Author Topic: Confusing Ancestry Results  (Read 786 times)

Offline pollycat76

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Confusing Ancestry Results
« on: Tuesday 29 June 21 10:43 BST (UK) »
My son M matches his father's brother D with 789 Cms. Ancestry say on M's results that D is 1st-2nd Cousin. D's results show my son M as nephew. I see from DNA Painter that 789Cms is more likely to be half uncle ! M's other known cousins have 770 and 892 Cms matches respectively. Other than the obvious, is there an explanation for this "Uncle's" result ?

Offline IgorStrav

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,957
  • Arthur Pay 1915-2002 "handsome bu**er"
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing Ancestry Results
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 29 June 21 18:21 BST (UK) »
Whilst I can't answer your specific example, I do know that the shared DNA varies very extensively between 'equal' relatives.

My 2nd cousin once removed (who I know, and is documented, we are related via my great aunt), shares 17cM DNA with me.  DNA painter has that relationship as a 1% likelihood.

It's previously been suggested here that there must have been an NPA for that amount of DNA share

However, knowing the circumstances/background of my great grandmother, (wife of Metropolitan policeman, close family, 12 children, when would she have had the time???) I'm more inclined to believe it's an outlier.

Pay, Kent. 
Barham, Kent. 
Cork(e), Kent. 
Cooley, Kent.
Barwell, Rutland/Northants/Greenwich.
Cotterill, Derbys.
Van Steenhoven/Steenhoven/Hoven, Nord Brabant/Belgium/East London.
Kesneer Belgium/East London
Burton, East London.
Barlow, East London
Wayling, East London
Wade, Greenwich/Brightlingsea, Essex.
Thorpe, Brightlingsea, Essex

Offline Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 57,896
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing Ancestry Results
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 29 June 21 21:16 BST (UK) »
Quote
M's other known cousins have 770 and 892 Cms matches respectively

Is this is with M or D ?

Assuming that it is with M, are you able to find how many cMs they share with D. Also, have you checked through the shared matches that M has with D.


Gadget
Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

***Restorers - Please do not use my restores without my permission. Thanks***

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=877762.0

Offline pollycat76

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 81
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing Ancestry Results
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 30 June 21 12:23 BST (UK) »
I should have said the cousins were on M's maternal side just to show those are in the "normal" cousin's range. I have checked M's shared matches with D and there are some 2nd to 3rd Cousins with Cms between 102 and 232 and the ones I have been able to trace back on the family tree are on D's maternal side.


Offline Gadget

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 57,896
    • View Profile
Re: Confusing Ancestry Results
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 30 June 21 14:20 BST (UK) »
I see. Are there any links to Ds paternal side?

Census &  BMD information Crown Copyright www.nationalarchives.gov.uk and GROS - www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk

***Restorers - Please do not use my restores without my permission. Thanks***

https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=877762.0