The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results

[panda40]

I haven't had my DNA tested and I'm proberbly not going to. Most of my family come from one particular county right back until the 1600's.
Regards panda

[bucksboy]

I just wonder, as to how much of your/our information is posted online via all forms of media, and now a request for our body parts.........ok, body parts is a bit extreme, but what else do you/we feel the need to expose to all and sundry.

How much 'privacy' are you/we willing to give up, with no 100% guarantees it will not get out further. If someone can give me something, that is 100% secure, please do.  100% is a hard target to keep.  The only thing that is 100%, is that we will die some day, but there are others who will even debate that in a faith arena.

After all, Family History, as most of us know it, is a hobby and not a life style.

It freedom of choice to do so, but think long and hard before you do it.  As when it's done, you cannot go back and change it.

Like some one said, 'You cannot un-invent the atomic bomb'.  So you cannot retract your DNA.

I'm no conspiracy theorist, but I still question the Times motives.  What's in it for them, and at little expense to them.   If they were willing to pay for your DNA test, that would worry me more, because who would own the results.  Try arguing that in court.

Never, never, never.......not in a thousand life times, would I ever give my DNA up voluntarily, whether for a free or paid for test.

Steve.

[Regorian]

Re Reply 95 from davidft. Most interesting. Another possible break in the bloodline. The main one is about 2 or 3 generations from John of Gaunt (Was his legitamacy in question also?) Tried to check up who without success. The King was waging war in France for a year or more yet the Queen bore a son while he was away.

This meant present monarch should be a Howard. He lives in Australia and is a republican

[Millmoor]

At present I feel that there is plenty to keep me occupied using more "traditional" sources. I have an open mind re DNA testing but do feel that I would need to understand a great deal more about the subject before pursuing it further.

[Calverley Lad]

Firstly on the grounds I can't afford the services of a DNA investigation, sufficient for me to know my ancestors came from a small village in Yorkshire. (Clue is in my forum handle)
Having traced my ancestor back @700yrs and knowing most died at an early age that is sufficient for me!
[No aunts/uncles living as we speak, cousins are now starting to go missing]
Currently being investigated by a heart investigation team.
 Brian

[Jebber]

DNA testing is not for me, I don't understand enough about  the subject to warrant my even  considering it, so would consider it a waste of money.

Unless, or until such time DNA testing can tell me the the names of my ancestors going back from the fourteen generations I already know of,  I will prefer to donate any spare cash to medical research.

Jebber

[tazzie]

Hi

 Its something I have never considered. Yes I have a line that's pops up in London from almost nowhere in circa 1650 but a DNA wont pin point where and when I can trace them. My Fiztjohn's well its a Norman name, I have Huguenot blood, and a line we can trace to the first page of a village bible.
 The fun of the chase is what drives us to find our past. We moan that we are stuck or banging our heads on that same old brick wall but at the end of the day to sit back and say look at this as we explain all the details, that's worth more to me than a test could buy.
 Tazzie

[Iria]

Hi
I think My DNA Ethnicity would Prove Difficult there is so much illegitimacy on Both Sides of my Family ,, So all in all am a Mongrel and Happy the Way I am Built Up of Irish Welsh and English and I Think Norwegian

Good Luck to People Who take the Test and Would be Interesting to see Peoples Outcome

Regards

Iria

[davidft]

Re Reply 95 from davidft. Most interesting. Another possible break in the bloodline. The main one is about 2 or 3 generations from John of Gaunt (Was his legitamacy in question also?) Tried to check up who without success. The King was waging war in France for a year or more yet the Queen bore a son while he was away.

This meant present monarch should be a Howard. He lives in Australia and is a republican

John of Gaunt's legitamacy was never in question as far as I know. However what was in question was his children with Katherine Swynford who he subsequently married and the children legitimised.

The King waging war in France etc story i think refers to the alleged illegitimacy of Edward IV which i see as a tool of the War of the Roses that various factions used to further their cause. I am not taken with the "research" of Professor Baldrick (Tony Robinson) who made much of this and the supposed real monarch being an Australian republican but it did make an interesting TV programme a few years ago