Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Autosomal ... PLEASE help me! ;-)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Autosomal ... PLEASE help me! ;-)

    I have kind of an anti-success story (LOL), which makes the new Autosomal tests a potential solution.

    Our paper trail led to a colonial ancestor that settled in Massachusetts in 1635. Of 11 generations, there was only one birth record (1728) that I was not able to confirm in vital records, but many records were destroyed by fire in that time.

    When getting the results of our Y-DNA tests, we learned that we do not match those of the immigrant ancestors known descendants. In fact, the results point to a Germanic or Polish ancestry as being most likely. This leads me to suspect that the break might occur with the birth of my grandfather (1904) or with HIS father (1873), as there were German and Polish marriages within our family at those times. So the records either cover up an adoption, or another non-paternity event. In any case, this seems to be a skeleton that my parents had no knowledge of (they were pretty up front, if they knew about it we probably would have as well). So it may be that it goes back even further.

    After 30 years of research, and uncovering WONDERFUL stories about my (now "adopted") ancestors, I now sit in wonder as to how many of those ancestors are really mine. What makes it really difficult is that there are no really close matches for me to investigate yet, and not knowing what surname I am looking for or when the break definitely occurs makes it that much more difficult to know which direction to head. My genealogy "passion" has been at a lull for the last year because I am unsure where to go from here.

    So, with the recent announcement of autosomal tests, that is my only hope of learning who we "really" are. I still love all my "adopted" ancestors for the joy they gave me for 30 years in learning about them. Maybe one of these days I'll learn more about my "real" ones.

    I remain hopeful!

  • #2
    Originally posted by DeeTyler View Post
    I have kind of an anti-success story (LOL), which makes the new Autosomal tests a potential solution.

    Our paper trail led to a colonial ancestor that settled in Massachusetts in 1635. Of 11 generations, there was only one birth record (1728) that I was not able to confirm in vital records, but many records were destroyed by fire in that time.

    When getting the results of our Y-DNA tests, we learned that we do not match those of the immigrant ancestors known descendants. In fact, the results point to a Germanic or Polish ancestry as being most likely. This leads me to suspect that the break might occur with the birth of my grandfather (1904) or with HIS father (1873), as there were German and Polish marriages within our family at those times. So the records either cover up an adoption, or another non-paternity event. In any case, this seems to be a skeleton that my parents had no knowledge of (they were pretty up front, if they knew about it we probably would have as well). So it may be that it goes back even further.

    After 30 years of research, and uncovering WONDERFUL stories about my (now "adopted") ancestors, I now sit in wonder as to how many of those ancestors are really mine. What makes it really difficult is that there are no really close matches for me to investigate yet, and not knowing what surname I am looking for or when the break definitely occurs makes it that much more difficult to know which direction to head. My genealogy "passion" has been at a lull for the last year because I am unsure where to go from here.

    So, with the recent announcement of autosomal tests, that is my only hope of learning who we "really" are. I still love all my "adopted" ancestors for the joy they gave me for 30 years in learning about them. Maybe one of these days I'll learn more about my "real" ones.

    I remain hopeful!
    I think you should post the case data on Ysearch, and put the Ysearch ID in your signature. Then people can examine and compare the data.

    I think your tentative connection to Germany and Poland is very weak, considering that R1a was brought to Britain by Vikings and probably Normans.

    Regards,
    Jim

    Comment


    • #3
      Maybe your ancestors really are your ancestors, but the other "known descendants" are the ones from a non-paternal event.

      While surfing the web a while ago I found a website and he had a list of jokes. One joke may fit a lot of YDNA scenarios. It went something like this: Mr. Jones and his wife had three sons. The two oldest, Tom and Luke, grew to be tall, strong, healthy, strapping young men. But the youngest son, Phil, was always very weak and small and nothing at all like the other sons. Mr. Jones suspected that his wife had cheated on him and that their youngest son, Phil, wasn't a Jones. Mr. Jones would constantly ask Mrs. Jones if Phil was a Jones. She always said Phil is a Jones. On her deathbed he asked her again. This time she said Phil is a Jones, but Tom and Luke were Owens.
      Last edited by rainbow; 6 March 2010, 12:05 PM.

      Comment


      • #4
        OK ... I THINK I added the stuff to my signature. Checking here to post.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Jim Honeychuck View Post
          I think you should post the case data on Ysearch, and put the Ysearch ID in your signature. Then people can examine and compare the data.

          I think your tentative connection to Germany and Poland is very weak, considering that R1a was brought to Britain by Vikings and probably Normans.

          Regards,
          Jim
          I was hoping for that type of scenario as well, but with the recent surfacing of the M458 test for those of R1a ancestry, we tested positive for that. Now I am REALLY new at all of this stuff, but from the sounds of it, that would seem to point against the British Isles ...

          http://www.ethnoancestry.com/M458.html

          Of course, my knowledge of all this is extremely basic and I'm just going with the flow. The really unfortunate part of all this is there are no other male descendants alive to verify, as the male pickin's in the last three or four generations are pretty much our line. Heh.

          Comment


          • #6
            I think your tentative connection to Germany and Poland is very weak, considering that R1a was brought to Britain by Vikings and probably Normans.
            Well, modern day humans in Old Saxony (the region where the original Saxons are from) have 20% R1a. So R1a Saxons are possible.

            Also, the Saxons tribal myth claim the original homeland of the Saxons beeing Norway. (means, they claim to have come from Norway to Northern Germany and frm there to Britain)

            On the other hand, what I have heard from Saxon DNA, this myth is... a myth and acient Saxons are more like modern... Dutch.

            Also.... M458+ .....
            Only 10% of the 20% R1a in nothern Germany are M458+
            But 50% of the 10% R1a in southern Germany are.

            Comment


            • #7
              The interesting part of this is that our surname is SUPPOSED to have Anglo-Saxon origins; yet the immigrant ancestor that we descend from "on paper" (as well as other immigrants of the same time period and surname) are solidly R1b.

              If we are indeed born to the surname we have been carrying, then my suspicions of the "break" do fall to the one born in 1728, where records and family information are extremely sketchy. He died in 1780 leaving only one son, though, which is why are pickings are slim from that generation on.
              Last edited by DeeTyler; 6 March 2010, 02:28 PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                "The interesting part of this is that our surname is SUPPOSED to have Anglo-Saxon origins"

                I wonder how long does British people have surnames?

                I mean, besides of nobility, Germans have surnames since about 500 years.

                Anglo-Saxons lived like 1.500 years ago, wich is pretty much 1.000 years before Germans introduced surnames for common people.

                When in 1066 the Normans fought against "Anglo Saxons", I estaminate, the only "Anglo-Saxons" there had possibly been the nobility.

                Question is also, how much "true" (people who descant from the tribes of the German Northsea Coast) Anglo-Saxons have there been at all.
                Last thing I recall is the claim that the Anglo-Saxons had very limited impact on the British genepool. Suposedly far smaller than the Vikings and that the majority of the British people are descants of the native population rather than of Celts, Romans, Saxons, Vikings or Normans.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Daniel72 View Post
                  I wonder how long does British people have surnames?
                  "In Britain, hereditary surnames were adopted in the 13th and 14th centuries, initially by the aristocracy but eventually by everyone. By 1400, most English and Scottish people had acquired surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or even later. Henry VIII (1491–1547) ordered that marital births be recorded under the surname of the father."

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Family_...king_countries

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Back in the 1990s when I regularly attended genealogy conferences, I remember the statement of the likelihood of a questionable paternity in one out of every 8th generation. Reminds me of the old Red Fox joke - "Momma's baby, Papa's maybe."

                    And having lived this long on our earth, I'm doubting whether my research by a documented paper trail could be accurate over the centuries.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Krootie View Post
                      Reminds me of the old Red Fox joke - "Momma's baby, Papa's maybe."
                      Many a true word is spoken in jest.

                      I have found many extra-marital births in my father's mother's line. Seems the snowier the territory, the more it happened.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I think in the old days many of those were informal adoptions. People tended to die early back then, and someone had to take care of the children. They were often taken in by relatives with a different surname (and thus a different y line) or even by neighbors. If the child assumed the surname of the adoptive family - voila! - instant NPE.

                        Modern folk seem to love the salacious implications they find in NPEs, but one must remember the social and religious stigmas and other penalties that adulterous activities and/or fornication incurred in the past. While such things no doubt happened, I don't think they were as commonplace as some imagine.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Stevo View Post
                          Modern folk seem to love the salacious implications they find in NPEs, but one must remember the social and religious stigmas and other penalties that adulterous activities and/or fornication incurred in the past.
                          Ya reckon. Fornication frolics was a popular game in one of my lines. My paternal great grandmother had 2 daughters and a son, each by different men and each birth was in a different institution for unmarried mothers, when she was aged 18, 21 and 24. At the age of 33 she married a fellow who was not the father of any of her children. Her maternal grandmother was the illegitimate offspring of a relationship between a landed squire and his Irish house servant. All Catholics, apart from the "squire" who was Anglican.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Gene2005
                            Good one, at she was telling him the truth from the beginning.
                            Thank you.
                            It was much better on that website. I had wanted to go back and copy and paste it in the NPE thread, but I couldn't find the website again.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              [QUOTE=gtc;209043][COLOR="Blue"]"In Britain, hereditary surnames were adopted in the 13th and 14th centuries, initially by the aristocracy but eventually by everyone. By 1400, most English and Scottish people had acquired surnames, but many Scottish and Welsh people did not adopt surnames until the 17th century, or even later. Henry VIII (1491]

                              I would think 1700s would be just a little late to not have a surname. I've found plenty of surnames in Welsh Records going back to the early 1500s. Matter of fact, even my surname of Yeomans was found in Cardiff Records mentioned as Coroner, Bailiff, etc. along with Welsh derivative surnames.

                              Arch
                              Last edited by Arch; 7 March 2010, 02:49 PM. Reason: POS HP 5105 Netbook, useless garbage

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X