GENEALOGY-DNA-L ArchivesArchiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2004-02 > 1076056000
From: Pam <>
Subject: [DNA] Non-paternity/hidden break
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2004 02:26:40 -0600
References: <email@example.com> <000901c3e8e1$fd474d60$74d044c6@browpinrjc>
It would strain credulity to assume that we can know all of our ancestors'
reproductive or family secrets--or that they had none. Human frailties have been
the same throughout the ages. A "non-paternity event" (I prefer the term
hidden break myself) need not have been the result of someone's sainted grandma
fooling around with the milkman, though infidelity has always been more common
than some want to believe. We like to think of our ancestors in more elevated
What about all the babies that wound up floating in the bullrushes or left on
the steps of convents throughout history? Babies mixed up in hospitals or
elsewhere and never discovered? Those from large families "shared" with
childless relatives. Think of all the rapes in history that resulted in
pregnancies. The families who took in orphans or runaways and raised them as
their own? A daughter's love child being raised as her sibling? The children of
priests. Stolen children or those captured and kept by conquerors. Men who
married abandoned women pregnant by someone else. All these people contributed
to the gene pool with everyone else and some of them are bound to be our
ancestors. The circumstances of their conception or early life may never have
been known even to themselves, or never spoken of if outside any social norm of
the time. In a few generations such knowledge is lost, even if once known.
Regardless of paper trails, I think it is safest to assume that many or most
genealogy lines of much length have potential for hidden breaks that can really
be disproved only by DNA testing. Regardless, historical events should have no
shame for us now. --Pam B.
Richard Cottrell wrote:
> Mr. Bond,
> I know for a fact it is not a non-paternity event because of documents and
> records that I have on my ancestor.
> I also know because I have accounts from great granddaughter that gave
> accounts on my ancestor that coincide with the documents and records. And
> that individual did not know anything about what documents and records
> stated about my ancestor because that individual did not care about doing
> anything called genealogy research.
> And that descendent of my ancestor did not tell me that about my ancestor
> because that is what that person wanted me to believe, but rather, that
> person told me that on my ancestor because it was the truth.
> So not everyone in the world that doesn't match they way DNA testing wants
> everyone to believe doesn't mean they are adopted, nor a illegimate child,
> or a product of a name change.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Bond" <>
> To: <>
> Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 8:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [DNA] Is there anyone on the list that can give me a conclusive
> answer as to which rule is the "Standard Rule for the 12 marker world
> standard test".
> > How do you know for a fact that there isn't a non-paternity event?
> > Andrew Bond
> > Richard Cottrell <> wrote:
> > >I know for a fact there is no non-paternity event.
> > ==============================
> > Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> > Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.
> > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/redir.asp?targetid=4930&sourceid=1237
> Gain access to over two billion names including the new Immigration
> Collection with an Ancestry.com free trial. Click to learn more.