Taken aback by DNA results!

[DianaCanada]

A couple of years ago I had my brother's DNA done by NatGeo but decided to try mine with Anc* as well as my husband's. His result was pretty much as expected, he is half Scandinavian and then a lot of English with some Irish and traces of Belgian/Germans (Loyalists). The proportions in his results seemed to be accurate.
Now mine! I have never known the identity of my mother's father so when I saw 25% Irish I was thrilled, as this seems to isolate his genetic line (dunno how he ended up in rural Sussex in the 1920's but maybe my grandmother was in a larger place when she met him as she worked as a maid).
What surprised me was the rest - only 5% British (17% Scandinavian which I assume is from Viking settlers, 34% Western European, 8% Iberian which I assume was from the Celtic movement north). But 5% British??! Most natives to the region average at 60%, according to Anc. My parents were both born in England and other than the unknown grandfather, everyone else seems to be English, with perhaps 1 Irish and 1 Scot about 6 generations back.
Anyone have a result like this for a predominantly English (well, 75%) background?

[Ladkyis]

The Western European can also descend from Jewish heritage. The Sephardic Jews came from Spain and Portugal. I think that you are probably average for someone with your background.
I wonder what is meant by 5% British. Does this mean Saxon? or Anglo-Saxon or are we talking pre-history here because British surely means a mixture of every "immigrant" that ever stepped onto these shores

[mikejee]

Personally I think of the DNA results that firms promote are somewhat the product of snake oil salesmen. they claim to be informative , but mean little other than profits for the firm supplying them

[thewideeyedowl]

I suggest that you take the results with a large pinch of salt and a good measure of scepticism.

If you browse the DNA forum, you will find several very informative posts, lurking in several threads, that will help you to understand the problems caused by 'Ethnicity' results; in particular, look for the posts made by Guy Etchells and Lesley Robinson. They both know what they are talking about and have helped many people.

I myself have not done DNA testing, nor do I intend to go along that path. I believe that DNA testing started in the USA (an 'immigrant' country, with people understandably searching for their roots). In my view it is now "Over-hyped and over here" - remember what they said about American GIs in the UK in WW2? ("Oversexed and over here"!)

Please please search out all the informative posts on the subject within existing forum threads. There's lots there already, and the dedicated DNA forum has only been going since the spring.

Swooping off.

Owl

[DianaCanada]

Thank you all for your responses. I too believe that there are questions raised by the DNA tests. Ancestry supplies "contacts" and I was pleased to find in my contacts several family lines I have researched and belong to (and since I found relatives in my father's direct paternal line, at least I know I am is daughter :) ). I do wish they would leave "Great Britain" out of the picture and limit it to Western Europe, Scandinavia, and Iberian peninsula, because that would take care of the Saxons, Angles, French, Vikings and Celts pretty much...am not sure what Great Britain is supposed to cover anyway in the minds of the people at Anc*DNA.

Since my maternal grandfather was unknown, that 25% Irish might just be right. I did know beforehand 25% of my ancestry is unknown.
My brother has volunteered to do the test, interesting to see if it turned out to be pretty much the same (I know there are some differences between siblings).

Another interesting note, my great grandfather (same maternal line) was born out of wedlock, father unknown. One of the close contacts I was sent showed four sets of the subscriber's great grandparents. They have nothing to do with the maternal side (mine) that I do know, and in some cases go back even farther than those. A couple of the them live right where he would have been conceived. He was born 9 months after the 1861 census and his mother was in service in Warbleton, Sussex.

[kevininlondon]

Henry Gates puts it well, it adds to the sweep of history and shows just what a ish mash of people we are. The problem has arisen because people went to America to recreate themselves and forget but now their grand children want to know who they are. Why DNA simple most of us are unable to go back more than 4 generations yes there are a few who say they know 80% of their ancestors going back 300 years.. scary because this is over 1000 people.
The bottom line is the genalogy companys had to up with something that kept people paying their subscriptions

So enjoy the dna game but just remember Dna does not have a name nor does it have a religeon

[Deeny]

Diana,

I suggest that you upload your raw DNA from Anc* to Gedmatch (for free!) which will give you many more cousin matches from the other DNA providers and also give you access to their "Admixture (heritage)" tool which seems to give a much fuller and more accurate picture of ancestral origins. Gedmatch is well worth doing and the upload process is explained in detail. Gedmatch also has a tutorial to help you get the best from the tools they provide.

Deeny

[DianaCanada]

Deeny, thank you for your encouraging words! I will definitely give that a try.

[jrobbo220]

Please forgive my ignorance as I am Australian. What is the difference between Western European,English and British?

[Lesley Robertson]

Welcome to the British Genealogy Forum jrobbo220.
The simple answer is that there is little difference, if any. There have been so many invasions, refugees and migrants that virtually anything can pop up. Yes, there may be a greater proportion of one gene or another, but nothing so definite as some of these companies claim. Even where an answer is pretty trustworthy, it can still be misleading - for example, my paternal family is all scottish, my mother's is almost entirely north European BUT my mitochondrial DNA would tell you that I'm from India, thanks to a 17th century slave...

Just the major difference between the results from the two companies is an indicator of their reliability. If I win the lottery, I'm going to send the same DNA to all of these companies and publish the comparison!

I suggest that you take a look at the reading material suggested here, and then put it one side for a while and use traditional genealogy to find out about the actual people in your tree... Why not tell us what you know about your missing grandfather (as long as he's dead of course) and let our brick wall demolishers have a go. DNA actually tells you very little!

[Break2015]

While I can certainly understand the appeal of these "ethnicity" reports run by DNA companies they're by & large widely worthless unless you belong to a specific group - e.g. Jewish, Finnish, etc. - that can be readily identified against everyone else. Why are they worthless? Because there has been movement across the world for centuries which accounts for genetic overlap between regions.


But there is a very painfully erroneous belief on some "DNA forums" that people were trees & rocks who never moved. I say erroneously because it is rather amusing when someone points out well those trees & rocks were mobile. I am sure, for example, on one forum where it was pointed out 50,000+ Scots migrated to Poland for trade & treaty reasons in the 1500s some of the more naive people's jaws landed on the floor.


The best, and really only worth, to DNA testing is finding relatives & confirming paper-trails. In your case, I would suggest getting your mother tested as well if she is still alive. Why? It is her grandfather you are after. Your relatives are going to include your father's & thus you can't quite identify who is whom unless distinguishing surnames and/or you know them [e.g. your 1st cousin has tested too].

But you can then compare your relative results to your mother's. From there you can nicely start asking people.

Or you can do as Lesley suggested & ask here.

[mikejee]

That (Break2015's comment) is one of the most sensible comments I have read in all the mixed opinions and rubbish placed on the internet

[DianaCanada]

While I can certainly understand the appeal of these "ethnicity" reports run by DNA companies they're by & large widely worthless unless you belong to a specific group - e.g. Jewish, Finnish, etc. - that can be readily identified against everyone else. Why are they worthless? Because there has been movement across the world for centuries which accounts for genetic overlap between regions.


But there is a very painfully erroneous belief on some "DNA forums" that people were trees & rocks who never moved. I say erroneously because it is rather amusing when someone points out well those trees & rocks were mobile. I am sure, for example, on one forum where it was pointed out 50,000+ Scots migrated to Poland for trade & treaty reasons in the 1500s some of the more naive people's jaws landed on the floor.


The best, and really only worth, to DNA testing is finding relatives & confirming paper-trails. In your case, I would suggest getting your mother tested as well if she is still alive. Why? It is her grandfather you are after. Your relatives are going to include your father's & thus you can't quite identify who is whom unless distinguishing surnames and/or you know them [e.g. your 1st cousin has tested too].

But you can then compare your relative results to your mother's. From there you can nicely start asking people.

Or you can do as Lesley suggested & ask here.


I would have had my mother tested but she died many years ago. My brother has been tested and his results are somewhat different, shows less Irish and a bit more British. My daughter, who has more Scots and Irish than I do, but has a huge dollop of English New Englanders from her father's side, shows no British at all. My mother's half-nephew's results just came through and his predominant group does seem to be British.
It is confusing. The cousin links on the Ancestry test do show a family in the same area who are related to me but not to any other of my known Sussex lines back 6 generations or more, including those of my half first cousin, mentioned above. My tentative reasoning now is that line may tie in to my grandfather, as he would not be related to my maternal half first cousin. The latter and I share a grandmother, my mother's mother. I am able to rule out my father's lines, as his are found in Lancashire and Yorkshire and other northern locations.
I have a lot of letters my mother sent over the years, with the envelopes, perhaps one day those can be used for DNA extraction.

I agree that the current tests are not entirely reliable for ethnicity, but DNA with family research is in its infancy and as it looks like big business, they will work to improve it!

[Lesley Robertson]

As I pointed out in message 10, there is not a lot of difference among the Brits, thanks to assorted invaders and immigrants.

Also, since the English, Welsh and Scots together make the British, you can't say that any individual has a lot of Scots, but no British....

[midlandslass]

I had my DNA tested and that of various close relatives in order to validate my research.
I had already developed a tree and the link ups through the DNA have helped expand it further.
I do find it irritating when people who haven't submitted a tree expect everything to fall into place once they have located a match with the DNA.
My Gt Grandmother was a foundling who knew nothing of her origins. With the help of DNA testing of my Grand Uncle, we found 5 very strong matches on his maternal side which have helped to discover his most likely maternal grandparents and their lineage, certainly a chance in a million which for us paid off.
DNA testing certainly does have a place in research as long as the expectations are realistic.
As a previous poster has mentioned, moving raw data over to Gedmatch also helps as it will identify X chromosome matches, essential in my Grand Uncles case to confirm that the matches were indeed on his mothers side.

[Jessie 888]

"Quote from Diana: I have never known the identity of my mother's father so when I saw 25% Irish I was thrilled, as this seems to isolate his genetic line (dunno how he ended up in rural Sussex in the 1920's but maybe my grandmother was in a larger place when she met him as she worked as a maid)."



Although I take the ethnicity side of a DNA test with a large pinch of salt, it can be useful. For instance, an adopted friend of mine who was born in England has 100% Iberian Peninsula DNA. Now that was a useful clue! For most people, though, it's just interesting speculation and the DNA companies are very clear about it only being an estimation.

I just thought I'd mention that your Irish side on Ancestry might be a bit misleading. If you read their small print it explains that 'Irish' can include parts of Cornwall, Wales and Scotland. It's not an exact science ... just a bit of fun ... but I shall still feel entitled to celebrate St Patrick's Day with extra gusto! :wink5:

[ViennaSpencer]

Hi Diana,

I'm just going to add my 2 cents worth, as well, to this discussion. From what I've studied about DNA, even siblings can come-out w/ Wildly different results. The reason seems to be, that AT "conception", what occurs is that, "of" All our various ancestors' genetic material, we each get a DIFFERENT "shuffle" of, from Whom "our" DNA is drawn. So, for example, to make it simple--let's say that you and your brother come from a 1/2 Irish, 1/2 French father, but your mom is 1/2 German, 1/2 Japanese. The DNA "you" get from that MIGHT only show 25% French, 25% German, but no Irish or Japanese. Your brother might show the opposite components, not shown in Your DNA results. That's WHY it's important to test all those around you, parents, siblings, aunts/uncles, various degrees of cousins, etc., in order to get a full (or fuller) picture of all the ethnic aspects of one's heritage.

Yes this "Science" is still in its infancy, & yes, of course, all people have overrun all other people for hundreds of thousands of years, but STILL each racial group DOES have distinctive genetic "markers" which CAN tell you the types of ethnicities you possess. And as the tools get sharper in this field of study, the results will become more refined.

As for the Scandinavian results--that does not JUST indicate roots of the Danes or other Nordics who came to England in waves throughout British history. It can ALSO be an "indicator" you may have NORMAN-FRENCH family lines, as Normandy was peopled by the DANISH VIKINGS, who then mixed w/some French (some did not), then came over in 1066 in England.

So some of the Irish & Scots names that might be in your Tree, MAY also have come from the Vikings who invaded those areas & contributed to the now-accepted as "Irish" or "Scots" surnames--such as for example, the Irish last name of "Neville" which began as Norman-French DANISH VIKINGS invading Ireland & introducing that surname into that land!

Also w/ regards to "Iberian"...that can indicate "Welsh", as DNA testing (particularly in Northern Wales) goes back to Spanish-BASQUE patriarchs, who migrated into Britain & eventually were shoved into Wales by the invading Celts.

It's ALL Great FUN, the history, the peoples, cultures, & DNA is just one more way to "peek" into one's background, but know that as the science grows, your results will be refined or changed & will then give you better info to work with. I would also suggest, when can afford, to test w/ as many of the DNA companies as possible, because each excels at being better at different aspects of the game (i.e.-23 & Me, FamilyTreeDNA, Ancestry.com, MyHeritage, etc., etc.). Best Wishes for your journey!! Take Care, Vienna Spencer

[kevininlondon]

very wise and very true, dna testing is just another wayof keeping the punter paying money every month, people talk of dna familys.
As Dr Gates put it, its great for the flow of history, me it has no name nor religeon. As to British dna, its simple the britons were not wiped out by the anglo saxons but over a few hundred years subsumed by the dominant gene.

[ViennaSpencer]

YES! I am over 1/2 British--and I only have 6% English, as my "British" heritage is actually made-up of many ethnicities that went into making England "English"--i.e.-the Celts, the Norman-French, the Vikings, etc. So I have 21% Iberian--as I possess a ton of Welsh, on both mom's/dad's sides--and the Welsh originated w/ the Spanish Basque (proven by deep DNA studies) in the Iberian region. Also am 47% SCANDINAVIAN -as my Spencers happen to be originally Danish Vikings who came down from there thru Normandy & into England. So you see, many people who are "English" will have results like yours & mine, due to what happens to "make-up" one's "English-ness" !! : ) ...Also, by the way, siblings' DNA results can vary wildly (even w/ same parents), as we each get a different "shuffle" of our many ancestors, at time of conception!

[Guy Etchells]

Please forgive my ignorance as I am Australian. What is the difference between Western European,English and British?

It depends on what company one tests with.

Originally the ethnicity was determined by the samples the various companies were presented with when they attempts to develop a database of ethnic groups.
They asked for people whose families had lived in a region for many generations to submit for a DNA test and developed the ethnicity for various regions based of the results.

Over the years these results have been refined but they are not definitive.
The samples are only a small proportion of the population of any given area so cannot be imagined to be accurate.

Cheers
Guy

[DianaCanada]

It depends on what company one tests with.

Originally the ethnicity was determined by the samples the various companies were presented with when they attempts to develop a database of ethnic groups.
They asked for people whose families had lived in a region for many generations to submit for a DNA test and developed the ethnicity for various regions based of the results.

Over the years these results have been refined but they are not definitive.
The samples are only a small proportion of the population of any given area so cannot be imagined to be accurate.

Cheers
Guy

A few months ago Anc** updated their ethnicity estimates and my results, and my brother's are much more in line with what the paper trail supports - Mine shows 92% England, Wales, Northwestern Europe, 4% Irish and Scottish, and 4% Norwegian, which I take to be Vikings settlers in Britain. My brother's is much the same, except that he has Swedish instead of Norwegian. My daughter's is accurate as well.
I have made some progress on identifying my unknown grandfather, i have it down to 2 sets of brothers with one set having matches on the maternal side, so those 3 brothers are strong contenders. I have also made progress on an unknown great great grandfather, although the families from both of these puzzles come from the same rural parish, so it's a bit of a challenge!