Help! Trying to set up a DNA test for my brother

[sugarfizzle]

Brigidmac, I haven't explained clearly! And sorry if this explanation is a bit long winded!

My 2G grandparents were John Laversuch and Mary Newman, who had eight children who married and had families. I am matches with descendants of four of them.

John Laversuch travelled all over the North of England and Midlands with his job as railway labourer, helping to build the railways between 1841 until retirement. They married in Middleton Cheney, children were born in Oxfordshire, Staffordshire, Wirral, Cheshire, Northamptonshire, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire and Cumbria. Census adds a few different places as well. They moved on as soon as the job was finished, so literally could have been anywhere else as well.

Two daughters also married railway labourers, who in turn worked all over England from the 1870s. One was my great grandfather, working mainly in the NW. The other one, John Smith, worked all over Yorkshire, Derbyshire,Gloucestershire and other places.

My closest match in this group is a third cousin, sharing 153 cM across 7 segments, another predicted third cousin shares 132/7. Then come these 2 unknowns, 61/4 and 57/5
Other third cousins are also predicted as 4 to 6 cousins.

These two matches are my 7th and 9th closest matches (think they were 3rd and 5th when I first got my results back).

I suggested to my match manager that perhaps they were descended from either John (hopefully before he married!), or his Smith son in law and daughter.

The reply was
"No one in our family tree moved out of yorkshire or came in to yorkshire from the places you mention. I have a couple of illegitimacies but nothing to prove paternity was from a roving raiwayman"

A bit of a putdown, I think you'll agree. She has not replied to any messages since then. I would think it is one of her illegitimacies, but since she is unwilling to discuss further,  I have no idea what time frame or place to look at.

One of those things, but I would dearly love to know the connectIon between such relatively close matches.

She has a private unlinked tree attached, so I can't even search for place names in common.

Regards Margaret

[brigidmac]

Margaret  I thought you had explained well but it does make it easier to have the names and stories   and yes she is missing out more than you ....and the connections could well be legitimate but a generation aside eg related to a siblings of great grandparents

She can't possibly  know if any of her family left Yorkshire between censuses

I looked all over Cambuslang and surrounding villages for my grandfather's eldest brother son .the families had lived there for 3 generations and didn't start emigrating til about 1920.s
Then I found a 1901 Cambuslang census which showed his son as being born Ireland. 1906 ..I followed it up and sure enough he.did gone to Ireland between 1901 and 1910 birth of his daughter .

I'm trying to remember  how I got round the closed trees issue... im just going to play with the search options again .
If you put a named person into the  general search ...I think closed trees  do come up

[sugarfizzle]

"She can't possibly  know if any of her family left Yorkshire between censuses"

My point is that both John Laversuch and his son in law and daughter, John and Fanny Smith, were in Yorkshire at different times.

John Laversuch and family ended up in Liverpool,  but John and Fanny Smith ended up in Yorkshire. Some of the Smith children stayed in Yorkshire, mainly Halifax area, not managed to trace them all as yet.

So, depending upon the time frame, one of the unknown fathers could be John Laversuch prior to his 1849 marriage, or after his marriage when he was in Yorkshire, or a son of John and Fanny Smith.

This would give the MRCA of John Laversuch and Mary Newman, or just of John Laversuch.

Going by my other matches in this group, most of whom appear more distant than they are (4th to 6th cousins when they are actually 3rd cousins), I am plumping for a connection via John Smith and Fanny Laversuch.

I will never know for sure, though.

"I'm trying to remember  how I got round the closed trees issue... im just going to play with the search options again .
If you put a named person into the  general search ...I think closed trees  do come up"

Common names and places can be searched for with a linked private tree, but not with an unlinked one.

Thanks for your suggestions. Goes to show the importance of linking at minimum a private tree to DNA results, if not a trimmed down public one.

Regards Margaret

[ajf25]

I have full acct with Ancestry but no published tree. I have DNA contacts (lots) shown and that is fine. Most of them have no trees either but I do have some knowledge of origins and enjoy all that.

I now have a kit for someone else who has no desire to subscribe to Ancestry.
Is this the correct procedurej please?
The other person sets up an account with Ancestry but not a subscription account.
The test is sent off under this name.
When results are received, the other person and I exchange emails arranging for me to manage the DNA results and we also tick something on the other person's account to confirm this.

It must be ok. I have a couple of DNA connections with managed accounts and no trees.

It’s a bit scary.

Heywood

Heywood,
Sounds just like me. I have a subscription and have had my DNA tested. My husband had his DNA tested, using an account he set up on his own email. When his results came in, he invited (or, rather I did it for him) me to manage his results. Now when I go into my results, I can “view another test” and I can click on his name.

He doesn’t have a subscription to Ancestry.

https://support.ancestry.co.uk/s/article/Sharing-DNA-Results

Hope that helps,
Alison

[heywood]

Thanks Alison. That does sound like our situation.
I can set it up just like that.

[brigidmac]

Margaret

I thought you could put in full name for shared matches  but it is only surnames .maybe I saw who closed tree people wee looking for on their profile description also you can see photos they post if they havent privaticed that particular setting ...year book photos from.USA are great cos you get to see classmates which may include elusive cousins
To increase chances of a match add hypothetical parents to tree using just initials or pressing living button to keep what you post as a guess priveted do the same with children .and siblings.guess at a boy and a girl you have surname can just call them x and y.that way you link with younger people and those whoo
Haven't got as far up as you .for example they .may not know their great grandparents JONES and if you only have your grandparents Jones  without siblings names they not likely to see a match but an X JONES in appropriate age range may grab their attention

Does that make sense ...it also helps build  your owe trees if you have a hypothetical ggfather /rggmother  mother you can then link a known sibling or Half siblings to your grandparents

I've been doing that this morning and managed to wore out connections to 4 family names .I've writtenever to 3 tree match distant cousins what are the channce of replies ?
Having matches

[Crunwere]

Thanks for the tips.
I'll be doing mine shortly but wanted to do my half sisters as well - but she doesn't bother with emails etc so I'd have to set up an email for her and manage it myself.

[heywood]

Just to let everyone know, I did set up an account for another person and it was quite straight forward.
It has taken several weeks for the results to come through - Christmas backlog, I suppose but we are now up and running!