On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 6:11:29 PM UTC+2, Cindy H. wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 9:54:03 AM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 6:08:59 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:35:04 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:29:12 AM UTC-4, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:36:43 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > > > > > > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > > > > > > > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > > > > > > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > > > > > > > > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> > > > > > > > A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.
> > > > > > > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > > > > > > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> > > > > > Will, you're being an a-hole. You know damned well that genealogy is not based on DNA.
> > > > > Here's a very interesting article about the DNA test involving Richard III: http://www.citigen.org/2017/03/17/could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty/
> > > > The Plantagenet male-line descent as a basis for the "legitimacy of British royal lineages" was overthrown with the Tudor conquest or "seizure" of the throne in 1485. So it's a little late to wonder about this.
> > > It's true that Henry VII declared himself king by the judgment of God and right of conquest when he won the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. However, in order to be secure, he had to convince the Yorkists of his claim. He descended from John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster and son of Edward III) in the Beaufort line. Having John of Gaunt as an ancestor solidified his claim, as did his marriage to Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, which united the two houses, the red rose of Lancaster and the white rose of York. So the fact that both Henry VII and Elizabeth of York descended from Edward III was important to establish Henry's legitimacy as the first Tudor king.
> > I was referring specifically to the message embedded in the URL: "could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty".
> >
> > Right, the perceived kingly claims of Henry VII were rather bolstered by his and wife's several descents from Edward III, but Henry and Elizabeth were both descended only through a mix of males and females, not in a strict male-line descent. The non-paternity event which caused the difference between Richard III and other royal scions or possible heirs would have been moot after a few years of successful Tudor rule, let alone sixty or seventy..
> Henry VII's ancestry helped him deal with some Yorkist pretenders during his reign, and his ancestry ensured that the right to the throne of his descendants could not be challenged. William the Conqueror spent years subduing his opponents and had to harrow the North and starve the inhabitants there in order to cement his right to rule by conquest alone. Thankfully, Henry VII was able to avoid that scenario. You are probably right about any non-paternity event becoming moot after successful Tudor rule and the years following. I don't think the current royal family is worried about their royal line! Life goes on as usual! I was interested in the rebuttal that followed the non-paternity event article in that link I sent which showed ways kinship was defined before scientific testing was possible. Anyway, worrying about possible non-paternity events in various lines down from Charlemagne and Alfred the Great isn't going to lead anywhere since there's no way to prove any DNA breaks in the various lines without digging up hundreds of skeletons, and such breaks may not even exist. We just have to go along doing research as usual and trying to be as accurate as possible! I do hope that someday the maternity of Katherine Dale is definitively proved by a primary source.

On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 2:29:32 PM UTC-4, lancast...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 6:11:29 PM UTC+2, Cindy H. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 2, 2022 at 9:54:03 AM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 6:08:59 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-4, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:35:04 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 11:29:12 AM UTC-4, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:36:43 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 9:59:48 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 12:42:22 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 8:41:39 AM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Friday, July 29, 2022 at 10:13:19 AM UTC-4, wjhons....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 7:02:52 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 28, 2022 at 5:53:40 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 5:43:46 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 6:59:07 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 12:34:15 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 14, 2022 at 2:28:03 PM UTC-4, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 5:41:30 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 12:56:50 PM UTC-7, Cindy H. wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tuesday, July 12, 2022 at 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have never suggested that anyone should use my website as an authoritative guide
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This was the point I was making.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > NO website, by a single author, can be considered a reliable source.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > None. Not one.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unless it's their own biography. And then maybe not either
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will, for sending the Carter Prayer Book extract. However, isn't it a bit unfair to call a site unreliable without even examining some of the info it contains? In my opinion, a site is unreliable if it contains errors. It should also not be the only site consulted but one of many, many, so that comparisons can be made and discrepancies spotted. So
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Saying a website is unreliable is not tantamount to saying "this person is full of shit"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is tantamount to saying "Vitamin D *may* help with acne but there have been on peer-reviewed studies to show that". I.E. it's a unreliable claim.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > When a single editor/author has full control over what is stated, that is an unreliable publication. It is *solely* through discussion, criticism, harassment, argument.... that a claim can come to a usable reliable state.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is true of all claims, scientific, genealogical, other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I find it a bit strange that none of the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale seem to have named their own children Diana or Skipwith, not even Henry Skipwith Carter, though the names Edward, Dale, and Katherine were passed down. I would have expected some of those children to have been named after their grandmother if Diana Skipwith was indeed their grandmother. Unless the children of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale simply hadn't liked Diana.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Oops! Diana would have been their g-grandmother.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I sent a message to Rich Hall, drawing his attention to a DNA test which has proved that Thomas Carter (husband of Katherine Dale)) of Lancaster Co., John Carter (father of Robert "King" Carter) of Lancaster Co., and Thomas Carter (ancestor of President Jimmy Carter) of Isle of Wight Co. are not related to each other, so he can make changes in the cousins he lists.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also let him know that June Carter (member of the famous singing Carter family and wife of country singer Johnny Cash) is a direct descendant of Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale, so he can add her. A much nicer cousin than Lee Harvey Oswald!
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ~Cindy
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One DNA test cannot confirm that two lines are not related to each other.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Here is the study: https://christchurch1735.org/images/Research-and-Discover/Lumsden_DNA.pdf
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've just read this report and find it sound.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not only did they have many Y-DNA kits, but they did show that the three clusters are both, within each cluster related to each other in genealogical time, *and* that none of the three clusters, are related to the other two, within genealogical time.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To me, this is conclusive proof that the three clusters are not closely related during the Colonial period in question.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > That report goes back in time to John Carter b. 1613, so it seems to me that it would be possible to have a DNA study that compared the DNA of descendants of Sir William Skipwith (son of Sir Grey Skipwith, Diana's brother) with the DNA of descendants of Mary Dale Humphrey, Elizabeth Dale Rogers, and Katherine Dale Carter to see what kind of relationship may exist. If well done, such a study might be the best/only way to definitively prove/disprove Katherine Dale Carter's maternity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > It might also be interesting to have a handwriting expert compare the handwriting of Thomas Carter and Edward Carter shown on that list of books in Edward Dale's library with the various handwritings in Thomas Carter's Prayerbook.
> > > > > > > > > > > > It is much more problematic to compare DNA off daughter lines.
> > > > > > > > > > > > This is because you would have to use autosomal DNA at lest for part of the line, not proved or disproved by Y-DNA
> > > > > > > > > > > > You can show that chunks of autosomal DNA as large as 50cms can descend from the 1700s, but it takes an awful lot of work to establish that proof, and dozens if not a hundred DNA kits to establish the lines clearly
> > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, Will. I thought it might be possible to get around that problem by comparing DNA from Sir Grey Skipwith's line to the DNA from a male descendant of Katherine Dale Carter, but I guess that wouldn't work. So it looks like we're back to differing opinions about Katherine's maternity unless/until someone discovers a document proving that Edward Dale had been married to someone before he married Diana Skipwith.
> > > > > > > > > > Well I would suggest before you go any further, that you confirm your own line using Autosomal DNA
> > > > > > > > > A possibility, though a professional genealogist in Virginia recently traced my line back to Thomas Carter and Katherine Dale.
> > > > > > > > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > > > > > > > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> > > > > > > Will, you're being an a-hole. You know damned well that genealogy is not based on DNA.
> > > > > > Here's a very interesting article about the DNA test involving Richard III: http://www.citigen.org/2017/03/17/could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty/
> > > > > The Plantagenet male-line descent as a basis for the "legitimacy of British royal lineages" was overthrown with the Tudor conquest or "seizure" of the throne in 1485. So it's a little late to wonder about this.
> > > > It's true that Henry VII declared himself king by the judgment of God and right of conquest when he won the Battle of Bosworth in 1485. However, in order to be secure, he had to convince the Yorkists of his claim. He descended from John of Gaunt (Duke of Lancaster and son of Edward III) in the Beaufort line. Having John of Gaunt as an ancestor solidified his claim, as did his marriage to Elizabeth of York, daughter of Edward IV, which united the two houses, the red rose of Lancaster and the white rose of York. So the fact that both Henry VII and Elizabeth of York descended from Edward III was important to establish Henry's legitimacy as the first Tudor king.
> > > I was referring specifically to the message embedded in the URL: "could-a-dna-test-unthrone-the-british-royalty".
> > >
> > > Right, the perceived kingly claims of Henry VII were rather bolstered by his and wife's several descents from Edward III, but Henry and Elizabeth were both descended only through a mix of males and females, not in a strict male-line descent. The non-paternity event which caused the difference between Richard III and other royal scions or possible heirs would have been moot after a few years of successful Tudor rule, let alone sixty or seventy.
> > Henry VII's ancestry helped him deal with some Yorkist pretenders during his reign, and his ancestry ensured that the right to the throne of his descendants could not be challenged. William the Conqueror spent years subduing his opponents and had to harrow the North and starve the inhabitants there in order to cement his right to rule by conquest alone. Thankfully, Henry VII was able to avoid that scenario. You are probably right about any non-paternity event becoming moot after successful Tudor rule and the years following. I don't think the current royal family is worried about their royal line! Life goes on as usual! I was interested in the rebuttal that followed the non-paternity event article in that link I sent which showed ways kinship was defined before scientific testing was possible. Anyway, worrying about possible non-paternity events in various lines down from Charlemagne and Alfred the Great isn't going to lead anywhere since there's no way to prove any DNA breaks in the various lines without digging up hundreds of skeletons, and such breaks may not even exist. We just have to go along doing research as usual and trying to be as accurate as possible! I do hope that someday the maternity of Katherine Dale is definitively proved by a primary source.
> Last I checked no "non paternity event" has been proven? The modern family which was compared is far more likely to be the weak link?

On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 8:29:12 AM UTC-7, pj.ev...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2022 at 4:36:43 AM UTC-7, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> Will, you're being an a-hole. You know damned well that genealogy is not based on DNA.

I never said that genealogy is *based* on DNA

My implication was, that if you yourself have not proven your own lines autosomally with your own DNA (and your cousins, etc), that all of this work on "your" line is really just based on the misplaced belief that your own ancestors didn't dilly about. And yet they did.

Every day it seems I encounter people who have done "thirty years of research" before they realized their father wasn't their father, their grandfather wasn't their grandfather, and so on. From DNA.

> Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line

SHE WOULD NEVER AND YOU TAKE THAT BACK. ABIGAIL WAS HONEST AND CHASTE.

--Joe C
P.S. for what it is worth, this statement doesn't make any sense. paper lines can have errors and so can dna tests; it doesn't mean they are worthless. And whether or not the biological line is sound doens't mean that the paper parents didn't raise their non-biological children, pass down inheritnaces, and have family dynamics that are just as interesting as the dna doner.

On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 2:19:13 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> SHE WOULD NEVER AND YOU TAKE THAT BACK. ABIGAIL WAS HONEST AND CHASTE.
>
> --Joe C
> P.S. for what it is worth, this statement doesn't make any sense. paper lines can have errors and so can dna tests; it doesn't mean they are worthless. And whether or not the biological line is sound doens't mean that the paper parents didn't raise their non-biological children, pass down inheritnaces, and have family dynamics that are just as interesting as the dna doner.

Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha ha.
But my implication is that an NPE can occur at *any* generation.
It doesn't have to have occurred four hundred years ago.
It might have occurred 80 years ago as well

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 10:43:41 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 3, 2022 at 2:19:13 PM UTC-7, joe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Tracing a line through paper, is not worth anything, if you don't have the DNA evidence for yourself.
> > > For all you know your 8th great-grandmother lied, and had sex with the neighbor and that's your real line
> > SHE WOULD NEVER AND YOU TAKE THAT BACK. ABIGAIL WAS HONEST AND CHASTE.
> >
> > --Joe C
> > P.S. for what it is worth, this statement doesn't make any sense. paper lines can have errors and so can dna tests; it doesn't mean they are worthless. And whether or not the biological line is sound doens't mean that the paper parents didn't raise their non-biological children, pass down inheritnaces, and have family dynamics that are just as interesting as the dna doner.
> Ahhhhh ha ha ha ha ha.
> But my implication is that an NPE can occur at *any* generation.
> It doesn't have to have occurred four hundred years ago.
> It might have occurred 80 years ago as well

Can an NPE with a closely-related male-line (agnate) cousin of the claimed/ believed father be detected by DNA methods?

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 8:58:16 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Can an NPE with a closely-related male-line (agnate) cousin of the claimed/ believed father be detected by DNA methods?

My own personal method does not need males, since I rely on the autosomal DNA results.
What I do is plot out how each match is supposed to be related (by tree) and confirm whether or not that makes sense by the size of the centimorgan match.

If a person is supposed to be a first cousin, and only matches 30 cms (or does not match at all), then they are not a first cousin at all. Then you have to figure out whose tree has the NPE by using a third match that matches one but not both. Rinse and repeat.

It's a long process, but you *can* rebuild the correct tree using these methods.
Even to the point of determining who the missing line must be. That is, which family, has provided the missing biological piece. And thus, which family in the tree, is not biologically related.

You just need at least two tests, administered, and then the hundreds of matches they each generate, and their trees.

On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:42:48 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 8:58:16 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > Can an NPE with a closely-related male-line (agnate) cousin of the claimed/ believed father be detected by DNA methods?
> My own personal method does not need males, since I rely on the autosomal DNA results.
> What I do is plot out how each match is supposed to be related (by tree) and confirm whether or not that makes sense by the size of the centimorgan match.
>
> If a person is supposed to be a first cousin, and only matches 30 cms (or does not match at all), then they are not a first cousin at all. Then you have to figure out whose tree has the NPE by using a third match that matches one but not both. Rinse and repeat.
>
> It's a long process, but you *can* rebuild the correct tree using these methods.
> Even to the point of determining who the missing line must be. That is, which family, has provided the missing biological piece. And thus, which family in the tree, is not biologically related.
>
> You just need at least two tests, administered, and then the hundreds of matches they each generate, and their trees.
Will, I find the two tests and hundreds of matches easy, but the "...and their trees" part maddening. So many folks out there who don't have or don't share tree information. I've spent hours and hours constructing trees for exact mtDNA matches -- using the tiny bit of info they do have -- in the (vain LOL) hope I can find our common motherline ancestor. No luck yet, but lots of exploration and fun, and have made the acquaintance of many Virginia and Kentucky families with very scant paper trails. Also, have been fortunate to help build some trees, using autosomal data, for distant African American cousins descended from a shared white ancestor. Lots of deep Virginia roots.

On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-7, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:
> On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:42:48 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 8:58:16 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Can an NPE with a closely-related male-line (agnate) cousin of the claimed/ believed father be detected by DNA methods?
> > My own personal method does not need males, since I rely on the autosomal DNA results.
> > What I do is plot out how each match is supposed to be related (by tree) and confirm whether or not that makes sense by the size of the centimorgan match.
> >
> > If a person is supposed to be a first cousin, and only matches 30 cms (or does not match at all), then they are not a first cousin at all. Then you have to figure out whose tree has the NPE by using a third match that matches one but not both. Rinse and repeat.
> >
> > It's a long process, but you *can* rebuild the correct tree using these methods.
> > Even to the point of determining who the missing line must be. That is, which family, has provided the missing biological piece. And thus, which family in the tree, is not biologically related.
> >
> > You just need at least two tests, administered, and then the hundreds of matches they each generate, and their trees.
> Will, I find the two tests and hundreds of matches easy, but the "...and their trees" part maddening. So many folks out there who don't have or don't share tree information. I've spent hours and hours constructing trees for exact mtDNA matches -- using the tiny bit of info they do have -- in the (vain LOL) hope I can find our common motherline ancestor. No luck yet, but lots of exploration and fun, and have made the acquaintance of many Virginia and Kentucky families with very scant paper trails. Also, have been fortunate to help build some trees, using autosomal data, for distant African American cousins descended from a shared white ancestor. Lots of deep Virginia roots.

mtDNA is not a very useful genealogical tool
I hope that you and your matches have also taken Autosomal DNA tests so you can at least figure out if you're related within twenty generations.

On Monday, August 8, 2022 at 11:29:57 AM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 7, 2022 at 10:15:50 AM UTC-7, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 4:42:48 PM UTC-4, wjhons...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, August 4, 2022 at 8:58:16 AM UTC-7, ravinma...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > > Can an NPE with a closely-related male-line (agnate) cousin of the claimed/ believed father be detected by DNA methods?
> > > My own personal method does not need males, since I rely on the autosomal DNA results.
> > > What I do is plot out how each match is supposed to be related (by tree) and confirm whether or not that makes sense by the size of the centimorgan match.
> > >
> > > If a person is supposed to be a first cousin, and only matches 30 cms (or does not match at all), then they are not a first cousin at all. Then you have to figure out whose tree has the NPE by using a third match that matches one but not both. Rinse and repeat.
> > >
> > > It's a long process, but you *can* rebuild the correct tree using these methods.
> > > Even to the point of determining who the missing line must be. That is, which family, has provided the missing biological piece. And thus, which family in the tree, is not biologically related.
> > >
> > > You just need at least two tests, administered, and then the hundreds of matches they each generate, and their trees.
> > Will, I find the two tests and hundreds of matches easy, but the "...and their trees" part maddening. So many folks out there who don't have or don't share tree information. I've spent hours and hours constructing trees for exact mtDNA matches -- using the tiny bit of info they do have -- in the (vain LOL) hope I can find our common motherline ancestor. No luck yet, but lots of exploration and fun, and have made the acquaintance of many Virginia and Kentucky families with very scant paper trails. Also, have been fortunate to help build some trees, using autosomal data, for distant African American cousins descended from a shared white ancestor. Lots of deep Virginia roots.
> mtDNA is not a very useful genealogical tool
> I hope that you and your matches have also taken Autosomal DNA tests so you can at least figure out if you're related within twenty generations.
Yes, autosomal tests taken and used, as of course mtDNA on its own is not useful. It is useful, though, to make connections with others...Never can tell what might emerge. And I'm in it for the long haul.

On Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7:12:08 AM UTC-7, Jinny Wallerstedt/Girl 57 wrote:

> Yes, autosomal tests taken and used, as of course mtDNA on its own is not useful. It is useful, though, to make connections with others...Never can tell what might emerge. And I'm in it for the long haul.

So what have you found using mtDNA that the Autosomal test did not tell you?