Family Historian User Group

We are getting way off topic here - Not sure whether I should have started a new Ahnentafel thread.

davidf wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 14:08

This devil is going to continue to "advocate" on two grounds:

What is a "direct line"? ..........

What does it mean to "be an ancestor"? ................

the German word Ahnentafel in English - (Ancestor Table) numbering system, first used around 1590, is defined as - A system for numbering direct line ancestors. It is also known as the Sosa-Stradonitz system.

The system was devised, by genealogists, for genealogists, for a specific purpose - to aid in creating and recording Pedigrees (i.e. blood-lines). So, the direct line is the blood line, i.e. the DNA line.

The use of DNA testing simply gives more reliable evidence that the claimed blood line is true!

Ancestor is defined as -  One from whom a person is descended, whether on the father's or mother's side, at any distance of time - a progenitor - a forefather. (i.e. the birth line).

Genealogy is defined as -1) A line of descent traced continuously from an ancestor. or 2) The study and tracing of lines of descent.

The Adoption act in the UK was introduced in 1926, since then adoptive parents may, by law, be "Family" but they are clearly, by definition, not ancestors.  - Applying Ahnentafel to them, by that name, implies a genealogical line of descent that does not exist.

Consequently, although a family historian may be interested in "extended" adoptive families, a Genealogist would not, and would certainly not apply Ahnentafel numbers to them, as this denotes a blood line relationship that does not exist!

But pedigrees are "claimed" pedigrees. Unlike the kennel club the "genealogist" is rarely there when the mating takes place!

davidf wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 13:10

But when Ahnentafel Numbers were being developed, surely it was to display the "claimed ancestry" which could be in ignorance or full knowledge of adoptions or non-paternity events?

It is strange that we worry about sources and evidence for so many items - but until we had DNA we tended "to accept" claimed paternity (and to a lesser degree claimed maternity) - the most fundamental fact.

So if we are apply Ahnentafel Numbers should we only do so as far back as we can "prove" the paternity and maternity - with sufficient reliable evidence etc.?

davidf wrote: ↑

06 Nov 2022 13:10

So if we are apply Ahnentafel Numbers should we only do so as far back as we can "prove" the paternity and maternity - with sufficient reliable evidence etc.?

Well, that's they way I've always worked
One of my gt-grandfathers was illegitimate , and his mother married 'his father' shortly after his birth. Although he used his step-fathers surname in one form or another thorughout his life, I don't regard his step-father as a direct ancestor, and won't do so until I have DNA proof I am descended from him. He is in my tree, but only as husband of my 2'grt grandmother, and not as my 2'grt Grandfather.

So you have "DNA proof" of all claimed relationships - i.e. that you are genetically descended from that 2'great grand-mother?

What did you do before DNA?

David,
No, I’m not that pedantic

I just use parish registers, GRO and censuses to confirm all my assumptions, as everone else does. I don’t have this evidencefor the step-father, so I’m waiting for a DNA match for descendants of his parents to confirm I’m descended from him.

Gowermick wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2022 18:41

I just use parish registers, GRO and censuses to confirm all my assumptions, as everyone else does.

I think most us of do, but where there are "non-paternity events" for instance, they rarely show up in registers GRO censuses etc., particularly if the "father" is unaware of what his partner may have been up to (or suffered). And prior to 1924 in England many adoptions were "irregular" and the children passed off as birth children.

In connection with trying to track down a birth (England, early 1950s) of a child to an unmarried mother I was struggling to find a GRO entry (looking in the right area, in the most likely quarters, where child's surname matches the mother's - nothing found). I then started to look to see if she had by chance actually been registered under the probable father's surname but found nothing. I then had an interesting telephone discussion with a registrar who confirmed that back then a women could just about (with enough brass neck) walk in off the street and register a birth under a false name for the child and the mother - and even a false address. The implication was that even then the birth could have been fictitious! No ID or proof of birth was required.

So for a married mother who had a child the "wrong side of the blanket", she could register the birth as her husband's without any worries. Must have happened a lot during the war.

So I am very dubious about "pedigrees" actually recording blood lines - unless DNA verified - but even that has its limits after too many generations.

davidf wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2022 19:01

... No ID or proof of birth was required. ...

My understanding from reading registrars who post here and in other places is that there is almost no point in vital registration procedures in England & Wales where documentary proof is required even today. I think second marriages are the exception, when evidence of the decree whatever is required and / or maybe evidence of the death of the previous spouse?

So fundamentally, while Registrars can ask pointed questions, at the proverbial end of the day, they have to believe what the informant tells them. If the informant has enough brass-neck then....

I think deaths do require a doctor's medical certificate ("the letter") which confirms who died, when and of what, but apart from that ...

I have a suspicion that if the birth I am looking for actually happened, it was under a false name and just spotting that in a quarter's worth of birth indices ...!

davidf wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2022 19:01

....So I am very dubious about "pedigrees" actually recording blood lines - unless DNA verified - but even that has its limits after too many generations.

I suppose the point is that "pedigrees", and therefore the Ahnentafel numbers, represent a purported bloodline. The pedigree is assembled on the basis of the best evidence available, which in many cases in unreliable. I imagine that even the people who invented the Ahnentafel numbering system knew that.

Nobody is suggesting that by assigning an Ahnentafel number to an individual we are claiming absolute certainty. But where we have strong evidence (for example in the form of an adoption certificate or DNA) that a parent-child relationship is not a biological one we don't assign an Ahnentafel number to the parent. The problem is that FH does, unless there is another set of (biological) parents recorded as higher priority.

Given that FH takes account of non-biological relationships when calculating DNA relationships, it looks like an oversight that it ignores them when assigning Ahnentafel numbers.

The problem is that the FH assignment of Ahnentafel Numbers has been long established for many versions, whereas the DNA features are recent additions. So changing the Ahnentafel Numbers to avoid adoptive/foster parents will not be backwards compatible, and FH is often biased towards maintaining backward compatibility.

davidf wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2022 21:06

I think deaths do require a doctor's medical certificate ("the letter") which confirms who died, when and of what, but apart from that ...

That's true - I suppose that I was thinking about proof of identity. The certification(?) letter only relates who the certifier believes the deceased was.

Indeed, but I think the certifier has to have treated the deceased for a period of time (i.e. known to them - but could be a long term "deception") - failing that I think it goes to the coroner if the deceased had not been seen by a doctor (any doctor?) within, is it, two weeks of death?

What identity checks occur when someone is "signed up" with a GP practice - presumably there is some attempt to inherit the medical notes from the previous GP? But what happens if they can't - does a new NHS number just get relatively easily issued?

The upshot of all this is that almost any of the details on a UK certificate are reliant on the honesty of the informant who may have all sorts of reasons not to be truthful:

• Birth date to avoid fines for late registration
• Paternity to hide illegitimacy and or infidelity - or straight uncertainty as to who the father is.
• Identity/place of birth of child/mother if the mother is for some reason not wanting to be found (e.g. by previous partner, law, creditors etc.)
• etc.

Any such "inaccuracies" then continue - censuses etc. are not "corroborating evidence" but continuation of the situation stated on for instance the birth or marriage certificate. Any variation is then as much due to failures of memory as "correction of the record".

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

08 Nov 2022 21:17

Given that FH takes account of non-biological relationships when calculating DNA relationships, it looks like an oversight that it ignores them when assigning Ahnentafel numbers.

Having raised the support query regarding Ahnentafel, I have been having an ongoing email conversation with Calico Pie and raised that issue - pointing out that the algorithms they use for DNA relationships are exactly the same as those needed for calculating proper Ahnentafel numbers.

Their first response was to question my contention that Ahnentafel was not applicable to adoptive families, by asking me to "Please provide a link to an authoritative source that supports this".

They quoted a web page to support their interpretation of Ahnentafel - I was able to point them to exactly the same web page to show they were wrong!

I await their response!

Little.auk wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 13:19

Their first response was to question my contention that Ahnentafel was not applicable to adoptive families, by asking me to "Please provide a link to an authoritative source that supports this".

They quoted a web page to support their interpretation of Ahnentafel - I was able to point them to exactly the same web page to show they were wrong!

You could also point out that if it did apply to adoptive families then in cases where both the biological family and the adoptive family have been recorded FH would have to assign Ahnentafel numbers to both! So the individual would have a duplicate set of Ahnentafel numbers.

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 15:29

So the individual would have a duplicate set of Ahnentafel numbers.

Lorna,
this could still occur if one of my fathers ancestors married one of my mothers ancestors, merging the two lines.
I wonder which one should take precedence

Gowermick wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 17:06

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 15:29

So the individual would have a duplicate set of Ahnentafel numbers.

Lorna,
this could still occur if one of my fathers ancestors married one of my mothers ancestors, merging the two lines.
I wonder which one should take precedence

That's a different scenario. In that case some of your ancestors would have two different numbers (relative to you) because they fit in two different places in your ancestral tree. But in the case I was describing two different 'ancestors' (biological and adoptive) would have the same number. The number 2 would be assigned to both the biological and the adoptive father, and the number 3 would be assigned to both the biological and the adoptive mother.

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 15:29

You could also point out that if it [Ahnentafel number] did apply to adoptive families then in cases where both the biological family and the adoptive family have been recorded FH would have to assign Ahnentafel numbers to both! So the individual would have a duplicate set of Ahnentafel numbers.

But because my mother was adopted my family tree shows three pairs of grand-parents - tough to diagram! Because of deaths etc. I only ever addressed three individuals as a Grandparent - my (WW1) widowed and rather remote paternal (genetic I believe) Grandmother and my mother's adoptive parents. I have some cousin relationships through my mother's adoptive line that are if anything closer than those through my "genetic" lines. They are "family".

Where do you end? Adapting the Relationship function to look through all the relationship lines and drop in a "(by adoption)" if the relationship line has an "adoption" in it - or even blank the returned value? And whilst you are about it, drop in a "(purported)" where there is no DNA evidence?

It is only very recently that the availability of genetic analysis made "testing" of genealogies possible, but should that narrow our studies - particularly if you are "studying families" as a Family Historian? What happens to surname studies which look at the passing down of a surname (as opposed to Y-DNA). What happens to all the old "well established" pedigrees that "relate" participants on "Who Do You Think You Are" back to Charles II or Edward III - and even Adam and Eve! How purist should we be?

Families mean different things to different people and DNA is not the "be all and end all". I remember, I think it was Tony Robinson, speaking at an Ancestry event (either within "Who Do You Think You are Live" or at a session in Newcastle's Discovery Museum) when he mentioned that he had been brought up to believe that he had some Jewish heritage, but he had no "Jewish DNA". This could be because:

• DNA ethnic and racial flagging is evolving and his DNA did not (yet) fit anything in the database that was labelled Jewish
• The relationship was sufficiently distant that the operation of chance meant that even though by (genuine) birth he was of "Jewish Descent" (presumably maternal?) due to the way genetic combination occurred he did not have any DNA traceable back to that particular line
• An undocumented non-paternity event
• (more remotely) a non-maternity event
• An unrecorded adoption
• A hospital accidental "baby switch" or a more nefarious switch

But he feels it is part of his "make-up".

davidf wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 18:17

.....Where do you end? Adapting the Relationship function to look through all the relationship lines and drop in a "(by adoption)" if the relationship line has an "adoption" in it - or even blank the returned value? And whilst you are about it, drop in a "(purported)" where there is no DNA evidence?

It is only very recently that the availability of genetic analysis made "testing" of genealogies possible, but should that narrow our studies - particularly if you are "studying families" as a Family Historian? ......

I haven't suggested that "pedigrees" which include adoptive or purported realtionships are not worth recording and studying. Far from it. Family history is about more than strict DNA-based genealogy.

My point was that CP have questioned the assertion that the numbers don't apply to adoptive relationships. OK, we can have a discussion about that (we already have). But this highlights an inconsistency. If, like CP, you think Ahnentafel numbers do apply in adoptive relationships then in cases where an individual has both biological and adoptive parents recorded FH ought to assign the numbers to both the sets of parents and all previous generations of both sets of parents. So there would be two different branches using the same numbers. But what actually happens is that where there is more than one set of parents only one set (and their ancestors) are allocated Ahnentafel numbers. And it doesn't even depend on which parents are marked as the adoptive parents - it is purely dependent on the order in which they are recorded.

You could argue (CP might argue) that this gives the user the opportunity to decide which set of parents they want to treat as the "pedigree" set. That's true, but only if the user knows that if they don't record any other parents the default assumption will be that the adoptive parents get the Ahnentafel numbers even if the relationship has been recorded as adoptive.

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 17:19

Gowermick wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 17:06

LornaCraig wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 15:29

So the individual would have a duplicate set of Ahnentafel numbers.

Lorna,
this could still occur if one of my fathers ancestors married one of my mothers ancestors, merging the two lines.
I wonder which one should take precedence

That's a different scenario. In that case some of your ancestors would have two different numbers (relative to you) because they fit in two different places in your ancestral tree. But in the case I was describing two different 'ancestors' (biological and adoptive) would have the same number. The number 2 would be assigned to both the biological and the adoptive father, and the number 3 would be assigned to both the biological and the adoptive mother.

Lorna,
I knew it was a different scenario, but I was making the point that a) two people could have same Ahnentafel ( as you point out) or b) one person could have two Ahnentafel numbers (in my case)

i.e Calculating Anhnetafel numbers has more hidden gotcha's, and I don't think CP could hope to give an answer that everyone is happy with.

Gowermick wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 20:36

I knew it was a different scenario, but I was making the point that a) two people could have same Ahnentafel ( as you point out) or b) one person could have two Ahnentafel numbers (in my case)

i.e Calculating Anhnetafel numbers has more hidden gotcha's, and I don't think CP could hope to give an answer that everyone is happy with.

One person having two different Ahnentafel Numbers is a well-known phenomenon and is catered for by the FH function for calculating Ahnentafel Numbers, which says:

Parameter 3:
One individual can be an ancestor of another, more than once, and consequently have more than one ahnentafel number for them. This parameter allows you to specify whether the number you want is for the closest relationship binding the 2 people, the 2nd closest relationship, the 3rd closest relationship, or whichever.Use a value of 1, here, to represent the closest relationship, 2 to represent the 2nd closest, and so on.

Multiple people having the same Ahnentafel Number is invalid and FH does not allow that to happen, it simply allows the numbers to be assigned to a non-birth ancestor, which is inconsistent with its treatment of DNA.

Gowermick wrote: ↑

09 Nov 2022 17:06

Calculating Anhnetafel numbers has more hidden gotcha's, and I don't think CP could hope to give an answer that everyone is happy with.

Ahnentafel numbering only has "hidden gotcha's", as you term them, if you ignore the rules of application.

Correct application has nothing to do with making people happy - it is about doing what is right.

Any other so called "gotcha's" you have raised as "Devil's Advocate" apply to the standards of proof applied in building the ancestral tree, rather than the application of any numbering system to it.

It is a poor argument to say that because Ahnentafel numbers could, unknowingly, and in all good faith, be given to people who were not direct line ancestors, then it is O.K. to apply them to people we know are definitely not!

Quoting from a post on the Genealogy StackExchange website "Under the 'rules' of the Sosa-Stradonitz (Ahnentafel) system, individuals in your father's second (adoptive) father's line have no standing as your direct ancestors and so cannot be assigned a number. The issue is the same as asking "How can I assign a number to my favourite great-uncle?"