Census Questions

PS. I understand what you mean by a cluster of "John Gray" babies and I have an example of that for one line in the 16th century. I'm in a permanent dispute with a distant cousin about one particular John X . That's where census records can sort out family groups. Fortunately, it hasn't occurred that often. Despite that, we both agree that the dispute ancestor was English.

I take your point Chestnut. The 16 surnames involved (in order to find gt grandparents) have all been researched by conventional means and some have been a slog. You're right that the information before 1837 is (for some lines) difficult to find.

What I meant was that it's been possible to go back much further with my own maiden name because it's so unusual. They were relatively wealthy and there is information in wills, directories, poll and property records and other sources. You're right about most of the other lines. All of them stop at different dates. I'm absolutely confident about my gt gt grandparents, but don't have the complete "set" of my 3 x gt grandparents, although I keep on trying.

I do know that all 16 of my 2 x gt grandparents were born in England - with no sign of any French or German influence, despite my DNA test result. I always tick "British" on forms because that's what I am and how I identify, despite what my DNA result seems to suggest.

We came from a titled family on one line so it actually goes a long way back, around the twelfth century. Some interesting tombs etc and paintings but you don’t know how good the likenesses were at all. I am sure the artist wouldn’t portray ugliness, more than their life is worth.

growstuff I have also gone back to 2 x great grandparents and in some cases two generations further. This is all fully verified and cross-referenced, but you mention having one unusual surname when there are 16 surnames involved, and 32 surnames if you go back another generation. So having one unusual name is neither here nor there, what about the other 15 names (or 32)? We have also studied family groups in certain locations, but where there is a nest of one family in one area it can be impossible. If there are several 'John Gray' babies baptised in one village around the same time there is often no way of knowing which is yours. You may be lucky with one or two family lines but there are 16 or 32 surnames involved.

Why ethnicity is just an estimate:

dna-explained.com/2018/12/28/ethnicity-is-just-an-estimate-yes-really/

PS. DNA testing showing that I share most of my DNA with people in France and Germany is apparently quite common for white British people.

www.theguardian.com/science/2015/mar/18/genetic-study-30-percent-white-british-dna-german-ancestry

What it doesn't mean is that I am "ethnically" French or German and actually proves what an imprecise term ethnicity is.

Chestnut It is indeed difficult to get back further than 1837, but it's not impossible. I've spent days poring over church records in records offices and can get back to the mid 16th century on some of my lines. Families tended to stay in the same area and whole groups can be mapped. As I mentioned above, I have a complete set going back to my gt gt grandparents, which is a result of my own research and a couple of hints from distant cousins, which I've then checked for myself. Moreover, my maiden name was very unusual. There have only ever been a couple of hundred of us born with the name and it was easy to trace with church, parish and other records. Fortunately, I don't appear to have any Smiths or Browns. I'm not deluded, but I am meticulous and like a dog with a bone when it comes to tracing records.

Anyone who thinks they've gone back further than maybe the mid 1700s is somewhat deluded I think. Unless you come from a titled family who recorded their tree, or had some other irrefutable evidence of documented parentage. The common folk were simply jotted down in the local church register as 'John and Mary Smith baptised Edward Smith' or whatever. There is often no way of knowing for sure who those people were, especially if the name was a common one in the area. The marriage entries didn't even record the parents names!

I got back to the 1500s but someone in my tree traced us back to Adam and Eve via King David and Anne Boleyn.

I could tell you about mine Call but I'm not a serious genealogist, so I'll just sit quietly in the corner, not interrupting the experts.

Mine were African.

Fair enough.

The "unless" is the important bit, eh?

Serious genealogists. OK. I am suitably put in my place.

I'm not interested in fleshing out my family tree further nor in my "ethnicity". The shared ancestors in my case go way back further than four or five generations. It's likely to be at least 20 generations. I've already spent over 30 years of my life researching my family history and I have run a website for years, through which people contact me. I'm not interested in finding any long-lost relatives because I already have thousands. I have distant cousins living abroad, but all of us are descended from people who lived in England. The northern European DNA comes from at least 500 years ago.

PS. Most serious genealogists share my belief that autosomal DNA testing is a superficial tool and almost useless. It's a way for Ancestry, etc. to make money.

PPS. It is true that autosomal DNA testing tells you nothing about your personal ancestry, unless close relatives have agreed to have their details logged.

An autosomal test only tells you where most people with similar DNA live. It doesn't tell you anything about your personal ancestry.

Not true. The way that autosomal DNA is shared between close relatives could be considered approximate, but on average you share 50% of your autosomal DNA with a parent or sibling, 25% with a grandparent or uncle (for instance) and 12.5% with a first cousin.

So your autosomal DNA can show personal family relationships with close family members that you might not be aware of.

Any shared DNA, within about 100cM, I'd be contacting them, if I was interested in fleshing out my family tree. They could be as close as 5th cousins, which means a shared g4 grandparent. My youngest g4 grandparent was born in 1810, which doesn't seem that long ago...

No Chestnut my gt gt grandparents are dead, so there' s no point contacting them. Most of my closest DNA matches live in France and Germany. Our common ancestors were centuries ago. They don't come from the families I've researched. They and I are descended from a common source. Autosomal DNA testing can only give an approximation.

An autosomal test only tells you where most people with similar DNA live. It doesn't tell you anything about your personal ancestry. In my case, people with DNA most similar to mine still live in France and northern Europe, which is why I received the results I did. However, that doesn't make me half-French or half-German or any nonsense like that. I'm ethnically English and there isn't any doubt about it.
The reason most people live in those areas is because that is where the ancestors originated. If your research indicates your ancestors were English but your DNA is only 10% English then maybe you should contact some of your closer DNA matches and see if they come from the families you have researched.

Oops! I didn't edit my post very well.

This part "The 10% English is probably from one line, who were established in North East England for centuries, but I know are all descended from one single person, who was born in London. My birth name is very unusual, so it's been easy to trace" should have been at the end of the sixth paragraph.

I have been researching my family history for over 30 years. I know who all my 16 great great grandparents were. All of them were born in England and came from families who had been established in England, in some cases back to the 16th century, before which paper records are hard to find. The 10% English is probably from one line, who were established in North East England for centuries, but I know are all descended from one single person, who was born in London. My birth name is very unusual, so it's been easy to trace.

Of course, it's always possible that a father isn't the person who is stated on a birth/baptism certificate. However, I have done all my own research and haven't copied and pasted other people's research, as some people do. I am confident that my family tree is as accurate as it can be and I have always identified as English to the core.

I was given an Ancestry autosomal DNA test as a present a couple of years ago. I didn't expect it to be that accurate, but the results were totally unexpected. Apparently, my DNA is just over 10% English with the rest split almost evenly between French and northern European (mainly German). It was so unexpected that I even queried it with Ancestry because I thought I might have been sent the wrong result. The reply explained the limitations of the test.

If I hadn't already gathered so much information about my family tree, I might have been looking for French and German links in my family, but I know there aren't any, so where have they come from?

The reply I received from Ancestry suggested that my paternal grandmother, who was born in Devon, could be the link to French ancestry from Britanny, as well as some of my paternal ancestors, whom I already knew were probably immigrants from Normandy in the 16th century. It's possible that some of them had northern European (Norse) DNA.

The German ancestry is probably because most of my mother's forbears lived for centuries in Anglo-Saxon areas and they have passed on their Angle/Jute, Saxon and Danish DNA for over a 1,000 years. I doubt if any of them ever identified as German.

An autosomal test only tells you where most people with similar DNA live. It doesn't tell you anything about your personal ancestry. In my case, people with DNA most similar to mine still live in France and northern Europe, which is why I received the results I did. However, that doesn't make me half-French or half-German or any nonsense like that. I'm ethnically English and there isn't any doubt about it.

Men's DNA tests give more personal information because men have X and Y chromosomes. Women don't have Y chromosomes, so can only trace their maternal line directly.

In the case of Welsh ancestry, which snapshot in history do you use? Many Welsh people are descended from people who originally inhabited England. Scottish people might very well find that their DNA is shared with people in England or Canada or other places. It doesn't mean that they are descended from people in those places, but Scots have emigrated and established communities who share DNA, so a simple DNA test can be misleading.

Ancestry gives you an autosomal DNA test, 'which produces the most comprehensive snapshot of one’s ethnicity and living relatives.' You get 50% of DNA from your father and 50% from your mother and this is reflected in the results.

I imagine in the UK it is very rare for anyone to be 100% anything but I do believe (from research) that my mother was 100% Welsh and my DNA test has come back 53% Welsh. I'd say that is pretty accurate. Maybe the 3% was from my father!

nanna8

I have just done an online census and was surprised that one of the questions asked about ethnic origins but you were only allowed to pick 2 . The choices were quite strange. England was stand alone, separate from Scotland and Ireland but my friend who has an Italian, English, Irish and Scottish background wasn’t sure what to put. I was also wondering what the purpose was. What do you think about the census? This time they have really simplified it, what a shame for future genealogists.

It sounds rather odd - do they mean where were you yourself born or what are your family origins?

I had my DNA done a few years ago. Its showed that my ancestors on both sides, mum's and dad's, had walked into the UK from Dogger Bank 10,000 years ago, Sadly, it didn't show what they called each other, what they ate for tea or where they set up home hut.

I'm living with the disappointment.

Alegrias she should do some research into DNA testing and I wouldn't have been so curt if I hadn't been "spoken" to rudely in the first place.

Oh FFS.....

Esspee

Alegrias1

growstuff

Esspee

Where did you get the idea that a woman's DNA test will only show results of the maternal line growstuff? That is plain wrong.
I thought I was three quarters Scottish/Irish and one quarter English (my paternal grandfather was from Yorkshire). My DNA shows some Scandinavian (my paternal grandmother was from Caithness so no doubt some viking influence) and my paternal grandfather does indeed show up in my DNA as English, nobody in my maternal side got nearer to England than the Scottish central belt.

It's not plain wrong. Tests for women can only show mitochondrial DNA.

You need to do some research on DNA tests.

Instead of rudely telling people that they need to do some research, perhaps you could read the content of the links you yourself share:

^Autosomal DNA tests trace a person’s autosomal chromosomes, which contain the segments of DNA the person shares with everyone to whom they’re related (maternally and paternally, both directly and indirectly).^

Thank you Alegrias1. I get so frustrated when members on here spout rubbish and defend it implying you are a liar.

One gransnetter even disputed the fact my OH had both knees replaced at the same time. She maintained that I was wrong and had misremembered. WTAF!

I'm not spouting rubbish and I wasn't implying you're a liar. I resent people who claim otherwise - and by people who should know better.

Autosomal DNA testing is not a precise form of testing and cannot guarantee anything more than an approximation. A woman's true ancestry can only be traced with mitochondrial DNA.

Many many years ago entering the USA I had to answer the question Race on a form. I put Human. The immigration officer I got happened to be black. I’ll never forget the warm smile he gave me.