son. Nor does the paper’s 1946 date establish when the mistaken merge began.

Compare the represented paternal lines

The Branch E project lists a tested line through George Guthrie and Margaret Campbell’s son William Campbell Guthrie. It also includes lines through George’s brother Robert. The reported results match GFG2A.

GFG14–Branch A lists tested lines through John Ernest, Richard, and Samuel. Their reported paternal profile is distinct from the Pennsylvania family’s profile.

Together with the family reconstructions, this evidence supports keeping the two Georges separate. It does not support the merged pedigree.

What the Joyce / Joice matches do—and do not—supply

The project reports GFG14 matches with men bearing the Joyce / Joice surname. Its interpretation is that an adoption or another change in the paternal line may explain the surname difference.

That is not an identification of a particular father, an adoption document, or proof of the generation in which the difference arose. Do not replace the borrowed Guthrie parents with an equally unproved Joyce couple.

Suggested research-note wording—not a quotation from a historical record. Add your citations and the date of your revision.

These profiles have been separated. The Pennsylvania George belongs to the Guthrie–Dougherty family and married Margaret Campbell. George Nelson belongs to a different reconstructed family whose parents and wife remain unidentified.

The project places their represented paternal lines in GFG2A–Branch E and GFG14–Branch A, respectively. Names, relationships, and events introduced solely through the mistaken merge are not retained as established facts.

George Nelson’s later family-history account is preserved with its source attribution. It does not supply the missing connection to the Pennsylvania parents or wife.

Review attached documents one at a time. Preserve a useful record with the person it actually concerns, rather than deleting it merely because it appeared in a mixed profile.

1812 · First marriage

The family studies give 1 July 1812 for Gulielmus Coleman Jr.’s marriage to the widow White. The reproduced marriage-bond index card, however, names Sarah White, gives July 1812 without a day, and lists William Guthrey as surety.

Before 1826

The first Nancy died before the second marriage. The later family reconstruction places her death between 1822 and 1826; this is not an independently verified exact death date.

1826 · Second marriage

The reproduced passage from American Guthrie and Allied Families gives 20 May 1826. Ann Guthrie’s published comments and the subsequent William and Henry family studies give 20 March 1826. The month remains unresolved here.

An index discrepancy is not another wife

Hoggard proposes that “Sarah” in the 1812 index is an error. That interpretation fits the reconstructed widow’s identity, but it should not be presented as a reading of an original bond that has not been examined.

A real Sarah White also belongs in this family: the daughter of the first Nancy’s White marriage. The published genealogy identifies her later husband as John Stanback Coleman. Keep mother and daughter separate rather than combining their names.

The earlier marriage to James White, reportedly 8 December 1803, also needs its original supporting record. The 2022 research discussion explicitly records that the cited marriage had not been located.

The strongest distinction comes from the relationships described in estate and land records—not from choosing the most familiar Nancy in a tree.

24 September 1827

In the division of enslaved people from William Guthrey’s estate, Gulielmus Coleman received one of four allotted shares. Hoggard correlates this with William’s daughter Nancy. The entry does not itself name the two daughters; their identities require the related family evidence.

1831 & 1833

Instruments filed in Madison County, Alabama, on 3 January 1831 and 13 March 1833, concerning Bernard Guthrey’s estate, name Coleman in right of his wife Nancy, formerly Nancy Guthrey. The family relationships connect this Nancy to Henry Guthrey’s children.

2 November 1837

The published discussion of Rebecca Guthrey’s estate division identifies the representatives of the deceased Nancy Coleman as Sarah W. Coleman, John Coleman, and Virgil Coleman. This is the first Nancy’s family.

23 October 1846

A Cumberland County deed, as abstracted in the William Guthrey study, explicitly identifies Nancy Coleman as a daughter of William Guthrey Sr., Gulielmus Coleman as her husband, and John and Virgil Coleman as her sons and heirs.

The 1846 deed provides a particularly useful relationship chain. It describes Nancy’s share of her father’s land, her husband’s earlier sale of his interest, and the interests of her two sons. It does not rely on a matching first name alone.

Read that chain alongside the Bernard estate instruments identifying the other Nancy. The records support two successive wives from different parental households—not one woman with interchangeable parents.

The two wives were first cousins

In the corrected reconstruction, William Guthrey and Henry Guthrey were brothers, sons of Thomas Guthrey and Sarah Oakes. Their daughters Nancy Ann and Nancy were therefore first cousins.

The older genealogy estimated a more distant cousin relationship. Retain its wording when quoting it, but distinguish that estimate from the relationship established in the later reconstruction.

The brother named in the account matters

American Guthrie and Allied Families describes the second wife as a “sister of Henry Guthrie.” The reconstructed Henry–Patience household supplies that brother: Henry Sidney Guthrey.

That clue becomes useful when combined with the estate relationships. It is not a reason to attach the wife to any family containing a man named Henry.

Nancy Turner belongs to another generation

Nancy Turner’s father, William “Buck” Guthrie, was the first Nancy’s brother. Her mother, Elizabeth Coleman, was Gulielmus Coleman Jr.’s sister. Nancy Turner was therefore a niece within both sides of this closely connected family.

That relationship is a reason to investigate the proposed marriage carefully. The decisive correction, however, comes from the records identifying Henry’s daughter as the wife—not simply from finding an uncle–niece marriage unlikely.

The later family studies reconstruct the children as follows. These lists summarize those studies; they are not presented as newly transcribed birth registers.

Nancy Ann’s White marriage

Sarah Howard White, also encountered as Sarah W. Coleman. She was Gulielmus Jr.’s stepdaughter, not his daughter by birth.

Nancy Ann & Gulielmus

John Baptist, James W., Virgil, Ann Rebecca, and Alexander Gulielmus “Elmus” Coleman.

Henry’s Nancy & Gulielmus

Judith Anderson, David M., Josiah, Marietta, and Nancy “Nannie” Coleman.

A particular estate document may identify only the surviving children or the heirs involved in that transaction. John and Virgil’s appearance in the 1846 deed should not be treated as a complete birth list.

Keep the Coleman generations separate too. Gulielmus Coleman Sr., husband of Eleanor Turner, was the father of the younger man in this case. Moving a disputed marriage to the father is not a substitute for resolving its evidence.

Separating Nancy Turner from Gulielmus Jr. does not settle her own marriage and death. The research contains competing leads that should not be combined into another profile.

The earlier case discussion proposes John Wiley Coleman and a 6 February 1878 death in Petersburg. The 2022 comments instead discuss John H. Coleman and a 4 July 1878 Dinwiddie County reference.

Those identifications have not been reconciled here. Retain them as separate, attributed leads—not established events for Nancy Turner, and not dates to transfer to Henry’s daughter merely because she also became Nancy Coleman.

Suggested research-note wording—not a quotation from a historical record. Add your citations and the date of your revision.

Gulielmus Coleman Jr.’s two wives are kept separate: Nancy Ann Guthrey, widow White and daughter of William Guthrey and Rebecca Noel; and Nancy Guthrey, daughter of Henry Guthrey and Patience. Nancy Turner Guthrie, daughter of William “Buck” Guthrie and Elizabeth Coleman, is not retained as his second wife.

The correction follows the family relationships in the published estate and deed research. The 1812 index’s “Sarah White” wording and the March/May 1826 date conflict remain recorded as unresolved source discrepancies. The children and maternal grandparents have been reviewed separately from those date and transcription questions.

Harriet N. Dunn and Eveline Guthrie Dunn’s Records of the Guthrie Family lists the following among James and Abigail Betts’s children on printed p. 11:

James, b. Nov. 19, 1757, in Woodbury; m. Mehitable Hicock.

The expanded entry, no. 23 on p. 17, repeats the marriage and combines it with settlement in Sherburne and removal to Ohio.

Laurence R. Guthrie’s American Guthrie and Allied Families repeats the combined identity on pp. 98–99. Its Ohio migration statement belongs to the other James’s history, not to the Connecticut Guthrie–Hickox household.

These editions establish dated appearances of the mistaken identification. They do not, by themselves, identify its first author or establish every later copying route.

5 June 1777

The military description gives Pound Ridge as birthplace, Danbury as residence, and 15 as his age.

25 September 1783

The pension-file account places the marriage to Mehitable Hickox at her father Thaddeus’s home in Washington, Connecticut.

1820

His stated age of 59 supplies another approximate birth estimate, not an exact birth date.

7 September 1839

The cited chronology records his death in Bethlehem, Connecticut.

Do not replace those age statements with the precise Woodbury date simply because the older pedigree supplies one. Precision is useful only when the record concerns the right person.

A difference of a few years would not, on its own, settle the identification. Here the birthplace, wife, later residence, and lifespan must be considered together.

3 March 1808

A Sherburne conveyance names James Guthrie and wife Elizabeth; an Anslem Guthrie appears among its witnesses.

6 April 1812

James and Elizabeth sell their interests in Lots 59 and 60 to Asa Gifford.

1 June 1813

Ohio administration is granted to Anslem Guthrie for James’s estate.

30 October 1813

New York administration identifies James as formerly of Avery, Huron County, Ohio, connecting his Ohio death with his remaining New York affairs.

This is the sequence that restores the displaced family. The deeds identify a wife; the estate proceedings carry the same investigation across the state boundary.

Taken with the Connecticut chronology, the distinction is decisive: the man whose estate was being administered in 1813 cannot also be Mehitable’s husband living afterward.

The corrected study distinguishes the 19 November 1757 birth from the 5 March 1758 baptism. Neither date should remain attached to the Hickox husband through the rejected identification.

Its reconstruction of James and Betsey’s children identifies Anselm or Anslem, David B., Erastus, Elisa, Abigail, and Beulah, with two sons and one daughter still unidentified. The nine-child outline combines census and other evidence; the early censuses do not name all those children.

Keep Elizabeth’s maiden surname unknown. A corrected husband and family do not supply a missing surname or marriage date.

Do not transfer the pension with the parentage

The Massachusetts service entries for a James Guthrie still require separation between the father and son. The family study does not securely allocate all of them.

Detaching Mehitable’s husband from the Betts parents does not make his pension the other James’s service record. Each military claim needs its own identification.

The corrected family study places the Guthrie–Hickox descendants in Ungrouped status, pending Y-DNA evidence. That is a project classification reflecting an unresolved placement—not proof that they are unrelated to every GFG2A family.

The Branch F results include a paternal line through James Guthrie and Abigail Betts’s son Benjamin. That does not amount to a test of Mehitable’s husband’s line.

The next task is to establish the Hickox husband’s ancestry—not to replace one borrowed pedigree with another convenient set of parents.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

The two James Guthries have been separated. The published marriage assignment in Dunn and Dunn and in American Guthrie and Allied Families is not retained as proof of the Hickox husband’s parentage.

Each man retains his own wife, children, and supported records. The corrected relationship follows the birth, pension, property, and estate comparison, not a matching name alone. Unresolved parentage, military identifications, and exact dates remain qualified in the individual profiles.

Keep a citation to the mistaken passage alongside the correction. That allows another researcher to recognize why a familiar book and the revised tree no longer agree.

1 November 1800

James Guthrie’s will names his wife Elizabeth, sons James and Robert, and daughters Ann, Mary, Margaret, Martha, Jean, and Elizabeth.

May Term 1801

The probate wording reproduced with the will records its proof at this court term. The interval between the will and its proof is not an exact death date.

6 November 1810

The published deed abstract names Elizabeth Guthrie, John Madden, and Alexander McMinnamy as sellers to Richard Hinslee. The family study identifies Elizabeth as James’s widow.

These records belong with the North Carolina family. They must not be combined with the other couple’s reported deaths during the Atlantic crossing.

The widow’s later appearance also does not establish when she died. Preserve the dated land evidence without turning it into a precise death event.

The Cork and Virginia-bound account

The Dunlap family narrative says James was sent from Scotland to live with his uncle John Guthrie, a lawyer in County Cork. It describes the parents sailing with their daughters while their son Adam initially remained in Ireland with his great-uncle.

According to that account, Adam later joined his sisters in Virginia after their parents’ deaths. The Cork upbringing, uncle, and voyage belong to this narrative; they should not become the North Carolina James’s biography through the shared name.

A grandson’s recollection of the other family

In the typed copy of his Sketch of Tennessee and Missouri Guthries, Rev. Allen Washington Guthrie recalls his grandfather’s migration from northern Ireland to the Baltimore area, followed by settlement in North Carolina.

He identifies his father Robert and Robert’s older brother James. He also acknowledges incomplete knowledge of his aunts. His recollection of six or seven daughters should not override the six daughters named in the will.

The children provide a more useful comparison than the parents’ matching first names. The following spouse associations follow the existing family studies; not every marriage is named in the father’s will.

Matching names among the daughters do not make their husbands interchangeable. Mary Bilderback and Mary McMenamy, for example, should not become one woman with two marriages merely to accommodate a merged tree.

Elizabeth Guthrie Patton

The North Carolina will provides for daughter Elizabeth at her marriage or her mother’s death. A separate 28 July 1803 Orange County marriage bond names Elizabeth Guthrie and Robert Patton.

Keep the bond date attached to the bond. It is not automatically an independently verified date for the marriage ceremony.

Elizabeth “Betsey” Guthrie

The Dunlap family’s daughter Betsey is described in the later family account as never married. The account also associates her with an injury during the Atlantic voyage.

That recollection does not identify her as Robert Patton’s wife. It should remain with Betsey’s family rather than being transferred to another Elizabeth.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

These two James-and-Elizabeth families are kept separate. Dunlap is not retained as the maiden surname of the Maryland–North Carolina wife. The other couple’s migration narrative and reported deaths at sea are not assigned to this household.

The children and their spouses have been checked against the appropriate family evidence. Similar names are preserved as separate identities rather than reconciled through invented additional marriages or combined names.

Keep a note of the rejected identification so another researcher can recognize it. An unknown maiden surname is a question to investigate, not an empty space that must be filled.

The existing comparison places Jim’s family in Madison County before 1850. It treats Warren County, Tennessee, as his likely birthplace because his parents were there in 1830—not because a birth record identifies the county.

Marriage to Elvira

The case discussion estimates 1845–1848; the Carter family page gives approximately 1849. Neither estimate is presented here as a newly verified marriage date.

A later Nancy

The reported 1860 household includes a Nancy interpreted as Jim’s second wife. Her maiden surname remains unidentified.

Reported death

Family tradition says Jim was killed by bushwhackers in Madison County about 1864–1865. Preserve that attribution rather than presenting it as a verified death record.

11 November 1852

The existing family comparison gives this date for his marriage to Nancy Elizabeth Guthrie.

1860

The Sumner County census abstract identifies James, 32, and Nancy E., 27, with their children.

1870

The later abstract identifies James, 42, and Nancy, 38, with Callie and Robert.

5 March 1904

The family study records James Irvin’s death and reproduces a notice published in The Tennessean the next day.

His household continues beyond Jim’s reported death period. Keep that Tennessee sequence intact rather than combining it with the Arkansas family’s history.

Census ages and familiar names are starting points. Compare the associated people across the records; a “James and Nancy” household is not automatically the same couple.

A clipping preserved in another collection

An obituary headed James Irvin Guthrie survives in the Charles B. Moore Family papers at the University of North Texas.

It describes his home at Dry Fork, calls his wife Lizzie Guthrie before marriage, and names surviving members of the Guthrie, Albright, and Perce families. It reports seven children, three surviving.

The account also describes his Mexican War service. That is a temporary absence from the Sumner County community—not evidence that he established Jim’s Arkansas household.

Open the repository record or read the reproduced clipping.

These are the child lists in the published family studies. Keep each child’s individual evidence with the appropriate parents.

In particular, do not equate Louisa Jane with Louanna Jane, or the two daughters named Nancy, merely because their names look similar. The wives’ matching first names do not make the children interchangeable either.

The original uploader’s account

Ann Guthrie identifies James Irvin as her direct ancestor and the disputed portrait as her family photograph. She uploaded the original to James Irvin’s tree and subsequently found it used in Jim’s profile.

“I had uploaded the original to James Irvin Guthrie’s tree, so I know the photo’s origins.”

This is firsthand information about the upload and the later misassignment. It is not an identification based on whether the person in the photograph looks like someone else in a family tree.

When correcting a copy, keep the photograph’s source, the person who supplied it, and the explanation of the mistaken attachment together. A changed profile title alone may leave a misleading image caption behind.

Do not invent a photographer, date of exposure, or chain of transfers to make the provenance look complete. Record the parts that are actually known.

The Carter–Barbara study places that family in GFG8A, Branch D. Its listed Y-DNA line runs through Hamilton Wade Guthrie, Jim’s brother—not through Jim himself.

The GFG2A, Branch A study lists paternal lines descending through James Irvin Guthrie.

Preserve that distinction when citing the project. Do not turn a test through Jim’s brother into a direct test of Jim’s descendants, or use a family-group label to bypass the documentary identification of an individual.

The photograph’s identification remains a separate provenance question. Neither a matching surname nor a genetic group supplies the name of a person in an unverified image.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

James “Jim” Guthrie and James Irvin Guthrie are retained as separate people. Their spouses, children, and records have been reviewed independently rather than joined through the matching names and approximate birth information.

The photograph formerly attached to Jim belongs to James Irvin’s family, according to its original uploader, Ann Guthrie. The mistaken image attachment has been removed, with its explanation preserved so that the error can be recognized if it appears again.

Check the image captions and source attachments as well as the family relationships. Each can continue to carry the old identification after the main profile has been corrected.

Where do A, E, and H meet?

The shared mutation and the project’s combined Y-DNA and Big Y interpretation support investigating a comparatively close relationship among these branches.

The current proposal places the E and H progenitors as likely brothers, with Branch A’s James a generation farther down. The John–Jane Stuart tradition provides a possible identity for the proposed ancestral couple.

The names come from Branch H’s family tradition, not from the DNA test. The genetic evidence does not itself name John, identify Jane, or supply the missing parent-child documents.

Where do those branches meet the wider GFG2A family?

That is a different question. The B/F/I lines share broader GFG2A paternal ancestry but lack the distinguishing A/E/H mutation in the represented tested lines.

The project’s working interpretation places the common ancestor connecting these broader lines farther back than the earliest named men being forced together. That ancestor remains unidentified.

Likewise, the absence of the A/E/H mutation in B/F/I does not by itself prove that the three men in their origin account were brothers. That historical relationship remains a separate question to investigate.

Branch H preserves the specific origin story naming John Guthrie and Jane Stuart. It describes John fleeing Scotland for Ireland during the Covenanter era because of religious persecution.

That is published family evidence. It is not a chain of contemporary Scottish and Irish records establishing the couple and every generation descending from them.

No such contemporary identification of John and Jane has yet been found in the project’s research. The proposed connections from Branches A and E depend on the genetic findings and subsequent reconstruction, not on separate documentary pedigrees independently naming this couple.

Do not give the parents their descendants’ American history

The project has not established a record of John Guthrie or Jane Stuart emigrating to America. Their reported son’s migration and the Pennsylvania family’s later history belong to those descendants.

Do not assign the older couple an American arrival, residence, or death simply because a merged tree carries those events. This is an absence of an established migration—not proof that neither person could ever have travelled.

The Three Brothers account identifies Robert, John, and James Guthrie as iron manufacturers in or near Edinburgh. Their proposed descendant lines are associated with Branches B, F, and I.

The John associated with Branch F is described as taking his iron-manufacturing trade to America. His personal reason for leaving is not established. The Guthrie–Stuart account of a Covenanter’s flight does not identify this man or explain his departure.

The brothers’ arrival stories do not fit neatly together

Different versions disagree over when the men left, whether they travelled together, and where they first settled. The proposed timelines for B and I do not align comfortably with F.

Very little early documentary evidence survives in the present reconstruction. Oral tradition, later published accounts, and the first sparse American records must be distinguished rather than compressed into one certain itinerary.

None of those uncertainties supports replacing the ironworker with Jane Stuart’s husband. The two men are not made identical by their surname, their shared genetic family, or incomplete immigration histories.

The Connecticut family account gives the immigrant John four sons. The youngest is identified as John, husband of Abigail Coe. The other three remain unidentified.

Those three unnamed sons are not available places for the founders of A, E, H, or any other branch. A proposed identification needs evidence that connects the person to this particular household.

The younger John’s Connecticut family has its own local record sequence. The published account associates him with a 1726 Stratford property purchase, his 1727 marriage to Abigail Coe, and a 1756 will naming his later wife Susanna and children.

These records help distinguish the son’s household. They do not identify the immigrant’s wife or supply the missing Scottish ancestry.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

This family shares broader GFG2A paternal ancestry with other Guthrie branches, but that relationship does not establish the merged pedigree previously attached here.

The project’s Y-DNA and Big Y findings distinguish the closer A/E/H relationship from the broader ancestry shared with B/F/I. The common ancestor connecting the broader lines remains unidentified and is likely farther back than the named men being combined.

John Guthrie associated with Jane Stuart is therefore kept separate from the Connecticut immigrant ironworker and from the latter’s youngest son, John, husband of Abigail Coe. The origin traditions and proposed relationships retain their individual qualifications.

The family study identifies the 25 May 1785 Cumberland County bond with John Guthrey and Betty Ann Allen. William Guthrey provided surety.

That William is interpreted in the study as probably John’s older brother. His presence is not evidence that the groom was the other John, whose father was named William.

Keep the date attached to the marriage bond. Without examining a marriage return or other supporting record, do not describe it as a separately verified ceremony date.

Nor should the longer name “Elizabeth Betty Ann” be treated as a verbatim bond transcription merely because variations appear in family profiles. Preserve the wording of the actual source being cited.

The daughter named Anna Guthrey

The existing case cites Peter Smith’s Halifax County, North Carolina, will as naming his daughter “Anna Guthrey.” That is the reported family connection behind the Smith identification.

The North Carolina John–Anna study also connects their children with Peter Smith’s estate. This is a different family context from the Cumberland marriage bond.

A daughter’s married name in her father’s will can help identify her, but the full record and surrounding relationships still matter. The precise will reference and original wording remain to be checked against the manuscript.

Keep the estimated date and proposed location qualified. Neither should become an exact marriage event simply because the wife’s identity is being corrected.

S.8642 · Virginia

On 25 September 1832, John Guthrey appeared before the Halifax County, Virginia, court. He stated that he was born in Cumberland County in 1760, remained there after the war, and later moved to Halifax County, Virginia.

His service

He described Virginia militia service beginning in May 1780, including service under Captain Charles Balloo and participation at Guilford Court House.

S.10776 · North Carolina

In his affidavit dated 16 October 1820, John Guthrie identified his permanent residence as Buncombe County, North Carolina, and discussed his earlier residence in Georgia.

His service

He described work at an armory near Halifax town, North Carolina, followed by enlistment as a private and continued armory service. He reported being wounded on 7 May 1781.

These are separate applications with different service and residence histories. Retain the file number with each citation; “John Guthrie, Revolutionary soldier” is not a sufficient identifier.

The pension narratives help distinguish the men. They do not, by themselves, identify the two wives in this comparison. Keep the marriage and family evidence alongside the military records.

The Virginia date needs correcting

The earlier case gave the Virginia John’s death as 1833. The fuller family study reproduces an August 1837 court entry reporting that the Revolutionary pensioner died on 17 January 1836.

The entry also reports no surviving widow and identifies twelve adult children and heirs. Its associated family names include Crews, Keeling, and Rowlett.

Use the reported 1836 death with that citation. Do not retain the older 1833 date without contrary evidence, or substitute the court’s 1837 sitting as the death date.

The North Carolina estate is a different one

The North Carolina family chronology records John’s death on 4 September 1821. It separately describes a paper presented as his will at the October 1823 Buncombe court session.

Those events belong to the Buncombe man. They should not be combined with the Virginia pension application or the later Halifax, Virginia, heirs’ proceeding.

The published case reports the Allen identification on a Find a Grave memorial associated with the North Carolina family. The John–Anna study describes the wife’s marker as reading simply “Wife of John.”

Those are different kinds of information. A name entered on a memorial page is not necessarily a name engraved on the marker.

When submitting a correction, explain the two couples and cite the supporting records. Preserve the inscription exactly as it appears, separately from the biographical identification.

The project places the Thomas Guthrey–Sarah Oakes family in GFG4 and the William Guthrie family in GFG5. Their represented paternal profiles are distinct.

The GFG5 participant list includes a paternal line through John Guthrie and Anna Smith’s son Shadrack. Cite the represented line, not simply a general Guthrie surname match.

These findings reinforce the need to keep the family files separate. Y-DNA does not identify a wife’s maiden surname, and different paternal groups do not establish that all their descendants are unrelated through every other ancestral route.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

These Halifax families are kept separate. Betty Ann Allen belongs with the Virginia John Guthrey; Anna Smith belongs with the John Guthrie associated with Halifax, North Carolina, Georgia, and Buncombe County, North Carolina.

The Virginia marriage bond is not used as evidence of the Smith marriage. The two pension files and later estate proceedings are assigned separately. County names retain their states, and unresolved dates remain qualified.

Check each child’s maternal grandparents and attached sources after correcting the spouse. A mistaken marriage can leave errors elsewhere in an otherwise familiar family tree.

Suggested research-note wording—not a quotation from a historical record. Add your citations and the date of your revision.

This profile represents John Guthrie of Middlesex County, Virginia, husband of Elizabeth Baskett, whose death is recorded in the family chronology in 1706. His Virginia family is kept separate from Captain John Guthrie’s Ewe and Lamb career.

The unsupported Captain title and Montrose middle name have been removed from the preferred name. The Brechin testament-index entry dated 29 September 1687 is a possible identification for the shipmaster, not an estate or death event to assign to this planter. The proposed Scottish parentage remains unproved.

Their son John is a different member of the Middlesex family and is the subject of the separate John Howard Paul mistaken-identity case.

Preserve the rejected wording in the explanation so another researcher can recognize the error. Check attached records and parent relationships as well as the name; changing the heading alone will not separate a combined biography.

James of Pitforthie is not James of Stirling

The Fenwick entry in Fasti identifies William as the eldest son of James Guthrie of Pitforthie and a daughter of the Lyon family of Easter Ogil. The current family reconstruction identifies his mother as Janet Lyon.

The same entry describes James Guthrie the martyr as William’s cousin and philosophy teacher at St Andrews. It does not describe him as William’s father.

Keep the cousin relationship qualified

The two ministers were repeatedly described as cousins or near relations. Their exact genealogical connection remains unresolved in the revised research.

The proposed connection through Janet Lyon’s maternal Guthrie ancestry is a hypothesis, not a completed pedigree. Rejecting the father-son claim does not require pretending that every detail of their cousinship has been proved.

William and Agnes Campbell had six known children. The proposed Connecticut descent cannot be assessed simply by finding a John among them: his later history matters.

Son William

The parish reconstruction identifies his baptism on 21 August 1653 and burial on 5 April 1655.

Son John

Baptized 19 September 1658. The study identifies him as very likely the John buried at Fenwick on 13 June 1662. That burial identification remains qualified.

Surviving daughters

Agnes married Matthew Miller of Glenlee; Mary married Rev. Patrick Warner. These are the documented surviving descendant lines.

The printed Fasti account independently lists the sons among the children who died young. That does not support turning John into an adult ironworker who emigrated and founded the Connecticut family.

Another William in another household

James Guthrie of Stirling married Jane, also called Jean, Ramsay. The cited family evidence identifies two children: William and Sophia, also called Sophie.

Fasti records this William’s death in Edinburgh in April 1674, on the eve of being licensed. The project’s family reconstruction estimates his birth at about 1656–1657 and has found no documented wife or children.

The Fenwick minister, by contrast, was born about 1620 and died in 1665. James’s young son William cannot be substituted for that older minister.

Sophia’s unanswered history stays unanswered

Sophia survived her father and appears with her mother in later proceedings. Her eventual marriage and descendants have not been established in the project’s current research.

Do not turn that uncertainty into a claim that she certainly left no descendants. Equally, an untraced later life is not evidence connecting her to the Connecticut family.

The immigrant’s added “William”

The Connecticut reconstruction identifies the earlier immigrant as John Guthrie. “William” has not been established as his middle name in the sources cited for this case.

Remove the unsupported addition from the preferred name, but keep an explanatory note so the disputed profile can be recognized when it reappears.

Fenwick identifies the ministry

Use Rev. William Guthrie, minister of Fenwick. In the cited sources, Fenwick identifies his parish—not an established middle name.

The older Connecticut accounts preserve an ironworking-family tradition. They do not supply the ministerial parentage inserted into this online chain.

The rejection of this pedigree does not disturb John and Abigail’s supported Connecticut household. The earlier immigrant’s ancestry and the identity of his wife remain separate research questions.

The project places represented descendants of the Connecticut family in GFG2A–Branch F, including paternal lines through James, Joseph, and Ephraim. That classification does not identify either Scottish minister as an ancestor.

A test match must still be connected through documented generations. It cannot convert an unsupported name or an incorrect father-son relationship into an established pedigree.

The alternative confusion involving John and Jane Stuart belongs in John Guthrie — Scotland/Ireland & Connecticut. Keep that comparison separate rather than replacing this rejected pedigree with another unproved connection.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

The proposed ministerial ancestry has been detached from this Connecticut family. The online sequence through “John William Guthrie” and “Rev. William Fenwick Guthrie” is not retained as an established pedigree.

William of Fenwick was the son of James Guthrie of Pitforthie, not James Guthrie of Stirling. The martyr’s son William was a different person. The ministers’ family evidence does not support the claimed succession of fathers and sons.

The supported Connecticut relationships remain intact. Unresolved Scottish ancestry is left open rather than filled with another speculative pedigree.

Preserve the rejected chain in the explanation, not as active parent links. That gives the next researcher a way to recognize the claim and understand why it was removed.

The marriage entry

The published extract calls John a “taylor” at No. 13 South Saint David’s Street. His bride is recorded as Jean Liddle, daughter of the late David Liddle.

The daughters’ entries

The extracts for Jane and Catherine identify their father as a merchant tailor and their mother as Jean Laidlaw, with a St Andrew’s Street address.

The English household

The study follows the family into London by the birth of son John in 1824, then through Shoreditch records.

The study connects these entries through the husband, trade, Edinburgh addresses, and children. It does not rely solely on the similarity between the wife’s recorded surnames.

Likewise, retain Jean or Jane as recorded. A familiar name variation can guide a search, but it cannot identify a woman without the surrounding evidence.

These are the children assigned to each couple in the existing study. The years are carried from that reconstruction, not newly verified birth or baptism dates.

A child’s matching name is another comparison to make—not a reason to combine the lists. Check the father’s occupation and the family’s address alongside the parents’ names in the entry.

The constable’s proposed Liverpool parents

The study suggests the constable may be the John born 13 January 1794 to James Guttery, carpenter, and Ellen Eccleston. This remains a candidate identification, not established parentage.

The tailor’s Scottish origins

His parents remain unidentified. A matching Scottish birth entry is not enough to select a family without evidence connecting that child to the adult tailor.

The Windsor death estimates

The existing research places the constable’s death between 1852 and 1859 and Jane Sixsmith’s between 1861 and 1871. These remain research intervals, not exact death dates verified for this rebuild.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

These two John-and-Jane households are kept separate. The wives’ identities and the children’s assignments have been reviewed using the associated occupations, addresses, and family records, rather than matching names alone.

Original name spellings are preserved in transcriptions. Proposed parentage and unresolved dates remain qualified; records from the other family are not used to fill those gaps.

Occupation is a useful clue, but not an infallible label: a person could change employment. The identification must fit the combined record sequence, not depend on one occupational word.

3 June 1850

The published St Cuthbert’s marriage transcription names John Guthrie, mason, residing at No. 5 Castle Barns, and Rachel Law, residing at the same place. Rachel is described as the fourth daughter of the late William Law, farmer at Bellfield, Parish of Lanark.

17 August 1853

The published passenger-manifest transcription records John Guthrie, 24, mason; Rachael Guthrie, 22; and Eliza Guthrie, 10 months, arriving from Glasgow on the British ship Ann Harley, with New York as destination.

United States

Later children were born in America, and the family moved from New York to Michigan.

Civil War period

John enlisted in Company E of a Michigan infantry unit. The published family chronology gives his death as 3 October 1864.

These events form a coherent American migration sequence. Once John and Rachel are documented crossing the Atlantic in 1853, later Kirkwall census entries cannot describe this same household.

The existing case reconstructs the children of John Guthrie and Rachel Law as:

Eliza Guthrie

About 1852 in Scotland; appears with her parents in the 1853 passenger transcription.

Rachel Guthrie

About 1855–1859.

Anna Guthrie

About 1857–1861.

William James Guthrie

1859–1938.

Rachel L. Guthrie

1862–1942.

The repeated use of Rachel is not a reason to collapse two daughters into one without checking the underlying death and birth evidence. Preserve the reconstruction with the qualifications already attached to it.

Nor should any of the Kirkwall children be imported merely because both mothers were named Rachel.

The other couple married in Kirkwall, Orkney, on 28 December 1848. Their family remained in Scotland.

The published comparison reports the household in the Scottish censuses for 1851, 1861, 1871, and 1881. Rachel and unmarried family members, with some grandchildren, were still there in 1891.

That continuing Kirkwall chronology is incompatible with the American migrant household.

17 April 1881

The published death-record transcription identifies John Guthrie, carter, married to Rachel Wick, dying at Strynd, Kirkwall, aged 53.

His parents

The same transcription names Thomas Guthrie, sexton, and Elizabeth Swaney, both deceased.

22 January 1892

Rachel’s published death-record transcription identifies her as the widow of John Guthrie, carter, dying at the Strand, Kirkwall, aged 72.

Her parents

The transcription names Peter Wick, flesher, and Margaret Wick, with the mother’s maiden surname rendered in the source transcription as Harsue.

These death records belong to the Kirkwall couple. They should not supply parents or death dates for John the mason or Rachel Law.

The existing study lists the children of John Guthrie and Rachel Wick as:

Peter Wick Guthrie

1849–1935.

Margaret Guthrie

Born 1851.

Jemima Wick Guthrie

1853–1907.

Jamima Guthrie

Born 1856 in the published reconstruction; later history unresolved there.

Elizabeth Jean Guthrie

Born 1858; later history unresolved in the case summary.

John Guthrie

1861–1936.

The appearance of both Jemima and Jamima in the published list deserves source-level checking. Do not silently combine them, correct the spelling, or assume one replaced the other.

What matters for this case is that these children belong to the Kirkwall household—not to the American John-and-Rachel family.

Rachel Law survived her husband. The existing research follows her west with family members to Santa Barbara, California.

It gives her death as 23 January 1901 and burial at Santa Barbara Cemetery.

Those events are part of the American widow’s later life. They are not alternative death information for Rachel Wick, whose Kirkwall death record belongs to 1892.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

These two John-and-Rachel households are retained as separate families. John Guthrie the mason married Rachel Law and emigrated to the United States in 1853. John Guthrie the carter married Rachel Wick and remained in Kirkwall, Orkney.

Their spouses, children, occupations, migration histories, and death records are not interchangeable. Records formerly attached through the matching names have been reassigned to the family they actually describe.

28 July 1689

The Christ Church Parish transcription records John, son of John and Elizabeth Guthrey, baptized in Middlesex County, Virginia.

1706/7

After his father’s death, the published court chronology records William Finney acting in connection with the younger John’s guardianship and inheritance.

5 January 1708

John married Sarah Stiff according to the parish chronology.

4 August 1710

He married Jane Mitcham / Meacham.

23 September 1722

He married Mary Shay / Shae.

24 October 1733

The family study gives this as the Middlesex man’s death date.

That chronology belongs to one Virginia man. None of the cited Middlesex entries requires “Howard” or “Paul” to identify him.

The collection itself signals the problem

The published case identifies the source as Bristol, England, Church of England Baptisms, 1813–1921.

A record from a collection beginning in 1813 cannot document the baptism of a Virginia man who died in 1733.

Opening the image supplies still more identifying context. The detailed family study reports John Howard Paul Guthrie, father John, and mother Elizabeth, with the father described as a plumber and the mother as a decorator.

The record belongs to the later English family. Its correctness as an English baptism is not the problem. The mistake is attaching it to the wrong John Guthrie.

Guthrie Genealogy’s detailed family page states that the original image shows John Howard Paul Guthrie baptized on 2 January 1880.

The earlier 2021 and 2022 Mistaken Identities articles describe the English baptismal record as belonging to 1881.

That one-year discrepancy does not affect the identity correction: either date is nearly two centuries too late for the Middlesex man. But it should not be silently normalized.

The published family study reports that the Bristol record surfaced as an Ancestry Hint because it contained familiar names: John Guthrie, parents John and Elizabeth.

Once the record was attached to the colonial profile, the English child’s complete name could be copied into the Virginia man’s identity. Public online trees now provide visible examples of the colonial man appearing as John Howard Paul Guthrie.

This case is therefore both a record-identification error and a name error. “Howard Paul” was not independently discovered in a Middlesex record; it arrived with a document belonging to someone else.

The published case history describes how this particular suggestion appeared to the researcher. It should not be generalized into a claim about how every present-day Ancestry hint is generated.

Both mistakes produce longer versions of the name John Guthrie, but they have different evidence trails. Do not merge the two corrections into a single “Captain John Montrose Howard Paul Guthrie.”

See the separate John Guthrie of Middlesex — Borrowed Captain & “Montrose” case for the father.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

This profile represents John Guthrie Jr., son of John Guthrie and Elizabeth Baskett, baptized in Christ Church Parish, Middlesex County, Virginia, on 28 July 1689.

The names Howard and Paul are not retained. They entered the profile through a much later Bristol, England, baptismal record for a real person named John Howard Paul Guthrie whose parents were also named John and Elizabeth. That English record belongs to a different family and a different century.

The mistaken record attachment is preserved in this note so the error can be recognized if the combined name reappears.

The traditional pedigree faces a basic chronological problem. The Eassie–Hiltoun family is documented too early to begin with a child born to Sir Alexander Guthrie and Margaret Lyon.

1454

John Guthrie of Eassie appears among the jurors in an inquest concerning the Carnegie family. This is the earliest presently identified record securely placing the family at Eassie.

1481–1493

Further records continue to identify a John at Eassie. A 1493 instrument also names Alexander as a son of John Guthrie of Eassie.

1487

Contemporary evidence explicitly identifies David Guthrie as son and heir apparent of John Guthrie of Eassie. This is the earliest secure generational anchor.

1505/06

A John Guthrie of Hiltoun is already documented by this period. He likewise appears too early to fit neatly as a son born of the later Guthrie–Lyon marriage.

Margaret Lyon had previously married James Rynd. Her surviving chronology places her association with Sir Alexander Guthrie only in the early sixteenth century.

1487 gives us something the traditional pedigree does not

The 1487 transaction explicitly identifies David Guthrie as the son and heir apparent of John Guthrie of Eassie. That relationship should anchor the reconstruction.

A 1493 record then identifies a David Guthrie styled of Hiltoun. The present reconstruction treats the Eassie heir and the Hiltoun man as probably the same person.

The same caution applies to the generations that follow. The evidence supports a coherent Eassie–Hiltoun family, but not every connecting relationship has survived in a single contemporary statement.

The revised backbone recognizes that the records likely contain more than one David. The earlier David belongs to the 1487/1493 generation. A later David appears in the 1530s.

14 April 1535

David appears as David Guthrie of Eassie.

2 June 1535

Less than two months later, a David appears under the Hiltoun territorial style. The close chronology strongly supports one contemporary man using both associations.

15 February 1538/39

David is again styled of Hiltoun.

25 February 1538/39

Ten days later he again appears of Eassie.

These paired appearances are why Eassie and Hiltoun should no longer be treated as unrelated pedigrees merely because the territorial designation changes.

The record that changes the parentage

On 3 November 1544, James, Lord Ogilvy issued a precept of clare constat recognizing John Guthrie as heir of his deceased father, David Guthrie of Eassie.

The following Hiltoun records carry John forward within the same period:

3 November 1544

John is expressly identified as son and heir of David of Eassie.

15 October 1545

A precept concerning Hiltoun places John of Hiltoun within the property succession.

10 May 1546

The Hiltoun transaction receives confirmation, carrying the same family forward into the later territorial record.

Another longstanding problem is the temptation to merge nearby Angus men named John Guthrie.

A warrant for remission from January 1543/44 lists John Guthre of Esse and John Guthre of Collistoun separately in the same document.

That contemporary distinction is particularly useful. The Colliston John belongs to the family associated with Henry Guthrie and Isobel Ogilvy. Those relationships should not be moved into the Eassie–Hiltoun pedigree.

The heraldic record contains its own warning against treating every retrospective pedigree as final.

James Guthrie of Craigie’s 1772 matriculation compressed the descent and linked the later family incorrectly around Bishop John Guthrie’s generation.

On 29 September 1773, the Lyon Office expressly recorded that an error had been discovered and supplied a fuller pedigree.

Its Hiltoun ancestry begins with:

William Guthrie of Hiltoun + Margaret Ogilvy
↓
David Guthrie of Hiltoun + Christian Wemyss

The pedigree then proceeds through the St Andrews family toward Craigie and identifies Rev. James Guthrie of Arbirlot as Bishop John’s brother rather than forcing the Hiltoun generation into that position.

Another source of confusion is the assumption that a territorial designation proves ownership of the entire barony or membership in the principal line.

At Hiltoun, the Eassie family held heritable possession or feu interests within a complicated property structure. The wider superiority of Hiltoun remained associated with the Guthries of Guthrie.

A man styled “of Hiltoun” therefore did not automatically become a principal Guthrie of Guthrie or a son of the current baron.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

The traditional placement of John Guthrie of Hiltoun as a son of Sir Alexander Guthrie and Margaret Lyon is not retained. Contemporary records place an established Guthrie family at Eassie before that proposed generation and identify a later John as son and heir of David Guthrie of Eassie.

Eassie and Hiltoun are treated as one family using changing territorial styles. Documented parent-child statements are retained, while probable identities and reconstructed generations remain qualified.

The family is not presented as an artificial numbered sequence of “1st–5th of Hiltoun.” Unresolved ancestry before the earliest documented Eassie generations remains open.

A daughter in Orange County, not a renamed Lucy

Elizabeth Guthrie Patton belongs to the family of James Guthrie and Elizabeth, whose maiden surname remains unknown, of Orange County, North Carolina.

1 November 1800

James Guthrie’s will, proved in May 1801, names his daughter Elizabeth and provides property for her at her marriage or her mother’s death. The family study identifies her as unmarried at that time.

28 July 1803

An Orange County marriage bond names Elizabeth Guthrie and Robert Patton. This is the bond date; it should not automatically be described as a separately verified wedding date.

The distinction

These references concern the Elizabeth who became Robert Patton’s wife. They do not supply a second name or a set of parents for Lucy, whose cited Vinson marriage reference is from Wake County in 1787.

A later Illinois connection does not bridge that gap. The Patton and Vinson families must be followed through their own records, not joined because both histories eventually reach the same state.

A different family—and a different life story

The second Elizabeth is the woman known as Betsey, associated with the family of James Guthrie and Elizabeth Dunlap. She is not the Elizabeth who married Robert Patton.

The family account printed in American Guthrie and Allied Families describes this daughter as having never married. It also recounts a disabling injury during the Atlantic voyage and preserves a relative’s recollection of her later life.

That account does not identify her as Lucy or as William Vinson’s wife. It belongs with Betsey’s family history, not as an attachment to Lucy’s profile.

The Wake County clue

The existing research discussion points to a Guthrie household appearing on the same page of the 1790 Wake County census as households headed by Reuben Vinson, Samuel Vinson, and William Vinson. That is a local research lead worth preserving.

The Guthrie forename has been rendered Levy or Levi in one discussion and Lewry in another. The original census image needs to be checked before choosing a reading.

Same-page appearance does not establish that this man was Lucy’s father, nor does it necessarily place the households next door to one another. Keep the possible connection in the research notes, not as proved parentage.

The unnamed woman in 1830

The cited 1830 census household of William Vinson in Mackinaw, Tazewell County, Illinois, includes a woman aged 60–69. Identifying her as Lucy is an interpretation of the household, not a name supplied by that census entry.

Retain the age category and the identification qualifier. Do not turn that unnamed entry into an exact birth date, an additional given name, or evidence of Lucy’s parents.

Suggested tree note—not a quotation from a historical record:

Lucy Guthrie, wife of William Vinson, is retained as a separate person from Elizabeth Guthrie Patton and Elizabeth “Betsey” Guthrie of the James Guthrie–Elizabeth Dunlap family. The cited Lucy–Vinson marriage reference is Wake County, North Carolina, 22 January 1787. The evidence reviewed for this case does not establish Elizabeth, Lucile, Lucille, or Betsy as Lucy’s additional names. Her parents remain unidentified. The Guthrie household noted near Vinson entries on a page of the 1790 Wake County census is a research lead, not proof of paternity.

26 March 1730

Mary, daughter of William and Frances Guttery, is recorded as born in Christ Church Parish, Middlesex County, Virginia.

3 April 1730

The same Mary was baptized.

5 May 1730

The parish register records the death of Mary, daughter of William Guthrie.

The birth entry by itself looks like a possible match. The death entry changes the conclusion completely. Both records must travel together.

William Guthrie / Guttery had two documented marriages in Christ Church Parish.

First wife

Lettice Burk, married in 1716. The family study identifies three daughters from this marriage.

1727

Lettice died.

Second wife

Frances Wilbourn, married William in 1728.

Mary

The parish evidence supplies one daughter Mary for William and Frances—the child born and deceased in 1730.

No second surviving daughter Mary has been identified in the cited family evidence to rescue the Haggard attachment.

The existing case reports that online trees commonly call Granville Grey Haggard’s wife Mary Guttery. Some give her the Middlesex birth; others move her birth to Stafford County, Virginia, where Granville himself is reported to have been born.

The couple is also widely assigned a marriage about 1742 in Albemarle County, Virginia, and the wife a death about 1762.

Those details were not traced in this review to original documentation identifying her as a Guthrie. They should therefore remain attributed claims, not be used to manufacture a replacement biography.

The phrase “Lady Wife” also appears in discussions of Granville’s spouse. Its underlying record or family-history source has not been identified in the reviewed material. Preserve it only as a research lead.

A copied tree can make the imported facts look mutually supportive:

Mary Guttery
born 1730, Middlesex County
daughter of William & Frances
married Granville Haggard
died about 1762

Once displayed as one profile, the specific birth and parents can make the less-supported marriage look more credible. Yet the apparently strongest facts belong to a child who died in infancy.

Correct the timeline by removing the borrowed evidence. Do not simply change the Haggard wife’s birth year while leaving William and Frances attached as parents.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

Mary Guttery, daughter of William Guttery and Frances Wilbourn, is not identified as the wife of Granville Grey Haggard. Christ Church Parish records document this child’s birth on 26 March 1730, baptism on 3 April 1730, and death on 5 May 1730.

The 1730 birth and William–Frances parentage have therefore been removed from Granville Haggard’s wife. Her identity remains unresolved pending evidence that documents her own name, parentage, and marriage.

Patrick’s St Andrews identity is supported by records tying him repeatedly to the burgh and to the goldsmith trade.

1596

St Andrews material places Patrick within property transactions associated with the south side of the Marketgate.

1597/98

A St Andrews sasine identifies Patrick Guthrie as Treasurer of the burgh.

1601–1602

Burgh records place him in civic office as a baillie of St Andrews.

Family

Independent ministerial and family evidence associates Patrick and Margaret Raitt with sons John and James.

Occupation, residence, property, civic office, spouse, and children combine into a coherent St Andrews identity. Those details should travel together.

Patrick Guthrie of Pitmoweis belonged to a separate landed family. He is documented with his wife Marion Fothringham.

On 14 August 1599, Patrick and Marion appear in a transaction involving Pitmoweis and Alehousehill and their daughter Nicolas / Nicholas Guthrie, wife of David Ogilvy.

He was dead by January 1618. That family context is incompatible with simply replacing Marion with Margaret Raitt and moving his lands into the St Andrews goldsmith’s profile.

A third Patrick belongs to the principal Guthrie of Guthrie succession. This man later became 9th of Guthrie.

The current reconstruction identifies his wife as Jean Blak, probably the Jeane Blakburne in the 1613 Aberdeen marriage entry.

His only securely identified child is Peter Guthrie, who succeeded him and became 10th of Guthrie.

Beginning in the 1620s, Patrick obtained interests in the Barony of Guthrie through a series of financial and legal transactions involving his elder brother David and David’s son Alexander. His eventual possession of the estate was not a simple inheritance from a father.

A territorial style without its supporting record

Later genealogical material sometimes calls the St Andrews goldsmith “Patrick Guthrie of Collistoun.”

The problem is that the Colliston family is independently documented through Henry Guthrie of Ruffys and the later Colliston succession. No contemporary record presently identified places Patrick the goldsmith within that line.

The label may represent a genuine property association, a retrospective family tradition, or a later genealogical conflation. The evidence assembled so far does not settle which explanation is correct.

Older attempts to place Patrick within Colliston also affected the pedigree of his son John Guthrie, Bishop of Moray.

The current Craigie and St Andrews reconstruction instead identifies the Bishop as the son of Patrick Guthrie, goldsmith of St Andrews, and Margaret Raitt.

Patrick’s son James Guthrie, minister first at Kinnell and later Arbirlot, belongs to the same household and forms the documented ministerial line leading toward Craigie.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

This profile represents Patrick Guthrie, goldsmith and civic officer of St Andrews, husband of Margaret Raitt.

He is kept separate from Patrick Guthrie of Pitmoweis and Patrick Guthrie who later became 9th of Guthrie. Spouses, children, estates, and titles belonging to those men are not retained in this profile.

The later designation “of Collistoun” remains under investigation. No contemporary record presently identified establishes that Patrick belonged to the documented Colliston succession, so the territorial style is not used as proof of parentage or lineage.

April 1832

The McGee Presbytery admission entry names Rev. Robert Guthrie, received from Nashville Presbytery.

March 1840

A minute arranging a future meeting at his home in Chariton County, Missouri, calls him Rev. Robt. Guthrie.

October 1843

The presbytery’s resolution following his death names Bro. Robt. Guthrie and directs that a copy be sent to his widow.

1867 biography

Richard Beard’s chapter begins on printed p. 120 under the heading Rev. Robert Guthrie. On p. 129, Beard explains that he had lived in Guthrie’s household and knew him closely for many years.

These are different kinds of evidence: church-minute extracts and a later biographical account that includes personal recollections. Keep those descriptions with their citations rather than treating them as interchangeable records.

The correction is therefore an unsupported middle-name addition, not a claim that every surviving record has been examined. Any newly located document must be checked both for its wording and for the identity of the Robert it concerns.

Keep this family’s names with this family

Laurence R. Guthrie’s American Guthrie and Allied Families records the marriage of William Forguison Guthrie and Mary Hodge Slaughter on 17 October 1811.

Their household includes Sallie Hodge Guthrie and George Hodge Guthrie. The same account identifies a son Robert Guthrie, born 25 December 1821, who became a Methodist minister and died in 1905.

That younger Robert is not the Cumberland Presbyterian minister born in 1770. The cited account calls the younger man Robert Guthrie too; it does not establish “Hodge” as his middle name.

Do not move the disputed middle name from one Robert to the other. Preserve each man’s identity using evidence for that individual.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your record citations and the date of your revision.

This profile represents Robert Guthrie, 1770–1843, the Cumberland Presbyterian minister and husband of Mary Smith. “Hodge” is not retained as an established middle name because supporting documentation for that addition has not been identified. The cited McGee Presbytery entries and Richard Beard’s biography use Robert Guthrie.

The disputed form is preserved in this note so that it can be recognized when it appears in another tree or record suggestion. Hodge names in the separate William Forguison Guthrie–Mary Hodge Slaughter household do not establish that name for this Robert.

When reviewing a suggested record, compare the spouse, dates, places, and church affiliation. Do not accept—or reject—the record solely because an online profile includes “Hodge.”

Capt. John Norwood’s 1798 will

The published family research reports that John Norwood of Abbeville County made his will on 22 January 1798. One of his daughters is named there as “Jean Gutherie.”

That wording establishes an important fact: John Norwood had a married daughter Jean whose husband was a Guthrie.

What it does not establish is which Guthrie man she married. Her husband is not named in the quoted evidence.

Nor does “Jean” automatically settle the distinction between Jean and Jane. Those forms can be related in historical usage, but identity still has to be established through the surrounding family evidence.

1850 census

Robert’s wife is recorded as Jane. This supports her given name but does not provide a maiden surname.

Family Bible

A grandson’s Bible record identifies Robert’s wife with the surname Norwood, although the entry is described as “x Norwood” rather than supplying a given name.

Family correspondence

Descendants preserve correspondence between the Guthrie and Norwood families of Giles County, Tennessee, strengthening the case for a Norwood connection.

Autosomal DNA

The project reports Norwood-related matches among autosomal testers from Robert and Jane’s line. This is supporting context, not by itself an identification of a particular eighteenth-century woman.

Taken together, those clues provide more than an online-tree assertion. They make the Norwood identification a reasonable working reconstruction.

They still do not answer whether Capt. John Norwood’s daughter Jean was Robert’s wife—or whether Robert’s Jane belonged to another Norwood household.

Online pedigrees also circulate the name Martha Jane Norwood for Robert’s wife.

According to the published family study, the researcher who introduced that identification later returned to the original notes, recognized the mistake, and corrected it.

The source material identifies Robert’s wife simply as Jane, while the Bible evidence supplies the Norwood surname without a given name. It does not establish Martha.

Preserve “Martha Jane” only in a correction note explaining the mistaken form. Do not abbreviate it to an unsupported M. Jane as a compromise.

Another merge places Robert Guthrie of GFG13 among the children of Thomas Guthrie and Jean Duncan. Both families were associated with Abbeville County, South Carolina, making the error geographically tempting.

But Thomas and Jean’s known family does not include a son Robert, and the paternal DNA evidence places the two families in different Guthrie Family Groups.

Those are distinct direct paternal lineages. Robert therefore cannot be the biological father-to-son continuation of Thomas Guthrie’s documented paternal line.

Yes—but the current evidence does not establish that conclusion either.

The 1790 census shows several Norwood households in Abbeville District, including those headed by Elizabeth Norwood, Capt. John Norwood, and Thomas Norwood. More than one Norwood daughter named Jane or Jean is therefore historically possible.

If there were two women, both Guthrie family traditions could contain genuine Norwood marriages.

If there were only one, the task is to determine whether she was Robert’s wife or John’s—and to explain how the other attribution entered the pedigree.

Robert and Jane are often assigned a marriage in January 1798. The family study reports that no marriage record has been located.

Instead, the year appears to have been inferred from 22 January 1798, the date Capt. John Norwood wrote the will naming his daughter Jean Gutherie.

A woman described by her married surname was married by the date of the will. The will does not establish that she married on or near that date.

The chronology also deserves more work because Robert’s eldest son John is currently estimated to have been born about 1794. Those estimates should not be reconciled by silently changing a birth or marriage date.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

Robert Guthrie of GFG13 is retained as a separate paternal family from Thomas Guthrie and Jean Duncan of GFG9. Y-DNA does not support the parent-child connection frequently shown in online trees.

Robert’s wife is identified as Jane in the census. The Norwood surname is supported by family evidence, but the relationship to Capt. John Norwood’s daughter Jean remains under investigation because his will does not name her Guthrie husband.

“Martha Jane Norwood” is not retained as her preferred name. The possibility of two separate Guthrie-Norwood marriages in Abbeville remains open pending evidence identifying each woman and husband.

NRS GD205/22/48 · 28 October 1630

The National Records of Scotland catalogue description concerns a bond involving Alexander Guthrie, eldest son of William Guthrie of Memess, and Annas Guthrie, daughter of the said William.

Alexander

Explicitly identified as William’s eldest son. The statement directly establishes male issue.

Annas

Explicitly identified as William’s daughter. She restores another child omitted from the traditional pedigree.

William

Styled William Guthrie of Memess, helping connect the children to the Memus family rather than merely to another man of the same name.

A second record from 23 February 1631/32 again describes Alexander as William’s eldest son, providing independent support for the relationship.

Alexander later appears as fiar of Memis, showing that he occupied a recognized place in the territorial succession of Memus.

By November 1641 he was deceased. NRS GD205/22/60A concerns lands held by the late Alexander Guthrie, fiar of Memis.

The damaged record also describes Alexander as father of another Guthrie whose forename is obscured in the surviving description. That raises the possibility of another generation beyond him.

Later evidence involving John Guthrie of Easter Memus may prove relevant to Alexander’s descendants, but the necessary parent-child connection has not yet been securely established.

Guthrie and Memus were separate pieces of William’s history

William succeeded his brother Alexander in the principal Guthrie estate. He also possessed the lands of Memus, inherited through an earlier family line.

William later conveyed the principal estate of Guthrie to David Guthrie of Kincaldrum. The Crown confirmed the transfer on 24 July 1630.

Contemporary evidence therefore does not require the explanation that David received Guthrie because William had no son. William had a documented son, and the estate had been conveyed by transaction.

Later numbered-laird schemes can make David appear to have simply “succeeded” William. Keep the shorthand numbering separate from the legal mechanism by which ownership changed.

1835 · Burke

Burke’s pedigree reaches William’s estate transactions and then states:

“This laird having no male issue…”

It then explains the transfer toward David Guthrie of Kincaldrum. The wording encourages the reader to understand the property history as the consequence of a failed male line.

1885 · Warden

Warden’s discussion of Memus likewise states that William had no male issue. Elsewhere in the same Tannadice discussion, the succession is again summarized as though the absence of sons explained what followed.

The correction is narrower and stronger: regardless of how the statement arose, it cannot be literally correct because Alexander is documented as William’s son.

No. Those are different genealogical claims.

“No sons”

Disproved for William by the record naming Alexander as his son.

“No male issue” literally

Also contradicted if used to mean William produced no male child.

“No surviving male line”

A different question requiring evidence about Alexander, his children, possible younger sons, and later descendants.

The failure—or apparent disappearance—of a later branch could have contributed to a compressed pedigree tradition, but that explanation has not been demonstrated.

The pedigree correction has an important consequence for Rev. James Guthrie, minister of Stirling and martyr.

Fasti Ecclesiæ Scoticanæ, vol. VIII, p. 393 identifies James as son of William Guthrie of Memes and brother of Alexander Guthrie of Memes.

Unlike a vague family tradition, Fasti supplies a specific source citation: General Register of Sasines, Second Series, 30 April 1659.

That makes the proposed relationship unusually important. But the cited sasine itself has not yet been located and examined by the project.

If confirmed, James would fit naturally as a younger son because Alexander is specifically identified as William’s eldest. That is a compatible reconstruction, not independent proof.

A second research lead comes from Gdańsk. A published transcription of a 1662 citizenship-related record describes a Robert Guthrie associated with “Minus” in Scotland and with a father William Guthrie and the Fenton name.

The original archival unit has now been identified in the State Archives in Gdańsk, but scans have not been available for direct examination.

The geographical and family details make Robert a serious Memus lead. They do not yet make him a documented son of this William.

Suggested research-note wording—not a historical quotation. Add your citations and revision date.

William Guthrie of Memus is no longer described as having “no male issue.” Contemporary records explicitly identify Alexander Guthrie as his eldest son and Annas Guthrie as his daughter.

The transfer of the principal estate of Guthrie is treated as a property transaction rather than evidence that William had no sons.

Rev. James Guthrie of Stirling remains a provisional possible younger son because Fasti identifies him as William’s son and Alexander’s brother while citing a sasine of 30 April 1659. That original sasine has not yet been examined.

Be cautious when a person who appears consistently under a simple name in contemporary records suddenly gains one or more middle names in modern trees.

Ask where each added name first appears. Does a historical record actually use it? Or did it arrive through a record belonging to another person?

Examples on this page include:

• John Guthrie of Middlesex — “Montrose”
• John Guthrie — borrowed “Howard Paul”
• Rev. Robert Guthrie — “Hodge”

A record can correctly name a real person and still be attached to the wrong profile.

Before accepting it, compare:

Date

Is the person alive, old enough, and in the correct generation?

Place

Does the location fit the known chronology, or has a county or country been overlooked?

Relationships

Do the spouse, parents, children, witnesses, or heirs belong to this family?

Occupation

Does the trade or office fit the person’s documented life?

Record type

Are you looking at a baptism, bond, probate, index, transcription, or later family history? Each proves something different.

The John Howard Paul case is a particularly clear example: the matching names were attractive, but the century, country, and original image belonged to another person.

Never treat a shortened place name as a complete identification.

County names repeat across states. Parish names repeat across counties. A town may move from one jurisdiction to another without moving geographically at all.

Write the place as completely as the record permits: town or parish → county → state or country.

Compare the two Halifax Johns: “Halifax” looked like supporting evidence until Virginia and North Carolina were restored to the citations.

Matching spouse names can make a merge look stronger than it really is.

Ask whether there are actually:

• two people with the same given name,
• two couples with matching first names,
• two successive marriages,
• or one marriage record attached to the wrong family.

Examples include: John & Rachel — Law / Wick, John & Jane — Sixsmith / Laidlaw, and Gulielmus Coleman & the Nancy Guthries.

Exact-looking information can create false confidence: a full birth date, a maiden surname, named parents, or a precise place may simply have been borrowed from someone whose records were easier to find.

Ask:

• Which record supplies this exact fact?
• Does that record actually identify this person?
• Is the date for the event—or only for probate, baptism, or a bond?
• Is the maiden surname stated, or inferred from another family?

In the Mary Guttery case, a very precise 1730 birth belonged to a real child. The problem was that the same parish register also documented that child’s death in infancy.

A photograph copied from tree to tree can eventually look independently identified simply because it appears in many places.

Before accepting an identification, ask:

• Who supplied the original photograph?
• Was the sitter identified by the family that owned it?
• Is there a caption, album page, inscription, or provenance note?
• Are later copies simply repeating the same original upload?

See James “Jim” Guthrie / James Irvin Guthrie, where the original uploader’s family provenance provides information that a copied image alone cannot.

DNA can establish or strongly support a biological relationship without identifying the exact historical person who connects two branches.

Keep these conclusions separate:

Related

Genetic evidence supports shared ancestry.

Same person

Requires evidence that two records or profiles describe one individual.

Parent and child

Requires evidence placing the generations in that particular relationship.

Named MRCA

Requires enough genetic and documentary evidence to identify the actual common ancestor, not merely the branch where that ancestor is expected to occur.

The revised Case of the Three Johns illustrates the problem particularly well: the branches really are related, but the DNA evidence does not support forcing their earliest Johns into the same identity or immediate household.

Indexes and search results are designed to help you locate records. They are not substitutes for reading them.

When the image or full transcription is available, check everything around the name:

• the exact date,
• the full place,
• occupation or status,
• spouse or parents,
• witnesses or sureties,
• neighbors or associated households,
• marginal notes,
• and the record immediately before or after it.

In the John Howard Paul case, the matching names looked promising in isolation. The date, English location, and occupational context showed that the record belonged to someone else.

Words such as son, daughter, eldest son, brother, sister, heir, spouse, relict, widow, nephew, cousin, and son-in-law deserve careful attention.

Their exact wording may determine whether a relationship is proved, suggested, or still ambiguous.

Compare William Guthrie of Memus: the 1630 record does not merely name Alexander Guthrie. It identifies him as William’s eldest son.

That proves a father-son relationship and Alexander’s senior position among William’s sons. It does not name every younger son.

Genealogical timelines become unreliable when the date of one event is silently converted into another.

Baptism

Records a baptism. It may occur near birth, but it is not automatically the birth date.

Marriage bond

Usually documents an intention or legal step toward marriage, not necessarily the ceremony itself.

Burial

Records burial, not necessarily the exact death date.

Probate

Shows estate proceedings after death. It is not automatically the date of death.

Confirmation

In a Scottish testament context, confirms an estate process. It does not necessarily tell us when or where the person died.

Several cases on this page depend on preserving precisely those distinctions rather than turning administrative dates into life-event dates.

Occupations can be powerful identity markers, especially when two people share a common name.

They should not be used alone—a person can change trades— but repeated occupational descriptions can help build a coherent record trail.

Examples from the current cases include:

• the Windsor police constable versus the Edinburgh merchant tailor;
• the mason who emigrated versus the Kirkwall carter;
• Patrick the St Andrews goldsmith versus landed Patricks elsewhere.

People rarely moved through legal and parish records alone. Witnesses, bondsmen, executors, creditors, neighbors, and fellow officeholders may provide the relationship clue that the main entry leaves unstated.

Ask whether the same associates recur across:

• marriage bonds,
• wills and administrations,
• deeds and sasines,
• church records,
• court proceedings,
• military records,
• and tax or census lists.

Repeated associates can help separate two same-name men living in the same county.

Deeds, sasines, charters, and estate transfers often contain some of the strongest surviving relationship language in early genealogy.

They may identify:

• an heir,
• a spouse,
• a father or son,
• a former owner,
• a territorial designation,
• or the legal mechanism by which property changed hands.

But property succession is not the same thing as biological succession.

In the Memus case, later pedigrees treated the estate’s transfer as though it proved William had no sons. Contemporary records prove otherwise.

In Eassie & Hiltoun, territorial styles must be interpreted alongside superiority, possession, and inheritance rather than turned automatically into numbered lairdships.

An index, abstract, calendar, or database transcription may be the best available access point—but it is still a layer between you and the original record.

Record which level you actually examined:

Original manuscript

The record created at or near the event.

Digital image

A scan or photograph of the original.

Published transcription

Someone else’s reading of the original wording.

Abstract or calendar

A shortened description selecting only part of the original content.

Index

A finding aid pointing toward the record, often with abbreviated names and relationships.

If a crucial relationship depends on one word, move as close to the original as access permits.

Historical spelling varies. Names may appear differently even within the same family or the same document series.

Preserve the record form when it matters:

• Guthrie / Guthry / Guthre / Guttery,
• Jean / Jane,
• Memus / Memes / Memess,
• territorial styles such as “of Eassie” or “of Hiltoun.”

Then explain your normalized interpretation separately.

This prevents a modern standardized name from making two historically distinct people appear more alike than the sources actually show.

Identity usually emerges from a sequence, not from one “magic record.”

Build a small chronology:

Date → Place → Name as recorded → Relationship → Occupation or status → Associates → Source type

Once several entries are arranged in order, contradictions and continuities become much easier to see.

This is especially useful when separating:

• two men with the same name,
• two couples with matching first names,
• father and son,
• or one family moving between jurisdictions.

A bad merge can make the family relationships look more certain than they really are.

Suppose one composite profile contains:

• the birth of Person A,
• the spouse of Person B,
• the children of Person A,
• the military service of Person B,
• and the death of Person A.

If you begin by editing the parent or spouse field, you may accidentally preserve other borrowed evidence.

Instead, reconstruct Person A and Person B independently. Then decide where each relationship belongs.

The Mixed-Up Edwins and James / James Irvin are good examples of why this matters.

If a baptism, census, will, or military record belongs to the other person, move or detach the source citation itself.

Otherwise the profile may look corrected while its evidence still points to the wrong identity.

Check:

• source citations,
• record hints,
• media attachments,
• fact-level sources,
• notes,
• gallery images,
• and linked memorials or external profiles.

In the John Howard Paul case, removing “Howard Paul” from the preferred name is only half the repair. The Bristol baptism must also be removed from the Virginia profile.

Once an unsupported parent is removed, the empty space can feel uncomfortable.

Resist the temptation to fill it immediately with:

• the nearest same-name family,
• a household on the same census page,
• a popular online pedigree,
• a geographically convenient candidate,
• or a person from the correct DNA group.

A blank parent is more informative than a second unsupported parent.

In Lucy Guthrie Vinson, removing the two borrowed Elizabeth identities does not automatically identify Lucy’s own parents.

In James Guthrie — Betts / Hickox, separating the Hickox husband from the Betts family leaves his parentage unresolved rather than proving another proposed couple.

Spouse mix-ups often survive correction because both names are retained as successive marriages.

Before doing that, ask whether the evidence actually shows:

• two marriages for one person,
• or one marriage for each of two different people.

The Sixsmith / Laidlaw and Law / Wick cases require two households, not two wives added to one husband.

A composite profile often looks impressively complete because the wrong person supplied all the missing dates.

After separating the identities, you may discover that the correct person has only:

• an estimated birth year,
• a death interval,
• a baptism but no birth date,
• a probate date but no exact death date,
• or no documented place of origin.

That is not a failure. It is a more accurate representation of the evidence.

In Mary Guttery / Haggard, the precise 1730 birth belongs to another child. Removing it does not require inventing a replacement birth for Granville Haggard’s wife.

Use the best-supported historical name as the preferred name.

Remove:

• unsupported middle names,
• borrowed titles,
• nicknames treated as legal names without evidence,
• and surnames added from a mistaken spouse or parent.

Preserve the erroneous form in a research note if readers are likely to encounter it elsewhere.

Examples include:

• John Guthrie — remove “Montrose”;
• John Guthrie — remove “Howard Paul”;
• Rev. Robert Guthrie — remove “Hodge”.

Media can outlive the tree error that created the mistaken identification.

If a photograph belongs to another person:

• remove it from the incorrect profile,
• attach it to the correct person if known,
• preserve the provenance,
• and explain the former misidentification.

Avoid replacing the wrong identity with another guess unless the image itself can be documented.

See James “Jim” Guthrie / James Irvin Guthrie.

A mistaken identity can alter generations on both sides of a profile.

After correcting the central person, review:

Parents

Were they borrowed from the mistaken identity?

Grandparents

Did an unsupported parent import an entire pedigree?

Spouses

Does each spouse belong to this person?

Children

Are children from two households combined?

DNA conclusions

Were match interpretations based on the incorrect paper-tree connection?

In the Three Johns case, forcing a particular early John into the wrong branch can distort the interpretation of several downstream GFG2A pedigrees even though the genuine genetic relationship remains.

A good correction note does not need to be long. It should answer four questions:

What was wrong?

Identify the former name, relationship, or record attachment.

What changed?

State the corrected identity or relationship.

Why?

Cite the evidence that required the change.

What remains open?

Preserve unresolved parentage, dates, or other research questions.

Example wording:

This profile previously combined records belonging to two different people of the same name. The profiles were separated after comparison of their spouses, residences, occupations, and dated records.

Sources belonging to the other individual have been removed. Parentage not independently established remains unresolved rather than being transferred from the former merged profile.

Contradictory evidence is part of the research history.

If a record once appeared persuasive but later proved to belong to another person, preserve a citation to it in the correction note where practical.

This helps future researchers understand:

• why the error occurred,
• why the tempting record was rejected,
• and how to recognize the same mistake elsewhere.

The goal is not to make the corrected profile look as though nobody ever considered the alternative. It is to make the evidence trail understandable.

Put the explanation where it is likely to travel with the profile.

Depending on the platform, that may be:

• a research note,
• a biography section,
• a source comment,
• a profile note,
• or a clearly labeled discussion of disputed identity.

Avoid burying the entire explanation in a private note if the public tree continues to display a relationship that readers will reasonably assume is proved.

A useful correction note should be short enough to read but specific enough to answer:

• What used to be here?
• Why was it removed?
• Which source changed the conclusion?
• What should researchers use instead?

A record that does not belong in the life chronology may still belong in the research note.

This is especially useful when the record is:

• easy to find in a database search,
• frequently suggested by a platform,
• already attached to many public trees,
• or superficially convincing because several names match.

In the John Howard Paul case, the Bristol baptism should not remain attached to the Virginia man as evidence of his life. But the correction note benefits from identifying it because it explains exactly where “Howard Paul” came from.

Images are particularly vulnerable to losing context as they are downloaded, cropped, renamed, and uploaded again.

When possible, preserve:

• the original owner or contributor,
• the family line through which the image descended,
• any inscription or album caption,
• the identification supplied by the owner,
• and the date or circumstances of the identification.

In the James / James Irvin photograph case, the original family provenance matters more than the number of later trees displaying the copied image.

A future researcher should be able to tell whether your correction rests on:

• an original manuscript,
• a digital image,
• a published transcription,
• an abstract,
• an index,
• a family Bible transcription,
• or a later genealogy.

This is especially important when the original record still needs to be examined.

In the Memus case, Fasti gives a precise citation for the proposed James–William relationship. The correction note should preserve both facts: the citation exists and the underlying sasine remains unexamined.

If an incorrect identity is widespread, simply replacing it may not be enough.

Readers may encounter the old version repeatedly and wonder:

If so many trees say this, why does this profile disagree?

Answer that question directly.

For example:

• the two men appear simultaneously in different places;
• the supposed adult bride died in infancy;
• DNA places the paternal lines in different groups;
• the middle name comes from a nineteenth-century child;
• or a contemporary record names a different father.

One strong sentence can protect a correction better than a silent deletion.

Research changes. A provisional parent today may be confirmed, rejected, or replaced tomorrow.

Dating major research notes helps readers understand which conclusion reflects the current evidence.

A simple pattern works:

Research note — revised 2026:
Earlier versions of this profile identified X. Newly reviewed evidence identifies Y. The remaining question is Z.

This is especially helpful when old screenshots, forum posts, exported GEDCOMs, or copied trees continue to preserve an earlier conclusion.

A correction is easier to verify when the citation points to something another researcher can locate.

Include as much identifying information as the source allows:

• archive or repository,
• collection or record series,
• volume or book,
• page or folio,
• document or reference number,
• date,
• and stable online link where available.

For changing commercial database links, preserve the collection title and underlying record details rather than relying on the URL alone.

A correction can solve one problem while opening another.

Examples from the current cases:

• separating Lucy Vinson from the two Elizabeths still leaves Lucy’s parentage unresolved;
• separating the GFG9 and GFG13 paternal families does not yet tell us whether there were one or two Norwood wives;
• proving William of Memus had a son does not yet prove Rev. James was another son;
• separating John of Middlesex from the shipmaster does not yet establish the shipmaster’s full identity.

Those are not loose ends to hide. They are the next research questions.

Your own corrected tree cannot automatically repair every copy elsewhere.

Where practical, consider:

• adding a sourced correction to collaborative profiles,
• leaving a concise comment where a disputed fact is visible,
• updating your own public family pages,
• correcting mislabeled media you originally contributed,
• and linking to the evidence rather than merely stating that another version is wrong.

Keep the tone factual. The goal is to make the evidence easier to find, not to assign blame for a copied error.

A blog post, article, or research note may document an error in 2022, 2026, or another year. That date tells you when the correction was published.

It does not tell you when the mistaken identity first entered circulation.

If the error is known to circulate in online trees but its first appearance has not been identified, a concise label such as Online Family Trees is more accurate than assigning the year of the corrective article.

Several public trees may appear to support one another while all relying on the same older genealogy.

Likewise, two printed books may repeat the same pedigree without providing independent evidence.

In the Memus case, Burke in 1835 and Warden in 1885 both report that William had no male issue.

That demonstrates that the claim survived across decades. It does not by itself establish:

• who first created the claim,
• whether Warden copied Burke,
• whether both used another source,
• or whether either consulted the contemporary bond naming Alexander as William’s eldest son.

A mistake becomes especially durable when it supplies details a profile was missing:

• a complete birth date,
• a maiden surname,
• named parents,
• a middle name,
• a military record,
• or a photograph.

Those details make the profile look researched, even when they belong to another person.

The John Howard Paul case illustrates how a real record belonging to a later English child could provide convincing extra names for a colonial Virginia man.

The Mary Guttery case shows the same process with a precise birth date and named parents borrowed from a child who died in infancy.

Images have their own form of repetition.

One uploaded family photograph may be downloaded and added to twenty other trees. Twenty appearances do not provide twenty independent identifications of the sitter.

Trace the photograph backward:

• Who first contributed it?
• Did it come from a family album?
• Was there an inscription?
• Who supplied the identification?
• Did later copies retain that provenance?

See James “Jim” Guthrie / James Irvin Guthrie.

Once a mistaken tree contains a wrong person or record, later research may encounter suggestions that appear consistent with that already-mistaken profile.

A cycle can develop:

mistaken identity → copied tree data → matching-looking record or profile → greater confidence → more copying

The important point is not to guess how any particular website’s current algorithm works. The practical lesson is simpler: a suggestion must still be evaluated against the underlying record.

A hint is an invitation to investigate, not an independent genealogical conclusion.

A paper-tree error does not change anyone’s inherited DNA. But it can change how researchers interpret a genetic match.

If two genetically related testers both carry the same incorrect ancestor in their trees, the shared name may look like confirmation of the relationship path.

The actual genetic evidence may support only a broader shared ancestral line.

In the Three Johns case, genuine GFG2A relatedness can encourage researchers to force same-name founders into one identity. The DNA relationship is real. The particular merger is not established.

When tracing an error, the wording can reveal more than the repeated name itself.

Compare versions of the claim:

• Does one source say “possibly” while later trees say “son of”?
• Does a family tradition become a precise birth place?
• Does “no male issue” become “never had children”?
• Does an initial become a full middle name?
• Does “of Hiltoun” become “1st of Hiltoun”?

The wording may show where uncertainty disappeared even when the original creator of the claim remains unknown.

Sometimes you can trace a claim to a dated book, pedigree, family paper, or database.

When you can, record it:

Published Data (1835)
Earliest published appearance currently located. Earlier origin not yet established.

If the category is known but the earliest tree or date is not, keep the label simple:

Online Family Trees

Reserve wording such as Origin Not Yet Traced for cases where even the source category genuinely remains unknown.

A claim found in hundreds of current trees may have spread very recently.

Another claim found in only one old family history may have circulated for a century.

Number of copies and age of a claim are different questions.

To establish chronology, look for:

• publication dates,
• dated family manuscripts,
• archived profile revisions where available,
• old message-board discussions,
• or citations in later works pointing backward.

For a stubborn identity problem, create a small provenance timeline just for the disputed claim.

For example:

1835

Published pedigree states the claim.

1885

Later publication repeats it.

Modern trees

Claim appears widely online.

Correction

Contemporary evidence contradicts or qualifies the inherited conclusion.

This timeline is different from the ancestor’s life chronology. It records the history of the genealogical claim.

Two testers can be genuinely related even if both of their trees contain the same mistaken ancestor.

Imagine two cousins who share DNA and both show:

John Guthrie → William Guthrie → earlier Guthrie ancestor

Their genetic relationship may be real. But if the same incorrect John was copied into both trees, the matching pedigree does not prove that he is the person through whom they are related.

The true common ancestor may be:

• one generation earlier,
• several generations earlier,
• a sibling of the proposed ancestor,
• or another member of the same paternal family.

Y-DNA follows the direct paternal line: father to son to son.

That makes it especially valuable when two male-line Guthrie families have been merged because of matching names or geography.

If representative tested descendants belong to clearly different paternal genetic groups, a proposed father-to-son connection between those lines cannot represent the biological paternal path.

See Robert Guthrie & Jane Norwood, where GFG13 and GFG9 belong to distinct paternal genetic groups.

This is one of the most important lessons from the Case of the Three Johns.

Several branches belong to the same broader Guthrie Family Group 2A. That shared paternal ancestry is real.

The problem begins when researchers assume:

These branches match genetically, so their earliest known John Guthries must be the same man.

The project’s branch-specific findings show why that shortcut fails.

Branches A, E, and H show evidence of a closer internal relationship, including a distinguishing mutation not represented in B, F, and I.

The current working interpretation places the broader common ancestor joining those sets of branches farther back than the named founders being forced together.

A mutation shared by several tested lines can help identify a branch within a larger paternal family.

It may suggest:

• that two lines share a more recent common ancestor,
• that another branch split earlier,
• or that a proposed generation needs to move farther up or down the pedigree.

That still does not mean the mutation names the ancestor who carried it.

In the GFG2A reconstruction, the A/E/H pattern helps refine the likely generational relationship. The proposed historical identities remain hypotheses until the documentary bridge is found.

Not every genetic clue should be described as though it came from the same type of test.

Traditional Y-STR testing compares marker values across the Y chromosome and can help identify clusters and branching patterns.

Big Y testing examines much more of the Y chromosome and can identify SNP-based branching relationships within a paternal lineage.

Both can contribute to a reconstruction, but the evidence should be described accurately.

Autosomal DNA is inherited from many ancestral lines and becomes less predictable with each generation.

A match may support a family connection, but identifying the correct ancestral path requires comparison with:

• shared matches,
• tested relatives,
• segment information where available,
• documented pedigrees,
• and competing possible relationships.

A shared surname in two trees is not enough to assign the shared DNA to that surname line.

Likewise, autosomal matches to members of a particular extended family can strengthen a hypothesis without independently identifying a specific eighteenth-century parent.

Guthrie Family Group labels organize genetically related paternal lines for research.

Membership in the same group means the represented paternal lines share ancestry. It does not mean:

• every earliest-known ancestor was a brother,
• every branch descends from the best-documented family,
• the group’s oldest named ancestor is the common ancestor,
• or one branch’s traditional origin story belongs to every other branch.

The group is a framework for investigating the shared paternal ancestry. It is not permission to merge the paper pedigrees.

Sometimes DNA tells us that a branch belongs somewhere within a larger family while records fail to reveal the exact connection.

That is a valid conclusion:

This branch shares paternal ancestry with GFG2A, but the documentary connection to the other named branches remains unknown.

It is safer than selecting a likely-looking father simply because:

• he lived nearby,
• he had the right surname,
• the chronology is possible,
• or the genetic group is correct.

A misleading research loop can develop when tree information and DNA interpretation begin reinforcing one another:

copied ancestor → DNA match → assumed shared ancestor → increased confidence in copied ancestor

The weak point is the assumed step in the middle.

The DNA may demonstrate that the testers are related. The copied ancestor may still be the wrong explanation for that relationship.

Break the loop by asking:

• Would the DNA evidence still show relatedness if the disputed ancestor were removed from both trees?
• What branch-specific evidence remains?
• Which relationship is documented independently?
• Could the common ancestor lie farther back?

Lack of a genetic match can sometimes challenge a proposed relationship, but the conclusion depends on the kind of DNA test and the relationship being tested.

Before treating a nonmatch as exclusion, ask:

• Is this the correct test for the genealogical path?
• Are the testers descended through the relevant line?
• Is the proposed relationship close enough that a match would normally be expected?
• Could there be a non-paternal or adoption event?
• Are there enough representative testers?

For direct paternal-line questions, appropriately placed Y-DNA testers can provide far stronger exclusion evidence than a distant autosomal nonmatch.

A clear genetic research note can use three layers:

Genetic finding

State what the test results show: shared haplogroup, branch mutation, STR pattern, segment match, or exclusion.

Genealogical interpretation

Explain what relationship that finding appears to support.

Historical question

State what named ancestor or documentary relationship still needs to be found.

For example:

Genetic finding: Branches A, E, and H share a distinguishing paternal pattern not represented in B, F, and I.

Interpretation: The current project model places A/E/H in a closer relationship within the larger GFG2A family.

Historical question: The named ancestor connecting those branches, and the older ancestor linking them to B/F/I, remain incompletely documented.

Genetic evidence is most productive when it sends researchers back to the records with a narrower question.

Instead of asking:

Which John Guthrie must be our ancestor?

ask:

• Which records identify the fathers of the earliest tested branch ancestors?
• Which branches appear to separate before a particular mutation?
• Are there deeds, sasines, wills, parish records, or court proceedings linking those families?
• Which same-name candidates can be excluded chronologically?
• Does an unexplained surname change or adoption need investigation?

DNA becomes a guide to documentary research rather than a substitute for it.

Suggested wording—adapt it to the actual test and branch evidence.

DNA evidence supports shared ancestry between these branches, but it does not independently identify the historical common ancestor.

Branch-specific genetic results indicate that some lines share a closer relationship within the larger genetic family. The present pedigree reflects that working interpretation only where documentary evidence also supports the connection.

Same-name ancestors in genetically related branches are not merged solely because the families match. Where the documentary connection remains unknown, the common ancestor is left unidentified.