RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: PommieG on Sunday 13 March 22 02:40 GMT (UK)
-
I have just destroyed my family tree and started over again. 15 years of work because of one discovery. I had a DNA test some years ago, the 23 and Me site. They sent me contacts who might be relatives. I found about 6 or 8 second cousins. All from my mother's side of the family who by the records in the 'paper trail' appear to have been 'decent moral' people.
Nothing, not one contact from my father's side. Why ? I decided to do a bit of digging. I am my father's son, no doubt about it. My resemblance to him leaves me no doubt. But, was the man I have on paper as my grandfather really my grandfather ? This man died when My father was 4 yr old and had never married my grandmother. It appears 'Grannie' was a prostitute in the late 1800's and had at least 4 children before living with 'Grandpa'.
So, my Family Tree is a genealogy construct rather that a biological one.
So, is family history really worthwhile ?
-
I’m puzzled as to why you decided to destroy your whole tree? Presumably your mothers side is correct?
A huge number of people have discovered illegitimacy in their research. If you are certain who your paternal grandfather was - you can continue researching him
If you are certain who your paternal grandmother was - you can continue researching her. Your father clearly had half siblings but it doesn’t mean you have to research them as well
-
I suppose it depends why you wanted to research your family at all - so many people don't!
I'm with Carole in that there is no need to destroy a tree of which at least 50% is correct and presumably more than that if you have researched your paternal grandmother's ancestors.
However, if you are mainly interested in researching your surname, I can see it is a massive disappointment. On the other hand, these kinds of discoveries add to the intrigue, surely? I love finding out "irregular" stories as it all adds to the dectective work!
One suggestion though - if you have only used the DNA test within 23andMe, that will restrict the possible matches available. You would have to pay for an additional test if you wanted to check matches on Ancestry, but it might be worth uploading your results onto, e.g. MyHeritage as they take imported results and, in my experience, have a very different set of possible matches from the other sites I've used.
-
5 years ago, early in my research I found that my father's parents weren't who I had believed. This came about by luck, confirmed by DNA. I haven't spent a vast amount on research, but £60 for a DNA test is a bargain. They say 1-4% of births are not as believed, so I think any one seriously doing research should get it done.
Zaph
-
I have just destroyed my family tree and started over again. 15 years of work because of one discovery. I had a DNA test some years ago, the 23 and Me site. They sent me contacts who might be relatives. I found about 6 or 8 second cousins. All from my mother's side of the family who by the records in the 'paper trail' appear to have been 'decent moral' people.
Nothing, not one contact from my father's side. Why ? I decided to do a bit of digging. I am my father's son, no doubt about it. My resemblance to him leaves me no doubt. But, was the man I have on paper as my grandfather really my grandfather ? This man died when My father was 4 yr old and had never married my grandmother. It appears 'Grannie' was a prostitute in the late 1800's and had at least 4 children before living with 'Grandpa'.
So, my Family Tree is a genealogy construct rather that a biological one.
So, is family history really worthwhile ?
Yes if you are careful in your research and seek all available evidence to back up your assumptions.
Many people tend to rely on very basic research to develop thier assumptions then complain when things go wrong, for the last 20 or so years DNA has been added to the family historians toolbox and more and more indiviuals are being tested, this dataset will only grow and become more useful over time.
You now have the oppertunity not only to check your decent through your mother but DNA has opened possible research of your father as well.
Whether you think it is worthwhile or not is up to you but I certainly do, my only dilema is whether to send some envelopes my mother licked and sealed in the 60 & 70s to be tested for her DNA or not
Cheers
Guy
-
my only dilema is whether to send some envelopes my mother licked and sealed in the 60 & 70s to be tested for her DNA or not
Is that a genuine possibility, Guy?
-
Why not adjust the relationship to "step-" or "adopted-" ? The situation is similar to modern adoption, but there was less of a paper trail then.
What you had done already was not "wrong"; it was just not the whole picture. We hit situations of this sort all the time, but yours was a biggie and hit you quite hard.
There are no rules about what you can research. I help people who visit our FHS centre. I've researched all the previous owners of my car. I've researched the victim of a crime committed by a cousin in the 1880s.
All this informs us about life in other times and other places.
And many of us find the search quite pleasurable. ;D
-
It's awkward when that happens and no doubt it can cause a lot of hurt in a family. In my case, my great grandmother (who was married with four children already) had an affair with her lodger and ran away with him. She gave birth to my grandfather, who was registered with her affair partner's name. Family resemblance, and later DNA, proved her husband was the biological father. We've recorded our tree by DNA, but that doesn't mean the legal father wasn't part of my grandfather's history. Did they know at the time who the father was? We'll never know.
Depending on how you feel about this, it opens you up to having even more tree than you did before- the genetic tree and the emotional one. For many, the family connections are more important than any blood. If a man raised a child, that interaction would shape the child regardless of DNA. In the case of a man who died when the child was four years old... That's still a part of the child's history but I admit I probably would be pretty frustrated with the time spent on it.
The man you researched is presumably still someone's family. You might find it at least a little cathartic to help out some people who are related to him trace their family back. At least then you might feel like you still did something worthwhile.
-
My concern is how sure you are, the lack of DNA matches on your paternal side means there was the possibility of your g/father not being your g/father?
My brother & I have both had our DNA done, he used 23&me, I used Ancestry & neither of us have any close matches with our maternal side.
This tells me my maternal side don't seem to be interested in their Genealogy or she wasn't our mother ???
How many siblings did your g/father have?
Have you had links with their surname.
Often, when trying to link further back, I find people only have as far as their g/parents (direct lines) on trees which may not include the surnames we need to see from a generation or 2 further back & the results are we have 4th to distant cousins who haven't researched far enough back to the common ancestor(s) i.e. that surname is often not to be found?
I agree with others, a mistake to destroy what you'd done without enough proof your theory is correct?
Annie
-
my only dilemma is whether to send some envelopes my mother licked and sealed in the 60 & 70s to be tested for her DNA or not
Is that a genuine possibility, Guy?
Yes there are I think three companies that currently offer this but it is very expensive, that is my dilemma, can I justify the cost?
At present I have my DNA and a First Cousin's DNA (from my mother's side of the family).
I also have a living cousin from my father's side of the family (but she has not tested at present).
I should therefore be able to trace both sides of my family, but DNA from letters my mother sent would?may add to the possible pool of DNA connections.
Cheers
Guy
-
A couple of weeks ago I discovered that the man I had thought to be my great-grandfather wasn't. There was always a question of who the "real" gt-grandfather was - I'd settled for the one named on certificates etc, DNA has shown that not to be the case.
I had spent many years, and some money, researching the "certificated" man's family line. I'm now starting again with the family of my REAL gt-grandfather.
Was it a waste of time to research the wrong man? Well, not really. This whispered query from the past is what started me on this hobby in the first place. I've visited places and learned how to find my way around genealogical records thanks to my initial research on this line; I've learned about social history, religion and migration - it's all been interesting even if ultimately the name at the end of it is wrong. And finding out the real story behind this twist in my family tree has been fascinating.
And of course, like everyone, I've got 4 great-grandparents - starting again with one line doesn't negate all my research on the other three lines!
So no, I don't feel it's been a waste of time at all!
-
I’m puzzled as to why you decided to destroy your whole tree? Presumably your mothers side is correct?
A huge number of people have discovered illegitimacy in their research. If you are certain who your paternal grandfather was - you can continue researching him
If you are certain who your paternal grandmother was - you can continue researching her. Your father clearly had half siblings but it doesn’t mean you have to research them as well
Hi Carole, I had two online trees. One with Tribal Pages which I tried to keep 'pure'. The other on ancestry.com which I regarded as a 'fun' tree and added anything that seemed plausible. It had 11,000 names. Recently I reviewed my TP tree adding documentation that has come on-line or I obtained from various sources. Some of my entries had no documentation and I thought ' where in hell did I get him/her from ?' A lot of this tree is 15 years old. So I decided to start again and only include people with accessible records.
My mother's side ? Yes, all goes well back to 1803 when Christopher illegitimate son of Mary. DNA test no help there, but I do get passed Mary with her father. My paternal grandfather I have doubts about but as far as records go I have to accept him in the 'paper trail'. The rebuilt tree is coming along well.
-
23 and Me sends me reports every so often. Possible new relatives. ? 2nd,3rd and 4th cousins ? Now, 2nd cousins are easily found through the records anyway. I have had 1511 'possibilities' sent to me out of which only 8 were relatives, 4 of which I already had. Not much of a success rate is it.
-
23 and Me sends me reports every so often. Possible new relatives. ? 2nd,3rd and 4th cousins ? Now, 2nd cousins are easily found through the records anyway. I have had 1511 'possibilities' sent to me out of which only 8 were relatives, 4 of which I already had. Not much of a success rate is it.
DNA doesn't lie so your matches must have some connection but as for being able to find 2nd cousins, yes, if you know of their existence.
A 2nd cousin shares g g/parents, not grandparents.
I have 2nd cousin DNA matches but I knew about them prior to doing internet research etc.
I was able to help them with their genealogy in Scotland as their parents had emigrated to Canada.
Those relatives were the same generation as my paternal g/parents i.e. my father & g/mother told me many, many yrs ago about those people.
I'd always had a fascination about relatives/genealogy since a child & when internet came about, pre my DNA, I'd shared all my info. with those 2nd cousins, who had no records of their Scottish ancestry, only knowledge passed down with little else apart from 'our grandparent was Scottish'...
I've found other relatives unknown to me until finding matches via DNA & I've managed to do the research to connect them via a paper trail now.
Annie
-
Just to be clear, you do not have any DNA matches other than on your mother's side? Wouldn't that mean that nobody on your father's side has tested yet regardless of who he is descended from?
Debra :)
-
....was the man I have on paper as my grandfather really my grandfather ? This man died when My father was 4 yr old and had never married my grandmother. It appears 'Grannie' was a prostitute in the late 1800's and had at least 4 children before living with 'Grandpa'.
You are drawing some seriously long bows here if you think your grandmother had a child with someone else. Of course it is not impossible, but extremely low on the 'likely' scale.
Your father was born in 1908 - his parents had been together since at least the time the 1891 census was taken and are still together in 1911.
Sarah had 3 children indexed under her maiden surname, not 4, and two of those were born after the 1891 census. Your father was the 5th child to be indexed under the father's surname.
Debra :)
-
....was the man I have on paper as my grandfather really my grandfather ? This man died when My father was 4 yr old and had never married my grandmother. It appears 'Grannie' was a prostitute in the late 1800's and had at least 4 children before living with 'Grandpa'.
You are drawing some seriously long bows here if you think your grandmother had a child with someone else. Of course it is not impossible, but extremely low on the 'likely' scale.
Your father was born in 1908 - his parents had been together since at least the 1891 census was taken and are still together in 1911.
Sarah had 3 children indexed under her maiden surname, not 4, and two of those were born after the 1891 census. Your father was the 5th child to be indexed under the father's surname.
Debra :)
My father was born 1907. I have his birth cert. I remember him saying quite often that he didn't have a birth certificate. He knew 13th Dec, but 07 or 08 ? Why he never applied for one I don't know. I bought it from GRO. I did have his marriage certificate which I obtained on the death of my mother in 2003. His mother was still alive in 1933 when he wed. His father's name there is Samuel. Inquiries at Somerset House drew a blank. Surely his mother knew the correct name.
Uncle George was born in 1889 when Sarah was 17. His birth cert is blank where father's name should be except for a 'G' struck out. Evidently she wasn't sure who the father was. Then 1891 there is a son Thomas Edward (both her brothers names). Father is just a line. 1893 a daughter registered in her maiden name. All these born in Nottingdale, a notorious slum. By 1896 the family are in Willesden. I don't have the 1891 census.
If the family has a sordid past it makes it more interesting.
-
Most births in December are registered the following quarter and year, which your father's was.
St Thomas, Chelsea, London
10 Adela Street
George BATHAM, 22, Head, married, Chimney Sweep, born Kensington, London
Sarah E BATHAM, 19, Wife, married, born Barnet, Hertfordshire
George, 17 months, son, born Kensington, London
Just because they were poor doesn't mean it was sordid. I think that young George was probably George's son. They were not married, so unless the couple attended the registry office together the father should not have been named. By the time the fourth child was born they didn't bother with legalites any more. Both Edward and Sarah were born after 1891 so there is no reason to think that they were not George's children.
Debra :)
-
Most births in December are registered the following quarter and year, which your father's was.
St Thomas, Chelsea, London
10 Adela Street
George BATHAM, 22, Head, married, Chimney Sweep, born Kensington, London
Sarah E BATHAM, 19, Wife, married, born Barnet, Hertfordshire
George, 17 months, son, born Kensington, London
Just because they were poor doesn't mean it was sordid. I think that young George was probably George's son. They were not married, so unless the couple attended the registry office together the father should not have been named. By the time the fourth child was born they didn't bother with legalites any more. Both Edward and Sarah were born after 1891 so there is no reason to think that they were not George's children.
Debra :)
My father knew nothing of his father except that 'he'd gone away'. Aunt Annie, aged 10 at the time their father died should have known something. They never mentioned their grandfather George who lived till 1923 and lived not far away in Shepherds Bush. Apart from Sarah b.1872 all the previous generation had passed away,all of them fairly young. So from Sarah saying she was born in a caravan(true), the story got about that we were descended from gypsies. We weren't. Take a look at Annie Burris b. 1885 Nottinghill, Sarah's sister. birth cert says father Richard James Burris, Sailor. Falsification if ever there was one. Born 2 years after her husband Thomas, sailor died.
Now, another point. I never met uncle George or aunt Sarah. They had fallen out with my father and didn't speak to him. I resemble my father who in turn resembles his mother from existing photos. She was a slightly built woman, short and skinny, aunt Annie was a bit taller and skinny looked like her mother too. Uncle Alf also had the looks of his mother but had red hair. Aunt Emily, 1st of the Batham name was totally different, a big fat woman.
My new tree will be more interesting than the old one. Not just a list of people. Stories will be added.
-
my only dilemma is whether to send some envelopes my mother licked and sealed in the 60 & 70s to be tested for her DNA or not
Is that a genuine possibility, Guy?
Yes there are I think three companies that currently offer this but it is very expensive, that is my dilemma, can I justify the cost?
At present I have my DNA and a First Cousin's DNA (from my mother's side of the family).
I also have a living cousin from my father's side of the family (but she has not tested at present).
I should therefore be able to trace both sides of my family, but DNA from letters my mother sent would?may add to the possible pool of DNA connections.
Cheers
Guy
Can you list the companies Guy, do we have examples where people have successfully done this? Would FTDNA or MyHeritage accept such uploads as well as GEDMATCH?
-
my only dilemma is whether to send some envelopes my mother licked and sealed in the 60 & 70s to be tested for her DNA or not
Is that a genuine possibility, Guy?
Yes there are I think three companies that currently offer this but it is very expensive, that is my dilemma, can I justify the cost?
At present I have my DNA and a First Cousin's DNA (from my mother's side of the family).
I also have a living cousin from my father's side of the family (but she has not tested at present).
I should therefore be able to trace both sides of my family, but DNA from letters my mother sent would?may add to the possible pool of DNA connections.
Cheers
Guy
Can you list the companies Guy, do we have examples where people have successfully done this? Would FTDNA or MyHeritage accept such uploads as well as GEDMATCH?
I have not checked whether companies accept the upload but see no reason why they would not accept such files.
https://www.totheletterdna.com/
Step 1 – Determine if DNA is present – cost US$165
Step 2 – Determine if DNA is human, and if sufficient for processing – cost US$395
Step 3 – Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) – cost US$1600 – includes generation of the autosomal DNA file for upload to GEDmatch, the full WGS BAM file, and Haplogroup data.
https://www.keepsakedna.com/
approx.. costs US$390 plus a processing charge (not determined)
https://livingdna.com/
approx.. costs US$500-US$800 per sample
Cheers
Guy
-
DNA will only connect to living relatives
-
Unless you have identified every single DNA match, how can you be sure that none of them come from the paternal side of your family?
Physical resemblance, or lack of, is not a reliable way to determine paternity.
-
DNA will only connect to living relatives
Sorry I do not understand why you think that.
Any tissue from a person whether living or dead will/may contain their DNA even envelopes and stamps that have been licked may carry their DNA (I say may as it does deteriorate in certain circumstances or it can be contanimated with someone else's DNA). Hair, skin nails etc all contain DNA as do all bodily fluids etc.
It is perfectly possible to extract DNA from hair bloodstain and dried saliva from a deceased person, but we have to be realistic. One could be lucky and get a good DNA sample from the glue on the first envelope tested or one may be unlucky and have to have a number of envelope seals tested before gaining a viable sample.
For instance I have a number of envelopes licked and sealed by my mother. Such samples could prove a DNA link between my mother and myself or even my mother and my 1st cousin. In this case I already have the paper trail link, so the DNA would simply be additional proof but it would also be beneficial in providing my mother's full DNA profile possibly helping to connect more distant lines of the family.
This could be beneficial as I of course only have approximately 50% of my mothers DNA so having her full DNA could show/prove further distant cousin connections.
Cheers
Guy
-
DNA will only connect to living relatives
Sorry I do not understand why you think that.
Any tissue from a person whether living or dead will/may contain their DNA even envelopes and stamps that have been licked may carry their DNA (I say may as it does deteriorate in certain circumstances or it can be contanimated with someone else's DNA). Hair, skin nails etc all contain DNA as do all bodily fluids etc.
It is perfectly possible to extract DNA from hair bloodstain and dried saliva from a deceased person, but we have to be realistic. One could be lucky and get a good DNA sample from the glue on the first envelope tested or one may be unlucky and have to have a number of envelope seals tested before gaining a viable sample.
For instance I have a number of envelopes licked and sealed by my mother. Such samples could prove a DNA link between my mother and myself or even my mother and my 1st cousin. In this case I already have the paper trail link, so the DNA would simply be additional proof but it would also be beneficial in providing my mother's full DNA profile possibly helping to connect more distant lines of the family.
This could be beneficial as I of course only have approximately 50% of my mothers DNA so having her full DNA could show/prove further distant cousin connections.
Cheers
Guy
Sorry but I don't have any DNA from any other source than myself. If you have DNA from your g-g-g- grandfather lucky you. My test done years ago can only be compared to LIVING people tested by the same organisation.
Latest from My Heritage :- You currently have 76 pending Smart Matches™ that have been confirmed by other My Heritage users.
I've reviewed them, no matches
.......A total of 3873 Smart Matches™ are awaiting your confirmation.
After checking the first 100 with no luck I gave it up as a waste of time, time which could be spent more profitably on searching genealogy websites.
-
Unless you have identified every single DNA match, how can you be sure that none of them come from the paternal side of your family?
, or lack of, is not a reliable way to determine paternity.
Sorry but digging up granddad to get DNA is not allowed. The only DNA I have is my own. Tested by 23 & Me it is compared to other LIVING people on their database. I have several surnames listed on my account as have other users. If a 'match' contains a similar surname then contact is made with that person through 23&me to confirm. I have had about 8 confirmations all from my mother's side.
Physical resemblance is a good way. If you could see me, my father, my eldest daughter and two of her sons you would have to eat your words.
-
Unless you have identified every single DNA match, how can you be sure that none of them come from the paternal side of your family?
, or lack of, is not a reliable way to determine paternity.
Sorry but digging up granddad to get DNA is not allowed. The only DNA I have is my own. Tested by 23 & Me it is compared to other LIVING people on their database. I have several surnames listed on my account as have other users. If a 'match' contains a similar surname then contact is made with that person through 23&me to confirm. I have had about 8 confirmations all from my mother's side.
Physical resemblance is a good way. If you could see me, my father, my eldest daughter and two of her sons you would have to eat your words.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I am talking about your current (living presumably) matches. Unless you have identified each one of them, and you know where they fit into your maternal family, then it is possible that any you cannot identify may relate to your paternal line.
You may have resemblance between certain family members, but it is still not a reliable method to determine paternity. I’ve seen the opposite - no resemblance whatsoever but definitely closely related to each other.
Similar (or the same) surnames can help finding a connection between dna matches however you also need to consider the female line - they usually changed their surnames upon marriage, so
the surname may be unfamiliar to you, and you may find a common ancestor if you follow their lines back.
Good luck in the search.
-
Hello,
I did mine three times (same results each time) a few years ago. Insightful, and they have improved a lot since then. Got to meet a few distant relatives/descendants from 4-5 generations ago. Good luck with yours.
-
This topic has not gone as I expected. it has become instructions on how to research which I do not need.
23&Me sent me a match, possible 2nd cousin. Nicholas Nickleby, (not his real name). No Nicklebys in my tree but in his list of surnames is 'Hussey'. Ah! my mothers maiden name and I had plenty on her family but not Nickleby. So I contact Mr Nickleby and find that he had been adopted by a Charles Dickens and his birth name was Major. Wow! Great aunt Ellen had married George Major, already in the tree. Given a couple of generation and Nicholas fits neatly in the tree. . If a given 'match' has no common surname then I have no way to research it. It's as easy as that
The DNA test cost me about $70.00 AU. and after 10 or 12 years it has yielded only about 8 relatives I question whether it was worth the expense, time and effort.
-
Not being particularly conversant with the Australian systems of BMD registration and their searchability, you may suffer from difficulties in that regard. I know you don't want instructions on how to research, but my own experience is that very few even relatively close DNA matches will have recognisable surnames from the direct lines of my family tree, due to the number of intervening marriages between the match and the generation where our common ancestors reside.
I have spent a lot of time (more so than researching my direct family probably) in researching and recording collateral lines - the lines of descent from brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles of my direct ancestors, and bringing them forward as far as possible to the present date. Sometimes this produces direct results, in that the surnames of DNA matches that I would otherwise never have recognised are already in my tree and require minimal (or no) further research to identify the matches. They also have the additional benefit of solving a lot of problems and dead ends along the way, as several times I have as a result found information that has broken down what at first appeared to be insurmountable brick walls via the paper based research involved in expanding those lines, completely unrelated to DNA matching.
But for those relatively close matches that I have which aren't immediately obvious, even if the match for whatever reason of their own does not wish to correspond with me, there is often enough information in their online tree, or otherwise, to enable me to identify them through a little further research of the England and Wales BMD records. The names of two grandparents might allow me to find their marriage, then search for the names of children born to them having the same mother's maiden name recorded, and do the same with thier marriages and children in turn. Or I can work backwards from a name that I do know, again by searching the BMD records.
I have just resolved one match where I had only her father's surname, and no idea who she was, other than that she was female. But an online search allowed me to establish that she had also used her Ancestry username on pinterest, where her proper name was also recorded against that monicker. Armed with that information, I was able to work back three generations through BMD records and find our connection :)
I assume from what you are saying that there is no way to perform similar searches with Australian BMD records?
-
This topic has not gone as I expected. it has become instructions on how to research which I do not need.
23&Me sent me a match, possible 2nd cousin. Nicholas Nickleby, (not his real name). No Nicklebys in my tree but in his list of surnames is 'Hussey'. Ah! my mothers maiden name and I had plenty on her family but not Nickleby. So I contact Mr Nickleby and find that he had been adopted by a Charles Dickens and his birth name was Major. Wow! Great aunt Ellen had married George Major, already in the tree. Given a couple of generation and Nicholas fits neatly in the tree. . If a given 'match' has no common surname then I have no way to research it. It's as easy as that
The DNA test cost me about $70.00 AU. and after 10 or 12 years it has yielded only about 8 relatives I question whether it was worth the expense, time and effort.
Only you can decide/justify the expense, time and effort you dedicate to your research one certificate may be looked on as a waste of money to one person but a required resource for another.
Your post shows why DNA can be a very useful additional resource for many family historians and why most experienced family historians use every resource available to them to add weight to their research.
Sometimes we do have to question if we can justify (to ourselves) the cost that would be involved as you and I have done in posts but I would suggest that happens in all aspects of living, we adjust our priorities to our needs.
It's like my brother when he was in the army his hobby was car rallying. He had a heavily modified Escort RS in which he won many rallies. However, when he was de-mobbed the car was absolutely no use in daily driving as the compression ratio was so high, he had to slip the clutch in slow moving traffic, horses for courses.
I would view 8 (new?) relatives from a DNA test as a good result and certainly as a starting point to confirm/ understand why the paper trail uses different names, to me that is one of the joys of family history. The thought of the off mentioned, “Soon we will be able to go to X site and our family history will be available at the click of a button” fills me with dread, that is when I would feel it was no longer worth it.
Cheers
Guy
-
my only dilemma is whether to send some envelopes my mother licked and sealed in the 60 & 70s to be tested for her DNA or not
Is that a genuine possibility, Guy?
Yes there are I think three companies that currently offer this but it is very expensive, that is my dilemma, can I justify the cost?
At present I have my DNA and a First Cousin's DNA (from my mother's side of the family).
I also have a living cousin from my father's side of the family (but she has not tested at present).
I should therefore be able to trace both sides of my family, but DNA from letters my mother sent would?may add to the possible pool of DNA connections.
Cheers
Guy
Can you list the companies Guy, do we have examples where people have successfully done this? Would FTDNA or MyHeritage accept such uploads as well as GEDMATCH?
I have not checked whether companies accept the upload but see no reason why they would not accept such files.
https://www.totheletterdna.com/
Step 1 – Determine if DNA is present – cost US$165
Step 2 – Determine if DNA is human, and if sufficient for processing – cost US$395
Step 3 – Whole Genome Sequencing (WGS) – cost US$1600 – includes generation of the autosomal DNA file for upload to GEDmatch, the full WGS BAM file, and Haplogroup data.
https://www.keepsakedna.com/
approx.. costs US$390 plus a processing charge (not determined)
https://livingdna.com/
approx.. costs US$500-US$800 per sample
Cheers
Guy
Thanks Guy, do we actually have any testimony from people that have used LivingDNA for this? As they seem by some margin cheaper, as it seems like KeepsakeDNA would also end up £1000+ with the undetermined processing charge. Actually probably best belongs in its own thread.
-
The DNA test cost me about $70.00 AU. and after 10 or 12 years it has yielded only about 8 relatives I question whether it was worth the expense, time and effort.
Have you uploaded your results to other free sites?
I have managed, by a lot of leg work/research to identify the common ancestor connections of 3 people so far, all with no surnames identifiable to me, 2 of them descended from illegitimate children with 'Reputed' fathers' surnames.
It's best upload your results to as many free sites as is possible as many matches will have tested with different companies.
In checking your matches, have you tried the LEEDS METHOD to help you?
I found this a great help...
https://www.danaleeds.com/the-leeds-method/
Annie
-
Not being particularly conversant with the Australian systems of BMD registration and their searchability, you may suffer from difficulties in that regard. I know you don't want instructions on how to research, but my own experience is that very few even relatively close DNA matches will have recognisable surnames from the direct lines of my family tree, due to the number of intervening marriages between the match and the generation where our common ancestors reside.
I have spent a lot of time (more so than researching my direct family probably) in researching and recording collateral lines - the lines of descent from brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles of my direct ancestors, and bringing them forward as far as possible to the present date. Sometimes this produces direct results, in that the surnames of DNA matches that I would otherwise never have recognised are already in my tree and require minimal (or no) further research to identify the matches. They also have the additional benefit of solving a lot of problems and dead ends along the way, as several times I have as a result found information that has broken down what at first appeared to be insurmountable brick walls via the paper based research involved in expanding those lines, completely unrelated to DNA matching.
But for those relatively close matches that I have which aren't immediately obvious, even if the match for whatever reason of their own does not wish to correspond with me, there is often enough information in their online tree, or otherwise, to enable me to identify them through a little further research of the England and Wales BMD records. The names of two grandparents might allow me to find their marriage, then search for the names of children born to them having the same mother's maiden name recorded, and do the same with thier marriages and children in turn. Or I can work backwards from a name that I do know, again by searching the BMD records.
I have just resolved one match where I had only her father's surname, and no idea who she was, other than that she was female. But an online search allowed me to establish that she had also used her Ancestry username on pinterest, where her proper name was also recorded against that monicker. Armed with that information, I was able to work back three generations through BMD records and find our connection :)
I assume from what you are saying that there is no way to perform similar searches with Australian BMD records?
'I assume from what you are saying that there is no way to perform similar searches with Australian BMD records?
Ahem ! Why do you assume that I'm searching BMD in Australia ? I'm an immigrant, usually called a £10 pom because I came here in 1968 under the then assisted passenger scheme. My search is 95% English. Like you, I have searched all possible lines from my ancestors. I thought I'd made it clear that I don't expect a DNA match surname to appear in my tree. Quote myself:- "There are no Nicklebys in my tree". But a common name was found
-
People are just trying to help you PommieG. Without knowing how experienced you are, assumptions were made, possibly sometimes incorrect. No one knows you are an “emigrant”.
More help may have been offered than you want or need, but surely that’s a good thing. :)
DNA matches can live anywhere in the world, so knowing a bit about for eg the census or BMD records of particular countries might help if you wish to trace any of your matches back to find their parents, grandparents and beyond.
So to answer your original questions:
Is a DNA test really worthwhile.
Is family history worthwhile?
I’d say most of us wouldn’t be here unless we answered “Yes” to the second question, and a growing number of us would also answer “Yes” to the first question.
-
Ahem ! Why do you assume that I'm searching BMD in Australia ?
Because I made an assumption based on your username, and because I can't believe you are having as many difficulties as you appear to be if you are researching England and Wales BMD records and making full use of the different online databases available and their opportunities for using various search methods, whilst combining them with other sources of information.
I am sorry I made an assumption, but I was just trying to help. I might even have offered to assist you, but it seems pretty clear to me now that you are more content with having a moan than trying to resolve any issues, so I'll wish you luck and leave you to it.
-
It seems clear that DNA matches have made it possible for some people to solve some of their family history mysteries, but that hasn't been the case for me.
I have an extensive, well-researched tree and I've gotten some really tantalizing DNA matches but I've been unable to figure out the exact connections because the required paper records are missing (this is especially important for family connections that pre-date the census).
I paid for me and one of my siblings to be tested. Has the cost of the DNA testing been worth it?
On the positive side, these matches have at least proven that there is a connection between certain families with the same surname in the same small towns but, on the negative side, I've spent many additional hours tracing as many of them as I possibly can and am no closer to finding answers than I was 5, 10 or 15 years ago. This has been frustrating and probably not worth the cost of the DNA, unless it pans out at some point in the future. But you can't know unless you try to do the research and follow those trails. In my case, the records either don't exist or they aren't available online yet, but in someone else's case, they just might, and wouldn't that be amazing?
I had also hoped to figure out who my great-grandfather's father was... hahahahahahahaaaaaa. Yeah, that's not going to happen. It's like trying to prove a negative. There are thousands of names out there but absolutely no way for me to build working trees for each one of them, just so I can rule them out. It was impossible enough with the known surnames. If I had done the DNA with just that goal in mind, no, it wouldn't have been worth it.
However, my main motivation in taking the DNA test was to provide a way for any potential half-siblings to contact me. I haven't heard from anyone yet, and maybe I never will, but knowing I've made it possible for someone to reach out has given me some peace of mind and, for that reason, I'd say the DNA test was worth it.
As others have said, it all depends on why someone decided to spend the money on the DNA test in the first place. It's not cheap, it definitely isn't always easy, and it isn't guaranteed to solve those mysteries but, if someone can afford it, and if they're lucky in terms of the right records being extant, and if they're a good enough researcher, it's probably worth it.
I enjoy doing the research, so the process itself isn't too onerous for me, but it does feel frustrating when there's no big pay-off at the end.
-
Of course, it’s always possible that if you have no DNA matches on one side, it could be due to a NPE and you’re actually barking up the wrong tree! This was the case for me - but that made the DNA test invaluable!
-
G'day all,
I like to think that I too have done much homework on my trees, gathering info from various libraries, sites etc., and conducting interviews with my last remaining oldies.
My dna was done through Ancestry and I was very happy to see the results prove that my research was correct!
Was that worth it?
A resounding Yes!
But, any supposed relatives I have messaged have not replied.
Why do a test if you don't want to follow up???
Cheers,
Mystified Chris
-
People are quick to assume the worst and cry out "NPE. NPE." in absence of DNA, but I was told by an expert that it is often that no one else has tested yet, or that you may not have inherited that person's DNA. They added that DNA that is there that shouldn't be is indication of an NPE.
About 1-3% of your ancestors may not be blood ones, but that is still about 97%-99% that will show the paper trail is correct, and you may have been simply climbing the wrong branch due to a name, age similar birthplace coincidence, and DNA steers you to the right one.
-
People are quick to assume the worst and cry out "NPE. NPE." in absence of DNA, but I was told by an expert that it is often that no one else has tested yet, or that you may not have inherited that person's DNA. They added that DNA that is there that shouldn't be is indication of an NPE.
See my reply #8...
"My brother & I have both had our DNA done, he used 23&me, I used Ancestry & neither of us have any close matches with our maternal side.
This tells me my maternal side don't seem to be interested in their Genealogy or she wasn't our mother"
We have numerous matches who could be our maternal line but those matches have no other shared matches with us.
Can you please ask your 'expert' how we define whether those matches could be...
"DNA that is there that shouldn't be"?
Basically, ask your 'expert' to explain to us novices, how can we tell whether a DNA link shouldn't be there unless we were dealing with very recent family e.g. siblings/cousins/aunts/uncles which I'm sure we'd all be able to see wasn't right?
I'm sure we're all interested in how to tell if more distant matches are likely to be 'NPE'?
Annie
-
Dna misses generations and passes down randomly. My daughter has numerous higher cm connections than me though she is obviously a generation removed.
I have matches which I definitely know are from my father’s line which he does not have, and vice versa.
My OH has very few matches on his father’s line. Many children were born in each generation I have traced. Like Annie said, I put this down to current descendants just not having taken dna tests yet. Does not follow that there is any illegitimacy. May have been. May not have been.
I think you need to keep an open mind PommieG, and don’t jump to conclusions. More matches will come as more people test - you might just need to be patient.
-
Dna misses generations and passes down randomly.
Sorry Ruskie, I have to disagree with that. DNA does pass down randomly, and a specific segment from one or both of an individual's parents may not be present in their DNA, as the individual of course only inherits 50% of the DNA of each parent. It may pass down to a brother or sister of that individual, or it may not be passed down at all.
But if a segment was not passed down to any of the parents' children, it cannot reappear in a subsequent generation. It is gone forever. None of those children can recreate or pass along to their children a segment of a previous generation's DNA that they didn't inherit.
If the parents had brothers or sisters, the missing segment may of course be passed down through one or more of their children and grandchildren, and continue in their family line. But that's not missing a generation, its just splitting the lineage in which that particular segment can continue to be found.
That's why testing siblings, cousins or preferably members of the oldest surviving generation can yield dividends in obtaining matches that might never be found by testing a single individual and their offspring.
-
I probably explained that poorly Phil. :)
What I was trying to say is that my father has some dna matches which I do not have, so as you say, that segment of dna did not pass on to me.
It could be that the OP has a similar situation on his father’s side, which may explain the lack of matches. :)
-
Just to add, as I hadn't read the latest newsletter before my previous post, but the owner of the Lost Cousins website has just reposted an updated version of his DNA Masterclass in the latest newsletter. You don't need to be a member to read the current newsletter, just go to the website at https://www.lostcousins.com and click on the link to the latest newsletter in the column on the left side of the page.
If you don't want to read long complicated books about DNA, but would like a summary of the most important things you should know, I'd highly recommend this. Really, really, really!!! It's worth reinforcing though that common ancestors or "thrulines" identified by Ancestry are only as good as the information in other peoples' trees. Don't take them as certain until you have verified the lines of descent on both sides by traditional research of documentary records. Of course, you may already be happy that your side of the match is correct, but the other line of descent is only as good as the accuracy of the user trees it has been derived from - and there are a lot of trees with errors on Ancestry, many of them simply copied from other incorrect trees by people who fail to do their own research before "grabbing" new relatives. Just because something or someone appears as a "fact" in numerous trees doesn't make it more likely to be correct. It may just mean that more people have copied the incorrect information without checking it for themselves. Peter Calver does say that in his article, but possibly not strongly enough.
Of course, there are a lot of very good trees as well, but do your own research before accepting anything in another tree as correct, otherwise you may end up being just as guilty of propagating false information as the people you have copied it from ;)
-
I probably explained that poorly Phil. :)
What I was trying to say is that my father has some dna matches which I do not have, so as you say, that segment of dna did not pass on to me.
It could be that the OP has a similar situation on his father’s side, which may explain the lack of matches. :)
Hi Ruskie, I thought that was probably what you meant :)
I agree with the variances in matches across different ancestral lines. I have found matches on my maternal GM's line are consistently stronger to me for given relationships than on most of my other lines. Her mother was one of 6 wives of her husband (she died following complications in the birth of my GM) and I have tens of really quite strong matches to half cousins of varying degrees of separation in the UK, US and Australia. So I must have inherited relatively large amounts of DNA from her father. Matches on other family lines for similar degrees of separation are consistently shorter.
At the other extreme, on my paternal GGM's line, I have no matches at all to anyone on the direct line of her family name (her father's line) but I do have quite a few matches to descendants of her mother's ancestors and some to relatives of women who married into her father's ancestral line, which nevertheless support my research.
-
How many siblings did your g/father have?
If he was an only child then you're looking at lower cM matches from descendants of 1 or more generations further back.
Annie
-
People are quick to assume the worst and cry out "NPE. NPE." in absence of DNA, but I was told by an expert that it is often that no one else has tested yet, or that you may not have inherited that person's DNA. They added that DNA that is there that shouldn't be is indication of an NPE.
See my reply #8...
"My brother & I have both had our DNA done, he used 23&me, I used Ancestry & neither of us have any close matches with our maternal side.
This tells me my maternal side don't seem to be interested in their Genealogy or she wasn't our mother"
We have numerous matches who could be our maternal line but those matches have no other shared matches with us.
Can you please ask your 'expert' how we define whether those matches could be...
"DNA that is there that shouldn't be"?
Basically, ask your 'expert' to explain to us novices, how can we tell whether a DNA link shouldn't be there unless we were dealing with very recent family e.g. siblings/cousins/aunts/uncles which I'm sure we'd all be able to see wasn't right?
I'm sure we're all interested in how to tell if more distant matches are likely to be 'NPE'?
Annie
Perhaps speak to him if ever you come across him, I am simply relaying what he said.
-
This man died when My father was 4 yr old and had never married my grandmother. It appears 'Grannie' was a prostitute in the late 1800's and had at least 4 children before living with 'Grandpa'.
How are you defining prostitute? Have you found written evidence ?
When "in the late 1800s" was she apparently a prostitute? When were the children born?
A woman could be unjustly/incorrectly labelled prostitute depending on laws in force at the time. A woman who had no husband around and who had more than 1 pregnancy outside marriage risked acquiring the label. Living near a military barracks increased the risk of a woman being arrested for the offence.
Some single women resorted to prostitution when they couldn't make a living doing other work or in times of unemployment. A widow or separated wife might, if she didn't have enough money to support herself & children.
There were many changes to family law throughout 19th & 20th centuries. Some, on marriage, separation, children, maintenance and divorce, led to improvements in women's lives.
-
On the original subject,
Genealogical Proof Standard. It has five elements: one is 'reasonably exhaustive research' .
Surely you can't exclude DNA.
Zaph
-
On the original subject,
Genealogical Proof Standard. It has five elements: one is 'reasonably exhaustive research' .
Surely you can't exclude DNA.
Zaph
The GPS is ONLY a guideline, and none of those five elements makes mention of DNA.
Please be aware that genealogical societies around the world can establish their own rules, guidelines, practices, by-laws and can amend, change, alter, delete, add, to their own standards as they progress their aims, objectives etc.
GPS is not the peak recognised authority and many 'genie groups' shrug it off because it is 'ARH-MERH-RICK-EN'.
😎😎😎😎🙄🙄🙄🤔🤔🤔
JM.
-
On the original subject,
Genealogical Proof Standard. It has five elements: one is 'reasonably exhaustive research' .
Surely you can't exclude DNA.
Zaph
The GPS is ONLY a guideline, and none of those five elements makes mention of DNA.
Please be aware that genealogical societies around the world can establish their own rules, guidelines, practices, by-laws and can amend, change, alter, delete, add, to their own standards as they progress their aims, objectives etc.
GPS is not the peak recognised authority and many 'genie groups' shrug it off because it is 'ARH-MERH-RICK-EN'.
😎😎😎😎🙄🙄🙄🤔🤔🤔
JM.
I don't exclude DNA but it only connects to living relatives.
-
I don't exclude DNA but it only connects to living relatives.
What makes you think that?
There are reservoirs of potential DNA samples of deceased relatives in many if not most homes.
These come in the form of the seals on envelopes etc. which an ancestor will/may have licked.
I have many letters my mum posted in the 1970s & 80s which will/may contain her DNA, such samples would be very handy to me as although I carry about half of her DNA I also carry half of my dad's. A sample from mum would help to distinguish which comes from my mum and which from my dad.
That in turn would/may help when future matches occur where the ancestry of the person is unknown.
Another clue in unravelling family history.
Cheers
Guy
-
I don't exclude DNA but it only connects to living relatives.
What makes you think that?
There are reservoirs of potential DNA samples of deceased relatives in many if not most homes.
These come in the form of the seals on envelopes etc. which an ancestor will/may have licked.
I have many letters my mum posted in the 1970s & 80s which will/may contain her DNA, such samples would be very handy to me as although I carry about half of her DNA I also carry half of my dad's. A sample from mum would help to distinguish which comes from my mum and which from my dad.
That in turn would/may help when future matches occur where the ancestry of the person is unknown.
Another clue in unravelling family history.
Cheers
Guy
Not in my home
-
I don't exclude DNA but it only connects to living relatives.
Other than what Guy has said (which is probably fairly unusual), many DNA kits are of people that have since died, probably going back to the early 2000s.
-
Uncle George was born in 1889 when Sarah was 17. His birth cert is blank where father's name should be except for a 'G' struck out. Evidently she wasn't sure who the father was. Then 1891 there is a son Thomas Edward (both her brothers names). Father is just a line. 1893 a daughter registered in her maiden name. All these born in Nottingdale, a notorious slum.
If the family has a sordid past it makes it more interesting.
Change to registration of births in England 1874. A woman not married to the father of her child couldn't have father's name included on birth certificate unless he was present when the birth was registered or had given written permission.
Sarah may or may not have been able to identify father/s.
Another assumption you seem to be making is that women who lived in slums and had illegitimate children were prostitutes.
-
A DNA test found me my 2x Great Grandfather that was unknown to any one in our family, even his daughter, my Great Grandmother. She always told us her father had died when she was a baby and all she knew was that his name was Henry. The only Henry that connects to the family was her uncle, her mother's brother but there was never any connection that he was the father in question. My results showed that her father and my 2X grt grandfather was a chap that lived a few doors or streets away in Warbleton, Sussex. For me, just that reason alone was all the proof I needed to justify buying a DNA Test kit. Regards Geoff