When people say "there is no guarantee that the man named as dad on the birth cert was really dad" it makes me wonder why bother doing genealogy if there is a small chance your beloved ancestor was not a biological ancestor?
I personally would be mortified if I found I did not biologically descend from a person who I admired and idolised as an ancestor. To some, biology is everything.
However I refuse to believe there is a 10% or more chance that the man named as father was not the blood father in genealogy. I think back then, women were too well watched by their husbands, by the community, such as neighbours and children as a whole. I was speaking to an archivist about this and she said that female infidelity was quite rare back then due to the way women were seen as belonging to the domestic sphere.
Women did not drive like they do now and were constantly bringing children up, and were busy while the hubby went out to work during the day. Estimates say there is a 2% chance the man named as father was no the blood father, which is a much more accurate estimate.
I personally would be mortified if I found I did not biologically descend from a person who I admired and idolised as an ancestor. To some, biology is everything.
However I refuse to believe there is a 10% or more chance that the man named as father was not the blood father in genealogy. I think back then, women were too well watched by their husbands, by the community, such as neighbours and children as a whole. I was speaking to an archivist about this and she said that female infidelity was quite rare back then due to the way women were seen as belonging to the domestic sphere.
Women did not drive like they do now and were constantly bringing children up, and were busy while the hubby went out to work during the day. Estimates say there is a 2% chance the man named as father was no the blood father, which is a much more accurate estimate.
