Geneology - What's yours?

[Erikm]

When I go back through my family history, I can trace some of my Geneology back to Robert The Bruce. But I was told this is a common thing, am I correct?

[gilmore]

When I go back through my family history, I can trace some of my Geneology back to Robert The Bruce. But I was told this is a common thing, am I correct?

It's not unusual to have well-known ancestors. In fact, mathematically it is quite likely, especially if your ancestors came from the British Isles, or Scotland, which had a fairly closed gene pool.

They are, or were in former times, many who enjoy being descended from the famous and colorful, and don't let the facts get in their way. A few decades ago genealogical research was much more amateurish and error-ridden than it is today. So it may have been that some eager relative skipped over a few things, made a few associations that weren't warranted and self-published it.

On the other hand, we are all descended from various monarchs, usually several. It's just that most haven't taken the time to do the research. Virtually everyone of British (or other European) descent descends from gentry, from landowners. Trace the gentry and you will find aristocratic ancestors. Trace them and you will find royalty.

We have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc. If you calculate the numbers in preceding generations, you come up with billions who lived at the time of Robert the Bruce, William the Conqueror, the Magna Carta Sureties, etc. These numbers represent more people who were living on the earth at that time, many more than who were living in the British Isles, in fact, many more humans than had ever lived up to that time. Some did not have children, and some were rather close cousin marriages, but there comes a point where we descend from more people who were living at a particular time than not.

The problem is that it is was (and is) only the rich who are easiest to trace. They left records that are used in genealogical research, such as deeds, wills, marriage records, etc. These were intended to document the transfer of wealth. Poor people left none, having no or little wealth.

E.g., virtually every person of European descent is descended from Charlemagne. However, as the say, we also descend from his stable boy. It's easier to establish the former than the latter.

I descend from several kings, queens, emperors and saints. I am not particularly proud of it, it is an accident of birth, though I am a bit satisfied with the genealogical work that my family has done over the years.

We can look at it another way. Any person who lived several hundred years ago most likely has descendants living today who number in the thousands and millions. Any given person today is likely to be one of them. Edward III of England is sometimes called the father of the British middle classes, since so many can trace their ancestry to him. I am a descendant of Pocahontas, who lived only 400 years ago, but so are approximately 3 million others now living. No big deal. She and her immediate descendants happened to have lived and thrived in an area obsessed with family and genealogy, Viriginia, where it is said that children at taught at an early age about the Byrds and the Lees.

The reward is being able to have a well-documented line, to me, wherever it leads. In fact, when I run across a cache of genealogical information assembled a few decades ago that proudly trumpets famous ancestry and give short shrift to most others listed in it, it's a red flag that often means each and every link in the purported chain is going to have to be investigated and double checked, an indication that that person's work may not be as reliable as one would like.

[ThistleDown]

Soooooo well said, Gilmore! The enjoyment for many is in building the "tree" and, along the way, finding out all sorts of things that make you who you are today. We breed horses and dogs and birds to develop desireable traits and conformation; we generally don't do that with humans, so when we go back in our lines we can come upon all sorts of surprises. In Highland Scotland there are very few records pre-1770, so most often there are big gaps that cannot be filled except by taking guesses. In finding your way back to The Bruce, Erikm, you must actually have found your way into the Bruce line much more recently. Yes?

[gilmore]

...In finding your way back to The Bruce, Erikm, you must actually have found your way into the Bruce line much more recently. Yes?

A descent from Robert the Bruce would not have been found in the or a Bruce line, at least not in a line that descends from him patrilineally. His daughtered out after only one generation, as I recall. His son David died childless, so the Scottish throne was inherited by Robert Stuart, the son of David's sister Margaret.

[ThistleDown]

A descent from Robert the Bruce would not have been found in the or a Bruce line, at least not in a line that descends from him patrilineally. His daughtered out after only one generation, as I recall. His son David died childless, so the Scottish throne was inherited by Robert Stuart, the son of David's sister Margaret.

Just so. I was wondering of Erikm the basis for his suspected descendancy. Robert I (and his brother) had illegitimate children, of course, and there are many collateral Bruce families not descended from Robert I but from his ancestors. See http://genealogics.org/descend.php?p...&generations=6.

[gilmore]

... In Highland Scotland there are very few records pre-1770, so most often there are big gaps that cannot be filled except by taking guesses. ...

No longer. In the last 5-7 years genetic genealogy has come into its own. By testing a man's Y DNA, which we inherit from our fathers, one can determine one's patrilineal ancestry quite well. Go to www.familytreedna.com and take a look at their FAQ. It's often a very helpful adjunct to traditional genealogical methodology. And often more reliable. A paper trail may contain misrepresentations based on wishful ancestry, but DNA doesn't.

[ThistleDown]

No longer. In the last 5-7 years genetic genealogy has come into its own. By testing a man's Y DNA, which we inherit from our fathers, one can determine one's patrilineal ancestry quite well. Go to www.familytreedna.com and take a look at their FAQ. It's often a very helpful adjunct to traditional genealogical methodology. And often more reliable. A paper trail may contain misrepresentations based on wishful ancestry, but DNA doesn't.

Given that there is contributed DNA it is a wonderful advance. My brother found a distant cousin of ours using a service similar to the one you note. They had both contributed samples and, presto!, a connection. The gaps I was referring to, however, are ancestral and I don't think can yet be filled this way, can they? That is, if I am A and know for certain about ancestors B through L from a paper trail, will DNA testing produce M?

[gilmore]

...The gaps I was referring to, however, are ancestral and I don't think can yet be filled this way, can they? That is, if I am A and know for certain about ancestors B through L from a paper trail, will DNA testing produce M?

I am not sure what your question is.

If one man has a paper trail to an ancient ancestor, and another has a dead end more recent than that, and the Y DNA results show that they match, then of course it would be reasonable to conclude that they are descended from a common ancestor.

There are other true gaps--not mere dead ends--- that genetic genealogists claim to have crossed with no paper trail at all. The haplotypes of descendants of Niall of the Seven Hostages and Somerled are said to have been identified.

Also, Genghis Khan's male descendants are said to be identifiable. There are quite a few men of Asian ancestry whose Y DNA shows a common ancestor who lived at the right time and place. Given the early Mongol policy of killing men and taking women as slaves of the areas that resisted them during the period of Mongol conquests, it dovetails with documented history.

Among Jewish men there is the Cohan Modal Haplotype that often but not always occurs in men whose families are said to be kohanim, in other words descendants of Moses' brother Aaron, if I remember the Old Testament correctly.

[ThistleDown]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThistleDown
...The gaps I was referring to, however, are ancestral and I don't think can yet be filled this way, can they? That is, if I am A and know for certain about ancestors B through L from a paper trail, will DNA testing produce M?

I am not sure what your question is.

If one man has a paper trail to an ancient ancestor, and another has a dead end more recent than that, and the Y DNA results show that they match, then of course it would be reasonable to conclude that they are descended from a common ancestor is there not?

There are other true gaps--not mere dead ends--- that genetic genealogists claim to have crossed with no paper trail at all. The haplotypes of descendants of Niall of the Seven Hostages and Somerled are said to have been identified.

No, in your first example you are recognising two present-day individuals' DNA and finding a common ancestor. That's triangulation and, of course, is the science. I am asking if it is possible, through DNA testing of a single person, to discover his ancestor at a specific generation in the past. I don't believe it is and, if not, then there is a "proof" gap at that generation.