Question about Male/Female lineage...

[DonnaA23]

Hello all,

Sorry if this has been asked before, (I looked but didn't see anything) and excuse me for being a bit thick, I don't understand this DNA thing at all 

What I'm curious about, is why is it that the male lineage is deemed more credible, than the female one. For instance, I stumbled across a society for descendants of Plantagenets, while researching Henry III for a history project...... but you only need apply if you are related via your male lineage.
I mean, what's that about? Surely if one is a descendent, either through the male or female line, they are a descendent, or is there something I'm not understanding........Which is why I'm here.
I've even seen trees that only focus on their male lineage, discounting every single female member of their family.....I mean what is that about? What am I not understanding here. Cheers.

[Ruskie]

I don't think the Y-DNA (male) is more credible than the MT-DNA (female), it's just that the male line in some ways can be easier to trace as it generally is expected to pass down the generations through the male line along with the surname and inheritance (wealth and pawer).

People can trace whichever line they wish for their own trees. Those you've seen might be a work on progress - some people trace the male line first as it can sometimes be easier, then move on to the female line at a later date.  It comes down to personal preference.

Others will probably have more relevant reasons to offer. 

[DonnaA23]

I don't think the Y-DNA (male) is more credible than the MT-DNA (female), it's just that the male line in some ways can be easier to trace as it generally is expected to pass down the generations through the male line along with the surname and inheritance.

People can trace whichever line they wish for their own trees. Those you've seen might be a work on progress - some people trace the male line first as it can sometimes be easier, then move on to the female line at a later date.  It comes down to personal preference.

I didn't say they can't. I couldn't give two figs why they only include the paternal line, I was just curious.

I'm just not understanding it all. The way I see it, is that I have exactly the same surname as my brother, only my surname would change if I married. ......which won't happen anytime soon. We'd  still have exactly the same parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc...

And as for this male paternal line and keeping in with male family surnames, who is to say that ones wife was faithful and his male children even belong to him??......There is never any solid proof, of a direct male lineage. Surnames mean zilch.

True say, we can usually be 100% of who our mothers are, but not so sure about who our fathers are. So why this big deal to some, in regards this male surname lineage baffles me.

[DonnaA23]

deleted post

[SelDen]

In terms of Dna analysis the issue has nothing to do with the relative importance attached to female or male lineages. To grossly over simplify, Mtdna and the Y chromosome are very different types of dna.

The faster rate of mutation in the Y chromosome means it can be used to track backwards along the male to male line in a family in current and historical times. Only males have a Y chromosome and so only males can participate in these kinds of tests.

Both males and females have mitochondrial dna, which is always inherited from your mother, who got from her mother and so on. It has a much slower rate of mutation and so can usually only provide generalised information about populations descended from a very remote common prehistorical female ancestor. This is usually of no assistance trying to prove relationships between people in a family history context as many people share the same very very remote female ancestor without a more recent connection.

Added: have just recalled they used mitochondrial dna to identify Richard III, but I would stand by my comment that mitochondrial testing is not yet a practical option for family history in most circumstances.

We are still in the early days of this science and I look forward to new discoveries and techniques that will help family historians better trace both female and male lines.

Btw using old fashioned paper methods I have found that you can' t always be 100% sure who someone's mother was - a lot of children slipped into families via daughters, and younger sisters and others in trouble. While these were often in the same female line of descent they may have slipped from the father's side of the family.

Hope this helps.

[jjtjr]

Here is a link to a great website that explains DNA testing. It is very informative, you can go very deep or just skim the information.

https://sites.google.com/site/wheatonsurname/beginners-guide-to-genetic-genealogy

Lesson # 2 explains the uses various DNA tests.

Good luck.

[SelDen]

To answer your original query more bluntly the project is looking for direct male line descendants of Henry III because currently that is all they can test for.

There is no reliable test at present for descendants of female relatives of Henry III. Even one break in the male to male line of descent means the Y dna test cannot be used.

[DonnaA23]

Ok thanks everyone and thanks for the info and the link.
I will be sure to check it out and because I eventually want to take this test, but I want to understand it first.

While DNA would stress no importance, a lot of people are, hence male line descendants only being allowed to join certain societies or groups etc

I'd personally be more excited about having my maternal line tested, via my maternal grandfather and given what I've found. My dads line is quite boring  and I'm stuck at 1786 with them..... Alas my grandad is no longer here, so he can't do any test.
So that leaves a Family Finder tracing my mums direct female line, which again isn't as exciting as my grandads lineage, although there is a surname Vipond in my mums line, that might prove interesting. But I've been hearing these Family Finder tests only go back about 400 years and I've already gone back 400+ years, on my mums side.
Obviously I cannot have the male test. So that leaves the one that tests both male and female.

Can anyone tell me what the Ancestry DNA test is like and what kind of results or findings do we get back?

Thanks

[Ruskie]

I don't think the Y-DNA (male) is more credible than the MT-DNA (female), it's just that the male line in some ways can be easier to trace as it generally is expected to pass down the generations through the male line along with the surname and inheritance.

People can trace whichever line they wish for their own trees. Those you've seen might be a work on progress - some people trace the male line first as it can sometimes be easier, then move on to the female line at a later date.  It comes down to personal preference.

I didn't say they can't. I couldn't give two figs why they only include the paternal line, I was just curious.

I'm just not understanding it all. The way I see it, is that I have exactly the same surname as my brother, only my surname would change if I married. ......which won't happen anytime soon. We'd  still have exactly the same parents, grandparents, great grandparents, etc...

And as for this male paternal line and keeping in with male family surnames, who is to say that ones wife was faithful and his male children even belong to him??......There is never any solid proof, of a direct male lineage. Surnames mean zilch.

True say, we can usually be 100% of who our mothers are, but not so sure about who our fathers are. So why this big deal to some, in regards this male surname lineage baffles me.

I think SelDen has given you a good concise explanation.

Just picking up on a couple of your points:

If females want to trace their paternal DNA if they have a brother it is suggested that they ask them to take the test.

If you suspect an illegitimacy in the family that is where DNA testing can be very useful. Even if you don't and you find that you do not have the match that you expect with a close relative, it can be as a result of illegitimacy.

Why the importance of following the male surname?  It is because Y-DNA follows the male line only and males retain their surnames, which is why the surname is relevant.
I think male and female hold equal weight, but we still live in a male dominated society as do many (if not most other) societies and cultures. It's changing slowing in western society but perhaps the perceived importance of male surnames stems from long held traditions, and as I mentioned before, the male line relates to inheritance, wealth and power. Some may still hold that view...

Added: If you have a brother get him to take the male test, or depending which line you are following, perhaps an uncle or male cousin.

People recommend the FTDNA tests as they have more uptake than other tests and you can enter the results into other websites to obtain further matches.