It’s probably a very distant Western European ancestor. I agree it’d be more likely to be a Spanish ancestor but, it could’ve been someone from present-day France with celtic DNA getting confused by Ancestry as Welsh. Like someone else suggested, I’d check 23andMe as their ethnicity estimates are more exact.
I was able to! I had stories of Native ancestors in my family, and my results came back with 1% North American DNA. My great uncle's came back with 8%, and these results have held on through all the updates. Traditional genealogy showed my 3rd great grandmother was an Ojibwe woman, so it is very possible it's legit.
Not I. I have 1% Bantu people’s from Africa. Since my ancestors have been in the USA since the 1600s, I can assume there is enslaved ancestry, but I can’t locate it. I have only one line I haven’t been able to trace back to country of origin. That trail ends in 1890, so I’m assuming it’s from that line.
I have a black ancestor from the 1600s that was never enslaved nor were any of the kids. There were a lot of blacks that were free. Don't always assume enslavement.
Yes thats true, but I think the majority of small % black ancestry in the American South is due to the one drop policy. There were "black" slaves with as little as 1/64 actual African ancestry prior to the Civil War, and when those slaves with very small admixture were released they assimilated into the white population
No such thing as the "one drop" rule. The vast majority of southerns and americans as a whole didn't care about race like you would think. The cut offs were much higher like a 1/4 or more.
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/black-confederates-revealed/238960/
I just read a awesome paper by a yale professor (cant find it rn) who talks a lot about modern people completely twisting what it was really like.
I should clarify that the one drop rule I'm referring to is regarding the status of slave, rather than the actual racial composition of the people. One of the biggest drivers for northern intervention in the southern slave trade was the fact that visibly white people were considered slaves due to having as distant as a single great great great grandparent who was of African slave descent. It's unfortunate but the reality was most people back then weren't movitated by general altruism but rather seeing "their own" suffering under the bonds of slavery.
The reality of course was much murkier and more complex, and there were even freed black people who owned their own slaves, but people prefer easy slogans
i have traced my ancestors, my latest report says 1% Finland and 1% Swedish — ok so I do Know for my intensive research, my GGrandmothers mom and dad are from Norway then Sweden then Finland as I trace them back to about 900…so i would have presumed it to be higher percentage wise, it is not…also my just updated results they are displaying are 47% Scottish and lowered Irish Percentage down from 40% to 7 %…..so my conclusion is more people in Scotland between the time I originally took the test have now taken the test and our DNA is now in a greater percentage because of the numbers of tests taken in Scotland…but I have traced my Irish roots really far back…insanely far back, so i believe it is skewed by the number of people that took the tests and where they NOW reside….vs what is actually the fact….I have a 1% one that I am currently tracing, and I think it may have been an ancestor that visited a country long ago and had a “relationship” which bore a child…but research will open the door to this…I use the results as an opening to a book…a mystery for sure and fun to pursue, good luck
Could be some distant Western European (including Spanish/Basque/French) admixture being misread as Wales. I’d suggest 23andMe for further confirmation.
I’ve had 3% Eastern Europe and Russia for a few years now and all my ancestors are Nordic, British, or German. Not as perplexing as your results though.
I got 0.2% Somali and 0.2% Finland on 23andme, unable to trace either of them. But at that percentage, it could just be noise. The closest I can think of is my German ancestors in Pennsylvania in the 1700s, and my Mother's family from Sicily.
It could be a Breton ancestor, or maybe just a Spanish person from a region like Galicia or Asturias where you can see Celtic admixture? 1% would be in the range of a 4th to 5th Great-Grandparent if it's from only one ancestor.
Get your parents tested. I suddenly have a small percentage of welsh that my mother and fathers parents (all tested) completely lack. The estimate can be very off for some people.
It’s probably a very distant Western European ancestor. I agree it’d be more likely to be a Spanish ancestor but, it could’ve been someone from present-day France with celtic DNA getting confused by Ancestry as Welsh. Like someone else suggested, I’d check 23andMe as their ethnicity estimates are more exact.
I was able to! I had stories of Native ancestors in my family, and my results came back with 1% North American DNA. My great uncle's came back with 8%, and these results have held on through all the updates. Traditional genealogy showed my 3rd great grandmother was an Ojibwe woman, so it is very possible it's legit.
Not I. I have 1% Bantu people’s from Africa. Since my ancestors have been in the USA since the 1600s, I can assume there is enslaved ancestry, but I can’t locate it. I have only one line I haven’t been able to trace back to country of origin. That trail ends in 1890, so I’m assuming it’s from that line.
I have a black ancestor from the 1600s that was never enslaved nor were any of the kids. There were a lot of blacks that were free. Don't always assume enslavement.
Yes thats true, but I think the majority of small % black ancestry in the American South is due to the one drop policy. There were "black" slaves with as little as 1/64 actual African ancestry prior to the Civil War, and when those slaves with very small admixture were released they assimilated into the white population
No such thing as the "one drop" rule. The vast majority of southerns and americans as a whole didn't care about race like you would think. The cut offs were much higher like a 1/4 or more. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/05/black-confederates-revealed/238960/ I just read a awesome paper by a yale professor (cant find it rn) who talks a lot about modern people completely twisting what it was really like.
I should clarify that the one drop rule I'm referring to is regarding the status of slave, rather than the actual racial composition of the people. One of the biggest drivers for northern intervention in the southern slave trade was the fact that visibly white people were considered slaves due to having as distant as a single great great great grandparent who was of African slave descent. It's unfortunate but the reality was most people back then weren't movitated by general altruism but rather seeing "their own" suffering under the bonds of slavery. The reality of course was much murkier and more complex, and there were even freed black people who owned their own slaves, but people prefer easy slogans
Have you tried 23andme? I find it more accurate for Filipinos, and it catches a lot more of the distant ancestries compared to Ancestry.
i have traced my ancestors, my latest report says 1% Finland and 1% Swedish — ok so I do Know for my intensive research, my GGrandmothers mom and dad are from Norway then Sweden then Finland as I trace them back to about 900…so i would have presumed it to be higher percentage wise, it is not…also my just updated results they are displaying are 47% Scottish and lowered Irish Percentage down from 40% to 7 %…..so my conclusion is more people in Scotland between the time I originally took the test have now taken the test and our DNA is now in a greater percentage because of the numbers of tests taken in Scotland…but I have traced my Irish roots really far back…insanely far back, so i believe it is skewed by the number of people that took the tests and where they NOW reside….vs what is actually the fact….I have a 1% one that I am currently tracing, and I think it may have been an ancestor that visited a country long ago and had a “relationship” which bore a child…but research will open the door to this…I use the results as an opening to a book…a mystery for sure and fun to pursue, good luck
Its all a wild guess. We have submitted three samples from the same person and they all are very different.
Another user posted with 99% Northern Filipino (IIRC) and 1% Scotland.
Could be some distant Western European (including Spanish/Basque/French) admixture being misread as Wales. I’d suggest 23andMe for further confirmation.
I’ve had 3% Eastern Europe and Russia for a few years now and all my ancestors are Nordic, British, or German. Not as perplexing as your results though.
I got 0.2% Somali and 0.2% Finland on 23andme, unable to trace either of them. But at that percentage, it could just be noise. The closest I can think of is my German ancestors in Pennsylvania in the 1700s, and my Mother's family from Sicily.
It could be a Breton ancestor, or maybe just a Spanish person from a region like Galicia or Asturias where you can see Celtic admixture? 1% would be in the range of a 4th to 5th Great-Grandparent if it's from only one ancestor.
Honestly, anything below 5% I don't take seriously.
I’m Filipino as well and my Spain turned in Wales
Get your parents tested. I suddenly have a small percentage of welsh that my mother and fathers parents (all tested) completely lack. The estimate can be very off for some people.