DNA results - the truth will out

[Jillie42]

Recently had my husband's paternal DNA tested by Ancestry. There were no closes matches which really came as no surprise. A couple of weeks ago we had his second cousin's paternal DNA tested.

The results came through today. The markers between them are identical. A family mystery is now solved. His "second cousin" isn't a cousin at all but an uncle. This means he wasn't my father-in-laws first cousin but his half-brother. They shared the same father.

My father-in-law was illegitimate. He never knew his father's identity which meant my husband would never know who his paternal grandfather was. He does now.

[KathMc]

What fantastic news for your husband. I hope it is for the whole family.

Kath

[MarieC]

Wow, Jillie! 

Great to read such a success story of DNA testing!  Your husband must be so pleased!

MarieC

[Jillie42]

I think he's pleased. I phoned him to tell him. The results didn't really come as that much of a surprise. It's actually given us even more incentive to find details about the man in question which has proved notoriously difficult so far.

The grandfather's a bigamist and now a proved adulterer as well. I think my husband is intrigued by his newly confirmed grandfather but probably not proud but then all of us have an ancestor that's "bad"

The newly acquired aunts and uncles haven't been informed yet but this was the outcome they were hoping for. My father-in-law died a couple of years ago so sadly never got the chance to know who his father was for certain, however he would I think be pleased to know has now got sibblings rather then just cousins.

[BuddysMummy]

 but then all of us have an ancestor that's "bad"

And then some of us have a list of ancestors who are all "bad" in this way.

As I collect certificates I have found that we have many (very many) abnormally short pregnancies for the first borns of the families, but rarely, if ever for the subsequent children!

I do hope that your husband is ok with the news. I think it can often be a bit unsettling.

[The Geneal Geologist]

Hi Jillie42 -
Good news for you. I presume the Ancestry test was for paternity rather than for genetic genealogy? The former is for "who's the father", whereas the other is to identify a common ancestor - not necessarily a father. Your original post wasn't clear.

Thanks.

[willow154]

Hi Jillie42,
So good to hear that your test was successful in sorting out the family mystery - I, too, hope the news has a positive effect.
After all the bad press about DNA testing recently it is good to hear from someone for whom it has been beneficial and  worthwhile.
Great news - thanks for letting us know!
Paulene

[Jillie42]

Hi Jillie42 -
Good news for you. I presume the Ancestry test was for paternity rather than for genetic genealogy? The former is for "who's the father", whereas the other is to identify a common ancestor - not necessarily a father. Your original post wasn't clear.

Thanks.

No it was for the closest male genealogical match. There is a comparison chart which tells you how close the match is and how distant the male relative was. In several cases this has been 25 generations and approx 750 years which gives about 6 or seven mutations/differences from my husband's profile. But it is only a paternal DNA test. These cousins were supposedly only related on the "female" side so any similarities in the Y DNA test have to be on the father's/grandfathers side.

Our results which are purely father to son show a 100% match with no mutations which indicates
a very close male ancestor - in this case approx within one or two generations.

To our knowledge the "grandfather" had no brothers who are likely to be candidates for my father-in-laws father.

[The Geneal Geologist]

Thanks for the clarification, Jillie42.
Indeed a good result to get an exact match, and fortunate there was no mutations. Also for explaining the paper trail, which is an important component. If you're a member of ISOGG, they would like to receive success stories.
Best wishes to you & yours.