DNA vs. DOCUMENTATION (Please, no arguing :)

My official vote for DNA being used to prove lineages:

"AYE".

I vote for both my dude. DNA and paper trail helped a lot in my bloodlines. Got my Bailey and Garner papertrail and DNA backed, my mother succeeded the DNA part.

Papertrail helps with guiding the placement of our ancestors and DNA says yes we are DNA related. Without the papertrail though DNA can't make a placement for our ancestors so both is required in my opinion. But if Documents is so strong like 110% strong with ancestors long ago like yes that's there children with no argument can't argue by legal standpoint on the documents. So it's 50/50 for both sources. I'm with ya cuzzo.

When it comes down to ancestors long ago sometime DNA can't go that far back so all that's left for us is the documents let's say 400, 500 years ago for example. DNA test like they did for King Richard 3rd tracking down his 17th great nephew and his nephew got to make the coffin for Richards royal reburial is rare and very expensive and takes the best to track DNA 17 generations back.

They did that only to be able to prove that the skeleton they found is in fact King Richard 3rd plus the skeleton had Richards spinal curve disease.

King Richard 3rd didn't have a proper Royal burial after losing against King Henry 7th so 500 years later with his distant nephew and niece at the reburial was a big deal for sure.

Benedict Cumberbatch famous actor played in Doctor Strange a valid 2nd cousin such remove to king Richard 3rd was also at his Royal Reburial and gave a speech.

Can't have DNA without the papertrail for the placement of our relatives from long ago. Because DNA can only say how many generations back we are related etc but can't say through a sister aunt brother or cousin for example like the identity relationship for example is what the papertrail is for.

Yup it's tricky for sure. But I hope this sums it up for ya cuz

You need both, actually. DNA can tell you *that* you are related to somebody, but only a solid paper trail can tell you *how* you are related. We have some profiles that we know are related (DNA says so) but not how they are related (no paper trail).

I take it Jeffrey's own standpoint is NAYE, which is the logic and only "answer" to any attempt to ventilate matter as matter.

It should also be mentioned that there is a reverse side to the question. If Y- or mtDNA says you are not related, then you are not related no matter what the paper trail says. (This is an old, old argument here, and some people have so *hated* to lose their fabulous connection(s) that they reject the DNA findings.)

Exactly ya guys on point

Yup no DNA mean no relation even if papertrail says so but family relationship is there but means the grandparent ya descend from is not their child exactly on point.

Glad we have DNA test these days. Back in the day they only had papertrail for sure.

My DNA is up on 23 and me. My mom did both Ancestry. Com and 23 and me and my grandma done Ancestry. Com

A lot of my family history was passed down to us which was a plus family pics etc which helps and my great aunt was my inspiration she did a lot on our tree she passed 2020 rest in peace great aunt Marianne

My great grandma Ruby that passed when I was in 3rd grade was born a Brisbin a very ancient royal bloodline going back 1300s. Ya got Sir Thomas Mcdougal Brisbane governor of New South Wales and lord Chancellor of Scotland William Brisbane and general James Sanks Brisbane of civil war. Brisbins has different variations of the name on location we are at, in U. S it's Brisbin. In Australia it's Brisbane.

All Brisbins recorded going back to Wessex etc for example same family. The progenitor of the Brisbin clan was believe to be a Viking records on Brisbins was lost before 1300s as they say. Brisbin definition stands for Broken bones originated from a island in Norway so makes me looking into thinking Brisbins came from Ivar The boneless just a motive right now though.

Good point on the distinction with Y-DNA and mt-DNA, although you still could have an ancestral relationship that was not a direct line--i.e.clean father-father-father-father,and so on, but father-mother-mother-father-mother. If you have the same Y haplo or maternal haplo as the latter, it is chance..I think this is also confusing to some people.

With autosomal DNA and endogamous populations, some of these are truly off the charts. Colonial New England is a great example--for me, anyway. A few of my lines are so tightly interwoven when I get suggested cousin matches, I have no idea if they're a 4th-5h cousin or a 15th cousin or maybe not a cousin at all. It's really that strange the way the DNA presents. Parts of Europe are similar. I map my matches,and try to keep the bulk of these to people with decently sourced trees, so I have a pretty good idea of what endogamy looks like playing out. It's nuts!

You really need both. DNA doesn't "lie", but sometimes it wants to play tricks with you. :-)