When DNA changed Jane Feeney’s story
From immigration assumptions to genetic proof of her birth family
This updated account builds on the story first told in early 2018 by Martyn and Christine, both descendants of Jane Feeney. It incorporates the pivotal AncestryDNA breakthrough of October 2017, when new evidence finally linked Jane to her birth family and transformed our understanding of her early life. The narrative has now been further revised to reflect the additional insights revealed through the dramatic growth in AncestryDNA testers since that time.
Jane Feeney, our Killion, Quinn and Hand matriarch, arrived in Sydney on 4 April 1849 aboard The Digby as one of 234 young Irish women known collectively as the “Earl Grey” Famine Orphan Girls. Although years of traditional genealogical research allowed us to reconstruct much of Jane’s life in New South Wales, her origins, parents and siblings remained elusive. It was only with the advent of DNA testing that we were finally able to reconnect Jane with her birth family and unravel clues that had puzzled her descendants for decades.
Jane’s early life in Ireland
Before the DNA breakthrough, our understanding of Jane’s story began in Dublin in 1838, when, aged about fifteen, she was admitted twice to the South Dublin Workhouse from Chambers Street. On both occasions her religion was recorded as Protestant, and her occupation as a plain worker and dressmaker. In November 1848 she left the workhouse to join the Famine Orphan immigration scheme.
She arrived in Sydney on 4 April 1849 and was transferred to the Hyde Park Barracks Female Immigration Depot. After five weeks there, Jane was assigned to Port Macquarie for employment.
Jane’s life in New South Wales
In September 1851, Jane married Irish convict John Killion, 25 years her senior. They had five children before John’s death in 1864. Seven months later she married English convict Thomas Seward, 19 years older than her. This second marriage produced another five children, although the youngest twins died in infancy.
During the late 1870s Jane and her eight surviving children moved further north to Kempsey. Thomas Seward spent time in Darlinghurst Gaol for vagrancy in 1880 and 1881 and was discharged to Liverpool State Hospital on 23 August 1881. He died there on 25 July 1884. The follow year Jane, described as a widow, sold the Killion family land at North Shore, Port Macquarie.
In 1887, Jane married for a third time, to Charles Moran, an Irishman only ten years her senior and a former Royal Navy seaman. Jane died on 11 August 1907 at Kempsey, leaving more than 35 descendants. She is buried in West Kempsey Cemetery.
Was Jane really an orphan? A long-standing mystery
From early in our research, a question lingered: was Jane truly an “orphan” when she arrived?
An entry in the Register of Letters Received by the NSW Immigration Department from June 1850 refers to a letter written by “Jane Feeney of Sydney”, enquiring “respecting her daughter Jane Feeney, an Immigrant per Digby.” Although the letter itself has not survived, the implication was unmistakable — Jane’s mother was alive in Sydney in 1850, contradicting the orphan designation on the passenger list.
Who was this “mother Jane”? After eliminating numerous candidates, we identified a Sydney newspaper report describing the accidental death of a woman named Jane Feeney in July 1852 at Clarence Street, although her funeral notice suggests her home was in nearby Kent Street. Despite this promising lead, no firm connection to “our Jane” could be established. Traditional documentary research alone could not resolve the question. |
|
 |
|
DNA testing: The breakthrough
We undertook all three major types of genealogical DNA testing—Y-DNA, mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and autosomal DNA (atDNA)—testing at AncestryDNA and Family Tree DNA, and uploading our raw DNA data to GEDmatch, an independent comparison site that allows users to compare DNA results across testing companies and to analyse shared chromosomal segments. It was AncestryDNA’s autosomal test, however, that provided the first decisive link between “our Jane” and “mother Jane”.
October 2017 - The first clue
When our AncestryDNA results were compared in early 2017, they confirmed our relationship to one another as third cousins through Jane Feeney and her first husband, John Killion, with 32 centimorgans (cM) of shared autosomal DNA. Centimorgans are the unit used to measure the size of shared autosomal DNA segments and to estimate the likely closeness of a biological relationship.
In October 2017, a previously unknown match appeared in Christine’s match list: Elizabeth, who shared 24 cM with Christine. Elizabeth did not appear as a match with either Martyn or Sue, another descendant of Jane who had tested at AncestryDNA—an outcome entirely consistent with the likely distance of the relationship and the random nature of autosomal DNA inheritance at this level. In their cases, either no DNA was shared or the shared amount fell below AncestryDNA’s reporting threshold, which at that time was approximately 6 cM.
Elizabeth's tree contained only one surname in common with ours — Feeney. Her great-grandfather, Arthur Feeney (1905–1984), became our first significant lead.
Within hours we had identified five additional “unknown Feeney cousins”. Building a composite tree from their information led us to a remarkable discovery: Arthur Feeney’s great-grandmother was likely to be "mother Jane" who wrote to the Immigration Department in 1850.
.png) |
| Tracking DNA matches through Edward, Thomas and Jane |
Against this documentary background, the DNA evidence presented its own challenges. The table below summarises the shared DNA identified between the three tested descendants of “our Jane” and descendants of “mother Jane’s” sons, Edward Feeney and Thomas Feeney.
All of these matches were identified at AncestryDNA. At the time, none could be independently verified at Family Tree DNA or GEDmatch, reflecting both the total number of testers and the limited overlap of testers across platforms in 2017.
Was there enough generic and genealogical evidence to prove that “our Jane” had a mother and siblings living in Sydney when she arrived in 1848?
Why tree triangulation was not sufficient
Every DNA case is different. Many genealogical questions can be resolved by using shared matches and clustering to group related testers, then identifying a common ancestor within each group through tree triangulation. Tree triangulation involves comparing the documented family trees of multiple DNA matches to determine whether they all descend from the same ancestral couple. This approach is often sufficient for closer relationships—particularly up to the third-cousin level—where shared DNA amounts are larger, inheritance patterns are more consistent, and supporting documentary evidence is more readily available.
In this case, however, tree triangulation alone was not sufficient. The number of tested descendants of “our Jane” was small, the shared centimorgan values were modest, and the relationships under investigation lay beyond the third-cousin range. At this level, autosomal DNA inheritance becomes increasingly random: genuine relatives may share only small segments of DNA, or none at all, and the absence of a detectable match cannot be used to exclude a relationship. Conversely, the presence of small amounts of shared DNA cannot, on its own, be taken as evidence of a specific relationship, as such segments may have been inherited from an undocumented common ancestor many generations earlier.
As shown in the table, only one descendant of Edward Feeney and one descendant of Thomas Feeney matched all three descendants of “our Jane”, while other descendants matched only one or two of Jane’s descendants. This uneven pattern is entirely consistent with the expected behaviour of autosomal DNA at this level of relatedness, but on its own it was insufficient to determine a relationship with confidence. The limited number of tested descendants across the Edward, Thomas and “our Jane” lines, combined with the likely distance of the relationships, meant that total shared DNA values and tree triangulation alone were inadequate. A more granular approach was therefore required.
This marked a natural transition from analysing who matched whom and the total amount of shared DNA, to examining where those matches occurred on the genome.
From shared matches to segment-level analysis
Segment-level analysis offered the possibility of determining whether these small, unevenly distributed matches were inherited from the same ancestral source. By identifying overlapping DNA segments shared by multiple descendants of Edward, Thomas and “our Jane,” it would be possible to confirm a common origin for the shared DNA, even where individual matches were modest or inconsistently reported.
While the need for segment-level triangulation was clear, achieving it in practice proved challenging. AncestryDNA does not provide a chromosome browser, making it impossible to examine the precise locations of shared DNA segments within its platform. Confirming the relationship therefore depends on persuading matches to take the additional step of downloading their raw DNA data from AncestryDNA and uploading it to a third-party site that supported chromosome analysis.
The next stage of the investigation involved attempting to engage with the six newly identified Feeney matches. This process was neither quick nor straightforward. It required extensive emailing, phone calls, and in some cases personal visits, to explain the research, address concerns, and provide reassurance about the purpose and value of sharing raw DNA data. As is often the case in family history research, not all potential participants were willing or able to proceed.
Ultimately, three individuals agreed to upload their data to GEDmatch — one descendant of Edward Feeney and two descendants of Thomas Feeney. Although this was a small number, it proved sufficient.
Crucially, we were fortunate that three testers —Helen (a descendant of Edward), Sheridan (a descendant of Thomas), and Martyn (a descendant of “our Jane”) — were able to be compared at the segment level. These three individuals were found to triangulate, meaning that they all shared DNA with each other at the same segment location on Chromosome 20. Also, the total amount of DNA shared by each pair fell within the expected range for fourth cousins, consistent with the proposed generational distance.
 |
| Produced from GEDmatch.com |
This triangulated segment provided the critical genetic evidence that tree triangulation alone could not supply. It demonstrated that descendants of Edward Feeney, Thomas Feeney, and “our Jane” had all inherited the same segment of autosomal DNA from a common ancestral source. When the match with Elizabeth was first identified in 2018, this level of confirmation was not yet possible; at that stage, the evidence was suggestive but insufficient to establish the relationship with confidence.
In addition, an overlapping segment on Chromosome 9 shared by Helen (descendant of Edward) and Martyn and Sue (descendants of “our Jane”) was identified. Although this segment did not triangulate with Elizabeth or Sheridan (descendants of Thomas), it remains significant. Martyn and Sue are third cousins and share no other known common ancestors, making inheritance from the Feeney line the most plausible explanation for this shared segment. This additional evidence further supports the conclusion that “our Jane” was a sibling of Edward and Thomas.
 |
| Produced from DNAPainter |
Taken together, these segment-level findings demonstrate that the modest and uneven DNA matches observed at AncestryDNA were not incidental. Rather, they reflect genuine inheritance from a single ancestral couple: Edward Feeney, a weaver, and his wife Jane Feeney née Baker. While the effort required to obtain and analyse segment data was substantial, it proved essential. This case illustrates an important distinction in genetic genealogy: the identification of a promising DNA match may mark the beginning of an investigation, but confidence comes only later, once sufficient segment-level evidence has been assembled and tested across multiple descendants.
When combined with the documentary evidence—most notably the 1850 Immigration Department correspondence—this genetic proof confirms that “our Jane” was not isolated in the colony, but belonged to a wider Feeney family network already established in Sydney. For decades, researchers had relied on immigration records describing Jane as an orphan whose parents were deceased, leaving little scope to test alternative possibilities using traditional sources alone. Within a year of working with AncestryDNA, and with the cooperation of key testers willing to transfer their results to sites providing chromosome browsers, segment-level triangulation resolved this long-standing unanswered question, providing a level of certainty that tree triangulation alone could not achieve.
More documentary evidence aligns with the genetic findings
As the genetic evidence accumulated, several supporting details in the documentary record also began to align. Jane named her first two sons Edward and Thomas, matching the names of her brothers and reinforcing the emerging family connection.
An unexpected breakthrough came with the discovery of an advertisement in the Sydney Morning Herald of 9 June 1871, in which Edward Feeney, identified as Jane’s brother, offered for sale a 53-acre farm near Port Macquarie—the same property that Jane herself would later sell in 1885. This provided independent documentary evidence of an ongoing connection between Jane and the Sydney-based Feeney family.
 |
|
Further corroboration came from Edward Feeney’s marriage in 1853 to Margaret McCabe, another Digby orphan, at St Mary’s Cathedral, Sydney. In this light, the naming of Jane and John Killion’s youngest daughter Margaret takes on renewed significance, fitting neatly within the broader pattern of family and social ties revealed by both the documentary and genetic evidence.
Reconstructing the Feeney family story
By combining genetic evidence with documentary research, it has been possible to reassemble a family that had been separated by migration, death and distance.
Parents
The family was headed by Edward Feeney, a weaver, who appears to have died in Ireland before 1841, and his wife Jane Feeney née Baker, who arrived in Sydney in 1841 and died there in 1852.Eliza Feeney arrived in Sydney with her mother in 1841. She married John Johnson in Sydney in 1854 and died later that year in Maryborough, Victoria.
Ann Feeney also arrived in 1841. She married Richard Wilkinson in Sydney in 1848 and died there in 1850.
Edward Feeney arrived in Sydney in 1843. He married Margaret McCabe in 1853 and lived out his life in Sydney, where he died in 1898.
Thomas Feeney arrived in 1843 and married Julia Cooke in Sydney in 1858. He remained in Sydney, dying there in 1890.
Jane Feeney (“our Jane”) arrived in Sydney in 1849 and was sent almost immediately to Port Macquarie. She married John Killion, then Thomas Seward, and later Charles Moran, and died at Kempsey in 1907.
By 1855, only Edward and Thomas, together with their families, remained in Sydney. “Our Jane,” having been assigned to work some three hundred kilometres north of Sydney, may never have seen her mother or siblings again after leaving Hyde Park Barracks. Nevertheless, the surviving documentary record—notably the 1850 Immigration Department correspondence and Edward Feeney’s 1871 advertisement relating to Jane’s land at Port Macquarie—demonstrates that contact was maintained, at least by correspondence, long after their physical separation.
December 2025 update - Interpreting the expanded AncestryDNA evidence
Since the original DNA analysis was undertaken, the AncestryDNA database has expanded dramatically, both in the number of testers and in the analytical tools available to researchers. What was once a relatively small and fragmented set of matches has, by December 2025, grown into a dense network of shared matches spanning multiple generations and independent descendant lines of the Feeney family.
Equally significant has been the introduction of enhanced analytical tools, particularly Enhanced Shared Matching, now available through AncestryDNA ProTools. These tools allow shared matches to be viewed, filtered and compared with far greater precision than was possible at the time of the original investigation, making it possible to assess clustering patterns and consistency across branches in a systematic way.
For transparency, the full AncestryDNA shared-match dataset underpinning this analysis is provided as a downloadable PDF (see link above). Because the full table is large and difficult to interpret at a glance, two complementary summaries have been prepared. The first examines the evidence from the perspective of Jane Feeney’s descendants; the second examines the same evidence from the perspective of descendants of her brothers Edward and Thomas. Read together, these summaries allow the expanded dataset to be assessed from both directions and help distinguish isolated matches from repeated patterns of inheritance.
👉 [Download the full AncestryDNA shared-match table (PDF)
Jane Feeney: cumulative DNA patterns across her descendants
Table 1 summarises autosomal DNA sharing at AncestryDNA between descendants of Jane Feeney and descendants of both Edward and Thomas. To maintain analytical discipline, only testers who share DNA with both sibling lines are included. Testers are grouped by generation to reflect the expected decline and increasing variability of shared DNA over time, with observed centimorgan ranges showing the minimum and maximum values reported across those matches.
Inclusion rule:
This table includes only testers who share autosomal DNA with descendants of both Edward Feeney and Thomas Feeney at AncestryDNA.
| Jane descendant | Descended from (Jane’s child) | Observed shared cM range |
|---|---|---|
| Ann | Thomas Killion | 11–53 cM |
| Janice | Annie Seward | 7–135 cM |
| Anthony | Annie Seward | 9–57 cM |
| Brian | Matilda Seward | 10–135 cM |
| Tim | Matilda Seward | 11–115 cM |
| Jane descendant | Descended from (Jane’s child) | Observed shared cM range |
|---|---|---|
| Kiaran | Edward Killion | 8–25 cM |
| Vicki | Rosanna Killion | 7–46 cM |
| Anthony | Rosanna Killion | 18–70 cM |
| Les | Thomas Killion | 9–53 cM |
| Cindy | Thomas Killion | 6–28 cM |
| Martyn | Thomas Killion | 9–57 cM |
| Sue | Mary Jane Killion | 8–55 cM |
| Christine | Margaret Killion | 8–53 cM |
| John | Margaret Killion | 6–17 cM |
| Robert | Margaret Killion | 9–21 cM |
| Ellie | Matilda Seward | 9–63 cM |
| Narelle | Matilda Seward | 9–95 cM |
| Ricky | Matilda Seward | 21–62 cM |
| Jane descendant | Descended from (Jane’s child) | Observed shared cM range |
|---|---|---|
| Megan | Rosanna Killion | 9–26 cM |
| Joanne | Rosanna Killion | 9–23 cM |
| Bradley | Thomas Killion | 9–24 cM |
| Luke | Margaret Killion | 8–26 cM |
| Aaron | Annie Seward | 11–33 cM |
| Karl | Annie Seward | 11–20 cM |
| Sonya | Annie Seward | 8–14 cM |
| Waed | Matilda Seward | 8–73 cM |
What emerges is a pattern of wide but structured variation. Shared DNA amounts differ substantially between individuals, and no single descendant of Edward or Thomas matches all descendants of Jane. This unevenness is entirely consistent with autosomal inheritance at these degrees of separation and remains so even as tester numbers increase.
The significance lies not in any individual match, but in the repeated appearance of shared DNA across multiple independent descendant lines of Jane, Edward and Thomas, now observable at scale. As the dataset has grown, these patterns have not weakened or dispersed; instead, they have become more clearly defined and consistently reproducible. Importantly, the total shared DNA values fall within the expected ranges for the relationships involved.
Edward and Thomas Feeney: reciprocal evidence from the sibling lines
Table 2 presents the same evidence from the opposite direction, showing autosomal DNA sharing among descendants of Edward and Thomas who match Jane’s descendants. Structured in the same way as Table 1, it allows direct comparison across branches and generations.
| Edward/Thomas descendant | Descended from (Edward or Thomas’s child) | Observed shared cM range |
|---|---|---|
| Ronnie | William (Thomas) | 9–135 cM |
| Edward/Thomas descendant | Descended from (Edward or Thomas’s child) | Observed shared cM range |
|---|---|---|
| Helen | William (Edward) | 6–95 cM |
| Graeme | William (Thomas) | 9–40 cM |
| Roselyn | William (Thomas) | 9–95 cM |
| Patricia | William (Thomas) | 9–56 cM |
| Michael | William (Thomas) | 9–135 cM |
| Cath | William (Thomas) | 9–111 cM |
| Richard | William (Thomas) | 15–26 cM |
| Melisah | William (Thomas) | 9–57 cM |
| Les | William (Thomas) | 9–28 cM |
| Corinne | William (Thomas) | 8–53 cM |
| Melissa | William (Thomas) | 13–57 cM |
| Raymond | William (Thomas) | 9–52 cM |
| Kylie | William (Thomas) | 8–95 cM |
| Sheridan | Ethel (Thomas) | 8–57 cM |
| Edward/Thomas descendant | Descended from (Edward or Thomas’s child) | Observed shared cM range |
|---|---|---|
| Neil | William (Edward) | 7–26 cM |
| Joanna | William (Edward) | 7–30 cM |
| Linda | William (Edward) | 10–25 cM |
| Shelly | William (Edward) | 10–46 cM |
| Lauren | William (Thomas) | 6–31 cM |
| Brooke | William (Thomas) | 17–53 cM |
| Abby | William (Thomas) | 7–39 cM |
| Ash | William (Thomas) | 29–40 cM |
| Paul | Ann (Thomas) | 12–42 cM |
| Elizabeth | Arthur (Thomas) | 8–36 cM |
| Robert | Arthur (Thomas) | 24–55 cM |
| Edward/Thomas descendant | Descended from (Edward or Thomas’s child) | Observed shared cM range |
|---|---|---|
| Mira | Edmund (Edward) | 9–13 cM |
| Lyn | Edmund (Edward) | 8–40 cM |
| Mark | Alfred (Thomas) | 9–59 cM |
| Tracey | William (Thomas) | 8–51 cM |
Here too, shared DNA values vary widely and matching is uneven — precisely the pattern expected for autosomal DNA at this level. These are not isolated coincidences but recurring connections observed across multiple children of Edward and Thomas and across successive generations. The reciprocal nature of these patterns reinforces the conclusion drawn from Jane’s descendant data.
When AncestryDNA evidence is sufficient - the Feeney case in 2025
By December 2025, the expanded AncestryDNA dataset provides a level of breadth, density and internal consistency that was not available during the original analysis. The substantially larger number of testers, combined with improved shared-match tools, allows the relationship between Jane, Edward and Thomas to be assessed repeatedly across multiple independent descendant lines.
This outcome is not universal. In many genetic-genealogy investigations — particularly at greater generational depth — chromosome-level analysis remains essential to distinguish between competing hypotheses. In this case, however, the scale and internal consistency of the autosomal evidence now available overcome that requirement. The repeated appearance of shared DNA across numerous descendants of Jane, Edward and Thomas, together with centimorgan values that fall within expected ranges, produces a coherent and reproducible pattern that can be demonstrated using total shared DNA and tree triangulation alone.
Evidence from other testing platforms further contextualises this conclusion. Over the same period, there has been only limited growth in known Feeney descendants at MyHeritage, FamilyTreeDNA and GEDmatch. While chromosome-level analysis at GEDmatch was critical in the earlier stages of the investigation, the relatively small number of additional participants means that such analysis now adds little beyond what can be observed at scale within AncestryDNA itself.
The 2025 evidence therefore clarifies — rather than diminishes — the role of chromosome analysis. Segment-level triangulation was essential when tester numbers were small and shared-match patterns were sparse. With the subsequent expansion of the AncestryDNA database and tools, autosomal shared-match patterns and clustering are now sufficient to demonstrate a consistent and repeated genetic connection across the reconstructed Feeney family.
Methodological takeaway: when AncestryDNA evidence may be sufficient
The level of DNA analysis required in any genealogical investigation depends on both the generational depth of the question and the standard of proof being sought. As a general principle, the further back in time a relationship lies, the more difficult it becomes to distinguish between competing explanations using total shared autosomal DNA and tree triangulation alone.
For relationships at the level of fourth cousins and beyond, shared centimorgan values are typically small and variable, and autosomal inheritance can appear fragmented and uneven. Historically, this meant that chromosome-level analysis was usually required to move beyond suggestive patterns and confirm relationships at this depth.
As demonstrated in the Feeney case, however, this expectation is now beginning to shift. The rapid expansion of the AncestryDNA database means that autosomal evidence can increasingly be observed at scale, across many independent descendant lines. In this investigation, the methodological threshold at which autosomal evidence alone became sufficient was crossed when three conditions were met:
a substantial number of testers across multiple independent descendant lines
consistent shared-match patterns observable in both directions between the families under study
shared centimorgan values that fall within the expected ranges for the relationships being tested
When these conditions are satisfied — and when no competing hypothesis better explains the observed patterns — autosomal shared-match analysis and tree triangulation may, in combination, provide sufficient confirmation. Segment-level analysis remains important earlier in the research process and in more ambiguous cases, but may no longer be necessary once evidence has accumulated to this extent.
In the Feeney investigation, the shared ancestors lie four to six generations back, with the key ancestral couple — Edward Feeney and his wife Jane Baker — most commonly appearing as third great-grandparents (3×GGP) to the testers. At this generational depth, chromosome-level analysis would once have been regarded as essential. In this specific case, however, the scale, density and internal consistency of the autosomal evidence now available support the conclusion beyond reasonable doubt, without the need for further segment-level confirmation.
This does not diminish the value of chromosome analysis in other contexts. Rather, it illustrates how methodological thresholds evolve as databases grow and analytical tools improve, allowing some well-supported conclusions to be reached using autosomal evidence alone.
Conclusion
For many years, Jane Feeney’s origins remained unresolved. Immigration records described her as an orphan whose parents were deceased, leaving questions that could not be tested using documentary evidence alone. Early DNA analysis provided promising leads, but the available evidence was initially constrained by small tester numbers, uneven matching patterns, and the inherent variability of autosomal inheritance at this generational depth.
By December 2025, that situation has changed materially. The substantial growth of the AncestryDNA database, together with improved analytical tools and the participation of many additional descendants, has transformed both the scale and reliability of the evidence. Shared DNA is now observed repeatedly across multiple independent descendant lines of Jane, Edward and Thomas, viewed from both directions and with centimorgan values that fall within the expected ranges for their relationships.
At an earlier stage of the research — and at a depth of four to six generations — chromosome-level analysis was essential to resolve uncertainty and to test competing hypotheses. As the dataset expanded, however, consistent shared-match patterns emerged across numerous branches, reaching a point where additional segment-level analysis no longer altered the outcome. In this specific case, autosomal shared-match analysis and tree triangulation, applied at scale, are sufficient to support the conclusion.
Taken together, the evidence now available supports beyond reasonable doubt that Jane Feeney was a full sibling of Edward and Thomas, and that she belonged to a wider Feeney family network already established in Sydney at the time of her arrival. This conclusion rests not on any single record or DNA match, but on the cumulative weight of documentary evidence and repeated genetic signals observed across many independent lines over time.
Jane Feeney’s story therefore illustrates both the resolution of a long-standing family question and the way genealogical conclusions evolve. As databases grow and tools improve, the balance between different forms of evidence shifts. In this case, the accumulation of autosomal DNA evidence has reached a point at which the conclusion is secure, while the earlier use of chromosome-level analysis remains an essential part of the research pathway that led there.
An invitation to Feeney descendants
This research has been possible only because descendants were willing to test and, just as importantly, to share their AncestryDNA match information. While the evidence now available is strong, genetic genealogy is always enriched as more people participate.
If you are a descendant of the Feeney family — whether through Jane, Edward, Thomas, or another branch — you are warmly invited to contribute. Testing at AncestryDNA, or sharing access to your AncestryDNA match list if you have already tested, can help confirm existing connections, refine relationship estimates, and ensure that this reconstruction remains as accurate and complete as possible.
You do not need to be an expert in DNA, nor do you need to share your entire family tree publicly. Even limited information — such as a match list or the names of shared ancestors — can be valuable when combined with the broader body of evidence already assembled.
If you would like to participate, or simply to ask questions about how your DNA results might fit into this research, please feel free to get in touch. Every additional perspective helps strengthen our shared understanding of the Feeney family story and ensures that it can be preserved, tested and understood for future generations.