Will DNA testing help me?

[Tom Tom]

I have always been interested in, if slightly sceptical of, the ancestry DNA testing.
I am toying with the idea of it, but wonder if I would be better to have tests done on each of my parents, rather than just myself. This would then give me a clearer idea of where each side of my family comes from.
Also adding to my interest in DNA, is the fact that I have a great great great grandmother who remains a bit of a mystery. She was born in the West Indies, to an army family, but I have never been able to find anything about her, other than her parents names.
She is the great grandmother of my surviving grandmother, so would I be best to get her DNA tested? Any DNA of the mystery lady would be diluted in my dad and then further diluted in me. There is also more chance of the result she being skewed by other branches.
Question is really, is it worth it and would it be best to test mine, Dad's or Grandma's?

[Olde Crone]

Tom

Geographical DNA testing isn't worth a light as far as I am concerned. It is vague and is of no use for your individual family history because, even if it is accurate, it is so historic it is nearly always before written records began.

For example - say your results tell you you are 100% British. That will not, cannot, reveal that your grandad was born and died in Thailand, lol. It can only show racial characteristics, it cannot show the geographical movements of your individual family.

The nearer you can get to the mystery individual, the more helpful the results swill be. The more relatives who are tested, the more useful the DNA results will be.

OC

[JBee]

I'm just hoping that it will connect me to people who have the mysterious born in Ireland families - who might know whereabouts they came from in Ireland

[Tom Tom]

Thanks OC and Julie.
Guess I was hoping that it might reveal a snippet of a clue about ancestry on Grandmoher's side which could give me some clues about where to look for the mystery woman. For example, if DNA is largely British then I would look here but if it threw something up it could lead me down another path.
Shall have to do a bit more reading into it.

[Olde Crone]

It can also throw up false geographical results, in as much as you have to know how to interpret what you are being told.

A number of people have been surprised and worried to find that they have hitherto unknown native american ancestry and have suspected their poor grannies of all sorts, lol.

In fact, the explanation is that they share a small segment of unusual DNA with a handful of native american women. One branch became native american, the other branch ventured to Europe. The commonality was about 40,000 years ago!

OC

[HarrysMum]

Also, if it says Irish, it could mean Scottish, Welsh or Cornish.

[Guinevere]

I've been happy with mine, Tom. It pretty much matches up with what I knew was very likely - quite a high "Viking" percentage. My father's family from the east coast had a Viking name, so it wasn't a big surprise.

If you have had it done already you can submit it to other websites and, to be fair, they came up with pretty much the same results.

I've made a couple of contacts and confirmed 2 others, which I find ridiculously satisfying.

[Rick]

Autosomal DNA testing is an incredibly useful tool to add to your research armoury. Ignore ethnicity unless it amuses you, and there's a huge amount of ignorance and misunderstanding about the estimates they provide. These have no relevance to genealogy as they compare you with reference populations to give you a feel of where your ancestors may have come from around 1000 years ago. But cousin matching is a massive boon to the genealogist and is an exact science. If you share enough DNA with someone then you ARE related to them. Test your oldest relatives first as your DNA is just a dilution of theirs. Both parents is great - no need to test yours and you can phase your results (tell which side they come from). And yes - test grandma too. The worst possible outcome from this is you either prove or disprove your paper trail.

[Tom Tom]

The worst possible outcome from this is you either prove or disprove your paper trail.



Thanks all. Part of the problem is, is there is no real paper trail!
My grandmother grandmother was born in India. Have finally managed to find her parents' marriage and then subsequently her mother's birth (West Indies) but with an unusual surname - Jannaway / January, I have no idea where they came from before that. Mystery ladies husband was Irish/Scottish, so perhaps it would be worth a punt, if purely for interest. As you say Gwynne, I may end up confirming a contact.

[Kit]

You may find out that the mystery lady was Indian. My 3g grandmother was called "a heathen lady" on her daughter's baptism records. The 3g grandfather was from Scotland.

[Olde Crone]

Yes indeed, the problem is when there is no paper trail. Several of my relatives are illegitimate, sob, and for most of them not the slightest clue as to paternity. My brother took the DNA test as a last ditch attempt to crack some of these mysteries.

So far, 4 contacts proving each other's paper research. 1 contact with 22,000 people on her tree, which is just an unresearched collection of names with such glaring errors that it is useless from any point of view.

We live in hope that one day we will connect with someone who knows more than we do. Until then, it has been an expensive research validation.

OC

[Lindsay]

Article in the Telegraph about a Cotswold village that was DNA tested:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/10/dna-project-reveals-half-residents-tested-cotswold-village-related/

Some of their ethnic conclusions seem rather dodgy eg 'only 6%' of one woman's DNA was British, the rest was west European. Hardly seems surprising in an area of the country (Wessex) that was settled by the Anglo Saxons!

[James18]

I've asked about this before; it's something I've always been both curious about and very sceptical of.

[BlueSavannah]

I've done the Ancestry test and I am undergoing the Living DNA one at present. The Ancestry test results regarding ethnicity were a little meh. I am 87% Great Britain they say, 6 % Irish (which I believe is my two Scottish lines) and 3% Eastern Europe (that will be my Polish branch). I've also got a 3% Iberian Peninsula which I have no clue about and 1% Italian/Greek, again no idea. I was surprised that it came back with zero Scandinavian. However, i've made a few really good contacts through the DNA matches which I do think the test itself is worth doing for.

My husband also did the test and he's this past week matched with a descendant of his grandfather's brother who disappeared to America in the 1940s which we are all really excited about.

[Jenoco]

Autosomal DNA testing is an incredibly useful tool to add to your research armoury. Ignore ethnicity unless it amuses you, and there's a huge amount of ignorance and misunderstanding about the estimates they provide. These have no relevance to genealogy as they compare you with reference populations to give you a feel of where your ancestors may have come from around 1000 years ago. But cousin matching is a massive boon to the genealogist and is an exact science. If you share enough DNA with someone then you ARE related to them. Test your oldest relatives first as your DNA is just a dilution of theirs. Both parents is great - no need to test yours and you can phase your results (tell which side they come from). And yes - test grandma too. The worst possible outcome from this is you either prove or disprove your paper trail.

Agree, although no parents or grandparents left in my case. I'm currently taking the Future Learn Strathclyde University family history course and they have a component on DNA and different types of tests. I previously didn't see any benefit but am now seriously thinking of taking a DNA test. Wish I could persuade my brother - his results might answer some questions I have about my father's genealogy...