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 - pickpin

Pages: [1] 2
1
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Should I ignore these DNA matches?
« on: Saturday 28 May 22 14:06 BST (UK)  »
I'm pretty sure there are NPEs at play here.  All the closest matches (100-500cm) have no shared ancestors on paper so I'm being really careful not to make assumptions, hence I don't want to assume these distant matches are relatives if that may not be the case.

2
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Re: Should I ignore these DNA matches?
« on: Saturday 28 May 22 13:33 BST (UK)  »
Thanks for your replies.  re the 217cm match - I have only been able to find one other match that fits in their family tree who is their nephew, so it's not enough for DNA painter to go to work with, hence why I'm trying to find some more distant matches.  I've retraced their ancestry up through this line to check it out and it seemed sound up to 2GGP, but I swapped out the 3GGP because it didn't fit with the census and birth records I could find and their only source was another member's tree.

I guess I'm not so much trying to work out how related these 8/9cm matches are, but more trying to understand whether I should be open minded to the possibility they aren't related at all (at least not without going back to the iron age or something!  ;D)

3
Ancestral Family Tree DNA Testing / Should I ignore these DNA matches?
« on: Saturday 28 May 22 10:03 BST (UK)  »
I am working on a family tree where the paternal side is entirely unknown.  I've tried reaching out to the stronger shared matches via the Ancestry messaging service but most are still unread.  I've been able to plot out basic trees for the shared matches from what they have posted online themselves and am experimenting with putting their great grandparents into our tree to try to use thrulines to identify more distant matches to try to find where the shared ancestors might be.

For one of the close matches 217 cm are shared.  Thrulines suggested a 2nd great grandfather, who having checked the paper trail (census, births, marriages, deaths etc.) looks like the wrong guy (I've read that Thrulines can give rogue results so have been trying to double check them).  The name fits, but other aspects, such as children and parent names, dob etc. are wrong.  However, I have 3 DNA matches linking to this guy.  They are descendents of his siblings (each descends from a different sibling), so theoretically sharing a 3rd GGF.  The amount of DNA shared with these matches is very low: 8cm in 1 segment, 9cm in 1 segment and 14cm in 2 segments.  The last one I can see one of her ancestors is also related on the maternal side of my tree. I have a good tree on the maternal side and thus far all DNA matches have fitted with the paper trail.  Also looking at the shared matches with the 14cm person, they are all on my maternal side except the 217cm match and a very close relative of the 217cm match.  There are no shared matches with the 8cm and 9cm people.

I guess what I'm asking is could the two other matches (8cm and 9cm) be matching by random chance because they are so small?  Is there an amount of cm that we share with people by chance even if we are not distant cousins?

I find all this DNA stuff so fascinating, but as soon as I feel I'm making sense of things, something like this happens and I realise I really don't understand very much!

Grateful for any thoughts or insights!

4
Hi,
I'm hoping you might be able to help with this matches scenario.

I'm looking at someone else's dna results so I'll anonymise.  Hope it will still make sense!

Person 1 has had their DNA tested.  They got 14 matches with over 100cm shared dna.  The top match (600cm) was recognised straight away as a known maternal first cousin (person 2).  None of the other matches were familiar.  I plotted the shared matches on a spreadsheet to find family groups (I forget what this method is called!).  From this I've grouped all the matches with the first cousin as being maternal side and everyone else as potential paternal side.

I looked at the top matches on the paternal side:
person 3 570cm
person 4 250cm
person 5 220cm
All three of them are matches to each other as well as person 1.  They all had public trees but there are no shared ancestors in the public trees.  On paper, they look unrelated (although some tree branches are incomplete).

Person 1 has discovered that their father's first cousin's daughter has done a DNA test and they do not share DNA so there is a question mark somewhere in the 'on paper' family tree on the paternal side.

I just wondered if anyone had any suggestions of where we can go with our research on this?  We have tried contacting the 3 matches but no reply as yet.

Many thanks in advance.

5
England / Re: Could a birth have not been registered?
« on: Tuesday 05 April 22 09:08 BST (UK)  »
Quote
Now you come to mention it, I don't think we have anything saying for certain that Sarah was her mother.  I have the 1921 census but Ivy is living with Sarah's mother. Our understanding is that she lived with Sarah's mother for most of her childhood

If Ivy is on the 1921 census she must have been born before 1923.  Perhaps one of Sarah’s brothers got a girl in trouble and Sarah’s mother bought Ivy up.  She would still be the grandmother.

Sorry, that's me getting confused!  No, Ivy is not on the 1921 census - I have Sarah and her mother living together.  Sarah's parents separated between the 1901 and 1911 censuses.  In 1911 Sarah is living with her mum and her brothers are living with their paternal grandparents.

6
England / Re: Could a birth have not been registered?
« on: Monday 04 April 22 22:03 BST (UK)  »
Sometimes you have to think laterally, you may have already checked the following but worth a mention.

Did Sarah have any siblings of childbearing age in 23/24? Sister/sister in law perhaps died in childbirth?

Have you looked for a birth using the grandmother’s maiden name.

Have you found Sarah’s birth to confirm her name was Balham?

Does the DNA confirm her maternal line?

Do you know what school Ivy attended, checked records for parents names?

Other than 1939, which doesn’t give relationships, what proof do you have that Sarah was her mother?

All Sarah's siblings were male, but I can explore whether they may have had a wife that died.  There is DNA link via Sarah's grandmother, but it's sketchy because it's 3 generations up from Ivy and over via a half sibling before down several generations to the other matches, so it's possible that her mother was not Sarah but a was a blood relative of Sarah.

We have found Sarah's birth record with surname Ballham.

Thank you for the school suggestion, we do know the name of the school so I will check that out.

Now you come to mention it, I don't think we have anything saying for certain that Sarah was her mother.  I have the 1921 census but Ivy is living with Sarah's mother.  Our understanding is that she lived with Sarah's mother for most of her childhood.

7
England / Re: Could a birth have not been registered?
« on: Monday 04 April 22 21:29 BST (UK)  »
Who did Ivy name as her father when she married?  Is there definite knowledge that Sarah was her mother?

In July 1984 an amendment was made to add the middle name 'Lucy' (Form CR282).  No amendment was made to the year of birth.  Do you know how Ivy proved her age when she became eligible for the aged pension?  It seems she thought she was born in 1924.

Debra  :)

Hi Debra, we noticed the Lucy too.  We don't know her to have had the name Lucy, but thought if it was hand written on a document, Ivy can look like Lucy (especially how she used to write it).  Do you know what the form CR282 would be for?  If she was born in 1924, she would have reached pension age in 1984.  Could the 1939 register have been updated off the back of something to do with her pension?

I've ordered her marriage certificate, but I'm expecting it to say Joseph is her father.

8
Thanks all.  Looks like we have a most likely scenario and some outside chances that I will keep an open mind about.  A number of the brothers emigrated so I will do as bridgidmac suggests and next look at who could have been in the right country at the right time to see if that rules out a few brothers! ;D

9
England / Re: Could a birth have not been registered?
« on: Sunday 03 April 22 23:40 BST (UK)  »
Hi Michael.  We don't think she would have been registered as Page, because Sarah didn't marry Joseph Page until 1927 and we know Joseph was not her biological father.  DNA testing indicates her biological father probably had the surname Stead.

Pages: [1] 2