RootsChat.Com
General => Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing => Topic started by: mrs.tenacious on Sunday 12 October 25 16:30 BST (UK)
-
I'm very much a novice regarding understanding of DNA, so apologies for the naivety in this long post -
My g-grandfather on my maternal side was Frederick Hales b. 24 Nov 1868 Pimlico, Middx (sometimes down as Chelsea). I have never been able to find his birth registration, or a baptism record.
On census and school admission register records his parents show as:
Frederick Hales (Sr) b. 1843 Navenby, Lincs (His father was William Hales b. 1803 Navenby).
Harriett Sarah Hudson b. 1846 Pimlico
Frederick Sr. is shown on the 1861 (age 18) census at the family home in Navenby - Occ: Apprentice Joiner/Carpenter (he continued in this trade throughout his life).
I cannot find him, Harriett or Frederick Jr. anywhere on the 1871 census.
Frederick Sr and Harriett had two further children, one in 1878 and the other in 1889.
Frederick Sr and Harriett did not marry until 1904, and she died in 1908.
I wondered if Frederick Sr wasn't the biological father of Frederick Jr. Birth searches for a boy born 1868 Pimlico with names of either Hudson or Hales have been unsuccessful (including workhouse searches for Harriett as a possibility).
I have DNA matches for four of Frederick Sr's siblings with common ancestor being their father William Hales b. 1803.
Does this mean that Frederick Sr would definitely be Frederick Jr's biological father?
Any advice would be so welcome, as this has been a brickwall for many years.
Mrs. T.
-
So if I understand this right you cannot find the parents nor Fred Jr on the 1871 census.
Not unheard of. Surname may be misspelled.
Not sure why that brings his parentage into doubt?
-
I take it you have ruled this birth registration out?
-
No, I cannot find them on the 1871 census at all so far - I'm sure it's down to misspelling or mistranscribing.
The birth reg for Islington is interesting as it's not too far from Pimlico - thank you, I'll check it out.
On all records found so far he never had the second name William, but that doesn't mean it's not him, and could be named after his grandfather.
The parentage question comes from desperation I think! Not being able to find Frederick Sr from 1861, all three of them in 1871 and the fact he and Sarah didn't marry until 1904 got me looking at all possibilities.
The DNA thing is quite baffling to me, I need to get really stuck into it properly. But if I have DNA matches with four of Frederick Sr's sibling then I must be related to him and the Hales of Navenby!
I've been searching for Frederick Jr's birth for about 15 years and was beginning to doubt my own sanity.
Thanks for your replies, much appreciated.
-
If you share DNA with them you are related.
Just how closely is very much dependant upon how much DNA is shared, not just with you but between each of them.
The lower the shared DNA the more distant it is until you find the MRCA to each of them.
Often one has a DNA Match but there is no “paperwork” to back it up, but DNA above 20cM can be regarded as reliable, then the reliability goes down until 10cM and below when it becomes questionable and a documented trail is really needed to support the link.
DNA also can show a match but if the person was the subject of an undocumented Adoption then that can cloud the matter.
In your case it would help us if you could list the cM shared with each of the four.
-
I take it you have ruled this birth registration out?
HALES, FREDERICK WILLIAM ROBINSON
GRO Reference: 1868 D Quarter in ISLINGTON Volume 01B Page 352
parents appear to be William HALES and CAtherine ROBINSON m Q3 1866 St. Luke 1b 1096
-
How about this birth? Clearly to an unmarried mother
HUDSON, FREDERICK -
GRO Reference: 1868 D Quarter in KENSINGTON Volume 01A Page 166
-
How about this birth? Clearly to an unmarried mother
HUDSON, FREDERICK -
GRO Reference: 1868 D Quarter in KENSINGTON Volume 01A Page 166
BY GEORGE, PETROS - THAT'S HIM!
I'd searched previously under HUDSON as well as HALES, but I hadn't found this before.
I ordered the digital image and it confirms the correct birth date, and mother Harriett Hudson, no father name.
You are a STAR - around 15 years I've been looking for this (doing a merry dance )....
THANK YOU so much!
-
If you share DNA with them you are related.
Just how closely is very much dependant upon how much DNA is shared, not just with you but between each of them.
The lower the shared DNA the more distant it is until you find the MRCA to each of them.
Often one has a DNA Match but there is no “paperwork” to back it up, but DNA above 20cM can be regarded as reliable, then the reliability goes down until 10cM and below when it becomes questionable and a documented trail is really needed to support the link.
DNA also can show a match but if the person was the subject of an undocumented Adoption then that can cloud the matter.
In your case it would help us if you could list the cM shared with each of the four.
Thank you - I know it sounds like such a ridiculous question, but I've been going round in circles with all of this and I just wanted confirmation that Frederick Sr must have been his biological father.
Petros has found the birth reg for Frederick Jr (fanfare of trumpets), the DOB matches, and the mother is Harriett Hudson, no father named, but it must have been Frederick Sr if I have those DNA matches. Here are the cM's....
His sister No. 1: 22cM/2seg
Sister No. 2: 9cM/1seg
Brother No.1: 9cM/1seg
Brother No. 2: 17cM/1seg
In addition, I have a 360cM match with my first cousin.
And I know I need to research this DNA thing properly, so apologies.
EDITED: As I mentioned in my first post, Frederick Sr and Harriett Hudson had two children who were born in Wandsworth, but long after Frederick Jr's birth in 1868 to Harriett. Arthur was born in 1878 and Ada in 1888, so there's ten years between the siblings. Is it possible that Frederick Sr wasn't the biological father, that he met Harriett sometime after, and they had Arthur and Ada together, thereby making them Frederick Jr's half-siblings.... and is it possible that the DNA matches I have from Frederick Sr's siblings are linked to the half-siblings of Frederick Jr? The only DNA match I have with Frederick Sr is with my first cousin. The only thing making me think Frederick Sr was the father (unnamed on the birth cert) is that Harriett registered him as FREDERICK Hudson,
-
If Frederick Hales (Sr) b. 1843 Navenby is your ancestor then he's a 2xgrt g/f so matches that descend from him could be 3c, removed 3c and 4c distance which can be problematic, a genuine full 3c relative matches in around 80% of cases and it drops away the more distant a match is. Those that do match are easy to overlook as they are often very low cM.
As someone with complicated family history in Lincoln and the surrounding villages as well as Sheffield I often build large branches of certain families and try to bring them towards the present day, I've been lucky to be able to link quite a number of low cM matches to my tree that way, often matches fit in but their error ridden tree (or lack of a tree entirely), would otherwise mean they were just yet another unknown distant match.
-
If Frederick Hales (Sr) b. 1843 Navenby is your ancestor then he's a 2xgrt g/f so matches that descend from him could be 3c, removed 3c and 4c distance which can be problematic, a genuine full 3c relative matches in around 80% of cases and it drops away the more distant a match is. Those that do match are easy to overlook as they are often very low cM.
As someone with complicated family history in Lincoln and the surrounding villages as well as Sheffield I often build large branches of certain families and try to bring them towards the present day, I've been lucky to be able to link quite a number of low cM matches to my tree that way, often matches fit in but their error ridden tree (or lack of a tree entirely), would otherwise mean they were just yet another unknown distant match.
Thanks for your reply, I'm not sure I understand half of it regarding how I can determine if Frederick b. 1843 was the biological father of Frederick Jr. In my reply to Biggles50 I question whether the DNA matches showing from descendants of his siblings could be from the two further children born to Frederick Sr and Harriett rather than Frederick Jr?
This is frazzling my brain, I'm afraid!
-
Building deep and wide trees long with good grouping will go a long way to proving if Frederick b1843 is genuinely an ancestor. Just because something is written on a birth cert doesn't make it true, on the face of it I have a link to a Navenby family, the mother was pregnant when she married but the hubby isn't the father, the dna contradicts the paperwork (the father is the brother of my pedigree ancestor).
-
Take a look at :-
https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4
This website should be bookmarked by anyone using DNA.
For each relationship you can see the Mean Shared DNA & the Range of cM that their data has.
It is the Best website for checking on the likely DNA Relationships with a DNA Match.
Now with your:-
His sister No. 1: 22cM/2seg
Sister No. 2: 9cM/1seg
Brother No.1: 9cM/1seg
Brother No. 2: 17cM/1seg
If we enter 22 in the DNA Painter, which I suggest you do that yourself.
We get a far more distant relationship likelyhood than a 3C, there is only a 16% Probability of a Half 3C and 58% Probability for the more distant.
As Glen suggests, building wide and deep is a good foundation with DNA Research.
A possible hypothesis in this case is that the four Brothers are perhaps a Second Cousin with the person who you are seeking as the Father and hence going back much further and extrapolating wide may lead to possible Fathers being identified.
I too have a complicated family tree, and in the tree of a relation whose DNA I manage they have an unknown Great Great Grandfather, finding him is still a work in progress even after so many years. I do have one candidate who fulfils the means, motive and opportunity criteria seen in many a Police drama, the person lived in the next village at the same time as conception occurred, alas the “going wide” in this case found the man but the DNA Match is via his Uncles line and hence a very lowish cM shared with the match led to this tree build and so I have nothing to substantiate the hypothesis of him being the Father.
DNA can be a waiting game.
-
Building deep and wide trees long with good grouping will go a long way to proving if Frederick b1843 is genuinely an ancestor. Just because something is written on a birth cert doesn't make it true, on the face of it I have a link to a Navenby family, the mother was pregnant when she married but the hubby isn't the father, the dna contradicts the paperwork (the father is the brother of my pedigree ancestor).
Thanks for your help. My tree is 'deep and wide' so far.
-
Take a look at :-
https://dnapainter.com/tools/sharedcmv4
This website should be bookmarked by anyone using DNA.
For each relationship you can see the Mean Shared DNA & the Range of cM that their data has.
It is the Best website for checking on the likely DNA Relationships with a DNA Match.
Now with your:-
His sister No. 1: 22cM/2seg
Sister No. 2: 9cM/1seg
Brother No.1: 9cM/1seg
Brother No. 2: 17cM/1seg
If we enter 22 in the DNA Painter, which I suggest you do that yourself.
We get a far more distant relationship likelyhood than a 3C, there is only a 16% Probability of a Half 3C and 58% Probability for the more distant.
As Glen suggests, building wide and deep is a good foundation with DNA Research.
A possible hypothesis in this case is that the four Brothers are perhaps a Second Cousin with the person who you are seeking as the Father and hence going back much further and extrapolating wide may lead to possible Fathers being identified.
I too have a complicated family tree, and in the tree of a relation whose DNA I manage they have an unknown Great Great Grandfather, finding him is still a work in progress even after so many years. I do have one candidate who fulfils the means, motive and opportunity criteria seen in many a Police drama, the person lived in the next village at the same time as conception occurred, alas the “going wide” in this case found the man but the DNA Match is via his Uncles line and hence a very lowish cM shared with the match led to this tree build and so I have nothing to substantiate the hypothesis of him being the Father.
DNA can be a waiting game.
Thank you for that link, I'll do as you suggest and see if I can make sense of it all.
All I want to find out is if I am a direct descendant of the Hales from Navenby, from Frederick Hales Sr. Harriett registers her son as surname Hudson, with no father named. But it's too coincidental that she names him Frederick when that's the same name as Frederick Sr.
If Frederick Hales Sr wasn't the biological father, and Harriett Hudson is the only one I'm related to directly as she is Frederick Jr's mother and therefore my g-grandmother, are the DNA matches coming from the two children they had together later, who would have been the half-siblings of Frederick Jr?
I will continue searching for Frederick, Harriett and Frederick Jr on the 1871 census and see if I can find them together or not, as it may nudge me towards assuming Frederick Sr was the biological father.
As I said, I am a novice regarding DNA and understand that it is a 'waiting game'.... if I can ever find proof he was the biological father, how will that happen? I am confused by the process.
-
Does Frederick sr have siblings? If so are any descendants of those siblings dna matches to you and/or the descendants of the later children?
My focus would be looking for those matches, adding them to my tree and linking them from the match list. Based on the relationship to them given in tree view I'd then be checking to see if the shared DNA is within the range for that relationship. If there are no matches then there are a few possible reasons, from a lack of testers to mistakes in trees resulting in the wrong ancestor being added.
I have too many cousins who simply don't use their DNA results and listen to Uncle Tom & copy (wrong), trees, they look the other way at the half dozen unknown matches at 150-200cM we all share, the matches that prove the birth cert for our ancestor is just a work of fiction. I genuinely don't know why they took a test, if they don't use the information from it then it was pointless doing it.
-
Does Frederick sr have siblings? If so are any descendants of those siblings dna matches to you and/or the descendants of the later children?
My focus would be looking for those matches, adding them to my tree and linking them from the match list. Based on the relationship to them given in tree view I'd then be checking to see if the shared DNA is within the range for that relationship. If there are no matches then there are a few possible reasons, from a lack of testers to mistakes in trees resulting in the wrong ancestor being added.
I have too many cousins who simply don't use their DNA results and listen to Uncle Tom & copy (wrong), trees, they look the other way at the half dozen unknown matches at 150-200cM we all share, the matches that prove the birth cert for our ancestor is just a work of fiction. I genuinely don't know why they took a test, if they don't use the information from it then it was pointless doing it.
Frederick Sr had eight siblings. The DNA matches I have are from descendants of four of them (as detailed in my reply to Biggles50 yesterday). I have no matches from the two later children of Frederick Sr and Harriett.
So far, I have no matches with Frederick Sr b. 1843, or Frederick Jr b. 1868 apart from my 1st cousin (who is a 380cm match). Our grandfather was Sidney Hales , son of Frederick Jr.
(I was urged to take a DNA test by another cousin, I hadn't been too bothered about doing so before. I never realised how complicated it was, otherwise I probably wouldn't have bothered, although it has been interesting regarding ethnicity and making contact with others. I obviously don't have a mathematical or scientific brain, some of it is like trying to understand Chinese....I need a 'DNA for Dummies' guide ::)
-
The Hales link seems valid then but I'm a little concerned as 380 isn't enough for a full 1st cousin (the range is 396-1,396), a half 1C or the child of a full 1c would fit with that amount. I've got the odd match to families with Navenby links but I don't think there's anything that crosses into your tree, at least not at a level where there is much chance of sharing DNA. I'm adopted and both my parents are NPE's so 380 is about as high as my matches go with the exception of a half sister who tested to try and help sort our tangled paternal side.
If you have tested with Ancestry and use facebook I'd suggest looking for a group called 'DNA Family Finders UK', it's a private group with search angels who help with unknown parent/grandparent scenarios but they can help with tasks like grouping matches. Everything in the group is private and you can post anonymously if you wish. It wouldn't hurt to join and read a few posts to see what the group is about and how they may be able to help, there's no obligation to ask for help but it's an option that might be worth looking at.
-
Hi, there is this intriguing family in the 1870 Census for
Hurley, Ulster, New York, United States on FindMyPast
Even if it is not him something to think about as I have some who did similar things to Australia and back.
Looking at the Census itself he is a Carpenter.
Did he go to the US and come back?
First name(s) Last name Gender Age Birth year Birth place
Frederick Hales Male 30 1840 England
Lucy Hales Female 30 1840 England
Lavina Hales Female 5 1865 England
June Hales Female 3 1867 England
Frederick Hales Male 1 1869 England
-
Hi, there is this intriguing family in the 1870 Census for
Hurley, Ulster, New York, United States on FindMyPast
Even if it is not him something to think about as I have some who did similar things to Australia and back.
Looking at the Census itself he is a Carpenter.
Did he go to the US and come back?
First name(s) Last name Gender Age Birth year Birth place
Frederick Hales Male 30 1840 England
Lucy Hales Female 30 1840 England
Lavina Hales Female 5 1865 England
June Hales Female 3 1867 England
Frederick Hales Male 1 1869 England
It's worth checking out, although the birth years for Frederick Sr and Jr are slightly out, and there's no Harriett....
I currently only have an Ancestry subscription, but have been thinking about doing a free trial on FindMyPast. I'll try Ancestry first, and throw in the wife and daughter names too, but I don't think it's the same man.
But thank you so much for taking the time to look for me! EDIT: sadly, it's not him, but thanks again anyway x
-
The Hales link seems valid then but I'm a little concerned as 380 isn't enough for a full 1st cousin (the range is 396-1,396), a half 1C or the child of a full 1c would fit with that amount. I've got the odd match to families with Navenby links but I don't think there's anything that crosses into your tree, at least not at a level where there is much chance of sharing DNA. I'm adopted and both my parents are NPE's so 380 is about as high as my matches go with the exception of a half sister who tested to try and help sort our tangled paternal side.
If you have tested with Ancestry and use facebook I'd suggest looking for a group called 'DNA Family Finders UK', it's a private group with search angels who help with unknown parent/grandparent scenarios but they can help with tasks like grouping matches. Everything in the group is private and you can post anonymously if you wish. It wouldn't hurt to join and read a few posts to see what the group is about and how they may be able to help, there's no obligation to ask for help but it's an option that might be worth looking at.
Interesting what you say about the first cousin 380cM. My mum's only sibling had two daughters and this is the only one of the two who has done her DNA. My mum and aunt were the daughters of Frederick Jr's son, Sidney.
I will certainly have a look at the FB group you mention. I need somewhere like that - a place that understands what a novice I am!
Thank you so much for the time you've given trying to help me with this, I truly appreciate it. x
-
Glen - after pressing 'Post' on my last reply to you, I realised with much embarrassment my 'senior moment' regarding my cousin.....
She is actually the daughter of one of my aunt's two children - therefore she is my first cousin once removed, and why the DNA is 380.
I shall retire gracefully now, with what's left of my dignity ;D
Many thanks once again x