Ethnicity Testing- Is it really worth it?

As someone who HAS an Irish connection -at least on my paternal line - and a member of Irish XO (Reaching Out), it was interesting in a recent posting on a Galway (Parish) Blog page to be asked if I had considered taking an autosomal DNA test? I replied I was a DNA testing skeptic, and remained so after reading up on the subject (and reading what others had to say who had tested). I asked what he thought I would gain by undertaking such a test with my Irish connection in mind. I will be interested to hear what he says.

 

The funny thing is I have a relative who had Irish connections on his maternal grandmother's side but his Irish ancestry only showed up as a trace on Ancestry DNA. So sometimes it seems that those expecting higher Irish results don't get them! Whereas I got high Irish ancestry and wasn't expecting it all. The only place where I think this Irish ancestry might have come from is my Ablitt ancestors as Ablitt might have come from France (they lived in Suffolk). Ancestry lumps Ireland in with France (for reasons best known to themselves) But even so, my result shouldn't be that high on the back of one line of ancestors.

 

I reckon they must have changed it then as I'm sure France was included when I first looked. Perhaps they had some complaints? I wouldn't be surprised about France being included with Ireland, Scotland and Wales because have you noticed how some of the English counties search results are very badly classified in Ancestry?

 

Hi Peter, No, I've seen it on census results too. If I come across one, I'll post it.

 

I wouldn't have been surprised, more astounded. Ireland (and here I include the whole of Ireland) and France (indeed western Europe) are on different sides of the British Isles - separated by two different sea channels - so 'never the twain shall meet'. Ancestry may occasionally have some fanciful interpretations of what towns and (mostly) villages exist in what counties - though I've heard worse on answers given in some quiz shows - but other than drawing a circle on a map of Europe to encompass Ireland-UK-Europe they are and should be completely separate entities; DNA or otherwise.

 

I knew I wasn't imagining it! This chaps blog goes on about Irish Ancestry also found in France! I read this blog after getting my Ancestry results.

We Are All Irish

 

A most interesting Blog reaching a conclusion that coincided with my own after reading what others had to say after being told they had Irish ancestry when they could find none in the genealogical research. Ancestry had used a term to imply a country's ancestry (Irish) when surely they mean its Celtic heritage. The (Blog) statement that best sums this up says ..."You don't become Irish just because you have Celtic DNA in your genome". So yes, Ancestry are misleading everyone with the term 'Irish'.

Here is a summary extract from Wikipedia on the subject of 'Celts'

"Continental Celts are the Celtic-speaking people of mainland Europe and Insular Celts are the Celtic-speaking peoples of the British and Irish islands and their descendants. The Celts of Brittany derive their language from migrating insular Celts, mainly from Wales and Cornwall, and so are grouped accordingly."

Wikipedia also tells us the term 'Celtic' covers ethnic, linguistic & cultural aspects so without further geographical area breakdowns -seemingly not possible at this time - even being told one has Celtic ethnicity is still too vague. However it might stop people worrying about not finding Irish ancestry in their research.

Speaking of vague, it reminds me being asked by someone born and living in America asked if I could tell what part of England their grandparents came from just by their surname. I didn't know whether to laugh or cry then and explained I would probably need a little more information!

 

Historically speaking - you need to remember the Norman French (although originally Germanic) time in English history which then would have added possible links to French DNA to the English DNA thread. Plus, there were a bunch of Celts which emigrated to France, who speak Breton, a Celtic language highly similar to Welsh and Cornish, for that level of similarity they would have to have common ancestors.

 

As I speak Welsh I can also talk with Cornish and Breton people, the differences are minor, there is a greater difference with Irish and Scots Gaelic but they are all similar enough to get by. The language would point towards a connected heritage and ancestry, with a small exception of some north Wales people who appear to be a different race who arrived from West Africa and of course over the last few thousand years there is mixing of these groups with neighbours especially along borders.

 

All of this still doesn't explain how I get 36% Ireland when I don't have one Irish, Welsh or Scots ancestor up to the 1600s. There's Suffolk, Norfolk, Somerset and Dorset. I have a maternal grandfather whose father is unknown; but even if he were Welsh, Irish or Scots, I wouldn't have thought he would make up to 36% of my Ancestry

 

Peter, I have over 7,000 people on my tree. All blood linked apart from spouses and having ancestors and relatives from Norfolk, even some of the spouses are related to me! I've not forgotten proper genealogy or family history at all.

Basically I'm just rubbishing Ancestry's ethnicity results while praising Living DNA's ethnicity results which are more in line with my paper records.

 

Sadly did not absorb it as I should first time round, but now that you allow a re-visit I found it absolutely fascinating and very interesting. Thank you for that.

I have a mind to send the press release to my Grandson as he is currently fascinated with historic conquests of the British Isles and what effect they had on the population ethnic wise.

 

I was excited to see all the new "cousins" at first on Ancestry DNA but when you see that most of them have no tree/very few people on their tree or (even worse) don't respond to messages, the dairy tends to wear off!

However I did make one decent link that added to the knowledge of my third great grandmother from Norfolk. She had the fairly common surname of Williamson in a parish where many of the records were missing. So a DNA link to another Williamson in the same area was most helpful. Many of the "cousins" I already knew from Genes Reunited days; but at least it confirmed my paper research through DNA.

 

That reminds me asking a friend why he was reading a different newspaper other than the one I knew he had bought for years. His answer was that he took exception to the results of a political Gallop Poll shown in the paper, so decided to abandon it for a newspaper whose own poll was more in accord with his views.