Genealogy Chat

WHY????????????

"Probably it is too far back to have any effect - you get some strange genetic throw backs at times - would laugh my socks off if a slight coloured child was born."

Another thing to take into account for all of us from London, Bristol and Liverpool is the chance that we will have Black ancestors.

Have yet to find any in mine and I have ancestors from all 3 places. But I live in hope.

Would be proud to have something a bit more exotic than those I have....

:-D :-D <3

Certainly the subject is still in its infancy and hopefully over time will become more accurate and lead to improved theories about the migration of humans.

I haven't any problems with he way my results were presented. I thought they were well explained and they gave links to find out more and to keep an eye on developments.

Of course you should bear in mind that the markers go back thousands of years.

Roughly every hundred years you go back in your ancestry the number of ancestors you have in your tree increases tenfold and likewise the proportion of genetic material you inherit from those ancestors is a tenth.

So if you go back one thousand years you have about a billion ancestors and you inherit one billionth of the characteristics of each. Of course by that time many will appear on more than one branch and so contribute a larger amount.

as a trained geneticist, I must say that I am somewhat sceptical about these tests, and cynical about the purveyors of the tests.

It really seems to be a group of doctors (maybe medical, maybe PhDs) who have set up labs testing peoples DNA for the purpose of making lots of lovely money!


I just fear that the procedures, and the results that may be expected are not fully explained, and people therefore do not know how to interprete the results correctly ........ and also, maybe, expect far too much from the tests.


"Gullible" comes to mind ......... although I don't believe that everyone who has taken these tests is gullible!


I think a healthy dose of scepticism is needed.

The genealogical DNA tests available at the moment are usually for mtDNA and yDNA (men only) which give the all-female line and all-male line. They don't show any other mixing of ancestry.

I agree Sylvia. here everyone's (pretty much) ancestry in my country is connected to immigrants, it doesn't worry me in the slightest.

I would like to have my daughters tested one day, she has a lovely mix of English, Weslh, Irish, Scottish, Italian, Maltese and Spanish.

It is a very interesting area of research, and I suppose makes the world a little bit closer.

Every baby is a wonderful new being, it doesn't worry me in the slighest what skin colour he she has :)

in my opinion ...............

no-one who considers themselves English is a "pure-bred"

and I count myself among them


We're all "mongrels", or "Heinz 57" if you prefer.


England was conquered by so many tribes from prehistoric times ......................

we've got Saxon, Roman, Gaulish, Viking, and who knows what other blood in us so that there is no earthly way we can consider ourselves "pure blood English"


and I see no earthly reason to laugh when the CHILD is born next month anything other than lily-white .................. we have no idea whether "it" is a boy or girl at this point in time.


Anyway, the putative 5 or 8 x gt grandmother was not pure-blood Indian ................ she was of Armenian and Indian origin, thus only half-Indian




I note that UK papers still use the term "Indian" ................... over here the term "East Asian" is used much more, in order to distinguish from our First Nations people ............... who are also often called Indians or Red Indians by red-necks.

On another thread. someone commented that King Charles II was known as "The Black Boy" - hence the many pub names.

He was very dark skinned and possibly was a throw back to his Medici ancestors.

The little girl due next month (who will one day be our Queen and will immediately be third in line) will have quite an exotic mix of blood. Apart from Indian genes, she will have a lot of Jewish ancestors. Poor old Oswald Mosley would have no idea which way to march, would he?

And which British MEP will probably have more European DNA than any other MEP or even MP? None other than Nigel Farage :-D :-D The variety of backgrounds are, in my opinion, what has put the Great in Britain. Queen Victoria was hardly a Celt, was she?

I had my mtDNA tested recently. My haplogroup is H which is the same as about 40% of Europeans.

My tree is similarly mundane as the nearest to foreign blood I have found is my 25% Cornish ancestry.

I'm definately going to have ago - was sort of waiting for the price to come down and the process to be fine tuned. Can bet more people will now want to know.

In Indian they are actually looking for somebody who has the same DNA as the Princes.

Probably it is too far back to have any effect - you get some strange genetic throw backs at times - would laugh my socks off if a slight coloured child was born.

:-D :-D

OH and I are very interested in this sort of stuff, and have read a number of books about it as well as watching the TV programmes.

Obviously, if you have evidence that near ancestors came from abroad, then you are highly likely to have a good mix. If you have evidence back to the 1700's, as I have, that your ancestors were British, then it is less likely to find other genes, as people generally didn't move around as much.

However, even the people from East and West of Britain are different. And as the British Isles were constantly re populated by people from Europe, then we will all have these European mix of genes. And the people came to Europe from further away too, all of us are out of Africa.

I was interested in the Eddie Izzard programme to research his mitochondrial DNA, but I probably wouldn't bother for myself, I know that some ancestors 'probably' came via Spain and Italy and some from northern Europe, and before then 'out of Africa' is good enough for me :-D

I was thinking of - if they had their own mDNA tested :-D

Us Brits are a mongrel and sea faring race. It wouldn't be surprising if we all had a bit of 'other' races mixed in somewhere.

The Marquess of Bath seems to have pre-existing problems with his relationship with his son. There may have been some resentment from the 'old' aristocratic families, but hopefully the current generation is more open minded. Up bringing/education and most importantly compatability should count more than the colour of ones skin.

Didn't like to suggest the same thought. Look how they reacted to the Marquess of Bath's son's marriage to Nigerian, Emma McQuiston

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2338458/Pictured-Bride-set-Britains-black-marchioness-marriage-aristocratic-father-law-snubbed-row-erotic-paintings.html

It could set the cat among the pigeons for some die-hard whiter than white acitivists ;-)

Mitochondrial DNA is a small piece of DNA inherited mostly unchanged from a mother to her children.

Wonder how many people are as curious as myself to find out about their own family. Considering how they all intermarried across the globe it would be intersting to find out.

The world is buzzing after the news http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/06/14/dna-tests-estimate-that-prince-william-is-0-3-to-0-8-percent-indian/
DNA tests estimate that Prince William is 0.3 to 0.8 percent Indian

The connection traces back just eight generations, with the woman, Eliza Kewark, being the Duke's great, great, great, great, great grandmother.

She was housekeeper to his fifth great-grandfather Theodore Forbes, born in 1788, a Scottish merchant who worked for the East India Company in Surat, a port north of Bombay