RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Braytons on Sunday 29 July 18 10:37 BST (UK)
-
Dear All
I need advice on DNA testing and whether it might help to answer my main brick wall?
My maternal Grandmother, long dead, was listed on the Census of 1881 as having been born in South of France and her brother born in South America.
I have researched quite fully the rest of my maternal line to about 1690 ish. They are families from Northampton and Suffolk who moved to London in the early 1800s.
Is there a chance that any particular DNA test would give me an answer whether my Grandmother really was from Europe and my Great Uncle from South America? I suspect that they were of suspect parentage and their origins were smudged on the Census. Neither of their births were registered.
I am struggling to understand all the different tests and feel I am wading through treacle.
Thank you
Braytons
-
An autosomal DNA test should give you information about all of your lines at great grandparents level, which is what you will be looking for.
However, it can't prove specifically that your grandmother was from France and your grand uncle was from S. America. A family that travelled that far between births, if the census is correct, is likely to be a military or travelling family from elsewhere.
If you grandmother was your maternal one, X DNA testing might indicate her roots, but unlikely if she was really descended from French parents - DNA testing is illegal in France, so not many of them will have had any sort of DNA test.
Is this England and Wales 1881 you are talking about? Perhaps a few details might help us to decipher the birth places, which you say are smudged. Do they only appear on one census?
Regards Margaret
-
For what it's worth, I suspect the 'children' may have been adopted. Robert and Mary married 1861 and in 1871 are in St. Pancras with Mary's mother Sarah Yorke - no children after 10 years. 1871 Census taken on 2/4/1871 yet 'son' Robert is said on baptism to have been born 24/2/1871??
Besides son Robert bp'd 1875, and Mary bp'd 1876 there was another child in between: Mary Augusta Jane Susannah b.27/12/1872, bp.4/5/1873 St Pancras who appears to have died as plain Mary in Dec.1873.
I doubt very much that Robert (also known as George) and Mary ever left these shores - he was a cabman from marriage 1861 through to 1881 and in 1891/1901 the couple are still in St. Pancras but with no children. Where are 'son' Robert Richard born 1871 and 'daughter' Mary Eliza Amelia born 1875 in 1891? I can't seem to find these 2 after 1881??
All somewhat mysterious.
Annette
-
Perhaps a few details might help us to decipher the birth places, which you say are smudged. Do they only appear on one census?
I suspect Braytons means 'fudged' not smudged ???
For what it's worth, I suspect the 'children' may have been adopted.
This makes sense & would explain why parents said birthplaces were abroad.
-
Does this family have a surname?
Ahaha I've found them in 1871 their surname is VINCENT.
George born in Chatham Kent and Mary in Chelsea Middx.
-
I can't see the birth of a Mary Augusta Jane in either FreeBMD or on the GRO website with mmn's?
-
If you think the two children may have been adopted, there is nothing to tell you whether they were at all related to each other or their 'parents'.
So, to return to the original question, an autosomal DNA test is likely to help you find your grandmother's origins, as long as she wasn't born in France, as already explained.
It will not help you with her brother's origins at all, whether he was full, half or no sibling, unless he has also got descendants who have tested
Likewise with Y testing, it might indicate her origins, unless she was born in France. It won't help with her brother's origins at all, as his descendants won't have the y DNA of their mother.
Margaret
-
Thank you all for your replies.
Yes, I think you are right. I have been through this puzzle repeatedly on here and in my own research and strongly suspect that the children were informally adopted. ::) I just thought maybe a DNA test might cast a little bit more light as it is only my Grandmother, e.g. so recent. :-\
Unfortunately I have been unable to contact successfully any descendants of Robert Richard, Mary's brother which if they had a DNA test might show we are not related?
Thank you Margaret for clarifying the problem with any DNA test.
Any more thoughts?
Braytons
-
If both you and any of Robert's descendants had autosomal DNA testing it should indicate if Robert and Mary were siblings.
At this degree of cousinship it should be a pretty good match.
A negative match at this degree of cousinship is likely to indicate that they were not brother and sister, but probably not confirmative.
A positive test is likely to indicate that they were related, and not in itself confirmative, but taken in conjunction with any shared matches, might be considered to be so.
Regards Margaret
-
I'm 50 pages into "Family Tree Guide to DNA Testing and Genetic Genealogy: How to Harness the Power of DNA to Advance Your Family Tree Research Paperback – 13 Oct 2016 by Blaine T. Bettinger (Author).
It has a chapter on choosing a test, but I'd recommend it to anyone who wants to get maximum value out of their results. It is very readable.
Martin
-
My great grandma was born in Cheshire,on all 6 censuses it says a different place,including one of them even saying London!
I think the enumerator had trouble reading his own writing,don't forget he would have been doing this in half light of a candle,no brightly lit rooms with electric light!
Carol
-
1881 census shows both children as British Subjects, which possibly rules out Mary's ancestors as coming from France, which should make things easier.
Regards Margaret
-
There is a school admission that gives Mary's DOB as 6 Jun 1875, but I can't find a birth for her that fits that date. Is the 1861 Croydon marriage the right one,with Mary's maiden name being Fuller?
It seems to be the only one to a Mary?
-
1881 census shows both children as British Subjects, which possibly rules out Mary's ancestors as coming from France, which should make things easier.
Regards Margaret
Thank you Margaret
Yes I remember noticing the B.S. "British Subjects". I felt it looked like it had been added later by a different hand. I wish I knew more about the process of the Census. For example did the householder or enumerator fill in the original form. The form we see is a fair copy I presume?
Braytons
-
There is a school admission that gives Mary's DOB as 6 Jun 1875, but I can't find a birth for her that fits that date. Is the 1861 Croydon marriage the right one,with Mary's maiden name being Fuller?
It seems to be the only one to a Mary?
Thank you
Yes that school admission is correct. The Croydon marriage is not correct. Mary's parents Robert and Mary were married in St Pancras.
Braytons
-
For what it's worth, I suspect the 'children' may have been adopted. Robert and Mary married 1861 and in 1871 are in St. Pancras with Mary's mother Sarah Yorke - no children after 10 years. 1871 Census taken on 2/4/1871 yet 'son' Robert is said on baptism to have been born 24/2/1871??
Besides son Robert bp'd 1875, and Mary bp'd 1876 there was another child in between: Mary Augusta Jane Susannah b.27/12/1872, bp.4/5/1873 St Pancras who appears to have died as plain Mary in Dec.1873.
I doubt very much that Robert (also known as George) and Mary ever left these shores - he was a cabman from marriage 1861 through to 1881 and in 1891/1901 the couple are still in St. Pancras but with no children. Where are 'son' Robert Richard born 1871 and 'daughter' Mary Eliza Amelia born 1875 in 1891? I can't seem to find these 2 after 1881??
All somewhat mysterious.
Annette
Thank you Annette
Sorry I think I missed your reply this morning. In very quick time you have summed up the problem. I too have been unable to find an 1891 Census for either of them. And yet they both went on to have families of their own.
Maybe thinking that a DNA test would cast some light is wishful thinking.
Braytons
-
For what it's worth, I suspect the 'children' may have been adopted. Robert and Mary married 1861 and in 1871 are in St. Pancras with Mary's mother Sarah Yorke - no children after 10 years. 1871 Census taken on 2/4/1871 yet 'son' Robert is said on baptism to have been born 24/2/1871??
Besides son Robert bp'd 1875, and Mary bp'd 1876 there was another child in between: Mary Augusta Jane Susannah b.27/12/1872, bp.4/5/1873 St Pancras who appears to have died as plain Mary in Dec.1873.
I doubt very much that Robert (also known as George) and Mary ever left these shores - he was a cabman from marriage 1861 through to 1881 and in 1891/1901 the couple are still in St. Pancras but with no children. Where are 'son' Robert Richard born 1871 and 'daughter' Mary Eliza Amelia born 1875 in 1891? I can't seem to find these 2 after 1881??
All somewhat mysterious.
Annette
Thank you Annette
Sorry I think I missed your reply this morning. In very quick time you have summed up the problem. I too have been unable to find an 1891 Census for either of them. And yet they both went on to have families of their own.
Maybe thinking that a DNA test would cast some light is wishful thinking.
Braytons
I really don't think DNA is going to help here unfortunately! I doubt that Robert and Mary were actually related to each other at all, let alone to Robert (George) and Mary, their 'parents'. What I find interesting is that on 1891/1901 and 1911 census Robert continually states he was born in Chelsea, whilst Mary always states St. Pancras (where they lived). Why I wonder? Had the parents told him he was born in Chelsea, perhaps 'adopted' him from Chelsea Workhouse? So unfortunate that adoptions weren't legally recorded before 1927.
Found Robert in 1891 - shown as a servant working as a 'Potman' - from his marriage in 1903 we know he was in the Army and a fairly brief service record records that he was a 'Potman' before joining the Royal Artillery (Gunner) in which he served for 18 years, and discharged in 1909 (at own request). In 1901 he is in barracks at Woolwich.
So where was 15 year old Mary in 1891 I wonder?
Sorry to be casting a dampener on your thoughts.
Annette
-
For what it's worth, I suspect the 'children' may have been adopted. Robert and Mary married 1861 and in 1871 are in St. Pancras with Mary's mother Sarah Yorke - no children after 10 years. 1871 Census taken on 2/4/1871 yet 'son' Robert is said on baptism to have been born 24/2/1871??
Besides son Robert bp'd 1875, and Mary bp'd 1876 there was another child in between: Mary Augusta Jane Susannah b.27/12/1872, bp.4/5/1873 St Pancras who appears to have died as plain Mary in Dec.1873.
I doubt very much that Robert (also known as George) and Mary ever left these shores - he was a cabman from marriage 1861 through to 1881 and in 1891/1901 the couple are still in St. Pancras but with no children. Where are 'son' Robert Richard born 1871 and 'daughter' Mary Eliza Amelia born 1875 in 1891? I can't seem to find these 2 after 1881??
All somewhat mysterious.
Annette
Thank you Annette
Sorry I think I missed your reply this morning. In very quick time you have summed up the problem. I too have been unable to find an 1891 Census for either of them. And yet they both went on to have families of their own.
Maybe thinking that a DNA test would cast some light is wishful thinking.
Braytons
I really don't think DNA is going to help here unfortunately! I doubt that Robert and Mary were actually related to each other at all, let alone to Robert (George) and Mary, their 'parents'. What I find interesting is that on 1891/1901 and 1911 census Robert continually states he was born in Chelsea, whilst Mary always states St. Pancras (where they lived). Why I wonder? Had the parents told him he was born in Chelsea, perhaps 'adopted' him from Chelsea Workhouse? So unfortunate that adoptions weren't legally recorded before 1927.
Found Robert in 1891 - shown as a servant working as a 'Potman' - from his marriage in 1903 we know he was in the Army and a fairly brief service record records that he was a 'Potman' before joining the Royal Artillery (Gunner) in which he served for 18 years, and discharged in 1909 (at own request). In 1901 he is in barracks at Woolwich.
So where was 15 year old Mary in 1891 I wonder?
Sorry to be casting a dampener on your thoughts.
Annette
Thank you again Annette
Where was Robert living 1891 when he was listed as a potman? I don't know whether I have seen that record.
I don't think I have the record showing he was a "potman" before enlisting in the army. I do have some details of his service and his discharge.
There are various Mary's around the country who I have dismissed. Maybe it was a lost record. Surely there is no guarantee that everyone was listed. Just annoying she can't be found.
I think you are correct in thinking they were not related. If that was the can and if, and its a big if, I was to be able to contact a descendant of Robert Richard and they were willing to take a DNA test would they appear as totally unrelated to me?
Braytons
-
I wish I knew more about the process of the Census. For example did the householder or enumerator fill in the original form. The form we see is a fair copy I presume?
As I understands it, from 1841 - 1901, the enumerator copied out the householder's return sheet [or took dictation from householder if the latter had had difficulty] & this is what we see today. The originals were destroyed. Only for 1911 do we see the scan of the householder's own entry.
http://www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/census.html
-
I wish I knew more about the process of the Census. For example did the householder or enumerator fill in the original form. The form we see is a fair copy I presume?
As I understands it, from 1841 - 1901, the enumerator copied out the householder's return sheet [or took dictation from householder if the latter had had difficulty] & this is what we see today. The originals were destroyed. Only for 1911 do we see the scan of the householder's own entry.
http://www.historyhouse.co.uk/articles/census.html
Josey Thank you for that link. Makes very informative reading. As I suspected some records were lost. It's definitely an inexact science.
Braytons
-
I think perhaps you should not concentrate on hoping to find DNA matches with any children, natural or adopted, of Robert and Mary Vincent.
It really does depend upon who has tested and who hasn't, and you may not be able to find anybody suitable to test or who has been tested.
If you focus more on your line and your descent from your grandmother, you may get further.
If you do autosomal DNA testing your focus would be on your grandmother's parents, not her siblings. You look for matches to your Most Recent Common Ancestor or MRCA. You will find matches on your great grandmother's and great grandfather's line, whoever they may be.
If you get matches to the Vincent and Yorke families you know she was not adopted. If you get no matches to that line, you may share matches with another line which could help your searches.
For example, if I did not know who my great grandparents were for any reason, I would have found a second and third cousin as matches, 4 members of the same family as 4th cousins, someone else a shared match with all of us, so 8 people shared matches. It wouldn't have taken me long to find out which line they were all connected to, even if I didn't know which specific family member I was looking at.
That's how adoptees do it, they have no ideas as to their parent's names, but they hope to get parent, half sibling or first cousin matches initially, followed by slightly more distant matches to back the theory up.
My advice, FWIW, would be to have an autosomal DNA test and see what comes up.
Regards Margaret
-
An interesting thread on a similar topic.
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=796057.18
On page 3, Gadget thinks she had found her great grandfather, after a lot of searching.
Regards Margaret
-
Thank you Margaret. :)
Clear and to the point. I will take you advice and do an autosomal DNA test. Would that be Ancestry or can you recommend any other suitable ones? I will also look at the thread you mention. Understanding all the jargon will be a steep learning curve.
Chasing after living relatives is not something I want to do anyway. :-\
Braytons
-
I think perhaps you should not concentrate on hoping to find DNA matches with any children, natural or adopted, of Robert and Mary Vincent.
It really does depend upon who has tested and who hasn't, and you may not be able to find anybody suitable to test or who has been tested.
If you focus more on your line and your descent from your grandmother, you may get further.
If you do autosomal DNA testing your focus would be on your grandmother's parents, not her siblings. You look for matches to your Most Recent Common Ancestor or MRCA. You will find matches on your great grandmother's and great grandfather's line, whoever they may be.
If you get matches to the Vincent and Yorke families you know she was not adopted. If you get no matches to that line, you may share matches with another line which could help your searches.
For example, if I did not know who my great grandparents were for any reason, I would have found a second and third cousin as matches, 4 members of the same family as 4th cousins, someone else a shared match with all of us, so 8 people shared matches. It wouldn't have taken me long to find out which line they were all connected to, even if I didn't know which specific family member I was looking at.
That's how adoptees do it, they have no ideas as to their parent's names, but they hope to get parent, half sibling or first cousin matches initially, followed by slightly more distant matches to back the theory up.
My advice, FWIW, would be to have an autosomal DNA test and see what comes up.
Regards Margaret
Hello Margaret and everyone else!
I have the results back from my Ancestry DNA test and have found a couple of matches which is pleasing.
BUT Referring back to my problem which I mentioned in July. I think my grandmother Mary Vincent born 1875 was not the natural child of her mother and/or father. It is possible she was the child of her mother Mary Vincent by some other man. However I think she must have been informally adopted. With this in mind and with my results is there any way I could discover more about this problem? Can you or anyone give me any hints of where to look for clues?
Kind regards Braytons