PDA

View Full Version : NW England region - LivingDNA



avalon
07-23-2017, 10:26 AM
Just a question for any other posters here who were assigned NW England region and who have received cautious results- I am still waiting for mine!

Where was your NW England allocated in cautious mode? I have read through some results and have seen this region under various confidence groups, East Anglia related ancestry, NW England related ancestry, North Wales related ancestry and possibly South Wales border ancestry for one poster iirc. Not too sure what to make of all this, and I am not too sure that LivingDNA have really got to the bottom of this region either.

Per POBI, this region consisted of 3 clusters and I still don't know for certain how the LivingDNA test dealt with this or of they did it correctly. I actually suspect that in NE Wales, Shropshire and northern Powys (north of the River Severn), there is further genetic sub-structure that Living DNA/POBI didn't detect, due to lack of sampling. Anyway, thought I might make sense of it through cautious mode if I ever get that!

ollie444
07-23-2017, 11:03 AM
Just a question for any other posters here who were assigned NW England region and who have received cautious results- I am still waiting for mine!

Where was your NW England allocated in cautious mode? I have read through some results and have seen this region under various confidence groups, East Anglia related ancestry, NW England related ancestry, North Wales related ancestry and possibly South Wales border ancestry for one poster iirc. Not too sure what to make of all this, and I am not too sure that LivingDNA have really got to the bottom of this region either.

Per POBI, this region consisted of 3 clusters and I still don't know for certain how the LivingDNA test dealt with this or of they did it correctly. I actually suspect that in NE Wales, Shropshire and northern Powys (north of the River Severn), there is further genetic sub-structure that Living DNA/POBI didn't detect, due to lack of sampling. Anyway, thought I might make sense of it through cautious mode if I ever get that!


My grandfather has 9.5% NW England in standard/complete mode, but none in cautious mode, most odd. Obviously I can't tell, but it looks like it might be being plugged into South Yorkshire related ancestry or South England related ancestry. 1767817679 (Cautious overlaps are South Yorkshire with South Wales Border and South Yorkshire with Cumbria related ancestry) 17680 Worth mentioning that my grandfather's ancestry from the South of England and SWS & NI is virtually zilch.

EDIT: You might as well just have the full results: https://my.livingdna.com/share/3e4abfce-6f97-11e7-94f4-5254002fd1a4
Despite what the results show, his ancestry is very focused: 1/4 Worcestershire, 1/4 Shropshire, 1/4 Leeds, 1/8 Devon, 1/8 (unsure, possibly Irish?) (actually found a tad of South Yorkshire on his Devon line, which explains a bit of the lowered Devon % and raised South Yorkshire%)

Quick question: has anyone see a cautious grouping that focuses on the midlands?

MacEochaidh
07-23-2017, 05:07 PM
I have NW England under my East Anglia - related ancestry, but I also have Cumbria at 11.3%. NW England did not show up in Complete or Standard mode.

deadly77
07-23-2017, 05:40 PM
I have NW England as 15.6% in standard/complete mode - it's the region with the second highest percentage in my results after Northumbria.

In cautious mode, I have 31.2% NW England-related. The map of the cautious region looks to me like it includes NW England, Cumbria, SW Border and Lincolnshire. North Wales remained separate in cautious mode.

However, Sktibo noticed that when you add up the percentages for those cautious regions, it doesn't add up and that's the case here: NW Eng (15.6%)+SW Border (9.6%)+Cumbria (7.5%)+Lincolnshire (2.5%)=35.1%, a bit different to the 31.2% that LivingDNA gives me for cautious mode. If I add up geographically neighbouring regions of NW Eng (15.6%)+SW Border (9.6%)+Central England (3.9%)+South Yorkshire (2.2%) I get to 31.3% which is closer. That's more apparent when I add up cautious Northumbria-related (according to LivingDNA a combination of Northumbria, Devon, Ireland, NW Scotland; actually a combination of my Northumbria, Cumbria, SW Scotland/N Ireland=48.2%) and cautious Cornwall-related (should be Cornwall+S England, actually Cornwall+Devon) - attached screenshots if you want to check the maths.

176881768917690

sktibo
07-23-2017, 06:17 PM
I have NW England as 15.6% in standard/complete mode - it's the region with the second highest percentage in my results after Northumbria.

In cautious mode, I have 31.2% NW England-related. The map of the cautious region looks to me like it includes NW England, Cumbria, SW Border and Lincolnshire. North Wales remained separate in cautious mode.

However, Sktibo noticed that when you add up the percentages for those cautious regions, it doesn't add up and that's the case here: NW Eng (15.6%)+SW Border (9.6%)+Cumbria (7.5%)+Lincolnshire (2.5%)=35.1%, a bit different to the 31.2% that LivingDNA gives me for cautious mode. If I add up geographically neighbouring regions of NW Eng (15.6%)+SW Border (9.6%)+Central England (3.9%)+South Yorkshire (2.2%) I get to 31.3% which is closer. That's more apparent when I add up cautious Northumbria-related (according to LivingDNA a combination of Northumbria, Devon, Ireland, NW Scotland; actually a combination of my Northumbria, Cumbria, SW Scotland/N Ireland=48.2%) and cautious Cornwall-related (should be Cornwall+S England, actually Cornwall+Devon) - attached screenshots if you want to check the maths.

176881768917690

I think that for the time being it is best for us to ignore what Living DNA claims to be related areas and look at which regions are actually combined to get our cautious mode percentages, as you have displayed with your examples.

I did ask Living DNA why they group such strange regions together (such as Orkney and SW Scotland, or Orkney and Iberia........ ) and they never got back to me, I don't think they will. Perhaps this indicates they don't have a solid foundation for their strange groupings (Northumbria plus Ireland, Devon, and NW Scotland... Really guys? :) I don't buy it. ) Of course the regions which are ACTUALLY grouped when you add them up make perfect sense.

evon
07-23-2017, 06:36 PM
My UK % in all modes:
http://i68.tinypic.com/2hf6hd5.jpg

sktibo
07-23-2017, 06:57 PM
My UK % in all modes:
http://i68.tinypic.com/2hf6hd5.jpg

Very interesting evon, your NW England is combined with Central England... I would have thought Cumbria would be it's natural combination but I noticed your Cumbria is on complete mode and your NW England plus Central adds up exactly. NW England continues to be one of the most interesting and mysterious Living DNA regions.

deadly77
07-23-2017, 07:03 PM
Very interesting evon, your NW England is combined with Central England... I would have thought Cumbria would be it's natural combination but I noticed your Cumbria is on complete mode and your NW England plus Central adds up exactly. NW England continues to be one of the most interesting and mysterious Living DNA regions.

Yes, it's the same for me - in cautious my Cumbria percentage gets counted as part of Northumbria-related and Central England gets counted as part of NW England-related.

sktibo
07-23-2017, 07:35 PM
Yes, it's the same for me - in cautious my Cumbria percentage gets counted as part of Northumbria-related and Central England gets counted as part of NW England-related.

I was just thinking, and I'd like some other opinions - that we could compile a post for the Living DNA section that shows which cautious regions are actually grouped together. People could use it as a reference to see what their cautious combinations actually are rather than Living DNA's "Wild Guess" combinations (As I like to think of them)

sktibo
07-23-2017, 07:48 PM
My grandfather has 9.5% NW England in standard/complete mode, but none in cautious mode, most odd. Obviously I can't tell, but it looks like it might be being plugged into South Yorkshire related ancestry or South England related ancestry. 1767817679 (Cautious overlaps are South Yorkshire with South Wales Border and South Yorkshire with Cumbria related ancestry) 17680 Worth mentioning that my grandfather's ancestry from the South of England and SWS & NI is virtually zilch.

EDIT: You might as well just have the full results: https://my.livingdna.com/share/3e4abfce-6f97-11e7-94f4-5254002fd1a4
Despite what the results show, his ancestry is very focused: 1/4 Worcestershire, 1/4 Shropshire, 1/4 Leeds, 1/8 Devon, 1/8 (unsure, possibly Irish?) (actually found a tad of South Yorkshire on his Devon line, which explains a bit of the lowered Devon % and raised South Yorkshire%)

Quick question: has anyone see a cautious grouping that focuses on the midlands?

Your NW England is grouped with your South Yorkshire.. 9.5 + 34.3 = 43.8

psampson
07-23-2017, 08:07 PM
NW England is 50.2% in cautious mode & 29% in standard and complete mode. Lincolnshire appears with this region in cautious mode only, then I get Central England (16.3% in standard mode)

avalon
07-23-2017, 08:27 PM
My grandfather has 9.5% NW England in standard/complete mode, but none in cautious mode, most odd. Obviously I can't tell, but it looks like it might be being plugged into South Yorkshire related ancestry or South England related ancestry. 1767817679 (Cautious overlaps are South Yorkshire with South Wales Border and South Yorkshire with Cumbria related ancestry) 17680 Worth mentioning that my grandfather's ancestry from the South of England and SWS & NI is virtually zilch.

EDIT: You might as well just have the full results: https://my.livingdna.com/share/3e4abfce-6f97-11e7-94f4-5254002fd1a4
Despite what the results show, his ancestry is very focused: 1/4 Worcestershire, 1/4 Shropshire, 1/4 Leeds, 1/8 Devon, 1/8 (unsure, possibly Irish?) (actually found a tad of South Yorkshire on his Devon line, which explains a bit of the lowered Devon % and raised South Yorkshire%)

Quick question: has anyone see a cautious grouping that focuses on the midlands?

Good point, I don't think I have seen a "Central England related ancestry."

Pylsteen
07-23-2017, 08:47 PM
I have these in cautious results; substituting in standard results I get however for the East Anglian-related 25,6% Sout-East England, 20,2% Lincolnshire, 6,5% East Anglia, and for Northumbrian-related 3,2% SW Scotland/N Ireland and 2,1% Cumbria, which is interesting, since the last one falls in East-Anglia related category in the cautious map.

17700

avalon
07-23-2017, 08:49 PM
It does seem from the responses so far that LivingDNA's cautious mode is still a work in progress. Seem strange that on the one hand NW England can be grouped with East Anglia, but for another poster it can be grouped with South Wales Border?

Have they explained anywhere how they arrived at the groupings of regions? Is it based on similar genetic contributions from continental sources, eg Germany, France, etc.

avalon
07-23-2017, 08:51 PM
I have these in cautious results; no NW England in standard or complete though.

17700

I'd love to know how they group Devon and NW Scotland together?

Pylsteen
07-23-2017, 08:55 PM
I'd love to know how they group Devon and NW Scotland together?

Yes, that would be interesting to know; strange thing is, when substituting, I get Devon in the complete mode, but it comes from the GB unassigned category.

Pylsteen
07-23-2017, 08:58 PM
I find the whole cautious map quite good though; more "Frankish" and no 19% Scandinavian, which I get in standard mode. Overlap between NW Europe related and GB related (those North Sea tribes...).

17702

deadly77
07-23-2017, 09:00 PM
I think that the cautious modes collect a few regions together, and then the one with the highest contributing percentage is the primarily named related. For example, my NW England related appears to contain NW England (highest) and also SW Border, Central England, South Yorkshire. Ollie444 has South Yorkshire has largest percentage so in cautious mode his South Yorkshire and NW England are combined into South Yorkshire related.

Seems to me that someone would get Central England-related in cautious mode if that was the largest percentage out of Central England, NW England, South Wales Border, South Yorkshire (and possibly other regions that may be in this cautious group - testers are only going to see the the regions where they have a percentage in standard mode).

However, perhaps it's not as simple as that - it looks like Ollie444's South Wales Border gets claimed as part of South Wales-related ancestry (South Wales Border 3.1+ South Wales 1.4=4.5%) while my South Wales border gets collected as part of NW-England related. Maybe there's a hierarchy of which regions can be claimed.

sktibo
07-23-2017, 09:46 PM
I think that the cautious modes collect a few regions together, and then the one with the highest contributing percentage is the primarily named related. For example, my NW England related appears to contain NW England (highest) and also SW Border, Central England, South Yorkshire. Ollie444 has South Yorkshire has largest percentage so in cautious mode his South Yorkshire and NW England are combined into South Yorkshire related.

Seems to me that someone would get Central England-related in cautious mode if that was the largest percentage out of Central England, NW England, South Wales Border, South Yorkshire (and possibly other regions that may be in this cautious group - testers are only going to see the the regions where they have a percentage in standard mode).

However, perhaps it's not as simple as that - it looks like Ollie444's South Wales Border gets claimed as part of South Wales-related ancestry (South Wales Border 3.1+ South Wales 1.4=4.5%) while my South Wales border gets collected as part of NW-England related. Maybe there's a hierarchy of which regions can be claimed.

Weird exceptions seem to happen often with "Orkney Related Ancestry" which often appears to be primarily based off of Aberdeenshire, is especially interesting in the case of Firemonkey's results in which he actually has no Orkney percentage and Aberdeenshire forms the basis of this cautious grouping for him

FionnSneachta
07-23-2017, 10:46 PM
Mine seem to be pretty normal in terms of cautious grouping but my regions are generally all in the west and south. You would think that North and South Wales would be grouped together. These are my cautious groupings:

Southwest Scotland related 61.3%
Southwest Scotland & Northern Ireland 36.4%, Ireland 19.6%, Northwest Scotland 5.3%

Southeast England related 13.8%
Southeast England 6.7%, South Central England 5%, South England 2.1%

Cornwall related 6.9%
Cornwall 4.1%, Devon 2.8%

South Wales related 4.4%
South Wales 4.4%

North Wales related 3%
North Wales 3%

Orkney related 2.1%
Orkney 2.1

My unassigned included North Yorkshire 4.7%, East Anglia 2% and Scandinavia 1.8% which adds up to 6.7% Great Britain unassigned and 1.8% Europe unassigned.

17705

Stephen1986
07-24-2017, 06:10 AM
A large part of my ancestry is from NW England, here's what I get. The region is always my largest component -

Complete 36.15
Standard 36.1%
Cautious (listed as part of North Wales related ancestry) 39.5%

E_M81_I3A
07-24-2017, 06:21 AM
I think all these results are not very reliable as even someone with no ancestor from Great Britain like me gets 25% :

Great Britain and Ireland 25.2%

East Anglia-related ancestry 20.3%
Cumbria-related ancestry 3.8%
South Wales-related ancestry 1.1

avalon
07-24-2017, 07:00 AM
I think that the cautious modes collect a few regions together, and then the one with the highest contributing percentage is the primarily named related. For example, my NW England related appears to contain NW England (highest) and also SW Border, Central England, South Yorkshire. Ollie444 has South Yorkshire has largest percentage so in cautious mode his South Yorkshire and NW England are combined into South Yorkshire related.

Yes, the hierarchy of regional % makes sense and in your case the groupings make sense as all these regions border with NW England.


Seems to me that someone would get Central England-related in cautious mode if that was the largest percentage out of Central England, NW England, South Wales Border, South Yorkshire (and possibly other regions that may be in this cautious group - testers are only going to see the the regions where they have a percentage in standard mode).

Yes, good point, I don't recall anyone with Central England as the highest %. In fact, I believe in sktibo and ollie's case they are missing Central England %.


However, perhaps it's not as simple as that - it looks like Ollie444's South Wales Border gets claimed as part of South Wales-related ancestry (South Wales Border 3.1+ South Wales 1.4=4.5%) while my South Wales border gets collected as part of NW-England related. Maybe there's a hierarchy of which regions can be claimed.

This is the bit I am struggling to get my head round - the slight variations we are seeing between cautious modes for different people, in this case South Wales Borders is a good example as i have also seen it grouped with South Central England and South England and possibly even Devon but can't remember for certain. And then in your case South Wales Border is grouped with regions further north. There must be a reason why we see this variation from one set of results to the next.

avalon
07-24-2017, 07:08 AM
Mine seem to be pretty normal in terms of cautious grouping but my regions are generally all in the west and south. You would think that North and South Wales would be grouped together.

If you remember from POBI though, North and South Wales were found to be quite different genetically (within an Isles context). In the analysis they separated very early in the clustering K=3.

avalon
07-24-2017, 07:15 AM
A large part of my ancestry is from NW England, here's what I get. The region is always my largest component -

Complete 36.15
Standard 36.1%
Cautious (listed as part of North Wales related ancestry) 39.5%

Do you have any known Welsh ancestry? And if you don't mind me asking, where is your NW England ancestry from? My NW England is 48% and have quite a lot of ancestry from NE Wales (Flintshire and Denbighshire) but just to confuse matters I also have plenty of ancestry from nearby Lancashire and Cheshire.

timberwolf
07-24-2017, 07:22 AM
I think all these results are not very reliable as even someone with no ancestor from Great Britain like me gets 25% :

Great Britain and Ireland 25.2%

East Anglia-related ancestry 20.3%
Cumbria-related ancestry 3.8%
South Wales-related ancestry 1.1

How did the rest of your results, compare to your paper trail? France?

I would think 25.2 British/Irish is a lot for someone who has no ancestry from that part of the world. Something is wrong.

evon
07-24-2017, 08:44 AM
I find the whole cautious map quite good though; more "Frankish" and no 19% Scandinavian, which I get in standard mode. Overlap between NW Europe related and GB related (those North Sea tribes...).

17702

I think non-brits who are from northern Europe will all get this NW European designation, I dont think we should read too much into it..
http://i65.tinypic.com/2elxnac.jpg



Also UK in cautious NW region in blue
http://i67.tinypic.com/24e53pw.jpg

ollie444
07-24-2017, 10:11 AM
Your NW England is grouped with your South Yorkshire.. 9.5 + 34.3 = 43.8

Whoops! Missed that completely. I guess I just assumed the South Yorkshire percentage was the same in cautious. Thanks.

Stephen1986
07-24-2017, 03:38 PM
Do you have any known Welsh ancestry? And if you don't mind me asking, where is your NW England ancestry from? My NW England is 48% and have quite a lot of ancestry from NE Wales (Flintshire and Denbighshire) but just to confuse matters I also have plenty of ancestry from nearby Lancashire and Cheshire.

My known Welsh ancestry is via a Welsh 5x great grandmother from Barmouth and possibly some Welsh ancestry from various places along the border where I have English ancestry such as Gloucestershire and Cheshire.

Much of my ancestry is from Lancashire, which includes Merseyside and Greater Manchester, and Cheshire.

avalon
07-24-2017, 08:33 PM
My known Welsh ancestry is via a Welsh 5x great grandmother from Barmouth and possibly some Welsh ancestry from various places along the border where I have English ancestry such as Gloucestershire and Cheshire.

Much of my ancestry is from Lancashire, which includes Merseyside and Greater Manchester, and Cheshire.

I just looked back at your complete results and I noticed you did get assigned small amounts of North Wales % so looks like the LivingDNA test may have picked up ancestry from your Barmouth ancestor.

Your results interest me because like you I have ancestry from similar areas, Greater Manchester, Cheshire, and your NW England, along with your South Wales Border and North Wales, has been assigned to North Wales related ancestry in cautious mode, whereas other people have had their NW England assigned to a different cautious group. Very interesting, looking forward to what they do with mine.

Phoebe Watts
07-25-2017, 06:29 PM
I'm glad I saw this thread. I have been trying to get my head round similar "inconsistencies" with the cautious mode.

My family is from North Wales (half my 3xgreat grandparents) and South-West Wales (half my 3xgreat grandparents) with known ancestors from elsewhere in the UK in earlier generations. In standard mode this is reflected as 39.7% North Wales and 4.4% NW England (for Flintshire perhaps); and 27.7% South Wales. The other large percentage is 10.0% South Central England.

In cautious mode the South Wales and NW England attributions disappear and the percentages are bundled in with South Central England into South Wales Borders related.

So in my case, it isn't bundled into the largest region as suggested:

I think that the cautious modes collect a few regions together, and then the one with the highest contributing percentage is the primarily named related. For example, my NW England related appears to contain NW England (highest) and also SW Border, Central England, South Yorkshire. Ollie444 has South Yorkshire has largest percentage so in cautious mode his South Yorkshire and NW England are combined into South Yorkshire related.

Seems to me that someone would get Central England-related in cautious mode if that was the largest percentage out of Central England, NW England, South Wales Border, South Yorkshire (and possibly other regions that may be in this cautious group - testers are only going to see the the regions where they have a percentage in standard mode).

However, perhaps it's not as simple as that - it looks like Ollie444's South Wales Border gets claimed as part of South Wales-related ancestry (South Wales Border 3.1+ South Wales 1.4=4.5%) while my South Wales border gets collected as part of NW-England related. Maybe there's a hierarchy of which regions can be claimed.

I have asked Living DNA about it but I don't really understand the response. I think I should just wait for the cautious mode to be updated!

Robert1
07-25-2017, 11:26 PM
I have 10% NW England and 4.7% South Yorkshire in Standard and Complete modes. In Cautious Mode it appears these are added to form South Yorkshire related ancestry of 14.8%.

deadly77
07-26-2017, 02:48 AM
I'm glad I saw this thread. I have been trying to get my head round similar "inconsistencies" with the cautious mode.

My family is from North Wales (half my 3xgreat grandparents) and South-West Wales (half my 3xgreat grandparents) with known ancestors from elsewhere in the UK in earlier generations. In standard mode this is reflected as 39.7% North Wales and 4.4% NW England (for Flintshire perhaps); and 27.7% South Wales. The other large percentage is 10.0% South Central England.

In cautious mode the South Wales and NW England attributions disappear and the percentages are bundled in with South Central England into South Wales Borders related.

So in my case, it isn't bundled into the largest region as suggested:


I have asked Living DNA about it but I don't really understand the response. I think I should just wait for the cautious mode to be updated!

Well, I was going off a sample of two, so it was bound to fall down with more data. And I do say in the third paragraph that it's probably not as simple as that. That is odd though - Ollie444 gets separate cautious regions for South Wales/South Wales Border and NW England/Central England while you have all four together. The only difference I can see is that Ollie444 has South Yorkshire which may affect how the cautious regions are split up. Regardless, the maps that LivingDNA provides with their cautious regions clearly have nothing to do with the percentages generated.

avalon
07-26-2017, 09:07 AM
I'm glad I saw this thread. I have been trying to get my head round similar "inconsistencies" with the cautious mode.

My family is from North Wales (half my 3xgreat grandparents) and South-West Wales (half my 3xgreat grandparents) with known ancestors from elsewhere in the UK in earlier generations. In standard mode this is reflected as 39.7% North Wales and 4.4% NW England (for Flintshire perhaps); and 27.7% South Wales. The other large percentage is 10.0% South Central England.

In cautious mode the South Wales and NW England attributions disappear and the percentages are bundled in with South Central England into South Wales Borders related.

So in my case, it isn't bundled into the largest region as suggested:


I have asked Living DNA about it but I don't really understand the response. I think I should just wait for the cautious mode to be updated!

Interesting. Which parts of North Wales are your ancestors from?

Phoebe Watts
07-26-2017, 12:29 PM
Interesting. Which parts of North Wales are your ancestors from?

My grandfather from Anglesey. My grandmother's family from around Dwygyfylchi and Bethesda in Caernarfonshire; Mold and Rhosesmor in Flintshire; and Betws-yn-Rhos in Denbighshire

Phoebe Watts
07-26-2017, 12:59 PM
Well, I was going off a sample of two, so it was bound to fall down with more data. And I do say in the third paragraph that it's probably not as simple as that. That is odd though - Ollie444 gets separate cautious regions for South Wales/South Wales Border and NW England/Central England while you have all four together. The only difference I can see is that Ollie444 has South Yorkshire which may affect how the cautious regions are split up. Regardless, the maps that LivingDNA provides with their cautious regions clearly have nothing to do with the percentages generated.

It does seem that cautious view is presenting an alternative view for some of us, rather than a more cautious view of the original/standard allocation. And you are right about the LivingDNA maps - this is where it looks as if some of the standard allocations are disappearing.

avalon
07-26-2017, 01:17 PM
My grandfather from Anglesey. My grandmother's family from around Dwygyfylchi and Bethesda in Caernarfonshire; Mold and Rhosesmor in Flintshire; and Betws-yn-Rhos in Denbighshire

I think 39% is the highest I've seen for North Wales on this forum. Would you say that your 4.4% NW England matches your known Flintshire ancestry? What did you get for cautious North Wales? Sorry for all the questions but N Wales ancestry is quite rare on this forum.

My ancestry is roughly 12.5% from Merionethshire, 12.5% from Flintshire (Llanasa, Gwaenysgor) and 12.5% Denbighshire (Rhuddlan area mainly) and per LivingDNA it looks like my Flintshire/Denbighshire side has been assigned to NW England, which I must admit came as a big surprise when i got my results.

Phoebe Watts
07-26-2017, 02:09 PM
I think 39% is the highest I've seen for North Wales on this forum. Would you say that your 4.4% NW England matches your known Flintshire ancestry? What did you get for cautious North Wales? Sorry for all the questions but N Wales ancestry is quite rare on this forum.

My ancestry is roughly 12.5% from Merionithshire, 12.5% from Flintshire (Llanasa, Gwaenysgor) and 12.5% Denbighshire (Rhuddlan area mainly) and per LivingDNA it looks like my Flintshire/Denbighshire side has been assigned to NW England, which I must admit came as a big surprise when i got my results.

My 39% North Wales is the same in all modes. The Flintshire ancestry is very close to the border and some of the maps and keys I have seen - I'm not sure if it was for LivingDNA or for POBI - are suggesting that Flintshire is in with NW England. The C19th migration between Wales and Merseyside might be another explanation though.

One great grandfather was from Flintshire (his mother born in Llanasa). The family were lead miners so his ancestry is quite a mixture but the research suggests about 8% say attributable to Flintshire.

avalon
07-26-2017, 07:55 PM
My 39% North Wales is the same in all modes. The Flintshire ancestry is very close to the border and some of the maps and keys I have seen - I'm not sure if it was for LivingDNA or for POBI - are suggesting that Flintshire is in with NW England. The C19th migration between Wales and Merseyside might be another explanation though.

One great grandfather was from Flintshire (his mother born in Llanasa). The family were lead miners so his ancestry is quite a mixture but the research suggests about 8% say attributable to Flintshire.

Good point about the 19th century Welsh in Merseyside and vice versa, it's not something I had considered before with respect to LivingDNA but it might be a factor. On the point about miners, I have also read about lead miners from Derbyshire moving to Flintshire in the 1600/1700s, although on my family tree there is no record of this - the names are pretty much all Welsh, but admittedly I have only really gone back about 5 generations and should probably do some more research.

As things currently stand, I think that Flintshire and perhaps Eastern parts of Denbighshire (with the River Clwyd a rough boundary) differ somewhat genetically from the rest of North Wales (thinking about rural people here as large towns are often more mixed anyway). Genetically, Flintshire may be more similar to other Welsh counties along the border such as Monmouthshire, Eastern Powys, etc, and this might be why your NW England gets assigned to South Wales Borders in cautious mode. In the original POBI analysis the "Welsh Borders" cluster did include parts of NW England.

Phoebe Watts
07-26-2017, 09:15 PM
Good point about the 19th century Welsh in Merseyside and vice versa, it's not something I had considered before with respect to LivingDNA but it might be a factor. On the point about miners, I have also read about lead miners from Derbyshire moving to Flintshire in the 1600/1700s, although on my family tree there is no record of this - the names are pretty much all Welsh, but admittedly I have only really gone back about 5 generations and should probably do some more research.

As things currently stand, I think that Flintshire and perhaps Eastern parts of Denbighshire (with the River Clwyd a rough boundary) differ somewhat genetically from the rest of North Wales (thinking about rural people here as large towns are often more mixed anyway). Genetically, Flintshire may be more similar to other Welsh counties along the border such as Monmouthshire, Eastern Powys, etc, and this might be why your NW England gets assigned to South Wales Borders in cautious mode. In the original POBI analysis the "Welsh Borders" cluster did include parts of NW England.

Thank you, that sounds about right for genetic similarity. I got back to early 1700s in Flintshire parish register transcriptions and poor law records. The Harrison and Booley names appearing in early 1700s had disappeared in my direct lines by 1800 and the families seem to be thoroughly integrated by then too. So it should be well worth doing the research.

avalon
07-27-2017, 06:36 AM
Thank you, that sounds about right for genetic similarity. I got back to early 1700s in Flintshire parish register transcriptions and poor law records. The Harrison and Booley names appearing in early 1700s had disappeared in my direct lines by 1800 and the families seem to be thoroughly integrated by then too. So it should be well worth doing the research.

By the way, welcome to anthrogenica!

sktibo
08-19-2017, 11:50 PM
Avalon,
Did you get your updated results yet?

Judith
08-21-2017, 08:18 PM
I'm glad I saw this thread. I have been trying to get my head round similar "inconsistencies" with the cautious mode.

My family is from North Wales (half my 3xgreat grandparents) and South-West Wales (half my 3xgreat grandparents) with known ancestors from elsewhere in the UK in earlier generations. In standard mode this is reflected as 39.7% North Wales and 4.4% NW England (for Flintshire perhaps); and 27.7% South Wales. The other large percentage is 10.0% South Central

I have asked Living DNA about it but I don't really understand the response. I think I should just wait for the cautious mode to be updated!
Hi Phoebe
Can you post the response from livingDNA please? (You may have to post it as your signature though, because of your low post count).
Someone here may be able to help you understand it better, and we would all learn in the process.
I have followed a number of my 'cousins' down the generations from rural Shropshire to South Wales in the mining industry. In the process I found that Shropshire had significant coal mining many 100s years ago.
So depending how far back you have gone that may be one version of your heritage and another version is that underlying Midland and North West looks like Welsh what they all have in common is lower Saxon than east England.

Phoebe Watts
08-21-2017, 10:01 PM
Hi Judith,

You asked about a previous post on this thread:



Can you post the response from livingDNA please? (You may have to post it as your signature though, because of your low post count).
Someone here may be able to help you understand it better, and we would all learn in the process.
I have followed a number of my 'cousins' down the generations from rural Shropshire to South Wales in the mining industry. In the process I found that Shropshire had significant coal mining many 100s years ago.
So depending how far back you have gone that may be one version of your heritage and another version is that underlying Midland and North West looks like Welsh what they all have in common is lower Saxon than east England.

My question to LivingDNA was about their "cautious" mode. I will post on a new thread.

Judith
08-22-2017, 10:42 AM
I think I should have contributed to this thread earlier, but holidays got 182481824918250 in the way (shame!?)
These are my brothers results

What I am finding as I go further back is that some of my Cheshire lines are in part southern Lancashire since people moved as the industrial revolution gathered pace. So I am not surprised that livingDNA are struggling with separating us all. My father thought that he was pure Cheshire and was proudly so, but more than 200 years ago people had already moved into industrial central Cheshire. He would have appeared to be an ideal sample for pobi with 4 grandparents within 10 miles however, and even one/two generations further back.
Sorry for duplication but this may be the better thread!

avalon
08-25-2017, 07:14 PM
Avalon,
Did you get your updated results yet?

No, nothing yet! They have replied to my queries though so I don't think they have forgotten about me. Probably just busy with one guy sitting at a computer on his own processing thousands of tests. :)

avalon
08-25-2017, 07:34 PM
I think I should have contributed to this thread earlier, but holidays got 182481824918250 in the way (shame!?)
These are my brothers results

What I am finding as I go further back is that some of my Cheshire lines are in part southern Lancashire since people moved as the industrial revolution gathered pace. So I am not surprised that livingDNA are struggling with separating us all. My father thought that he was pure Cheshire and was proudly so, but more than 200 years ago people had already moved into industrial central Cheshire. He would have appeared to be an ideal sample for pobi with 4 grandparents within 10 miles however, and even one/two generations further back.
Sorry for duplication but this may be the better thread!

What I find interesting is that in your brother's case, his standard mode NW England ancestry is assigned to Central England related ancestry in cautious mode, along with Lincolnshire and Central England. So this is another example of how the NW England placement in cautious mode appears to vary from one poster to the next.

I think this goes back to the original POBI analysis of NW England which showed a mixture of 3 different clusters, so as I see it NW England is perhaps a genetically mixed region, at least compared to somewhere like East Anglia, which is why the cautious results seem to vary so much.

Judith
08-25-2017, 10:04 PM
Yes, good point, I don't recall anyone with Central England as the highest %. In fact, I believe in sktibo and ollie's case they are missing Central England %.

.
Hi Avalon, my brother's results have central England as the highest % in cautious mode.From knowing our tree it gives me some other ideas, namely my mum has two tight clusters of Derbyshire and of near Burton on Trent. BoT could be ancient Lincolnshire since I have a lot of brick walls, just no clues on the next generation back.Then she has Cheshire and Shropshire bits too. So that should give her a strong but scrambled central England. My dad has about half from west Cheshire agricultural labourers only 10 miles from the Welsh and Shropshire border, which may be a genetically mixed area. His other central Cheshire agricultural labourers will be fairly stable geographically too. But that leaves about a quarter of his inheritance which is turning out to be from a broader North West area. Coupled with their difficulty detecting Cheshire and Shropshire and north east wales then they do not know what to call it and it ends up labelled South Central or south east England, or Devon.
From other posters on this thread livingDNA recognise North West as Cumbria most easily but in historical times we know that that area was settled by different tribes, even with a local language.

avalon
08-28-2017, 08:13 AM
Hi Avalon, my brother's results have central England as the highest % in cautious mode.From knowing our tree it gives me some other ideas, namely my mum has two tight clusters of Derbyshire and of near Burton on Trent. BoT could be ancient Lincolnshire since I have a lot of brick walls, just no clues on the next generation back.Then she has Cheshire and Shropshire bits too. So that should give her a strong but scrambled central England. My dad has about half from west Cheshire agricultural labourers only 10 miles from the Welsh and Shropshire border, which may be a genetically mixed area. His other central Cheshire agricultural labourers will be fairly stable geographically too. But that leaves about a quarter of his inheritance which is turning out to be from a broader North West area. Coupled with their difficulty detecting Cheshire and Shropshire and north east wales then they do not know what to call it and it ends up labelled South Central or south east England, or Devon.
From other posters on this thread livingDNA recognise North West as Cumbria most easily but in historical times we know that that area was settled by different tribes, even with a local language.

Just comparing your LivingDNA results to the paper trail recorded in your tag line, I noticed that LivingDNA assigns you ancestry in places like SE England, East Anglia and Lincolnshire in which you have no recorded ancestry. So it could mean one of two things, either some of your ancestors from NW and Central England had deeper roots more to the east and south, or that some of your ancestry is just very similar to that from the SE or East England, and that LivingDNA haven't been able to break down the red squares cluster accurately.

I would say that your Lancs and Shropshire (15%) has been assigned to NW England in complete mode, which could mean that some of your Cheshire ancestry has been assigned to Central England and by the same token some of your Derbyshire and BoT ancestry has been assigned elsewhere, eg Southern or Eastern England.

I think that the NW England region is awkward because it consists of three clusters per POBI. Lancashire appears to have more of the blue triangles that are associated with West Yorkshire. You then have the Welsh Borders cluster which is concentrated more in Western Cheshire/Merseyside and probably in Shropshire too, and then there is also the red squares cluster that is quite heavily concentrated in Cheshire. I actually suspect, based on red squares that a lot of Cheshire ancestry is very similar to Staffordshire and Derbyshire ancestry.

Here are detailed POBI maps if you hadn';t already seen them. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14230.html?foxtrotcallback=true#supplementar y-information

avalon
09-13-2017, 01:37 PM
Well, finally got my cautious/complete update from LivingDNA!! Tbh, I think they had been done a while ago but some sort of technical glitch meant my portal wasn't working properly and they have now fixed it.

Initial thoughts: There are no surprises. This test broadly matches my known ancestry back to about 5 generations so overall I would say the LivingDNA test is pretty good for me, though by no means perfect, based on the data available to them.

The Central England is higher than expected but there is probably a lot of genetic overlap between Central England and NW England so not surprising really. As before, I think my NE Wales ancestry has been assigned to NW England, and I think that with more sampling from Denbighshire and Flintshire, LivingDNA would have an improved dataset and be able to make results even more accurate.

The cautious is very interesting as historically I can see how that whole stretch of land from Cumbria down to the South Wales Borders is likely to be similar genetically but I am not quite sure why Lincolnshire should be part of this cautious group. Not sure about that one!?

18720

18721

sktibo
09-13-2017, 04:03 PM
Well, finally got my cautious/complete update from LivingDNA!! Tbh, I think they had been done a while ago but some sort of technical glitch meant my portal wasn't working properly and they have now fixed it.

Initial thoughts: There are no surprises. This test broadly matches my known ancestry back to about 5 generations so overall I would say the LivingDNA test is pretty good for me, though by no means perfect, based on the data available to them.

The Central England is higher than expected but there is probably a lot of genetic overlap between Central England and NW England so not surprising really. As before, I think my NE Wales ancestry has been assigned to NW England, and I think that with more sampling from Denbighshire and Flintshire, LivingDNA would have an improved dataset and be able to make results even more accurate.

The cautious is very interesting as historically I can see how that whole stretch of land from Cumbria down to the South Wales Borders is likely to be similar genetically but I am not quite sure why Lincolnshire should be part of this cautious group. Not sure about that one!?

18720

18721

No changes to your standard mode with the calculator change? Most of us got some or more Aberdeenshire out of that!

avalon
09-13-2017, 05:37 PM
No changes to your standard mode with the calculator change? Most of us got some or more Aberdeenshire out of that!

Yes, in complete mode I picked up that small Cumbrian% which I didn't have before but the main change is that my NW England has gone down and my Central England has gone up.