Ancestry's DNA Circles

[PhoebeW]

Eighth cousins found here too. It isn't really the eighth cousin that mattered, although it was nice to "meet" them and read their family stories.

I had confirmed 4xgreat grandparents by traditional research. Then one speculative pair of 5xgreat grandparents were confirmed by a match. Then we got back another two generations in the parish registers that were confirmed by several matches. This was a line full of Jones and Williams surnames that hit patronymic names with the 5x great grandparents, so it is unlikely that we would have confirmed things by traditional research.

I'm not sure if membership of a DNA circle could have helped.

 

[peter]

This was a line full of Jones and Williams surnames that hit patronymic names with the 5x great grandparents, so it is unlikely that we would have confirmed things by traditional research.

Nor is it likely that you could have confirmed your speculative 5G grandparents by finding relatives closer than 6th cousins - anyone closer to you would have been up against the same 'brick wall'. What you needed, and what you presumably found, was a cousin whose connection to you was on the other side of the 'brick wall'.

 

[PhoebeW]

Nor is it likely that you could have confirmed your speculative 5G grandparents by finding relatives closer than 6th cousins - anyone closer to you would have been up against the same 'brick wall'. What you needed, and what you presumably found, was a cousin whose connection to you was on the other side of the 'brick wall'.

Yes of course - or a 5th cousin once removed in this case. I have found 6th and 7th cousins on other lines too. I hadn't really expected to find 8th cousins matches. I am researching with a cousin from my mother's generation and that helped on this particular line too.

As I have found all my 3G grandparents and 3/4 of my 4G grandparents, I'm looking at 5th cousins and more distant. So it is interesting that others here have also found 8th cousins on Ancestry.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Those who don't follow the strategies in the DNA Masterclass are doomed to failure.....

I wouldn't as much say "Doomed" ("Doomed, I say Doomed" al la Dad's Army) because as is my usual practice, (in most things I might add) I get along quite well by following my nose, and recall things much better that way. When I go wrong I change tack as many times as needed before things start to gel and make sense. I am now reasonably proficient at search matches, as presented and by name and location searching. (Taking part in your DNA spreadsheet helped as well and spreadsheets are bread and butter to me anyway).

My first interest is to concentrate on 4th or better cousin matches. Distant Cousins will be looked at later as will Private Trees and No Trees probably never. I avoid techno speak (cMs, segments, and the like) but more or less understand what they stand for. In short I am quite content to go my own way but never fear I may well check out Masterclass material as and when needed. But I am certainly not doomed.

 

[peter]

My first interest is to concentrate on 4th or better cousin matches.

For the benefit of others, this is the paragraph from the Masterclass that Bob is choosing to ignore:

"At Ancestry you'll typically have 10000 to 20000 matches with cousins, and of those all but about 1% will be with 'distant' cousins, ie where the estimated relationship is 5th cousin or more distant. So you might think that the best strategy might be to focus on the 1% on the basis that if you can't make head or tail of those matches, your chance of resolving the more distant matches is negligible. Wrong, totally wrong - that approach will lead to frustration, disappointment, and disillusionment!"

I know Bob isn't going to change his mind, but you might.....

 

[canadianbeth]

I noticed that "compare" button yesterday and, since it is just under a week now since I first accessed the site, thought I had just missed it. ;-). I have read the Masterclass a few times now; the first time I just went as far as waiting until a few days after I got my results, but have since read it through. I have one very close match - a niece with no tree - so tried the compare and close match with her name and started making lists of people who compared and matched with them. Most have no trees or unavailable ones but there were a couple that I had already found; one maternal and one paternal. They are listed under shared ancestor hints. Nothing yet to help me find who my paternal grandfather was.

 

[peter]

Nothing yet to help me find who my paternal grandfather was.

Although roughly a quarter of your 15,000 plus matches will be connected to you through each of your grandparents, working out which genetic cousins belong in which quarter of your tree isn't a simple task - and that's why we ask our relatives to test.

It's very difficult (and often impossible) to identify an unknown ancestor using DNA unless you can compare your matches with those of relatives (the ideal person to test would be someone who shares the unknown ancestor but no others, but it's normally necessary to compromise).

 

[jorghes]

I've had one prospective set of 5th great grandparents confirmed through contact with a cousin - the same cousin I have also been matched with at LostCousins. I've had a good portion of my 8th great grandparents on the Jewish branch confirmed (and some 9ths) confirmed through matches as well.

I'm so far just disappointed that all those confirmations are on the paternal side. I'm hoping for some breakout information for my own set of Williams, Morgan, Owens etc... So difficult searching for two 'William Williams'-es in Wales, the maternal Welsh lines just stop even with three or four cousins working on trying hard to crack it!

As for the illegitimacy question - I have a suspicion that some of relatives that have been produced by my mother's DNA test have one of those elusive bricks, but as the likelihood is that my missing ancestor's surname was Jones, it may be difficult to find a mutual cousin!

 

[canadianbeth]

My missing ancestor's name may or may not have been Roberts. And I doubt that his family is looking for me anyway since my Dad and his sisters were all illegitimate. They used their mother's name in England, and it was only after they each made their way to Canada that they used the name Roberts. I wonder if their mother even told them at that point the correct name since she did not bother to put it on their birth registrations. They might not even have had the same father. I put this forward as a possibility because when she did marry (someone else) the name she gave for her father was apparently not correct, although his occupation was.

 

[peter]

They used their mother's name in England, and it was only after they each made their way to Canada that they used the name Roberts. I wonder if their mother even told them at that point the correct name since she did not bother to put it on their birth registrations

If the children were born in England their mother wouldn't have been able to give the name of the father when registering the birth unless (a) they were married, or (b) the father also attended and signed the register.

 

[Bob Spiers]

- that approach will lead to frustration, disappointment, and disillusionment!"

I know Bob isn't going to change his mind, but you might.....

Well you're right on the last bit, but wrong on the Masterclass extract comments. To be any of those things I would have to have my heart set on the 99%, (or certainly 90% of the 99%)you believe to be a priority. With me they are not, just as ethnicity is not my priority (but I believe you agree on that point). If I want anything from undertaking a DNA test (and even now I cannot say I am over excited at having taken one, but time may make me change my mind), one of the things that will contribute to the latter happened yesterday. I had decided to return to check on family surnames, and after some half dozen attempts I struck gold. I found a 3rd Cousin. (For the DNA Techno phobes 13.4 cMs across 1 segment-apologies for breaking my rule about not using 'techno speak')

Of course he was in the Ancestry 4th-6th bracket sporting a Tree with a mere 17 persons; not over impressive but least it was a Public Tree. When I clicked on the surname used for the search (which revealed 4 names) I thought I recognised one of them. A quick check with my Tribal Pages -alongside on another computer - revealed the family had emigrated to the USA and the Tree owner was in the USA, and the grandson of the name in my Tree. After that it was simple genealogical work to place him as a third maternal cousin. When I clicked on shared matches I found one 3rd-4th cousin and two 4th-6th cousins, one of whom I had found previously and had starred as a favourite. That is the sort of result that pleases me and is priority for exploring further.

I admit having pursued some in the 5th-8th cousin range despite the despair of coming across umpteen 'No Trees', 'Unlinked Trees', and of course Private Trees. I have a few 'matches' set aside for further exploration, and by the law of averages may well find a few more. My enthusiasm exploring cousins in the 5th-8th range is mediocre at best, but nothing ventured, nothing gained. It will just have to await its turn.

If my DNA search approach is different, so be it. I have had that levelled at me before and likely will again. I believe my mother's saying (about me) that..."he can be led to water, but can't be made to drink", may well explain things better.

 

[peter]

Congratulations on your discovery, Bob - from what you've said it seems you were following one of the strategies in the Masterclass, so maybe you've been drinking the water after all?

 

[Bob Spiers]

Congratulations on your discovery, Bob - from what you've said it seems you were following one of the strategies in the Masterclass, so maybe you've been drinking the water after all?

Yes perhaps, although slightly filtered maybe