The fun of adoption...

[Bugbear]

** Post removed by author because it was off topic. **

[Scotus]

Really, if this were a genealogical forum, I'd feel like arguing my point; however, I'm here to talk about kilts. The original post in this thread has nothing to do with Tartans & Heraldry (the name of this section of the forum). The subtitle says, "A place to discuss various tartans and devices of heraldry." I think this section is supposed to be about various tartans and the heraldry of the clans, which has a somewhat loose connection to Scottish attire. Who your family is might only be related to kilts if you're determining what tartan to wear; however, as I said, the original post in this thread has nothing to do with Tartans & Heraldry.

This thread began as unrelated to Tartans & Heraldry and has digressed to the point of talking about swapped babies and faked pregnancy.

[macwilkin]

Really, if this were a genealogical forum, I'd feel like arguing my point; however, I'm here to talk about kilts. The original post in this thread has nothing to do with Tartans & Heraldry (the name of this section of the forum). The subtitle says, "A place to discuss various tartans and devices of heraldry." I think this section is supposed to be about various tartans and the heraldry of the clans, which has a somewhat loose connection to Scottish attire. Who your family is might only be related to kilts if you're determining what tartan to wear; however, as I said, the original post in this thread has nothing to do with Tartans & Heraldry.

This thread began as unrelated to Tartans & Heraldry and has digressed to the point of talking about swapped babies and faked pregnancy.

Spot on, Scotus. Let's try to steer this one back "on-topic", please.

Todd

[Downix]

Spot on, Scotus. Let's try to steer this one back "on-topic", please.

Todd

Quite true, so in an attempt to steer the topic back, in cases of modern adoption, it would be fair, I assume, to use the legal standing for tartan usage, or would biological be acceptable to (such as in my fathers case, where his bio father did not surrender his rights, and still claimed his son).

[Scotus]

... in cases of modern adoption, it would be fair, I assume, to use the legal standing for tartan usage, or would biological be acceptable to (such as in my fathers case, where his bio father did not surrender his rights, and still claimed his son).

Downix, I think you would be safe going either way for the use of tartan. If a person is adopted, they are legally adopted into that clan/family and would be perfectly correct in the use of the tartan of that clan/family. Keep in mind that you can wear about any tartan you wish; however, if you're using an adopted name, you'd be correct in saying that it's in honor of a family or clan to which you belong. On the other hand, if you used the genealogical route (blood line), you would be just as correct in saying you're wearing such-and-so tartan to honor your blood ties to that family or clan. Again, this is IMHO, and you can wear just about any tartan for any reason you wish.

[gilmore]

Really, if this were a genealogical forum, I'd feel like arguing my point; however, I'm here to talk about kilts. The original post in this thread has nothing to do with Tartans & Heraldry (the name of this section of the forum). The subtitle says, "A place to discuss various tartans and devices of heraldry." I think this section is supposed to be about various tartans and the heraldry of the clans, which has a somewhat loose connection to Scottish attire. Who your family is might only be related to kilts if you're determining what tartan to wear; however, as I said, the original post in this thread has nothing to do with Tartans & Heraldry.

This thread began as unrelated to Tartans & Heraldry and has digressed to the point of talking about swapped babies and faked pregnancy.

That's true; however, for quite some time this forum has served as one for genealogical topics, since genealogical issues come up from time to time, and this is the closest on X Marks in content. In fact scanning over the two most current pages, it appears that some eight of the latest 40 threads are genealogical in origin.

[macwilkin]

That's true; however, for quite some time this forum has served as one for genealogical topics, since genealogical issues come up from time to time, and this is the closest on X Marks in content. In fact scanning over the two most current pages, it appears that some eight of the latest 40 threads are genealogical in origin.

Gil,

With all due respect, the thread was off-course. Yes, this forum is a de facto genealogical one, but as Scotus mentioned, the primary purpose of Xmarks is a kilt forum.

Regards,

Todd

[Bugbear]

Really, if this were a genealogical forum, I'd feel like arguing my point; however, I'm here to talk about kilts. The original post in this thread has nothing to do with Tartans & Heraldry (the name of this section of the forum). The subtitle says, "A place to discuss various tartans and devices of heraldry." I think this section is supposed to be about various tartans and the heraldry of the clans, which has a somewhat loose connection to Scottish attire. Who your family is might only be related to kilts if you're determining what tartan to wear; however, as I said, the original post in this thread has nothing to do with Tartans & Heraldry.

This thread began as unrelated to Tartans & Heraldry and has digressed to the point of talking about swapped babies and faked pregnancy.

I apologize. I'm the one who brought up those subjects; I will drop out.

[MacMillan of Rathdown]

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

Personal observation in having examined literally hundreds of parish records in both Scotland and Ireland.

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

Okay, here's what you wrote:

"The notion that only genetic connections are normative and worthy of genealogical research is no longer applicable."

That's what you wrote, and that's merely your opinion, one that seems to be pretty much out there all by itself. You immediately followed it with:

"In fact, it never was the case."

Again, this is mere opinion, and an extreme minority one at that. No matter what hour of the day one may choose to read it.

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.

You are right this is silly-- silly to confuse the continuation of a political office (succeeding as the ruler of the Roman empire) with the continuation of a blood related family.

But as Scotus and Todd have pointed out, this forum is about kilts, not genealogy although it may stray there from time to time. If you want to continue the debate (at whatever hour suits you) you can PM those of us you feel are interested.

As for me, unless there is some further question regarding adoption and the descent of armorial insignia, I think this topic has been well addressed and really have nothing further to say on the matter.

[gilmore]

Gil,

With all due respect, the thread was off-course. Yes, this forum is a de facto genealogical one, but as Scotus mentioned, the primary purpose of Xmarks is a kilt forum.

Regards,

Todd

That's true. But then no one is holding a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to read a thread that they don't want to, as far as I know.

Has there been discussion of a dedicated forum or sub-forum for genealogical threads? They come up fairly regularly.