Is the two sons of the same father?
A woman had a son un the 19 century with a man. Then she appeared in another country and had another child but 12 years later but with another man. Then she went back to
the old country. The first man died and she presented as his
wife and the son said he was son of the first man and started to use his surname.
2- Are dna tests showing what?
3- Are jews appearing as jews in the dna tests?
4- What were the documents presented by foreigners to the police in the 19 century? ID card?
5- What were the documents to present to baptize a child?
Parents baptisms and?
Anonymous She presented herself as married with the 2 country.
Yes zirp but the first man didn't divorce, didn't reject in a court of law the second child and was living in the same city they got married until his death. But she went was in another country
that did the birth certificate of the child in her name and in
the second man name. Both as married. Would the pleasure dna get it all? The instant dna people are doing.
- StephenWeinsteinLv 71 month ago
DNA tests show who the biological father was.
DNA tests do not show whether someone is Jewish or not. They can provide a reasonable guess as to whether someone had Jewish ancestry and about how much, but they are not always correct. In any case, because of conversions and intermarriage, knowing whether someone had Jewish ancestry and about how much would not tell you whether the person was also Jewish.
- Anonymous1 month ago
The story sounds even more complex than your confusing version of the English language shows.
Is there any chance of sitting down with someone who is a good writer of English and who can help you start the story again from the beginning by writing it all so that people can understand?
Short interchanges with respondents here do not seem to clarify the story much. If you could have a good old face-to-face with somebody, you could sort out the overall picture fairly quickly. Have some large sheets of paper, so that you can draw family trees, that would help you understand who is closely related to whom.
Indeed DNA testing has become practical only in the last 20 years or so.
Even on this site it would help if you name the countries involved. Where are you now? What is the 'first country'? What is the 'second country'? And maybe give the characters their names - it is so much easier to refer to a name, than to 'the person who....'. A few dates would help, too.
- ZirpLv 71 month ago
there were no DNA-tests in the 19th century.
If the second child's DNA were compared to that of the first man, it would show that they are not biologically parent-and-child
If she still were married to the first man, he would be the LEGAL father of any child the mother gave birth to.
added: if she was married to the second guy (illegal, but still) , the second guy would be the legal father of the second child.
"Would the pleasure dna get it all? The instant dna people are doing"
Questions here are supposed to be in English....
- MarliLv 71 month ago
There was no DNA testing in the 19th century. Gregor Mendel did not discover the Double Helix and DNA. Watson and Crick discovered them in the 20th century.
Mitochondrial DNA is traced through the mother's, grandmother's, great-grandmother's genes, back through the female line. The skeleton in the carpark was identified as King Richard III through the DNA of a descendant of Richard's oldest sister, who was, of course, the daughter of Richard's mother Cecily Neville.
Baptism is a religious consecration. In churches that baptize infants, it is the sacrament that makes the baby a Christian. The parents need not be Christians, but the godparents (i.e. the sponsors of the child to be baptized) should be Christians.
My denomination baptizes Christians who profess their faith in Christ saving them from their sins and who promise their commitment to Him and to his teachings. Babies are not baptized because they have no knowledge of Christ and sin. (This doctrine was considered too heretical in the establishment churches in the16th century to allow the parents - and even the children if the inquisitiers were strict- to live ). If the unbaptized baby died, it would go to Limbo, and if it lived into childhood and learned about sin, it would go to Hell.) What they profess by wailing is that they are uncomfortable and want to be fed, dry and warm. Their parents dedicate themselves to teaching and practicing the Christian life to their child. The congregation dedicate themselves to the same goal, in order for the child to decide to follow Jesus when he/she has the knowledge and is confronted with the need to choose.
In both cases - child and adult - the baptized person is added to the membership roll of that church and is given a certificate of baptism. If the person wishes to transfer membership to another church, he/she would present that certificate of baptism to the priest of the new parish or, in my case, to the council of the "new" church. My parents' baptismal certificates don't count in my case. I am not sure if those of the baptized baby or the parents count as citizenship papers in a country where there is a state religion. My birth certificate and my social insurance number are what my government wants in order to accept that I am its citizen. My grandfather produced citizenship papers from the government of his birthplace in order to apply for British/Canadian citizenship in the early 1930s. (and paid a sum to get those papers, notarized, sealed and all in order to be permitted to emigrate) I suppose it would have been the same process in the 1880s
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- Anonymous1 month ago
The widow might have a claim as a spouse if she was still married to the man. Rather depends when in the 19th century this occurs as the law changes in many places regarding women's rights to own property. Otherwise the oldest son would inherit.
- Anonymous1 month ago
THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE.