Jump to content

Ancestry DNA


Recommended Posts

25 minutes ago, JonM said:

1841 is the oldest available census for almost everywhere in England. Before then you are on to parish records which can be a bit patchier. Good luck with working out exactly which one of the Thomas Jones christened in a Welsh village church in a particular year is the one you want... (One of my ancestors was born in St. Helens in 1831. There were 5 people with his name born that year. I was able to find the correct one only because the other 4 had died before the age of 5. We're all the descendants of the people who didn't die of cholera, typhoid etc.)

And the stuff about  pre-1800 is unlikely to be correct for many people on here, because of the Industrial revolution. The towns and cities of Lancashire & Yorkshire saw mass movements of population from rural Britain & Ireland. Unless your ancestors stayed in one place or have uncommon names, it gets pretty difficult.

Doing the family tree can be very interesting and there is a lot more out there than people think there might be. Just the other week I was showing my mum her dad's will and probate. 

A relatively unusual name can be a godsend as can be a lot of siblings. It allows you to make those little leaps you otherwise wouldn't be able to. I'm sure you're aware already, but the St Helens cemetary site is brilliant because it not only lists the person who died but who is buried on the plot with them. That has allowed me to make links before where I was uncertain. 

The hardest thing doing it is to not jump to conclusions and people do this on other trees all the time; they accept any ancestry hint as true. I've made the tiniest leap before that was eventually proved untrue. 

Just the other week my mum was looking through my tree and pointed out something I had wrong. There was an uncle of hers born in 1911 who I had dying in 1995 due to a death certificate that came up as a hint on ancestry. She pointed out he died in the 60s. It turned out there were two John Lallys born in St Helens in early 1911; I was able to find the one my mum spoke about on the cemetary website.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


4 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

e. A relatively unusual name can be a godsend as can be a lot of siblings. It allows you to make those little leaps you otherwise wouldn't be able to.

I've been able to go back to 1580s on one particular line due to a very unusual surname, that only seems to exist in one village in the Yorkshire dales. One thing that's helped in the 1800s is that often people will use the mother's surname as a middle name - even if it's only one sibling. And their kids are often named after grandparents so you tend to see the same first names going down the generations for a while. My great aunt who died in the 1970s had the middle name wallace and her brother had the middle name hamilton and it turns out that these had been handed down as middle names with the original reason having been forgotten - it was the surnames of 2 women who'd been their ancestors who were born in Fife in the 1780s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, JonM said:

Yes, I think that's a very good summary - and as Farmduck says, it's still a bit of a stretch with the statistics.

Some genes correlate well with a geographical area.  In the UK, if you take only people who were born somewhere and their grandparents were also born there, you can find gene variants that say 70% of people in Cornwall have and 40% of people in Norfolk. If you do that over lots of genes and lots of places, you can get some kind of statistical picture, but it's a pretty inexact science.

The only problem I have with this is that there are millions of people in the NW of England who have Irish ancestry. As she's been in the NW for generations, surely her DNA is most in common with other people from the NW of England.

Therefore they must be suggesting that certain types of DNA are Irish and are Scandinavian. This seems relatively logical but the vast majority of Scandinavian DNA is surely talking about the Viking invasions; these were 1000 years ago, why would their DNA survive but nothing from the inevitable other millions of ancestors from that time?

I'm not completely pooh-poohing it, it is after all able to identify the general geographic area just from her DNA. I'd just like to be a bit clearer about exactly what it is claiming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, JonM said:

I've been able to go back to 1580s on one particular line due to a very unusual surname, that only seems to exist in one village in the Yorkshire dales. One thing that's helped in the 1800s is that often people will use the mother's surname as a middle name - even if it's only one sibling. And their kids are often named after grandparents so you tend to see the same first names going down the generations for a while. My great aunt who died in the 1970s had the middle name wallace and her brother had the middle name hamilton and it turns out that these had been handed down as middle names with the original reason having been forgotten - it was the surnames of 2 women who'd been their ancestors who were born in Fife in the 1780s.

Yes naming after other generations can be useful too. The best name I found was a Hunter Jackson Beardwell. That made it pretty easy to find other documents about him too! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

The hardest thing doing it is to not jump to conclusions and people do this on other trees all the time; they accept any ancestry hint as true. I've made the tiniest leap before that was eventually proved untrue. 

 

 

Ha isn't that the truth!

In the very early days of doing mine I researched one branch back in the late 1800's found the street in Wigan, based on Census records, eldest son I knew to be Harold, knew parents names, showed it my dad, he told me I was 10 doors out with the address, went back and found the right family 10 doors down, the curse of the common surname and a little knowledge!

I've struggled on my side, had Taylors marrying Smiths which I've left untouched for a while, got a whole line of great uncles who dies in WW1 that I've struggled to find details on. 

But on my wifes side I'm 100% confident on the branch I've got back to the 800's the joys of an unusual surname, more than a few church connections and them having enough cash for some decent sized properties which leaves a nice trail to follow back, in many ways its been to easy that side.

I hate the new potential father/mother feature that seems to have appeared on Ancestry, must be loads of people just taking them at face value and adding them in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just hope GingerJon is not reading this thread. He'll have my millions in his bank account in minutes at this rate.

Best name I've found is "Skyrack Whittam," although there's also a "Quick Nutter" although he's not a direct ancestor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JonM said:

1841 is the oldest available census for almost everywhere in England. Before then you are on to parish records which can be a bit patchier. Good luck with working out exactly which one of the Thomas Jones christened in a Welsh village church in a particular year is the one you want... (One of my ancestors was born in St. Helens in 1831. There were 5 people with his name born that year. I was able to find the correct one only because the other 4 had died before the age of 5. We're all the descendants of the people who didn't die of cholera, typhoid etc.)

And the stuff about  pre-1800 is unlikely to be correct for many people on here, because of the Industrial revolution. The towns and cities of Lancashire & Yorkshire saw mass movements of population from rural Britain & Ireland. Unless your ancestors stayed in one place or have uncommon names, it gets pretty difficult.

It must have been the Parish records then. My ancestors had an unusual name - only 17 people in Sydney have that name. You are right about the dead children. I saw two lots of records for my ancestor and in the intervening period (10 years?) half his kids had died. It's no surprise that in 1849 three brothers got the boat to Adelaide.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, shrek said:

Ha isn't that the truth!

In the very early days of doing mine I researched one branch back in the late 1800's found the street in Wigan, based on Census records, eldest son I knew to be Harold, knew parents names, showed it my dad, he told me I was 10 doors out with the address, went back and found the right family 10 doors down, the curse of the common surname and a little knowledge!

I've struggled on my side, had Taylors marrying Smiths which I've left untouched for a while, got a whole line of great uncles who dies in WW1 that I've struggled to find details on. 

But on my wifes side I'm 100% confident on the branch I've got back to the 800's the joys of an unusual surname, more than a few church connections and them having enough cash for some decent sized properties which leaves a nice trail to follow back, in many ways its been to easy that side.

I hate the new potential father/mother feature that seems to have appeared on Ancestry, must be loads of people just taking them at face value and adding them in.

In general I find it interesting how often the ancestors seemed to move. In pretty much every census they've moved house, often just a few houses down the road. 

The Irish ones are the worst for people jumping to conclusions because the records are very patchy and mixed with a lot of American. I often see ones where they've put records of a relative in Widnes in the 1901 census, Massachusetts in 1904 and back in Widnes for 1911. What an exciting life! 

It gets worse with the Irish records, if they see a name they just attach it. O'Malley is quite uncommon in NW England but in County Mayo it's like Smith, seeing the same name in roughly the same area just isn't enough. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, shrek said:

Of course - I'm good for 90 second spells before needing a breather!

I would have thought you had a large percentage of Samoan in you tbh.

Image result for mose masoe

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Sky Sports Jenna Brooks to Jake Connor regarding England selection : "Shaun Wane has said that he's spoken to you about why you were left out, he's also said he's told you what you needed to do more of, I'm interested, what do you need to do more of and did you do it tonight?"

Jake Connor : "I don't know, to be honest I haven't spoken to him."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

 

This is what I still am no nearer to understanding. What exactly does the 85% Irish and 15% Scandinavian mean? My mum (and others who've done it) think that all of her ancestors were Irish or Scandinavian in origin. This clearly isn't true and I'm sure the companies wouldn't even claim it. 

What exactly are they claiming though? If we're talking in the distant past, say 1000 years ago, we literally have millions of ancestors going back that far. Is it saying her DNA is mostly in common with people who currently live in Ireland? 

 

 

Don’t forget that from 800 AD to around 1075 the Danes and other Scandinavian types would come over on the Middle Ages equivalents of a booze cruise, half of England was conquered and administered under Danelaw an area stretching from the Mersey to the Thames. There would have been ample opportunities to mix DNA with the invaders, both voluntarily or in a more rapey manner. York was looted by a Swedish fleet in 1085, I’m prepared to go out on a limb and suggest they didn’t just help themselves the church silver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Maximus Decimus said:

In general I find it interesting how often the ancestors seemed to move. In pretty much every census they've moved house, often just a few houses down the road. 

The Irish ones are the worst for people jumping to conclusions because the records are very patchy and mixed with a lot of American. I often see ones where they've put records of a relative in Widnes in the 1901 census, Massachusetts in 1904 and back in Widnes for 1911. What an exciting life! 

It gets worse with the Irish records, if they see a name they just attach it. O'Malley is quite uncommon in NW England but in County Mayo it's like Smith, seeing the same name in roughly the same area just isn't enough. 

I've noticed with a few of mine they chased the work around the country, moving from Lincolnshire, to Cheshire, to South Wales, then back to Leicester all in the space of a couple of decades picking up wifes and children on the way.

Those branches that looked like they had a few quid and property seemed to have stayed fairly rooted, although some of the travel records available on ancestry have been interesting, one generation on my wifes side seem to have spent most of there life on a boat travelling to and from Argentina in the 1920's and 1930's were they set up home, but seemed to come back to visit family several times a year.

I don't envy anyone trying to chase back an Irish line, I guess that is were DNA tests will help reveal cousins etc as I'm told by a few that the paper records make it nigh on impossible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shadow said:

Don’t forget that from 800 AD to around 1075 the Danes and other Scandinavian types would come over on the Middle Ages equivalents of a booze cruise, half of England was conquered and administered under Danelaw an area stretching from the Mersey to the Thames. There would have been ample opportunities to mix DNA with the invaders, both voluntarily or in a more rapey manner. York was looted by a Swedish fleet in 1085, I’m prepared to go out on a limb and suggest they didn’t just help themselves the church silver.

I'm not denying this, I'm saying that 1,000 years represents millions of ancestors. I don't think it's improbable to say that virtually everybody - if not everybody - living in the UK and Ireland whose families didn't emigrate in the last 100 years are related to some of these invaders.

It is also true that my mum will be related to thousands of the original inhabitants (would they be even called English?) from that time. 

This brings me back to my original question, what exactly does 15% Scandinavian mean especially as my mum apparently has 0% English? Would it even be possible to get a result that was 85% English? I'm not trying to be funny, I'm genuinely hoping somebody has a better understanding of it than I do. My past experience of TRL is that there's usually someone who knows about these things!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, shrek said:

I've noticed with a few of mine they chased the work around the country, moving from Lincolnshire, to Cheshire, to South Wales, then back to Leicester all in the space of a couple of decades picking up wifes and children on the way.

Those branches that looked like they had a few quid and property seemed to have stayed fairly rooted, although some of the travel records available on ancestry have been interesting, one generation on my wifes side seem to have spent most of there life on a boat travelling to and from Argentina in the 1920's and 1930's were they set up home, but seemed to come back to visit family several times a year.

I don't envy anyone trying to chase back an Irish line, I guess that is were DNA tests will help reveal cousins etc as I'm told by a few that the paper records make it nigh on impossible.

The Irish census records were destroyed in a fire at the post office during the Easter rising. This makes it incredibly difficult to trace those ancestors before they came to Britain. Of my numerous Irish ancestors I've not got a single Irish record that I am certain is the same person. It doesn't help that they often wrote Parish records - including names - in Latin. 

It's helped even less by the fact that they often didn't know exactly how old they were: it can vary by a couple of years in each census. 

 

Edited by Maximus Decimus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There isnt just census information available when looking at the family tree. Perhaps the best is the 1939 register which was taken at the outset of the war. It is helpful especially as the 1931 census was destroyed and they didn't do one in 1941.

The censuses aren't released for 100 years but for some reason the register has been, albeit with living relatives blanked out. The best thing about it is that it gives a date of birth when census info only gives a year. This led me to probably my favourite family history moment.

I had a great grandparent I was struggling to trace back earlier than 1939. I knew her maiden name but there were a few options on the census info. There was one option that just said Conway girl and when I looked the census recorded her as 1 day old. I knew her DOB from the census and it was 3rd April so I looked for the date of the Census and it was taken on the 2nd April. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I prefer to use birth certificate and other papers than DNA. I just dont Trust these companies and your roots maybe Irish but it doesnt for me give you a proper view of your ancestors and when they moved or on what ships etc. I think getting such info far more interesting than some alleged DNA saying I have ancestory from wherever. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did mine from the Internet Census (well partly), and found my Dads, Dad Hugh, was born in Everton in 1905 to a guy born in Liverpool, and his Mum from Douglas IOM, on his Birth Cert., however in 1911 he was living with his Uncle, also Called Hugh, His Grandad, Also called Hugh, 3 cousins one of them also called Hugh.

He died in 1940 in the Snow, in Salford, having caught Pneumonia walking back from Preston, where my Dad was evacuated.

Edited by Bleep1673
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Most of England is Celtic blood, especially Western England, surely you know that. Piers Morgan, hint in his surname, is 0% English, he's 90% Celtic, mainly Irish and Welsh, and 10% Middle Eastern. I remember Mike Parry saying on talk sport years ago that he's Anglo-Saxon through and through, that's absolute rubbish, he's about as English as Fui Fui Moi Moi. I've heard that some Welsh language signs have gone up in some hospitals in Liverpool. And where does the water that many of you on here drink, come from? ?

Edited by southwalesrabbitoh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/29/2019 at 1:47 AM, Lounge Room Lizard said:

I prefer to use birth certificate and other papers than DNA. I just dont Trust these companies and your roots maybe Irish but it doesnt for me give you a proper view of your ancestors and when they moved or on what ships etc. I think getting such info far more interesting than some alleged DNA saying I have ancestory from wherever. 

If you let ancestry.com match your DNA to others it can, if the other person has an open family tree online , give you a great overview of your family history that others have already researched.

I have over 300 DNA relative matches on ancestry.com.  I only know who the first five are ... and four of them were a big surprise that we’ve proven through shared stories and history.

 It lists them all in terms of DNA match strength.

Edited by Copa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gave a talk on DNA testing to our local history group so did a lot of research on this. Basically they make hollow promises.

There is lots wrong with the methodology.  Simply put, the foreign data base is far too small to be meaningful. It may tell you that you have something in common with people who live in a country NOW, but are they the same as the people who invaded or migrated here generations ago? Highly unlikely. Populations are far more mobile, even going back to Neolithic times, than people commonly think.

Oh, and never believe family trees posted by Americans without very careful verification. They are desperate for long roots. According to one that must have taken years to do I'm related to king Ethelberger but they had to invent a son of a minor German ruler who it turned out only had three daughters.

Edited by John Rhino
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Clogiron said:

Never really gone into it, I know as far back as my great grandparents, if I go any further back I might find relations not from Yorkshire.........then I would have to top myself?

Go back far enough and you will find some human genes in your bloodline

Ron Banks

Midlands Hurricanes and Barrow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...