|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 1, 2016 12:40:53 GMT
That you both know that his official birth certificate is incorrect is an example of why DNA testing is so fascinating and important. Someone a few generations removed will have no idea and think that the birth certificate must be accurate. And then wonder if the company doing the DNA test made a mistake. Given social mores and taboos throughout the ages, people lie about their sexual liaisons that result in children for a variety of reasons. Science trumps oral history once again. See I have no desire to disprove oral history that formed my childhood. For someone trying to claim financial benefits from their ethnic background/paternity testing it would be important. I personally have no interest in my family tree beyond my great grandparents. Fascinating I get, important I waffle on because I am not sure the importance of proving that great great great gramma really wasn't 50% a certain ethnicity as once though. I am very much a live in the moment person. But in her husband's case the birth certificate doesn't even match the oral history: and when some a generation or two people don't have someone relating the details, an important piece of the family history - that the man who raised her husband WAS actually his father, even though the birth certificate claims he wasn't the father - will be lost. |
|
|
|
Post by pjaye on Apr 1, 2016 12:49:45 GMT
There evidently ARE DNA markers for this group - it may even be combinations of types of genes. I don't know specifically what they are, because I'm not a genetic analyst, but know that there is an ethnic component to many Jews. Logically that makes sense to me...but I don't understand then why FTDNA says there is no "definable DNA mutation" for being Jewish (that is direct from their website). Or maybe I'm not understanding their terminology correctly. |
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Apr 1, 2016 12:50:26 GMT
I have not done the DNA testing yet, but hope to some day. At this point, I expect to see a large percentage Italy/Greece & Ireland. I also anticipate Europe West & Great Britain, with lesser amounts of European Jewish. I do not anticipate any NA DNA at all. But I know that I haven't made it to the immigration point with some of my ancestors yet, so the possibility exists, but it's not any sort of family lore in my family at all. On my husband's side, his mother does constantly claim that there is NA on her side of the family. She swears that her grandparents had a book of their family history that showed it. A.) The book has seemingly vanished from the Earth  and B.) a book is just someone else's family tree work in a published form. It still doesn't mean that it's correct.  But I haven't told her that. My philosophy in terms of my family tree work is that I wan to know as much as I can and I want what I know to be the truth whenever possible. But sometimes, I know full well that others want to stick with what they believe, so I let them be. I don't correct them unless they come right out and ask me. It doesn't hurt me if my MIL leaves this Earth thinking she is part NA, whether she really is or not, kwim? I would like to know because I consider my work on my side & DH's side to be the complete tree of our children. I am creating their family tree, and I'd like it to be as correct as possible. Now, on my mom's side of the family they do have a persistent story about a duke that I ignore. A.) There is zero proof of this. B.) The story says it's a "cousin", which for Italians, could mean it's just about anyone. C.) By the time you move forward 10, 12, 15 generations, people of any sort of royalty or title have so many darn descendants that just about everyone can find a relative somewhere who had some sort of title. It's not really something I care about, myself. But that "duca" means something to a few people in my family, so if I ever found proof that it was just a bunch of malarkey, I won't be telling them. |
|
|
|
Post by *sprout* on Apr 1, 2016 12:54:58 GMT
Well I think it's confusing because it's both, there are ethnic Jews but there is also the religion, which you could convert to. If you were not ethically Jewish but converted to Judaism and married someone who was also religiously Jewish but not ethically Jewish, then no dna would label your offspring as Jewish, I'm pretty sure it's both an ethnicity and a religion. I think the one site that claims is only a religion doesn't have enough data from people of that ethnicity to really clearly be be able to distinguish them. Yes. I know that my father's side were Ashkenazi Jews from the area of Europe that has been labeled Austria/Hungary. For centuries there wasn't a lot of breeding outside the community, Jews lived in separate villages/communities (shtetls) and many people didn't convert to such a persecuted religion. Even when immigrating to the US, they lived in communities together - there are Jewish neighborhoods in NYC, Cleveland (where my ancestors moved to), Chicago, etc. Most US cities have neighborhoods that were once pretty much exclusively "Jewish" neighborhoods. There evidently ARE DNA markers for this group - it may even be combinations of types of genes. I don't know specifically what they are, because I'm not a genetic analyst, but know that there is an ethnic component to many Jews. I know that lucyg's results from Ancestry have a much larger percentage of European Jew - again this means Ashkenazic Jews as opposed to Sephardic Jews which are from a different region of the world. But since Jews historically lived separately, and it is really only in the past century that they have integrated into communities at large, it is no surprise to me that there are DNA markers. Hopefully, Lucy will jump in here too. Here are my results: View AttachmentThank you for the information! The surprise result from my Ancestry DNA test was a small percentage of European Jewish. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 1, 2016 12:55:41 GMT
There evidently ARE DNA markers for this group - it may even be combinations of types of genes. I don't know specifically what they are, because I'm not a genetic analyst, but know that there is an ethnic component to many Jews. Logically that makes sense to me...but I don't understand then why FTDNA says there is no "definable DNA mutation" for being Jewish (that is direct from their website). Or maybe I'm not understanding their terminology correctly. I have no idea about that site - I've never been there - so can't answer your question. I tested through Ancestry.com. |
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Apr 1, 2016 13:02:42 GMT
Do bear in mind, though, that in cases where you might be a small percentage of one ethnic background or another, your DNA can turn out to not show that even though you had ancestors whose DNA would have shown it, kwim? You do not receive all of the DNA of all of your ancestors. Your DNA is just a part of the total DNA of the direct ancestors on your tree, which means your DNA results can have "ethnicity loss". That does NOT mean that all the people who think they should see NA results but don't, might actually be part NA after all. Because truly, the "We have a Native American ancestor" story is still just a very common myth for many people in the US. But it is something to keep in mind. Your paper tree can show less the the true story and your DNA results can show less than the whole picture. That's why so many people strongly encourage researchers to use them both to try to sort out the most probable tree that you can. (Which is why I'd like to test mine and have DH test his as well. It's also why I may show an ethnicity that one of my children may not show, despite the fact that I am 100% sure they are both my biological children.) Illustration of a Genealogical Tree vs. a DNA Tree, showing Ethnicity Loss |
|
|
|
Post by **GypsyGirl** on Apr 1, 2016 13:14:41 GMT
If you are 90% British, your mom almost certainly isn't mostly German genetically. She may have been born to people living in Germany, but someone in the not all-too-distant family tree on her side was British too. There really isn't any 100% German DNA. Ancestry DNA considers Germany part of the Western Europe group. It encompasses modern day Germany, France, Switzerland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Austria, Northern Italy, and the Czech Republic. As for German ancestry, this is what Ancestry says: Genetic Diversity in the Europe West Region
The people living in the Europe West region are among the most admixed of all our regions, which means that when creating genetic ethnicity estimates for people native to this area, we often see similarities to DNA profiles from other nearby regions. We’ve found that approximately 48% of the typical native’s DNA comes from this region.
While the typical native of this region is 48%, I came back at 44%. Not surprising since I know for fact that my mother's family is mostly from Switzerland & Germany.
|
|
|
|
Post by **GypsyGirl** on Apr 1, 2016 13:25:01 GMT
SO...I am adopted and have become fascinated with the idea of being able to know my ancestry. But I have no interest in being connected to birth relatives at all. Is there a way to do that? With Ancestry.com, you can choose to keep your results private. Also, not linking it to a family tree will help. I have several matches to my DNA that do not have family trees. |
|
scrappington
Pearl Clutcher
in Canada
Posts: 3,139 
|
Post by scrappington on Apr 1, 2016 13:36:12 GMT
Do bear in mind, though, that in cases where you might be a small percentage of one ethnic background or another, your DNA can turn out to not show that even though you had ancestors whose DNA would have shown it, kwim? You do not receive all of the DNA of all of your ancestors. Your DNA is just a part of the total DNA of the direct ancestors on your tree, which means your DNA results can have "ethnicity loss". That does NOT mean that all the people who think they should see NA results but don't, might actually be part NA after all. Because truly, the "We have a Native American ancestor" story is still just a very common myth for many people in the US. But it is something to keep in mind. Your paper tree can show less the the true story and your DNA results can show less than the whole picture. That's why so many people strongly encourage researchers to use them both to try to sort out the most probable tree that you can. (Which is why I'd like to test mine and have DH test his as well. It's also why I may show an ethnicity that one of my children may not show, despite the fact that I am 100% sure they are both my biological children.) Illustration of a Genealogical Tree vs. a DNA Tree, showing Ethnicity LossWhat a great link |
|
scrappington
Pearl Clutcher
in Canada
Posts: 3,139
|
Post by scrappington on Apr 1, 2016 13:50:03 GMT
Well I got my results back on Good Friday.
My mother is adopted and wow did I get some interesting hits.
I am 14% Italian (story was my mom's bio mom was middle eastern) Neither my mom or I are olive skin. We are the exact opposite very pale, fair, blonde.
56% British -- very expected
18% Irish -- shocked at how low this was I expected it to be 25%
12% mix of Western European, Scandinavian , Iberian and something else. But 100% Europe.
Ok so my mom's adoption was never a secret we know her last name at birth, where she was born etc. She was a private adoption.
I have listed my grandparents family tree done all the research very extensively because regardless of the lack of blood relation they are my family.
So can you imagine my surprise when I shared dna with my grandmothers family. And not just from one of her parents but both of her parents.
Conveniently two sisters married two brothers so shared dna could come from 2 couples (my great grandparents or my great aunt and uncle) we guess what. My great aunt and uncle are really my great grandparents etc. And my grandma is my cousin. She is my blood.
The bio father who links us to all this died in 1985 but he was a big part of my mom's life and the short time I knew him he was in mine as well.
So yes half a mystery solved my mom knows now half her family.
So I decide my mother should know what I found. And I tell her after I wrap my own head around it etc. I don't have the best relationship with her and her lack of knowledge of genealogy and how dna works made it rather challenging. Finally after many telephone conversations she finally clicks and says ooohhh...She then proceeds to tell me all the generous gifts her uncle( now knows as bio dad) did for her over the years. I said well that makes sense now doesn't it.
I'm not sure if we will be able to link the bio mother to us or figure anything out.
I have a 2nd cousin dna match on ancestry that has no family tree linked. I did send them a message asking if they were related via my fathers side. They haven't responded.
If they are not linked via my dads side then it would most likely be the bio mothers family and well I'd be the Skelton in the closet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 1, 2016 14:41:55 GMT
I'm sure the DNA tests are bringing all kinds of lies out into the open! Big hugs to all of you who are having your sense of self being shaken up. I've found 99.9% of the trees I've looked at on ancestry or any of the other sites are crap. I, on the other hand, I'm a bit stunned by how close the thousands of trees I've looked at for myself, my husband and his step-mother's families are to the truth. I guess, I should have clarified "crap". 99% of the trees on ancestry are just copying someone else's tree with no source documentation. Now as they're all copying the same trees over and over again - they're all the same. It doesn't mean they're right! If you're lucky, there was someone who actually did some good research initially - and the tree is well documented that you're copying. But just as common, is a poorly documented tree to begin with and people just copying it. Then you layer in when new information becomes available and someone corrects their tree. Unfortunately you still have the thousands of trees that copied the wrong information. Then you have people who just assume that because there's hint - it must be right - so they assume the census record ancestry.com's algorithm found for someone of the same name is their relative and that must be their parents. I always encourage people to take those little green leaves on ancestry with a giant grain of salt. It's a lead. Research whether there is any substantiating information. I learned the hard way when I started. I had to essentially delete my husband's tree and start over, as I had made the exact same mistake - you just assume that the work that people have done was correct. |
|
|
|
Post by Really Red on Apr 1, 2016 14:44:25 GMT
I haven't done mine, but my second cousin did his and it also said no NA blood, but our great grandmother was definitely NA. SO! I wonder if there are issues with that kind of DNA?
|
|
|
|
Post by scrapcat on Apr 1, 2016 15:44:51 GMT
I wouldn't write it off completely. Take this for what it is worth. My DD has a friend who was adopted. She knows nothing about her parents. she decides to do DNA. Guess what! They contact her saying we need some help with your line!! Can you tell us where your parents are from! Holy smokes. So so what does that mean? Why couldn't they tell this woman her background? Did they ever respond to her after she told them she didn't know? I would be curious. This is all interesting to me. I have been working on my ancestry for a few years now and I am always skeptical of the results. I found a million inconsistencies in trees of relatives, like where they would have a child being born of someone who allegedly died a few years before...I was surprised ancestry.com wouldn't have some type of algorithm to kick out incorrect or impossible links?! would be a good add on site if someone could code it! I am interested in doing the DNA and will probably wait until its on sale...but also a little leery of how much I am willing to believe the results. Ah, too much of a skeptic. Keep the stories coming.... |
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Apr 1, 2016 16:54:20 GMT
People need to remember that even though people like to say they are 50% Italian or 1/4 Irish, or 1/8 Scandinavian, DNA doesn't actually work that way. If you have a parent born in Italy, it doesn't automatically mean you'll see 50% Italy/Greece when your results arrive. And if one of your great-grandparents were born in Ireland, you're not necessarily going to see "12% Ireland" either. |
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Apr 1, 2016 16:56:03 GMT
Not all Italians have olive skin. My mother's family is overwhelmingly Italian, and many of them are quite fair, even the ones born in Italy.
|
|
|
|
Post by lindywholoveskids on Apr 1, 2016 17:12:53 GMT
I want to clarify why my brother and his wife did their DNA. She was curious and thought she had NA ancestors. She does not. My brother did his DNA just for fun! when he got the NA results he called me and shared it. He knew i was really interested in the tribes of the Southwest and Southeast.
that's all. they are finished with the baby thing by a couple of decades.
My daughter was interested, as were her first cousins, my brothers 2 kids (my niece and nephew)
neither my brother nor I look much like NA's in the stereotypical sense. He was very blonde as a kid, I have always had thick dark hair (so that's something)
My skin is not quite tan, but almost.
the relative that was adopted ( and NA) came from our mom's side. her grandfather.
|
|
|
|
Post by maryland on Apr 1, 2016 17:25:17 GMT
I had my DNA done a few months ago in hopes of finding my birth father. My birth mom actually told me my results must be wrong because it came back that I was 90% British. She is mostly German so she is convinced my test is wrong. I don't know enough about how the DNA works to argue the point with her. I told her she is getting a DNA test for Christmas - she didn't find that funny. If you are 90% British, your mom almost certainly isn't mostly German genetically. She may have been born to people living in Germany, but someone in the not all-too-distant family tree on her side was British too. That makes sense. That a family could assume they are German because their family may have lived in Germany for a couple generations. But perhaps that family immigrated to Germany from another country. I hope I am understanding this correctly! I have not done a DNA test because they are way too expensive for our budget, but it would be fun to have it done! |
|
|
|
Post by maryland on Apr 1, 2016 17:30:38 GMT
This thread is so interesting. Especially when people are told that they are one nationality and find out that they are another nationality. This reminds me of my daughter's friend. My daughter has a friend she met this year in college that has blond hair and blue eyes. Her mom is Chinese, but you would never guess that the daughter is Chinese. She says that everyone is always shocked when she tells them she is half Chinese.
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 1, 2016 18:32:17 GMT
I didn't make any wisdom teeth either. I even gave wisdom teeth as an example of vestiges on a high school biology test knowing I'd get the answer marked wrong, but it was worth it for the laugh it caused in class. I'm in the "No Wisdom Teeth" Club, too. Well, according to my dentist, I have a "baby wisdom tooth", about 1/4 the size it should be, that will likely never see the light of day. When my son learned that people often have their wisdom teeth removed, he started hoping he wouldn't have any, either, but alas, he has all 4 in there. The crazy thing is that I have a ton of room in my mouth. Seriously, there is more than enough room at the back of my mouth for wisdom teeth to comfortably exist, plus I have space between my other teeth. So I could have probably accommodated extra teeth and instead I didn't make enough.  I didn't make 7 teeth. (It's a genetic mutation from my dad. By far, I'm the one in the family who is missing the most.) I married a man who had an extra tooth. What are the odds? Right? My kids came out normal! My poor boy only wished he was more like me the day he had all 4 wisdoms removed. |
|
scrappington
Pearl Clutcher
in Canada
Posts: 3,139
|
Post by scrappington on Apr 1, 2016 18:37:01 GMT
Not all Italians have olive skin. My mother's family is overwhelmingly Italian, and many of them are quite fair, even the ones born in Italy. I forgot to mention my whole thought on that. Apparently the bio mother was olive skinned and dark hair.
|
|
|
|
Post by melanell on Apr 1, 2016 18:41:52 GMT
Not all Italians have olive skin. My mother's family is overwhelmingly Italian, and many of them are quite fair, even the ones born in Italy. I forgot to mention my whole thought on that. Apparently the bio mother was olive skinned and dark hair.
Ah! Yes, that makes more sense now. |
|
|
|
Post by hockeyfan06 on Apr 1, 2016 19:16:23 GMT
I had my DNA done a few months ago in hopes of finding my birth father. My birth mom actually told me my results must be wrong because it came back that I was 90% British. She is mostly German so she is convinced my test is wrong. I don't know enough about how the DNA works to argue the point with her. I told her she is getting a DNA test for Christmas - she didn't find that funny. Does your birth mother have something to hide? |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 1, 2016 19:29:01 GMT
I'm sure the DNA tests are bringing all kinds of lies out into the open! Big hugs to all of you who are having your sense of self being shaken up. I, on the other hand, I'm a bit stunned by how close the thousands of trees I've looked at for myself, my husband and his step-mother's families are to the truth. I guess, I should have clarified "crap". 99% of the trees on ancestry are just copying someone else's tree with no source documentation. Now as they're all copying the same trees over and over again - they're all the same. It doesn't mean they're right! If you're lucky, there was someone who actually did some good research initially - and the tree is well documented that you're copying. But just as common, is a poorly documented tree to begin with and people just copying it. Then you layer in when new information becomes available and someone corrects their tree. Unfortunately you still have the thousands of trees that copied the wrong information. Then you have people who just assume that because there's hint - it must be right - so they assume the census record ancestry.com's algorithm found for someone of the same name is their relative and that must be their parents. I always encourage people to take those little green leaves on ancestry with a giant grain of salt. It's a lead. Research whether there is any substantiating information. I learned the hard way when I started. I had to essentially delete my husband's tree and start over, as I had made the exact same mistake - you just assume that the work that people have done was correct. You're absolutely right. I've looked at so many that I just have developed a feel for information that's worth pursuing as most probable. I jump from tree to tree to tree, following trees all the way up and all the way down. Most have a sweet spot where the info seems the most accurate. The further you go from there, either newer or older generations, the more inaccurate the info becomes. I have working trees. I throw likely stuff on there to see what shakes out from the Ancestry computers. It can happen in seconds, if it's good info. I do that for several generations of someone new and a pretty good picture begins to emerge. The older the line, the more the craycray. Chances are really good, though, that these lines were documented in the early 1800's when there was a real boom in people making serious effort to record their family histories in America. It's weird in a way. The generations of our parents, grandparents and greatgrandparents were heavily documented. Then there were a bunch of years where people travelled all across the unsettled country and records are much harder to find. And then you go back further and their lives were more documented again. It takes work to sift through other people's information, but if you do the work, you find really, really good stuff. Whatever you do, though, DO NOT connect to a person on another tree and let Ancestry autopopulate their information onto your tree. You'll end up with all kinds of junk you don't want. It's a PITA to fix and can be really confusing. Enter new people and their basic information yourself. Pay attention when you attach records. Make sure all the additional people a record is attaching to are correct before you hit that final attach button. If you don't, you'll end up with Grandma being married to 4 different men named Grandpa and having children of the same names with each man. Not that I found this out the hard way or anything....  |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Apr 1, 2016 19:39:16 GMT
If you are 90% British, your mom almost certainly isn't mostly German genetically. She may have been born to people living in Germany, but someone in the not all-too-distant family tree on her side was British too. That makes sense. That a family could assume they are German because their family may have lived in Germany for a couple generations. But perhaps that family immigrated to Germany from another country. I hope I am understanding this correctly! I have not done a DNA test because they are way too expensive for our budget, but it would be fun to have it done! That's it exactly!!!  Hopefully the prices will continue to come down on the tests and you can do one someday. |
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Oct 1, 2024 22:28:22 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 19:48:14 GMT
I had my DNA done a few months ago in hopes of finding my birth father. My birth mom actually told me my results must be wrong because it came back that I was 90% British. She is mostly German so she is convinced my test is wrong. I don't know enough about how the DNA works to argue the point with her. I told her she is getting a DNA test for Christmas - she didn't find that funny. Does your birth mother have something to hide? Well considering she "can't remember my birth fathers name"....I think yes. I understand it was traumatic to place your new-born for adoption but you would think you would remember the guy who impregnated you. But she claims she can't. She says she isn't keeping information from me but really can't remember. I don't think she wants me to find him. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 1, 2016 19:55:08 GMT
SO...I am adopted and have become fascinated with the idea of being able to know my ancestry. But I have no interest in being connected to birth relatives at all. Is there a way to do that? I'm reading this thread in a very broken way, so I'm not sure if anyone has actually answered you here yet. If you take a DNA test, you will be matched with other people who have sections of DNA that match yours. Many people have attached their results to a public tree. Many, like me, have attached their results to a private tree. And some, like you, may not have any tree at all. I have an ENORMOUS tree. I am more able to look at another's public tree and find how we are connected than someone else would be with no tree. It will show up on the records of this other person that we matched, but they can't see my tree unless I invite them in. Likewise, they may contact me through the messages at Ancestry asking questions about me, maybe asking me to put a public tree online, but I can choose to ignore any message I don't want to answer. Otherwise, the results are very general. See the area included for known German DNA? Your results may not do much to satisfy your curiosity about yourself without finding out more about who you are related to and more specifics about where they come from. You'll have to decide if that's something you're interested in or not. It's very possible that you could find out your birth family. You could learn their names and addresses and possibly much much more. How will you handle knowing that information? Would you be interested in trying to get to know them? Would you prefer to look at them anonymously from afar? Would you be satisfied with a general breakdown of where your DNA comes from originally? Only you can answer these questions, and your answers will probably change with time. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 1, 2016 19:58:33 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 1, 2016 20:18:48 GMT
That you both know that his official birth certificate is incorrect is an example of why DNA testing is so fascinating and important. Someone a few generations removed will have no idea and think that the birth certificate must be accurate. And then wonder if the company doing the DNA test made a mistake. Given social mores and taboos throughout the ages, people lie about their sexual liaisons that result in children for a variety of reasons. Science trumps oral history once again. See I have no desire to disprove oral history that formed my childhood. For someone trying to claim financial benefits from their ethnic background/paternity testing it would be important. I personally have no interest in my family tree beyond my great grandparents. Fascinating I get, important I waffle on because I am not sure the importance of proving that great great great gramma really wasn't 50% a certain ethnicity as once though. I am very much a live in the moment person. You know, I really think this is as much a calling as anything else in this life. I feel compelled to learn our history to pass it on to the next generation. In my case, it's because there are generation after generation after generation where the parents died leaving young children or young adults behind. These are our recent generations, too, so I know firsthand what a profound sense of loss is felt by these people throughout their lives. Often, they don't have the oral stories that are passed down in other families. They don't have anything at all. They are virtual orphans within a known or somewhat known family. It's neither the clear break of being orphaned and adopted into a new family, nor the full sense of belonging that comes with really knowing the people personally. Real life is stranger than fiction. Whatever stories are passed down sometimes aren't even close to the fascinating stories that really occurred. You, Country Ham, may not be interested, but sooner or later, chances are really good that someone you are closely related to will be. In my case, I am the ONLY one left who can make sense of the family history. Some of what was out there publicly I have corrected so at least there are a few breadcrumbs for this younger generation to follow, even if they never see my research. But without my efforts, that is and would have been impossible. Imagine being in your early 20's and having no way of ever finding out your family history of even your parents? In 2016. With the Internet, DNA, the whole works. That's the reality of the generation I am doing this for. It puts an entirely different perspective on it. |
|
|
|
Post by leftturnonly on Apr 1, 2016 20:37:11 GMT
Well I got my results back on Good Friday. My mother is adopted and wow did I get some interesting hits. I am 14% Italian (story was my mom's bio mom was middle eastern) Neither my mom or I are olive skin. We are the exact opposite very pale, fair, blonde. 56% British -- very expected 18% Irish -- shocked at how low this was I expected it to be 25% 12% mix of Western European, Scandinavian , Iberian and something else. But 100% Europe. Ok so my mom's adoption was never a secret we know her last name at birth, where she was born etc. She was a private adoption. I have listed my grandparents family tree done all the research very extensively because regardless of the lack of blood relation they are my family. So can you imagine my surprise when I shared dna with my grandmothers family. And not just from one of her parents but both of her parents. Conveniently two sisters married two brothers so shared dna could come from 2 couples (my great grandparents or my great aunt and uncle) we guess what. My great aunt and uncle are really my great grandparents etc. And my grandma is my cousin. She is my blood. The bio father who links us to all this died in 1985 but he was a big part of my mom's life and the short time I knew him he was in mine as well. So yes half a mystery solved my mom knows now half her family. So I decide my mother should know what I found. And I tell her after I wrap my own head around it etc. I don't have the best relationship with her and her lack of knowledge of genealogy and how dna works made it rather challenging. Finally after many telephone conversations she finally clicks and says ooohhh...She then proceeds to tell me all the generous gifts her uncle( now knows as bio dad) did for her over the years. I said well that makes sense now doesn't it. I'm not sure if we will be able to link the bio mother to us or figure anything out. I have a 2nd cousin dna match on ancestry that has no family tree linked. I did send them a message asking if they were related via my fathers side. They haven't responded. If they are not linked via my dads side then it would most likely be the bio mothers family and well I'd be the Skelton in the closet.  Just a simple question here - Did you click through on the match that doesn't show a tree? They might actually have a tree that they haven't linked to. ALSO.... when you click through to their match page, if you click the i near where it tells you the expected relationship, it will give you a number of centimorgans (cM) of DNA that you share. Here is a chart that may give you a clue how you may be related based on that number.  |
|
Sue
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,240
Location: SE of Portland, Oregon
|
Post by Sue on Apr 1, 2016 20:46:45 GMT
Something that hasn't been mentioned here yet concerning identifying kin when searching your Ancestry DNA results is their "Shared Match" feature. So many people haven't uploaded trees to Ancestry (I haven't either) which makes it difficult to see what line you might be connected to, or they've chosen to keep their trees private. Using "Shared Match" though might give you clues to identify shared lines. This feature doesn't work for Distant cousins but works on closer relationships. If you go to a particular person's results (whether they have a public tree or not) then click shared match it will show you other users who share kinship with you and this person.
I have worked with my DNA results extensively and using the note feature have left notes identifying the names of all those I am related to in every tree I can. I also "star" these identified users. So... when I use shared match I quite often can easily see the relationships of the matches shown because of my notes leading me to possibly identify the line I share with this person without a tree. (Just a good clue, not 100% certain.) This might sound complicated but it's not really. Doing this may lead you to decide whether you wish to contact this person about your relationship or not.
|
|
and B.) a book is just someone else's family tree work in a published form. It still doesn't mean that it's correct. 
But I haven't told her that. My philosophy in terms of my family tree work is that I wan to know as much as I can and I want what I know to be the truth whenever possible. But sometimes, I know full well that others want to stick with what they believe, so I let them be. I don't correct them unless they come right out and ask me. It doesn't hurt me if my MIL leaves this Earth thinking she is part NA, whether she really is or not, kwim?
