RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Tricia_2 on Monday 02 July 12 18:44 BST (UK)
-
Hi All :)
I'd welcome some thoughts, please :)
Since our male line is an illegitimate one, and we were hoping to establish that the ancestors who we thought were ours really were ours, we decided on a Y DNA test (42 places). I'm female, so my brother took the test.
And I am now somewhat confused.
The person with whom I had hoped to compare genes is no longer in touch and cannot be contacted.
The 'results' I get from publishing our DNA on Family History sites hasn't yet proved to be very helpful.
The site I originally used, 'DNA Heritage', has closed and transferred their customers to 'Family Tree DNA', who want me to 'update' ~ ie spend more money to have the test done that I thought I had already paid for.
I have also published my info on Ancestry.
When we had the test done, there was much talk of Y DNA going with surnames. However, while I have found some distant matches, I see no coincidental surnames.
On FTDNA, this could well be because the close relationships seem to have been 20+ generations ago, when surnames were rare.
But on Ancestry, the close relationships seem to have been 7 - 15 generations ago, when they were not so rare.
I feel that I have a very useful resource here, but I don't really know what to do with it ~ in spite of reading up on the subject.
I think that I should ~ and probably will ~ contact all these people, who seem to have been related to me, up to 20+ generations ago, but I would also like to discuss this subject with someone knowledgeable, and get some additional input on the subject.
Any thought please?
Thank you! :)
****
Also, would it be possible to have a 'DNA' section in the forum, I wonder, please? :)
-
You can focus on matches in a shorter timeframe if you upgrade the test at FTDNA. Suggest you take a look at their forum for more advice.
-
;D
Have you uploaded your data to the gedmatch website - there are hundreds of people over there and the comparison tools gives results that can be very interesting.
Liz
PS Google should have the site as the first hit.
-
Hi Craclyn :)
Thanks. I'll take a look at their forum.
But, I felt that, having already paid for one test, I was loathe to pay, again, just for just a few different / additional markers, especially as I was about to order a test for another damily line.
-
Thanks, Gataki,
I'll have a look at that site.
I may find some more / closer matches :)
-
I do have another question about DNA tests, but will start a new thread, after I have checked out this info a bit further :)
-
There is information on the FTDNA website about customers transferring from DNA Heritage - see FAQs # 1 & #3 on this page....
http://www.familytreedna.com/faq/answers.aspx?id=40#1559
What they are basically saying is that the FREE transfer will only equate to a 25-marker test after transfer (see FAQ #5). You can then upgrade to 37 or 67 marker test at a discounted price.
FamilyTreeDNA do allow Y-DNA searches based on surnames, if required.
-
Hi Nick :)
Thank you!
I don't know how I missed that! :)
Very helpful!
*
It is annoying to have paid extra for a higher number of markers, only to find that I need to pay out yet more for different markers ~ especially when I have other lines to research :(
-
Well, DNA testing is always a risky business..... I tested 9 months ago, but as yet, not a single 'bite' :)
Still, the more people who test, the better our chances of a match become 8)
-
Nick29
I run four accounts for two females and two males. I would like an opinion on the following: On one male, 25 marker, 2 distant that has branches to all or most of the European Royals and one female (father unknown) a 5th distant cousin showing another European Royal in their branch . My accounts are mostly European with the usual splattering of Middle East. etc. Is it the norm for people of mostly European ancestry (at least they think they are) to have this type of connection i.e. distant/remote cousins and have others had this show up too? Just curious. I haven't responded/contacted them. I am busy looking for the Brown's, Woods and Turners. Lookin2
-
Tricia,I see that you are located in England. This is much of the problem, not enough of us have taken the test yet for patterns to emerge. I took the test last year, and so far have not had a single confirmed match with a person with my surname. There is one person with whom I match 33/37 markers, but FTDNA say since we are different haplotypes we cannot be related. My response is that as there are only around 550 carriers of the surname (under 300 male), surely the different haplotype is an error in their test. They will re-test and refund if they are wrong, but as they have complete control of the tests seems too risky to me.
However, I did match 36/37 markers with a man in Canada, and was able to prove by the paper tree that his ancestor was the result of a liasion between my grandfather's brother and his great grandmother in Lincolnshire around 1870. Family likenesses in photographs were quite remarkable.
-
Nick29
I run four accounts for two females and two males. I would like an opinion on the following: On one male, 25 marker, 2 distant that has branches to all or most of the European Royals and one female (father unknown) a 5th distant cousin showing another European Royal in their branch . My accounts are mostly European with the usual splattering of Middle East. etc. Is it the norm for people of mostly European ancestry (at least they think they are) to have this type of connection i.e. distant/remote cousins and have others had this show up too? Just curious. I haven't responded/contacted them. I am busy looking for the Brown's, Woods and Turners. Lookin2
European royals were quite famous for their illegitimate children. There are people here in the UK who claim to have a better right to the UK throne, if descendants of illegitimate people were allowed the right to the throne. Even in normal life, it has been estimated that between 30% and 60% of people alive today have a name on their birth certificate who is not their biological father. This is the trouble with DNA testing and genealogy - it follows real blood lines, not family lines.
-
As I have noticed Nick, see reply 10 above.
-
I think I have a half-brother who took the name of the man that my mother was married to at the time, although the child was born in a house occupied by my father. This was in the 1940's - attitudes were different then. Sadly the child only lived 2 hours.
-
Perhaps this can assist you to understand what is offering?
http://www.familytreedna.com/pdf/promo_gap.pdf
Ysearch the number one Y-DNA public database
Also, it could take quite a time to find a close match.
Whilst I have not found a close match for myself after some years, as a project administrator for 2 family groups, I have found successful matches for others.
The secret is - participation and patience.
Regards
EDO
-
... the more people who test, the better our chances of a match become 8)
Hi again:)
That's true.
Thanks for your thoughts :)
-
....There is one person with whom I match 33/37 markers, but FTDNA say since we are different haplotypes we cannot be related. My response is that as there are only around 550 carriers of the surname (under 300 male), surely the different haplotype is an error in their test. ....
That sounds very odd to me :(
-
.... The secret is - participation and patience.
Regards EDO
Hi Edo ~ I think that you are right!
-
....There is one person with whom I match 33/37 markers, but FTDNA say since we are different haplotypes we cannot be related. My response is that as there are only around 550 carriers of the surname (under 300 male), surely the different haplotype is an error in their test. ....
That sounds very odd to me :(
I won't say odd, if the surname had been Smith etc. I wouldn't even have thought of querying it, but with a fairly rare surname I do really wonder.
-
Good luck sorting it out :)
-
Problem is they want money to do a retest, which they MIGHT refund if they are wrong!!
-
Genealogy can be a very expensive hobby ~ especially when genetic research is involved.
-
Dna cannot prove a person is a father of a child but can disprove the possiblity a person is the father od a specific child.
One has as much chance tracking males carrying the same surname or even males in the surrounding area as using DNA to prove a lineage.
It can be a useful tool to disprove a lineage.
Cheers
Guy
-
Hi Guy :)
Thanks for responding.
Are you saying that, even if two men have identical DNA, they may not be related??
Or are you saying that you cannot tell, exactly, what the relationship is?
-
The only people that can have identical DNA sequences are identical twins, and even that is quite rare, because of genetic mutations that can occur with time. So, the father of a child will not have identical DNA to the child, but he should carry many significant identical DNA sequences as the child. The full human DNA sequence is 3 billion base pairs, and to test for matches in the complete sequence would be logistically impossible. So DNA tests only look at specific areas of the DNA sequence, and the numbers of matches in those selected gene pairs. As the number of matches increases, then the probability of an ancestral match increases, but (as Guy said) it is impossible to prove 100% that one person is related to another, but quite often it's very easy to prove that people are not related due to lack of matches.
-
Hello Nick and Guy :) :)
Thanks for your comments!
Ok, now I'm really confused. ???
Based on my (rather ancient now) school genetics classes, and on info gleaned from various books, documentaries and DNA testing sites, I was under the impression that Y-DNA, as passed from father to son, to grandson, etc, etc, was identical, apart from the odd mutations that occur, from time to time, along the way.
Also that Mitochondrial DNA, passed down the female line, would be either identical, at each generation, or slightly altered, also as a result of mutations.
I know that I am becoming confused, but are you saying that I have been misled? :-\
Thanks! :) :)
I think that I need to know what can discover from DNA testing :)
-
You are correct in your understanding of Y-DNA and mtDNA. Nick's comment seems to relate more to autosomal DNA which is a combination from the parents. Siblings will inherit different segments unless they are fraternal twins. The 4th type which has yet another set of combinations is the X-chromosome. Useful in determining which ancestral lines you share with someone as it cannot be passed through 2 males in the line.
If you just focus on Y-DNA and mtDNA then you can only follow two lines (paternal and maternal). To find matches with all your other ancestral lines then you also need to look at autosomal DNA.
-
Hi Craclyn :)
Thanks.
Yes, the two Y-DNA tests that I have arranged for male relatives are specifically to look at those male lines, so that is fine. It's what I wanted.
The Ancestry test that I am hoping to take will be the autosomal DNA test, I think. It will be interesting to see what that reveals. :)
-
You asked whether two men could have 'identical DNA'. The answer to that is no.
They can, however have substiantially similar or identical Y-chromasomes.
This article explains it quite well....
http://chemgroups.northwestern.edu/lambert/dna/analysis.htm
-
Hi again,
Yes, sorry, I was still referring to the Y-DNA. :)
Thanks for the link. That should prove to be useful :)
-
As I understand it autosomal DNA is inherited from both parents, a child will have 50% of its DNA from each parent, 25% from each grandparent, 12.5% from each great grandparent, diminishing by half in each subequent generation. Which suggests to me, that after the great grandparent stage autosomal DNA becomes of diminishing value, except perhaps in a family which is very inbred as a result of many 1st cousin marriages throughout history.
Are my thoughts right on this?
-
I have done this test. it takes some time to get your head around. But I must say its great when you find a name in common say 250 years back. It confirms the line you are following is correct. I have also found further ancestors . often you will match people in common and this gives great indications of names you should look at.
It doesnt replace the paper trail. it enhances it and confirms.
-
Sounds very exciting!
I must say that I am finding my results at FT DNA confusing.
I have read quite a bit on the subject ~ but clearly, not enough! :)
-
Which test, and how long have you had the results.
I played around with them for a bout 3 weeks before I started looking.
-
My brother had the Y-DNA 42 marker test done at DNA Heritage.
It was transferred to FT DNA, but has to be upgraded to be fully compared with their records.
I haven't done this, yet, as I am currently paying for anothey Y DNA test, on another relative.
Here's one example that I find bewildering ...
For one person who 'matched', I found three sets of results, regarding the chances of us having a common ancestor:
For Y-DNA 111 marker results ~ 94.99% within the past 8 generations
For Y-DNA 25 marker results ~ 29.79% within the past 8 generations
For Y-DNA 12 marker results ~ 20.09% within the past 8 generations
Why are the results so different for thje same questiion with the same person???
I just don't understand :(
-
If 111 out of 111 markers match, then the probability of a relationship is far higher i.e.almost 95%, than if 25 out of 25 markers match, under 30%. A case of the more markers that match the better.
-
Hi RedRoger :)
Thanks for helping!
Yes, I understand that far, but what I don't understand is why, if at a larger number of markers our chances of a relationship are as high as 95% within 8 generations, why do those chances go down at 25 and 12 markers? I would understand if it were the other way around, but I find this bewildering. ???
-
Assume you have 2 jigsaw puzzles, both have say 112 pieces. If you take 111 from each puzzle you are likely to match most if not all of them. Now put them all back, and firstly take 25 from each, and then 20. See how many match now.
Hope that helps.
-
Sorry, I realise that your reply actually answers this.
I suppose that I was just confused that, if 111 markers are available, and enough of them checked with the 37 of my markers that they can use, such that there was a 95% match within 8 generations, why would they even give the lesser results, where there is only a 20% chance of a match??
I suppose that I am also confused because, on my Ancestry results chart, I have had lower numbers of checked markers put at the top of my list of likely close matches.
-
Thanks Redroger. :)
Yes, your explanation does make sense!
Thank you!! :)
-
The more markers you have in common, the more sure you can be that you share enough DNA to make it likely that the common relative is within the specified timeframe. If you have less markers in common the link may be a lot further back. At 25 markers the test is not covering enough to give a higher level of certainty. If you do a higher level then some of those who match at 25 will not show at 111.
-
If you do a higher level then some of those who match at 25 will not show at 111.
Which makes perfect sense in the circumstances.
-
... some of those who match at 25 will not show at 111.
OK. I admit it. I'm confused again ???
Why would matches no longer match? :-\
-
The more markers you have in common, the more sure you can be that you share enough DNA to make it likely that the common relative is within the specified timeframe. If you have less markers in common the link may be a lot further back. At 25 markers the test is not covering enough to give a higher level of certainty. ...
Yes, this was why we had the 42 marker Y DNA test done, which was considered quite high at the time. Unfortunately, some of those markers don't equate with FT DNA, which brings it down further, but I think that it is still classed as 37, which isn't too bad.
-
someone may match at 25 or even 37, but test more markers like 111 and they may only match for 95 markers, which wouldnt be a very good match.
The more markers you test the less likely a good match, the fewer you test the more others will match.
If you have tested 111 markers and have some close matches say 4 steps away. I would concentrate on those.
On the other hand if you have good matches at 67 say 3 steps away and that person hasn't tested to 111, I would also look at them, as if they had tested higher they may still match closer.
I wouldnt bother with anything less than 67 markers since you have tested to a high level.
-
But isn't the problem here that her brother has not tested at 67 or 111, so there is no way they can apply the level of certainty that you gain with a higher number of markers?
With a 3rd party test at 42 this will only give a lower level on FTDNA.
-
If her brother has tested to 37 on ftdna (ie 42 at ancestry) and has a 36 to 37 match with the same surname or varient , then I would consider that a match. If you are an adoptee or know of a non parental event then I would test higher.
And is the area you are looking
-
Hi again:)
Thanks for the help!
I suppose one of my problems is that I am seeing results, which seem to indicate close or close-ish matches, but do not know how reliable they may be, or whether to look into them further.
I would be really grateful for more input on this subject, if anyone is willing and patient enough to help me please :)
This is all related to the same 42-marker Y DNA test that my brother took some time ago, with DNA Heritage.
On Ancestry, for one individual ~ the highest on my match list ~ it states that there is a 'very close match' to me and suggests that it is within only 1 - 6 generations. Ancestry says that 28 Markers were tested, but they show only 26 matches with mine. They don't give details of any non-matches, so perhaps there were a couple of his markers, which simply weren't tested on mine.
For another individual, it states that there is a 'close match' ie 7-15 generations. Ancestry says that 46 Markers were tested ~ ie closer to my 42 ~ and they show 42 comparisons with mine. There are 39 matches and 3 non-matches.
I can see that, in the first case, 100% of compared markers match, and that, in the second case, it is less than 100%.
However, in the first case, it is 100% of only 26; whereas in the second case, it is just under 93% of 42.
Why is one a 'very close match' (1 - 6 generations) and the other only a 'close match' (7-15 generations), when they are not really comparing like with like?
Indeed, is it a very close match?
-
... If you ... know of a non parental event then I would test higher.
This was, indeed, an illegitimate line. How high would you go marker-wise?
-
It is still 39 out of 42 matches at 93%
I would look at the names you match with most closely and look to see if those names exist in the areas of your ancestors involved. ie if its your great gdad born approx 1890 i would look at the names and neigbours living nearbye in the 1891 census, with that match name.
its all detective work Im afraid.
JEEZ JUST NOTICED MY BAD SPELLING
-
All of the 'matches' given, on FT DNA and Ancestry, have different surnames from each other, and different surnames from the name we had hoped to find, so, no luck there :)
-
I would look at the matches on ftdna since that is a higher level test. Look at all those names that match in that area. As if you dont know who the father is ho w do you know those names are not relevant.
Also have you considered a family finder test.
-
Hi :)
At present, I am already arranging for another Y DNA test for another interesting family line and I have put my name down for the new AncestryDNA beta test ~ which I think may be the autosomal one. I may eventually upgrade the test I am looking at here, but I have to justify hobby costs :)
As for surnames, there are none in common with each other, on the match list from FT DNA, so nothing to point in any specific direction, and probably my close relatives simply haven't tested.
As for the name I am seeking, non-genetics research has led us to a specific family, but DNA would clinch it ~ or tell us that we were barking up the wrong tree, of course :)
-
well I have tested at Family tree Dna I have posted my ydna results on ancestry and really havent found it any good at all. I find ftdna better and they seem to have a lot more matches.
Who is the ydna test for exactly it may not help. ( sorry i see it is another line) As long as he isnt related by a male lline to your other y dna test,
it maybe that family finder would be better anyway as it could quite possibly incorporate both lines in one go.
-
Who is the Y DNA for?
Sorry, I'm not sure that I understand the question ???
I am hoping to find a link with my illegitimate male line.
Thus my brother took the test on my behalf.
He is a direct male descendant, through a fully male line, of our 'mystery' great grandfather.
-
I meant the other line you are going to test
-
That's a completely different line ~ on my mother's side of the family ~ so no, not related at all, but while I'm spending money on that one, I cannot justify spending more money on upgrading this one.
As for FT matches, yes, there are lots, but with close relationships only at around 20+ generations back. I was surprised to find very, very few surnames that matched with each other, though, since it is a Y-DNA test. I can only assume that it is because surnames were rarer that long ago
-
Yes but what i am getting at is that instead of the new ydna test. If you took the family finder it would incorporate your mothers and your fathers line.
-
you could then for the illegitamate line cross check with the family finder and ydna results, and thave family finder results to work out your mothers side
-
I see. :)
I have already paid for the Y DNA test for my Mum's family, so that's done :)
I shall look into Family Finder, though. I don't know much about it.
I have already registered for the Ancestry Beta test and, as a member, I will get a very good discount, so that is why I was planning on taking that one. I get the impression that it will give similar results to Family Finder.
I suppose that the problem, then, would be not being able to compare with FT's Family Finder
-
Yes I was waiting for ancestry having been a paying member for 8 years. Still not got an invite so went with FTDNA.
And yes I would check how many tests they have done as you cannot transfer your ff results too many numbers. Family finder is all about cross matching with the greatest number of people so if one has many more results than the other I would go with that one.
FTDNA have a sale untill the 15th so it is £125.
-
Thanks :)
I'll look into it :)
-
Hi again :)
I have just received a message from FT DNA, telling me that 'A Y-DNA12 match has been found' for me!
Very exciting!
Well, not really that exciting.
The first 12 of my recorded results match with several other people whose results are on Y-Search.
Ie.
DYS 393 / DYS 390 / DYS 19 or 394 / DYS 391 / DYS 385a / DYS 385b / DYS 426 / DYS 388 / DYS 439 / DYS 389-1 / DYS 392 / DYS 389-2
13 - 25 - 14 - 11 - 12 - 14 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 13 - 13 - 29
And those matches came from England, Scotland, Ireland, Spain, Germany, Canada, USA.
I get the impression ~ rightly or wrongly ~ that these are very common matches, and nothing to get excited about at all. We are probably related, but way back in time, I am guessing.
Would I be right?
Any info appreciated :)
-
About 1/3 of the population of Europe will match in a Y-DNA12 test, I suspect :)
-
Thanks Nick :)
So, it's not just the number of markers that matter, it's also which markers :)
-
No its the amount of markers 12 markers is about 10% of the 11 you can test.
A match at 12 markers which doesnt match any higher, you are probably related 1000 + years back
-
Personally I do not follow up anything under a full 25 matches.As has already been said any relationship will be so far back as to be beyond searching out, and therefore can only serve as a distraction. However, having said that as I haven't had any matches for over 12 months even a 12 marker match would break the monotony.
-
Hi Redroger.
Who have you tested with?
I have Lincs ancestry and was infact born there. I have a family finder test with FTDNA and a Ydna for my son Born in Lincs but maybe not too much of his YDNA is from there.
-
It's funny, I got an email from FTDNA today informing me of a 12 of 12 YDNA match :)
-
I bet we're related!!! :)
-
I bet we're related!!! :)
I know your remark was 'tongue in cheek', but it's perfectly possible we are, if you do the maths.
Every time you go back a generation, you double the number of people responsible for your existence - you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 g. grandparents, (etc), and you only have to go back about 20 generations before the number of people needed exceed the number of people alive at the time. So it's inevitable that we all have shared ancestors.
-
Oh, definitely, Nick!
Even those of us who are not 'closely' related have the same African ancestors, so, yes, we certainly are cousins.
The only question is ~ how close?
I'm wondering if your '12 marker match' is the same as mine.
My guess is that it is :)
-
I bet we're related!!! :)
I know your remark was 'tongue in cheek', but it's perfectly possible we are, if you do the maths.
Every time you go back a generation, you double the number of people responsible for your existence - you have 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 g. grandparents, (etc), and you only have to go back about 20 generations before the number of people needed exceed the number of people alive at the time. So it's inevitable that we all have shared ancestors.
It depends what point in time one wishes to start and what maths are used.
If one starts in early history and works forward then one quickly realises that the maths working from the present day back may be vitally flawed.
Take a look at
http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html for a different outlook.
Perhaps after reading many will wonder if the DNA hype has any basis in fact, after all the projections are based on a tiny sample.
Cheers
Guy
-
at 40 generations , approx 1000 years back. you could have
1,099,511,627,775 grandparents. So yes we are all related.
-
It's a fascinating thought, isn't it?
Hello cousins all! :)
-
The thing that always puzzles me is 'Where was Africa before all the continents drifted apart ?' Was the cradle of civilisation where Scotland is now ?
Strange how scientists can be so sure that we all came from a country which was yet to be discovered or named ;)
I even have trouble when entering the details of my early ancestors who were traders in 'America' in the 1600's, but it wasn't America then, was it ? Some were born out there - what do I put as their place of birth ?
So complicated :)
-
at 40 generations , approx 1000 years back. you could have
1,099,511,627,775 grandparents. So yes we are all related.
Don't ignore the effects of cousin marriages over several generations. This may greatly reduces the number of ancestors we have
-
at 40 generations , approx 1000 years back. you could have
1,099,511,627,775 grandparents. So yes we are all related.
Don't ignore the effects of cousin marriages over several generations. This may greatly reduces the number of ancestors we have
Since that figure is about 4 thousand times the entire world population of 1,000 years ago I guess there was a good deal of 'overlapping' ;)
Despite that, I imagine it is easily possible for any 2 people to share no common ancestors over that period. While it is unlikely within one particular nation, there must be many population groups who have remained 'uncontaminated' by outsiders for 40 generations.
I am still not convinced of the benefits of DNA testing other than to prove/disprove a particular relationship discovered by other means. However, when funds permit I may well take a test out of curiosity to discover the ancient origins of my male line, but I don't expect it to unearth any fresh ancestors within the past millennium.
Mike
-
Complicated and fascinating :)
-
On the subject of "overlapping" much more recently I believ e Prince Charles has 8 great great grandparents instead of the 16 he should have, and no doubt they also "overlapped"
-
On the subject of "overlapping" much more recently I believ e Prince Charles has 8 great great grandparents instead of the 16 he should have, and no doubt they also "overlapped"
No Prince Charles has 16 distinct great great grandparents. The overlapping does occur in the next generation ie great great great grandparents where both Queen Victoria and Prince Albert appear twice - but they are the only overlap at that level
-
On a separate point. If anyone found a 25 / 25 match would they follow it up if the surname was different from your own (no idea of the location of the match). This match has tested at 37 level as have I but we do not appear to match at 33/37 or higher
-
If Prince Albert's real father was his mother's doctor, as has been suggested, Prince Charles's pedigree is a bit suspect. Wilde's quote that Burke's Peerage was "the greatest work of fiction yet published in the English language", isn't far wide of the mark.
Skoosh.
-
David, To reply to both your postings: How many 3X Great grandparents does Prince Charles have? Is it 30, or less than that?
Personally I don't research 25/25 markers any more, but it would be nice to get one now and again, I have had a 15 months drought on responses now.
Skoosh: I completely agree with Oscar on this issue. Thos butlers and grooms have a lot to answer for!
-
Don't forget John Brown, Roger, or Edward the Caresser,s court appearance on adultery charges.
-
If Prince Albert's real father was his mother's doctor, as has been suggested, Prince Charles's pedigree is a bit suspect. Wilde's quote that Burke's Peerage was "the greatest work of fiction yet published in the English language", isn't far wide of the mark.
Skoosh.
I have heard that rumour too. However it has been proven, by those who are expert in the field that it is not possible due to the whereabouts of various people involved. There is, or was, an article on the web about it but can not find it at the moment
-
Roger
• These are the “32” great great great grandparents of Prince Charles. There are 30 distinct names as Victoria and Albert appear twice.
Interestingly although Christian IX von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, konge af Danmark 1818-1906 and =Luise von Hessn-Kassel, Prinzessin von Hessen 1817-1898 are his great great great grandparents they also appear separately as his great great grandparents as they are the children of 32,33,34 and 35 on the list
32 - Wilhelm, Herzog von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Beck 1785-1831
• 33 - Luise, Prinzessin von Hessen-Kassel 1789-1867
• 34 - Wilhelm X, Landgraf von Hessen-Kassel 1787-1867
• 35 - Charlotte von Oldenburg, prinsesse af Danmark 1789-1864
• 36 - Nikolaï Ier Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp, empereur de Russie 1796-1855
• 37 - Alexandra Fedorovna von Hohenzollern, Prinzessin von Preußen 1798-1860
• 38 - Joseph, Herzog von Sachsen-Altenburg 1789-1868
• 39 - Amalie von Württemberg, Herzogin von Würtemberg 1799-1848
• 40 - Ludwig II von Hessen und bei Rhein, Großherzog von Hessen 1777-1848
• 41 - Wilhelmine, Prinzessin von Baden 1788-1836
• 42 - Moritz, Graf Hauke 1775-1830
• 43 - Sophie Lafontaine 1790-1831
• 44 - Karl Wilhelm Ludwig von Hessen und bei Rhein, Prinz von Hessen-Darmstadt 1809-1877
• 45 - Elisabeth von Hohenzollern, Prinzessin von Preußen 1815-1885
• 46 - Albert, Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha 1819-1861
• 47 - Victoria von Hannover, Queen of Great Britain 1819-1901
• 48 =Albert, Prinz von Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha 1819-1861
• 49 => Victoria von Hannover, Queen of Great Britain 1819-1901
• 50 =Christian IX von Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg, konge af Danmark 1818-1906
• 51 =Luise von Hessn-Kassel, Prinzessin von Hessen 1817-1898
• 52 - Alexander von Württemberg, Herzog von Teck 1804-1885
• 53 - Claudine Rhédey, Gräfin von Hohenstein 1812-1841
• 54 - Adolphus von Hannover, Duke of Cambridge 1774-1850
• 55 - Augusta, Prinzessin von Hessen-Kassel 1797-1889
• 56 - Thomas George Bowes-Lyon, Lord Glamis 1801-1834
• 57 - Charlotte Grimstead ca 1797-1881
• 58 - Oswald Smith 1794-1863
• 59 - Henrietta Hodgson 1805-1891
• 60 - Charles Cavendish-Bentinck 1780-1826
• 61 - Anne Wellesley 1788-1875
• 62 - Edwin Burnaby 1799-1867
• 63 - Anne-Caroline Salisbury ca 1806-1881
source: http://roglo.eu/roglo
Thanks for the comment re 25/25 I think I will follow your practice on this - only had the results for a month so hopefully plenty of time to hopefully find some closer matches
-
Many thanks indeed David, I don't expect to find any of those in my tree, having said that I have a similar situation in my mother's tree, one pair of her 3 great grandparents are also her 2 great grandparents, I think it makes me my own 4th cousin, so as a result I can never talk to myself. On DNA matches there will be many thousands of matches at the lower levels; I decided early on to only pursue those above 25/25 matching markers, but haven't had a match of any description for around 18 months, and have never yet had a matching surname.
Roger
-
Can't imagine mny people are called Mr Redroger.
-
Can't imagine mny people are called Mr Redroger.
Do you know, just searched surnames of England and Wales, funnily enough it's no there. Nom de plume or nom de guerre if you prefer ;)
-
By the look of things Charles actually has 7 English ancestors, and one Scottish. 24 or 22 depending on how Victoria and Albert are counted appear to be somewhat Germanic. Not surprised George V changed the name in WW1 people might have wondered.
-
...
However, I did match 36/37 markers with a man in Canada, and was able to prove by the paper tree that his ancestor was the result of a liasion between my grandfather's brother and his great grandmother in Lincolnshire around 1870. Family likenesses in photographs were quite remarkable.
That's the sort of thing I think we're all hoping for :)
-
Hi again :)
Out of interest, would you follow up 39/42 Y-DNA matches on Ancestry?
(I put my DNA Heritage results onto Ancestry, myself, manually.)
-
I'd definitely send an exploratory email :)
-
Yes, I would certainly make contact.
-
Thanks Both :)
I'll probably get in touch :)
-
I would make that a certainly myself! :)
-
Hi :)
Again, probably not so exciting, after all.
Although on the match compare page, we shared 39 out of 42 markers ~ the max number shown seems to be 42 ~ when I came to contact them, their pages said that their tests were for 46 markers.
Ah well :)
-
You could try uploading your results wo ysearch.org (if you have not already done so) might get some matches that way
-
Yes, I've submitted to Y Search :)
-
Hi again :)
Out of interest, would you follow up 39/42 Y-DNA matches on Ancestry?
(I put my DNA Heritage results onto Ancestry, myself, manually.)
You have to be extremely careful about putting 3rd party information on Ancestry. Their information entry system makes it extremely easy to put the wrong information in the boxes (or the right information in the wrong boxes !).
-
Yes, I did find that a bit worrying :)
-
Hello all. I've just ordered YDNA37 tests from ftdna. (I'd had a long chat with Terry Barton there a few years ago about possibly taking on a surname project, which I didn't do for several reasons, one being that it's a fake surname in my line. ;) But I quite liked him.)
For my father's paternal line:
because I'm persuaded that a huge clan of that name in the US, many of whom are active researchers, have their English origin all wrong just because many years ago, someone ran across a pair of brothers with the right names in about the right times and latched onto them forevermore. The other settlers in their colony, and the place names they used, come from two little villages in a completely different English county, and my ancestors are from the other little village in a tight triangle, back to about a generation after the US settlers left home. I just want to prove them silly. ;)
For my mother's paternal line:
because I discovered that her surname is totally fake, officially, but since I found that her grandfather who assumed it had a sister with that surname as a middle name, I wonder whether there is any truth to his tale about the name. Knowing his "real" surname now (registered, complete with father and identified family), I can have a comparison done for both names.
As noted earlier in the thread, a problem with any of these projects is the dearth of UK participation. In the case of my mother's common-as-dirt "real" surname, there is a project with 500+ participants, almost all in the US. I contacted the project leader about possible sponsorship by people looking for their English roots, and my query prompted them to consider subsidizing UK participants by 50%.
I didn't wait for a decision, since ftdna had a sale on only until July 15 and I wanted to take advantage. Also because I would have felt duty-bound to refund the subsidy if the "real" surname turns out to be, in fact, the fake one.
But others with established UK lines might want to consider approaching a surname project for this kind of assistance. Having the analysis done is generally just not of as much interest to people in the UK, since they have the paper trail. People in the US, as the project leader explained to me, are sometimes desperate -- they have children orphaned in the Civil War, they have paper trails that end there because of records being destroyed, or they have got back to their apparently first US ancestors but can't make the leap across the ocean.
My mother's common-as-dirt "real" surname is from Cornwall, in her case, and the family was associated with mining -- and given that "a mine is a hole anywhere in the world with a Cornishman at the bottom of it", I can't imagine that none of the 500 of them in the US, in the ftdna surname project, will match with mine ... if my ancestor is in fact one of that name.
At the moment my mind is still bogging at it all. I'll need to see the concrete info I get back before I can follow it even remotely, I think.
I'm wondering whether it will have anything to say about how my pale green-eyed father and pale blue-eyed mother had four brown-eyed children. My sister's high school science teacher said: the milkman. But more is known today about the alleles and all, so my mum is off the hook! And I think I'd have to pay a whole lot more to find that out. ;)
So anyhow, at the moment, I would guess that joining a surname project might be likely to produce matches with people in the US who would be glad of the info, but probably not have any that would assist people who already know their UK roots.
-
Hi
I,m a Brit. I have tested. I have done the Family finder too.
And maybe you should look at this too;
http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2012/07/national-geographic-and-family-tree-dna.html
-
For my mother's paternal line:
because I discovered that her surname is totally fake, officially, but since I found that her grandfather who assumed it had a sister with that surname as a middle name, I wonder whether there is any truth to his tale about the name. Knowing his "real" surname now (registered, complete with father and identified family), I can have a comparison done for both names.
Bit confused by this
I am not sure how doing your YDNA37 test is going to help with your mother's paternal line (unless you have got one of her brother's to test)
Good luck with the test, who knows what the results will show. I had a quandary come up on mine as someone else who tested with the same surname as mine came a close 25 match. Alas they have not tested further. They are about 200 miles from where my ancestors came from but they moved to London where there is a soldier of the same name from where my ancestors come from living close to them. Add to that that the child was born a few days short of nine months since his alleged further died, and who had been ill for at least a fortnight, and it makes you wonder ......
-
Well yes, of course it is my mother's brother's sample that will be tested! That's the only way to test a woman's paternal line: through a male descendant in that line. ;)
Fortunately, my mum has three brothers, all still living. I should have mentioned.
Next step is holding one of my brothers down and shoving the sample scraper in his mouth. I'm just useless myself for both purposes.
Yes indeed, one does wonder whether these things are just going to come up with more to wonder about!
I wanted to note, though, about that business of how many people today would be shown not to be their fathers' children, by DNA analysis: I think that is a canard.
I believe the figure is reached by extrapolating from the results of tests where paternity was specifically in issue. Men sought the tests to prove/disprove that they were the father of a particular child. We can't assume that those results apply to the rest of the world, I think.
Me and my siblings may have weird eyes, genetically speaking (and managed to get plain old brown hair from a strawberry blonde mother and a black-haired father), but there really is absolutely 100% not the slightest doubt that we are our father's children.
Now, the testing might show that somewhere back farther in the mists of time, somebody wasn't somebody's child. Just on the odds. ;)
(As could well be the situation for my mum's "real" surname -- I've found the parents of the name-shifting son who appear never to have married, but lived together in at least one census and had numerous children registered as theirs, but then to have been estranged ...)
-
Interesting tale Janeycanuck. Don't suppose there is any chance that your Cornish miners are Webb? I am looking for some of those and hoping that FF will help as the line is daughtered out.
-
Nice try, Craclyn, but no cigar!
No, I am searching for Hills in those hills.
I have determined that the name James Hill is approximately 87 times more common than John Smith. ;)
Of course the surname is common all over England, among people who would not be at all related, so I just have to hope that there is one Hill in the US in the surname project, out of those 100s, who hails from Cornwall (or Devon; I'm not even sure).
-
http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2012/07/national-geographic-and-family-tree-dna.html
I've read about that at ftdna, yes, and it does look worthwhile -- to donate to a public-interest type of DNA project. Glad you added it! (For the individual, it does not provide very specific info, as it does only the YDNA12 matching.)
The page at ftdna may be a little easier to follow, e.g.:
http://www.familytreedna.com/genographic-project.aspx#q7
Doing the testing through ftdna (and then transferring the results to the National Geographic project) means that the sample will be held for further analysis if requested. If it is done vice versa, the sample is discarded after only the YDNA12 (deep past ancestry) analysis.
-
http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2012/07/national-geographic-and-family-tree-dna.html
I've read about that at ftdna, yes, and it does look worthwhile -- to donate to a public-interest type of DNA project. Glad you added it! (For the individual, it does not provide very specific info, as it does only the YDNA12 matching.)
The page at ftdna may be a little easier to follow, e.g.:
http://www.familytreedna.com/genographic-project.aspx#q7
Doing the testing through ftdna (and then transferring the results to the National Geographic project) means that the sample will be held for further analysis if requested. If it is done vice versa, the sample is discarded after only the YDNA12 (deep past ancestry) analysis.
This is a new test. It is not the old Genographic Project's test that only covered 12 markers. It now includes ~146,000 SNPs spread across the entire genome. The blog post gives more details.
-
Janey, I believe that our genetics are now so mixed that it is almost impossible for someone to follow their family absolutely in terms of eye and hair colour. My hair when I had it was dark brown, my eyes blue, likewise my father, my mother almost black wavy hair, eyes blue, but with one brown segment in her right eye. My wife blue eyes and dark brown hair. Our daughter blue eyes, dark hair, but with a reddish tint. Her husband dark hair and brown eyes, her mother in law, light hair and blue eyes. Brown eyes are supposedly dominant, yet our grand daughter, blue eyes and light brown to yellow hair.
I think that in this respect at least the human race is rather like the lupin plant; a lupin flowers will never follow the parent plant's flower colours from seed. Neither do we follow colours absolutely rigidly.
-
Heh, Redroger. Actually, the "science" of it, up until a couple of decades ago, was that two blue-eyed parents (green is a variant of blue) could not produce brown-eyed children, period. Remember those BB Bb charts from high school science? That's where our oddness came to light: my little sister could not make the chart for our family. We all came out blue-eyed.
That theory is actually still being taught today; I've seen course materials on line that include it. Supposedly, blue was "recessive" and brown was "dominant", period. Further research has shown that it's a matter of the number of the various eye-colour alleles that an individual has. It's rare, but two blue-eyed individuals, each with just that little bit extra of brown in their alleles, can produce a brown-eyed child. What's extra rare is for them to produce four children, all of whom are brown-eyed (ranging from medium to dark, with a little hazel in a couple of cases).
In my family, one of the brown-eyed children had a child with a (light) blue-eyed partner. The child has (very dark) blue eyes. Again, according to the old dominant/recessive theory, he is an impossibility. ;)
In your granddaugther's case, her father just didn't have enough of those brown alleles to pass the colour on, it seems!
This guy still gets it wrong, for example:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.ca/2007/02/genetics-of-eye-color.html
My parents are/were very light clear blue (no grey) and very light clear green (not the slightest hazel). So in his chart, they were both b/g. According to his chart, they produce blue-eyed children only. He says:
One of the most puzzling aspects of eye color genetics is accounting for the birth of brown-eyed children to blue-eyed parents. This is a real phenomenon and not just a case of mistaken fatherhood. Based on the simple two-factor model, we can guess that the parents in this case are probably bbGg with a shift toward the lighter side of a light hazel eye color. The child is bbGG where the presence of two G alleles will confer a brown eye color under some circumstances.
-- but he guesses completely wrong, in my family's case. And I love that "under some circumstances" hedge. ;)
But this one gets to it -- and also talks about the ancestral/geographic aspect of eye colour, which is interesting from our perspective here.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/2007/09/why-do-you-have-blue-eyes/
In his chart (the second one on the page -- the first one is the old BB Bb one), I could be Blue 1 / Blue 1, where 9.5% were brown-eyed. My nephew could be Brown 4 and Blue 1, where 47.1% were blue-eyed, or Blue 1 and Brown 8, where 7.9% were blue-eyed, for example. If I am following that at all, which I may not be at all!
Following family in terms of eye colour -- well, the various bits of genetic material that determine it could indeed be followed! (Although we're not all the way there yet in terms of knowing exactly how it's determined.)
It's just that we can't say: I have brown eyes so I must have had a brown-eyed parent who must have had a brown-eyed parent, or I have blue eyes so ..., etc.
I haven't figured out enough about the analysis that is done for ancestral matching to know whether it includes eye colour alleles. Something to look into. ;)
For anybody who really gets it, that author links to the study his article is about:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1785344/?tool=pmcentrez
which, I am afraid, is completely Greek to me.
(oops, left out the link; added)
-
Hi Janey,
Yes, I was taught that about pale coloured eyes being recessive and I read only very recently that it is much more complicated than that. Weird and fascinating!
Similar with hair, apparently.
My Mum always had fair hair and eyelashes, like her father, but, now in her 80s, she is starting to find some black hair and lashes, like her mother. Very strange :)
-
It is very complex, I know so little of my father's family that it is best not to comment, other than to say that all those of earlier generations that I have met have or had blue eyes. My mother's side is much more complicated. I never knew my grandfather, but believe he and his siblings had blue eyes, his youngest sister certainly did. My grandmother had blue eyes, her three daughters oldest dark brown eyes, middle blue eyes my mother (youngest) blue, but with a single brown segment as described earlier. My cousin, daughter of the oldest sister has green eyes, her father had blue. It certainly is a Mendelian mixture.I would like to know how do the single segments come about, and are they passed on, or is it merely a random effect?
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6195091.stm
http://chickenoreggblog.wordpress.com/2010/02/01/the-complicated-genetics-of-human-eye-colour-inheritance/
-
Thanks, youngtug! That BBC article is about the study I linked to above:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1785344/?tool=pmcentrez
and simplifies it at least a little for us laypeople. ;)
-
Thanks, youngtug! That BBC article is about the study I linked to above:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1785344/?tool=pmcentrez
and simplifies it at least a little for us laypeople. ;)
It does indeed, but the question of segments remains totally unanswered so far.
-
Are you referring to heterochromia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterochromia
-
Well, heterochromia is a very particular thing: one eye that is either totally or partially a different colour from the other eye, if I'm getting that right? You're meaning redroger's mother's blue eye with the brown spot?
There I would have to quote Edie Brickell: "Pull me into shallow waters before I get too deep"! I'm over my head. ;)
-
Either all or a segment of the eye
-
Yes, my mother's was very much like the first two pictures shown in the gallery, but it was at the bottom right sector. As there seems to be an hereditary factor and I am aware of her having no eye injuries I am surprised that there are no other known cases (to me) amongst the extensive Ayres/Brignell/Cornwell clan being researched on Rootschat.
-
Hi All :)
I'd welcome some thoughts, please :)
Since our male line is an illegitimate one, and we were hoping to establish that the ancestors who we thought were ours really were ours, we decided on a Y DNA test (42 places). I'm female, so my brother took the test.
.....
.....
****
Also, would it be possible to have a 'DNA' section in the forum, I wonder, please? :)
Thank you for the new DNA section! :)
I still haven't decided quite what to do with this line.
An upgrade to FT DNA 37, or higher, may well be my next step, though I am considering National Genographic's Geno.
In the meantime, I have been following up another Y-DNA family line, with really interesting results.
This really is addictive!!!
-
Do the geno. Much more detailed info. Although you may still need to upgrade your Y.
have you done the FF test?
-
Hi :)
No, I haven't. I thought that the 'Family Finder' might be similar to the 'Geno'. Not sure, though???
I belong to a few Family History / DNA forums and I keep hearing that the Geno is fun and interesting, but I do keep getting the impression, rightly or wrongly, that it is not particularly informative.
At first, when I read that it provided MtDMA and Y-DNA info, I thought that it might replace the traditional tests for these markers ~ but, apparently, not.
Certainly I have been told that I need to upgrade, so I'll do that soon. My brother has agreed to donate some more DNA :)
It's a case of deciding where to invest my pennies ~ and there is another male line that I would like to investigate.
But it would be good to follow my female line as well.:)
-
The FF is nothing like the Geno. FF will detect "cousins" across all lines. Very useful for breaking down brickwalls. It will generally go back to 4 x Great Granparents, although at this level it is starting to get a little more vague.
The Geno has been great for me when testing my son. He has unusual markers so the Geno has been brilliant for giving me a better idea of where his family came from. It gave stacks of info including how much neanderthal he has.
Asfor donating Dna I posted on another thread re FTDNA sale for ydna 12 marker tests. It is $39 dollars very cheap. But once they have your sample you can order further tests without having to re do a sample. So if you have others to test it will be worth ordering.
if your particular interest is the maleline I would defo do the Geno.
Ftdna are going to do a very cheap Mtdna test soon,or so I heard on the grapevine.
-
Hi andreabro :)
Thanks for your interest and advice.
I think that I will go ahead with the Geno. It will be interesting, I'm sure.
As for the Y-DNA, my brother has already had 43 markers tested, but I need to get some additional ones done, just to get him up to the 37-marker results for FT DNA.
Ftdna are going to do a very cheap Mtdna test soon, or so I heard on the grapevine.
Oh, good. I was hoping that they might :) :)
The combination of that, plus the DNA tests already done by my brother, and the Geno 2.0 should be very informative, I think!
Thanks again. I think that I have almost decided now :)
-
Who is testing for Geno. Hopefully your brother. You will get MTdna from your mothers line through his test. Sorry Just read up.It is your brother. It may be worth ordering a couple of 12 marker YDNA tests at $39 dollars for your other lines you wish to test. It is normally $99
-
I did a Y-DNA37 test with FTDA. & am struggling to get my head round the results. I am getting hundreds of matches at the 12 marker level, only one at the 25 marker level & none at 37.
Here are my results for the 25 marker match and I wonder if they are significant or not worth worrying about. We have different surnames but strangely both family names which are fairly rare were prominent in the same small area a couple of hundred years ago.
-
Have you considered a NPE. (non parental event).
I too have a son with very few matches, but matches could come at any time as more people test. Hopefully you may get more matches in a few weeks when the WDYTYA test results are completed. Have you joined a project for your name. if your matches are from a similar area I would look into them, it may give you more clues.
I have done the Geno test for my son which gave a massive amount of info, I sort of know where his family fathers father came from 500 to 1000 years ago but not the bit between that and 1750. But it have given me the correct place to look.
-
Who is testing for Geno. Hopefully your brother. You will get MTdna from your mothers line through his test. Sorry Just read up.It is your brother. It may be worth ordering a couple of 12 marker YDNA tests at $39 dollars for your other lines you wish to test. It is normally $99
Hi. Thanks! :)
That's a great idea, but I've looked at my family tree and I can only think of one other line that I'd could test for Y-DNA and I'm hoping to get something more detailed on that one. Since it's through a project, I shall get it at a reduced price, anyway. Not as cheap as $39, but I feel that, by comparison, 12 markers isn't very informative.
On the other hand, if I can get some cheap MtDNA tests done, that would be more useful to me! Fingers crossed!
Yes, my brother has agreed to do the Geno (when I've saved up for it), so that we can get the full spectrum.
Thanks for your advice:)