GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116630513


From: "Alister John Marsh" <>
Subject: Re: [DNA] William the Conqueror
Date: Sat, 21 May 2005 11:08:33 +1200
References: <052020051526.6948.428E019A00040F7000001B242200762194050B989A0E00@comcast.net>


Hi David,

I understood your Sinclair descended from Eystein, aka "The Noisy", Jarl of
Glumra. You now say the Sinclair is from the same Y-DNA line as William the
Conqueror. I don't believe I have heard it claimed that William's ancestor
Rollo was descended from Eystein. Does Rollo descend from Eystein on the
direct male line?

Regards,
John Marsh.

----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 3:26 AM
Subject: Re: [DNA] William the Conqueror


> Ken:
>
> You did not mention that there are exceptions to your description below -
Y-DNA and mtDNA. You are only speaking of autosomal DNA.
>
> The Y chromosome of my Shetland Islands Bruce participant appears to have
come directly, and intact except for a few inconsequential mutations, from
the Royal Bruce of Scotland family. The same can be said for my Stewart
participant sharing the same Y chromosome as James V of Scotland, and my
Sinclair participant having the same Y chromosome as William the Conqueror
(although not a direct lineal descendant of the latter). Curiously all are
R1b. More to the point, all these men inherited the chromosome as a unit
(the recombining part at the tips being an exception) and so despite the
large number of generations (e.g., 30) separating them and their ancestors
of 1000 or so years ago they are in the position of having "bragging rights"
as to having one of their 46 chromosomes that can be traced via genealogy
and DNA research to a known figure in the early history of Europe.
>
> David F.
>
>
>
> -------------- Original message --------------
>
> > Its even worse than your observation of a "finite number of genes".
Because
> > of "crossover" in which the matched pairs of chromosomes split and
exchange
> > whole segments of themselves with each other (about three parts per
> > chromosome I have read), we don't inherit genes one by one each
generation,
> > but in large hunks. By only the 10th generation back the math suggests
you
> > start having ancestors from which you inherited no genetic materials
> > whatsoever.
> >
> > So from about the 10th generation back most of one's ancestors are only
> > "behavioral ancestors" in that their matings were a causal link which
> > eventually led to oneself. They leave us no genetic material. That's why
> > at about the 10th generation back I get more interested in tribes,
clans,
> > and regional populations. Their gene pools become our meaningful deep
> > genetic ancestral origins further back in time.
> >
> > Incidently, I am not discounting the importance of "behavioral
ancestry".
> > We are nature-plus-nurture creatures. The family cultural (behavioral)
> > traditions handed down from generation to generation are as important to
us
> > as the genetic handdowns. And a family line which has believed it
descends
> > from Bruce of Scotland could very well have preserved a family culture
for
> > centuries which reflects that genealogical origin.
> >
> > Ken
>
>
> ==============================
> Find your ancestors in the Birth, Marriage and Death Records.
> New content added every business day. Learn more:
> http://www.ancestry.com/s13964/rd.ashx
>

This thread: