Don’t be so sure. The surname “Cohen”, or linguistic variants of it, dates back thousands of years, and it does indeed still show a strong correlation with one particular Y chromosome, just as one would expect for a group of men descended in the male line from the same man. It’s not a perfect correlation, of course, but it’s still far too strong to say that there’s “not much chance” after only a single millennium.
The King can screw around with as many women and sire as many bastards as he likes, it’s a very different story for the Queen. Adultery with her is high treason (for both parties, 2 of Henry VIII’s wives lost their heads this way) because the potential interference it could cause in the royal succession. This by the way is still the case in the UK (minus the beheadings).
This. Its why DNA testing is being investigated by some of the genealogical crowd. While it can’t totally rule out or prove anything, its another tool in the kit.
I agree I worded it a bit too strongly, but the Cohen thing is a bit of an extreme example; it’s a high status name in a group that historically didn’t mix to the same extent as other Eurasian groups.
My ancestors were Scots and Irish, and my surname is an Irish version of a Viking name. Does that mean I have Viking blood? I’m sure I do; I’m tall and fair haired and light eyed. Does that mean I’m definitely descended from the original bearer of my name, most likely a Viking settler in Ireland around a millennium ago? No idea. It’s certainly possible, but there’s plenty of room for doubt, too.
Or a foundling, and how long have formal adoptions been in place? (Serious question)
I know that upper-class Romans performed formal adoptions, but for a very long time and outside the uppermost crust, my guess is that most adoptions would have been informal.
Also: as someone who thinks that a “parent” isn’t one who begets a child, but who raises one, that emphasis on biology over social relationship gives me the creeps. Both sides can be important depending on which aspects we’re talking about, but when they’re trying to trace their genealogy, most people aren’t looking for marrow donors.
To throw another wrench in the works, there’s the issue of chimerism, where a person carries more than one set of DNA, meaning that on some tests they will show up as a more distant relation than “parent” to children they have actually conceived/begat. This is believed to be rare but the truth is no one knows how frequently it happens because, until recently, there was no way to detect the condition. It probably does account for a certain percentage of “non-paternity events”, how many nobody knows.
I very much agree with this. I’m interested in genealogy because of the story it paints. It’s not a complete story, but it can still be interesting and it’s a fascinating entry into History.
As to the OP, I was able to trace my own genealogy to Arnulf of Metz (c. 582 – 640). That’s as far as anyone can reliably go in European lineages. Beyond that, claims are made but they’re somewhat dubious. After Arnulf, documents become more credible as you soon get historically important descendants like Charles Martel and Charlemagne. Any further claim of descent from antiquity is dubious, although I suppose DNA might be used to validate some claims.
Those of you who claim descent from medieval English kings are deluded. You can’t know the names of your ancestors from that long ago.
There are only two people on the planet who can show an irrefutable link to Plantagenet forebears, a Canadian named Michael Ibsen and an American woman who prefers to remain anonymous. Their mitochondrial DNA show they are descended from Richard III’s sister. They’ve got proof. The rest of you, enjoy the fantasy.
Of course you can. See Nava’s post. Most people, I suspect, don’t research genealogy to make a legal claim on some European throne. We’re interested in our family history. If several documents say so-and-so is the daughter of so-and-so, then it means just that. If you later find out she was illegitimate, or adopted, it’s an interesting fact to add to your history, but it doesn’t change your family tree.
But in claiming royal descent, isn’t the bloodline the whole point? And, unless you’re Michael Ibsen, you can’t prove it.
Do people actually make this claim? IME genealogy enthusiasts are very aware of the possibility of broken blood line. If you hang out on genealogy sites and forums there’s lots of talk about “family history.” Maybe I haven’t run into the right (or wrong) people, but most folks seem to be interested in tying their own lower-case-h-history with the great capital-h-History. That’s where finding your link to kings is interesting.
Another issue is that “non-paternity events” can become irrelevant. Suppose, for instance, that your great[sup]n[/sup] grandmother had an affair with her husband’s brother, which led to your line. If you didn’t know about that affair, then your family tree would be in error about the name of your great[sup]n[/sup] grandfather, but your great[sup]n+1[/sup] grandparents, and all previous generations, would be unaffected by the error, and you’d still have the same surname and Y chromosome as you “ought” to.
You’re of course welcome to your opinion, but I would strongly disagree with your view of parenting. To start with, who you are as a person generally has more to do with your biological parents than with your adoptive ones (or by implication, has more to do with your biological inheritance than your cultural upbringing).
For me, if I ever end up looking seriously into my genealogy, it will be to get a sense of biological lines of descent, not ‘social relationships’.
I’ve traced my ancestry back to somewhere in the vicinity of Oldupai Gorge.
OK, so you’re one of those people who think adoptive children aren’t their parents’ children. I’m one of those who think they are.
I didn’t say that. Obviously, whether they are their ‘adoptive parent’s children’ depends entirely on how you define parent, and I’m fine with different definitions in different contexts and for different purposes. In terms of loyalties and loves, a person is probably going to have more loyalties and obligations towards their adoptive parent than their biological one. In terms of most of your specific traits though (physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual, physiological) you’re going to resemble your biological parents more than your adopted ones.
You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmic primordial atomic globule.
These are my own thoughts:
Firstly to the possibility of “none paternity events”. According to Wikipedia the current estimate of children who aren’t the children of the person they believe is 1-2%. I am going to assume that the percentage chance for a non-paternity event for each generation in this lineage is actually 1%. The reason for going lower is obviously attitudes in the past to adultery were more stringent and also I think I could fairly argue that most of my supposed ancestors in that line mostly belonged to a particularly low risk group. Taking the family tree on the website in question as true I work out then that there is an approximately 20% chance of a non-paternity event in the lineage connecting me to my supposed ancestor who died in 1068. That is a no doubt significant chance, but not overwhelmingly so.
Now as to the actual veracity of the particular line in question, as I said the links in Burke’s Peerage are unimpeachable. I am in that book myself (I hasten to add you don’t actually need a title to be in that book, just sufficiently related to someone who has a title), which is obviously where the internet site has got my name from. The reason I say it is unimpeachable as it refers to sufficiently well documented people with sufficiently well-documented relationships between each other.
The relevant entries Burke’s Landed Gentry relates the lineage of a family who would’ve originally been mesne lords in Gloucestershire, but have a documented connection going back to 12th century to a small village in Gloucestershire which they held and from which their name was derived. What I found to be most dubious is the claim that they were descended feudal Lords in England of 12th century, but apparently this link can be confirmed independently from the contemporaneous records of Henry II.
Overall then, despite some of the objections raised I would say there is a reasonable chance I am descended from this Anglo-Saxon Noble.
Jeez, there’s always somebody who tries to one-up you.
It is axiomatically correct that there is a 5 % chance that your daddy wasn’t your father. Take that back 20 generations and how big of a chance is there that it is correct?