RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Treefan on Saturday 03 February 18 12:48 GMT (UK)
-
I am very puzzled & I wondered if anyone can help me please?
For many years I have striven to research my family tree trawling through records, obtaining certificates and seeking out any form of evidence of proof to build up my tree to the very best of my ability. I am only human though and although I have tried my very best to make it as accurate a tree as I could possibly build I accept that human error could have cropped up along the way just as it could for anyone doing the same thing.
My efforts have always been along this route and a Christmas present of an Ancestry DNA kit broadened my approach. I did the test and waited and eventually receiving my results which showed 92 matches, a few close but mainly more distant.
I have been taking my time going through the list and started to realise that every one of them seemed to link to my maternal side with no matches what so ever showing for my paternal side. I have searched for the
surnames of all of my various paternal great grandparents within the trees of my matches but no results showed up at all.
So, what does this mean? Have I gone so horribly wrong within my tree that I have made it a work of fiction instead? I didn't think that this was the case as I have made contact with folk over the years who seemingly had come to the same results as me.
I realise that comparisons can only be made to those other DNA trees that exist within the Ancestry system which means that a great many ordinary trees could exist for which DNA trees have never been carried out but my tree is of a fair size containing a couple of thousand or more ancestors and with the subject matter being so popular now I would have expected for some distant matches to show up at least.
Am I expecting too much or have I not learned enough concerning the subject (which is still very new to me)?
The glaringly obvious thing I realise is that perhaps my biological paternal bloodline might not be what I was raised to believe but I have no other family members who I can ask to do further tests for comparison.
I just wondered what the odds were that all could be correct and in order with no matches showing up? Has anyone else ever come across this same puzzling situation? Is it possible that things might be right but that no other distant cousins have ever done a DNA test? For me to get 92 possible matches on my maternal side with none what so ever on my paternal side seems odd and wrong to me.
Any thoughts or comments would be very welcome please. As mentioned, this is a very new topic for me and I know that I haven't got my head around all it's ins and outs as yet. Am i reading into the situation wrongly or have I misunderstood how to go about it all or do my results show up a great problem for me?
Thank you.
-
I'm no DNA expert so could be wrong but surely even if your paternal line was wrong you would expect to see matches from trees with no matching surnames but maybe matching dates and places if you have only matches for known surnames obviously on your maternal side 2 things come to mind the test you did only shows your maternal line or nobody on your paternal line has tested
-
Do you know of people on Ancestry who are related according to the paperwork? It might be worth messaging them and asking if they have taken a DNA test. If you get people who are supposedly, say, third cousins who aren't coming up as a DNA match to you at all then that might be supportive of one theory. If they all say they haven't taken a DNA test it might be that for whatever reason that side hasn't been as forthcoming with the tests as your maternal side.
-
If your father wasn't an only child of an only child of an only child etc etc and you're able to link every single one of your matches to your maternal side, then it suggests that no descendants of anyone on your paternal side have tested WITH ANCESTRY. They may have tested with other companies so I'd definitely recommend that you upload your own results to FTDNA and GEDMatch (both free) where you might have more luck.
But surely you have more than 92 matches? I suspect you are quoting the number of 4th cousins or closer. I have 71 of these and for the majority of them I'm unable to find the link, despite the past 20 years or so having been spent working my tree back to 5 or more generations on virtually all lines, with several generations more on many lines. We are all dependent on other people's trees accurately reflecting a similar number of generations. If all they have is their parents and grandparents, then unless you have worked all of your lines forwards through all the married daughters you're unlikely to find a matching surname.
As more and more people test you will get new matches and eventually some of them are likely to match your father's side (unless he was an only child etc etc).
Jane :-)
-
I'm still awaiting the results of my DNA test but it seems like its going to be hardwork when it arrives
I hope to learn as I go along, but my limited understanding as of now would indicate to me that you perhaps need to do a bit more 'sideways' research of - say - at least up to your 4x greats and their siblings. As someone else has noted, if there were a lot of female siblings, there may be surnames you don't recognise but are actually connected. My gt grandfather had 5 sisters and no brothers.
The other obvious conclusion is that you're just unlucky enough not to have any (or many) on your paternal side who have taken DNA tests or never been into family history. I've been doing it now for about 12 years and have very rarely come across anyone with a connection to any of my family, even though I have got as far back as 10 generations on some lines and nearly always to at least 6 or 7. I suppose its just the luck of the draw!
As I understand it, you will get future notifications of DNA links, and the tests seem to have 'taken off' recently in a way that they hadn't only a few months ago. I myself used to think it would be a waste of time but I got fed up of trying to knock down my many brickwalls using conventional methods so thought it was worth a punt!
Are there any connections (place and date, especially) in your DNA results which might help with this possibility you have mentioned:-
'The glaringly obvious thing I realise is that perhaps my biological paternal bloodline might not be what I was raised to believe but I have no other family members who I can ask to do further tests for comparison'
Good luck.
-
DNA databases are tiny compared with the population of even England, London with its population of about 8.7 million has more individuals than all the family history DNA databases so is it surprising that accurate matches are relatively rare
Last April:
Ancestry had a database of 4 million
23 and me had 2 million
FTDNA had 500,000
My Heritage around 700,000
Even the above numbers must be taken with a pinch of salt as a proportion of those are shared samples rather than unique samples.
Cheers
Guy
-
Thank you all for reading my post & replying. I have noted the comments & thoughts which I will bear in mind as I continue to try to look into it all further.
As a complete novice in this area I am hoping that I will "learn the ropes" as I go along & that it might make more sense to me in time.
Now that Ancestry are advertising on TV too perhaps more folk might get caught up with the idea of taking a DNA test which will offer up more matches for folk & perhaps my luck may then change.
Thank you once again everyone, your help & advice is much appreciated.
-
I'm interested in how you determined that all your 92 matches were maternal line. It seems you based it on recognising surnames. That is certainly the obvious place to start, but I have found that surnames are not always as constant as we might hope. Adoptions, loose spelling and deliberate name changes can change things a lot. For example, I was once shown a Y-DNA match list, which you'd expect to contain mostly the one surname because Y-DNA tracks the male line of descent which generally correlates with surname, and there were many different surnames on it, and virtually none were the name of the person who did the test. So there must have been several surname changes in that family.
So I think trying to identify your paternal and maternal lines more rigorously would be a real help, if you haven't done it already. I hope I'm not telling you what you already know, but if you can't find even a distant cousin to test, you may be able to achieve the result you want by finding one or two of your matches that you can clearly identify as maternal line. Then you can click on each match in turn and then use the "Shared Matches" button to see who matches them and so is presumably also from the maternal line. Anyone who doesn't come up in one of those lists may be a paternal match (or they may not, as it won't pick up all maternal matches). But it would give a good indication.
Uploading your results to FTDNA and Gedmatch, as already suggested, could help, as they each have tools (probably better ones than Ancestry has) to do the same thing. You'll need to pay a small amount ($10 or $20) to use the tools on FTDNA, but they have a "not in common tool" which is a little more direct.
Hopefully this may allow you to confirm or otherwise that you have no paternal matches. I personally would be very surprised if you didn't have some, unless your paternal tree is wrong right from the root.
-
treefan good luck
Will my example help you ?
I found a few connections with people on paternal side
a first cousin
A half cousin who came up as 3rd cousin match
and a few 4th/5th cousins who we were able to link through names and good trees.
family members who'd emigrated were more likely to do DNA tests .
Mother was adopted but we knew her mother had married and had a son ...
So I used the mutual match buttons .....only works well with second and third cousins
So mutual matches of my known cousins (1st 2nd and 3rd) show up as being connected
My theory was to look for someone who DIDN'T show up on any matches but did have dna in common with me
Have you tried that ?
We were really lucky that a man who had the same grandma as myself took the test
he came up as second cousin because we have different grandfather's
.his father never knew he had a half sister.
I Found descendants of the birth grandfather s ...father by using
location match button and pin point particular towns where our ancestors lived
.none of the present generations have his surname
thru generations more girls than boys ! But I did know some of his sister's married names
I.ve not found anyone with my father's surname in their direct line tree yet either
But have found some 5th cousins with same surnames as his grandmithers so
Know the women in my family were faithfyl !!
The family name is dying out in my branch.
I hope this makes sense ..I'm typing in the wee hours .
Happy hunting...
Have you had any 2nd or 3rd cousin matches ...with links you can't identify ..yet ?
many people have locked trees you can't tell who they match .
-
Hello Treefan,
I too have a similar situation to yourself. Most of my Ancestry DNA matches come from my maternal side. Those that seem to come from my paternal side are very distant and when I have tried communicating with them to see where our trees link up, we can't seem to find common ancestors.
I guess DNA testing is still relatively new and the more people that do the test, the more likely it is for matches to start appearing on your paternal side. Although it is still clever, the results are not always accurate and they are always improving the science behind it.
If you would like to learn more about DNA Testing and genetics, I have just finished a fantastic book: 'The Family Tree Guide to DNA Testing and Genetic Genealogy' by Blaine T Bettinger.
It's a fantastic read and very informative!
In it, it explains that your family tree and your DNA can often be two very different things altogether.
Hope this helps,
Chris
-
Hello Treefan,
I too have a similar situation to yourself. Most of my Ancestry DNA matches come from my maternal side. Those that seem to come from my paternal side are very distant and when I have tried communicating with them to see where our trees link up, we can't seem to find common ancestors.
I guess DNA testing is still relatively new and the more people that do the test, the more likely it is for matches to start appearing on your paternal side. Although it is still clever, the results are not always accurate and they are always improving the science behind it.
If you would like to learn more about DNA Testing and genetics, I have just finished a fantastic book: 'The Family Tree Guide to DNA Testing and Genetic Genealogy' by Blaine T Bettinger.
It's a fantastic read and very informative!
In it, it explains that your family tree and your DNA can often be two very different things altogether.
Hope this helps,
Chris
The whole subject is very new to me so the suggested book sounds a good idea for me.
With me being a total newcomer to approaching genealogy through the eyes of DNA I suppose that I didn't know quite what to expect. The figure of matches sounded high to me but it perhaps wouldn't sound high to the more experienced. I wasn't naive enough to expect a 50/50 split in the findings but I did expect to spot at least one paternal link. The links point to two areas of my maternal tree and I can see the shared great grandparents and follow the family lines. At least this gives me comfort to confidently know that all of my many years of research were along the right path. Now I hope that the same goes for my paternal side too and perhaps more work will lead to some links. I hope so!
-
treefan good luck
Will my example help you ?
I found a few connections with people on paternal side
a first cousin
A half cousin who came up as 3rd cousin match
and a few 4th/5th cousins who we were able to link through names and good trees.
family members who'd emigrated were more likely to do DNA tests .
Mother was adopted but we knew her mother had married and had a son ...
So I used the mutual match buttons .....only works well with second and third cousins
So mutual matches of my known cousins (1st 2nd and 3rd) show up as being connected
My theory was to look for someone who DIDN'T show up on any matches but did have dna in common with me
Have you tried that ?
We were really lucky that a man who had the same grandma as myself took the test
he came up as second cousin because we have different grandfather's
.his father never knew he had a half sister.
I Found descendants of the birth grandfather s ...father by using
location match button and pin point particular towns where our ancestors lived
.none of the present generations have his surname
thru generations more girls than boys ! But I did know some of his sister's married names
I.ve not found anyone with my father's surname in their direct line tree yet either
But have found some 5th cousins with same surnames as his grandmithers so
Know the women in my family were faithfyl !!
The family name is dying out in my branch.
I hope this makes sense ..I'm typing in the wee hours .
Happy hunting...
Have you had any 2nd or 3rd cousin matches ...with links you can't identify ..yet ?
many people have locked trees you can't tell who they match .
Thank you for your reply.
The closest matches point to being 3rd cousin matches and all show up links to two areas of my maternal side.
Luckily, most of the matches seem to have a tree to view which has enabled me to check things out to spot our links. There are a couple of private trees and a couple of folk who have no tree so I am waiting to see what might come from that contact. My puzzlement was that no paternal link jumped out at me but I was overwhelmed by maternal links. The number of matches sounded high to me and whilst not expecting an equal mix I did at least expect to find something paternal no matter how small.
I now realise that my hopes were too high though and much more research is needed.
You have helped me though as I wasn't aware that there were tools to refine searches as you have mentioned and will now study up on that aspect as it will be something to definitely try out.
It's my usual pattern to learn about a topic before dipping my toe in the water but the gift of an Ancestry DNA kit came as a surprise to me and it looks as though my brief studying whilst waiting for my results wasn't anywhere good enough. It seems that I have a lot to learn as yet and hope that my journey might lead to me finding my elusive paternal links along the way.
Thanks again.
-
Someone(possibly me!)is missing the point here. To get the DNA male ancestors you need to take a Y chromosome test. Only s male can do this. A woman needs to ask her brother or father to take the test.
-
You are right that only males have a Y chromosome but autosomal tests such as Ancestry test chromosomes 1-22, not the X and Y chromosomes which determine gender. An autosomal test stands an equal chance of finding matches on the maternal or paternal side, if other people from those lines have also tested. Sometimes the results seem to be very skewed to one side or the other, this can be down to small families so fewer descendants to test, or lack of interest in FH/DNA.
Jane :-)
-
RedRoger, don't think that is correct as each of us inherits 50% of our dna from our mother and 50% from our father so ancestry dna matches should show potential matches from our father's side even if neither of us are male - that is certainly my experience.
Pheno
-
Red roger there are different types of tests ...you cant do a paternal one if you are a woman or dont have any males to test in your family .
We are talking about the test done by ancestry which shows all links .
Testing via mothers only is the way they used to trace richard 3rds descendants cos cant be sure of the accuracy of the records about who was real father but a mothers baby is usually her own ....except in cases of adoptions baby trafficking and switched at birth in hospitals
-
My son who lives in USA did a DNA test last year and had 2 3/4th cousin matches. One didn't respond to his email, but the other one did and the names she had in her tree bore no resemblance to any in my tree. According to my family tree program (Legacy) I have 3573 individuals and 1008 families in my tree, so you would have thought there would be at least one name that matched the ones the American woman gave to my son.
My husband and I have just done our DNA tests (courtesy of a Christmas gift from our son in USA) so it will be interesting to see if we have a match with our son in USA. I think he did an Ancestry test, whereas the ones he bought for us are 23andme, so it's possible we won't have a match.
-
One thing I've noticed is some branches seem to have many more connections than others. My grandmother of Irish descent has many more close matches on Ancestry than my grandmother from Bedfordshire does. All the matches I've been able to confirm on the Irish side are via cousins who emigrated to America, which is where a large proportion of Ancestry's database live. Emigration from Bedfordshire is by comparison far less prevalent, and the matches I have on that side tend to be people still in the UK, who I suspect comprise a much smaller proportion of Ancestry's database.
Regards
Richard
-
My husband and I have just done our DNA tests (courtesy of a Christmas gift from our son in USA) so it will be interesting to see if we have a match with our son in USA. I think he did an Ancestry test, whereas the ones he bought for us are 23andme, so it's possible we won't have a match.
Ancestry & 23andme are entirely different databases, so you wouldn't see anyone who used one test on the other one. I think you would all need to upload your raw data to Gedmatch if you want to see the comparison. If he's your biological son, then the match should be clear.
-
When we get our results we'll upload the data to Gedmatch - yes he is our biological son although as he looks nothing like anyone else (he's very blond with greyish green eyes, whilst everyone else in our family has very dark hair and brown eyes , my husband always jokes his father must have been the milkman ::) (That is sort of an in joke between my husband and me because my boyfriend before my husband was the son of a milkman, but he had auburn hair and our son is our 2nd child born about 4 years after I last saw my previous boyfriend).
-
All the matches I've been able to confirm on the Irish side are via cousins who emigrated to America, which is where a large proportion of Ancestry's database live. Emigration from Bedfordshire is by comparison far less prevalent, and the matches I have on that side tend to be people still in the UK, who I suspect comprise a much smaller proportion of Ancestry's database.
This is an interesting observation, for it highlights differences between the databases.
My Ancestry is mainly from Ireland and England, and many descendants have emigrated to both Australia and USA. I have tested with both FTDNA and Ancestry. But while Ancestry's database is apparently several times larger than FTDNA's, I have more matches with FTDNA. I think this is because Ancestry is strongest in USA (for a while it wasn't offering tests in Australia) but FTDNA has a larger percentage in UK and Australia. I think that is changing as all companies are increasing their sales, but it illustrates that some locations are better represented than others in the different databases.
-
My grandmother of Irish descent has many more close matches on Ancestry than my grandmother from Bedfordshire does. All the matches I've been able to confirm on the Irish side are via cousins who emigrated to America, which is where a large proportion of Ancestry's database live.
I think another reason for having more matches on the Irish side is that civil registration was introduced later in Ireland, and very few census records before 1901 have survived, so people who know they have Irish ancestry often hit brick walls not so far back and have few genealogy research options left other than DNA.
Another issue is that the US census just recorded your country of origin, and compared to the USA Ireland is a small place, but it's still rather difficult to find an ancestor if you have is a name, approximate year and "Ireland". English censuses only required "Ireland", but quite often the enumerator recorded more detail. For example on the last census before she died one of my husband's ancestors must have said she was from Cork, and the enumerator recorded this.
The frustrating thing is that there was an 1820 census. One of my ancestor's sisters (who had a common first name and surname) married a Ryan, and almost a century ago someone who was researching Ryans transcribed census records of Ryan families in Limerick. The sister is on this transcription with her husband and children and the ages match the parish records very well, so it confirms who they are (and led me to another daughter I'd missed) as the baptisms didn't include address or occupation of the father. It makes you realise how much information was lost.
-
When we get our results we'll upload the data to Gedmatch - yes he is our biological son although as he looks nothing like anyone else (he's very blond with greyish green eyes, whilst everyone else in our family has very dark hair and brown eyes , my husband always jokes his father must have been the milkman ::) (That is sort of an in joke between my husband and me because my boyfriend before my husband was the son of a milkman, but he had auburn hair and our son is our 2nd child born about 4 years after I last saw my previous boyfriend).
The description is very interesting Lizzie, as you have just described both the eye and hair colour of my first cousin, daughter of my father's sister, who will have an identical relationship to you through the Stantons to mine. I lost contact with her in the late 1960s, if she is still living she is now 98!
-
Hi,
The points made by RogerK have gone some way to suggesting an answer to a problem I have come across in DNA results.
I am a long-time genie researcher, but I haven't posted here in a long time. At present I am doing a DNA research project to try and identify the birth parents of a cousin's father here in Australia. Four female cousins/nieces have done Ancestry DNA tests. I have used the Shared Matches in Ancestry to build a spreadsheet of 3rd-4th cousin matches and how they all connect. There have been several very kind and generous matches who have helped me along the way. I believe I have now identified very probable birth parents.
The maternal line has been a little easier because we always had a possible candidate for the mother, and DNA testing and matches seems to have confirmed that line as correct.
However, on the paternal line it has been far more complicated. We have had many matches who all have come from a common ancestor, and replies from very helpful 3rd Cousin Matches have allowed me to build a tree down to the point of either grandmother or great-grandmother. Looking at opportunity (a male being in the right place at the right time), we have identified two males as possbile father candidates -a 17 year-old or his 41 year-old father. There is some conjecture regarding which generation male was the possible father. The older man had three wives, and the younger one married once but had several other partners. I have done a lot of research on both men, who were larger-than-life characters here in Western Australia.
The complication occurs because the possible grandmother had two spouses. The putative father is a descendant from the second spouse. I have ten confirmed matches on the left side of my spreadsheet, which all point to a common ancestor of the grandmother. Of these matches, 8 are in USA, 1 is in England and 1 in Australia. Then in the centre of the chart, I have 5 matches from Australia. These matches are descendants from the putative grandmother and from her second spouse. They obviously have DNA from both the grandmother's side (the left of the chart) and the 2nd spouse's side on the right of the chart.
But on the right of the chart I have only 3 matches that have shared ancestors with the second husband, and two of them are aunt and niece. I have been very concerned that there is a lot of flow of matches from the centre of the chart (where the matches all connect to my 4 cousins) to the left, most of whom are from USA. But I have so little connection from the centre to the right (2nd spouse) side, and those matches are in England. I have been starting to doubt if my proposed paternal line was correct after all.
However, RogerK's comments have eased my mind a little. I guess the huge proportion of Ancestry DNA testing has been in USA, and so that is where the bulk of my matches have come from. I will have to be patient and hope that the latest publicity push by Ancestry will persuade more of you Brits to do a DNA test and give me more matches!
-
ozdelver - has your cousin uploaded to other sites? Initially FamilyTreeDNA was the only company that was taking tests from Australians, so there's a chance that there's matches there who've not tested at Ancestry. It's well worth uploading to MyHeritage as well.
-
Hi, thanks for the suggestion. I will have to have a look at other sites I think. Our cousin's brother has also sent his DNA test off, so I think I will wait and see what his results throw up before going down that road. I do believe we are very close, and his matches might be the final confirmation we need.
-
Roger - Not sure why I didn't see your response last February ::) So what you are suggesting is that our son possibly has Stanton genes? I've long since had my DNA results and then also did an Ancestry DNA but haven't found anything interesting really.
Because my half 2nd cousin once removed (her g.gran and my gran were half sisters) has also done an Ancestry DNA, I managed to work out some of the 3/4th cousin relationships but they weren't the ones I was interested in, so I've not pursued them. I'm trying to find out who my paternal g.grandfather was. At least, I ruled out the parentage that many people on Ancestry have for him. I always knew those trees were wrong, but until I found out that one of the people with a "wrong" tree had also done an Ancestry DNA I couldn't prove it. Our results now show that I have absolutely no connection to this man, who is descended from the "apparent" mother of my g.grandfather.
-
Lizzie, I recently had an mtDNA test done by FTDNA, if you wish I will send you the details so you can access the results. These eye colours are common to both my late father, my brother and family, me likewise, and our cousin and her daughters.Clearly DNA is a very complex subject, certainly not understood by me.
-
Roger - I can't remember are you descended from female Stantons? I'd be happy to view your results, although whether I'd understand them is a different matter.
Unfortunately, my missing g.grandfather is on my paternal line, so your results won't help with that. I should put my Ancestry DNA onto Gedmatch and see if anything helpful turns up. My half 2nd cousin etc. is descended from one of my paternal g.grandmothers but from her first husband, my g.grandfather was her "2nd husband" although no-one can find a marriage certificate. My g.grandmother's daughter (my paternal gran), married someone descended from the Stantons. However, my gran's father is the one whose origins I can't find, who is supposed to be Spanish (and possibly Jewish).
Mine and my eldest son's Ethnicity estimates are:
England,Wales & N.W.Europe - Mine 89% Son 85% = 89%/85%
Ireland & Scotland - 6%/5%
European Jewish - 1%/1%
Spain - 2%/0%
Sardinia - 2%/0%
Sweden - 0%/6%
Germanic European - 0%/3%
So I guess his blond hair etc comes form the Swedish/German European.
-
The female side Lizzie. Laetitia Stanton b1822 Heckington m Josh Burton b 1815? Pinchbeck, both Lincs. Laetitia Burton b1859 Pinchbeck was my grandmother. She m Richard Luffman b1828 They had two children, my father and his older sister alucy Ida Kathleen b1895 whose daughter is the lady in question. Incidentallyy DNA is 15% British Isles 84% Western Europe,1%
noise. The 84% Western Europe is ironic as I am a keen Brexiteer!
Will send key to my results tomorrow.
Roger
-
The 84% Western Europe is ironic as I am a keen Brexiteer!
Me too and mine is 89%.
-
Oh yes, Laetitia Stanton is your g.grandmother and my 1st cousin 5 times removed. (I have her married to a Thomas Burton, baptised 22.12.1815 Pinchbeck, Lincs not a Josh Burton).
Her father Edward Stanton born 1784 is my 4 x g.g.uncle and his father Edward Stanton 1739-1805 my 5 x g.grandfather. I think Edward Stanton 1739-1805 is your 3 x g.grandfather. You are, according to my Legacy tree, my 4th cousin twice removed.
-
Thats right Lizzie, it is Thomas, whose father was Joseph (Josh) Burton (1792-1884!) If I follow him I've got a bit to go yet!
-
Thats right Lizzie, it is Thomas, whose father was Joseph (Josh) Burton (1792-1884!) If I follow him I've got a bit to go yet!
I haven't traced the Burton line, as Thomas Burton is "only" the husband of my 1st cousin 5 times removed and that is a step too far, even for me.
-
And confirm this particular Edward Stanton ( I know of 11!) as my 3x great grandfather. Lost at least one generation due to the late marriage of my grandparents ( In the case of grandfather Luffman a very late second marriage age 67) Obviously a bit of a lad as my aunt Ida was born 5 months after the marriage!! Understand why you haven't followed the Burton line, of course it is direct for me. I believe it goes back to an aristocratic family in the immediate area who backed losing side (Parliament) after the 1660 Restoration, one was executed and the name only reappeared c1770 as farm labourers in the Pinchbeck area,so if I'm right it was heads down for 110 years!