On May 31, 8:39=A0pm, t...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> On May 31, 5:03 pm, "Dora Smith" <villan...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > I will be very interested in seeing the comparison of the Y DNA Of
membe=
rs
> > of this list with both Charlemagne's, and that of the skeletons dug up
a=
t
> > Stonehenge.
>
> I would very much doubt if anyone matched that of Charlemagne, if we
> even had a 'Charlemagne' sample, which we don't (nor is this likely to
> change). In fact, I bet there aren't that many participants here that
> can trace their male line to anywhere that formed part of
> Charlemagne's realm. As to Stonehenge, my bet would be that any Y DNA
they would get from the bones is likely to be a spot-on match of the
person
who excavated them, or the person who cleaned them,. . . . taf
Really? taffy is really daffy. As Dora suggested, how about some
thoughtful
response and not just always being a naysayer! First of all, there
are the
bones of Robert the Bruce King of Scotland and William I The Conqueror
King of England and someday, well, with care, a tooth will be
extracted
from each under the right conditions and lo! and behold, these royal
TWO DESCENDANTS of Charlemagne will be marked for the record.
And me. I have already done my DNA. And well, we all, get the pic.
The DNA from other burials at Stonehenge which have not been unearthed
yet. taffy probably does not know of the burial found there dressed
in
gold, et al. So much his feeble mind cannot comprehend. Why?
Because
none of this is relevant to his narrow-minded view of genealogy. I
am
so glad the rest of the world is not as narrow-minded as him. Nobody
would post to this list, listening to him. But who listens to him
anyway?
aaron
|
