Genealogy Chat

Still a fascinating topic though. Was in just my family who used the phrase with reference to a child's father being the milkman's?

It's a phrase I absolutely detest. Both my children belong to my husband but when they were babies they both had very fair hair whereas R and I both have much darker. I got so fed up of my parents and their friends never-ending 'joking' yet again (including to any old stranger in the supermarket) that I'd obviously been with someone else other than R I threatened to belt the next person who made the comment. Grrrr

As the old saying goes....."It's a wise child that knows its father"

This thread is nearly seven years old.

I imagine that reasearch into this has moved on considerably in the intervening years.

Andy

The only 'True Line' must be taken from the mother. That's a fact! Most Eastern Europeans search thier history through the female line, not the Father.

Follow your Mothers folks.

Very interesting subject, thanks for bringing this up. :-)

Paul My brother has just given a DNA sample (don't know if its the LDS project but it might be) as a result of a request by a number of people with the same Ancestral name as us. They are all Americans and are wishing to "prove" that they are from an english descent. However,a misunderstanding of the DNA test seems widespread. This particular test is on the Y-chromosome - the one which makes you male. It will either prove that my brother IS related to them, or it will prove he is not. But that doesnt mean he isnt related to them, it merely means that they do not have a common ancestor on the Y-chromosome! As a man inherits his Y chromosome from his previous male ancestor only i.e. his father, if a man has only daughters, the Y chromosome OF THAT MAN is lost. His daughter's sons will have the y chromosome of their father - but that does not make them any less the Grandsons of their mother's father, and their RECOMBINANT DNA holds an equal amount of information inherited from all four grandparents parents etc. Obviously, if you go back five generations, a man has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 gt gr, 16 gtgtgr, 32 ggg - giving him 31 male ancestors - but he will only have inherited ONE Y-chromosome, from his father. This by no means proves that he does not share an ancestor in common with Joe Bloggs, who may have exactly the same family tree at generation five, but be descended from a female of that tree. So, don't read too much into DNA testing, well certainly not the Y chromosome test. To be absolutely sure of anything, you need a recombinant DNA test, highly complicated and impossibly expensive for all but murderers! Add to this that you at most only have access to 4 living generations, and the whole thing becomes a pointless nonsense. Far better to follow the recorded tree and leave impossible speculations alone. I too have grave doubts about surveys which "prove" that 10% of men are not the fathers of their children. I recently read of a survey of 1000 children who were awaiting organ transplants. 23% were not the child of the man who thought he was their father. I really do not believe this can be true.

How often have you heard don't know where they got that from, its not in our family. Well to prove a lot of people wrong, Uncle Ted gave us a picture of granddad when he was a lot younger, surprise surprise, his grandson looks just like him. The father didn't look anything like granddad, and the jokes that were going round. Now there is no mistaking it. Irene

Very interesting comments on this subject! Wouldn't it be interesting to have a voluntary geneology pool into which we could "donate" our DNA information? The only problem would be to make sure the information doesn't get into the wrong hands! Has anyone heard of a group in Salt Lake City which is doing just that: you donate a saliva sample and a family chart going back at least 4or 5 generations...I think they're trying to get 100000 individuals to participate....anyway, I'm one who would like to trace the blood line.....so I'm going to start working on the maternal side.

I feel much the same as Brenda. I'm not too worried about an accurate bloodline..the circumstances of 'my people' seem far more important and relative to me today than proving a DNA match. Often find myself tracing the most remote relatives if their lives seem interesting. But a fascinating thread....we should have more like this!

I must admit that I have found my maternal line more satisfying to trace as it has been easier in some ways. However one deviation from my own tracing was one illegitimate William Noble which has left me guessing who the father might have been amongst all the other William Nobles in the village. Some can be discounted by age, but in such a small village you can almost "feel" the vindictiveness of the mother in the naming of her illegitimate son. You may not want to marry me, but I will certainly let everybody know who the father is!! This all back in the early 1800's so unless people are using the actual registers, there is room for future genealogists to be taking the wrong turning and I am sure there are many more like this out there. Right father but .......! That line would make interesting DNA testing. Wonder if I will ever come across them. Janet

An acquaintance who is a geneticist has cast doubt on some of the statistics quoted. In layman's terms, insufficient dna markers have been used to demonstrate that men have a common male ancestor. Several men with his distinctive surname quite clearly have different male progenitures. It all depends whether you are concerned with the nature or the nurture element. Personally, as a family historian, I am much more interested in the circumstances that formed my ancestors lives, while recognising that some skeletons are never going to fall out of the cupboard. My personal Eve had a daughter by "her husband's son". She then married, and the twins were baptised 3 days later. I am descended from both of the twins, but am not at all sure that her second husband was my ancestor. The coyness of the register means I have no idea of her first husband's name, or that of his son, so she emerges from the mists of history as Venus from the waves! Brenda

Paul I think that you're referring to that wonderful euphemism: a "non-paternal event"! i.e. where the registered "father" was not the biological father. Actually, it's a bit of a misnomer, as without a pater, there would be no event! The question is of course, is the pater the one who you think it is? I read somewhere (on these boards, I think) that only about 2% of births could be attributed to non-paternal events, not 10%. Nevertheless, if you've traced back all your lines to your GGG-grandparents, chances are that on average you would have 1 or 2 such occurrences in your tree. The only way to be 100% sure that you have no such non-paternal events in your tree is through DNA testing, but this only works through the male line. e.g. if you have a distant (male) cousin who you believe is descended from a common ancestor, both of you via an all-male line, then DNA testing of both you and him will confirm/disprove it. Apparently, the test can even give you a rough estimate of the number of intervening generations. It's probably of most use for single-name studies, to see whether a particular surname group is descended from a common ancestor or not. Females would of course need to find a brother or father, etc who were willing to give a sample in their place. Google "DNA genealogy" for lots of interesting links.

Wow, another interesting subject. Now I am doing ALL my family history, BUT i totally understand what you all have said about the maternal side. I have actually done most with my paternal side I have to admit. Maybe I had better think again!

Paul I agree with Marjorie on this one, it is well known that Men do seem to have this thing about their own children through the ages??? For one reason or another they don't always believe the parentage. I think 10% is a far too high figure. I am concerntrating on my maternal line, I also prefer trying to get all the females and will continue that line as far as it will take me. Pat x

Paul This is a subject which greatly interests me from a scientific point of view. The generally accepted figure for "wrong fathers" is, I believe, averaged at 3%. However, statistics can prove anything you want them to. The "test" populations which proved that 10% (or more) of fathers were not the fathers of their children (phew! does that make sense?) were taken from various sources - a prenatal clinic attended by registered drug addicts,was one source, another was that of returning american servicemen - again, 10% were not the fathers of their children. No-one, so far as I know, has done a survey of say, the children of Vicars! However, let us accept the overall average of 3%.This is the same for every generation, it is not cumulative, so for every generation of your family, there is a three percent chance that one person will not be the child of the right father. But in earlier times,it was very difficult for most women to commit adultery - they were simply too well-watched, either by their husbans or the community as a whole. Adultery by women was punished by excommunication from the Church,an absolutely terrible punishment which must have kept many women in line, if nothing else did! Yours is a question I often see asked - it has been asked by men since the dawn of history and is one of the reasons that women have been oppressed in almost every culture of the world - men have been ever fearful that they are not the true fathers of their children. As you say, a truer line appears if you trace only females. Many countries and religions already recognise this. Finland, for instance, traces descent down the mother's line and if you are Jewish, you get your Jewishness from your mother, not your father. Can I gently say, perhaps this is not the hobby for you! Genealogy is only ever an educated guess, based on what has been recorded. Whether people told the truth when they made those records is pretty much unprovable.

Interesting point you make Paul. Not so good for someone like me though, my maternal line is a completely muddled up bunch, with illegitmacy and adoption galore! Thankfully I am the image of my dad so no question of paternity there :P (I hope!) although he has 3 bros and 3 sisters and they're all very different. Funny how 2 sets of genes can create so many combinations isn't it!

Mitochondrial DNA is passed from grandmother to mother to daughter; the Y chromosome is passed from grandfather to father to son. Hence you can trace direct ancestry in one gender (your own). The 10% figure is also what I heard, although I imagine in times of war or hardship this skyrocketed! It doesn't guarantee a pure maternal line though, as a childless couple may 'adopt' a baby, perhaps from a relative with many children already, or take in orphaned nieces/nephews. Illegitimate children were also given to married aunts and uncles and registered as their baby , to prevent shaming the unwed woman.

Paul Since the only way of proving fatherhood is through DNA I don't see how anyone could have any real figures. With some relatives you can see a likeness [though to play devil's advocate it could mean their grandad or uncle was their true father]. nell

I saw a TV programme where they traced people's ethnic origins through the female (mitrochondrial?) DNA, and could place the exact tribe in Africa where your ancestors started out. For some reason it had to be the maternal line that they followed. Natalie

I've heard that on avg, 1 in 10 fathers listed on a child's birth cert are actually not the real biological father....I think it's very tempting for someone tracing a family tree to trace their own surname down the generations. Well, I've gone back 9 generations in Liverpool, where the 1 in 10 number is probably very low considering many were out at sea for long, long......LONG periods of time.....and it's a crapshoot: perhaps one of the latest ancestors was biologically wrong- this would negate all those who came before him! Having thought about it, would it not make sense to search the maternal line, thereby virtually guaranteeing that I'm researching my actual blood relations? I realize that mistakes still happen, but the male line is a real question mark. Does anyone have any hard numbers on this subject? I can't recall the source for the 1 in 10 number- can anyone correct or corroborate me? Curious.