what do we make of this feature? personally it's hit and miss, but have found a few links quickly using it. however a little puzzled by it tonight.
it has suggested potential parents of my ancestor thomas poole (c.1807-1833 hawkesbury, gloucester). it tells me 7 dna matches descend from edward poole (1774-1848) and mary butler (1778-1862) of tetbury, gloucester, and justifies this by using ancestry trees....yet none of the trees have my thomas in them? all of these trees have their thomas b.1808 tetbury, but emmigrating to canada and dying there in 1882.
the poole's of gloucester and wiltshire are a convoluted mess, so many of them using the same names. but ancestry is right in that every match with a "poole" i have is a descendant of this family from tetbury. but it is accepted that the thomas in canada is theirs, and his descendants are close matches with the poole/butler family.
so is ancestry onto something? or is it just nuts, like their hints?
it has suggested potential parents of my ancestor thomas poole (c.1807-1833 hawkesbury, gloucester). it tells me 7 dna matches descend from edward poole (1774-1848) and mary butler (1778-1862) of tetbury, gloucester, and justifies this by using ancestry trees....yet none of the trees have my thomas in them? all of these trees have their thomas b.1808 tetbury, but emmigrating to canada and dying there in 1882.
the poole's of gloucester and wiltshire are a convoluted mess, so many of them using the same names. but ancestry is right in that every match with a "poole" i have is a descendant of this family from tetbury. but it is accepted that the thomas in canada is theirs, and his descendants are close matches with the poole/butler family.
so is ancestry onto something? or is it just nuts, like their hints?
Comment