Search billions of records on Ancestry.com
   

Trees of Family Finder, 23andMe and Gedmatch results who have no public trees available

 

These trees consist of my own research and contain considerable material copied from such sources as Ancestry.   Most often anything from the 20th century was researched by myself.   These trees are designed to allow Family Finder, 23andMe, and Gedmatch matches to identify common ancestors that account for blocks of shared DNA between multiple people.   In most cases my efforts to get ancestral information from the people involved didn't even get an answer, and they haven't made sufficient information publicly available from their profile pages.   It must be said that at 23andMe the only way to communicate is on their web site, and, loathe as its creators are to deal with it, most of the most committed 23andMe testees don't visit that site more often than every few months.   Whether they don't want to communicate or don't know anyone is trying to reach them, the result is the same; one must research their ancestors for oneself.    

The 23andMe web site has a completely impractical way to post one's family tree, though more often the problem is that people who test there have no clue how to do genealogical research and little interest, and their families didn't hand down much family history or, as far as I can tell, much else.  The leading reason to test at 23andMe appears to be "it's a cool thing to do".   What most people with actual genealogical know-how do, is put their family trees somewhere else on the web, and post links on their 23andMe profile pages.    Sometimes people give out the ID numbers to locate their genetic matches and their family trees on the Gedmatch system instead.     Family Tree DNA lets you post your family tree, sometimes, available to your matches, and the trees are hard to navigate, as are Ancestry's.   

Many people do not realize that most genetic matches found by these relative finder systems are hundreds of years old; it is rare for a "3rd to 5th cousin" to share more recent ancestry than the 18th century, and common for it to be the 17th century.   Therefore they post information that just doesn't go back far enough.  Also, the common ancestors of your 4th and 5th cousins lived in the 18th century, unless you were born in the 1990's and your lines married young.   

Another common problem is that most people who test at 23andMe think that if, for instance, they share a genetic connection and the Smith surname, the common ancestor has been identified and no further work is needed.   Yup.   I kid you not.   I don't know how many of them have INSISTED that even though their Smith lived in Connecticut and mine lived in Pennsylvania and came from Ireland, that's the link.   Smith.   That's right.   On 23andMe, there's a distinctly related problem of people attempting to collect "cousins" like they would postage stamps.   Some of them are outright looking for multiple wives.   "So what if we aren't related.  Maybe we will be some day!"   There's only one way that I know of for a female to come to be related to a flamboyant egomaniacal male idiot that she isn't related to yet.  I wouldn't put it past some of these characters to collect a whole bunch of wives in concealed captivity in the cellar and the upstairs bedrooms, especially the guy who contacted me six times under six different accounts, with six different names!  The flip side of this problem is that the genetic connection could actually mean something, and people like that think that if they've posted a few surnames on their profiles that's all they have to provide.   No attempt at argument gets anywhere.

All information in these trees is public information from public sources, most often at Ancestry, such as the Texas bmd indexes and the social security death index, and obituaries.   I believe that I've removed personal information on all living people.   If anyone here wants a copy of my information about their ancestors or has put it on their own web site and it no longer needs to be here, please contact me at villandra@gmail.com .   If you feel that you alone own your entire family tree's family history, there was never any benefit to you and me bothering with each other.   

Kate Dehart's ancestry   Kate Dehart and I share a small block of DNA, and share definite late 17th century Dehart ancestry in New Jersey.   That much was apparent from her surname.   A first or second cousin of hers provided that line online.  She and I are both descended from members of the Brooklyn Dehart family who moved from New Jersey to Pennsylvania, and her line soon moved on chasing around after Daniel Boone.   Identifying a common ancestor is only part of the battle with pinning down shared DNA; it is also necessary to rule out sharing more than one ancestor, because people even from very different areas share multiple ancestors if they share one ancestor, as often as not.   We may share Bass ancestry in Connecticut and Massachusetts, and I'm not aware of more than one Bass family having settled in New England before 1850.  Frankly I seem to have a lot of shared DNA from the Bass family and the groups of families in my pedigree they belonged to, and this would be a second for Deharts, even though a Dehart was my great grandmother.    Many of Kate Dehart's lines could not be traced far, which makes it impossible to rule out other ancestral links.  She has the lines that got lost in the midwest and Virginia problem, and she managed to find lines to be descended from in Connecticut and Albany, New York, whose ancestors can't be traced either.   They are heavily concentrated in the midwest and Virginia and North Carolina - the southern highlands path of migration that begins in Appalachia and Virginia, and ends in Texas.   Some of her lines take weird sudden left turns very far back, into Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and Connecticut, but often stop there in the 18th century, leaving it impossible to truly pin down possible multiple lines of ancestry in those places.   In Pennsylvania I can properly identify only the Deharts and people who immediately married into that line in Berks County or in the Oley Valley; however, most of her other Pennsylvania ancestors lived in "Lancaster County", part of which later became Berks County, so the fact that I don't recognize their names doesn't mean anything at all in terms of shared ancestors.   There is also alot of Dutch ancestry that again stops dead before reaching the emigrant ancestors, making it possible that Kate is descended from Dehart line ancestors more than once.   The Deharts were early Dutch settlers of New Amsterdam.  In that time, Dutch families hadn't fully adopted surnames and their surnames often changed in every generation, with different sons or their descendants taking different surnames, and the daughter marrying a Dehart.   Connections can be startling; most Deharts are descended from what became some of the most prominent families of Dutch heritage in New York City.

Kate's ancestry is important because atleast seven people at 23andMe alone match both her and me on the same block of DNA, and their origins aren't as easy to trace.   Kate herself appears to have posted her photo, her father's surname, her mother's surname, and her father's mother's surname, on her profile and created a public profile and then at best not visit the site often enough to see someone trying to contact her.