Confirming a suspected 5th great grandfather from East Riding of Yorshire v DNA

[hanleyp]

My question is to usefulness of DNA to confirming if a man born in Great Driffield (ERY) in 1704 is my 5th great grandfather.

I have identified some 10 years ago that my 5th great grandfather (Thomas Hanley) married in Sutton upon Derwent (ERY) in 1728-at the age of 25 and that he had only been in that parish for 4 year. Despite extensive searching I could never find anyone born in any of the parishes of the 3 Yorkshire Ridings to fit-until 2 years ago when I came across the same name born Great Driffield ( 26 miles away) in 1704. Through Borthwick searches I have not identified the death or marriage of this person in Driffield or any adjacent parishes -or in fact  anyone of the surname.
.
So this is my question - how worthwhile /practical is it to undertake a DNA test on an ancestry site -- which DNA test(s) and which Ancestry site  to see if I can confirm that the Thomas Hanley born 1704 in Great Driffield is my 5th great grandfather.

I don't mind the DNA test even if just a long shot but then which test(s) and which site ?.  If however it is highly unlikely to succeed I wont bother .

My thinking is I need to find a direct descendant of this mans siblings or descendants of his grandparents or great grandparents -and providing they have undertaking the right DNA tests show we both have the same ancestor.

Fortunately the BMD records of Driffield are -in part- on line -plus some wills and I know the parents ( father Robert, mother Mary nee Tweed) and his paternal grandparents (John and Jaine nee Runton) . I think too that I have a reasonable idea who his paternal great grandfather and paternal great great grandfather were -- and that I believe I can verify this --and perhaps identify their spouses and siblings  through Borthwick.

The Driffield Thomas  had two brothers and a sister. The sister died as a child. Could find no trace of the  elder brother ( Robert b 1701 )-- and only one possible trace of his younger brother John ( b 1707) as having married in Beverley in 1731 to an Elizabeth Tuffey.  The Little/ Great Driffield bmd records seem to indicate that all Hanleys moved out of the parish around 1st qtr of the 1700s-having been their since 1600.

Regards Philip Hanley .

[DavidG02]

Ultimately the best response is it does come down to whether any member of the suspected link has also tested.

But as to if they have then you have to sort the wheat from the chaff. I was lucky with my brickwall that a match also had a surname interest logged that I could peruse and spotted a name that matched.

The next concern might be the length of time ie the matches might be spread out so far as to make it harder to spot the connection. You are now looking at multiple 5th-8th cousins etc

The rest of your questions regarding which DNA site will be a matter of personal choice and need. I note that you are looking at a direct Paternal ancestor , going by names, so a YDNA test might be the one I would look to do. FTDNA are one company that do YDNA. I dont think Ancestry do YDNA but you should check.

I have taken a YDNA67 test and to be fair have nothing to be able to nail down. That could be for various reasons
1. Nobody in that line has tested
2. They have tested and I havent interpreted the results properly
3. Non Paternal Event which can throw results/hopes out the window , which takes me back to 2
4. The 67 test may still not be enough and I need to upgrade

I am also prepared to wait for a connection.

To answer your initial query. If you have the resources and time then why not. You may find a direct connection and the money will seem worth the expense.

But to take a specific DNA test that says you come from a line of Great Driffield men is not currently possible.

[familydar]

I'd say if you can afford it then go for it.  More and more people are testing all the time, you may not get a eureka type result immediately but who's to say what's just around the corner.

Although you seem to be seeking to confirm a direct paternal hunch, an autosomal test might be more use.  You'll still get your male matches but it will widen the net.  Also much cheaper and more players.  The number of generations means you will be on the limits of a match being identifiable but nothing ventured nothing gained.  If a parent from your Driffield line is available to test instead of you that would be better.  If you test with ancestry you can transfer your results to other databases, free, so that will give you even more matches.  Whereas Ancestry don't accept transfers in.  You don't need a sub to view your results but you might decide to get one anyway as they will probably bribe you with an attractive discount.

I'm not saying you should test with Ancestry, do your research and make your own decision, but they do seem to give more bang for your buck.  I was initially very anti ancestry and tested with ftdna.  Two years down the line I bit the bullet and paid for another test with anc because of their much bigger database.  It gave me a whole batch of new matches, so it was worth doing.

Jane :-)

[sugarfizzle]

It isn't why I did autosomal DNA testing but it gave me the sort of result you are looking for on one line.

My 5G grandparents were Stephen Leversuch of Wallop and Elizabeth Crook otp married in Idmiston, Wiltshire in 1745.

No Stephen Leversuch found in Wallop, c 1724, but there was a Stephen Leversidge baptised 1723 in Chitterne, Wiltshire, plus a lot of siblings, baptised mainly as Leversidge and variations.  The father was buried as Stephen Leverstretch alias Leversuch.

Was this my family? Chances are it is correct, but as for proof, none.

'A' Mary Leversuch married John Collins in Thruxton, Hampshire in 1755. 'A' Mary Leversidge was baptised 1730 in Chitterne and I am a DNA match with descendants of Mary. One matched with me at ancestryDNA, the other at myheritageDNA. They diverge two generations later. They also both match with another descendant who I am connected to at a much later date and who matches with me at ancestryDNA.

Although still not proof, it is good extra evidence.

So, I think this mirrors what you are trying to achieve and can be successful. However, to go into DNA testing with only one aim could prove disappointing, it really does depend upon who else has been tested and where.

Hope this helps
Regards Margaret

[hanleyp]

Ultimately the best response is it does come down to whether any member of the suspected link has also tested.

But as to if they have then you have to sort the wheat from the chaff. I was lucky with my brickwall that a match also had a surname interest logged that I could peruse and spotted a name that matched.

The next concern might be the length of time ie the matches might be spread out so far as to make it harder to spot the connection. You are now looking at multiple 5th-8th cousins etc

The rest of your questions regarding which DNA site will be a matter of personal choice and need. I note that you are looking at a direct Paternal ancestor , going by names, so a YDNA test might be the one I would look to do. FTDNA are one company that do YDNA. I dont think Ancestry do YDNA but you should check.

I have taken a YDNA67 test and to be fair have nothing to be able to nail down. That could be for various reasons
1. Nobody in that line has tested
2. They have tested and I havent interpreted the results properly
3. Non Paternal Event which can throw results/hopes out the window , which takes me back to 2
4. The 67 test may still not be enough and I need to upgrade

I am also prepared to wait for a connection.

To answer your initial query. If you have the resources and time then why not. You may find a direct connection and the money will seem worth the expense.

But to take a specific DNA test that says you come from a line of Great Driffield men is not currently possible.

[Thanks David --hope I am answering you properly -- within the brackets -not out of it. Always forget what to do.

I think perhaps on my post I should have mentioned that I am only interested in finding my 5th great grandfather . I decided not to pursue my direct ancestry on my maternal side --simply as it would soon get too big to manage -though I know all the spouses of my paternal ancestors and their children .

 I am not  at all interested in cousins ( other than those I know) . I also have no interest whatsoever in what DNA percentage of my Ethnicity - English or East European or African .This seems to me to be the main reason why so many people are doing  the DNA -who otherwise have no interest in the family tree.

I read the many reports of people trying to  contact  DNA flags with no response. The assumption I think is these are in the main people who got DNA tests as xmas or birthday presents.

So whether  it is possible or not I ma hoping to find the best way to be  flagged of people who share a direct line with me.

I take your point about YDNA test ( paternal) --but I also thought I could confirm the Driffield Thomas via people who shared his maternal grandmother or great grandmother. Am I  right in that ??--in which case I would need the maternal DNA test as well .

Confess to know very little on DNA-only that there are three diffent test-paternal, maternal -and other. looks complicated. Will have to bring myself up to some speed

Understand can't just use DNA to Driffield people in general
Many thanks again. Phil Hanley ]

[sugarfizzle]

You say ' I think perhaps on my post I should have mentioned that I am only interested in finding my 5th great grandfather . I decided not to pursue my direct ancestry on my maternal side --simply as it would soon get too big to manage -though I know all the spouses of my paternal ancestors and their children.  I am not  at all interested in cousins (other than those I know) '.

Autosomal DNA might or probably might not pick up a match, depending upon who else has tested. You aren't interested in researching your maternal line, so maternal testing no good for you. If your paternal surname is Hanley, with no illegitimate births, you may or may not also find a YDNA match with Hanley, David hasn't had any luck so far.

So none of these options cost effective for you.

The most likely to give you the result you want is autosomal DNA, but costly for one surname which may or may not turn up.

Regards Margaret

[DavidG02]

Phil

Thanks for your response . On its own all the bells and whistles that come along with DNA seem like they arent for you , and thats fine, you can ignore a lot of that to find what you want but I do think a lot of the back and forth does need to occur to establish contact with possibilities for further paperwork

My flippant response is its  a lot of money just to receive a Birth Certificate that may not even be the one you want.

If you think you can identify from the maternal then sugarfizzle is correct an 'autosomnal test' should be ok.

The only other way I can see you confirming this person is to find another confirmed descendant using a papertrail and testing both to see if you match each other.

Good luck

[hanleyp]

Ultimately the best response is it does come down to whether any member of the suspected link has also tested.

But as to if they have then you have to sort the wheat from the chaff. I was lucky with my brickwall that a match also had a surname interest logged that I could peruse and spotted a name that matched.

The next concern might be the length of time ie the matches might be spread out so far as to make it harder to spot the connection. You are now looking at multiple 5th-8th cousins etc

The rest of your questions regarding which DNA site will be a matter of personal choice and need. I note that you are looking at a direct Paternal ancestor , going by names, so a YDNA test might be the one I would look to do. FTDNA are one company that do YDNA. I dont think Ancestry do YDNA but you should check.

I have taken a YDNA67 test and to be fair have nothing to be able to nail down. That could be for various reasons
1. Nobody in that line has tested
2. They have tested and I havent interpreted the results properly
3. Non Paternal Event which can throw results/hopes out the window , which takes me back to 2
4. The 67 test may still not be enough and I need to upgrade

I am also prepared to wait for a connection.

To answer your initial query. If you have the resources and time then why not. You may find a direct connection and the money will seem worth the expense.

But to take a specific DNA test that says you come from a line of Great Driffield men is not currently possible.

[Thanks David --hope I am answering you properly -- within the brackets -not out of it. Always forget what to do.

I think perhaps on my post I should have mentioned that I am only interested in finding my 5th great grandfather . I decided not to pursue my direct ancestry on my maternal side --simply as it would soon get too big to manage -though I know all the spouses of my paternal ancestors and their children .

 I am not  at all interested in cousins ( other than those I know) . I also have no interest whatsoever in what DNA percentage of my Ethnicity - English or East European or African .This seems to me to be the main reason why so many people are doing  the DNA -who otherwise have no interest in the family tree.

I read the many reports of people trying to  contact  DNA flags with no response. The assumption I think is these are in the main people who got DNA tests as xmas or birthday presents.

So whether  it is possible or not I ma hoping to find the best way to be  flagged of people who share a direct line with me.

I take your point about YDNA test ( paternal) --but I also thought I could confirm the Driffield Thomas via people who shared his maternal grandmother or great grandmother. Am I  right in that ??--in which case I would need the maternal DNA test as well .

Confess to know very little on DNA-only that there are three diffent test-paternal, maternal -and other. looks complicated. Will have to bring myself up to some speed

Understand can't just use DNA to Driffield people in general
Many thanks again. Phil Hanley ]

Thanks David -- I think my reply to you was composed inside the quote brackets --and that was wrong .  Only do that if I am amending my own--or adding to my own , message ?.

This time try replying after outside of the brackets see what happens .
Not self intuitive is it? Do this every time I come back into Roots Chat . ( 2 years since i last posted )

My reply Thanks - I think I am slowly getting some understanding of DNA tests --and that if I go ahead I am going to have to undertake the labour intensive exercises of "Sorting wheat from the Chaff" --contacting people who dont respond or contacting people who have a very small family tree.
I have thought -as your latest response states- of just waiting for some on an ancestry site having the Driffield Thomas siblings or grandparents or great grandparents on their tree and then trying to do a DNA test . After all if people don't have a family tree with these people in it --how will the DNA help?

Regards Phil hanley

[hanleyp]

It isn't why I did autosomal DNA testing but it gave me the sort of result you are looking for on one line.

My 5G grandparents were Stephen Leversuch of Wallop and Elizabeth Crook otp married in Idmiston, Wiltshire in 1745.

No Stephen Leversuch found in Wallop, c 1724, but there was a Stephen Leversidge baptised 1723 in Chitterne, Wiltshire, plus a lot of siblings, baptised mainly as Leversidge and variations.  The father was buried as Stephen Leverstretch alias Leversuch.

Was this my family? Chances are it is correct, but as for proof, none.

'A' Mary Leversuch married John Collins in Thruxton, Hampshire in 1755. 'A' Mary Leversidge was baptised 1730 in Chitterne and I am a DNA match with descendants of Mary. One matched with me at ancestryDNA, the other at myheritageDNA. They diverge two generations later. They also both match with another descendant who I am connected to at a much later date and who matches with me at ancestryDNA.

Although still not proof, it is good extra evidence.

So, I think this mirrors what you are trying to achieve and can be successful. However, to go into DNA testing with only one aim could prove disappointing, it really does depend upon who else has been tested and where.

Hope this helps
Regards Margaret

Hi Margaret --many thanks for your message . I read it that  you were able to if not conclusively prove

It isn't why I did autosomal DNA testing but it gave me the sort of result you are looking for on one line.

My 5G grandparents were Stephen Leversuch of Wallop and Elizabeth Crook otp married in Idmiston, Wiltshire in 1745.

No Stephen Leversuch found in Wallop, c 1724, but there was a Stephen Leversidge baptised 1723 in Chitterne, Wiltshire, plus a lot of siblings, baptised mainly as Leversidge and variations.  The father was buried as Stephen Leverstretch alias Leversuch.

Was this my family? Chances are it is correct, but as for proof, none.

'A' Mary Leversuch married John Collins in Thruxton, Hampshire in 1755. 'A' Mary Leversidge was baptised 1730 in Chitterne and I am a DNA match with descendants of Mary. One matched with me at ancestryDNA, the other at myheritageDNA. They diverge two generations later. They also both match with another descendant who I am connected to at a much later date and who matches with me at ancestryDNA.

Although still not proof, it is good extra evidence.

So, I think this mirrors what you are trying to achieve and can be successful. However, to go into DNA testing with only one aim could prove disappointing, it really does depend upon who else has been tested and where.

Hope this helps
Regards Margaret

Thanks Margaret ,
( responded to you -after the quotes brackets . Hope I did the right thing -always confuses me what I am supposed to do ) . Sure someone will tell me one day...
 
I think you are saying you more or less confirmed your 6th Greatgrandfather through DNA.

When you are advised of a DNA link what actual information do you receive . -ie you share a 6th Greatgrandfather or 5th Great Grandmother?  Or is  much less informative? ie just share an ancestor-go and work it out. ?

I am looking at a matched link with a shared 6th or 7th  grandparent.

As I advised David --I have only one interest -- to confirm whether the Driffield Thomas is my 5th great grandfather . No interest in knowing cousins -or my ethnicity mix .

To do that I think I need to share a DNA link someone who is a direct descendant of either Thomas's father or mother or Thomas grandparents -- male or female.

I am aware of the large amount of opinion that most DNA testing is next to worthless . Whether that is true or not I would like some informative facts -- before I decide I want to do it .

As also said to David --I wonder if it is simply better to get a shared tree connect first --and then see if I can work on the DNA afterwards . If I am getting a DNA match with someone who has no knowledge of their 4th or 5th Great grandparents is that much use?

My situation is somewhat different from the norm of people who test for DNA-- in that I know who my 5th great granddad and basically in what year . It just is that I don't know for certain where he was born -though I had identified a probable person and place . I know that persons siblings , his parents and his paternal grandparents --and probably his paternal great grandparents .

It sounds like your situation was the same as mine --and you had success through a DNA match.

As I understand it there are 3 test available -- the paternal DNA ( essentially unchanged ) down the father line , the paternal DNA ( essentially not much changed down the mother  line) and the Autosomal DNA --which changes rapidly (50% each generation) . I would think the latter is going to through up 1000s of matches --and I would think would be the least of value to me? .

No idea which ancestry sites does what, which DNA test most people get done nor the relative costs.

Regards -- and once again many thanks for taking the time to post a message to me
Phil Hanley .