Re: Genealogy For The Beginner

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 23:57:39 -0500, Denis Beauregard
<denis.b-at-francogene.com@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

>On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:46:55 GMT, Eagle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (J. Hugh
>Sullivan) wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:
>
>>The National Genealogical Society is one in the US.
>
>I would have personally some problem with associating a society
>and knowledge.  While the society (whatever it is and whatever the
>purpose is, i.e. genealogy or other topics) may have the purpose of
>publi****ng data (review, database, books, etc.), it is usually not
>a monopoly.  A federation of societies is usually a better group to
>define standards and in many domains, there are specific committees
>to set standards and while they are usually associated to societies
>or federations equivalent, they work better when they are
>independent and include representants from the industry (genealogy
>software authors in our case).  So, even if the NGS can set some
>standard, FGS can have other and different standards and LDS may
>have other as well so that in genealogy, there is no universal 
>"authority", even at a national level.

I have no problem with that. Mine was the briefest way I could think
of to say that there should be some set of standards for research. I
think we need to know if data we use is based on the best and most
accurate available or whether based on the whim of the preparer. I
don't care WHAT they do but I want to know the basis if I use their
data. 

>>You're back to semantics. I'm looking at 3 or 4 generations. Adopted
>>kids may have no medical info on ancestors and it will get worse for
>>their grandchildren if they look to falsified ancestors for data.
>
>From genetics studies I have seen and my own feeling from what the
>records show, a typical rate for babies born out of weblock in Quebec
>before the 1960s would be 1 to 2%, i.e. 1 out of 10 people making
>a male line 10 generations back will get the wrong male ancestor.
>
>The rate in New England and Virginia should be similar when records
>exist, i.e. in small societies where the marriage is compulsory, there
>is a small rate of biologically illegitimate babies.  And in larger
>societies, when people can't be checked and where there are much more
>foreigners, the rate is higher.

I just accepted the 30% rather than argue.

>This is why genealogy is not genetics.  You have to believe in the
>do***ents.  If the DNA doesn't match, then you can't know who broke
>the line.

That requires a lot of discussion. Suffice it to say I have found many
incorrect do***ents. Of course it depends on the source and type. I
know census records are often wrong. I know where one of my families
was from 1778-1806 (NC) yet they never appeared in a census - just one
incident.

>>70% is more than "possibly" and many Southern families are
>>considerably more certain than that.
>
>Actually, it could be around 99%.  But even with 99%, you must
>accept that you go by the papers and not by the genes.

A person looking at adoption birth certs would be certain - until he
saw the genealogy that recorded the true facts. In my mind that's one
fork in the road where we make the decision to become genealogists or
family historians.

My grandfather's death certificate listed him as Joe. He signed checks
"J O". He was also called Joseph. In his first census he was Josiah T.
- seems like his parents should know.

So far my DNA matches no Sullivan yet tested. My MRCA is two
generations before my earliest provable ancestor. I am a close match
with a Vaughan, a Willard and a Woolard - no help with their
genealogy.

I doubt that I have the DNA of all three males so I'm guessing that a
Sullivan male impregnated three women whose baseborn children later
changed their names.

That is reasonable since my gg grand had 5 baseborn children by three
ladies before he settled down with one of them.

At this point I can continue my frustrated search or I can take the
easy way out and link to the line I want to link to because it goes
further back. I consider one honest and the other dishonest. I choose
to be honest and I do not choose for others.

Good post, Denis.

Hugh