Ancestry, dna, parent 1&2 and shared matches

[Userno46376367377367373]

Any info on this please?

I have matches for parents 1&2, which were grouped by ancestry and seemed relatively accurate and still do to an extent.

however I have some shared matches with other users both in parent 1&2.

I have a roughly equal split of matches for 1&2 around 11,000 each side, only one match is identified as related to me on both sides, plus some are unassigned. Both my parents are from the same county but different sides about an hour apart. Still I guess there’s a chance the families and our ancestors connect somewhere

my question is, for instance I’ll get a parent 1 match and it will make sense with surnames etc but when I go into shared matches, for some people shared matches will be a mix of parent 1&2.

there are some matches who solidly still to having the same side as shared matches.

I am hoping I’m making sense here.

I am assuming it’d not because my parents (not together) are long lost cousins but because the two sides link up somewhere so some people I will be related to on both sides? Or perhaps myself and the shared matches are related to the same person in different ways?

like I said, I hope I am making sense

for instance a kid I went school with come up as a parent 2 (father) match despite me thinking it was more likely going to be my maternal side he’s related too as literally live in the same town, but clicking on his name I share matches on both sides.

any guidance for someone who’s just confused?

Build your family tree and sign up for a subscription trial and it will tell you who your ancestry link is for anyone else in your matches who have added their family tree.

Hi, yes, I’ve been building my tree for a while but the dna result was more recent. There seems to be minimal links from what I can see. I have found quite a few matches and how they are related through thru lines however there are many matches who haven’t got a decent family tree on there.

I can’t shed any light on it, but have noticed the same - some shared matches between maternal and paternal lines. Seems bizarre as my parents’ families were from completely different areas with no overlap whatsoever that I’ve found.

I have a lot of overlap, it's making tracing distant ancestors very difficult. But Ancestry tells me that I am 95% Cornish and looking at the people in my tree for the last 200 years I have many of the old surnames from my home town. Also people followed the work - the Cornish travelled to coal areas when the tin mining stopped and their neighbours followed, married, returned to home towns...
Amongst my connections in Australia and North America I have found groups of relatives and friends emigrating at the same time, or generations following each other - and intermarrying.

Perhaps it's worth thinking about what industry they were involved in?

Hi, I am actually 82 percent Cornish on ancestry and live here. Maybe we are related 😂 also have a lot of US and Australian matches!

Very bizzare in your case then! It’s confusing my brain but my parents are from the same county!

"I am assuming it’d not because my parents (not together) are long lost cousins but because the two sides link up somewhere so some people I will be related to on both sides?"

That's most likely the correct answer.

In some parts of the world is was not uncommon for the same families to intermarry over the generations. This was especially true in areas that were isolated or where there was a difference of religion or language for example.

This means that you are much more likely to have DNA connections through both sides of the family. This also means that the same DNA is kept within the family for a longer period of time than you would expect normally so the connections may be further back than you would normally expect. There's even a name for this, it is referred to as "endogamy"

Areas like Cornwall (and Norfolk) were prone to this. The Isles of Scilly are a great example; back in the 19th century it is estimated that around 80% of the marriages there were endogamous to Scilly. In other words, they just married each other.

But this also happened in other areas as well. I have some distant ancestors who went over to the American colonies in the 1600s. To be frank, there were a lot of families intermarrying each other back then (the population in Maryland and Virginia was very small) and you can still see the results of that in the DNA today.

Many Americans who trace their ancestry from early US colonial families have found this when getting their DNA results.

I remember somebody saying that they had colonial ancestry from Maryland and Virginia through both parents. While the parents weren't related to each other in any way over the last two hundred years, they had dozens of DNA matches who were related to them through both parents, and quite a few more who had a DNA match to one parent and a paper trail that connects them to the other.

It is not uncommon for colonial Americans, Ashkenazi Jews, French Canadians and US Cajuns to still show the results of this endogamy from centuries earlier.

So I would guess that it is probably something like that.
.

"only one match is identified as related to me on both sides, plus some are unassigned."

I have similar figures for each parent but then there are 23 from both sides. Where these people have a tree (so I know where they are now), they are all over the place. Several in the USA and also Canada and Australia. On the other hand, there is also one match currently living in the city that our family have been living in for the last few centuries, so they didn't move far at all.

I have managed to find out how one of these people was related to me on both sides but it take a little while to sort it out.

I came across a DNA match who turned out to be my mum's half first cousin once removed. Hopefully that makes sense? Same grandfather but different grandmothers.

Her grandfather had married twice and the first wife was the grandmother of my mother and the second wife was the great-grandmother of this DNA match.

But is was also showing that she was related to my dad as well. I got lucky. The second wife was a widow and I found that her maiden name was a name that appears very often in my dad's tree.

From there I could trace the family back and it turned out this DNA match and my father were 7th cousins once removed as well as being half first cousin of my mum.

i've yet to do the dna, but it's my next step in my family tree. i want to do dh and i both at the same time.
our families immigrated to canada in the 1680's settled in the same region of quebec and my very rudimentary research shows our family tree has crossed at least 3 times, enough so that i find it confusing at times.
i've decided to stick to direct ancestors and not expand into cousins.

"...the same region of quebec and my very rudimentary research shows our family tree has crossed at least 3 times"

Entirely coincidentally, I posted a quick reference to French Canadians a few minutes before you posted. Basically just saying that French Canadians who trace their family tree are very used to this happening.

The OP mentioned that she has around 11,000 DNA matches on each side. My parents have similar numbers each with an extra couple of thousand unassigned, so around 24k in total.

If you are looking to do your and your DH's DNA then, as French Canadians, you will likely get a very different result.

It is not uncommon for French Canadians to have upwards of 100k DNA matches. This is largely down to people's family trees crossing so frequently.