I'm finally ‘English’! (MyHeritage ethnicity updates)

 It seems that, for many people, when considering DNA testing, it is the 'ethnicity' that they are mainly interested in - how "English" they are, or whether they are a "Viking", or a 'native' to whichever country they live in.  I remember when I first received my Ancestry results, and contacted my closest match - they hadn't even realised that they would be able to find other people who were genetically related to them.  

Whereas, for me, it has always been the DNA matching that was important, in order to confirm (or disprove!) my family history research.  I think that's one advantage of being in a family history organisation like the Guild of One-Name Studies - there have usually been 'pioneers' in any aspect of the research, people who have already gone on ahead and have fed back some of the pros and cons they've discovered.

And so I was aware that, for the ethnicity estimates, the clue is in the name - these are 'estimates', and they depend very much on which reference populations the companies are using.  That didn't mean I took no notice of them - I just took them 'with a pinch of salt', especially when one company, MyHeritage, indicated that I had no English DNA.  

Several of the companies included the UK as part of a general "Northern Europe" grouping, so I hadn't actually noticed at first glance - the following is from a screenshot I took in 2017:

I think one often doesn't notice when something is 'missing', only when it's there but doesn't 'fit'.  So it was only when I explored the maps and figures in more detail that I realised the estimate was showing me as having no English:

  

This was rather strange, considering that, with the exception of one 5xgreat grandfather (a German, who was in England by 1802), every one of my identified ancestral lines is either in England, or in the South Wales border area!

Since these results seemed so far 'off', I haven't paid much attention to the ethnicity estimates at MyHeritage over the years.  

But the companies are always refining these reference populations and MyHeritage has recently released a new update, version 2.5. You can see their blog post about it at https://blog.myheritage.com/2025/02/introducing-ethnicity-estimate-v2-5-improved-dna-ethnicity-model/

I hadn't actually noticed that my initial results, which were from when the ethnicity estimates were still described as "Beta", had been refined slightly, at some stage, by version 0.95:

That had brought in some English, at 3%, with hints of several genetic groups from specific areas within England.

But now, with this latest update, the estimate has changed considerably and is much more in accordance with my known ancestry:

Even the "Germanic" is now showing up!

The above results all come from the same DNA test that I originally transferred to MyHeritage, so it is not that my DNA has changed in any way.  What has changed is the method by which MyHeritage are analysing it, along with their updated reference populations.

As Roberta Estes states in her blog about the update, "the whole purpose of updating ethnicity results is to obtain either more granular results, or more accurate results, or both." ¹

In my case, the update definitely seems to have produced both!

Notes and Sources

1. Roberta Estes blog post about the MyHeritage update - https://dna-explained.com/2025/02/06/myheritage-introduces-ethnicity-v2-5/

DNA progress - Ancestry Pro Tools and my NAYLOR/NAYLER family

 I have made a start on reading about some of the other bloggers' experiences with Pro Tools and found that the main feature they appreciate is the one that I think will also be the most useful to me - the ability to see how much DNA is shared between a specific match and those other matches that the specific match and I have in common. 

I was intending to illustrate this with some data from a few of my first and second cousins.  However, that post will have to wait a while, since a couple of recent new matches on Ancestry have sent me off on a sidetrack.  Since they are also good examples of how Pro Tools can help, I'm going to use the data from them instead.

So how does Pro Tools help?

The two matches happen to be a mother and son. How do I know that?  Because Pro Tools tells me so:

 

The mother matches me by 47cM across two segments (unweighted shared DNA 52cM, longest segment 45cM).  She has a family tree - but there's only one person on it.  The son matches me by 26 cM across one segment (unweighted shared DNA and longest segment both 31cM). He has an unlinked tree, with about fifty people on it.  

Previously, both of the matches would have appeared on my "4th cousin or closer" match list, since they both share more than 20cM with me.  But, when looking at the shared matches, although they would each appear when I viewed the other's list, I would not have been able to confirm the relationship between them, because I only had the family trees to work with. 

Whereas now, with the Pro Tools, Ancestry shows me the quantity of DNA they share between them, as well as telling me the predicted relationship.

A parent/child predicted relationship is the only one that (as far as I am aware) will always be correct and, as relationships become more distant, the predictions by the DNA companies become less reliable, since they are based on a range of possibilities for the quantity of DNA shared. 

But this information is still a major benefit whenever relatively close members of a family have all tested their DNA.

For example, in this case, having seen that the son is the home person on his family tree, I can immediately identify which side of the tree is the relevant one to research, in order to look for our shared ancestry, because I know the connection is through his mother.

If a match happens to have first or second cousins tested, and it is possible to identify where their common ancestry with the match is, then each of those generations back to their shared ancestor also narrows down the relevant portion of their family tree that I would need to focus on.

Without Pro Tools, I might not be able to identify such cousins - in fact, they might not even show up on the shared match list, if the DNA they share with me has fallen below 20cM.  But the fact that Pro Tools seems to show the shared matches where just one of us shares at least 20cM with them, means there are matches on the lists, which I would not have previously seen.

To illustrate this - based on the old 20cM threshold, only twenty-four of my matches would have shown up as shared matches to the mother.    Eleven of these share between 21cM - 25cM with me, five are in the 30cM - 46cM range, and five between 54cM - 59cM. Then the closest three share 78cM, 146cM and 250cM respectively with me.

The last two are my half first cousin, and a half 1st cousin 1 removed, so I recognise them and know where they fit in my family. The next largest, at 78cM, has a family tree with thirty-six people on it, including a Frederick NAYLOR in Hawaii (supposedly b 1870, no birthplace, and no death details given.)  Now, NAYLOR is one of my ancestral names, and it is relevant to the two higher matches, as well.  The unattached family tree on the son's profile also shows a descent from the same Frederick NAYLOR, in Hawaii, as the 78cM match's tree does.

But, other than identifying that these matches are 'potentially' connected to my NAYLOR line, and that the two new matches will probably connect more closely to the 78cM match, based on their tree, I don't think that I'd have been able to identify much more about them.

However, with Pro Tools, there are fifty-three shared matches shown between the mother and I, rather than just the twenty-four.  As well as her son, these include a predicted half-brother or nephew, and seventeen matches with a predicted relationship involving the term "1st cousin".  Nine of these, including the half-brother/nephew, would not have even shown up as shared matches to me, without the Pro Tools, since they share less than 20cM with me.

But they are all close enough to the new match that I should be able to work out how most of them connect to each other.  

A downside to pro tools?

Yes, there is a downside to all this additional information (at least, for me, and the way I work.)  

Previously, before taking out the Pro Tools, I would check on my new matches at Ancestry most days, in order to keep track of the number in the "4th cousin or closer" category.  If that total had increased, I'd view those matches first, check for any shared matches between us and, if there were any, and I'd already made some progress in identifying our connection, I'd add a note to that effect to the new match's profile.  Once any close matches were dealt with, I'd check through the other, more distant, new matches, looking for any that did show shared matches with me and, again, add a note to their profile. Since, without Pro Tools, the only shared matches had to be ones sharing over 20cM with me, I frequently found these, more distant, new matches did not show any shared matches with me.

But, of course, now that Pro Tools means I can see any shared matches that share greater than 20cM with the new match, even if they only share down to 9cM with me, just about everybody shows some shared matches (in a couple of cases seen so far, there's been nine pages of them!)

So, this makes the task of viewing new matches so much more time consuming, and I am going to need to modify my routine - perhaps not even checking the shared matches unless I have some clear indication that there's a 'potentially findable' link to them.

Returning to the two recent new matches…

As indicated above, based on both family trees and other shared matches, it seems the family share ancestry with me, at some level, through the NAYLOR family.  The NAYLOR line is one that quite a few of my matches seem to connect to. (I mentioned the NAYLOR cluster, "Group 1", in my post on 9 August 2017 at https://notjusttheparrys.blogspot.com/2017/08/ancestry-shared-matches-and-new.html.)

Some years ago, because of the number of matches in this group, I constructed a 'rough' family tree, on paper, predominantly derived from other people's family trees (with a little bit of 'fact checking'. :-) ) 

It has remained on paper ever since - mainly because, once I discovered a Herald at the College of Arms in the early 19c was a possible sibling to my line, sifting through the information to distinguish fact from fiction became much more difficult, since there is so much of it!

But now, with Pro Tools showing how my matches relate to each other, I think I will stand more chance of being able to fit my matches into the NAYLOR line, and actually confirm the links, than I was able to do before (bearing in mind that many of them either have no tree, a partial tree, or even an incorrect tree.)

So that has been my 'sidetrack.'  This week I have been entering all of the rough information into FamilyTreeMaker, the program I use for my own personal family history. I am now beginning to check the 'facts' more thoroughly, as best I can, before making the information publicly available on my Ancestry tree.

I don't know whether I shall be able to resolve who the parents of the Fred NAYLOR in Hawaii were - although the son's tree has his birth as England, I do know that other records indicate it was in Australia (and I think there's one record that suggests the USA instead).  There is a potential Fred born in Australia - and at least one researcher on Ancestry has placed the Hawaii Fred into that family - but there is an issue in that Fred's marriage in the US indicates his father was also called Frederick, whereas the father in the Australian birth was a Charles.

It is a common frustration, when an emigration causes such a break in a family line.  I am hoping that, by placing many of my DNA matches onto the tree, I will be able to develop, and test, theories as to where Fred fits.

But it is still a 'work in progress' - and there will be some caveats to the predicted relationships (which I hope to explain further, when I finally get that "1st and 2nd cousins" post written.)

In closing, I'll include the details of two monuments to the family, reported to be in the church of St John the Baptist, Gloucester.¹:

Epitaphs in St. John the Baptist's Church, Gloucester. 

On a large mural tablet in the south aisle : 

Sacred to the Memory of Captain Joshua NAYLER, 

who departed this life 14th Decr. 1750, aged 67 years. 

Also of GEORGE NAYLER, Son of GEORGE NAYLER, 

of this city, Surgeon. who died 19th March, 1750, aged 6 weeks. 

Also of the above GEORGE NAYLER, Esqr. 

only Son of the said Captain JOSHUA NAYLER, 

who died 12th Septr. 1780, aged 58 years. 

He married Sarah, only Child of John Park of Chitherow [sic], 

in the County Palatine of Lancaster, Esqr. by Frances his Wife, 

Daughter and sole Heir of William Osman, Esqr. and grand-daughr. of John Park 

Of Little Urswick, 

in the same county, Esqr. by Margaret Senhouse, his Wife, 

and by the said Sarah had issue six Sons and three Daughters. 

Also of JOSHUA NAYLER, youngest Son of the said George and Sarah Nayler, 

who died 12th Decr. 1787, aged 20 years. 

Also of EDWARD HENRY NAYLER, only Child of Richard Nayler, Esqr. 

(fourth Son of the above George and Sarah Nayler) by Harriot Howe, 

his First Wife, who died 6 Decr. 1792, aged 4 years. 

Also of CHARLOTTE MARY NAYLER, eldest Daughter of George Nayler, Esqr. 

York Herald (fifth Son of the above George and Sarah Nayler,) 

who died 4th Augst. 1794, aged 

Also of the above-named SARAH NAYLER, Widow, 

who died 31st Jany. 1802, aged 78 years. 

Also of FRANCES NAYLER, Second Wife of the above 

Richard Nayler, Esqr. Eldest Daughter and Coheir of Thomas Blunt, 

of Huntley, in this county, Esqr. she died 19th Decr. 1805, aged 35 years. 

Also of the said RICHARD NAYLER, Esqr. 

who departed this Life 6th Decr. 1816, aged 56 years. 

And of MARIA NAYLER, Second Daughter of the above George 

and Sarah Nayler, who died 28th March, 1821, aged 58 years. 

Below the inscription, on a sort of foliaged corbel, is a shield bearing the arms of 

Nayler, and on an escocheon of pretence those of Park and Osman quarterly. 

On another mural monument placed on the same wall— 

Sacred to the Memory of MARY, Wife of THOMAS NAYLER, 

Lieutenant in his Majesty's Marine Forces, and Daughter of 

Thomas Grimshaw of Preston, in the County Palatine of Lancaster, Esq. 

who ended her course of mortality on the 25th day of September, 1790, 

after having sustained with singular Fortitude and Resignation the tedious progress 

of a lingering Disease. 

Reader! if Devotion without pretence, and Charity void of Ostentation, if filial 

Piety and Conjugal Fidelity be Virtues which thy Justice would commend and Zeal 

would emulate: know here was an Example which might have claimed Applause and 

commanded Imitation. 

This is on a white marble tablet with an urn upon it: on a blue marble back-ground, 

of pyramidal shape, is suspended a small shield, Quarterly 1st and 4th Nayler, 2. Park, 

3. Osman; impaling, Or, a griffin segreant sable, for Grimshaw. 

If anyone can confirm that such monuments actually do exist, I'd be very grateful!

Notes and Sources

1. The epitaphs are given in "The Herald and Genealogist" Volume 7, pages 79/80, as part of an article relating to Sir George NAYLER, pages 72 - 80, which is available at https://archive.org/details/heraldgenealogis07nich/page/72/mode/2up?q=nayler 

DNA progress - first steps

 At the end of 2023, Ancestry released their "pro-tools" in the UK.  This is an additional set of tools for family history, and for more advanced DNA research, than are available through their normal subscriptions. But it does require both a current subscription, and additional payments.  Although I was 'tempted' when it was first released, I left it for a while because that was a busy period and I knew I wouldn't have time for research. But I was then disappointed to discover, when I returned to it later, that the monthly cost had already increased from £4.99 to £7.99.  

That put paid to that!

However, a recent post on FB alerted me to the fact there was an offer on (until 20th January), and I have now been able to take out a cheaper option for six months.  I'll see how I get on with it, and how useful it proves to be, as to whether I continue to subscribe, or not.

Of course, the additional tools and information should be of help - for example, it is now possible for me to see how much DNA is shared, and the suggested relationship, between one of my matches and the matches we share.  The thresholds at which the shared matches are shown is also less restricted than it is with the standard tools.  

This will be very useful in cases where several members of a family have tested but perhaps only one or two of them share 20cM or more with me, so the more distant ones didn't previously feature in the shared match list.  This should  make it easier for grouping matches and allocating some of the more distant ones to potential ancestral lines. 

My main hesitation is how to get to grips with recording all of the additional detail.  So my next step will be to read up on some of the blog posts by other researchers, to find out how they are managing the data.

DNA Update

In my last post, I mentioned the need to focus on my own family history again.  One aspect of that is making the most of the opportunities that DNA provides in tracing more distant or 'lost' relatives.  It's been a while since I did any serious work with my DNA results so, as a start, I've updated the graph I initially posted in April 2020¹, showing the numbers of my matches who are predicted to be my "4th cousin or closer" at Ancestry:

I'm currently up to 345 matches in that category.  As can be seen, the rate of increase has slowed down since early 2020, but new matches are still coming in relatively frequently.  I check Ancestry most days and, whenever there are any new matches, the first thing I do is look to see if they have any 'shared matches' with me, since those can help with placing the new match in the correct area of my family tree.  Although the more distant new matches often show no shared matches, most of those in the "4th cousin or closer" category will match 'somebody' and so I can add a note about this to the profile I see for them.   

That's about as far as I've been going over the last few years.  

Back in 2017, I'd worked out how matches tended to group together and what that indicated.²  But everything DNA related seems to have become much more 'complicated' over recent years, what with increasing numbers of matches, changes to the company websites and the information that's now available, and also, consequently, changes to some of the tools used for managing the data.  

It might take me a while to catch up with the best methods for dealing with all these matches now, but at least the "basic principles" about DNA transmission haven't changed, so that the task doesn't feel impossible.

Updates will follow as I make progress!

Notes and Sources
1. Matches graphed in April 2020: https://notjusttheparrys.blogspot.com/2020/04/ancestry-dna-matches-passing-200-4th.html
2. The grouping of shared matches: https://notjusttheparrys.blogspot.com/2017/08/ancestry-shared-matches-and-new.html

Family Connections

I recently had the opportunity to meet up with some of my cousins, and their children, for lunch, which was lovely - so often, as we get older, it seems as if the only time we get together with our more distant relatives is at funerals! 

One of them has also been researching his family history, so it was good to chat about his progress, DNA successes, and experiences with some of the older documents we delve into.  (Although most of my own lines are only traced back into the 1700s, the research I have been doing into a local historic building has involved some documents that are written in Latin - a frustration for me, since I don't understand it!)

Although most of my cousins are not specifically interested in researching, they are now of an age where they have given up work, and have a bit more free time (theoretically!) and, for those who have members of the previous generation still alive, they are also realizing the importance of asking questions 'now', before it's too late.  

This, of course, has prompted discussions about things my parents, who are no longer with us, told me, as opposed to the versions their siblings remember. 

All of which has reminded me of the need to focus on my own family history again - the unwritten stories, the wider research possible now that record availability is so much better than it was when my parents began their research in the 1980s, the opportunities that DNA provides in tracing more distant or 'lost' relatives....  

And the need for getting all of my own research and paperwork organized, so that it is in a good state to pass on to my next generations!