In a message dated 7/5/2004 9:37:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: but now having found the proof that John Bowles was not his biological father I had to chop off the longest branch of the tree, and now I'm looking for my Roots! Good one, Brenda! It is interesting to me that while John Bowles may have been a wonderful person who gave a home to little George, his name and probably a great deal of affection, his background is something of a non-starter in genealogy. Genealogy seems to be a science where one is looking for biological relatives, not legal relatives. Of course, given the imperfect nature of the paternity process you describe, George Root may not actually have been the father either. Our former president Clinton, whose autobiography has just been published, took the name of his mother's second husband out of feelings of family solidarity. Meanwhile, after he was president, it was discovered that his biological father had been named as the father on the birth certificate of another child, possibly Clinton's biological half brother. On the other hand, it was explained that the father of the other child might actually have been a married man, and that Clinton's father, then a single man, might have admitted paternity (falsely) to save the reputation/marriage of another relative. This was apparently common at the time in that area, although it seemed strange to me, given the not unsubstantial financial obligations that go with admitting paternity. But maybe that was different then, too. They say that even now, about 10% of children born within a marriage are not biologically the husband's. Won't it be interesting when the day comes and one can have one's DNA tested in a way that will reveal who one's actual ancestors are? Devon
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] containing the line: unsubscribe lace-chat [EMAIL PROTECTED] For help, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
