Baldwigforjack Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 On 25/11/2018 at 22:18, Governor Tarkin said: Seeing as i8's posts concerning his genetic inheritanceare still here I can only assume that it wasn't 'Gypsy' that got my post deleted. Nothing wrong with having gypsy blood. I, for one am proud of my roots even if they do include gypsies. For the record my direct family haven't travelled for a good few generations and stopped marrying first cousins in 1925 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Governor Tarkin Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 10 minutes ago, Baldwigforjack said: Nothing wrong with having gypsy blood. I, for one am proud of my roots even if they do include gypsies. For the record my direct family haven't travelled for a good few generations and stopped marrying first cousins in 1925 Of course there isn't. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auld Reekin' Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 20 minutes ago, Baldwigforjack said: Nothing wrong with having gypsy blood. I, for one am proud of my roots even if they do include gypsies. For the record my direct family haven't travelled for a good few generations and stopped marrying first cousins in 1925 The Leith branch switched to marrying siblings, however. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 16 minutes ago, Baldwigforjack said: Nothing wrong with having gypsy blood. I, for one am proud of my roots even if they do include gypsies. For the record my direct family haven't travelled for a good few generations and stopped marrying first cousins in 1925 Oops, that announcement will upset the puritans, I know it did when I said my first cousins were married in 1900. ? Just don't mention the children who were 'begat in fornication'. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davemclaren Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: Oops, that announcement will upset the puritans, I know it did when I said my first cousins were married in 1900. ? Just don't mention the children who were 'begat in fornication'. ? Looking back through the generations that seemed a relatively common thing then. Not so common now though. ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 22 minutes ago, davemclaren said: Looking back through the generations that seemed a relatively common thing then. Not so common now though. ? Exactly, let's say we are talking 200-300 years ago, many people were born, married and died not only in the same village but often in the same house, having never moved outwith that village, indeed that even happened during the Victorian era but not as frequently, so obviously if people didn't move around much then marriages were often between 1st, 2nd & 3rd cousins and so on and so forth. The industrial revolution and people moving into the cities for employment had a hugh impact on the above and it became less and less frequent, which wasn't a bad thing as it kept the gene pool nice and diluted, however some places were slower to change. When I first moved down here to the Borders, you couldn't slag anybody off as they were all related to each other in some way, fecking nightmare at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redjambo Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 5 hours ago, davemclaren said: Looking back through the generations that seemed a relatively common thing then. Not so common now though. ? As were big families. One of my ancestors had 19 children (albeit to two different wives - the first one probably died of exhaustion). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 34 minutes ago, redjambo said: As were big families. One of my ancestors had 19 children (albeit to two different wives - the first one probably died of exhaustion). Got one couple who were both married twice, the guy fathered 12 kids, 7 with his first wife and 5 with the second and his second wife had 11 kids in total, 6 kids with her first husband and 5 with him, that's 23 kids between the two of them, amazingly for the time (1860's-1880's) only 3 of the 23 didn't make it into their teens and most went on to have families of their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted November 27, 2018 Share Posted November 27, 2018 GEDmatch update. Everything is up and running fully now, literally thousands of lucky lucky people who share bits of their DNA with me, (Poor sods more like) ? Vast amount of information, lots of different sections and sections within sections, tbh I don't understand half of it, in fact I don't understand 99% of it. ? I haven't viewed everything yet, there is a lot to go through and the results go back to Neolithic times, showing migration routes etc etc, which was quite interesting. Not sure if it's only ancient DNA results or not, with maybe some newer results, I don't know at this moment. One tip if anybody is thinking about uploading their raw DNA data file up to GEDmatch is this, it should be common sense but you'd be surprised at the number of people who just don't think. You are asked for your real name but you can use an online user name (same as kickback) as an alias, but I'd advise setting up a dedicated email address, as your email address is visable to your other matches, and you wouldn't believe the number of people who have used what look like their normal email address' which show their real name etc etc. I have a username and a dedicated standalone email address which I use for all or any genealogy stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 Just back from partying since Friday night and my results are in, quite startling actually I am 100% British 51% Northeast / Central Scots and Ulster 49% England / Scotland / Wales Part of me is delighted I am so pure and another slightly disappointed that my gypsy trait did not show up Will have a better look when sober Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack D and coke Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 Was listening a bit on the radio the other day about these tests. Quite a lot of people finding out they aren’t who they think they are if you know what I mean when they get their results. Leaves their auld ma’s with a bit explaining to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shanks said no Posted January 2, 2019 Author Share Posted January 2, 2019 4 minutes ago, jack D and coke said: Was listening a bit on the radio the other day about these tests. Quite a lot of people finding out they aren’t who they think they are if you know what I mean when they get their results. Leaves their auld ma’s with a bit explaining to do. Mine returned exactly what I would expect based on what I can see of 300+ years of family tree searches, which is reassuring / disappointing. Given my propensity to tan so easily it really surprised my boy but its a symptom of Haemochromatosis. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¼½¾ Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 8 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said: Just back from partying since Friday night and my results are in, quite startling actually I am 100% British 51% Northeast / Central Scots and Ulster 49% England / Scotland / Wales Part of me is delighted I am so pure and another slightly disappointed that my gypsy trait did not show up Will have a better look when sober Maybe the person doing the test was partying too and just couldn't be arsed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldwigforjack Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 On 27/11/2018 at 19:00, Jambo-Jimbo said: Got one couple who were both married twice, the guy fathered 12 kids, 7 with his first wife and 5 with the second and his second wife had 11 kids in total, 6 kids with her first husband and 5 with him, that's 23 kids between the two of them, amazingly for the time (1860's-1880's) only 3 of the 23 didn't make it into their teens and most went on to have families of their own. 18. He had 7, she had 6 and they had 5. That's 18 not 23. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldwigforjack Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 20 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said: Just back from partying since Friday night and my results are in, quite startling actually I am 100% British 51% Northeast / Central Scots and Ulster 49% England / Scotland / Wales Part of me is delighted I am so pure and another slightly disappointed that my gypsy trait did not show up Will have a better look when sober Just had mine's back from myheritage. 86% Scottish/Irish 8% Finnish 6% Russian Edited January 2, 2019 by Baldwigforjack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boof Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 21 hours ago, The Frenchman Returns said: Just back from partying since Friday night and my results are in, quite startling actually I am 100% British 51% Northeast / Central Scots and Ulster 49% England / Scotland / Wales Part of me is delighted I am so pure and another slightly disappointed that my gypsy trait did not show up Will have a better look when sober Change of JKB name imminent ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 1 hour ago, Baldwigforjack said: 18. He had 7, she had 6 and they had 5. That's 18 not 23. Might I suggest you read the post again. He had 12 kids with two wife's, she had 11 kids with two husbands. 12 + 11 = Well it isn't 18 mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldwigforjack Posted January 2, 2019 Share Posted January 2, 2019 (edited) 19 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: Might I suggest you read the post again. He had 12 kids with two wife's, she had 11 kids with two husbands. 12 + 11 = Well it isn't 18 mate. Yes but 5 of his were with her. And 5 of hers were with him. So might I suggest you go back to school. Edited January 2, 2019 by Baldwigforjack Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jambo-Jimbo Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 10 hours ago, Baldwigforjack said: Yes but 5 of his were with her. And 5 of hers were with him. So might I suggest you go back to school. Way to late for that, as you can clearly see, maths was never my strong point. Of course you are correct and I can now see that I was counting the second set of kids twice, doh thick as mince sometimes, but it serves as a reminder that I'm not as smart as I'd like to be. So I apologize for any offence I may have caused. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baldwigforjack Posted January 3, 2019 Share Posted January 3, 2019 7 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said: Way to late for that, as you can clearly see, maths was never my strong point. Of course you are correct and I can now see that I was counting the second set of kids twice, doh thick as mince sometimes, but it serves as a reminder that I'm not as smart as I'd like to be. So I apologize for any offence I may have caused. None taken mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.