Thus is absolute, utter bullshit. These tests can no more prove your genealogy than someone can by looking at you. Another lot of pseudoscientific bollocks.
Genetics isn't an exact science that can be broken down into percentages - not all genetic markers are passes on, some are passed on in an amplified state, and some are passes on in far smaller 'percentages' than suggested by the results of these 'tests'
This cottage industry of snake oil has sprung up as a result of the fascination with CSI and programs like it. Quite apart from all the horrendous risks associated with your genetic information now being owned by Big Data (and the implications of that are truly frightening - which is why the police aren't allowed to keep it on file unless there's a fucking good reason for it) - it's absolute hokum
I'm not sure what good if anything could come of doing this. Napa has pointed out a potential pitfall of this.
I've seen research that indicates trying to pinpoint your DNA to a specific geographical location is not an exact science.
And either it will confirm what you thought was true or disprove something you thought was a fundamental part of your identity.
I've been told my great grandparents hailed from various parts of the British Isles and not sure what a test would tell me that would be of benefit to me.
Identity is an issue for a lot of people who cling onto their ethnicity or nationality like it is something truly integral to their being, usually because they lack a sense of belonging or kinsmanship that it is natural and instinctive for humans to crave. Especially when so much media attention is spent focussing on the divisions between the ethnic minorities and the native majority, usually with the angle being that the minority is the victim.
Is it not enough just to be happy you are a human being and live in the here and now, rather than wonder where a distant ancestor might have come from? I don't understand people having pride in things they simply have no control over.
Well perhaps but.......
Those not wanting to be bored shitless stop reading now.
My mum was brought up in a convent and until the advent of online genealogy research all she knew about her past was that her mum was called Margaret Hall. That’s it. Taken from my mums birth certificate. Nothing more. Eventually some records of my mums time at the East London convent emerged from LCC records at the London Metropolitan Archives. Those records gave my mums mums address in County Down and one singular comment on father as being Hebrew. With a name. Because we had a name I was able to trace him and his parents back through census records with the place of birth being Russia. Apparently his parents arrived in the East End in 1890. I was also able to find out enough to contact his existing family and eventually that they originated in Lithuania and specifically Kaunas. For obvious reasons records relating to Jews in Europe are very scarce.
To finally get to the point. My mum had her DNA tested just before Christmas. It showed 44% Jewish with most focus on Lithuania and 40% Irish. Pretty damned accurate and verified through more traditional lines of research prior to the test.
Just saying
Your grandfather must have come over at the same time and from a similar place to my wife's family. Perhaps you are related? The surnames off the top of my head originated as Berkowitz and Kininski or something like that. Probably the equivalent of Smith and Jones...
Thus is absolute, utter bullshit. These tests can no more prove your genealogy than someone can by looking at you. Another lot of pseudoscientific bollocks.
Genetics isn't an exact science that can be broken down into percentages - not all genetic markers are passes on, some are passed on in an amplified state, and some are passes on in far smaller 'percentages' than suggested by the results of these 'tests'
This cottage industry of snake oil has sprung up as a result of the fascination with CSI and programs like it. Quite apart from all the horrendous risks associated with your genetic information now being owned by Big Data (and the implications of that are truly frightening - which is why the police aren't allowed to keep it on file unless there's a fucking good reason for it) - it's absolute hokum
I'm not sure what good if anything could come of doing this. Napa has pointed out a potential pitfall of this.
I've seen research that indicates trying to pinpoint your DNA to a specific geographical location is not an exact science.
And either it will confirm what you thought was true or disprove something you thought was a fundamental part of your identity.
I've been told my great grandparents hailed from various parts of the British Isles and not sure what a test would tell me that would be of benefit to me.
Identity is an issue for a lot of people who cling onto their ethnicity or nationality like it is something truly integral to their being, usually because they lack a sense of belonging or kinsmanship that it is natural and instinctive for humans to crave. Especially when so much media attention is spent focussing on the divisions between the ethnic minorities and the native majority, usually with the angle being that the minority is the victim.
Is it not enough just to be happy you are a human being and live in the here and now, rather than wonder where a distant ancestor might have come from? I don't understand people having pride in things they simply have no control over.
Well perhaps but.......
Those not wanting to be bored shitless stop reading now.
My mum was brought up in a convent and until the advent of online genealogy research all she knew about her past was that her mum was called Margaret Hall. That’s it. Taken from my mums birth certificate. Nothing more. Eventually some records of my mums time at the East London convent emerged from LCC records at the London Metropolitan Archives. Those records gave my mums mums address in County Down and one singular comment on father as being Hebrew. With a name. Because we had a name I was able to trace him and his parents back through census records with the place of birth being Russia. Apparently his parents arrived in the East End in 1890. I was also able to find out enough to contact his existing family and eventually that they originated in Lithuania and specifically Kaunas. For obvious reasons records relating to Jews in Europe are very scarce.
To finally get to the point. My mum had her DNA tested just before Christmas. It showed 44% Jewish with most focus on Lithuania and 40% Irish. Pretty damned accurate and verified through more traditional lines of research prior to the test.
Just saying
Your grandfather must have come over at the same time and from a similar place to my wife's family. Perhaps you are related? The surnames off the top of my head originated as Berkowitz and Kininski or something like that. Probably the equivalent of Smith and Jones...
Len, Leroy and Fiiish were right after all. It’s all too much too soon.
So much fear. In 50 years we’ll all be dead and no one will give a fuck.
Your grandchildren or great grandchildren might when they can't get life insurance....
Life’s too short and much changes. I wonder if my great paternal grandfafher was worrying about his great grandson ( not a pejorative comment) when he arrived in Whitechapel in 1890 ? Live your life. Don’t do harm to anyone if at all possible and don’t live in the shadow of fear. Mostly. Things look after themselves.
Not too argue with your point, Shootie - but I'd hazard a guess and say your great grandfather was thinking about his great grandson (i.e his descendants) when he moved to Whitechapel in 1890. It would've been for a better life, with greater stability and safety, surely?
I've considered doing a family tree, and I've got a lot of questions over my grandfather; specifically his upbringing and the early death of his mother. He never spoke about it, but it seems like quite a sorry story. Similarly, I know very little about the roots on the other side of my family.
On the other hand, the DNA aspect of things terrifies me from a confidentiality/privacy point of view; and the idea of being able to see genetic pre-dispositions concerns me. I'm not too sure if I'd want to know..
So much fear. In 50 years we’ll all be dead and no one will give a fuck.
Your grandchildren or great grandchildren might when they can't get life insurance....
Life’s too short and much changes. I wonder if my great paternal grandfafher was worrying about his great grandson ( not a pejorative comment) when he arrived in Whitechapel in 1890 ? Live your life. Don’t do harm to anyone if at all possible and don’t live in the shadow of fear. Mostly. Things look after themselves.
Not too argue with your point, Shootie - but I'd hazard a guess and say your great grandfather was thinking about his great grandson (i.e his descendants) when he moved to Whitechapel in 1890. It would've been for a better life, with greater stability and safety, surely?
I've considered doing a family tree, and I've got a lot of questions over my grandfather; specifically his upbringing and the early death of his mother. He never spoke about it, but it seems like quite a sorry story. Similarly, I know very little about the roots on the other side of my family.
On the other hand, the DNA aspect of things terrifies me from a confidentiality/privacy point of view; and the idea of being able to see genetic pre-dispositions concerns me. I'm not too sure if I'd want to know..
DNA can be a help in your ancestry research but there is no substitute for diligent ancestry research on a good website. Trust me I know. Since I started out in 2008 I have discovered a lot from a very small starting point of knowledge. It has led me to a trip to Northern Ireland where I met previously unknown family and a similar trip to Vancouver Island where I met more family. I am in regular contact with relations in the USA, Canada, Ireland and more recently Israel.
Is it weird that I don't really care what previous generations of my family did or where they came from etc?
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
Each to their own.
I don't know how old you are but you may develop more of an interest later.
I've always had an interest in history and family history, although I have no pretensions of great knowledge, yet my siblings never did but are increasingly asking me for information as they get older.
Is it weird that I don't really care what previous generations of my family did or where they came from etc?
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
I would agree with that - you are who you are as an individual. But for me the 'flesh of my flesh' thing hits directly at where you came from.
I can go back to the 14th century on my father's side (Munro) to trace direct blood ancestry - with quite a few well known Munros as ancestors, and for me it is fascinating.
Is it weird that I don't really care what previous generations of my family did or where they came from etc?
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
I would agree with that - you are who you are as an individual. But for me the 'flesh of my flesh' thing hits directly at where you came from.
I can go back to the 14th century on my father's side (Munro) to trace direct blood ancestry - with quite a few well known Munros as ancestors, and for me it is fascinating.
Are your lot anything to do with the Scottish hills / mountains?
Is it weird that I don't really care what previous generations of my family did or where they came from etc?
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
I would agree with that - you are who you are as an individual. But for me the 'flesh of my flesh' thing hits directly at where you came from.
I can go back to the 14th century on my father's side (Munro) to trace direct blood ancestry - with quite a few well known Munros as ancestors, and for me it is fascinating.
Are your lot anything to do with the Scottish hills / mountains?
No - Sir Hugh Munro after whom the mountains over 3,000 feet are known is not a direct ancestor.
Is it weird that I don't really care what previous generations of my family did or where they came from etc?
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
Each to their own.
I don't know how old you are but you may develop more of an interest later.
I've always had an interest in history and family history, although I have no pretensions of great knowledge, yet my siblings never did but are increasingly asking me for information as they get older.
I was 50 plus before I got my teeth into it. I don’t remember even giving it a thought much before that.
Is it weird that I don't really care what previous generations of my family did or where they came from etc?
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
I would agree with that - you are who you are as an individual. But for me the 'flesh of my flesh' thing hits directly at where you came from.
I can go back to the 14th century on my father's side (Munro) to trace direct blood ancestry - with quite a few well known Munros as ancestors, and for me it is fascinating.
As was discovered when all the living direct descendants of Richard III were tracked down, none of them had genetic material passed down from the King. The fathers of too many male heirs in the family tree were not present at the act of inception. The actual descendants of Richard III were tracked back through the maternal line, it's far more reliable.
Is it weird that I don't really care what previous generations of my family did or where they came from etc?
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
I would agree with that - you are who you are as an individual. But for me the 'flesh of my flesh' thing hits directly at where you came from.
I can go back to the 14th century on my father's side (Munro) to trace direct blood ancestry - with quite a few well known Munros as ancestors, and for me it is fascinating.
To anyone who has taken a DNA test for genealogical reasons, and mainly out of interest which website did you use and was it worth it?
Also did you make any interesting discoveries regarding your ethnic background?
I was given the test as a 60th birthday present. 'Ancestry' give you the facility to create a family tree for free as part of the test. But to get any hints, or matches with other family members you have to subscribe.
The test initially revealed that I'm 33% Irish, but more recently my profile has changed to 33% 'Irish or Scottish'. This makes more sense as I haven't found any Irish ancestors, but Jimmy Seed's mum was Scottish.
I've found it very useful for plotting the family tree (bearing in mind Jimmy Seed has five sisters and four brothers, so it's an enormous tree), but it hasn't yet revealed much about Jimmy's footballing sister Minnie Seed.
I'd certainly recommend Ancestry though. It all works very well, and the software/website is excellent.
Is it weird that I don't really care what previous generations of my family did or where they came from etc?
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
I would agree with that - you are who you are as an individual. But for me the 'flesh of my flesh' thing hits directly at where you came from.
I can go back to the 14th century on my father's side (Munro) to trace direct blood ancestry - with quite a few well known Munros as ancestors, and for me it is fascinating.
Marilyn?!
(I've never been much good at spelling...)
No, nor Matt!
Sir Robert Munro of Foulis was my great (x6) uncle - Clan Chief, first Lieutenant Colonel and chiefly responsible in the early years of The Black Watch. Killed at the Battle of Falkirk in 1746 just three months before Culloden and given a hero’s burial by the Jacobites.
His brother, George Munro of Culcairn, was my great (5 times) grandfather.
Thus is absolute, utter bullshit. These tests can no more prove your genealogy than someone can by looking at you. Another lot of pseudoscientific bollocks.
Genetics isn't an exact science that can be broken down into percentages - not all genetic markers are passes on, some are passed on in an amplified state, and some are passes on in far smaller 'percentages' than suggested by the results of these 'tests'
This cottage industry of snake oil has sprung up as a result of the fascination with CSI and programs like it. Quite apart from all the horrendous risks associated with your genetic information now being owned by Big Data (and the implications of that are truly frightening - which is why the police aren't allowed to keep it on file unless there's a fucking good reason for it) - it's absolute hokum
Thus is absolute, utter bullshit. These tests can no more prove your genealogy than someone can by looking at you. Another lot of pseudoscientific bollocks.
Genetics isn't an exact science that can be broken down into percentages - not all genetic markers are passes on, some are passed on in an amplified state, and some are passes on in far smaller 'percentages' than suggested by the results of these 'tests'
This cottage industry of snake oil has sprung up as a result of the fascination with CSI and programs like it. Quite apart from all the horrendous risks associated with your genetic information now being owned by Big Data (and the implications of that are truly frightening - which is why the police aren't allowed to keep it on file unless there's a fucking good reason for it) - it's absolute hokum
My wife took one of these 16 months ago. Found out where her DNA comes from geographically, blah, blah.
Then, 12 months later (4 months ago) she got a call from a woman who claimed she is her illegitimate sister. No one knew she existed or where she came from or what the deal was.
Turns out Ancestry.com noticed this woman and my wife shared certain DNA in common and informed the woman that based on their database, my wife's father was also the father of this 48 year old woman no one ever heard of. And without my wife's approval, gave this woman all of my wife's family's contact info.
Needless to say this has caused all sorts of problems for our family and her dad, who was married at the time and is 81 now and in no position to deal with all this. A lot of people are upset and it could even cause inheritance issues down the line.
So be VERY, VERY wary. These companies own your data and who knows how this might come back to haunt anyone who does it down the line. Hope this helps.
Tell me to stop being nosy if you want mate, but is it something your wife's family think could be true or just a mix-up?
We were a bit disbelieving until my wife saw her. Basically a mirror image. Same eyebrows and face. Was very eerie! We feel pretty sure she is related. A DNA test is now being planned. She does not seem to want anything, just wants to connect. We informed her she is better off not getting to know her family, LOL.
Is it weird that I don't really care what previous generations of my family did or where they came from etc?
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
I would agree with that - you are who you are as an individual. But for me the 'flesh of my flesh' thing hits directly at where you came from.
I can go back to the 14th century on my father's side (Munro) to trace direct blood ancestry - with quite a few well known Munros as ancestors, and for me it is fascinating.
Marilyn?!
(I've never been much good at spelling...)
No, nor Matt!
Sir Robert Munro of Foulis was my great (x6) uncle - Clan Chief, first Lieutenant Colonel and chiefly responsible in the early years of The Black Watch. Killed at the Battle of Falkirk in 1746 just three months before Culloden and given a hero’s burial by the Jacobites.
His brother, George Munro of Culcairn, was my great (5 times) grandfather.
My great x 7 grandfather John Black may have seen it happen... according to the book "The Blacks of Breich Water" he was said to have watched the battle of Falkirk aged 18. Apparently he lived until he was 98.
My favourite part from the same book is the story about his wife's grandfather:
His wife was Helen Steel, of Turnhigh, her grandfather having been a proscribed Covenanter in the reign of Charles II.
Regarding Mr Steel, it is told that on one occasion, having come from a hiding place in the adjoining moors to visit his household for a short time, he was rudely interrupted, while reading from his Bible, by the approach of armed soldiers in search of him.
With his Bible in hand, he went hastily by the usual inside passage to the byre. Seeing some newly-cut grass placed in readiness for feeding the cows, he lay down beside it, and was promptly covered over by one of his family.
When the persecuting soldiers had searched the dwell- ing, they gave attention to the out-houses, and, coming to the heap of grass, one of the number actually pierced it with his sword. The on-looking relatives silently trembled lest the husband and father should be wounded, or mayhap killed outright, but no sound came from under the grass.
The troopers departed, and, when well away, the grass was removed, and Mr Steel was found unscathed. On lying down with Bible in hand, he had placed it over his heart, and the sword-point was stayed by the Sacred Book.
I thoroughly enjoyed tracing my family tree back in the old days when it was all done through manual searches of indexes and original documents. There was suspense in ordering a certificate and waiting for it to arrive in the post, and a great thrill in going to a Public Record Office to see what they had. My only regret was that I was only prompted to do this when my dad died, so I lost what should have been my best information source before I began.
I found the whole process rather less interesting (though certainly quicker and easier) when I volunteered to do my mother-in-law's line via the internet. I learned about as much in one month as had taken three years of solid work, with my own family. But somehow the thrill of the chase had been removed, it all felt a bit mechanical and 'so what'. Although I discovered some interesting information I didn't feel as if I was a real historian as I had when I'd done my own.
I've not been tempted down the DNA route, and I don't think I would be. For one thing it seems unsatisfactory saying, I'm 50% English, 30% Swedish and 20% Troglodyte and imagining that that tells anything like the story of who I am and where I came from. Even if correct, it doesn't give me any stories or anything of genuine interest. The other reason is that I'm very sceptical about the science behind it. What you are essentially getting is a comparison with modern populations. For obvious reasons there is very little historical DNA data. But populations move, so there's a massive reliance on speculation as to how people may or may not have moved. And what does it mean anyway? There's greater genetic variation within populations than between them, so even if we could be certain of the results, there's not much really to be learned by going through the process. The more I think about it, the more I'm in the Leroy camp: Snake Oil.
Although gene pools are constantly changing and being modified particularly so over the last 100 years there is still a resident gene pool in every location of the world and again particularly where isolation or restriction of movement have been resticted. It’s not precise in that it can pinpoint your ancestry as such but it can and does provide information on where the majority of those with your dna are most prevalent.
As I posted earlier. Traditional research provided me with information that my maternal ancestry was Irish and Jewish Lithuanian. The dna test my mum did nailed both those bang to rights.
Not snake oil and perhaps most useful for those of us with a slightly exotic ancestry but certainly not snake oil.
I thoroughly enjoyed tracing my family tree back in the old days when it was all done through manual searches of indexes and original documents. There was suspense in ordering a certificate and waiting for it to arrive in the post, and a great thrill in going to a Public Record Office to see what they had. My only regret was that I was only prompted to do this when my dad died, so I lost what should have been my best information source before I began.
I found the whole process rather less interesting (though certainly quicker and easier) when I volunteered to do my mother-in-law's line via the internet. I learned about as much in one month as had taken three years of solid work, with my own family. But somehow the thrill of the chase had been removed, it all felt a bit mechanical and 'so what'. Although I discovered some interesting information I didn't feel as if I was a real historian as I had when I'd done my own.
I've not been tempted down the DNA route, and I don't think I would be. For one thing it seems unsatisfactory saying, I'm 50% English, 30% Swedish and 20% Troglodyte and imagining that that tells anything like the story of who I am and where I came from. Even if correct, it doesn't give me any stories or anything of genuine interest. The other reason is that I'm very sceptical about the science behind it. What you are essentially getting is a comparison with modern populations. For obvious reasons there is very little historical DNA data. But populations move, so there's a massive reliance on speculation as to how people may or may not have moved. And what does it mean anyway? There's greater genetic variation within populations than between them, so even if we could be certain of the results, there's not much really to be learned by going through the process. The more I think about it, the more I'm in the Leroy camp: Snake Oil.
Yes you did feel you'd achieved something after spending a day trawling through microfiche or microfilm back in the pre internet days. If you found the birth, marriage and death of just one ancestor it was regarded as a good day.
Making your own checks and obtaining certificates still has a role to play though in my view. I have seen too many examples of people simply lazily importing other superficially relevant trees on sites like Ancestry without carrying out their own checks. Those imported trees are often wrong, presumably for the same reason.
If like me you have Welsh Jones' in your family it's hard online resources or no online resources. I confirmed my own Jones line conclusively via a witness on a marriage certificate so a tangible example of why they are still worth getting.
To anyone who has taken a DNA test for genealogical reasons, and mainly out of interest which website did you use and was it worth it?
Also did you make any interesting discoveries regarding your ethnic background?
I was given the test as a 60th birthday present. 'Ancestry' give you the facility to create a family tree for free as part of the test. But to get any hints, or matches with other family members you have to subscribe.
The test initially revealed that I'm 33% Irish, but more recently my profile has changed to 33% 'Irish or Scottish'. This makes more sense as I haven't found any Irish ancestors, but Jimmy Seed's mum was Scottish.
I've found it very useful for plotting the family tree (bearing in mind Jimmy Seed has five sisters and four brothers, so it's an enormous tree), but it hasn't yet revealed much about Jimmy's footballing sister Minnie Seed.
I'd certainly recommend Ancestry though. It all works very well, and the software/website is excellent.
Nothing to do with her DNA but did you know that Minnie (Seed) Quayle (by now widowed) was living with her (also widowed) sister Frances at 9 York Road Aldershot during the war. I found them on the September 1939 register. Frances (dob 16.04.79) was the Householder and Minnie (dob 12.03.97) was 'doing her bit' as an Aircraft Worker.
Although gene pools are constantly changing and being modified particularly so over the last 100 years there is still a resident gene pool in every location of the world and again particularly where isolation or restriction of movement have been resticted. It’s not precise in that it can pinpoint your ancestry as such but it can and does provide information on where the majority of those with your dna are most prevalent.
As I posted earlier. Traditional research provided me with information that my maternal ancestry was Irish and Jewish Lithuanian. The dna test my mum did nailed both those bang to rights.
Not snake oil and perhaps most useful for those of us with a slightly exotic ancestry but certainly not snake oil.
Who are you trying to kid? You are as exotic as pie and mash and jellied eels.
Comments
Fineberg
I've considered doing a family tree, and I've got a lot of questions over my grandfather; specifically his upbringing and the early death of his mother. He never spoke about it, but it seems like quite a sorry story. Similarly, I know very little about the roots on the other side of my family.
On the other hand, the DNA aspect of things terrifies me from a confidentiality/privacy point of view; and the idea of being able to see genetic pre-dispositions concerns me. I'm not too sure if I'd want to know..
The way I see it, it makes no difference to me now.
I don't know how old you are but you may develop more of an interest later.
I've always had an interest in history and family history, although I have no pretensions of great knowledge, yet my siblings never did but are increasingly asking me for information as they get older.
I can go back to the 14th century on my father's side (Munro) to trace direct blood ancestry - with quite a few well known Munros as ancestors, and for me it is fascinating.
(I've never been much good at spelling...)
The test initially revealed that I'm 33% Irish, but more recently my profile has changed to 33% 'Irish or Scottish'. This makes more sense as I haven't found any Irish ancestors, but Jimmy Seed's mum was Scottish.
I've found it very useful for plotting the family tree (bearing in mind Jimmy Seed has five sisters and four brothers, so it's an enormous tree), but it hasn't yet revealed much about Jimmy's footballing sister Minnie Seed.
I'd certainly recommend Ancestry though. It all works very well, and the software/website is excellent.
Last summer that I am very indirectly related to Robert the Bruce
Sir Robert Munro of Foulis was my great (x6) uncle - Clan Chief, first Lieutenant Colonel and chiefly responsible in the early years of The Black Watch. Killed at the Battle of Falkirk in 1746 just three months before Culloden and given a hero’s burial by the Jacobites.
His brother, George Munro of Culcairn, was my great (5 times) grandfather.
My favourite part from the same book is the story about his wife's grandfather:
I found the whole process rather less interesting (though certainly quicker and easier) when I volunteered to do my mother-in-law's line via the internet. I learned about as much in one month as had taken three years of solid work, with my own family. But somehow the thrill of the chase had been removed, it all felt a bit mechanical and 'so what'. Although I discovered some interesting information I didn't feel as if I was a real historian as I had when I'd done my own.
I've not been tempted down the DNA route, and I don't think I would be. For one thing it seems unsatisfactory saying, I'm 50% English, 30% Swedish and 20% Troglodyte and imagining that that tells anything like the story of who I am and where I came from. Even if correct, it doesn't give me any stories or anything of genuine interest. The other reason is that I'm very sceptical about the science behind it. What you are essentially getting is a comparison with modern populations. For obvious reasons there is very little historical DNA data. But populations move, so there's a massive reliance on speculation as to how people may or may not have moved. And what does it mean anyway? There's greater genetic variation within populations than between them, so even if we could be certain of the results, there's not much really to be learned by going through the process. The more I think about it, the more I'm in the Leroy camp: Snake Oil.
As I posted earlier. Traditional research provided me with information that my maternal ancestry was Irish and Jewish Lithuanian. The dna test my mum did nailed both those bang to rights.
Not snake oil and perhaps most useful for those of us with a slightly exotic ancestry but certainly not snake oil.
Making your own checks and obtaining certificates still has a role to play though in my view. I have seen too many examples of people simply lazily importing other superficially relevant trees on sites like Ancestry without carrying out their own checks. Those imported trees are often wrong, presumably for the same reason.
If like me you have Welsh Jones' in your family it's hard online resources or no online resources. I confirmed my own Jones line conclusively via a witness on a marriage certificate so a tangible example of why they are still worth getting.
Possible range: 1st - 2nd cousins
1st Cousins
Confidence: Extremely High
Last logged in 2001