RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: coombs on Monday 31 August 20 22:51 BST (UK)
-
I did start a thread a few years ago about infidelity in our ancestors days, and how there is a 2% chance of a non paternal event in your tree, and several replies were that women were more conservative back then and I agree, also they did not drive like we do and they were busy bringing children up a lot, and everyone knew everyone's business.
But if you were to find a non paternal event in your tree, would you dismiss that male as an ancestor, or would you still see them as an ancestor, seeing as they bought your subsequent ancestor up, gave them their surname, and shaped them and subsequent descendants. I think most of us, including me would go for the latter. Someone once said to me in a discussion years ago "If they bought them up and nurtured them, and disciplined them when need be, does it matter if they were the blood father?".
-
That's a very interesting question.
I think I'd probably see them as an ancestor of sorts.
Now I'm, finally, writing up the family history I've been doing a lot of background research into what was going on in the world around the people I'm writing about. I consider them to be shaped by their environment, so it wouldn't be correct for me to just dismiss the people they lived with as an influence, even if they were not their biological parents.
-
In soap opera Emmerdale, Lawrence White told his daughter Chrissie "You are my daughter in every way but biology" when she was told he was not her biological father. I am sure that applies to any real life situations in parents or further back such as ancestors. "Ancestors in every way but biology"
-
Nature or Nurture? An old question that has been debated back and forth for hundreds of years. I side with nurture.
We had an occurrence in the village some 20+ years ago. A husband and wife could not conceive and not for want of trying. The wife has a short, but eventful affair and falls pregnant. A baby boy is born and for the next 14 years all is bliss. The boy was everything that a parent could want in a child and husband and wife were rightfully proud of him. The "father" (unmarried with no known children) was jealous. It came to a head at that year's village fete.
All the main players were there, plus the 2 village gossips, when the "father" announced that he was the father and the boy was his son. SCANDAL was about to happen. (Unbeknownst to everyone the husband, wife and son had discussed the situation some years before.) There was silence for a moment, that felt like an hour. The boy walked to the husband and said "You're my Dad - He's just a sperm donor. Lets go home."
I am very pleased to say that everybody (apart from the "father") lived happily ever after.
Yes, I am very firmly on the side of nurture.
Regards
Chas
-
I did start a thread a few years ago about infidelity in our ancestors days, and how there is a 2% chance of a non paternal event in your tree, and several replies were that women were more conservative back then and I agree, also they did not drive like we do and they were busy bringing children up a lot, and everyone knew everyone's business.
But if you were to find a non paternal event in your tree, would you dismiss that male as an ancestor, or would you still see them as an ancestor, seeing as they bought your subsequent ancestor up, gave them their surname, and shaped them and subsequent descendants. I think most of us, including me would go for the latter. Someone once said to me in a discussion years ago "If they bought them up and nurtured them, and disciplined them when need be, does it matter if they were the blood father?".
That all depends on whether you want to tag the people on you tree or you add anyone and everyone who was a major influence in your family's life.
I suppose it boils down to the difference between genealogy and family history!
Cheers
Guy
-
Nature or Nurture? An old question that has been debated back and forth for hundreds of years. I side with nurture.
We had an occurrence in the village some 20+ years ago. A husband and wife could not conceive and not for want of trying. The wife has a short, but eventful affair and falls pregnant. A baby boy is born and for the next 14 years all is bliss. The boy was everything that a parent could want in a child and husband and wife were rightfully proud of him. The "father" (unmarried with no known children) was jealous. It came to a head at that year's village fete.
All the main players were there, plus the 2 village gossips, when the "father" announced that he was the father and the boy was his son. SCANDAL was about to happen. (Unbeknownst to everyone the husband, wife and son had discussed the situation some years before.) There was silence for a moment, that felt like an hour. The boy walked to the husband and said "You're my Dad - He's just a sperm donor. Lets go home."
I am very pleased to say that everybody (apart from the "father") lived happily ever after.
Yes, I am very firmly on the side of nurture.
Regards
Chas
That is the best possible put down I have ever heard. More power to the son as he goes through life.
AC
-
Having had a debate about DNA recently, it has made me realise that family is family, blood or not. Genealogy is just the study of genetics, whereas family history is about who bought your family up over the generations as opposed to just being the "sperm donor", or who merely "pushed them out". :o
I think there will always be the small risk that an NPE took place. One day, DNA may finally give a percentage of infidelity/informal adoptions that took place in our ancestor's days.
-
Having had a debate about DNA recently, it has made me realise that family is family, blood or not. Genealogy is just the study of genetics, whereas family history is about who bought your family up over the generations as opposed to just being the "sperm donor", or who merely "pushed them out". :o
I think there will always be the small risk that an NPE took place. One day, DNA may finally give a percentage of infidelity/informal adoptions that took place in our ancestor's days.
Sorry but I would disagree, the definition of genealogy is the study of the history of families. The word stems from two Greek words, one meaning “race” or “family” and the other “theory” or “science.”
I would argue that the history of a family include any child brought up in that family including adopted children, step children and indeed children of a non-parental event, if we are being PC.
The term pedigree comes from the Latin 'pes' (“foot”) and 'grus' (“crane”) and is derived from a sign resembling a crane’s foot, used to indicate lines of descent in early European lineage charts.
Genetics is the study of heredity, which is a biological process whereby a parent passes certain genes onto their children.
When DNA became available to family history people imagined that the genealogies they had recorded would be validated by the DNA, but the DNA records some of the genetics of the individual rather than the genealogy of the individual. I say some of the genetics as a child inherits about 50% of their DNA from each parent, meaning that about 50% of that parents DNA is lost and cannot be passed down by that child.
Family History is the study of the history of a family or families, this to me includes a multitude of things including not only the occupations of family members, but their education, location, their spouses' and children, experiences throughout life etc., etc. It also includes but is not limited to the study of their genetics, and ancestors
Cheers
Guy.
-
I would add that that 50% is a random 50% so is highly unlikely to be 25% for each grandparent. As you go back the odds that you inherited less than expected from them or even that you inherited nothing at all, at least not enough to come up with a match. For example for 6x grt grandparents the chance is 0.001% but 36% chance by the time you get to 10x grt Grandparents.
Because cousins may have inherited a different proportion of DNA from your common ancestor there is for example a 2% chance that they will not be a match and a greater chance that they share fewer cM of DNA than expected. For example I match to two second cousins once removed, should be equivalent to 3rd cousin level for DNA purposes. One I share sufficient cM with to come up as 3rd cousin while the other I share fewer cM with and are listed as 4th cousin match. The futher back you go the gap could be potentially wider.