Why do we traditionally trace the male line?

OU812 · 23-05-2019 3:45pm #1

In light of the birth cert legalities going on today, I was wondering why we traditionally trace the male line when the only reasonable certainty of parenthood is the female?

We know the baby physically come out of the mother so can be reasonably sure the correct person is named on the birth certificate as such, yet we go chasing down the paternal line not considering (too much), that it may not be accurate.

Various recent DNA revelations make me believe now that my grandfather was in actual fact my great grandfather’s half brother and raised by him as his son (wether anyone knew anything about it I don’t know), but something doesn’t add up.

I’ve spent 15 years building up a family tree that goes back to the 1600s and it may now be totally inaccurate beyond 110 years. Frustrating in the least!

L1011 · 23-05-2019 4:08pm

Documentation and surname changes are the two major issues tracing female lines that I imagine hit everyone to some or other extent.

Balmed Out · 23-05-2019 5:33pm

I think most people try to trace every line they can. I guess if your a landowner tracing the male line to see how long a family have owned a particular farm or home might be of interest.

Jellybaby1 · 23-05-2019 7:20pm

"Why do we traditionally trace the male line?"

To be honest I wouldn't have said that we did. I've always researched both lines, but recently I discovered that one of my friends who had told me she had 'finished' her family tree (:rolleyes:) eventually admitted she had only traced the fathers. I had a few quiet words with her and now she's tracing the mothers, at last!

[Deleted User] · 23-05-2019 7:28pm

If you trace both, do you then trace both grandparents' lineage, probably 4 different family names to trace, and then 16 on another level. It gets very difficult after a while.

Jellybaby1 · 23-05-2019 7:30pm

Chinese whospers wrote: »

If you trace both, do you then trace both grandparents' lineage, probably 4 different family names to trace, and then 16 on another level. It gets very difficult after a while.

Yep! Y'just keep going until you can't go anymore. I've been doing this so long I remember I was wearing mini skirts in the 70's and now I'm an OAP!

OU812 · 23-05-2019 8:09pm

For clarification, I am actually tracking both, but have found myself concentrating more on the male side - possibly because of the grandfather conundrum, I'm not 100% sure.

spurious · 23-05-2019 8:09pm

I do as far back as I can in all directions and then chase siblings. The siblings help a great deal with DNA autosomal matches.

I long stopped worrying about Mommy's baby, Daddy's Maybe and was almost disappointed to find that so far all the DNA has done is back up the paper trail.

I do have a close DNA match who is either a 'surprise' belonging to my great grandfather, or a descendant of his missing brother, last heard of in 1902. Sadly since this tester is of the 'test but not answer any emails' brigade, I may never know.

OU812 · 23-05-2019 8:13pm

spurious wrote: »

I do have a close DNA match who is either a 'surprise' belonging to my great grandfather, or a descendant of his missing brother, last heard of in 1902. Sadly since this tester is of the 'test but not answer any emails' brigade, I may never know.

Another frustration. I recently convinced a cousin to do a test (I had to buy it for him), but his father (now deceased) & mine were very similar in looks & stature & features so I'm not expecting any great surprises. his only surviving family member lives in another country & his kids have no interest in testing. Wont even consider it. I have suspicions of something there but I think they also do & don't want it confirmed.

pinkypinky · 23-05-2019 8:44pm

I think historically we lived in a very patriarchal society and men *thought* they were more important.
Some people are just more interested in their own surname.

I trace every line possible and curse at the past when they fail to tell me a woman's birth surname meaning I can't go further.

srmf5 · 23-05-2019 11:00pm

Since I started, I always researched all the lines. I actually did it generation by generation on every line to make sure that it was all balanced. Once I had the bare bones, I worked on the siblings and their descendants. I was actually more interested in my mum's side of the family than my dad's starting off. It was likely because my aunt had already done a good bit on my dad's so I thought that anything I would find would have already been found (that wasn't actually the case). My mum's side hadn't been researched before so I only needed to go back to the siblings of my mum's grandparents before I found surprises. The only problem with her lack of knowledge was that I would tell her the names of her great grandparents and there was no recognition which made me doubt my research. However, everything has been confirmed by DNA. My mum's paternal line did keep notes on the family back to the late 1700s. However, unlike my dad's side, research hadn't been carried out so I enjoyed looking for records to corroborate the handwritten notes. I was pleased to see the maiden name of my 3rd great grandmother recorded alongside her married name on her gravestone with that being the only 'record' to confirm her maiden name recorded in the family notes. There's still some documents that I don't know how they specifically connect to the family.

The main reason that people may focus on the paternal line is that it may be easier to trace since the surname remains unchanged every generation (or at least it should). The last year I've been more focused on my paternal line due to Y-DNA testing being carried out on my dad and all the interesting information that I've uncovered from that. I've wasted many evenings trying to find more information on the paternal line but I did manage to find new information through perseverance. I only ended up testing my dad because an autosomal match who shared my surname thought that we'd be a match (my dad did end up being his closest match but it was actually through my mum that he autosomally matched me). I did also test my dad and my own mtDNA but the information gained from that is limited. It's difficult to know how far back the connection is to matches since the surname changes every generation. As there are so many lines, people may feel more of a connection to the paternal line that shares their surname.

Jellybaby1 · 24-05-2019 9:29am

A family of cousins contacted me recently thinking a mistake had been made on my mother's gravestone. I had it engraved along the lines of "John Murphy and his wife Mary Jones". They thought she should have been 'Mary Murphy" (not the real names). They were somewhat surprised that I had done that. Funny how we are supposed to live in more modern and liberated times but the men are still given more importance. If I wanted to change my name I'd have to do it through a legal system. A woman gets married and wham! her name is automatically legally changed! I sometimes still use my single name.

kildarejohn · 24-05-2019 9:36am

OU812 wrote: »

In light of the birth cert legalities going on today, I was wondering why we traditionally trace the male line

One major difficulty with tracing the female lines is that up to (incredibly) the 1970's, civil birth certs recorded only the father's address, not the mother's. Without an address, it can be impossible to trace the mother.

pedroeibar1 · 24-05-2019 1:01pm

pinkypinky wrote: »

I think historically we lived in a very patriarchal society and men *thought* they were more important.
Some people are just more interested in their own surname.

I trace every line possible and curse at the past when they fail to tell me a woman's birth surname meaning I can't go further.

I trace both lines but admit to starting with the paternal before expanding to include greater detail on the maternal.

Men did not ‘think’ they were more important, what matters is from the medieval era the law thought it so in these islands. Primogeniture is the result of several hundred years of English Law, i.e. the firstborn son inherits the lot. The patrilineal line hijacks genealogy through precedence. Daughters, in general, don’t really count. (But their surnames as middle names help in tracing male lines.) Nor do younger sons, when there is ‘an heir and a spare’ help much either as they usually have to move off the landholding.

Inheritance of titles is different, with many different rules. E.g. Victoria inherited the English crown but not that of Hannover when her uncle William IV died. One of the Nordic countries changes its succession laws some years ago so that the crown princess will inherit as firstborn, rather than her younger brother who had been first in line.

Norman law ripped up the Brehon Law rulebook. The ‘Old Irish’ operated differently, women had some property rights, the law allowed for trial marriages, acceptance/legal recognition of ‘irregular’ children, tanistry, elected chieftains/’lords’ and different rules both for landholding and for transfer of land use and ownership.

I consider that the appearance of ‘bloodline’ ancestry will become much more common in the (near) future as DNA genealogy overlaps and conflicts with ‘paper records’ genealogy. I’ve come to the conclusion that NPEs (Non-Parental Events) are much more frequent than we like to believe and all we need is one pregnancy – be it as a result of rape or lust – to throw the surname record rulebook out the window!

Why do we traditionally trace the male line?

Comments