Theunis b1 Both - proper placement of profile

Started by Peter Dennis on Wednesday, March 5, 2014

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Showing 1-30 of 52 posts
3/5/2014 at 2:52 PM

Considering the dna evidence should this profile not be merged/moved to Theunis Botha( Appel)?

3/5/2014 at 10:03 PM

Definitely - this incorrect profile was added recently, i.e. AFTER we had already corrected the tree to coreectly reflect the DNA evidence.
I just wish we could stop these kind of things that could lead to recurring inaccurate merges...!?

3/5/2014 at 10:04 PM

Typo - correctly

3/11/2014 at 8:35 AM

Sharon Doubell - At the beach,Private User
Your input in this regard please.

Private User
3/11/2014 at 8:43 AM

I have merged the profiles - Sharon Doubell - At the beach if you think we should can you lock?

3/11/2014 at 9:08 AM

Good grief! How irritating - Also a bit of a relief, to see this - as I've spent the past hour trying to figure out why I couldn't find what I thought I'd put on the profile & deciding I must have lost my mind :-)

7/23/2014 at 8:41 AM

Re-opening for discussion.

7/23/2014 at 9:21 AM

We moved Theunis Botha and his children to under his biological father in the Appel tree (of course, leaving their surname as Botha), as this allows for Y DNA searches on his descent line for blood cousin GENi users. (See http://www.geni.com/projects/South-African-Y-DNA-Male-Progenitors/1... and http://historylink.herokuapp.com/)

However, this may not be what everyone wants - and people may prefer him and his children in the Botha line.

Can we get input on this?

(Daan has volunteered to maintain a 'ghost profile' duplicate for Theunis in whichever line we don't choose.)

7/23/2014 at 9:27 AM

My preference would be to leave him under the Botha tree just because it was the de facto situation that was accepted over centuries. Doubt whether any of his descendants would turn the clock back.
Agree however that the correct facts disclosed ( and not even generally accepted by all), must be documented on my now infamous "duplicate profile" basis with DVN in both cases be deduced from the parents of the 2 profiles concerned.

7/23/2014 at 9:30 AM

cross posted because I type with one finger and Sharon with ten.

7/23/2014 at 11:54 AM

:-) Lol Daan: if only you could see me typing: I'm also a one fingered typist - and teased about it no end. So I compensate by typing fast and making lots of typos!

7/23/2014 at 12:59 PM

I concur with Daan.

Private User
7/23/2014 at 2:43 PM

These are interesting responses.

I'm following along in case for when we have analogous situations in Colonial America (only a matter of time I'm sure for them to emerge).

So I'd love to understand the thinking.

I follow the DNA placement idea.

I follow that you can't turn back the clock - a Botha is a Botha. :)

I like the "genealogical chimera" as a bridge between the two ancestries.

Now here's my question (I don't have an answer).

I'm a family researcher; am I more interested in tracing the Appel line back in time, or the Botha?

7/23/2014 at 3:06 PM

Erica,
I think biological lines will have precedence.
A Botha/Appel will be interested in Appel lines and a Botha/Botha in the Botha line.
You have to buckle up because even the Bothas were not Friederich's sons
but his brother's according to some sources. DNA will not help here - so stay tuned!

Private User
7/24/2014 at 1:38 AM

I am with Daan as well. Botha it is until other paper documents of the time of birth proofs otherwise.
So I will say if the Appel family wants him they can do so in there own research but for know I tend to prefer and say we leave him as a Botha.

7/24/2014 at 5:10 AM

I suppose I'm more and more committed to biological lines in the historical part of the tree, as I see how much South Africa is using this kind of genetic genealogy to locate ancestors - but also to track genetic diseases.

Because of the small number of founders and the well-documented genealogy trees we have in SA, we are the ideal tree for genetic genealogy, and so a lot is happening in this area.
Eg this article Don posted http://academic.sun.ac.za/Health/Media_Review/2014/2Jun14/files/Ide... that shows that the founder couple for Parkinsons Disease in South Africa are my (and everyone's! :-)) grandparents: Willem Schalk van der Merwe, SV/PROG & Elsje van der Merwe (Cloete)>

Now if I ever show symptoms of PD, it will be useful to be able to tell the dr to test for it right away - maybe succeeding in catching it earlier.

But if the Theunis Bothas are in the Botha tree, they can't benefit from this kind of research on their Appel genetics; and also they confuse the genetic testing analyses on the Botha tree.

7/24/2014 at 5:19 AM

http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5734.full.pdf Fanconi's anaemia -connected to congenital abnormalities & cancer is prevalent amongst SA Afrikaners and has been traced back, using genetic genealogy to "A french Huguenot Couple who arrived 5 June 1688."
Now, as I'm related to half the French Huguenots - this interests me to. Going Off to check which granny this might be...

7/24/2014 at 7:11 AM

Luckily the biological/DNA lines should never be lost due to proper cross referencing, regardless of one's preference.

7/24/2014 at 7:24 AM

But WS van der Merwe is my 7th GGF - possibly where my uncle got it from...

Private User
7/24/2014 at 7:40 AM

I am going to start a Founders Effect amongst South African population project...
The Afrikaner community are a geographically isolated group and it is assumed that founder effect has given rise to the high prevalence of some 20 inherited disorders in this community.

7/24/2014 at 7:47 AM

Professor Gerhard Geldenhuys of Stellenbosch, who took part in the above study, did a number of these studies. More often than not I see him when visiting GISA (My applied maths prof)

7/24/2014 at 8:52 AM

Great idea, Don. Count me in.
He must be an interesting member, Daan.

7/24/2014 at 9:00 AM

Daan, you say =Luckily the biological/DNA lines should never be lost due to proper cross referencing, regardless of one's preference=

But of course they will. The programme doesn't cross-reference, so refusing to acknowledge an illegitimacy in our ancestry means any search for our Y DNA relatives alive today is going to produce incorrect results for ALL Bothas.
And any search for correct ancestry lines is going to be wrong for all Appel Bothas.

As the international Curators say on this:
=I know several people who have been devastated to learn that the line they've spent a lifetime documenting is not their line. I understand their feelings, and I sympathize, but in the end I can't see being reasonably upset by changes in distant ancestry.=

=Theunis was the illegitimate son of his biological father. Why consider anything else? It's a common enough situation. Why parse it into a kind of adoption that needs to be represented in some unique way?=

Who wants to get incorrect information when you do searches, just to preserve a fallacy? That's not genealogy, that's fiction.

If, as you say, Friederich Botha's brother is actually my gr grandfather - then I definitely don't want my line to be deliberately showing an ancestry line that is wrong.

I don't understand why any serious genealogist would want to preference the fiction over the truth!

7/25/2014 at 2:48 AM

Hi to all yes I know about the DNA test that was done as I was part of the test and yes it showed that Theunis father is Appel, I do think Friedrich BOTH (BOTHA) knew this if you look at Theunis (APPEL) BOTHA birth year April 1686 and the year Friedrich BOTH (BOTHA) started or arrived on the farm is 1686, with this in mind I did more research on Theunis (APPEL) BOTHA, Friedrich BOTH (BOTHA) and Maria KICKERS and found a other farm that belonged to Friedrich BOTH (BOTHA) then to Theunis (APPEL) BOTHA and as we all know that those year a child not your own did not inhered from the father, so as I see it Friedrich BOTH (BOTHA) accepted/ adopted Theunis (APPEL) BOTHA as his own son and think that is why he changed his name to BOTHA in 1699 by adding the A from Appel on to BOTH giving all the children the same name namely Botha
In 1710 the loan farm "Eendracht" was registered in the name of Theunis, eldest son of FB. The farm lay in the southern part of the "Land van Waveren" over the Breede River and beneath the Witsenberg and adjacent to Jan Stevensz Botma. By today's location between the Breede River Station and the Waaihoek Mountains.

In 1712 a younger sister of Theunis, Maria, married Coenraad Scheepers, who farmed immediately north on the farm "De Liefde".

In 1714 the 64 morgen 482 sq. roods farm became his freehold property and was operated as a cattle farm.

In 1737 "Eendracht" was transferred to Christoffel, the eldest son of Theunis. The former introduced vines as well as a wine cellar on the farm. When Christoffel died in 1764, the farm was sold to Johannes Albertus Myburgh.

The other farm name is Plattenkloof near Gysmanhoek pass (I will post the document to Theunis profile)
I to have a payment record of Friedrich Both which shows he has been in the Cape from 1601

With this all in mind I personally think we must leave Theunis on the Botha side showing him as the adopted son of Friedrich and the son of Appel birth father in the same way we do with Woman showing there born name and there married name.

7/25/2014 at 3:12 AM

Thank you for your input Gideon, and for replying to my mail so quickly. (Last night I found and contacted you and the 4 other Botha descendants affected by this). It is so interesting that you were part of the study, and to read all about your research. Please, please put it on the profile too.

Your dating theory is definitely quite convincing - though it's not impossible that there were 8 or 9 months between the two events. The farm inheritance makes me think he didn't know - but maybe that's cynical :-) I wonder why he went out of his way to swear in court? Maybe to protect Maria from the adultery charges being even more strict?

The addition of the a on Both is an interesting thought too. But don't Theunis' brothers do it too?

So your suggestion is that we change Theunis' birth surname to Appel?
I hadn't thought of that. There's the problem of the name on his birth certificate actually being Jan Corneliszes, though.

You know that the only way I was able to find you and the 3 other Bothas I contacted - who share your YDNA on GENi - is because Theunis is presently under his biological father (of course still named Botha - that won't change)? In the future - if we put Theunis under Frierdrich's line- that search will produce incorrect results.

7/25/2014 at 4:47 AM

This discussion of Gideon, regardless whether FB knew about Appel or not , fits exactly in with my treatment of the Nel/Strauss duplicates of the same profile. (Adoption situation)

Sharon I do not understand " only way I was able to find you and the 3 other Bothas I contacted - who share your YDNA on GENi - is because Theunis IS PRESENTLY UNDER HIS BIOLOGICAL FATHER (of course still named Botha -"
Regardless where you place him, under Botha or Appel, surely Theunis's descendants were the ones your were looking for and they are all clearly documented. Am I missing something?

7/25/2014 at 5:17 AM

Daan, have you tried to search by 'walking the tree' for all present descendants of Ferdinandus Appel? (Nevermind those who have claimed profiles on GENi.)?
I challenge you to do it and come back to me with results anytime in the next day. (I know because we were trying to confirm mtDNA descendants doing it by hand a couple of months ago).

Now ask the Historylink programme to run it for you. Voila! But it depends on the information being correctly inputted on the tree.
Similarly - research on Theunis' ancestral bloodline - let's say a connection to Charlemagne, for eg - will throw up a completely false path for all his descendants if we show him under the wrong father.

Illegitimacy and adoption are different things - as the international curators were pointing out - and the precedent it creates to deliberately ignore new facts about someone's father in the historical part of the tree, is to deliberately make the GENi tree a convenient fiction, rather than a factual tree.

7/25/2014 at 5:49 AM

PS. I'm still dying of anticipation about Friederich's brother having fathered his other kids. Where is this info? I can't wait to read it. Please post it. Our ouma does not seem to have been the chaste kind :-)

7/25/2014 at 6:36 AM

I have not used Historylink, but I assume it retrieves information from documented trees all over. If it does not recognise cross referencing, surely it might become tedious. But as was also clearly indicated by international curators , the placing of a person is a matter of personal choice and culture - and made inputs about genetics vs genealogy.

If this is the only way to confirm mtDNA descendants, I understand your preference, but Geni has not provided in it's design even for the handling of both biological or de facto parents.

I do not suggest ignoring any new facts. They should be properly documented. The issue is only how best we do it on Geni which in effect "allows" only one set of parents.

Illegitimacy and adoption are different things - It is just handled similarly if you want show both sets of parents on Geni, despite its design limitation

I will dig up the whole Botha saga. It was published first in "Die Huisgenoot" in 1926 and I have seen several references on Geni Profiles. Jans Syfert would be quickest to find them, but I will also looking for them.

Private User
7/25/2014 at 7:11 AM

Surely whether Theunis is linked to his biological father or his "traditional" father will make no difference to the search for DNA connections to him as the starting point? He and his descendants would be left out of a search with Appel as the focus if hi is not listed under his bioilogical father. Support for a duplicate profile linked to the other.

Showing 1-30 of 52 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion