SideView

[peter]

I have found one today has been given an exclamation mark by Ancestry. They have worked out my match to be maternal. But the cousin is at the end of a branch in my tree on the paternal side. To be flagged as maternal they must have found a closer cousin on my mum's side but I can't work out how. And classification should probably be 'both'

SideView is based on the DNA segments that you share with your matches. The fact that this match has been flagged as maternal doesn't mean that they have found a closer cousin on your mother's side, only that the DNA you share with this cousin seems to be from your mother's side.

Remember that someone who is more distant than a 2nd cousin might share no DNA at all with you, whereas someone who is an 8th cousin could share 20cM or more.

 

[Helen7]

Further to my 'both sides' match reported earlier, this person also matches with me on My Heritage, where they report 4 shared segments and 50 cM (higher than Ancestry's unweighted figure). Maybe Ancestry have used the discarded fourth segment in the assignment? I also have a match with the same person on GEDmatch but there are only 3 matching segments there. I also have a match with this person's niece on all 3 sites, with just one matching segment (16 - 20 cM). Ancestry have assigned the niece as paternal side, but my shared match with the aunt is definitely on my maternal side. The extensive trees of aunt and niece contain no surnames or birthplaces in common with my relatives as far as I can see, so I think I'll have to give up on this one!

Update on my 'both sides' match reported above: Peter agreed that I should give up on this one, but after getting more shared matches on Ancestry, and more recently MyHeritage, to documented 3rd cousins of mine, I decided to pursue this by contacting the manager of my 'mystery' DNA match, and I'm really glad I did, as it has knocked down a longstanding brick wall for both of us!

Basically, the aunt's test is managed by her niece (the aunt having sadly passed away) who turned out to be a very keen family historian in Australia who had been trying to trace the origins of her English-born ancestor (WP) for ages. The earliest record she had of this ancestor was his marriage in Sydney in 1840. The reason I hadn't found any surname matches in the aunt's tree was because he had significantly changed the spelling of his name, but his original surname was the same as my 3x great-grandmother, one of my longstanding brick walls. According to censuses she had been born in Braintree, Essex in about 1801, but despite scouring the Essex records I had been unable to trace her baptism. I only knew her maiden name via the birth certificate of her youngest child born in 1840. The first record I had of her was the baptism of her eldest child in London in 1827 - I couldn't even find her marriage record (and still can't).

So... my Australian contact and I both thought there must be a connection between her ancestor and mine - we just had to find out what. As a result of our lengthy and ongoing collaboration on this problem we have discovered that WP was almost certainly baptised in London in 1815 to parents from Braintree, and that my ancestor was baptised at the age of 24 in London (her date of birth on the baptism record fitting exactly with her age on censuses) and her parents were WP's grandparents! It appears this latter couple had married in Exeter and, judging by the baptisms of their first 3 children, had spent time in Oxfordshire before moving to Essex and then London (and sadly both died in Southwark Workhouse).

More work to do on all this, but it seems this brick wall has come tumbling down as a result of shared DNA matches and thinking 'outside the box' when it comes to tracing elusive baptisms!

 

[peter]

Peter agreed that I should give up on this one

True - but I also said in the next sentence that the reason we test our DNA is to knock down 'brick walls', and that this was where our focus should be. Well done!

In the context of the current offer, it's worth pointing out that when you search baptisms at Findmypast you can specify either a birth year or the year of baptism (or both). Findmypast make it relatively easy to pick up late baptisms - though it probably wouldn't have helped in this case as they don't have the parish registers for London.

When an adult is baptised it's often just before their marriage, or just before the baptism of their first child - this may help you find the missing marriage.

 

[Helen7]

When an adult is baptised it's often just before their marriage, or just before the baptism of their first child - this may help you find the missing marriage.

Yes, I'd thought of that, and I've browsed through the marriages at the church where my ancestor was baptised (St Botolph, Aldgate) and also those at the church where her first child was baptised (Saint Mary Magdalene, Bermondsey) but no luck. Of course there are a lot of other nearby churches so I'd probably need to go through those too.

 

[AlanB]

I have a match on Ancestry who I know to be my 2nd cousin twice removed on my mother's side, he is descended from my maternal grandfather's brother. Ancestry flagged the match as Paternal so naturally I changed it to Maternal.

A few days ago I was following the hints on my tree and I discovered that the wife of the aforementioned maternal grandfather's brother is actually related to me on my father's side. So this match that Ancestry said was Paternal is actually related to me on both sides. So maybe Ancestry weren't completely wrong after all.

 

[peter]

So maybe Ancestry weren't completely wrong after all.

Maybe Ancestry weren't wrong at all?

Whilst they determined that the DNA you share with this cousin was inherited from your father, they clearly couldn't exclude the possibility that you were also related on your mother's side. After all, if you go back far enough we're not only related to everyone else, we're related to them on both sides of our tree.