LRG explicitly placed Robert of Fallowfield and Nantmeal at the head of a “hypothetical family,” with a Darlington wife and sons Adam, James, John, and William. His reasoning included locality, associations with other families, and naming patterns.

He argued that “no violence is done to the known facts.” That describes a proposal he considered compatible with the evidence. It is not a record establishing the marriage or the children.

The appendix preserves valuable evidence for Adam’s household, including the 1798 heirs’ conveyance. Evidence identifying Adam’s children does not, by itself, identify Adam’s father.

James: LRG interpreted West Caln tax entries for 1749–1763 as an elder James, reasoning that James who married Ann would have been only about eighteen in 1749. The original assessments and their requirements must be examined before that age can establish two men. Two men would still require evidence connecting them as father and son.

Robert: the Caldwell husband is called a “presumptive son” who bears the “earmarks” of being James’s brother. The Caldwell heirs’ deed in the appendix supplies a family connection on his wife’s side, not his Guthrie parentage.

Thomas: the section credited to Clara Harrison Guthrie calls him a son of James and Bussell or Bissell. It connects Pennsylvania military and tax references to a supposed move to Virginia. The detailed proposed route is not documentation that the Pennsylvania man became the husband of Mildred Howell.

William: LRG expressly assumes that the man recorded at Fort Pitt became the William of Washington Township, Westmoreland County. His placement as a son of James is another proposed connection. Identifying the same man across locations and identifying his father are separate tasks.

In the Branch G discussion, AGAF’s narrative names John Guthrie’s wife as Mary Jane Reed. Appendix note 415 explains the construction: “Some descendants give her name as Jane; records, as Mary; both should be satisfied with Mary Jane.”

The combined name was LRG’s reconciliation of differing information. This passage is not documentary evidence of a woman using both names. It illustrates how an explanation retained in an appendix can become detached from a name copied out of the main narrative.

Clara Guthrie Harrison’s letter of 12 June 1923 reports being told that James Guthrie and Miss Bussle were the parents of Thomas Guthrie, husband of Mildred Howell. The information reached her through Dr. Guthrie of Louisville, who attributed it to his deceased aunt, Mrs. Underwood. Later letters show that Thomas’s parentage remained under investigation.

These letters, discussed on the Thomas Guthrie research page, are important to the history of the claim. Information preserved in Thomas’s family cannot automatically identify the parents of James who married Ann.

Similar surnames also occur in unrelated research questions. The proposed William Guthrie and Nancy Bussell parentage in GFG7’s Daniel Guthrie study remains unsourced. A later Australian Bessell connection belongs to a GFG17 lineage.

Historical autosomal observations involving those families do not identify Branch I’s proposed mother. The worksheet discussed in this research includes a GFG2A Branch C connection and a Robert/Caldwell connection; neither establishes the parents of James and Ann’s line.

1. Seymour Guthrie, A Brief History of a Branch of the Guthrie Family (1889), printed p. 7.
2. Harriet N. and Eveline Guthrie Dunn, Records of the Guthrie Family of Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Virginia (1898), printed pp. 3–9.
3. Laurence R. Guthrie, American Guthrie and Allied Families (1933), pp. 77–79, 169–170, 215–216, 252, 267, 301, and 408; appendix pp. 690–691, 695–696, 701–703, and 715. Printed pages checked against supplied page images.
4. LRG correspondence concerning John Guthrie of Durham: Charlie Homer Guthrie, images 24–27; Florence Ada Chappell Humphrey, image 36; Belle Guthrie Daniel, images 58–59, in the 102-page digitized packet. Originals in Ann Guthrie’s collection; digitized by FamilySearch.
5. Clara Guthrie Harrison letters dated 12 June 1923, 5 May 1925, and 2 October 1925, discussed on the Thomas Guthrie research page.
6. Ann Guthrie’s research tree, historical project worksheet, and project-administrator clarifications concerning the GFG7, GFG17, Robert/Caldwell, and Thomas/Howell lines.

Related discussion: Robert, John, & James: Ironmongers of Edinburgh, 28 January 2020.

The traditional arrangement: immigrant John is the brother of Robert and James, and the father of John who married Abigail Coe.

A different placement of the brothers: Robert of Branch B and James who married Ann might instead belong among an earlier John’s sons. This is a question for comparison, not an established alternative pedigree. The unnamed sons cannot be assigned identities merely to complete the family.

The Connecticut father was himself the immigrant: LRG considered this possibility. It changes the generation associated with migration without proving the Pennsylvania relationships.

A wider paternal relationship: the GFG2A lines may connect through an earlier ancestor, with the colonial founders related as cousins or more distant paternal relatives. Other GFG2A branches must remain part of that investigation.

• John and Abigail’s marriage: Dunn gives June 1727; LRG prints June 1726–7; the branch study gives 11 June 1727. Compare the underlying entry before standardizing a precise date.
• The indexed death of 19 May 1753: it cannot be the death of the man who made the June 1756 will. The underlying entry requires identification.
• Adam’s 1757 land purchase: the branch study and AGAF give different dates. Examine Chester County Deed Book K, p. 462, to distinguish the transaction and recording events.
• James’s 1799 probate: AGAF prints 8 November; the branch abstract gives 18 November. The original probate entry should govern.
• William’s identity: the Fort Pitt man and the later Westmoreland man require comparison before their records are combined, followed by a separate investigation of parentage.

Seymour, printed p. 7; Dunn & Dunn, pp. 3–9; AGAF, pp. 77–79, 169–170, 215–216, and 301, with appendix pp. 690–691, 695–696, and 701–703. Book links appear in Sources for the Origin Accounts.

Woodbury District Probate Records, Vol. 3–4, 1749–1760: John Guthrie’s will and related court entries, images 248–249 of 488 in Ancestry’s Connecticut wills and probate collection; screenshots supplied 17 October 2026.

Ann Guthrie’s Branch B, F, and I studies and research clarifications. The exact July death date for John is attributed to that research; the original probate images establish the will and court dates.

Published abstracts and transcriptions are distinguished here from the underlying original records. An AGAF citation supplies a research lead; it is not a claim that every cited original has been reexamined.

Branch B — 111 markers: 467718, 1018501, 190173, 297757, 69040, 132679, 640279.
37 markers: 894953.
Big Y-700: 467718 and 1018501.

Branch F — 111 markers: 1017666, 996753, 178628, 839545.
67 markers: N87623, 912395, 678385.

Branch I — 111 markers: 253355.

Participants are identified by kit number only. The GFG2C Robert/Caldwell and GFG5 Thomas/Howell lineages are excluded from these GFG2A totals because their Y-DNA profiles do not represent the GFG2A paternal line.

• Robert’s proposed Branch B family: evidence connecting the proposed children to the Chester County Robert, and identifying his wife.
• John’s earlier generation: evidence identifying the parents of John who married Abigail Coe, and the other sons reported in the four-son tradition.
• The two-James question: the original 1749–1763 assessments, their requirements, and evidence distinguishing or connecting the men.
• Bissell/Bussell/Bussle: the history and evidentiary basis of the parental claim, kept separate from similar surnames in other groups.
• GFG2C — Robert/Caldwell: evidence identifying Robert’s parents or the Guthrie household in which he grew up, without assuming that the historical Branch I placement establishes that connection.
• GFG5 — Thomas/Howell: evidence distinguishing the Virginia husband of Mildred from the Thomas recorded in Pennsylvania.
• William: evidence connecting the Fort Pitt and Westmoreland identities, followed separately by evidence of parentage.
• Broader Big-Y representation: comparisons involving Branches F and I, Branch B’s William line, and other GFG2A branches, supported by documented paternal pedigrees.
• Overseas origins: identifiable records connecting American households to particular Scottish or Irish families, occupations, and places.

These are research priorities, not promises that the missing evidence survives. Findings that rule out a proposed connection are valuable even when they do not identify its replacement.

1. Guthrie DNA Project, Guthrie_YDNA_Results_Overview-2.csv and Guthrie_Member_Notes_20261015.csv, supplied by project administrator Ann Guthrie on 15 October 2026.
2. FamilyTreeDNA Big-Y match exports and Match Time Tree screenshot supplied for nine GFG2A participants. The match view is treated as the reviewed sample, not an exhaustive project tree.
3. Ann Guthrie’s project-administrator clarifications, 18–19 October 2026: the Robert Guthrie and Eliza Jane Caldwell lineage remains officially GFG2C, a genetic-mismatch subgroup associated with GFG2A. Its Y-DNA profile is proven genetically unrelated to the GFG2A Y-DNA profile. Two descendants through different sons represent the line, which has a rare Smith-surname match in the Netherlands. Robert’s parentage remains unresolved.
4. Additional project-administrator clarifications: Thomas Guthrie and Mildred Howell’s line belongs to GFG5; the James formerly placed beneath Robert of Branch B is studied in Branch G following the project’s genetic findings.
5. FamilyTreeDNA, A Comparison of Our Y-DNA Tests and Introduction to the Big Y-700 Test.

Project coverage and interpretation should be revisited as additional results and documented pedigrees become available.