hi folks, i have read with interest many of the Common Room posts relating to DNA testing not least the leading questions set by nickgc here: DNA Testing - Why Not
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,569443.0.html. however, i was surprised by the proportion of totally negative responses that got thrown up. While i wouldn't suggest DNA testing as one's first choice, it can be a very useful tool in proving lines, illegitimate or otherwise. The responses, both negative and positive had grown to umpteen pages of posts so i thought it wise to start again afresh rather than post onto the tail end of one of the other threads.
Judging by the warm response to the subject, i suggest the rootschat team - great folk all - track down a willing and knowledgeable enthusiast to moderate a Rootschat DNA topic as a subject. I for one would love some advice on this fascinating subject, one which is scarily scientific for us poor souls who have not been sufficiently well immersed in said science. I think the negative responses are down to folks' misunderstanding as to all the possibilities that can come out of using DNA testing to boost one's family research.
As a double birthday present, our younger son got the Y-DNA [to 67 markers - for dad] and the mt-DNA [for my personal interest
] tests done and my brother, in the interests of my family research, kindly arranged for his to be tested. Lucky me, i get both of mine + my husbands yDNA results
So far there have been no bites but we believe that will change for the better soon. For instance, I am well and truly stuck at 1800 with my father's direct male line. I've got superb documentary evidence back till then, however, we came unstuck then as my William says he's "of Surrey" in the 1841 census but admits to being born in Southampton Hants in the 1851. Hm! Well, i set to and i find various useful bits of info including, not least, a suitable christening record in the Southampton OPR - checked the very film to pick up any extra information not included in the IGI's; checked all the 1841 & 1851's to see if there was another William who could claim that birth [no, didn't appear to be]; checked all suitable Williams who may have been buried in the intervening time, none that i could find. Found the 1829 Will of the supposed father in which he included a son William - but not where he was to be found. Daingead!!
so, to recap - verifyable papertrail
1] a William born in Southampton corresponding to 1851 census
2] occupation. my William a London cheesemonger, but having checked all the birthlines of all his known children we find he changed occupations between birth and death of his infant daughter Mary Ann, in 1828. He started out a carpenter then became a cheesemonger - haven't discovered the whys and wherefores yet. The Southampton parent and siblings were carpenters
3] the possible father, James, mentions a son William in his will dated 1829, so, his son William was still alive then wherever he was.
4] no other William apparent competing for the 1800 birth or the Will
5] family names. William has used many of the same names for his sons and daughters that this 'parents' and 'siblings' have used.
These are all worthwhile pieces of evidence and all with their related individual bits of paper, however, they remain circumstantial in relation to linking the two families. Paperwork aplenty, but none making that all important direct link between these two Surrey & Hampshire families. Checkmate!
However, i recently heard from some descendants of a 'sibling' - a relationship we subsequently proved through thorough research. And they are willing to go the DNA route. Here is a case of DNA possibly answering a question which has been impossible up until now. If the two match, we have family and common forebears. There is still the possibility of illegitimacy or adoption clouding the horizon of course - that's always a consideration that should never be forgotten. Without birth control, women were very vulnerable either from seduction, rape or the death of a potential marriage partner after she falls pregnant while in the expectation of marriage and of course adoption whether of an illegitimate grandchild or some other child subsequently given the family name. This could simply be the adoption of a sibling's child on the death of said sibling. Still, it is a way to go, and gives us a genetic tool that others seeking relationships to the family under study can make use of. Not for use instead of a paper trail, but to supplement or corroborate the evidence.
I believe my understanding of the DNA factor is right:
1] that my father's line [given that there was no intervening adoption or hanky-panky under the bedclothes] passes on to his male descendants, the same y-DNA haplogroup of all his foregoing paternal fathers
2] Mum passes on her mt-DNA haplogroup [not to be confused with the X chromosome. The X doesn't come into it] to all her children - both sons and daughters. The daughters pass it on to their female descendants. Hoever, it is only passed on to her own sons, not her grandsons. Because sons inherit their own mum's mt-DNA, their male descendents mt-DNA alters with each generation. No doubt this can be put to use in tracking lines. It may be one of those that are available now, I'm not sure.
Thank you for your time.
Fionnghal
Show Posts
helps when ones brain gets a bit aged 
