To think these DNA ancestry tests make no sense

Where do you think our descendents came from? We have loads of descendents - if you got a family tree of everyone in the UK's ancestors and went back far enough, do you think there would be a whole range of people in there -

including people who were Vikings, Celts etc and then you go back further and further and further until you get back to Africa

Do you think iit's wrong to say that a lot of British people will have at least one ancestor who was a Viking?

It's also true to say that a lot of British people will have at least one ancestor who was a Celt.

Chances are they have at least one ancestor who was from Normandy

Nope. I’m not doing this shite with you again. I explained the whole Bronze Age thing, you refused to listen. I don’t know why you’re obsessed with Vikings but tell you what, you win, you’re super special, we can all go home now.

🙄Yes because that's what Ancestry and genealogy is all about, isn't it? Trying to trace your roots back to single celled bacteria.

Ultimately, we are descended from tiny single cell bacteria if you go back far enough.

But that's just being really pedantic

They got around a bit by all accounts. I am just reading David Mitchell's book and apparently they didn't have horns on their helmets, which is disappointing.

Snort. How droll we all are. It’s a shitty entertainment article that some freelancer had to write for their livelihood, no doubt, with two lines of useful information. Did you think that was earth-shattering new info for me or I didn’t read it? Did you read the part of the article that I ACTUALLY quoted, that linked to the study and the accompanying percentages under “how rare is Viking DNA” or not? I read that part, and then I read a bit of the actual study it linked, so that part was accurate enough.

If you’re in Britain, your chances are 6%. But obviously, I can’t rely on people like you to actually read that bit and look at the study themselves instead of trying to point score like you did, so I guess I should have skipped the article with two lines that make the study a lot easier to understand, and just linked directly to the study. It’s here:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01468-4

Snort. Have you actually read that article?

You might be descended from the Vikings if you have a surname like Johnson or Anderson (never mind that surnames in that form came into being in this country considerably later than the Viking era)

You might be descended from the Vikings if your family has lots of fishing and seafaring occupations (right, cos no other coastal region ever has done anything about it)

You might be descended from the Vikings if you are brave and adventurous!

You might be descended from the Vikings if you are tall and well-built (even though the same paragraph tells us the Viking tallness was due to their diet and lifestyle... ooo, Lamarckian)

Apart from the first one, geographical location (...) the only one with the slightest element of sense is the part about red hair, blue eyes, broad forehead, prominent chin and v-shaped hairpin. And I haven't the least idea whether that's accurate.

Still, this thread has answered my question - would it help in telling me which of the two major groups with his distinctive surname my 4-greats-grandfather was part of - so thanks for that (no point in spending money).

@Ikeatears thank you that's very kind

@fuckssaaaaake if you decide to go ahead and do the AncestryDNA (this is the one I’d recommend) and want a hand understanding it all when the results are in, feel free to pm me and I’ll happily take a look with you.

No idea about the geography ethnic background stuff but I found out my grandad wasn’t my grandad. Got lots of matches of cousins, etc I knew nothing about.

@Gingerkittykat thanks so much. I think I'm going to. Not even sure what I'll do with the info but I feel like I need to see

The people used to decide a particular heritage have all their ancestors from that particular area. I've thought about putting my Mum's test in for the West Cornwall group (which we show very clearly), as all her ancestors going back 6-8 generations were born within a small radius. So it's not done on where you live now, e.g. Manchester for my Mum, but where your ancestors are from.

Yes, I found biological members of my family this way.

I was lucky my mum's biological sister was also searching for the same answers so had registered and there was a bio cousin who was a member and was able to give us both answers.

I think there is a lot of luck involved in this process but it is worth a try.

Personally with the rise of the far right across Europe I wouldn't touch this with a barge pole. Much too easy to imagine it being weaponised. Equating origin with nationality is well dodgy. Bits of Europe have changed countries multiple times. What does it mean to be 50 percent Italian if Italy didn't exist until the latter half of the 19th c?

@cakeorwine · Today 10:59
Brahumbug · Today 10:47

#Roastiesarethebestbit · Yesterday 23:46
So we are all descended from Viking’s because 40 generations ago we have more ancestors than people alive at the time? So doesn’t the same logic mean that we are descended from everyone alive at that

You are absolutely correct in that. Assuming you have European heritage, Everyone who was alive a thousand years ago is either your ancestor, or the ancestor of no one, because their line has died out.
I would reword that and say "Most of us will have Viking descendants, because most of us will eventually have common ancestors - and if you go back a long long time, we all have ancestors from Africa" - and ultimately, we can all go back to bacteria in the pool of life....

No, absolutely not. Talking about European heritage, We are all descended from everyone alive 1000 years ago who has line if descent extant to this day, that is an absolute fact. So we are all descendants of Charlemagne, Alfred the Great etc. Viking by the way is it an ethnic group, it is a job description!😁

It changed my life. I'm adopted and didn't know who my father was. I identified his family from AncestryDNA and narrowed it down to him. I have a whole branch of a wonderful family, including a lovely brother and two little nephews who never would have been in my life without it. I also have all the answers I wanted.

The ethnicity bit of the test seems a bit hit and miss. I did it a few years ago on Ancestry and the percentages and countries have been changed a few times since the original test. It is pretty accurate now but I suspect they back up their 'evidence' with who you are matching to.

It accurately has me as 50% of one parent's nationality, then largely English / NW European for the other, with 7% Norwegian. There isn't any Norwegian in the last 200 years on that parent's side, but I think it's normal that British people have a smattering of Norwegian.

I liked doing the test mainly because I like history, and it allowed me to put a family tree together really quickly, as I could see who my matches were.

True - but we still have a LOT of ancestors though - and yet there is a smaller pool "at the start"

Imagine what the family tree for every human being would look like when combined!!

@Gingerkittykat · Today 03:00
CarolineFields · Yesterday 21:59

40 generations ago you have 20 hundred billion ancestors out of a population of 50 million in Europe about a million of whom were Viking, so not only was every European descended from Vikings, but every European is related to every Viking. many times. Many many many many many times! ( and I have rounded those number down!)
There have only been approximately 117 billion people who have ever lived (including people alive now) so it is impossible to have had as many ancestors as you state.

Because that is how many ancestral positions there are in your 'tree'. However, they filled by the same people multiple times over, in other words you are descended from the same people by many different routes, it is called pedigree collapse.

I would reword that and say "Most of us will have Viking descendants, because most of us will eventually have common ancestors - and if you go back a long long time, we all have ancestors from Africa" - and ultimately, we can all go back to bacteria in the pool of life....

Except for those of us who came through the Stargate......

What are you doing it for?

If you are interested in genealogy and already have done work on your family tree, then Ancestry. Or if you are trying to find an unknown sibling/grandparent.

If it's for health and to know if you have a certain gene more likely to cause a health condition, 23 and Me.

If it's purely for "ethnicity result", still Ancestry, but realistically, don't waste your money.

#Roastiesarethebestbit · Yesterday 23:46
So we are all descended from Viking’s because 40 generations ago we have more ancestors than people alive at the time? So doesn’t the same logic mean that we are descended from everyone alive at that

You are absolutely correct in that. Assuming you have European heritage, Everyone who was alive a thousand years ago is either your ancestor, or the ancestor of no one, because their line has died out.

Lots of fascinating contributions on this thread.

Yes some people might not know a lot about their heritage... adoption and slavery are obvious reasons that spring to mind, it's not hard to understand why in these circumstances people would value immensely whatever information dna tests can give.

Quite often you find that someone else has drawn up a detailed family tree that you can link to. DH unearthed some very distant relatives in America - they had managed to complete a side of the family tree back to the 1600s using parish records from a tiny area in continental Europe.