Dis- and advantages of adding a tree to DNA results

[BristolClark]

That must be so rewarding and meaningful.  Could you expand on " I finally managed to find out my paternal surname that had eluded me for so long. "

Martin

Sure. It'll be nice to tell someone else. I think my wife and children are close to tears with boredom.

My 2xgreat-Grandad was born in the workhouse and was baptised with his mothers surname. It had taken me a while to discover that out as a fresh faced family historian, so discovering that the journey would end on that note left me quite empty. It was then that I took 23andme and FTDNA tests and uploaded results up to Gedmatch and the sort, but no real breakthroughs. A couple of confirmations on other branches, but the paternal line didn't appear.

It was only the beginning of November that I decided to treat myself and do an Ancestry test. I got the results on New Years Eve and knew my long lost surname the next day. The test has completely flipped over what I knew about my paternal line.

My 4xgreat-Grandfather died in his late 40s and my 4xgreat-Grandmother undertook a journey from workhouse to prison to an eventual re-marriage. It was whilst living with that new husband with her young children from the previous marriage that my 3xgreat-Grandmother got pregnant aged 16 and eventually ended up in the workhouse giving birth. Through the testing on Ancestry, I got a few DNA hits from the descendants of the husband that my 4xgreat-Grandmother had married.

I can only speculate that one of my now 5xgreat-Grandfathers sons had had his way and got her pregnant at 16. It would account for the stint in the workhouse at least. I'll never know who the actual father is. I have my suspicions it is a William seeing as thats the name used on the marriage certificate between my 2xgreat-Grandparents, but it's just a suspicion.

So, I'm not a Clark. I'm a Skuse. I've a whole new branch to research and now have to completely re-do the research on the Clark line. It looks like it came from Ireland.

All that was discovered by my matches having full trees up on Ancestry. Thank God they did as that little re-marriage detail may not have come up in discussion. That's why I err on the side of 'A' on the thread.

[DavidG02]

Sometimes , just sometimes , a lucky break is all you need

Person had a tree. But only 5 names. None that gave me a clue. DNA matches hinted at the family I needed to check but nothing concrete

Checked on tree creator and saw they named a country town for birth. Opposite side of the state to the names on the Matches. Ok

I then used our free newspaper archive Trove searching the name for that country town , fortunately a paper was printed in the town.

Lots of social notes and really a lot of nothing until not a name but a small country town in the location very very close to the Matches

Checked SA BDM and saw the connecting marriage and found my link.

All from having a tree

[bufkin]

I vote for A, and I'll give you an example of why. Like many others, I've hit brick walls in my research a few times, and surname searches within my dna relatives have been very helpful. Most recently, I got stuck on my 5th great grandfather. I did a surname search within my dna relatives, and one particular lineage of that name appeared in several trees. I was able to use that information to work backwards, and eventually made a connection to my 5th great grandfather. I was able to add 4 more generations to my tree. Also, I'll say that I've had pretty good luck when it comes to contacting people with trees. More often than not, I'm able to help their progress as much as they help mine. I say give and you shall receive! :-)