<p>My mother did Natl Geographic and it sure disputed the family lore. That, in itself, was interesting. Much the same as doing genealogy and discovering a different trail. </p>
<p>I gave my husband the National Geographic test as a gift a few years ago. His last name would normally be considered quite “English”. This study did deep ancestry. He is a white blue eyed Methodist. Turns out that his deep ancestry is fom the meditteranean …sorry, won’t autocorrect, and he shares the same DNA with about 70% of some type of Jewish men. Just goes to show you humanity is truly all related.</p>
<p>Apprentice prof - my mother is decidedly not Ashkenazi - I know that! I did trace my maternal line to Germany in the 1500s - only stopped because I ran out of money. </p>
<p>We just purchased an Ancestry.com test for my d’s birthday. It will be interesting to see what the DNA analysis says compared to the record search. My mom claims she has traced our family back to the court of James I. We are apparently the ultimate in downward mobility. 
</p>
<p>Apprentice prof - about 10 years, I stumbled (figuratively) onto a second cousin on a genealogy board. His paternal grandmother and my paternal grandfather were sister and brother who came through Ellis Island at ages 19 and 17, got over here, promptly feuded and never spoke to one another again so their kids (his father and my father) never met or knew one another. My birth last name is very unusual so it’s easy to track. </p>
<p>My Irish side is a lot harder because Kanes who left Ireland during the potato famine are too numerous to count! </p>
<p>AP - when I was into genealogy in a big way, I did focus on my pure maternal line. This was around the time my sister (my “real” sister, not the half-sister of the story above) had my niece. I commissioned a decorative plate that had my niece’s name and birth date in the middle, then my sister’s name/birthdate, our mother’s name/birthdate, grandmother’s, etc all around the rim, going back to Margaretha in the late 1600’s or wherever I had stopped. I thought it was pretty neat - a whole circle of women - and it’s fascinating to imagine what these women’s lives were like and if they could possibly have imagined what their daughters’ lives were like. </p>
<p>Oh, I’m not questioning the value of tracing a maternal line in that sort of way, which I could see being very meaningful. I just don’t get that jazzed by knowing that my many times great grandmother happened to be a member of a group originating in a particular (and, given my genetic makeup, pretty unsurprising) region. I also think some people do have the mistaken impression that their maternal DNA line has more relevance to their own personal genetic makeup than it does - as I said before, that happens to be the one line that can be traced back, but doesn’t have any more weight than any of the many lines that can’t be. </p>
<p>The haplogroups are kind of stupid in my view also because they only show you one line (mothers for mitochondrial DNA) and ignore all of your other relatives. In other words, you get a teeny bit of info about one grandmother, and it completely ignores contribution from your other 3 grandparents; this gets worse (more unbalanced) the further back you go (i.e. only info about 1 of 8 great-grandparents). </p>
<p>My immediate family has done 23andMe and my two sons come up each as sharing exactly 50% of their DNA with me. That is what one would expect.</p>
<p>One kind-of cool thing that I noticed through 23andMe is that my husband and I share DNA with the same guy in Australia, but it is different bits. We are each like 5th+ cousins with that guy, but it does kind of show how small the world is.</p>
<p>@Pizzagirl I think you should share 25% of your DNA with L and J each since you have one parent in common.</p>
<p>I have a question about the data bases that Ancestory uses. My parents weren’t born in this country–they immigrated here–my mother came as a young girl and my father as an adult. Can you trace family that wasn’t born in the US? I’m assuming most of the data bases on Ancestory are US based.</p>
<p>If you are interested in the health testing aspect of genetic information–my reason for sending 23andme a swab–you can still get the information by taking your raw 23andme results over to Promethease (<a href=“Promethease”>https://promethease.com/ondemandlicense</a>), where they will help you interpret them. </p>
<p>I find it absolutely maddening that the FDA thinks it needs to “protect” me from knowing my own genetic information and its health implications. I can get more accurate information, far more cheaply, about my dog than I can about myself. Ridiculous.</p>
<p>You can trace it if accurate records exist. The Mormons have gone all over the world and add data all the time, seeking to deepen their reach. It can be local baptismal records, newspaper references, school records, ship and transit logs, cemetrery records, etc. Pretty amazing. More and more comes online all the time. But you have to watch out for inaccuracies- sometimes it’s a misspelling or mis-transcription/typo. Many people think DH’s relative died in 1870, but that 7 should have been read as a 9 (1890.) You can’t take any one find at face value, need to look for confirmation (like, he was still alive in 1875 and in the 1880 census.) Other times, another researcher confuses individuals and leads you down the wrong path. </p>
<p>Brom, often Ancestry gives a good free trial period in December. </p>
<p>My sister has traced our lineage back to the 1400s, using LDS records.
( she also uses Ancestry to update info so more people can use it)
Mitochondrial DNA can also be very useful.
<a href=“How an American scientist helps grandmothers in Argentina find their ‘stolen’ grandchildren | The World from PRX”>http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-07/how-american-scientist-helps-grandmothers-argentina-find-their-stolen</a></p>
<p>As a historian, DH often doubted supposed finds that go back to times when records just weren’t kept. Just saying. When you spend a lot of time on genealogy, you find lots of people who claim to be related to Charlemagne. And some who think they got it back further. </p>
<p>Sometimes, just learning more about what our ancestors were doing in the US is neat. I was thrilled to finally get my paternal grandfather’s family in the US, learn who all the siblings were and their descendants- some I wish I could meet. And more about my maternal grandfather, in his early days in NYC. </p>
<p>Our family has roots in England/ Netherlands/France/Prussia & Scotland, which seemed to have good records, especially for the landed gentry.
Quite a few direct ancestors were born in Virginia, Connecticut, Maryland, New York and environs, as early as the 1600’s. I apparently have a long line of ancestors who lived outside the box, going by the numbers of inventors, painters and outlaws. Who says ADHD isn’t inherited?</p>
<p>It’s been very interesting to see how long lived many of them were, even in the 1500 & 1600’s.
Youngest has had the 23andme testing done when they were releasing health info.
She also reported that she shares DNA with Ashkenazi Jews, which I find intriguing as the main religion previously associated with my ancestors has been Huguenot.
It could always been on her dads side, although his family came to the U.S. much more recently from Sweden & Norway. ( I think several of his grandparents came as children)
Interesting contrast.</p>
<p>My mom’s an immigrant and my dad’s family has been here for a while (well, his dad’s side at least). I have been on Ancestry for years and some of it is super useful and some of it is not. </p>
<p>My mom’s dad is a Romani from what was then Austria-Hungary (not sure what it is now but we say we’re Hungarian)- those records are pretty much non-existent and I haven’t been able to get past my great-grandparents. Mom’s mom is from England and they kept great records. Same with dad’s mom’s side (German). My Irish side is a lost cause because my Irish immigrants both had SUPER common names and they came from Cork Co. </p>
<p>I recommend using Ancestry during the trial period to decide whether or not you like it. If you’re not willing to put in the time, you might be better off just paying a genealogist. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Assuming Charlemagne’s descendents did not quickly die out, wouldn’t just about everyone now with ancestors from western Europe be a descendent of his?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Hungary part of Austria - Hungary included territory now in Slovakia, Ukraine, Romania, and Croatia. The Austria part included territory now in Czech Republic, Bosnia - Herzegovina, Slovania, Poland, Ukraine, and Italy.</p>
<p>Ucb! Not quite what I had in mind but here ya go <a href=“Charlemagne’s DNA and Our Universal Royalty”>http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/05/07/charlemagnes-dna-and-our-universal-royalty/</a></p>
<p>Suppose it also means related to Pepin the Hunchback, Bertha, Drogo, Rotrude, Ruohaid and a few more. Gotta love the old names. </p>
<p>Yes, UCB, I’m aware. We don’t know WHERE in Austria-Hungary he is from and therefore we don’t know what country it would be in now. </p>
<p>I’ve heard that the Mormons have kept extensive records–how does one gain access to them. Do you have to go to Salt Lake? Can anyone have access to the records? </p>