I wonder how many of us married distant relatives without knowing it. My ex-wife and I have several ancestors in common, so do my parents, so do my father and step-father. Almost inevitable, I think, when we all have so many ancestors among the pioneers of New England.
In fact, I read once (can't find it now) that because of the Great Migration Americans whose ancestors were here before 1850 are the largest, most closely related group of people in the world -- no more than 13th cousins from everyone else.
Judi, you don't necessarily need immediate family in order to test.
For example, I have a block with one of my 2nd great grandmothers. She was apparently adopted, although I can't be sure. Tradition says she was Indian. She had a sister who married a Lakota man. I suspected she was Black.
So I started searching for female line descendants. It took me a couple of years, but I finally found one, a 3rd cousin whose grandmother and mine were cousins. She agreed to me tested.
It turns out that our 2nd great grandmother was Indian (India) not Indian (Native American) -- at least in the distant female line, not necessarily the past few hundred years . We're still trying to puzzle it out, but we're much closer to answer than we've ever been before.
It turned out out that I share some of my Ashkenazi genes with this same cousin. So, they're from a totally different line than I thought they would be.
And, to make the story even better, this cousin and I have become good chums, on Geni, on Facebook, and in real life.
There are plenty of opportunities to use DNA for genealogy, even if you're not the one being tested.
And supersede meaning one becomes dominant in number in that area, not as is whiped out.! The language Im using Is just palin folk talk because Im not speaking with the precision of an insider, as of yet! LOL. My observation of human nature would say that person's arriving and marrying into the I1 people present in the nobility would claim their marriage to the daughter of an I1 Noble is a connection...but we know for a fact it's not the Haplogroup that the Male like descends from Cole Hen or else we'd have no rareity in S. Wales where Tudor men and descendants were present at CAREW CASTLE, TENBY, Pembrokshire, and that rareity works in the favor of John Rice 1624 in my book....The pretenders want to claim they are blood born, but their wives are the connection, not the man, so lots R1b's may be using a female lineage as the basis of their belief....not the male lineage. Right?
Dale, Two separate messages to respond to two very different questions.
Males get mtDNA, but not on the x chromosome. Bear with me. This might be one of the most difficult DNA topics to explain.
Humans actually have two different kinds of DNA. There is the kind of DNA we've been talking about here. Everyone gets 46 chromosomes, half from each parent. These chromosomes drive the growth, appearance, and health of the human person.
Then, there is the other kind, called mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA). The mitochondria are like the organs of the cell. Each cell has its personal copy of the 46 chromosomes, but it also has these mitochondria, and the mitochondria have their own DNA separate from the DNA in the cell. The mtDNA in the mitochondria has nothing to do with the regular DNA in the nucleus of the cell.
Everyone gets their mother's mitochondrial DNA. Period. No contribution from the father. No combining. The DNA in the mitochondria just keeps going down through the generations with an occasional mutation.
So, yDNA and mtDNA are two very different things, but they serve complementary purposes. A yDNA test will tell you about your paternal line and an mtDNA test will tell you about your maternal line.
Dale, if I read your second message right, then yes. Absolutely. I think you are right that many families who claim to descend from that root of Welsh noble families are probably descendants on the female line.
Probably there are places in the pedigree where they've swapped a son-in-law and made him look like a son so it would appear to be the same family.
I think we see this in the genetic results. We might have suspected before, but now we have proof that they aren't all male-line descendants.
Now, the trick is to figure out which ones are and which ones aren't. It's turning out to be much harder than anyone ever thought it would.
Okay, Thanks for the refresher on MT. DNA....so lets please have someone look at the John Rice 1624 Mt.DNA and compare it to Tamzine Frost/Rice....My question and observation statnds....my Aural Histiory says she is his mother, and he ended up only a few miles WEST of her meaning a 14 year old got to AMERICA on his own with Perrott's help in my book, But someone please just check the Mt DNA for both...Im betting she's his MOMMA! LOL DCR 1948
Justiin you chime in here: the Tests are coming down in Price, I have located one that does Male Y to 31 markers and a Female Mt. DNA test for $147.00 on MY Family DNA....The female part may not be as complete as the Y but it's a good start to see if worth pursuing further with more complete testing at higher costs...but That's a tight fisted Nebraska Farmer's son talin'! LOL DCR 1948
William "The Conqueror", King of England - is my 25th great grandfather
Dale, the connection between Tamzin and John Rice is a problem for testing. I don't know enough about the family to know if there's a way to work around it.
This is the problem -- in order to compare, you need mtDNA for both of them. It has to be mtDNA, not something with the x chromosome.
For Tamzin, you need to find someone, male or female, who is descended in the direct female line from Tamzin. If she didn't have any daughters, or you aren't sure if someone was her daughter, or if her daughters' lines have all died out, then you would look for a direct female-line descendant of one of her sisters (a sister with the same mother).
But, John was a man. He had his mother's mtDNA but he didn't pass it on to his children. His children got their mother's mtDNA. So, you don't have a way to test for him.
If John had a sister, and if you're weren't sure whether she was a daughter of Tamzin, you could find one female line descendant from her, and one from another sister, and compare them. But that still wouldn't get you any closer to finding John's mtDNA, unless for some reason there was no doubt at all that a particular woman was his sister.
Susan Lynne Schwenger, after watching another similar situation unfold in another discussion I think the private King William profile offers little of genuine assistance. This is second hand information from observation, but it seems the only way to keep a profile of this length of time private is to leave off the birth and death dates. If they don't know those, they don't know enough to be useful anyway. Geni will automatically fill in a date range from associated profiles, and it goes public again. Fishy maybe, but it's a minnow.
Susan Lynne Schwenger "King Rufus", the living manager / son of "King William the Conqueror" is what Geni calls a "claimed historical profile" and has been reported as such (profile view, actions menu, report, (drop down) "claimed historic profile").
I guess some people find it "cute" to set up these private trees, for free, on Geni.
Just an annoyance for Customer Service to take care of. The Master Profile of course represents the "best version of a historic figure we know"
& it's work enough getting those sourced and accurate - all invited to contribute.
Tamzin is Thomasine Frost Rice married to Edmun RICE 1594...so there should be no problem wtih female Mt.DNA....all of their Children would his John Rice's !/2 sisters....Perhaps I should approach ERA since they were talking about investigating John Rice 1624 anyway....Can Kris help this happen, I know she follows ERA closely. As to how we get Male mt. DNA from a long dead person that seems a little unlikely....but Im sure we have a grave located. You said his sons would have Mt.DNA from their mother who would be ANN Hackley for the John, Samuel , and Mary persons born to them after 1649. Getting the Mt. DNA from the sisters of John does nothing for us right? Because we don't have his to look at? Is that what you said? DCR 1948
Yes, that's exactly right.
The mtDNA from John's half-sisters sounds like it would be easy enough. But, there seems to be no way to get John's own mtDNA for comparison.
It can be difficult to construct testing scenarios with mtDNA. It's much harder to strategize than yDNA. The best candidates for testing are when you have a female ancestor and you're not sure which of her father's wives was her mother. Unless the wives were sisters or cousins, it's likely that their descendants will have different mtDNA.
Another easy one is when you have a woman, and a good theory about her mother or mother's mother. You can test her female-line descendants, and compare with the female-line descendants of the possible mother.
I'm working on a project like that now, but it's hard to trace female lines over the centuries. I keep running into dead ends. I get down the line a few hundred years, then discover that it died out with just sons. I'm getting some good genealogy work out of it, but it's frustrating because I'm actually looking for something else.
How about the sister lines to Tamzin? They would be Aunts to John Rice 1624 could give a son to compare to John's : Close but no cigar, I know but I simply can't believe I would be stopped in my tracks at Tamzine and Perrott ap Rice....Perrott will show as John Rice's Father in Blood Group I1 which is mostly confined to the Wales or Whlsh coastal areas and that would describe Tenby and Carew where Sir John Perrott and my Perrott would have been is succeeding earas....So that's a nice fit. Perhaps there is a surviving 16th generation grandson of Sir John Perrott 1625 we can look at....note the proximity of DOB for Sir John and his mother, Mary Berkley. My John Rice is 1624 and the King was responsible for the grandaughter Katherine, sho married the King's gandson, John Rice II of Rickerson.....These are very close times in and around Pembrokshire, so the King would have to have been in the Area in 1624 or Mary Berkley in the Area of London in 1624 to Have John Perrott 1625. just fyi DCR