On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:58:21 PM UTC-7, taf wrote: > On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 3:10:52 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > > You're being hyperbolic which utterly destroys your argument. > > > And finally we cannot even know if any of these alledged descendants are > > true biological heirs without (and let me pause here for emphasis) having > > their AUTOSOMAL DNA tests on file and vetted. > > > > Without all of that, you have exactly squat. > > And now who is being hyperbolic? If a Cornwall and a Warren were both found matching Richard's specific G haplotype, it would strain credulity to suggest that all three resulted from a crypto-infidelity perpetrated by members of the same male lineage, that it was all just coincidence. > > taf I'm not certain of that. A thousand years is a long time, for three different men from Alania's Y-DNA to migrate into England somewhere, somehow.

On Friday, August 25, 2017 at 4:09:10 PM UTC-7, wjhonson wrote: > > And now who is being hyperbolic? If a Cornwall and a Warren were > > both found matching Richard's specific G haplotype, it would strain > > credulity to suggest that all three resulted from a crypto-infidelity > > perpetrated by members of the same male lineage, that it was all just > > coincidence. > > I'm not certain of that. > > A thousand years is a long time, for three different men from Alania's > Y-DNA to migrate into England somewhere, somehow. I am not talking about any old G - there are not just 26 haplotypes, but thousands of them. 1000 years is a long time, and I don't think anyone would be surprised were there an infidelity in each line (after all, there was an infidelity in the Beauforts after the branch point of the five people tested), but it would be extremely unlikely for any two of them to have had the infidelity involve the same rare haplogroup, let alone three. taf