DNA shared matches verses paper trail.

[c more]

Hi Rootschat family , i have been struggling with DNA 2nd cousin matches for my mother. 
From what i can work out from many months of investigating shared matches using pro tools on ancestry, 2 of hers fathers 1st cousins left families in England and moved over seas. 1 to Canada around 1892 and 1 to Australia between 1923-1928, changing their names on the way and then starting new families.
I have contacted the DNA matches who either do not answer,  tell me i am wrong or have no idea.
I have done family history research for many years and i am very thorougher with my research. DNA is fairly new for me but i am sure i have worked the shared matches correctly using the cluster method.
Is DNA evidence enough?
Thanks Leonie

[Biggles50]

DNA is accurate in proving relationships.

There is a caveat though, in that with matches sharing 10cM and lower can be false positives.

Statistically Second Cousins share DNA in the range 41-592cM which is very reliable.

Look up the Leeds Method, which is a cluster type method, it may help you understand more.

Alas not responding is typical of shared DNA matches, my first significant none responder shares 240cM with me and that took 5 years to resolve, he did have a family tree, him and his Dad but that was enough and that tree now has 1700 people who are either of Irish or Italian origins.

Is DNA evidence enough……well my counter argument to the doubters is that paper trails alone can be and in my own case very wrong.  In my many GRO BMD certificates 3 are in error including my own birth certificate.  I will only have DNA to prove that my registered Father was not my Biological Father yet my Half Sister and I share 1800cM so there is no doubt who was my Father.

DNA validating each branch in your tree should be the goal, for that means the tree is Biological as opposed to a Genealogical tree which relies only on documents and citations.  A biological tree may or may not be accurate, for all it takes to be in error is the product of an unknown affair to be born and brought up as an offspring of a person who has no biological relationship to them.

Do look up the BBC Sounds series The Gift, there as two seasons of DNA stories.  One tells of a guy who spent 30 years building his family tree only to find via a DNA test that he had no shared matches that he could resolve, he was adopted and never told.

Do read through https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=863488.0

[Creasegirl]

The DNA is useful to find out who you are related to but the other side is finding out peoples stories using records.

I would say in this case that you might need to closely look at the paper records again as it is quite unusual to have people leaving their families and moving abroad.   

Do you have DNA matches for the people who are from the new families?

[aghadowey]

I would say in this case that you might need to closely look at the paper records again as it is quite unusual to have people leaving their families and moving abroad.   

On what are you basing that statement?
Out of my eight great-grandparents- 2 went from Ireland to U.S., 2 went from Canada to U.S. and 2 moved from Germany to U.S.
One of the Irish ones had 10 siblings- 1 went to U.S. & back, 1 went to Canada, 1 went to Australia then N.Z., one went to U.S. & back,  one went to U.S. then Syria, Ireland, India then back to Ireland (in case you next try to say that only men left home the last two mentioned were female).
My German great-grandmother went to U.S. aged twelve to work in factories with her father & fourteen year old sister to earn money to bring rest of family to America. My great-grandfather went to America aged about 15 to work for the summer and was abandoned in New York City with no money but luckily his older brother have already moved there.
The above stories are not that unusual.

[Creasegirl]

I think the poster said that 2 of the family members left families in the UK and started up new families in Canada and Australia. So i am assuming this means leaving their spouse and children.

So that was what my post referred to especially as she said they changed their names.

[c more]

Thank you for the great info Biggles50. I will look up what you have suggested.
Yes Creasegirl i do have DNA matches with the new families and the old families that is how it all started. Absolutely no surnames in common. So i started to build trees from scratch to try to work it out.
DNA Match with the  One in Australia
Shared DNA: 106 cM across 3 segments
Unweighted shared DNA: 106 cM
Longest segment 42 cM

DNA Match with the One in Canada
Shared DNA: 111 cM across 6 segments
Unweighted shared DNA: 111 cM
Longest segment 23 cM

And this shows the match between the one in Canada and the one in Australia. They share no common surnames. 
Shared DNA: 183 cM across 9 segments
Unweighted shared DNA: 183 cM
Longest segment 43 cM

[Galium]

If you have been as thorough as you can be with the paper trail, have you come across evidence that links your matches' ancestors with your grandfather's cousins?

 People who change their names to start a new life often stick with their real date and place of birth, for example.  Do you have anything like that?

Sometimes the new name bears some relation to the original name - same initials; using a middle name as a first name; using a mother's maiden name, or other family name from a previous generation.

I think if the matches are as close as 2nd cousin, they are definitely related to your mother.  If someone believes you are wrong, they are free to do so of course, but how do they account for the obvious relationship?  By which I am not suggesting that you should challenge them, but if they can't /don't present an alternative, plausible explanation to the one you have found, there is no good reason to accept that they are right.

[Creasegirl]

You may need to go a bit further back to make the connections could like through maybe sharing great great great grandparents.  I am only saying this as thats similar figures to some of my matches that I have been in touch with.

[Biggles50]

DNA releases the skeletons.

People moved in the distant past for many reasons and as such finding the Why can be difficult if not impossible but DNA proves that it did happen.  There can be no documentary evidence, just DNA to substantiate any hypothesis.

All of us who have been using DNA for years will each have our takes to tell.

As an example.

My highest unknown DNA match is a lady who shares 364cM with me.  My Parentage is known and proved via DNA, with my Paternal Grandmother being Italian.  My Paternal Grandfather is another matter, as there are no records or evidence at all about him with only his Birth record showing “parents”. 

His parentage cannot be correct, he has to have been “adopted” it is the only scenario that works with the 364cM match and all the other Shared Matches that are in my tree. 

It looks like my Biological Great Grandfather had a relationship with a member of my 364cM’s family and their child, with my Grandfather being adopted.  I can substantiate this by the fact that my Great Grandfather’s Wife has nobody in her line with whom neither I or my Half Sister shares any DNA.

In my tree is a person who deserted his Wife and children, by going to Australia using his Mother’s maiden name, once in Australia he resumed using his birth name.

In my Wife’s tree a GG Uncle deserted his Wife and two children by emigrating to the USA.  His Wife remarried shortly after his departure and he remarried in the USA.  It was only via a few DNA Matches that we can prove that this occurred.