We welcome any query on Who When Where. If you have previously posted it on another forum (including the old WDYTYA forum), please state this in your opening post - this will save people redoing the research which has been done before: they can look at it and possibly go further with it.

Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

A space for genealogy-related conversations.
VALLMO9
Posts: 757
Joined: 13 Jun 2020, 21:28

Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by VALLMO9 »

Recently I re-watched a genealogy TV programme filmed c2015. One of the participants had a great-grandfather who was adopted. One of the adoptive parents had a direct ancestor who was a Mayflower passenger and was also involved in the Salem Witch Trials.

According to the TV genealogist, modern genealogy allows the participant to "claim" the Mayflower/Salem Witch Trials chap as her own ancestor, despite there being no bloodline connection. :o

I can see why this connection would make for interesting family tree conversation, but for me personally, I wouldn't claim the (notable) ancestor as my own.

I don't want to spark an intense debate on the Forum. But do any Forum members have a notable ancestor who isn't a blood relative? If so, do you claim the person as an actual ancestor? Names and details aren't necessary. (Example: I have a notable living relative, but I always stress that he's an uncle by marriage, if the conversation arises).
pinefamily
Posts: 64
Joined: 26 Jun 2020, 20:16

Re: Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by pinefamily »

Personally I agree with you, Valmo9. I don't put people into my tree unless there is a blood connection. I don't even put parents of "in-laws" as some others do.
However, it is entirely up to individual tastes. If I had an adopted ancestor in recent generations I might be inclined to research the adopted line. Some adoptees view their adopted family as their own, and don't even worry about blood kin.
Re your question, I have a tenuous link to Joshua Reynolds, but haven't put him my tree. I do have Alfred Nobel and John Gay in my tree, as they are blood links.
paulr1949
Posts: 147
Joined: 02 Jun 2020, 18:25
Location: North West Kent

Re: Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by paulr1949 »

Interesting, as I have just discovered that the husband of one of my second cousins four times removed (Mary Way of Newport, IoW) is listed in the Plantagenet Roll by dint of her marriage to Pergrine Baillie-Hamilton, sone of Lady Caroline Bertie.
I will tell my 90-year-old uncle, and perhaps my cousin, but I won't be claiming that I am linked to Edward 3rd by marriage!!"

Paul
Paul
VALLMO9
Posts: 757
Joined: 13 Jun 2020, 21:28

Re: Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by VALLMO9 »

According to Family Tree Magazine: "Genealogy traditionally follows biological linkages, but many adopted individuals and their descendants want to honor the history of the families that raised them—while at the same time recognizing their birth parents. In the personal endeavor that is genealogy, belief systems and feelings also influence your perspective on what constitutes a couple, a marriage and a family, and how you might want that perspective reflected in your family tree".

Okay, I appreciate adoptees wanting "to honor the history of the families that raised them". But personally, I wouldn't claim the adoptive parent's (notable) ancestors as my own - as allowed per the genealogy TV programme.
Years ago I saw a Broadway documentary in which one of the famous participants proudly claimed he'd been "adopted". Strictly speaking, he wasn't adopted in the traditional sense. He simply took his step-father's surname after his mother remarried.

All things considered, I guess "modern genealogy" denotes an evolving perspective with family trees.
Hardwork
Posts: 86
Joined: 14 Jun 2020, 14:15

Re: Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by Hardwork »

Surely genealogy can only be about following the genes. If it is not, instead it is family history.
Norfolk Nan
Posts: 506
Joined: 16 Jun 2020, 11:54
Location: A Londoner lost in Norfolk

Re: Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by Norfolk Nan »

I haven’t any notables in my tree but I do have more than a handful of examples of ‘adoption’ glossed over ie children brought to a marriage and then assuming and passing on the family name. The facts haven’t always been obvious leading to a certain sense of disappointment and frustration on discovery and a lot of chin scratching and wondering if that particular branch should to be lopped off!

In the scenario of a famous adopted relative I would have to make it clear in some way if only to prevent some clever clogs challenging me with the true facts. I couldn’t follow the advice on that TV programme but that’s just me. Hardwork’s point sums it up neatly for me and that’s why I tend to consider myself a family historian rather than a genealogist.
VALLMO9
Posts: 757
Joined: 13 Jun 2020, 21:28

Re: Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by VALLMO9 »

Hardwork wrote: 13 Feb 2021, 16:24 Surely genealogy can only be about following the genes. If it is not, instead it is family history.
My point exactly! Another participant from the TV programme was a woman who'd married into a notable family. She had clearly appropriated her in-laws (2-3 generations back) as her own, due to the fame factor. One wonders if she'd be as excitedly keen to "claim" her in-laws, had they been a family of humble garbage collectors. :lol:
ewanarm68
Posts: 11
Joined: 16 Jul 2020, 06:50
Location: Sheffield UK
Contact:

Re: Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by ewanarm68 »

I am adopted and have no knowledge of my birth parents. As far as I am concerned my parents were my adoptive parents. I suppose because I was put up for adoption and placed in care as soon as I was born I had no relationship with my birth parents. My family is my adopted family and my family history is their family history.
Ewan Armstrong
Sheffield UK
Armstrong, Lakeman, Lockhart, Campbell (Glasgow, Stirlingshire, Sri Lanka)
also Anderson, Taylor, Ramsey (Vyse), Naylor (Sheffield, Norfolk, Lincolnshire)
https://armstrongfamilyhistoryjourney.blogspot.com/
Mick Loney
Posts: 371
Joined: 15 Jun 2020, 07:27

Re: Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by Mick Loney »

Hardwork wrote: 13 Feb 2021, 16:24 Surely genealogy can only be about following the genes. If it is not, instead it is family history.
You are forgetting you are not on a Genealogy site, but on the Family Historian site! :D :D

However, I agree with you, and I restrict my research to anyone with a genetic link to my grandchildren.
I do include spouses who marry into the family, but ignore their parents (in-laws). If a spouse was married prior to marrying my ancestor, or remarries following their death, I add notes to that affect, but don’t follow their other families, although I do track them personally from birth until their death.
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Posts: 358
Joined: 14 Jun 2020, 18:57
Location: South Cheshire

Re: Notable ancestor via adoptive relatives

Post by AdrianBruce »

Personally speaking - I'll put anyone of interest into my datafiles for the sake of finding and recording an interesting story (and indeed, if I don't - who knows who will?)

Veterans of the WDYTYA? forum may recollect the infamous Edith Roya whose origins are obscure to say the least (I await the 1921 census with interest!) That story brought in Edith's "husband" from India, his Finnish wife, Edith's "husband" from Birmingham, his wife from Manchester who appeared at first glance to be in a bigamous marriage with the apparent consent of her former husband who lived in the same house, etc. Along the line I learnt way more about Finnish history than I knew before (not difficult), caught an insight into the problems during WW1 faced by British women who had married German emigrants here, and learned that the people in that apparent menage a trois knew more about the validity of marriage to a deceased wife's sister than I did - which is why the later marriage wasn't bigamous.

And all this because Edith's legal husband, who is my relative (a cousin of the blood-line), was the only WW1 Army Officer whose papers are accessible - hence I wanted to investigate something different.

So those are some people who've simply caught my interest. My "obligations", if you like, for who I should record stop at when the siblings of my direct ancestors leave home. Thereafter it's a case of who has an interesting story to tell.

However, in all this, perhaps ramshackle meandering, I am quite clear that my ancestors are only my direct biological ancestors. The stories I research are the interesting ones - the definition of who my ancestors are, is a different thing that is a straight fact, not a judgment call.

In all this, however, I'm keenly aware that I simply don't have the situation of descent through an adopted child, so I've never had to work it out. If I were adopted, I suspect that my family history would absolutely include my adoptive parents because shouldn't it be their story as well? Same thing, by the way, if I had a step-GF (say) who I knew and loved, in contrast to the biological GF that I didn't know - that would be 5 grand-parents to investigate, I believe.
Adrian Bruce
Post Reply