RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: HopefulToff on Monday 03 May 21 15:11 BST (UK)
-
Some of you may have heard of 8th-century Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne being called ‘the Father of Europe’, and from a genealogy viewpoint, it’s certainly true. Scholarship by Dr. Mark Humphrys has proven that every European can be mathematically traced back to Charlemagne, because of exponential growth and pedigree collapse. But that got me thinking - what if you applied those genealogical principles to individual countries? Every Englishman/woman, Scotsman/woman and so on with mainly native ancestry, whether they’re prince or pauper, must have a common ancestor of nobility surely. So following on from kings who had plenty of grandchildren who bred, and the fact that everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8, 16, 32 and so on, combined with a 20/25-year pattern, here’s who I think might be some of the national common ancestors of every native:
The English - Edward III of England
The Scottish - James V of Scotland
The Spanish - Ferdinand II of Aragon
The Danish - Christian I of Denmark
I suppose the question everyone must ask themselves if you’re interested in finding such a link, really isn’t “do I have royal ancestry?”, it’s “can I find my royal ancestry?”, and knowing just where to look.
-
Most family historians are interested in researching and proving their real ancestry and having whoever their ancestors were in their tree.... mathematics doesn't come into that.
I suppose the question everyone must ask themselves if you’re interested in finding such a link, really isn’t “do I have royal ancestry?”, it’s “can I find my royal ancestry?”, and knowing just where to look.
No it is not a question I ask myself, what I ask myself is have I researched and found every possible real record in each ancestors lifetime so I can prove I have my own ancestors in my tree and not someone who just 'fits', the reality is researching back and PROVING them is very difficult especially pre 1800 simply as the records do not have the details required to prove it in many of them.
-
This is a question that comes up occasionally; I believe Edward III is the king usually credited with being in most of our (English) ancestry, so you are right about that. I don't think many of us have considered the Spanish royal ancestors!
-
https://humphrysfamilytree.com
He's just stirring the gene pool with a dash of wonder and a cup of speculation.
Don
-
A certain man from EastEnders is a descendant of Edward III, that is providing there was not an informal adoption or a straying wife on the line between him and Edward.
As the generations multiply, the chances of an NPE (not parent expected) gets higher but you will probably never ever know of such events once you get back about 6 generations wit autosomal DNA unless it is Y DNA, your dads, dads, dads, dads, dads, dads, brothers sons, sons, sons, sons son. I think a break in such a line was found with Y-DNA in descendants of Richard III.
-
https://humphrysfamilytree.com
He's just stirring the gene pool with a dash of wonder and a cup of speculation.
Don
I have just had a look at one part of this - Alexander Dundas of Fingask (k. Pinkie 1547) and his wife Elizabeth Bruce. It gives Alexander's mother as Isabel Oliphant, whereas it was actually Helen Arnot (a document transferring the ownership of land by Alexander's son, Archibald, proves this). All the published genealogies I have seen for the Dundas of Fingask family have serious errors. The above Alexander's father was killed at Flodden in 1513. According to the published material he was extremely old. That is because they treat him and his grandfather of the same name as the same person and do not realise that James Dundas, who is mentioned in several contemporary records comes between them.
The problem arises when you rely on published pedigrees and genealogies. These may be starting points, but you then have to look at the original documents to see if they are correct.
-
Funny isn’t it, Kings etc,not for me .No interest.
I like to find the reverse ,that my ancestors were poor, ordinary folk who brought up families as far as records go ,to be very decent hardworking people.
I wish some of mine were from the worst slum in Europe, an area of Victorian Manchester,but no, the perverse devils came from nearby but not actually in that dreadful place.
More of an achievement to bring up decent families when people were poverty stricken.
Common as muck I am ,and very proud of that but I hope those of you who do have Royal ancestors enjoy the connection ,it is a bit special I do admit.
Viktoria ,p.
-
And Edward III's father was?
It's a wise bairn that kens his ain faither! ;D
Skoosh.
-
Who were their mothers .... it's an even wiser babe that cares for their mum when she is in her final years.
JM
-
And Edward III's father was?
It's a wise bairn that kens his ain faither! ;D
Skoosh.
Edward II married Isabella of France.
Who were their mothers .... it's an even wiser babe that cares for their mum when she is in her final years.
Not all have that privilege . :'(
Viktoria.
-
If you were to find such an event with DNA testing, a straying wife or informal adoption, then it does not stop the non biological family from being part of your family tree. You inherit their ethics and their influences, just not their genetics.
My uncle born September 1944 may not have been the biological son of my grandfather. I first heard this rumour about 20 years ago, after grandparents died.
-
Yes ,although I had lived with my parents to three and a half until evacuated the next four and a half years at least were with another family.
My parents were not churchgoers unlike my wartime parents.
I have absorbed many traits and values of the kind people I lived with in those formative years.
I would not have missed it .
Viktoria.
-
Paper trails can lie, DNA does not lie. At least we can all claim to be descended from Charlemagne. ;)
I say about 5% of our ancestors we have traced may not be biological ones. Infidelity is as old as time itself, and was relatively common 200 years ago like today.
-
and the fact that everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8, 16, 32 and so on,
The only part which is strictly correct is that everyone had 2 parents. Beyond that the multiplication
depends on how common cousin marriages were.
-
and the fact that everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8, 16, 32 and so on,
The only part which is strictly correct is that everyone had 2 parents. Beyond that the multiplication
depends on how common cousin marriages were.
The cousin link can go back some time. My father was descended from an Alexander Cruickshank in the early 18th century through a daughter by his first wife and my mother from the same man through a daughter by his second wife. They were sixth cousins, which, I suppose, makes me my own seventh cousin.
-
There was a Charlie Main at my school! ;D
Skoosh.
-
At my training Nursery we had Arfur ( Arthur) Mo (Mo——-) and his brother Stevie Mo (——)
Arfur once drank a jar of tadpoles from the nature table, honestly !
He was in the ‘inbetweeners’room ‘,not a babybut a toddler of 18 months or so.
He invariably had holes in his trousers ,once there was one at the back and the dressing up box had a fur stole in it.
Rough handling meant the tail had come off the Silver Fox ,so we stuffed it through the hole at the back of his trousers ,he loved it - thought he looked like a kitten dressed up with the hole accommodating his luxuriant tail which tickled his legs as he ran about .
We got into trouble for that by Matron who couldn’t keep her face straight.
Viktoria.
-
and the fact that everyone has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8, 16, 32 and so on,
The only part which is strictly correct is that everyone had 2 parents. Beyond that the multiplication
depends on how common cousin marriages were.
The cousin link can go back some time.
Cousin marriages might have happened more than once in a branch. Ancestral lines of a distant relative of mine probably leads back 3 times to one 17thC. ancestor. My maternal GM's tree is short on surnames as 2 branches were in the habit of marrying people in their small circle who had the same surname as them or their mother, and who were probably related to them.
A member of one of those branches bucked the trend and married a woman from a different county. :o A relative of that woman was a descendant of King Edward 3rd. KE3's descendants apparently being 10 a penny, I was more interested that another ancestor was St. Thomas More.
-
Paper trails can lie, DNA does not lie. At least we can all claim to be descended from Charlemagne. ;)
I say about 5% of our ancestors we have traced may not be biological ones. Infidelity is as old as time itself, and was relatively common 200 years ago like today.
whilst i agree when you get further back it is biologically probable that there are biological ancestors with whom you share no DNA.