To soon to look for the proverbial milkman?

[sarahws6]

Please forgive rookie errors in this, my first LC forum post. I have hunted on the forum for the answer to my question without success.
Of my husband's 4 grandparent lines, I have 3 where the paper trail and his DNA matches go tidily hand in hand. The 4th, the father's father's line, has no DNA matches that align with the paper research. I have had his DNA on FT, MyH, and Ged for ~4 years and Ancestry for ~2 years. His family is from East Anglia and Kent.
What are the chances that this gap is simply the product of:

• the key matches choosing not to put up a tree
• the key matches choosing not to make results visible
• an earlier NPE - husband's great grandfather is likely not fathered by the man who raised him
• smaller families/ fewer children surviving to child bearing age than usual in 1 or 2 generations
• no USA emigration, thus fewer available matches given DNA test volumes by country
• some weird gene mutation that makes descendants on this branch averse to taking DNA tests?!
• etc?

I'll add that I have prodded at the small number of "unknowns" in his top matches and found one cluster of common matches (miles away in Liverpool) but no insight on how my husband fits in.
Do I keep waiting for a DNA match to pop up that finally fills the void, or can I reasonably suspect the milkman?
Guidance and experience much appreciated.

 

[Helen7]

Welcome to the forum, Sarah.

Does your husband have a cousin related on his paternal grandfather's branch whom you could ask to test? A 2nd cousin - grandchild of a sibling of the paternal grandfather - would be ideal. 2nd cousins are virtually guaranteed to share DNA, so if such a cousin came back as 'no match' you could be sure that the father's biological father was not who the paper trail tells you he was. This assumes no recent NPE in the cousin's line of course.

Re the shared matches with the Liverpool group, did your husband's grandmother have any connection at all with the Liverpool area? I had a DNA match with someone whose father's father was unknown. His father's mother lived in Sheffield and we were able to make the connection with my great-grandmother's family - the only branch of my family from Sheffield - and with the help of shared matches we worked out the connection.

Of course, the lack of matches for your husband's paternal grandfather's line could just be due to cousins on that branch not testing or being sparse due to small families etc. as you mention.

Good luck with your investigations.

 

[Helen7]

the key matches choosing not to put up a tree

If you have unidentified matches with no trees, provided their names are shown and are not too common, it is possible to construct a tree for them from freely available BMD records. I know because I have done this and worked out how such matches are related to me (or my husband). It might be worth a look, especially if the matches are reasonably high cM numbers. Shared matches can be useful too, to place those with no trees into a likely branch.

 

[PeterM]

Hello Sarah. You are not alone. I have exactly the same problem. I have very few matches to my fathers paternal line. I have a match to my Great grandparents (most likely to my Great grandfather's wife). I took a Y-DNA test thinking that would settle the problem but I do not have any matches that I can confirm. The answer is probably any of the options you have identified. I cannot find any cousins to prove or disprove the line. Looks as though we will both just have to wait for a match. Good Luck.

 

[Pauline]

If you have unidentified matches with no trees, provided their names are shown and are not too common, it is possible to construct a tree for them from freely available BMD records.

I agree, and I have likewise had success in doing this. Sometimes you get absolutely nowhere but other times you can find really important leads. Don't forget to check out the match's profile page as this may give you clues as to where they live and how old they are. And with that extra information, it can sometimes be helpful to google the match's name as you may find they pop on social media sites or genealogy forums and so-on.

 

[Bob Spiers]

some weird gene mutation that makes descendants on this branch averse to taking DNA tests?!

I find this statement strange and certainly qualifies as somewhat of a 'rookie' comment. By far the greater majority of people are in no way interested in taking a DNA test - and that often applies when others offer to pay for the test. And many who do take a test -perhaps bought for them as a present - are only interested in the ethnicity results, and regard them much as they do reading their daily horoscope.

Do not look for reasons why people do not take a DNA test - they just have no interest in family history or certainly not beyond grand parents. It is a bit like people thinking everyone is interested in Football or Tennis (ask my wife about those topics dominating television at this time). DNA is the icing on the cake for some Family Historians, less so for me I freely admit, but to abandon hope because you do not have DNA matches to back up your research is futile.

Do as others suggest and try different research techniques and if a DNA bus should come along, well you can catch it, if not continue with conventional research.

Welcome to the Forum by the way and don't mind me as I am often at odds with the DNA enthusiasts amongst us.

 

[Pauline]

I find this statement strange

I understood it to be just a light-hearted and not wholly serious comment.

And while I am not suggesting any weird mutations, I see no reason why an interest in genealogy shouldn't be inherited.

But I agree with what you say, Bob, that some people are just not interested in family history - or football.

 

[sarahws6]

Thanks all for your quick replies!
Pauline was right to think I was being bit flippant about gene mutations , and I agree with Bob's caution that DNA gaps should not trump paper research.
I have tried most, if not all, of the advice kindly shared for trying to get more data points, including a Y DNA test as PeterM suggested - but you encourage me to go back over my options and leads again.
On a specific point Helen7 raised, Liverpool means nothing to the deeply East Anglian roots of my husb's great grandmother. It might link to the unknown father of her husband though...
Time, patience and much tea may tell.

 

[At home in NZ]

Do not look for reasons why people do not take a DNA test - they just have no interest in family history or certainly not beyond grand parents.

I agree with what you say, Bob, that some people are just not interested in family history

I take exception to those assumptions.
I have absolutely no interest in DNA and have managed very well without it.
I maintain 3 trees with my direct lines, no amount of DNA will get me beyond my Irish 3rd great grandfather because records are simply not available for anybody to do so.
A random sample:
I know who at least 2 of my 10th great grandfathers are, one born in 1584 and the other in 1622.
I won't bore you with more details.

 

[Pauline]

I take exception to those assumptions.

I can’t speak for Bob, but I wasn’t intentionally making any assumptions here, and I was commenting on family history in general rather than DNA.

My personal opinion is that DNA is a useful tool to use alongside more conventional research - no more, no less. But while I hope people will respect my opinion, I don’t expect everyone to share it and would never want to suggest that my way of doing family history is the only right way.

If you have no interest in DNA, then I for one have no problem with that, and know plenty of other family historians who share your opinion.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I take exception to those assumptions.
I have absolutely no interest in DNA and have managed very well without it.

Sorry to have raised your hackles ahinnZ and you have made it clear before that have no interest in DNA. My comment should have alluded to Family History (FH) research and go on to say those who have no interest in FH are unlikely to be interested in taking a DNA test.

You are of course a keen family historian as I think it fair to say are all who are LC members, you just declare no interest in DNA. I find DNA a tool of interest to back up, challenge or otherwise have no bearing on conventional research. It is but a spanner in my toolbox.

As Pauline says, many family historians share your opinion; an elderly (90+) 1st cousin once removed of my own being one such. She has long been a keen family historian, all recorded in note books without the use of the internet and when I brought up the subject of DNA, said something that from memory sounded like "can't be doing with all that 'piffel and paffel' (may be a Brummie saying). She makes herself clear as do you of course.

 

[Pauline]

On a specific point Helen7 raised, Liverpool means nothing to the deeply East Anglian roots of my husb's great grandmother. It might link to the unknown father of her husband though...

Yes, and don't forget also that when looking for matches which may be relevant to a possible 'milkman' ancestor in this line, those matches are not necessarily going to be descendants of said milkman. They may be more likely to descend from his near or distant relatives, and might well have roots far removed from East Anglia.

 

[peter]

I have absolutely no interest in DNA and have managed very well without it.

As did many of us. But now we're doing even better - and so could you.

DNA can knock down 'brick walls' by overcoming deficiencies in the records - I certainly don't regard my Irish 4G grandfather as a lost cause even though the record of his baptism hasn't survived, nor am I giving up on my English 3G grandmother, despite the 18th century registers for the parish where she was born having been lost long ago.

Remember too that DNA can validate records-based research. Yes, there's the risk that you might discover you've been researching the wrong line, but isn't it better to know?

 

[At home in NZ]

As did many of us. But now we're doing even better - and so could you.

Don't push it Peter, I do not understand half of it anyway and am very sceptical about it.
There are trees in Ancestry that have my 3rd great grandfather in them and a some of those have done DNA but it has not helped anybody to go further back.

 

[peter]

Don't push it Peter, I do not understand half of it anyway and am very sceptical about it.

It's your decision whether or not to use DNA for your own research, but please don't post negative comments about something that you don't understand - it could discourage others.

There are trees in Ancestry that have my 3rd great grandfather in them and a some of those have done DNA but it has not helped anybody to go further back.

Every 'brick wall' you break down is a 'brick wall' that Ancestry users were unable to break down - it's the same for all of us, whether we use DNA or not. I don't shy away from a 'brick wall' because other people couldn't knock it down - if anything, it spurs me on.

Breaking down the 20 year 'brick wall' that I wrote about in the newsletter recently required co-operating with SEVEN of my cousins who share the same 'brick wall' (and had all tested their DNA, or did so at my request), then collaborating with two DNA matches who shared the same 'brick wall' but were descended from our ancestor's siblings. The first DNA clue arrived 3 years ago, but it took a second DNA clue 3 months ago to put us on the right track - the documentary evidence and the family stories had taken us in the wrong direction.

Knocking down 'brick walls' using DNA is rarely easy, but it does provide us with another means of joining up the dots when the records are deficient or defective. It's the tool in the toolbox that can reach into the nooks and crannies that other tools cannot access.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I do not understand half of it anyway and am very sceptical about it.

A bit like the Lottery really, you have to be in it to win it - and in the case of DNA testing, to understand a little of what it can offer. I was long a sceptic and for good reason. I have no paternal first cousins(only one female)and although I have 2 maternal male cousins, and 4 female, none want to get involved further than the information they have to hand from my own original research in Tribal Pages. Yet I bit the bullet, as did my wife and I gifted a test to my daughter (to allow me to pursue her mother's line better as she is the daughter from my first marriage). I have no regrets in so doing, indeed have reaped some good rewards.

Mind you, that said, I am not one who delves into the mind blowing morass of CentiMorgen/Segment controversies -which to reverse Peter's admonishment of not posting negative comments, is equalling as off-putting for those who do not understand the points they try to make. So to keep things simple, here is one of my own rewards from a DNA Match and quite recent.

I found a match with a 3rd cousin once removed, proving (what I had deduced by conventional research) that my identification of my Irish born 2nd Great Grandparents (and going back to 3rd Irish Great Grandparents) was factual. She (my contact) descended from the male sibling of my Great Grandmother. The Match allowed both of us to explore the other's Tree and swap stories. I have had other matches of course, and perhaps equally rewarding, but being part of my Irish descendance, this one takes a lot of beating.

So athomeinNZ give DNA some thought and do not worry yourself about the cM/Segment aspects. Just follow your nose when the results are in and you have cousin matches. You will soon get the hang of it. A bit like learning to drive, you do not need to know about engines or fuel injection problems. It just becomes second nature, just like conventional research.

 

[peter]

I am not one who delves into the mind blowing morass of CentiMorgen/Segment controversies

Me neither - in most cases the numbers are irrelevant. The DNA Masterclass focuses on simple strategies that anyone can apply without any technical knowledge.

It's also worth mentioning that unless one of your grandparents is a 'brick wall' 1st cousins are of limited utility when it comes to DNA, so it doesn't much matter how many or how few of them you have. 3rd and 4th cousins are much more useful (plus 2nd cousins once removed where it's the cousin who is a generation closer to your shared ancestors).

 

[Pauline]

It's your decision whether or not to use DNA for your own research, but please don't post negative comments about something that you don't understand - it could discourage others.

To be fair, the same might reasonably be said about posting positive comments too - they may encourage some to expect more from doing a DNA test than might realistically be achieved. And since DNA tests are expensive, some people may need to choose between continuing with conventional research (which more often than not isn't free) or doing a DNA test, and that means being realistic about what doing a DNA test may achieve for them in their research.

 

[At home in NZ]

To be fair, the same might reasonably be said about posting positive comments too - they may encourage some to expect more from doing a DNA test than might realistically be achieved. And since DNA tests are expensive, some people may need to choose between continuing with conventional research (which more often than not isn't free) or doing a DNA test, and that means being realistic about what doing a DNA test may achieve for them in their research.

Thank you Pauline.
In my case, expense is a factor so I am not prepared to spend on something that I feel in my bones will not achieve anything, especially not something I don't understand too well.
My third cousin in USA (Irish descent, like me) has done DNA as have several other people who are researching different branches, all their trees are visible in Ancestry and none of them have been able to find my 4th great grandparents, not much point in my doing DNA for that!

 

[peter]

To be fair, the same might reasonably be said about posting positive comments too

Surely it's not about whether the comments are positive or negative, but whether the person making them is speaking from personal experience?

My third cousin in USA (Irish descent, like me) has done DNA as have several other people who are researching different branches, all their trees are visible in Ancestry and none of them have been able to find my 4th great grandparents, not much point in my doing DNA for that!

DNA isn't magic - 'brick walls' rarely crumble just because you take a DNA test, they collapse under the weight of evidence from different sources. It takes skill and determination - plus patience.

As I said earlier, the fact that other people haven't been able to knock down one of my 'brick walls' doesn't worry me - in fact, I'd be more concerned if it was the other way round, because I'd be wondering what I'd missed.