RootsChat.Com

Hi, I,m interested in this discussion on the merits and demerits of dna testing. My family paper trail is mackenzie however i decided to have the 67 marker dna test carried out by ftdna after joining a mackenzie project This dna testing resulted in somewhat of a shock as it turns out that I am a direct male descendant of the Rose of Kilvarock line which is well documented so thus it would seem I am not a mackenzie and neither are my forebearers all though all paper trails indicate otherwise, Dna indications are that this non paternal event would seemed to have taken place some 3 to 5 hundred years ago so from taking a dna test I now have two family lines my paper trail mackenzie line and my dna rose of kilvarock line I am now checking out the matches which my dna line has thrown up among which are the family names of Rose, Ross, Mcneil. Massey none of which have figured in my paper trail at the moment

hi, thanks to all who have taken the time to post on this subject, all the points made have been looked at and yes I,ll be continuing to trace my mackenzie ancestors as far as I can and also be looking at the rose question as well once again thank you all

scotia123

Hi hope I,m on the right board for this post. Having started out tracing my father.s  descendants I came across a mackenzie site which was carrying out a dna project to which I duly subscribed. You can imagine how surprised I was when the results of this test came back showing that it was rose group g making me a direct male descendant of the documented rose of kilvarock line.

Now I have the predicament of having followed a mackenzie paper trail back to my 3xgreatgrandfather I find that I am of the rose line my question now is Whose family tree do I fit on and where would I fit on it as depite being a mackenzie on paper I would seem to be  rose by dna results

Is this a common occurence in geneology I wonder.

Hi Alex   

Unfortunately you didn't give us the birth years for David and Sarah, however I see that this information was contained in your other thread on the Scotland board.

David McKENZIE - bc 1827 (aged 34 - 1861 SCT census)

Sarah McKENZIE - born 1824 (per DUNBAR family history link)

Searching the (online) NZ Death index, ("McKENZIE / MacKENZIE") I can find only these 3 listings.   

1909 - McKENZIE - David - 84 years (bc 1825)
1886 - McKENZIE - David - 55 years (bc 1831)

1912 - McKENZIE - Sarah - 92 years (bc 1820)

http://bdmhistoricalrecords.identityservices.govt.nz/

The index does not state where these deaths were registered :

A name search of passenger lists failed to find a David or Sarah McKENZIE who matched this couple.

Lu

Hi Lu, my search in New Zealand was a bit of a long shot as I said before I do not have any documentation that they did emigrate to there, only the thought that they might have joined sarah,s siblings. Given that you found no trace of them on the ships passenger lists is that conclusive prove that they did not emigrate to New Zealand?

Alex.

I don't know Alex  It's our best guesses in the absence of fact at this stage. I've just double checked on SP. From general searches on the 1841 census, the two Kates shows as MacKay, so not sure about this entry therefore at this stage.

There are a couple of entries showing in 1841 for a David M(a)cKenzie (and variants) in his age group working as a farm servant/ lab. He could be any of them. Hard to connect always on the 1841 census given it has such limited info and specially if someone is away from family.

Monica

Hi Monica, so it looks like a right brickwall unless I can come up with a death cert for david. I have been in touch with a relative of sarah dunbar in New Zealand and she is going to see if she can come up with anything out there as regards their possible emigration although I,m now clutching at straws also going to do as you suggested and post a lookup on the new zealand board here in rootschat

thank for your continuing help it,s much appreciated.

Alex.