02 January 2026

 MacGregor DNA project blog update 2026 

If DNA genealogy has taught us anything it is that surnames have many origins, and the adoption of a surname does not indicate a direct relationship with another individual simply on the basis of that surname.  In this version of the blog, I am going to concentrate on one group only to show it is possible to look for similarities but that what STRs show us can sometimes be misleading because of the fact that mutations are random. In other words, it is possible for two individuals to have the same mutations but not share a common ancestor and this has proved that SNP testing is vital in order to find and verify connections which are suggested by the STRs. But, we have to be prepared for these apparent connections to be disproved, or thrown into doubt, by the more detailed results that SNPs give. Also the time frame within which shared SNP results operates can vary from 200 to perhaps 1600 years.

 

I am going to concentrate on the MACGREGOR distant group – partly because with so many people in it one would expect that there will be some shared origins and, because of dating predictions given by the SNP analysis, we can attempt to date when two people shared the common ancestor.

 

Before I begin, I just want to reassert some facts about the nature of clanship – that is the idea of belonging to a clan. There is a misconception that all members of a clan descend from a single individual – and more precisely an individual of the name. On the contrary, the thinking behind clanship is that people with similar names are united as a single clan - so individuals named Gregor and Gregory for example, despite having multiple genetic origins are all considered part of Clan Gregor. There is also an idea current that all people in a clan MUST descend from a common ancestor, which in Clan Gregor's case would be the Argyllshire branch. This is not the case. For example, the Perthshire Gregors/Grigors who became McGregors are genetically different in origin from, and therefore not related to,nor ‘watchful the Argyllshire MacGregors. They are members of Clan Gregor as much as the Argyllshire MacGregors are. If name origins are correct the name Gregor might well  mean something like 'watcher', or ‘watchful, vigilant’ and is believed to come from the Greek ‘gregorein’ 'to be watchful’.  

 

A M(s)cGregor who has Viking genetics is still clearly a member of the clan – and this genetic origin could have come about through adoption, illegitimacy or the fact that the surname was simply assumed at some point in the past. In Highland society the         ’Common Man’ for want of a better way of putting it, might well have been living on the land as a tenant of some landed individual, and was only known by what is known as patronymics – so John whose father was Donald whose grandfather was Peter would be known as John MacDonald VicPatrick  or in Gaelic Iain mac Dhòmhnaill mhic Pheadair. No need for a surname. However, as populations expanded and individuals became more settled on the land, it was important to the landowners to be able to rely on tenant’s support – in the best case this was a symbiotic relationship – but not always. One way to ensure loyalty was for individuals to adopt the landowner’s surname.

 

The MACGREGOR distant group includes individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds.  This statement could be applied to any surname group in the DNA project.  Because of the limitations that STRs have, I have had to omit any results which had 25 or less STRs tested. There are therefore 101 others who remain, of whom 38 have done either Y500 or Y700 and surprisingly out of those only four pairs of individuals match each other closely as far as is indicated by terminal SNPs.  Of the 101 people with 37 markers or above 77 have 67 markers and 59 have 111 markers.  Using Dean McGee’s Y Comparison Utility and Splitstree I have created two spider charts, one with the 37 results, and one with the 111.  I have underlined some of the same  kit numbers in the 37 as are in the 111, and you will see that some results look to be closer in 37 then they actually are when you look at 111.  In 37, kit 1006596 seems to be the origin point of a number of different branches, whereas in 111 it is just another branch with a possible common origin (on both charts it is on the left).

 

These charts are based on probability of 75%, with the FTDNA mutation rate 0.004 etc, and 30 years per generation.


                                   MacGregor Distant 37 markers                                                               
                                   MacGregor Distant 111 markers                                                                    

Using Dean’s comparison grid the group in the bottom left-hand corner containing 98616 to 126138 show as being possibly related to each other (that is, have a common ancestor) between 120 and 210 years  ago. The only other group which suggests even a degree of recent relationship is the one containing 941169 and M135332 but the estimated time distances vary between 600 and 1710 years [this is the group at the very top of the chart].  Occasional pairs show some relationship: so, 448450 and IN22242 are suggested to have a common ancestor 450 years before, IN132077 and B908902 within 390 years, I99742 and 395944 the same, and 430122 and 245917 of 300 years. A closer link of 120 years is suggested for 404828 and 170627, between 60 and 120 years for 941518, 153532 and 164088, and finally 270 years between 981710 and IN124384.

 

All other shared ancestors are suggested to be between 1440 and 5850 years ago.

 

What we will do now is look at these possible relationships in detail to see if the SNP results confirm or contradict what is suggested by STRs.

 

The above groups and pairs will now be dealt with in sequence.

 

1)     185487, 173181, 126138, 667833, 200914, and 981616

In this group unfortunately only one person has undertaken Y700 and shows an ancestral split around 1400CE . One other participant suggests that this group may all connect to William McGregor the early 18th century preacher in America. I would expect that all the others would be related to that person – either ancestral or descendant from, but we would need at least another Y700 result to confirm this.

 

2)    94589, IN109971,135116, 28296, 941169, 395944, 43065, MI35332

This group shows a variety of M(a)cGregor ancestors, not obviously related, and one McGown. Five of these have done Y700 and the terminal SNPs are BY69722, FT213382, FT47815, FT371661 and S7361.  Almost all of these are connected with at least one other result at  between 400 and 450CE  or 1600 years ago according to the FTDNA dating. 

 

Kit number 94589 McGregor actually shares a common ancestor at c550CE, by FTDNA reckonings, with 38516 McLaren – again this connection would have happened pre surnames. The same applies to 135116 Peddie with 28296 McComas McGregor who both have later SNP splits, but who share a common ancestor at S744 around about 400CE to 450CE.

 

3)    448450 and IN122242

Both these individuals share SNP FTF57555. This mutation arose around 1500CE but since both have ancestors called (christian name)  Angus with slightly different dates of birth (and apparently a close geographical connection) it is clearly probable that they are related to the same ancestor one or two generations back from what they currently have found genealogically. The 111 mutation chart shows these two lines as joining to form one.

 

4)    IN132077 and B908902 (and 138485 not shown on the chart)

 

IN132077 and 138485 share a common ancestor (or, rather, share a mutation FTF403 borne by a common ancestor) at c1450CE while B908902 descends from that original by a mutation which happened about 1600CE (SNP FTE86294).  One of these McGregors comes from a group associated with Gregor/McGregor families round Perth (138485) so it would be a good idea for IN132077 and B908902 to investigate this area for a genetic connection. I have now moved both these results from the McGregor distant section to the (Mc)Gregor  group which heads the results grid.

 

5)    IN99742 and 395944

Kit 395944 actually shares an origin at 550CE with IN99742. The Splitstree programme puts these results in separate areas  which suggests that both individuals, although having the McGregor name are accidentally related through surname choice only (since their shared SNP is c550CE). However, it would be worth doing more genealogical searching since looking at their earliest ancestors, these could be in fact be brothers or direct cousins and they clearly would share the same ancestral SNP no matter how distant. The only key difference in their STR results is the fact that DY385 (one of the early DNA results) has a significant and unusual one step difference, but that has been enough to put the two results into separate lines. If the two individuals involved would make contact, we can try to find if the connection is much closer than suggested by DNA.

 

6)    430122 and 245917

Neither of these individuals has done a Y700 test so it is not possible to compare them – in addition 245917 has not detailed earliest known ancestor. The 111 chart suggests that they are connected genetically at some point in the more recent past. More DNA information and genealogical information is needed.

 

7)    404828 and 170627

As shown by their earliest known ancestor entries these two individuals have a common ancestor born in 1802. Not surprisingly they have SNP FT87169

 

8)    941518, 153532 and 164088

These three are all descended from the same individual – a William McGregor who died in 1815 in North Carolina. They have SNP FTF1629 – this SNP was estimated to have split from MF409 around 1800 which suggests that it was actually William himself who acquired the mutation from his father whose mutation MP409 arose around 1600CE

 

9)    981710 and IN124384

These two individuals are probably quite closely related but one (981710) has not tested to Y700.  The common ancestor dates back to 950CE but from that ancestor the SNPs go back in time to M222 (arose c50BCE) which probably has its origins in Ireland.

 

It seems that, for the most part, when the the 111 SNP grid is used for comparisons it produces the correct connections between kits, but not100% of the time.

 

The process I have used here could be used with any of the surname groups with diverse entries so long as sufficient numbers of individuals have done 111 markers and preferably Y700. As usual, if anyone would like me to run a similar exercise with entries from a name group then please provide 10-12 entries you want to compare with. Please remember that it needs ideally  to be individuals who have done the Y700 test.

 

Contact me at richardmcgregor1ATyahoo.co.uk, substituting @ for AT.

 

With thanks as always to the authors of Splitstree, and Dean McGee.

30 December 2024

 

              MacGregor DNA Project  Blog update 2025 

It has been a rather quiet year for DNA developments. In terms of the tests which have been available over the past couple of years there is nothing new. Y700 still remains really the best Y chromosome test around but only males can do it, and it relates directly to male surnames. What has been developed by FamilytreeDNA are tools for understanding a person’s male genetic past on the Y chromosome using SNPs (rather than the ‘usual’ STR results). STRs or ‘short tandem repeats’ are necessarily less accurate for genealogical matching because they mutate randomly – in some individuals hardly at all, while in others, mutations occur with greater frequency (reasons evinced have been age of father, diet, exposure to radiation etc).  
    However, as I will explore in a moment with an example in this blog, it seems that the relatively small genetic pool of results from those with male ancestry in the Highlands of Scotland means that some individuals have a large number of ‘private’ SNPs in their results – in other words nobody tested so far has a SNP that is shared which would make it no longer ‘private’. Familytreedna has developed a tool to use when two or more individuals share a common SNP, which gives an approximate date for when that SNP was shared. Last year I explored how this gives a dating sequence for family groups of those called MacGregor (or alias names) who descended from the Argyllshire MacGregors. SNPs (or Single Nucleotide Polymorphism) are points on the Y chromosome that occur and stay fixed (as is believed). 
    This year I was contacted separately by two individuals, named MacGregor, who currently share the same terminal SNP, R-BY3023. They are not related to the Argyllshire MacGregors, or indeed to the other main MacGregor groups (that is, from Rosshire, from Ireland and from near Perth). They do share that SNP with quite a few other individuals called Campbell, MacDonald, Cameron but most particularly, MacKenzie. 
     While one of the two MacGregors has a terminal at BY3023 the other is currently waiting for results of BigY which should prove interesting to see if he comes out with a closer match to the MacKenzies. 
    But that is where the problem arises and in part interpretation is severely handicapped by the incomplete (and sometimes non-existent parish registers). And that’s also where it gets interesting:
    Taking one of the family genealogies I was sent, the nineteenth century line, thanks to census and statutory records, is well established, so that there is direct evidence for Hugh born 1822/3 – he gives his age consistently in the census records and when he dies in 1881 his age is given as 58. And, he is also consistent in claiming that he was born in Kilmallie parish, Invernesshire. However, there is no record of a Hugh being born in 1822/3 at all let alone to Angus McGregor and Catherine Cameron who are named on his death certificate. 
    What records there are for Angus in Kilmallie are as follows (I have included some other entries for what comes next):
1773 Angus/Mary Cameron John, Kinlochleven, 8 June 
1774 Duncan/Florence Cameron Ann, Achintore, 5 July 
1776 Donald/Sarah Cameron Marion, Inchrie, 28 Apr 
1782 Ewen/Sarah Boyd Janet, Blarachern, 17 Mar 
1783 Ewen/Ann Boyd Rachel, Blarachern, 16 Nov 
1785 Donald/Sarah Cameron Donald, Inchrie, 20 Jan 
1785 Angus/Sarah McMillan Flory, Blarmacfeltach, 19 Apr 
1794 Harry/Betty Wilson Elspet, Maryburgh, 30 Aug 
1797 Harry/Beatrice Wilson Robert, Maryburgh, 17 June
1800 Harry/Beatrice Wilson Beatrice, Maryburgh, 13 Jul 
1803 Harry/Beatrice Wilson Archibald, Maryburgh, 30 May 
1806 Harry/Eliza Wilson Catharine, Maryburgh, 9 Mar 
1810 Ewen/Rachel McMillan Catharine, Blaraclurin, 23 Jun 
1813 Ewen/Rachel McMillan Ann, Blarnaclerach [Blarnaderach] 28 Aug 
1818 Angus/Catherine Cameron Ewen, Blarmacfoldach, f 8 Nov 
1823 Angus/Catharine McGregor,[ - ], John, 5 Dec 
1825 Angus/Catharine Robertson, Rachel, Blachorin [dist Fort William], 25/26 Jun 
1827 Angus/Catharine Robertson Sarah, Badacheanan Corran, 18 Aug/8 Sep 
1829 Ewen/Ann Margaret 19/19 May 
1829 Angus/Catharine Robertson Ewen, Blarchoachan, [Corran Dist] 16 Apr/17 May 
1834 Angus/Catharine Robertson Catharine, Blarmachfailan , 21 Mar/6 Apr 
1839 Angus/Catharine Robertson Susan, Blarmacfoldach, 23 Jul/8 Sep 

 Key: father/mother child, place, one date = baptism, 2 dates = birth/baptism, f = in fornication

There is a tombstone inscription in the Fort William Episcopal Churchyard: In loving memory of Angus McGregor and wife Catherine Cameron, this tombstone is erected by direction of their son Donald McGregor Achnacarry who died Banavie June 11th and was buried here June 13th, 1892 
 
FORT WILLIAM [gravestone from GD50/233 in National Archives of Scotland] Henry (McGregor) imo son Charles died 25 May 1811 age 12y 9mo 
 
In the census record there are some entries that show an Angus: 
 1. 1841 
 Angus McGregor born c 1786 (possibly 1782-86 because of census rounding down), wife Catherine (40), son Donald, 14, daughter Sarah 8, at Blarmacfoldich 
2. And: in Fort Wiliam [Maryburgh] 
Angus McGregor age born 1791 (1788-91), wife Ann age 60, grandson? Peter a 5 
3. And: 
Angus MacGregor age 85 (1752-56), Ann (daughter?) age 30 
4. And: 
Catherine MacGregor age 35 (born 1802-06), Ewen age 10, daughter Annabell age 8, daughter Catherine age 6, son Donald age 4 at Blarmacfoldich 

5.In the 1851 census 
Angus MacGregor born c1783 woollen weaver Fort William, wife Ann born c1776 
6. And: 
Angus McGregor born c1779 widower, farmer Muirsheorlich, children, Donald 23, daughter Sarah, 20, son James 13 
7. And: Angus McGrigor born c1791, wife Catherine age 49 (born 1802), son Ewen age 21, son Donald age 14 and son Alexander age 6 at Blarmacfoldich 

1 and 6 go together, 2 and 5, and 4 and 7 (3 is clearly dead by 1851). But there is no Hugh aged c17/18 (rounded down to 15) in 1841 or aged 27/28 in 1851 

 There is a death record for Angus in 1863, a farmer? aged 82 (therefore born c1781) with parents given as Donald McGregor and Sarah Cameron, and he is the widower of Catherine Cameron – the informant being Donald McGregor, son at Auchintore. So, that ties up with the tombstone inscription, and therefore 1 and 6 in the census. Is this the same Donald who had a son Hugh in 1823? It doesn’t look like the the Ewen aged 10 is the same as Hugh as heshould be given as at least 15. 
   However, if the wife in 4 and 7 is Catherine Cameron that suggests that the wife for 1 and 6 is Catherine Robertson. 
   Look though at the names in the parish register – Sarah Boyd becomes Ann Boyd, Sarah Boyd becomes Ann Boyd and Betty Wilson becomes Beatrice: you can’t but get the feeling that whoever recorded wife’s names wasn’t too accurate. So, you wonder if John son of Angus and Catherine McGregor in 1823 was actually a child Hugh by Catherine Robertson. OR is that Catherine Cameron again?? OR is it Ewen because that is interchangeable, apparently, with Hugh? 
    I have included Harry in the list above because according to Joseph Foss he is related in some way (but again it all depends on the DNA connection! 
    I should say that there is a letter from Duncan in Blarmacfoldich in 1825 in the PD60 Central Archives deposit saying that his brother Angus is bearing a letter of recommendation from John Gregorson of Ardtornish and that the family had been farming in that area since Prescription - so that suggests that they were there a while before Rob Roy and his son James Mhor. The significance for this is that it is claimed that Donald father of Angus was the last child of James Mhor son of Rob Roy. That would be doubtful if they had been farming there before Rob Roy. And where is Hugh – before he turns up in 1851 in Ballantrae Ayrshire aged 29 married with wife Elizabeth aged 22, son Angus 2 and son John aged 1 month? 
   The second family who are related through the early SNP BY-3023 (estimated to have arisen about 250CE [used to be labelled AD] may provide a clue. They also descend from an Angus – this Angus died in 1866 at the age of 68 according to his son, but on his marriage certificate (2nd marriage) in 1855 he says he is 50 and then in the censuses he gives his age as 45 in 1851 and 59 in 1861 so clearly didn’t actually know his age. But, presumably, when he said his father was Duncan, (a mason) and mother Margaret Fraser he knew that for a fact. We can find Duncan in the parish registers. Duncan was actually for a time in “Locheil’s Highland Regiment of Foot” and there are children born to them: Catherine in Paisley (however we cant be sure if this the same couple as he is a ‘threadmaker’ according to the record), a daughter (unnamed) born in 1799 in Boleskine and Abertarff , Invernesshire [bottom end of Loch Ness] (the father was ‘not near’ so the child required a sponsor), and then in 1805 the same couple (he is still a solder) had a son Duncan in Edinburgh. Angus’s son knew that his father’s father had been a soldier, but he said that Angus’s father was Angus not Duncan (however he also says the regiment was the 78th so that could be checked). Duncan was no doubt from the Highlands and since Lochiel’s lands include the Fort William area it seems likely that Duncan came from the same parish and family as the family of Hugh that was discussed above, but the parish records are incomplete, and as you can see what someone’s children thought their grandparents were called was not always accurate. 
    I know this was a long diversion but I wanted to show what the steps were to trying to find out the facts and how DNA can be used to confirm or deny a story, If you have followed the thread so far you will have guessed that Angus who married Catherine Cameron (1 and 6) was the son of Donald McGregor and Sarah Cameron but not entered in the parish record. The significance of this, as I noted earlier, is that Joseph Foss maintained that Donald was a son of James Mohr MacGregor, son of Rob Roy born in 1753 – more or less at the time James fled to France where he died in 1754. So, the DNA for Hugh son of Angus McGregor and Catherine Cameron would not necessarily show any connection to the Argyllshire MacGregors (always assuming Rob Roy’s line was legitimate) and the confusion of males with the same christian name creates a problem. In other words Donald born 1753?was not a child of James Mohr (unless Rob Roy’s line did not descend from the Argyllshire MacGregors. Of course, there is one little fly in the ointment – that Hugh (not entered in the parish record) had a sister called Annabell (also not entered) – which of course was the name of James Mohr’s wife (Annabell McNicol). Wouldn’t it be good if genealogy was straightforward.? So we are still looking for a probable male MacGregor descendant of Rob Roy!!


For the second part of this blog, I wanted to deal briefly with the Greig, Gregor, and Gregory families (no matter how spelt) to see if there was any overlap now that a number of BigY SNP results are available. This process involved downloading and combining all the Y chromosome 67 STR marker data from the FamilytreeDNA results page for the several surnames and editing it so that only the kit numbers appeared. I then ran the number sequence through Dean McGee’s Y DNA tool to produce a grid which shows the apparent relative closeness of some family groups by the colour matching – note the relationship time is not necessarily correct as I asked for a high percentage of probability. The resulting grid is Fig, 1. I say ‘apparent’ because this seems to show the relative closeness of families with different surnames, but the dates start to go back into the past when the closest relatives of the same name are ignored. There would have been less colour if I had opted for a lower percentage of probable time when individuals were related.


Fig 1 name relationship grid. From these, 6 more related groups can be seen – the largest being Gregories.


A well as this, Dean’s programme produced a Phylip grid – effectively the above in another form  -  and  that was uploaded into Daniel Huson and David Bryant’s program Splitstree (as usual)  which produced a spider diagram of  results as below (Fig. 2):



Fig 2:  raw chart of kits for the various surnames


At this point I inserted the surnames attached to each kit number and then added in red the BigY terminal SNPs (Fig 3).



Fig 3: the grid name and Big Y terminal SNP data


From this you can now see the various family groups and more particularly the high incidence of relationship among some members who share a surname, BUT, also  that others of that same surname are much less closely related. The SNP results suggest the common ancestor date, but again this needs to be treated with caution because the connection date could be a lot further back in  historic time than it appears. It does seem that ARE some branches which produced different surnames (for example Gregg and Gregory), but their common root is far back along the line, potentially pre surnames. Other than this there does not seem presently to be a direct link between or among these different surnames.

     As always, this is just my interpretation, but do feel free to contact me at richardmcgregor1ATyahoo.co.uk (substitute @ for AT). My thanks to Dean McGee, and the creators of Splitstree.