Ethnicity Testing- Is it really worth it?

[peter]

Peter, I have over 7,000 people on my tree. All blood linked apart from spouses and having ancestors and relatives from Norfolk, even some of the spouses are related to me! I've not forgotten proper genealogy or family history at all.

Basically I'm just rubbishing Ancestry's ethnicity results while praising Living DNA's ethnicity results which are more in line with my paper records.

It wasn't intended as a personal criticism - I just don't want people who are following this discussion, or might find it in the future via Google, to get the impression that Ethnicity Estimates are of value.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Bob, Ah but my preference for Living DNA was based on personal knowledge and family history research. If I'd had a plethora of Welsh, Irish or Scots relatives I would have accepted Ancestry's ethnicity results. My disgust wasn't just based on a whim!

Peter, some people do take Ancestry's ethnicity results very seriously. However, some like me do question and pour scorn on their results! (Like the man from the blog).

 

[Bryman]

my preference for Living DNA was based on personal knowledge and family history research. If I'd had a plethora of Welsh, Irish or Scots relatives I would have accepted Ancestry's ethnicity results. My disgust wasn't just based on a whim!

I understand your disbelief but aren't the DNA ethnicity results based on a few thousand years of history beyond your research? Perhaps many of the relatives that you have identified in England had ancestors in Wales/Ireland/Scotland?

One further thought, might inclusion of the spouses' birth families in your tree give a wider picture, even if not affecting your own blood-lines?

I hope that you can pull it all together and make sense of it all eventually. Good luck.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Hi Bryman, I've made sense of it through Living DNA and am just disregarding Ancestry's ethnicity results. Ancestry also gave me 45% Western European ethnicity which I can accept because of the Anglo Saxons and the fact that Norfolk/Suffolk faces towards Western Europe. I don't really see how results from a thousand years ago are of much use as we can't verify them.

I believe Living DNA's results are from the last 10 generations of ancestors. At least with that you can verify the results to some extent. Illegitimacy will cloud results of course. The spouses were born in Norfolk and Suffolk so don't really add anything. Likewise my Somerset and Dorset ancestor's spouses also came from Somerset or Dorset. They lived on the Somerset/Dorset border so no surprises there. Many parishes records are unreadable or missing so there will always be mysteries. I can't get very far with my Ablitt ancestors (who might have come from France). John Ablitt born around 1747 and died Waldringfield, Suffolk. He has some connection with Ramsholt, Suffolk but the records there are unreadable. I've never found a baptism for him or his wife. But if Ancestry are saying ten generations of my ancestors came from Great Britain and Ireland doesn't seem like he was French after all

I have a little Cornwall and Devon Ancestry according to Living DNA. I can accept that as not all parish records are available and Cornwall/Devon are within reach of Somerset and Dorset.

According to Ancestry I don't have any English Ancestry whatsover yet Living DNA gives me 92.3% Great Britain and Ireland Ancestry. I'm proud of my English Heritage even if it only stretches back 10 generations according to Living DNA! Tongue in cheek comment not to be taken too seriously!

 

[Bob Spiers]

One further thought, might inclusion of the spouses' birth families in your tree give a wider picture, even if not affecting your own blood-lines?

Yes very much agree with that and I include and extend espoused families even though I accept them as secondary to bloodline. My wife however when viewing her own Tree (researched by me of course) often queries why I have 'bothered' to extend a spouse with his/her family. I say that is the way I work and point out that unlike my own Tree, I have only taken it back one generation. Of course if she asks me to produce a Genopro chart, I ask if she wants spouses, and know full well she will not want ne to show parents and siblings.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

With Living DNA they give you regional results of Great Britain. So for instance I did find a baptism for a Frances Richardson (wife of John Ablitt) in Wilmslow, Cheshire. Not really familiar with this area but I think my regional results indicate that could be possible.

 

[Bryman]

I believe Living DNA's results are from the last 10 generations of ancestors.

Sorry, I thought that the ethnicity estimates were based on much further back than that. I am certainly no expert and am just learning.

Although families used to stay together hundreds of years ago, it only took one (male) member to travel for a completely different region to become populated with the same surname. My roots have been traced back to Shropshire villages and I once made contact with a namesake from Lincolnshire, who had ancestors that came from those same villages. Indeed, until recently, I lived in the South of England and am now on the other side of the World, only to find that some of my previously unknown blood relatives beat me to it 150 years ago!

My wife however when viewing her own Tree (researched by me of course) often queries why I have 'bothered' to extend a spouse with his/her family.

I always try to record the members of the spouse's family, even if not immediately, as I have found that such extensions sometimes lead round in a circle and provide a link back to my blood relatives who were not known as such, especially in 'remote' rural villages. On one occasion it even led to a match with another LC member who turned out to be my 7th cousin. She has been very helpful in clearing up a few loose ends in villages which I used to frequent without appreciating that I used to have relatives living there. Family history takes on more than just an intellectual interest when that happens.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I was excited to see all the new "cousins" at first on Ancestry DNA but when you see that most of them have no tree/very few people on their tree or (even worse) don't respond to messages, the dairy tends to wear off!

Having had an Ancestry Tree for years and been involved in two-way messaging running into hundreds , I still have a degree of sympathy with your comments (other than the 'dairy' tends to wear off which is a new idiom for me and I take to mean enthusiasm).

Yes, Ancestry attracts a few odd sorts (take me for instance) and Trees from laughably barren, through mediocre (and likely copied) right up to remarkably intricate and well researched. When you find the latter it is a time to rejoice, make contact -and invariably such people respond. Never bother with the 'nitty-bitty' they, like their Trees, are a waste of time. As for those in the middle face up to the fact than 3 out of 10 (on average) are unlikely to respond; and here I find private Tree owners the worse.

You just need to move on and treasure the ones who you find who add something to your research, and certainly in my case, take pleasure from the ones you help unravel some of their mysteries and with whom you establish worthwhile contacts.

 

[jorghes]

I think in some ways ethnicity estimates can be a little more worthwhile for someone like me - with Ancestry that isn't focused in a small area. I am the descendant of numerous migrant ancestors from first arriving in Australia in 1839, to ten pound Poms arriving in the late 1940s.

I don't think I would have realised that one of my great-great-great grandmothers was Jewish without Ancestry flagging a percentage of Jewish ancestry. At that point, I had been searching for a bunch of English ancestors since that particular great-great-great grandmother was born in London and had an anglicised name. Admittedly some of it is most likely bogus - which I thought the Irish was... until I discovered a set of ancestors who emigrated from Ireland to Scotland before 1825. I'm still thinking that the Greek ancestry I apparently have is completely bogus.

But then, I wish I did have Ancestry that linked into one or possibly two counties, currently I have ancestors born in the following: Hampshire, Durham, Gloucestershire, Cambridgeshire, possibly Sussex or Kent (still unsure, hoping LivingDNA can help if possible); Shropshire/Radnorshire, Monmouthshire, Montgomeryshire, Lanark, Ayr, Lancashire... Some of that is simply because of internal migration (Monmouth, Lancashire etc). Above and beyond that, I also have heritage (on the Jewish side) in Holland, the Czech Republic and Germany.

 

[peter]

Jewish ancestry stands out because there is relatively little mixing with other populations - whilst the Jewish ancestors you know about came from Europe, their ancestors obviously didn't.

 

[Rhian]

I was excited to see all the new "cousins" at first on Ancestry DNA but when you see that most of them have no tree/very few people on their tree or (even worse) don't respond to messages, the dairy tends to wear off!

However I did make one decent link that added to the knowledge of my third great grandmother from Norfolk. She had the fairly common surname of Williamson in a parish where many of the records were missing. So a DNA link to another Williamson in the same area was most helpful. Many of the "cousins" I already knew from Genes Reunited days; but at least it confirmed my paper research through DNA.

Completely agree that most DNA results are not going to get anywhere in my lifetime, and after my lifetime none of the matches can ask me anything.

On the other hand I do have Williamson's in my tree, Mary daughter of William and Mary from Great Bircham, married my 4 GGrandfather James Anderson, another common name. Which reminds me I must check if any new records connected to them have come online in the last 3 years since I checked last.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Hi Bryman, I believe Ancestry's ethnicity results go back thousands of years but I think you'll find that Living DNA's regional results only go back from the last 10 generations of ancestors. Not sure if that applies to Living DNA's ethnicity results or not. Because my ethnicity results differed so wildly from Ancestry, I thought Living DNA's ethnicity was only last 10 generations or perhaps Living DNA's ethnicity results were just far more accurate! I meant to say in my former post that Living DNA is saying 92.3% of my ancestors are from Great Britain and Ireland.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Hi Rhian,

My Williamsons came from Burnham Thorpe and migrated to Brancaster in Norfolk. Who knows? My Williamsons might have a connection with your Great Bircham Williamsons.

Bob: My East End relatives used to say: the dairy has worn off. Can't find an instance of anyone else saying it (even googled it). My grandmother always used lots of sayings but both her parents were from Suffolk so perhaps the saying came from there?

Yes, I have some longstanding worthwhile contacts made years ago on Genes Reunited. I know their matches were off course (most of the time) but when that site appeared on the internet, family history was in its heyday. The dairy (or shine) has definitely worn off in that regard. You can see that by the poor trees on Ancestry DNA. Never made as many great contacts as in the Genes Reunited days (don't use that site at all now though).

 

[Bob Spiers]

Yes, I have some longstanding worthwhile contacts made years ago on Genes Reunited. I know their matches were off course (most of the time) but when that site appeared on the internet, family history was in its heyday. The dairy (or shine) has definitely worn off in that regard. You can see that by the poor trees on Ancestry DNA. Never made as many great contacts as in the Genes Reunited days (don't use that site at all now though).

Yes happy memories of using Genes Reunited just after it first surfaced, some good contacts made, and one lady from the Black Country still keeps in touch . I have kept my Genes subscription going and occasionally upload new gedcoms to keep it up to date. Now and again I check for (so called) 'matches' and check for messages but been a while since anyone actually made contact. I suppose I ought to consider bowing out and perhaps may well do next time at subscription renewal.

 

[Bob Spiers]

Breaking news.. have just sent off for an Ancestry DNA kit. No real idea why as I have been a long time skeptic and have little interest in the ethnicity side of the results. The turning point was reading Peter's great DNA special Newsletter which I found of great interest, so much so I decided to use his link to Ancestry on the basis of ...'you need to do, to view'. (Patent applied for). I've had an Ancestry Tree for years so who knows I might yet come under the DNA spell.

My daughter doesn't know it yet but her -'what do you want for Father's day Dad' - is about to be answered. To be fair I will only suggest a contribution.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Bob, Let us know how Irish you are!

 

[Bob Spiers]

Bob, Let us know how Irish you are!

I will to be sure to be sure

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

I did enjoy Peter's mainly DNA newsletter and I can't argue with his advice. Take Ancestry DNA for cousin matches and if you can afford it, Living DNA test to see which regional areas of the UK your last 10 generations of ancestors came from.

 

[FamilyHistoryGal]

Hey Peter and anyone else who has taken a test with Living DNA. I've just looked at my results again and my Great Britain and Ireland Ancestry has gone from 92.3% to 94% - has anyone else's results changed? My Regional Results have changed too. They seem even more accurate.

 

[peter]

Hey Peter and anyone else who has taken a test with Living DNA. I've just looked at my results again and my Great Britain and Ireland Ancestry has gone from 92.3% to 94% - has anyone else's results changed? My Regional Results have changed too. They seem even more accurate.

My results haven't changed.