Shared match from 1757. Possible?

[Lisa in California]

When dealing with low cM matches they will not show any Shared Matches but they can be seen as Shared Matches when one is comparing your DNA with A. N. Other.  I have just selected a 69 cM match and there are four Shared Matches with either 8 or 9 cM.

I’m sorry for not grasping the concept, but what do you mean by A. N. Other, please?

Nowadays I suggest trying to get First Cousins to take a DNA test as their Matches may help in giving more clues.

I don’t have any close relatives from my maternal side.     My mum had second cousins but I’ve exhausted all leads with them.  (They have been very helpful, but we all have ended up with the same brickwall.)  But, thank you for suggesting that avenue.

If you create 8 Groups within ancestry labelled 1 GGP through to 8 GGP signifying each of your Great Grandparents and assign the Group to applicable DNA Matches it can again help to narrow down the research and search pathways.

I will look into trying this method.  Thank you very much for all of your suggestions!  Kind regards, Lisa

[Lisa in California]

I have a match where MRCA was baptised in 1709, baptism of wife not found, but marriage was in 1729. Remember that it is'nt just birth year to consider, but how many generations away from you. In the past when families had many children there could be 20 - 25 years between oldest and youngest child.

LizzieL, thank you for pointing out the generation concept.  Even though I’ve read comments about generations and DNA, reading your remarks finally made me think of my own branches.  Thank you for helping me see my tree in a different light.  Kind regards, Lisa

[4b2]

Yes. The furthest back I have DNA matches where there are shared matches are 8th cousins, and a bit more with removals.

This is when there are shared matches who share a paper trial. If it was just two shared matches with the same tree, I'd maybe think it a coincidence. But I have one cluster of matches with six people in it when the MRCA was born around 1670; and another with ten with the MRCA born in 1667. Then about 40-70 other people who descend from later generations.

If you have looked through your matches you will probably have noticed that children, parents and grandparents who are your matches can have around the same amount of shared DNA; if they are more distant matches, about 4th cousins or more distant.

As the inheritance of DNA is somewhat random, it is possible for these very small segments of around 8cM to be inherited over many generations. It's just the chances of that happening decrease with each generation. It's probably likely that some of our small autosomal matches are cousins beyond 1600.

With each DNA test you will end up with a couple of these deeper lines. My paternal aunt's test has four lines proved back to ancestors born in the later 1600s. And a further ten when the MRCA is born around 1730. There's probably a few more in there.

I found another distant cluster a few days ago. For many years I have had a dead end of a Jane Rogers, presumed to have been born around the turn of the 18th century. I presumed she was the daughter of a gentleman and for some time merchant on Montserrat - Samuel Rogers. This owing to he, his children and grandchildren kept cropping up as witnesses in documents for the descendants of Jane Rogers; as well as a later marriage into that family by a sibling of an ancestor.

Given the distance I didn't think DNA would throw up anything. But I have a test from someone on my grandfather's generational level on this line. So I searched for Rogers in the county at hand - Shropshire. I looked through a few trees and quickly find one with the name Milward Rogers in it. The Samuel Rogers mentioned above married a Susannah Milward, d. of the first vicar on Nevis in the Caribbean.

I looked through the shared matches and find again and again the name Milward Rogers. In total I found ten shared matches with correlating DNA matches and trees, all descendants of Samuel Rogers and Susannah Milward (b.c. 1672). All but one of the matches comes from the US, so it's not like they are local matches who have many lines of possible relationship. There is just the one line back to my ancestral areas in 1790. And there is the 10th match who is a descendant of another brother, also correlating with shared matches.

I put all the matches into a spreadsheet to keep track. Here is this one with the recent generations removed.



The third and fourth matches are parent and child, both with 8cM.

The closest match also overlaps with one other match, who is a 5th cousin on the relevant line.

[brigidmac]

4B3

Very interesting
For the Montserrat connection do you know why your ancestors went out there

[Lisa in California]

4b2, thank you very much for your interest and sharing your details.

I (temporarily) stopped researching the maternal ancestors previously mentioned in this topic as I needed a break (and real life got in the way).

However, after reading your comments, I need to sit and think about things and my paternal ancestors.  Possibly due to one of the common reasons, I’ve only found a couple of matches for two of my gggparents, and a number of matches for the other gggparents (all born between 1794-1835).  But, I now wonder (if it’s possible) if one branch passed down considerably more DNA than “usual”.   

As partially mentioned in several other topics about my Mumford branch, even though my direct Mumford ancestors lived in Canada and in Essex, England prior to their arrival to Canada in 1857, I have 18 DNA matches with descendants of a Mumford who settled in Virginia, America during the mid- to late-1600s. [My direct Mumford ancestors lived in Essex from at least c1738 and forward.]  I have several matches with descendants of Mumford who immigrated to Rhode Island prior to the folks who settled in Virginia.  A possible coincidence: just looking a one match a few minutes ago, the tree owner includes a Mumford born in 1566 who was born seven miles away from my Essex Mumfords.

To add additional mystery to the above, again mentioned in other topics, my maternal side (no Mumfords that I have found) and my husband’s ancestors (his father’s paternal side has been in America for generations, again with no known Mumfords) both have DNA matches with Virginia and Rhode Island Mumfords.

Finally, my husband has and my mum had one or two matches to descendants from my Essex Mumford family.

Summarizing (apologies for rambling), your chart is very interesting.  I think using something similar might finally provide clues as to how we all fit (or find out that we don’t fit) into the picture.  Thank you so much for your comments and sharing the spreadsheet.  Lisa

PS. I am also now wondering if we are actually descended from the Virginia or Rhode Island folks - possibly one Mumford (my ancestor) returned to England prior to c1738?

[4b2]

But, I now wonder (if it’s possible) if one branch passed down considerably more DNA than “usual”.   

Yes. Specifically it would be inheriting larger segments from certain ancestors.

Here is a graph showing segments of DNA inherited from great-grandparents.



Increase that to great-great grandparents and it gets to the point where some of those segments will be to small to indicate a common ancestor. You just end up with some segments that are big enough to indicate relationships, and others that are not. As noted above, these segments can persist up to about the level of 9th-10th cousins at least. But in some cases there will not be enough shared DNA at the 3rd cousin level.



As an example above, here are some lines from my paternal aunt. The darker ones are considered proved based on an overlap of genes and paper trials. N.B I only highlight the siblings of shared matches and not the MRCAs, since it's possible there could be infidelity. That's just me being cautious. The first generation shown is generation 4 (including the subject as generation 1). So the first generation with which there is no DNA proof is generation 6. And the furthest back it goes is to 10 generations (a 1667 birth).

Thus all lines back to 4th cousins are proved, which is what you would generally expect. But some 4th cousin lines can not show up due to lack of inherited DNA, few descendants, few test subjects.

If you get tests of multiple cousins, 2nd cousins, 3rd cousins etc. These will have DNA that will fill in some blanks when you haven't inherited enough DNA.

As partially mentioned in several other topics about my Mumford branch, even though my direct Mumford ancestors lived in Canada and in Essex, England prior to their arrival to Canada in 1857, I have 18 DNA matches with descendants of a Mumford who settled in Virginia, America during the mid- to late-1600s.

It's possible they are a relative on the line, pushing DNA to the limits. My query would be if any of them have shared matches with your more recent Mumford matches. Though it is possible they could be related and they just don't happen to share relevant DNA with your closer matches. This is again why having tests from relatives is useful. Because your relatives could have a cluster to people with the same line of ancestry, but from another tiny slither of 8-12cM matches.

As someone else noted, you need to go through all your DNA matches, starting with the closest ones. Pad out incomplete trees. Research people from just their name if needed. Put the matches into groups. I put them into 16 groups for my gg-grandparents, leaving 8 groups left for other lines (not enough). Once I've found a cluster that have a common ancestor, or I find a common ancestor among the matches, I then go through all the shared matches to find how they are related. If I can't find a link I mark them as Closed or Indeterminable, if I can't determine their tree at all.

In doing this you will start digging into these potentially deep low cM matches and sometimes figure out what the link is. You can't do so much with these more distant matches until you've first handled the closer ones and have your tree solidly back to the 1750s where possible.

[Lisa in California]

4b2, thank you very much for continuing to explain things and for providing the images.  I am a very visual person so sometimes when I see images I’m able to quickly absorb the material.

I am very fortunate that I have my immediate family’s DNA results.  I envy those who have the ability to obtain other results.

I’ve never compared my branches, but I believe I only have two that have possible DNA matches from “long ago” - Mumfords and my maternal Ellison side (the possible common ancestor was born c1770, a gggg-parent). 

Regarding inheriting “larger segments from certain ancestors” - I can’t help but wonder if there was something about the Mumford line.  I’ve been researching my husband’s tree.  Except for finding his matches with folks who have Virginia and Rhode Island Mumfords, I don’t believe I’ve found any matches for him that possibly go back that many generations.

“It's possible they are a relative on the line, pushing DNA to the limits. My query would be if any of them have shared matches with your more recent Mumford matches. Though it is possible they could be related and they just don't happen to share relevant DNA with your closer matches.”

   I will look at the matches to find out if there are shared recent matches.  Thank you for the suggestion.

”As someone else noted, you need to go through all your DNA matches, starting with the closest ones. Pad out incomplete trees. Research people from just their name if needed. Put the matches into groups. I put them into 16 groups for my gg-grandparents, leaving 8 groups left for other lines (not enough). Once I've found a cluster that have a common ancestor, or I find a common ancestor among the matches, I then go through all the shared matches to find how they are related. If I can't find a link I mark them as Closed or Indeterminable, if I can't determine their tree at all.

In doing this you will start digging into these potentially deep low cM matches and sometimes figure out what the link is. You can't do so much with these more distant matches until you've first handled the closer ones and have your tree solidly back to the 1750s where possible.”

  Genealogy is my only obsession hobby.    Due to any number of reasons (Canadians researching uncommon English and Irish surnames, large numbers of offspring from earlier generations, having access to my mum’s DNA results, number of folks who have taken DNA tests, years of researching, luck, etc.), I actually can identify how we are related. However, I don’t know if I’ve ever really looked into the shared matches. I do need to see where I start to have problems identifying the link with the more distant matches, and, as suggested, look into the shared matches.

Thank you again for everything!  Lisa

[Lisa in California]

…

As partially mentioned in several other topics about my Mumford branch, even though my direct Mumford ancestors lived in Canada and in Essex, England prior to their arrival to Canada in 1857, I have 18 DNA matches with descendants of a Mumford who settled in Virginia, America during the mid- to late-1600s.

It's possible they are a relative on the line, pushing DNA to the limits. My query would be if any of them have shared matches with your more recent Mumford matches. Though it is possible they could be related and they just don't happen to share relevant DNA with your closer matches. This is again why having tests from relatives is useful. Because your relatives could have a cluster to people with the same line of ancestry, but from another tiny slither of 8-12cM matches…

I didn’t pick up on your question when I originally read it.  If I’m remembering correctly, there are no shared matches with any of the individuals.  I will double-check, though.  I will check my family’s results with the Virginia and Rhode Island descendants.  Thank you for asking. 

[Lisa in California]

…I have 18 DNA matches with descendants of a Mumford who settled in Virginia, America during the mid- to late-1600s...

It's possible they are a relative on the line, pushing DNA to the limits. My query would be if any of them have shared matches with your more recent Mumford matches. Though it is possible they could be related and they just don't happen to share relevant DNA with your closer matches. This is again why having tests from relatives is useful. Because your relatives could have a cluster to people with the same line of ancestry, but from another tiny slither of 8-12cM matches…

…If I’m remembering correctly, there are no shared matches with any of the individuals.  I will double-check, though…

I was incorrect. It appears that I do have shared Virginia matches.  So far, I’ve not found shared matches in my brother’s Virginia matches.

I did find something interesting, though.

Searching Ancestry for matches for Mumford, born Virginia, America:
My brother has a match with “S6”.   S6 does not appear in my results, but I know I’ve seen the name before.

I tried a member search for S6, his details appeared, and I DO share DNA with him, but it’s only 12cm, 1 segment so perhaps is under a cutoff for the DNA search?

S6 has two Mumford branches in his tree: one from Cambridgeshire/Somerset (father born 1579 and son born 1646) and the other from England/Cambridgeshire (father born 1587 and son born 1645).  A male and female descendants of these Mumfords married in 1761.

I have several shared matches with S6.  I eventually found at least two shared, shared matches that do not include any Mumfords in their trees but they do have a Mary Ann Fillary, born 1844, Horsham, Sussex, England.  Both of owners of the trees appear to be English (not descendants of the Virginia or Rhode Island Mumfords).

My Vaus ancestors were roaming around Horsham and neighbouring towns (possibly c1710 - c1825).  One Vaus ancestor was a church warden in Shipley, Sussex.  A Fillary signed numerous church documents during the same time that my ancestor was a church warden.  I do not have any Fillary ancestors in my tree.
Added:  In 1857, my Essex Mumford ancestor married my Surrey Vaus ancestor in London.

Possibilities:
We share a match with S6 through two Mumfords branches,
A Fillary ancestor does somehow fit in my tree as well,
Fillary is just a red herring from the shared other trees.

Any comments would be gratefully received, please.  Apologies for the very long post.  Thank you, Lisa