RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: jillruss on Tuesday 13 March 18 13:15 GMT (UK)
-
I wouldn't go so far as to say I regret taking the test but I must say that I am distinctly underwhelmed by it all.
I'm still wading through the possible 5th-8th cousins so who knows I might come across a little gem hidden away! However, I am amazed by the number of people in my match list who either don't have a tree or, if they do, have a tree that consists of 3 or 4 people, all marked 'private'.
Even more frustrating are the people i've messaged to try and open a dialogue and have simply ignored me - so far. I'm always polite and keep it short and, hopefully, sweet. Of the few who have replied, only a couple have bothered to try and discover a surname match - the others don't seem to want to know.
Oh, and I've come across a gaggle of people (mostly from N America) 'surfing' on info I gave to one of them some time ago on a family member who emigrated.
I'm trying not to get too downhearted by it but I'm just hoping that future matches may prove more rewarding. :-\
One thing I am learning is that, if, like me, you've been researching your family history for some time and have quite a few monumental brickwalls, you've got to realise that you're going to be very lucky indeed if anyone on your match list has been able to knock down any of those walls - and that was my main reason for doing it in the first place!
Mind you, it was interesting to discover my ethnicity. When I told my brother that I was 11% Eastern European and 9% Scandinavian, he suggested I change my name to Jill Johansson Kurayakin!!! ;D
On the plus side, the whole exercise made me take out a half price sub to Ancestry and I'm now going to utilise my time more profitably (again, hopefully!) searching through the digitised West Yorkshire PRs. I will, of course, keep checking my DNA matches but with no great optimism.
Jill
-
Jill,
I thought it was just me !
The number of matches that don't have trees or who have a handful of names is incredible. I've got really frustrated with people who I match with who simply don't reply when contacted or reply once and then.......nothing
Harry
-
Well I have to say ---
I still feel its all a big............. ho ha.....
I am extremely dissapointed.
The only good thing it has told me is that I AM ME -- which in my case is extremely important.. this can be read on other posts.
But as for anything regarding other distant cousins...... 150 odd 5th to 8ths that really are no more than the previous hints...
I again will go and open up a suggested match... to show what I mean...
back in a bit.
xin
Back :)
OK so I just ran through quickly and randomly picked two of the 5th - 8th moderate matches.. and this is the result.
NO MATCH in my estimation..
-
I still feel its all a big............. ho ha.....
I agree, that's why I haven't done it.
-
I haven't done mine yet, but plan to. However a first cousin did his ages ago. Some time later he was contacted by someone and was a bit confused as to whether or not they were a match. However it was a line I had investigated and it confirmed my research. I was able to tell him all about this line again and it finally confirmed my 2X great grandmothers line.
-
Jill, I am very happy with my DNA test results.
I must admit to spending a lot of time on researching both my tree and my DNA matches. Too much time probably, but in the winter it is my main hobby, gives way to second place later on in the year for gardening.
I wasn't underwhelmed when I got my results back, I was overwhelmed. So many matches, was I connected to all of them, how do I go forward, why so many matches with USA testers, etc etc.
But on the very first page was a match with someone whose wider family I had been trying to convince for years that they had made an error in their Australian ancestor's origins.
No brick walls for me until several months in, but they are being broken away, bit by bit. The only problem with brick walls in genealogy is that when you break one down, you create two more in it's place.
Of my 130 or so 4th to 6th cousins I have positively matched with about 25 of them. Something tells me that if they and I had the right information and were willing to swap that information, I would positively match with a lot more, perhaps unlikely to break down many walls for me.
Of my many thousands of 5th to 8th cousins I have positive matched with about the same number, about 25. These are where the nuggets of useful information come from.
Xin, you say ''OK so I just ran through quickly and randomly picked two of the 5th - 8th moderate matches.. and this is the result. NO MATCH in my estimation.''
It is up to you to decide where the match lies - Ancestry are merely finding matching surnames in both your trees, they are not saying that Nancy Brown from Portsea is the same as your Brown from Scotland. Or that Rhoda Duncan from USA is a match with your Duncan from Scotland.
Have you entered all of your 7G grandparents? That is 512 names. Have they entered all of their 7G grandparents?
I know all 16 of my 2G grandparents surnames. I have names for 50 of my 64 4G grandparents. I certainly don't know all of my 512 7G grandparent names, though I do know quite a few of them.
If you or your DNA match have not got all 512 names, how can you say that you don't match with them? :)
Regards Margaret
-
Perhaps you should look at it as an investment, now that you've done it your profile will be available to match with anyone who chooses to get their DNA tested in the future. Hopefully one day it will be someone who has a well-researched tree and is open to communication. Sadly, the broad appeal of these DNA tests is in the ethnicity estimates which means you will get a lot of non-genealogists doing it.
-
DNA testing is still a relatively new process that is being worked on and developed all the time. At the moment, in the grand scheme of things, not many people have actually had their DNA taken. The more people that do the DNA test, the more fun we will be able to have with the results.
DNA testing is far more interesting that the results that we are given. I recommend reading 'The Family Tree Guide to DNA Testing and Genetic Genealogy', by Blaine T Bettinger. It is a fascinating read that will help everyone understand more about it all.
Keep in mind that there are people that have taken the test for a number of reasons including; jumping on the DNA testing bandwagon for the sake of it, because they received it as a Christmas present or just because they wanted their ethnicity in a graph. Not everyone is interested researching their family tree and this is quite obvious on the many videos on YouTube, unfortunately. A lot of people just want to find out their ethnicity estimates, which at the moment, are still quite new and which the scientists are doing a lot of work on.
This leads me on to agreeing fully with JAKnighton's comment. Definitely see it as an investment!
Encourage people to take the test (if they want to, of course!) and keep contacting those matches (even if you aren't getting replies). I see the development in DNA technology similar to that of any technology. Things will start of slow and suddenly there will be a boom of interest and quick development of the process which will improve the results and the knowledge we gain from it.
Anyway, just my take on things! :)
Chris
-
This leads me on to agreeing fully with JAKnighton's comment. Definitely see it as an investment!
It may be an investment to the young but there are a lot of older people on here that would have liked it to help them solve their brick walls and are using it as a last resort before they stop doing their trees. ;D
-
I have found it useful in terms of confirming that a number of other people who match, have also traced back to the same place which reinforces my faith in my research. It is comforting that this shared DNA appears on almost every part of my, fairly extensive, tree.
Yes, it is frustrating that so many people have no linked tree, including me at the moment because I made it private whilst I made some changes and now Ancestry won't let me change it back to public or invite people to it via user name. I am having to ask them for email addresses which is irritating. I have constructed a tree purely for DNA matches, which is considerably less detailed than my main one. Following a couple of bad experiences with people taking stuff (mainly pictures) and making them public despite being requested not to do so, that is kept private and rarely shared. I do not want the hassle of asking Ancestry to remove wrongly assigned pictures on a regular basis.
It is particularly sad that I have a batch of people, who all share matches, with no trees and who fail to answer emails, but you never know, one day .....................................
-
I still feel its all a big............. ho ha.....
I agree, that's why I haven't done it.
Me, neither!
And, I have no intention of doing so any time soon.
My research had taken my tree back to the mid-1500s and, as far as I know I have no gaps, anywhere.
Further, I have absolutely no interest in contacting living "relatives" ;D
-
I wonder what percentage of people who have had their DNA tested are those who are actually interested in genealogy? Judging by some of the comments here and those I've seen elsewhere, they may be in the minority. As mentioned by Chris, a lot of people may have just done it to find out where they came from and have no interest in following it up and making contact with distant relatives.
I haven't had mine done and probably wont in the foreseeable future. My first cousin had hers done and it didn't show any German connections although we are 100% certain that our paternal grandfather and grandmother were German. I have also made contact with a relative of my great grandmother's sister, who still lives in the same village in Germany. So in this case a paper trail has found a relative that DNA wouldn't have done.
-
Groom, If you are interested in DNA testing you really have to research which company is best for your individual needs.
If your cousin tested with ancestry she is unlikely to get many German matches - they don't offer testing there. Some other companies may not either.
Regards Margaret
-
OK
Will do a big big dig today with one of the matches... but the sun is tempting me out...
No I must attempt to understand what is going on.. and yes I have all 16 I think as is this added pic..
plus plus plus... 20 years work...
xin
-
Hi Xin, just wondering whether Ancestry will give as many matches as if might have done as after all your names you have things like gg or 2gf which I know mean something to you but actually won't match another person in someone else's tree as they won't have the annotation, just the name.
The algorithm might be clever enough to get round that - I'm not sure but you might be reducing your chances. You don't really need that added annotation though if you are the home person on your tree as the info on the profile against each person will indicate how they are related to the home person in the tree.
Pheno
-
I still feel its all a big............. ho ha.....
I agree, that's why I haven't done it.
Me, neither!
And, I have no intention of doing so any time soon.
My research had taken my tree back to the mid-1500s and, as far as I know I have no gaps, anywhere.
Further, I have absolutely no interest in contacting living "relatives" ;D
Back to the mid-1500s and no gaps? On all lines?
-
Some interesting, and opposing views!
Yes, I do look at it as some kind of investment for the future but, if current responses are anything to go by, not much of one! Still, hope springs eternal and all that!!
If lots of people have taken the test purely for ethnicity results and that is why they haven't bothered with trees, all I can say is that they must have more money than sense. Its not exactly cheap!
I used to be as belligerently convinced as both Milliepede and KGarrad about not taking the test but then I got so frustrated with my many brickwalls that I decided to have a go, especially as more and more people are adding to the 'pool'. As I said in my original post, I don't actually regret doing it, its the response, or lack thereof, of most people that makes me want to spit (oh no! not doing that again!! ;D). I have very little faith in humankind at the best of times, and this exercise has only served to bolster that sentiment.
I worked out via FreeBMD that my main match is a 2nd cousin - our grandmothers were sisters but, for geographical reasons, the different branches of the family were separated. I messaged him, informing him of the link but assuring him that I had no wish to invade his privacy family-wise - nothing! Zilch! Absolute zero!!
I have used, and will always use, the traditional documental method of research. I will check on my DNA matches now and then because I hate the thought of actually missing something!
Margaret, I was overwhelmed at first but quickly became disillusioned. I suppose its disillusionment with the people rather than the system. By the way, apart from the lines of unknown fathers of illegitimate ancestors, I know the names of at least all 4x ggrandparents and most up to and beyond x6. I put a lot of names on my Ancestry tree but have stopped now because I really don't see the point.
One more point before I stop bleating: I started out 2+ weeks ago with 121 4th cousins or closer - and still have 121. I was told that Ancestry update these but my number hasn't shifted. At a rough guess, I'd say I've contacted 75% of those people yet not one has made the first move and contacted me first, which leads me to believe even more that the vast majority of people taking the test are NOT family historians, genealogists - call us what you will!
Oh dear! Just another sentence, on a positive note, yes I also read Blaine T. Bettinger's Guide to DNA testing - and it is very informative without being overly technical.
Moaning Minnie Jill 8)
ADDED: Just seen Xin and Pheno's posts and, whilst I'm not sure what effect Xin's hieroglyphics might have, I would just point out that I found a couple of DNA matches (with trees! hallelujah!) without matching surnames and, after further delving, found that I use the surname Patchett for my grandmother's family but these other people had used Padgett - and the surname match had not been picked up. There must be loads of surnames with such spelling varieties - I have another line which starts off as Barnett but was Barnard as you delved further into the past. I wouldn't have known this unless the Borthwick Institute hadn't pointed it out years ago.
-
It can be frustrating when so many people don't have trees, presumably many people have taken notice of the Ancestry advert for ethnicity with little or no interest in genealogy.
However, I've got a match which initially seemed completely spurious, but with checking it may be the answer to one of my brick walls - an illegitimate great grandmother. I'm not sure if I'll ever be able to prove it but just the notion that I might be able to makes the money spent worth-while
-
Yes Get that -- so created a seperate tree --- simply for DNA purposes that has NO Additions no certs - pics or ..suffixes
I am going through that now and ensuring.. it states ENGLAND, GREAT BRITAIN, UNITED KINGDOM... as it was sending my gg's Hinckley in USA
so editing the DNA one will check for gg's etc.. may have left a couple on :)
xin
I am plodding.. the sun has gone in now
-
Sorry Xin I assumed that was a copy of your dna tree!
Pheno
-
well its the same only no pics .. the pics one is the more interesting :)
xin
-
I started out 2+ weeks ago with 121 4th cousins or closer - and still have 121.
Jill,
When I took my Ancestry DNA test twelve months ago, I had 120 “4th cousins or closer”, I now have 201.
If nothing happens within the next few weeks, I would suggest you contact Ancestry on 0800-783-1340 and explain the problem to them.
Tina.
-
Hi Tina,
So it is unusual? I wondered if perhaps the new matches only trickled through a couple per month?
-
Jill,
Sometimes I’ve gone a month without an “update”. Other times I’ve had six "new cousins" in one week.
Tina.
-
Thanks. In that case, I'll be patient! Not one of my prize winning qualities!
-
Short lived excitement in the Russell household! My 121 matches went up to 122 this morning!! But guess what? Yep, got it in one! No tree!! :'(
-
Jill, How things change.
Remember this? -
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=787945.0
Questions - Still undecided about creating a tree on Ancestry following DNA test
I presume that question has been answered by yourself!
Just as a quick add on -
My tree was initially private, changed it to public shortly after getting my DNA results back, as I realised how problematic it was when close matches had private trees.
I still would have preferred to have my main tree private, so recently uploaded a smaller gedcom, originally from ancestry, so exactly the same names, places and events.
All my DNA matches can see it, but it does not, as far as I can see, turn up in searches. This is because I have added no additional Ancestry records to this new tree as someone mentioned that it would not then come up in searches.
If anybody clicks on my Ancestry profile, they would be able to find out that I have a tree and access it, but not many people will do that.
So best of both worlds, a large private tree and a smaller public tree with limited access. And I do respond to any messages from DNA contacts, though mostly it is me sending the messages.
Regards Margaret
-
Jill, How things change.
Remember this? -
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=787945.0
Questions - Still undecided about creating a tree on Ancestry following DNA test
I presume that question has been answered by yourself!
Regards Margaret
Good point, Margaret. Experience is a wonderful thing!
I have debated with myself (can you do that? ??? Oh well, I did!) whether to make my tree private or public and have tried both - and it really doesn't seem to make much difference re the replies I am (not) getting. Though I agree with you about the frustration you feel when someone has a tree but its locked, so I should really follow through and make mine public. When it comes right down to it, should I really care if some people want to go in and 'nab' great chunks of my tree? Its just amusing and a little maddening when the info comes back to you as if it were someone else's years of research. I'm not about to change human nature by any decision I make! 8)
So, I'll add a few more names, make the damn thing public and see if that makes any difference! :-\
-
I felt it best to have a specific tree for DNA purposes. Because my MAIN TREE is full of personal information, like special notations and pics. Besides BMDs etc.
So I created this 'specific for DNA' tree by downloading the main tree to my old PAF prog. and doing that doesn't carry pics etc over ... I then altered addresses and suffixes ... leaving the tree with just BASIC necessary information and uploaded it again. :)
This one should be public- shouldn't it...... I cannot bring myself to do that, for goodness sake. I did for 24 hours and then panicked... :( :-\ ??? ??? ???
Anyhow still no replies from the people I have sent to and as you say so many ---- never mind private - just no trees.
Plodding on with it... who knows I may yet find a distant match worth finding.
xin
-
Jill and Xinia,
My top match in Ancestry has no family tree. This is the message I sent them. Note that there is no mention that they have no tree. I received a reply from them within 48 hours, and am now building a relationship with them.
“Hi xxxxxxxxx,
Last year I took a DNA test through Ancestry, which I believe you have also taken. The results indicate that we have a very close relationship, predicting 3rd-4th cousins, with an Extremely High degree of Confidence. Apparently we share 116cM of DNA across six segments, which suggests that there is almost a 100% chance of us sharing a common Ancestor.
I note with interest that one of your Ethnicity Regions is Ireland. Many of my Ancestors were born in Ireland and came over to England, probably in the 1840’s, possibly to escape the Potato Famine.
I have had success contacting other Ancestry members and have been able to establish a genetic relationship with them, all of whom had considerably less than the DNA that we share. Do you think we could try and figure out what our connection might be? I would appreciate a reply, even if it is only to say that you don’t think that there is any connection.
Kind Regards,
Tina Royal.”
Tina.
(I have had almost a 50% response from this type of message. If anyone else has a message which they have found successful, please post it.)
-
That does sound better,
THAN
OY you Ancestry said we have a match :) :)
??? ::) ::) ::) ::)
xin
-
Whilst not going into as much detail as TinaRoyal, my messages are very similar. I like the idea of adding the bit about
I would appreciate a reply, even if it is only to say that you don’t think that there is any connection.
so will add that in future. Or perhaps Xin's approach might be better - short and to the point!! ;D
That's if I get any more matches - I'm thinking of not bothering with the hundreds of 5th-8th cousins 'good confidence' without a tree. I've also been taking note of the last time these people were logged into Ancestry and am - for the moment - discounting any who haven't made an appearance this year. They just can't be that interested!
I am actually having a dialogue at the moment with a lady who did bother to reply but we are finding it hard going to discover our connection.
-
Jill, to possibly narrow down the connection go into Ancestry dna through your match and then click on the person with whom who are corresponding and then when her details appear click on the 'shared matches' option in the middle of the bar.
This will then bring up another list of people with whom the both of you share matches and this might help narrow it down a little, particularly if you have already established a match with somebody on this new list.
I find this method by far the easiest starting point to try and determine a match.
Pheno
-
I am very satisfied. I found confirmation for a lot of different ancestors and hints for others (e.g. I match with descendants of a specific person who I was wondering about as a potential relative, so DNA match gives more evidence to consider).
I found the Ancestry test most useful for finding ancestor matches but it's frustrating that so many people have private trees and do not respond to messages asking to identify the match/share.
The twenty three and me test gave a more accurate health and places of origin profile.
I uploaded raw DNA to GedMatch and found that was a great way to find even more cousins.
All in all I had a good experience and was realistic in my expectations going in.
-
Some people have multiple trees but the one attached to their DNA results is private. I used to ignore the ones that said private tree but now I view the match in case there's a public tree that might be of help.
I wish there was some way of marking a confirmed match other than marking it as a favourite because I already use that to keep track of matches I need to revisit.
Jane :-)
-
Jill, to possibly narrow down the connection go into Ancestry dna through your match and then click on the person with whom who are corresponding and then when her details appear click on the 'shared matches' option in the middle of the bar.
This will then bring up another list of people with whom the both of you share matches and this might help narrow it down a little, particularly if you have already established a match with somebody on this new list.
I find this method by far the easiest starting point to try and determine a match.
Pheno
Yes, thanks Pheno, I've tried that - and the locations button can sometimes help as well. In this particular case, we had one other match in common, but I've already messaged that lady and she replied that she hasn't done any research recently! oh well!! ::)
-
Have enjoyed the varying responses. It seems most are Ancestry responses. My DNA is with ftDNA.
In 14 months I now have nearly 2000 'matches' . Like jillruss above I have a look at my 5th cousin + more matches but only to name match. Otherwise I put them to one side.
I have 205 4th or better matches. These are the ones I concentrate on. I am not disappointed. Just as the paper sites had issues ie bad trees or dead links and absent users , so do the DNA sites. Each person has their own reasons
Mine were for the genealogical. I have posted elsewhere my absolute amazement and happiness to be able to break through a brickwall by matching with a lady in Tasmania who confirmed a story I had concerns about. Sure it creates its own frustrations but at least I have confirmation/direction
I have also matched with another Aussie and we confirmed a match to a GGGGgrandmother and sister. But the paper trail has to be there to help.
Never disappointed and to the oldies like me , the best defense is to leave your password in your will. Someone , somewhere will get the bug. Maybe even point them in the direction
Good luck everyone
-
Last night :) I finally sorted one of mine out.. It kept telling me that she was born in UTAH and I knew darn well she wasnt.
BUT
after a lot of research - I found a descendant of hers did..... / was they actually travelled out in the Wagons and all that.
So -- I now comprehend a little more :) but cos my old head is tired these days, it takes a bloomin while.. Now which button is for record :)
::) ::)
xin
-
I wish there was some way of marking a confirmed match other than marking it as a favourite because I already use that to keep track of matches I need to revisit.
Jane :-)
Yes agree. The ability to separate the matches into various fields for easier reference would be a wonderful addition
-
I have had some very helpful replies and managed to confirm some of my paper trails so I'm not regretting taking the test with Ancestry but on the whole I would say my experience has been disappointing. There are far too many people without trees, which is obviously their right, but it's so frustrating! Then there are the people who don't have the courtesy to reply when contacted - by far the majority in my experience. And a final gripe is regarding one person who didn't even say thank you for information I sent. It took me ages to put it together and it would have taken him less then a minute to send a short message back.
I agree that some way of sorting matches into groups would be really helpful. In the beginning I put stars on everyone of interest but when that started getting out of hand I took them off the 4th - 6th matches because they're relatively easy to find again. The 5th - 8th matches that have shown up as shared are impossible to keep track of if they're not starred and I have several hundred of them now. I'm tempted to ditch those that don't have trees but then there's always the hope that they will add them in the future.
Diana
-
I got mine back yesterday and so far I have had a quick look through. Some connections are viable some will need further time spent on them. I am going to look at everything before sending out any requests for information but overall I’m pleased so far.
How many requests from others have you had? Has it increased or stayed the same since you did the test? Do people bother contacting others?
I’m interested to hear from others if it has knocked down brick walls
Happy hunting
Regards
Panda
-
On one hand my DNA results have helped provide extra evidence for my tree. For example the paper trail suggests that one of my 3 x grt grandfathers was the son of one particular family and changed his name when he married. The birth brothers of this 3xgrt grandfathers appeared to have kept their birth names and I have cousin matches who are descended from these brother suggesting that I was correct with my conclusions re this 3 x grt grandfather. It has also led to cousin matches linking back to a 4x grt uncle who had emigrated. Until I had these matches I had had no idea what had happened to him.
On the other hand, the value of my results have been diluted because I dare not try and contact any more matches despite the number of matches increasing. On top of the reply rate to my messages being less than 5% about 30% of replies I did receive were very rude and freaked me out that I was inadvertently causing offence.
My messages to an unknown match generally took the form:
Hi according to Ancestry DNA tests we match ***cM and that suggests we are 3-4th cousins. According to my paper trail so far my ancestors come from............ and my main surnames of research are......... but I have more surnames going further back. I was wondering if we could work together to narrow down where the match is.
If There was a tree that helped me narrow down the match I would start the message a similar way but say: I see you have the surname....... in your tree. I have this surname too....<details of where that name appears in tree>.
I occasionally see a match that intrigues me ad I am tempted to message the test owner but I dare not.
I have been messaged by about 4 matches and I have always replied to them.
-
My messages to an unknown match generally took the form:
Hi according to Ancestry DNA tests we match ***cM and that suggests we are 3-4th cousins. According to my paper trail so far my ancestors come from............ and my main surnames of research are......... but I have more surnames going further back. I was wondering if we could work together to narrow down where the match is.
If that is how you phrased your messages, then there is nothing in it that could possibly have caused offence or warranted a rude reply. Ignore those people and ask yourself if you'd really want to be related to them anyway. ;D
-
I have messaged loads of matches with more or less the same wording. So far, thank goodness, I haven't had any rude replies. I will never ever understand anyone who goes to the expense and trouble to take the test and then ignores - or, worse, is rude to - anyone who contacts them. But then, that's human beings for you: not always very delightful!
You shouldn't let that put you off, pharmaT, but I can see how it would.
The majority of messages I've sent have, as yet, remained unanswered, but the ones who have replied have been more than worth it.
For now, I'm concentrating on the 4th-6th predictions who share one or more matches with me - it should be easier to home in on the common denominator. Well, that's my theory!
Jill
-
On the other hand, the value of my results have been diluted because I dare not try and contact any more matches despite the number of matches increasing. On top of the reply rate to my messages being less than 5% about 30% of replies I did receive were very rude and freaked me out that I was inadvertently causing offence.
My messages to an unknown match generally took the form:
Hi according to Ancestry DNA tests we match ***cM and that suggests we are 3-4th cousins. According to my paper trail so far my ancestors come from............ and my main surnames of research are......... but I have more surnames going further back. I was wondering if we could work together to narrow down where the match is.
If There was a tree that helped me narrow down the match I would start the message a similar way but say: I see you have the surname....... in your tree. I have this surname too....<details of where that name appears in tree>.
Wow, what did they respond that was rude? I'm curious as to how someone could ever take offense to such a polite email.
At worst I've had a couple of people say they don't agree that there is a match (which baffles me because DNA doesn't typically lie) or no response at all (most commonly).
-
On the other hand, the value of my results have been diluted because I dare not try and contact any more matches despite the number of matches increasing. On top of the reply rate to my messages being less than 5% about 30% of replies I did receive were very rude and freaked me out that I was inadvertently causing offence.
My messages to an unknown match generally took the form:
Hi according to Ancestry DNA tests we match ***cM and that suggests we are 3-4th cousins. According to my paper trail so far my ancestors come from............ and my main surnames of research are......... but I have more surnames going further back. I was wondering if we could work together to narrow down where the match is.
If There was a tree that helped me narrow down the match I would start the message a similar way but say: I see you have the surname....... in your tree. I have this surname too....<details of where that name appears in tree>.
Wow, what did they respond that was rude? I'm curious as to how someone could ever take offense to such a polite email.
At worst I've had a couple of people say they don't agree that there is a match (which baffles me because DNA doesn't typically lie) or no response at all (most commonly).
One replied "You obviously don't understand how this works, you're supposed to work out the link for yourself. Don't be so lazy". Another "It must be wrong, I couldn't possibly be related to someone like you""
-
On the other hand, the value of my results have been diluted because I dare not try and contact any more matches despite the number of matches increasing. On top of the reply rate to my messages being less than 5% about 30% of replies I did receive were very rude and freaked me out that I was inadvertently causing offence.
My messages to an unknown match generally took the form:
Hi according to Ancestry DNA tests we match ***cM and that suggests we are 3-4th cousins. According to my paper trail so far my ancestors come from............ and my main surnames of research are......... but I have more surnames going further back. I was wondering if we could work together to narrow down where the match is.
If There was a tree that helped me narrow down the match I would start the message a similar way but say: I see you have the surname....... in your tree. I have this surname too....<details of where that name appears in tree>.
Wow, what did they respond that was rude? I'm curious as to how someone could ever take offense to such a polite email.
At worst I've had a couple of people say they don't agree that there is a match (which baffles me because DNA doesn't typically lie) or no response at all (most commonly).
One replied "You obviously don't understand how this works, you're supposed to work out the link for yourself. Don't be so lazy". Another "It must be wrong, I couldn't possibly be related to someone like you""
Wow...I am so sorry. That's beyond rude and extremely uncalled for. Almost at the level where I would consider reporting them for abusive behavior. I hope you never receive another message like that again!
-
On the other hand, the value of my results have been diluted because I dare not try and contact any more matches despite the number of matches increasing. On top of the reply rate to my messages being less than 5% about 30% of replies I did receive were very rude and freaked me out that I was inadvertently causing offence.
My messages to an unknown match generally took the form:
Hi according to Ancestry DNA tests we match ***cM and that suggests we are 3-4th cousins. According to my paper trail so far my ancestors come from............ and my main surnames of research are......... but I have more surnames going further back. I was wondering if we could work together to narrow down where the match is.
If There was a tree that helped me narrow down the match I would start the message a similar way but say: I see you have the surname....... in your tree. I have this surname too....<details of where that name appears in tree>.
Wow, what did they respond that was rude? I'm curious as to how someone could ever take offense to such a polite email.
At worst I've had a couple of people say they don't agree that there is a match (which baffles me because DNA doesn't typically lie) or no response at all (most commonly).
One replied "You obviously don't understand how this works, you're supposed to work out the link for yourself. Don't be so lazy". Another "It must be wrong, I couldn't possibly be related to someone like you""
Wow...I am so sorry. That's beyond rude and extremely uncalled for. Almost at the level where I would consider reporting them for abusive behavior. I hope you never receive another message like that again!
I can guarantee that I will never receive such a message again. I will never risk messaging anyone ever again. No point reporting, I only have myself to blame for being the sort of person that people are ashamed to be even distantly related to. Though I would love to ask how they could determine this based on the message I sent and a screen name.
-
On the other hand, the value of my results have been diluted because I dare not try and contact any more matches despite the number of matches increasing. On top of the reply rate to my messages being less than 5% about 30% of replies I did receive were very rude and freaked me out that I was inadvertently causing offence.
My messages to an unknown match generally took the form:
Hi according to Ancestry DNA tests we match ***cM and that suggests we are 3-4th cousins. According to my paper trail so far my ancestors come from............ and my main surnames of research are......... but I have more surnames going further back. I was wondering if we could work together to narrow down where the match is.
If There was a tree that helped me narrow down the match I would start the message a similar way but say: I see you have the surname....... in your tree. I have this surname too....<details of where that name appears in tree>.
Wow, what did they respond that was rude? I'm curious as to how someone could ever take offense to such a polite email.
At worst I've had a couple of people say they don't agree that there is a match (which baffles me because DNA doesn't typically lie) or no response at all (most commonly).
One replied "You obviously don't understand how this works, you're supposed to work out the link for yourself. Don't be so lazy". Another "It must be wrong, I couldn't possibly be related to someone like you""
Wow...I am so sorry. That's beyond rude and extremely uncalled for. Almost at the level where I would consider reporting them for abusive behavior. I hope you never receive another message like that again!
I can guarantee that I will never receive such a message again. I will never risk messaging anyone ever again. No point reporting, I only have myself to blame for being the sort of person that people are ashamed to be even distantly related to. Though I would love to ask how they could determine this based on the message I sent and a screen name.
You are certainly NOT to blame for the behavior of a few apparently mentally ill Ancestry.com members.
And as to how they could determine that they should be ashamed to be distantly related: well, they can't. There would literally be no way for them to know anything about you as a person from a username and a family tree. Which is why it's clear this is all their problem, not yours.
I hope you will regain the courage to message others again - I am angry on your behalf at a couple of idiots ruining your experience.
-
Hi pharmaT
They're the ones who obviously don't understand how it works! Also, anyone who replies rudely should be ashamed of themselves. No-one needs relations of that sort. Perhaps reporting them isn't such a bad idea. They give the website a bad name.
Please don't let these nasty types put you off contacting other people. Not everyone is like that and you could be missing out on some helpful information as well as some delightful cousins.
Diana
-
Possibly looking for comfort where there is none, but it is just possible that the second comment was made by someone not meaning to be offensive but just bad at expressing themselves.
As for the first one, there is absolutely no excuse and I agree that you should report it to Ancestry. No idea what their policy is in such matters but they must surely have one. You probably caught this person when they were in a bad mood (still no excuse) and they may well regret what they said. If not, Ancestry should throw them off the site.
-
It’s interesting to hear what has happened to others. I have always responded to anyone asking for information once we have established a connection. I am going to wait to see if I have any contacts before dipping my toe further into the minefield of DNA contacts
Regards
Panda
-
Well three days since getting my results I have had someone contact me. I’m going to spend the evening sorting the connection out but I feel it was worth it as it has expanded my connections. I just wish all the people who have taken tests but not uploaded a tree had done so as this is very frustrating.
Regards
Panda
-
You have to appreciate that there are a number of people who take a DNA test for reasons other than Genealogical. This is part of the response I got from someone who I contacted, who had taken a test and had matched with myself.
“My interest in taking the DNA test was more about ethnicity than ancestry.”
With DNA test providers promoting ”ethnicity” so much, that does not surprise me.
-
To all those frustrated by matches without trees - don't forget that a small number of them will be adoptees who have no idea of their family history, and are waiting for someone to reach out to them.
Anybody closer than a fourth cousin I will always contact, tree or no tree. Also any 4th to 6th cousins who share matches with a group of people who I positively connect with.
Of course they will be in the minority, and I haven't come across any adoptees yet.
Regards Margaret
-
I've uploaded my raw Ancestry data onto a couple of other sites.
I contacted someone early last week and we've had a couple of email conversations since then.
It turns out that my paternal gt grandfather had been married at least once before and had a son. He did put "bachelor" on his marriage certificate to my gt grandmother. My contact is a descendent of the earlier marriage and had no knowledge that our shared ancestor had not only married again but fathered more children.
I looked up her grandfather on the 1881 census and the 1891 where he was living with grandparents which would explain why our shared gt grandfather was absent - he was living with his new family!
And they were both living pretty close to each other. I've no way of knowing whether my gt grandmother ever knew of her husband's earlier marriage and son or whether the son knew he had younger half siblings
Neither of us would have known about the separate families without the DNA match which was predicted at sharing a gt grandparent.
-
How interesting, Jill.
Must have been devastating at the time for wife number one, but it is fascinating to look back at.
Did he marry wife no 1 between censuses, so only showed as single, then married to your great grandfather, or did you look at him married to the other lady and decide he wasn't 'yours'?
Thanks for sharing.
Regards Margaret
-
How interesting, Jill.
Did he marry wife no 1 between censuses, so only showed as single, then married to your great grandfather, or did you look at him married to the other lady and decide he wasn't 'yours'?
Thanks for sharing.
Regards Margaret
He married wife number 1 in July 1871 so was single on the 1871 census. Wife number 1 died in 1873. He then married my gt grandmother in 1878 so there was no reason to think there had ever been an earlier marriage.
Yay for DNA! ;D
-
I posted this earlier on a different thread but I don't suppose it matters if I paste it in here, as it's more relevant to this thread. People were talking about testing DNA with different agencies. I have a distant cousin who is a full-time genealogist. She persuaded me to do the FTDNA Family Finder test, and nearly all the "matches" I got were utterly meaningless to me. Then she uploaded my data to MyHeritage, with startling results -
======
It's great fun testing with different agencies and comparing the results. I posted my FTDNA results a few pages back. I now have results from MyHeritage which make me feel quite exotic -
Irish, Scottish & Welsh (i.e. Celtic) 60.2%
Scandinavian 19.3%
Finnish 4.9%
Iberian 6.8%
Italian 2.1%
Baltic 4.7%
Nigerian 1%
North African 1%
Bear in mind that my parents were fishermen's offspring from adjacent villages in the East Neuk of Fife. I've traced both sides of my family back for hundreds of years and the most exotic ancestors, for a Fifer like me, came from Northumberland and Northern Ireland.
But I'm impressed by MyHeritage. One of my first matches turned out to be the daughter of one of my 2nd cousins. But she was eclipsed by a match I got the other day, who shared 7.5% of my DNA, 544.1cM, 22 shared segments out of 23 - and he is the grandson of my long-lost uncle Eck (Alexander Watson) who settled in Hartlepool in Co. Durham before I was born, married there and had 6 children, about whom I knew next to nothing.
Harry
-
I cant fathom my results with one company never mind more..
xin
-
To all those frustrated by matches without trees - don't forget that a small number of them will be adoptees who have no idea of their family history, and are waiting for someone to reach out to them.
Regards Margaret
My first contact is the son of an adoptee, we made fairly good progress breaking down where the match is but need one or two more people matching to get it over the line but just making contact with a living, even if distant, relation was very exciting for them.
I don't have a tree but so far that hasn't given me any problems.
-
My first contact is the son of an adoptee, we made fairly good progress breaking down where the match is but need one or two more people matching to get it over the line but just making contact with a living, even if distant, relation was very exciting for them.
I don't have a tree but so far that hasn't given me any problems.
Recently I've helped an adoptee. Using DNA matches, their trees and some records we found his mother.
Using the trees of DNA matches, plus analysing segments, we know who his paternal grandparents were.
If none of the matches had trees I don't think we'd have got this far.
-
I too have mixed feelings about DNA tests. What bothers me most is that people new to family research (both young and not so young) feel that they have to take a test to start their research, mainly from the extensive advertising.
However, from my own nearly 1600 matches, I have had some success. One match had placed her tree online for me to see where I was able to tell her where we connected. She was descended from the sister of my great great grandfather and where the parish register in question was unreadable. So the match had lots of brick walls broken down for her.
Another match contacted me as we shared a very rare surname. Now I know what happened to my great grandfather's half sister, who was the sole survivor after her mother and siblings died within a very short time of one another.
Two other matches were already known to me and we have expanded our connections.
I have explored other potential matches specially as they came from the same small village. While I could not match up on paper despite one even sharing the same occupation, (was there some hanky panky?) I found the exercise rewarding despite the shared frustrations as aired on this thread.
-
My first contact is the son of an adoptee, we made fairly good progress breaking down where the match is but need one or two more people matching to get it over the line but just making contact with a living, even if distant, relation was very exciting for them.
I don't have a tree but so far that hasn't given me any problems.
Recently I've helped an adoptee. Using DNA matches, their trees and some records we found his mother.
Using the trees of DNA matches, plus analysing segments, we know who his paternal grandparents were.
If none of the matches had trees I don't think we'd have got this far.
The adoptee doesn't have a tree of course and the other matches don't either but using my (off line tree) we managed.
That's something to keep in mind if you see a match without a tree, it just means they don't have one on Ancestry or whichever site your using not that they don't have one at all.
-
A question - how do you upload an avatar from your computer? I have a suitable picture on my desktop but don't know how to upload it.
Harry
-
A question - how do you upload an avatar from your computer? I have a suitable picture on my desktop but don't know how to upload it.
Harry
Are you talking about an avatar for Rootschat? If so this page might help http://www.rootschat.com/help/profile02.php
-
A question - how do you upload an avatar from your computer? I have a suitable picture on my desktop but don't know how to upload it.
Harry
Are you talking about an avatar for Rootschat? If so this page might help http://www.rootschat.com/help/profile02.php
Yes, I looked at that before, and it says you can upload an avatar from your computer, but it doesn't say how.
Harry
-
A question - how do you upload an avatar from your computer? I have a suitable picture on my desktop but don't know how to upload it.
Harry
Go to the profile tab at the top of the screen
On the dropdown menu select forum profile
The first item on the forum profile is a search box to browse your computer for the picture you want
You click on the file reference so that it stays in the browse box and then you save the profile setting
-
Try going to PROFILE at the top of this page and then FORUM PROFILE. Click UPLOAD AN AVATAR. Then CHOSE FILE. This should allow you to upload a picture from your photo or one you've save from elsewhere. When you've finished don't forget to click CHANGE PROFILE at the bottom of the page to save it.
(Beat me to it David. ;D )
-
Thanks to both of you for your help. I've now uploaded a photo of my paternal great-grandparents James Murray Watson (1834-1906) and Margaret Reid Watson (1837-1928). In my village Watson was the commonest surname and Watson/Watson marriages were common. James and Margaret were descended from two 18th c. brothers, David and William Watson.
Harry
-
YES --
Got a result
wow
1st one and it is a definite 2nd cousin .. wow.. Scottish too
So will ask her about her ethnicity.
Xin
(happy Xin)
-
Glad to hear you have had a breakthrough Xin hopefully you will get others
Regards
Panda
-
I haven't had mine done and probably wont in the foreseeable future. My first cousin had hers done and it didn't show any German connections although we are 100% certain that our paternal grandfather and grandmother were German. I have also made contact with a relative of my great grandmother's sister, who still lives in the same village in Germany. So in this case a paper trail has found a relative that DNA wouldn't have done.
The ethnic estimate might have been misleading, but the DNA matches would surely have flagged up any German cousins who had also had their DNA tested, and thus confirmed your paper trail.
-
If lots of people have taken the test purely for ethnicity results and that is why they haven't bothered with trees, all I can say is that they must have more money than sense. Its not exactly cheap!
They also might have had their results back, looked at the DNA match lists, and got completely overwhelmed, confused and therefore don't know where to start!
Then there's all the commercial push to have it done for Mother's Day, Father's Day, Christmas, St.Patrick's Day, etc, etc. People run out of gift ideas and and get these things for friends and relatives, but they aren't that interested beyond the initial 'Oh look, your 4% Scandinavian. That must be why you shop in IKEA' response.
-
Well I’ve just had a contact regarding my DNA tree and guess what the person lives in the same town I live in. I can foresee lots of family history chats over coffee.
Regards
Panda
-
that sounds interesting Panda...
my match is only 40 miles away
its strange.
to think years ago we had a massive Telephone directory, that I would go through searching people with the same name..
this is all slightly different.. to say the least
xin
-
This article in The Guardian, amongst other thing made me decide against testing.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/nov/04/home-dna-kit-for-130-is-it-worth-it
-
This article in The Guardian, amongst other thing made me decide against testing.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/nov/04/home-dna-kit-for-130-is-it-worth-it
The article mainly focuses on ethnicity, which most people on this forum and others regard as a bit of 'fun', not to be taken seriously.
It also talks about a fourth cousin contacting the writer, and his initial thoughts that she might be after money.
What a poor article, obviously not written by a genealogist. I would make my judgements on other articles myself
Regards Margaret
-
The opening sentence :- I am not British --- sounded just like me when I got mine... I actually cried as I have said on here..
70% European... f.g.s.
I again (repeating myself) didn't send for the kit for Ethnicity -- but its a shock at first. However sending the RAW DNA to My Heritage they straight away got it to 'suit me better' at 100% English - and ooodles of matches..
So I am ok with it now. Although - I have had to put it aside to continue... my true research.. Which I enjoy more. Than just saying.. ' You don't happen to be my 7th cousin do you'
xin
??? ::) ;D
-
On the subject of ethnicity predictions this is what Bryan Sykes of Oxford Ancestors (one of the first companies in the field) says
That has all changed now and cheap DNA tests are widely available, even if their meaning is sometimes dubious. The popularity of ‘ethnic testing’ is a case in point, where even religious persuasion is given a genetic foundation by some companies. Have they never heard of the outrages of ‘racial purity’ and the eugenics movement or is it just one more business opportunity?
His company is now closing down, read more at
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/
-
OK, I do get it. Sorry I have upset you all with ethnicity issues. I will stick to my lovely beginner folks forum in future.
-
OK, I do get it. Sorry I have upset you all with ethnicity issues. I will stick to my lovely beginner folks forum in future.
I don't think you have upset anyone. Its just that the DNA ethnicity topic is a lively one with many diverse opinions and not a little misunderstanding.
-
I've recently had my DNA tested and uploaded it to 2 sites.
Of my top 10-15 matches, I already know the others or know exactly how we are related.
( some are from the same family ie parent/child/ grandchild)
It's the random DNA matcheswhere there is a tree attached that I find baffling if not, hilarious.
One match (estimated 4.1 degrees of separation) has a full tree going back to the 1700's
Every single ancestor was born, married and died in one of the southern US states.
All of my ancestry going back to 1700's is effectively Irish.
Working backwards from 1750 just one line of my combined ancestry is Scottish
My estimated ethnicity works out at 86% (combined UK and Ireland)
The remainder is estimated to be European
Some matches do seem to be totally random unless there are hidden secrets in the DNA match trees
-
Sorry, 3Chant, I didn't mean to upset you, and you certainly didn't upset me.
Was merely pointing out that most of us realise after we get our results back that ethnicity reports are very rarely accurate. My heritage as far as I have gone back on paper is nearly all Southern British, one 4G grandfather coming from Ireland.
My ancestry report says that I am 48% Western European, 33% Great British, 12% Irish, 3% Iberian Peninsular and the rest small amounts from other places.
I tested for a different reason, to break down a brick wall or two, connect with other people to confirm relationships, etc. My ethnicity result I take with a pinch of salt.
I have contacted 4th cousins, 5th cousins, 6th cousins and 7th cousins, just like Karen did in the article. I am purely interested in confirming where the connection is likely to be.
The person who has written the article was not initially interested in his ethnicity and is not interested in family history. He had his test done, presumably for free, about a year before and had not looked at his results at all.
Sorry again 3chant, please come back again, we are quite a friendly bunch.
Regards Margaret
-
OK, I do get it. Sorry I have upset you all with ethnicity issues. I will stick to my lovely beginner folks forum in future.
Noooo you didnt upset me xxxx its the darn results that did that... ha ha ha ... I am perfect as everyone knows.. so they should have been :) :) :)
its only
Xin
-
I'm puzzled by one of my 22 top matches. (Top, as in 4th-6th cousin, high confidence or better).
I've been communicating with the lady (Lady X) and we've finally homed in on a match with our Patchetts/Pagets (same 3x great grandparents). The variation in the surname didn't help. However, through various means, I had already identified 4 other Patchett connections all of who share a match with me BUT THE MATCH BETWEEN ME AND LADY X IS NOT SHARED BY ANYONE ELSE!
I'm struggling to understand how this could be? Any ideas? Does it mean that there should be another connection that we haven't found yet?
-
I'm puzzled by one of my 22 top matches. (Top, as in 4th-6th cousin, high confidence or better).
I've been communicating with the lady (Lady X) and we've finally homed in on a match with our Patchetts/Pagets (same 3x great grandparents). The variation in the surname didn't help. However, through various means, I had already identified 4 other Patchett connections all of who share a match with me BUT THE MATCH BETWEEN ME AND LADY X IS NOT SHARED BY ANYONE ELSE!
I'm struggling to understand how this could be? Any ideas? Does it mean that there should be another connection that we haven't found yet?
What you describe is perfectly possible and I read an explanation of why within the last fortnight. I think it was on here (but if not it was on a link on Gedmatch) but not sure what term to use to try and search for it. So it might be worth seeing if you can put a suitable phrase in the search function and see what it comes up with (if it was on here it was not necessarily in the DNA sub forum as people post about DNA on other boards here too)
-
Jill, If you and your Patchett matches share the same common ancestors, i.e. are all 4th cousins to each other, then that is probably just one of those things. The chances of finding DNA from 3G grandparents is pretty good, approximately 70% at ancestry. But some of them may have inherited more or less than another match.
Since Ancestry only picks up shared matches between 4th to 6th cousins or closer, this lady could either not match the other 4 at all, or more likely, does match one or more of them at 5th to 8th cousin level, so does not show as sharing a match with them.
I have shared my DNA results with another person, paper trail suggests that we are 5th cousins, mutual 4G grandparents. Her sister and aunt (4th cousin) have also been tested. None of them match with me at all.
However, using DNAhelper, we have found that both her aunt and her cousin match 2 of my 3rd cousins from the same line.
It does seem a lottery at times as to how much DNA is passed down from one generation to the next.
Regards Margaret
-
I'm struggling to understand how this could be? Any ideas? Does it mean that there should be another connection that we haven't found yet?
Or, as you say, there maybe another link which you haven't found as yet.
Regards Margaret
-
very satisfied with my mothers results
confirmed name of my grandmothers grandfather who emigrated from usa and traced descendents
also found her half cousin who was the son of and grandma's half brother
my grandma was illegitimate and in fact lack of any other mutual matches on this branch helped confirm .
the locality button shows ancestors in same town of LaTVIA for some 5th cousins who have replied but we dont know exactly how we connect yet
as for my own dna results my scottish paternal side hasnt thrown up much yet.
and i sent for a test for my scottish aunt ....and am one of the guilty ones who only has a small tree for her but will answer anyone who posts a message when i check the site i created for her .
-
The subject of illegitimacy often comes up. If you have Scottish ancestors and one of them was illegitimate, a useful source of information is the local kirk-session records. Unfortunately they are not as easily accessible as the old parish records (OPRs) which you can check on the Scotlandspeople website. I'm lucky in that I was living and working in Edinburgh when I started doing my family-tree research in the early 1980s and I could take odd days and half-days off my annual holiday entitlement to go to Register House - for B,M and D records, censuses and OPRs - and to the Scottish Record Office (now the National Archives of Scotland) next-door for kirk-session and other records.
In the Church of Scotland, which most Scots belonged to, the parish minister and the elders of the kirk comprised the kirk-session, which met weekly to distribute the poor's money, chastise fornicators, etc. A pregnant unmarried woman would be cross-examined about the father of her child, and a record kept of the proceedings.
For example, on checking the death-certificate of my great-great-grandfather Robert Stephenson in Melrose in 1863, I found that he was illegitimate, and his reputed father was one Hugh Stephenson, "teacher". I proceeded to waste about a year looking off and on at trade directories and other Borders records, looking for details of parish schoolmasters, until I had the brainwave of looking at the Melrose kirk-session records. There, I found that my 3 x great-granny Alison Moffat was summoned three times to appear before the session, and finally threatened with punishment for her "contumacy" if she continued to absent herself, so she finally and grudgingly turned up at the next meeting of the session and admitted that the father of her child was Hugh Stephenson, farmer in the parish of Gifford, East Lothian. That gave me a whole new area of research. I discovered that the Stephensons were a prominent Northumbrian farming dynasty who had taken tenancies of farms all over the Lothians and Borders, and John Prebble, in his book "The Highland Clearances", gives them "credit" for introducing into Scotland the new improved breed of Cheviot sheep that would eventually lead to the depopulation of Highland glens.
All down to checking the kirk-session records as a supplement to the OPR.
Harry
-
wow Hdw that's amazing research
my scots were mostly legitimate
my English grandmothers middle name was the clue leading to her birth father and we got his full name from an affiliation order at Cheshire record office ...was able to trace his history .
but her birth mother was more difficult to trace ..we knew from a letter that she'd remarried and had a legitimate son but I dont think we would have found them without the DNA connections as she had a common surname and used a different first name on marriage ..maybe because she married in a synagogue..!
-
I have oodles of wonderful Scottish Relations.
This DNA has proven our connection.. ---
My Fathers - father had, literally run away from his first family in Scotland...
He was gassed in France and dropped off in the Midlands to recoup, where he met and fell for my Nan and they went on to live happily as a family - so much so that they died within a month or so of each other - devoted.. bless them.
Well that's the story that started all this research.... business..
I needed to check and double check.. I have the paper trail.. and its not an easy read or discovery.. But my Pops was right to be proud of his heritage...
Nobody can get through their allotted life span without kicking up the dust a little along the way.
I eventually found the lady that Grandad left, and discounted the stories, that had been passed around the family. I half heartedly attempted to check her out.. I haven't dug deep enough as yet... its a tricky one.
Thank goodness - I found NO TRACE of deserted Children... the Wife was enough for me... poor lady..
She actually outlived my Grandfather...... and was still named as his Wife when she died..
That's a bit of a heartbreaker for me.... I wonder if she waited and hoped.. need to find more.. and now this has awoken my need.. I may do so.. bless her ----
Now Spooky thing is.. and I am strange I know.. but I think this is Spooky
I had my first daughter before I had any idea whatsoever regarding this lady............
But somehow her name is the one I chose ... Spooky Coincidence.. I feel.
so I wonder should I now leave it as is.. or see if I can discover how her life panned out.
??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Xin
-
Hi Harry,
Are any kirk-sessions records available via SP or FindMyPast.
I have a ggg grandfather who says he came from Fife, but we can't find an OPR to 'fit'. It is believed he is illegitimate, so this could be the way to go.
Living in Australia prevents me from accessing these records in person! ;)
Wiggy.
-
It's a long time since I did my research and in those days kirk-session records hadn't been digitised and were mostly kept in the record office in Edinburgh. Later, there was a policy of decentralisation and lots of kirk-session and other local records were returned to the place they had come from, if there was a suitable record repository that could look after them. For example, records from east Fife were sent to St. Andrews to be stored in the university library there. Borders records are kept at the Hub in Hawick.
Maxwell Ancestry are busy digitising lots of local records, e.g. they recently digitised the records of Jedburgh Sheriff Court.
Harry
-
Thanks for that . . . will investigate. ;)
Wiggy
-
Through familty history sites, I know many of my DNA matches or how other matches link in.
However, yesterday, I was looking at trees of random DNA matches and looked more closely at our "common" matches.
It became apparent how everyone else was linked to each other but, nothing in their trees resembled mine, except they family originate in the same general area of my maternal family.
Last night, the penny finally dropped.
There is no father listed on my mother's birth certificate, his identity was never discussed.
I know it sounds totally daft as I have years of research experience but, it never really occurred to me that there would be a biological father out there with ancestors of his own.
I think that I have stumbled upon his ancestors.
-
anne_p
Many adoptees have their DNA tested purely to find out possible parentage. You may have stumbled on his ancestors, but might find it difficult to prove which one was your father, unless the matches are very close to you.
However, be prepared for the day when a half-sibling or similar matches you, they may or may not be aware of his past.
Regards Margaret
-
Sugarfizzle,
It's not my parentage, it's my mother's.
I completely forgot that she would have had a biological father and I have no desire to find his identity
I simply realised that I have stumbled upon his ancestors
-
Brigidmac,
Where do I find the “Locality Button” you mentioned earlier in the Topic ?
Tina.
-
Through familty history sites, I know many of my DNA matches or how other matches link in.
However, yesterday, I was looking at trees of random DNA matches and looked more closely at our "common" matches.
It became apparent how everyone else was linked to each other but, nothing in their trees resembled mine, except they family originate in the same general area of my maternal family.
Last night, the penny finally dropped.
There is no father listed on my mother's birth certificate, his identity was never discussed.
I know it sounds totally daft as I have years of research experience but, it never really occurred to me that there would be a biological father out there with ancestors of his own.
I think that I have stumbled upon his ancestors.
Hi,
I've done the same - twice - but not as close as yours! Like you, I couldn't work out why these people (both in the USA) were listed as matching me. Where there was a tree (and there hardly ever is) none of the names rang any bells at all. The I looked at locations and shared matches and did a lot of polite prodding and messaging and eventually the lightbulbs came on!
By using exisitng censuses and paperwork in conjunction with the DNA results - and crossmatching (if that's the right word) with shared matches, I am convinced I have not only found the natural father of my paternal great grandmother but also the natural father of my maternal great grandfather!!
I'm chuffed - and I also think it IS possible to work out which generation of the natural family was responsible. If not by age, by common sense and the good old paperwork.
So, if you have any illegitimate ancestors (not sure if it would work for those many generations back) don't discount those matches who don't seem to have any connecting surnames. The truth is out there! (Sorry, been watching too many X Files!!)
-
Sorry, I misread you.
However, whether you follow them through or not, further DNA matches will appear at 2nd cousin level and above!! You will be automatically excluding about a quarter of your matches.
I have only one illegitimate birth in the direct family (that I know about!!). I would love to find out more about him, may have found a DNA match but unsure, so haven't followed it through as yet. In this case, I do have a name of sorts to go on, at marriage one son gave his father's name as George Dawson, the other gave his name as Dawes Steer. In census there was a George Dawes living in the same village, it might or might not be him.
Regards Margaret
-
I know what I forgot to say..
I did something similar to Jillruss and created my own curiosity tree based on all the common" shared Matching" that had no apparent link to my family.
It was when I put it all together, including additional, missing info that I figured out that they all had one set of ancestors in common.
Two trees had located this couple but another two hadn't got that far back yet!
It means that I matched with at least 4 random people who share the same common ancestors with each other.
My curiosity tree has grown and has now also linked more DNA matches.
They are descendants of the additions that I found ( children/grandchildren etc).
I left it at that.
Bizzarely, I could copy all the info found on more than 6 different family trees with varying degrees of ancestry included and accurately make one big tree out of it!
-
Sorry, I misread you.
However, whether you follow them through or not, further DNA matches will appear at 2nd cousin level and above!! You will be automatically excluding about a quarter of your matches.
I have only one illegitimate birth in the direct family (that I know about!!). I would love to find out more about him, may have found a DNA match but unsure, so haven't followed it through as yet. In this case, I do have a name of sorts to go on, at marriage one son gave his father's name as George Dawson, the other gave his name as Dawes Steer. In census there was a George Dawes living in the same village, it might or might not be him.
Regards Margaret
In cases where the biological father refused to admit paternity, the mother of the child would often give the child the father's name as middle names. My mother grew up in the Fife fishing village of Crail and had relatives there called Spink. She often spoke of her father's cousin Dippie Spink, who was illegitimate, and I always imagined that Dippie was a nickname. However, when I looked up his birth-certificate on Scotlandspeople - he was born in 1881 - I found that he had been christened John William Dippie Spink. His maternal grandfather was a John Spink, but what about the other names?
Well, my next discovery was that in the 1881 Crail census, lodging with a carter called Andrew Stobie and his wife was a 19-year-old carter from Berwickshire called William Dippie. I rest my case! Obviously he had refused to admit fathering Catherine Spink's son but she had proclaimed the boy's paternity to the world by calling him John (for her father) William Dippie Spink. I suppose the locals decided to call him Dippie to avoid confusing him with other John and William Spinks in the village.
Harry
-
In cases where the biological father refused to admit paternity, the mother of the child would often give the child the father's name as middle names. My mother grew up in the Fife fishing village of Crail and had relatives there called Spink. She often spoke of her father's cousin Dippie Spink, who was illegitimate, and I always imagined that Dippie was a nickname. However, when I looked up his birth-certificate on Scotlandspeople - he was born in 1881 - I found that he had been christened John William Dippie Spink. His maternal grandfather was a John Spink, but what about the other names?
Well, my next discovery was that in the 1881 Crail census, lodging with a carter called Andrew Stobie and his wife was a 19-year-old carter from Berwickshire called William Dippie. I rest my case! Obviously he had refused to admit fathering Catherine Spink's son but she had proclaimed the boy's paternity to the world by calling him John (for her father) William Dippie Spink. I suppose the locals decided to call him Dippie to avoid confusing him with other John and William Spinks in the village.
Harry
I wish my gt-grandmother had thought to do that.....
-
This is it .... The fathers surname was often given as a middle name,
Which had me chasing a Mr Marshall for years to no avail.. .. fed up now -- sure I will not find him..
I have found that the person involved
My GG Grandfather who was born illegitimately in 1835 Brixworth.... was given the name Annis Marshall Green........ by his mother.
She later went on to marry and did ok for herself.. they were in touch - although he never seemed to live with her. Although he seems to have carried her pic with him for everish... it has been restored on here in the past and its wow..... :)
He eventually changed his name to that of Charles Annis Green.
NOW Her Father was William -- AND I have a DNA match with HIS family.. :) ... that is good, only discovered it last night.. So on to Mr Marshall yet again.. maybe.. ON his marriage cert my GG fibbed about his Daddy (I presume) As he said he was A SURGEON called Thomas Green.. out of the blue or TRUE doubt I will know.
Then My Patricks are NOT my Patricks (as far as I can tell checking DNA Links) -- cannot find a single link past Fred.. and was never certain as no BC for him.. so oh dear me....
some good -- some bad.. I am a Sutherland and a Himsley and a Hellyar/ Talluck all confirmed with DNA...matches. so far .. scaryily getting there.
xin
-
tina on Ancestry when you view your DNA shared matches
there is an option to view shared surnames or view shared localities ...cant get on the site at the moment ...hope you find it
-
Brigidmac,
Thanks.
Tina.
-
It has just come to me....
I do not want to know .... these 8th cousins 6 times removed... NOOOO I didn't do my DNA for the chance of meeting them...
they are driving me crazy with their - lack of ..... trees... faces..... responses..... etc.. why did they do the DNA why.
I just hoped to connect with a caring FH researcher ... close.... ish cousin, that could lead me to my direct line kin.... and help me to tidy up my loose ends.
I have decided and it is a real thought....
I am going to become an American TV star .... just long enough -- for them to do my WDYTYA programme... then I shall retire... so there..
sorry ... this is my way of screaming at the lack of response from these ....'matches'
xin
-
It has just come to me....
I have decided and it is a real thought....
I am going to become an American TV star .... just long enough -- for them to do my WDYTYA programme... then I shall retire... so there..
sorry ... this is my way of screaming at the lack of response from these ....'matches'
xin
What a cunning plan Xin! Can I be your co-star?!! ;D
I completely sympathise with what you say about no trees/no responses/no manners. I find most of my no tree matches are Americans! Sweeping statement but I suppose they probably would be more interested in their ethnicity than their family history. Having said that, its surprising how many of them who actually do have trees seem to have stopped before they had to delve into the hard bit - their origins. And don't even get me started on those apparently with a tree who, when you investigate further, have either 3 names - all private - or 303 names, none with any placenames. >:(
I can hand-on-heart say that not one of my matches has actually started the communication ball rolling - its all been down to me and my stubborness! I can stubborn for England so they might run but they cannot hide!!!
Equally, I will say that once the contact has been made, progress often follows - sometimes in leaps and bounds, sometimes its fairy steps!
It does worry me for the future of the Western World, though - everyone these days seems to want everythnig handed to them on a plate. If not, they give up.
Oh dear, rant over!! :-X
-
I have read here a lot of comments from people saying that they try to contact DNA matches and get no response. One suggestion for this would be the fashion for giving a DNA test as a present to somebody. Quite often that person might not have any interest in their family history. If somebody gave me money as a present I would be very grateful and exploited fully but at least one of my siblings would have no interest whatsoever.
Martin
-
I bought tests for myself and my son. He is not interested and is under strict instructions to forward any contact straight to me. I'll be interested to see how our matches coincide.
-
I have read here a lot of comments from people saying that they try to contact DNA matches and get no response. One suggestion for this would be the fashion for giving a DNA test as a present to somebody. Quite often that person might not have any interest in their family history. If somebody gave me money as a present I would be very grateful and exploited fully but at least one of my siblings would have no interest whatsoever.
Martin
All of which is true. However, it might save us and any possible contactees time and effort if Ancestry gave a tick box beside each DNA match with an option to indicate whether someone wanted to be contacted - or not. They could change their preferences at any point in the future if they developed an interest in their own genealogy.
-
Yes we need TICK boxes
or something to say 'viewed' sorted or not useless or not.. riduculous or not..
I have found some that are a 1 segment match ... with 2 people in the tree and no other info given or offered.
Why bother .
What upsets me now though.
I have to switch it off --- because the way my mind works nowadays, I cannot do both.
AND as I have said before, my true research is becoming a pickle and confusing me. :(
for goodness sake.
I am glad at what it has proven 'YES' -
Then look at the people it is making me wonder about :(
sad - that I cannot prove any closer or in any way that JRP is FRP's daddy :( di nada to go by.
I think I have to accept - that my Patrick line finishes with FRED
Anyone need to buy any research on Leicester Patricks... I have ooodles :( :( and loads and loads of certs and details.. but seemingly now not mine..
::) ::) ::) >:( >:( :-X :-\ :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( :'(
Will continue to persue it.. but as of yet.. not one Raven or Patrick ............... contact :(
xin
-
Unfortunately I don't think a tick box would stop contact. If someone had ticked no contact but they appeared to by a very close match to you do you think you would just respect the tick - or try and find out more.
If it was going to work it would need Ancestry to block their email address - and then wouldn't that be frustrating!
Pheno
-
The level of satisfaction probably depends on your original expectations. I'm not interested in the ethnicity side - it's the genealogy that interests me.
I'm very satisfied, even though the original query/puzzle hasn't been solved yet. But in time I'm sure it will. Sure, there's people that don't reply, but every now and then I receive a reply to a message I sent months earlier.
-
I bought tests for myself and my son. He is not interested and is under strict instructions to forward any contact straight to me. I'll be interested to see how our matches coincide.
If he really has no interest whatsoever, why don't you manage his DNA? Let him know if anything relevant to his life today turns up, otherwise you take full control, and he doesn't get bothered by any unwanted contacts.
Works well for me - I manage my husband's results, occasionally tell him snippets, but he gets lost as he has no idea who I am talking about.
Regards Margaret
-
The level of satisfaction probably depends on your original expectations. I'm not interested in the ethnicity side - it's the genealogy that interests me.
I'm very satisfied, even though the original query/puzzle hasn't been solved yet. But in time I'm sure it will. Sure, there's people that don't reply, but every now and then I receive a reply to a message I sent months earlier.
I sent a message to my then 4th closest match in October last year, no reply. Having now dropped down to 6th, all 5 previous ones confirmed matches, I had given up hope. This week she replied, apologizing for delay. Said she would ask her Dad.
So after 6 months I still know nothing other than her father's surname! I live in hope.
Regards Margaret
-
I have read here a lot of comments from people saying that they try to contact DNA matches and get no response. One suggestion for this would be the fashion for giving a DNA test as a present to somebody. Quite often that person might not have any interest in their family history. If somebody gave me money as a present I would be very grateful and exploited fully but at least one of my siblings would have no interest whatsoever.
Martin
All of which is true. However, it might save us and any possible contactees time and effort if Ancestry gave a tick box beside each DNA match with an option to indicate whether someone wanted to be contacted - or not. They could change their preferences at any point in the future if they developed an interest in their own genealogy.
In two minds about this. It is possible now in DNA settings to opt out of matching and seeing your own matches. I am grateful that not many people appear to do so, though there could be hundreds of matches that we don't know about.
A lot of my confirmed matches at ancestry have no interest in genealogy, including a 2nd and 3rd cousin who I knew nothing about. If they had checked a box, or altered their DNA settings, I would still know nothing about them. They may have interesting stories to tell about mutual great and 2G grandparents, photos to share etc.
Yes we need TICK boxes
or something to say 'viewed' sorted or not useless or not.. riduculous or not.
I use the note section to indicate that the match is confirmed, then add a yellow favourite star, or note that the match has no tree, small tree, private tree, whatever. Message sent and date, whether replied or not, shared matches with others, possibilities for surname or place match, etc, etc.
Blue dot is supposed to indicate matches you haven't looked at before, but this doesn't always work properly, adding a note is the best way to tell if you have seen the match before or not.
Regards Margaret
-
I've read this entire thread, and I've learned a lot and am grateful for people who have shared their experiences. I went through ancestry.com, have contacted a few people, been contacted by a few more, but the most interesting exchanges have been adoptees. One fellow I was not able to give any help to, but another woman contacted me and eventually I was help because both my cousin and brother showed up in her DNA. She is an illegitimate child given up for adoption, and we've narrowed her mother down to one or another of my first cousins, once removed. At this point, her most viable option is to contact one of her "cousins" out of the blue, and hope they don't get freaked out.
Sadly, one of the second cousins I was in contact with seems to have disappeared off the face of the earth.
Through the info on this thread, I've learned to upload my DNA onto other sites and I am excited to see how that goes. Thanks all!
-
I.m very satisfied at the moment
am trying out a different technique searching for matches by surnames of my 5x grand parents.
just to see when people match as 5th or 6th cousin its actually true definition
grandma's side first ..
so far so good the McKAYs had common 3rd cousins who I'd already contacted ...we were able o sort out tree details and DNA confirmed we had the right family ..as on trees many of Donald mckay s have similar birth date place +marry women called Margaret or Mary
ours married a Mary HART b1819 ..and that surname continues as a middle name only
til births in the 1950's on my tree .
THis only works if people have big trees and are willing to open them .
Now doing the LOVE family which is even harder because margaret Love b 1834 had 3 children with 3 different men and didnt marry any of them ..so only people with william MUIR's DNA will be true 5th cousins with me descendants of her siblings should come up as 1 steps removed ....thats my theory anyway
so far this theory worked out and helped me identify my maternal grandmas birth grandfather
some 1st 2nd + 3rd cousins on trees are confirmed in DNA
and where there were half siblings it was 1 step less
-
some people dont check their messages when their subs run out or dont know that they can still reply
my aunts DNA is on a site without a current subscription
I manage the site
so can add to her trees and see details of her matches + look at their trees which she can not do herself without paying
MESSAGE RESPONSE SUMMARY...IS it typical
first message Received Nov 2013
(from ancestry welcome to site )
next message feb 2014
from an english relative with same surname remained inanswered til i took over in 2017
(she responded in Dec 2017 we corresponded in feb 2018 ..)
next message RECEIVED nov 2017 ......(from myself to check how messaging works )
since April 20th and DNA results
messages received from 1 scots relative who is also on Roots
messages sent
to 7 other people remain unanswered
but 2 are communicating directly with me and they know i manage her tree
so i calculate that as an average of 3 out of 10
-
I do see the good points.
Not sure that Ancestry suits me nowadays.. too many alterations to format..
but that is me and I hate change.
However this is one of the matches I have and it seems a typical match..
HOW do they match...
they just have the same SURNAME
and then I was wandering through some of my records today and found a complete family match... on my side and a.n.other Ancestry member.
They had done their DNA but Ancestry says we do NOT match..
they are definite absolutely definitely a match.. for goodness sake.
Will recover the record and see what I can show on here later.
But attaching the above so called match..
xin
-
How do you know they definitely match .one could be adopted or different birth father even if a couple are married ?
If you mean site doesn't show up a shared match between 2 people
4 example one that shows for my mum but doesn't for me could just be cos it's a generation too far
But does match with mums cousins
.
Btw
I've not received invitations sent in message form to be a contributor and senders box showshow me up as 'not replied "
I cant reply to so.ethical g i havnt seen
so maybe some other messages do t go thru
-
Yes regarding my 'definite' match.. I spoke to my cousin (who I have known all my life :) ancestry didnt need to tell me about her ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D)
and she revealed a family secret... oooooo :) so maybe we are not such a definite match..
its all very surprising ..
this road of discovery is full of pebbles...and bends.
xin ;)
-
Just had an email from a cousin
who has an Ancestry tree and has (so he tells me) done his DNA etc...
Now our relationship is that his Great grandmother is My Great grandmother 's sister.
AND yet Ancestry says we are NOT a match.....
what a waste of money ...
So now -- do I have to investigate what my Great Gran got up to! or what his Gt. Gran got up to.. does this mean that my Gran was not the daughter of my .................and on and on and on... for ever. Not playing this game anymore..
Going back to the old fashioned way pre DNA
end of (that's a term my grandchildren use.. and it fits... :) :) :) )))
xin
-
Just had an email from a cousin
who has an Ancestry tree and has (so he tells me) done his DNA etc...
Now our relationship is that his Great grandmother is My Great grandmother 's sister.
AND yet Ancestry says we are NOT a match.....
what a waste of money ...
So now -- do I have to investigate what my Great Gran got up to! or what his Gt. Gran got up to.. does this mean that my Gran was not the daughter of my .................and on and on and on... for ever. Not playing this game anymore..
Going back to the old fashioned way pre DNA
end of (that's a term my grandchildren use.. and it fits... :) :) :) )))
xin
Well there could be a whole host of reasons for this.
1. The two of you are not related despite what the paper records show as there was some extra marital event somewhere along the line that breaks any link that was there
2. The amount of DNA either of you have inherited from the GG Grandparents (6.25% X 2) you supposedly have in common is small, add to that what you inherit is at random and so the two of you could have inherited quite different parts of the genes and this is why Ancestry is not picking it up
3. What ever confidence levels Ancestry is using is above what the two of you have in common so although Ancestry says you are not related that only means at the levels they tested
4. Ancestry made a mistake - it happens
-
Thanks for that David, you are right and I am an impatient .. miserable .. old.. wotever.. ha ha
We are working it out and it does seem it may well be a double relationship issue... naughty g.ggrandad..
So hope Ancestry forgives my moans... I should be shot.
xin
whats that saying
soon to blame.... etc
-
Autosomal DNA can be lost very quickly.
Let’s call the 50% of DNA a person inherits from their father an Apple and the 50% of DNA they inherit from their mother a Banana. They marry someone with 50% of DNA, which we will call a Cherry and 50% of DNA, which we will call a Date. The first child inherits the Apple and the Cherry. The second child inherits the Banana and the Date.
No match.
-
Xin, Have either of you uploaded to Gedmatch or anywhere else where you can confirm whether you do share any DNA at all?
According to ISOGG, ancestry picks up 98% of 3rd cousins, you could be in the unlucky 2%, though perhaps unlikely.
https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics
If you are sure that you are not related, then one of you has an incorrect tree, and no amount of basic paper research will correct it, unless you investigate it further. If you are descended from one of great grandads 'illicit relationships' (for want of a better term), then some of your tree will be based on a lie.
Regards Margaret
-
Autosomal DNA can be lost very quickly.
Let’s call the 50% of DNA a person inherits from their father an Apple and the 50% of DNA they inherit from their mother a Banana. They marry someone with 50% of DNA, which we will call a Cherry and 50% of DNA, which we will call a Date. The first child inherits the Apple and the Cherry. The second child inherits the Banana and the Date.
No match.
I see your point, but the likelihood of that happening is practically zero. Again, according to ISOGG, probability of no detectable DNA starts at 2nd cousin once removed stage (0.1%).
https://isogg.org/wiki/Cousin_statistics
Regards Margaret
-
Margaret,
I agree. I was merely illustrating what "could" occur.
Tina.
-
:D
-
I must be a knickerbocker glory then :) :)
I have uploaded to my heritage... will check that out --
I am sure we will sort it over the next few ....aaarggh.... days
xin
-
Just had my DNA results from Ancestry. Not a lot of surprises as to ethnicity:
Ethnicity Estimate
Ireland/Scotland/Wales
64%
Europe West
15%
Scandinavia
14%
Great Britain
5%
Wales & the West Midlands
Northern England & the Midlands
Low Confidence Regions
Europe South
<1%
Finland/Northwest Russia
<1%
And, what a surprise, it lists my great/grand nephew as my nearest relative- high confidence ;D ;D ;D Also a 3rd/4th cousin who helped me when I started all this and sadly died in NJ a while ago.
Not sure what to do now - do I go through the list and make contacts ???
Gadget
-
Just received my results.
Overall, I am satisfied with the experience as I immediately received a message from a match, which has the possibility of shedding light on the paternity of my illegitimate great-grandmother.
My biggest frustration is, as I was warned, the sheer number of matches who don't have any trees.
But the actual service is good.
-
I've just downloaded and unzipped the raw data - don't understand a thing. Help, please ???
Many of the close matches are cousins, etc. that I know of. Others are mainly in US and some names are familiar in the trees that are available.
-
Not sure what to do now - do I go through the list and make contacts
If you haven't already done so, I strongly recommend that you read some of the stuff in the Ancestry Academy section. It is important to understand things like:
- number of matching segments
- total length of matching segments
I have had mixed results from contacting people. I reckon my response rate is slightly less than 50% which many subscribers deem disappointing. However, you need to bear in mind that many people submit a test purely to see if they really are Irish/Finnish/Pixie. They may have no interest in genealogy or family trees etc. I wish my third cousin would respond but he won't. I know here he lives; I know what he did before he retired; I don't know why we're related!!!
Among those that have responded, I have found only three people where I can identify a common progenitor. I can get near (same village, same time) but can't nail an individual. Possibly someone was a bit naughty??
I would focus only on just the top few matches and follow them up. Then pause and take stock before contacting any more. (BTW, Ancestry's messaging system is very limiting so I urge you to keep a detailed record of contacts.)
-
Thanks :)
I know exactly how my great/grand nephew is related to me (he's my sister's grandson!) and I know quite a few of the other 2nd-4th cousins (as we've corresponded) and their ancestors appear on my tree.
I'll read up on some of the wider info - I do have all the raw data and I think I understand the various categories.
-
I didn't think anyone unzipped the Raw DNA, I thought it was just for uploading to other sites. ???
-
I didn't think anyone unzipped the Raw DNA, I thought it was just for uploading to other sites. ???
I wanted to have a look as it has some useful info, but my genetics info is more than a bit rusty:
#
#Genetic data is provided below as five TAB delimited columns. Each line
#corresponds to a SNP. Column one provides the SNP identifier (rsID where
#possible). Columns two and three contain the chromosome and basepair position
#of the SNP using human reference build 37.1 coordinates. Columns four and five
#contain the two alleles observed at this SNP (genotype). The genotype is reported
#on the forward (+) strand with respect to the human reference
PS - also, I'm nosey ;D ;D ;D
-
I took the ancestry DNA test with a view to unlocking some brick walls in my Goater and Langdale ancestry. My paper trail tells me that my 3 x great grandfather was Joseph Goater and his son Henry definitely married Jane Langdale in India who was the daughter of William Langdale who joined the 11th Light Dragoons in England. I was hoping to find out if I linked with the large Goater clan which emanates from Sparsholt and get an idea where William came from.
So much for that! Not a single tree of any of my ancestry DNA matches has a Goater or a Langdale in it! I have definite matches with the family of my great grandmother Goater (nee Smith) and other lines on my mother's side have been clearly confirmed and strengthened through DNA cousins sharing common ancestors. On the other hand there are no unexplained close matches either. Should I assume my great grandmother was unfaithful ? I am loathe to let go of the Langdale connection which has generated some interesting research!
Phil Goater
-
How long ago did you receive your test results?
Have you tried gednatch.com or familydna.com?
My own unknown 3rd cousin match and two of my highest 4th cousin matches arrived months after my own results were published. I knew nothing about any of them!!
-
I have filed my results... for later ... but I havent got much Later ... :( the offspring will have fun..
xin
-
I got my results in May but haven’t been able to give them my undivided attention - I look forward to further contacts! I haven’t yet tackled the challenge of uploading my results elsewhere - thanks for the prompt!
I trust xin that your next generation will appreciate your groundwork.
Phil
-
Bless em.. if they can untangle my files.. they will be fine :)
xin
-
I took the ancestry DNA test with a view to unlocking some brick walls in my Goater and Langdale ancestry.
I have definite matches with the family of my great grandmother Goater (nee Smith) and other lines on my mother's side have been clearly confirmed and strengthened through DNA cousins sharing common ancestors.
Phil Goater
Hi Phil.
I have snipped your quote for relevance. Relevant to my experience.
I have a similar strong line. ie my mothers paternal line has matches coming out of the wazoo and my dads line is very limited.
I put it down to a few things
1. Number of people from 1 side testing more than others
2. The apple banana cherry date idea from above
3. NPE is possible but neither confirmed or denied ie the matches on my fathers are good.
Overall I see it as a waiting game. The more of my dads side to test the more those results build up. Or my mothers paternal line are very strong holders of DNA
Good luck
-
I liken it to fishing, bait the hook and cast the line and wait patiently. Sometimes the bait is right and you get an immediate response, others take time. About two years after I had posted about my cousin and his wife who were actors someone found the post and posted copies of an old autograph album they had found with their autographs. DNA is the same. Wait and hopefully it will work out.
-
DavidG02, what is the meaning of "The apple banana cherry date idea from above"? The internet just gives me a cake recipe.
Martin
-
Autosomal DNA can be lost very quickly.
Let’s call the 50% of DNA a person inherits from their father an Apple and the 50% of DNA they inherit from their mother a Banana. They marry someone with 50% of DNA, which we will call a Cherry and 50% of DNA, which we will call a Date. The first child inherits the Apple and the Cherry. The second child inherits the Banana and the Date.
No match.
-
Thanks Gadget, I didn't realise I should have read so far back. Meanwhile I'm enjoying the cake.
Martin
-
Grief that means my brothers were right all along - that I'm a bit of a banana..... Thanks for the education!
Phil
-
I love cake... Um the cake analogy that is, but isn’t it statistically highly improbable that siblings wouldn’t share lots and lots and lots and lots of cherry, prune, date and walnut??
-
Phil Goater.
Don't give up yet. I was feeling the same about my paternal great grandfather - no matches at all to my maiden name, or any other name relating to that line. Plenty for my great grandmother's line.
Slowly they are now trickling in, and my paternal first cousin has more than I have.
Have you tried the surname/place name search? When I first got my results back there was only one result for my maiden name, which unfortunately I still have not positively linked to. Now there are eight, two of whom are definitely matched through that line.
A waiting game
Regards Margaret
-
Diplodocus, I was a selfish child and didn't share anything with my brother apart from some of my parent's DNA.
-
Always fun to read the joy of life we all share ;D
-
I gave up family history years ago. I only stay here for the banter.
-
I'd now like to give the DNA test A+++++++
Not only have I managed to find my great grandfather and the resulting lots of cousins but also, through finding a 2nd cousin match, I have reviewed that line and found that there was masses more info since I put it aside a few years ago. This solved a few brick walls. and lots more social history ;)
However, it requires thorough searches through all the paper trails. DNA results, in themselves, won't provide the info. It just points in the right direction.
Gadget
-
I'd now like to give the DNA test A+++++++
Not only have I managed to find my great grandfather and the resulting lots of cousins but also, through finding a 2nd cousin match, I have reviewed that line and found that there was masses more info since I put it aside a few years ago. This solved a few brick walls. and lots more social history ;)
However, it requires thorough searches through all the paper trails. DNA results, in themselves, won't provide the info. It just points in the right direction.
Gadget
Excellent stuff Gadget. Glad to hear it
Your point about DNA co-existing with your own paper trail is very valid
Great find
-
I'd now like to give the DNA test A+++++++
Not only have I managed to find my great grandfather and the resulting lots of cousins but also, through finding a 2nd cousin match, I have reviewed that line and found that there was masses more info since I put it aside a few years ago. This solved a few brick walls. and lots more social history ;)
However, it requires thorough searches through all the paper trails. DNA results, in themselves, won't provide the info. It just points in the right direction.
Gadget
Excellent stuff Gadget. Glad to hear it
Your point about DNA co-existing with your own paper trail is very valid
Great find
Exactly I like DNA, but it's not the be all and end all. The key is understanding that not matching does not automatically you're not cousins. When there is a match it is an extra clue to your ancestry. That's what genealogy is after all, pulling together all the clues to draw a conclusion, and the more clues the better.
-
I am agreeing with your posts and most of the others. I have been studying my father's family tree (Lunsford) for over 40 years and have several brick walls, so frustrating. I've talked with several distant cousins from 6 generations back that have come from different siblings of my 7gf.
I have a big question and this probably isn't the place to ask it. If someone on your dna match shares a family circle with you and you find you have ancestors in common, as I just mentioned...perhaps my ggggfather's brothers, does that mean you are on the right track with the correct lineage?
Jan Lunsford Taylor
-
Jan, DNA testing provides you with list of matches, it is up to you to find out where you match with each person.
So the answer to your question can only be 'Probably', especially as you are tallking about potential mutual 5G grandparents, 6th cousins.
Having said that, the likelihood of three different people, who you have all 'proved' to be descended from common ancestors with a paper trail, and with who you share DNA, not being connected through this line is remote. You would all need to upload your raw DNA data to Gedmatch, ftDNA or myheritageDNA to see if you matched at the same place on the same chromosome.
Regards Margaret
-
Oh sugar fizzle
lend me your brain :) please.
xin
I totally disregard my dna results now .. as I just cannot cope :(
-
I am agreeing with your posts and most of the others. I have been studying my father's family tree (Lunsford) for over 40 years and have several brick walls, so frustrating. I've talked with several distant cousins from 6 generations back that have come from different siblings of my 7gf.
I have a big question and this probably isn't the place to ask it. If someone on your dna match shares a family circle with you and you find you have ancestors in common, as I just mentioned...perhaps my ggggfather's brothers, does that mean you are on the right track with the correct lineage?
Jan Lunsford Taylor
Hello Jan
Can't answer your DNA question, but was wondering if you are related to Lunsford of East Hoathly?
Lunsford tried to assinate Pelham at Church, or when leaving the Church and fled to France ...
Mark
-
NO! what a waste of money!
0 Shared Ancestor Hints
0 Starred matches
210 4th cousins or closer
most have no trees, i don't recognise any surnames & i'm currently having a mini tantrum as i'm so disappointed! ???
-
This is what happens when people are seduced by the Marketing Hype, and don't understand the realities of DNA Testing, and what it can actually do!
I haven't done any DNA Testing, and have no plans to do so ;D
-
It's what many of us think when we get the results. You have to work at finding the relationships. Lots of pointers on other threads on this board.
DNA results are pointers only. You need to do some detailed work on what are called 'shared matches'. See links on your other thread.
-
It's what many of us think when we get the results. You have to work at finding the relationships. Lots of pointers on other threads on this board.
DNA results are pointers only. You need to do some detailed work on what are called 'shared matches'. See links on your other thread.
Thank you :-)
-
It's all according to why you take the test. I was curious about where my ancestors travelled from but also wanted confirmation of my paper trails and slowly I'm having them confirmed. Well worth it.
Paper trails don't always show the truth, I have a French second cousin - a gt uncle plus a French lady in Northern France during WW1?????
My heart goes out when I see - I am adopted and want to know my family. I have 3 on 23andMe related to me and as yet haven't found the general links.
It takes patience but if you want another way to confirm your paper trails on your tree stay with it. It's not an instant fix.
Look for free sites to download your raw data to if you want to maximise your chances of finding relatives.
Remember a 4th cousin is still a relative and the info on their brach could increase your knowledge of your ancestors and expand your tree.
-
Keep in mind just because a person doesn't have a tree on that site doesn't mean they don't have a tree at all.
I've found the connection with several of my matches and none of us have online trees.
-
Alders,
I am sorry that you have found the DNA experience a disappointment but I do urge you to stay in touch with your Ancestry DNA pages even if just occasionally. There are nuggets but as with most mining, a fair amount of digging is required to unearth them.
May I suggest that you start by concentrating on the first page only of your matches and start with those where a tree is attached (please be aware that some "testees" do have accessible trees but haven't linked their tree to their results). You can find these by first clicking on a match and them clicking on the person. If they have any public trees these will be listed.
Being ancient, I rely (a lot) on the notes function on the results page to remind me what I found when I last investigated the result. If I've contacted this person, I keep a note of it. Ancestry's handling of messages from within its DNA section seems rather random when it comes to filing outgoing messages.
The "shared matches" tab is the richest vein of data. I may not recognise anyone in John Smith's tree but both he and I share a match with Mary Jones. It is not too great a mathematical leap to assume that John and Mary are both related to me through the same branch.
If you read other postings in Rootschat's DNA forum, you will have realised that:
- Most people don't have linked trees;
- Most people don't respond to contacts "out of the blue";
- Most matches cannot be linked to a recent common progenitor;
- Ethnicity estimates are the proverbial ashtray on a motorcycle.
It is useful to remember that many tests were submitted by people with no active interest in genealogy but thought that a hundred quid or so would prove their family really were related to Oliver Cromwell.
At the risk of prodding another wasps' nest, it's all a bit like Ancestry's hints. Many of them are palpable nonsense but every now and then...
-
NO! what a waste of money!
0 Shared Ancestor Hints
0 Starred matches
210 4th cousins or closer
most have no trees, i don't recognise any surnames & i'm currently having a mini tantrum as i'm so disappointed! ???
If you only got your results back recently you will have no shared ancestor hints. Takes time for ancestry to search through your tree, if you have one, and compare with those matches that have a tree. Bear in mind, these will be people you probably already know are connected to you, or you can find their trees easily enough. They are not going to help you with any brick walls, or any lines where you are uncertain and have not connected them to yourself. (e.g. if you have a possibility for an ancestor, but have not attached them to your tree, you won't get a shared ancestor hint)
You will have no starred matches until you give one a star.
You will have to work hard to find valid matches. I have had one person contact me to see how we may be related, however, I have sent many messages to other people, trying to establish the connection.
Somewhere in your 210 matches there will be some positive ones, also in your many thousands of 5th to 8th cousins.
My suggestion is to stick with it for a while, perhaps following Peter Calver's Lost Cousins DNA Masterclass.
Regards Margaret
-
Hello.
I cant say that im dissatisfied with it,just very confused as to how they have come to the conclusion they have with my test.
Ive just got my results back,and it says that im 100% England,Wales and NorthWestern Europe.No connection to anywhere else in the world.Not even trace elements.More specifically,it says im very likely connected to SE England(im from Kent).For all the other 12 regions in that category,it says no connection.Even Essex,just across the Thames Estuary,no connection.This has left me baffled.Am I really to believe that the only place anywhere in the world that I have any connection to is Kent?And even that is only"very likely".Has anyone got any thoughts on it,or has anyone had a similar result?Many thanks.
Nel.
-
Hello.
I cant say that im dissatisfied with it,just very confused as to how they have come to the conclusion they have with my test.
Ive just got my results back,and it says that im 100% England,Wales and NorthWestern Europe.No connection to anywhere else in the world.Not even trace elements.More specifically,it says im very likely connected to SE England(im from Kent).For all the other 12 regions in that category,it says no connection.Even Essex,just across the Thames Estuary,no connection.This has left me baffled.Am I really to believe that the only place anywhere in the world that I have any connection to is Kent?And even that is only"very likely".Has anyone got any thoughts on it,or has anyone had a similar result?Many thanks.
Nel.
We you expecting to have Ancestry from anywhere else in the world? If you think all your ancestors for the most recent generations were British then 100% England,Wales and NorthWestern Europe is quite possible.
They're not saying that you don't have ancestry from outside of Kent, but that this is coming up as a predominant area. Some people don't get any "communities" at all.
-
Nel, Kent, my birthplace, is the Garden of England. Enjoy it.
Martin
-
Hello.
I cant say that im dissatisfied with it,just very confused as to how they have come to the conclusion they have with my test.
Ive just got my results back,and it says that im 100% England,Wales and NorthWestern Europe.No connection to anywhere else in the world.Not even trace elements.More specifically,it says im very likely connected to SE England(im from Kent).For all the other 12 regions in that category,it says no connection.Even Essex,just across the Thames Estuary,no connection.This has left me baffled.Am I really to believe that the only place anywhere in the world that I have any connection to is Kent?And even that is only"very likely".Has anyone got any thoughts on it,or has anyone had a similar result?Many thanks.
Nel.
Hello
Despite the claims of the companies these DNA tests do not tell you what your ethnic inheritance is. What they tell you is what you have in common with their control groups that can be ridiculously small. As each company has their own standards, test with different companies and you can get quite different results.
To show the variations you can get below is a link to another thread and the first post is where I give my differing results from three companies. there are also lots of comments from other people on the subject.
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=802458.msg6603725#msg6603725
At the end of the day its best to take the results in a good natured way but not seriously as they are certainly not scientific or proven as the widely varying results you can get shows.
-
Nel,
Has your research so far shown any ancestors outside of Kent/South-East England?
As for Essex - The Thames was a big barrier for travel with few bridges and ferries (no Blackwall Tunnel or Dartford Crossing).
Your DNA will show origins beyond what is researchable, of course, but some people didn't move far.
-
Many thanks for the replies.
It has to be said that a large part of my family has been rooted in the SE for a long time,but there are some that I know were from different parts of the country,and a couple that id been led to believe were from further afield.
My dads family mostly lived and worked in Faversham and surrounding area for over 200 years,predominantly as gunpowder labourers,creekside labourers,barge loaders and brickfield workers.These were the predominant industries in Faversham back then.They mostly married local people.The family name is Jacobs.My 3xgreat grandparents were Jesse Coppins and Mary Ann Jacob.They never married,and we got the surname Jacob with an added "s".Ive got back to 1700s with Coppins,Kent born and bred.Ive got back to Marys father James on the Jacob,born 1802 Faversham.
Other surnames on Dads paternal side are Wildish,Bullock,Coe,Johncock,Epps, Harris,Tilly,Ormiston.All Kent born,apart from one.My something x great gran Jane Ormiston,born in Durham in 1797.So not much suprise with my result from these.
On dads maternal side,nans dad Arthur Priddle was born in Kingston upon Thames in 1878,his father was born in Long Ditton,Somerset and grandfather born in Sherborn,Dorset.The wives in this line mostly born in Sussex.
On mums side,her mums family were Camburns,they were a big family from Whitstable,nan had nearly 70 1st cousins.They were mostly fisherman,oyster dredgers,shrimpers,fish hawkers,merchant seamen etc.They go back to at least 1673 in Kent with Robert Camburn born Harbledown.A lot did move away though.Nans uncle Alf went to Stranraer in Scotland,married and had 14 children,so ive got lots of cousins there.Nans 1st cousin Charlie went there too.There are lots more who moved away.Ive got a lot of family in Grimsby and Hull.
Mums dad was from Dorset.He met nan when his regiment was stationed near Whitstable.He was illigitimate,but his mums family were mostly from Hampshire and Somerset.
So how am i exclusively Kent,with no connection to any region outside of it?Ive got three lines that i thought might be from further afield,but ive got to go out,so i will post a bit later.
Thanks again.
-
So how am i exclusively Kent,with no connection to any region outside of it?Ive got three lines that i thought might be from further afield,but ive got to go out,so i will post a bit later.
Thanks again.
Like I said, I manage a kit that has NO genetic communities - the known ancestors are approx 3/8 Scottish (but from all over Scotland) with West Riding being the next most prominent area, then Midlands, Essex, Dorset/Devon and Irish in fairly equal measure. Perhaps it's too mixed up for any areas to stand out. There's enough matches with 4th and 5th cousins, and even further out, descended from these lines to know that it's not because the DNA doesn't match the tree. There's one large segment shared with distant cousins all over the world which has been passed down from from siblings born in Essex in the 1760s and 1770s.
The other two kits I have access to do have genetic communities, but their ancestry isn't as mixed. It has picked up the Yorkshire in one of them.
This test is not designed to be able to drill down all that closely but you're fortunate that they picked up Kent. It's not that useful a feature though.
LivingDNA claims to be able to break it down further into regions.
You could also upload to Gedmatch. Some of the admixture tools they have there has a further breakdown of the British Isles.
-
Hello.
I cant say that im dissatisfied with it,just very confused as to how they have come to the conclusion they have with my test.
Ive just got my results back,and it says that im 100% England,Wales and NorthWestern Europe.No connection to anywhere else in the world.Not even trace elements.More specifically,it says im very likely connected to SE England(im from Kent).For all the other 12 regions in that category,it says no connection.Even Essex,just across the Thames Estuary,no connection.This has left me baffled.Am I really to believe that the only place anywhere in the world that I have any connection to is Kent?And even that is only"very likely".Has anyone got any thoughts on it,or has anyone had a similar result?Many thanks.
Nel.
Bear in mind the England, Wales and North Western Europe region allows for the fact that English genes are very similar to central-northern French, Belgian, Dutch and north west German and Danish genes due to the Anglo-Saxon foundation of England, British foundation of Brittany, Normans in common, Flemish weavers and Huguenots in England, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany etc. So having 100% of that most certainly does not mean, say, that you don't have French ancestry. My mother has 100% E,W, NWE, but she has hundreds of matches to people who are 100% French in ancestry so clearly does have French genes, and this is clearly exhibited in our own genealogy. Also bear in mind the English, Welsh and Scottish regions are currently very limited compared to Ireland, which now has 92, hopefully this will improve soon!
-
Its intresting that you mention Huguenots as I had been led to believe that my 3xg grandmother might have been descended from these.She was born in Herne in 1827.My 6xg grandfather might have been James Johncock born c1732 Holy Cross,Canterbury.I believe this was an area of Canterbury where a lot of Huguenot immigrants lived.He might have been the son of James Johncock from France.I know a lot of Huguenot immigrants worked in the Faversham gunpowder industry.This info is just hearsay and came mostly from other researchers.
Another line that might have been from further afield is my 4xg grandmother Jane Spain from Margate.Her father was John Spain born in Margate in 1796.I had read on various sites that these Spains came over from Spain at the time of the Armarda.Given the Inquisition was going on,i thought they might be Gypsies who hid their heritage,or Jewish.John was a labourer,but on his daughters Australian marriage certificate,she gave his occupation as goldsmith.His brother Stephen was a hawker and dealer.Stephens sons were a horse dealers and scrapmen,as were some of his grandchildren and g grandchildren.They married at least 7 Romany women.Again the origins mostly hearsay.
The third line is my 4xgreat grandfather James Jacob.We always thought that his family was originally Jewish.At present,i know nothing about him pre 1800.
Could any of this be so given my DNA result?Having been here for centuries,and mostly just marrying into the local population,would these potential roots still show up?Or can I dismiss it all as fantasy?
Any thoughts appreciated.
-
Its intresting that you mention Huguenots as I had been led to believe that my 3xg grandmother might have been descended from these.She was born in Herne in 1827.My 6xg grandfather might have been James Johncock born c1732 Holy Cross,Canterbury.I believe this was an area of Canterbury where a lot of Huguenot immigrants lived.He might have been the son of James Johncock from France.I know a lot of Huguenot immigrants worked in the Faversham gunpowder industry.This info is just hearsay and came mostly from other researchers.
Another line that might have been from further afield is my 4xg grandmother Jane Spain from Margate.Her father was John Spain born in Margate in 1796.I had read on various sites that these Spains came over from Spain at the time of the Armarda.Given the Inquisition was going on,i thought they might be Gypsies who hid their heritage,or Jewish.John was a labourer,but on his daughters Australian marriage certificate,she gave his occupation as goldsmith.His brother Stephen was a hawker and dealer.Stephens sons were a horse dealers and scrapmen,as were some of his grandchildren and g grandchildren.They married at least 7 Romany women.Again the origins mostly hearsay.
The third line is my 4xgreat grandfather James Jacob.We always thought that his family was originally Jewish.At present,i know nothing about him pre 1800.
Could any of this be so given my DNA result?Having been here for centuries,and mostly just marrying into the local population,would these potential roots still show up?Or can I dismiss it all as fantasy?
Any thoughts appreciated.
Nel, you'll never guess what, but my mother is also descended from the Johncocks of Canterbury! And yes they were almost certainly Huguenots. My mother is descended from Elizabeth Johncock/Jancock who married James Charles 6th March, 1728/9 at St. Mary, Northgate, Canterbury. She was baptised 14th June, 1713 at St. Mary, daughter of John Johncock/Jancock who married Ellen White 10th April, 1692 in St. Stephen, Hackington. What you find is the families in Huguenot trees that have seemingly English names, simply have names that were translated i.e. White could have been Blanc, Blanche, Smith could be Lefevre etc. Jacob could also be Huguenot, from Jacques/Jaques, but it could also be Jewish.
Regarding Romany Gypsys, yes it is certainly possible they could have come around the Armada time, but it wouldn't have been from the Armada as there were no survivors. Romanys first came early on in Elizabeth's reign I think.
-
Sorry about the delay in replying.What a coincidenc.We could be distant cousins through the Johncocks.Since I last posted,ive been trying to get back further with my Jacob line on FamilySearch,and it would appear,if ive done it right,my 8xgreat grandparents were Robert Jacob and Mary De La Pierre married St Alphage Church,Canterbury on 23rd August 1672.Around the right time and right place for the Huguenots and Walloons.Several of the baptisms between my 4xgreat grandfather James Jacob 1802 Faversham and Robert were Folkstone/Dover/New Romney way,not too far from Sandwich,where a lot of Huguenots settled.This has made me wonder whether the Jacobs could be,especially given that most of them worked in the Faversham Gunpowder and brickmaking industries.But why wouldn't French show on my DNA?This marriage was nearl 350 years ago,and the bloodlines very mixed since then,but would it not still show on my profile?Any other thoghts appreciated.
-
8xgrandparents are beyond the statistical capabilities of an autosomal analysis. If you CAN find a match, then you need to tear it with great caution!!
It would almost certainly be beyond any ethnicity indicator.
-
Thanks for the reply.I think when I did this test,i slightly misunderstood how it works.I assumed it would show where direct bloodlines originated from going back thousands of years.Given that most of my ancestors for the past few hundred years or so have lived and worked here,its hard to see how this test can be of much use to me.Two French possibilities,which the test couldn't show me,and a possible Spain,but this would have been 15/1600s,so too far back.The test told me im only connected to Kent,and have no connection to anywhere else,even other counties.Yet my maternal grandad is from Dorset,my paternal nan from Somerset via Wales.Nans uncle went to Scotland his wife had 14 kids all married there and their families live there.I also have family in Grimsby.Other ancestors went to USA and Canada.My 4xgreat aunt and uncle went to Australia,their daughter had 10kids,77 grandchildren and 139 great grandchildren when she died.Would none of that show a wider match?I also had a 5xgreat grandmother from Northumberland I belive it was.I was very surprised it showed such a narrow area,does it have to be direct bloodline to show?
-
So this test can only prove ethnicity going back fewer than 350 years?
-
Sorry about the delay in replying.What a coincidenc.We could be distant cousins through the Johncocks.Since I last posted,ive been trying to get back further with my Jacob line on FamilySearch,and it would appear,if ive done it right,my 8xgreat grandparents were Robert Jacob and Mary De La Pierre married St Alphage Church,Canterbury on 23rd August 1672.Around the right time and right place for the Huguenots and Walloons.Several of the baptisms between my 4xgreat grandfather James Jacob 1802 Faversham and Robert were Folkstone/Dover/New Romney way,not too far from Sandwich,where a lot of Huguenots settled.This has made me wonder whether the Jacobs could be,especially given that most of them worked in the Faversham Gunpowder and brickmaking industries.But why wouldn't French show on my DNA?This marriage was nearl 350 years ago,and the bloodlines very mixed since then,but would it not still show on my profile?Any other thoghts appreciated.
We probably are :). Although I recently discovered Johncocks in East Anglia too, I know that there were also Huguenots up there so possibly connected. Jancoux is a possible French origin of the name. It looks like Jacob can be a French name too, not originally Jaques as I thought, Jacob is very common in France:
https://www.filae.com/nom-de-famille/jacob.html (https://www.filae.com/nom-de-famille/jacob.html)
The site above requires flash, so won't work on any Apple devices unfortunately. A few of those might be Jewish Jacobs, but certainly not the majority.
As I said, the England, Wales and North Western Europe DNA category includes central and northern France, a lot, possibly the majority of Huguenots come from these areas. There is a problem in getting an accurate DNA map of France because commercial DNA testing is illegal there, and the samples they have are probably from medical or anthropological studies, possibly from French Quebecois also, although that wouldn't help in getting an accurate DNA map of France as they would be far too mixed of French from all different areas, but it might give them a guide as to how in general French DNA differs, to the English, Dutch etc.
-
Not read all the replies here but I do agree with the original poster. Took my test in Jan and have had no amazing revelations - as said most people I link with have no tree or its private - so how can we ever find a link? I've not pursued many of the 'tips' with DNA - think I did contact one or two with no responses - have connected vaguely with one person but think we'd have done that anyway.
Some people have had such a good response with their DNA I was wondering if I was going about it all the wrong way - I have an open tree with 12k people in so plenty there for connections to show.
I've got 250 4th cousins or closer apparently.
-
Not read all the replies here but I do agree with the original poster. Took my test in Jan and have had no amazing revelations - as said most people I link with have no tree or its private - so how can we ever find a link? I've not pursued many of the 'tips' with DNA - think I did contact one or two with no responses - have connected vaguely with one person but think we'd have done that anyway.
Some people have had such a good response with their DNA I was wondering if I was going about it all the wrong way - I have an open tree with 12k people in so plenty there for connections to show.
I've got 250 4th cousins or closer apparently.
You say that some people have had such a good response from DNA implying that you haven't but if you haven't pursued any of the DNA tips then potentially you are just sitting back waiting for the connection to come to you. What about if all your connections are also doing the same - never the twain shall meet.
You do need to be a bit proactive to at least stand a chance of a connection. Yes lots of people have no tree but some have unlinked trees which you can peruse to find a connection. Take the bull by the horns and send some messages - you never know.
Pheno
-
Thanks Pheno - yes have checked unlinked trees etc and have followed up a few other DNA links but its just odd I thought for people to take the test and then have no tree there for you to compare. With so many links showing up but no way of knowing which ones are connected where its often like a needle in a haystack - whereas if they have trees at least you can dig around to find out possible local links.
With all my matches I have almost 33k and its so annoying to have people showing but no trees to find out where. If you know which line it might be then its much easier to pick which oens to pursue.
Do people just take the test and then do nothing with it I wonder?
-
Yes they do cos they are often given them for presents and have no interest in their lineage. Also quite a lot are only interested in their 'ethnicity' and not where it originates from.
If you have taken an ancestry test are you on the new beta version - I think you will find the matches more helpful.
Pheno
-
Yes thanks am on the beta version.