Ancestry - Genealogists' Forum

HarrysMum · #1 01-01-23, 11:21

Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but here goes…..

My 4 th great grandfather was Peter Gordon. I have a paper trail and DNA to prove that.
His parents were Peter and Margaret, no maiden name.

Ancestry has decided Margaret will be Margaret Leys. They have also decided Margaret’s husband, and Peter ( surname Gordon ) father will be John Brown. John Brown and Margaret Leys are the parents of the famous John Brown of Queen Victoria fame.

I cannot connect Leys or Brown to my tree. How the Browns got a son with the surname Gordon is beyond me, although I do know a lot of the workers on various Gordon estates took the surname Gordon.

Her’s where it all turn weird. Ancestry has got one my my common surnames as Brown. While I know that is common, I have yet to find any Brown whatsoever.

Is Ancestry nuts? Or is my 5th great grandmother’s wedding ring sitting on Queen Vic’s hand in her grave?

kiterunner · #2 01-01-23, 13:33

Brown will show up as a common surname among your matches just because it is a very common surname, so I wouldn't read anything into that. Their suggestion of John Brown and Margaret Leys will be taken from someone else's tree, and you know how inaccurate those can be!

Merry · #3 01-01-23, 14:50

The parents of the famous JB would have been born a long time after your PG, surely?!

HarrysMum · #4 01-01-23, 18:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by kiterunner

Brown will show up as a common surname among your matches just because it is a very common surname, so I wouldn't read anything into that. Their suggestion of John Brown and Margaret Leys will be taken from someone else's tree, and you know how inaccurate those can be!

I know Brown is common, but I can’t find one in my tree. Why does Ancestry do this?

Merry · #5 01-01-23, 18:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarrysMum

I know Brown is common, but I can’t find one in my tree. Why does Ancestry do this?

It's not that Brown is in your tree, but in the trees of people you have a DNA match with. So, if you happen to have matches to people who have big Ancestry trees they may well include a lot of people called Brown.

HarrysMum · #6 01-01-23, 18:54

[QUOTE=Merry;415698]The parents of the famous JB would have been born a long time after your PG, surely?![/

Margaret ( or Barbara) Leys who became JB’s mother is recorded by Ancestry as 1730-1789. The actual report in the newspaper has her dying in 1876, making her 146 when she died……..lol

You’d think a paid service could do better than this.

Merry · #7 01-01-23, 19:34

I'm pretty sure JB was born in the late 1820s!

Phoenix · #8 01-01-23, 20:48

Unfortunately, Ancestry goes with the majority. I have sorted out Best Mate's tree, selecting the correct John Underwood for her ancestor. He married, and then had a succession of children with his wife, naming one of the boys Sanders after his wife's family.

The majority of researchers, however, think it perfectly reasonable for a couple to have several children before they tie the knot, despite living in a tiny village where such behaviour would have been indignantly highlighted by the vicar.

Consequently, Best Mate's ThruLines insist on overriding our research.

Olde Crone · #9 01-01-23, 21:42

John Brown, son of John Brown and Margaret Leys, was born in 1826.

OC

HarrysMum · #10 02-01-23, 06:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olde Crone

John Brown, son of John Brown and Margaret Leys, was born in 1826.

OC

So Ancestry says Margaret was 96 when her son was born. Honestly! You do have to wonder.