Ancestry DNA test

[Wulfsige]

If you've seen my earlier posts, you know that we would like to find out if my wife (née Woodger) is descended from Edward Wooding (1795-1853) via Elizabeth Woodger's illegitimate son Edward Woodger (1814-1890). Maybe a DNA test would help, in that maybe we might get matches with Edward Wooding's other descendants. My question (as no one in my wife's family has had a DNA test) is: must the test be that of a male's DNA, or would my wife's serve equally well, if she had one done?

[Gadget]

'Shared matches' would show matches on both male and female lines.

[Gadget]

Are you saying that your wife hasn't done a DNA test ?

If she has, bring up her matches list and select Search. Enter Woodger and search on that.  If you get some matches, check to see if any of them have Wooding in their trees.

If not, clear the search and try with Wooding. Also, put her results on all the sites that have been mentioned on your other threads.  Use 'Search Matches' on any matches that look possible to get groups - colour code these groups.

Also, have you used the 'search Members Trees' from Ancestry Search page. This might produce some descendants of Edward Wooding.

There's no quick way of a finding possible ancestor - lots of searching and  using all of  the tools that have been discussed, etc.

[Ruskie]

Wulfsige not sure if this answers your question, but Ancestry is an autosomal DNA test which can be taken by males and females will give you matches with both paternal and maternal lines.

This would be suitable for a woman (ie your wife) to take to see if she has matches with Woodgers or Woodings.

If you are asking about a Y-DNA test which can only be taken by males and follows only the male line, then Ancestry don’t do this type of test.

An autosomal test might be better as it covers all bases and will give you more recent often traceable matches.

If your wife has a brother he could take a YDnA test. They are quite expensive and you are not guaranteed to get any useful matches with males with the surname Woodger or Wooding. Any matches can be from hundreds or thousands of years ago prior to the use of surnames. As an example, my OH has the very common surname Wright - he has no YDnA matches with any men with the surname Wright. In fact he only has a handful of matches, so the Y test has not been of any use to us.

Keep in mind that the value of any test is largely dependent on the number of others who have tested, and make sure that you check the female lines despite differences in surnames as most would have changed their surname when they married.

[Gadget]

Note that what  Ruskie has said does not negate  autosomal testing. Edward Wooding could well have female descendants who would carry some of his DNA.  I found my great grandfather by matching with both male and female descendants of that line.

My personal view is that far too much emphasis is made by some of YDNA. My female DNA has not hindered my research.

The line that I have most problems with is a female line 

[Ruskie]

I agree. I think almost all of my useful matches have come via female lines (so I did not recognise the surnames).   

[Wulfsige]

Thank you. This is great advice. (And yes: I meant my née Woodger wife has not yet done a DNA test; she does have one surviving brother, but he lives 250 miles away and we are not really in touch much at all now.)

I notice (from matches on trees) that three or four searchers have put Edward Woodger down as the son of Edward Wooding, others have left him off their list of Wooding's children. I have sent a message to those who have concluded he was indeed Edward's biological son, and asked how they came to that conclusion, and I shall wait and see if anyone takes the trouble to reply. (I usually find such contacts are unproductive, but sometimes one does hit the jackpot.)