Seems that it this line of investigation needs a fresh twist to help solve the mystery... herewith an OOTB attempt.
As intro - I think we have to put ourselves in their shoes and imagine the lives they led where there was no TV, entertainment, and very little people. Even our smallest towns today, equiped with cellphones, fibre and dstv etc - are larger than those times (and if on farms you only saw other people say once a month+) and I extrapolate that the less you have to do, the less people there are, the more you are going to gossip about others (especially where there are 'differences'), as there is only so much one can talk about the weather and tell the same stories.
I find it extremely unlikely that a brother or sister that was adopted was not constantly reminded thereof by older brothers and sisters - whom would have known at birth! Especially in cases where there were different mothers (originating from different continents here!) and they certainly would have different body features (if they was adopted, there is also the further possibility of different fathers as well!). The other brothers and sisters of such individuals would have constantly reminded them of their status esp when bickering, the church and community would have known, the parents could have treated them differently. They did not have the means and psycology/insight/mindset we have today to treat it as we would today. The simpler one's life, the less stomache for intrigue there is.
Also those days all people had was family and duty. There is the possibility that addition non-biological family members could have been seen as an additional mouth to feed, even only by one partner and then later also resented by the other, and even have been let to fend more for themselves once they reach adulthood and left out when inheriting. All of which would lead to resentment by such children towards their adopted parents and 'family'.
Almost there - just a reminder: the records we have of 'then' are as people was 'registered' and per household - and not according to their genealogy. I believe that given names (up to 3 generations down - chosen based on age at birth of child and avg life expectancy of those times) would be a better proxy for genealogical purposes... especially since it was common practice to name a child after the grandparents (albeit not always in the same set order, but still almost in all cases) especially after doing away with giving them the surname of the father's name. The name became most important and had strong ties/meaning.
OK, so that was my short intro just to get to the following: If a daughter was not a true biological daughter of the mother, then it would have been MORE LIKELY that she would name her daughters after someone other than her non-biological mother. And her daughters would also probably (/more likely) have been kept in the dark as to their maternal grandmother, so that they would have been even less likely when they had many daughters to pick the name (by accident or intentionally) of the mysterious grandmother, and may even pick the names of their true maternal grandmother if they were told her identity. Etc.
Putting that into test here: Catharina van Malabar had 5 daughters. If the U2c1 lines and the N21 line can be taken as correct, then we have two U2c1 daughters and one N21 daughter of Catharina van Malabar.
The summary of the U2c1 daughters named Catharina:
1/10 daughters
(Arriantje - no daughter named CATHARINA)
The summary of the N21 daughter:
1/4 daughters named Catharina
The summary of the yet tested daughters:
0/7 daughters named Catharina
The summary of the U2c1 granddaughters from daughters only:
0/15
The summary of the N21 granddaughters from daughters only:
2/8
The summary of the yet tested granddaughters from daughters only:
0/9
This gives strong indication that the current N21 line would be the more logical biological line.
The above arguments/summaries would futhermore hold true if there were two separate U2c1 and N21 lines not converging on Catharina van Malabar and the two or more(!!) maternal mtDNA grandmothers had different names.
The above can of course be expanded to the sons as well, but because we will never have their or their descendant's mtDNA (to validify here 'towards' Catharina) I left that for the more diligent.
Oh lastly, I am not sure if I am the only one picking it up, but it seems that the investigations here are focussing predominantly on a N21 adoption/error but for totality it would be better to look at the U2c1 angle too (with all the previous arguments in this tread in mind x2). So I am not picking sides here, just trying to balance the scales with the investigation, and when I did a quick scan it actually seemed that the N21 lines are making more sense to start with, at least to me and even so slightly, but worth stating.
Problem with this page?
Geni Pro
Geni member
Geni member
Private UserGeni member
Geni member
Geni member
Geni member