Ancestry DNA

[Lat-Literal]

Stanfordian - please stay.

Thank you.

[BBMmk2]

I've just had my Ancestry DNA results:

My ethnicity estimate is:
96.3% - English
3.7% - Irish, Scotland, Wales

Surely this must be record. But I've got to go now as grandma Boudica is calling me.

I know what mine are without doing this!

Stan, STAY!! Hosts, please try and persuade Stan!

[Richard Tarleton]

I know what mine are without doing this!

But DNA not the same as family tree, BBM! To go back no further than my 9x great grandfather (the early settler in Massachusetts) I also have 1,023 other 9x great grandfathers, not to mention 1,024 9x great grandmothers. As someone remarked on the Who Do You TYA thread, it's like the grains of rice on the chessboard. You have no idea what has crept into the mix along the way. Even where you think you know the direct line, it isn't necessarily so. My great great grandmother was a first cousin once removed (i.e. the next generation) of William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, of Queen Victoria/Lady Caroline fame (not as grand as it sounds, the families were huge in those days and people married all sorts of people, her husband my great great grandfather ran a chemical factory in Yorkshire, and her father was a wine merchant ) - but Melbourne isn't a blood relative and we don't share a common ancestor, because he was the product of an illicit liaison between his mother and the Earl of Egremont (although he was recognised by his putative father the first Viscount Melbourne, and inherited the title). So even if you're descended from someone on paper, that is no guarantee of legitimacy, or that you share their DNA.

[Richard Tarleton]

See PM

[BBMmk2]

But DNA not the same as family tree, BBM! To go back no further than my 9x great grandfather (the early settler in Massachusetts) I also have 1,023 other 9x great grandfathers, not to mention 1,024 9x great grandmothers. As someone remarked on the Who Do You TYA thread, it's like the grains of rice on the chessboard. You have no idea what has crept into the mix along the way. Even where you think you know the direct line, it isn't necessarily so. My great great grandmother was a first cousin once removed (i.e. the next generation) of William Lamb, 2nd Viscount Melbourne, of Queen Victoria/Lady Caroline fame (not as grand as it sounds, the families were huge in those days and people married all sorts of people, her husband my great great grandfather ran a chemical factory in Yorkshire, and her father was a wine merchant ) - but Melbourne isn't a blood relative and we don't share a common ancestor, because he was the product of an illicit liaison between his mother and the Earl of Egremont (although he was recognised by his putative father the first Viscount Melbourne, and inherited the title). So even if you're descended from someone on paper, that is no guarantee of legitimacy, or that you share their DNA.

I’ve managed to go back to AD795. I have ancestors like John of Gaunt, Catherine of Aragon, the Dukes of Anjou, Acquataine, Lorraine and Burgundy, possibly Normandy too. Also King James I etc. The Borgias as well.

[Sir Velo]

, Acquataine,

Is that a watered down version of Aquitaine?

[BBMmk2]

Is that a watered down version of Aquitaine?

Ah thanks! Yes Aquitaine.

[vinteuil]

... I have ancestors like John of Gaunt, Catherine of Aragon, the Dukes of Anjou, Acquataine, Lorraine and Burgundy, possibly Normandy too. Also King James I etc. The Borgias as well.

... ah - but then who hasn't?



.

[Serial_Apologist]

... ah - but then who hasn't?



.

And that's why I'm so Borgious.

[Bryn]

... ah - but then who hasn't?



.

I hear that I am a descendant of Lucy.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I hear that I am a descendant of Lucy.

[Richard Tarleton]

I’ve managed to go back to AD795. I have ancestors like John of Gaunt, Catherine of Aragon, the Dukes of Anjou, Acquataine, Lorraine and Burgundy, possibly Normandy too. Also King James I etc. The Borgias as well.

But BBM - as I keep saying, your family tree is no guarantee of your DNA. All it took was for the Queen/Countess/whoever to have a fling with her handsome young Italian lute player and to manage to pass the result off as her husband's - or in Spain, perhaps it might have been her Moorish page - or for her husband to adopt his child by his favourite concubine and rear it as a member of the family - and while your family tree might look straightforward, the DNA might tell a different story. We simply can't be sure what went on between the grimy sheepskins 700-1000 years ago. DNA is full of surprises, hence the interest in it.

[Sir Velo]

But BBM - as I keep saying, your family tree is no guarantee of your DNA.

There are none so blind...

[Bryn]

[Pianorak]

. . . DNA is full of surprises, hence the interest in it.

But isn't that precisely why it is utterly pointless?