• DragonTypeWyvern
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 hour ago

        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.

        • SurfinBird@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          25 minutes ago

          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.