General Chat

A thought crossed my mind a while back which I find a bit unsettling. Human nature being what it is, what are the chances of an identified bloodline really being legitimate? I cannot help thinking that somewhere along the line (pun intended) an extra-marital relationship may have crept in, and a child born into wedlock but having an extra-marital bloodline.

So far as I know this is not a situation affecting me, but the whole point is ... I don't know. I believe this situation is reckoned to be true of a significant proportion of marriages today, and I doubt it's any different from earlier times? Does anyone else find this a bit disturbing?

not really...in as much as (similar to the answer i was going to add to your other thread) I tend to look at the 'individuals' rather than as a 'blood line'...

We all have sides of the family that perhaps have a stronger claim on our genetic make up... in that I know without shadow of doubt that my Irish side influences strongly my personality...whereas my features come rather more from my maternal gt grandmother.

Rose

But what if a really strong facet of your nature entered your bloodline from a person who is completely unidentifiable?

Barry

As is often said 'Your maternal line is the truest'. The hardest to trace back in many cases!

Then I would accept that I had it from an unidentified source (...just as I would have done if I had never started looking at my family tree lol) or just come to the realisation that it was a 'part of my make up' genetic or otherwise, that I would live with I suppose.

I am very like my mother in looks and temperament ,
my mother was I think more like her father in temperament, her mother in looks.
my Mother's mother looked like her mum, my mother's father looked as far as I can ascertain like his father.

Not sure I'm with you here, but how would you know if it was 'way back?

These days, DNA is used for proof. Previous to that it could only be proved that a man "IS NOT" or "COULD BE" the father, but proof that "HE IS" was not conclusive.

Before that, there was no proof, but it was very prevalent - both ways.
Many a man reared a child as his, not knowing that it was not - and many a person missed out on their titles/inheritance because Dad was a Cad!

Berona,

No you wouldn't know, and that's the bit I find a touch unsettling. All that work tracing your history and no way of knowing for sure if it's legitimate or not. But I think this probably results from me being new to this. I guess there has to be some degree of acceptance/faith that what you find out is what you believe in.

Barry

Carol,

I need to thnk about that one.

Barry

Yes, I know it's possible Barry - but not everybody misbehaved. There was a lot less "sleeping around" and a lot more virgin brides in those days. The fear of pregnancy had a lot to do with it - but other factors too - religion and supervision, etc.

Very true Berona - I feel a little better about it! Future genearations may find it a bit more daunting though.

This is why the maternal line is often referred to as the 'true' line. I assume this is also the reason that Jewish families lhave always looked to the maternal line for their 'Jewishness'.

Equally, many cultures are extremely insulted when their mother's name is brought into disrepute. 'Son of a bi***' is one that springs to mind.

Finally as my OH heard one old (afro-carribean) man once say, 'Insult my father, whom I believe to be my father, and I will be very upset. Insult my mother, whom I know to be my mother, and I will kill you'.

Never thought of this...... but I suppose it applies to adoptions.......but then again, my kids are my kids, adopted or not.......but taking DNA in the future might be a puzzle for the forebears.....

I see what you mean now. I suppose there are scenarios that could still still skew the maternal bloodline, but would require much more deliberate intent to do so - baby swapping etc. Much much less likely one hopes!

In another way Moonchild, I got confused by the "adopted" word. Thought it meant as the more modern meaning of being taken out of one family into another. But I gather that in times past a stepfather was apparently described as adopting his stepchild. Much food for thought I find.

I think step-fathers still have to adopt their step-children don't they? That is, if they want full parental rights.

Yes, and also......as an example and using no names.....

If Granny C, took on the baby born to her Sister's daughter......Annie Mc.......and changed the babies name to John C.......from John Mc....... and thereafter he grew up as John C.......with cousins as brothers and sisters....... another scenario for you to ponder.....

Its a bit of a minefield, isn't it.....

There was many a sister who had a child for another sister who couldn't have children. The child never knew who her biological mother was. This happened in the 1900's.

However today's scenario with AID extra could be a future nightmare half brother marrying half sister etc.

Has your brain gone into overdrive yet Barry........

Moonchild ... no ... but I think it's going into meltdown!

Edit: Hey ... it worked! Been having terrible trouble posting!