On 21 Jun 2009 at 9:03, Nick Taylor wrote: > This might confuse you even more (i'm a confused and amused I2b1) > Unfortunately my use of DNA testing to find a recent common ancestor > has not yet born fruit but probably remains the only way I can beat my > brick wall. However knowing we moved out Africa 23,000 years ago and > went to Star Carr near Scarborough for our holidays some 8,000 years > ago is fascinating but I would much rather find my grandfather! > I must agree with Nick. I really cannot get into this DNA business at all and I am forced to confess that it bores me rigid, which will probably upset some people who think it is the new Holy Grail of genealogy! As a one-namer, I can (just about) see the value of proving a connection between two hitherto unrelated groups of people with the same surname by establishing that they had a common ancestor so many centuries ago. However, since the chances of establishing precisely who that ancestor was are zilch, I cannot get excited about it. I am far more interested in proving by documented records that I can get one of my lines back to before the Civil War (which I can) than I am in knowing that my ancestors came from Africa thousands of years ago. The concept holds no fascination for me at all. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Roy, Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of DNA testing to aid research. If you are like me and didn't know your paternal line beyond 1920 then DNA testing can give you clues and possibly lead to finding your line. In my case it gives me two possible surnames (and with other clues) about 100 possible families. Without DNA research I had an unknown number of possibilities. The irony is that the line most certainly comes from Lancashire. So DNA testing can have it's uses if used for the right reasons and along the way gives me the knowledge of where I came from a very long time ago. I have good matches with three people, surname A and surname B (twice). By research using conventional means I have discovered an illegitimacy in the surname A line around 1800. The lady involved gave her surname (surname A) to the son and his descendants are very well documented. A few years later she did marry a man with surname B and the rumoured father. This gives me some very good proof that my matches are all of the same line and somewhere in about 17 generations we share a common ancestor. It also gives two possibly surnames for my grandfather. Now it's back to more conventional research to discover more. However researching the hundred or so possibilities in the 1911 census means trips to Kew or saving a few more pennies for Find My Past to consume. I do believe that DNA testing can be another research tool to be used alongside more conventional ones. I would think that it could be invaluable and fascinating for one name studies. I'd love to use it in that way but I have to find my name first. Nick -------------------------------------------------- From: "Roy Stockdill" <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 1:17 PM To: <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [WRY] West Riding DNA > On 21 Jun 2009 at 9:03, Nick Taylor wrote: > >> This might confuse you even more (i'm a confused and amused I2b1) >> Unfortunately my use of DNA testing to find a recent common ancestor >> has not yet born fruit but probably remains the only way I can beat my >> brick wall. However knowing we moved out Africa 23,000 years ago and >> went to Star Carr near Scarborough for our holidays some 8,000 years >> ago is fascinating but I would much rather find my grandfather! > > > I must agree with Nick. I really cannot get into this DNA business at all > and I am forced to > confess that it bores me rigid, which will probably upset some people who > think it is the > new Holy Grail of genealogy! > > As a one-namer, I can (just about) see the value of proving a connection > between two > hitherto unrelated groups of people with the same surname by establishing > that they had > a common ancestor so many centuries ago. However, since the chances of > establishing > precisely who that ancestor was are zilch, I cannot get excited about it. > > I am far more interested in proving by documented records that I can get > one of my lines > back to before the Civil War (which I can) than I am in knowing that my > ancestors came > from Africa thousands of years ago. The concept holds no fascination for > me at all. > > -- > Roy Stockdill > Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer > Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: > www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html > > "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, > and that is not being talked about." > OSCAR WILDE > > > > > > Some useful websites - > FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ > FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ > Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, Is there SKS who can describe a 1770s pauper burial. Thanks Bryan Slim

On 5 Dec 2009 at 9:09, Bryan Slim wrote: > Is there SKS who can describe a 1770s pauper burial. > As always, Google should be your first port of call. Enter "Pauper funerals" and you will come up with umpteen websites. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Hi Roy I can understand your traditional approach, but at the risk of being an iconoclastic the documented records only show the family history of the husbands of your grandmothers back to that period! As they say it is a wise man that knows his own father! , and it seems that on average an infidelity occurs about once in every 20 generations. I have been able to prove a link with the Medley- Methley family name through 2 different lines back approximately 700 years so I suppose I am satisfied, of course I only know that all the grandfathers belonged to the Medley family, not that they were married to the respective grandmothers! Steve -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roy Stockdill Sent: Sunday, 21 June 2009 10:17 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WRY] West Riding DNA On 21 Jun 2009 at 9:03, Nick Taylor wrote: > This might confuse you even more (i'm a confused and amused I2b1) > Unfortunately my use of DNA testing to find a recent common ancestor > has not yet born fruit but probably remains the only way I can beat my > brick wall. However knowing we moved out Africa 23,000 years ago and > went to Star Carr near Scarborough for our holidays some 8,000 years > ago is fascinating but I would much rather find my grandfather! > I must agree with Nick. I really cannot get into this DNA business at all and I am forced to confess that it bores me rigid, which will probably upset some people who think it is the new Holy Grail of genealogy! As a one-namer, I can (just about) see the value of proving a connection between two hitherto unrelated groups of people with the same surname by establishing that they had a common ancestor so many centuries ago. However, since the chances of establishing precisely who that ancestor was are zilch, I cannot get excited about it. I am far more interested in proving by documented records that I can get one of my lines back to before the Civil War (which I can) than I am in knowing that my ancestors came from Africa thousands of years ago. The concept holds no fascination for me at all. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE Some useful websites - FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 21 Jun 2009 at 22:59, Steve Medley wrote: > Hi Roy > I can understand your traditional approach, but at the risk of being > an iconoclastic the documented records only show the family history of > the husbands of your grandmothers back to that period! As they say it > is a wise man that knows his own father! , and it seems that on > average an infidelity occurs about once in every 20 generations. I > have been able to prove a link with the Medley- Methley family name > through 2 different lines back approximately 700 years so I suppose I > am satisfied, of course I only know that all the grandfathers belonged > to the Medley family, not that they were married to the respective > grandmothers! Steve > You are right, of course, Steve, and none of us can absolutely guarantee that a female ancestor didn't "stray" somewhere along the line, especially as the chances increase with each successive generation back. But I still prefer a documented family tree, even with warts, to one based on what is still unproven scientific supposition in my book. BTW, the quote about a wise man knowing his own father is misquoted more often than not. The actual line is from Shakespeare's Merrchant of Venice and is spoke by Launcelot Gobbo - "It is a wise father that knows his own child" - when teasing his blind father, Old Gobbo. Quite who it was who turned it round and into a wise man knowing his own father I do not know, but it was probably a family historian! -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

Roy - At the moment I share your views and your doubts on this, but perhaps I should really call myself an agnostic not a sceptic as I'm intrigued and might yet be convinced. What's the SoG line on the value of DNA testing? Kind regards Rod (SoG Member 036564) _____________________________________________ From: Rod MOULDING +44 (0) 1296 714494 Researching Moulding, Heal, Garnett, Simmons, Grouse -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roy Stockdill Sent: 21 June 2009 13:17 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WRY] West Riding DNA On 21 Jun 2009 at 9:03, Nick Taylor wrote: > This might confuse you even more (i'm a confused and amused I2b1) > Unfortunately my use of DNA testing to find a recent common ancestor > has not yet born fruit but probably remains the only way I can beat my > brick wall. However knowing we moved out Africa 23,000 years ago and > went to Star Carr near Scarborough for our holidays some 8,000 years > ago is fascinating but I would much rather find my grandfather! > I must agree with Nick. I really cannot get into this DNA business at all and I am forced to confess that it bores me rigid, which will probably upset some people who think it is the new Holy Grail of genealogy! As a one-namer, I can (just about) see the value of proving a connection between two hitherto unrelated groups of people with the same surname by establishing that they had a common ancestor so many centuries ago. However, since the chances of establishing precisely who that ancestor was are zilch, I cannot get excited about it. I am far more interested in proving by documented records that I can get one of my lines back to before the Civil War (which I can) than I am in knowing that my ancestors came from Africa thousands of years ago. The concept holds no fascination for me at all. -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE Some useful websites - FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.83/2191 - Release Date: 06/21/09 05:53:00

On 22 Jun 2009 at 0:02, Rod Moulding wrote: > Roy - > > At the moment I share your views and your doubts on this, but perhaps > I should really call myself an agnostic not a sceptic as I'm intrigued > and might yet be convinced. What's the SoG line on the value of DNA > testing? > > Kind regards > Rod > (SoG Member 036564)> Rod I am not aware that the SoG has any views or policy on DNA testing at all. Certainly, I don't recall it ever being discussed officially in my six years as a Trustee of the Society. However, I do know that Else Churchill, the Genealogy Officer, shares my views, at least in part, because she wrote a piece about it in one of the commercial family history mags two or three years ago. She pointed out, as I did, that whilst DNA may show that two people share a common ancestor, there is absolutely no way of knowing WHO that common ancestor was. I doubt it would be right or proper for the SoG to take any formal view, since it is one of those topics that family historians will no doubt go on arguing about till the cows come home! -- Roy Stockdill Professional genealogical researcher, writer & lecturer Newbies' Guide to Genealogy & Family History: www.genuki.org.uk/gs/Newbie.html "There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about." OSCAR WILDE

I am an enthusiast for DNA. I have had my DNA tested - I am R1b. My fellow Micklethwait is I1a. So we now know that the Micklethwait(e)s are not of a single family origin as some had suggested. It also means we don't waste effort looking for a non-existent common ancestor, and can use our time and energy elsewhere in the tree. However I think it very important to say DNA is currently *NOT* a panacea. It will not solve all your genealogical questions. If you do test, it is vital to understand what you will gain from the test. A "Deep History" test (YDNA or mtDNA) will tell you nothing about you recent family - unless you use it to check whether 2 branches are unrelated (as indeed happened above). Even the more genealogical YDNA test only gives a probability of a relationship, which many of us find difficult to cope with being used to the black and white "facts"(!) of certificates and censuses. On the other hand, the subject of where our ancestors came from is really fascinating even if the story is still changing rapidly as new discoveries are made. And I said currently in the paragraph above, as I think there will be significant advances in DNA technology in the years to come. I'll end my rant with the story of a gentleman who complained that DNA testing was a waste of time - I pointed out to him that his haplotype (A) was exceedingly rare, and must have come from Africa at some stage. He is now looking at potential routes - the current most probable is a slave or soldier who came across to Yorkshire with the Romans. However, with the surname Smith it may help him genealogically too! HTH Andy.