Henry VII of England - Haplogroup I1 is the likely subclade of the Tudor Dynasty

So looking at the direct descendent of your son in a generation or and he looks like you is coincidental? That's taking the obvious and disrespeting the consequence of the obvious....the looks, the genetic defects are passed from one generation to the next without flaw unless it's a permenant change in the DNA....This factors of eye socket displasia is not normative, but it is a fact of the face of Edward Vi and that is at work as are skin conditions, and Prophuria but that's coincidental? Please. , And I say I had never laid eyes on Louis XI, King of FRANCE and when I saw him I could scarcely breathe....That was January of this year....He's undoubtedly the ugliest King on record, yet there he is walking around in Oregon with our genetic history? Happily, the good LORD took some of the UGLY of that huge nose and bulging eyes (Graves disease) and mitigated for my poor nephew.....The fact that you would say these conditins don't matter is not understood when every other facet of our existence is passed genetically, but magically our skulls, nose width, placement eye placement and forhead protrusion are not created genetically? What are you saying? Our faces magically appear out of the sky? That's just preposterous.....on the face of it....Pardon the Pun!

On closer examination of your facial features I have to say the Tudor eye set is distinctive and at work in My Brother Andrew and you.....The facial thing never ever occured to me, why would it? Until I found the story of the Laundress that my DAd told me actually was a real person....In 60 years of existence It never occured to me that i looked like anyone but me. The point being....this is new data, not old beliefs, this data is all brand new and the revelations come one by one....I would have never looked for Louis Xi except having looked at the protrait of James the FIRSt of Eng. I said, he kinda looks like what I rember of DAD....That's two years ago now.....In all honesty it would never have crossed my mind to make that assumption....so the it is the OBVIOUS that is at work, not my imagination.....My skills at facial recognition and age progression/regression are a measured skill set in Police Forensics....you have to be able to look critically at a suspect and find them in a CROWD, not all people can do that.....But I CAN! It's all right there for anyone with eyes to see. REALLY!

There's an easy way to visualize this.

You have two parents. You got 50% of your DNA from each ( = 100% /2).

You have four grandparents. You got 25% of your DNA from each ( = 100% /4).

Owen Tudor was born about 1400. Using a conservative estimate of 4 generations per century, there are about 26 generations from you to Owen. In that generation, you have 67,108,864 ancestors ( = 2 to the 26th power).

You got .00000149011% of your DNA from each ( = 100 / 67,108,864). Using your multiplier effect, you could increase that to .00000596046%.

See the problem? A complex set of facial features is not likely to come down intact through that many generations.

Intermarriage increases the odds, of course, but that far back the odds are still vastly against. Even if you assume that one of your ancestors 13 generations ago inherited all of his DNA from Owen Tudor, you would only have 0.01220107369% of his DNA. Still too little to account for a full set of facial features.

Of course, DNA recombines at every generation so it's not likely that you would share exactly 25% of your DNA with each grandparent. It's possible to be a little more closely related to one grandparent than to another.

Even so, when you reach back 26 generations, the amount of DNA you share with a particular ancestor is extraordinarily small. In fact, in most cases it can be better expressed as the odds against sharing any DNA at all. Odds are that you don't share any DNA at all with an ancestor that far back.

Yes, the intellectual baisis & the science is astonishingly small....I suppose I am really and turyl expressing not a hope but recognition of something long held by the English and other's of Feudal times....There really is something unique and mystical at work in the BLOOD of the Monarch....yes, they were all human beings and subject to all the laws....that all persons are subject to....you just made the case for me.....this is a statistical impoissibility.....Will you not look to see why I am so astonished by what is in front of me and you? I understand the odd's what you are saying is correct I have no doubt....that's why the eiight of us represent something else, not yet understood in the NEW science of DNA analysis....The evidence of what I speak of is in front of you....it matters sir. DCR 1948

I tend to think in Global terms, of groups of ideas that are banded together under one heading which is a human and scholarly thing to do....we seperate and measure differences by number and group them into Clades and sub-clades by the numbers, because we can undertand that! I am suggesting that the Human face consists of X number of possible configureations with the nasal opening approximately centered in the forward- facing portion of the skull....The nose is never, ever found in the back of the skull. YES? Then the DNA signal for that set by the Mamilian Deepest order to be in a certain location....size shape are variables but all within certain parameters...there are not variables for that location on the body...it's set. I think you are mistaking a mathmatical concept of probability for the actual function of DNA to guide the process of location, which is indeed limited to a specific area....Think about that, and then tell me that your methodological approach has considered the parameters I just described.....it has not....your argument is too general...the face and eyes reveal the caseing of the beings who inhabit our bodies.....and they don't allow the nose to be near the waist....The point is that one description of a subset of facts does not describe the process of human immortality from the first mamal to the present....Im saying there is a new area of DNA expression withing a confine of instrustions.....Ears are alwyas in the same place for human beings....so too are the DNA instrustions for being a TUDOR in Blood by the measurement of their recurring and ever-recognized features. That's all, there are some things as yet not understood....this is one of them.

Dale, I'm not hostile to the point you're trying to make. The other curators could tell you that I'm a great fan of woo-woo. I own a metaphysical bookstore, and I'm the head of the trade association for the New Age industry.

You can guess that I have some experience juggling science and mysticism. It's just my personal opinion, but I don't think it helps anyone to confuse the two.

You clearly find extraordinary personal meaning in the fact that members of your immediate family look like various royals from hundreds of years ago. You feel a mystical connection to them. Fine. But, it won't work, I don't think, to ignore the science or jumble the science in an effort to make science prove something it doesn't prove.

By your own account, your genetic inheritance from the Tudors is tiny. In fact, it's so small that you are struggling against overwhelming odds that you have any genetic link to the Tudors at all, except perhaps for your y-DNA.

As far as anyone can tell, given the current state of the science, the y-chromosome is mostly junk that doesn't do anything. And, even if it turns out that maybe it's not really junk, the science shows that it has nothing to do with physical appearance. The y-chromosome determines maleness, and probably does some other stuff with the hormones.

Science also tells us that all of human appearance is determined by DNA. New research into epigenetics suggests that the genetics might be a little more complicated than we thought 10 years ago. But no one has yet suggested that being descended from kings overrides the other rules of genetic inheritance.

So, it seems to me that you're painting yourself into a non-rational corner. Human appearance is determined by DNA, but you have very little Tudor DNA (if any). The end of it is that science does not support your idea that your relatives look like royalty because you're descended from the Tudors.

I don't happen to agree that there is something mystically magical about the blood of kings. A bunch of thieves and thugs, if you ask me. But, you disagree, and that's fine. My point is something else -- if there is something magical about the blood of kings, science hasn't discovered it. Personal opinions on the subject are just personal opinions.

We can look forward to new discoveries in the field of genetics, and we can dream that scientists might someday discover that royal ancestry plays by different rules. More likely, I think, they'll discover that there is something that says some genes related to physical appearance cluster together over the generations. Maybe certain patterns resist random recombination. Maybe recombination tends to to "repair" a pattern by only combining with other genes that support the pattern. Who knows? Could be anything.

Until then, it doesn't work to try to prove a Tudor descent using DNA if you have to ignore the accepted rules in order to make the proof look plausible. In the end, it doesn't prove anything. Speaking from experience, I would say that as soon as you try to bend science to support mysticism, you're on tricky ground.

Well, Im trying to express a concept for which the rules are not yet discovered...that's a fair description...the odds are astronomical, I get that...my point being....this is not pie in the sky, it's real...and the proof is on our faces because of the reinforcing DNA...There are 1.000 ancestors but only a 100 opitions for shape spacing etc, and with each succeeding generation the odds cluster toward the most freequent DNA that reappears...Tudor being one of 5 primary groups it seems...each time the effect is a reduction of options and not a multiplication of options...that's what im getting at as far as the science.....So Henry Tudor can walk in a room of genetic experts and no one is going to say....we should check your blood for DNA because that's the only measure of you being you? Hard to put the mind around that kind of dispassion....Im all for science, and that's what I expect to find, the reason for this clear family annomily. DCR 1948

I thought of a parallel situation that you might enjoy. In American genealogy it is very common for people to have a family tradition about Indian ancestry, but almost always when they get DNA tests there's no sign of it.

It's traumatic for those who've built a core of personal identity around being part Indian. I've heard stories from many people about how their grandmother, or uncle, or cousin looked Indian. So, they are sure something is wrong with the science.

So, what's going on? It's actually something very simple. There's no reason to doubt that these people really do have Indian ancestry, but it's very small. After about five generations the odds are that the DNA traces are gone, or they're in such small, scattered fragments that they can longer be identified as Indian.

This is parallel to your idea of a Tudor descent. Any DNA traces are gone. That doesn't mean you're not a descendant. It just means you can't prove it with DNA (unless you can triangulate something significant using your y-chromosome).

There's also a normal human tendency to see what you expect to see. If you "know" someone is part Indian, you're going to be predisposed to see it when you look at them.

Over the years quite a few people have told me they can see my Indian blood in my cheekbones. I'm generally too polite to tell them that my cheekbones came from my Swedish ancestors and that my Indian ancestors had high but flattened cheekbones. Along the same lines, I've had many Swedes tell me that I look Swedish. Sure, but I look like my dad, who didn't have a drop of Swedish blood. Finally, almost every day people ask my partner and I if we are twins, or at least brothers. Nope. Not even distantly related. In short, anecdotal evidence about who looks like whom is highly subjective. I wouldn't take it as evidence of anything, except perhaps paternity ;)

Bahahaha! Let me get this straight because it's critical not to overstate the evidence that is gathered thus far....I believe you said that facial characteristics are passed by DNA but that does not mean that similar looking persons have a DNA past that reflects the person whom they may appear to look like? I think that's what you said! (PS: I would never guess your ancestory to be Native American from your appearance, Scandanavian, yes....I could jump to that conclusion, Native not!) LOL....My only point in going to the "DARK SIDE" as it were, was to agree with the statistical data that makes what I am seeing only recently as all the more miriculous...and unlikely.....and I pose the outsider question....Can you ask the Experts that you know of if its possible for DNA to be directed by a Master Switch if you will once there is Layering of the IDENTICAL message as in Henry Tudor to grandson JOhn Rice II and Henry Tudor to grandaughter Katherine Perrott? Meaning the TUDOR DNA is on both sides from then on of the Y Chrom. for the descendants until one of them has a hiccup? and then that is passed along to the sons? If that double dose of Tudor, Male and Female side is then reinforced by the Mills female connection to the Owen Tudor line via Thomas Gardiner as is my case, does that not up the odds for a TUDOR seclection of DNA possibilities? If the Y chromosome is an exclusive Tudor 3 dose as Im suggesting and the dominant Haplogroup is for some reason I1 and not R1b as you think....does it not follow that the Genetic Material is concentraited rather than multiplied? That is the exact question I was trying to get to above.....Not a metaphysical finger of God....But the powered up DNA machine is concentraiting the Data points in favor of the Physical and Social bottleneck that the Tudors represent....My reading on Bottlenecks says that the dominant genes take precident and that is what I was trying to express.....Is that more clear? and Cudo's for your patience.....Where is your store located by the way? DCR

PS: sorry about some of the spelling, Im losing my vision and don't catch the typo's.....should read MIRACULOUS....

Dale,

I realize belatedly that my partner and I illustrate the point I'm making far better than any mathematical or scientific arguments.

Tim and I look a lot alike. Similar facial features. Similar build. Many people think we must be twins. Probably with your police background you would know we're not twins, but I think even you would guess that we're brothers.

We have a daily comedy of errors because we look so much alike. Waiters and sales people almost always ask if we're twins, and express profound disbelief when we say we're not even related (except by marriage). I sometimes joke that you can tell us apart because I'm the smart one and he's the funny one, but that goes right over people's heads ;)

People talk to me, thinking they're following up on a conversation they had with Tim. Sometimes customers get angry because I don't remember the wonderful conversation they had with Tim. People who see us together know we're two different people, but when they're faced with just one of us they're usually not sure which one it is. A lot of times I face a defiant customer who asks right off, "Which one are you?" (I can't resist -- I always say, "I'm the smart one".) You can imagine how it goes.

Yet, Tim and I are not related. Not even way back, as far we can tell. We've both had autosomal DNA tests, and those tests show that we have no common DNA segments. Nothing at all, not even tiny fragments that fall below the usual level of analysis.

So, why do we look alike? There's no real answer. Just luck of the genetic draw. We come from similar backgrounds. His ancestry is half Danish. Mine is a quarter Swedish. His ancestry is half Mennonite, a highly endogamous group. His mother was the first one in her family in over 400 years to marry outside the Mennonite community. I have a big chunk of colonial German ancestry, but no Mennonites.

But there are differences, too. A little more than half my ancestry is colonial English and Scottish. He has no British ancestry. I have half a dozen royal lines. He has none. We belong to different y-DNA and mt-DNA haplogroups. Our ancestors didn't even live in the same places, ever, as far as we know -- except that his Yoder line came to colonial Pennsylvania from Steffisburg, Switzerland and one of my ancestors in the 13th century also lived there.

Finally, and I think most importantly, even though we look like each other, and we each resemble our own relatives, neither of us look anything like the other one's relatives. You can easily see the family resemblance I have to most of my brothers and sisters, even my half brothers and sisters. And, you can easily see Tim's resemblance to his brother and sisters. But, you would never think that I resemble his siblings or that he resembles mine.

Not to butt in on this party. :) BUT:

Dale, I know we've talked in other threads about Y-DNA vs. traits. I think we're still not communicating this idea very well. The odds of you actually resembling a direct ancestor from several hundred years ago are no better than chance. So you might have what you think are "Henry VII's eyes" or "Henry VII's mouth," but in reality, you cannot reasonably trace your physical appearance back to him. Trait inheritance continually changes through each generation, as you add in more and more traits from more and more genetic contributors, so every generation down from Henry VII, the odds of a descendant resembling him in any way decrease more and more. Even skintone would be off by now.

At this point, anyone who looks like him does so by chance. Someone could not be related to him at all but look just like him. Someone who is a direct descendant might not look anything like him. Physical appearance, unless we're talking about some very isolated mutation passed on through founder effect (and he is not known to have had anything like that, nor would it really be plausible), is not genealogically relevant this many hundreds of years down the road. At all.

Also, keep in mind that historical portraits are widely understood by historians to not look all that much like the people painted, particularly when they're depicting royalty. This is why when you compare multiple portraits by multiple artists, they rarely look all that consistent. Royalty would pay painters to make them look better, often completely changing the appearance of their face to hide deformities or blemishes, and sometimes even having someone else more attractive serve as a stand-in. So the odds of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:King_Henry_VII.jpg being an accurate depiction of Henry VII are again very low.

Dale,

I might have time to get to your deeper question a little later tonight, but right now I'll just give a quick answer about my Tudor ancestry.

I'm G2a, not I1 or R1b. G2a is a Middle Eastern line that is relatively rare in Europe. It also happens to be the haplogroup of the Capets, but I belong to an entirely different branch than they do.

I have Tudor ancestry, but there is nothing in my DNA that would link me to the Tudors. Of course not -- my connection to them was 600 years ago and their DNA is a complete mystery so far, except for some academic guessing games.

My partner is I1. Not surprising, because his paternal ancestry is Danish. My Swanström cousins are R1b. (Swanström is my mother's maiden name, not my paternal surname.) Also not surprising, because R1b is so common in Europe, and because legend says the Swanströms originally came from Scotland except that the heaviest concentration of R1b in Scotland is in the areas with the greatest Scandinavian influence, so round and round.

I can babble for hours about all of that, but it wouldn't be relevant to your search. The only thing I know that could even remotely be relevant is that Henry Luce, an early immigrant to Massachusetts, supposedly came from Wales and his descendants are I2b1. My mother's mother was a Luce. In Henry's case the general thinking used to be that his I haplogroup suggests a Norman ancestry rather than native Welsh. I haven't been following, so I don't know if that is the most up to date theory or not.

Ashley! I'm glad you joined us. This was starting to feel like a private party. I'm hoping that other people who are interested in DNA (and its limits) are reading over our shoulders and getting their questions answered. It's been a pleasure to find someone like Dale who wants to talk in detail so we can all learn from the discussion. He's been forcing me to go check my facts instead of just trusting to memory ;)

Hmmm, well I beg to differ and agree with Mr. Rice to a certain level. I feel that certain features can and will be passed on hereditarily from one generation to the next. I'm not sure it could go on for hundreds of years, but I do feel that my grandfather, my father and I all have the same eyes, hands, and feet. We also even walk the same, and the hair on our bodies can grow the same and the list can go on and on. I also Know that even certain diseases such as arthritis, alzheimers and others are hereditary and can be passed from one generation to the next. Now I'm no scientist or DNA expert, but if my children and ancestors didn't resemble me I would definitely be getting a DNA test , and would probably be putting knots on the "milkman's" head! Just Saying ;)

Dale, you said something above that has me thinking I might understand now part of the problem. You said "both sides of the y chromosome", but there aren't two sides to the y chromosome. The "other side", if you want to think of it that way, is the x chromosome.

The reason the y chromosome is so exciting for genealogists is that it never combines with anything. It just slogs along from generation to generation, with an occasional mutation, and never doing anything terribly interesting except turn babies into boys and make sure they're fertile.

In rare cases, there is an exchange between the x and y chromosomes. When that happens, it causes major problems with sexual development and fertility.

Because the y chromosome doesn't recombine, there is never a chance to get a double dose of it. It doesn't govern anything to do with physical appearance, except indirectly. It will give you the male hormones that might might you furrier or make your jawline sharper, but it doesn't give you the hair follicles or determine the shape of your jaw.

One of the biggest problems I see with your theory about modern people looking like their ancient ancestors is that every single feature we would associate with physical appearance is governed by multiple genes. Eye color. Hair color. Jawline. Cheekbones. They all come from a dozen different genes acting together.

So, if you have a modern day relative who has the same jawline as Henry Tudor, it means that a dozen different genes all being inherited separately over the generations have to come back together in the same way to re-create the same pattern. Multiply that by every other facial feature and you can see why it is very unlikely that anyone alive today looks like Henry Tudor because he is descended from Henry Tudor.

Instead, if someone today looks like Henry Tudor it is because they inherited a particular combination of hundreds of different genes that are the same, or approximately the same, as the ones Henry Tudor had.

Remember too, that this modern person didn't necessarily inherit them from Henry Tudor. Henry Tudor wasn't the first person in history who had those genes. He inherited them individually from dozens of different ancestors, and so did the person today who looks like him.

I have a pet theory that there might be a level of organization that causes some genes to be inherited together preferentially, and causes certain gene clusters to prefer recombination with others that help maintain certain patterns, but as far as I know there isn't a single other sane person in the world who agrees with me. Maybe Rupert Sheldrake, but that would be a very different discussion ;)

If my theory happened to be right it would help your case a bit, because it would help explain how a certain cluster of traits could stick together over many generations. But, the problem is that you'd have to have dozens of relatives over dozens of generations, all of whom looked like like Tudors.

Well, I am suprised by your answer....and a little disappointed....but the mystery deepens....Congratulations on staying with me in my endless questioning and trying to wrap my uneducated DNA mind around your answers Justin, you have been more than gracious to my dense mind....Have a great night...If I made sense in questioning, that at least is somethng for me...a beginner....Many, Many Thanks...DCR
1948

Ian, I think you're misunderstanding. No one here is saying that physical appearance is determined by something other than DNA. The only disagreement is about how many generations can pass and still have someone look like a distant ancestor. In short, if you inherit less than 1% of your DNA from an ancestor, is it still reasonable to think that you look like him because you're descended from him? Or do you look like him because the other 99% of your DNA randomly made you look like him?

OH and P.S. ............

If I looked like any of them Tudors I certainly wouldn't be bragging about it! That poor family looks to have fell out of the ugly tree and hit every branch on the way down!!!!!!!! lol Just Kidding :)

If the bottle neck effect is not real...or the founders effect....is so rare, why do they describe it? Please address the concept of a bottleneck as in the Human genome 70,000 years ago when the Volcano gave us the equivelant of neuclear winter for 3 years and nearly wipped out humnaity leaving barely enough unrelated persons to repopulate....I took bottleneck to mean that a closed group like the welch who married within the family for hundreds of years on end brought about the very thing Im trying to describe....Tudor from Jasper through Myveney to Helen to Beatrice Tudor Gardiner to William Henry 1521 via HenryVIII to John Rice II to Thomas Rice 1570 via Grandaughter Catherine Perrottt of Gogerddan to Perrott ap Rice 1600 to John Rice 1624 of Dedham Ma. tot Rebecca Mills via Jasper Tudor to Beatrice to Thomas Gardiner to Samuel Rice Con. to Edward Rice is one heck of a Lot of TUDOR DNA to ignore people....When I say on both sides of the Y that's clearly a mis spoken idea....It's all the Genetic Material on both sides of Thomas ap Rice 1570 X and Y that leads to the bottle neck effect I know to exist....If Im right then we look the way we do with our Prophuria, and skin conditions and faces it's for a reason of the bottle neck effect on the male
line....Tell me why I should ignore the DNA bottleneck of Physical conditions that seem to be at work....DNA Bottlenecks do occur I've read about them, ...Im pretty sure there is no one else out there with the Pedigree I described.....we can't dismiss the Aural history of Tamzin (Thomasine) Frost and Perrott ap Rice 1600 because of a missing piece of Paper....The reality of my family trumps that, and Im trying to be reasonable in the indirect proof. Edward Rice is only 5 generations away from me....meaning it's not 450 years ago, it's 200 years and these men lived into their 80's and 90's before antibiotics and survived the Plague...Scurvy, Rickets, and that means a great set of X and Y material that was powerfuly transmitted....YES? If you understand the bottleneck idea in a way that disputes this fine...have at it....I promise I will yield If you can demostrait the The Tudors are not a bottleneck at Thomas Rice 1570.....Thanks again for your patience....And for the last time....this has only surfaced since January of this year....recognizing the family as having an anomaliy of faces that resemble the lines im talking about....so no long held beliefs or story in the family other than the Laundress and Perrott/Tamzin have been handed down....My interest is in demonstraiting that the connection to Dubious People is REAL and not imaginary. Capishe?

PS: The pronounced eye socket displasia of Henry Vii that shows in the Portrait is passed to Edward the VI and others, The scoliosis of the Plantagenant line is passed to Edward as well.... see portraits of Steven and Thomas Gardiner descended from Jasper Tudor....It also shows up in my family....I have submitted proof of my Pedigree, Proof of the persons in my Grand FAther and Henry VII My Father and James II My Daugher and Mary Tudor is on FB on my Blog, I seem to be a miss....My Brother Andrew and Henry VII are shown under my name family photo's and kindly look at them....It's not fair to keep telling me I am imaginig anything when I preset the Photographic evidence along with disclosing that we are only 200 years for the last infusion of Tudor Blood since Thomas 1570 received XY chromosome from Father and Mother desended from Henry Tudor....200 years is yesterday in Biology and DNA time spans...so it's not as dilute as you say....It's fresh meat as it were....LOL

Mr. Rice, can you copy and paste your link to your pictures? I would like to take a gander, If thats alright?

Thus statistically I can point to 8 persons in 3 generations of recent times which are within 100 years of the Rebecca Mills contribution through the gardiners to X Chromosmal data....8 of the last 24 births in the Rices display this anomaly thats 25% and that's what we should expect within 200 years because each generation should show 1/2 as many as the prior generation to my way of thinking....we are in the 3rd generation form Edward Rice to my Grandfather Andrew who I put his picture up to see for yourself....Your time frame is wrong....He's born 1808 Wm. 1761 Wm Sr.1721 and Edward about1700. So Andrew is only 108 years distant from Tudor influance and has direct line influance back to 1521...Is that clear ?

Actually, I don't know how to do that, I think you simply go my open to the public page and click on the Tree, which brings ups family at the top and click on Phot'os....I just shortened the span from 450 years to 108....so have a look....it's for real....just having to prove to the skeptics and i don't mind at all, because for my purposes, if I can't find the DNA answer then the rest really does not matter....so yes, by all means please do look and help me out....It's like being told Im imagining all this and police skill sets are such that I can pick people out of a line up after 10 seconds and then recognise them later in a line up....it's a skill, and lots of people can't do that....

Go my page, click on Family and the photo selection comes up in a list click again....my 18 year old self comes up...click that and the comparrisons' come up.....fyi

OH, I will try! To copy something you just highlight it with your mouse cursor and right click with your mouse and it will give a drop down of optons and click copy. then go to wherever ya want and right click again and select paste! Its just like cutting something with scissors and pasting it with glue. You have to use the right click rather than the left side you usually do for everything else. To highlight you just click and pull the blue color over whatever you wanna copy and then right click copy and it will keep whatever you highlighted and then go to something like this discussion and go to this little box we type in and right click and select paste. You try messin with click and paste and I will try and look at your tree and pictures!! ;) You need to learn click and paste, because it comes in very handy with this geneaology, and puttin records.

Won't let me look at none of you stuff of click links to your family because I don't have a path to you yet. But, to highlight something you left click and while holding left click pull your cursor on the screen and it will make blue. Whatever is blue now, let go of everything and right click and click on copy. then just go to this box and right click copy and it will put whatever was blue in this box. Very important make sure the flashing cursor is in the box so your computer knows where you want to paste what you copied. Just play with it and from what I have told you, it won't be long and you will figure it out.

Always make sure that you put the little finger or cursor on top of whatever you are copying or pasting or it won't give the copy and paste option when you right click. Just try copying what I wrote here by pulling the blue over the words. Then put your cursor ON THE BLUE and right click and you will see copy and then click copy. Then go down to the new empty discussion box and put your cursor in it and right click and you will see paste in the drop down menu. Click paste and thats it. Whatever you highlighted in blue and clicked on copy will now be pasted in the box.

The bottleneck is not quite what you're thinking. It applies to populations, not to individuals.

There is a theory that the Tobla Volcano caused a bottleneck in the human population maybe 70,000 years ago. The volcano erupted and caused a winter that lasted many years. Most people died. The people who survived became the ancestors of all modern humans.

This created a bottleneck because the survivors were not a representative sample of the pre-eruption human population. So, for example, if the human population before the eruption was 50% I1 and 50% R1b, then after the eruption it might have been 10% I1 and 90% R1b. There is a founder effect or bottleneck because new population is not representative of the ancestral population. Genetic diversity was lost. Some subgroups might have become extinct. The percentages of the different haplogroups might fluctuate a bit depending on the fertility of the different groups, but the old proportions will never be restored.

Of course, I1 and R1b weren't around yet, so this is just an artificial example to illustrate the point.

The same kind of founder effect has happened in many human populations, for many reasons. Sometimes a natural disaster. Sometimes because a small group of people migrate somewhere else.

One of the most famous examples is the concentration of mt-DNA haplogroup V among the Saami. Haplogroup V is relatively rare. Maybe 4% of Europeans. Among the Saami it is nearly 60%. The difference is probably because of a founder effect -- the ancestors of the Saami were a small group of people who migrated away from their homeland. By chance, Haplogroup V was over-represented among those who left, so it is also over-represented among their descendants.

Dale,

I'm not averse to looking at your photos if I can find them easily. But -- and this is very important -- you are misunderstanding everything I'm saying if you think that looking at them will change my mind.

My point is that people sometimes look like someone else, not because they're related, but because of random recombination of genes. There are hundreds of genes involved in determining the features of a person's face, plus the environmental effects of a person's life.

Over the generations those genes are churning, being separated and recombined. A son might look like his father, and he might look like his grandfather, and he might even look at little like his great grandfather, but over the generations the resemblance will get weaker until after many generations the resemblance is just chance.

So, if I find your pictures I might very well think "OMG, he looks just like Jasper Tudor." But even if I do, it won't change the laws of genetic inheritance and it won't convince me that it's proof he's descended from Owen Tudor. Instead, I will think, "What a fun coincidence" and I'll tell you again about my cousin who looks like Pancho Villa ;)