family tree Find my past/ancestry

[Heysel76]

I've seen peoples results of these dna things here in the States & they often will say 22% Great Britain then 17% Scots/Irish.

I'm guessing by Scots/Irish they mean Celtic but around 60/70% of White English are Celtic so what does Great Britain mean? Anglo Saxon? Scandinavian? A mix of them all?

Anyone shed any light on this?

I think the dna matches by region only go back a few hundred years. That's my understanding anyway.

[Heysel76]

To echo the earlier tip.
Don't take other peoples research or trees as gospel, there are lots of (human error) mistakes on there.
If somebody in the USA has a tree with 15,000 relatives, you can be pretty sure they haven't researched everything they've lifted from elsewhere.

[Big George]

My local library has Ancestry/FMP free to library members on library PCs or library Wi-Fi. Worth checking out if yours does.

Cheers York Hammer for the tip, Looks like my local library in LB of Redbridge does this too

free access to Ancestry library edition
free access to Find My Past
free access to British Newspaper Archives

[dasnutnock3]

somebody in the USA has a tree with 15,000 relatives

Probably from Alabama.

[York Ham(mer)]

When I look at my family tree, I try and get birth, marriage and death certificates for each person. Aside from giving some structure to the tree, they often have other useful bits of information on them. The General Register Office (GRO.gov.uk) is the place I go to for these.

[Heysel76]

Freebmd is a good place to look too

[kenthammer]

Probably from Alabama.

And all called Jim

[S-H]

And all called Jim-Bob

[Heysel76]

btajimbob - mcfc likes this

[Samba]

To echo the earlier tip.
Don't take other peoples research or trees as gospel, there are lots of (human error) mistakes on there.
If somebody in the USA has a tree with 15,000 relatives, you can be pretty sure they haven't researched everything they've lifted from elsewhere.

Also worth remembering that ethnicity estimates from dna tests are still extremely vague & not the certainties that you think/hope they are.
They're certainly only as good as the current database is (which is being added to all the time). The more people around the world that test, the better & the more that your current ethnicity estimates will change, albeit probably not hugely.
E.g. one of my estimates is for Swedish/Denmark 7% but, it could potentially be as low as 0% or as high as 21%.

[Samba]

I think the dna matches by region only go back a few hundred years. That's my understanding anyway.

This is one of the things that give me more questions than answers. They are comparing someone's dna with the dna of people in other regions TODAY, not with the dna of people from those regions from a long time ago. Which obviously they can't do because ancestry dna testing is so new.
Perhaps they are assuming that most people's family lines didn't move that much? Well, certainly not as much as 'modern' times.
It has been said that we all 'came out of Africa' originally but if you're white caucasian, you almost certainly won't have any African dna turn up in your dna analysis. But then, as that was SO long ago, the amount you would have would be so miniscule as to no longer show up or even exist, I'm guessing.
Like you'll find that you share dna of <1% with huge amounts of people so I'm guessing that that means that they are either extremely distantly related &/or related from a long time ago?
Parents & full siblings will share (more or less in the case of siblings but on average) 50% with you. Both Grandparents, any Grandchildren, Aunts/Uncles, Nieces/Nephews, around 25%, 1st cousins around 15/16%, 1st - 2nd cousins around 10%, 2nd - 3rd cousins around 5% & so on.
Obviously, the more dna you share with someone, the closer your (genetic) relationship is.

[RichieRiv]

It's quite easy to go down rabbit holes so as has been said rely on your own research not just what you find on these sites - the key is census records.

My mum and dad traced both sides before the Internet which meant lots of trips to Kew and county record offices, especially for church records. Even then, especially on the old man's side they made wrong turns. Ultimately his lot were North Essex agricultural labourers. The only interesting part was my surname is unlikely to be my surname, as my Great Great Grandmother it seems was a bit of a goer, hence my Great Grandfather was likely illegitimate. Her headstone in a Great Oakley churchyard has actually had "beloved wife of" obscured.

Even the wife's maiden name wasn't right. Her dad took his mothers married name as she never married his father despite having 9 kids with him and 3 with her husband.

When people get obsessive about having a son so they can carry on the family name, it's all pretty pointless. Probably.

[woodgreenspur]

This is one of the things that give me more questions than answers. They are comparing someone's dna with the dna of people in other regions TODAY, not with the dna of people from those regions from a long time ago. Which obviously they can't do because ancestry dna testing is so new.
Perhaps they are assuming that most people's family lines didn't move that much? Well, certainly not as much as 'modern' times.
It has been said that we all 'came out of Africa' originally but if you're white caucasian, you almost certainly won't have any African dna turn up in your dna analysis. But then, as that was SO long ago, the amount you would have would be so miniscule as to no longer show up or even exist, I'm guessing.
Like you'll find that you share dna of <1% with huge amounts of people so I'm guessing that that means that they are either extremely distantly related &/or related from a long time ago?
Parents & full siblings will share (more or less in the case of siblings but on average) 50% with you. Both Grandparents, any Grandchildren, Aunts/Uncles, Nieces/Nephews, around 25%, 1st cousins around 15/16%, 1st - 2nd cousins around 10%, 2nd - 3rd cousins around 5% & so on.
Obviously, the more dna you share with someone, the closer your (genetic) relationship is.

I seen this with DNA tests where the person has had old family records (a Bible with a home done family tree in it) and census records to back this up,saying they were from the west country with very Anglo Saxon names etc but according to their DNA results they are not from there.l,and a totally different result is given.
I for one am suspicious of DNA tests,when used to determine where people are from. Though out of interest I am going to do one.

[Larrakeyah Hammer]

I’ve done an extensive amount of work on Ancestry
My tree has approximately 1,300 people in it
I have a look and do little bits most days

My tree has taken 12 years so far and as others have said there are some huge trees out there with thousands of people but I’d question the accuracy

A couple years ago I went through mine and cleaned up any mistakes I felt I had

You can’t always be 100% especially the further you go back

Again as others have said it’s so easy to go down rabbit holes
From ancestors I’ve followed them to loads of relatives in Australia, Canada, New Zealand & USA

I love it’s a real passion of mine and my daughter loves doing it with me which in nice

Done my DNA also mine had nothing of note although I have some relatives around 2nd-3rd cousins we’ve been in contact and are puzzled as to how we are related
Something not adding up

My wife I did her tree got about 450 people so far and did her DNA
Interesting story basically we found out her grandfather wasn’t her biological grandfather

I worked it out as she had so many close shared relations in the US and with help of a lady found out her real biological grandfather was a US serviceman based in Norfolk during WW2
So told my wife’s mum her biological father was the US serviceman
She took it well as she never got on with her dad and always felt something wasn’t right. It explained things

If anyone wants any help searching anything or a person happy to help
Just message me

[Hampshire Hammer]

I started researching my family tree a few years ago, using parish records in the Hampshire records office. Two of my great uncles both researched their family line, one started in the 1930's and the the other in the 1960's, so they used physical parish records. As they've both passed away I have picked up their records and now mainly use Ancestry.

What I would say is it is easy to make mistakes/assumptions and create what looks like a very credible family tree, which falls apart under close scrutiny. The key is research, checking and cross-checking plus keeping meticulous records as to sources, what you've looked at and when.

It is easy and satisfying to build a tree and the online resources but pre 1837 it can be increasingly difficult to identify the correct ancestor.

[Heysel76]

While a few likeminded historians are looking at this, i have another problem unresolved.....
I have tried to trace rhe occupants of my house, with no success pre-1960s.
The problem is, in every census including 1939, most of the houses are just called "village house" or similar. Is there a way of narrowing this down?
I've tried everything, i asked the Post Office when my house was named, they have no record!
Nobody local has been able to help & i cant work out the invidulators route.
Any ideas?

PS:I haven't seen the 1921 census, but i'm guessing it's the same

[Greatest Cockney Rip Off]

While a few likeminded historians are looking at this, i have another problem unresolved.....
I have tried to trace rhe occupants of my house, with no success pre-1960s.
The problem is, in every census including 1939, most of the houses are just called "village house" or similar. Is there a way of narrowing this down?
I've tried everything, i asked the Post Office when my house was named, they have no record!
Nobody local has been able to help & i cant work out the invidulators route.
Any ideas?

PS:I haven't seen the 1921 census, but i'm guessing it's the same

Old maps might be helpful. It's not unusual that road names changed or previous roads that did have a name now don't.

[Hugh Jargon]

Did the DNA thing on ancestory. Discovered I'm mostly Irish with Afro carribean cousins.

This explains my exceptional dance ability.Pardon?

[Samba]

While a few likeminded historians are looking at this, i have another problem unresolved.....
I have tried to trace rhe occupants of my house, with no success pre-1960s.
The problem is, in every census including 1939, most of the houses are just called "village house" or similar. Is there a way of narrowing this down?
I've tried everything, i asked the Post Office when my house was named, they have no record!
Nobody local has been able to help & i cant work out the invidulators route.
Any ideas?

PS:I haven't seen the 1921 census, but i'm guessing it's the same

How about contacting 'Land Registry'?

[woodgreenspur]

Old maps might be helpful. It's not unusual that road names changed or previous roads that did have a name now don't.

Yeah road names change a lot. I found that loads of times when tracing where my lot lived.
A right pain