The fun of adoption...

[Downix]

Got into a long discussion with my mother last night about ancestory with adoptions stepping in the middle. The long and short of it is, my bio father left my mother before I was born, she remarried and her husband adopted me as his own. He, in turn, had his father leave his mother at the age of 2, and was adopted by his mothers second husband as a teenager. So, when doing ancestory research, we wind up with a nice mixture due to the adoptions, so wind up with "adopted trees" as well as "blood trees." So, last night we got to discussing my fathers bio maternal grandfather, James Otway, and his heritage. To me, it was facinating to hear, and read, of his ancestory (well documented, surprisingly) and knowing that while I was not of blood, I was family that was chosen to join. To me, his daughter, my grandmother Muriel, was Grandma, and nothing else. So despite having nearly no contact with my biological family, and no knowledge of their ancestory beyond my bio grandparents, I still find myself with a rich family tree.

So, I am curious what the rest of you think of adoption, does it mean as much as blood when doing ancestor research?

[Kerr the Walker]

In my mind, it's who you call Ma and Pa that count. Whether the ties be blood or not.

[george7]

Family is Family. Genes turn into dust with the rest of the body.

[Jack Daw]

My Y-DNA test connects me to some Skenes as well as MacIntyres.

[Scotus]

Adoption is not as important as blood in genealogy. While adoption makes it your family legally, there isn't a blood connection, which is what genealogy is really all about; that is, 'I am descended from so-and-so and carry his/her genetic code.' When doing ancestor search, search for your blood; however, this will be more difficult with adoptions, as those are legal acts.

I'm not referring here to who your family is in regard to legally and/or sentiment, but rather genealogical/blood ties.

[Downix]

Adoption is not as important as blood in genealogy. While adoption makes it your family legally, there isn't a blood connection, which is what genealogy is really all about; that is, 'I am descended from so-and-so and carry his/her genetic code.' When doing ancestor search, search for your blood; however, this will be more difficult with adoptions, as those are legal acts.

I'm not referring here to who your family is in regard to legally and/or sentiment, but rather genealogical/blood ties.

of course, fully understood. Hence why I avoided the term genealogy. Genetic-wise, I can only trace from my mother. My father is luckier here, having his full bio family tree.

[gilmore]

Adoption is not as important as blood in genealogy. While adoption makes it your family legally, there isn't a blood connection, which is what genealogy is really all about; that is, 'I am descended from so-and-so and carry his/her genetic code.' When doing ancestor search, search for your blood; however, this will be more difficult with adoptions, as those are legal acts.

I'm not referring here to who your family is in regard to legally and/or sentiment, but rather genealogical/blood ties.

I don't agree with this at all.

What makes a family a family, and a descent a descent, is culturally determined and not carved in stone. E.g., in some cultures the groom sometimes becomes part of his wife's family, and their progeny are thought of as her family's, regardless of genetics or "blood." There are many other such examples. This is the pluralistic 21 Century. The notion that only genetic connections are normative and worthy of genealogical research is no longer applicable.

In fact that was never the case.

In both Europe and American cultures, some 3.7% to 4% of births are misattributed paternity. That is, the alleged father of a child is not the mother's husband. That is of course about one in 25. This is a seemingly small number, but over the generations it accumulates until on average after some 19 or 20 generations or so there is at least one non-paternal event (NPE), as they are called in genetic genealogy. There is a formula for determinning the likelihood of an NPE having occured in any given number of generations that I can dig up, if anyone interested.

Twenty generations is only something less than six centuries usually, at 27 years per male generation, a standard calculation.

So, most of us who liked to boast that we descend from the Magna Carta Sureties, Companions of the Conqueror, Charlemagne, Niall of the Seven Hostages, Somerled, etc, may very well be, but, more likely than not, not in the ways that the paper trails indicate.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

I don't agree with this at all.

What makes a family a family, and a descent a descent, is culturally determined and not carved in stone. E.g., in some cultures the groom sometimes becomes part of his wife's family, and their progeny are thought of as her family's, regardless of genetics or "blood." There are many other such examples. This is the pluralistic 21 Century. The notion that only genetic connections are normative and worthy of genealogical research is no longer applicable.

In fact that was never the case.

In both Europe and American cultures, some 3.7% to 4% of births are misattributed paternity. That is, the alleged father of a child is not the mother's husband. That is of course about one in 25. This is a seemingly small number, but over the generations it accumulates until on average after some 19 or 20 generations or so there is at least one non-paternal event (NPE), as they are called in genetic genealogy. There is a formula for determinning the likelihood of an NPE having occured in any given number of generations that I can dig up, if anyone interested.

Twenty generations is only something less than six centuries usually, at 27 years per male generation, a standard calculation.

So, most of us who liked to boast that we descend from the Magna Carta Sureties, Companions of the Conqueror, Charlemagne, Niall of the Seven Hostages, Somerled, etc, may very well be, but, more likely than not, not in the ways that the paper trails indicate.

Setting aside your personal belief that we live in the "pluralistic 21st century" I think you have confused the concept of lawfully born children vs. naturally born children. Both have a paternal line of descent. On the one hand that descent is relatively easy to prove; on the other hand it may be more difficult if the identity of the father is hidden (for whatever reason) from the child.

It does not matter if the culture the child is born into is patriarchal or matriarchal-- the child is still the product of two parents, and claims equal descent from both the mother and the father.

Broadly speaking NEPs do occur in about +/- 4% of births. However, in about +/- 85% of these instances the actual father is known, although the fact of paternity may be disguised for social, cultural, or legal reasons.

To suggest, as you seem to do, that it was never the case that genetic connections are normative and are not worthy of genealogical research, really does overlook biological, cultural and legal factors.

While "statistical" genealogy can imply that most people of western European background are descended from Charlemagne, only "traditional" genealogical research can prove if you are actually descended from Charlotte the Maid and James the Coachman or the Duke and Duchess of Zenda.

The concept of "family", in social and emotional terms, is determined by culture. Descent, however, is determined by science, and that is (at least for the moment) "carved in stone."

[gilmore]

Setting aside your personal belief that we live in the "pluralistic 21st century" I think you have confused the concept of lawfully born children vs. naturally born children. Both have a paternal line of descent. On the one hand that descent is relatively easy to prove; on the other hand it may be more difficult if the identity of the father is hidden (for whatever reason) from the child.

It does not matter if the culture the child is born into is patriarchal or matriarchal-- the child is still the product of two parents, and claims equal descent from both the mother and the father.

Broadly speaking NEPs do occur in about +/- 4% of births. However, in about +/- 85% of these instances the actual father is known, although the fact of paternity may be disguised for social, cultural, or legal reasons.

What is the source for your assertion that in 85% of NEPs[sic] the actual father is known?

To suggest, as you seem to do, that it was never the case that genetic connections are normative and are not worthy of genealogical research, really does overlook biological, cultural and legal factors.

I did not suggest that at all. Go back and read my post carefully. Perhaps earlier in the day.

...
The concept of "family", in social and emotional terms, is determined by culture. Descent, however, is determined by science, and that is (at least for the moment) "carved in stone."

This last is just silly. There all sorts of descents that aren't genetically based. Perhaps the most famous in Western civilization is the caesars of Rome, who often adopted their chosen heir in order to ensure that he would indeed succeed them. There are many others, more germaine to our discussion.

[sathor]

I understand it, I was printing family trees for some family near Thanksgiving, but I didn't print one for my sisters kids, since I don't know how they want to teach their kids about their ancestors, as my sis is really only a half sister.