[RForbes]

Originally Posted by kiterunner

I guess you could do some similar comparisons with random people and see what the results look like?

If the largest segment is only 4.4 cM it looks to me as though it could just occur by chance, but then if you are looking at known sixth cousins, most of them will not come up as DNA matches anyway. For instance, according to FamilyTreeDNA, the chance of having a DNA match with a sixth cousin is less than 2%.

Okay I've looked at 60 random GEDMatch results and compared, the results suggest a mean cM of 3.96885. (Standard Deviation: 2.23).



I have a feeling this suggests to me that while the DNA comparison can't disprove the theory, it cannot substantiate it either, since the result is virtually identical to a comparison with a random subject. What do you think?

And a non-DNA question - have you found a birth / baptism record for Helen showing that she was Andrew's daughter?

Excellent question: no I've never found a birth record for Helen. That's been the biggest gap in the documentation. The gap was never a dealbreaker for me (there are other children that have lacked birth records in the family), but it's partly why I've tried to search out as many means as possible of substantiating the theory.

Helen Forbes appears in the 1851 and 1861 Scotland census but her birth date jumps from 1801 to 1811 between the two censuses. I think the reason for the discrepency is the census lazily chose '40' and '60' for her age. However I can confirm that it's the same Helen in both censuses because she was living with two of her nieces; this closeness was documented in the nieces' death and marriage certificates.

I've never identified Helen in the 1841 census, nor have I identified a death record.

Andrew Forbes (m. 1792) had three documented children for which birth records can be found on ScottishPeoples.gov.uk:

Agnes Forbes (b. 1792, d. unknown)
John Forbes (b. 1804)
William Forbes (b. 1806, d. ~1845)

Andrew Forbes (b. 1810, d. 1839) is usually assumed in genealogical research to be another child of Andrew Forbes.

Since the sixth cousin that my DNA was compared against was related to Andrew Forbes via Andrew, there is the remote possibility that it is Andrew, not William, who was not related to Andrew Sr.

Also, I don't know much about Y-DNA testing, but as it seems you are working on the male line all the way back, you could look into whether there is a Forbes Y-DNA project and whether it would be worth you (or a male Forbes relative such as brother, father or uncle if you are female) doing a Y-DNA test.

I am working the male line as far back as I can, yes. I am interested in doing a Y-DNA test in the future, but I'm a bit skeptical of the relevance of the Forbes Y-DNA project to me that I've seen, because my Forbeses don't appear to have come from Aberdeen. My suspicion is the Forbeses in my line probably settled in Johnstone in the 1790s from Perthshire (Blair Atholl?) or Argyll.

One of the most interesting little finds I've found was "Andrew Forbes of Johnstone" cited as a subscriber in 1794 and 1795 to a series of volumes of puritan sermons. Which suggests Andrew may have been literate and religious (and certainly not a jacobite!).

https://books.google.ca/books?id=QRxhAAAAcAAJ&
https://books.google.ca/books?id=B-pNAQAAMAAJ&dq