As regular readers will know, I am comparatively new to the convoluted ‘excitements’ of Ancestry DNA matches. I’ve been having a little play. If you have nothing better to do, you might see how your matches compare. You probably won’t all read to the end so I will put today’s new novel hint at the beginning – #5 It contains a modern strand. The novel also has the beginnings of its own webpage now. This post is probably for those who like fiddling with numbers and charts. If that’s not you, please go and use your time more wisely and stop reading now.

So, back to the DNA. I have, according to Ancestry, two 3-4^th cousin matches, 316 4^th-6^th cousin matches and as of this minute, 35,218 5^th-8^th cousin matches. I have looked at all those with common ancestors (allegedly 86 people although a couple have some incorrect trees). I have also checked all those that match at 16cM or more and all the shared matches of these people, plus a random selection of others. That’s over 2000 matches in all. So far, I have identified precisely how I am related to 78 people. The DNA that I share with some of these individuals is a little as 6cm. I am also more closely related to some than ancestry believes. Thanks to shared matching, I have an additional 237 matches, where I can tell which branch of the family is likely to be responsible for the link, although not the precise details of how we are connected.

I am very far from being a DNA expert, so please do tell me if all this is total nonsense. Anyway, I thought it might be fun to consider how my matches are distributed amongst different branches of my family and to speculate on why not all my great great grandparents are equally represented.

My paternal grandfather’s paternal grandfather

The Braund family from Devon and Cornwall can be traced back to the 1680s. 28 of my identified matches relate to this branch of the family and I know precisely how 20 of them relate to me. The closest relations are two 3^rd cousins once removed, with whom I share 35 and 20cM. Most are 6^th cousins but I do have a 7^th cousin (who matches at 11cM) and a 7^th cousin once removed (with 15 shared cM). I have not ruled out being related twice over with some of these individuals. In fact, in one case, I know I am.

My paternal grandfather’s paternal grandmother

The Nicholls family, also from Cornwall, can be traced back the 1630s. They yield just six matches, only one of which I can precisely identify. This is a 4^th cousin once removed (a 20cM match).

My paternal grandfather’s maternal grandfather

The Bishops, another west country family, are responsible for a whopping 104 matches, most of whom have no trees or private trees. The 12 for whom I have precise details of how we are related, vary from a 3^rd cousin once removed, who only shares 12cM of DNA, to several 6^th cousins, one of whom shares 14cM.

My paternal grandfather’s maternal grandmother

The Buckinghams and their forebears come from Cornwall. I have 39 matches that I have identified as relating to this branch, three of whom have a known place on the family tree. These range from a 5^th cousin (21cm) to a 6^th cousin (11cm). The closest relative shares 43cM of DNA (precise relationship unknown).

This quarter of my family is responsible for nearly 60% of my identified matches. There are obviously a number of factors at work here. Firstly, as I have not inherited an equal amount of DNA from each grandparent, I am less likely to have matches with those whose DNA is more diluted in my make-up. Perhaps I have a higher proportion of west-country DNA (although Living DNA’s ethnicity estimate suggests not). In addition and probably more significantly, the south-west branches are likely to be linked to a higher proportion of emigrants, therefore there will be more residents of the USA amongst the wider family. Given the much higher number of US citizens who have tested, this is bound to have an impact. Also, by using shared matches to identify likely group members, there is a snowball effect.

My paternal grandmother’s paternal grandparents

What about the other three quarters of my ancestry? My paternal grandmother’s quarter is the poorest yield for DNA matches, with none for her father, the Hoggs from Northumberland and just two 4^th cousins (19cM shared) for her paternal grandmother. I believe that this is largely because these lines are more difficult to trace, not just for me but for other researchers too. The Hogg line hits a brick wall in 1804. Therefore matches on these lines are probably hidden within the many hundreds of matches for whom I cannot identify a common ancestor. Of course, I cannot ignore the possibility that Mr Hogg may not actually be my genetic great great grandparent.

My paternal grandmother’s maternal grandparents

The Howe and Stratford lines from Buckinghamshire (with 7 matches, 4 of which are identified), give me one of my closest matches, a third cousin, yet we share just 27cM. It looks as if this grandparent is under-represented in my DNA, another possible reason for fewer matches. So, fewer than 3% of my matches come from my paternal grandmother.

My maternal grandfather’s ancestors

On my mother’s father’s side we hit the problem of endogamy; with the Smiths and the Seears intermarrying in three successive generations. This means that I am related to most of my matches in more than one way, making meaningful analysis difficult. I do have 46 matches in this line, five of whom can be located on my family tree. I have one matche to my Norfolk great great grandparent, Anne Bulley, a 4^th cousin sharing 18cM of DNA). This again is a difficult-to-trace branch. Despite this, 15% of my matches relate to my maternal grandfather.

My maternal grandmother’s ancestors

Finally, to my maternal grandmother’s line. The Sussex Woolgars are well documented and can be traced back to the C15th, so perhaps it is not surprising that there are 23 relatives on this branch, ranging from a 4^th cousin (with only 6cM shared) to a 6^th cousin sharing 17cM. Six of these can be precisely identified.

On the virtually impossible to trace Cardell line I have two matches. These support my speculation as to the ancestry of my brick wall ancestor but more is needed.

The Essex Dawsons and Bowyers can be traced back to the 1650s, again giving potential for plenty of matches and there are 47 of them, of which I can pinpoint the exact relationship for 16, all of whom are 4^th– 6^th cousins. Thus, this grandparent gives me 23% of my matches, not far from her fair share.

In summary then, this is the percentage of matches that each grandparents is responsible for:-

Paternal grandfather 60%, paternal grandmother 3%, maternal grandfather 15%, maternal grandmother 23% – sorry, I know that adds up to 101% – blame rounding up/down.

Ancestry have just announced their Mother’s Day sale. Shall  take the plunge and get a daughter to test, so I can do all this for her paternal ancestry as well?

* My only connection with any DNA testing company, is as a customer. I have received no concessions, free gifts or financial inducements from any of them.

And just because I can, one of my favourite family photos, colourised by MyHeritage and then enhanced by me.

Well, that was exciting. My updated ethnicity estimate from Living DNA is in. My original results, which I received in June 2017, were a pretty fair reflection of my  what I expected, based on my documentary tree. Compared to my estimates from other companies, it was the closest match to what I have discovered during over forty years of research. Here is what I wrote at the time, some of which I have repeated here.

Today’s revised estimate is based on Living DNA’s improved, more refined data. There are no massive changes but it is interesting to examine the subtle differences and how the new results compare to my predictions, based on the paper trail.

I am now in my fifth decade of family history research and have an extensive pedigree based on documentary research. I am fortunate to know the geographical origins of 31 of my 32 3 x great grand-parents and 75% of the generation before that. This takes me back to the mid-eighteenth century, well before the point at which my ancestors converged on Greater London. Of course, these estimates are just that, ESTIMATES but as the science improves, we might expect that they will become more accurate.

In preparation for the original results, I used my research to work out what I might expect. I am aware that the DNA that I have inherited does not come equally from all my 3 x great-grandparents and that some of them may have left no trace in my profile but I had no way of taking account of this. I am also assuming that my documentary pedigree is correct. Matches at other testing companies have, so far, not given me any reason to think that my genetic tree is different from my paper one. Based on my knowledge, my expectation was that my genetic make-up would reveal:-

Cornwall 20%

Devon 5%

Northumberland 12.5%

South Eastern England 37.5%

South Central England 19%

East Anglia 6%

So, as I did with the first results, let us examine a region at a time. Firstly the south-west, Devon and Cornwall. By my reckoning, the south-west makes up 25% of my ancestry, with 20% being Cornish and 5% for Devon. Living DNA’s first percentages were 7.4% Cornish and 11.7% from Devon. Now, the overall percentage is the same – 19.1% but the distinction between Devon and Cornwall has become less accurate, rather than more, with 3.5% Cornish and 15.6% now being allocated to Devon. As my south-west ancestors lived very close to the Devon-Cornwall border, on one side or another, I am not disappointed with this.

Next, Northumberland, which I would expect to be 12.5% of my ancestry. With the original results, by adding the estimates for Northumberland (5.8%) and Cumberland (7.2%), I had the anticipated 13%. This segment of my ancestry has now been refined to be slightly more accurate, with 7.9% for Northumberland, 1.1% for the North-west, 1.9% N.Ireland/S.W. Scotland and 1.5% Aberdeenshire, a total of 12.4%. I suspect that the lost 0.6% has defected to Europe.

In the south-east, again the more refined breakdowns have become less similar to the documentary tree. I believe that the bulk of my ancestors, 37.5%, come from the south-east, Essex and Sussex. Last time, Living DNA agreed, with 35.3%. Now, the new results show only 7.9% of my make-up being from the south-east. I would anticipate a further 19% to come from the south-central region. This was under-represented first time round, at only 3.9%. The swing to the south-central region has been huge; I now have 33.7% from there. Living DNA has also made minor adjustments to the percentages from the south, which has moved from 5.8% to 4.2% and to the central region, which has gone from 2.7% to 1.4%. So once again, I find that the percentage for the general area is what I would expect but the distribution within that area has become slightly less accurate.

So what does that leave? There is still no sign of my expected 6% East Anglian ancestry. As I commented last time, I suspect that that has become Scandinavian ancestry, which has decreased from 5.6% to 4%. Lincolnshire has increased from 1.2% to 2.1%. I have lost the anomalous 2.1% from Chechnya and gained 7.5% from north-west Germany, perhaps reflecting early migrations to the east coast.

What fascinated me last time and still does, is the alleged Yorkshire ancestry, which has decreased slightly, going from 11.1% for North Yorkshire, to 6.4% for North Yorkshire and 1.2% for South Yorkshire.  At present, I have one great, great grandmother whose origins are unknown but my best guess would be the Shropshire/Worcestershire borders. Should I be looking at Yorkshire instead, or might this be the DNA manifestation of Shropshire/Worcestershire?

I also have a 4 x great grandmother who appears on my tree in that position 3 times, due to the marriage of cousins in two successive generations, thus she represents 4.7% of my ancestry. I do not know her surname and I have no idea of her origins. At present, I have assumed she was from the south-east, which is where her children were born in the 1780s; I wonder if I may be wrong.

So, overall, I still find that Living DNA’s regional breakdown is broadly similar to my documentary tree. The minor tweaks that have come with new results have been a case of win some lose some. Overall though, I am pleased with Living DNA. I am still waiting for the updates on two other kits, so I will be reporting back further then. I am especially interested to see if the one which diverges dramatically from the paper trail has changed.

Map created using Genmap

* My only connection with Living DNA, or any other DNA testing company, is as a customer. I have received no concessions, free gifts or financial inducements from any of them.

The following post was another that I wrote for The In-depth Genealogist’s blog. I am writing it from the perspective of someone who has done DNA tests with three different companies and who runs a Y-DNA surname project.

DNA testing for genealogical purposes has never been more popular but it is not without its drawbacks. All too often, people bemoan the fact that potential DNA connections have provided no family information to their testing company of choice, or that they fail to respond to emails. There is however a more serious issue. Somewhere in the fairly small print most, if not all, the testing companies warn that those taking a test should be prepared for the results not being what they are expecting. In our excitement, how many of us read, mark and inwardly digest the implications of these caveats? What can possibly go wrong?

Nowadays, for many, it is a DNA test that sparks the research trail but others are experienced genealogists. For those serious researchers, before that test is taken, there has been time, money and most importantly, emotion invested in a particular family line. What happens then when the DNA results suggest that there is no genetic connection to that family at all? If we think, as we scrape our cheeks or spit in our tubes, about the possible outcome at all, have we really come to terms with how we would feel to no longer be a Smith but a Jones? Even if we are intrigued or excited about the thought that, somewhere in our ancestry, a Mrs Smith has had a child by someone who is not Mr Smith (Mr Jones perhaps) this will not just affect us. How will our siblings, parents, cousins, others who share this hiccup, feel? These relatives may or may not have been particularly interested in our genealogical delvings, they may even have been discouraging. Do we tell them and if so how? Will they be interested or appalled? Remember that it may be very difficult to pinpoint the precise point in our ancestry where the genetic pedigree deviates from the documentary. It could be 60 years ago or 600. It might be easier to accept a 6 x great grandmother going astray than a grandmother but in either case, we have lost that genetic link to a family that may have been ‘ours’ for decades.

What about those of us who run surname DNA projects, perhaps with the aim of proving that documentary family trees for a rare, potentially single origin, surname are genetically linked? Hopefully we explain to those who test that they may not match the normal profile for that surname but I suspect those testees all go ahead without really expecting it to apply to them. When non-matching results come back how do we break the news that they do not have a genetic link to that surname at all? To have tested in the first place they presumably feel some sense of belonging to the genetic line. I guess we can approach this in a similar way to those who have been adopted into the family but then it is not usually the family genealogist who has to break the news that someone is adopted and in most cases, there are now options for adoptees to identify their birth parents. Unless our non-matching DNA reveals a connection to a very unusual surname, the chance of finding the birth father of the product of Mrs X’s indiscretion is remote – even supposing that we can narrow down which Mrs X went astray.

When I took my first test, my head was prepared for a non-match, I am not sure that my heart was equally prepared. Fortunately for me, my slightly dodgy documentary direct paternal line was confirmed by DNA. How would I have felt if it was not? If I am honest, I really don’t know. I would be very interested to hear how others cope with DNA dilemmas.

This image is a work of the National Institutes of Health, part of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. As a work of the U.S. federal government, the image is in the public domain.

I have never been a fan of online family trees. Whilst absolutely respecting other people’s right to make whatever choice suits them, it was something that I always vowed, quite vehemently, I would never do. I was wrong. First of all, a word about why I chose to keep my family tree offline. When I started my research, over forty years ago, there was no online. I suspect if I were a new recruit to genealogy now I would make some different choices. When I got fed up with hand-drawing copies of family trees to share with others, I capitalised on the fact that I had a computer and purchased some genealogy software; Family Tree Maker. I can’t remember exactly when this was but it was on floppy disks and I think it was version 3. I still use Family Tree Maker. The trees it produces are not ideal but it suits me better than the alternatives. The fact that my handwriting is an exercise in advanced paleography played no small part in my decision to abandon hand-drawn trees.

Let me be clear, my reluctance to put a family tree online had nothing to do with me not being willing to share my information; I have been doing that since 1977. The surnames that I am interested in have been widely advertised for decades and are listed on this website. Over the years, many distant relatives have benefited from my research and vice versa. Purely because of the length of time I have been researching, I often have more to give than receive but that is fine. I love to share information but I do like it to be a two-way process. I want it to be accompanied by a conversation about the sources I have used and why have I made the connections that I have, or why I have not. I want to share the stories and the contextual detail that I have researched, not just the names and dates. To this end, some narrative accounts about my ancestors are now also available on my website.

This has worked well for me until very recently. Why would I change? I have been vocal about my opinion of many of the genealogies that you find online. Let’s just say I am not impressed by vast, unsourced, ‘grab it all’ trees containing biologically impossible data and scores of unverifiable connections. I do accept that there are well-researched, accurate pedigrees, compiled by proficient genealogists on the www but there is also an overwhelming amount of dross. So much so that extracting the gems has made looking for the proverbial needle in a haystack seem like child’s play.

People have often marvelled that I can do family history research without an Ancestry account, particularly as I do still do some professional research. I have never felt the need. I have subscribed to FindmyPast since before it was called FindmyPast and that suits me because the coverage is better for the counties that I need most often. When I began researching in the years B.C. (before computers), tracing your family history was impossible without going to archives and this is still key to the work I do. In fact, I believe that archival research is still essential for all researchers, as so much is not online.

A few months ago, having had my DNA tested with other companies, I decided that I might as well add Ancestry DNA to my collection of autosomal results. Before I parted with my hard cash, I considered whether having no Ancestry subscription and no online tree would make the test worthless. I realised that it would hamper my chance of encouraging contacts but I decided that it would still be useful, especially at sale price. The results arrived. I was offered a significantly reduced rate for an Ancestry subscription. So, tempted by the data sets, notably the London parish registers and PCC wills, I took out my first ever Ancestry subscription. I still had no intention of ever putting my tree online. I filled in my profile with my ancestral surnames but I resisted the exhortations to start my tree, even one that was private.

I had fun with my DNA matches, as expected, none of them close. I have two 3^rd-5^th cousins and 284 at 4^th-6^th cousin level, which I would guess is probably significantly fewer than most people. Some I had made contact with before. I could, I thought, just sit back, with my lack of tree and see if anyone contacted me. I worked out how some of the matches were connected to me using their public trees. I began to colour code them into groups. I was having fun. Everyone was banging on about ThruLines, that sounded fun too but of course I couldn’t connect to anyone with no tree. As I worked through my matches, I realised that I was prioritising those with public trees, of course I was, no real surprise. I contacted a few people, some replied, some didn’t, not unexpected. I found a third cousin in Australia, practically my closest living blood relative. Obviously, I reasoned, people are going to do the same as I did, start with those with public trees, then perhaps consider contacting a few with private trees if the common matches looked promising. With tens of thousands of matches, no one was ever going to get round to contacting poor little treeless me.

I umm and erred a bit and I took the plunge. My original intention was just to add my direct ancestors, not least because of the time it would take to add the results of forty years’ worth of research. The reasoning behind creating this tree meant that there was no point in making it private. My concession to privacy is that I have listed my parents as alive when they aren’t, so they can’t be seen and I would not consider adding my descendants. I still have numerous Cornish direct ancestors to add, some of those were acquired so long ago that they haven’t even made it to Family Tree Maker! I have filled in some siblings, particularly where it clarifies a DNA link and I will gradually add more.

Before I began, I worried if anyone would take an unsourced tree seriously (I wouldn’t) and I couldn’t face the thought of adding a trillion source citations, which I keep on a card index, yes, really, I do know it is 2019. Once I had begun, I realised that Ancestry make it quite easy to add sources, which was a relief. Their hints do contain some serious flights of fancy but these can be ignored. Of course, the sources that are attached to my Ancestry tree are a fraction of those that I have for some of these individuals but at least the tree is not unsourced.

Transferring a Gedcom wasn’t an option as I have multiple files. I could have created a composite tree by merging them but I thought it was quicker to start again. Everyone I have added has been verified using original sources, or images of those sources. I do not rely on indexes, although they are obviously a helpful gateway to the documents.  For this reason, I have not and will not, graft someone else’s tree on to my own. Although I am equally committed to researching them, I have made no attempt to add my children’s ancestors, as the point of this is to understand DNA matches and these are not relevant to that task.

Admitting you are wrong is difficult but I like to think that I am open to altering my opinions and alter them I have. I now have a tree on Ancestry, I am even quite proud of it. It will never be the primary method of keeping my information. There are several reasons for this not least because I want to be able to work on my tree when I am not online but I have ‘come round’ to a certain extent and who knows, maybe my opinion will change again.

Part of a tree created at Ancestry.co.uk

The arrival of the huge pile small number of death certificates following my ‘beat the price rise’ ordering fest has focussed my mind on various branches of my family tree. I had fun investigating the ‘crushed by a train’ death. Safe to say, considerably more fun than was had by the poor victim at any rate. I have, after more than four decades of researching, begun to put some of my family history narratives online. I have to stress from the outset that these are not beautifully written stories. Instead, they are working documents, intended to set out all the known facts on a particular family, together with the sources for each piece of information. Some do have smatterings of local and social historical context added. So, if you are related to the Dawsons of Essex, the Bulleys of Norfolk, The Oughs of Cornwall, the Pepperells of Devon, the Hoggs of Northumberland, the Meads of Yorkshire, the Seears of London or several other related families, there is something there for you and more will, eventually, follow. Do take a look at the many other surnames of interest that are listed, who knows, we may be related.

My regional breakdown based on the documentary evidence

At Christmas, I persuaded Martha to take a DNA test. I was pretty convinced she hadn’t been swapped at birth, so I was certain who her parents were but I was interested in the profile for the ancestry that we do not share. We chose to go for Living DNA as I had been impressed by how accurately my own regional breakdown that they had provided matched the documentary evidence. I wrote about this here. Finding matches was not a priority. I must stress that I am a DNA dabbler and am by no means an expert. I do however understand a few basic principles (I think). I know that we inherit exactly half our DNA from each of our parents (except when it seems we don’t – see below). It is a random half, which is why siblings differ (unless they are identical twins) so in theory it would be possible to inherit nothing from one grandparent (although this would be very unlikely) and the further back you go, the likelihood that no DNA has come down from a particular ancestor increases greatly. I also know that if I am 20% Cornish, Martha will not necessarily be 10% Cornish. She may have inherited more or less than 10% of my Cornish DNA, or indeed none at all. I also understand a little about migration and population movements. You often see posts on online forums complaining that such and such a DNA company hasn’t shown any of granny’s Irish ancestry. This is ignoring the fact that many Irish families were Scottish or English in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It also ignores the fact that these ethnicity estimates are just that, estimates. This is an emerging science and should really only be regarded as a bit of fun.

Martha’s Living DNA regional breakdown

Nonetheless, when Martha’s regional breakdown arrived it was, to put it mildly, weird. She is now wearing lederhosen and eating sauerkraut. These are my thoughts, maybe my DNA expert friends will chip in and find holes in this argument. If half Martha’s DNA is mine, I am interested in the other half. It has been very easy to identify the majority of this. Martha shows as being 34.6% Germanic; I have none. She also has 5% more Scandinavian ancestry than I have, 4.5% more from South Central England and 0.2% more from Northumberland. That adds up to a whopping 44.3% that we do not share, which, as I understand it must represent what she inherits from her father. From whom, I am reasoning, she has also inherited 5.7% of something I can’t identify because it overlaps with mine. I have been following the documentary trail since before Martha was born and I am a reasonable way back on all lines.

Martha’a regional breakdown based on the documentary evidence

This ethnicity profile in no way reflects what I know of her father’s ancestry, which I would expect to reflect elements from the Channel Islands and Scotland as well as a significant portion from Gloucestershire. The latter came from the Forest of Dean, which is known as historically being a remote community, very unlikely to have been influenced by European in-migration within the genealogical time-frame and beyond. Martha’s paternal aunt has tested with Ancestry and her ethnicity estimate more closely reflects the documentary trail, with nothing Germanic at all.

We have been eagerly awaiting Martha’s matches to appear and today they arrived. It may be a relief for her to know that she is who she thinks she is as she matches both me and her aunt, who uploaded her Ancestry results to Living DNA, with the expected relationship. I still don’t understand why, according to Living DNA Martha and I share 47.72% of our DNA and not 50% but I have a great deal to learn about DNA.

For those of you who have taken an interest in our BeingEdward story. I am pleased to report that the number who have read my original post has now reached four figures; so thank you so much to all who read and shared. This week, Martha has posted some insights into what life with BeingEdward means.

Oh and if you were wondering about the progress of the ‘spring’ cleaning, it may be better not to enquire. I have however now discovered that I have enough candles to survive any post-apocalyptic catastrophe, providing I can work out how to run the laptop using candle power.