DNA Ethnicity Nonsense

[canadianbeth]

I know that getting DNA done for ethnicity reasons alone is a waste of money and not necessarily correct anyway, but this latest update has me scratching my head. Previously it had me as predominately English, which is correct; in fact, I can find nothing to show that my ancestors came from anywhere else other than England or Wales. So giving me a little Irish, Sweden and Norway was always a stretch. But this time they have given me 25% Scotland! and dropped the England and Northwestern Europe to 63%. Still 4% Irish, 3, 3 and 2 for Germanic Europe, Norway and Sweden. Oh, and Southwestern Ontario settlers, but no percentages for those, just a few names, which I already knew. A few names for the English areas but none for the other countries. I expect those unknowns, if even correct, are possibly connected to my paternal grandfather, whose name I do not know and expect not to ever know.

 

[jorghes]

The update is interesting...

I presume it mostly has to do with the idea that they have separated Wales, Ireland and Scotland from England, which is fine in the long run.

Perhaps you do have some Scottish relatives in your past? Presumably in the gap that you don't know about? I have a lot of Scottish ancestry, my grandmother is half Scottish and she married a man who has a raft of Scottish relatives as well. (Her DNA puts her Scottish portion at 40% now, and my father's is 31%)

The strangest part for me and the tests I manage is the addition of small percentages of "Norway", "Southern Italy", "Sweden" and "Germanic Europe" in some of the results.
I've decided they're mostly spurious.

My mother's results are the most "British" (only knowledge of British and Welsh ancestry, even within the missing set of great-grandparents), her results are now: 46% Wales; 27% England & Northwestern Europe; Scotland 17% (could be cross over with the Celtic Welsh ancestry?); Ireland 7%; Norway 3%.

No idea where the Norway comes from - it appears on my father's results as well, but in mine there is no sign, which doesn't seem all that likely!

 

[jorghes]

I just received my email from Ancestry about the update, and I quote "Because the DNA from our reference groups in Scotland and England are so similar, it's possible that many people from England, particularly northern England, may now find an increased percentage of Scotland in their results and vise versa".

 

[Helen7]

I just received my email from Ancestry about the update, and I quote "Because the DNA from our reference groups in Scotland and England are so similar, it's possible that many people from England, particularly northern England, may now find an increased percentage of Scotland in their results and vise versa".

Thanks, I never get emails from Ancestry about anything (except my subscription).

This statement explains why my ethnicity is now showing 21% Scotland when I have no Scottish ancestry whatsoever as far as I'm aware. My ancestry is mostly Northern England. Doesn't explain the 7% Sweden and 6% Norway that have now popped up though.

 

[canadianbeth]

I never received an e-mail about this either; just noticed it when I logged on. And my ancestry is not from Northern England at all, that I know of anyway. The Barratts and Bowyers are from the Bristol area and the Riches and Joyce's from the London area.

 

[jorghes]

I received the email about two seconds before I posted it, so it was definitely lagging behind the actual update itself. I think there may be a place where you can switch off email updates, so perhaps that is why?

It does suggest "England" as well, so perhaps that's why?

 

[Helen7]

I think there may be a place where you can switch off email updates, so perhaps that is why?

I have all the email updates switched on but it seems to have no effect. It's as if I've unsubscribed from all emails but still get the 'account-related emails including payment, security, and legal information'. Since they changed the messaging system I don't even get the notifications of messages that I used to get. It doesn't worry me unduly, as I am logged onto Ancestry most of the time and I can see if I have new messages, new DNA matches etc., and my husband gets the more general email notifications.

 

[Pauline]

I am now showing as 13% Scottish (my sister 18%) and I don't even have much in the way of northern English ancestry - Nottinghamshire & Lincolnshire is about as far north as it goes.

I am also now showing an "Additional Community" - Australia, Queensland British Settlers, which I gather from the FAQ is based on my DNA matches. And I do have a fair few nearish relatives in Queensland.

 

[PhilGee]

My results are now showing 27% Scotland and greater London + Devon/Cornwall as 2nd+3rd England (49%) - though anyone "known" and not Welsh is English (so 87%?)! I have no known Ancestors north of south Notts, east of Oxford and very few in Devon (within 5 miles of the Somerset border and the very large number around Wellington, Somerset which probably affect that). Based on gt-grandparents, Wales, at 22%, is about double based on known ancestors, with none from counties bordering Wales.

2% Norway is interesting as I have a (genetic) problem frequently referred to as "Viking Finger" - though also called "Celtic Finger".

 

[jorghes]

I am also now showing an "Additional Community" - Australia, Queensland British Settlers, which I gather from the FAQ is based on my DNA matches. And I do have a fair few nearish relatives in Queensland.

I do find it interesting when it comes to these sorts of communities. All of our Additional communities are related those from the British Isles - such as links to the Lowlands and Northern Ireland (which makes sense to me since I have some Ulster Scots in the tree, and a lot of my Scottish relatives were from either Lanarkshire or Midlothian.)
Interesting of course because my direct paternal line emigrated in the late 1830s to South Australia, which while not a "First Fleet" ancestor, are considered early enough to be pioneers.

 

[peter]

I've got Scotland for the first time, and so has my brother. But one of our great-great grandmother's is a 'brick wall', and one of the theories I've been working on is that one or both of her parents were Scottish, so it's an interesting development.

But I've lost my German ancestry, which showed up for first time in the previous update (and is supported by records).

 

[VTinOZ]

I received the email notification about the ethnicity update but haven't been able to log in to see what they look like... so frustrating.

 

[Helen7]

I've got Scotland for the first time, and so has my brother. But one of our great-great grandmother's is a 'brick wall', and one of the theories I've been working on is that one or both of her parents were Scottish, so it's an interesting development.

Perhaps my 'brick wall' great-great grandfather, listed in the 1881 census as born in Ireland, was actually Scottish. Though it's more likely that he accounts for the 3% Irish that's shown all along.

 

[Sue_3]

I find it difficult to attach too much importance to ethnicity estimates, since they vary widely from site to site and from time to time, as all the sites continue to update their estimates. However, I would be reluctant to accept a theoretical ancestor from a wholly different ethnicity with no hint whatsoever from any DNA analysis. Hence I was unsure about a possible distant Bengali ancestor until one site flagged up a small percentage of possible South Asian DNA, and then I noticed that almost all the other sites had found a similar bit of DNA that was 'unassigned' or flagged as something a bit different from the rest of my DNA.

Small fractions aside, my estimates seem to fluctuate as to which areas of Great Britain and North-West Europe most of my ancestry is from, but it's clear that I'm mainly from those parts of the planet. Moreover, there's a general consensus that a big slice of my recent ancestry is from North-West England, which entirely matches my personal knowledge and long paper trail. However, the increased emphasis on possible Scottish or Irish genes does make me, like others, wonder whether I need to look in those directions when trying to break down some of my 'brick walls'?

 

[jorghes]

Perhaps my 'brick wall' great-great grandfather, listed in the 1881 census as born in Ireland, was actually Scottish. Though it's more likely that he accounts for the 3% Irish that's shown all along.

Have you considered that he might be Ulster Scots?
I have several ancestors who were born in Ireland, who would probably be considered Scottish. It doesn't help necessarily for being able to find documents (my Ulster Scots ancestors all pre-date 1825) but it might explain a DNA links to Scotland. My ancestors also moved back to Scotland, which makes it super confusing in some ways!

 

[Bob Spiers]

I have always paid scant regard to Ancestry DNA ethnicity and so am quite unmoved by the new estimates. However, what I do find interesting is that going back 10 years or more (pre-DNA analyses) I wrote in my Tribal Pages that my own estimate of family UK ethnicity was 60% English; 15% Scottish, 15% Irish & 10% Welsh. I gave no consideration to Europe and beyond and indeed had no knowledge of such, So given these estimates based on research of the time, here is my latest Ancestry Ethnicity update (I show my original estimates in brackets, remember they only applied to the UK)

England (& Northwestern Europe) 57% (60%) :: Scotland 17% (15%) :: Ireland 11% (15%) :: Wales 9% (10%) (Ancestry only =6% Norway)

I have no quarrel with Ancestry's new ethnicity breakdown nor in showing my roots are in the Midlands, and West Midlands in particular.

But the more interesting comparison comes with my wife's Ethnicity because well before I could consider her ethnicity background, I had to contend with her own (somewhat boastful) insistence that I would find she was at least 80% English (and here she meant ENGLISH) and she is someone who always answers English when asked her nationality, and very reluctantly allows it to be shown as British.

So you can imagine how pleased she was when Ancestry gave their previous estimate as 92% England, Wales & Northwestern Europe. Which as far as she was concerned backed up what she already knew. (She showed no interest in 6% Norway and 2% Sweden). So now to her new ethnicity (which she has yet to see) which shows 88% England & Northwestern Europe (and narrows it down to the Midlands, and East Midlands in particular which accords with her Northamptonshire roots). It adds 6% Wales (and I have since found a welsh contingent) with Norway now 4% & Sweden remains at 2%.

So again I (she) will have no quarrels with that and it will do nothing to deter her from declaring herself English.

 

[Susan48]

My original Ancestry DNA ethnicity results seemed accurate for my maternal lines (50% mainly SW England, Berkshire and Hampshire) and my paternal grandmother's line (25% Scottish), but East Anglia, where my paternal grandfather's lines all apparently came from, was not mentioned at all. The updated results have reversed the English and Scottish segments, so I am now 50% Scottish and 25% English, but still nothing from East Anglia. My DNA matches are mostly on my maternal side, followed by a good number of Scottish line matches, but only a handful on my paternal grandfather's side, the closest being a match of 52cM. There are plenty of Ancestry family trees featuring my paternal grandfather's ancestors, but few of the tree owners have tested. I am therefore assuming that the absence of East Anglia from my ethnicity results is because so few cousins on this line have tested. Is that a reasonable assumption?

 

[peter]

Perhaps my 'brick wall' great-great grandfather, listed in the 1881 census as born in Ireland, was actually Scottish. Though it's more likely that he accounts for the 3% Irish that's shown all along.

I'm not an expert on Irish history, but I would have thought religion is best pointer - I suspect that most protestants in Ireland had Scottish ancestry. Also, whilst I don't have any Irish ancestry, I do have at least one relative in my tree who was born in Ireland (to an English father who was serving in the army). So that's something else to consider.

 

[peter]

I am therefore assuming that the absence of East Anglia from my ethnicity results is because so few cousins on this line have tested. Is that a reasonable assumption?

It's irrelevant how many of your cousins have tested.

 

[jorghes]

I am therefore assuming that the absence of East Anglia from my ethnicity results is because so few cousins on this line have tested. Is that a reasonable assumption?

I think what they actually do is compare your results to a selection of results where they know precisely the ancestry of the individual and use that to create a ethnicity estimate as to how much your DNA matches those genetic groups from particular areas.