Proof that all Europeans are related from c.1240-1400AD...

[Nick29]

I think the issue under discussion is rather more complicated than simple maths.  When you go back even 150 years, then the prospect of travel (especially in the UK) becomes very tenuous.  My grandmother travelled from rural Suffolk to the west of London on the back of a horse-drawn cart, and the journey took two days.  I now live in the Fens, and until proper roads began to appear at the end of the 19th century, whole villages were cut off to for many months of the year, except for journeys by boat.  Prior to the 17th century, the city of Ely was virtually cut off to all but boat traffic, except in high summer.

Because of the problems associated with travel, most folk who worked on the land or derived an income connected with it, stayed in their local areas, so the inevitable inbreeding was on a more local level.  In some places the inbreeding became so intense that the genetic effects became detectable in the population.   Until recently (when the practice was banned), doctors in one county in England used the abbreviation "N.F.N." in patients' notes, which was short for "Normal For Norfolk".

Obviously, some people had to travel to transport goods across countries and continents, (and the travel of men across large distances in the pursuit of war)  and some inter-mixing of genes resulted from it, but I think the idea of Europe being a huge melting pot of genes becomes less likely, the further you travel back in time.  There will have been some mixing of genes between ethnic and racial groups during that time, but not on the same scale as 'local'.

 

[Pejic]

But it only takes one couple from 2 otherwise isolated populations to establish a relationship, so 1 pretty welsh girl transported as a slave to Rome tempts a randy italian into fatherhood and the Italian and Welsh populations become related.

[GrahamSimons]

Not sure how far I can help here, but here are some points to ponder:

Cousin marriages are quite common; second and further-separated cousin marriages may well never have been detected as many people had little idea of their family trees until the rise of genealogy in recent years. Somewhere (but I canot source this info) I have gathered that the average degree of consanguinity in a marriage in France is 4th cousins. In some communities of course there is much more in the way of consanguineous marriage; the European Royal families are a case in point. Again unsourced but I remeember that the Spanish Royal Family are particularly affected and that King Juan Carlos has therefore many fewer great-great-grandparents than the arithmetic would suggest.

"Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y-chromosome Adam" are not totaly agreed by researchers yet. I've explored this a bit with sixth-form classes rather than with genealogists. Mitochondrial DNA is inherited purely in the female line because mitochondria are passed on in the egg cell. There is no recombination of mtDNA so in principle it passes on from mother to child unaltered. Mutations are conserved in the line of descent: the analogy I have used in teaching is to consider medieval manuscripts, where copying errors would be perpetuated by future copyists, so the line of copying (= line of descent) of any manuscript can be traced. Now the rate of mutation seems to be pretty constant so it provides a sort-of clock which can trace the date at which two lines of mitochondrial descent diverged.

The Y chromosome is passed in the male line only, and much the same logic applies. However men have varied very much more than women in their reproductive success, it seems that most men over the very long run have left no descendants at all; while others have left lost: Genghiz Khan is one of the successes.

This website - not sure when it was last updated and the infor checked against latest data - gives some idea: http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/journey/

Graham

[FindingAncestors]

* Moderator comment: topic split from http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,578371.10.html *

Had a wee look at the website from Adam. It should have started from 7700BC - going by the Jewish calendar.

More accurately Adam was born about 60,000 years ago but Eve about 140,000 years ago. Genetically, or personally, they never dated or exchanged an apple!

In fact I can show how, genetically, EVERYONE is related prior to about 1150AD - regardless of ethnicity.

I can prove mathematically that all Europeans are related from about 1240AD -1400AD - So you DO have Royal blood.

If anyone is interested - ASK!

ASK! what?
what do you want us to ask?
I'm extremely interested but don't get the question

FA

[alpinecottage]

Andy-Keogh, the original poster, has not been on Rootschat since 14th Feb. Is this date significant? - perhaps he has been too busy stirring the gene pool!    

  

[Pejic]

re: many people had little idea of their family trees until the rise of genealogy in recent years.

I was under the impression that in the past people in general had a much better idea of their family trees than they do now.  In Wales you needed 3 generations to identify yourself, and the Welsh naming system (the abs and the aps) often recorded 10 or more generations.  The bible and the Heralds also show a concern with family trees.

[coombs]

Andy-Keogh, the original poster, has not been on Rootschat since 14th Feb. Is this date significant? - perhaps he has been too busy stirring the gene pool!    

  

Or he has been honing up on his trolling skills. 

Eve may have lived 80,025 years to see Adam reach 25 years of age and they produced a few  children then Eve popped it. 

I have found a few cousins marry each other so my tree has gone inwards a few times. But yes the further you go back in general the generations multiply ie 16 2xgreat grandparents, 32 3xgreat grandparents, 64 4xgreat grandparents and so on. By about the 14th century it probably numbers half a million.

[BashLad]

I've never seen reason to believe the "everyone is related to everyone else" meme that gets trotted out every once in a while.

Considering the degree of pedigree collapse I've seen in my ancestry I have no reason to believe there would have been any less even further back.

And coupled to that, let's be frank, there's never been that much mixing between the 'classes' in this country - and even further back there would have been even less.

Is the British public at large descended from some branch of its royalty? A lot may be but I doubt anything near most are.

[Pejic]

Bashlad - descent is not the same as related, you only need one couple from 2 separated populations to establish relationship, I think that is where the everyone is related to everyone comes from.

Anyway, unless you believe that we evolved the way we are more than once then everyone is descended from the original mutant.