DNA tests involved Tsar family

[M Sjostrom]

the thread which started to mingle also this question, is imo hopelessly
messy and too long. so, a new one - and besides, they succeeded in making
too big mess and confusion about a few important facts, so a fresh start
could help to discard stupidities too.....

----------------------

basic setting:
Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, is of the same matriline as the Empress Alexandra
Fedorovna, and her children.
whereas Philip's mt dna has nothing to do with Tsar Nicholas' dna.

The Duke of Fife is of the same matriline as Tsar Nicholas II and his
brother. Their mt dna has nothing to do with Empress Alexandra's dna.

Much of the conclusiveness of those test results are -as I understand it-
from the setting: if a right number of right-gendered persons has the
expected mt dna, on one and that of Fife, and on the other hand that of
Philip, then the bunch of 'skeletons' should be this bunch, and not some
other bunch.

------------

a curious point: had Philip's and Nicholas' y dna checked against each
other, thatäd been a very intriguing thing. But afaik it wasn't done.
intriguing and highly interesting, because it would have revealed whether
they belong to the same biological patriline. And if so, then there'd be an
indication who was Tsar Paul's right father....

[M Sjostrom]

I wonder what concoction is that some TRUBETZKOY would have been used as
sample to compare with Tsar Nicholas II.

I cannot find any conceivable genealogical link between Nicholas II and any
living Trubetzkoy of that prominent family, to fulfill the criterion of
either same mt dna or same y dna

actually, even the honorific ('count') put to Trubetzkoi in that dna
newsflashing, is incorrect: they were princes, not counts, in the real
history.

so, is that whole name Trubetzkoy some mistake or hoax in this?

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

http://www.isogg.org/famousdna.htm

> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe'
> without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message
>

[M Sjostrom]

does that link which the gullible Diana posted, mean that the said website
endorses a hoax or a mistake ?
I read that there is 'count Trubetzkoy', but that's stupid. Because it does
not correspond with reality.

it is well known that Tsar Nicholas II's mitochondrial DNA was compared with
that of his matrilineal cousin twice removed, the Duke of Fife. whose
surname was Carnegie, and title Duke, and titled name Fife, and who be Count
of *nothing* (simply, his titles do not include any title of count, there
being instead earldoms)

I find that the website Diana linked, does not mention the Fife at all. So,
it's highly likely a mistake there.

[M Sjostrom]

in addition, the last man long resident in France named Nikolai Trubetskoy,
actually died in 1980. there seemingly isn't one of such name for the
requisite period when the testing took place.
but that's not even imprtant, because no Trubetskoy in these recent and
current generations, not were related closely to Nicholas II, ad even less
in unbroken matriline

the Trubetskoy name is some hoax in this.

therefore, I issue a challenge: can anyone name a real living (1990s or
2000s at least) Trubetskoy who is closely related with Nicholas II ?
required: information of the lineage which connects them, in relevant way
for dna testing

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

Bryan Sykes. 2001. "The Seven Daughters of Eve." W.W. Norton & Co., London &
New York, p. 67: "Fortunately, it was possible to trace living direct maternal
relatives of both the Tsar and the Tsarina. The Tsar had an unbroken maternal
connection through his grandmother Louise of Hesse-Cassel, the Queen of Denmark,
to a Count Nicolai Trubetskoy, seventy years old and living in peaceful
retirement on the Côte d'Azur after a lifetime as a merchant banker."

Linda Stone and Paul F. Lurquin, with L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza. 2007. "Genes,
Culture, and Human Evolution: a Synthesis." Blackwell Pub., Oxford, p. 262:
"...the Tsarina was maternally linked through her sister to Prince Philip of
Edinburgh, the husband of Queen Elizabeth II. In addition, a living relative of
the Tsar, Count Nikolai Trubetskoy, known to be maternally connected to Nicholas
II, was residing in France. Both men agreed to donate blood from which mtDNA
could be isolated."

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of M Sjostrom
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:13 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>

[M Sjostrom]

Sykes, and Stone et al, fail to explain what is the precise matrilineal
connection to the alleged Nicolas Trubetskoy.'
as fails Diana.

Knowing relatively well the Tsar's genealogy, I do not believe there is such
a connection.
and that it is missing from at least six generations back from the Tsar, is
not difficult to ascertain from published genealogical material.

so, WHAT is the precise connecting lineage, naming it generation by
generation ?

------------------------------

there is NO Trubetskoy among matrilineal descendants of Louise, queen of
Denmark.
instead, the Duke of Fife belongs to them.

----------------------------

and there is not nor has there been any Nicolai Trubetskoi, in his seventies
or now eighties, living after 1980,
and particularly not in France.

the tested mt dna kinsman, the Duke of Fife, was born in 1929 and has
arguably been in his 70s these years, but he lives not in France instead in
Britain

while a Y DNA kinsman who attestedly was tested for some of these tests, and
was in his seventies, was Andre Romanoff.

-----

either the thing has confused two names, or some dork imported the hoax name
Nicolai Trubetskoy.

this again shows that if one author gets some name wrong, then there will be
others to repeat that mistake.

and, of course, there will be stupid ones who go on repeating it, even if it
is said to them that it is a mistake. We'll see how long Diana Gale
Matthiesen is going to repeat that.
(and if she ever comes through with a precise matrilineage, names in each
generation, to connect some Trubetskoy and the Tsar Nicholas II)

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

These are the original papers:

P. Gill, P.L. Ivanov, C. Kimpton, R. Piercy, N. Benson, G. Tully, I. Evett, E.
Hagelberg, & K. Sullivan. 1994. "Identification of the remains of the Romanov
family by DNA analysis." Nature Genetics Feb;6(2):130-135.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8162066

P.L. Ivanov, et al. 1996. "Mitochondrial DNA sequence heteroplasmy in the
Grand Duke of Russia Georgij Romanov establishes the authenticity of the remains
of Tsar Nicholas II." Nature Genetics Apr;12(4):417-420.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8630496

Evgeny I. Rogaev, et al. 2009. "Genomic identification in the historical case
of Nicholas II royal family." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(13):5258-5263.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664067/?tool=pubmed#B8

D.

[M Sjostrom]

those three research articles show only abstracts to me. however, I request
now if anyone can read them wholly, to tell whether the name Trubetskoy
appears anywhere there.
my hypothesis is that there is no Trubetskoy name in those articles. TELL US
WHETHER THERE OS OR NOT
The first obviously uses Philip (the tsaritza's relative), as well as Xenia
Sfiris and duke of Fife (the tsar's maternal relatives).
the second obviously uses Georgiy, plus those three: philip, xenia and fife.
the third obviously uses prince Andrei, the tsar's sister's progeny.

----

two books spread hoax: Sykes and Stone et al
one of those texts (book) which spread this hoax (as Diana quoted it)
indicates that the 'count Trubetskoi' would be descended from queen Louise
of Denmark.

however, as usually with 'uniparental' lineages, the number of her living
matrilineal descendants is nor high.

after the death of Olav V, king of Norway, the surviving matrilineal
descendants of Louise's eldest daughter, Alexandra, queen of Britain, are
limited to the Duke of Fife (b 1929) who as male, is not passing it forward

the surviving matrilineal descendants of Louise's third daughter, Thyra,
crown princess of Hanover, are limited to the sisters Slesvig-Holsten, and
their children. rhere are such names as Franz and Ysenburg.

tsar Nicholas' own sisters' matrilineal issue:
* his younger sister Olga's two sons, Kulikovsky brothers
* his elder sister's only daughter's child, Irina Yusupov, left daughter
(Xenia, married Sfiris) and her daughter, Tatiana.
None of them afaik is a Trubetskoy.

So, relying that these families are so well known that no obscure member
could appear,
it is pretty clear that the alleged Nicolas Trubetskoy cannot be queen
Louise's matrilineal descendant.

----

looks to me that in the present generation (= women in their middle years),
only two women of the generation have daughters to contimue the matriline
direct of queen Louise: one woman (Tatiana Sfiris from Greece) in the Dagmar
line, and another woman (frau Franz) in the Thyra lineage.
Alix' matriline has already petered out to have only onme male left, and he
naturally incapable to pass the matriline onward.

this also shows how dificult it actually is to maintain an unbroken
matriline over long time. It tends to peter to quite small numbers (or
remain relatively small), and it is even possible that it peters out
totally.

In a generation, there usually would be a handful of persons (with close
degree of kinship) whose mt dna would be the match, but usually no more. so,
no wonder it is not too easy to find willing ones to give sample to test.

-----------------------------

it looks even more that there is no mt dna test performed between Trubetskoy
and the tsar. I assume *no* real research report publishes it, only those
narrative books and such...

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

It was the Duke of Fife's wife, Louisa Victoria, who was the matrilineal
descendant of Louise of Hesse-Cassel, not the Duke.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of M Sjostrom
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 1:13 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>
> does that link which the gullible Diana posted, mean that the
> said website
> endorses a hoax or a mistake ?
> I read that there is 'count Trubetzkoy', but that's stupid.
> Because it does
> not correspond with reality.
>
> it is well known that Tsar Nicholas II's mitochondrial DNA
> was compared with
> that of his matrilineal cousin twice removed, the Duke of Fife. whose
> surname was Carnegie, and title Duke, and titled name Fife,
> and who be Count
> of *nothing* (simply, his titles do not include any title of
> count, there
> being instead earldoms)
>
> I find that the website Diana linked, does not mention the
> Fife at all. So,
> it's highly likely a mistake there.
>

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

I've obtained a copy of the original paper. It does not name names.

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

Correction. Oh, you mean two generations further down. OK, that was Carnegie.
He was the end of the mtDNA line.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com
> [mailto:gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Diana
> Gale Matthiesen
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 5:41 AM
> To: GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: RE: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of Diana Gale Matthiesen
> Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 4:57 AM
> To: GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: RE: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>
>

> Evgeny I. Rogaev, et al. 2009. "Genomic identification in
> the historical case
> of Nicholas II royal family." Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
> 106(13):5258-5263.
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664067/?tool=pubmed#B8
>

If you check out the PDF file of this paper, it's easier to read and has
pedigrees, but does not name names.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664067/pdf/zpq5258.pdf

D.

[Leo]

The Duke of Fife tested is the son of Maud Princess of Fife, daughter of
Louise, princess royal - daughter of Queen Alexandra - daughter of Luise of
Hessen-Kassel

----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <Dia...@dgmweb.net>
To: <GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 7:41 PM
Subject: RE: DNA tests involved Tsar family

[M Sjostrom]

the 2008 article has two family trees, which identify at the level of
abstraction whose samples they used.

It should be noted that because the Trubetskoy hoax appeared in print
already in Sykes' book (early 2000s), this 2008 publication and its testing
a year or two earlier, cannot be the background for the amazing appearance
of the name 'count Trubetskoi', which so much has blinded the gullible
Diana.

------

family tree in fig 2 is a mapping of WOMEN who gave samples for mt dna
testing.
1) one maternal granddaughter of Victoria Eugenia, queen of Spain, and her
daughter, have given samples
2) from one of sisters of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, a maternal
granddaughter and her daughter, have given samples.
3) from one of the two sisters of Tsar Nicholas II, one maternal
granddaughter, has given sample.

To some extent, these (either identity or a limitation to a family branch)
can be figured out.

3) from one of the two sisters of Tsar Nicholas II, one maternal
great-granddaughter, has given sample.
This is a no-brainer. The only one of empress Maria Fedorovna's daughters
who left any *daughters* of her own, was grand-duchess Xenia Alexandrovna,
the foster from Langinkoski. She had only one daughter, Irina, and even
Irina's only child, daughter and namesake, another Irina (countess
Sheremeteva), have been long dead. So, it follows clearly that Xenia's
matrilineal great-granddaughter who gave her sample, was Irina the younger's
only child, countess Xenia, Madame Sfiris (b 1942).

1) one maternal granddaughter of Victoria Eugenia, queen of Spain, and her
daughter, have given samples
This leads only to a limited set, but clear at that. the queen's matrilineal
grannddaughters bore either the maiden name Conzano-Marone or Torlonia
(births span fom 1936 to 1948). Their married surnames are: Lequio di
Assaba, and Weiller, and Alvarez de Toledo, and Ruiz de Arana, and Stavro di
Santarosa. Which are the set of maiden names for the daughter (births span
from 1961 to 1985) who joined her mother to give a sample.

2) from one of sisters of Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, a maternal
granddaughter and her daughter, have given samples.
It is possible (but I find unlikely) that the samples come from the branch
of Philip's sister Theodora of Greece, margravine of Baden. The possible
persons in that case are fixed, Katarina of Yugoslavia (maternal
granddaughter of despoina Theodora) and her daughter Victoria de Silva. But
I think this is unlikely, perhaps just because Victoria de Silva was still
underage.
Much bigger are possibilities in the branchof Philip's youngest sister,
Sophia of Greece. She has four living maternal granddaughters who in turn
have their own daughters: maiden names Windisch-Grätz, Eyck and Yugoslavia
(births span from 1957-1966). And correspondingly, maiden name alternatives
of the daughter who joined her mother to give sample, are Waele, Jakabffy,
Harman and Thune-Larsen (births span from 1986 to 1995). Of these girls in
the younger generation, at least one Jakabffy and one Harman were already
legal adults at the time.

-----

family tree in fig 3 is a mapping of MEN who gave samples for Y dna testing
to compare against the proposed Tsar and tsarevich Alexei.
1) two brothers, agnatic great-grandsons of one of the younger sons of Tsar
Nicholas I, gave their samples
2) an agnatic great-grandson of of one of younger sons of Tsar Nicholas I,
and two of his sons, gave their samples.

To some extent, these (either identity or a limitation to a family branch)
can be figured out.

There was no such couple of brothers anywhere in right generations of the
branch of Konstantinovichi, i.e descendants of Nicholas I's second son,
grand-duke Konstantin Nikolaevich. discard that.

Since the sample-givers are indicated to been alive at the time of testing,
this leaves no big wiggle room.

2) an agnatic great-grandson of of one of younger sons of Tsar Nicholas I,
and two of his sons, gave their samples.
Taking the requirement of all three alive at some spot within about
2005-2007, this leaves only two alternatives:
* an illegitimate branch, Daniel Olegovich Nikolaiev, his brother Maxim
Olegovich, and their father Oleg Vladiromirovich Nikolaiev. These are
descended from the third son of Nicholas I, i.e grand-duke Nicholas
Nikolaievich.
* the legitimate and well-known branch, two of the guys Alexei Andreievich
Romanov, Peter Andreievich Romanov and Andrei Andreievich Romanov, together
with their father Andrei Andreievich Romanov. These are descended from the
fourth son of Nicholas I, i.e grand-duke Michael Nikolaievich.
The authors of the article have 'helpfully' dubbed the three samples as
codes A1, A2 and A3. they might mean first names, Andrei, Alexei and Andrei.
Of course, those authors could try to confuse, perhaps in order to protect
the identities of their sample donors.
But, I think the participation of the illegitimate-line Nikolaiev family is
unlikely, and those samples would be likelier from Andrei Romanov's family.
besides, some other newsreleases have commented that Andrei Romanov's sample
has been utilized in some of all these various Romanov dna studies.

1) two brothers, agnatic great-grandsons of one of the younger sons of Tsar
Nicholas I, gave their samples
Taking the requirement of both alive at some spot within about 2005-2007,
this leaves basically three alternatives:
* the brothers Nicolas Romanovich Romanov and his brother Dmitri Romanovich,
who are activists of the Romanov family association. These are descended
from the third son of Nicholas I,i.e grand-duke Nicholas Nikolaievich.
* the brothers Oleg Vladimirovich Nikolaiev and his brother Sergei
Vladimirovich. Also these are descended from the third son of Nicholas I,i.e
grand-duke Nicholas Nikolaievich.
* the brothers Michael Andreievich Romanov and his brother Andrei
Andreievich. These are descended from the fourth son of Nicholas I,i.e
grand-duke Michael Nikolaievich.
If Oleg Vladimirovich was one of donors of the set of three samples, then
neither he and his brother Sergei, nor Nicolas and Dmitri, can be this pair
of brothers here. That would leave Michael and Andrew as this pair.
If however Andrew and two of his sons gave that set of three samples, then
it would be either Oleg and Sergei, or Nicolas and Dmitri, as the pair here.
I again suspect that the nikolaiev family did not participate.
plus, this pair's codes are N and D, which might refer to names Nicolas and
Dmitri. If that is not intended to mislead....

All in all, I expect greatly that the family activists, Nicolas and Dmitri,
gave samples. and their only way to be in these results is to be the pair of
brothers whose father does not have a sample here. This would make Nicolas
and Dmitri as samples N and D

This would have the consequence that the father and two of his sons were
Andrew (A1) and two of his three (A2 and A3).

I regard this solution as likelier one. and if it is the test setting, then
samples were received from legitimate descendants.

I underline that this solution has all the sample-givers alive at the
requisite time.

-----------------------------------

This research in 2008 seems to establish that it is viable (and more or less
routine), to determine Y dna results from dead bodies.
So, that old obstacle has apparently made a disappearance to siome extent.

I note this research also, on power of 16 markers, has reconstrued the
Romanov Y DNA. And on basis of as many as five living men to give samples,
plus two deceased ones whose highly likely identification can be adopted as
supportive numbers (circularity of the evidence notwithsanding). I
understand these results are interpreted to mean these Romanov males wouold
belong to the Y haplogroup R1b

This is an intriguing result.
Firstly, it is shared by all tested agnates descending from Nicholas I, and
there is no reason to doubt that it is the Y DNA profile of Nicholas I's
father, the highly interesting case Tsar Paul.

So, empress Catherine II the Great gave birth to a son whose Y DNA is R1b

Now, while R1b is not totally absent from Russian families (I gather nothing
is absolutely absent in any region of the world...), still it is with much
more emphasis, a western European y haplo. Depending on circumstances and
context, it can often be regarded as signal of Celtic patriline. And,
descendants of Basque men presumably also exhibit it. Well, coastal areas
along the western Europe: atlantic coasts, and lands of ancient Gaul,
Britain, Iberia. Plausibly also Frisia. Western Germany has some of these,
as does it much in scandinavian regions. R1b is about half of the patrilines
even in Germany and Italy, lands influenced by Celtic peoples in the ancient
past.

there were two leading candidates for the man who sired tsar Paul:

1) Sergei Saltykov. Of Muscovian boyar family, whose family myth derives
their male root from chieftains of the baltic Prussian tribes.

2) Peter, heir of Romanov, Catherine's husband. Of sort of German family,
whose patriline's earliest historically attested men were chieftains
(counts) in a few coastal and near-coastal districts of the Frisian coast,
north Germany against the atlantic North Sea.

A Prussian and Muscovite patriline would be expected to exhibit, usually, y
haplo N or y haplo R1a

A north-german, frisian, patriline would be expected to exhibit, usually, y
haplo R1b or at second place, y haplo I

while this is not conclusive, it weakens the case of Saltykov and
strengthens the case of Tsar Peter.

additionally, Tsar Paul actually resembled the temperament heritage of Peter
and was not 'handsome' as the alluring Saltykov but instead an ugly mutton
much like Peter.

These are however just indications, but should be taken to affirm that Peter
could well have been the father.

As this y dna test result modal already is known, now it would be intriguing
if some other agnates, other branches than Peter III's, of that House
(Oldenborg) would show test results. such as, dukes of Oldenburg, the duke
of Edinburgh and his agnatic progeny, counts of Rosenborg, royals of Greece,
royals of Norway, dukes of Schleswig-Holstein

I gather prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, did not have a Y dna test
done.... although at that time, it could have been compared against Tsar
Nicholas II

[M Sjostrom]

Y DNA TESTING

This research in 2008 seems to establish that it is viable (and more or less
routine), to determine Y dna results from dead bodies.
So, that old obstacle has apparently made a disappearance to siome extent.

I note this research also, on power of 16 markers, has reconstrued the
Romanov Y DNA. And on basis of as many as five living men to give samples,
plus two deceased ones whose highly likely identification can be adopted as
supportive numbers (circularity of the evidence notwithsanding). I

understand these results are interpreted to mean these imperial Romanov
males would belong to the Y haplogroup R1b

[M Sjostrom]

genealogics informs the following abuot the Tsar's matrilineal cousinhood

Herzogin Magdalena Sibylle von Sachsen-Weissenfels
Herzogin von Sachsen b. 2 Sep 1648 d. 7 Jan 1681
o 2 Herzogin Anna Sophie von Sachsen-Gotha-Altenburg, Herzogin
von Sachsen Descendancy chart to this point b. 22 Dec 1670 d. 28 Dec 1728
+ 3 Princess Sofie Juliane von Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
Descendancy chart to this point b. 16 Oct 1694 d. 23 May 1776
+ 3 Princess Emilie Juliane von Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
Descendancy chart to this point b. 21 Jul 1699 d. 31 Aug 1774
+ 3 Princess Anna Sophie von Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
Descendancy chart to this point b. 9 Sep 1700 d. 11 Dec 1780
# 4 Princess Charlotte Sophie von
Sachsen-Saalfeld-Coburg, Herzogin von Sachsen Descendancy chart to this
point b. 24 Sep 1731 d. 2 Aug 1810
* 5 Sophie Frederikke, Herzogin von
Mecklenburg-Schwerin Descendancy chart to this point b. 24 Aug 1758 d. 29
Nov 1794
o 6 Princess NN of Denmark Descendancy
chart to this point b. 19 Sep 1781 d. 19 Sep 1781

o 6 Princess NN of Denmark Descendancy chart to this point b. 17 Feb
1783 d. 17 Feb 1783
o 6 Princess Juliane Sophie of Denmark
Descendancy chart to this point b. 18 Feb 1788 d. 9 May 1850
o 6 Princess Charlotte of Denmark
Descendancy chart to this point b. 30 Oct 1789 d. 28 Mar 1864
+ 7 Princess Karoline von
Hessen-Kassel Descendancy chart to this point b. 15 Aug 1811 d. 10 May 1829
+ 7 Marie, Prinzessin von
Hessen-Kassel Descendancy chart to this point b. 9 May 1814 d. 28 Jul 1895
# 8 Adelheid Marie,
Prinzessin von Anhalt-Dessau Descendancy chart to this point b. 25 Dec 1833
d. 24 Nov 1916
* 9 Princess Marie
Bathildis von Nassau-Weilburg Descendancy chart to this point b. 14 Nov 1857
d. 28 Dec 1857
* 9 Princess Hilda von
Nassau und Luxembourg Descendancy chart to this point b. 5 Nov 1864 d. 8 Feb
1952
# 8 Bathildis, Prinzessin von
Anhalt-Dessau Descendancy chart to this point b. 29 Dec 1837 d. 10 Feb 1902
* 9 Princess Charlotte
zu Schaumburg-Lippe Descendancy chart to this point b. 10 Oct 1864 d. 16 Jul
1946
* 9 Bathildis,
Prinzessin zu Schaumburg-Lippe Descendancy chart to this point b. 21 May
1873 d. 6 Apr 1962
o 10 Helene,
Prinzessin zu Waldeck und Pyrmont Descendancy chart to this point b. 22 Dec
1899 d. 18 Feb 1948
+ 11
Duchess Rixa von Oldenburg Descendancy chart to this point b. 28 Mar 1924 d.
1 Apr 1939
+ 11
Eilika, Herzogin von Oldenburg Descendancy chart to this point b. 2 Feb 1928
# 12
Melita, Prinzessin zu Leiningen Descendancy chart to this point b. 19 Jun
1951
# 12
Stephanie, Prinzessin zu Leiningen Descendancy chart to this point b. 1 Oct
1958
+ 11
Duchess Altburg von Oldenburg Descendancy chart to this point b. 14 Oct 1938

* 9 Princess Adelheid
zu Schaumburg-Lippe Descendancy chart to this point b. 22 Sep 1875 d. 27 Jan
1971
o 10 Prinzessin
Charlotte Agnes von Sachsen-Altenburg, Herzogin von Sachsen Descendancy
chart to this point b. 4 Mar 1899 d. 16 Feb 1989
+ 11
Prinzessin Barbara von Preussen Descendancy chart to this point b. 2 Aug
1920 d. 31 May 1994
# 12
Herzogin Donata von Mecklenburg-Schwerin Descendancy chart to this point b.
11 Mar 1956

* 13 Thyra von Solodkoff Descendancy chart to this point b. 12 Oct 1989

* 13 Alix von Solodkoff Descendancy chart to this point b. 17 Mar 1992
# 12
Herzogin Edwina von Mecklenburg-Schwerin Descendancy chart to this point b.
25 Sep 1960
o 10 Princess
Elisabeth von Sachsen-Altenburg, Herzogin von Sachsen Descendancy chart to
this point b. 6 Apr 1903 d. 30 Jan 1991
* 9 Princess Alexandra
zu Schaumburg-Lippe Descendancy chart to this point b. 9 Jun 1879 d. 5 Jan
1949
# 8 Hilda Charlotte,
Prinzessin von Anhalt-Dessau Descendancy chart to this point b. 13 Dec 1839
d. 22 Dec 1926
+ 7 Princess Luise von
Hessen-Kassel Descendancy chart to this point b. 7 Sep 1817 d. 29 Sep 1898
THE QUEEN OF DENMARK
# 8 Princess Alexandra of
Denmark Descendancy chart to this point b. 1 Dec 1844 d. 20 Nov 1925
* 9 Princess Louise of
Great Britain and Ireland, Princess Royal Descendancy chart to this point b.
20 Feb 1867 d. 4 Jan 1931
o 10 Princess
Alexandra of Fife, 2nd Duchess of Fife Descendancy chart to this point b. 17
May 1891 d. 26 Feb 1959
o 10 Princess
Maud of Fife Descendancy chart to this point b. 3 Apr 1893 d. 14 Dec 1945
* 9 Princess Victoria
of Great Britain and Ireland Descendancy chart to this point b. 6 Jul 1868
d. 3 Dec 1935
* 9 Princess Maud of
Great Britain and Ireland Descendancy chart to this point b. 26 Nov 1869 d.
20 Nov 1938
# 8 Princess Dagmar of
Denmark, 'Maria Feodorovna' Descendancy chart to this point b. 26 Nov 1847
d. 13 Oct 1928
THE TSAR
* 9 Grand Duchess Xenia
Alexandrovna of Russia Descendancy chart to this point b. 25 Mar 1875 d. 20
Apr 1960
o 10 Princess
Irina Alexandrovna of Russia Descendancy chart to this point b. 3 Jul 1895
d. 26 Feb 1970
+ 11
Princess Irene Felixovna Youssoupov Descendancy chart to this point b. 8 Mar
1915 d. 30 Aug 1983
# 12
Countess Xenia Nicolaievna Cheremeteff Descendancy chart to this point b. 1
Mar 1942

* 13 Tatiana Sfiris Descendancy chart to this point b. 28 Aug 1968

o 14 Marilia Vamvakidis Descendancy chart to this point b. 17 Jul 2004

o 14 Yasmine Xenia Vamvakidis Descendancy chart to this point b. 7 May 2006

* 9 Grand Duchess Olga
Alexandrovna of Russia Descendancy chart to this point b. 1 Jun 1882 d. 24
Nov 1960
# 8 Princess Thyra of Denmark
Descendancy chart to this point b. 29 Sep 1853 d. 26 Feb 1933
* 9 Princess Marie
Louise von Hannover, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland Descendancy chart
to this point b. 11 Oct 1879 d. 31 Jan 1948
o 10 Princess
Maria Alexandra von Baden Descendancy chart to this point b. 1 Aug 1902 d.
29 Jan 1944
* 9 Princess Alexandra
von Hannover, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland Descendancy chart to
this point b. 29 Sep 1882 d. 30 Aug 1963
o 10 Herzogin
Olga von Mecklenburg-Schwerin Descendancy chart to this point b. 27 Dec 1916
d. 4 Feb 1917
o 10 Herzogin
Thyra von Mecklenburg-Schwerin Descendancy chart to this point b. 18 Jun
1919 d. 27 Sep 1981
o 10 Herzogin
Anastasia von Mecklenburg-Schwerin Descendancy chart to this point b. 11 Nov
1922 d. 25 Jan 1979
+ 11
Princess Elisabeth zu Schleswig-Holstein- Sonderburg-Glücksburg Descendancy
chart to this point b. 10 Sep 1945
+ 11
Princess Irene von Schleswig-Holstein- Sonderburg-Glücksburg Descendancy
chart to this point b. 11 Oct 1946
+ 11
Princess Margaretha von Schleswig-Holstein- Sonderburg-Glücksburg
Descendancy chart to this point b. 10 Feb 1948
+ 11
Princess Sibylle von Schleswig-Holstein- Sonderburg-Glücksburg Descendancy
chart to this point b. 11 Sep 1955
# 12
Johanna Franz Descendancy chart to this point b. 10 Mar 1983
* 9 Princess Olga von
Hannover, Princess of Great Britain and Ireland Descendancy chart to this
point b. 11 Jul 1884 d. 21 Sep 1958
* 9 Kate Jorgensen
Descendancy chart to this point b. 1871 d. 1964
+ 7 Princess Auguste von
Hessen-Kassel Descendancy chart to this point b. 30 Oct 1823 d. 17 Jul 1889
+ 7 Princess Sophie von
Hessen-Kassel Descendancy chart to this point b. 18 Jan 1827 d. 20 Dec 1827
# 4 Princess Friederike Magdalene von
Sachsen-Saalfeld-Coburg, Herzogin von Sachsen Descendancy chart to this
point b. 21 Aug 1733 d. 29 Mar 1734
# 4 Princess Friederike von Sachsen-Saalfeld-Coburg,
Herzogin von Sachsen Descendancy chart to this point b. 24 Jun 1735 d. 18
Feb 1791
+ 3 Princess Dorothea Sofie von Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
Descendancy chart to this point b. 28 Jan 1706 d. 14 Nov 1737
+ 3 Princess Luise Friederike von Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
Descendancy chart to this point b. 28 Jan 1706 d. 11 Sep 1787
+ 3 Princess Magdalene Sibylle von Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt
Descendancy chart to this point b. 5 May 1707 d. 26 Feb
o 2 Herzogin Dorothea Marie von Sachsen-Gotha, Herzogin von
Sachsen Descendancy chart to this point b. 22 Jan 1674 d. 18 Apr 1713
+ 3 Herzogin Luise Dorothea von Sachsen-Meiningen, Herzogin
von Sachsen Descendancy chart to this point b. 10 Aug 1710 d. 22 Oct 1767
# 4 Herzogin Friederike Luise von Sachsen-Gotha,
Herzogin von Sachsen Descendancy chart to this point b. 30 Jan 1741 d. 5 Feb
1776
# 4 Herzogin Sophie von Sachsen-Gotha, Herzogin von
Sachsen Descendancy chart to this point b. 9 Mar 1746 d. 30 Mar 1746
o 2 Herzogin Friederike von Sachsen-Gotha, Herzogin von Sachsen
Descendancy chart to this point b. 24 Mar 1675 d. 28 May 1709
o 2 Herzogin Johanna von Sachsen-Gotha-Altenburg, Herzogin von
Sachsen Descendancy chart to this point b. 1 Oct 1680 d. 9 Jul 1704

[taf]

On Apr 26, 6:53 am, M Sjostrom <mqs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Y DNA TESTING
>
> This research in 2008 seems to establish that it is viable (and more or less
> routine), to determine Y dna results from dead bodies.
> So, that old obstacle has apparently made a disappearance to siome extent.
>

That is the nifty thing about science. More detailed knowledge and
better techniques lead to improvement in capabilities, frequently in
very short time periods. With a better understanding of damage and
how it affects detection, as well as the common routes and risks for
contamination, by the mid-90s YDNA was a distinct possibility, and by
the early 00s, was routine. With the new pyrosequencing sequencing
technology rolled out about 5 years ago, whole-genome sequencing of
forensic samples is practicable (but still expensive and pointless in
most cases, as you get enough information from more directed
approaches).

Just to fill in the blanks, so we can hopefully move on, the 1994
paper named one subject - the Duke of E, and simply referred to the
other two as great-great-grandson of Louise of Hesse-Cassel and as
great-great-great-granddaughter. The 1996 paper from the same group
presented an identical pedigree, but labeled the last to as Fife and
Xenia, so there is little doubt they were the subjects for the first
study as well.

There was one more study, in Science,vol. 326, p. 817 (2009) that did
autosomal sequencing to document the specific point mutation
underlying the royal haemophilia, which turns out to be a form of
'Christmas disease'. This testing was done on the Alexandra, Anastasia
and Alexei samples.

taf

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/26/2010 6:54:32 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
mqs...@gmail.com writes:

> additionally, Tsar Paul actually resembled the temperament heritage of
> Peter
> and was not 'handsome' as the alluring Saltykov but instead an ugly mutton
> much like Peter.>>

Thank you. Sjostrom is one of the view posters who can make me laugh. Not
just LOL but an actual laugh.

I'm going to use this expression "ugly mutton".

[Christine Czarnecki]

These were very interesting articles. Thank you for posting the links.

________________________________

From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <Dia...@dgmweb.net>
To: GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com

Sent: Mon, April 26, 2010 1:56:55 AM

Subject: RE: DNA tests involved Tsar family

These are the original papers:

P. Gill, P.L. Ivanov, C. Kimpton, R. Piercy, N. Benson, G. Tully, I. Evett, E.
Hagelberg, & K. Sullivan.  1994.  "Identification of the remains of the Romanov
family by DNA analysis."  Nature Genetics Feb;6(2):130-135.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8162066

P.L. Ivanov, et al.  1996.  "Mitochondrial DNA sequence heteroplasmy in the

Grand Duke of Russia Georgij Romanov establishes the authenticity of the remains
of Tsar Nicholas II." Nature Genetics Apr;12(4):417-420.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8630496

Evgeny I. Rogaev, et al.  2009.  "Genomic identification in the historical case

of Nicholas II royal family."  Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(13):5258-5263.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664067/?tool=pubmed#B8

D.

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

You're very welcome.

_____

From: Christine Czarnecki [mailto:czar...@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2010 11:49 PM
To: Diana Gale Matthiesen; GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: DNA tests involved Tsar family

These were very interesting articles. Thank you for posting the links.

_____

From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <Dia...@dgmweb.net>

[M Sjostrom]

HETEROPLASMY

according to this report,

P.L. Ivanov, et al. 1996. "Mitochondrial DNA sequence heteroplasmy in the
Grand Duke of Russia Georgij Romanov establishes the authenticity of the
remains
of Tsar Nicholas II." Nature Genetics Apr;12(4):417-420.

the Tsar's brother, Georgi Alexandrovich, had the essentially similar
heteroplasmy of mt dna (this 1996 report) as -according to an already
earlier study- the Tsar Nicholas II had in his mt dna (reports already in
1994 or so). Also Nicholas II's blood remains in the museum show he had this
heteroplasmy (2009 report).

However, as I gather it, their matrilineal cousin, the Duke of Fife, does
not have that heteroplasmy (1994 report), instead his sample matches in
practically every other way.

And, as I gather it, according to other reports, the Tsar and his brother's
nephew (meaning Kulikovsky, reported in 1998 and already in Genetika 1996)
and great-x-niece (Xenia, report in 1994 and named in some later reports) do
not have that heteroplasmy.

---
Genetika 1996: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9102362
------

Thusly, siblings could have the same heteroplasmy, but the heteroplasmy
seemingly peters out soon in other generations.

This would mean that the same heteroplasmy was passing from the mother to
more than one of her children.
I conclude that it must have been already the mother, empress Maria
Fedorovna, who had this heteroplasmy,
and that at least two of her children received it.
So, heteroplasmy can be inherited. It apparently does not necessarily vanish
in the conceptions of the next generation.

and it's 'merely' probabilistic that it disappears after a few generations.

So, those who have made a bet that its likelihood in siblings is
astronomically low, are wrong. It cannot be an independent mutation
occurring separately to two siblings, it needs to be inherited from their
mother.

[M Sjostrom]

additionally, Tsar Paul actually resembled the temperament heritage of Peter
> and was not 'handsome' as the alluring Saltykov but instead an ugly mutton
> much like Peter.>>
>
>

these portraits depict Paul:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Rokotov_paul_1_as_child.JPG
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Paul_i_russia.jpg

-----------------------

I think Paul resembles (in outlooks) a lot this guy, Charles XII of Sweden
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/23/Axel_Sparre_-_Karl_den_XII%2C_1682-1718%2C_kung_av_Sverige.jpg

and this depicts Peter III, the legal father of Paul
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cd/Antropov_PeterIII.jpg

------------------------------------

one small additional point about heredity:
* Peter the Great, grandfather of Peter III, was a very tall man. His height
was near or about 200 centimeters
* Tsar Paul's male progeny often exhibit big height. That stature was
observed in several memoirs and letters and whatso... about many of them:
most of them were tall. (occasional shorter ones did exist, I think grand
duke Konstantin Nikolaievich -one of Paul's grandsons- was noted as of
middle height, and short in context of his family)
** so, this speaks for some genes for tallness to have passed from Peter the
great to the progeny of tsar Paul

[ Catherine II the great -as I see it- was however seemingly not tall,
instead being (particularly in her old age) frumpy and (generally) shorter
than the usual Romanov set (her predecessor as empress, Elisabeth of Russia,
was tall for a woman) ]

[M Sjostrom]

NICOLAS TRUBETSKOY

I have my suspicions about what really is the Trubetzkoi guy(s) appearing in
the scenery. And in the context of DNA analyses and DNA genealogy.
Middle-aged or elderly man (men) named Nicholas Trubetzkoi, whom I cannot
find alive in standard genealogies about the Trubetzkoi princely house.

Does anyone know what is the provenance and context of this Nick Trubetzkoy?
http://www.ansechastanet.com/

[M Sjostrom]

summary of the appearance of real relatives of Nicholas II (and his wife) in
published research *reports*:

P. Gill, P.L. Ivanov, C. Kimpton, R. Piercy, N. Benson, G. Tully, I. Evett,
E.
Hagelberg, & K. Sullivan. 1994. "Identification of the remains of the
Romanov
family by DNA analysis." Nature Genetics Feb;6(2):130-135.

this 1994 research report has:

* the duke of Edinburgh, matrilineal kin to empress Alexandra, being her
sister's maternal grandson

* the duke of Fife, matrilineal kin to Tsar Nicholas II, being his maternal
aunt's great-grandson
* Xenia, madame Sfiris, matrilineal kin to Tsar Nicholas II, being his
sister's great-granddaughter

although Diana (who read only this text but not the same researcher group's
later publications) was blissfully unaware of these names, Todd helpfully
glued us to who those two (Fife and Xenia) were

----

Ivanov PL<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Ivanov%20PL%22%5BAuthor%5D>,
Wadhams MJ<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Wadhams%20MJ%22%5BAuthor%5D>,
Roby RK<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Roby%20RK%22%5BAuthor%5D>,
Holland MM<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Holland%20MM%22%5BAuthor%5D>,
Weedn VW<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Weedn%20VW%22%5BAuthor%5D>,
Parsons TJ<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Parsons%20TJ%22%5BAuthor%5D>
.(1996)
= P.L. Ivanov, et al. 1996.

"Mitochondrial DNA sequence heteroplasmy in the Grand Duke of Russia
Georgij Romanov establishes the authenticity of the remains of Tsar Nicholas
II." Nature Genetics Apr;12(4):417-420.

this 1996 research report (a) uses:
* grand duke Georgi Alexandrovich, brother of Tsar Nicholas II
compares with (b) the 1994 set, and this time, names them
* (b) the duke of Edinburgh, matrilineal kin to empress Alexandra, being her
sister's maternal grandson
* (b) the duke of Fife, matrilineal kin to Tsar Nicholas II, being his
maternal aunt's great-grandson
* (b) Xenia, madame Sfiris, matrilineal kin to Tsar Nicholas II, being his
sister's great-granddaughter

this 1998 piece in Russian from PL Ivanov, continues in the same vein. using
Georgi Alexandrovich and Tsar Nicholas II.
Sud Med Ekspert. 1998 Jul-Aug;41(4):30-47.
[The expert identification of the remains of the imperial family by means of
molecular genetic verification of genealogical relations]
[Article in Russian]
Ivanov PL.

----

Genetika. 1996 Dec;32(12):1690-2.
[Comparison of mitochondrial DNA sequences of T.N. Kulikovskiĭ-Romanov, the
nephew of Tsar Nikolaĭ II Romanov, with DNA from the putative remains of the
Tsar]
[Article in Russian]
Rogaev EI, Ovchinnikov IV, Dzhorzh-Khislop P, Rogaeva EA.
this other 1996 research report
tests:
* Tikhon Nikolaievich Kulikovski, son of the sister of Tsar Nicholas II
and compares with:
* the duke of Fife, matrilineal kin to Tsar Nicholas II, being his maternal
aunt's great-grandson
* Xenia, madame Sfiris, matrilineal kin to Tsar Nicholas II, being his
sister's great-granddaughter

the same study gets more printed space as:
Rogaev E I (1998), Analysis of mitochondrial DNA of putative bone remains of
Nicholas II and his nephew [in Russian]. Pokayanie, Materials of Government
Commission, Moscow, pp 171-182

----

Sud Med Ekspert. 1998 Sep-Oct;41(5):50-4.
[The results of the expert studies on the bone remains from the site of the
burial of the family of the former Emperor Nicholas II]
[Article in Russian]
Tomilin VV.
* idenfies the bones of Nicholas II, empress Alexandra, daughters Olga,
Tatiana, and a third who would be either Anastasia or Maria; this is the
first of the two graves found

----

the above are materials published BEFORE Sykes' book which inexplicably
prints the name of 'count Trubetzkoy'
I cannot find any Trubetzkoy from those research publications, nor anmyone
there wqho conceivably coulöd be a Trubetzkoy

the following are publications (and grave finds) later, and cannot be the
source of the Trubetzkoy name for this

----

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009 Mar 31;106(13):5258-63. Epub 2009 Feb 27.
Genomic identification in the historical case of the Nicholas II royal
family.
Rogaev EI, Grigorenko AP, Moliaka YK, Faskhutdinova G, Goltsov A, Lahti A,
Hildebrandt C, Kittler EL, Morozova I.
= Evgeny I. Rogaev, et al. 2009.

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 106(13):5258-5263.

this 2009 research report

has in the Y DNA setting, the samples from men:
* N - probably Nicolas Romanovich Romanov
* D - probably Dmitri Romanovich Romanov
* A1 - probably Andrew Romanov
* A2 - probably Alexei Andreievich Romanov
* A3 - probably Andrei Andreievich Romanov

has in the MT DNA setting, the samples from women:
* Xenia, madame Sfiris
* spanish and italian granddaughter of Victoria Eugenia, queen of Spain, and
daughter of the tested
* a mother and daughter, of the alternatives of families Waele, Jakabffy,
Harman, Thune-Larsen

----

another 2009 research report
PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4838. Epub 2009 Mar 11.
Mystery solved: the identification of the two missing Romanov children using
DNA analysis.
Coble MD, Loreille OM, Wadhams MJ, Edson SM, Maynard K, Meyer CE,
Niederstätter H, Berger C, Berger B, Falsetti AB, Gill P, Parson W, Finelli
LN.
* tests chiefly the corpses, uses AUTOSOMAL setting too
this 2009 research report, in Science, (autosomal test setting) has:
* empress Alexandra
* tsarevich Alexei
* grand duchess Anastasia

----------------------------------

all in all, I do not find any Trubetzkoy among the really tested ones -
whatever firstly Sykes and then Stone et al say in their narratives (books)

This makes me to find Sykes and later Stone with her co-authors as gullible.
And I would like to know where they got the name Trubetzkoy to this....

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of M Sjostrom
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 4:51 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>

<snip>

> So, those who have made a bet that its likelihood in
> siblings is astronomically low, are wrong. It cannot
> be an independent mutation occurring separately to
> two siblings, it needs to be inherited from their
> mother.

You seem to be blissfully unaware that I said as much to taf, four days ago.
I'm glad that you've come to understand it, but it's what any experienced
genetic genealogist would have said.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of taf
> > Sent: Friday, April 23, 2010 3:57 PM
> > To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: mtDNA question.
<snip>
>
taf said:
> > It had to happen in his egg, not that of a matrilineal ancestor
> > (unless this was just an elaborate way of saying 'mother'),
> > and it happened to his brother's egg too, so if once is one
> > in a million, this would have to be a one in a trillion chance,
> > which it almost certainly isn't.
>
Diana said:
> The mutation can't have happened in the egg that became
> Tsar Nicholas. His brother and his cousin have the mutation,
> so it had to have occurred further up the matrilineal line.

The power of Y-DNA and mtDNA is that each runs in a known line and mutations are
rare enough that you can follow them. The probability of more than one
offspring of the same parent possessing any mtDNA mutation is already
*extremely* low. mtDNA mutates only about once every 30-60 generations (sources
vary, it's a difficult figure to obtain). For the *same* mtDNA mutation event
to happen twice in the offspring of one parent is so improbable as to not be
worth considering.

Diana

[M Sjostrom]

I wonder what affliction makes Diana to take that all commentary are against
her.
Such leads to many comments then to be mentioning how addled she is.....

Perhaps Diana is having a delusion that she is a good genetic genealogist.
However, seeing her fumblings, the retired biologist Diana makes all too
often dog's barf out of genealogy, logic and even science.

Of course I was not reading all that boringly stuff Diana dumped a few days
ago.
Not surprising, since even she herself uttered at that time that even she
does not want to read that mostly bull-stuff....
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2010-04/1272128783

As I gather, in that too-long-winded and in much useless text dumping (=
thread...) there was misunderstandings and confusions,
so I simply supplied in somewhat more concise format what ia my conclusion
about heteroplasmy.
Confusions not least caused by the addled writer Diana - with her elaborate
fumblings.

and there certainly existed those who claimed that the thing shared by
Nicholas II and Georgiy was astronomically unlikely, so a mention of that
belief's incorrectness is in order.

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

When you say things like

"...although Diana (who read only this text but not the same researcher group's
later publications) was blissfully unaware of these names..."

I kinda figure you mean me.

It appears to me you do this to people to goad them into responding. Sometimes
I fall for it; sometimes I don't. I just wanted to point out that something
that seemed to come to you as a great revelation -- the improbability of the
same mutation happening independently in two different siblings -- is not
exactly hot news.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of M Sjostrom
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:34 PM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>

[M Sjostrom]

I guess we simply have to swallow that Diana has her mental health problems,
and her addled mind adds the length of these threads also by totally useless
offtopic postings.

This particular exchange, Diana going to attack-as-defense mode towards a
posting which did not criticize her, is again one of these testimonies how
deranged Diana is.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: M Sjostrom
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 2:34 PM
> > To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>
> > I wonder what affliction makes Diana to take that all
> > commentary are against
> > her.

>

> > and there certainly existed those who claimed that the thing shared by
> > Nicholas II and Georgiy was astronomically unlikely, so a
> > mention of that
> > belief's incorrectness is in order.

----

On 27 huhti, 22:07, "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <Dian...@dgmweb.net> wrote:
> When you say things like
>
> "...although Diana (who read only this text but not the same researcher
group's
> later publications) was blissfully unaware of these names..."
>
> I kinda figure you mean me.

seeing that you have attitude problems when you are criticized for a
cause....

you seem noot to have anything worth reading to refute that point where your
ignorance or carelessness was criticized for cause...
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/96906138a8213b3b

So, Diana's nurture of the Trubetzkoy hoax is unfuitful. Nothing in real lab
research had any Trubetzkoi for this identification question, although Diana
tried to convince us of such.

[wjhonson]

On Apr 27, 10:17 am, "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <Dian...@dgmweb.net>
wrote:

>  mtDNA mutates only about once every 30-60 generations (sources
> vary, it's a difficult figure to obtain).
>

> Diana

This is not how probability works.
mtDNA does not mutate "about once" every "30-60 generations"

Rather we would say, "within each generation there is an x percent
chance of a mutation". Over many generations the chance of a long
string of NON mutations becomes progressively smaller. And on ON
AVERAGE you will see a mutation over this stretch of generations, but
it is not a guaranteed event. We notice it if we examine many
different lineages.

Some many generations may see two or three mutations, while others of
the same or longer stretch may see no mutations at all.

That's the way probability works. A statement like "mtDNA mutates only
about once every 30-60 generations" is not a precise way of
explaining what is happening.

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

It's not meant to be a precise figure. I used it as a ballpark figure to
counter any notion that such mutations are common in genealogical time, which
they're not.

It's a complicated subject, but if you would like to get into it more deeply,
Kerchner has a good summary on mtDNA mutation rates:
http://www.kerchner.com/mtdnatmrcacalculations.htm

and another one on Y-DNA mutation rates, if you're interested:
http://www.kerchner.com/dnamutationrates.htm

He also has one of the better introductory pages on genetic genealogy:
http://www.kerchner.com/books/introg&g.htm

Taking things out of context so you can nit-pick them with irrelevancies doesn't
make you look clever, Will, it makes you look argumentative.

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of wjhonson
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 9:54 PM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>

[wjho...@aol.com]

The point isn't whether it's a precise "figure". It's not about the figure at all.
It's about the method.

You cannot make statements like the one you made in probability. It makes no sense.
It's not about how closely it matches. The point is, you can have 30 generations or 60 or 85 million with no mutation at all.
It's possible. It's not likely. That's how probability works.
You can also have three generations in a row with a mutation in each one.
That's again how probability works. Such a situation may not be likely, but it's possible.

Turning your failure to comprehend into my problem makes you look argumentative.
Accept that you simply don't get it. And move on.
And I didn't take it out of context, I quoted exactly what you said.
Anyone can see the context.

[M Sjostrom]

Heteroplasmy is (one of) valid mechanisms to cause a reversible mutation: in
one generation, test result may come as mutated (but really heteroplasmic
where still left a portion of un-mutated) compared to the mother, and
already in the next generation (or a later generation) the mutation has
reversed back (the heteroplasmy absented in favor of the earlier, not the
mutated)

perhaps this specific vicissitude is of somewhat lower likelihood, but still
quite possible I think

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

I'm afraid you are misinterpreting what's going on. The mutation is not
reversing, the mutated mitochondria are simply being lost, through
bottlenecking. The descendant ends up with no mutated mitochondria because only
the unmutated ones have made it through the bottleneck(s).

Diana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of M Sjostrom
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:08 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>

[M Sjostrom]

TROUBETZKOY (TRUBETSKOI) in connection of dna tests to identify corpses of
the Tsar's family

There seems to be no Trubetzkoi in any non-remote kinship with the Tsar's
family,

but the hoax may have been created out of its outward 'plausibility' and
some desire to have PR (and like) advantages from being connected to the
Tsar dynasty.

People who are not well enough aware of how 'foreign' and western-european
were the last Tsar's all family connections, seem to take in easily the idea
that a well-known Russian princely name would be closely enouogh related
with the last Tsar. That's plausibility, but not true in this specific case,
and not even near possible to be true.
This intuitive plausibility of a claim of a princely Russian family to be
related with Russian tsar, was probably exploited by someone who wanted
advantages out of it.

I assess that
in the 1990s, it was somewhat of nostalgic value, and of cultural value, and
of jetset value, and indicating highest family connections, as well as
'inherited prestige', to be of a family connection with the last Tsar.
Whereas, it was in 1990s and is equally now, imo *not* directly materially
lucrative to claim kinship with the last Tsar: there was no longer any
financially meaningful inheritance to be obtained, nor would any such
inheitance claim be successful anyway as direct descendants of the Tsar's
sisters exist and are numerous (and nobody could successfully fake a descent
from any of them).

These cultural etc values, would presumably been advantageous as PR, to
various sorts of business endeavors.

for example, some luxury businesses would enjoy additional lustre with a
plausible family connection to the glamorous dynasty of Tsars of the 1800s.

I guess these advantages were enough, to motivate some hoax work in order to
get a 'kinship' advertised in jetset media, including it going even to
Sykes' book.

-------------------------

Has anyone any indication what would have been Bryan Sykes' source for
incorporating the name 'count Trubetskoy' to the 2001 book of genetic
genealogy (Sykes' popularisation of science)
?
is there any citation to any document or publication?
or would it rather come to Sykes from only some personal contact with a
hoax?

-------------------------------

of course, the Trubetzkoy family was one of known aristocratic names of
pre-revolution Russia.

but they never were advertised nor claimed as agnatic kin with the Romanovs.
The Trubetzkoys were traditionally (and are in reality) of the patriline
descending from king Gediminas. While the Romanovs were not claimed to be
such.

In the 1600s, tsars of Russia were marrying themselves and their family
members, with high aristocracy of Russia.
But, two full centuries preceding the revolution (i.e, thoughout 1700s and
1800s), the Russian tsar dynasty married practically solely with
western-european families,
and it's actually not that plausible that Russian aristocracy would have had
close genealogical connection with the last Tsar. (because, mostly such
connections would be from 1600s or earlier)
The Tsar's relatives were mostly not in Russia at all, but in western Europe
[except, members of his own dynasty, i.e the imperial Romanovs of 1917]

[M Sjostrom]

On 28 huhti, 07:23, "Diana Gale Matthiesen" <Dian...@dgmweb.net> wrote:
> I'm afraid you are misinterpreting what's going on. The mutation is not
> reversing, the mutated mitochondria are simply being lost, through
> bottlenecking. The descendant ends up with no mutated mitochondria
because only
> the unmutated ones have made it through the bottleneck(s).
>
> Diana
>

this is again one of those semantical quibbles which Diana Gale Matthiesen
exerts to discussions, causing threads to be over-long and (at least her
postings) boring.
essentially the same about the mechanism was already said in my message.
And the addled Diana simply had to make her stupid post, just to add her
words of essentially the same.

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: M Sjostrom
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 12:08 AM
> > To: gen-medie...@rootsweb.com
> > Subject: Re: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>
> >

> > * in one generation, test result may come as mutated (but really

> > heteroplasmic where still left a portion of un-mutated) compared to the
mother

> > * already in the next generation (or a later generation)
> > * the heteroplasmy absented in favor of the earlier, not the mutated

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

________________________________
> From: wjho...@aol.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 10:58 PM
> To: Dia...@dgmweb.net; GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: mtDNA mutation rates

>
> The point isn't whether it's a precise "figure". It's not about
> the figure at all. It's about the method.

If I said you're unlikely to get hit by lighting, would you object to my saying
it?

> You cannot make statements like the one you made in probability. It makes no
sense.

Sure I can. People do it all the time. You're not likely to get hit by a
falling car. If you sleep in the middle of a freeway, you're probably going to
get run over and killed. I know just as well as you do that probabilities have
distributions. My email messages are not being submitted to Nature for
publication, this is general discussion. These are ballpark, working figures
for the purpose of discussion.

> It's not about how closely it matches. The point is, you can have 30
generations or 60 or 85 million with no mutation at all.

Once about every 30-60 generations is a long way from 85 million generations
without a mutation or three mutations in three generation. You are so far out
on the tails of the probability distribution no one would bet on your outcomes
in a billion years.

> It's possible. It's not likely. That's how probability works.

Of course it does. Probabilities have distributions. Anyone who took math in
high school knows that. You don't expect to have to mention it in every
discussion.

> You can also have three generations in a row with a mutation in each one.

And you may win the lottery three times in a row, which is millions of times
more likely.

> That's again how probability works. Such a situation may not be likely, but
it's possible.

Of course anything's possible, but some things are so improbable that you can
dismiss them for all practical purposes. I might get hit by a meteorite
tomorrow, but I don't carry meteorite insurance. And I don't need to know the
probability distribution to know it's not something I need to worry about.

> Turning your failure to comprehend into my problem makes you look
argumentative. Accept that you simply don't get it. And move on.

I do get it. You're harping on the statistics because you've got some kind of
need to shoot me down, and you don't know enough about genetics to debate the
genetics. If it's so important for you to show that you know more than I do,
here: You know more about medieval genealogy than I do. Much more. Much, MUCH
more. Almost everyone on this list knows more about medieval genealogy than I
do. Happy?

> And I didn't take it out of context, I quoted exactly what you said. Anyone
can see the context.

I didn't say you misquoted me, I said you took the quote out of context, and you
did. You can't see the context, unless you find the prior message.

Diana

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

In genetics, the difference between "reversed" and "lost" is more than a
semantic quibble.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gen-mediev...@rootsweb.com On Behalf Of M Sjostrom
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 2:16 AM
> To: gen-me...@rootsweb.com
> Subject: Re: DNA tests involved Tsar family
>

[M Sjostrom]

as the link is botched, I try
http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/Romanov_Children_Final_Report_26_Feb_09__AFDIL_.pdf

[Renia]

M Sjostrom wrote:
> as the link is botched, I try
> http://www.searchfoundationinc.org/Romanov_Children_Final_Report_26_Feb_09__AFDIL_.pdf

The link wasn't botched. It was just the return.

[M Sjostrom]

> Abstracted from the Coble letter (26 Feb 2009) regarding the
identification of
> the two ROMANOV children found in the second grave and other tests on the
> ROMANOV family, on pp. 15-16:

> 2. Because the Tsarina was a German princess, they compared her results
to a
> German database of 513 samples, but found no match. They also compared
her to
> a West Eurasian database of 3340 samples and a global database of 23,627
> samples, but found no match thus "making this haplotype a rare sequence."
>

well, Alix, known as empress Alexandra Fedorovna, came from west Germany.
But, as better-qualified genealogists would have been able to inform them,
her matriline actually documentarily originated from the regions around the
Pyrenees, being possibly of latin, Celtic, or even Basque origins.
So, a more adequate dataset would have been Spanish,French,British, rather
than purely German. *well, they ultimately compared it towards 'west
eurasian' database, so...

I gather the mt dna haplogroup in question was H

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_H_%28mtDNA%29

and indeed, some of subclades of this are located to originate from
Franco-Cantabrian region

>
> 4a. Because the Tsar's mother was a Danish princess, they compared his
result
> to a Danish database of 209 samples, but found no match.
> 4b. They also compared the Tsar to the West Eurasian database of 3340
samples.
> If you ignore the heteroplasmy and consider the Tsar to be 16169C, he has
three
> matching sequences in the database.
> 4c. They also compared the Tsar to the global database of 23,627 samples,
again
> ignoring the heteroplasmy and considering him to be 16169C. He had 19
matches.
> No matches to the additional 16169T type were found, therefore: "The
relative
> frequency of the Tsar's mtDNA haplotype was considered to be rare."
>

well, Dagmar, known as empress Maria Fedorovna, came from Denmark - but as
better-qualified genealogists would have been able to inform them, her
matriline actually documentarily originated from somewhat southern Slavic
and/or Rhaetian and/or Alemannian origins.
So, a more adequate dataset would have been German,Italian,Croatian, rather
than Danish. * well, they then ultimately tested towards global database,
so....

I gather the mt dna haplogroup in question was T - subclade T2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28mtDNA%29

and Sykes' conjecture is that it originated in north Italy

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/27/2010 11:49:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Dia...@dgmweb.net writes:

> Sure I can. People do it all the time. You're not likely to get hit by
> a
> falling car. If you sleep in the middle of a freeway, you're probably
> going to
> get run over and killed. I know just as well as you do that probabilities
> have
> distributions. My email messages are not being submitted to Nature for
> publication, this is general discussion. These are ballpark, working
> figures
> for the purpose of discussion. >>

The expressions you are using are misleading. Yes you're "likely", you
"you're probably".
It's not about "submitting to Nature for publication", it's about
expressing the relationship properly.

They are not "ballpark, working figures" if they bare no relationship to
the mathematics.
On this list we can get as technical as we please or need, and I'm pointing
out that your claim that "mtDNA mutates about every 30-60 generations"
bares no relationship whatsoever to the mathmetics.

It's not close, it's not ballpark, it's not an accurate way of portraying a
nything in probability.

It's likely that WITHIN a string of 30 generations you will find a
mutation. It's not an event that OCCURS every 30-60 generations. It's simply
likely that somewhere WITHIN that string you will find a mutation. You may find
zero, you may find find.

The mutation may occur at generation 6, 10 and 125. Obviously not
occurring every 30-60 generations.

And this is all beside the point that your ballpark doesn't actually
represent the state of the science at any rate. The mutation rates given in
various papers are not just percentages apart from each other, but factors of
infinity apart. There are papers which found NO Mutations at all. Zero. Zero
over anything is Zero, or alternatively infinity.

There are scientists who are attempting to create a more fixed number by
averaging various findings, but that is merely an *assumption* that these, so
far unreproduced findings are accurate.

Let us not forget Cold Fusion and other papers who cannot be reproduced.
Jumping to conclusions like this are, to my mind, invalid, and even more so
using wrong-headed expressions to try to relay some harder finding than what
we really see in the tests.

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

We disagree, with no prospect of an agreement, so I suggest we spare the
subscribers and leave it at that.

_____

From: WJho...@aol.com [mailto:WJho...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 3:26 PM
To: Dia...@dgmweb.net; GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: mtDNA mutation rates

In a message dated 4/27/2010 11:49:19 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
Dia...@dgmweb.net writes:

Sure I can. People do it all the time. You're not likely to get hit by a
falling car. If you sleep in the middle of a freeway, you're probably going to
get run over and killed. I know just as well as you do that probabilities have
distributions. My email messages are not being submitted to Nature for
publication, this is general discussion. These are ballpark, working figures
for the purpose of discussion. >>

The expressions you are using are misleading. Yes you're "likely", you "you're
probably".
It's not about "submitting to Nature for publication", it's about expressing the
relationship properly.

They are not "ballpark, working figures" if they bare no relationship to the
mathematics.
On this list we can get as technical as we please or need, and I'm pointing out
that your claim that "mtDNA mutates about every 30-60 generations" bares no
relationship whatsoever to the mathmetics.

It's not close, it's not ballpark, it's not an accurate way of portraying

anything in probability.

[wjho...@aol.com]

Of course we disagree. That's because you don't understand what you're pretending to understand.
No need to respond again. There really isn't.

-----Original Message-----
From: Diana Gale Matthiesen <Dia...@dgmweb.net>
To: GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com

_____

[Diana Gale Matthiesen]

The subscribers will decide for themselves who understands what they're doing.

_____

From: wjho...@aol.com [mailto:wjho...@aol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2010 8:58 PM
To: Dia...@dgmweb.net; GEN-ME...@rootsweb.com
Subject: Re: mtDNA mutation rates

[WJho...@aol.com]

In a message dated 4/30/2010 9:21:35 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
Dia...@dgmweb.net writes:

> The subscribers will decide for themselves who understands what they're
> doing. >>
>

Yes it's like hiring a CPA versus asking your sister-in-law.