Seymour describes separate departures: John leaves Ireland for Boston, while Robert and James leave Scotland for Pennsylvania. Dunn & Dunn instead bring all three men from Edinburgh to Boston. These versions should remain visible as alternatives rather than being combined into one continuous itinerary.

Among the accounts Laurence printed, the William Dameron Guthrie pedigree places John in Ireland by 1670 and has the brothers emigrate together in 1700. Amy L. Peoples describes Robert and James settling in Pennsylvania, followed by a younger John in Connecticut who married Cone and had ten children. Another source he cites describes John with three brothers and dates a Connecticut foundry to 1730—the year Seymour assigns to John’s death. [3]

These differences affect which John the tradition describes. A John who fathers the Connecticut family occupies a different generation from a John whose son fathers that family. Similar names and repeated family details help us recognize the related accounts, but they do not resolve that generational question.

Geographical wording: Seymour calls the Irish destination “Ulster County.” Ulster is a province; the account does not identify an Irish county or parish. Its Connecticut place names likewise need to be checked against the dates and jurisdictions of the events described.

Laurence’s use of Seymour and Dunn & Dunn was part of building on the available family literature. His correspondence shows the same books circulating among descendants who contributed information to the larger research effort.

• Charlie Homer Guthrie directs the origin inquiry to Seymour’s 1889 book and indicates that he possesses both the Seymour and Dunn histories.
• Florence Ada Chappell Humphrey, 3 June 1923, reports knowing little beyond the Guthrie book held by her aunt, Mrs. Daniel.
• Belle Guthrie Daniel, 25 April 1923, explains that she relies mostly on Seymour’s history for the earlier family information.

These letters help identify the sources behind particular submissions. They also distinguish a contributor’s knowledge of recent generations from information learned through earlier publications. [4]

The more consequential change occurs when a proposed relationship is entered into a pedigree without its original qualification. A family assembled for investigation can then appear to be a documented household. Later additions may acquire the authority of the cited book even when that book never supplied them.

This review therefore follows individual claims: the proposed parents, the evidence offered for them, later additions, and any records or DNA findings that support or contradict the placement. Laurence’s explicit qualifications are part of the evidence and should remain attached to the relationships he proposed.

Dunn & Dunn cite John Richardson’s will of 7 May 1683, identifying James Guthrie as its principal beneficiary. Their reference is Suffolk Probate, volume VI, page 416. The witnesses are printed as John Raynsford and John Ramsey. [2]

This is a useful, specific record lead. As quoted, however, the will does not identify James as an Edinburgh ironworker, name brothers Robert and John, or connect him to Chester County.

The date also precedes Seymour’s approximate 1700 migration by seventeen years. If the beneficiary and the traditional brother were the same man, the chronology would need revision. If they were different men, the will would belong to another Guthrie investigation.

Source distinction: The information presented here comes from the will extract printed in the 1898 history. Establishing the beneficiary’s identity requires examination of the probate record and associated evidence.

Laurence’s Robert/Darlington household is expressly hypothetical. His proposed elder James/Bussell rests on an interpretation of West Caln tax entries. These constructions must be evaluated separately from the general brothers tradition. [3]

The correspondence preserves an important source for the Bussle name. In her letter of 12 June 1923, Clara Guthrie Harrison reports being told that James Guthrie and Miss Bussle were the parents of Thomas Guthrie, husband of Mildred Howell. The information had reached her through Dr. Guthrie of Louisville, who attributed it to his deceased aunt, Mrs. Underwood.

Clara continued to question Thomas’s parentage in later correspondence. Her letters of 5 May and 2 October 1925 show that the placement remained under investigation. The relevant passages are quoted on the Thomas Guthrie research page, from originals in Ann Guthrie’s personal collection. [5]

Y-DNA now distinguishes the Thomas/Mildred Howell line in GFG5 and the Robert/Elizabeth Jane Caldwell line in GFG2C from the James/Ann line represented in GFG2A. The proposed household therefore cannot be carried forward as one established paternal family.

These findings preserve the affirmative GFG2A connection of James and Ann’s represented descendants while requiring revision of other proposed placements. They also make the source of the Bussle tradition especially important: information preserved in Thomas’s family does not automatically identify the parents of James in Chester County.

Similar surnames occur in several Guthrie investigations. Their appearance creates useful leads, but the family connections and the histories of the claims must be traced separately.

GFG7 — Daniel Guthrie’s proposed parents. Some pedigrees name William Guthrie and Nancy Bussell as Daniel’s parents. Ann Guthrie has found no reliable original or secondary source supporting that placement and does not include the couple as Daniel’s parents in her Guthrie Research Tree. The Daniel Guthrie branch study also reports that the claim does not appear in the approximately 140 pages of LRG correspondence examined for that family. Its original source remains unidentified. [6]

GFG17 — a modern Australian family connection. Ann’s research tree shows John Hall Ian Bessell (1911–1997) and Kathleen M. E. Guthrie (1916–2001). Kathleen’s Guthrie ancestral line belongs to GFG17, following later Y-DNA identification of that group. This is a different family context from the unsourced Nancy Bussell claim in GFG7. [7]

Historical autosomal observations. A project worksheet records autosomal matches between Bessell descendants of that GFG17 line and descendants associated with GFG7 and other Guthrie groups. The worksheet predates the GFG17 classification and retains an “Ungrouped” label.

The visible GFG2A match in that worksheet is associated with Branch C. Another match is associated with the GFG2C Robert/Caldwell family, formerly placed within the proposed Branch I household. Those entries should not be presented as a demonstrated autosomal connection to Branch I’s James/Ann family. The shared ancestral source of the recorded matches remains unresolved. [7]

Related Bissell families, separate marriages, and the transfer of a tradition between pedigrees remain possibilities to investigate. None of these observations currently identifies Branch I’s “Miss Bissell” or establishes where that particular parental claim originated.