this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2024
398 points (98.8% liked)
me_irl
4620 readers
1086 users here now
All posts need to have the same title: me_irl it is allowed to use an emoji instead of the underscore _
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is only true if you don’t follow the female branches on the family tree.
???????
You're making some wild assumptions.
Please explain.
That there's an inherent difference in how maternal and paternal bloodlines work for one thing.
My assumption is that you're actually confusing bloodlines with surnames, which are not the same thing, or a good assumption because the paternal family name is even more likely to have survived.
The person making this quote is coming to the conclusion that all the way back to their ancestors, they are the last of their blood line. What could they possibly base this on? Probably that in their immediate family, they are the last surviving member and will have no children. Throughout history based on the passing of the family name through male heir to male heir.
What I am saying is that all the way back to their ancestors, there were female children who were married into other families and took on other family names, but continued the blood line. Meaning their ancestors genetics are probably in hundreds, if not thousands of families now.
Like if you go back 10 generations, that’s 2^10 grandparents. And they somehow are the last of their blood line? This doesn’t add up unless you are only looking at a small portion of the equation.