"Janet Crawford" <reojan@gmail.com> wrote : > > > But your postman theory is meaningful too :) Lots of illegitimate births > over the centuries. When it comes to DNA, the major problem is that the results are only a general pointer to the past and cannot be interpreted in any other way. Consistency through the Y-Chromosome or through mitochondrial DNA cannot prove anything other than a genetic connection - it does not prove descent from any named individual, just a common ancestor. As for the postman, milkman, dustman etc., this can certainly distort results regarding the DNA profile of any specific surname; illegitimate births usually carried the surname of the mother rather than the father, thus 'polluting' the pure cross-match between surname and DNA profile. While DNA results can be very helpful in determining whether or not a particular line is a possibility, they cannot prove anything beyond a genetic connection. For most family history, DNA results simply cannot provide anything in the absence of a paper trail that points in the same direction, not least because the DNA of the relevant ancestor simply isn't available for testing. The best we can achieve is to test living descendants who believe they have the same ancestry and this is fraught with the multiplicitous dangers arising from the 'cross-pollination' of surnames as well those inherent in all family groups. From a purely personal perspective, I would only use DNA to try to confirm a suspected line; finding that I am somehow descended from Charlemagne, Henry I, Niall the proliferate or anyone else in that era seems rather irrelevant. There ain't no gold in them thar hills, nor any real family history. John B Leic., Eng