Author Topic: Ancestry DNA matches  (Read 570 times)

Offline Wulfsige

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Ancestry DNA matches
« on: Tuesday 20 June 23 18:36 BST (UK) »
In my direct male line, ancestry gives me respectively 25 and 21 DNA matches for my 4xgreatgrandfather (born 1756) and his wife. His father and mother have 4 and 5 DNA matches, but they attach to the 'wrong' John Young, born and buried in the wrong year and place. My 6xgreatgrandfather and his wife get no matches at all. Also, my 6xgreatgrandfather's christening does not seem to have been recorded, or the record has been lost, or he was never christened (though the family were Anglican for another 130 years), or he moved there from far away (though the family were ag labs from 1841 and presumably earlier): I have 'invented' him from family names, a gap between the births of his siblings, and the small area where he married and died and his presumed parents lived. Everyone tracing the family gets as far as I have, but no one has 'invented' the missing ancestor; no one has (like Boris's 'get Brexit done'!) broken through that brick wall. Any hints, suggested explanations, &c you can offer would be much appreciated, for once through his unrecorded birth the line goes back to the 1550s.
Young, Gameson, Miles, Williamson, Cramond

Offline LizzieL

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,675
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry DNA matches
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 20 June 23 19:33 BST (UK) »
His father and mother have 4 and 5 DNA matches, but they attach to the 'wrong' John Young, born and buried in the wrong year and place. My 6xgreatgrandfather and his wife get no matches at all.

Are you relying on "Common Ancestors" / Thrulines? These are based on other people's trees which could be correct or a load of xxxx!
Berks / Oxon: Eltham, Annetts, Wiltshire (surname not county), Hawkins, Pembroke, Partridge
Dorset / Hants: Derham, Stride, Purkiss, Sibley
Yorkshire: Pottage, Carr, Blackburn, Depledge
Sussex: Goodyer, Christopher, Trevatt
Lanark: Scott (soldier went to Jersey CI)
Jersey: Fowler, Huelin, Scott

Offline Pheno

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,049
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry DNA matches
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 20 June 23 19:37 BST (UK) »
Second this.  Don't just accept Thrulines at face value but follow the suggested line of descent through yourself (or the line of ascent from the supposed match which is often easier).  Thrulines are just another way of Ancestry offering misattributed hints by other people whic are not necessarily correct.  From experience I would say that maybe 50% hold water.

Pheno
Austin/Austen - Sussex & London
Bond - Berkshire & London
Bishop - Sussex & Kent
Holland - Essex
Nevitt - Cheshire & Staffordshire
Wray - Yorkshire

Offline Wulfsige

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry DNA matches
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 20 June 23 20:49 BST (UK) »
Are you relying on "Common Ancestors" / Thrulines? These are based on other people's trees which could be correct or a load of xxxx!

Well, not such much as 'relying on' as discovering the wrong leads it can give. But Yes, the DNA 'matches' with 'the wrong John' were on ancestry thrulines - first time I've studied them. But they must mean something, surely???

Odd thing is, they point to John Young born in 1700 in Bruton - and no such birth is recorded (discovered) on ancestry or as far as I searched on any other site. Even the wrong John doesn't seem to have existed!
Young, Gameson, Miles, Williamson, Cramond


Offline Wulfsige

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry DNA matches
« Reply #4 on: Tuesday 20 June 23 20:51 BST (UK) »
  From experience I would say that maybe 50% hold water.
Pheno

Thanks. That's why I reckoned the 46 matches (husband + wife) from 1756 were probably correct. Would you support that idea?
Young, Gameson, Miles, Williamson, Cramond

Offline Pheno

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,049
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry DNA matches
« Reply #5 on: Tuesday 20 June 23 21:02 BST (UK) »
Not necessarily as what may look like incorrect descents may be something as simple as different spellings between two trees although the people are the same or differing birth dates etc.

In theory each pair of a couple should have the same number of dna matches but sometimes people only record one half of a couple or mix one of them up with someone else and there is therefore no dna match.

I'm no dna expert but just know you need to tread carefully and evaluate each generation down to your match to confirm that this is indeed a match.

Pheno
Austin/Austen - Sussex & London
Bond - Berkshire & London
Bishop - Sussex & Kent
Holland - Essex
Nevitt - Cheshire & Staffordshire
Wray - Yorkshire

Offline phil57

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 649
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry DNA matches
« Reply #6 on: Wednesday 21 June 23 10:25 BST (UK) »
There are over 70 trees on Ancestry showing an incorrect relationship for one of my Gx6 GFs. Most appear to be copies of, or wholesale imports without rigorous checks, of one or more other trees. As with several other wrong trees for other lines of my ancestors, the correct relationships can be relatively easily discovered by following the paper trails properly and not making what often appear to be the easiest assumptions.

What I'm trying to say is that, in my experience, sheer numbers proposing or advertising a certain relationship don't necessarily make it correct. Tread carefully, do your own research and make your own conclusions would be my advice!
Stokes - London and Essex
Hodges - Somerset
Murden - Notts
Humphries/Humphreys from Montgomeryshire

Offline brigidmac

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,391
  • Computer incompetent but stiil trying
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry DNA matches
« Reply #7 on: Wednesday 21 June 23 16:47 BST (UK) »
I add comments  tags to my tree when there is a common mistake  I've this is not the same John Young as ...
Sometimes I lose a thru line when I change a date from about 1760 to 1762 after finding a birth record .it might mean you lose the people who had the approximate date or spelling also you will not match a spouse if you've put their maiden surname and match has put married surname

I find thru lines quite reliable when I widen my tree ...use as suggestions + check

Roberts,Fellman.Macdermid smith jones,Bloch,Irvine,Hallis Stevenson

Offline Wulfsige

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Ancestry DNA matches
« Reply #8 on: Wednesday 21 June 23 18:38 BST (UK) »
I have only considered matches to men called John Young who married women called Martha Compton in 1719. I suspect people have discovered what I have, that that John and Martha Young never had a son called John christened, or if they did the record has been lost. Most of the 'matches' leading to 'him' are for a man christened in Bruton (whose christening is not recorded on ancestry or elsewhere in the Internet), because a John Young was buried there in 1728. But John and Martha produced another son (Richard) in 1732, so simple biology tells me the imaginary, unrecorded John born in 1720 in Bruton cannot be the same as the real John buried there in 1728. There is more, but I shan't ramble on...

Thanks so far for so much confirming advice and information.
Young, Gameson, Miles, Williamson, Cramond