Ancestry Thrulines

[David Nicoll]

Alan o,

   One thing to bear in mind is that the maximum number of relatives if you go back 5 generations an each generation has 6 children, with no pedigree collapse is of the order of 130,000. If you allow for a bit of pedigree collapse which gives you visibility of the next generation, you are up to about 1.9 million, given the various European diasporas over the last 200 or so years, it it eminently possible to have relatives all over the world.
  From a point of identifying people I tend to only check down to two generations before present, I am most interested in trying to push back the brick wall.
  I will reach out if I think I may assist in someone’s search, but usually just build to a dangling branch from my tree.

[familydar]

My own tree is deep and wide, which means that most matches where ancestry suggest a thruline are easily "placed" as I already have them in my offline tree.  Even if they're using an alias, so it's not clear which particular sibling they are, I know they are the son or dau of a particular couple.

Sometimes the thrulines are wrong, most commonly because of a skipped generation, but I don't think I have any matches where anc has suggested a thruline and I've not been able to either agree it or come up with a close alternative (I'm not including the private individuals who are the root people of entirely private 7 person trees).

Matches with no suggested thruline are a different matter, particularly small matches using aliases, but although it's been a slog, building my tree deep and wide is definitely paying off.

Jane :-)

[Josephine]

My own tree is deep and wide, which means that most matches where ancestry suggest a thruline are easily "placed" as I already have them in my offline tree.  Even if they're using an alias, so it's not clear which particular sibling they are, I know they are the son or dau of a particular couple.

Sometimes the thrulines are wrong, most commonly because of a skipped generation, but I don't think I have any matches where anc has suggested a thruline and I've not been able to either agree it or come up with a close alternative (I'm not including the private individuals who are the root people of entirely private 7 person trees).

Matches with no suggested thruline are a different matter, particularly small matches using aliases, but although it's been a slog, building my tree deep and wide is definitely paying off.

Jane :-)

I guess it depends on where the most recent generations were born and are living. If I didn't know my first cousins, it would be extremely difficult to impossible for me to track them. They haven't done DNA, they don't have any online trees, and we're all in Canada with strict privacy laws regarding official documentation.

And now I've got the song running through my head...

[familydar]

Didn't think of that Josephine, now I have the same earworm!  I suppose old Hickory might be responsible for some of my NPEs 

Jane :-)

[goldfinch99]

I just had to post this supposed 'relative' suggested to me by ancestry on the basis of mutual DNA.  I am 60% welsh 38% English with no ancestors in the USA and certainly not Hawaii.  I suspect the names suggested may not have the same lineage as me...............

I don't think it would show up on Thrulines but some UK people joined the navy (official or unofficial) and travelled to Pacific islands and left descendants there so that you both have common ancestors.

I would love to track the common ancestors for my matches in the Pacific Islands and New Zealand that must be DNA matches by this route.

[goldfinch99]

Hi,

   Well, that does rather depend on the size of the match.
   They seem quite recent dates.
   Thomas Blake Glover was an Aberdonian in Japan in 1859.
   It only takes one relative to tramp the world, that is the kind of thing that takes me down a rabbit hole.
   I have a lot of DNA “relatives” who seem to be in America for over 200 years, but the matches seem very consistent so they must be real in some way.
   Have you actually looked at their Origins, one may be 25% Welsh!

I have matches in the US (I am UK) who have pedigree collapse trees and the same individuals turn up four or five times in their trees, I consider these legit matches and just mark them with the name of the common surname in case one day I can work out the common ancestor who had one child stay and one emigrate.

[alan o]

I have one line with naval associations.  I have one maternal branch in the Plymouth area in the 1870s with 2 great great uncles in the RN. One made CPO and  served 14 years:  I have a list of all of the ships served on but he was on short engagements in UK waters or the Mediterranean fleet and certainly no long journeys to the Pacific.

The second one made Lt Comd and had a much longer career with service in Eqypt in 1882, West Indies in the 1880s and Venezaula in 1902.

His obituary lists a number of ships he served on.  It rather helpfully lists the name of those he served on between enlistment in 1874 and 1890 when he was made a warrent officer.  They seem to be Armoured Frigates in the Mediterranean fleet.  So again no sign of any Far East service. 

I fear that any 'relationship' that has resulted in a DNA mix with a Japanese family may have been not a love match but transactional so I doubt I will ever find him in their family tree!

Thank you all for your input.

[Zaphod99]

Alan, "transactional"!  I love it!  And I usually hate euphemisms.

Zaph

[David Nicoll]

alan o

   Don’t forget that this is Ancestry’s best guess at the relationship, it could quite easily be a 4th or 5th cousin, so going back to the 1820’s in your timeline.