Matches “By Parent”, “Plus”: Both Sides

[Lisa in California]

Apologies for asking what is most likely a simple question, but I would like to make sure I understand something. 

Using Ancestry website, in DNA matches is the capability to search
By Parent
PLUS - Both Sides

Looking at my brother’s results for the above search, there are over 60 matches (most are 5th - 8th cousin).  After a quick look, I don’t recognize any matches that I’ve previously run across and almost all of the results have never been viewed before.  The silly question part: Do the results mean that the 60+ matches are from both of our parents, either by actual ancestor or by marriage?  If so, might this be a typical amount of matches or is it a bit high (or low).  To my knowledge, my parents’ ancestors did not live “near” each other with the exception of my Stuart/Fowley ancestors who lived two Irish counties away from my mother’s ancestors.  Note: my mother’s ancestors arrived in Ontario, Canada between c1810 and c1855 (one couple did arrive c1870) and my father’s ancestors arrived (same place) in c1840, 1857, and c1870.

Thank you in advance for any guidance.  Lisa

Added: of course, once my ancestors arrived in Canada, they lived in the same province, generally within 20 miles (or closer) of each other.  Prior to their arrivals, most of my mother’s ancestors were in Ireland, and most of my father’s ancestors were in England.  I’ve not yet found any marriages or any connection between my parents’ ancestors in Canada.

[Lisa in California]

Sorry, one more thing to add…to give all details -

As mentioned a year or two ago on RootsChat (I asked a different question about Mumford DNA), when looking at my DNA matches, search term Mumford, some matches are for paternal and some are for maternal, with one unassigned.  There aren’t any with “both”.

My brother has very similar results, the only difference is that he has a lot more Mumford matches than I.

Mumford is from my paternal line.  However, my mother also has matches to Mumford descendants - most of them are for a couple of Mumfords who settled in America during the 1600s.  (I’ve not yet found a connection to my Essex, England Mumfords and the ones who settled in America.)

Most, if not all, of the above Mumford matches are not included in the “Both” query that I mentioned in my original message (above).  I hope that makes sense.  Thank you again for taking the time to read this.

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

Back in time the two sides may have been joined by marriage but a both sides match could simply be a descendant of that marriage. In that case they will be related to you in at least two ways (one on each side), but your parents need not be related to each other.

[Lisa in California]

Thank you, Glen in Tinsel Kni.  Your explanation makes a lot of sense.

Unfortunately, a lot of the both sides matches have very limited trees but I will continue looking at them as it is interesting.  Thank you again, Lisa.

[phil57]

Have a read through this thread:

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=875634.0

For me, the situation has not changed since last August, when the number of both sides matches for me and my brother increased overnight from 2 (him and me) to 29 between us, apparently as the result of an update in the Sideview algorithm.

We still have those 29 matches. As I posted then, "All but one are at match lengths of 10 cM or less. None are shared between us, they are all apparently unique to either him or me. For three of the matches there are shared matches with other matches on our maternal side (2) and paternal side (1). Several of those shared matches are already confirmed.

For one of the matches with shared maternal matches, there is a surname in her tree that matches a surname on our paternal side. I spent a couple of hours researching her line with that name back to c. 1780, but with no indication that her line is connected to ours in any way.

As none of the matches appear to be necessary to corroborate my own tree, and most of the match lengths are in the region where IBC is a distinct possibility, particularly with no other shared matches and none at all being attributed to both of us, I'm not going to spend any more time on them."

I am still of the view that they are mostly IBC/false, bearing in mind that they are below the threshold at which matches can be considered around 100% reliable, and 26 of the 29 have no shared matches with either of us.. And if any are not, they are likely to be so distant that it is probably, barring a stroke of luck, going to be near on impossible to corroborate them by paper based research. And I ask myself, to what end?

[jaywit]

Well I have a both sides match with 18cM who has a tree on Ancestry that contains Barons, Earls, Sirs and a Prime Minister from all over the British Isles

I would love to know how they connect to my Midlands ag. labs.

[Lisa in California]

phil57, thank you very much for including the link and providing your details.  I will read the link contents in the morning (it is 3:00 am here).

I am a naturally (overly) curious person so even though delving into the matches most likely will not help with my tree, I am nosey enough to have a look at others’ trees.

Ancestry is “overtaxed” at the moment so I cannot view any details but before the problem started I was able to notice that 10 of the “both matches” results are for 17-21 cM, which is still fairly low.

After reading your comments, I am curious if my brother and I share any “both matches”.  That is something that I will check soon.

I was mostly curious about how both matches works but I suppose in the back of my mind I was hoping that there might be the slimmest possibility that I could eventually learn more about that strange Mumford connection.

Thank you so much for taking the time to explain everything.  I will keep in mind that matches can be false results.   

[Lisa in California]

jaywit,  . 

I did come across a tree tonight (I won’t mention the surname) that goes back to the 1100s, I believe.  I’ll stick with my coopers, butchers, farmers, etc. - at least I know that my tree is as correct as can be put together.

[phil57]

Well I have a both sides match with 18cM who has a tree on Ancestry that contains Barons, Earls, Sirs and a Prime Minister from all over the British Isles

I would love to know how they connect to my Midlands ag. labs.

Last year, I was quite excited to discover a new match, only at 6cM however, to a man with the same surname as my grandmother, and a tree containing some of my ancestors. I have researched the line extensively, but have a block around 1700 because the parish registers for the village where they lived were lost before 1721, and what remains of Bishops transcripts are so patchy as to make family connections impossible; many pages having been lost due to the ravages of time before what remained was salvaged.

There are records of an "influential family" of some worth in the village around 200 years earlier, with references on British History Online and elsewhere. I think it quite likely that my ancestors are descended from them, but finding evidence to connect them is proving elusive.

So I was hopeful for new information that might allow some progression in my research.

I did notice though that there were obvious gaps in his tree, e.g. a father who died several years before the son was born, etc. Nevertheless still people who were genuinely connected - the father was in fact the grandfather and the actual father was missing from his tree.

I made contact with him through Ancestry. He responded quickly, but answers to various questions were either very vague or, "I don't know, I'll have to get back to you". I did manage to obtain the names of his parents and grandparents though.

So I started researching his tree from that information. It bore absolutely no resemblance to the tree in which he appeared on Ancestry, and the families were from a completely different part of the country to my ancestors.

I can only assume that he took a DNA test, searched Ancestry for tree relating to his surname, found one he liked, copied it and added his family to it. It was a complete fiction! And our match at 6cM has a roughly 50/50 chance of being IBC anyway.