Wonderful New Ethnicity Browser at Ancestry/Now we can compare

 I thought I was hallucinating when I saw a chromosome browser at AncestryDNA. They now have a beta ethnicity chromosome browser. 

With the new browser we can now compare these ethnicity results with 23&me. At AncestryDNA you can select their parent 1 and parent 2 phased results to display an ethnicity browser showing what you inherited from each parent. 

Since each company has their own ethnicity categories it's a little tricky. 

I actually decided to look at the Sweden Denmark chromosomes from Ancestry first. I have no Scandinavian or Danish results at 23&me. I have no one from these ethnic groups on my family tree going back 7 and more generations. What does 23&Me tell me about chromosome 3 and 8? Part of chr 3 is likely French Canadian as I will explain later. 

23&Me doesn't allow you to select a phased parent to display inherited ethnicity but I can figure out how they phased the results because my mother had indigenous roots and my father didn't. I know the top line of each chromosome is my mother and the bottom is my father. Looking at chromosome 3 23&me is speculating a segment in the same place as Ancestry is British and Irish instead of Swedish and Danish (I believe this is a French Canadian region on the chromosome as I explain later). 

Chromosome 8 is split between broadly Northwest European and Eastern European. Sounds like a portion of chromosome 8 is difficult to place in a category. 

Eastern European makes a lot of sense because my paternal grandfather was Austro-Hungarian. Chromosome 8 might be difficult to place because it likely represents my paternal grandfather who, being from the Austro-Hungarian empire, had a very mixed Eastern European heritage. 

AncestryDNA is giving me more Germanic, all on my father's side, compared to 23&Me. My paternal grandfather was ethnically German. 

23&Me combines French and German in their predictions. I'm guessing the segments from my paternal side are mainly German. I do have French Canadian ancestors but that line is farther back. The German segment on chromosome 9 is being attributed to my mother's side. She did have German ancestors also. AncestryDNA predicts this region of the chromosome is English and Northwest European. I will look at the ethnicity of matches in that region. 

AncestryDNA has an Eastern European Russian category which can be compared with Eastern European at 23&Me. My paternal grandfather was born near Graz, Austria. His family was originally from what is now Burgenland, Austria, today, but used to be Vas, Hungary before WWI. 

AncestryDNA and 23&Me's results seem to line up fairly well when comparing Eastern European predictions. 

23&Me predicts I have more Eastern European segments. They both agree chromosome 11 is from my paternal line and is all Eastern European.

Spanish has always been difficult for the companies to separate out. When I first got my results back, years ago, I had no Spanish admixture. My grandmother Graciela del Castillo was from Nicaragua and definitely has some Spanish ancestry. 

AncestryDNA separates Spanish and Portuguese but 23&Me doesn't so I displayed Spanish and Portuguese by selecting both at Ancestry. 

23&Me is giving me Spanish segments on both paternal and maternal lines. I only have Spanish descent on my mother's side, as far as I know. 

British, Irish, and Scottish are much more complicated to compare because I have substantial ethnicity from these ethnic groups on both sides. I'm not even trying to figure that out. 

I was not able to compare on a continental level with Europe but I could regarding Indigenous American. Comparing at that level the results are much more identical. 

To compare the indigenous results between AncestryDNA and 23&Me I had to select more than one category at Ancestry, that's why the colors are different. Here we see 23&Me segments on the left and AncestryDNA on the right. 23&Me segments are hard to see because the color is so light but they do match up well with AncestryDNA's segments. 

Neither company has been able to find my French. It's completely missing. I have French Canadian DNA matches on my Mason/Masson side. Segments in the regions below are from my French Canadian matches and should be identified as French Canadian. AncestryDNA misidentified this region on chr 3 as Swedish and Danish. The Normans did occupy part of France so this makes some sense. There are even more segments that are French Canadian not shown below. We need more French samples but testing in France is illegal so we aren't likely to see enough French results to assist with identification of the segments. 

Oddly AncestryDNA found French admixture in my mother's results. I have not found any French ancestors on my maternal side. 

AncestryDNA is moving in the right direction by offering this useful tool. If they offered an opt-in matching segment browser I would highly recommend AncestryDNA  as the very best place to test. We hope one chromosome browser leads to another. 

Deciphering the "Extract From Census Forms" For Pensions Ireland

These forms provided me with the maiden names of two of my 2nd great-grandmothers and the marriage dates of two ancestral couples. Anyone 70 and older, who met the income requirements,  and wasn't recently released from prison, was entitled to a pension. They applied at the post office and their pension was paid to them at the post office. 

I've been taking a second look at the pension extract forms to try to figure out more precisely when my ancestors were born. My great-great grandparents' ages vary between 10 and 15 years in the various records I've collected. In one record my great-great grandmother was born before her parents' marriage. According to her death record she would have been a child when her daughter Ellen was born. 

Here is what I've gleaned through closer examination of these records. 

Information Provided by applicant (upper portion)

The information above the centered line, in the mid portion of the form, was mostly what was provided by the applicant. The notations above the line in code were of course made by the office staff. The applicant provided the information which included parents' names and the location of the family in either 1841 or 1851. 

Please state how old  you were and the names of your siblings

There are many common surnames and first names in certain locations in Ireland. The extractors sometimes asked applicants for the names of their siblings in order to locate the correct family. In the case below the extractor asked for the names of the siblings of this applicant in order of birth. 

Below is the applicant provided information for my great-great grandmother Mary Huane-Mullen. In order to qualify for the old age pension she applied for in 1920 she would have had to have been born in 1850, or before. The names of the children are in the birth order favorable to Mary's age claim. I believe she was born after the census year of 1851; she was not found on the census. It appears that the children who were found on the census had their ages added to the list given by Mary. Ages were likely added by  the extractor. It does appear the oldest children in the Huane family were 4 year old twins. The last child listed was Thomas who according to the records I've gathered was indeed the youngest. So it was common for the children to have been listed in birth order, but sometimes this order could have been changed in order to support the applicant's stated age for their pension claim. 

Two Pat Donnellan families so please provide more information

This extractor requested the mother's maiden name and list of siblings to separate two families with the same name. 

Ages added by extractor

Below you can see that the names are written in ink and the ages are later added in pencil from the census form. 

Information added by extractor regarding child's death

Here we see a child is noted as having died. The 1841 and 1851 censuses for Ireland included a table to list deaths of household members that occurred in the past 10 years. Catherine apparently wasn't found. Again the sibling names provided by the applicant were provided with the ages on the census form by the extractor. 

Extractor adds absent to Pats name

There was also a table on the 1841 and 1851 censuses for household members absent on census night. Below absent was added to Pat's name because he appeared listed in that table. The extractor doesn't add the ages of family members because he does that below the line, instead, as we will see. 

Step-sisters noted

Two of the household members below were step-sisters. These forms can provide additional information about relationships. 

Information extracted by pension officials (below mid portion of form)

Marriage date as recorded in the census

Adults were asked for their marriage year if married, they were asked  on the 1841 and 1851 censuses. The early 20th century pension applicants were generally living with their parents in those census years. It's also possible that a few of the applicants were themselves married during the census years. Below is the extracted information for my 2nd great-grandparents Patt & Nelly Mullen who were married in 1837, according to the census. I have found their marriage record and they were married in 1837. 

Lists of siblings of applicants names and ages extracted by officials

These lists appear below the midpoint line on the form. Here we see a list extracted from the actual census rather than provided by the applicant. The list includes ages and information from the death table on the census. Below we see a sibling of the applicant Pat died at age 5 in 1846, according to the census.

Sometimes the extractor went above and beyond

This extractor included a great deal of additional information from the census. This extract was made by the same person who added absent to Pat's name in the example from the applicants portion. This extractor noted they checked the absent table and death table of the census and reported what they found. I had wondered if all tables were checked. They also included the fact one household member was a nephew. 

Bap note what is that? 

I've seen "bap note" recorded on some of the pension forms. I have noticed pension payment amounts are recorded on forms even when the person wasn't found on the census. I wonder if a baptismal record was used instead of the census? 

In my great-great uncle's case it seems that a bap note informed them of the death of Michael's sibling, also named Michael, who died in 1848. I had assumed the death information came from the table in the 1851 census? There is an arrow pointing from the notation to this information. It was common for deaths to be recorded in the church books below a person's baptism. 

Michael Mullen isn't an uncommon name so that could be why he applied again giving his mother's maiden name. Another Michael Mullen could have died in 1848 from a family with the same parents' names. He apparently received his pension or at least a sum for a pension is recorded. His annual award would have been £16.14 annually. 

Certificate of Baptism as alternative

This note on a pension form implies that a baptism certificate could also serve as proof of birthdate. This applicant wanted the large town, near where my own ancestors lived, searched for the family. Without a street name the office wouldn't undertake such a large area search. It was suggested they get a copy of the baptismal certificate. I believe O.A.P means Old Age Pension. 

A side note

My great-great grandmother appears on two pension extraction forms. For some reason her name is crossed out and her brother John's name is added. Her address is given on both forms, and both forms state she was not found. John, however, was found and likely received a pension. Or was her name mistakenly written as John on the census? It's a mystery. 

I'm beginning to be able to decipher these forms after reviewing many of them. It's an interesting subject and not much has been written about these pension forms. 

If anyone has any corrections or additional information please let me know. 

 

The 1841 & 1851 Irish Census Death Information and absent household members

 

My 2nd great-grandfather Patrick Mullen's brother Michael Mullen applied for a pension in April of 1920. He applied before a majority of these census records were lost in the June 1922 fire at the public records office. Unfortunately he didn't get the pension because Pat and Ellen Mullen's children were not listed as living in their household on the 1851 Census. I surmised likely they were visiting local relatives (more on that later). I have seen children staying in the homes of aunts and uncles in the 1901 and 1910 Censuses. 

Something that puzzled me regarding Michael's 1851 census extract is the fact another child of Pat and Ellen is listed as Michael. This child died at age 1 according to this document. I didn't know where this information came from? He died in 1848 according to the extract. I didn't see deaths recorded on the 1851 census form I looked at? 

I emailed the Irish Family History Centre genealogist a question about where this information came from. You can email a question and tune in to their Friday Facebook live stream to get your answer. My question was answered during one of their streams and I found out that there was a separate part of the form that listed deaths that occurred in households over the past 10 years. 

Our family's forms were all lost in the 1922 fire. Forms for some places survived. It's interesting to look at the surviving forms recording deaths. You get an idea of age ranges of death and causes of death in that time period. 

One portion of the form lists members of the household who were alive and absent from the household on the night of the census day, and below that those who were dead. The cause of death was recorded along with the season the death occurred. 

Below you can see ages and causes of death listed. A 52 year old pensioner probably died of an infection that spread from his foot. A 17 year old died of decay? A 2 year old was said to have died of Colic. 

A problem I've run into with my theory that Pat and Ellen's children were staying with family members on census day is the fact they were supposed to be listed on the form as absent . Michael and his brother Patrick were supposed to have been alive in 1851 and should have been listed as absent. They apparently were not listed as absent on that form according the the 1920 census extract form. It's difficult to say exactly when these brothers were born; the surviving documents I've collected don't agree. It's possible they were born after 1851 and they lied about their ages for some reason? According to the records my ancestor Pat Mullen may have been born between 1837 and 1850. With such a wide range of years he could have been born in 1851 even; since the dates are all over the place anything is possible. When my ancestor Pat Mullen married in 1880 his age was given as 30 

According to Pat's death certificate he was 93 years old when he died in 1930.  Dying at an age that advanced would have been unusual for that time period in Ireland. There is longevity in our Mullen family however. His daughter Sr. Mary Kathleen died at age 103. If he were born the year his parents married in 1837 it's possible he was already living away from home in 1851 because child labor was not illegal at the time. That doesn't explain why Michael would have been missing. His tombstone states he was born in 1850. He was younger than Patrick and should have still lived at home. We know the Mullen's had another child named Michael who died in 1848. It would stand to reason that the second Michael would have been born after that. Many of these forms weren't fully filled in so it's possible the census taker failed to ask about absent family members? 

Here is another example of a form with absent household members and deceased household members listed. It was not uncommon for someone to be away from home on census day. 

Correction: I jumped to the wrong conclusion as someone pointed out

I assumed that every person who extracted information from these censuses extracted every name. My Huvane family extract included all of the children not just the applicant. 

Michael Mullen's application says "no return of applicant". So most likely this extractor didn't extract every name. 

The census extract has left me with more questions about when the Mullen children were born and where they were during the census? (Although now we might assume only Michael is missing) With few records surviving the fire and missing church records for the family parish we may never know exactly when the children were born or where they were living on census day 1851. 

The Mystery of Hugh Forgey's land

 Land records in Knox County, Tennessee had been key to establishing possible relationships in Lucille Wallace's book A genealogical history of the Forgy, Forgey and Forgie families in America. She located a land grant for a James Forgey which was for 500 acres on Flat Creek in Knox County, TN.

She assumed that this 500 acres was sold and split between Alexander Forgey, Andrew Forgey, and Hugh Forgey. Below is a snip from the book. 

Actually the land was split between Alexander and Andrew Forgey. Hugh did witness one of the deeds which may have led to the misunderstanding. 

Adding even more confusion was the fact Hugh Forgey sold 250 acres of land on Flat Creek also. 

All of this led Lucille Wallace to assume James Forgey was the father of Alexander, Andrew, and Hugh. It would have been unusual for a father to sell land to his sons. It's most likely this James was the son of Andrew Forgey and Margaret Reynolds. He appears to have bought land as a speculator in several areas. His Reynolds cousins owned land on Flat Creek so he had family ties there. 

Alexander and Andrew were likely brothers. Alexander Forgey, James Forgey's uncle, could have been their father. 

Examining land records we discover Hugh Forgey owned 400 acres on Flat Creek well before the sale of  the 250 acres by James. He was living on Flat Creek in the 1780s. He was definitely much older than Alexander Forgey who was said to have been born in 1780. Hugh Forgey was likely born in the 1760s. 

Hugh Forgey was a chain bearer in Knox County, Tennessee in 1786, again pointing to the fact he was much older than Andrew and Alexander. Both of those men didn't own any land until they bought the land from James in 1802. 

Hugh Forgey actually owned 400 acres on Flat Creek. Hugh Forgey shared a property line with Robert Reynolds. Likely his cousin. He sold off 150 acres in 1798. By coincidence leaving 250 acres. He sold off the remaining 250 acres, on Flat Creek, in 1806.

I have not been able to find a grant or purchase deed for the land Hugh Forgey sold off? The lack of a deed misled Lucille Wallace. 

Recently I have found references to this land in other grants at the NORTH CAROLINA LAND GRANT IMAGES AND DATA website. It appears he likely purchased this grant from William McBroom. or survey. 

Here Hugh Forgey is described as living on William McBroom's survey on Flat Creek in 1793. 

It states Hugh Forgey lives on McBroom's survey. There was a 400 acre grant to McBroom on Flat Creek in 1789. 

I would like to find out when Hugh purchased the 400 acres. I have an index with page numbers for additional deeds but have not located the books these page numbers refer to?

We do know Hugh was living on 400 acres on the west fork of Flat Creek in 1791, according to Robert Reynolds land patent. This entry below, from 1791, refers to Hugh Forgey's 400 acre survey. I have not found a 400 acre survey for Hugh, however. 

As the old deed books began to fade and fall apart deeds were copied into new books. It's possible Hugh Forgey's purchase deed never made it into the newer books? Notations for book and page numbers of other books are often recorded in the margins of the deeds. Below is an example. 

Some of the page numbers I found might refer to an older volume that no longer exists or isn't at the McClung library in Knoxville? 

Hugh and John Forgey were chainbearers for James Reynolds in 1788. We know the Reynolds family is related through Andrew Forgey's wife Margaret Reynolds. 

John is kind of a mystery because he was said to have died in 1793 and James Forgey of Hawkins County, Tennessee was the administrator of his estate. According to Andrew Forgey's, husband of Margaret Reynolds, will John was still alive when Andrew Forgey wrote his will leaving John land in 1809. 

According to Andrew's will Hugh Forgey was living on some of John's land in 1809. There appeared to be a close relationship between Hugh and John. I surmise they were together in Knox County in the 1780s. I see no sign of another John in the records. Maybe John didn't really die in 1793? Hugh was accused of perjury for his testimony in the case regarding the estate of John Forgey. Another John Forgey could also have joined the family, coming out from Ireland. or he could have been Andrew and Alexander's brother? 

Hugh Crawford, son of Nancy Forgey, did mention John and Hugh Forgey in his journal. He remembered seeing John and the fact he lived in Middle Tennessee. His uncle Hugh Forgey died when he was very young and he didn't know much about him. Below is a passage from his journal stating his uncle Hugh Forgey lived in Knox County, Tennessee at one time not far from where he was then living.

 We can with reasonable certainty surmise John and Hugh Forgey were sons of Andrew Forgey and Margaret Reynolds. Andrew and Alexander might be sons of Alexander Forgey, brother of Andrew, who lived in Washington County, Virginia. 

More deed books will eventually come online for Knox County, Tennessee. I might be able to find the deed of sale for Hugh's 400 acres when more books come online? 

Knox County, Tennessee Researchers

The McClung library sent me this list of researchers who specialize in research in Knox County, Tennessee. Personally I'm not interested in hiring a professional, but this might be of help to someone else. 

Native American DNA/Tall Tale or True?

 Many Americans claim Native American ancestry who aren't tribal members. Stories are often passed down in families about Native American ancestors. In some cases the stories are true. Many Americans have turned to DNA to verify these stories. Few people who have tested actually find any traces of Native American DNA in their results. 

When these testers are so confident they have Native American ancestry why isn't it showing up in their results? Here are a few possibilities:

1. The Native American ancestor is too many generations removed from the test taker. It's always best to have someone test who is closer generation wise because we lose portions of our distant ancestors DNA with every generation. 
2. We share a very small trace amount that the companies aren't picking up. If you test with multiple companies there is a chance one will detect this small percentage, which could be less than 1%.
3. Your Native American ancestor was mixed and not 100% Native American leading you to inherit only a trace amount. 

My impression, after many years of genealogy research, is Americans, those living in today's United States, didn't marry Native Americans very often. This is because the European population of Colonial America was large, with a larger population of women than in Central America, South America, and Canada. Most DNA testers in the United States do not have substantial amounts of Native American DNA, most actually don't have any Native American results. 

Fewer women came to the new world from Spain and Portugal. This led to more mixing between Iberian males and  Native Americans. 

There likely would have been more mixing between the  British colonists and Native Americans in the early 17th century, when the population was small, when there were fewer European women in the colonies.

If a person has family from Oklahoma, where eastern tribes were resettled, the chances of having Native American ancestry would be greater.  

The DNA companies get many questions and angry comments from people who are certain they have Native American ancestry which didn't show up in their DNA results. When they tell people it's possible the ancestor lived too far back for this to show up they are being truthful. Another explanation thrown out is the companies don't have good reference populations for Eastern North American Native Americans. This is because the tribal leadership is often against DNA testing. Is this true? Is that why this DNA admixture isn't showing up?

Let's look at my French Canadian DNA matches. Many of these matches still live in Canada and are French speaking even today. If it isn't possible to identify Eastern North American Native in the DNA samples then this admixture wouldn't show up in those living in Eastern Canada either. There was migration and mixing between the Canadian tribes and those south of them. 

Here we see one of my French Canadian matches has 0.80% Native American DNA. Because this is less than 1% I wouldn't look at this as strong proof of Native American ancestry. He does, however, have a Native American mtDNA haplogroup, A2i, proving his direct maternal line is in fact Native American. So the trace amount of Native American DNA is in fact correct. (The haplogroup A2i is found in the following groups:"USA (Hispanic, etc.), Canada (Ojibwa, Prince Edward Island, Pabos in Quebec)".  According to the Wikipedia article "Haplogroup A (mtDNA)" )

Looking at more French Canadian matches I find many with traces of Native American DNA. Here is another case. This match currently lives in Canada and has over 1% Native American DNA. He doesn't however have Native American ancestry in his direct male of female lines, because he has European haplogroups, unlike the previous example. 

Yes, in most cases North Eastern Native American DNA can be detected if present. 

The colonial population of Quebec was very small. They had difficulty attracting French women to settle in Quebec. Also many of the Quebecois were fur traders who would have had close contact with Native Americans. There is definitely more detectable Native American in the French Canadian population than those who settled the United States. 

Basically if your ancestors were from south of the United States border it's nearly certain you have Native American ancestry. If you have French Canadian ancestry you might find traces of Native American admixture. If you have American, United States, ancestry your chances of having Native American ancestry are much lower, unless you are a tribal member. 

 If you're positive the stories in your family are true and would like to prove that with DNA, but you don't have any trace in your results, I would suggest testing at more of the major testing companies or testing more relatives. Check the Y and mtDNA haplogroups of your matches at 23andMe and Family Tree DNA. It's possible, if your ancestors were among the earliest arriving in Virginia, for instance. that you might indeed have Native American ancestry. However, that far back any trace of these ancestors' DNA is probably no longer discernible. If your Native American ancestor was said to have been born in the 19th or 20th centuries you should find traces of their DNA in your results. In a case of a supposed closer ancestor not showing up then the story you were told is just another tall tale.