RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: Lisa in California on Saturday 16 March 24 22:16 GMT (UK)
-
Apologies for asking what is most likely a simple question, but I would like to make sure I understand something. :-\
Using Ancestry website, in DNA matches is the capability to search
By Parent
PLUS - Both Sides
Looking at my brother’s results for the above search, there are over 60 matches (most are 5th - 8th cousin). After a quick look, I don’t recognize any matches that I’ve previously run across and almost all of the results have never been viewed before. The silly question part: Do the results mean that the 60+ matches are from both of our parents, either by actual ancestor or by marriage? If so, might this be a typical amount of matches or is it a bit high (or low). To my knowledge, my parents’ ancestors did not live “near” each other with the exception of my Stuart/Fowley ancestors who lived two Irish counties away from my mother’s ancestors. Note: my mother’s ancestors arrived in Ontario, Canada between c1810 and c1855 (one couple did arrive c1870) and my father’s ancestors arrived (same place) in c1840, 1857, and c1870.
Thank you in advance for any guidance. Lisa
Added: of course, once my ancestors arrived in Canada, they lived in the same province, generally within 20 miles (or closer) of each other. Prior to their arrivals, most of my mother’s ancestors were in Ireland, and most of my father’s ancestors were in England. I’ve not yet found any marriages or any connection between my parents’ ancestors in Canada.
-
Sorry, one more thing to add…to give all details -
As mentioned a year or two ago on RootsChat (I asked a different question about Mumford DNA), when looking at my DNA matches, search term Mumford, some matches are for paternal and some are for maternal, with one unassigned. There aren’t any with “both”.
My brother has very similar results, the only difference is that he has a lot more Mumford matches than I.
Mumford is from my paternal line. However, my mother also has matches to Mumford descendants - most of them are for a couple of Mumfords who settled in America during the 1600s. (I’ve not yet found a connection to my Essex, England Mumfords and the ones who settled in America.)
Most, if not all, of the above Mumford matches are not included in the “Both” query that I mentioned in my original message (above). I hope that makes sense. Thank you again for taking the time to read this.
-
Back in time the two sides may have been joined by marriage but a both sides match could simply be a descendant of that marriage. In that case they will be related to you in at least two ways (one on each side), but your parents need not be related to each other.
-
Thank you, Glen in Tinsel Kni. Your explanation makes a lot of sense.
Unfortunately, a lot of the both sides matches have very limited trees but I will continue looking at them as it is interesting. Thank you again, Lisa.
-
Have a read through this thread:
https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=875634.0
For me, the situation has not changed since last August, when the number of both sides matches for me and my brother increased overnight from 2 (him and me) to 29 between us, apparently as the result of an update in the Sideview algorithm.
We still have those 29 matches. As I posted then, "All but one are at match lengths of 10 cM or less. None are shared between us, they are all apparently unique to either him or me. For three of the matches there are shared matches with other matches on our maternal side (2) and paternal side (1). Several of those shared matches are already confirmed.
For one of the matches with shared maternal matches, there is a surname in her tree that matches a surname on our paternal side. I spent a couple of hours researching her line with that name back to c. 1780, but with no indication that her line is connected to ours in any way.
As none of the matches appear to be necessary to corroborate my own tree, and most of the match lengths are in the region where IBC is a distinct possibility, particularly with no other shared matches and none at all being attributed to both of us, I'm not going to spend any more time on them."
I am still of the view that they are mostly IBC/false, bearing in mind that they are below the threshold at which matches can be considered around 100% reliable, and 26 of the 29 have no shared matches with either of us.. And if any are not, they are likely to be so distant that it is probably, barring a stroke of luck, going to be near on impossible to corroborate them by paper based research. And I ask myself, to what end?
-
Well I have a both sides match with 18cM who has a tree on Ancestry that contains Barons, Earls, Sirs and a Prime Minister from all over the British Isles ;D
I would love to know how they connect to my Midlands ag. labs.
-
phil57, thank you very much for including the link and providing your details. I will read the link contents in the morning (it is 3:00 am here).
I am a naturally (overly);D curious person so even though delving into the matches most likely will not help with my tree, I am nosey enough to have a look at others’ trees.
Ancestry is “overtaxed” at the moment so I cannot view any details but before the problem started I was able to notice that 10 of the “both matches” results are for 17-21 cM, which is still fairly low.
After reading your comments, I am curious if my brother and I share any “both matches”. That is something that I will check soon.
I was mostly curious about how both matches works but I suppose in the back of my mind I was hoping that there might be the slimmest possibility that I could eventually learn more about that strange Mumford connection.
Thank you so much for taking the time to explain everything. I will keep in mind that matches can be false results. :)
-
jaywit, ;D ;D.
I did come across a tree tonight (I won’t mention the surname) that goes back to the 1100s, I believe. I’ll stick with my coopers, butchers, farmers, etc. - at least I know that my tree is as correct as can be put together.
-
Well I have a both sides match with 18cM who has a tree on Ancestry that contains Barons, Earls, Sirs and a Prime Minister from all over the British Isles ;D
I would love to know how they connect to my Midlands ag. labs.
Last year, I was quite excited to discover a new match, only at 6cM however, to a man with the same surname as my grandmother, and a tree containing some of my ancestors. I have researched the line extensively, but have a block around 1700 because the parish registers for the village where they lived were lost before 1721, and what remains of Bishops transcripts are so patchy as to make family connections impossible; many pages having been lost due to the ravages of time before what remained was salvaged.
There are records of an "influential family" of some worth in the village around 200 years earlier, with references on British History Online and elsewhere. I think it quite likely that my ancestors are descended from them, but finding evidence to connect them is proving elusive.
So I was hopeful for new information that might allow some progression in my research.
I did notice though that there were obvious gaps in his tree, e.g. a father who died several years before the son was born, etc. Nevertheless still people who were genuinely connected - the father was in fact the grandfather and the actual father was missing from his tree.
I made contact with him through Ancestry. He responded quickly, but answers to various questions were either very vague or, "I don't know, I'll have to get back to you". I did manage to obtain the names of his parents and grandparents though.
So I started researching his tree from that information. It bore absolutely no resemblance to the tree in which he appeared on Ancestry, and the families were from a completely different part of the country to my ancestors.
I can only assume that he took a DNA test, searched Ancestry for tree relating to his surname, found one he liked, copied it and added his family to it. It was a complete fiction! And our match at 6cM has a roughly 50/50 chance of being IBC anyway.
-
phil57, what a disappointment. Hopefully, something in the near future will pop up to give you some answers.
I’m assuming that you’ve tried every conceivable spelling variation for the surname when looking at Ancestry matches? :-\ I thought that I knew my Vaus variations, using Vaux and Vans - until I stumbled upon Vous, Voice, Nous and one other variation that was so odd that I can’t remember it.
I also suppose that you’ve searched on Ancestry only for the village (not typing any first or surname in the search)?
-
I started looking at both matches results.
JS matches to
me - 16 cM, 3 segments
my son - 18 cM, 1 segment
my brother - 17 cM, 2 segments
JS has a small family tree. I don’t recognize any surnames. However, interestingly, his 3xgg was born in Little Dunmow, Essex at the same time that my Mumfords were living in Great Dunmow, which according to a current map, is a five minute drive between the towns. Just a coincidence or possibly a connection? I’ll research it eventually.
MH matches
me - 12 cM, 1 segment
my mum - 12 cM, 1 segment
my brother - 12 cM, 2 segments
However, her ancestors’ birthplaces are to vague to see any connection. I most likely will not spend time trying to find a connection.
An interesting result, but not worth researching -
Em matches
me - 25 cM, 2 segments
my son - 18 cM, 1 segment
my mother - 11 cM, 1 segment
my brother - 21 cM, 2 segments
EM has 10 names in her tree; all were born in Dorset, England starting in 1830. The tree is too brief to spend time exploring.
Excluding an error in the numbers (and given the fact that the cM are so minor), I don’t remember the answer - is it possible for a child to have more cM than a parent, please?
Added: I haven’t had time to read the previously mentioned link, I will read it today. :)
-
I don’t have anything constructive to add Lisa, but just wanted to mention that I have many examples in my DNA results where I have a higher number of shared cms with a match than my father does.
My daughter often has very similar cms, and I think in some cases even higher than my father, her grandfather.
-
Ruskie, thank you very much for letting me know. I don’t believe I’ve ever paid attention to cM comparisons (especially for matches this low). Thank you for your help. :)
(It is interesting, though, about your daughter/grandfather cms.)
-
Well I have a both sides match with 18cM who has a tree on Ancestry that contains Barons, Earls, Sirs and a Prime Minister from all over the British Isles ;D
I would love to know how they connect to my Midlands ag. labs.
Was doing my kids' father's side and stumbled across a 17th Century document regarding 'the noble' origins of one ancestor (reason why he refused to pay certain taxes) due to descending from a 16th C bastard that had been acknowledged. Went on a research binge in the archives and managed to actually find the older document, only to discover that one of my ancestors was mentioned in it as well; both were the illegitimate offspring of two cousins 'sowing their oats' among the commoners ;D
Fairly certain there are many more cases like this in which the kids weren't acknowledged and/or documentation has been lost. And yes, the descendants of our noble bastards ended up stuck elbow deep in clay soil, growing produce ;)
-
Excluding an error in the numbers (and given the fact that the cM are so minor), I don’t remember the answer - is it possible for a child to have more cM than a parent, please?
The answer is "yes".
It's the difference between IBD (Identical By Descent, sharing a theoretically traceable common ancestor within the past centuries) and IBS (Identical By State, sharing cultural/ethnic/geographical roots with a common ancestor in a murky past).
It happens that an IBS segment (which match & child happen to have in the same location) gets tacked on to a IBD segment.
-
Well I have a both sides match with 18cM who has a tree on Ancestry that contains Barons, Earls, Sirs and a Prime Minister from all over the British Isles ;D
I would love to know how they connect to my Midlands ag. labs.
Was doing my kids' father's side and stumbled across a 17th Century document regarding 'the noble' origins of one ancestor (reason why he refused to pay certain taxes) due to descending from a 16th C bastard that had been acknowledged. Went on a research binge in the archives and managed to actually find the older document, only to discover that one of my ancestors was mentioned in it as well; both were the illegitimate offspring of two cousins 'sowing their oats' among the commoners ;D
Fairly certain there are many more cases like this in which the kids weren't acknowledged and/or documentation has been lost. And yes, the descendants of our noble bastards ended up stuck elbow deep in clay soil, growing produce ;)
My thoughts were that at some time one of the 'nobles' had fathered an illegitimate child, but then how come they are connected to both sides when my maternal and paternal families lived in different counties?
Also looking at some of the lines ( many Wiki entries) they were part of the English aristocracy who basically ruled Ireland, I have no connections with Ireland.
-
My thoughts were that at some time one of the 'nobles' had fathered an illegitimate child, but then how come they are connected to both sides when my maternal and paternal families lived in different counties?
Could be that, yes, it's just sheer coincidence.
But people tended to move around far more than previously thought. A bastard son, for instance, could be married off to a younger daughter from a minor family branch and then the pair shipped off to a small hold elsewhere in the country; landholding politics were very important back then.
However, chances of finding proof are very slim. My discovery (despite having experience in Medieval research) was really the result of being extremely lucky.
(multiple edits = lack of caffeine)
-
Excluding an error in the numbers (and given the fact that the cM are so minor), I don’t remember the answer - is it possible for a child to have more cM than a parent, please?
The answer is "yes".
It's the difference between IBD (Identical By Descent, sharing a theoretically traceable common ancestor within the past centuries) and IBS (Identical By State, sharing cultural/ethnic/geographical roots with a common ancestor in a murky past).
It happens that an IBS segment (which match & child happen to have in the same location) gets tacked on to a IBD segment.
Thank you, TreeDigger. I think I understand but if you could kindly share your caffeine, please, it might help. Of course, I could try going to sleep at a normal time rather than popping in here at all hours of the night. ;D.
-
phil57, what a disappointment. Hopefully, something in the near future will pop up to give you some answers.
I’m assuming that you’ve tried every conceivable spelling variation for the surname when looking at Ancestry matches? :-\ I thought that I knew my Vaus variations, using Vaux and Vans - until I stumbled upon Vous, Voice, Nous and one other variation that was so odd that I can’t remember it.
I also suppose that you’ve searched on Ancestry only for the village (not typing any first or surname in the search)?
Hi Lisa, yes to both, and not just on Ancestry. I have a wide and verifiable tree covering three adjacent villages, back to my Gx6 GF who died in 1738. I have the names and other titbits of information about his mother and father-in-law, obtained from deeds held at TNA and Somerset Archives.
I have references to a family of the same name purchasing property and land in the village in 1539 and references to the same family providing horsemen to counter the threat of the Spanish armada. Plus further references to the family holding substantial lands and property in the area and also farming up to 1626. What I don't have is any information to link that family directly to my Gx6 GF, although he was apparently a man of some means, holding lands and property in the local area as well as in London. That all disappeared within a couple of generations when my Gx4 GF appears to have fraudulently withheld the distribution of his father's estate to the beneficiaries, and sold it in parcels to various other parties, which was later subject of a Chancery court case.
I have the name of his uncle, with whom he jointly held some properties, and there are people with the same surname to be found in the Bishops transcripts prior to 1700, but the records are not sufficient in coverage to enable any linking of family members unfortunately.
So I think it fairly likely that Gx6 GF was a descendant of the earlier family, but there is no evidence I can find to tie the two together. 70 plus trees on Ancestry make identical claims about my Gx6 GF's year of birth and family in a town in the same county, but with no sources or actual evidence of any kind. Those tree owners that I have contacted and who have bothered to respond simply say they copied the information from other trees.
All very frustrating. I am intending to visit TNA again later this year to make further searches of the Chancery records, which may or may not be fruitful. But it keeps me out of other mischief ;-)
-
Thank you, TreeDigger. I think I understand but if you could kindly share your caffeine, please, it might help. Of course, I could try going to sleep at a normal time rather than popping in here at all hours of the night. ;D.
I'll give you some caffeine if you say "Hi!" for me to SoCal 8)
The combo IBD & IBS happens when..
*you and a match have a bit of identical DNA that's shared by a whole geographical group (IBS) in the same spot, while your parent has it in a different spot
*you and your parent have a bit of DNA inherited from an ancestor (IBD) and your mutual match also has DNA inherited from that same ancestor
*the inherited (IBD) DNA happens to be in the same region as the IBS DNA you and a match also share.
I've included an image trying to further explain it.
-
Hi phil57,
I am envious of your family history, the details you’ve shared, and the ability to seek out records. I hope that reviewing the records will turn up something. I’m looking forward to reading about any positive results.
My stumbling blocks aren’t as interesting as your Gx6 GF’s history but I someday hope to find out about my mum’s gggrandmother. I don’t know:
when she arrived in Canada (possibly c1825?, who knows),
the names of her parents,
or, why she and her sister, or she and her family sailed to North America.
I just know Jane Brown was supposedly born in Belfast, Ireland c1811. (Of course, I have found details for her life after 1835, and found details for her sister after her arrival.)
Reading about your success to-date with your ancestor and the village has encouraged me to try to find a DNA match with the Browns. Suppose anything is possibly, eh?
Thank you for sharing your story; I found it very interesting (I thoroughly enjoy reading historical bits).
-
TreeDigger, thank you for taking the time to explain. I do understand now. ;D
Sorry that I can’t say hi to Southern California for you - we live in Northern California. ;) Will saying hi to our 1850s gold rush county suffice? It is beautiful here - (generally) small towns, very friendly residents, slower pace than the San Francisco Bay Area, etc. I’m so thankful that we moved here a few years ago.
Thank you again, Lisa