Case Study · Irish & Irish-American Research · Donaghmoyne, County Monaghan · Research in Progress

The Donaghmoyne Network

Four Couples, One Parish

Between 1841 and 1858 four couples married in the Catholic parish of Donaghmoyne, and in every marriage one of the spouses was a Hamill. Within a few years three of the four had gone, to Montreal and Chicago, to Wisconsin, to Joliet. The register names none of their parents. Their descendants’ DNA now shows the families came from one interrelated parish population. How the four were related to one another is the question still open.

1 8 4 1 – 1 8 5 8

4 Founding Couples

45+ DNA Testers

10 Paternal Matches Confirmed

5 Testing Platforms

1841 Donaghmoyne marriage of Henry Hamill and Mary McMahon

The Challenge

Four Marriages, No Parents

One surname four times in one register in seventeen years is striking. It is not proof. The entries give the couple, the parish and the year, and nothing that would say how the Hamills were kin.

The Owen Hamall case study traced Owen’s parents, Henry Hamill and Mary McMahon, to their 1841 marriage in Donaghmoyne. Three more marriages in the same register carry the same surname, and descendants of all four couples turned up among the Hamall family’s DNA matches.

The Four Founding Couples

Couple	Married	Went to
Henry Hamill & Mary McMahon	1841	Montreal, Chicago
Owen Hamill & Ann King	1846	Wisconsin, Nebraska
Charles McKenna (McCanna) & Susan Hamill	1857	Joliet, Illinois
James Hamill & Ann Gartlan	1858	Stayed in Dian; children to Montana, Missouri

Where the Records Stop

The surviving Donaghmoyne Catholic registers begin around 1840. The parents of these four couples, born roughly 1790 to 1815, married before the registers did. The index to the four marriages gives the year only: no day, no parents, no witnesses, no townland.

What Stood in the Way

A register that starts too late for the generation that would connect the couples.

Early emigration. Three of the four families left within a few years of marrying.

A narrow Chicago line. Single surviving sons for three generations; no paternal cousins to compare; the researcher’s father died untested.

Distance. Common ancestors six to eight generations back, where autosomal matches run small.

A shared name. Hamill, Hamall, Hammel and Hamel, used by unrelated families across Ulster.

Researcher’s Note

The Owen Hamill who married Ann King in 1846 is not Owen Hamall of Chicago, Henry’s son. Two Owens from one parish in one generation have been merged in published trees. This case study keeps them apart throughout.

MyHeritage triangulation of shared segments on chromosome 2

The Method

Rebuilding a Father’s DNA

The Chicago line had no cousins to test against. So the research rebuilt the one man whose DNA would have answered the question: the researcher’s father, Thomas Kenny Hamall, from the DNA of his children.

Four of his five children’s kits, read against their mother’s, were combined into a reconstruction of his paternal genome. The fifth child, tested on a different platform, was kept out of the reconstruction so she could test it. All five children compare to the rebuilt kit as parent and child. Any match can now be checked against it to show whether shared DNA came through the Hamall side.

What the Rebuilt Kit Showed

A cluster on chromosome 2 Found four separate ways on three platforms before any claim was made: matches stacking on the same stretch of chromosome 2. Segment data

Triangulation Nine MyHeritage matches share the same segment with the researcher and with each other. A 6.25 Mb core is detected on 23andMe, MyHeritage and GEDmatch alike. Three platforms

Paternal side confirmed Ten matches compared one-to-one with the rebuilt kit share DNA with Thomas Kenny Hamall himself, so it came down the Hamall side and not through his wife’s family. Reconstructed kit

A surname signature The matches’ documented ancestors carry Hamill, McGeough, Gartlan, Finegan and a short list of other names concentrated in southeast Monaghan and neighboring Louth. Documentary

Big Y-700, 2024 The Hamall father-to-son line, tested in a father and son, falls on haplogroup E-FTD95657. Y-DNA

Researcher’s Note

Adding the fifth sibling would have filled more of the rebuilt genome. She was held back deliberately: a kit that tests the reconstruction cannot also be part of it.

1865 Donaghmoyne baptism of James, son of James Hamill and Anne Gartlan of Donaghmoyne Parish, sponsors Owen Gartlan and Bridget McNeany

The Result

A Parish in the DNA

The network is real and the Hamall line belongs to it. Whether the four Hamills were brothers, cousins or more distant kin is still a question for records that have not yet been found.

Each founding family’s own descent is proven by records and by DNA within the family. Across the families, the segment evidence places all of them in one closely intermarried Donaghmoyne population, and names one common ancestor outright: Peter McGeough (1788–1869), shared by three matches carrying an identical segment.

Where Each Finding Stands

ConfirmedA Donaghmoyne genetic network, with the Hamall paternal line inside it

ConfirmedPeter McGeough (1788–1869) as common ancestor of one sub-cluster

ConfirmedHamall Y-DNA haplogroup E-FTD95657, father to son

ProvenThe children of each founding couple, including James and Ann Gartlan’s, named together on their son Peter’s 1949 death certificate

SuggestiveHenry Hamill and Owen Hamill of Wisconsin as close kin

SuggestiveHenry Hamill and James Hamill of Dian as close kin

SuggestiveSusan Hamill McCanna’s line and the Hamall line: one descendant shares a 21.8 cM paternal segment with the rebuilt kit

ExploringA Louth McMahon origin for Mary McMahon

The Test That Would Decide It

Every other man in the Hamill Surname Project carries an R or I haplogroup. The Hamall line alone is E. If Henry, Owen of Wisconsin, James of Dian and Susan’s father were brothers in the male line, a direct male-line descendant of any of the others will also test E-FTD95657. One result would settle it for that family. If the answer is no, the autosomal network stands; the kinship would run through mothers and grandmothers instead.

Open Research Questions

Who were the parents of the four Hamill spouses? Is the “James Hamill” shown as Susan’s father in one descendant’s tree documented anywhere? Did Mary McMahon’s family come from Louth? And how did an E-haplogroup father line come to carry the Hamill name in Donaghmoyne?

Full Methodology →

The full account, including the four marriage records, the family-by-family DNA clusters and match matrices, how the paternal kit was rebuilt and validated, the evidence tiers and the research still to do, is set out in the full methodology. The segment data, the Y-DNA results and the documentary sources each have a page of their own.

Full Methodology Chromosome 2 Triangulation Y-DNA Analysis Documentary Sources

The Family Lines

Montreal → Chicago The Hamall Line Henry Hamill and Mary McMahon’s descendants, from County Monaghan to Riverside, Illinois. Wisconsin → Nebraska The Owen Hammel & Ann King Line Six episodes. A father lost in 1858 and a widow with four minor children. Joliet, Illinois The Susan Hamill & Charles McCanna Line Five episodes. Susan’s road to Joliet and the DNA that ties her line in. Dian → Montana, Missouri The James Hamill & Ann Gartlan Line Seven episodes. The family that stayed, and the children who left.

Are You Connected to This Network?

If you descend from a Hamill, Hamall, Hammel, McCanna, McKenna, Gartlan, McGeough or McMahon family of County Monaghan, especially Donaghmoyne parish, your DNA or family records could help answer the questions this case study leaves open. A male-line Hamill descendant of Owen Hammel, James Hamill of Dian, or Susan Hamill’s family could settle the central one with a single Y-DNA test.

Get in Touch About This Research

Or email mary@storylinegenealogy.com