#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Now that we have 64 tags, I'm revisiting all my common ancestors and marking the owners as active/inactive and indicating whether they have shared matches.
Some matches no longer have a common ancestor - I assume they have linked a different part of their tree to themselves. But others now link to a different part of my tree. Wierdly, I have two sets of Thrulines with one segment of DNA. Some link to one part of my tree, others to another, but a couple of generations down they both link to the same surname... which isn't in my tree. It makes me wonder whether the real link is actually somewhere else. Anyway, so much seems to have changed that the excercise is definitely worth doing. BTW do Protools work for matches with less than 20cM shared DNA?
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#2
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
ProTools will show you shared matches which share less than 20 cMs with you but they still have to share at least 20 cMs with the other person.
|
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Thanks, Kite. That makes sense. Once I've gone through the common ancestors again I'll be in a position to consider Protools.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Having bitten the bullet and taken out Protools, the links appear to be to villages rather than ancestors! I jest, of course, but there will have been so much more intermarriage than I am aware of in preceding generations that there is little guarantee that the links are what Ancestry suggest they are. In Normal for Norfolk at least.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#5
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yes, when I look at any distant relative on the Rimmer side with a "Common Ancestor" I tend to think they could easily be related to me in several ways.
|
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Did you realise that you can sort the matches' matches to show their closest first on the list - its great to have mother and fathers and siblings at the top of their list. Sometimes they are still an isolated group with no obvious connections.
I have also revised my colour groups, adding a few extras for definite family groups and separating the large number of descendants of siblings. I have found a few that had Common Ancestors have now had that label deleted - the notes I made say the link was problematic - a lot with the same surname but totally different place. A while ago, I set up a colour group, for each of the tests I manage, with the label Common Ancestors, which incorporates the Ancestry Thrulines labelled and those I know from research or otherwise, to actually have common ancestors. So they still show up in the Common Ancestors group. Interestingly, those whose family lines I have added to my tree don't generally show up in ThruLines. I assume because those lines are not in anyone else's trees. Hopefully, one day someone might add them to another tree and create a ThruLine! My 2 daughters have a DNA match, when I looked at his tree, I realised he is a 4 cousin of my dad. But ancestry says the match is paternal (OH, of course) and does not have a DNA match with Dad or me. It looks like there is common family in Sussex about 6 generations ago. Back to searching through the parish records to see if the families connect up. |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Sussex is a very murky pond as some of dad's cousins have ancestors there. Mum meanwhile definitely has ancestors there so the protool matches are indiscriminately between parent one and two.
Yes I code common ancestors. Otherwise I can't pick up those who have suddenly added a tree.
__________________
The chestnuts cast their flambeaux |
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Sussex is indeed a murky pond of ancestors.
I am just surprised that there are not more connections between Dads and OHs as they seem to move around their East Sussex area. Although to be fair, the family on Dads side of this match are from Berkshire not Sussex |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|