Ancestry Thrulines

[alan o]

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...............

[David Nicoll]

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!

[Biggles50]

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...............

If you share DNA with someone then you are Biologically related to them.

OK, maybe if the cM is low then they can be false, but they can also be right.  My lowest DNA Match shares only 6cM with me and yet there is a document trail to support the relationship.

My Italian ancestors came to England in 1850, another batch of Italian relatives went to the USA where I now have hundreds of very distant DNA Cousins.

Do keep an open mind and all options on the table.

[alan o]

I remain open minded but the sheer number of supposed 3rd cousins spread across the world based on minute amounts of DNA seems overly optimistic to me.

[Biggles50]

I remain open minded but the sheer number of supposed 3rd cousins spread across the world based on minute amounts of DNA seems overly optimistic to me.

Yes, there is quite a spread, for me a lot of those in the 8cM up to 100+cM range are given as potential 3C’s.

Most of those of mine with below 15cM end up being tagged as Distant Cousins if I get then linked.

[Zaphod99]

I spend a lot of time verifying the various ThruLines suggestions. The aspect that I find hardest is looking at the two previous generations before my suggested match.

I've done a lot of work following my tree back 200 years but it is very difficult following another branch down from an ancestor before 1850, to finally arrive at a suggested DNA match.

The next two or three generations down from a shared ancestor can usually be readily confirmed.

Does anybody else have this problem or a solution?  Quite often the matches' parents and even grandparents are redacted or referred to by meaningless nicknames.  And the lack of recent birth records add to my problem. 

Zaph

[Josephine]

I spend a lot of time verifying the various ThruLines suggestions. The aspect that I find hardest is looking at the two previous generations before my suggested match.

I've done a lot of work following my tree back 200 years but it is very difficult following another branch down from an ancestor before 1850, to finally arrive at a suggested DNA match.

The next two or three generations down from a shared ancestor can usually be readily confirmed.

Does anybody else have this problem or a solution?  Quite often the matches' parents and even grandparents are redacted or referred to by meaningless nicknames.  And the lack of recent birth records add to my problem. 

Zaph

I've encountered the same thing. If one or more grandparent is visible, I'll look for obits or news articles that might list children and grandchildren. It's time-consuming.

If the person is a DNA match with me, I'll check all our shared matches, because sometimes he or she will have a sibling, parent or child who has also done their DNA and has a more complete tree with enough names for me to figure it out.

I'd be interested to hear what other people do.

[Zaphod99]

Yes, I do both of those ideas, but I would also welcome hearing what other people do. Those last two generations are so tricky because of privacy. I wonder if family historians have a different view on data privacy from the rest of the world.

Now there's a topic for another conversation.

Zaph

[Biggles50]

Yes, I do both of those ideas, but I would also welcome hearing what other people do. Those last two generations are so tricky because of privacy. I wonder if family historians have a different view on data privacy from the rest of the world.

Now there's a topic for another conversation.

Zaph

Having a DNA Match with a useable User Name is the first thing to check, if they are female trying to determine if their surname is their married or birth surname?

An odd User Name can be traced but that depends upon shared matches and if they have a tree all be it a rudimentary one.

Fingers crossed that there is a tree to use as a guide.

Somewhere in the tree hopefully there will then be the Paternal and Maternal surnames and I use them, so where Ancestry shows them as Private I initially use the surnames with no forenames.

Then add the DNA Match and search for their birth, especially their location which I then use as the likely Marriage location.  I then look for Siblings to see if the location remains consistent and add them to the tree.

With luck we then have the final branch of the tree accurate.

We start with the MRCA in the Thruline and work forward for each of the people.