Unwanted Thrulines suggestions

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

As for them being DNA matches, many of them will be because of the rest of the line. 
Say someone has my Fred Bloggs in their tree and they have his father as Joe Bloggs, but I have established that Joe is the father of a different, unrelated Fred Bloggs.  They have pursued the wrong Fred.
The tree owner may well be a DNA match with me, but that's via Fred and not Joe.

I'll just point you to the last few words of my comment about building the tree.

[Sloe Gin]

I'll just point you to the last few words of my comment about building the tree.

I think we must be at cross purposes. 
If we have a shared ancestor that's good enough for me, it doesn't matter if we share DNA or not. 
If they've gone wrong after that shared ancestor, I want to get rid of that hint.  That's all.

[brigidmac]

I managed a dozen trees I like the option only show ancestors from linked trees .I will see what it does to thru lines

The other tried and tested method is to unlink the person you are concerned about from their bio parent then link back again & wait a few days for thrulines to adjust .

That COULD result in more of the wrong suggestions including bio father being the guy you have already disproved

I build  a floating branch to the other persons common ancestors
& Add notes on their profile and in comments saying such things as this is ot same person as...

She was a single mother ....B is her brother

Never married .

[Sloe Gin]

The situation has pushed me into linking an ancestor into a family that I'm 99.9% sure he belongs to. I've now added his parents and siblings to my tree. 

The only doubt is he is the only one without a baptism, but that happens. I've solved these before by finding a will or marriage licence confirming parentage, but nothing for this chap.

Everyone else has confused him with a namesake in another county. It's not a particularly common name.  If they only bothered to look in the next couple of censuses they would find him still there, which proves he is not our man!  Once I've uploaded the amended tree that will be one set of wrong parents that will disappear from the suggestions.

[Biggles50]

On one of my trees there are four DNA matches all linked to a pair of MRCA’s, hence I think we can take it as read that the branches are valid especially as each person bas the documentation andmcitations.

It is a while since I worked on adding DNA matches so that has been the task on and off over the weekend.

A Thruline via using the Common Ancestor feature shows a routing to a person of the same name as one of the above MRCA’s but in a nearby town, and the line has two very dubious relationships.

Sometimes Thrulines is right sometimes way off.

[Sloe Gin]

Sometimes Thrulines is right sometimes way off.

One I saw the other day had parents for an ancestor born in Scotland c1788, so I was quite hopeful as lots of trees had them. The source was an Army record dated 1807 on the front, and since the recruit's age was 18 y 11 m, that looked good for our man. 

Something nagged at me though, and I realised there were references to "Her Majesty".  Of course in 1807 it would have been His Majesty. 

Looking through the pages of the record, it soon became clear that most of the dates in it were 20th century. He had signed on and done his 7 years plus 5 in the reserve. There was a second record where he'd gone back in 1919 and signed up to serve a year in the Labour Corps, presumably clearing the WWI battlefields.

I looked at the front again and saw that although the date looked like 1807, it was actually 1897 and part of the 9 had disappeared.  I've put in a correction so the indexed document date can be amended, but an awful lot of people have gone wrong already.

[Biggles50]

Forgot to mention!

One Thruline suggestion had a Son being born Three years after his Father passed away.

[Sloe Gin]

Forgot to mention!
One Thruline suggestion had a Son being born Three years after his Father passed away.

One of my ancestors is a Henry Lock, a Romany gipsy from a fairly well-known family, although his own birth and parentage has not been conclusively proved.  Almost everyone has conflated him with  a Gloucestershire villager named Henry Lock whose wife was also a Sarah. This latter family are clearly not travellers as they can be found in their village (South Cerney) and adjacent for generations.  They, of course, are in my Thruline suggestions.

That Henry Lock died and was buried in South Cerney in 1806. The Romany Henry Lock was alive and kicking in 1815 as he gave lavish wedding parties for two of his daughters, which were widely reported in newspapers all over the country.  Nobody seems able or willing to get their head round this though.

[Biggles50]

I am just helping out a DNA Cousin who is a DNA Newbie to make sense of his results.

He has a 402cM match to a relation and has a Thruline that shows a MRCA which would make his relationship with the DNA Match 4C1R which has a mean of 28cM.

Clearly this required investigating and the Thruline shows a person b1910 whereas another person b1919 in the same City and with the same name but different parents is the correct one.