Geneology - What's yours?

[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.

[gilmore]

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?




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.

You are correct. But genetic genealogy relies not on mere triagulation (3 persons) but on comparing a huge multitude of Y DNA test results, and the more testing, the more accurate and precise the results. As I said, if you go to www.familytreedna.com and look at their FAQ you will see a rather good explanation of how this works.

When you test your Y DNA, it is compared to all the other Y DNA in the company's database, and you are given a list of men whose DNA closely match yours. Some match more closely than others. Specific markers (alleles, or sites on the Y chromosome) are tested and assigned numeric values. The greater the distance in these numeric values, the more distant the relationship and the further back in time the most recent common ancestor (MRCA). The more exact matches, the closer in time was the most recent common ancestor. Due to a huge number of Y DNA result having been tested, a comparison of two men's Y DNA will predict the probability of when their most recent common ancestor lived, based on past results. This is possible because ON AVERAGE each allele or marker mutates at a rate that can be predicted, especially over the generations.

So, merely testing one person without more will tell you very little. Testing three will tell you much more, and in fact, the larger the database, the more likely you are to find some one whose test results are closer to yours, and further, the more precise distance of a relationship those results are likely to show.

Family Tree DNA is the largest genetic genealogical testing company in the world, and has the largest database, as well as the lowest prices that I know of. Genetic genealogy has been commercially available for only 5-7 years and is still in its infancy. I receive news of a new match every several months. It reminds me of how we used to leave queries in card catalogues in genealogical libraries, and receive a response months or years later. Right now it seems to work well in most cases as an adjunct to traditional genealogy in showing you who you are not related to (or rather not related to closely) and where it would be fruitless to research, more than showing you who you are related to. Also, some people seem to simply get tested in hopes of benefiting from the hard work that others have done over the years in tracing the paper trail. But the more people who test, the more information available, and the greater usefulness it will be to all.

Another factor in its usefulness is the ethnic group one is a part of. People of Scots descent use DNA testing with goals pretty much like traditional genealogists, primarily to see how far back one can trace one's ancestry. Jews, especially those of Eastern European descent, are often interested in getting in touch with relatives whose ancestors scattered across the world, fleeing the pogroms of the 19th and early 20th centuries and the Holocaust. African Americans are often interested in establishing family connections that were broken by the slave trade.

For most men, Y DNA testing is casting your bread upon the water. You don't know what you are going to get. You may have close matches and discover a huge treasure trove of genealogical information pushing your patrilineal line back centuries to a glorious, historically significant progenitor. You may discover that you have an ancestor who was one of the 3.7 to 4% of Europeans and Americans who were the product of misattributed paternity, such as adultery. (Or both) You may find that you are related to others whose lines all point to a particular place of origin, but no one has yet worked out exactly what the relationships are. One thing is certain. You will come to a greater appreciation that, while all men may not be brothers, all human males are certainly cousins. Some are just more distant than others.