Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2005-06 > 1119037210

From: <>
Subject: Re: RE: Norman character : was [DNA] sub rugrat level
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 15:40:10 -0400


I thought I made it clear in the previous post. I misread your earlier statement regarding a Norman
haplotype. Evidently, I wasn't the only one confused today.


> From: "Glen Todd" <>
> Date: 2005/06/17 Fri PM 03:15:38 EDT
> To:
> Subject: RE: Norman character : was [DNA] sub rugrat level
> > I agree with Mike on this one. Even if you go with the overly
> > simplistic concept that the Normans were strictly Vikings, you
> > still have at least 3 haplogroups, and no telling how many
> Nobody's trying to assign anything to 'the Normans' as a group. We're
> talking about one particular subclade that may or may not be related to SOME
> Normans (possibly even one particular family line). In other words, even
> if this theory is correct (which is still open to considerable debate - I
> have merely proposed it as an idea worthy of consideration), while you could
> say; "If you are in this subclade, your Y-DNA line was probably Norman," you
> could NOT say; "If your male line was Norman, you are probably in this
> subclade." See the difference?
> Glen
> ==============================
> New! Family Tree Maker 2005. Build your tree and search for your ancestors at the same time. Share
your tree with family and friends. Learn more:

This thread: