a right family mix-up

[scotia123]

Hi hope I,m on the right board for this post. Having started out tracing my father.s  descendants I came across a mackenzie site which was carrying out a dna project to which I duly subscribed. You can imagine how surprised I was when the results of this test came back showing that it was rose group g making me a direct male descendant of the documented rose of kilvarock line.

Now I have the predicament of having followed a mackenzie paper trail back to my 3xgreatgrandfather I find that I am of the rose line my question now is Whose family tree do I fit on and where would I fit on it as depite being a mackenzie on paper I would seem to be  rose by dna results

Is this a common occurence in geneology I wonder.

[Steve G]

  If I'm reading this right ~ and I've, as yet, had nothing to do with the mind bending world of DNA testing .....

 Would it not make no difference who or where ye started out from. Your paper trail should, by rights, lead ye back to that point anyway.

 I mean; Probably not. Simply because ye not likely to be able to get the documentation back that far. But, in a perfect world, would not ye paternal line trace back along ye DNA anyway?

 Am I making sense here? Or have I missed something completely?

[scotia123]

hi steve problem being that my paternal line is mackenzie it was only when I took the dna test that thr rose group g connection came out there is no mention at any time of roses ever being part of the mackenzie line as far as I,m aware. surely my paternal line cannot be both mackenzie and rose?

[c-side]

I think you need to go back a few more generations - you might find the answer buried deep in the past.

The thing is that you don't have the same dna results for your grandfather and those greats - one of them may have been the product of a rose connection no-one ever knew about.

[Steve G]

 Ah, yes. The penny's dropped now  Of course. Ye Dad is / was a Mackenzie, as was his Dad, so on and so forth. Men pass their surnames on as well as the male gene. With ye now. And suddenly, one of ye Dads Dads Dads, somewhere back there, wasn't a Mackenzie but a Rose. I see ye problem! Blimey!

 Like C - Side says; It could be way back.  Then again though, it could be just Gt. or two back. For example; Maybe one of ye Gt. Gt. what ever Grand Dads changed his surname for some reason?

 Anyway, look on it a a fascinating discovery and nice little project for ye. Just carry on doing what we all do. Keep tracing ye tree 'Backwards' and up that Mackenzie line. Ignore the Rose question for now. Just work ye own pedigree. One day, in so doing, ye might make some gob smacking discovery and all will be revealed.

 Or this changeover may have occurred in the thirteenth century ~ in which case ye haven't got a cellophane rats chance of ever discovering it! 

[Springbok]

It does sound as if you have ancestors both Rose and Mackenzie?There is the possibility that your Rose ancestors may have been th e one who intermarried with A line more than the Macs did ,and therefore the DNA traces would be more dominant than the Macs.even though the Mackezie name has survived

I have two families who 's children married cousins and other relations of the same line. Therefore if I had a DNA test. it could well be that one of those lines could be dominant.
DNA results can only indicate that somewhere in the distant past one of our ancestors provided us with another Mystery

Spring

[c-side]

The thing is that we all work backwards with the records as they are presented to us.  Perhaps many of us could be harbouring genes that the records don't tell us about.  I have come across a few questionable relationships in my family - it all adds to the colourful picture and gives our ancestors some personality. 

As Steve says, go with the line as you know it and see what happens - if you hadn't done the dna test that's what you would have been doing anyway.

[polarbear]

Hello Scotia123,

I wondered if you have considered the possibility of a Rose fathering the illegitimate son of a Mackenie at some point in the past? This should give you a direct line connection, I would think?

I'm with the others as far as your research is concerned.....keep going backwards along your Mackenzie paper trail, generation by generation. You never know what will turn up.

Polarbear

[Jean McGurn]

You can imagine how surprised I was when the results of this test came back showing that it was rose group g making me a direct male descendant of the documented rose of kilvarock line.

Have you considered the possibility that you may have been sent someone else's results?

Jean