Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - VeeBeeFamilyTree

Pages: [1] 2
1
Staffordshire / Re: Biddulph or Biddle Staffs 1700s
« on: Sunday 02 May 21 20:20 BST (UK)  »
Emma

Did you ever get any further with the Biddulph/Biddle mystery in Colwich? If it helps I have dna tested at Ancestry so it would be interesting if you have too and if we match.
Kind regards
Vikki

2
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Ethnicity estimates between Ancestry and My Heritage
« on: Monday 01 April 19 16:34 BST (UK)  »
My results were quite different.
Ancestry was 58% England and northwest Europe.
My Heritage says I had no English or Northwest Europe dna!
My research shows roots on my dads side his roots are steadily in the Midlands - at least until 15th and 16th centuries on some lines. His Ancestry test also picked this out.

I am 25% Scandinavian on my heritage but only 2% Norway on Ancestry!  I have no Scandinavian relatives in the past 200 years as I have researched most lines so 25% is way too much.

It did get the Irish side ok - 65% On My Heritage and 40% on Ancestry. As my mother is Irish I would say this is closer to being accurate.
I also have West Asian and Baltic ancestry according to My Heritage but none of this on Ancestry. Again neither of these two areas have come up in recent genealogy research. It could be there from further back I suppose.

I know it’s just a bit of fun but so glad I did the Ancestry one first otherwise I might have been worried about my parentage!!

3
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Ethnicity estimates between Ancestry and My Heritage
« on: Sunday 31 March 19 21:50 BST (UK)  »
Thanks for the replies. I think I would certainly take the My Heritage estimate with a big pinch of salt. I had a flick through my dna matches and many of them have some weird and wonderful results. Ancestry is a little more accurate, in that it does match with my family tree research.

Like you all say, it is reliant on having a sample population that has very well researched ancestry to match up with dna markers.

It’s a shame that given the majority of my matches on these sites have no family tree that so many people are falling for it! £89 + is a lot to spend on something so inaccurate! 

4
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Ancestry DNA delays
« on: Saturday 30 March 19 21:08 GMT (UK)  »
My dads took 7 weeks after posting the sample on 4th jan this year. Much quicker than I was expecting.

I also haven’t had many new cousin matches on there in the past week or two, whereas through Jan and Feb I was getting a steady 1/2 a day.

5
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Ethnicity estimates between Ancestry and My Heritage
« on: Saturday 30 March 19 20:49 GMT (UK)  »
I have a bit of a query regarding ethnicity estimates when you upload your raw data from Ancestry to My Heritage.
My Heritage has come up with a really wacky ethnicity estimate for me that is quite different from Ancestry. My Ancestry estimate made a lot of sense based on what I know of my family tree.

With My Heritage it almost feels like it’s someone else’s dna, except for the fact that the dna matches themselves do check out!
I know they’re only a bit of fun and the science behind it is questionable but it’s almost like they shut their eyes and stuck some pins in a map of the world for my estimate. 

Has anyone else found this?

6
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: LivingDNA upload to MH?
« on: Saturday 30 March 19 20:41 GMT (UK)  »
Hi,

I successfully uploaded Ancestry DNA raw data to My Heritage two days ago. You do have to pay to view ethnicity and see all the DNA matches in full.

It gave me some wacky ethnicity estimate however but the dna matches seem correct.

7
Staffordshire / Re: Biddulph or Biddle Staffs 1700s
« on: Sunday 17 March 19 23:49 GMT (UK)  »
I also saw a records of a Thomas and Margaret Biddle having a child called Sampson. This was around the time of my Thomas and Margaret Biddulph were having children and I never saw Thomas and Margaret Biddle anywhere else in the church records either as a marriage or having other children so I wondered if the name was used interchangeably? Generally Biddulph is spelt correctly in the parish records. There are cases of Biddle’s and Biddulph’s having children in the same months in the colwich records so I don’t think it’s the case of the church staff mishearing the name however.

8
Staffordshire / Re: Biddulph or Biddle Staffs 1700s
« on: Sunday 17 March 19 23:05 GMT (UK)  »
Hi,

I am related to the Biddulph family from Colwich. They appear in the church records around 1760’s with Biddles predating them by a decade or so. There are references to Biddles with the alias Biddulph in the Colwich church records there too!
There is a Thomas Biddulph born 1760’s who married a Margaret in 1790’s. There are also several Thomas Biddulph’s marrying Mary’s around that time.

9
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: cMs shared
« on: Monday 25 February 19 16:21 GMT (UK)  »
Quote from: IJDisney on Monday 25 February 19 10:17 GMT (UK)

Both your parents can be related to a third person, without being related to each other. The simplest example would be if your father's brother married your mother's sister and they had a child. That child would share more DNA with you than with either of your parents. But it doesn't mean that your parents have suddenly become biologically related to each other.

Extend this further out - your father has a distant relative who married your mother's distant relative - and a similar DNA 'anomaly' can occur.
Yes I never thought that could be a small possibility as I suspect my mum has some shared ethnicity with my dad.

That would be very interesting if that was the case! 

Pages: [1] 2