RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: markbridge on Tuesday 02 February 16 16:09 GMT (UK)
-
I'm a journalist at The Times and am working on an article on autosomal DNA tests. Among other things, this will look at the value/accuracy of "ethnicity" results. We're keen to hear from people in the UK who have taken the AncestryDNA test who would be willing to share their results and their thoughts on them (anonymously, if preferred).
If you have also been tested with Family Tree DNA or 23andMe, or have uploaded your Ancestry raw data to the latter site, we would be keen to know how your ethnicity results with those companies compare.
If you would be willing to help, please message me or post your thoughts below, including your ethnicity results, with trace regions, and a brief summary of your known family history (e.g. seven great-grandparents born in England, one in Ireland, all known lines English and Irish).
We won't name you or provide any identifying information in our article unless you state that you're happy to be named.
If you haven't yet transferred your Ancestry raw data to Family Tree DNA and paid the $39 fee to "unlock" features like myOrigins (ethnicity results) but would be keen to do so, please let me know as we will be able to pay for eight people to do this. Explain why you'd like to compare results and we'll pay for transfer upgrades for the members who provide the best and most interesting reasons.
Many thanks, and I look forward to hearing from you.
Mark Bridge
-
Mark,
This sound like a really exciting project, and it will be fascinating to many of us to read about what you find from it.
Thank you for asking us here on RootsChat to help. :)
It would be interesting too to hear people's general experiences with DNA testing for genealogy too. Have any of us consciously decided not to take a DNA test, if so why? Has it caused concern from other family members? Has a DNA test resulted in any skeletons to come out of the closet?
What are our expectations from a DNA test?
Trystan
-
Trystan
No great expectation on the ethnic side. I have stated on other boards my concerns about profiling by name. I also feel , if anthropology is correct, that our path is From Africa, Middle east, Europe. So our DNA will reflect that.
I would utilize DNA ( a $$$ issue for now) as a means to break down brickwalls or to find common relations - within a 300 year period. If I could have that happen I would be happy with the money spent. Am I aiming too high? Possibly , if I can find I have a broken connection then so be it.
I have no fears or qualms as to what may be exposed. If I am not related to my grandfather , as rumour has it, then I move on to another family.
The essence of me wont change , I am who I am because of what I do. My name has shaped me to some extent, but it doesn't define me.
-
David,
Thanks for replying and kicking off the topic - we'd love to hear the views of people. :)
It's good that you are philosophical about what would happen if the DNA test found a broken link. I imagine it would be difficult to get your head around.
So from an anthropology point of view, and showing my ignorance, is it generally accepted that all of us from the western world broadly come from Africa, Middle East and Europe?
Trystan
-
It is accepted belief that the route of migration was mostly through the mid-east ( Southern Asia) into Europe. Some migration skipped the Middle east and crossed over from Morocco to Gibraltar.
http://australianmuseum.net.au/the-first-migrations-out-of-africa
Though like most there are opposing theories
http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/out-of-africa-theory-of-human-evolution-under-fire-20140821-106o5e.html
Ultimately the theory of migration out of Africa is sound , the argument is more when
-
My apologies for this, from the outset. :o
I personally am not interested in taking a DNA test, however, I can see that it has its merits, especially for those who are not aware of their antecedents (such as those who have been adopted and do not know their family background).
As David has said already, we are who we are. Whilst we may be able to shape the future, we are unable to change the past.
Sorry if I’m sounding too negative, but that’s my view. :'(
-
I'm not inclined to go for the DNA thing. Not from any fear of what I might discover, finding possible skeletons etc. I'm just basically content to be who I am, as I am, where I am!
And frankly, I don't understand the terminology, and financially, well, if I want to keep up my family research subscriptions and buying certs, etc, DNA testing is just not going to fit into my budget anywhere!
I'm not against it, it's just not for me! And Trystan, sorry, but because I don't understand it, I can't say anything remotely intelligent that may help you with this! But will be watching with interest, I'll probably learn something!
Jeanne
-
Negative views are just as welcome as positive ones - it gives us a balanced view after all.
I've often thought that I look quite Russian. It's a good job I wasn't born there because I can't speak the language.
Trystan
-
Trystan,
That is the generally accepted view of anthropologists and palaeontologists, but from what I've read of late the order in which the early humans moved into different areas is being challenged. Some really early finds in the Middle East and Anatolia seem to show that the spread was more erratic than first thought.
Like David, I personally think that DNA tests would be better value as a means to prove a certain family link, rather than discovering one's ethnicity on an anthropological level. I don't know if the technology exists, but I would love to prove beyond all doubt that I do indeed have Swedish ancestry, as told by relatives old enough to know the people involved; the official records tell a different story, but that could be a matter of "keeping up appearances".
The project does sound interesting though, as anthropology and palaeontology are two of my reading interests.
-
Hi BumbleB
Its not bad to hold an opposing view. :)
I don't think DNA is infallible , I think the application of it can sometimes border on quackery
' we tell you if you were related to Jesus'' '' are you of Viking stock' " we break your DNA down to which town you likely came from'' etc etc
I just feel there is more chance of finding a Non-Paternal Event (NPE) through DNA than paper records. I think the other thing that really interests me on a deep ancestral tribal level is that I can be part of a much larger group that shares blood in a more truer sense.
I mentioned on another thread how I would also like to be a rarity. Eddie Izzards father has a rare haplogroup. This for him makes it easier to identify related people.
I am slowly allocating funds to do a few DNA tests. I don't believe its '' not worth it as there are not many in the pool'' I am in it for the long term.
-
Im not a fan (at present but my view could change)- mainly because it is far too expensive. As someone who is carrying a one name study. It potentially could unlock or make clear parentage connections on a few of my lines BUT as I said before, trying to encourage descendants of these "possibly" connected lines to take a test just isnt plausible because of the money involved.
A distant cousin of my husband's sent me his results, and since then I have had someone who isnt related personally contact me via my one name study site, stating that his results were similar, yet he has no evidence of Tivey's in his tree - more than likely an illegitimate child with father unknown somewhere along the line. You are welcome to the results of this distant cousin to compare them with others. if you want them send me a personal message, or contact me through my website.
Cheers
Janann
-
Actually Janann that is where DNA testing is most welcome.
One Name Studies set up discounts on DNA testing because of the opportunity to match paper and blood records. It should , along with the paper records , find either the Foundation Sire , or narrow down the area to look in.
-
My views are also on the negative side!
Firstly, I don't think the databases for UK people are anywhere near big enough.
Secondly, I am not yet convinced that the results of DNA testing are anything like accurate.
Thirdly, I think the DNA Testing is more of a Marketing thing, than it is genuine genealogy.
And I have not been tempted to take a DNA test ;D
My family history, both paternal and maternal, is English all the way back to the 1500's.
And that's on 3 or 4 roots.
So, as far as I know I have no use for DNA testing.
-
At this stage I have not had my DNA tested, however, have been "toying" with the idea. From my understanding the result would only reflect my genetic background i.e. English, European, and possibly Scandinavian(?) background.
The only real benefit I can see is matching my DNA to another living person who is positively descended from ancestor that I wish to be linked to - commonly called "breaking the brick wall".
Les
-
I would not have bothered with DNA testing but a fellow researcher (a third cousin) wanted more results, had a bargain offer, and offered to pay for one.
The results were as we expected with him as match number 1. I find the terminology difficult but he, as a scientist, has no problem! From memory the majority of connections were based in USA but as time moves on he might find more in the UK.
-
Hi
I'm very interested in DNA testing, and would be fascinated to see if it brought more insights to my family history research - although I suppose I fear that very general feedback (connections with Western Europe, for example) might take me very little further.
I suppose I've not got round even to researching the cost since I have plenty to do with adding to my tree with the current information available on the net.
However, perhaps this is an opportune reminder that it's now possible, relatively simply, to carry out a test, and I should research what is the best one to take - as someone generally interested in new technology.
-
I have tried to do a lot with DNA , some of which actually has been successful, but not with many people
However for most people the basic flaw in the system is that the people taking DNA tests do not know where exactly they came from, and that is why the do the test. For example they live in USA , but know the family came from Ireland, but do not know where in Ireland and do a DNA test to find out
Meanwhile in Ireland people who'd families never emigrated are not doing DNA tests because there is nothing in it for them - they know where they come from
So the person in USA never finds anything from their DNA test. The only matches they get are to other people in USA that have no ideas either
Having said that, there is an outside chance that you will be able to find something from the DNA, but the chances are not high
-
My views are also on the negative side!
Firstly, I don't think the databases for UK people are anywhere near big enough.
Catch 22 :) If you don't go in then they wont get bigger.
Secondly, I am not yet convinced that the results of DNA testing are anything like accurate
Is this about genetic DNA testing or Forensic DNA Testing? I wonder if people mix the 2
Thirdly, I think the DNA Testing is more of a Marketing thing, than it is genuine genealogy.
Don't agree with this. They ''market'' most certainly, but as a genealogical tool I think it has benefits. But I accept you hold a different view :)
-
My views on DNA testing are the same as KGarrad and, have no use for it.
cupcake
-
I'm afraid I can't add a lot here, either, as I don't really know enough about it and don't really understand it. I know that ancestors of 2 of my grandparents were in England as far back as the 1600s, that another came from Scotland and the fourth from Germany and at the moment, I'm content with that. If I suddenly found my great times x grandparents were from Scandinavia, although interesting, I'm not sure what I'd do about it.
I will be following this thread though.
-
I'm afraid I can't add a lot here, either, as I don't really know enough about it and don't really understand it. I know that ancestors of 2 of my grandparents were in England as far back as the 1600s, that another came from Scotland and the fourth from Germany and at the moment, I'm content with that. If I suddenly found my great times x grandparents were from Scandinavia, although interesting, I'm not sure what I'd do about it.
I will be following this thread though.
Buy a horned helmet? ;D
-
If I suddenly found my great times x grandparents were from Scandinavia, although interesting, I'm not sure what I'd do about it.
Build a large sea going boat out of wood?
-
If I suddenly found my great times x grandparents were from Scandinavia, although interesting, I'm not sure what I'd do about it.
Build a large sea going boat out of wood?
Or I could do a bit of pillaging! ;D
-
While I am of English ancestry with one line unknown since my mother was adopted and her fathers name was NOT written down on her original birth certificate - anyone just looking at me can tell that I am white and British. I have even been told that my accent is pretty close to Devonshire despite my never having been there!!
So far my family tree is rather boring. I am of Anglo-Saxon (English) and Celtic (Scottish and Cornish) ancestry. I do have one line from Orkney so if a DNA test could tell me for sure if I have Viking ancestry, that would be nice to know. But right now I just cannot afford it. This would be one of those things I would do if I ever won the lottery!!!
-
I have had my DNA tested with FTDNA with their Family Finder autosomal kit. But I also ordered kits for a number of relatives; my mum, my late father's brother, three of my father's cousins, three of my mother's cousins and my brother, whose DNA was also tested using the National Geographic's Geno II kit. (A couple of cousins have also arranged their own testing.) I haven't had the autosomal test done for all of them, yet, because testing is expensive, but I hope to do so eventually.
So far, although lots of autosomal and other matches have been suggested, I haven't managed to ascertain specific links with people I didn't already know. But that will come, I'm sure, and, regardless, the information that the results provide is fascinating.
Our relatives will not be around forever. Two of my mother's cousins who tested for me have since died. Maybe this is to be expected of people in their 80s, but, sadly, my brother also died, very suddenly and unexpectedly, so we never know who is going to be around to share their DNA and further our family research. I arranged for a number of tests to be carried out on my brother's DNA, so he continues to help me, even though we have tragically lost him.
One thing that we found interesting: Mum's mother was part Greek and when her cousin's Y DNA was tested, it confirmed that it belonged to a 'Balkan cluster'. Then Mum's cousin on her father's side had his Y DNA tested. We knew that my grandfather's side of the family had mainly English and Irish ancestry so we were very surprised when that line came back as part of a 'Balkan cluster' too - a different one. What a coincidence!
-
I've been put off even thinking about DNA testing because of the cost, but my scientific mind is intrigued by it and the information it could throw up. My family is 100% English back to the 1700s, but there's a Scottish surname and a Scottis/Irish surname that I'm interested in. Might I have Scottish and Irish blood? If the cost of DNA tests comes down dramatically, I'd do it... but for the moment the paper-based records are keeping me amused. ;D
-
In my mind the biggest problem is how do we know for sure who the father was?
With my ag. lab stock a large number of the women were pregnant at the time of marriage.
Don't think the girls who appear on Jeremy Kyle are a 21st. century phenomenon.
I'm sure in past centuries girls slept around and when they found out they were pregnant didn't always choose the right man to blame and go on and marry.
So paternal DNA is a complete waste of time.
I only know 1 person who has had it done for family history purposes. He was told he had Viking DNA. Well considering his family had been in north Nottinghamshire for as long as he can trace them I think that was pretty obvious.
I can see why it is much more popular in the USA than here in the UK. Unless they have Native American ancestors then they know they came from somewhere else while most of us in the UK are happy that our ancestors have been here for many hundreds if not thousands of years, and of course remembering that we were joined to mainland Europe until relatively recently in Geological terms we are bound to have Western European ancestors.
-
I recall reading somewhere that most Orkney people have some Viking DNA in their genetic makeup.
I have to say that having researched my Swedish roots, the Swedish records are much better kept on the whole than UK ones.
-
That's the other thing about DNA testing, I was told or I may have read somewhere, that it works better for males and not the females. I am a female so why bother?
-
although i do find the idea of having a D,N,A test intriguing the cost would put me off at this time anyway :-\
-
I am the administrator of a DNA study, based on my One Name Study. We have 6 participants at the moment and its an interesting line of investigation. The problem I find is getting the required subjects to partake in the study. Cost is a factor, but also concerns over privacy and a feeling of the unknown.
-
DNA testing doesn't interest me at all,........during my research I have found ancestors from various places and quite a few skeleton's which have proved interesting and this is enough information.
So far from what I have read about peoples experiences on testing it is not yet worth the expense.
-
I am a biologist and have spent quite a bit of time teaching about DNA, chromosomes, crossing-over, introns and all the rest of the amazing science that has emerged in the last 60 years or so.
At the level of checking for non-paternity, DNA is pretty good: it's ever so good at saying that x person is not y person's child, or that the murder weapon was held by the alleged murderer, or whatever. I don't have a problem with that: it's hard-edged, yes-or-no stuff. Following the Y-DNA or mitochondrial DNA, which in general are inherited directly down the male and female line, has value in the same way, but it only touches one line in a family tree: father's father's father's father or mother's mother's mother's mother, and of course fails when there is an adoption, a fostering, a "non-paternal event."
Because of the rather fuzzier nature of the evidence (I'm tempted to put that as "evidence") of DNA analysis into the deeper past, I am much less certain of the value. If a test told me that I had 15% Viking ancestry or whatever, I'm afraid I'd be more likely to treat this in the same way that I'd treat a horoscope!
And - that's why I haven't bought a test....
-
As previous RootsChat members have stated, I too am not the least interested in taking any sort of DNA test. I do not believe they are likely to provide any meaningful results with respect to family history (or even strictly genealogy). Furthermore, I regard the whole "industry" that has sprung up recently as a money-making gimmick, little better than a scam. I am also concerned that it is American companies doing all the testing. Where do the results end up? Safe Harbour indeed! :o
I wouldn't have bothered to post on this topic but I was asked to. So . . . ;)
alanmack
-
In my mind the biggest problem is how do we know for sure who the father was?
With my ag. lab stock a large number of the women were pregnant at the time of marriage.
Don't think the girls who appear on Jeremy Kyle are a 21st. century phenomenon.
I'm sure in past centuries girls slept around and when they found out they were pregnant didn't always choose the right man to blame and go on and marry.
It's always been there in the back of my mind, that the "family" I'm researching may not be "family" at all. All it takes is one little lie about a child's parentage....
-
I wouldn't have bothered to post on this topic but I was asked to. So . . . ;)
alanmack
I think we were ALL asked to comment.... :)
-
I think it is brilliant to find out where our genes originally were from. Especially that our Islands have seen many different waves of various peoples who came and settled. Many of these origins were keep in the mist of times as we do not really know how much about our ancestors. With the DNA tests, it would enhance our understanding of the early migrations along with later invasions of Romans, Vikings and Anglo-Saxons, etc. Also, these tests will enable us to narrow and pinpoint common ancestors with same surname to identify specific region that reflect the make-up of ethnicity. It will boost more people's interest in genealogy and Rootschat where many of us get a lot of help with tracing our family tree. The only negativity of doing DNA test is that it is too expensive for many people. I myself would like to find out more about my family's origins especially my maternal great-great grandparents and paternal great great grandparents as we only know that they came over from Ireland during the Famine. Like someone said here, most families that does not emigrated usually know where they came from. That is the case with most of my ancestors. But, it does not really guarantee that you do know your origins because of the mobility that we human beings always do throughout the ages. For instance, my paternal grandfather was born in England yet he ended up in Northern Ireland and had family there. And I myself was born in England to his son who was from Northern Ireland and his wife from America. Does that mean we really know our origins completely? No, only on the surface.
-
I wouldn't have bothered to post on this topic but I was asked to. So . . . ;)
alanmack
I think we were ALL asked to comment.... :)
At least it's made for an interesting debate!
-
I find it interesting that many people in this thread are already so certain of their ancestry, from their research.
Of course, some trees are better researched than others (we've all seen the threads on "ancestry" trees... :))
However, even the best, "gold standard" research, even with 3 (or even more) pieces of primary
documentation for each fact, is only, can only be, based on what was written down at the time.
DNA testing offers at least the possibility of a truly primary source.
The case of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings wouldn't ever have been resolved historical documents.
BugBear
-
I would like a DNA test for family history purposes but the price to have it done is too high. I feel if having the test contributes to a DNA database they surely we should be paid for donating to the project and providing the samples to be processed!
Just my view!
:D ??? 8)
-
Trystan, my own test was with FTdna eight years ago & paid for by some kind folks in the States on a one-name study. The result was a bit of a surprise as I discovered I belonged to the "Niall of the Nine Hostages" group & with no Irish ancestors that I know of, it must have been in the dim & distant Dalriadan connection to Scotland or an ancestress was getting free coal from an Emerald Isle coalman. ;D
I get regular notifications from FTdna on newly discovered relations but it might as well be extracts from a telephone directory for all that it's advanced my own tree. It's been interesting but pretty fruitless and I certainly wouldn't have shelled out the cash for it myself so I don't think I can be of any assistance to the Times in this matter. "Niall of the Nine Sausages" might have been more interesting.
The problem lies with Americans who are keen to find a link back to the old country and resort to DNA testing as the paper-chase has run out and that they're finding connections to other Americans on the same quest but not back to the old country as there isn't the interest this side of the pond.
Bests,
Skoosh.
-
There was a test case done recently, to show the accuracy (or lack of) of these ethnicity DNA tests. The same person got fairly different results from the different companies. I will see if I can find it and post a link.
-
I find it interesting that many people in this thread are already so certain of their ancestry, from their research.
Of course, some trees are better researched than others (we've all seen the threads on "ancestry" trees... :))
However, even the best, "gold standard" research, even with 3 (or even more) pieces of primary
documentation for each fact, is only, can only be, based on what was written down at the time.
DNA testing offers at least the possibility of a truly primary source.
The case of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings wouldn't ever have been resolved historical documents.
BugBear
This is where you and I have to disagree!
DNA testing is still, IMHO, largely a Marketing excercise, and not what I consider a Primary Source.
-
I have a mild interest but don't really understand much about it. Does it give an accurate country like say France or Japan or does it just say Europe and the Far East?
I know someone though I'm not sure if she's in the USA or Canada but she was born in England to a US servicemen never knowing who he was and she's been successful in finding his family.
I'm not sure if it would work the other way around though as people here in the UK don't really seem to go for it and I understand not many people have taken the test, in fact nobody I know IRL has ever mentioned taking it. That could be because of the cost and for those of us genealogists who could have an interest, what with our subscriptions and having to pay £9.25 per certificate and £10 a will, the budget is tight for many of us.
Or maybe it's just because we don't feel a deep need?
-
I've been tempted by taking the DNA test but really I don't think it would tell me anything new. I'm pretty much white European, stretching no further than England, Eire, Wales and Belgium back to the early 1600s and beyond.
I'm not convinced of it's accuracy (different results from different companies) and if I did it, it would be for 'fun'.
May do it, even yet!
-
"Niall of the Nine Sausages" might have been more interesting.
At least there would be a family link (link of sausages? Get it?)
Trystan
-
Being a female, I'm not sure that DNA testing wold necessarily help with my family tree roots. Recent developments in DNA testing leave me confused, also. Here in the USA a company had been advertising about their DNA testing but was told to change their advertising AND how they presented test results. All very confusing. I think for our tree, my Nephew testing his DNA might be more fruitful. patrexjax
-
I have a passing interest in the subject but don't think it would do much to further my research.
The cost is also a factor for something that may or may not be totally accurate.
-
If national governments world wide established compulsory DNA testing at birth and on all existing folk to compile an international data base, terrorism and crime could gradually be eradicated and the DNA would then be available, if wanted, for Genealogical research.
-
Being a female, I'm not sure that DNA testing wold necessarily help with my family tree roots.
Autosomal DNA testing works for males and females equally.
I'm in the US, so I don't fit the parameters of this discussion, but I'm an adoptee and I found my biological father's family through Ancestry.com's autosomal DNA testing.
The ethnicity results seem to match what I have on paper, but some of the descriptors that Ancestry uses for areas really cover a wider portion of land than you would think. For example, I got sizeable portions of Scandinavia and Italy/Greece despite having neither of those exact countries in my paper trail. Looking closer at Ancestry's map, their Scandinavia DNA is also found in Great Britain and Germany where I do have known ancestors. The Italy/Greece area also covers Switzerland, which fits what I know. I also had my husband test his DNA, and this pattern fit with his results too.
-
Brilliant idea grandarog! Connect it to Interpol - if that still exists!
-
I have never considered DNA testing. I do have, according to family folk lore, a supposed Danish ancestor. Indeed, I have a portrait of "The Great Dane" hanging on the wall behind me. As yet I have only been able to trace a possible man born in Germany. If DNA would help with that conundrum then it might be something for the future.
-
It's something I'm interested in - but cost is a big issue at the moment. If I could afford it, should I just have it done myself, or persuade my father (80) to have it done as well (as a way of filtering out my maternal side)? How accurate/useful are the results likely to be? I have, as far as I know, Irish, Huguenot, East Anglian, London ancestry mainly.
Also, can I be sure that the company that does the testing won't decide that they can use my results for their own purposes even if that's against my wishes/best interests?
There are one or two brickwalls in the early 1800s that would be nice to get through, and DNA testing might just provide enough of a clue in the right direction.
It's not an easy decision.
hlbradd
-
my DNA results from ancestry are 62% europe west , 32% irish , 2% finland / west russia , 1% scandinavia , 1% GR BRITAIN , < 1% iberian peninsula , < 1% europe east , i havent found this any help in my research and only found one cousin all the other which ancestry say are possably my 4 or 5th cousins i dont recognise there names or place of births [ not english ], i have 12621 people in my tree and on parts went back to 15th century , all of my reatives are basicaly from north east england apart from a very small handful from ireland and a even smaller handfull from scotland , there were a few who emigrated to USA and canada BUT NOT A LOT AND THAT WAS IN MID 18HUNDREDS so im disapointed with my DNA i also gor my raw DNA and put it on gedmatch but still no relatives ,
-
At the outset I am no expert whatsoever in DNA and can only discuss it from a novice's perspective. ;D
12 of my cousins and I have undertaken our autosomal test through FamilyTree DNA using the Family Finder test. 3 of the men have also had the yDNA test. My partner, and his mother and sister have just submitted their kits this week.
Why did we initially undertake DNA testing?
We were attempting to resolve the question of who was our great grandfather? Sounds simple but sitting behind that question lies a group of people determined to stop others seeking the truth for a range of reasons.
Outcome
We now know conclusively our 2nd great grandfather & are content :). However there are still a group of angry people ;D
Other unknowns.
We then set about trying to locate our 3rd great grandmother origins; she grew up on one of the large estates in England. We know she wasn't a servant but also not recognised openly by the family. She had a guardian established by the family.
We are currently working on that aspect; all data has been uploaded to GEDMATCH to enable comparison across all testing agencies. This is proving very interesting.
The ethnicity aspect [My Origins] was fascinating. For example, two of my full brothers and I had very interesting results. Attached is a clipping for my 2 siblings and I.
As to my siblings & my origins; whilst we are Australian, in most instances that means we are a rather heterogeneous lot.
Of the 16 - 2nd great grandparents:6 are English, 3 Irish, 2 Welsh, 1 Chinese, 1 Danish, 1 German [NB that adds to 14 but 2 were first cousins and 1 is as yet unknown]
As you can see from the clipping one of us has nil or negligible Scandinavian [0%] where the other two have a small amount or a much larger amount being 6% & 24%. The difference in our looks is rather interesting and the one with 24% Scandinavian looks Scandinavian. The clipping tells the story better than I.
The unknowns in our origins are the 3rd great grandmother, who to date may well have some Jewish elements, the Chinese aspect is unknown other than our 2nd great grandfather hailed from Amoy; where his parents came from is unknown and may never be known.
I am also hoping that we will find a link into our Danish ancestors so still working on that one.
Would I recommend DNA testing? Yes - I certainly have learned a lot and find it of great interest even though it takes a lot to develop a whole new field of understanding. However a number of my elderly aunts and uncles would not have their DNA tested at all and seem very resistant to the idea.
One of my siblings is a tad paranoid and worries about the safety of the results and actual DNA material. This sibling is not overly trusting of governments and the enforcement agencies even though this siblings has no reason to be concerned and as a result is worried these agencies would be able to access the material..
As to the expense: its maybe 20 cups of coffee at the most.
DNA testing has been of great benefit especially as we have 12 cousins tested - this has helped enormously to identify definate maternal or paternal matches as an example. Both my parents are deceased so we are unable to use that as a starting point. My cousin-in-law is currently looking at particular DNA segments and aligning those to lines and this is proving very beneficial.
So yes I recommend it but it really is personal preference.
Westy
-
Family History is my hobby. I have a very tight budget to find out about those who came before me. Bearing that in mind, DNA testing , should I consider going down that route, would be way at the bottom of an extremely long list :-)
For a lot of people who do this sort of thing, the interest lies in the meat we can put on the bones of our ancestors, the tiny glimpses we get of their lives and what they did for a living etc etc. A scientific report that some of my family's DNA originated in wherever would be mildly interesting but that's about it.
I am not yet convinced about DNA testing, not at all sure how to find which companies are reliable and which are jumping on the current bandwagon of interest as a purely commercial venture. As such I think I'll keep what there is in my budget and use it more productively to document my ancestors using conventional resources.
Having said that, if a company starts up that can provide (and prove!) time travel at a reasonable cost I may start saving - there are a few of my ancestors that I'd would dearly love to have a word with!
Boo
-
If national governments world wide established compulsory DNA testing at birth and on all existing folk to compile an international data base, terrorism and crime could gradually be eradicated and the DNA would then be available, if wanted, for Genealogical research.
I can't see that ever happening, especially being made available for genealogical research. If relatively innocent information such as census details is kept secret under the 100 year rule, just think of the outcry if potentionally very personal information from DNA testing was made available to all.
-
I know nothing about DNA apart from finding out if a child is the offspring of it's parents (a la Jeremy Kyle) But would have no idea how it would help in finding ancestors.....mine are all dead!
I prefer to use the centuries old methods of parish records and BMD certificates ;D
Carol
-
Uhm!!!
how do I feel about DNA testing -- is a good question, that I am not sure I can answer as I really am not sure I understand totally what the results would mean to me.
(That opening paragraph - shows exactly my confused state of mind regarding this subject... ha ha ;D ;) ;) ;) Sorry - )
I started this FH lark to discover my family and have done so. Discovering many generations of which the main percentage are UK born and bred. -----
The possibilities of going much further back to discover the absolute genetic make up, I am not sure is for me.
My Paternal - paternal side goes back to 1700's in SCOTLAND - and yes of course I would like to know if my Sylvester 1739 is descended from The Vikings... (I love Kirk Douglas ::) ::) ::) ::) ;D ;D ;D ;D) - I do know that on my Maternal - Paternal side my Hellyars may well come from somewhere in Europe.
What will it give me now - at this time of my life, to know this? I am unsure.
So then this is maybe something more for any descendants that follow me, which will enable them, in this unsettled world - proof of their ACTUAL Ethnicity or as we call it ROOTS - then they can shout out I am 9 generations full blood European or English or whatever the case may be...
So then (- is it? or -) it is? a good idea to trace your DNA and if I was 35 and felt I had all the time in the world to do more with the facts that were found then I would do so... definitely.
xin (as always confuscious reigns :) :) )
-
Not too interested in DNA testing re my research and at the moment it is not affordable for me even if i did go down that route...saying that and you may think this sounds strange but i have had many holidays in the Greek Islands and other countries but i do feel i have an affinity with Greece as if i've gone home which i don't get with other countries..i do feel so comfortable there...so maybe if it was more affordable it might have me changing my mind just on the inquisitive side of it.
Steve
-
Carol 8353
Love your response, and you said what I wanted to say, in the right amount of words.
still giggling and wishing I had said the same :) :) :) :) :)
xin
-
. The ethnicity aspect [My Origins] was fascinating. For example, two of my full brothers and I had very interesting results. Attached is a clipping for my 2 siblings and I.
That is what I don't understand. If you are full siblings how come the results are different as you all share the same parents, grandparents etc?
-
My views on DNA testing are the same as KGarrad and, have no use for it.
cupcake
I too agree. I have followed with interest the for and against and it is not for me. In my ignorance when I first heard the word DNA I thought we would be matched with people. I did wonder how that would be possible as I realise an ancestor from 1600 would not have given any DNA. Once I learned what it was really about I lost interest. I know my ancestors came from UK as far back as 1500 that is good enough for me. I cannot see that having the test would bring anything to my research, IMO.
Jane
-
Actually Janann that is where DNA testing is most welcome.
One Name Studies set up discounts on DNA testing because of the opportunity to match paper and blood records. It should , along with the paper records , find either the Foundation Sire , or narrow down the area to look in.
davidg02
The email I received asked ME to give my opinion...............So what I typed is MY OPINION. No need to go questioning/arguing what everybody thinks. It is an opinion. Thank you.
-
Have found my way back to 1500, which side of 1500 depends on how old my ancestors were when they made their wills in 1552 and 1558. All of that side of the family are from one small area in Buckinghamshire. The other side of the family is deep in the heart of Pembrokeshire for as far back as I can go. There is the rogue ancestor of Eliza Ann Smith and one of her partners, Callas Webb. CW's family go back to Cornwall and Eliza's are solid Hampshire.
Perhaps in the distant past someone from foreign parts settled in these areas and married into my families, perhaps not. Only DNA testing could find out, but I am not really interested enough to spend the money to find out.
-
. The ethnicity aspect [My Origins] was fascinating. For example, two of my full brothers and I had very interesting results. Attached is a clipping for my 2 siblings and I.
That is what I don't understand. If you are full siblings how come the results are different as you all share the same parents, grandparents etc?
Because we inherit half of our genes from each parent and the genes we inherit are at random. If we inherited the same genes from our parents as our siblings we would be identical twins (or identical triplets etc etc)
-
At the present DNA testing is the most accurate test of relationships.This could be invaluable to prove a genealogical link.I can see no objection to anyone who volunteers to provide a swab.
-
I have a tree which is approaching 17000 relations/ancestors but currently DNA testing doesn't interest me as it's too expensive. If the price drops considerably, I might give it a go.
Cr
-
I am interested in DNA and have been thinking of taking a test for some time. I have held off because I am yet to be convinced about the quality and accuracy of the report. Really want to establish first if DNA test provides real value add to my family history research or basically a waste of money and time ?
Through traditional research methods, I have traced most of my family lines back to the 18th century, some earlier. I know my roots are 100% English in this time period, but there are a couple of family questions. One branch, Lloyd trace back to Birmingham, but it is believed they may have come from Wales, I wonder if a DNA test could prove this. Another branch, Bennett, trace back to the Fens in 17th century and family myth has it were descended from Huguenot's from Alsace and french name Benet, so again wondering if DNA test can prove this as well ?
I might take the plunge at the WDYTYA show this year, usually offer good prices there, if I can be convinced of the value of a test.
-
I have been asked to express my opinion about DNA Ethnicity results. I use DNA testing for genetic genealogical studies of mine, involvement/support to One-Name Studies, or deep clade testing. I view this as the helpful and serious side of DNA-use in genealogy. With regard to the ethnicity results, I view this a bit of fun and of no direct use. At least, I have read nothing that suggests there is anything worthwhile in terms of assisting genealogy.
-
Ethics rather than Ethnicity
I have not been tested and am skeptical about the ethics of the entire concept. If siblings were done and noticed incompatibilities, wouldn't that undermine what had up until then, been a perfectly amicable relationship with each other and their parents? How can there be tests which determine a percentage of Jewishness, if that were so, why not ones that indicate other religions and even agnostics? Could America use such tests to identify those with terrorism potential and expel them before they cause havoc, or test prisoners to identify a criminal gene, enabling the chemical industry to employ vast teams of scientists dedicated to find a serum to keep it under temporary control rather than facilitate its eradication?
Bringing things right back to serious basics, I have no idea if there is anything to be gained or not, or if it's just a fad like being in possession of the latest phone. The test does not seem to be done at a cost or budget price and there are numerous band-wagon entrepreneurs offering additional services, so I get the gut feeling its main aim is to make somebody or bodies, richer.
Regards Roy G
-
. The ethnicity aspect [My Origins] was fascinating. For example, two of my full brothers and I had very interesting results. Attached is a clipping for my 2 siblings and I.
That is what I don't understand. If you are full siblings how come the results are different as you all share the same parents, grandparents etc?
Hello Groom
The answer lies in what DNA is passed on from both your mother and father. Each sibling is unlikely to receive the exact same DNA segments but obviously receives enough to identify as full siblings.
There are DNA inheritance patterns and explained well on some sites on the web. One I had a look at is http://www.dnainheritance.kahikatea.net/
I suppose if we all inherited the exact same DNA segments from our mother and from our father then we would all be exact copies but were not. There are three kinds of DNA we can use for genealogy.
Mitochondrial DNA, carried by both males and females, is your mother’s mother’s mother’s line all the way up your tree until you run out of direct line mothers.
Y DNA, which only males carry, is inherited from the father’s father’s father’s direct paternal line which typically follows the surname. An easy to understand explanation at http://dna-explained.com/
Westy
-
Hi everyone,
I see Trystan has kick started us all on this topic ;D Funnily enough I thought to reply when the topic first came out but was not sure what I could contribute.
I am quite interested in DNA testing thought I don't really understand it all, but do understand 'pockets' of it. I have been to one or two talks, but when I try and read about it I am usually blinded by science. My father has tested for our family as he being the eldest male member was the best candidate for the job. You really want the oldest male to take the test for less mutation in the genes. Dad is also one of Niall's sausages, but we rather knew that already. Why I did want Dad to test is because as he is in his 90's he won't be with us much longer and I am convinced, like most things, the science surround this will improve with time. His results will be on file to be resurrected at a later date.
Our family being Irish means that we must employ as many methods as possible to trace our family and get a better idea of our origins. Don't get me wrong I think working with traditional methods is also important. But the DNA alongside the traditional research methods can only strengthen ones research.
We tested with FTDNA, one of the reasons is that at the time they had many more families testing that other companies with our surname - it's also an American company and the American's really love all this stuff. Yes, cost wise I did rather wince, but I thought it was worth it given that my Dad may not be around many more years. I recently attended a family history conference and met a American lady that was attending the conference based entirely on the DNA findings of her father. She also had invested in a dozen testing kits to give to strangers in the locality of where her family had originated from in order to advance her research. I was taken aback for two reasons 1. the cost of a dozen kits! and 2. The guts it takes to ask strangers for their DNA (!) So it goes to show the difference we in the UK view costs and DNA as opposed to our cousins in the US.
And finally, I would just say I know Ancestry are pushing their DNA, but I just wouldn't consider using them. Don't know I just feel they are playing at it and really liked the manner in which FTDNA and other companies like the National Geographic project presented and run their projects. Ancestry just seems to 'dumb' down everything and I wonder if they are actually analysing their results with the same care?
-
Thinking on what some people have said about the accuracy of the results I wonder if identical twins have ever been tested by different companies?
Surely they should come up with identical results? Would be interesting if they didn't
-
Doing an Ancestry DNA test is probably the best thing I have done in the last year.
My Gran was brought up in an orphanage and she never really knew her parents. Finding information on her father was quite easy, but her mother proved a problem. Her name was Florence May Bannister, I had her wedding certificate which showed her father as Henry but I had no other information, including where she was from or her exact age (although I did know she celebrated her birthday on the 5th April). I narrowed my search down to one birth record, that of Florence Bannister born on the 31st March 1887 but I was not 100% certain I was looking at the same person as both the birth date was wrong and the lack of a middle name. The very first hit I had on Ancestry through the DNA was from a great nephew of the Florence Bannister born on the 31st March 1887, I now know for certain that I was looking at the correct ancestor! (And for the record my Gran was right with the birthday, Florence did celebrate her birthday on the 5th April as shown on the 1939 Register!).
I also have found other more distant relatives who at least prove that my research is correct!
As for my genetic makeup, I don't really think it is that accurate. Apparently I am 29% British, 24% Scandinavian, 23% Irish, 19% Western European, 3% Eastern European, 2% Iberian and have trace elements from Italy/Greece. Yet on all of my branches (the youngest will be no later than 1800) I have nothing but Anglo-Welsh ancestors! I will admit that I have a few illegitimate ancestors but noting that will stretch my results like that! I know us English are a mongrel race, perhaps that is what is being shown in my makeup.
-
Not really interested.
DNA is great for forensics to catch Rapists, and Murderers .
I have used to it ascertain what breeds my rescue dog has evolved from. This was useful in pointing out certain health traits in specific breeds.
I can see no advantage to knowing who I really came from. I am quite content with the research I have done and the accompanying paper trail of certificates and church records, along with census details to satisfy my curiosity.
Thank you for asking for my input.
-
Mrs Hat is often accusing me of dragging my knuckles, so I'm fairly sure of where I come from............
;)
It's not for me.
Apart from the cost, I'm not bothered about ethnicity - I prefer to take my research back one step at a time through reasonably proven links. Unless the ancestor I'm researching also had their DNA tested I can't see that it would be of huge use to me.
Just my opinion, and respect to all others.
'Hat.
-
People are busy here - many new posts even before l can start typing !!!
Well what can l say....
I'm neither for nor against DNA testing for genealogical purposes but would only use it if it were difficult to locate earlier generations.
Linking up with others genetically would help break down the brick wall one comes up against from time to time.
At this stage - all roads lead to the UK and l am happy with that - maybe later when l have exhausted all online possibilities.
As my grandmother always said - you are who you are in mind and soul - but the body tells the truth that might hurt you - later l understood what she meant !!!
My certifcates - bdm - give information that was correct at the time it was recorded.
As you can see l'm not bothered one way or the other - at the moment the paper trail makes it more fun or real to discover the past.
Jamison
-
For those wondering what DNA can, can't and might do for them, this example may be of interest;
"Richard III's DNA throws up infidelity surprise"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30281333
BugBear
-
Having a Welsh surname I don't need to be told about my ethnicity. Having tracked down and met quite a few relatives from wider family, many have Welsh skulls. Mind you, none of them live in Wales or want to know anything about it.
Beyond that, there is someone on here, and we keep in contact, whose ancestor could well have been brother to my greatgreatgrandfather. Neither of us have the readies at this time to have a DNA test done.
-
Having a Welsh surname I don't need to be told about my ethnicity. Having tracked down and met quite a few relatives from wider family, many have Welsh skulls. Mind you, none of them live in Wales or want to know anything about it.
Beyond that, there is someone on here, and we keep in contact, whose ancestor could well have been brother to my greatgreatgrandfather. Neither of us have the readies at this time to have a DNA test done.
What's a Welsh skull? :o
*looks in mirror
-
I would like to test myself because I was born curious ! Although I'm very intrigued I don't understand the science and would want something more specific than Europe for a result. I was adopted and also related to my adoptive family so there is that aspect aswell as ethnic origins that fascinate me. Having read about varying results from companies and the expense , I will wait for positive improvements.
-
If national governments world wide established compulsory DNA testing at birth and on all existing folk to compile an international data base, terrorism and crime could gradually be eradicated and the DNA would then be available, if wanted, for Genealogical research.
I enjoyed this comment; there is a conspiracy theory in Ireland that this is what the heel prick test in new born babies is for; when FTR it is actually for six conditions namely Phenylketonuria (PKU), Homocystinuria, Maple Syrup Urine Disease, Classical Galactosaemia, Cystic Fibrosis, and Congenital Hypothyroidism.
I do not trust DNA testing! If I could be assured on accuracy and privacy issues I may be interested but to date I have seen where different companies provide varying results. I can't see where it would add value to my research to date.
My interest in family history stemmed from trying to locate a lady born in 1923; I am still looking and hampered by the fact that she may still be alive. I would encourage my family members to use DNA testing to attempt prove a connection to her if something arose to indicate it would be fruitful but not in general.
If convinced in the future of its merits at least I have a son and a daughter!! ;D
-
Hi,
Joining in the chat here.
I would be intrigued to have my DNA tested. However I think the terminology is very confusing and I probably wouldn't understand the results.
I would love to know where my Scots/ Irish ancestors hailed from and if we had some blood from further afield running through our veins. But I don't know if there is enough people participating in these tests to make the results valid or definite.
I recall watching a very interesting programme with Eddie Izzard where he traced his DNA back to a specific area in Africa. I found this fascinating and would love to be able to have the same tests carried out on me. However I can only speculate that this would have been an extremely expensive project and the chances of me ever having the money to spurge on that are very very slim.
So in the meantime, I'll stick with written records and stay firmly in 18th century Ireland and Scotland.
Looby :)
-
Thanks for the explanation, Westy. However, I still don't understand how one sibling's DNA can show they are descended from people who came from a certain area, yet another full sibling's DNA doesn't show that at all. If you get that discrepancy with close relations of the same generation how can it be accurate several generations back?
-
You could turn this thread on its head, and say its amazing how many people set such store by parish registers, certificates & Census...what DNA does for me is to show if two individuals are related to the same progenitor, often in conflict with the written or oral evidence.
-
I would like to test myself because I was born curious ! Although I'm very intrigued I don't understand the science and would want something more specific than Europe for a result. I was adopted and also related to my adoptive family so there is that aspect aswell as ethnic origins that fascinate me. Having read about varying results from companies and the expense , I will wait for positive improvements.
Yes I would like something more specific than Europe too to see if my grandfather's claim to his family name being French is true, so far it's just farmers in Cheshire.
-
I know that my parents were raised by their parents and so on back through seven or eight generations but whether any of them were the product of pre- or extra-marital relationships I have no idea (and don't really care). For me, family history is about the lives of people who lived together as families rather than their genetic relationships (but finding out about black sheep and skeletons in the closet is always interesting!). If you believe in the equivalence of nature and nurture DNA testing certainly doesn't tell us who we 'are'.
While it is undoubtedly useful for studies of population movements and for very specific legal or criminal uses (for example, to establish the relationship between two individuals or prove the identity of an individual) I don't think it really adds anything much to the hobby - the ethnicity of my great-grandfather is self-evident from his photographs. That he could easily have had 1% Innuit or 0.25% Visigoth 'in him' is here nor there - it could have found its way into his make-up at any time in the last 2,000 years with no real chance of figuring out exactly how it got there!
That said, I'm sure most people would be intrigued if they discovered that they had links to some distant part of the globe or a distinctive population. It would be especially fascinating if it was possible to recover DNA from more ancient burials and artefacts and tie these to living people.
Ooops that was off-topic - I haven't had a DNA test :D
-
I went to an event in Wrexham a few years ago, where they were asking for people willing to have DNA tests to find which part of the world they came from.
It was quite an interesting talk , but as I am female then it didn`t apply to me. As I have no brothers - that was then end of it.
Even if I was male then I wouldn`t be to concerned - I am what I am.
-
Hello
I have never taken a DNA test as it would be pointless for me.A DNA test wouldn't tell who my Mother`s Father was or who a WELSH G Grandfathers father was or who his Mother`s father was. :'(
omega
-
As I have been researching my family history since 1977, I have been extremely interested in any developments in the research world over those years and DNA was one thing which I wanted to look at when it was first introduced for family history. I took the test and found that it did very little to pint me in any direction but I can see that it could be a great tool for those who moved from an area, to find out where they originated from.
All of my ancestors so far discovered, have been from within fifty miles of where I live today and, as a real local, with a paper trail as well as a DNA test, I feel that my DNA could be extremely useful for those looking to find where their ancestors came from in England. I'd love to be looked at in detail, to see if my DNA could tell the scientists anything. Also, as both of my parents are still alive, I imagine their DNA could also be of great interest too. (My Mother's DNA will have information in it which I haven't got.)
Glynn
;)
-
Disclaimer: I am an on-off subscriber to Ancestry but have not taken their DNA test. I have however done yDNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA tests with ftDNA. I do not claim any expertise on DNA and what follows is purely the personal views of an amateur in this area.
Autosomal DNA
In my opinion this is a pseudo-science and there are more than a few charlatans offering tests in this area. The reason why I say it is a pseudo-science is although there is some science behind the subject there are too many unknowns and assumptions for the claims that are made for the ethnic predictions made. As some posters have observed you get different predictions from different suppliers when using the same raw data. Indeed I have suggested to several people who have taken autosomal tests and been unhappy with the results to use the Gedmatch.com site where they can get several different analysis done on their data with some quite wide variations in the results. I think this is particularly important for anyone who took the Ancestry test as there was some criticism of it when it launched particularly that it was overestimating Irish and Scandinavian ancestry, predictable perhaps given their main market i.e. the US.
To give an example of the differences you can get ftDNA give my ethnic results as 33% Scandinavian, 67% Western and Central European. Using Gedmatch and their Eurogenes K36 Admixture analysis (one of many available) gives the following make-up Basque 1.96%, Central_Euro 5.62%, East_Balkan 1.98%, East_Central_Euro 6.22%, Eastern_Euro 4.87%, Fennoscandian 6.80%, French 10.36%, Iberian 13.77%, Italian 8.24%, North_Atlantic 18.46%, North_Sea 19.09%, Volga-Ural 0.10%, West_Caucasian 1.00%, West_Med 1.54%. Are these two analysis consistent, yes in my opinion they are but as you can see they are widely different. This is why I see autosomal DNA testing for ethnic analysis as a bit of fun and not to be taken at all seriously.
Where Autosomal testing is worthwhile in my view is for those trying to find family members. However this is limited in that autosomal testing for this purpose is only good for about five generations back and is seriously limited by the miniscule number of people testing. Hoping to get far on this requires a bit of luck or a long wait. That said I did make contact with a 4th cousin once removed in the States and we have since confirmed the findings by the good old fashioned paper trail. (There are several closer matches but they can take longer to confirm than people think).
So to the question should I take an Autosomal test my answer would be yes if it was to find relatives and you had low expectations of results. It would also be yes if you were curious on the ethnic mix and were prepared to treat it as a bit of fun, but no if you were going to take it as gospel and therefore potentially be disappointed with the results; as more than a few on this board have been.
I would also advise anyone taking an Autosomal test for the ethnic analysis to also use a comparison site such as Gedmatch to see how much the analyses can vary.
Cost
Several people have commented on the cost question and yes all the tests are costly for what they provide. The way I have explained this in the past to people who have queried this is to say that it is a developing science and you are not just paying for the test but you are contributing to the research to make the results better over time. Some people are prepared to do this and some are not, fair enough. However, there are some companies that have jumped on the DNA testing bandwagon and the fees they charge are way out of line with the more main stream companies. These are the charlatans I referred to previously, they are not in it for the science but just to make a quick buck, but as always buyer beware.
Why test
The reason why I initially took a yDNA test is my direct paternal line comes to a halt in the middle of rural Northumberland in the 1740’s. My hope in taking the test is that eventually someone from a parallel line will take a test and help with the way forward. That was three years ago and as yet nothing but as the longest I have had to wait for a confirmed genealogical fact is thirty years I think I can wait a while longer. The mtDNA and autosomal tests I took were just to complete the set, I did not have any particular expectations for them they were just curiosities. However they have confirmed factors that my yDNA revealed
-
What an interesting subject this is but alas it's one I don't know much - or anything - about to make a valid contribution here.
But I know at least one person who has had a DNA sample analysed recently. The results she received were broken down into categories of racial ethnicity but how accurate it really was and what she gained from it in a practical sense I cannot answer.
I remember a chap having his DNA analysed - as part of a television documentary - to prove a connection to Richard III which has been touched on here briefly. I only thought DNA worked from father to son but obviously it reaches out far and wide. I can't really remember if the man tested was a direct descendant of King Richard or whether he came through a collateral line via a sister of the king.
I'm absolutely not against DNA testing and could be persuaded to have one if I thought it would resolve more recent dilemmas. I'm not remotely interested in my racial ethnicity, however.
Jay
-
I haven't had a DNA test done, but as I have three direct ancestors who were illegitimate it is something I would consider if it would establish who I am actually descended from. At the moment I'm researching the step fathers of these ancestors on the grounds that they might be the actual fathers and are family nonetheless.
-
For me genealogy is a bit like doing sudoku just a lot more expensive.
All my relatives are huddled in the north east of Scotland. We were all born above the Tay or at least as far back as the 1700s. I'm not sure why I'd want to use DNA testing, I'm not interested in finding living rellies, I don't care if a Dane put a bairn in my 20 x's great grandmother, I'm not looking to prove I'm related to Lord Saltoun or that I once had a forebearer who knew John Knox although I am minded to say my Granny knew the wifie who knitted Jimmy Shand's socks. ;)
I just like working away on my great big sudoku but I'm lucky my sudoku came with a grid and the starting numbers.
Jen
-
For those wondering what DNA can, can't and might do for them, this example may be of interest;
"Richard III's DNA throws up infidelity surprise"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30281333
BugBear
I remember that claim being widely disputed at the time, indeed it may also have been discussed on this forum. Still it just goes to confirm what a shakey area DNA testing can be with pseudo-science and charlatans making assumptions and unsupported claims.
-
I think DNA is a very exciting project.
I would love to know the origins/families of ancestors who I can not trace back further than the mid 1700's.
The more people who take one the cheaper and more reliable the tests become.
I shall do it when I can afford it to look at my mitochondrial DNA. I may have to get someone to interpret the results for me - but there are lots of people who can now. And I am curious too.
Judy
-
I'm not convinced that this would be worth it for me...It's not an exact science as it is based on the balance of probability...I believe it has its place...but not in my tree...I prefer tangible proof...my certificates tell their own story and the rest may be uncovered by interested parties in the years to come when science has progressed sufficiently to fill in the missing gaps with greater accuracy. Personally, I think it's a money making racket and like anything that is growing in popularity, it's open to abuse.
I will stick with my certificates, census returns and family stories...even the tall ones ;D
Genealogical DNA test results won't change who I am.
Carol
-
For me genealogy is a bit like doing sudoku just a lot more expensive.
I like that discription :).
I describe genealogy as doing a jigsaw puzzle only you don't have the box lid to see where the pieces go ;) (oh and of course you have to go and find the pieces in the first place which leads to many a ??? moment)
-
I suppose you are aware that DNA testing is one type of evidence which is being used by an individual challenging his cousin's claim to an English title at the moment?
There are many cases written up in the scientific press that show that contamination is a problem, you may find out where the person doing the testing of your sample came from, but not your own origins.
I wouldn't trust any DNA test which wasn't taken professionally, and even then I'm not sure I'd be 100% certain, so many mistakes have been shown to have happened in the past.
My DNA was taken professionally as part of a medical university study as I carry a rare disease, but the professor still wants as many birth death and marriage records as possible as part of the study. DNA is not being used in isolation.
I would not spend money to have my DNA tested solely for the purposes of family research.
-
I started a thread on the DNA Forum some while ago.
It was titled "DNA Testing - Bunkum?"
(Or something similar - can't remember now)
Unfortunately, some people got rather heated over this discussion, and the whole thread was deleted!
-
KGarrad
You surprise me.
-
Having a Welsh surname I don't need to be told about my ethnicity. Having tracked down and met quite a few relatives from wider family, many have Welsh skulls. Mind you, none of them live in Wales or want to know anything about it.
Beyond that, there is someone on here, and we keep in contact, whose ancestor could well have been brother to my greatgreatgrandfather. Neither of us have the readies at this time to have a DNA test done.
What's a Welsh skull? :o
*looks in mirror
Oh yes, I could post photographs from my family, but won't. I have two second cousins where I live now in Swindon. The elder one is a dead ringer for Henry VIII in his nasty years. Hislop described Henry VIII as quintessentialy English, nonsence, quintessentialy Welsh. Henry VII must have taken after his mother as I do after my mother. The other second cousin is c60, big, not fat, with full head of silver hair but was slim and dark when young.
-
I started a thread on the DNA Forum some while ago.
It was titled "DNA Testing - Bunkum?"
(Or something similar - can't remember now)
Unfortunately, some people got rather heated over this discussion, and the whole thread was deleted!
I think it got deleted because some people were not prepared to accept that other people had a different view to them and made some unpleasant comments. This was sad as there were some good observations if only people were prepared to go beyond their prejudices
-
I know I'm a mongrel of many nations, as most of us are........ Nordic/Viking, Italian/Roman, Germanic, Celt, Irish, Scottish, French/Norman/Nordic.........you name a country, and we are part of it, basically. Historically it's true, but I have no interest at all of finding out, let alone share it with a Newspaper, who can never guarantee our DNA security 100%, if that was our wish.
So no thank you, I'm happy to stay 'ignorant'.
Steve. :)
-
I started a thread on the DNA Forum some while ago.
It was titled "DNA Testing - Bunkum?"
(Or something similar - can't remember now)
Unfortunately, some people got rather heated over this discussion, and the whole thread was deleted!
I think it got deleted because some people were not prepared to accept that other people had a different view to them and made some unpleasant comments. This was sad as there were some good observations if only people were prepared to go beyond their prejudices
That's a pity, what's controversial about family history. I got quite excited at the suggestion for DNA'ing the whole population for police purposes. As long as FH related queries were allowed.
Trouble is, in my experience, most people are neither interested nor curious. Family is back to grandparents, period. I've had quite a few in my efforts to contact living family members.
-
Mark...I think you should have included a "Poll" on this topic too.."For" "Against" "Undecided" the statistics would have been interesting to see. People can vote anonymously that way too.
Carol
-
I wouldn't mind having my DNA testing done if it could prove more recent origins. I have relatives on Rootschat so perhaps we could have the tests done with that knowledge already known? Don't know if this makes sense or not?
What is a Welsh skull? I know you can recognise Irish folk from their head shape and eyes and hair colouring too.
My OH and I have just finished watching the whole series of The Vikings. We both have red curly hair and blue eyes in previous generations so maybe I will go and get a horned helmet as well. We both have Irish and Scottish ancestors apparently.
I'm not really that bloodthirsty though.
Judy
-
I haven't had my DNA tested and I'm proberbly not going to. Most of my family come from one particular county right back until the 1600's.
Regards panda
-
I just wonder, as to how much of your/our information is posted online via all forms of media, and now a request for our body parts.........ok, body parts is a bit extreme, but what else do you/we feel the need to expose to all and sundry.
How much 'privacy' are you/we willing to give up, with no 100% guarantees it will not get out further. If someone can give me something, that is 100% secure, please do. 100% is a hard target to keep. The only thing that is 100%, is that we will die some day, but there are others who will even debate that in a faith arena.
After all, Family History, as most of us know it, is a hobby and not a life style.
It freedom of choice to do so, but think long and hard before you do it. As when it's done, you cannot go back and change it.
Like some one said, 'You cannot un-invent the atomic bomb'. So you cannot retract your DNA.
I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I still question the Times motives. What's in it for them, and at little expense to them. If they were willing to pay for your DNA test, that would worry me more, because who would own the results. Try arguing that in court.
Never, never, never.......not in a thousand life times, would I ever give my DNA up voluntarily, whether for a free or paid for test.
Steve. :)
-
Re Reply 95 from davidft. Most interesting. Another possible break in the bloodline. The main one is about 2 or 3 generations from John of Gaunt (Was his legitamacy in question also?) Tried to check up who without success. The King was waging war in France for a year or more yet the Queen bore a son while he was away.
This meant present monarch should be a Howard. He lives in Australia and is a republican ::)
-
At present I feel that there is plenty to keep me occupied using more "traditional" sources. I have an open mind re DNA testing but do feel that I would need to understand a great deal more about the subject before pursuing it further.
-
Firstly on the grounds I can't afford the services of a DNA investigation, sufficient for me to know my ancestors came from a small village in Yorkshire. (Clue is in my forum handle)
Having traced my ancestor back @700yrs and knowing most died at an early age that is sufficient for me!
[No aunts/uncles living as we speak, cousins are now starting to go missing]
Currently being investigated by a heart investigation team.
Brian
-
DNA testing is not for me, I don't understand enough about the subject to warrant my even considering it, so would consider it a waste of money.
Unless, or until such time DNA testing can tell me the the names of my ancestors going back from the fourteen generations I already know of, I will prefer to donate any spare cash to medical research.
Jebber
-
Hi
Its something I have never considered. Yes I have a line that's pops up in London from almost nowhere in circa 1650 but a DNA wont pin point where and when I can trace them. My Fiztjohn's well its a Norman name, I have Huguenot blood, and a line we can trace to the first page of a village bible.
The fun of the chase is what drives us to find our past. We moan that we are stuck or banging our heads on that same old brick wall but at the end of the day to sit back and say look at this as we explain all the details, that's worth more to me than a test could buy.
Tazzie
-
Hi
I think My DNA Ethnicity would Prove Difficult there is so much illegitimacy on Both Sides of my Family ,, So all in all am a Mongrel and Happy the Way I am Built Up of Irish Welsh and English and I Think Norwegian
Good Luck to People Who take the Test and Would be Interesting to see Peoples Outcome
Regards
Iria
-
Re Reply 95 from davidft. Most interesting. Another possible break in the bloodline. The main one is about 2 or 3 generations from John of Gaunt (Was his legitamacy in question also?) Tried to check up who without success. The King was waging war in France for a year or more yet the Queen bore a son while he was away.
This meant present monarch should be a Howard. He lives in Australia and is a republican ::)
John of Gaunt's legitamacy was never in question as far as I know. However what was in question was his children with Katherine Swynford who he subsequently married and the children legitimised.
The King waging war in France etc story i think refers to the alleged illegitimacy of Edward IV which i see as a tool of the War of the Roses that various factions used to further their cause. I am not taken with the "research" of Professor Baldrick (Tony Robinson) who made much of this and the supposed real monarch being an Australian republican but it did make an interesting TV programme a few years ago
-
I'm really enjoying reading a lot of these replies.
A quick question.
If DNA samples were not taken in the past, how do the companies determine the ethnicity of a DNA sample?
-
I am not interested in having a DNA test. Like many others here, I prefer to work back through surviving records of my ancestors to establish a family history.
Lets face it, as you get further back, then there are more and more lines that go forward, if you see what I mean. For example if each great grandparent had, say, 5 siblings, then that is 5 lines going forward for each of the 8 then if each great great grandparent had 5 siblings then that is 16 x 5 lines potentially going forward.
So, there are an awful lot of people out there who share our DNA to some extent or other. So, if a test showed up that there was a match in, say, USA, or outer Mongolia, would I be surprised? No. To establish how they were related, I would go through exactly the same process as I go through anyway to trace my family history.
If a DNA test revealed I was part , say, Nordic and part Indian, for example, yes I may be intrigued, but it would be frustratingly meaningless without the traditional work to set out just who the ancestor was bringing that DNA into the mix. I'd rather stick to what all links together.
As an additional "tool" it may sometimes in some circumstances, have its uses. But not enough to tempt me. And certainly not all it seems to be hyped up to be.
These are my thoughts, as requested.
As Janan pointed out earlier, this isnt a thread for discussion, it has asked for each of us to give our opinion, not to comment on someone else's opinion. So I would appreciate that remains the case.
-
I am quite interested in having my DNA traced (is that the correct word?) -- However, as someone else has said, I really don't understand the subject. The technicalities are way over my head.
I don't know if there is a 'Noddy Guide' somewhere, in layman's terms, but that might help me have more of a grasp of the subject. I will be interested in seeing how this progresses though.
-
I'm not in the study area, but I wouldn't bother getting a test.
The paper trail runs out early in Ireland and no amount of DNA testing is going to change that.
Knowing what percentage I am of the various peoples who settled here might be nice to know but isn't worth the cost. The collection of surnames I've gathered will suffice for now and saves me the pile of study I'd need to understand all that DNA jargon.
-
I know that my parents were raised by their parents and so on back through seven or eight generations but whether any of them were the product of pre- or extra-marital relationships I have no idea (and don't really care). For me, family history is about the lives of people who lived together as families rather than their genetic relationships (but finding out about black sheep and skeletons in the closet is always interesting!). If you believe in the equivalence of nature and nurture DNA testing certainly doesn't tell us who we 'are'.
I'm with you there. I'd still be interested in what routes DNA took me down, though. But I'm having enough fun with paper records for now.
-
I've not yet felt the need to take a DNA test for genealogical purposes, although I did consider it for assessing my deeper origins as I also have an interest in ancient history. However my interest would be purely academic, and I have never really considered my 'ethnicity', in fact I'm not even sure I understand its significance. My documented family history suggests an entirely English ancestry as far back as I have managed to go so far, which only takes me back to the 1500s, but having studied a certain amount of European history and pre-history I am well aware of the huge amount of migration that has taken place over thousands of years. Given that the Vikings and the Normans were from Scandinavia and were renowned for 'putting themselves about a bit' ;) it would be unremarkable if I had some Scandinavian ancestry, along with many millions of others.
Similarly it is claimed that a high percentage of men now living could trace their Y-DNA back to Ghengis Khan, again unsurprising being mindful of the vast extent of the Mongol Empire. The Romans and others forcibly moved millions of people around their part of the world as either soldiers or slaves. Many of these mingled their genes with the local populations.
A small portion of our DNA is apparently Neanderthal; it would be quite a challenge tracing that family tree!
Having assumed I am basically European I suppose it would be interesting to discover some 'alien' DNA but unless there was documented evidence for the means of inheritance it would be meaningless.
Mike.
If DNA samples were not taken in the past, how do the companies determine the ethnicity of a DNA sample?
Dig 'em up? We've all seen Time Team ;D
-
hi.i have spoken to some folk who have had DNA testing and found they have Romany roots they then come on my family research site with unknown Romany surnames and ask me to find their families history.those who i have helped research have no connection to English Romanies as far as i can see researching back to the 1700s.only one in America could i help find a Romany connection with and even that was questionable.The DNA test didnt give them access to third or second cousins ect on the database thats held so in my opinion its not much help to be DNA tested.i do know of a man in America who has found it very useful and has found Romany links in America from English descendants who emigrated or were transported to America back in the late 1700s.however the man in question and his near ancestry do not live a Romany life in anyway.
i do have a cousin who is not Romany who has been put in touch with close family ties to other folkie and he found it very useful.i dont think my husband or i would do a DNA test as we have followed the paper trail back on our families and are happy with the linage we have found and know it to be true.i hope this helps a little.thank you.Cathay Birch.
-
Thank you Cathay. :)
-
Have any of you read "The Tribes of Britain", by David Miles. As it was published in 2005 some of the science may be a little out of date, but the findings are pretty similar to those from the sort of DNA projects that this forum is discussing .
-
DNA testing is not something I’ve given much thought to or know much about.
I have given plenty of consideration to being cremated or buried and whether to donate any or all my organs.
I know who I am and where I’ve come from. Maybe if I’d been adopted and had no idea who my parents were it might be something I would have considered but at the moment it’s not
but as the saying goes ‘never say never’……….
-
Hi
I'd be very interested in DNA ethnicity results if they worked, so I look forward to reading the results of the Times research. After years of trying to trace my father's paternal line I'm still no further forward. Other branches of my tree go back many centuries (and include many thousand individuals) but this one branch remains a mystery and stops at my great-grandfather - who left a marriage cert in 1885 and died in 1889 (so missing both censuses!). No father given on marriage cert, and even his own name and age vary between the two certificates that I do have. No records of his burial appears in Leicester records - the only clue is his German name, which I inherited. No records in the National Archives or the London Gazette, and no will left. Was he perhaps Jewish? No records indicate this although he could have changed his surname to Anglicise it. However, I don't see the point in paying for a DNA test unless it would provide more than a vague guess.
-
Many thanks to everybody who has replied so far - fascinating comments and some great pointers for my article. I will respond individually to those who have sent private messages.
To give those who haven't taken the tests an idea of what ethnicity results look like I'm posting my results from Ancestry and Family Tree DNA, with a summary of my known family history.
Paper-trail family history:
50% Anglo-Irish - mix of families of English, Scottish, Welsh and Irish origin
31.25% English
12.5% German - from Thuringia, Eastern Germany
6.25% Jewish - mix of Sephardi and Ashkenazi lines
AncestryDNA:
38% Great Britain
20% Ireland
18% Scandinavia
11% Iberian Peninsula
(trace regions)
5% Italy/Greece
4% European Jewish
2% Europe East
1% Finland/Northwest Russia
<1% Europe West
Family Tree DNA:
39% British Isles
25% Western and Central Europe
18% Southern Europe
13% Eastern Europe
5% Scandinavia
Timeframe:
Ancestry says: "AncestryDNA can reach back hundreds, maybe even a thousand years"
Family Tree DNA says: "myOrigins results are your personal genetic ancestry that reflects the last 100 to 2,000 years"
Cousin matching:
Both sites list lots of people who are probably my distant cousins. In a few cases, I've been able to spot the relationship, so the DNA confirms the paper-trail.
Answering a couple of points:
Re Trystan's question, the companies compare customers' DNA results to samples from modern reference populations, rather than samples of ancient DNA.
On Steve's point, we would pay for people who have already had the AncestryDNA test to transfer their results to Family Tree DNA for comparison. It's for people who are willing to share their ethnicity results with us on an anonymous basis as described in my first post. We wouldn't want to see, handle or claim ownership of their raw data.
-
DNA testing is not something I’ve given much thought to or know much about. I can see that it has its merits, for those who are not aware of their anti descendants and those who may have been adopted and/or do not know their family background. There may be advantages for this in medical areas such as paternity testing. From the limited number of articles I have read, it seems to be a little expensive. Are the results truly accurate ???
Sandra
-
thats very interesting Mark.it dosnt narrow it down that much though or say how far it goes back.i think i prefer the paper trails and the excitment of finding connections.with the paper trail and so many folk researching now i have found about 75 living relatives that i knew nothing about before but we share gt.gt grandperants(our families had very large families one infact having 26 children)to receive photos of new found relatives or actually meet in person and see how similar we look and behave tells me so much more than any DNA test ever could.
-
I have to agree with alanmack and others who've asked how might we trust the test results? As a patient whose very important medical test results have been mixed up with others, I have to point out that there is always the human element involved...error. This will be inclined to increase as numbers elevate. ( the amount of people having it done and the amount of people working on it)
I also imagine this new economy of ours will dictate a price increase to match increased demand (remember when it was the opposite?)
J.J.
-
Thanks, trystan, but no thanks :) I looked at it once a few years ago and came to the conclusion that the testing would not give me any information that is interesting to me
cheers,
falcybe
-
I'm afraid I eventually gave up on reading all the preceding posts. Like almost everyone on here except the most meticulously documented / royals / or even happy fantasists at the other extreme, I know that there are some "known unknowns" in my tree. Almost all on one side head clearly and neatly back to mid 1500s, not even many "hasty marriages" that may cast interesting doubts. Other side less certain, but how would DNA testing help me with this issue, for example: Two lumps of Irish ancestry, but where in Ireland not known, on that side. DNA testing may well say "Irish X%" - but it wouldn't tell me exactly where, or, even more important for family history chasing, which Irish surname came from which bit of Ireland, would it? Perhaps if I had ancestors teeth, testing those to see how the enamel had developed as the person grew up may help?
I'm under the impression that Male DNA is preferable - sorry, no male relatives left on line, so that'd not be a goer.
The cost is mentioned often - is the result worth the cost is something only the seeker can evaluate. I have heard often that different companies produce different results from the same person - and that leads one to wonder about either the accuracy of the analysis, or the probity of the firms involved.
The USA has by the very way it developed, highly diverse ethnic mixes, so that may well be why the main market is there. Many US citizens seem almost pathetically keen to discover Scottish ancestors, or, more recently, Irish seems to be fashionable, too. There's a good market there, perhaps DNA can select an appropriate tartan?
Perhaps it is the gentle process and progress of the piecing together of the history of one's own family, its movements, social developments and personalisation of the bald record that interests many of us more than seeking an exotic ancestry? Some in my wider family have been told that there is Nordic ancestry - and typical colouring, and build even up to a generation ago would bear this out, but we'd never know if it was Sigmund Sigmundson, or Magnus Boldtooth, or whoever, would we?
I'd not have even looked at this without Trystan's "prompt", but I'm not really at all interested in it as an area. Like many others, I'd rather spend my pennies (or bawbees, or kroner, or whatever) on documentation of the trail I'm following.
DNA research is a fine thing especially in medical areas, I'm not knocking that. But - does it really help in this hobby? - Not massively, in my opinion.
Sorry if this load's not been highly useful or relevant, but - done it now.
-
Many years ago in 2005, when it would seem I had more money than now, I purchased a kit and sent off a DNA sample as part of what then was the Genographic Project but whose data was later added to Family Tree DNA. At that time the only test for females was mtDNA and eventually the result came back that I belonged to haplogroup U5, at 36,000 years a more recent European branch of haplogroup U whose origin dates from 50,000 years ago and most likely arose in the Near East. Although I found this information fascinating it has not helped my genealogy research one bit.
Over the years there have been many advancements in DNA testing and I'm periodically approached to see if I would like to purchase further testing on my sample to gain what would likely be more useful information and I have been tempted to save up for autosomnal testing. As the samples are kept for 25 years (think I'm right) I have another 10 years to make my mind up about this but so far I have not been tempted.
However as my OH is adopted, with little idea who his father is/was, I really think our money would be more usefully spent on purchasing a sample kit for him.
Maggie
-
I'm not going to read a 14-page thread right now, so I will not be commenting on anyone else's opinion. ;)
I am an enthusiast for the use of DNA for genealogy purposes, and I am a reasonably knowledgeable amateur at present. This is entirely a result of the enormously helpful project administrators and members at Family Tree DNA.
I have had male family members from both my parents' families do Y-DNA tests - at present, to 67 markers with a couple of SNPs, in both cases. Coincidentally, the main blockage in my family history research is in one parent's surname line, so Y-DNA was, fortunately, the way to go. The other was just out of interest at the same time.
In the latter case, I have had no meaningful matches at all. This confirms (well, supports) my suspicion that my grx2 grandfather born c1820, who appears to have been the only son of an only son of an only son (that last one born c1735), was in fact the last male in his line in the village in question. He went forth and multiplied mightily, 10 kids with two wives. Through my notes in a census record at Ancestry, I met another male-line descendant of that grx2 grandfather. When I uploaded my relation's Y-DNA markers from FTDNA to Ancestry (when Ancestry still offered that test), I got a 100% match. Lo and behold, it was that cousin, who had tested there. So we have proof of "legitimate" descent from 1820 on, anyway -- always good for a family history researcher to know! ;)
In the other case, a surprising and fun outcome.
My gr-grandfather had a sister, an actress. We had never heard of her. We had never heard of any of his family. After he came to Canada with wife and kids c1910, he never spoke of them. About a decade ago, I embarked on this family history lark, and my first discovery was that he did not exist, before his second marriage at age 30. His one tale had always been that his uncommon surname came from the black sheep younger brother of a peer, on the wrong side of the blanket. It became apparent that the name had been assumed in adulthood. Through the wonders of search engines and my dogged dexterity with them, a set of unimpeachable coincidences in time and space emerged (a person who matched his details precisely who disappeared from the records c1875 when his wife died, with the gr-grfather finally found springing from nowhere in the 1881 census ... living with the mother and daughter of the man who had disapppeared a few years before). Thus I discovered who he "really" was, i.e. his official surname. His sister, the actress, had been given the fake surname as a middle name at birth. He and she, but not their older siblings, adopted it as their surname.
So the Y-DNA testing was intended to find whether there was any truth to his tale about his name, or he really was a "Smith" (his official surname was nearly as common as Smith). There are too few people with the uncommon fake surname, and I have not got up the gumption yet to approach the current peer for his spit, although I've been introduced to him via email. I don't think there's a connection ... although the unmarried younger brother of the peer in question did die at Alma a few weeks before the birth of the actress sister, and the official parents appear to have been estranged around that time ...
I expected I might find a match in the "Smith" surname project, and that the match would likely be descended from a person who emigrated from Cornwall to the US in the mid-1800s in connection with mining -- since most testers at FTDNA are in the US. This would confirm the surname I should be researching, and provide the US member with an answer to the question of their origin.
Not a sausage. Not a single remote match among the hundreds in that project. This seemed highly unlikely, if the real surname in my family was "Smith". But FTDNA did give me one excellent match, one that is very probably within the reach of parish records. With an entirely different surname. But -- it belonged to an elderly man whose grandfather had emigrated from Cornwall to the US in the mid-1800s in connection with mining. From a family long resident about 10 miles from where my gr-grfather was born.
So the possibilities are: that family's surname got switched somewhere, my family's surname got switched somewhere, or our connection predates the adoption of standardized surnames. The switch could have been intentional, as in my gr-grfather's case later on, or could result from a "non-paternal event" where a child took its mother's surname or was given the surname of a husband who was not its father.
and I have to break here for length, with apologies to anyone whose eyes have glazed over ...
-
My problem is that I can trace only to a marriage c1820 where the groom's name was more or less "John Smith". I can't possibly trace "John Smith" by any traditional method. He married in Cornwall stating a home parish in Devon where there is no trace of him. He died before 1835 when his wife remarried so is in no census, to get personal details. I can't be sure that he was the father of his two baptised children. (The other son did not reproduce, and my line, only my gr-grfather and his actress sister had surviving children and modern descendants -- I found hers in the US via South Africa, and before that Canada, where I have only just discovered her grave, to my utter amazement after all these years ... after earlier discovering that her husband, too, had assumed a fake surname ...). And I can't be sure that "John Smith's" son is the father of my gr-grfather with the fake surname.
And the extra fun part is that the surname of the Y-DNA match is the surname of the woman who married "John Smith" c1820 -- which of course doesn't count for Y-DNA. (Both their children had the YDNA-match surname as a middle name. I had assumed it came from her. But who knows? Maybe it was the surname of their real father!) As far as I can tell, she is the only never-baptised daughter of a man in Cornwall, apparently not related to the Y-DNA match line, who had two pre-marriage children (bastardy bonds) and numerous kids by each of two wives, one of whom had a pre-marriage child (no father named) around the time his wife drowned ...
So I am doing autosomal testing of myself and of the male rellie on that side, to see whether anything else useful can be added to the mix. And trying to find male descendants of my female ancestor's father, the one with the same surname as the Y-DNA match, to try to triangulate something.
It's fun! That is my main point. ;) I have learned something entirely new, through a lot of intellectual effort, a lot of practice and a lot of help. My knowledge of genetics, up to three years ago, amounted to my little sister's science teacher telling her that the answer to us four brown-eyed children having blue-eyed parents was "the milkman". I have acquired a love of history and a curiosity about science (at least this limited aspect of it), in which I had little interest in school many years ago (and, as a girl, was not encouraged to have), through all this genealogy stuff.
But to get to the point -- Ancestry's ethnicity testing.
Utter bunk. Abject nonsense. A way to separate innocent people from their money.
I also have absolutely no confidence in Ancestry's privacy protection. I do not give Ancestry my real name or personal details under any circumstances. I certainly recommend that anyone doing DNA testing at Ancestry use a pseudonym, and strip their account of any identifying details. (Hard to do if you keep a tree there, of course. I would use an entirely separate account for DNA purposes.) That is what I do at FTDNA, in fact.
For the same price or a little more, a person can get some real DNA testing done that might actually be useful for genealogical purposes or just for interest, and be provided with genuine matches among other users, and get help in understanding it all in various projects (surname, haplogroup, geographical).
The side on which I have no matches is in a subclade of I-M223 in the Y haplogroup tree, by SNP testing so far. The people working on that haplogroup are fanatically devoted to building that tree through the discoveries in individuals' DNA, and this will be useful in tracing its geographical origins. Of course, that provides info only about a person's direct male line, and not the families of all the women who married into it. There's something just unfair about how men pass on both their surnames and the only really useful DNA, and that only to their sons!
But that is real science, not the nonsense Ancestry is peddling. Their product is analogous to websites that tell you the origin of your surname and sell you coats of arms, in my opinion.
Autosomal DNA results can be very difficult to make anything of and I am not looking forward to that learning curve, but I'm going to give it a go. I might try 23andMe for more detailed analysis. But Ancestry? Never. Not on your nelly.
-
The rumour in our one-name studies was that we came from a Germanic source or more probably from Scandinavia as the name is quite common in those countries.
I had my DNA done by Oxford Ancestors and with the results and evidence of where my earliest known ancestors came from in England it confirmed that we were of Danish Viking origin and of the Wodan tribe with a geographical distribution of West Eurasia.
I was happy with the results as they gave a good indication, together with the evidence I had acrued, of when my ancestors first came to this country to settle.
Incidentally that was a few years ago and I have had no follow up from anyone selling coats of arms or anything............
-
My father and maternal aunt have taken the autosomal test (FTDNA).
My father's turned out as all Western Euro., with a few strands coming out in Finland. I was lucky enough to find one relative via this test. We are related via a family who lived in Montgomeryshire in the mid-late-1700s. The majority of his ancestry is in Montgomeryshire and the Shropshire border. I have many lines back to the 1700s, 1600s and earlier.
My aunt's turned out as:
62% British Isles
3% Eastern Euro
13% South Asian
3% Centeral Asian
6% Asia Minor
5% Eastern Middle East
8% Ashkenazi Jewish
My aunt's grandmother was born in what is now the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Both her parents were Armenian, with Armenian surnames. I have some considerable details of her father's ancestry, which is half Armenian, with lines back to c. 1620; and half British. I have no idea what may lie in the ancestry of her mother, which I have not been able to trace.
The British % is very close to what I think it actually is, but the rest I am not so sure about. The others are not so sure about. The test gives 13% South Asian (Indian), which would mean my grandmother would be 26% Indian, but she was Siberian-white. That would also mean her mother was 52% Indian. She did have some pigmentation, but it was the sort that you might fin among light-skin Spaniards. There is also much less Armenian than I would expect to find. The occurrence of Jewish is interesting. I thought this may be an error, but one of my close matches is an Lithuanian Jew. I believe there to be some inaccuracy with the results, but they are interesting and I imagine there will be some changes when the science is more developed.
I tested this maternal line with a 3rd cousin and we came out as a match.
-
Wow Janey. That's some comment! Must admit didn't read it all-sorry.
Still watching with interest. Still think it's not for me. Won't help my research. I will do it "my way"'
Jane
-
I was an early 'joiner' of one of the Scottish Surname DNA projects about ten years ago hoping to overcome my brickwall. To date, there haven't been any matches for my family which I guess is telling in itself :) but hundreds of wonderful results for others in the project. It is very exciting to see the picture being built and amazing the connections that have been made that would not otherwise have been.
-
I do go on. ;)
The thing is, many people have very vague ideas of what DNA testing can and can't do. My experience shows a case when it is useful to consider doing it, and what might come out of it.
I should have mentioned that I was hugely, enormously, almost unbelievably lucky to get the match I did with the Cornwall line.
A woman in the US had her dad's Y-DNA tested, largely because of family rumours that he was not his father's son, and was in fact the son of his sick father's doctor. The match with my line - from the same little bit of Cornwall - almost certainly disproved the rumour for her. (The doctor in Arizona was highly unlikely to have come from the same place - and in fact a test of her father's nephew then proved their relationship anyway.) But she is also a family history buff from before the internet even, so the match confirmed her real paternal line for her and validated her existing research, and gave her something more to chew on in that regard.
The DNA results do not tell us who our common ancestor was, or where or when he lived. They tell us we almost certainly have one, and then it is back to the paper records to try to find it. If we can get more people with the surname from the same vicinity to test, I may be able to narrow my searches. (Others in the US with the surname are involved, but they appear to stem from a Devon line that, if related at all, join up only a very long time ago.)
Knowing what you are looking for, before testing, and knowing what any particular test can and can't tell you, and then what to do with the results, is important. A lot of suspicion about the testing does stem from a lack of understanding.
And Ancestry's "ethnicity" thing actually contributes to that lack of understanding, by offering information (if it is indeed information) that does nothing whatsoever to further the research of actual genealogists.
PS - I would adopt everything Davidft said at reply # 91.
-
Yes I am interested on using DNA results.
I have not done this but would like to.
I am adopted and have found my birth mother and sister, but unable to trace my father as I was the result of an affair and my father was already married.
I have been unsuccessful in my search for my father so would undertake DNA ethnicity results.
Kindest regards
Heddwch
-
All of my ancestors so far discovered, have been from within fifty miles of where I live today and, as a real local, with a paper trail as well as a DNA test, I feel that my DNA could be extremely useful for those looking to find where their ancestors came from in England.
Glynn, that is the nail on the head, for all the people in the US and other former colonies who cannot get behind their immigrant ancestor - some in the 1500s, some as recently as the 1800s. In my own case (see above) I had hoped that my rellie's Y-DNA might help some in the giant surname project for that name at FTDNA find that their roots were in Cornwall (the great emigrators!). Unfortunately, it turns out that the name is not likely my family's after all. ;)
You might look to see whether there is a project for your surname at Family Tree DNA. In some cases, if it seems that there could be a connection with people in that project, project members will even pay for Y-DNA testing to see whether you might be the missing link!
Otherwise, you could be altruistic and get a basic 37-marker test done - and of course, it might mean you finding far-flung cousins too.
-
DNA falls at the very first hurdle due to the tiny sample of the world’s population that has been taken.
Until a vastly greater number of samples none of the claims made can be substantiated.
Think about it the largest DNA database in the world the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) contained in 2001 just over 9 million records which is about a million more records that the population of New York.
This means that if we exclude New York and another city in the USA it is the equivalent of the rest of the population of the USA having no DNA test done.
The implication of such a tiny dataset is that any assumptions made are at the best theory rather than fact.
If we now concentrate on “ethnicity results” we are again in the realms of assumptions being made rather than facts.
For example what do we class as English are they the Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes or are English the Celts pushed west by the later invaders?
What about the Vikings, how do Vikings differ from the other Germanic Europeans who have arrived in England?
Or Scandinavia how can Scandinavia be an ethnic grouping when like England it is mainly Germanic or do we determine the Scandinavian ethnicity as pre Germanic and that the Germanic tribes are in reality of Scandinavian ethnicity due to the push south as the climate grew colder in around 113 BC.
The ethnic groupings do not stand up to scrutiny without some key to determine what exactly is meant by the groupings.
Europe has a history of travel and intermingling of people from all parts of the continent which means that the ethnic grouping of one part of Europe very much depends on what period of time one is referring to rather than a vision that the 21st century ethnic status of a region is the same as what the ethnic status of that same region one thousand or two thousand years previously.
Cheers
Guy
Correction re Codis the year should be 2011 not 2001
-
DNA falls at the very first hurdle due to the tiny sample of the world’s population that has been taken.
Until a vastly greater number of samples none of the claims made can be substantiated.
Think about it the largest DNA database in the world the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) contained in 2001 just over 9 million records which is about a million more records that the population of New York.
This means that if we exclude New York and another city in the USA it is the equivalent of the rest of the population of the USA having no DNA test done.
The implication of such a tiny dataset is that any assumptions made are at the best theory rather than fact.
If we now concentrate on “ethnicity results” we are again in the realms of assumptions being made rather than facts.
For example what do we class as English are they the Germanic Angles, Saxons and Jutes or are English the Celts pushed west by the later invaders?
What about the Vikings, how do Vikings differ from the other Germanic Europeans who have arrived in England?
Or Scandinavia how can Scandinavia be an ethnic grouping when like England it is mainly Germanic or do we determine the Scandinavian ethnicity as pre Germanic and that the Germanic tribes are in reality of Scandinavian ethnicity due to the push south as the climate grew colder in around 113 BC.
The ethnic groupings do not stand up to scrutiny without some key to determine what exactly is meant by the groupings.
Europe has a history of travel and intermingling of people from all parts of the continent which means that the ethnic grouping of one part of Europe very much depends on what period of time one is referring to rather than a vision that the 21st century ethnic status of a region is the same as what the ethnic status of that same region one thousand or two thousand years previously.
Cheers
Guy
I completely get what your saying Guy but at the same time I can't help thinking that the best way to increase the data set is for more of us to have our DNA tested.
-
Doing 'DNA' is not my 'thing'; I prefer to just plod along in the usual way, making friends along the way, and , of course, discovering Ancestors.
-
Personally I don't understand that much about it all however:
1) I dont have that sort of money to be wasting.
2) I know who I am! My mom is my mom and my dad is the man who has raised me not the man who I share Dna with.
3) My ggg grandad has no father mentioned on his bc. I am pretty sure his mom's later husband is his dad however I can never prove this. I've still followed his ancestors as though they are mine. To me family history is just that - "family" and family is who loves you and shares their lives with you (in my opinion anyway).
4) I've pretty much traced most my lines back to 1800 and the furthest afield I've got is Ireland and Wales...I very much doubt there's any thing more exotic than that in my bloodline.
5) I have dark hair and eyes. My daughter has blonde hair and blue eyes. It doesn't take a fancy test to deduce that she got them genes from her dad and not me! (Maybe it's all about more complex than that but this is the way I see it lol).
Lisa
-
I have often thought of it, but don't know if it would be much use for me. My maternal and paternal line is all Scottish. My paternal Grandfather being born here, a few years of arriving in NZ. My father's mother from Ireland.
Mum always reckoned there was Scanadian on our side, and my late FIL, who knew my father as a young one, told us that he thought there was Spanish somewhere as my father was dark looking.
I am happy with who I am for the time being.... but then there is the niggly thought "What if" etc.
Cheers
KHP
-
Regarding my own family history I have no interest in DNA testing. I know very well that I have German blood, I've not yet followed up the Irish line, and the possible Scandinavian ancestors may well be too early. Such research would deal in facts, and without having studied DNA testing my impression is that it deals in possibilities.
With respect to my sugar refiners research, I would always advise researchers to go down the conventional routes, for the details gleaned from archives will usually point to a country of origin and I don't think basic DNA testing will tell them which village they came from ... oh that it would :)
-
Doing 'DNA' is not my 'thing'; I prefer to just plod along in the usual way, making friends along the way, and , of course, discovering Ancestors.
Couldn't have put it better myself.
;D
-
Regarding my own family history I have no interest in DNA testing. I know very well that I have German blood, I've not yet followed up the Irish line, and the possible Scandinavian ancestors may well be too early. Such research would deal in facts, and without having studied DNA testing my impression is that it deals in possibilities.
With respect to my sugar refiners research, I would always advise researchers to go down the conventional routes, for the details gleaned from archives will usually point to a country of origin and I don't think basic DNA testing will tell them which village they came from ... oh that it would :)
I couldn't have put it better myself...more chance of finding a match with distant cousins here on RootsChat.
Carol
-
Hello
Just putting in my contribution - I've done Ancestry's autosomal DNA test and then transferred the results to Family Tree DNA too. For me, the main thing was about identifying distant cousins to try and help verify / narrow down areas of traditional documentary research. The ethnicity results are a side-product as a curiosity as far as I'm concerned - I don't think in themselves they're reliable enough to form the basis for further research.
For what it's worth, my ethnicity results (from the same raw data) were:
Ancestry:
29% Ireland
28% Scandinavia
24% Great Britain
9% Italy / Greece
5% Europe West
4% Iberian Peninsula
<1% European Jewish
Family Tree DNA:
55% British Isles
20% Scandinavia
11% Eastern Europe
11% Southern Europe
2% Western and Central Europe
In my documented family tree I have places of birth for all 32 of my 3 x great grandparents, being:
20 English
11 Irish
1 Scottish
Hope that's of some use.
Thanks
Richard.
-
Having studied the subject pretty extensively now, the only interest I would have in DNA testing relates to my wife's unknown maternal grandfather, and would depend on one of his descendants (my wife, children or grandchildren) being willing to provide a sample and one of his or one of his siblings (if he had any) descendants providing a sample. I have failed to enthuse wife, children or grandchildren to volunteer a sample and don't feel sufficiently desperate to steal one!
Apart from this missing chap (and his ancestors of course) I have all my ancestors back to 1815, most of them back to 1700 and several further back, based on best available records (i.e. ignoring the 10% misreporting of father's name - even where known). It is the search (and lately document trail!) which has kept me enthralled for the last 60 years.
As everyone in UK is descended from everyone who was here in 1400 and everyone in Europe is descended from everyone who was in Europe or Asia in 900, the actual DNA trail is not as interesting here as it is in the USA.
-
if anyone knows Don Lock he used to be a member here dont know if he still is.he is Romany and has a heck of a lot of KNowledge and experience of DNA testing and has published alot of his results.it would be worth contacting him.he is USA based by the way
-
I know my husband would love to do a DNA test to see if he has any Aboriginal ancestors in his bloodline.
Me.........one of my maternal cousins has had a DNA Test which confirmed the majority of our Family History Research.
Cheers
Susie
-
Never, never, never.......not in a thousand life times, would I ever give my DNA up voluntarily, whether for a free or paid for test.
My sentiments exactly, or more accurately, never, never, never.......not in a thousand life times, would I ever give my DNA up voluntarily for what is ultimately a hobby.
If it could help cure some awful disease & I was one of a limited number who could help, well then yes, but otherwise absolutely no way.
-
Being the last male of my paternal family line left alive I will be taking a Ydna test just for that reason.
My wife though should take a dna test because her father is unknown to her, it may help to prove or disprove some of the stories told to her by her aunt.
-
My DNA was taken professionally as part of a medical university study as I carry a rare disease, but the professor still wants as many birth death and marriage records as possible as part of the study. DNA is not being used in isolation.
I stopped reading here as it touched on a point I wanted to make. If it has already been raised I apologise.
This is close to what my feelings about DNA are. I don't see it as the be-all and end-all of Family Research but another tool to be used - in conjunction- with the paper records
If I had the opportunity to buy a certificate that cleared up a brickwall I would do so. If the cost was prohibitive I would know I have the opportunity to do so in the future. By buying the certificate I would still put it in its place with ALL the other certificates etc I have and determine the whole picture.
And Davidft gave an excellent summary of my fears and doubts about the charlatans that ''ethnic DNA'' has given rise to.
-
I would not have a DNA test done unless it were for medical reason's.
Carol.
-
Your project sounds very interesting and I am looking forward to reading more and seeing the results. However as I have not taken any DNA tests I am afraid I am unable to help you. I do wish you success with it though.
Matthew
-
To be honest, I haven't investigated this option and have very little clue on how it all works. I have heard of others DNA testing and most appear happy with their results, it's not something i feel strongly enough about yet. And I guess I'm a little skeptical too....
lil
-
I just recently received my results from Ancestry DNA. As I am Canadian, I was pleased with my ethnicity results. It confirmed that I was always right in saying I had more Irish in me then anything.
I am a little disappointed by not getting any good matches to other DNA results with people on ancestry, but have been thinking about the idea of uploading my raw DNA to GEDmatch or Family tree DNA. I would like to find more connections.
Karen
-
All I know is I have ancestors from the UK, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Australia and New Zealand. I am not sure if there are other countries and am not able to afford a DNA test of any kind.
-
My mother, father and myself have all participated in Ancestry DNA. I have had cousin matches to people in the USA (links to Somerset & Northumberland, England) and Australia (links to VDL and Surrey, England) that make sense to me. I follow my ancestors through and their siblings etc as much as can with evidence-based records or transcriptions.
We all inherit differing amounts of DNA from our ancestors, so that you may not get the same results as your parent.
Apparently my German father has strong links to several people in Louisiana, part of the Acadian diaspora of French people who emigrated to Nova Scotia and were exiled by the British in 1755, many who resettled in Louisiana.
-
It's not something I've really given much thought too but I'm sure it has its place like everything else. I'm sure it wasn't that long ago when people said "I won't use the Internet to do any of my research".
-
Mark, what are you planning to do with all the information after your article ? Will the article be the start and lead onto other things , what are your intentions ?
-
I have tested with FTDNA really because I wanted to see if there wa any link between the groups with my surname in Devon and those in Norfolk over a 4-500 year timescale. I am not interested in the so-called ethnicity results because basically I think that they are a load of nonsense.
-
Trystran a very interesting thread. You have heard our opinions. I would like to a ask what are your and Sarah`s views on this subject?
Jane ;)
-
Is this about genetic DNA testing or Forensic DNA Testing? I wonder if people mix the 2
Hi David,
Can you explain the difference please as the comparison didn't cross my mind until I read your post?
Annie
-
In theory it sounds like a great idea, but, with such relatively small and US-centric databases to compare with, I don't really see any benefit in testing, other than to help extend the database and, being somewhat cynical when it comes to privacy and security (and not in relation to the US), its not something I would give priority too. I also don't think it would tell me a great deal, if anything, about the brickwalls I have in my research. And from personal experience with some distant relatives, I'm not that bothered about making contact with any others. :-X It's also unlikely to tell me more than I already know about where some of my ancestors originated outside of the UK because of the limitations of the samples to compare with. I already know I have French and Germanic ancestors from the paper trail, I just would like to know where my Germanic ancestor came from and testing isn't going to be able to tell me that.
Similarly, after a distant relative's experiences with the Family Finder test a few years back, I'm even more sceptical how accurate the tests may actually be. Even if the results she received in relation to a known "relative" were accurate, it caused a consdierably amount of consternation between the two of them because in spite of the paper trail saying they were fourth cousins twice removed, the testing company were adamant that they couldn't be related as some evidence would show in the results. That said, I've seen posted on RC since that these tests relating to finding relatives aren't much use after 4th or 5th cousins, which probably explains the results. However, they were never told by the company at the time about this. :-\ They offered to re-test my relative's sample, but she had to pay again for this and chose not to waste any more money on it.
-
As a new chum to Australia, my family, from the records, is from either the north east of England, of East Anglia.
Years ago, the matter was discussed at home, and the family legend is that paternally we are English, and maternally Roman! There is no way the later could be proven, even by DNA testing, as from the results so far shown, there would be Italianate ancestry anyway.
OH's results are very similar, with Irish convicts on one side, as proven by records, and Scottish on another,again, proven. There are rumours that there is some Spanish on her maternal side, but back in the 1500's, so how would DNA prove that, if there are no records to follow up?
Just had a thought about a woman I worked with years ago. A Philipina, with about 10-12 siblings, all of whom had different physical features, due to the mixture of races in the Philippines ::) ::)
-
Good evening,
I have read the first half of the posts with great interest. I know very little about DNA testing of any variety so have learned a little more already.
Like several others I would find the cost a little hard. But like going shopping, big shops are cheaper than small because there are more customers. So if we all started doing it would the cost come down because of the numbers.
We would nearly all, deep down, like to know our exact origins. If we were all Christians believing explicitly in the teachings of the bible then there is no doubt. We all come from the middle east starting with Adam and working forwards through the 12 tribes of Israel and from there spreading across the world. This is where we would now start to get doubters, my reading tells me that the 12 tribes split up and some became the muslim faith, some Christian etc etc. But OH would strongly disagree with that theory being a devout born again Christian.
For those who say, I know my line goes back X no of generations all in England, or Scotland, Ireland and so on so have no need for it. The ethnicity shown in DNA most likely predates any paper trails so cannot be disregarded so lightly.
It cannot prove a definite line of descendancy unless you dig up all known remains and test them as well. Therefore starting off your required database which you would all then join as you were tested.
So for the time being I see no point in being tested mainly because I have much much more to do on the known paper trails first.
John915
-
I haven't had any DNA testing done but sometimes wonder about Autosomal testing as a way of trying to identify my English great grandmother.
In spite of having virtually every record that exists about this woman from 1851 to her death in 1919, no one in the family has ever been able to locate her exact birth place and birth date.
After many years of searching I think I've narrowed her down to two possible families. If Autosomal testing would help in that regard I would be willing to do it. What always stops me though, is that there is only a minuscule chance that someone related to me will also have had the test done.
This thread has been a very interesting read.
sami
-
Just a few petty thoughts: I begrudge spending the fees at the moment as the results appear to be heavily biased to North American subscribers; I am not convinced that there is a consensus among researchers. I am attracted to the idea of being tested when the relevant database is much larger, particularly concerning Western Europe.
Looking forward to reading the article, though. ;D
-
I am sceptical/cynical.
There are too many quotes which I agree with to list.
My brother recently had his DNA tested (yes I'm now curious to any finds) on 23andme but from what I gather he can only be connected if others have had theirs done.........that's not much use in my book.
I have no interest in having my own DNA tested (too many different kinds which I don't fully understand) for the simple reason I don't believe the test can determine where I originate from without digging up the deceased to prove/disprove the paper trails I already have.
If we are to believe we descend from Adam & Eve then so be it but I would want to see paperwork with names/dates/places in an orderly fashion as I do at the moment........not a graph or whatever way connections are shown by the test.
I could do someone's tree on my FTM by following the correct procedure & give them a report with all the info. names, dates, certs. etc & a lovely chart with the names/dates & lines showing family connections which they can examine & read the report to follow & understand everything but I'm not sure they would be too impressed if I gave them the chart without the names/dates but only placenames with no paperwork which to me is what a DNA test would provide, so adds up to nothing except place names ???
Annie
-
Trystan
No great expectation on the ethnic side. I have stated on other boards my concerns about profiling by name. I also feel , if anthropology is correct, that our path is From Africa, Middle east, Europe. So our DNA will reflect that.
I would utilize DNA ( a $$$ issue for now) as a means to break down brickwalls or to find common relations - within a 300 year period. If I could have that happen I would be happy with the money spent. Am I aiming too high? Possibly , if I can find I have a broken connection then so be it.
I have no fears or qualms as to what may be exposed. If I am not related to my grandfather , as rumour has it, then I move on to another family.
The essence of me wont change , I am who I am because of what I do. My name has shaped me to some extent, but it doesn't define me.
Yes, I am in New South Wales, Australia, born and raised here. So too both my parents (and their siblings), all four of my grandparents (and their siblings,) all eight of my great grandparents (and their siblings), most of my great great's, many of my great great greats .... etc.
I will make time to go through, check with some of my rellies and respond with more detail during today.
Cheers, JM
-
Folks,
Like many people,my ancestry is English back to around 1700 on most lines so Ancestry's offer of DNA testing was politely rejected.
My wife's family are English,Irish and one Spaniard,and she recently ordered a DNA kit.Rosario Maria Aboitiz c 1797 is not to be found on any record and only appears as an almost mythological character on public trees,her only contribution is that she passed on Mediterranean Annemia to some of her descendants.My wife is anxiously awaiting the results as her father and uncles all had dark complexions,and she hopes this will give her a definite result.
Eric
-
I did the Ancestry DNA test last year. I have traced most of my lines back in the UK. My Ethnicity came back as 67% Great Britain and 22% West Europe with trace regions in East Europe, the Iberian Peninsula, Scandinavia and Ireland. Though with my research I have not yet found any ancestors from outside of the UK and Ireland. I have found it very frustrating in that a lot of my 'matches', including a supposed 2nd cousin, people have obviously done the DNA and never bothered to log back into Ancestry so that it has been of little use to me in that respect.
-
Unfortunately, as I haven't submitted a sample for testing I cannot pass on any information to assist you.
The early test results being offered didn't impress me but when scientific advances came about they came a bit too late for me to take advantage. I'm not interested in where my prehistoric ancestors came from (judging from my rear end, I'm either a descendant of a fair hair, blue eyed duck or an African). However, as records for my Scottish clan inheritance are as scarce as hen's teeth I would have dearly liked my one known distant male cousin to have still been alive to take the latest test. Unfortunately we had a cyber relationship and I don't know if he had any male descendants.
The cousin and I were both born in the UK and my family were certainly very casual with their predecessors belongings, but knowing that descendants of ancestors who migrated often have old letters from "home" and/or have handed down family stories I'm sure I could have benefited in some way.
The reason I'm impressed with the newer dna testing is due to a programme I viewed concerning the testing of the population of that small country Finland. Apparently chosen because it was small but also, apparently, the population had seen no major immigration or emigration.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2986642/
I wish I had heard about the scientific testing of some of the Scottish population who could prove lineage as I would have urged my brothers to submit samples.
Best wishes for your project.
-
Having read through many of the comments on this thread, I am really surprised at the number of people who are against DNA testing - or, at least, not in favour. I really thought that this would be something that most genealogists would be keen on. I understand the price factor. This is what put me off for longer than I would have liked. But knowing about one's ancestral DNA - and potentially linking up with related researchers - seems so exciting to me. :)
-
I have no plans to take a DNA test.
I found my family history both paternal and maternal are Scottish. Family lines born in England
all traced back to Scotland too. This goes back to 1594 for one line.Most go back to the 1700's.
I do see how DNA would help some people .
Norma
-
Good morning,
DNA, Personal choice isn't it,
the marvels of modern science, I think the use of DNA in tracking your ethnicity is extremely interesting, my fathers family I have had no problems researching,and I would like to take the Colenso line back further than Cornwall, I do hope one day, to be able to discover ,my maternal Grandfather's blood line, I only have a scrap of paper with a name on it, and there are many men of the same name in a small area, deceased I must point out,
Fantastic thread, mixed responses, and some excellent points, put across, at the end of the day I am in favor , and would in the future, use DNA, but not yet I have lots more to discover here in this country
-
Not for me I'm afraid, I like my genealogy more as an art than a science, if you get my drift.
As someone previously posted, I too like to "plod along" and enjoy the journey - finding out where that journey originally started isn't the Holy Grail for me.
The enjoyment I get is like reading a really interesting story with the added challenge of having to find the words in the first place.
-
I also have no plans to take a DNA test.
I don't see the point in proving anything with DNA, unless you are adopted and need to find close relatives because you can not even get back 3 generations from yourself.
-
I had my DNA taken 8 years ago - paid for by a relative in Sante Fe ,USA ....He had no siblings and his parents were dead - he wasn't married and had no children - his g grandfather left Garston,Liverpool ,England in 1926 for New York -
He believed he had no family and only contacted me because he found his g grandfather in the 1901 census in Garston ...............for him it was an incredible result because he found out he had over 100 Oakes family members still alive and was delighted he had "family" ...My wife and I went to Santa Fe to visit him 6 years ago and we are in constant contact - so GREAT RESULT for him
for me - in 8 years I have had over 2000 "matches" on FamilytreeDNA....NONE anywhere near a family match - my 67DNA has produced 1 match at 67 with a difference of 3 .....a complete waste of money in my eyes ......but that is just my opinion
-
21 pages so far and to much for me to wade through and it might influence my current feelings.
I am in favour of DNA testing, mainly because I want to prove or otherwise the origins of the family name which is supposed to be a corruption taken from the migrants of Brettony in France.
As my children are 1st generation New Zealanders, except for my daughter who was born in Scotland all my previous generations obviously came from England. Whilst it may help me to find some relations I would not necessarily use that as an avenue to pursue any relations.
My current locked door (I do not believe in brick walls) is around 1800 so I do not think DNA would help me find the key.
Alan Britton
NZ
-
Up until recently, I wasn't at all interested in DNA for genealogical purposes; I didn't know much about it nor feel compelled to find out. I guess I probably had misconceptions is a vague sort of way, about what it was and how it could possibly help.
But then a series of programmes was made and aired here in NZ late last year, about searching for Genealogy ties and histories via DNA - they had 2 'celebrities' per week who, having done the test and been entered the (a) worldwide database - received their matches (in my mind matches of around 900 seemed to be an average) then travelled the globe to look out some of the matches - that is: places and people. Some of the episodes were quite fascinating and often quite revealing. Taken as fact until proven otherwise :-) (That's a bit of a genealogical paradox!)
And it made me think, gosh - I would actually love to know where my DNA comes from - for one thing, if it could provide any clues as to my LATTO origins (beyond Scotland, that is).
Then I looked into the costs, and of course I wouldn't get to go on an all expenses-paid televised jaunt around the continents meeting up with umtweenth removed cousins...but still!
Cheers
AMBLY
-
Is this about genetic DNA testing or Forensic DNA Testing? I wonder if people mix the 2
Hi David,
Can you explain the difference please as the comparison didn't cross my mind until I read your post?
Annie
First thing , the differences are how I see them. Its not on any official list. :)
I see Genetic DNA being the discussion we have here. The Y Chromosome and the X-Chromosome and all the other bits that go with it. How these relate to being matched with parents and other family members. The pros and cons of using it for genealogy. Its the Haplogroup discussions etc.
I see Forensic DNA as being the criminal side. The CSI take a sample and analyse it in 33 minutes so the police can match it to someone who '' just happens'' to be on the database. :D
In reality it can take months to sort out. There are also different methods between countries. ie Police in England use it to 'exclude ' people yet in Australia the focus is on finding DNA which matches the suspect in custody. The difference is minute but the Australian system ( in my opinion) can focus an investigation into a narrow channel.
The reason I asked the question is I feel that we have , mostly, grown up with DNA presented in court as being infallible , when the reality is there are still questions about it. I would hope people aren't confusing the 2. :)
I accept people view DNA for genealogical purposes as a gimmick and I accept there are charlatans who are in the marketplace taking money without due care.
I still have many questions myself but maybe like my American cousins , I in Australia, want to have that connection to England. Or Wales and Scotland and Ireland. Wherever it may be , or it could be all of them.
Maybe the cynic in me doesn't trust the tales told by parents or grandparents. But that leaves me between a rock and a hard place , because the cynic also tells me to be careful of DNA companies. :D
-
Ambly, I saw that series too. Kinda had the opposite effect on me, - celebrities! Although it was interesting, it didn't help me understand the DNA thing and it just didn't impress me!
I felt then as I do when I watch WDYTYA! Same thing every week - different people!
-
I have no interest in taking a DNA Test. What good does it do to get a report informing me I'm 80% Anglo Saxon 10% Viking and 10% Celt. That was the type of report a friend received after spending $500 or $600.
This is not finding your family in my opinion.
Geoff
-
Hi, like all things I believe it probably has a part to play. I myself if I had the money would more than likely take the test. I have been able to trace with evidence my family line back to circa 1779 but am now unable to go further. Possible DNA testing of the siblings of my ggggrandfather might help. Other than that my real desire would be for "Who do you think you are" to do a programme on my lineage!!
Regards,
John
-
If DNA testing can help to identify the geographic origins of certain lines when paper records are lacking then it could be useful in my research. I'm yet to be convinced that my investment in this research will give me what I want.
On the subject of ethnicity people's perceptions change over time. I have a relation who although English born was described as being of the Irish race in US immigration records. Now considering how many people in Britain have Irish ancestry using that old system a lot of us must be mixed race.
Blue
-
In case people think I am suggesting DNA is of no use to genealogy I will clarify.
DNA is a relatively new science; it is based on assumptions and theories which will change as the science develops.
At this point in time there is no, repeat no test which can prove one man is the father of a child.
DNA can however rule out the possibility that a man is the father.
In addition it has be proved that for a number of reasons it is possible for people to have different DNA in their body and testing using cells from one part may produce a different result from cells or blood from another part.
There is also the fact that only part of inherited DNA is passed down through time which means that the DNA of some ancestors could be completely excluded from the DNA of their descendants.
This does not mean that DNA has no place in genealogy but that is must only be used with caution.
One could compare the use of DNA with the use of BMD certificate or Parish Registers, neither of which are infallible as they rely on the accuracy of the information given and recorded.
At present DNA is an expensive additional source of information which if used carefully knowing the limitations may provide additional information to a pedigree.
There may be a time in the future when the science has developed and every newborn has samples of DNA taken that it is possible to claim it provides a factual pedigree but we are no where near that stage yet.
Cheers
Guy
-
I know my husband would love to do a DNA test to see if he has any Aboriginal ancestors in his bloodline.
Me.........one of my maternal cousins has had a DNA Test which confirmed the majority of our Family History Research.
Cheers
Susie
The only real interest I have in DNA testing at this stage would be to know if my children have any Aboriginal or Romany links, and it would be them who would have to do the tests. I think they will, but my son says he wants to wait until the process and its accuracy is developed even further, as Guy suggests.
Apart from that I prefer to continue researching using traditional methods......though from my experience certificates are not always accurate either! People are not always truthful about the information they give.
Dee :)
-
Hi Dee
As I said before my understanding of the science is limited, however the idea would be with the male chromosome testing -that your father carries the same DNA has his father as his father etc. However, over time the DNA can mutate therefore you really want the eldest living male relative to test to get a closest match to your ancestors.
I know that DNA is not some great panacea however, I think in time developments in this field will improve and as family history researchers we should all be open to methods that will help us understand the evolving nature of our family over time.
-
Fascinating to read 22 pages of opinions.
Now my two bobs worth:
Some time ago I did explore, investigate and read up on the different types of DNA testing that we're available. Unfortunately the output and discussions on the web about what the results were (and meant) did my head in - I couldn't retain the new terms ie "mitochondrial", "halytrope" "y6tr2" (ok I'm starting to make things up).
Then the sceptic in me raised its ugly head:
"Where does this data end up?" - not necessarily problematic today but might be in 10 years time.
"Where does all the monies (fees) go?" - if it went towards some bigger medical DNA research then it would seem less "frivolous" to me.
I came to the conclusion some time ago that I cannot absolutely know for a fact that my 4th g grandfather was the son of my 5th g grandfather, for example. However, the probability is very very high that my 4 th g grandfather is the son of my 5th g grandmother. So, perhaps DNA testing could confirm (or not) this kind of thing.
But do I actually care if my 4th g grandfather is not biologically the son of my 5th g grandfather? No, because My personal belief is that I am a product of nature/nurture combinations, as were my ancestors before me. Genealogy research, for me, leads to a lot (a LOT) of general history reading about the certain time frames and events that, I suspect, informed my ancestors decisions and choices and I find social and political history fascinating. Establishment, via DNA ethnicity testing, that I am genetically 62% English (or Irish, or Danish, or gulumptite) leaves me cold.
...... However if DNA ethnicity testing could pinpoint the townland (preferably including the GPS location) in Ireland where my Irish convict ancestors came from (as well as the names of their parents I would be very, very, very INTERESTED!
Cocksie
-
I and my father have both had autosomal tests at 23 and me. Initially I did mine because I'd done some courses in genetics and developed an interest. I didn't even consider it's use in genealogy
I later had my father tested because this would enable me to see whether people I matched DNA with, matched on my mothers or on my father's side. It narrows the field considerably.
I have lot's of matches on both sides but they are only of any use when the other person also has a family tree; then just occasionally you may be able join the dots and make a connection . I recently found a match on my mother's x chromosome with a person in Canada. It transpired that we shared the same 5xg grandmother. He hadn't got back that far and I hadn't traced this sibling line across the Atlantic.
Ethnicity is a different matter though. It's mildly interesting but no more than that. My ancestry is firmly rooted in the Midlands with all 16 gg grandparents born there (12 of them from Northamptonshire). I think my results are exactly the sort of mix I would expect in central England .
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry
50.0% From Mother (she has all of g grandparents from Northamptonshire)
23.9%British & Irish
6.7%French & German
3.1%Scandinavian
16.1% Broadly Northwestern European
0.1% Ashkenazi
0.2% Broadly European
50.0%From Father (4g grandparents from NTH, the rest from the West Midlands, a couple of whom might have recent ancestors elsewhere)
34.7% British & Irish
4.6% French & German
0.4% Scandinavian
9.3% Broadly Northwestern European
0.1% Ashkenazi
0.7% Broadly European
< 0.1% Middle Eastern & North African
< 0.1% Broadly Middle Eastern & North African
0.3%Unassigned
-
I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread, between the time difference, and my working hours.
Somewhere earlier on this thread, I mentioned a study done comparing results from different companies. Here is the link. Very interesting reading.
http://www.jaunay.com/newsletter/newsletter119.html
-
Genetta,
What a wonderfully detailed post and it's your first one on RootsChat too. Welcome to RootsChat!
Trystan
-
It has been interesting to read the views expressed in this post.
I have read about the current DNA tests available and decided that I wouldn't pursue these at the moment. I know I have English, Welsh, Scottish and Viking blood, so imagine the results of any DNA test for ethnicity would reveal quite a mix. In view of the population of the UK having been so diverse, so many invasions, immigration etc over centuries of time, I don't feel it is that worthwhile to go into great detail. This is my personal view though I can understand why people with little knowledge of their background might want to get a better knowledge of where they originate.
One DNA test I would like to have is something specific and relates to a possible link to Mendip Man.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cheddar_Man
I have ancestors from that area going back to the dark ages and am aware that some local people have had DNA tests which indicate a match to that of Mendip Man. This is something I would like to pursue. It would let me know just how far back my ancestors in Somerset can be traced.
Jo.
-
Hi, like all things I believe it probably has a part to play. I myself if I had the money would more than likely take the test. I have been able to trace with evidence my family line back to circa 1779 but am now unable to go further. Possible DNA testing of the siblings of my ggggrandfather might help. Other than that my real desire would be for "Who do you think you are" to do a programme on my lineage!!
Regards,
John
John you hit the nail on the head this is how I would feel
If I were on WDYTYA I maybe able to help them as I seem to have a lot of families around when most of them 100 year or more ago had large families .. ???
Elizabeth
-
My ancestors are from the same broad area as Genetta's ancestors.
The only thing I might find different is more from the Netherlands/Belgium/France area as they were weavers. Mind you I have traced some lines back to the 1600s and no sign of them not being South Midlands.
-
My reply is in general terms but firmly believe that D.N.A testing is a fantastic tool,used to learn and confirm a persons roots.
Being an older lady with quite distinctive early childhood memories,which have laid unconfirmed all my life,am desperate to go down this root,regardless of what this may unearth,good or bad.
My own long standing interest in family history confirms this,limited means has been the problem.
Believe that every person has an absolute right to know their own birth right.
Am currently investigating which reliable company to use.
Brionne
-
I am in Australia.
.....
Yes, I am in New South Wales, Australia, born and raised here. So too both my parents (and their siblings), all four of my grandparents (and their siblings,) all eight of my great grandparents (and their siblings), most of my great great's, many of my great great greats .... etc.
I will make time to go through, check with some of my rellies and respond with more detail during today.
I have living ancestors who are elderly, alive, alert, and are of a certain age (one will be having a birthday later this month. He was born in 1910, he won't join RChat, but he is known to read the threads !) I have spoken with quite a few of my living ancestors during today. So here's some of the shared thoughts.
1. DNA helped solve quite a few of the Fromelles Missing and so there's names on many of the headstones in the newest CWGC cemetery thanks to technology advances with DNA samples
2. DNA won't help at the present time in confirming if Peter and John are brothers or if Peter and John are Uncle and Nephew. (Peter and John are of course pseudonyms ) We know they are Uncle and Nephew because they know this to be so, although their birth certificates show that they are brothers. John is nearly 20 years older than Peter. Peter's Grandparents raised him.
3. DNA will help to confirm 'unique' heritage as it should 'stand out' but if the ancestors are long dead, then it is simply spending money on testing DNA instead of spending money on searching BDM registers.
4. DNA advertising is typical of today's marketing campaigns .... Promises and promises and promises and then confuses 'per cent' with fractions and overlooks explaining they are comparing apples for oranges. ("moves the goal posts without telling anyone and wonders why we all doubt their honesty" is how one relative put it.
5. DNA is of no interest, if I want to believe I am related to Uncle Fred, then I don't need any documents or reports. I am simply related to Uncle Fred. (Fred is actually her first cousin, but because Fred was already an adult with family when she was born, and most family called him "Uncle Fred" then she is simply being her usual contrary self !)
6. DNA will be a useful tool for genealogy particularly when it is able to read medical conditions that can be inherited.
7. DNA can be used to help clone Mammoths, be aware, one day someone will try to clone you. We only want one of you at a time thanks. One is enough ! (there was TV program in the past week about splicing some genetic material from the Woolly mammoth to the elephant)
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/woolly-mammoth-dna-successfully-spliced-into-elephant-cells,402050
and finally
may I please agree with Trystan
Genetta,
What a wonderfully detailed post and it's your first one on RootsChat too. Welcome to RootsChat!
Trystan
Cheers, JM
-
I have had over 40 people do Family Finder on FamilyTreeDNA if youu wish to contact me
-
I am late to this thread though I did start reading it last night, I was unable to finish reading all the posts until now.
I have taken a FTDNA "Family Finder" test.
My results were slightly surprising:
European 85%
Scandanavia 37%
British Isles 26%
Eastern Europe 19%
Finland and Northern Siberia 3%
Jewish / Ashkenazi Diaspora 11%
North East Asian 2%
Middle Eastern / North Africa 1%
Central Asian 1%
It is disappointing that the results don't show more specific regions of origin.
I have purchased FTDNA YDNA 67 marker tests for my father and husband. My husband has one of the most common names in the UK and has no useful matches (something like 4 matches at 12 markers ::)). My father has many many matches but none of them useful - he has one match at 37 markers but there are no contact details for this person so we don't know if there is a traceable connection.
Interpreting the results is very difficult. I did read up on it and thought I had a grasp of it, but find myself quite lost and with little hope of ever fully understanding.
So basically an interesting but slightly frustrating exercise for each of us.
-
I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread, between the time difference, and my working hours.
Somewhere earlier on this thread, I mentioned a study done comparing results from different companies. Here is the link. Very interesting reading.
http://www.jaunay.com/newsletter/newsletter119.html
That was a very interesting article Pinefamily. A few clicks led me to this place offering Free DNA tests but only for specific criteria and names. Ireland is very popular. :)
http://isogg.org/wiki/Free_DNA_tests
-
I'm having trouble keeping up with this thread, between the time difference, and my working hours.
Somewhere earlier on this thread, I mentioned a study done comparing results from different companies. Here is the link. Very interesting reading.
http://www.jaunay.com/newsletter/newsletter119.html
Care should be taken in reading the statistics in the tables in that link as a lot has been left out giving a misleading impression of the relative size and importance of each firm
-
On the other hand, davidft, there's the table giving how many samples for each of the companies, so I am not sure that there's any misleading impressions being made by Mr Jaunay. He has a fine reputation within Australian family history circles.
http://www.unlockthepast.com.au/our-team/graham-jaunay
Cheers, JM
-
What good does it do to get a report informing me I'm 80% Anglo Saxon 10% Viking and 10% Celt. That was the type of report a friend received after spending $500 or $600.
I don't know if it's the same elsewhere, but prices in the US have gone down since I first looked into DNA testing. Ancestry's test is $99 here with frequent sale prices of $79. That gives ethnicity estimates, as well as people who match you.
-
What good does it do to get a report informing me I'm 80% Anglo Saxon 10% Viking and 10% Celt. That was the type of report a friend received after spending $500 or $600.
I don't know if it's the same elsewhere, but prices in the US have gone down since I first looked into DNA testing. Ancestry's test is $99 here with frequent sale prices of $79. That gives ethnicity estimates, as well as people who match you.
It's £99 here.
-
I haven't done any autosomal testing. I haven't tested with Ancestry. All my testing has been with FTDNA and Yseq.net and it's all been Y-DNA. I am not particularly interested in ethnicity. All my testing has been to break down brick walls in particular lines.
In my mother's line from Lancashire, a 7th cousin started a Y-DNA project to get us past Abraham Broadley, who arrived in Darwen, Lancashire in 1654. This has been spectacularly successful and has proved that the Lancashire Broadleys are descended from the Yorkshire Broadleys (Irish/Scottish Broadleys are different). Currently trying to make a tree between 1362 and 1654. This line is R-M269.
In my father's line we were stuck with Herman van de Waal born in the 1740s, Gelderland, Netherlands, who may have been illegitimate and adopted by a stepfather. This line is I-M253, no matches, but running through SNPs to get closer to genealogical time. He is currently CTS6772+
In my husband's line I was stuck with a Thomas Ball who married in Derbyshire in 1754. This line is I-M223 and there were lots of matches but none with the same name. However, a match at a distance of 2 with a one name study from Staffordshire has proved fruitful and I have been running through SNPs again, so far matching. The next one is not yet available on FTDNA, but I now believe Thomas Ball was born in Staffordshire. The one name study has 2 main groups, R-M269 and I-M253, the exceptions being 2 families of I-M223, who are related to my husband. Since, in the same small village in the 1650s there are 2 families with the same name, but one being I-M223 and the other I-M253 it seems possible that the I-M223s should really be Ball or that the relationship is before names were created. The last matched SNP is Y6060, 2,700 years before present. cb
-
I just wonder, have attitudes at the scientific level changed in the intervening years since the following was printed.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01h02/
Regards
Malky
-
Great to see so many replies but 24 pages are too much for me to read today :D
I have had my DNA taken and also got one of my Brothers to do the male line for me.
I also got one of my Sons to take it so that I had an idea of what it was all about.
I am a pensioner and didn't feel it was too expensive I only did the 12 ancestors
but it would be nice to go further back.
I had done my family history before the DNA tests were done. So I do know that most
of my family on nearly every name are from Yorkshire. In fact I think we must own Yorkshire ;D
My foreigner as I call him is my Great Granddad on my maternal side and he comes from
Cumbria and a few hundred years back from Scotland and that family were border Reivers.
I decided to do the DNA test having seen people mention it here on Rootschat.
I unable to give all the tech names but the gist of it all was very interesting.
I am from a family on my Mothers side who were probably Vikings and they travelled
there from Africa, up through Saudi Arabia, through Turkey and then exciting for me
through Macedonia. I have always imagined in my mind I was from the men of Alexander.
We then continued on and seem to have gone through Germany up to Norway/Sweden
and then landed in Ireland and over to England. That's a journey and a half.
That gave me another like in that my halpogroup or whatever its called lol, is H
which makes me from the 4th daughter of Eve called Helen.
My Dads line come from Africa and then through Saudi Arabia and then along to Morocco
and up through Spain or France to England. Which is probably why he had a fantastic
tanning skin. He could look nearly black in a day out fishing lol.
So I was happy to see the few DNA matches I have and get more new matches from
my sons DNA, then my Brothers some living in the USA and only 5 for mine in England
and one in Ireland.
My research on paper goes back to 1550, 1650, 1473, 1491 in 4 of my main names.
When I win the lottery I will go back further than 12 to get closer links to my families
DNA.
p.s. On my maternal line I have two numbers with only 20 points difference. The other numbers
and letters are the same. Does this mean these two Grandmas were related??
-
On the other hand, davidft, there's the table giving how many samples for each of the companies, so I am not sure that there's any misleading impressions being made by Mr Jaunay. He has a fine reputation within Australian family history circles.
http://www.unlockthepast.com.au/our-team/graham-jaunay
Cheers, JM
It was indeed the table giving how many samples for each of the companies i was referring to as he labels his table as the 5 major companies but then only includes partial information for some eg for ftDNA he only includes autosomal DNA but for say 23and me he uses statistics for yDNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA. Hardly consistent for the basis for comparison.
Mr Jaunay may well have a fine reputation in Australian family history circles and I certainly wasn't trying to besmirch his name. However, his table is misleading and it was that which I was pointing out
-
I had initially considered DNA testing, having an unusual surname which was corrupted into its current spelling in 1891, thinking it might put me in touch with others in the same group.
However I then traced my direct paternal line by conventional methods to my 7 greats grandfather Abraham Kershaw, named as the father of Abraham Halstead, but who did not marry the mother.
So I have "rested" my interest for a few years, but am now considering it again, as the Kershaw line is proving difficult to investigate. The databases concerned have now grown substantially; I may be in with a chance!
My direct maternal line leads me back to the early 18th century not 5 miles from where I now live. I'm not sure that I would learn much from following my mitochondrial DNA that I wouldn't find from the same test done on a random person on the local high street.
My One-Name Study is into a different name altogether, and my own DNA would be almost irrelevant there. I have only 1/16th of the DNA of my nearest ancestor with that name.
In general, genealogical DNA testing seems to be pitched at the American market, where virtually everyone has ancestors who arrived from overseas in the last 200 years. Pointing them at a particular country to start their non-USA research might be useful, but to those of us whose ancestors never saw the need to move halfway round the globe in the last 1000 years, it's not as attractive.
I note that one of Ancestry's "great success stories" from their front page has 30% of their geographical ancestry as "other".
-
Well, I have read this entire thread. Trystan, I would like a medal, please ;D
Not much to add to what quite a few people have mentioned before: privacy. Once my DNA leaves my hands I will have no control over where it ends up. And no way of knowing in whose database it will be stored and shared from. Or sold from. Or used in forensics rather than genealogy.
I'm Canadian, but from paper-trail genealogy I know my ancestors are English, Scottish, Welsh and Ulster. With nothing, absolutely nothing else added in. No German great-grandmother, or Swedish or French, nothing. I like to tell my OH that I'm way more British than he is...and he's English ;D
Even if a DNA test says I have, say, a Viking or Asian ancestor, I'm never going to find Sweyn Forklift or Attila the Pun. They are so far back in the mists of time I could never find them, relate to them, or care. For me, a much more interesting way to do family history is to find a documented connection and then apply the times they lived in to them. Put meat on the bones, as someone said. Much more fun.
So...unless one of these tests can prove I've got space-alien DNA in me, I'm not interested. Although, I have to admit, a space-alien connection would be cool. Move over, Mulder and Scully ;D
Cheers,
China
-
"Although, I have to admit, a space-alien connection would be cool"
and explain a few things ;D ;D ;D
Regards
Malky
-
WELL!!! >:( >:( >:(
;D
-
Great banter all around! This is a most interesting thread, and I am glad I have time right now to read through it all... thoroughly enjoying all the different opinions and thoughts on the subject....or off it. ( especially the last few ( ;D SNORT ;D)) J.J.
-
On the other hand, davidft, there's the table giving how many samples for each of the companies, so I am not sure that there's any misleading impressions being made by Mr Jaunay. He has a fine reputation within Australian family history circles.
http://www.unlockthepast.com.au/our-team/graham-jaunay
Cheers, JM
It was indeed the table giving how many samples for each of the companies i was referring to as he labels his table as the 5 major companies but then only includes partial information for some eg for ftDNA he only includes autosomal DNA but for say 23and me he uses statistics for yDNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA. Hardly consistent for the basis for comparison.
Mr Jaunay may well have a fine reputation in Australian family history circles and I certainly wasn't trying to besmirch his name. However, his table is misleading and it was that which I was pointing out
The reason I posted the link was for the tables further down, showing how one person got different results from different companies.
A caveat, I suppose.
And yes, I finally got through all of the posts on this thread.
-
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread about what DNA can and can't tell you. The ethnicity results aren't very helpful but autosomal DNA tests are sold primarily for cousin matching and not for the ethnicity results.
AncestryDNA and the Family Finder test from Family Tree DNA are used by genealogists from all over the world as a tool for genealogical research just in the same way that we use BMD records and census records. I can't understand any genealogist wanting to turn down the opportunity to have an additional record that might help them with their family history research. It will also give you the chance to connect with genetic cousins who might have more information on the family tree than you have. As with any record you get, the results don't always immediately fit in with the records that you already have. I've often paid for paper records that I've not been able to use. Also not everyone gets meaningful matches at the outset. However, the databases are growing all the time. Over three million people worldwide are already in these databases. Americans do tend to dominate the match lists but there are growing numbers of Brits, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, etc. taking these tests. Also I've heard of a number of cases where matches with Americans have actually broken down the brick wall. I've now got confirmed matches with a third cousin, a third cousin once removed and a fourth cousin. The more people who test the more success we will all have.
Cousin-finding tests are also being used by adoptees, foundlings and donor-conceived children, and are solving mysteries that were previously insoluble. We are seeing stories virtually every day of people finding matches in the databases and being linked with unknown half-siblings, first cousins and sometimes even finding their biological parents. Contrary to one assertion in this thread an autosomal DNA test can definitively confirm a parent/child relationship. It can also distinguish between full siblings and half-siblings.
The cheapest test, the Family Finder test from FTDNA, costs just $99 (about £68). Once you've paid this money it's a long term investment, and you keep getting notified of matches as and when they come in. It's like signing up to Genes Reunited but without having to pay the annual subscription.
Anyone wanting to learn more about DNA testing might like to have a read of some of the beginners' articles in the ISOGG Wiki:
http://isogg.org/wiki/Beginners'_guides_to_genetic_genealogy
-
Having your DNA tested can have a tremendous impact in many different ways. Many of those factors may not even be thought of when one decides to have the tests. I strongly feel that everyone should go for it as you might be the last in a traceable line. However there is much more to a person than the being produced by a long line of genes. We do live on after a physical death and we may have experienced past lives in a variety of different races and cultures. DNA can tell nothing about who we really are and yet for some strange reason not fully understood most of us need to know who our physical ancestors were.
Recently there was a documentary all about migrants in Britain and the focus fell on the influx of Polish people arriving and now living in Bradford. Apparently Polish is now the second language in England, especially in Bradford. I didn't even think about DNA when I watched the programme and it was some time before I realized that I have something very much in common with these latest migrants. My father was born in Queensbury and our forebears were living in Eccleshill near Bradford from at least 1712. Our ydna is R1a and I see from statistics on the net that only 4.5% of males in England are R1a whilst the highest concentration in Europe is in fact Poland where it is as high as 57%. So on these figures, apparently I have more in common with the Poles of Bradford than with most other men in England. But hold on a moment. I have a cousin who has the same gt.gt.gt.grandfather and he has tested R1b1a2 which is the highest ydna in Britain. I have little doubt that if all other ancestral ydna were known that I would find someone in every group.
What I would really like to know is the ydna of Matthew Hutton, the 16th century Archbishop of York. Is there any chance that his tomb in York Cathedral could be opened and his dna tested? Perhaps not in this day and age, but it could happen in the future, and that is when my dna could be compared with his. One of his great grandsons came to Pudsey and Calverley in the late 1600's and it was at Calverley that my gt.gt.gt. grandfather William Hutton married in 1800. If there is a connection then it would take my line back to the Cumberland Huttons.
My point here is that if all dna was known and recorded it would be a huge advantage for researchers who are and will be trying to trace the movement of people in the past all over Europe and perhaps throughout the World.
-
This thread has spurred me on to revisit my FTDNA "Family Finder" results and look again at my matches.
I have only ever contacted one of my matches - the one with the highest shared cM. Through googling I discovered that they had lived in the USA but unfortunately had recently died, but I was hoping that someone may be checking their emails - as they were elderly I presumed someone probably organized for them to take the test and may have access to their DNA results. I've had no reply. So for anyone who has taken tests it might be wise to organize for a relative to have access to your details.
I have a renewed enthusiasm and intend to contact others I have matches with. (and hope they can understand English. ::) ;D)
-
There you are DevonCruwys! I was going to put out a call if you hadn't been seen in this thread by tomorrow. ;)
If anybody has even a semi-serious interest but is daunted, this is a person to ask. She is extremely knowledgeable.
Yes, this thread is chock full of misunderstanding. And of course, we have Ancestry to blame for a not insignificant bit of it. In my old not so humble opinion.
My long tale of wonder and woe back a few pages is precisely about how a match with an emigrant to the USA took a sledgehammer to my English wall. I'm nowhere near through it yet, but at least I have a way better idea of where the crack is. (I think you'll recognize the tale, DC.)
In my case it was by providing me with an actual surname for my searching, but there are lots of ways that finding emigrant relations could help. Elusive paternal lines of all sorts. Finding a Y-DNA match could point to a candidate for somebody's unknown daddy -- whether he was in the military and spent time in England from overseas during WWII, or his great-great-grandfather's brother sailed away 200 years earlier but his descendants in Sydney or San Francisco have tested and there's your family.
That's the mixed blessing of Y-DNA: it's only good for the paternal line, but it's the paternal line that is more often the unknown. Of course it only helps if there are male descendants. But for a woman whose parent or grandparent or some way farther back is unknown, autosomal (Family Finder) testing, while it might be complex, could strike it lucky.
It's natural not to "get" it. I was one of the ones who thought: have him spit on the stick, mail it off, and cousins will come out of the woodwork and mysteries will be solved. Well, no. If nobody you would match with tests - or if there is simply no one to match with (as it seems in my paternal line) - that won't happen. But there really are lots and lots of people who are more than willing to point you to resources and hold your hand through the maze.
And as I said ... it's fun. If you like family history, and history, chances are not bad that your curious mind will get hooked on some aspect of genealogical DNA or another.
Now I have to go check out the 25-marker matches that came this week, one for each parent's line ... knowing that they'll amount to nothing ... 87% chance of a common ancestor 24 generations back, oh well. When it ain't at least 37 markers, there's no rush. ;)
-
This thread has spurred me on to revisit my FTDNA "Family Finder" results and look again at my matches.
I have only ever contacted one of my matches - the one with the highest shared cM. Through googling I discovered that they had lived in the USA but unfortunately had recently died, but I was hoping that someone may be checking their emails - as they were elderly I presumed someone probably organized for them to take the test and may have access to their DNA results. I've had no reply. So for anyone who has taken tests it might be wise to organize for a relative to have access to your details.
I have a renewed enthusiasm and intend to contact others I have matches with. (and hope they can understand English. ::) ;D)
All my not be lost. A facilitty that ftDNA now offer is for people to name a person who "inherits" their DNA results when they die. Even if your match did not do this it may be worth contacting ftDNA to see if they can put you in touch with one of his "family". Good luck.
-
My ancestry ethnicity results are a little curious to say the least. I am, according to my paper trail - 100% British but my ancestry results beg to differ. Out of my great grandparents I have 6 born in England, one in Wales and one in Scotland. Out of my 2 x GG I have 12 in England, one in Wales and three in Scotland. From my 3 x GG 24 England, 2 Wales & 6 Scotland... So, I was surprised to learn that according to Ancestry.com my genetic ethnicity is as follows:
46% Irish
37% West Europe
11% Scandinavian
3% Great Britain - ONLY 3% really???
2% Italian/Greek
<1% Iberian Peninsula
On 23andMe I come in at a more respectable:
63.1% British & Irish
8.1% French & German
4.5% Scandinavian
20.2% Broadly Northwestern European
2.3% Broadly Southern European
1.8% Broadly European
So, is my extensive paper trail wrong? Is my Danish 'uncle' really my mother's father? It's a mystery that's for sure!
~ Jo
-
This thread has spurred me on to revisit my FTDNA "Family Finder" results and look again at my matches.
I have only ever contacted one of my matches - the one with the highest shared cM. Through googling I discovered that they had lived in the USA but unfortunately had recently died, but I was hoping that someone may be checking their emails - as they were elderly I presumed someone probably organized for them to take the test and may have access to their DNA results. I've had no reply. So for anyone who has taken tests it might be wise to organize for a relative to have access to your details.
I have a renewed enthusiasm and intend to contact others I have matches with. (and hope they can understand English. ::) ;D)
All my not be lost. A facilitty that ftDNA now offer is for people to name a person who "inherits" their DNA results when they die. Even if your match did not do this it may be worth contacting ftDNA to see if they can put you in touch with one of his "family". Good luck.
Thank you David. I will do that. :) That particular match shares 62.89 cM (longest block 22.99) which, unless I have this completely wrong, I believe may be worth chasing up. :)
-
Thank you David. I will do that. :) That particular match shares 62.89 cM (longest block 22.99) which, unless I have this completely wrong, I believe may be worth chasing up. :)
Yes I think that is definitely worth chasing up. The one match i chased up (or rather who chased me up!) we shared 25.66 cM in common and established we were 4th cousins one removed and we have now verified this with the paper trail. So purely as a guess I would say your contact could turn out to be a second or third cousin. Good luck with the search.
-
I did the Ancestry DNA just before Christmas and got the results back in January. As did some others, I had it done because another family member had done it and gotten results that were not expected, that being a 4-5% East Asian. Our basic ancestry is British. We are all descendant from three siblings who all had the same father, from Manchester, who's line we can trace, but the mother is another story. The three siblings were all born in China, late 1800s and it was rumored that their mother had been either full or half Chinese. These siblings are all deceased.
The three living descendants, of which I am one, are each from one of the aforementioned siblings, one from each.
All three of us have taken the Ancestry.com DNA test. I have a public tree on Ancestry, one other has a private tree on Ancestry, and the third subject has no tree on Ancestry.
We were all sent a quite lengthy list of possible 3rd and 4th cousin matches.
We all showed up on each other's lists.
We were the only ones with a noticeable Asian percentage.
The results lead me to at least believe that the comparisons were done with a reasonable amount of authenticity.
The only way the three of us connect really, is by the DNA samples.
In addition, I downloaded the Zip file of RAW data, which was offered, although at the time I didn't see any use for it. I figured I may as well have it since I'd paid for it anyway. I then uploaded that zipped file to gedmatch.com
I also uploaded my .ged file there and that produced quite another array of possible matches with chromosome breakdowns and matches on both Y and X. I'm new at it, so still sorting my way through it.
I have as yet, NOT done the ftDNA
I am interested in finding out more about the identity of our Asian branch.
-
Thank you David. I will do that. :) That particular match shares 62.89 cM (longest block 22.99) which, unless I have this completely wrong, I believe may be worth chasing up. :)
Yes I think that is definitely worth chasing up. The one match i chased up (or rather who chased me up!) we shared 25.66 cM in common and established we were 4th cousins one removed and we have now verified this with the paper trail. So purely as a guess I would say your contact could turn out to be a second or third cousin. Good luck with the search.
Thanks David. :) I contacted two other matches earlier - one sharing 57.58 and the other 50.69, so I am quite hopeful. :)
Looking at my FamilyFinder results as compared to my father and husbands YDNA results, I find mine a lot more useful at this point, and there is at least some hope of a connection and the challenge of trying to find the common ancestor.
-
Happy to participate and to have name shared. Interesting records which have proven links for my family (which has not strayed far from where I am in North Devon!) to relatives in America who are descended from the sister ship 'The Supply' to the Mayflower in 1630 as well as the fabled Roanoak Project in 1587! The names were Richard Melton and Henry Mylton respectively. The poet John Milton is ostensibly a relative in the American checks are correct in relation to that element.
Further back - the Romany areas of Eastern Europe are involved - 10000 years apparently.
All good wishes
Philip J Milton
-
Well, I did read the entire thread and must say I was so happy to see DevonCruwys and JaneyCanuck post with information I know to be accurate and enthusiastic. Now I can just add to their comments.
First, I became interested in DNA testing when my late brother was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease. 23andme.com are involved in research projects and as they were associated with a rather large PD foundation, offered free tests to those diagnosed to aid in research. They have offered the same with regard to other diseases. So, he tested and I managed his account for the genealogy benefits. That was the beginning.
Our family has deep British, Welsh, and Ulster Irish roots. The paternal lines have been in the US starting with the Mayflower in the 1600s, but my mother's Irish ancestry was unknown - her family - by the name of McElrea - arrived in 1902 and left no paper records or oral history.
Through DNA testing, we have connected many family lines to our McElrea One Name study - and so far, we are all related. In addition, we discovered very early roots not to Ireland or to Scotland as we expected - but to the Isle of Man. We continue researching to see if we can learn even more about this interesting family.
My husband always thought of himself as 100% English - he was born in Yorkshire. We expected some bits of Norse or Viking, maybe French - but not much. While I don't put a lot of faith in the ethnicity results, they can point one in a different direction at times. Regardless of percentages, he has many, many matches in Ireland and I have yet to find the source. Also, the fact that his YDNA matches are all to a different surname proved that his gggf had taken his mother's name, not his father's. So there is that mystery confirmed and I can stop searching for someone who does not exist!
I did test my own mtDNA, thinking it might help me down the line because my mother's mother was a Fulton, as was her mother, and her husband's mother. I'll let you think about that one.
Suffice to say there are lots of reasons to test and many problems that can be solved. Besides that, I enjoy the dickens out of it, it keeps my brain working, and I've been the moderator for my local genealogical society's DNA interest group for two years, which gives me somewhere to go on a Thursday evening. Testing does not have to be expensive, as there are at least yearly sales from two of the companies - my favorite being FTDNA. I have also shared costs with cousins and just budgeted when I needed to.
I am 68 years old, have no children, and don't give a hoot what is done with my DNA. Hopefully, it might help someone, as I think my brother's did.
Cheers all
-
One story I heard of was an upper posh English lady who bragged about her fathers ancestry went back to the Plantagenet Kings of England at the village church flower arranging club, deciding to have a DNA search to try to prove the issue and got a match result in the USA -she had a half brother she did not know about who also had an ancestry DNA test. It turned out her real biological father was a WW2 - American G I soldier based in England while the man thought was her father, her mothers husband, was away abroad on war service at that time. -The woman quietly left the flower arranging club very quickly in case certain issues became common leaky knowledge or embarrassment to her :-[ (Sob).
;D ;D ;D
-
I am not convinced that DNA can tell us our ethnicity any more than history already has.
What I have learned is that civilisation began around the Middle East and spread in three directions.
1. To Europe
2. To Africa
3. To Asia
From Europe migration extended to Scandinavia; England, Scotland and Ireland; then in later centuries to North and South America where I assume there is now a mixture of ethnicity with the first inhabitants of the Americas.
As for tracing direct ancestors I wonder where mine were in 1 AD, or even in 7000 BC?
Thinking in terms of 2 or 3 generations a century, that makes somewhere between 40 and 60 generations since 1 AD. I can’t even count up the different family surnames after 4 or 5 generations and they were all Germanic from c1700 onwards.
How many direct family lines do we actually have? Can DNA science really tell us our ethnicity when there are hundreds of families from whom we are descended?
Essie
-
A great idea. I have often wondered about the mixture that goes to make up the Britain of today.
Unfortunately, there is an immense amount of ignorance, and concomitant suspicion, in this area.
Even within my own family, some cousins are unhappy that I know their Y chromosome type, inevitably, as I know my own. Trying to explain it was like pushing water uphill!
All my data is with FTDNA; I would be delighted to contribute.
-
I have found autosomal DNA results very interesting, including those for ethnicity. They are not necessarily the same between siblings - sometimes show genetic ethnicity from the same parts of the world, but at other times from different parts of the world. I suspect that only identical twins would have identical ethnicity results.
Autosomal DNA is inherited in a very random pattern. One's genetic ancestry is not the same as one's genealogical ancestry, which includes all one's ancestors way back to the mists of time. If only the testing for British and European ethnicity could be as specific as it is for African ancestry. On "Finding Your Roots" on PBS in the United States one guest was shown how much of his/her ancestry was from specific areas of Africa.
I have results for about 70 cousins, both paternal and maternal, from my only sibling to a fifth cousin once removed.
In addition to ethnicity, autosomal DNA testing matches one to others with a lot or a little shared DNA. I assume anyone on RootsChat is interested in their family history. For $99 US (from Family Tree DNA) plus shipping you can have your autosomal DNA tested. I understand that Ancestry charges £99 for their autosomal testing for those in the UK. [I have no connection with Family Tree DNA other than having ordered so many kits for them, including several for 111 marker Y-DNA testing.]
-
"46% Irish
37% West Europe
11% Scandinavian
3% Great Britain - ONLY 3% really???
2% Italian/Greek
<1% Iberian Peninsula
On 23andMe I come in at a more respectable:
63.1% British & Irish
8.1% French & German
4.5% Scandinavian
20.2% Broadly Northwestern European
2.3% Broadly Southern European
1.8% Broadly European"
Does the above results actually mean anything to you.
Ireland and what is now Great Britain was covered with a sheet of ice at one point. No humans lived here, so where does the "Irish" "Great Britain" and "British & Irish" come from? Did they fly in from North Africa?
Three "Broadly" results, six relating to European origins? But they originated elsewhere, as did the "Scandinavians" and the "Iberian". How far back genetically does these results actually relate to. Great Britain did not exist until the start of the 18th century. I really am starting to think that this DNA tracing is for the susceptible in society.
Regards
Malky
-
"46% Irish
37% West Europe
11% Scandinavian
3% Great Britain - ONLY 3% really???
2% Italian/Greek
<1% Iberian Peninsula
On 23andMe I come in at a more respectable:
63.1% British & Irish
8.1% French & German
4.5% Scandinavian
20.2% Broadly Northwestern European
2.3% Broadly Southern European
1.8% Broadly European"
How do you know which is right?
-
All these "ethnicity" estimates are doing is matching you with genetic clusters. The country labels that they give to these clusters should not be taken literally. There are a limited number of reference populations available and the results are not at all meaningful beyond the continental level. Even then, it's still very difficult to distinguish between say Irish and English DNA. If you have some Asian or African DNA then this is something that is worth following up but just treat the rest of it as a bit of fun. "Ethnicity" reports are NOT the main reason for taking an autosomal DNA test. Autosomal DNA tests are used for genealogy for confirming hypotheses about relationships and for finding lost cousins in the databases. The tests are very effective for this purpose up to the second cousin or third cousin level but are more speculative for distant relationships. The "ethnicity" reports are bonus add-on features. They are also subject to change over time. We're already on the second reincarnation at 23andMe, FTDNA and AncestryDNA. Both AncestryDNA and FTDNA have said that they are hoping to roll out updated reports later this year.
-
Mark,
My mother's youngest brother was adopted. His father was born in Ireland. I tested him with FTDNA and 23andMe. I transferred his raw data to GEDmatch. Ancestry was not available at the time when I found his mother's match so I did not use them. DNA is the best tool to augment the decades I spent searching on the frustrating paper trail. 23andMe finally found a match to his birth mother so at the age of 80 he finally got to see a photo of his birth mother.
I don't like to hear the negative remarks about DNA as a genealogy tool. We all know that the earth is no longer flat. DNA has expanded our research tools into a new dimension. Folks should not fear that they will fall off of a cliff if they use DNA. Any surprises in their family tree have been there all along. It's time to open our eyes and embrace the future.
Marilyn
-
Trystan
No great expectation on the ethnic side. I have stated on other boards my concerns about profiling by name. I also feel , if anthropology is correct, that our path is From Africa, Middle east, Europe. So our DNA will reflect that.
I would utilize DNA ( a $$$ issue for now) as a means to break down brickwalls or to find common relations - within a 300 year period. If I could have that happen I would be happy with the money spent. Am I aiming too high? Possibly , if I can find I have a broken connection then so be it.
I have no fears or qualms as to what may be exposed. If I am not related to my grandfather , as rumour has it, then I move on to another family.
I had mostly dismissed the idea of DNA testing for now, because it is expensive and like all technology will probably be a lot better and cheaper in a few years' time. There are also issues of privacy regarding an unknown technology and as a precaution I don't want my DNA on any database that could leak.
-
I have (so far) been wary of spending so much of my meager funds on DNA testing, for all the reasons already stated by previous posters. :(
As has been said, the idea of putting my DNA online for anyone to see/use/make money out of is also not making me a happy bunny. ::)
I will keep my eye on this subject, and if/when there are more economical (and secure) ways of me taking part I may change my mind & Join in. ;)
-
I haven't done any DNA tests and don't at present have any interest in doing them. I don't have any strong feelings for or against DNA testing as a concept. It's just that most of my family lines go back to fairly humble origins - ag labs, weavers, joiners etc - so I don't expect to find anything much before the 18th century and I'm not that bothered, to be honest.
The main thing my DNA-free tree has shown me so far is that my Manchester identity really is a product of the Industrial Revolution, with ancestors from all over the UK and Ireland (and Germany in one line) migrating to the city in the early-mid 19th century to find work. I've been happy enough to trace these migrants back to their birthplaces with perhaps a generation or two beyond that if possible. I don't really care about ethnicity percentages, nor do I care if someone's dad turns out not to be their biological father. It's the lives they lived and the journeys they made that spark my interest; the points at which individual lives become part of a broader historical fabric.
Hope that helps with your survey
:) Barbara
-
Hi all,
Thank you to everybody for taking their time to contribute on this thread to help Mark Bridge at The Times with his research into ethnicity results of DNA testing.
A big welcome also to newcomers who have spotted this topic and have posted also. We know that this topic has been widely circulated on other channels and blogs so it's great that you've found us.
As the topic was growing arms and legs and walking off in all sorts of directions I've taken the liberty to chop it short and lock this topic. :P
If you would like to to contribute further with this research then please contact Mark Bridge via Personal Message. I am sure he will be delighted to hear from you.
Thank you again everybody!
All the very best,
Trystan
PS I've unlocked it again now in case somebody wants to add to the original question. However, as this is a long topic thread I'd ask please to keep it on topic. Thanks. :)
-
The Ethnicity test is only as good as the testers. Where does the determination of ethnicity come from. Either they have tested the remaining inhabitants of the area and somehow cataloged the findings without scholarly publication or the ethnicity is determined by testers who self report.
Where did we migrate from or where did we migrate to? Until the companies providing this information share how they have come to the determination it is just a working theory. Are they reporting on your haplo group information and not providing the same to the tester or are they reporting on the other 22 markers?
Since they ask ethnic origins for the tester maternal and paternal and report that info maybe it is a report based on that information. The ethnicity is still reported in percentage. It is unclear if this is a percentage of your genetic makeup or a report of the percentage of those matching you. Are 18% of those reporting from Asia and Asian, or are 18% of your matches saying they are from Asia origins, or are your ancestors 18% Asian?
What is the total that your DNA is being compared to? How many individuals are in your genetic pool? These are all legitimate question for which there is no answer is supplied. So genetic genealogy is still the paper trail you have.
-
I had my mtdna done with Oxford Ancestors (around 7 years ago)and they said that I belonged to the Helena Clan and that my origins were Northern Spain and Southern France, I think it was 10,000 years ago. They also stated that I had a mutation and gave me the list of dna numbers (sorry not sure what this is called). To say that I was disappointed in the service would be an understatement. I have no idea what the mutation is, what it means to me, or how it affects me. I see others talking about certain "dna groups" but I have no idea which group I belong to.
My maternal ancestry (via records) can be traced from England to Scotland then to Northern Ireland and possibly Ireland, this journey takes my maternal line back to the late 1700s.
I would advise most people to wait until the science is more developed. I also question the ethics of storing private information by these companies.
-
Hello All,
I don't have the time this evening to go through all the postings but wanted to add my two cents (will follow up and read the postings when I have more time).
My father never knew his father or that family, so my mom and I did both of our DNA testings through Ancestry.com just before Christmas 2015. We got our results back and I was astounded to see my G.Britain is at 50% (residents of the region are 60%)- so Ancestry.com says. Mom's is mostly Scandinavian.
Now we knew that my father's GMother was a Simpson and I am back in Ireland with that search. His Gfather from Germany. My MOTHER's side: the Goss is supposedly from England and the other line: Germany.
I had my raw DNA uploaded to GEDmatch for free and I'm still researching that since I am knew to this DNA thing. I had uploaded to FamilyTree but with less than a dozen people to weed through - I emailed them and asked them to remove my dna results and my account.
Ancestry.com has confirmed a lot through lines I already knew but it's opening more as I go along, unfortunately MOST people are doing the DNA testing but no one wants to answer emails even when it says you are related (I don't understand that: test but don't research?).
I am a firm believer in DNA (having gone through this topic for a degree in Criminal Justice). And will be looking forward to going through the MANY replies on this topic. I am so looking to finding my origins with future plans of making the trip to Ireland (retired military - I've only been there on leave).
Thanks for the work you are doing on this topic!!
Jan_A
-
My impression is that people don't understand what is meant by the ethnicity results, and the fault for that lies with the testing companies for not explaining it very well, and some companies are worse than others Your ethnicity results will not tell you where your gt-grandparents are from - two from Wales, one from France, two from Spain, a couple from Sweden and a German. The "ethnicity" goes much further back than that.
My parents don't do Internet banking at all. They go to the bank, and when they want to pay me for something they post me a cheque. They're astounded that I actually use internet banking because apparently it is absolutely fraught with risk.
Some of the responses in this thread as to why people won't ever submit DNA for genealogical testing reminds me my parents' attitude to Internet banking. They are afraid of it because they don't understand it. Or there is a misunderstanding regarding what can or can't be achieved.
Back before the prices came down my husband and I had DNA testing. Not for genealogy. He'd had surgery and the surgeon (of Irish descent), while he was "in there" noticed that his liver looked dark and recommended he be tested for hemochromatosis. Ireland has the highest rate of the "Celtic" type of hemochromatosis in the world. It is estimated that in Ireland one person in nine has one haemochromatosis gene, which is generally considered to be a carrier but some "carriers" still develop the complications. Therefore approx one person in 81 in Ireland is homozygous (has the gene on both chromosomes).
I've since been tested for it as well, as a blood test to do with my iron status suggested I may have it.
I've also been tested for some other genes for other things that some results suggested could be caused by having a particular gene-type. I'm reluctant to call it a mutation, as in certain situations it can be advantageous, and "mutation" sounds negative whereas I see them as an "alternative" gene and not necessarily better or worse. It's a bit like the colour of your skin. Lighter skin is more prone to skin cancer and darker skin makes you more prone to Vit D deficiency. The colour of your skin is easy to see, but say it was just a gene and you couldn't tell which one you had by just looking at yourself in the mirror?
So, increasingly in the medical setting gene testing is being offered to the public.
Not all testing companies have the same "fine print" regarding your data, so do bear that in mind and do read the fine print if this worries you. Roberta Estes has written about this.
I actually think the cost is minimal considering the price of some records. Four birth certs from the UK for people who may turn out to not be related to you after all cost about the same as one autosomal (the one that looks at all your chromosomes and finds "cousins") test (depending on which company).
If you are very happy with your genealogy paper trail and that's all you need then that's fine.
My mobile phone is a brick. Personally, I don't understand the benefit of a smartphone. But you are most welcome to have one if you like. Just don't send me a photo - you'll have to e-mail that.
-
I think DNA testing is a good idea, I have French Huguenot and Scottish ancestors as well as my English lot. I have heard that Huguenots may have had Jewish converts hiding among them, maybe a DNA test would tell me more. DNA testing is a great way, especially seeing as autosomal DNA is being worked on, ie a cousin through a maternal grandfathers sisters grandson instead of the maternal or paternal line DNA we are so used to testing.
My English ancestors came from Sussex, Oxfordshire, Essex, London, Suffolk, Durham, Dorset, Norfolk, Kent, Warwickshire, Gloucestershire and Berkshire. It would be nice to see my ancient origins.
-
After ordering mitochondrial DNA testing for myself, and for a paternal first cousin whose mt DNA would be that of my father's I learned/realized that mitochondrial DNA results are useless without a paper trail - which in my case ends with each 4x great grandmother. I have had very interesting and helpful results and contacts re my brother's 111 marker Y-DNA, and am hoping for the same with my maternal grandfather's Y-DNA (the earliest ancestor was a French Hugenot who came to North America in the 1690s). But most interesting and helpful has been the autosomal testing of myself and scores of cousins. I have been able to take that maternal grandfather's ancestry back several generations further in a couple of lines, and have connected with distant cousins with whom ancestor and descendant information has been, and will be shared. The X chromosome is inherited in a very specific pattern, and having one's X data on gedmatch allows me to see who I match. It is easy to eliminate known cousins from x matching, because males inherit X DNA from fewer ancestors, but interesting to see which known cousins might be an X match but are not.
Testing is getting more specific (and less expensive) all the time. I think that anyone interested in their genealogy should invest in genetic testing. And still recommend Family Tree DNA as the best option, with their chromosome browser, etc. However, if you have tested with either Ancestry or 23andme upload your results to gedmatch and take advantage of additional autosomal matches, and of X matches.
-
After ordering mitochondrial DNA testing for myself, and for a paternal first cousin whose mt DNA would be that of my father's I learned/realized that mitochondrial DNA results are useless without a paper trail - which in my case ends with each 4x great grandmother.
Yes I would agree with that point of view, but that could really be said about any family history research.
Most research taken in isolation has very limited use.
Research pays dividends when combined with other research such as the paper trail you mention.
Genetic Genealogy has a part to play in family history but only when the researcher realises the limitations in what they are dealing with, whether that is DNA results, census schedules, the IGI database, BMD database or parish registers.
All have limitations, all require the users to understand what information is stored or supplied and all are open to abuse.
Cheers
Guy
-
My mobile phone is a brick. Personally, I don't understand the benefit of a smartphone. But you are most welcome to have one if you like. Just don't send me a photo - you'll have to e-mail that.
I had a mobile phone some years ago but wouldn't have one anywhere near my body now. My wife's son-in-law has used one constantly with his business since they first appeared - and for many hours a day. He is only 62 and is now dying from motor neurone disease. I am convinced now that it is from all that close contact with the phone having read up on how our cells are affected by such emissions - refer Human Cell Biologist Bruce Lipton. Our nerve cells operate by using electro-chemical wave transmissions. Electrical waves act just like water waves. For example if you drop two pebbles of exactly the same size at the very same time into a pool of water you create two separate waves which will have the same size peaks and when they meet each other the waves are then amplified. This is called 'a Constructive Energy Field. However if one wave is weaker or out of phase with the other, then they destroy each other and this is 'A Destructive Energy Field'. With water you then get a frothy surface instead of large waves. The energy field from a cell phone will always be out of phase and this is obviously playing havoc with our nervous system. Just use ear phones and never place a cell phone anywhere near your body. I can see some kind of plague in about twenty to thirty years time which will devastate the world population.
-
A few months ago I took the '23 and Me' DNA test. I live in Canada but was born in Cheshire. When I got the results I thought it was fascinating despite my poor understanding of genetics. I would recommend anyone getting the test. I thought it was in some ways predictable as I understood my ancestry was about 50% English and 50% Irish, and it was.
On my mother's side, I traced my Shaughnessy root only as far back as one William Shaughnessy b about 1809, Blacksmith, and his wife Ann coming from an unknown country in Ireland arriving in Manchester about the 1830s as some of their children were born in Ireland and the others in Salford/ Manchester.
My mother's maternal line was Boyle actually two Boyles as both parents had the same last name. The man, Thomas Boyle having been born in Co. Leitrim about 1862 and his wife. Annie Maria Boyle born in Co Tyrone. sadly no further details on actual towns or parishes. Her parents: John Boyle and Mary Boyle b 1830.
On my father's side were the Pope family originating it seems in Alvanley, Cheshire, when it was a small village. They later moved in the late 1800's to Widnes and then later 1900s, my father was born in Manchester.
My paternal grandmother's line: the Frankish family in Yorkshire, from Hunmanby, and some relatives in nearby places. This line i got back into the middle 1700's so far. I did find reference to a Frankysshe in Yorkshire in the 14th Century. Maybe an ancestor?
I also found out I had a little French, a little Dutch, a little Scandinavian, and a real surprise, a little Jamaican, from way back. I must review that.
I was also delighted to find I had a 3rd cousin, from my Boyle line, living in Australia and we have been in touch and are sharing information, and I also found a relative in Cheshire,( via Ancestry, we also have been in touch. He is the only living relative from whom I could find out my patrilineal DNA. I hope to do that later. He has also taken the '23 and Me' test and is waiting for the results. There was also a gentleman who lives in the United States, we are 3rd cousins I think, but we couldn't find the connection. I have a feeling it was via the Boyles but verifying the connection will have to wait for some other time.
On the health side, I was pleased to discover I was not affected by much in genetic illness, except Migraine. I have had migraines all my life. My son also did the test and was pleased. I hope more is discovered from these tests, and if everyone shared some data they could be of use to others we might learn so much more about ourselves.
-
PS I've unlocked it again now in case somebody wants to add to the original question. However, as this is a long topic thread I'd ask please to keep it on topic. Thanks. :)
Well, you tried!!
-
I would echo the excellent points raised by Constance Cole a few posts back. Without knowing how 'ethnicity' is determined the results have little meaning. In any case, the pretence that your ancestors' ethnicity can be judged from your DNA overlooks the fact that ethnicity involves so much more than the biological relationship, i.e. "... belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition ..."
From what I've seen so far the ethnicity results are fine if you treat them as 'just a bit of fun'.
Mike.
-
I have been doing DNA research since my Mum first did the 23andme test in 2010. She has also done the Ftdna and Ancestry tests as we are trying to find her unknown American father.
Her maternal half sister has also done 23andme as has my own father because I wanted to know his Y and MtDNA haplogroups.
Out of all three tests I would say 23andme is the best in terms of value and accuracy. You get to find relatives, health reports and get a basic analysis of your Y and MtDNA. You can also share with other users and see where on your chromosomes you share DNA and download your raw data. I have managed to confirm a 4th cousin at 23andme on my Dad's side. He also shows some mystery Eastern European ancestry which I am currently working on!
I'm sorry to say that I do not rate the accuracy of Ancestry's ancestral analysis...23andme have invested more research into theirs and after myself sharing with over 100 people and comparing their results to their known ancestry, it shows. No tests are without their flaws though.
I am disappointed at Ancestry for insisting that to use all the DNA features you have to subscribe.
None of the tests are particularly good at getting cousins to respond!
I also think Gedmatch is worthy of a mention, a free site that is run by volunteers and provides a cousin matching service across all three companies so you can compare 23andme users against Ftdna for example and they have some very insightful admixture analyses although you have to be prepared to do some research into how they work!
I think all tests have the potential for customers to jump to conclusions about their results...users need to compare themselves to others of a similar background to look for what is common and what is not for example getting 0.1% Native American can cause the user to think they have that ancestry which is totally understandable but quite often it can be just noise. I think all companies could be more informative in this respect.
And ultimately due to how DNA is inherited distant ancestry might not get picked up in which case you need a good paper trail or test more family members.
For me I would recommend 23andme.
-
I'm in Australia, but I am really wanting to try the DNA to assist in research, but am also hesitant. I'm sorry I can't assist due to not living in England, but am keen to follow any developments.
Good luck!
-
Quote from Malcolm
"I had a mobile phone some years ago but wouldn't have one anywhere near my body now. My wife's son-in-law has used one constantly with his business since they first appeared - and for many
hours a day. He is only 62 and is now dying from motor neurone disease. I am convinced now that it is from all that close contact with the phone having read up on how our cells are affected by such emissions - refer Human Cell Biologist Bruce Lipton. "
Malcolm, I am very saddened that your wife's son-in-law has been diagnosed with MND. It's a horrible thing.
Motor Neurone Disease was first diagnosed in 1874. Not much in the way of electronics or pollution around then.
Only 2 people in every 100 thousand are diagnosed - despite intensive research the cause remains unknown. There is not thought to be any genetic connection.
My father died from Motor Neurone Disease in 1973 when he was only 61 years old. Still not anything like a lot of the pollutants that we have in our lives today.
My father's nephew also died from MND, aged only in his 40's, in 1975. He was first diagnosed as having had a stroke!
I would truly try not to get too hung up on the cause, although it's a perfectly normal thing to wonder, and want to know - after all when we know the cause - then Science may hopefully find the way to a cure! Research is on-going, and new medication options coming through to ease the patients journey.
I also wish you and your wife's families courage, strength, hope and peace, as you all travel this sad and difficult journey together with your relative!
Jeanne
-
Without going too much off topic (although genetics really isn't off topic), that's interesting you say MND is in your family, Jeanne.
Several of my NZ cousins have died, or have, MND. I am curious if there isn't a genetic link. What is more interesting is they have a strong Scottish ancestry, just as you do.
-
PF - Really sorry that you have had several family members stricken with this awful thing. When Dad was first diagnosed, no one we knew other than the specialist had even heard of it. I understand that a lot of research is ongoing to try and pinpoint a genetic link to MND, but not yet proven. As far as I am aware, there have been no other cases in my family.
That's not to say there weren't any further back though, which may well have been diagnosed as something else. For instance my Dad's Irish/English born grandfather, my great grandfather, who died in Canada, 1886. On his death record cause of death is stated to be Rheumatism - and he died in Montreal Hospital. I don't know, will never know now I guess, but I'm assuming that meant Rheumatoid Arthritis, (Ihave that, as did my Maternal Grandmother and a couple more) , and very possibly it could have been MND. Dying in hospital in those times seems to me to be more likely for an MND patient than an RA patient.
I vaguely recall, when first talking to my Dad's specialist, that because of some similarities to the African "Laughing Disease" - it was thought at that time there may have been a connection somewhere, with MND cases globally being most prevalent right across the 23rd Parallel of the world surface, and into the Pacific. I've googled for it for several years, but I've never been able to verify this.
I guess as the science research develops, we will learn more about MND, and hopefully they will find the cause, and discover ways to treat it. All they can do at the moment is to relieve the symptoms, and provide home help, and palliative care in the final stages. My Dad only went into hospital the day before he died, but we did have someone to help Mum in his last few months. We had a nurse who would come in the evenings, stay the night and sit with Dad so Mum could get some much needed sleep. She would also shower him in the morning, dress and settle him in his Lazy Boy for the day. She was great, and from a Private Home Nursing service that went on to become our Hospice Founders in the Hutt Valley, Te Omanga Hospice. That was before the days of Health Dept. funded home care.
ROLL ON SCIENCE !!
-
When I started my family history research I knew that my Maternal Grandfather had died young (@59yrs old), he was riddled with Arthritis (had been a great cut-throat shaver, never drew blood), in his later years he could not even hold a razor.
Later, my father was diagnosed as suffering with Osteo-Arthritis, which myself and 2 of 3 siblings also have.
Through my research I found that (most likely) the Arthritis gene came into my line through my 2x Great Grandmother, who died young, leaving her husband to rise their 4 children on his own, he lived (& worked) well into his 70's as a Diving-Dressmaker (the diving suits that were used in the 1800's with a Brass Helmet).
P.S. on my Mothers side the genetic problem seems to be some kind of Heart disease/weakness
-
I am Australian.I recently did DNA testing with Ancestry.I am descended directly from 10 known convicts who were transported over 100 years before I was born from the British Isles.All other ancestors immigrated from the British Isles.This includes Ireland,(North & South) Scotland ,Wales & England (including Cornwall & Devon for many known generations ).My results came back as 95 % from British Isles ( this includes my Irish percentage) 2% trace France & Germany areas. (Which I believe to be Hugenots arriving in England in 1600's) and 3% from Caucasus region.I am 3rd,4th & 5th generation Australian.
-
I'm English and had my DNA tested at FTDNA last June, I uploaded the results to Gedmatch but in spite of having loads of 'matches' to 2nd -remote cousins I only found one in Canada whom I knew before anyway!
My ethnicity is 65/35 GB/European and it seems as though most of the people tested are from the USA, they seem to be unaware of their 'Old World' ancestry so we in the UK have very little chance of finding anyone to match with there?
CR
-
100% Irish here back as far as I can go and tested to try find descendants (if any) of a great grand uncle who seems to have disappeared after 1902.
Have found a number of Australian relatives descended from people back in the early 1800s, when particularly on my mother's side, they started to move out. We can identify the common ancestor.
No joy on my missing man so far.
Tested with Family Tree DNA. My mother is waiting on results which should help me separate her matches from mine.
-
Did we ever get any feedback from the thread starter about what The Times did with the information they collected ?
-
OK
So is this a worthwhile gift!!! to give a crazy (me) family historian --
My OH keeps asking what I want for U know what!!! and I suddenly thought
about this.
Now is it worthwhile ------- will I find out -- who I am ???? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D or is
it too late for that.
Since I was a child I have been convinced I am related to Vikings :) don't ask me why
I just know I am.. ( mental :o :o :o :o :o)
So really would like to know -- As so far in my research, I haven't left the shores of England
even though I am way way back on some branches....
xin ;) ;)
-
Since I was a child I have been convinced I am related to Vikings don't ask me why
I just know I am..xin
If so then like myself you will be something of a rarity for England. I tested as Ydna being R1a which is sometimes called the 'Viking dna'. Only 4.5% of English males have this Ydna Origin and it is only around 13% in Norway. But, it is as high as 57% in Poland and up around 40% in Russia and most of Eastern Europe. What is rather ironic today is that Polish is now the second language in England - so we're back!!
The Tarim Basin Mummy discovered in Western China and dating back some 3000 years is also R1a, but hardly a Viking as he is wearing typical Celtic Plaid clothing.
Now forget the finds because we are all mixed up and nearly everyone is connected to everyone else. I have a cousin who tested R1b which is the dominant ydna in England - up around 90% and as high as 98% in Ireland. It is also the same ydna as the 18th Dynasty Mummies of Egyptian Kings Solomon and David (Ymn Htp III aka Salim Amen and Twt grandson of Dayhut IV). So we all are related to the biblical characters and Egyptian Pharaohs. No surprise in this because of the Egyptian remains found in Ireland and England and the Irish Legend which actually names the 14th/15th Dynasty Kings of Egypt - Abel and Cain, also possibly Abram (aka Sheshi and Brian). This legend is all about a blood feud of the supposed Irish brothers but they have very unique Egyptian names which are in the cartouches of Abel and Cain (Kian in the legend, but Khyan in Egyptian - which I can read).
Then my mitochondrial dna turned out to be T2b same as many English Kings, Tsar Nicholas, Prince Philip and Jesse James. We all have a common ancestor who lived by the River Arno in Tuscany, 17,000 years ago.
I think in the end we may have a better idea of what is in our genes by following music modes and scenes - also flashbacks if you have experienced these.
Malcolm
I haven't taken the autosomal test but have a pretty good idea of what it would be. Most seem to have up to 2.5% Neanderthal and we have a friend who was ascribed 3.5% Neanderthal.
-
But beware of Ancestry, Xinia! The reports they produce really are nonsense.
They are running a television commercial in North America where a woman discovers she is "26% Native American".
Well come on. ;)
Wouldn't you likely know about it, if one of your four grandparents, or two of your eight great-grandparents, or four of your sixteen great-great-grandparents, were Aboriginal? Or, for instance, if four of your sixteen great-great-grandparents each had one Aboriginal parent and two of them each had two Aboriginal parents? Keeping in mind that it's highly unlikely that at least a few of the great-great-grandparents of someone living in the US, if not more recent ancestors, were not immigrants or children of immigrants, i.e. 100% European.
That's really a pretty hefty percentage of ancestors to know nothing about. Unless you know absolutely nothing about at least one of your parents' families.
The test says what your DNA is; not what your ancestors are. The DNA in question (autosomal DNA, atDNA) is transmitted randomly. The part of each of your parents' atDNA that you get will be different from the parts that your siblings get. Two siblings' results will be entirely different -- the sister of the woman with 26% Native American DNA might have a much smaller percentage, for instance. They have the same parents, and thus grandparents and great-grandparents, etc. But one is 1/4 Native American and one is, say, 1/8 Native American. Nonsense.
If you google things like autosomal dna siblings you'll find lots of fairly easy to understand explanations.
If you are going to do DNA testing, it is most important to know what you want to find out.
Expecting to find out what percentage of your ancestors came from where ... nope, that just won't happen.
DNA Ancestry Tests Are 'Meaningless' for Your Historical Genealogy Search
http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-ancestry-tests-are-meaningless-your-historical-genealogy-search-244586
... Even genetic connections to historical ethnic groups like "Viking" or "Zulu" are vague. People's genetics do not reflect specific groups, since the high degree of genetic mixing over centuries means that even cultures with strong cultural boundaries do not have noticeable genetic differences.
People descended from more isolated populations, like the Scottish Highlands in the United Kingdom, have minor genetic differences from the general surrounding population, but they are not significant enough to identify a "Scottish gene" in an individual's genealogy.
"As a result, almost every Briton is a descendant of Viking hordes, Roman legions, African migrants, Indian Brahmins, or anyone else they fancy," said Jones.
If an ancestry test finds a connection between a particular sequence of your DNA and a specific, isolated tribal group, the only thing that can be concluded is a mere possibility that some of your ancestors were in that group.
Human history involves an incredible amount of migration, and because each of your genes has its own ancestral history, there are thousands of possible versions of your genealogy. ...
Malcolm33 posted while I was typing.
Malcolm, your YDNA is a completely different thing from atDNA, of course. ;)
A man's YDNA, inherited from his father, does trace directly back through his male line to the beginning, and does give a better indication of the origins of that particular male line (which means only one of four paternal great-great-grandfathers, for instance -- father's father's father's father -- and his father's father's father ...).
Men's and women's mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA), inherited from their mother, does the same, through the mother's female line. But it is far less specific.
-
Janey, having 26% native American DNA does not automatically mean that one of your grandparents or 2 of your grt grandparents were Native American. It's not as simple as that. Although we inherit 50% of our DNA from each parent the randomness of DNA division means we don't automatically inherit 25% from each grandparent or indeed 12.5% from each grt grandparent. In fact we could have a 4x grt grandparent for example from whom we have no DNA and another 4xgrt grandparents from whom we've inherited quite a bit of DNA.
-
pharmaT, I'm rather surprised that you didn't understand that that is exactly the point I was making.
The test says what your DNA is; not what your ancestors are.
Expecting to find out what percentage of your ancestors came from where ... nope, that just won't happen.
The Ancestry television commercial has the woman saying "I am 26% Native American".
Not in any meaningful sense, she isn't.
Apparently her DNA is 26% Native American (and since it's Ancestry saying it, I would take that with a grain of salt anyway).
The test does not show that SHE is 26% Native American.
When I say I'm 100% English except for a greatx4 grandfather born somewhere in Ireland c1770, I'm talking about my ancestry, not my DNA. I think that's how most people understand the concept.
It is absolutely misleading for Ancestry to tell people they are A% this or B% that or C% the other thing. Autosomal DNA simply does not tell you where any proportion of your ancestors were from. It's just a pretty meaningless bit of data.
As you say, this woman's "26% Native American" DNA could well mean that she has one Aboriginal greatx4 grandparent whose autosomal DNA just happened to be the bit that got passed down to her.
It isn't going to get her tribal membership in any Native American group in the US. ;) That depends on ancestry, not DNA. Just the way most of us think of "what we are".
-
Can someone tell me if the result comes back 0% for a particular ethnic category can we take it that we have NO ancestors from that area? We wanted to test a family story that one branch of the family was originally Spanish - probably provoked by the olive complexions on almost members of that branch plus the slightly unusual surname. The DNA came back with NO Spanish DNA. Can we now put this story to rest - despite the protests of family members?
I'm still a bit confused by the test - but grateful for any help!
-
It depends a bit on how far back Lesleyhannah. If say it is as far back as the Spanish Armada that's several generations ago and not likely to show. But it would be worth uploading to Gedmatch and playing around with their tools.
We have some distant cousins I would LOVE to test just to be nosey (or if they have tested I wish their results would jump up and down at me from the long list of names). One member of the family became an actor and always played "exotic" characters and we're related to both of his grandmother's parents. I've found he had a South American gtgt-grandmother of unknown ancestry - nothing to do with the Armada at all.
-
They are running a television commercial in North America where a woman discovers she is "26% Native American".
Well come on. ;)
Wouldn't you likely know about it, if one of your four grandparents, or two of your eight great-grandparents, or four of your sixteen great-great-grandparents, were Aboriginal? Or, for instance, if four of your sixteen great-great-grandparents each had one Aboriginal parent and two of them each had two Aboriginal parents? Keeping in mind that it's highly unlikely that at least a few of the great-great-grandparents of someone living in the US, if not more recent ancestors, were not immigrants or children of immigrants, i.e. 100% European.
That's really a pretty hefty percentage of ancestors to know nothing about. Unless you know absolutely nothing about at least one of your parents' families.
In the ad, I believe she said she thought she was Hispanic. So she likely had more recent ancestors who came from somewhere other than Europe. I think it's common for people of, say, Mexican heritage to show up as a mix of Native American and European DNA, given the country's history. She may have known she had ancestors from a particular Hispanic country, but not have realized that their DNA would be part Native American.
-
I'm English and had my DNA tested at FTDNA last June, I uploaded the results to Gedmatch but in spite of having loads of 'matches' to 2nd -remote cousins I only found one in Canada whom I knew before anyway!
My ethnicity is 65/35 GB/European and it seems as though most of the people tested are from the USA, they seem to be unaware of their 'Old World' ancestry so we in the UK have very little chance of finding anyone to match with there?
CR
I agree with you CR. My grandparents on one side and great-grandparents on the other, came to Australia from the UK & Europe - England & Wales and Ireland, Germany, England & England. My result through Ancestry was 53% Ireland 20% Scandinavia and 10% Europe East with all remaining regions being more broadly in that part of the world.
I was hoping to be put in touch with living relatives / fellow family research enthusiasts in the UK but there were only distant cousins mostly in the US where none of the people on my family tree went. The 53% Ireland does not co-relate with having only one G-Grandmother from there, but I know it is random as to where the DNA comes from to make up each descendant. I'd always thought I was a bit Irish anyway, certainly different from others in my family...so happy to have it confirmed :)
-
If you can find the definitions Ancestry uses "Ireland" includes Wales. So you need to add your Welsh ancestry to your Irish to get a better correlation. If you have anyone from Cornwall you can add them in as well. "Ireland" includes all the Celtic areas, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.
-
If you can find the definitions Ancestry uses "Ireland" includes Wales. So you need to add your Welsh ancestry to your Irish to get a better correlation. If you have anyone from Cornwall you can add them in as well. "Ireland" includes all the Celtic areas, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.
Long line from Somerset, does that count?
-
I was hoping to be put in touch with living relatives / fellow family research enthusiasts in the UK but there were only distant cousins mostly in the US where none of the people on my family tree went.
I have had my results 3 days and uploaded to gedmatch. I have had contact with 3 people 1 from Victoria Australia, 1 from NZ and 1 I suspect is also in Australia. They have been fantastic help and we have confirmed connections back to Cornwall, Sussex and a brickwall confirmation which I will post soon on the Australia Board.
The best thing about Australian records is they are ( mostly) available so going back to 4th-6th cousins helps those UK records that are hard to find. I am not fussed if I have an American cousin as they are also into Genealogy as much as anyone so I will get some greater info. Plus it helps show where families split ie Poor Law recipients having brothers and sisters head off to 3 different countries ie Canada, USA and Australia.
Keep hoping for that one day :)
-
You are really doing well DavidG02, and sound so excited! That's wonderful you are making those connections. I only just read somewhere on RootsChat about uploading to GEDmatch and did it a couple of days ago. I did the "One to Many" Matches this morning, but I'm afraid it is all double dutch to me - though it brought up lots of matches. I'm slowly watching YouTube videos to educate myself :)
-
Shellyesq, this is the Ancestry commercial in question:
https://www.ispot.tv/ad/AZTW/ancestrydna-kim
Her pie chart is shown:
26% Native American
23% Iberian
15% Italy/Greece
5% Africa
8% Asia
23% Other
She says:
"I wanted to know who I am, and where I came from."
"The most shocking result was that I'm 26% Native American; I had no idea."
"This is what I'm made of, this is where my ancestors came from."
"I absolutely want to know more about my Native American heritage"
-- as she is pictured among unidentified "Native American" cultural objects.
And I repeat: Nonsense. ::)
A person in the US whose ancestors were 49% Native American & Iberian would, indeed, likely have Spanish and indigenous ancestors. And would surely know it.
So I'm sorry, Shellyesq, but your speculation about that woman's ancestry just doesn't really make sense. The idea of someone in the US with significant known Latin American ancestry not knowing that it very probably included indigenous ancestors is just kind of unlikely.
In the interest of full disclosure, Ancestry needs to include some family trees in those ads. ;D
-
The ad that I saw was a different one, but with a similar result.
Not everyone who takes a DNA test has necessarily researched thoroughly researched their background or given much thought to what groups are going to make up their DNA. I'm sorry if that doesn't make sense to you, but it does to me.
However, I think I'm done with this discussion, because I don't appreciate being spoken down to in this manner.
-
If you can find the definitions Ancestry uses "Ireland" includes Wales. So you need to add your Welsh ancestry to your Irish to get a better correlation. If you have anyone from Cornwall you can add them in as well. "Ireland" includes all the Celtic areas, Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Cornwall.
Long line from Somerset, does that count?
I didn't realise they included Scottish ancestry with Ireland - it makes sense but I can't find anywhere in the information they provide that says that. It also confuses our results somewhat. Can anyone find the info that the Celtic ancestors are all grouped together? Thanks.
-
https://www.ancestry.com/dna/ethnicity/irish
-
And I repeat: Nonsense. ::)
A person in the US whose ancestors were 49% Native American & Iberian would, indeed, likely have Spanish and indigenous ancestors. And would surely know it.
So I'm sorry, Shellyesq, but your speculation about that woman's ancestry just doesn't really make sense. The idea of someone in the US with significant known Latin American ancestry not knowing that it very probably included indigenous ancestors is just kind of unlikely.
Everyone's knowledge about their ancestors is not the same - including even their closest relatives.
There are many, many scenarios that would account for a person not knowing where a quarter of their DNA comes from.
-
The DNA ethnic results might make more sense if the terms were more clearly defined.
Anyone born in America is Native American - literally.
If the experts are to be believed the entire human population has African origins. At what point in time do you become non-African?
Way too much woolly thinking for ethnic results to have any serious meaning. If you do it for a bit of fun that's fine, but don't take it so seriously . . .
-
The DNA ethnic results might make more sense if the terms were more clearly defined.
Way too much woolly thinking for ethnic results to have any serious meaning. If you do it for a bit of fun that's fine, but don't take it so seriously . . .
Agree. Ancestry give my results Irish 53% Scandinavian 20% and GEDmatch call it North Atlantic 51.01% and Baltic 25.54%. Same difference, sort of? :)
-
Everyone's knowledge about their ancestors is not the same - including even their closest relatives.
There are many, many scenarios that would account for a person not knowing where a quarter of their DNA comes from.
Mike, you're just not taking my point. The speculation was that a person in the southwest USA might know they have Hispanic (Latin American) ancestry, but not expect that it included "Native American", i.e. the indigenous peoples of the Americas.
I'm in North America (Canada) and I do know a bit about stuff in the US. Pretty much everybody there, especially someone with known Hispanic/Latino ancestors, knows perfectly well that there is almost certainly an indigenous element present in their ancestry. For someone in the US with Hispanic ancestors to come from a line descended from Spanish colonizers of whom none had indigenous spouses would be extremely rare.
Now here's the thing: it turns out these speculations are somewhat right about the person in the TV commercial. ;)
The actor who got the "26% Native American" result is Kim Trujillo. Well of course she knew she had Hispanic ancestry: look at her surname. ... But it turns out that, apparently for cultural reasons common in the US state of New Mexico, where she is from, she thought she was "pure" Spanish:
https://www.pressreader.com/usa/santa-fe-new-mexican/20160703/281977491938545
That's quite an interesting read, from an historical and cultural standpoint.
So she had a blind spot, and her test opened her eyes, as the eyes of other New Mexicans are being opened as they learn -- from historical and archaelogical studies to start with -- that they are very unlikely 100% Spanish, and some of them not Spanish at all.
That really is an almost unique circumstance (as you can see from the history explained in that article) -- although I suppose it would apply to anyone with an ancestral component that had been suppressed or denied for cultural (racist) reasons.
What I wish is that people who are considering this test, or commenting on these "ethnicity" results, would read up just a bit on autosomal DNA and what it can and can't tell us -- and what these "ethnicity" components actually mean.
I guess I'll have to get mine done; the paid-for atDNA test kit has been sitting in a pile somewhere on my desk for almost a year. But it will be done at FTDNA, where I have had both my fathers' and maternal grandfather's YDNA tested. As I'm sure I mentioned way back in the thread, that was done (in the case of my mother's family) for a very specific reason - rumours about her grandfather's ancestry and discoveries that confirmed it was not as advertised; and produced a very specific result - no matches where expected, and an unexpected close match as a result of an amazing stroke of luck, leading the ancestral search down a totally different path.
Most people just don't have the kinds of questions (or suppressed facts) in their ancestry that Kim Trujillo had, and an "ethnicity" test just is not going to provide any useful information at all, about actual ancestors or ancestral history. Autosomal DNA is just too random, and the classifications just too unspecific and essentially meaningless.
-
What I wish is that people who are considering this test, or commenting on these "ethnicity" results, would read up just a bit on autosomal DNA and what it can and can't tell us -- and what these "ethnicity" components actually mean.
I'm afraid that comes across as rather patronising. Some of us do know rather a lot about genetics. Hopefully it wasn't meant as such.
-
Many, many people have absolutely no clue about their ancestors so not sure how you can be so sure that "Pretty much everybody there, especially someone with known Hispanic/Latino ancestors, knows perfectly well that there is almost certainly an indigenous element present in their ancestry. For someone in the US with Hispanic ancestors to come from a line descended from Spanish colonizers of whom none had indigenous spouses would be extremely rare."
Your statements totally ignore one group of people that unfortunately probably don't have any information about possible ancestry- adopted people.
-
Mike ...
It's a shame when people who do not know anything about genetics think they are being patronised or condescended to when it is pointed out that they are speaking from lack of knowledge.
Forgive my ignorance, but what the heck is one supposed to say when that happens? Yes, your opinion, based on ignorance of the facts as it is, is valuable and well worth consideration by someone wanting to know about (whatever the subject is) - ? When people say things that are incorrect, or that are contrary to science, what is one supposed to say?
Pretty obviously, that last comment of mine was not directed at you specifically or personally. Pretty obviously, it was a comment on the amount of comment in this thread, about many apsects of this testing and the results it produces, that is not based on any knowledge of genetics.
I will refer again to what Davidft said way back in the thread:
Autosomal DNA
In my opinion this is a pseudo-science and there are more than a few charlatans offering tests in this area. The reason why I say it is a pseudo-science is although there is some science behind the subject there are too many unknowns and assumptions for the claims that are made for the ethnic predictions made.
-- the big unknown stemming from the random nature of the autosomal DNA one inherits from one's parents -- it is simply not an arithmetical formula. One's own atDNA could have virtually no percentage from a particular grandparent (whose own atDNA could have been skewed drastically as well), for instance. So no "percentage" breakdown of the ethnicity of one's atDNA (even if it were accurate) can tell a person anything at all about their actual ancestors.
That's the simple reason why Ancestry-type "ethnicity" results from atDNA analysis are completely useless for genealogical purposes.
-
Many, many people have absolutely no clue about their ancestors so not sure how you can be so sure that "Pretty much everybody there, especially someone with known Hispanic/Latino ancestors, knows perfectly well that there is almost certainly an indigenous element present in their ancestry. For someone in the US with Hispanic ancestors to come from a line descended from Spanish colonizers of whom none had indigenous spouses would be extremely rare."
Because I know what I'm talking about ... because I was talking about the specific population of people in the USA with Latino ancestry.
It turned out -- I learned by researching the subject of the discussion, Kim Trujillo, as set out in my post above, in order to know more about what I was talking about -- that there is a particular population, in the US state of New Mexico, that actually is (wilfully) ignorant of their indigenous ancestry, which historical and archaeological evidence was already pointing to.
Your statements totally ignore one group of people that unfortunately probably don't have any information about possible ancestry- adopted people.
Oh my, how insensitive of me. It also ignored people like me, whose great-grandfathers assumed a false identity ...
Adopted people generally use atDNA analysis to try to find matches who are cousins of some sort, so they can then use traditional genealogical methods to try to determine who their common ancestor is. For them to rely on it to tell them their "ethnicity" would be as foolish as for anyone else to do so.
As for the "ethnicity" business, all I can do is repeat myself ...
The big unknown stems from the random nature of the autosomal DNA one inherits from one's parents -- it is simply not an arithmetical formula. One's own atDNA could have virtually no percentage, or a very large percentage, from a particular grandparent (whose own atDNA could have been skewed drastically as well), for instance. So no "percentage" breakdown of the ethnicity of one's atDNA (even if it were accurate) can tell a person anything at all about their actual ancestors.
That's the simple reason why Ancestry-type "ethnicity" results from atDNA analysis are completely useless for genealogical purposes.
The ethnic breakdown of one's atDNA is not indicative of the proportion of any ethnicity among one's ancestors.
-
I didn't realise they included Scottish ancestry with Ireland - it makes sense but I can't find anywhere in the information they provide that says that. It also confuses our results somewhat. Can anyone find the info that the Celtic ancestors are all grouped together? Thanks.
In reality Celtic includes Hebrew Egyptian from as far back as at least the 18th Dynasty Kings of Egypt - Solomon - 4 of them, and David - 5 of them. Their Ydna is R1b1a2 which is exactly the same as the majority of males in all of Britain - about 90% in England and as high as 98% in Connaught. We have a common ancestor who lived somewhere near the Black Sea some 9,500 years ago. Apart from the Egyptian skeletal remains in Ireland and the Egyptian ships in the Humber Estuary at Ferriby there are two Irish legends which name the Egyptian Kings Abel and Kain - even Horus and some are prefixed by their god names 'IU' which according to Massey is the origin of the name 'Jew'. The double water reed glyph god name can also be read as an abbreviation 'YW' for Yah Weh. Yah, Iah,, or Lah was the name of a Moon God and the letter W was the Egyptian plural letter like our 'S', added because they saw that the Moon had many aspects from Crescent to Full Moon, whilst the children of the east (Arabs) insisted that it was One - hence AL-LAH, yet they still have a Crescent and Full Moon disc on top of their Mosques. Few of them realize that they are still worshipping the Moon.
-
I just want to quote Deb again, from page 25 -- she is one of our resident actual experts in this field.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding in this thread about what DNA can and can't tell you. The ethnicity results aren't very helpful but autosomal DNA tests are sold primarily for cousin matching and not for the ethnicity results.
AncestryDNA and the Family Finder test from Family Tree DNA are used by genealogists from all over the world as a tool for genealogical research just in the same way that we use BMD records and census records. I can't understand any genealogist wanting to turn down the opportunity to have an additional record that might help them with their family history research. It will also give you the chance to connect with genetic cousins who might have more information on the family tree than you have. As with any record you get, the results don't always immediately fit in with the records that you already have. I've often paid for paper records that I've not been able to use. Also not everyone gets meaningful matches at the outset. However, the databases are growing all the time. Over three million people worldwide are already in these databases. Americans do tend to dominate the match lists but there are growing numbers of Brits, Australians, Canadians, New Zealanders, etc. taking these tests. Also I've heard of a number of cases where matches with Americans have actually broken down the brick wall.* I've now got confirmed matches with a third cousin, a third cousin once removed and a fourth cousin. The more people who test the more success we will all have.
Cousin-finding tests are also being used by adoptees, foundlings and donor-conceived children, and are solving mysteries that were previously insoluble. We are seeing stories virtually every day of people finding matches in the databases and being linked with unknown half-siblings, first cousins and sometimes even finding their biological parents. Contrary to one assertion in this thread an autosomal DNA test can definitively confirm a parent/child relationship. It can also distinguish between full siblings and half-siblings.
... Anyone wanting to learn more about DNA testing might like to have a read of some of the beginners' articles in the ISOGG Wiki:
http://isogg.org/wiki/Beginners'_guides_to_genetic_genealogy
* (note - This was exactly the case for me with my maternal grandfather's YDNA - the match is in the US, but from the same part of Cornwall. My atDNA test may refine the match, but it is probably beyond the 5th-cousin level.)
Autosomal DNA can be very useful for finding actual living relatives and then pooling resources to trace ancestors. Paying for an atDNA test to get "ethnicity" results is like having your horoscope done. ;)
-
It's a shame when people who do not know anything about genetics think they are being patronised or condescended to when it is pointed out that they are speaking from lack of knowledge.
It doesn't matter how much you think you know about this subject- the problem is that you will not allow anyone else to make a comment or have a point of view that does not support your thoughts on the matter.
I'm afraid DNA is not a topic that interests me enough to put up with being spoken to this way or watching rude comments to other people's posts so will stop reading anymore here :-\
-
In reality Celtic includes Hebrew Egyptian from as far back as at least the 18th Dynasty Kings of Egypt - Solomon - 4 of them, and David - 5 of them. Their Ydna is R1b1a2 which is exactly the same as the majority of males in all of Britain - about 90% in England and as high as 98% in Connaught. We have a common ancestor who lived somewhere near the Black Sea some 9,500 years ago.
My father's YDNA -- male-line ancestors in Wiltshire back to earliest records in 1500 -- is I-M223, rare in England (3-4% in that part of England).
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I2_Y-DNA.shtml
It is associated with the pre-Celto-Germanic people of north-Western Europe, such as the megaliths builders (5000-1200 BCE). Its age has been estimated between 21,000 and 13,000 years old, which corresponds to the Epipaleolithic period.
I2a2 is found in most of Europe and could have had a continent-wide distribution before the arrival of Neolithic farmers. Although it hasn't been identified in the few Mesolithic Y-DNA samples available as of 2016, I2a2a was found in Neolithic Spain and in southern Russia during the Yamna culture, at each extremity of Europe...
Maybe my atDNA test will show me as 50% Hispanic ... ;D
-
It doesn't matter how much you think you know about this subject- the problem is that you will not allow anyone else to make a comment or have a point of view that does not support your thoughts on the matter.
I'm afraid DNA is not a topic that interests me enough to put up with being spoken to this way or watching rude comments to other people's posts so will stop reading anymore here :-\
Feel free to do what you like! Free speech ... it means saying whatever you like and listening to whatever you like -- or not listening, and not saying anything.
That actually applies to everybody. Including me. :)
And of course what this power is that I wield, of "not allowing" someone else to do anything at all ... ???
I've already asked how one avoids this very English definition of "rude" when one is pointing out that something someone has said is simply incorrect. I've actually waited a long time for an explanation of that.
Not all opinions are as good as each other. The idea that they are is actually a very USAmerican notion.
Maybe not writing post after post just to chide someone else based on one's personal definition of good manners isn't exactly good manners.
-
My father's YDNA -- male-line ancestors in Wiltshire back to earliest records in 1500 -- is I-M223, rare in England (3-4% in that part of England).
http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_I2_Y-DNA.shtml
It is associated with the pre-Celto-Germanic people of north-Western Europe, such as the megaliths builders (5000-1200 BCE). Its age has been estimated between 21,000 and 13,000 years old, which corresponds to the Epipaleolithic period.
I2a2 is found in most of Europe and could have had a continent-wide distribution before the arrival of Neolithic farmers. Although it hasn't been identified in the few Mesolithic Y-DNA samples available as of 2016, I2a2a was found in Neolithic Spain and in southern Russia during the Yamna culture, at each extremity of Europe...
I'm a rarity too, Janey. I have the R1a 'Viking Strain' and this is only about 4.5% of males in England, but as high as 57% in Poland and over 40% in Russia - only 13% in Norway.
BUT I have a distant cousin who has the usual R1b1a2 ydna and so can add that lot as ancestors. I'm reasonably certain that your father would have ancestry through maternal lines covering most other dna found in the British Isles.
Think of it all being the same as a kitchen delicacy which has mainly one spice but a dash of this and a dash of that. Or a kind of cocktail.
-
I'm English and had my DNA tested at FTDNA last June, I uploaded the results to Gedmatch but in spite of having loads of 'matches' to 2nd -remote cousins I only found one in Canada whom I knew before anyway!
My ethnicity is 65/35 GB/European and it seems as though most of the people tested are from the USA, they seem to be unaware of their 'Old World' ancestry so we in the UK have very little chance of finding anyone to match with there?
CR
I'm always delighted to find a match from the British Isles, so thank you for testing.
The known ancestors of people whose kits I manage are all from the British Isles from two to four generations ago, so UK/Irish matches are very useful for us.
-
Think of it all being the same as a kitchen delicacy which has mainly one spice but a dash of this and a dash of that. Or a kind of cocktail.
Absolutely! It's quite a drag that maternal lines can't be traced with anything like the kind of fine-tuning that is present with male lines. :( But the autosomal may help. If I get around to finding the kit and doing it ...
I does just happen that my mother's father's male line is the one of mystery, with the fake surname, so the YDNA was the clue (and he's plain old common or garden R1b-U106).
Some people (cough men cough) are interested only or mostly in researching their surname line. I'm completely ecumenical. It makes for one heck of a lot of ancestors to be keeping track of once you get back to 1800 and beyond, though!
-
I'm always delighted to find a match from the British Isles, so thank you for testing.
The known ancestors of people whose kits I manage are all from the British Isles from two to four generations ago, so UK/Irish matches are very useful for us.
Although I'm in Canada, I'm really in the same boat as Cockneyrebel - grandparents all born in England and emigrated without extended family -- so I'm not really looking for relations in the US (or Canada).
But with a surname as common as the one I had discovered my great-grandfather was born with, I had hoped that a match in the US would solve two birds with one stone -- I would confirm that my gr-grfather really was the son of his registered father, through a match with that surname, and at the same time, some lucky people in the US would finally know where their male-line immigrant ancestor came from, because I do know about my gr-grfather's ancestors in Cornwall back to the 1700s generally.
Since his father was connected with mining in Cornwall, and mining-related emigration to the US from Cornwall was common, I felt sure I would find a match among the many hundred people in the project for his very common surname. Nope. Not a sausage. Not a remote match. I was almost as disappointed for the people his DNA could have helped as I was for me!
But the very close match I did find gave me yet another surname for my gr-grfather (or his gr-grfather, or whoever), and confirmed for the match in the US that her father (who knew his grandfather had emigrated from the same part of Cornwall circa 1850 in connection with mining) was legitimate despite the family rumours, and despite the lack of an actual surname match. ;)
The fact that people in the US, in particular, are unaware of their Old World ancestry doesn't matter when it comes to DNA matching -- that is exactlly what they are trying to find out. The matches, if there are any, will be made (e.g. at FTDNA) regardless of surname or family history knowledge. And then the people who match get to figure out where their trees converge. Whether that is helpful to the tester in the UK depends on what they are wanting to learn.
So I absolutely encourage it too!
-
I'm always delighted to find a match from the British Isles, so thank you for testing.
The known ancestors of people whose kits I manage are all from the British Isles from two to four generations ago, so UK/Irish matches are very useful for us.
Although I'm in Canada, I'm really in the same boat as Cockneyrebel - grandparents all born in England and emigrated without extended family -- so I'm not really looking for relations in the US (or Canada).
For one kit there could be all sorts of possible explanations for various matches around the globe (via NPEs). So when I said they were from the British Isles two to four generations ago it didn't actually mean that no one had had the chance to spread their genes elsewhere.
In the family there were sailors (some involved in the Baltic flax trade mid-1700s, others in whaling and others transporting goods across the Atlantic), plantation managers in the West Indies before slavery was abolished and merchants involved in tobacco in Virginia etc. They were crossing the Atlantic by the mid-1700s but in many cases had a wife back home. Others were on the tea-clippers to China.
And there were soldiers involved in various campaigns - Rosetta in Egypt, or with HEIC. Any of them could have fathered children while they were away - we know of two children in India that weren't spoken of until their father died (when they are mentioned in his will).
Another ancestor would travel to Virginia in the 1700s as he had business interests there (tobacco).
So, there could be matches from anywhere!
Although it hasn't been proven by DNA we have recently made contact with a branch of the family from the Middle East. They're descended from a cousin who was in the region in the late 1800s that everyone thought never married.
-
!! uhm !!
changed my mind about that then..
I will stick with what I knows as fact.... :) I am ME :) and not at all unhappy about that :)
Xin
-
I would do a DNA If my mum could honestly give me the truth of who my sperm donor were. instead I have some guy on my original birth certificate that I know - 1 million % didn't do the deed. My adopted father told me the truth in August 2016 before he died 😢 that me & my step sister had the same sperm donor which I do have to say we are a mirror image of each other - everyone says we are twins ...I just wish the man who died in August that adopted me at the age of 2 could of been put on my original birth certificate he was the one that deserved the title of " FATHER" but the only reason i would want DNA testing is for my health reasons as I can't do nothing about changing the original birth documents the best of it is my mum even put herself down - As married to the guy using his surname wow how you could just write what you want back then, was a joke & they took your word for it ...
-
I would do a DNA If my mum could honestly give me the truth of who my sperm donor were. instead I have some guy on my original birth certificate that I know - 1 million % didn't do the deed. My adopted father told me the truth in August 2016 before he died 😢 that me & my step sister had the same sperm donor which I do have to say we are a mirror image of each other - everyone says we are twins ...I just wish the man who died in August that adopted me at the age of 2 could of been put on my original birth certificate he was the one that deserved the title of " FATHER" but the only reason i would want DNA testing is for my health reasons as I can't do nothing about changing the original birth documents the best of it is my mum even put herself down - As married to the guy using his surname wow how you could just write what you want back then, was a joke & they took your word for it ...
An autosomal DNA test could potentially identify your sperm donor father. An autosomal DNA test will give you matches with genetic cousins. If you are lucky enough to have a match with a close cousin, such as a first or second cousin, then it is simply a question of tracing the tree forwards to identify a likely candidate. There have been people who have had matches with half-siblings in the genetic genealogy databases. Ideally you need to be in all three databases (23andMe, AncestryDNA and Family Tree DNA).
Have a look at the resources listed on the ISOGG Wiki page on DNA testing for the donor conceived:
http://isogg.org/wiki/DNA_testing_for_the_donor_conceived (http://isogg.org/wiki/DNA_testing_for_the_donor_conceived)
-
my wife is a McNamara from Co. Clare and seems to be related to the blood line of some on this chat forum.
her family moved to Keokuk, Iowa.
here's the obit from CHIC TRIB for the Judge in the family, whose father came from Co Clare:
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/1939/10/25/page/27/article/obituary-1-no-title
can we compare notes?
-
Hello Bill, and welcome.
This seems to be the thread where you may share ancestors with someone:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=35068.msg6130595#msg6130595
If there is someone in this particular discussion thread (about DNA ethnicity results) who seems to be related, you can now click on that person's name and send them a private message (since you have made the 3 posts that are needed for that). Otherwise it's not likely that anybody reading this thread will know what you're referring to.
You can send private messages to people in that McNamara thread as well, and also to anyone in the Waterford thread where you posted:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=408893.msg6130596#msg6130596
-
Here are my Ancestry results.
From previous SNP testing I know that I am Haplogroup I M253/ sub type S246 (Z59) and MTDNA T2C1.
Cheers, Ade,
-
Hi: I had a request from someone on here about me taking a DNA test - it was in 2016 - hadn't been on the website for ages so have only just seen it.
It says somewhere that it is particularly good for getting information for folk who were adopted - I don't quite understand the logic of that - if you don't know who your natural parents were and they are deceased anyway - what good would it do?
Sue
PS I don't get notifications on my E-mail that there is anything on here for me - is there I can get alerts?
-
I am an adoptee, and I found out who my birth father was through DNA testing. He passed away when I was 2 years old, but his half-sister and a cousin of his had tested with Ancestry. They showed as matches to me, we exchanged messages, and we were able to figure out the connection from there. I knew from my non-identifying information that my birth father was a college student at the time of my birth and I had a description of his hair & eye color, height, and ethnic heritage. It turned out that the man we suspected attended the same university that I knew my birth mother went to, and all the other information I had fit.
My birth father's fraternal twin tested after that, and he showed as a "close relative" (which included uncle) to me. That basically confirmed our suspicions.
Through Facebook groups and newspaper articles, I know of many adoptees who have had success with using DNA.
-
Hi you can match with close relatives thus work out your family origins.Lots of people have found their birth families by dna matches.An acquaintance of mine who was adopted at birth has found her birth mother & recently found close matches to her fathers family.So dna testing can give you info on your genetic background.
-
According to the FTDNA atDNA test, I am:
British Isles (38 %)
West and Central Europe (36 %)
Scandinavia (24 %)
According to my surnames for my well proven 30 ancestors (based on forebearers.io) my actual
mixture is:
English (85 %)
Irish (6 %)
Netherlands (3 %)
Germany (3 %)
Switzerland (3 %)
-
I am sorry to say that despite all I have read on here I cannot see how it is relevant to someone who doesn't know who they are exactly because of adoption.
My husband has been asked by an eager American to have his DNA done - he flatly refuses and maintains that DNA continues to mean (for him) "DO NOT ASK!" Sue
-
Was there something about my story that was confusing? There are many people who have done what I did - take an autosomal DNA test, get matched to relatives, and work out possible candidates for the unknown parent from there. In some cases, it takes some genealogical digging to work back to possible mutual (however many times great)-grandparents. Luckily, mine didn't.
This site gives a pretty straightforward explanation about how DNA testing can help adoptees - http://www.dna-testing-adviser.com/AdoptionSearch.html
I can't even count how many newspaper articles/TV shows I've seen detailing adoptees successfully finding biological relatives this way. Here's one - https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/social-issues/dnas-new-miracle-how-adoptees-are-using-online-registries-to-find-their-blood-relatives/2016/10/12/10433fec-8c48-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html?utm_term=.00431e70ef9e
-
I guess Sue and her husband just don't understand what it can mean to someone to identify their birth family, even somewhat distantly related members. Sometimes even especially if their birth parents are deceased. I know that when my mum dies (my dad is deceased already), I will be very glad that I have siblings and cousins still.
Everyone here is interested in their family origins and their ancestors, and enjoys finding out who they were and researching their lives. Some can't imagine what it is like not to know where to begin in that search.
If I'm keen to find out who my greatx6 grandparents were and where they lived and what kind of lives they had, why would an adopted person not be just as keen to learn about the people from whom they descend? ???
I can't imagine not helping someone do that if I were asked. I have only done YDNA testing of two male relatives, to try to solve a couple of genealogical mysteries, but if someone searching for birth family found a match with them, I would gladly do autosomal testing myself if it would help.
Even if an adoptee isn't able to find out exactly who their birth father and mother were, they can sometimes identify someone who is closely enough related to say that they share, say, great-grandparents. For someone interested in genealogy, that is important information for research. For someone who wants to know their family, that can be as personally important, depending on the people who are found, as finding a parent or sibling.
I have helped many people over the years, on the internet, find the parent they never knew, and many have found that they have an extended family who welcomes them. I don't know why using DNA to do that would seem any different from using the electoral roll.
(Sue/Dean1: there should be a 'notify' button to click at the bottom of the list of messages. Mine says 'unnotify' so I presume I clicked 'notify' at some time.)
-
I am sorry to say that despite all I have read on here I cannot see how it is relevant to someone who doesn't know who they are exactly because of adoption.
My husband has been asked by an eager American to have his DNA done - he flatly refuses and maintains that DNA continues to mean (for him) "DO NOT ASK!" Sue
👎👎👎 🤔 I don't think that's a very helpful post at all - it's no good your being "sorry to say" etc ! You said it!! You may indeed have been better not to! If I'm understanding you correctly Dean1, I think if you and/or your husband had been adopted, and didn't know who your birth parents and family were, and where they were from, it may very well have been relevant to you!! It certainly would have been to me! If I had been adopted, I too would likely to be happy to follow the DNA choice! I was not adopted, and I am not at all interested in doing the DNA thing but that's my choice! Everyone is entitled to make their own choices.
As for your previous post, re people being "deceased anyway" - of course they are! Otherwise there would nobody doing genealogy and familiy history!
Time for you to walk in someone else's shoes perhaps.
-
Dean1 was expressing a perfectly legitimate personal opinion, and though after continued questioning I have moved on from holding that opinion myself, it is not helpful to indulge in public castigation - clear explanations are better.
Dean1 - Davidft gave me the following link the other day and it was helpful with my assessing how a missing parent might be found using DNA testing:
https://dna-explained.com/2017/04/24/which-dna-test-is-best/
-
I am sorry to say that despite all I have read on here I cannot see how it is relevant to someone who doesn't know who they are exactly because of adoption.
My husband has been asked by an eager American to have his DNA done - he flatly refuses and maintains that DNA continues to mean (for him) "DO NOT ASK!" Sue
👎👎👎 🤔 I don't think that's a very helpful post at all - it's no good your being "sorry to say" etc ! You said it!! You may indeed have been better not to! If I'm understanding you correctly Dean1, I think if you and/or your husband had been adopted, and didn't know who your birth parents and family were, and where they were from, it may very well have been relevant to you!! It certainly would have been to me! If I had been adopted, I too would likely to be happy to follow the DNA choice! I was not adopted, and I am not at all interested in doing the DNA thing but that's my choice! Everyone is entitled to make their own choices.
As for your previous post, re people being "deceased anyway" - of course they are! Otherwise there would nobody doing genealogy and familiy history!
Time for you to walk in someone else's shoes perhaps.
Hi, I feel I am entitled to express my opinion ALSO! I did not put any details of myself on here other than that I was adopted. It is a long story which I will not go into BUT when I was about 47 (I am now 76) I came home from a late shift at the local hospice where I worked, put my feet up on the settee and started to read the Crawley Observer which had been delivered that day - there was a large article in there about a girl who had been adopted and had spent years trying to find out "who am I" - her natural parents were the same as those on my original birth certificate. I now have a sister, nieces and nephews ...............yes, I think would have liked to have SEEN my natural parents but not actually meet them - it is probably odd not to want to do this but it was not to be. I agreed to go with my sister when she visited "our" mother but was not prepared to meet her. Very shortly after my sister and I met she found out that our mother had recently died - no visit was, therefore, ever made. My sister had actually made all the overtures to a daughter-in-law of our mother who actually rang me - she is a very nice person and without me seeking information she did give me quite a bit.
I should add at this point that IF YOU HAD GROWN UP IN THE FAMILY I GREW UP IN YOU WOULD NOT WANT A SECOND SET OF PARENTS WHOEVER THEY WERE I.E. THE ONES WHO GOT RID OF YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE VERSUS THE ONES WHO FELT YOU HAD "BAD BLOOD"!
Don't be too critical of me - I had to live that life. I am also entitled to my own opinion.
I have done my "natural" family Tree rather than my adopted Tree and very interesting it is.
Dean1
-
Sue/Dean1, maybe you can understand why some of us, especially anyone who is adopted, doesn't understand your view.
You are adopted, you discovered your birth family (whether or not you wanted to meet any of them), and you have done the family tree of your birth family - with the help of members of your birth family.
Others seem only to want the same thing. :)
-
...How can I stop this topic from showing up under "New Replies" for me? I've tried three times, and it still keeps bobbing back!
-
...How can I stop this topic from showing up under "New Replies" for me? I've tried three times, and it still keeps bobbing back!
Unnotify?
-
Thanks, but tried that. Three times now.(Why doesn't it work for me?)
-
Actually it hasn't worked for me either, although I think it has stopped email notifications. ;D
-
So glad I'm not the only one who can't manage to get rid of topics like that (Unusual names, etc) that seem to go on for ever....
-
It says somewhere that it is particularly good for getting information for folk who were adopted - I don't quite understand the logic of that - if you don't know who your natural parents were and they are deceased anyway - what good would it do?
Sue
I am sorry to say that despite all I have read on here I cannot see how it is relevant to someone who doesn't know who they are exactly because of adoption.
That's the very point you're missing!!!
How do you think Police are able to confirm whether their suspect is the correct person ???
I personally don't know much about DNA but as an e.g.....
If I thought my next door neighbour was a child of one of my own relatives & we both took a DNA test then we would have overlapping coincidences (that's my term for likenesses) in our DNA profiles which would confirm we were related.
We would of course have to work out which relative was the father of the neighbour as DNA can't determine EXACTLY who you descend from.
Your theory is very mind boggling as you have already been given true factual instance from shellyesq ::) ;D
Annie
-
As for your previous post, re people being "deceased anyway" - of course they are! Otherwise there would nobody doing genealogy and familiy history!
Time for you to walk in someone else's shoes perhaps.
Well put Jeanne!!! & for the latter 'Dead Men's Boots' would be appropriate I think ??? ::) ;D :P
Annie
-
;D ;D ;D
-
I think really useful for people that were adopted out and need to find anything about their origins.
I have a friend who was surprised to see a high percentage of Romanian ancestral DNA, her Grandfather being of unknown name/origin. She is very different to the people in the community she grew up in. Now we can see why. Fascinating. We might never know his name.
As for my own DNA, ancestral DNA means nothing to me. All our paperwork is pretty clear, if other races have slipped in anywhere it just makes me a better person genetically speaking as we have far too much of one country in our DNA.
-
Sue/Dean1, maybe you can understand why some of us, especially anyone who is adopted, doesn't understand your view.
You are adopted, you discovered your birth family (whether or not you wanted to meet any of them), and you have done the family tree of your birth family - with the help of members of your birth family.
Others seem only to want the same thing. :)
Hi; Of course "others seem only to want the same thing" - perfectly natural that you want to know who you really are.
Once you have your original birth certificate (which I acquired rather late in life) it is reasonably easy to trace the family tree - it is then exactly the same process as for those who are not adopted - it is, of course, unfortunately, more difficult to confirm if natural relatives are all deceased. I never wanted to meet my birth family except for my half brother - he, unfortunately, had been killed in a road accident so I never did get to meet him but, who knows, maybe he wouldn't have wanted to meet me. The person who helped me was his wife and what a lovely lady she is.
One of the big things I found whilst researching my natural family is that I felt guilty - guilty towards my adoptive parents who most definitely would not have understood my reasons for doing so. They were not happy when my sister turned up .............coincidentally her name was also Susan! Sue
-
Sue, you may not realize that what applies in England does not apply everywhere.
In the US (unless something has changed very recently that I don't know about), people do not have access to their original birth certificates, and they are not given parent information. The records are simply sealed. In Ontario, Canada, where I live, it was only a very few years ago that new rules were made to give adoptees that access, and the rules are not retroactive.
In any case, a birth certificate anywhere might not identify the father, and you can't do your father's side of your family tree if you don't know his name.
-
(Sighs) STILL trying to "un-notify" myself of new posts in this topic.... tried again.... still keeps popping up in "New Replies".
-
I might have found how to do it! When it comes up as a new post there is the option to ignore topics. I've ticked the box so I'll see if that works.
Answer this, then send me a PM to tell me you've done it and I'll let you know if I get a notification of this topic. ;)
-
Okay, let's see if it works ... just got time before we both set off on that time-warp express!
-
No, didn't work as that time I got an email notification!
-
Perhaps, groom, if we both SCREAM loudly, at the same time....?
TY
-
I am getting bored with DNA - I prefer to do plain old family searches. I don't even bother to erase them, I just ignore them - I thought I had been searching for relatives not cells. zzzzz
Now where is that button to stop the adverts ......................
-
It's really perfectly all right not to be interested in something ... but probably best not to continually deprecate those who are.
What I wish is that I'd stop getting all the notices about people complaining about getting notices! :D
Maybe there's a thread about that someplace.
-
I too am fed up with this coming through
I have already deleted it a few time
Elizabeth
-
I'm sorry, but why does anyone who actually does want to discuss the subject of this thread care that someone else, who contributed to the thread at some point, has now decided they don't?
Is it normal practice to complain every time one gets notice of something one has tired of, in the thread in question?
If people are having problems with the functionality of this site, surely they should go to some sort of help or complaints forum to work them out.
These problems are not the subject of this thread.
I assure you that I feel pretty much the same way -- I'm tired of getting notifications of additions to the thread, which is about a subject that does interest me, and coming here and finding nothing but more complaints about notifications.
-
It did interest me, JaneyCanuck ... at the start, but after one has tried several times to remove oneself from the notification list, and failed ... and then found that others are in the same boat, it makes me wonder why the system doesn't seem to work ... and that's at least of as much, if not more interest to me at the moment as the original topic ... which also seems to have been going round in circles for ever, and a couple of score pages!
So sorry that it upset you. Perhaps you can think of a way to delete that actually works for us all? Or if the original poster closed this thread, and started another, on DNA testing ( because surely the "Times" will by now have lost interest) then I'll know not to click on it?
Thank you for your advice.
-
I am closing this post, the times has had some interesting comments and has not been following recent updates.
If you are no longer following a thread then you can click on the "unnotify button" and you will no longer be notified on the topic.
If someone is having problems then please get in touch with us directly as we are unable to read every post. If you do click on the contact support then please do let us know your username or what email address you are using for us to help you out - someone did complain this morning but without a username or email it is difficult to help to which I replied but they did not come back to me.
Sarah