DNA Testing - Why Not

[flipflops]

The story of how when James II's wife was giving  birth a substitute was smuggled into the Royal Bedchamber in a warming pan because the genuine baby was still born. 

I guess not too many people would be in a position to 'acquire' a substitute newborn baby to order . . . 

If it was me and I was desperate, I'd probably have one lined up from a baby farm.

[Redroger]

I've heard that some members of the royal family go out of their way to avoid DNA tests 

I can think of at least 2 reasons for this.

[sillgen]

This was a serious thread.  Please do not go off topic.
Andrea

[mike175]

Getting back to the original question, I think my earlier point about hearing some DNA success stories was relevant.

All we seem to hear about is the potential of the new science. If there was more evidence of people actually finding out something useful and making new connections it might encourage others to take the plunge.

Mike.

[flipflops]

there are a few here http://www.familytreedna.com/testimonials.aspx

I thnk having a test is a bit like buying into a lottery. Maybe you'll be lucky and get the big one, or maybe just a tiddler or maybe nothing

It looks to me as though the best chance of success comes through the Y-DNA test results which not only identify matches, but how distant. This can be backed up by surname name projects,

My own story is that the family finder test identified fairly distant cousins. I don't think any of us have all our family names, and even the names that matched were pretty common and didn't match on location.

I'd ordered a MtDNA hopefully to distinguish matches to my mother's mother and so on. The trouble is that brought back more than 10,000 matches and (as yet) no filtering system that allows me to compare those to my Family Finder matches.

It IS something of a lottery, I've heard of quite a few people who haven't had a reply from their closest match. I haven't either  

So my answer would be yes. It's innovative, exciting and worth doing, but not so much if you're looking for instant results, but usually better chances for someone with a Y-DNA test.

[Redroger]

My closest match contacted me, his email was in my in box before the e mail from FTDNA; however, though we are in close collaboration we have no other matches with people carrying either his ore my surname. So far!

[supermoussi]

Royalty do not usually take DNA tests, the only exception I know of being Prince Phillip to determine the identity of the Romanov remains.

If royalty did take DNA tests, the entire hereditary edifice might collapse.

I think enough aristos (and buried remains) have been tested to provide us with basic Haplogroup info about a lot of Royal Lines, although more detailed tests that can be used in paternity are obviously harder to come by. By and large it would seem a lot of Royals were some form of common old W.European R1b, like most of the rest of us!

Here is an interesting post listing some Royal HGs:- http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?25236-Haplogroups-of-European-kings-and-queens

There has also been a rumour doing the rounds this year that King Tutankhamen was also R1b but there has been no offical confirmation as far as I know of this yet. However, this hasn't stopped "news" channels picking up on it:- http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Technology_and_Science/1244504143/ID=2079249107

[nickgc]

Hi Folks.  For some reason I haven't been getting email notices of updates to this thread.  Consequently haven't checked it for a week or ten days.

I agree that there need to be more success stories, or that those that happen need to be popularized more.  The ones that seem to get the most press are adoptees who happen to find their birth families.  I have been following a particularly poignant one of those at 23andMe that has just been resolved.  One report is here:

http://www.yourgeneticgenealogist.com/2011/12/adoptee-reunites-with-birth-family-at.html

Most of us either know, or can figure out from records, our 1st cousins, second cousins, and some third cousins, etc.  The gold standard (IMO) is to connect through DNA to a cousin who helps us break through a brickwall  in our ancestry.  It is unlikely in the extreme that will happen until more people get the testing done.

So to essentially say "I'm not going to get my DNA tested until more people get theirs tested", is extremely counterproductive for genealogists.

Here is my success story that happened just recently, although it is really pretty minor.  A third great grandmother born in a certain area in 1818.  I had notes as to her possible father (2 possibilities), but did not include in my tree since I have stringent requirements for doing so.  Three weeks ago I started working with a matching DNA "cousin" on 23andMe.  Comparing surnames, family first names over generations, and geographical locations, we determined that our ancestors had to be related.

We did not find the exact link  It was probably circa 1720-1740, a few years prior to when our records "run out" about 1770.  But what we worked out together gave me the confidence to finally define which of the two possibilities was my 4th great grandfather and finally, after many years, include him in my tree.

Now if only a cousin or two who are related through my direct line 3rd grt gpa and my only missing 3rd great grandparents Dunn would test.

Nick

   

[mike175]

DNA appears to be still very much a minority interest among genealogists, judging by the fact that only 57 out of 172,253 RootsChat members have voted in the poll so far 

I suspect that only those who have particular problems are prepared to invest the several hundred pounds/dollars necessary to pursue this course. The same amount invested in Ancestry, FindMyPast, Origins, etc. would seem to have far greater chance of yielding useful information.

I remain an interested, but detached, observer for now . . .

Mike.