GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-05 > 1116793490
Subject: Re: [DNA] William the Conqueror
Date: Sun, 22 May 2005 20:24:50 +0000
Whatever is on my website for Shetland is what I have been given. The Eystein claim stands - others have noted that Rollo is of this lineage in the male line - I took their statement at face value and will let others puzzle it out as I have other fish to fry at the moment :-)
-------------- Original message --------------
> 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?
> John Marsh.
> ----- Original Message -----
> 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".
> > > of "crossover" in which the matched pairs of chromosomes split and
> > > whole segments of themselves with each other (about three parts per
> > > chromosome I have read), we don't inherit genes one by one each
> > > but in large hunks. By only the 10th generation back the math suggests
> > > 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,
> > > 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
> > > We are nature-plus-nurture creatures. The family cultural (behavioral)
> > > traditions handed down from generation to generation are as important to
> > > as the genetic handdowns. And a family line which has believed it
> > > from Bruce of Scotland could very well have preserved a family culture
> > > 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
> Jumpstart your genealogy with OneWorldTree. Search not only for
> ancestors, but entire generations. Learn more: