DNA results in....I am a mutt...

Edit to add:Remember, the man your mother says is your father may not really be quite accurate. There might have also been a rape several generations back that can mess up results


Remember, it doesn't "mess up results." The test simply reveals facts that may be in opposition to received information or family tradition.
 
Just out of curiosity I looked up my Father's name on acestry.com and the info. Was wrong. When I asked them about it I was told that the accuracy of the info. Is up to the one putting it in and that they are not responsible for it. How confident would you be about tracing your ancestry on such a site. Just saying.

You've misunderstood how that site works.
 
I had always been told that my great grandfather emigrated from Ireland and that I had a lot of Irish in me. Plus my last name, Lawler is an Irish surname. Did the DNA test with ancestrydotcom and lo and behold, I’m less than 1% Irish! I came in at over 60% Scandinavian, with about equal portions a little less than 10% of Great Britain, Italy/Greece, and East & West European. It’s evidently accurate, because it identified several first cousins that I’ve been in contact with who definitely share ancestors with me.
What one must keep in mind is the histories of Ireland, UK, and Europe. Their people's are all mixtures of succeeding invasions from other areas. For example, Northern Ireland was a Viking stronghold for about 300 years. That is a lot of generations. The original Celts came from Hispania. Not to mention that individual DNA strands provide different characteristics in siblings. Finally, infidelity is a whole other topic.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Friend had that done and found out that a great,great,great could be more was wanted for murder .. he had some shady characters in his lineage ..
 
Funny how so many of us had longstanding family tales of at least one Indian ancestor no more than 3 or 4 generations back... but when I got into ancestry research in a big and serious way... absolutely nothing. :o No casino $$$ for me. :( Tales of old "Horse Thief TTSH" and his supposed hanging up in Vermont went away as well. ;) I won't tell you who we did find in the family tree going back 10+ generations... it would be politically incorrect. :D
 
Friend had that done and found out that a great,great,great could be more was wanted for murder .. he had some shady characters in his lineage ..

One of the celebrities interviewed on the PBS show on ancestors had an ancestor who was an overseer. One of those he was over-seeing murdered him. The celebrity said, "Good!".
 
If they tell you that you are Italian -Indian are you a Wopaho


Oh please, can we be serious here?

Italian blood would mean he’s descended from a Hollywood western tribe, possibly the Hekowi from the 60s series “F-Troop”, or the more common one known as “Extras.”
 
My mom and I tested ours recently. She was raised that she was 100% Croatian, we have paperwork on both sets of her grandparents coming here in the early 1900's from the old country. She came back as 100% Balkan/Eastern European which works with her family history. What was interesting were my results. My dad always joked he was a western European mutt and all he knew for sure where his mom's parents were from England (we do know his maternal grandmother was born in London) yet the test says I have no English blood in me! I am 15% Irish/Scotch/Welsh and 10% Scandinavian (which, based on history, works with the English story). My last name is a German/Austrian name, but no German in my test results either. I came back as 67% Balkan/Eastern European and dad did say there was some Czech in him too. I also had some Iberian Peninsula (Spain/Portugal) and Ashkenazi Jew in me. I wish these tests were around when dad was still with us, they certainly do show he was correct about being a mutt! LOL

BTW, I've read up on these tests a bit and they should only be used for fun. The databases are pretty small and mostly come from Americans where they're relying on family history that can be a bit circumspect. They're not giving you false results, but if you have a DNA marker for a certain ethnicity that's not in their database, they can't confirm that ethnicity either, or they could be looking at a marker that shows for multiple ethnicities and then they have to pick one.
 
Last edited:
As luck would have it, mine just came back. Let's get it open and read it...

Lets see...

"Grandfather was a relentlessly self-improving boulangerie owner from Belgium with low grade narcolepsy and a penchant for..." uh, nevermind.

"Grandmother was a fifteen year old French..." uh, uh, didn't know that, "named Chloe, with webbed feet." Wow, this stuff is really detailed!

"Grandpa would womanize, he would drink," well he was a State Assemblyman.

"He would make outrageous claims like he invented the question mark." Wow, gramps was an inventor! "Sometimes he would accuse Chestnuts of being lazy, the sort of general malaise that only the genius posess, and the insane lament." It says right here grandpa was a genius!

"My father's childhood was typical, summers in Rangoon, luge lessons. In the spring he would make meat helmets. When he was insolent he was placed in a burlap bag..."

Wow all this from a cheek swab!

"and..." uh... "beaten... with... reeds... pretty... standard... really... At the age of 12 he recieved his first scribe... At the age of 14 a Zeroastrian named Vilma..." uh... "ritualusticly..." uh... "shorn..."wait a minute, this can't be right... see here.

"Mother was the founder of the millitant wing of the..." no, this cannot be right.

Oh,

Look,wrong address, this is for a Mr. Scott Evil.

Never mind
 
Last edited:
My wife and I did one DNA test (not Ancestry) and it came back weird, but they used databases of where people with DNS like mine now live.
We next did Ancestry and it showed a couple percent Mali (Africa), mostly western european and some others.
My grandmother and my ex-brother in law both did a lot of accurate genealogy and takes our line back to around 1600's, but found Revolutionary War, Civil War etc. Their work matched much of what we found out via the DNA testing - my brother, (sisters daughter) niece and my results were very close.

The interesting story my grandmother found - a freed slave who served during the revolutionary war - his brother was AT Valley Forge and is in the official records (since he was a brother of a direct lineage, I presume that means he is related to me) - one of the ancestors was on the Mayflower (I know there are tens of thousands of decedents) and we were visiting a close friend in Scotland and he mentioned that his ancestor was Miles Standish - who was a friend of my ancestor! Pretty cool and amazing.
 
Last edited:
Back when I was doing some serious genealogy research on my roots, the thing that surprised me the most was how prolific (and fertile) my earlier ancestors were. Having 8-10 kids (or more) was typical, even into the early 20th century. It must have been really hard on women.

The Ancestry and FamilySearch websites are mainly compilations of available early records - census, birth and death certificates, draft records, immigration records, etc. I tried looking up my wife's family. I found considerable information about her father's side (who were mainly from northern Ohio and upstate New York), but very little on her mother's side. Probably because her mother's family was from rural central Alabama and apparently there they weren't too much into keeping good records.
 
Last edited:
Back when I was doing some serious genealogy research on my roots, the thing that surprised me the most was how prolific (and fertile) my earlier ancestors were. Having 8-10 kids (or more) was typical, even into the early 20th century. It must have been really hard on women.

I found this true with my family tree also. I think the reason is that at that time, it was a largely agrarian environment. Kids were needed to work on the farms with their parents; if you didn't have enough help, you could create it...

John
 
I found this true with my family tree also. I think the reason is that at that time, it was a largely agrarian environment. Kids were needed to work on the farms with their parents; if you didn't have enough help, you could create it...



John



And, I would add, childhood mortality rates were high. 8 or 10 children usually meant 5 or 6 reaching adulthood and further reproducing


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Reliable birth control really changed things.I came across a photo of a great grandmother of mine taken in her 70s.She had 14-15 children.She looks exhausted
 

Latest posts

Back
Top