PDA

View Full Version : Hampshire Anglo-Norman Ancestry and DNA



DocDAve
03-03-2017, 11:05 AM
I am interested in using a y-DNA test and hope for some expert guidance.
Using paper documents from the National archives, I have established with increasing confidence my paternal deep ancestry back to 1522. The spelling of the surname changes several times .There is then a gap until 1480 when the surname appears to be that of a well-documented Anglo-Norman family. The locality is North Hampshire. I wish to be able to use a y-DNA test to back up this long paper trail. There are French people alive today who bear the name (a distinctive surname meaning “raised lance”) and also French Canadians.
Can yDNA testing help me ? Can my test alone do this or is a comparative test the only way? Should I choose the 37 marker test or 64?
I am not looking for a geographical proof of origin, only to prove or disprove that I am descendant of this Anglo-Norman family, for which I have a seal and arms.

DocDAve
06-03-2017, 9:37 PM
I'd be grateful for any response please - 376 views but no replies - can I provide more information ? or clarification?

stepives
06-03-2017, 10:17 PM
I don't wish to appear negative, but until you can put names on paper, or find those names written on velum, parchment, paper or stone, I really cannot see the point.

Without even doing a DNA test, some people can trace back to Europe by surname alone.

Perhaps this is the reason for so many views, but no replies.

One example......Benjamin D'israeli........no where would you think his heritage lies.

Anyway, good luck and good hunting. :)

DocDAve
07-03-2017, 9:16 AM
I have a vellum/paper chain of my surname and variants ( Lansley-Lanceley-Launcelett) and then a tantalising gap of about 70 years when the name Launcelevee occurs in the same locality. My idea was to try to sign up a present day Lancelevee in France and, as it is an uncommon name and originates from Normandy where the first Hampshire Launcelevee arrrived from, to see if yDNA matched then I would be satisfied of my paternal line origin.

I believe DNA testing for paternity reasons is illegal in France without a court order but would that apply to YDNA testing for genealogy?

Ladkyis
07-03-2017, 9:18 AM
I have to agree with stepives, unless you have DNA from those people in the 1400s then you cannot be sure. You can only point at the result and say "possibly related" or "possible cousin with common ancestor somewhere in the past" and it is possible to do that with paper records.
I think the DNA tests look so good that companies are determined to somehow fit them into the family history catagory and then charge a lot of money to tell you about it. I am also very vary of the
"You will be entered into our genetic database to find family connections" well why would anyone put their unique genetic make-up online for anyone to use?

Probably not the answer you were hoping for, and that's why I was reluctant to say anything

DocDAve
07-03-2017, 11:13 AM
If a British person's surname was " Threepepperpots" and there were families of the same name in the 1400s and today in another country it would be interesting to perform comparative YDNA testing.
I'm in a similar situation with the unusual name Lancelevee ( French for lifted or raised lance) for which a seal and arms have survived.
I agree about the companies having a database from which they can extract matches. It's the name I'm interested in.

Deeny
07-03-2017, 3:30 PM
I can't offer "expert guidance", but I do have some experience and a positive attitude towards DNA testing.

If money is no object start with a Y67 test. You can upgrade that later if it shows some evidence of matching and you want to clarify the results further. Y37 is a good enough and cheaper starting but below that any matches are little more than background noise. There would be no point doing autosomal testing which would potentially only find you matches within the last 200 years.

Where the paper trail ends, for what ever reason, DNA adds another tool to confirm or deny ancestral origins. It may not give you the answer you want straight away, or indeed ever, but it will give you more information than you have now. Keep logging in to your DNA account regularly in hopes that more people with a matching Y-line get tested.

I too have some Hampshire surnames in my tree which have Norman origins and I am intrigued to know what your "round lance" surname is.

Good luck.

Deeny

DocDAve
07-03-2017, 4:32 PM
Thank you for that, much appreciated.
I have as yet to join and purchase from familytreedna. It appears you get matches if you are fortunate but not for surnames specifically.

With a strong hunch about my Launceletts ( 1522) being preceded 50 years or so by La(u)ncelevee - the former being a French diminutive of the latter - my logic tells me to try to test a modern day Lancelevee, of which there are hundreds around Rouen.

The more I go on the more I feel like giving up and drawing a conclusion from the paper trail. On the other hand it' so tempting to arrange testing. The legal difficulty I don't know about, with the French. I would I suppose offer to pay for their test - Y67.

The name is "lance levee" i.e. lifted lance

stepives
07-03-2017, 5:03 PM
We could all go on about the 'why's' & 'wherefores'.....but in reality, with your logic......all the Smiths, Fletchers, Millers, Lancelots, plus all the various permutations of those names worldwide that exist are related. In reality, we are all a part of what Europe and beyond are made from. A right old blood soup, and where I pray,did they exist before France......how far will you go.

I accept the temptation you feel, and hope you find what you need.

Good luck and good hunting, wherever it leads.:)

Break2015
08-03-2017, 4:41 PM
As someone who has done DNA testing on ALL the sites just to see what the hype is about, to see if it can hold up against well researched genealogy, I got to say... save your money and buy whatever records are available.

The problem with DNA testing has a few major issues.

Autosomal first.

The first & foremost is the large majority of people who do DNA testing widely don't know their ancestry beyond the 1700s. Most are actually more modern history > e.g. great-great grandparents if lucky. So it essentially becomes a case of the blind leading the blind. I have long since gotten fed up with the overrated hype. After all, most old-time individuals who may potentially share the same genetics as those long forgotten ancestors aren't going to test their DNA. It's a waste of money to them as they've lived in X location for donkey's years so what is a DNA test going to teach them? That they've got a bunch of distant cousins who likely know jack about family history > so do they invite them to the family BBQ this summer?

The second is sites like ancestry.com. Most of those trees, as I am sure many on this forum and other genealogy forums can tell you, are wrong. Either they purposely are constructed wrong, as I have heard of people purposely ignoring their dirt-poor ancestors in favor of richer people of similar names / DOBs born nearby, or the person making them doesn't know any better. There are multiple complaints about this issue around ancestry.com on various forums > including the ancestry.com forums themselves. The major thing is a severe lack of documentation. Or erroneous documentation placed with people; as if putting John's census record for Joe Dilly Jack means that Joey is the same person as John Dilly Jack.

FTDNA is not much better in a way. How can you guarantee that those peoples' trees are accurate?

Because they all share the same DNA. Well what if while Johans was away at war his wife entertained his mother's third cousin Fredrick? Sure those descendants are all related they're just not Johans' descendants. Because unless you can find Johans' grave you [B]can't prove one way or the other.


Then there is the Y-DNA.

Did you know Y DNA can be carried through generations unaltered? My father shares the same Y-DNA and mutations as a guy in the early Norman era. And some mutations with people from earlier. He also shares the same mutations with a chap in the Americas, the only "close" DNA relative. He also shares the same with a guy in Denmark.

I put "close" regarding the American in quotes like that as over 300 years separate us as per FTDNA summary. Those 300 years however would be if we had the same surname & came from the same area. We don't. So, given our own family history which is well researched in England and England's own history of population movements [war, etc.] a more probable distance is something like 500+ years. The person seems to think closer, but, again given what we know of our own history (and the knowledge they have of their own British ancestry) and the entirety of Y-DNA results that'd be rather unlikely.

Useless in a way because until you can find the in between people god knows how close, how far we are related.

So you prove you're related to the Frenchmen. How far, how close. What if that Frenchman actually doesn't share the same ancestry - a non paternal event on his side - that you and he doesn't know of.

But given the surname it is likely anyways. Surnames don't just drop out of the sky. They typically have some basis. Either a paternal [Erikson], locational [Clee from Clee Hills], or characteristic [Russell, little red one], etc.

DocDAve
08-03-2017, 6:24 PM
Then there is the Y-DNA.

Did you know Y DNA can be carried through generations unaltered? My father shares the same Y-DNA and mutations as a guy in the early Norman era. And some mutations with people from earlier. He also shares the same mutations with a chap in the Americas, the only "close" DNA relative. He also shares the same with a guy in Denmark.

I put "close" regarding the American in quotes like that as over 300 years separate us as per FTDNA summary. Those 300 years however would be if we had the same surname & came from the same area. We don't. So, given our own family history which is well researched in England and England's own history of population movements [war, etc.] a more probable distance is something like 500+ years. The person seems to think closer, but, again given what we know of our own history (and the knowledge they have of their own British ancestry) and the entirety of Y-DNA results that'd be rather unlikely.

Useless in a way because until you can find the in between people god knows how close, how far we are related.

So you prove you're related to the Frenchmen. How far, how close. What if that Frenchman actually doesn't share the same ancestry - a non paternal event on his side - that you and he doesn't know of.

But given the surname it is likely anyways. Surnames don't just drop out of the sky.

Thanks for this.
I guess that if I compare my yDNA to a 2017 Monsieur Lancelevee and there is a close positive match then I'm happy. If I get a negative result I might still feel happy, or at least not dejected, that he may be a result of a non paternal event

Break2015
08-03-2017, 7:57 PM
Thanks for this.
I guess that if I compare my yDNA to a 2017 Monsieur Lancelevee and there is a close positive match then I'm happy. If I get a negative result I might still feel happy, or at least not dejected, that he may be a result of a non paternal event

See that's the problem you can't actually tell who is the non paternal event without finding the ancestral skeleton. You may think he's the non-paternal, he may think you're the non-paternal.

Many people claim descendant testing - the testing of descendants - will clarify this for you. However, it won't. Let's say sixty people are trying to prove they are the descendants of John Smith some famous goldsmith. They've all got the same mutations & haplogroups so there's no denying that they're related to each other.

But between John Smith & these sixty people how many non-paternal events may have taken place? If let's say John Smith's great grandson's wife was having an affair with the local milkman. Each of her children aren't the children of John Smith's great-grandson but Mr. Milkman. So each of these sixty people are rather the descendants of Mr. Milkman not John Smith.

However, it gets more complex. Let's say John Smith had a brother. Hypocritically the same mutations & haplogroups as the mutations at least can change per few generations depending on their rate of mutation. My father's mother's mtDNA for example is possibly an American-only mutation on a French haplogroup.

But John Smith's brother's children are all of faithful marriages. No non paternal events. And there's another sixty people saying they are descended from this John Smith who are legitimately descended from John Smith.


How can you tell? You would literally have to locate John Smith, hope that the bones possess DNA, and then see. Otherwise, it is just a case of Mr. Milkman's children saying they're "John Smiths" and John Smith's kids saying they're "John Smiths".

The only way you'd ever prove one way or the other, without locating John Smith, is genetically testing every single male of John Smith's line. But again let's say that results in three haplogroups and numerous smaller subfractions within. Who exactly is John Smith's kids.


This is something DNA sites don't tell you. The non-paternal events, the this & that, which can result in all the descendants of Y actually being the descendants of N. Certainly deep Y and mtDNA is better than simple autosomal.

But, for example, on how deep some of this ancestry can go. My mother's haplogroup is Scandinavian. Her ancestry is British for 600 years. Her closest "matches" via mtDNA on FTDNA are Europeans & Scandinavians. Useful in a way, but useless if I wanted something more current than truly ancestral.

DocDAve
08-03-2017, 8:57 PM
Well. I'm looking at this as simply as I can.
In medicine, if a person with a swollen painful lower leg is tested with a d-dimer test and it is negative, that unequivocally rules out a deep vein thrombosis ( DVT). If the test is positive, it means there is a DVT or there is a false positive and there could be a DVT. SO the test is called a negative predictor test for DVT.
In parallelel, it seems to me that a positive comparitive yDNA test, guided by rare surnames such as those in my paper trail, is evidence enough for paternal descent. If the test is negative, then it may exclude the possibility of descent or it may be due to bastardy at some point. So I am inclined to think that setting up testing with Monsieur Lancelevee ( if I can find a willing participant) in the hope of a positive outcome would be sensible ; considering the amount of time and energy I have spent on the document trail - 5 years at least of regular searching on aalt) this would be a gamble I'd be prepared to take. A negative result meaning I have been wrong all along or that there is bastardy is the chance I'd have to take.

Break2015
08-03-2017, 9:26 PM
Well. I'm looking at this as simply as I can.
In medicine, if a person with a swollen painful lower leg is tested with a d-dimer test and it is negative, that unequivocally rules out a deep vein thrombosis ( DVT). If the test is positive, it means there is a DVT or there is a false positive and there could be a DVT. SO the test is called a negative predictor test for DVT.
In parallelel, it seems to me that a positive comparitive yDNA test, guided by rare surnames such as those in my paper trail, is evidence enough for paternal descent. If the test is negative, then it may exclude the possibility of descent or it may be due to bastardy at some point. So I am inclined to think that setting up testing with Monsieur Lancelevee ( if I can find a willing participant) in the hope of a positive outcome would be sensible ; considering the amount of time and energy I have spent on the document trail - 5 years at least of regular searching on aalt) this would be a gamble I'd be prepared to take. A negative result meaning I have been wrong all along or that there is bastardy is the chance I'd have to take.

You just said there's what dozens of people with the same or similar surnames in the area? I have a rather rare surname. You will rarely find mine outside of Scotland and northern England & even then that isn't common. Even the most "common" variation, and there's just three variations in total, is still rather unusual.

But Lanceley - all over England. Lansley - all over England.

Lancelevee is a rather French surname. It is all over France and predominant in areas where Huguenots once were. There's been Huguenots all over England including Hampshire. This is why one must research. I won't tell you how many Americans I've encountered claiming British ancestry with Baltic originated surnames. Guess they don't know there was once, for example, enough Poles to be transported in the Virginia Company during the 1600s to the Americas.

But the fact that it is, in your own words, common among French Canadians would lean more to a Huguenot origin or an early French origin [a French trader] than a Norman origin to begin with. Not because of the time gap but because of the simple fact most French Canadians trace their ancestry to western central & southern France not exactly Norman country. That is, of course, not taking into consideration misspellings, etc.

However, it is interesting you mention a famous Anglo-Norman family but don't name that family itself. So I am curious about how large of a gap there is between their surname and the surname you are searching after.



As for the negative result, reread what I said. Unless you find the ancestral skeleton you can't tell who is wrong and who is right.

DocDAve
08-03-2017, 9:39 PM
You're correct, I should say perhaps distinctive not rare. Distinctive in a helpful way when it comes to researching the surname. The Anglonorman family I refer to IS Lancelevee, records exist easily found for them in Hampshire from the 12th C, and as knights of Edward I and Henry III ( John, Roger).The family features in the Norman Pipe rolls, landowners in Falaise and I have a document of them in Southampton at around the same time 1160. Their moated manor house still exists today near Sherfield-on-Lodden near Basingstoke ( Lance Levy Farm) and they precede Huguenots. The last La(u)ncelevee I can find is 1480 and the next "variant" I can find is Launcelett in 1522 - a GGF many times of mine in the family tree. The descent is such a nice thing to have, I thought yDNA would nail it so to speak.

Re negative result - well I would only be interested in a positive and then start gardening for 5 years instead!

patsnudden
09-04-2017, 2:20 PM
My experience of paying for Y-111 for my brother, and for Y-67 for a maternal cousin (FTDNA) is that the numerous matches all with different and unknown surnames, makes the father to son idea non-sensical to me, and of no use at all. Nothing relates to the paper trail, which for my mother's father's family is documented back to the Middle Ages in the Isle of Wight, and mainland Hampshire.

We all know that the info on marriage certificates can be untrue, also on censuses, and gravestones .... but the DNA investment has just made me conclude that there must be far more false paternities than one could have guessed.

Am very disappointed with the dna tests I have bought from FTDNA and 23andMe for genealogical results, but pleased to have found some useful medical genetic info about myself, and my daughter.