Surprise, surprise, surprise!

[DeeTyler]

Hi folks, I'm new here. And I think I just got a big surprise. LOL

I was expecting our results to show very close values to other descendants of the immigrant ancestor supported by our paper trail.

Surprise, surprise, surprise ....

The first 12 markers of our "paper trail" line are as follows (R1b1):

13 - 23 - 14 - 11 - 11 - 14 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 13 - 13 - 29

However ... the first 12 markers showed by our results are R1a1:

13 - 24 - 16 - 10 - 11 - 14 - 12 - 12 - 11 - 13 - 11 -29

The interesting part of this, is that it seems to connect to Polish and German and other Slavic nationalities, and perhaps a touch of Ashkenazi. The interesting part of this is that our paternal grandmother was Polish, and the paternal great grandmother was German. But our paternal line is "supposedly" an English immigrant that goes back to 1635.

So ... where do I go from here? These results weren't expected and that blows my family tree to bits. LOL

Thanks for any advice to this newbie ...

Dee

[PDHOTLEN]

Hi folks, I'm new here. And I think I just got a big surprise. LOL

I was expecting our results to show very close values to other descendants of the immigrant ancestor supported by our paper trail.

Surprise, surprise, surprise ....

The first 12 markers of our "paper trail" line are as follows (R1b1):

13 - 23 - 14 - 11 - 11 - 14 - 12 - 12 - 12 - 13 - 13 - 29

However ... the first 12 markers showed by our results are R1a1:

13 - 24 - 16 - 10 - 11 - 14 - 12 - 12 - 11 - 13 - 11 -29

The interesting part of this, is that it seems to connect to Polish and German and other Slavic nationalities, and perhaps a touch of Ashkenazi. The interesting part of this is that our paternal grandmother was Polish, and the paternal great grandmother was German. But our paternal line is "supposedly" an English immigrant that goes back to 1635.

So ... where do I go from here? These results weren't expected and that blows my family tree to bits. LOL

Thanks for any advice to this newbie ...

Dee

Don't forget the Norse element(s) in the British Isles.

[DeeTyler]

Would this mean, though, that the connections to the "paper trail" immigrant ancestor of 1635 are not valid and that somewhere along the line there is a break from that surname?

[Kathleen Carrow]

Surprise

Hi Dee

It means that there was a male in that line who does not match the other males.Does that mean they are not related? Not necessarily..the R1a1 could be a cousin line which will crop up later with matches.It could also be a nephew or grandson was raised by the R1b1 and carried that surname.

This has happened in two of my lines but oddly enough not to my own family.
The Fant/Faunt/Font family ( my Grandpop is 1st generation born in America) were on the Limerick /Tipperary /Cork border in one valley area since c 1306 or before.Grandpop's grandfather was born in the same small walled Norman town that we find the family in since that time. We match exactly a man whose family spelled it Font who were from Liverpool c 1802.It surely answered some questions about early origin for that person.

All the families who have tested share a paper trail ( more or less) or share at least tales that they come from this place and were told they were Norman French who splled in "L'enfante" and we all have Walter,Edmund,Williams heavily in our lines.Two of these men do not match the rest nor do they match each other. So my Grandpop's tale was correct but how about others?

My Carrow line which is in THIS country by 1643 is the same .One man of my line( from Delaware) exactly matches the North Carolina line.Both of these lines are separate since 1664 or so.A third testee who lives adjacent to other Carrows in 1800 does not match.

Again we can speculate many things but it does NOT mean there is no relationship but surely no relationship on the Y line.

Irish families who had property in the 1500s (before our paper trails) fostered males of female relatives and these lines of mine are Irish.
My Dugans match NO-ONE!
Kathleen