Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - sugarfizzle

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 108
I share my paternal 7G grandparents from Surrey with a match. This has been flagged up by Ancestry as a 'Shared Ancestor Hint'. Job done, 8th cousins, no problem.

I share 19.8 cMs with this match - not impossible, but perhaps unlikely to be 8th cousins.

However, shared matches are on my maternal side.

We haven't got to the bottom of this as yet, and probably never will, but his great grandfather gave what was probably a false name and age when he married, reported to be son of a Kentish policeman.

In this case, the coincidence is not as striking as others given, as both my parents had roots in Kent and Surrey.  But it is still potentially confusing.

Regards Margaret

Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Maps and locations on Ancestry DNA results
« on: Thursday 17 January 19 17:04 GMT (UK)  »
I also find that if I have given a very full address, i.e. 1, Smithtown Road, Anyplace, England, I get reallocated to USA - never any other country however!

Regards Margaret

Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: 73 new Irish regions on Ancestry DNA
« on: Thursday 17 January 19 04:59 GMT (UK)  »
Perhaps it is only for testers with predominantly Irish heritage then.

There is a sort of breakdown for -
England, Wales & Northwestern Europe 57% > Northern England and the Midlands > West Midlands and North West England.

What about his great grandmother and her ancestors, all from Somerset?
What about his great grandfather and his ancestors, mainly from Kent (his only acknowledgement of SE ancestry!!)

Ireland and Scotland has no breakdown at all, just says 43%, range 0 - 43%, nothing else.

My own ethnicity estimate regional breakdown is
England, Wales & Northwestern Europe 94% > Devon and Cornwall, South East England

Plus Ireland and Scotland 3%, Norway 3%

No known ancestors from Devon or Cornwall, perhaps Wiltshire is included in this.
I have a 4G grandfather reportedly born Cork, Ireland, none from Scotland.

As I said, a long way still to go, if ever. Still mainly for amusement, and click bait for potential testers.

Regards Margaret

Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: 73 new Irish regions on Ancestry DNA
« on: Wednesday 16 January 19 18:28 GMT (UK)  »
I got an email about this today, with regards to my husband's reported 43% Irish heritage. When I clicked on the ethnicity report, it was exactly the same as before, with no added regions at all.

He certainly hasn't got 43% Irish and Scottish heritage, his great grandfather and possibly his ancestors, were from Ireland. By my reckoning that's about 12.5% Irish.

Mind you, they do have the caveat when clicking for further details 'Range 0 - 43%' so I can't complain!!

His other 57 %, England, Wales & Northwestern Europe, on clicking says 'Range 57% - 88%' - the 88% sounds just about right.

Still a way to go.

Regards Margaret

Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: FTdna matches oddity
« on: Tuesday 15 January 19 06:28 GMT (UK)  »
At ancestryDNA when clicking on a match to see details you are provided with a list of shared surnames of direct ascendants.

Those with large trees often have many shared surnames with me. But it may be with only one of them where the connection lies, or none of them. If all eight surnames are relatively common, then there is nothing unusual about it.

Has this person added a tree, or just listed names of interest? If a tree, look for similar places as well as names - a rare surname from Norfolk is perhaps unlikely to be connected to the same rare surname from Scotland.

You might see someone with the same relatively uncommon surname as your ancestors, but you may be related via the Smith family rather than the unusual surname.

And what you think of as a rare name because it only occurs once in your tree and you have never heard of it before or since, could be a very common name in a particular area of the country.

At least you have a chromosome browser at ftDNA to help with your comparisons.

Regards Margaret

Gadget, You ask

'PS - slightly different topic,  but does anyone know if Ancestry are going to install a chromosome browser anytime soon?'

I do know the answer to that one, or at least the position they are taking at present.

They have no plans to ever provide a chromosome browser.

Regards Margaret

The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing, Ayashi.

My response from ancestry with a similar question about flaky surname search just replied that they didn't know why it wasn't working for me. And the 2 people I was contacting them about do now appear in surname search for that name.

Glad that you had a decent, and it would appear correct, reply from them.

Shared matches is possibly the same, but none of my shared matches have changed over time.

I always make notes for 4th to 6th cousins, including the shared matches. It's only when I get new matches that that alters, IYSWIM. Nobody that I have already made a note about has appeared as a shared match at a later date.

But time will tell, there really can't be any other explanation for Gadget's query, can there?

Regards Margaret

Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Y-DNA clarification please
« on: Monday 14 January 19 03:29 GMT (UK)  »
Ozdelver, There have been several similar threads recently, questioning why 4th or 6th cousins etc do not show up as autosomal DNA matches.

If the sisters match each other, then I would think it safe to assume that the brothers are related to each other as well. That is assuming that the brothers and sisters are proven by DNA to be full brothers and sisters!

Whether a yDNA test would be worth doing as well is open to question. As AlanBoyd says, it may not prove a relationship either, though I am not up to date with yDNA testing.

I personally would stick with the sisters being matches, and work from there.

Regards Margaret

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 108