#11
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Quote:
What do you mean, "they didn't take a DNA test" - I had assumed (yeh, I know) everyone in my DNA results would have taken a DNA test Quote:
I'm not yet feeling as if my mental block with this is clearing yet!
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#12
|
||||
|
||||
I'm really wishing my mum was in a fit state to have a DNA test done. It would be simple enough to collect a sample as she dribbles all the time, but that feels unethical. Having said that, as my blood pressure raises it feels less so!
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#13
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Perhaps the questions are: Who got you interested in family history? Do you have Power of Attorney? My Mum, who started me off on this journey over half a century ago, would have been fascinated. (And so would I: I'm just not picking up recognisable results for her side of the family) Her sister would have been actively hostile. It would have felt completely wrong to have tested my other aunt, but for Mum, I would simply have grieved that I could not share the results with her.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#14
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Q2) No, though the paperwork has been in a solicitors office waiting to be set up for the last 30 years or so. I haven't actually needed it yet. My mum was only ever interested in the FH if I could show she was related to anyone famous/rich/royal etc, so mostly it was sad news that we are not from the shopkeeper Sainsburys, or the shoemaker Clarks or the sweet maker Maynards and only distantly married in to the chocolate making Cadburys. We are also not related to Bombardier Billy Wells She was annoyed when I found my paternal aunts went to school with Archibald Leach (Cary Grant) as if they had no right to do that, given they were working class people!!!!!!!!!
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#15
|
||||
|
||||
Towards grouping results, I am now triaging ALL my DNA matches. The new style search renders this more difficult, but I am ploughing on.
First stage: Sort by date, filter by new matches Anything with a match = keep, make notes on both and group if I can No tree + no match = discard Hidden tree + no match = group as no shared matches (in case a later search reveals a name/place) Tree + no match, but (no names + no places) = discard Tree + no match, but (names or places) = consider on merit Second stage: Consider what I have got. My best matches to date have been genuine relations with less than 10 cM in common, but very good trees. I am hoping that that bracket will smash the brickwalls. While no matches may become matches in the future, I probably only get one new 4th cousin every couple of weeks, so I don't imagine I am losing huge clues, but I am making the formidable list a little more managable. I should end with approx 5000 matches to play with.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Phoenix
Do the matches you have discarded still show in shared matches or do they dissapear from both the list and shared matches? |
#17
|
||||
|
||||
Hmmm, that sounds like A level when I haven't passed my GCSE!
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
#18
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
You cannot delete them, Maggie. Under Groups, you can select Hidden matches and see them all. You can then filter and unhide them if necessary. I have just looked at mine and discovered I didn't obey my own rules when I hid one in April. It is 6cM, private tree, but a common ancestor! Infuriatingly, there may be more than one link in common, (or we may not have those ancestors in common at all) as this person also has links to the other side of the family.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I took it to mean they didn't share DNA with you. If you mean they have matching trees but don't come up as shared matches with each other, it could just be that they are below the 20 cM cutoff.
__________________
KiteRunner Family History News updated 21st May Lancashire Non-conformist records new on Ancestry |
#20
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
Oh, so sorry, that was me misleading you! I didn't type what I meant to say...… I meant (expanded version!), I have come across three people now with detailed trees of my maternal grandmother's ancestors where the common link doesn't appear to be very far back and have around a 40 cM match with me. These people don't seem have shared DNA with my second cousin but they should (as she is also descended from my maternal grandmother's parents and she shows up 'correctly' in my own matches, yet they appear to have shared DNA with my dad's side, which they shouldn't! (and that apparent shared DNA to my dad is on two separate lines!) I am now wondering, if I were to study these trees more carefully, whether I would find they were originally copied from me and these individuals have copied both my mum and dad's sides? Ancestry had then showed me a link from my tree to their tree rather than a link that actually leads through to them? I don't recognise their user names, but I do know there are a couple of people on Ancestry who had Gedcoms from me years and years ago which included 'everyone' and so they added 'everyone' to their trees. They may have then passed them on to others. I can usually tell because notes I made on my original tree also appear. When I have stopped losing the will to live, and hopefully after you have told me whether I'm talking a lot of nonsense or not, I might go back and have another look.
__________________
Merry "Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010 |
|
|