GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 1996-02 > 0823294361
From: Jared Olar <>
Subject: Re: Royal Lines
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 14:52:41 -0600
On Fri, 2 Feb 1996, Don Widener wrote:
> >Chris Bennett wrote about the relationship of adultery to genealogical
> >investigations. Let me observe that one can do genealogical research
> >which is not based on genetic transferrals, but on what records show.
> Not so, mon ami, by definition.
> Genealogy: "A record or account of the ancestry and descent of a person,
> family or group."
> Ancestry: "Ancestral descent, lineage"
> Lineage: "Lineal descent from an ancestor"
> Ancestor: "One from whom a person is descended"
> If you ignore "genetic transferrals" then whatever you're doing, it's not
I think I tend to come down on Chris Bennett's side here. I
believe the word 'genealogy' carries a usage or connotation of 'Family
History.' If you want to study Family History, then to leave out anyone
in the family who doesn't share DNA or a sexual relationship is to leage
huge gaps in the record. 'Genealogy' in a strict sense in a scientific
discipline, and I think Don Widener has it right that the research must
be done honestly and correctly--when the genetic link is not there
or not provable you must not say or imply that it is. But in the broader
sense of Family History, I have no qualms about including adopted
children and heirs. It all depends on what you want to find out. Do you
want to know where you got your DNA, or do you want to know where you
came from? Those are two very different concepts, and the latter
question (as Bennett said) will lead you into wider and wider avenues of
research and exploration, as your genealogical research blurs into
historical and cultural studies. Genealogy is not (or need not be)
exclusively biological/genetic nor historical/anthropological.