Need to be added to project

That right it was alway de small letter and la small letter. then it got changed.

Woodman, I now know what you were talking about concerning Richard the 3rd.'s body being found under a parking lot and doing DNA. I thought you were being smart alecky. But it really happened. It just show up on my computer. Very interesting. In his case maybe can get info out of the remains.Wouldn't that be wonderful! I wonder how he covered up all those years. Al tho in my town they covered up half a grave yard for a monument. They said they moved the bodies but tombstones have been known to turn up in peoples garages.Probably my missing Benjamin Parker is under that monument. Never will know , will I?

Geni discussion about Richard III's body is here:

http://www.geni.com/discussions/112891

I could care less. Just comment as Woodman happened to have had mentioned it and i thought he was joking, Then saw it on Yahoo and realized it was true. So I was just commenting that I now know what he was talking about!

Robert K- in regards to your statement listed above...that is your PROSPECTIVE! My father (who is 82) was adopted. If I would have made my tree solely based on his adoptive parents/family...I for one wouldn't have nearly as many (interesting and famous) relatives to chart..than I do with his true BLOOD lineage! Nor, would I have found out that his ancestor is one of four founding fathers of Stonington Connecticut, which authentically roots me to a extremely large historical clan I descend from ..and for another, a whole spectrum of colorful figures from our historical past and present!! DNA is important and traces how we are connected,other than paper issued by the courts. Yes I am grateful for my adoptive grandparents! That is my 2 cents worth.

Right on Beverly!

Beverly Bowers Who said you should make your tree *SOLELY* on the basis of your adoptive parents? Take all you can. After all, the parents who raised you gave you an entire culture and history, but the parent's who gave you life gave you the genetic makeup that is you. So why not take both?

You have just as many ancestors from one line as you do from the other. How many you can find is another matter, but you have twice as many if you take both lines. That is until you get to the point where they cross. Which they will if you can go back far enough.

Notice I did not say to ignore the genetic family, I said how do we explain who their family is if we limit it to the genetic family. One of my daughters knows who her biological parents are, the other does not. Even the one who knows doesn't know much about them. Limiting the tree to biological heritage cuts them off, and leaves them with no history. Neither of them has Irish/German/Portuguese genetics, but both of them have the heritage through their parents. If either of my daughters decide she wants to search for her birth parents, I'll help her do it. They still stay on my family tree.

And yes, that is my perspective. After all, who else's perspective am I authorized to give you?

By my most humble point-of view, the true genealogy must follow only known blood lineages, although the "DNA truth hardly" confirm all "papers truth". But indubitably we can not follow any paper that we know as simple
legal-fiction of blood ties. In that sense empty spaces are much more useful than legal lies.

I have been wondering about the whole adoptive perspective myself. After divorcing my first husband, my 2nd husband adopted my 3 sons from my first marriage. They were given a culture rich in French/Canadian history and traditions.
After their biological father died, (and now in the age of the internet) curiosity got the better of me one day and I googled his name. I discovered that his ancestry was well documented Irish. I have passed this information on to my sons and they can pull from what ever traditions they want!! So now doing charts, I wonder how to incorporate both. I have come to the conclusion that I need to make an entirely new chart (if they want it done) so that they can discover their birth roots.

Adoption has been brought up before and they seem to talk all around it and just keep going in circles. They are good at that.I think there should be two sets of parent in such cases, if you know who they are.

Jo Duhalme@ As I understand your three sons has been well informed about your first marrige, the divorce and the adoptions. What is of most interest for them. From the moment of adoption your husband (nr 2) is their father. I would just tell in the Aboutbox "His biological father is the first husband of the mother." And in the Base-information set your seccond husband as the sons father. As he is their father!! In your first husbands Aboutbox you can tell the names of the sons he had and in the Relation-box put you in as "Fromer wife" and the date of divorce. From the moment he had signed the adoptionpapers the sons was no longer his.

If it by some reason becomes interesting to make an DNA-test, so the sons know where to search for the biological father.

In my opinion you don't need to "make an entirely new chart". Just put in the above mentioned "extras". In the case your husband had not adopted them then they would stand as your first husbands sons and your seccond husbands stepsons.

I cannot see any other connection but the DNA. Your sons may of course be interested of their biological backgrund but that's not genealogy. It's a psykosocial and personal issue that might be something to talk about among themselves.

The subject of adopyion has been bannied around like a ping pong ball and getting noway fast. I think there should be in the adoption profiles be allowed two sets of parents, if you know who they are.

Well, that was supose to be adoption. Sorry.

Jo,

For what it's worth, I grew up like your sons. I was adopted by a step-father when I was very young, then later in life got to know my biological father and developed a good relationship with him.

In my heart, although not on paper, I will always have two families. When genealogy programs tell me that someone is my "mother's husband's great grandfather" I often have a split second of surprise that he's not my ancestor.

Same with the cousins I grew up with. Their mother is my mother's adopted sister. It's always a surprise to see that they are my 6th cousins (or whatever it is) and not my "real" cousins, even though I'm the one who did the work and discovered the biological relationships.

So, my advice is always to let people define their own families. It's pointless to pontificate about whether adoptions are real or not. To the people involved it is whatever they say it is.

Your family is always the ones you love, weather really related to you or not. I have an adopted grand daughter, no blood relation but she's still my granddaughter and her baby is my great grand child. She always say thank God for you and Kevin , Nana. I never would have made it without you, but that's another sorry not for Geni's eyes. Love her to pieces.My uncle had step children, no other children and forever they will be his children and grandchildren ete. Blood may be important in Geneolgy but it dosen't make a family in real life.

Judy-It's not a question of who loves who and why. "Family" as a main definition in the the dictionary- "Any group of persons closely related by blood, as parents, children, uncles,aunts, and cousins. All those persons considered as descendants of a common progenitor. This is a Genealogical website for the purpose of discovering and tracing our Authentic roots.How you want to define family,is of course your choice. I guess I am just a purist. ( that is not saying you can't make different charts if you so chose to do so) I will add..in order to join the WP society, I had to provide PROOF that my father was born of a WP descendant. I couldn't do that from his Adoptive parents.

Ellyn: Putting the "gene" back in "genealogy"!

This whole adoption issue is very emotionally charged, and understandably so. Genealogy is mostly about assumed (whether real or false) blood lines. In Western countries, until recently, I think very few adopted children knew who their biological parents were; and I doubt whether records of biological parents (usually only the mother) and adoptive parents were matched until maybe 50 years ago.

But I think it is quite wrong to effectively exclude adopted children from Geni, as if they were not human, or to adopt a lie that they were not adopted. So my vote is that the system should be changed to include a special field for adoptions

Doesn't matter Beverly , if legally adopted , they are legally your family and your family comes along with the package. However, as I said before, for genealogy purposes , a person who has been adopted should be able to have two sets of parents , and follow both lines, if they know who the two sets of parents are. PS how many adopted people never know that they are adopted? A lot, I imagine.some people have step parents and have no idea they are step parents. What's WP society? You might be able to joint it if legally adopted and if not whatever it is , is it that important to join, if it excluded certain people.

Having done a couple DNA tests( i am not rich, just prioritize)and linking with cousins through the tests, i found my maternal grandfather was not a "Green" but a Red. The name he had carried was through the Green line but it was a Maternal name(NPE or native?) He is both Green and Red, but the heirs from 1800 still carry the wrong Y DNA.
Same thing with my maternal grandmother. Of the DNA Tests, many people who tested did not match us because they were looking for the given name. BTW. This site says i am a Direct grand of Queen Victoria, King Henry, and several Scottish,Irish and Welsh Monarchs.
Guess i'll tell Prince Wm to move over, as i am the 43rd ggdaughter of
King George. That is how ridiculous your claims TO GLORY are. Get out of my tree please and quit mis-identifying MY ancestors

Kentucky I can only say to the above WHAT! Well, I do get the get out of my tree part and i agree that. But green red BTW and so on.. Has to have something to do with DNA, which i really know very little about so again I say WHAT! PS I too can not afford it and if it's as messed up as you seem to be indicating I am glad I can't afford it!

Mr. Woodman- I agree with you! That way it includes everyone!

Judy- Walter Palmer is one of four founding fathers of Stonington Connecticut. He has a extremely large family blood line! Type in his name on Geni and you will see. My father was born of a female who comes from the Palmer bloodline. I have his paperwork that gives proof of this. Therefor...we are entitled to join and be included in the Palmer history books/records. So yes...it is important for me, as something I can pass onto my own children as they are included as belonging to this prominent pilgrim family of Connecticut. It is their birthright!! My father?? He of course is key...I will be doing it for him, me and my children. Sadly to say, has vascular dementia and is unable to communicate or understand. He would get a kick out of knowing having come from a under age teenage girl (in the 1930's)with no father listed on his birth certificate to discovering that he is related to royalty,presidents,actors..etc

Queen Victoria is my 13th cousin 6 times removed.

Queen Victoria is my 13th cousin 6 times removed.

Kentucky- what is the deal with the 3-6-7th Susan at the end of your names?? Is it like a title,only at the opposite end?

Justin Swanström and {Judy} Judith A Parker Loubris Mc Carthy

In your successive comments you covered it quite well. Pretty much how I see it. My two younger daughters do not know their biological parents, and so far have no shown a desire to search. If they are not on my tree, they are not on anyones. My family is the only family they have. If they ever decide to search I will help them, then they can have a split tree, but they will always be my daughters.

Oh, and I have three grandchildren, one of whom is by my step son's wife's first marriage. I do not hyphenate grand children. They call me grandpa... the ones who can talk, that is. That is how it will be.

Or, as they say, dealer's choice.

to All:

I have recently acquired several followers and a couple invitations to collaborate. I may have given the impression I am very active and successful at searching, perhaps that's why. Well, I did have quite a successful run researching my local family, with limited resources, but that only went back a few hundred years. I now have a very extensive family history building up, but I got almost all of it on Geni. The work of others has given me that history.

So, I don't know how useful I will be in any collaboration, esp since I do work, though I will be retiring within a few months. Also, let me say, thank you to all who have provided the information I have now collected.

In the last few months I have gotten even more active, and I have learned a very great deal.

Aside from that, it has also been nice just to hear from family members, though distant, and I do enjoy that.

So, thanks all of you.

This project has led me to my 78th GGF, Zerubbabel, about 2500 years ago. Through him I have traced back to Adam. That's using the biblical project.

How good it is may be another matter, but now all I have to do is trace the other 18 quintillion ancestors to complete my tree all the way back to the beginning.

It is likely most if not everyone on this discussion is also descended from him, in case you haven't already found it.

ALL

Ok, another commentary. I was reading the Richard III reports, but hadn't seem much of it. Monday and Tuesday the local paper carried the news. When I read the story and saw the skeleton, I understood what the conversation was about. What first struck me was, why did they have to go to a cousin in Canada, why wasn't there someone closer, in England, to cross reference to.

Then I read it was determined by mitochondrial DNA. With paternal DNA there is a wide range of possible change. However, with mitochondrial DNA they had to find a maternal line descendant of a known mother or sister, since that is passed down by the female line, intact.

At which time I thought, most of my finds have been the male line, since the records are most complete that way, and since titles, and property are more often passed on that way. Yet the female line is the one with intact DNA that can be traced back to Eve. The one in Africa 200,000 years ago, theoretically. Maybe we need to do more of a matriarchal genealogy, since that's the line you can be more sure of.

Just a thought.

Next thought is, WOW!