Suggestions about possible relationship

[Cell]

No they're too old to be a half first cousin. They're younger than any of my grandparents, but not by a great deal.

I realise I'm being very mysterious here, so maybe it would help to give a bit more context. I didn't want to give too much detail because I'm worried I might be leaping to conclusions. Basically, I suspect this might be my grandfather's half sister.

Hi,

Just to rule out the other really high possibilities, which you may have done(?) : Does your grandfather  have any older siblings than himself,  that could have possibly fathered/ given birth
to a child of your match's age?
If say your grandfather  has an older brother or sister who was a teenager at the time of your match's birth,( say 13 years old plus) .  Your match maybe a  first cousin Once Removed to you. ( and your parent's first cousin).
A first cousin Once  Removed falls in with that high probability  along with half great Aunt.
I share around your figure with my first cousin once removed,( my parent's older first cousin , ie my match's  parent was my grandmother's older sister)

Otherwise, I would guess you are looking at the other very high probability and she could very possibly be your half great aunt.
My child shares  just over  570 with a Half Great uncle ( where I share just over 1,160 with the uncle , half uncle to me)

Is your parent alive and are willing to take a DNA test?   Or if not , one of your parent's siblings willing to take a test?

Kind regards

[Rosinish]

I have never understood why people don't look/compare % & segments with shared matches.

I'm no expert on DNA but by trying hard to understand what figures / % / segments matter when looking at shared matches as I've discovered some differing amounts may lead me to a possible NPE.

Too often I've seen people asking questions about relationships yet only providing cM amounts...

There are numerous charts available online which relate to cM relationships yet so many people omit any/all added info.

As with any query, regardless of it's nature, add all 'known' info. for best results.

Annie

[phil57]

My highest Ancestry match has two children and both have been DNA tested.

Looking at and comparing the segment numbers and lengths there is no way that they appear to be related.

It is only though building a tree and getting the records found that they are found to be linked.

A Cousin of theirs also cannot be linked to them through the segment numbers and length.

Same with other DNA matches.

Going by the info Ancestry provides only allows you to go so far and making assumptions can lead to, well we all know where that can lead too.

Biggles, you are totally missing the point, which surprises me.

It is an additional tool in the armoury to help guide your research.

You make assumptions every time that you use a tool such as DNA Painter. Do you automatically declare the relationship between matches based on the highest relationship probability proposed by DNA Painter? Of course you don't, but you do use the probabilities to assess the most likely relationships and use that information to guide your research. Could the match fall within the 1% or lowest probability range that DNA Painter proposes? Yes, of course it could, otherwise the probability wouldn't exist. But would you decide to initially concentrate your research on that possibility in preference to the higher probabilities that the tool proposes? I very much doubt it, and at that point you are making educated or guided assumptions, which you use to direct the research that will hopefully find the proof you are looking for.

Assessing the number of matching segments and segment lengths is no different. It is an additional tool in the box to help guide you, more with lower level matches than the higher ones. It can help filter unknown matches of similar overall length more effectively, and guide your direction of research towards those more likely to be helpful to you with less effort.

When you look at your matches on Ancestry or elsewhere, do you make assumptions as to which matches are likely to be closer based on overall match lengths. Of course you do, or should. Does that information by itself tell you how you are related? Of course not, but you are guiding your research using assumptions based on educated principles. Again, absolutely no different.

If you still don't get it, I recommend (again) Tracing Your Ancestors Using DNA, edited by Graham S. Holton, Pen & Sword Books. It is an excellent read from the basics to more complex areas of DNA investgation, with each chapter written by a different expert in that particular field, and my copy is now very well worn and tattered from use as reference material.

[Biggles50]

My highest Ancestry match has two children and both have been DNA tested.

Looking at and comparing the segment numbers and lengths there is no way that they appear to be related.

It is only though building a tree and getting the records found that they are found to be linked.

A Cousin of theirs also cannot be linked to them through the segment numbers and length.

Same with other DNA matches.

Going by the info Ancestry provides only allows you to go so far and making assumptions can lead to, well we all know where that can lead too.

Biggles, you are totally missing the point, which surprises me.

It is an additional tool in the armoury to help guide your research.

You make assumptions every time that you use a tool such as DNA Painter. Do you automatically declare the relationship between matches based on the highest relationship probability proposed by DNA Painter? Of course you don't, but you do use the probabilities to assess the most likely relationships and use that information to guide your research. Could the match fall within the 1% or lowest probability range that DNA Painter proposes? Yes, of course it could, otherwise the probability wouldn't exist. But would you decide to initially concentrate your research on that possibility in preference to the higher probabilities that the tool proposes? I very much doubt it, and at that point you are making educated or guided assumptions, which you use to direct the research that will hopefully find the proof you are looking for.

Assessing the number of matching segments and segment lengths is no different. It is an additional tool in the box to help guide you, more with lower level matches than the higher ones. It can help filter unknown matches of similar overall length more effectively, and guide your direction of research towards those more likely to be helpful to you with less effort.

When you look at your matches on Ancestry or elsewhere, do you make assumptions as to which matches are likely to be closer based on overall match lengths. Of course you do, or should. Does that information by itself tell you how you are related? Of course not, but you are guiding your research using assumptions based on educated principles. Again, absolutely no different.

If you still don't get it, I recommend (again) Tracing Your Ancestors Using DNA, edited by Graham S. Holton, Pen & Sword Books. It is an excellent read from the basics to more complex areas of DNA investgation, with each chapter written by a different expert in that particular field, and my copy is now very well worn and tattered from use as reference material.

Fully aware, but thanks for pointing it out.

We all have our own way of working.

Any assumptions made do require to be proved, discounted or to have limitations assigned to them.

In my example the Segment lengths are so different they would normally be assumed not to be direct relations but a removed cousin.

But as you effectively and frequently point out the passing on of DNA can be erratic.

Thanks also for the info on the book, I’ve not read that one, I’ll include a slide on it in my DNA Presentation that I am making next month.