The fun of adoption...

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 The notion that only genetic connections are normative and worthy of genealogical research is no longer applicable.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

[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.

[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]

...
"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. ....

Not at all. See post number 20 above in this thread, in which facts are set out supporting the position I stated.

The rest of your post doesn't, IMHO, merit a response. It is quite possible to disagree without being disagreeable.