The fun of adoption...

[cessna152towser]

Well my maternal grandmother was adopted and never knew her natural parents. It is only in recent years when doing ancestry research that I found her blood ancestry, from which I found that I have Wallace, MacNair and MacLeod blood lineage. I also found a history of death by tuberculosis through the Wallace line, which was very interesting as my own mother died from TB as recently as 1992 which puzzled the doctors as it is a rare disease nowadays. I also found that gran's mother died from TB when she was a few months old, she was given for adoption by her father who re-married. She had always been thought to be an only child but I discovered she had two sisters who died in infancy from TB and a brother who died from TB before he was 30, but lived just long enough to marry and to father a son who would have been a full cousin to my mother. The son went on to become a coal miner and he married and had family with whom I have recently made contact for the first time. I also made contact with relatives of the family who adopted my grandmother who gave me some copies of magnificent old family photos.

[Bugbear]

Genetics are only potentials. One's culture, up bringing, and many other things including emotions are very important to who you are.

[sathor]

It brings up another useful point, clans were blood and by joining by marriage, if the paper trail shows it going back, even with the NPE in play, that child was still part of the clan, even if not by blood, and carries on downward.

[O'Callaghan]

It brings up another useful point, clans were blood and by joining by marriage, if the paper trail shows it going back, even with the NPE in play, that child was still part of the clan, even if not by blood, and carries on downward.

Not only that, but other people who were not blood often became part of a clan. In Scotland this gave us many of the septs, i.e. other names that are considered part of a clan, and in Ireland I have been told that they took the clan name as their new surname instead.

Not that any of this is new information for most people here, but I think a lot of the interest in genealogy here stems from looking for clans in the family tree. I think you can claim to be part of a clan either through adoption or through blood, so perhaps those who are adopted have twice the opportunities to claim a clan.

It also means that if you have the name but not the right DNA you may belong to an entire family that was adopted by the clan, rather than having an ancestor who was adopted by step parents or whose father was misattributed.

[gilmore]

Well my maternal grandmother was adopted and never knew her natural parents. It is only in recent years when doing ancestry research that I found her blood ancestry, from which I found that I have Wallace, MacNair and MacLeod blood lineage. I also found a history of death by tuberculosis through the Wallace line, which was very interesting as my own mother died from TB as recently as 1992 which puzzled the doctors as it is a rare disease nowadays. I also found that gran's mother died from TB when she was a few months old, she was given for adoption by her father who re-married. She had always been thought to be an only child but I discovered she had two sisters who died in infancy from TB and a brother who died from TB before he was 30, but lived just long enough to marry and to father a son who would have been a full cousin to my mother. The son went on to become a coal miner and he married and had family with whom I have recently made contact for the first time. I also made contact with relatives of the family who adopted my grandmother who gave me some copies of magnificent old family photos.

What an interesting story.

[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."

[Bugbear]

Post deleted by author because it didn't add anything to the discussion.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

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

Heraldically speaking, an adopted child has the same rights as a lawfully born child, but ahead of any naturally born child, unless the armiger settles his heraldic estate in some other way that would fall within the the terms of the original grant.

ZB: Mr. Hoot moves in with Ms. Watt, sows some wild oats as a college boy, and sires a "natural" child, in this instance a boy named "Larry", who takes his father's last name. Later Mr. Hoot marries a Ms. Primm and they adopt a boy and name him "Curly". A year later, after taking some fertility drugs, they have triplets (Manny, Moe, and Jack). Sadly Mr. Hoot dies and his heraldic estate is apportioned between his heirs. Unless otherwise provided for in his will, the Triplets will come first (Manny, Moe, and Jack in the order of their delivery) followed by the adopted son (Curly, with a brisure indicating adoption) and finally Larry (the "natural son" of Mr. Hoot) carrying the cadency mark of the fourth son.

Now I can hear some of you amateur armorists shouting out loud at your computer screens-- calm down before your wife calls the looney bin and asks them to send round two men with one of those jackets with the eight foot long arms and half a dozen buckles in the back. It doesn't matter what A.C.Fox-Davis wrote in 1904. Things have changed. Here is the reasoning behind the above mentioned disposition of ensigns armorial:

When Ms. Primm married Mr. Hoot she entered into a social contract with him whereby she had certain legal rights as did any children of their lawful union. That contract takes precedence over any informal agreement which may have existed between Mr. Hoot and his collegiate one-night stand with Ms. Watt. The adoption of the older boy, post-marriage, entitles him to a portion of his adopted father's heraldic estate, but not to the pretense of being a blood descendant. So, he gets the arms of his adoptive father, suitably differenced, to denote his status in the family. The natural son takes his place behind his half brothers because there was no "contract" between his father (Mr. Hoot) and his Mother (Ms. Watt) and therefore there was no expectation that he would succeed to the undifferenced arms of his father.

Note that the "natural child" inherits without any mark of "bastardry". This is because "bastardry" no longer exists in EU law in the sense that it could be applied to the descent of arms.

In my view, and only in my view, adoption is something akin to marriage. You have a biological family, but you also have a second, legal and loving family. While in the strictest sense you do not descend from that adoptive family, you can share in their ethos, culture, and familial traditions. That means, at least to me, that you also share in that "heritage".

[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.

[SteveB]

The recording of genealogical families does provide for the blood, and adoptive relationships. However to join many lineage societies, one must have a "proven" blood line to the historical ancestor, and in some cases a "proven" "legitimate" blood line to the historical ancestor.
I have put the word "proven" in quotes as most of the lineage organizations base the "proof" only on the paper documented line. The DNA science is not really embraced in that realm yet.
The "legitimate" line requires that only those born out of a marriage may be considered. This rules out the adoptive and the out of wedlock children in these societies.
Some societies only require "proof" of the blood line, and could care less about marriage.
For purposes of ones own family interests both the adoptive, and where the information is available, blood lines should be recorded and passed down. This is important for children that were adopted a little later than birth as they usually have been exposed to two family cultures, and in later life may revert to the cultural sense of their blood line over their adoptive.
The other important reason for wanting to know about the blood line is for the history of medical conditions that may be genetic in nature, such as the potential of adult onset diabetes.

I am a research genealogist, and have worked on all of the mentioned situations. Sometimes for legal issues, sometime for medical issues, and sometimes for the personal knowledge of my client.