Recovery Board  : RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum. 
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Posted by: catnip ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 12:23AM

I was hoping that something unexpected would show up in the mixture. If you don't count the .2% from "Sub-Saharan Africa," I'm about as Anglo, French and Germanic as you can get. No surprises there.

Still, it made for interesting reading. There were no fifth cousins twice removed from any royal families or anything fun like that.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 12:35AM

Anglo, French, Germanic--and no Neanderthal?

Somehow, this doesn't seem quite fair!

It's kind of interesting to think about the Sub-Saharan Africa component though, because whoever introduced this into your line (during, I am assuming, the last few centuries) was probably a really interesting person to know about.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2018 12:35AM by Tevai.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: koriwhore ( )
Date: November 19, 2018 03:28PM

Tevai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anglo, French, Germanic--and no Neanderthal?
>
> Somehow, this doesn't seem quite fair!

Anybody who's not 100% African is part Neanderthal.
23&me reported I was 2.8% Neanderthal.
My partner got her DNA done and she was "Less than 4% Neanderthal" I don't know why 23andme started being more vague about that percentage, but they have.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 19, 2018 03:34PM

Not true, Kori. Native Australians and numerous other groups did not encounter Neanderthals, which were limited mainly to Europe and parts of Western Asia and the Middle East. Conversely, however, there is Denisovan DNA in Australia.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: koriwhore ( )
Date: November 20, 2018 10:02AM

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not true, Kori. Native Australians and numerous
> other groups did not encounter Neanderthals, which
> were limited mainly to Europe and parts of Western
> Asia and the Middle East. Conversely, however,
> there is Denisovan DNA in Australia.
You should suggest edits to Wikipedia if thats the case,
"The nuclear genome from this specimen suggested that Denisovans shared a common origin with Neanderthals, that they ranged from Siberia to Southeast Asia, and that they lived among and interbred with the ancestors of some modern humans,[9] with about 3% to 5% of the DNA of Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians and around 6% in Papuans deriving from Denisovans"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denisovan

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 21, 2018 02:16AM

That sentence does not say that Aborigenes had Neanderthal DNA. It doesn't strictly need to be corrected although it could certainly be written more clearly.

The graphic accompanying that article is worth looking at. It shows what happened.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2018 02:21AM by Lot's Wife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: babyloncansuckit ( )
Date: November 21, 2018 03:37AM

Have the Aborigenes been tested for Jewish DNA? In case one of the Jaredite barges got blown off course and landed on the wrong continent.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 21, 2018 01:58PM

How would you differentiate between Jaredite Jewish DNA* and Hagoth Jewish DNA?










*Ignoring for the fact that the Jaredites antedated the inception of Judaism by about 1600 years.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 12:44AM

I've come to find out studying ancestry is that we're all more closely related than we realize.

Why else has every single US president since George Washington been cousins of his, or related by marriage? (Only exception to this was Gerald Ford because he was adopted via closed adoption and never learned who his biological family was.)

If you trace your tree back far enough you will be able to connect those dots yourself - that's how the cookie crumbles. If you have European ancestry, nearly all of [80%] are descendants of Wm the Conqueror and Richard the Bad.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 01:00AM

According to something I read around the time of Obama's presidency: Every American president since the beginning of the USA has been related to the British royal family--including Obama (through his mother).

I don't know if this is true or not, but for awhile, it was being repeated a great deal in the media.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 01:05AM

This is definitely true. It's the same connection/s that cause their relation to George Washington. That's how they're all related all the way down to even DJ Trump.

If you have English or British ancestry, chances are you are as well.

My parents are distant cousins through the same set of ggggggggggrandparents that makes us cousins of George also. I don't believe my parents knew this during their lives. Maybe they did. I found it by tracing our lineage on FamilySearch one Christmas, in 2013. Joan Beaufort and Ralph de Neville are the common ggggggggggrandparents. They had app 14 children. Two of their daughters are my ggggggggrandmothers. One on mom's side. One on dad's. One of their brothers was George Washington's ggggggrandpa.

Joan Beaufort was the mother of future queens of England through her first husband, who died in the Wars of the Roses, at age 26.

I figure maybe that's why my parents had such a passionate love/hate relationship. They shared common ancestors of Wars of Roses, lol.

We must've been on the losing side of history, and ended up in the peasant class ... hence the immigration to America. :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2018 01:15AM by Amyjo.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: outta the cult ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 02:06AM

That is, if you trust FS genealogy. Mormon genealogy is notoriously bad, put in place by people whose goal was to trace back to Adam via European royalty. Much of it is undocumented, full of leaps of faith, wild guesses, unfounded claims, and wishful thinking. And the farther back you go, the less reliable it is.

I've found Macbeth, Old King Cole (that merry old soul) and Odin on my family tree.

Don't accept anything on FS without the actual paper trail, otherwise you're buying into BS. Caveat emptor.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 02:57AM

One doesn't need to rely on what you rightly describe as flawed genealogical records. Simple mathematics leads to the same conclusion.

If you assume a person living today has two parents, four grandparents, etc, going back in time, then the number of his progenitors can be calculated as 2^N, where N is the number of generations. Assuming additionally that there are four generations per century going back to 1000 CE, which is an arbitrary choice, our contemporary had somewhere around one billion ancestors alive at that time.

But the actual population in Western Europe at 1000 CE was only some 30 million--and the combined population of Britain, France and Germany was probably about 20 million. What this means is that there was constant mixing of a relatively small number of families for many centuries and hence that anyone alive today with any Western European blood can claim as ancestors almost anyone who was alive and reproducing there a millennium ago. Conversely, any two people alive today with German, French, or English blood are almost certainly related.

Does catnip have royal ancestors? With a very high level of confidence, the answer is yes. She is a descendant of Charlemagne, the old royal families of Germany and England, and many other noble clans. The odds of consanguinity go up rapidly if one goes even further back, so she can claim royal Celtic, Roman, and other heritages as well.

When someone tells you he is descended from kings, the proper response is "me too!"

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: outta the cult ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 03:42PM

"She is a descendant of Charlemagne"

Yup. This from the 23&Me Help Center, French & German reference population summary:

"'French and German' people descend from ancient Alpine-Celtic and Germanic populations, and inhabit an area extending from the Netherlands to Austria — roughly corresponding to the extent of Charlemagne's Frankish Kingdom in the Middle Ages. Estimates place Charlemagne himself in the family trees of all modern Europeans, possibly many times over."

All modern Europeans, many times over. "Descendant of Charlemagne" is hardly an exclusive club. Chuck got around.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 04:07PM

And that is true of Charlemagne's butler, valet, chamber pot cleaner, and mistress(es) as well. So too the German farmer or the Spanish priest or the Jewish trader.

If a person lived at the time of Charlemagne and reproduced, his DNA has permeated Europe unless something happened that wiped out all his progeny. It follows that everyone of European heritage (including almost all descendants of slaves in the US, the UK, etc.) may boast of descent from Charlemagne--and his chamber maid.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 08:51AM

It's also on Geni, MyHeritage, and Ancestry.

FamilySearch is where I began because it's free and I'm sixth generation Mormon.

Some of the most avid genealogists in my family were not LDS. Their records match the other, maybe even moreso. One was an engineer who took up genealogy as a hobby. My Israeli cousin was an economist before taking up genealogy in his retirement.

There's no Macbeth in mine, or old King Cole lol.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2018 08:59AM by Amyjo.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: catnip ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 10:24PM

It's about Katherine Swynford, who was Joan Beaufort's mother. Katherine's longtime lover (and eventually husband) John, the Duke of Lancaster, was Joan's father. Anya Seton wrote it, and it has been one of my favorite books for ages. Geoffrey Chaucer was Katherine's brother-in-law. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend it.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 19, 2018 12:35AM

Oh thanks. No, I haven't, but it sounds like a great read!

I'll have to check it out.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: GNPE1 ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 01:42AM

Any Norwegians, Swedes, or Danish in your history?

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Lot's Wife ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 01:50AM

London is a Danish city; Eastern England was called the Danelaw; Normandy is named after the Norsemen; and the Vikings occupied the lower Seine and frequently attacked Paris. They also invaded, and settled in Germany not to mention Iberia, Italy, northern Africa, and as far east as Russia and the Black Sea.

So yes, catnip has Scandinavian blood in her family tree. The same is true of virtually everyone who has a significant number of ancestors from Western Europe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/18/2018 01:50AM by Lot's Wife.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: catnip ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 11:40PM

Yes. To be precise, I am 3.7% Scandinavian.

I would love to know how and when the Sub-Saharan African got into the Scots-Irish whiskey keg.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: valkyriequeen ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 10:00AM

My DNA results showed English, German, French, Danish, and Croatia. The extremely accurate family tree showed me to be a descendant of Sir Lancelot and also an American Indian princess from a tribe located in Eastern United States.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: PollyDee Montague ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 11:16AM

I am a descendant of Drogo de Montagu (of Monte Acuto in Normandy ~Dragon of the Mountain Peak~) a cousin of William the Conqueror and descendant of Rollo the Dane.

Drago de Montagu accompanied William the Conqueror in the conquest of England and was rewarded with large tracts of land. His descendants became known as the Earls of Salisbury, Manchester, and Sandwich

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: brigantia not logged in ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 12:50PM

This is my paternal family folks, I know it gives my identity away but don't care. I live close to the places named and know why we are no longer holders of the old lands, having been attainted after supporting Richard III, the loser. Still proud of my heritage but family now more humble and ordinary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilkington_of_Lancashire

Briggy

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: elderolddog ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 02:24PM

I certainly understand the motivation NOT to mention being a "cousin" of Benedict Arnold or John Wilkes Booth, but I still wonder if anyone has had someone else's opinion of you change because of the old dead people you claimed to be related to?

I do know that luckily I've never filled out an employment application in which details of my genealogy were required. Thank ghawd, because in that regard I am nobody.

I look in the mirror and all I see is me... Whereas some of you look in the mirror and see kings, princes, intellectuals, entertainers, etc., looking at you over your shoulders, waving, blowing you kisses, giving thumbs up...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: PollyDee ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 11:24PM

Well..not really. Although some of my ancestors were written up in the history books and became rich and powerful, they ruthlessly abused their power, caused murderous wars over the ages in which millions were killed, and stuffed their coffers on the conquest of others. Not really something to be proud of.

I also look at my polygamous ancestors with the same reality check. My DH would not exist if not for polygamy having descended through second and third wives. However, I view that heritage with the same disdain. In my mind, it's not as extreme, but somewhat akin to having descended from women in slavery having been sexually coerced or outright forced by their master overlords. I am grateful for my life but find the circumstances of my existence to be a moral conundrum.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: PollyDee ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 11:30PM

Correction: My DH *and I* would not exist if not for polygamy...

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 02:48PM

I met a woman this week who lost her sister to breast cancer when her sis was only 58. This woman is now in her mid to late 60's. Her mother had breast cancer also, but a mastectomy in her 40's. Then died from something else unrelated to that.

The woman I met earlier this week does not want to do her BRCA genetic test to see if she has inherited traits for the breast cancer gene. She does regular bi-annual mammogram and MRI to stay on top of her checkups. Otherwise, she doesn't want to know.

As for me, I recently underwent genetic testing to see whether I have the BRCA gene and am open to as much information as the research studies may provide me on the subject. Not everyone wants that much info on their heredity. If mine comes back positive then I can forewarn my children, nieces and nephews to be aware of markers they may be predisposed to having. If it comes back negative, there won't be a need to forewarn them. It will be for my information only, and for research purposes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 03:28PM

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As for me, I recently underwent genetic testing to
> see whether I have the BRCA gene and am open to as
> much information as the research studies may
> provide me on the subject. Not everyone wants that
> much info on their heredity. If mine comes back
> positive then I can forewarn my children, nieces
> and nephews to be aware of markers they may be
> predisposed to having.

This is a really good thing to do, and to have done, Amyjo.


> If it comes back negative,
> there won't be a need to forewarn them. It will be
> for my information only, and for research
> purposes.

I have a skewed opinion on this one, because I knew (quite well) certain specific people in northern New Mexico who have died from cancer as a result of their Sephardi genetic heritages (which they, in effect, absolutely denied as a possibility).

There are now major p.r. efforts in New Mexico/southern Colorado to get the [official] word out that everyone Hispanic in the area may potentially be carrying these specific genetic markers, inherited from ancestors who lived about five hundred years ago.

"Getting the word out" is important, and if your results come back negative (which I hope will be the case), I still think that explaining the situation to your kids is a good idea--if for no other reason than to literally "bring home" the reality that this genetic transmission is not only theoretically possible, but is in real daily life possible--and if they know this, at least some of them will pass this along to others who might possibly be affected.

This is my personal perspective, but it is based on once knowing certain important people in my life who did die because they poo-pooed the possibility that some of their own ancestral genetics could be (and obviously WERE) in part Jewish.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 03:39PM

Thanks, Tevai. That is good to know and be aware of.

My children's paternal grandmother was a first generation Holocaust survivor from the Warsaw ghetto. We have no family history on her whatsoever other than her parents starved to death, and she was one of the orphan children saved by most likely Irena Sendler, who saved app 2,500 Jewish children from the ghetto there.

For my children there could be a mixture of Ashkenazi and/or Sephardi, for all we know.

My birth son's paternal side is possibly Sephardic (latino/hispanic heritage.)

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: catnip ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 10:53PM

The BRCA markers tested by 23 and Me all came back negative, so, in theory, I should not have had breast cancer. Tell that to my surgically disturbed and tiresomely irradiated boob.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: angela ( )
Date: November 19, 2018 01:52PM

catnip Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The BRCA markers tested by 23 and Me all came back
> negative, so, in theory, I should not have had
> breast cancer. Tell that to my surgically
> disturbed and tiresomely irradiated boob.


Catnip, I need to correct your misunderstanding of breast cancer risk

The TWO biggest risk factors are

1) Being a woman
2) getting older.

Most women who get some form of breast cancer, and there are over 22 kinds, do not have a genetic tendency.

And most women who get some form of breast cancer are mothers and grandmothers, shooting down the risk factors of "not having children nor breast feeding" as risk factors IMO.

Being a woman and getting older is why it's so important that we are screened for it, so it can be caught early

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: kathleen ( )
Date: November 19, 2018 10:05PM

Good luck with all that discomfort, Catnip. Salonpas lidocaine patches really help.

Just please know, it doesn't last forever! :)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/20/2018 12:07AM by kathleen.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: PollyDee ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 10:49PM

Amyjo - My mother had breast cancer as did her sister and mother before her. As my mother has 6 daughters, she thought it was important to have the BRCA testing done. My sisters and I were all in agreement that we would want to know. The test came back negative. One of the things we did learn is that a rather small percentage of breast cancer is caused by the BRCA gene, therefore it is very important for all women to understand their risks for breast cancer whether it be nutritional, environmental, or genetic, and make as many healthy changes as possible to stave it off.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 19, 2018 09:56AM

Thanks, PollyDee.

It is optional for me, but I really do want to know one way or the other. I agree, as to making informed decisions to try and be as healthy as possible.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: angela ( )
Date: November 19, 2018 01:48PM

PollyDee Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Amyjo - My mother had breast cancer as did her
> sister and mother before her. As my mother has 6
> daughters, she thought it was important to have
> the BRCA testing done. My sisters and I were all
> in agreement that we would want to know. The test
> came back negative. One of the things we did learn
> is that a rather small percentage of breast cancer
> is caused by the BRCA gene, therefore it is very
> important for all women to understand their risks
> for breast cancer whether it be nutritional,
> environmental, or genetic, and make as many
> healthy changes as possible to stave it off.

The TWO biggest risk factors of getting breast cancer are as follows.

1)Being female
2)Getting older.

I know that the other things that are said to be risk factors are things like never having children, never breast fed etc., but most of the women I know (and I am part of an online BC support community) are mothers and grandmothers and vast majority breast fed.

I am one of those that think most of kinds of breast cancers that women get (and there are something like 22!! different KINDS of breast CANCER!S! with subsets and subsets of subsets,)

It's a CRAP shoot.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: saucie ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 03:37PM

I've got the usual boring assortment of Royalty, pimps, paupers

pirates and Native Americans. The one I found most

interesting is the woman who was burned at the stake for

supposedly practicing witchcraft in Salem.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Heidi GWOTR ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 04:32PM


Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: saucie ( )
Date: November 18, 2018 08:21PM

Oh thanks Heidi....

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Hervey Willets ( )
Date: November 21, 2018 12:35AM

Just got mine tonight from Ancestry. Absolutely no surprises, 50% Baltic (maternal), 49% Irish, 1% English/Welsh (paternal). Haven't plugged anything into a family tree yet, so maybe there's a pirate or a serial killer in the lineage--would make things interesting. Just God forbid there are any Mormons!

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 21, 2018 07:59AM

23 and Me doesn't break down the Irish and English variants like Ancestry does.

Ancestry won't tell you if you have Neanderthal, but doesn't hold back on the sub-Saharan. Go figure that one out.

If you're Irish, chances are good you have some Neanderthal. That's where the red hair and freckles came from on the Irish, Welsh, and Scottish genes.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 21, 2018 07:56AM

My genetic results are back from the cancer study. I have to wait another two weeks for the interview to learn what they are. ((((drum roll))))

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Tevai ( )
Date: November 21, 2018 02:13PM

Amyjo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My genetic results are back from the cancer study.
> I have to wait another two weeks for the interview
> to learn what they are. ((((drum roll))))

Unanticipated delays can be maddening.

I hope the two weeks go fast for you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: Amyjo ( )
Date: November 21, 2018 08:22PM

I hope so too. :)

I'm more interested whether there's an Ashkenazi connection. If not, so be it. That was the impetus for my taking the elective test. My oncology nurse recommended it because of the Ashkenazi DNA in my genetic makeup. Although the test doesn't focus on that per se. It is only a small facet of the overall testing.

It was just one year ago I was diagnosed with bc. My what a difference a year makes!

I'm very thankful this Thanksgiving to be here to celebrate another day of living. I hope one thing I've learned this past year is to not take anything, including health, for granted.

Options: ReplyQuote
Posted by: KJ not logged in ( )
Date: November 21, 2018 08:37AM

Ethnicity

England, Wales, Northeastern Europe 69%
Ireland Scotland 28%
Sweden 3%

Migrations

Mountain West Mormon Pioneers


NO surprises here......but didn't expect the migration info

Options: ReplyQuote
Go to Topic: PreviousNext
Go to: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In


Screen Name: 
Your Email (optional): 
Subject: 
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **         **      **   *******   **     **  **    ** 
 **    **   **  **  **  **     **  **     **  ***   ** 
 **    **   **  **  **  **         **     **  ****  ** 
 **    **   **  **  **  ********   **     **  ** ** ** 
 *********  **  **  **  **     **   **   **   **  **** 
       **   **  **  **  **     **    ** **    **   *** 
       **    ***  ***    *******      ***     **    **