Author Topic: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results  (Read 65227 times)

Offline jaybelnz

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,762
  • My Runaway Bride! Thanks to Paula Too!
    • View Profile
Re: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results
« Reply #315 on: Thursday 08 June 17 02:13 BST (UK) »
I am sorry to say that despite all I have read on here I cannot see how it is relevant to someone who doesn't know who they are exactly because of adoption.
My husband has been asked by an eager American to have his DNA done - he flatly refuses and maintains that DNA continues to mean (for him) "DO NOT ASK!"   Sue

👎👎👎 🤔 I don't think that's a very helpful post at all - it's no good your being "sorry to say" etc ! You said it!!  You may indeed have been better not to!  If  I'm understanding you correctly Dean1, I think if you and/or your husband had been adopted, and didn't know who your birth parents and family were, and where they were from, it may very well have been relevant to you!!  It certainly would have been to me! If I had been adopted, I too would likely to be happy to follow the DNA choice! I was not adopted, and I am not at all interested in doing the DNA thing but that's my choice!  Everyone is entitled to make their own choices.

As for your previous post, re people being  "deceased anyway" - of course they are!  Otherwise there would nobody doing genealogy and familiy history! 

Time for you to walk in someone else's shoes perhaps. 
"We analyse the evidence to draw a conclusion. The better the sources and information, the stronger the evidence, which leads to a reliable conclusion!" Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk.

MATHEWS, Ireland, England, USA & Canada, NZ
FLEMING,   Ireland
DUNNELL,  England
PAULSON,  England
DOUGLAS, Scotland, Ireland, NZ
WALKER,   Scotland
WATSON,  England, Ayrshire, Scotland, NZ
McAUGHTRIE, Ayrshire, Scotland, NZ
MASON,     Scotland, England, NZ
& Connections

Offline Pejic

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 719
    • View Profile
Re: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results
« Reply #316 on: Thursday 08 June 17 09:47 BST (UK) »
Dean1 was expressing a perfectly legitimate personal opinion, and though after continued questioning I have moved on from holding that opinion myself, it is not helpful to indulge in public castigation - clear explanations are better.

Dean1 - Davidft gave me the following link the other day and it was helpful with my assessing how a missing parent might be found using DNA testing:

https://dna-explained.com/2017/04/24/which-dna-test-is-best/
Richard Wernham (Berkshire 18th century),
William Hissey (1805 to 1813, Hampstead Norris),
Kapirin (Siberia 19th Century),
Kitching 1850,
Mary Howse born 1806 ish,
Chris Truelove marr. John Pocock 2-7-1696, Kintbury, Berks

Offline Dean1

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 646
  • 9 brig. Royal Fusiliers War Diary (large portion)
    • View Profile
Re: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results
« Reply #317 on: Thursday 08 June 17 11:09 BST (UK) »
I am sorry to say that despite all I have read on here I cannot see how it is relevant to someone who doesn't know who they are exactly because of adoption.
My husband has been asked by an eager American to have his DNA done - he flatly refuses and maintains that DNA continues to mean (for him) "DO NOT ASK!"   Sue

👎👎👎 🤔 I don't think that's a very helpful post at all - it's no good your being "sorry to say" etc ! You said it!!  You may indeed have been better not to!  If  I'm understanding you correctly Dean1, I think if you and/or your husband had been adopted, and didn't know who your birth parents and family were, and where they were from, it may very well have been relevant to you!!  It certainly would have been to me! If I had been adopted, I too would likely to be happy to follow the DNA choice! I was not adopted, and I am not at all interested in doing the DNA thing but that's my choice!  Everyone is entitled to make their own choices.

As for your previous post, re people being  "deceased anyway" - of course they are!  Otherwise there would nobody doing genealogy and familiy history! 

Time for you to walk in someone else's shoes perhaps. 

Hi, I feel I am entitled to express my opinion ALSO!   I did not put any details of myself on here other than that I was adopted.   It is a long story which I will not go into BUT when I was about 47 (I am now 76) I came home from a late shift at the local hospice where I worked, put my feet up on the settee and started to read the Crawley Observer which had been delivered that day - there was a large article in there about a girl who had been adopted and had spent years trying to find out "who am I" - her natural parents were the same as those on my original birth certificate.  I now have a sister, nieces and nephews ...............yes, I think would have liked to have SEEN my natural parents but not actually meet them - it is probably odd not to want to do this but it was not to be.  I agreed to go with my sister when she visited "our" mother but was not prepared to meet her.  Very shortly after my sister and I met she found out that our mother had recently died - no visit was, therefore, ever made.  My sister had actually made all the overtures to a daughter-in-law of our mother who actually rang me - she is a very nice person and without me seeking information she did give me quite a bit.
I should add at this point that IF YOU HAD GROWN UP IN THE FAMILY I GREW UP IN YOU WOULD NOT WANT A SECOND SET OF PARENTS WHOEVER THEY WERE I.E. THE ONES WHO GOT RID OF YOU IN THE FIRST PLACE VERSUS THE ONES WHO FELT YOU HAD "BAD BLOOD"!
Don't be too critical of me - I had to live that life.   I am also entitled to my own opinion.
I have done my "natural" family Tree rather than my adopted Tree and very interesting it is.
Dean1
ANDERSON (Kings Lynn, Norfolk) BREWER (Somerset) BALDWIN (Catfield, Norfolk) CRONSHAW(Accrington, Lancs) DEAN (Accrington, Lancs) FOSTER, FORSTER (Astbury, Cheshire AND Canada AND U.S.A.) BRIGHT (London) ROWLAND (Essex and Hampshire) SEWARD (Petersfield, Hampshire) BAILEY/ BROWN (Biddulph, Staffordshire)

Offline JaneyCanuck

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,033
  • The Famous Five take tea on Parliament Hill
    • View Profile
Re: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results
« Reply #318 on: Thursday 08 June 17 16:38 BST (UK) »
Sue/Dean1, maybe you can understand why some of us, especially anyone who is adopted, doesn't understand your view.

You are adopted, you discovered your birth family (whether or not you wanted to meet any of them), and you have done the family tree of your birth family - with the help of members of your birth family.

Others seem only to want the same thing. :)
HILL, HOARE, BOND, SIBLY, Cornwall (Devon); DENNIS, PAGE, WHITBREAD, Essex; BARNARD, CASTLE, PONTON, Wiltshire; SANKEY, HORNE, YOUNG, Kent; COWDELL, Bermondsey; COOPER, SMITH, FALLOWELL, WILLEY, Notts; CAMPION, CARTER, CRADDOCK, KENNY, Northants; LITTLER, CORNER, Leicestershire; RUSHLAND, Lincolnshire; MORRISON, Ireland; COLLINS, ?; ... MONCK?


Offline ThrelfallYorky

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,647
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results
« Reply #319 on: Thursday 08 June 17 23:13 BST (UK) »
...How can I stop this topic from showing up under "New Replies" for me? I've tried three times, and it still keeps bobbing back!
Threlfall (Southport), Isherwood (lancs & Canada), Newbould + Topliss(Derby), Keating & Cummins (Ireland + lancs), Fisher, Strong& Casson (all Cumberland) & Downie & Bowie, Linlithgow area Scotland . Also interested in Leigh& Burrows,(Lancashire) Griffiths (Shropshire & lancs), Leaver (Lancs/Yorks) & Anderson(Cumberland and very elusive)

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,147
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results
« Reply #320 on: Thursday 08 June 17 23:25 BST (UK) »
...How can I stop this topic from showing up under "New Replies" for me? I've tried three times, and it still keeps bobbing back!

Unnotify?
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline ThrelfallYorky

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,647
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results
« Reply #321 on: Thursday 08 June 17 23:28 BST (UK) »
Thanks, but tried that. Three times now.(Why doesn't it work for me?)
Threlfall (Southport), Isherwood (lancs & Canada), Newbould + Topliss(Derby), Keating & Cummins (Ireland + lancs), Fisher, Strong& Casson (all Cumberland) & Downie & Bowie, Linlithgow area Scotland . Also interested in Leigh& Burrows,(Lancashire) Griffiths (Shropshire & lancs), Leaver (Lancs/Yorks) & Anderson(Cumberland and very elusive)

Offline groom

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,147
  • Me aged 3. Tidied up thanks to Wiggy.
    • View Profile
Re: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results
« Reply #322 on: Thursday 08 June 17 23:38 BST (UK) »
Actually it hasn't worked for me either, although I think it has stopped email notifications.  ;D
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline ThrelfallYorky

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,647
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: The Times wants your views: DNA ethnicity results
« Reply #323 on: Thursday 08 June 17 23:40 BST (UK) »
So glad I'm not the only one who can't manage to get rid of topics like that (Unusual names, etc) that seem to go on for ever....
Threlfall (Southport), Isherwood (lancs & Canada), Newbould + Topliss(Derby), Keating & Cummins (Ireland + lancs), Fisher, Strong& Casson (all Cumberland) & Downie & Bowie, Linlithgow area Scotland . Also interested in Leigh& Burrows,(Lancashire) Griffiths (Shropshire & lancs), Leaver (Lancs/Yorks) & Anderson(Cumberland and very elusive)