Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
D. Spencer Hines
Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
These are VERY interesting figures!
DSH
--------------
Current figures from Ian Fettes. He's always adding new lines:
1,452,771,810 from Charlemagne
2,290,414 from William the Conqueror [The Victor at Hastings]
2,076,919 from Harold II [The Defeated at Hastings]
831,018 from Henry II
274 from James I of Scotland
27 from James I of England
17 from George I
2 from Victoria
DSH
--------------
Current figures from Ian Fettes. He's always adding new lines:
1,452,771,810 from Charlemagne
2,290,414 from William the Conqueror [The Victor at Hastings]
2,076,919 from Harold II [The Defeated at Hastings]
831,018 from Henry II
274 from James I of Scotland
27 from James I of England
17 from George I
2 from Victoria
-
joe
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
That is interesting...assuming about 41 generations between the two,
Prince William should have 2,199,023,255,552 (non-unique)ancestors in
the time period of Charlemagne (the 41st generation). If you think of
these as boxes in his family tree chart, and Charlemagne's name fills
1,452,771,810 of these boxes, then he accounts for a full 1/1514th of
his ancestors of the generation ! One *might* conclude from this,
that Prince William is descended from less than 1,500 of the people
living in the 8th Century CE. It would be interesting to explore
mathmatically I think..
These are VERY interesting figures!
DSH
--------------
Current figures from Ian Fettes. He's always adding new lines:
1,452,771,810 from Charlemagne
2,290,414 from William the Conqueror [The Victor at Hastings]
2,076,919 from Harold II [The Defeated at Hastings]
831,018 from Henry II
274 from James I of Scotland
27 from James I of England
17 from George I
2 from Victoria
That is interesting...assuming about 41 generations between the two,
Prince William should have 2,199,023,255,552 (non-unique)ancestors in
the time period of Charlemagne (the 41st generation). If you think of
these as boxes in his family tree chart, and Charlemagne's name fills
1,452,771,810 of these boxes, then he accounts for a full 1/1514th of
his ancestors of the generation ! One *might* conclude from this,
that Prince William is descended from less than 1,500 of the people
living in the 8th Century CE. It would be interesting to explore
mathmatically I think..
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
joe wrote:
Uh, no. Not all of the 1,452,771,810 will be in one generation.
They will be spread over probably 4 or even more generations.
Doug McDonald
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
These are VERY interesting figures!
DSH
--------------
Current figures from Ian Fettes. He's always adding new lines:
1,452,771,810 from Charlemagne
That is interesting...assuming about 41 generations between the two,
Prince William should have 2,199,023,255,552 (non-unique)ancestors in
the time period of Charlemagne (the 41st generation). If you think of
these as boxes in his family tree chart, and Charlemagne's name fills
1,452,771,810 of these boxes, then he accounts for a full 1/1514th of
his ancestors of the generation !
Uh, no. Not all of the 1,452,771,810 will be in one generation.
They will be spread over probably 4 or even more generations.
Doug McDonald
-
Gjest
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
Tuesday, 25 January, 2005
Dear Doug, Joe, Spencer, et al.,
There will likely be several 'slots' in several generations (as
Doug has stated) that Charlemagne will fill in a detailed AT for Prince
William, or for any other of his descendants.
Another individual making just as many frequent appearances in
such an AT:
Hildegarde, ' a woman of high birth, and of Swabian origin '
[Einhard], daughter of the count Gerold and 2nd wife of Charlemagne.
There are, insofar as I know, no known descents from Charlemagne not
involving the issue of his marriage with Hildegarde.
Interestingly, count Gerold and his wife Emma will appear in such
an AT in higher numbers than Charlemagne, according to Christian
Settipani: besides their noted daughter Hildegarde, their son Adrian is
identified as the maternal grandfather of Robert 'the Strong'
[Settipani, 'Ancestors of Charlemagne (Addenda)', p. 8], so the high
number of Capetian descents will add to this numerical 'superiority'
quite extensively.
Cheers,
John
Dear Doug, Joe, Spencer, et al.,
There will likely be several 'slots' in several generations (as
Doug has stated) that Charlemagne will fill in a detailed AT for Prince
William, or for any other of his descendants.
Another individual making just as many frequent appearances in
such an AT:
Hildegarde, ' a woman of high birth, and of Swabian origin '
[Einhard], daughter of the count Gerold and 2nd wife of Charlemagne.
There are, insofar as I know, no known descents from Charlemagne not
involving the issue of his marriage with Hildegarde.
Interestingly, count Gerold and his wife Emma will appear in such
an AT in higher numbers than Charlemagne, according to Christian
Settipani: besides their noted daughter Hildegarde, their son Adrian is
identified as the maternal grandfather of Robert 'the Strong'
[Settipani, 'Ancestors of Charlemagne (Addenda)', p. 8], so the high
number of Capetian descents will add to this numerical 'superiority'
quite extensively.
Cheers,
John
-
hippo
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
"joe" wrote in message
Remembering several caveats, of course:
1) Legitimacy was often a question with no scientific way to prove paternity
until recently.
2) The gene pool was very much smaller in the 8th century. Within only a few
generations I am related to Roger Williams (founder of Rhode Island) no
fewer than five times because the Colonial gene pool in the seventeenth
century was similarly small. There were so few women that there are
instances of siblings marrying widows of other siblings or even widowed
aunts as in my family causing much confusion to genealogists as in Mary
Smith = John Smith with the children of her first marriage listed with
those of her second, all with the same surnames.
3) Since all European Royal families are closely related anyway, it is
possible to use exponents to express some of these relationships.
4) Most Europeans are descended from Charlemagne, they just can't prove it.
5) Much 'creative' genealogy was done in past centuries to prove the
legitimacy of a Royal line.
6) I can prove descent from Charlemagne several hundreds of times only
because John of Gaunt's pedigree is generally accepted as accurate. (see 1
above) The odds are it isn't.
7) Legitimacy was considered less important in the 8th cent. and for some
time after. Siblings were often listed under a king regardless of who the
mother was or if the parents were ever married in the eyes of the
Church. -the Troll
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
These are VERY interesting figures!
DSH
--------------
Current figures from Ian Fettes. He's always adding new lines:
1,452,771,810 from Charlemagne
2,290,414 from William the Conqueror [The Victor at Hastings]
2,076,919 from Harold II [The Defeated at Hastings]
831,018 from Henry II
274 from James I of Scotland
27 from James I of England
17 from George I
2 from Victoria
That is interesting...assuming about 41 generations between the two,
Prince William should have 2,199,023,255,552 (non-unique)ancestors in
the time period of Charlemagne (the 41st generation). If you think of
these as boxes in his family tree chart, and Charlemagne's name fills
1,452,771,810 of these boxes, then he accounts for a full 1/1514th of
his ancestors of the generation ! One *might* conclude from this,
that Prince William is descended from less than 1,500 of the people
living in the 8th Century CE. It would be interesting to explore
mathmatically I think..
Remembering several caveats, of course:
1) Legitimacy was often a question with no scientific way to prove paternity
until recently.
2) The gene pool was very much smaller in the 8th century. Within only a few
generations I am related to Roger Williams (founder of Rhode Island) no
fewer than five times because the Colonial gene pool in the seventeenth
century was similarly small. There were so few women that there are
instances of siblings marrying widows of other siblings or even widowed
aunts as in my family causing much confusion to genealogists as in Mary
Smith = John Smith with the children of her first marriage listed with
those of her second, all with the same surnames.
3) Since all European Royal families are closely related anyway, it is
possible to use exponents to express some of these relationships.
4) Most Europeans are descended from Charlemagne, they just can't prove it.
5) Much 'creative' genealogy was done in past centuries to prove the
legitimacy of a Royal line.
6) I can prove descent from Charlemagne several hundreds of times only
because John of Gaunt's pedigree is generally accepted as accurate. (see 1
above) The odds are it isn't.
7) Legitimacy was considered less important in the 8th cent. and for some
time after. Siblings were often listed under a king regardless of who the
mother was or if the parents were ever married in the eyes of the
Church. -the Troll
-
Chris Phillips
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
joeycook@mail.com
I very much doubt the conclusion that Prince William is descended from less
than 1,500 8th-century people.
Doug McDonald's point about Charlemagne being spread over a number of
generations will be part of the explanation and Hippo/The Troll's point
about creative genealogy may be part of it too, but given the expectation
that Prince William's ancestry will have been concentrated in the "highest"
social strata for a number of centuries, it's not surprising that
Charlemagne occupies far more than his "fair share" of the slots.
The same may be true of some hundreds of Charlemagne's royal and noble
contemporaries, but that will still leave hundreds of billions of slots
available for the rest of the population - ample room for people from all
walks of life.
Chris Phillips
That is interesting...assuming about 41 generations between the two,
Prince William should have 2,199,023,255,552 (non-unique)ancestors in
the time period of Charlemagne (the 41st generation). If you think of
these as boxes in his family tree chart, and Charlemagne's name fills
1,452,771,810 of these boxes, then he accounts for a full 1/1514th of
his ancestors of the generation ! One *might* conclude from this,
that Prince William is descended from less than 1,500 of the people
living in the 8th Century CE. It would be interesting to explore
mathmatically I think..
I very much doubt the conclusion that Prince William is descended from less
than 1,500 8th-century people.
Doug McDonald's point about Charlemagne being spread over a number of
generations will be part of the explanation and Hippo/The Troll's point
about creative genealogy may be part of it too, but given the expectation
that Prince William's ancestry will have been concentrated in the "highest"
social strata for a number of centuries, it's not surprising that
Charlemagne occupies far more than his "fair share" of the slots.
The same may be true of some hundreds of Charlemagne's royal and noble
contemporaries, but that will still leave hundreds of billions of slots
available for the rest of the population - ample room for people from all
walks of life.
Chris Phillips
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
I realize there is no logical connection _per se_.
But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many people
total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne -- or speculate
intelligently on same?
Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I might
have some insights into that issue.
DSH
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...
| These are VERY interesting figures!
|
| DSH
| --------------
|
| Current figures from Ian Fettes. He's always adding new lines:
|
| 1,452,771,810 from Charlemagne
| 2,290,414 from William the Conqueror [The Victor at Hastings]
| 2,076,919 from Harold II [The Defeated at Hastings]
| 831,018 from Henry II
| 274 from James I of Scotland
| 27 from James I of England
| 17 from George I
| 2 from Victoria
But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many people
total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne -- or speculate
intelligently on same?
Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I might
have some insights into that issue.
DSH
"D. Spencer Hines" <poguemidden@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:...
| These are VERY interesting figures!
|
| DSH
| --------------
|
| Current figures from Ian Fettes. He's always adding new lines:
|
| 1,452,771,810 from Charlemagne
| 2,290,414 from William the Conqueror [The Victor at Hastings]
| 2,076,919 from Harold II [The Defeated at Hastings]
| 831,018 from Henry II
| 274 from James I of Scotland
| 27 from James I of England
| 17 from George I
| 2 from Victoria
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Try Doug Rohde
Nature, 431, 562-566
The same ideas apply. This paper is of course controversial
as to the numbers, but the idea is sound.
Doug McDonald
I realize there is no logical connection _per se_.
But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many people
total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne -- or speculate
intelligently on same?
Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I might
have some insights into that issue.
Try Doug Rohde
Nature, 431, 562-566
The same ideas apply. This paper is of course controversial
as to the numbers, but the idea is sound.
Doug McDonald
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
Obtuse....
DSH
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cte980$4o3$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| > I realize there is no logical connection _per se_.
| >
| > But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
| > descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many
| > people total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne
| > -- or speculate intelligently on same?
| >
| > Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I
| > might have some insights into that issue.
|
|
| Try Doug Rohde
|
| Nature, 431, 562-566
|
| The same ideas apply. This paper is of course controversial
| as to the numbers, but the idea is sound.
|
| Doug McDonald
DSH
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:cte980$4o3$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| > I realize there is no logical connection _per se_.
| >
| > But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
| > descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many
| > people total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne
| > -- or speculate intelligently on same?
| >
| > Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I
| > might have some insights into that issue.
|
|
| Try Doug Rohde
|
| Nature, 431, 562-566
|
| The same ideas apply. This paper is of course controversial
| as to the numbers, but the idea is sound.
|
| Doug McDonald
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
Do you mean the paper or my citation of it?
If you mean the latter, it is in the journal "Nature",
vol. 431, pp. 562-566. I may have had my mind stuck
on the genealogy-DNA mailing list, where everybody and his
brother and cousin reads the original scientific literature
and knows the citation format.
This paper tries to calculate the TMRCA for all mankind.
TMRCA means "time [to] most recent common ancestor". It gets
a surprisingly recent answer, based on what is to most
people's minds a too-facile migration of genes from Tierra del
Fuego back to Siberia.
DNA studies are just beginning to truly impinge on-topic to
s.g.m. Currently I and my "family" are the champions of
DNA, since we have the earliest "both paper and DNA" TMRCA ancestor.
This has been discussed here and need not be repeated.
Doug
Obtuse....
Do you mean the paper or my citation of it?
If you mean the latter, it is in the journal "Nature",
vol. 431, pp. 562-566. I may have had my mind stuck
on the genealogy-DNA mailing list, where everybody and his
brother and cousin reads the original scientific literature
and knows the citation format.
This paper tries to calculate the TMRCA for all mankind.
TMRCA means "time [to] most recent common ancestor". It gets
a surprisingly recent answer, based on what is to most
people's minds a too-facile migration of genes from Tierra del
Fuego back to Siberia.
DNA studies are just beginning to truly impinge on-topic to
s.g.m. Currently I and my "family" are the champions of
DNA, since we have the earliest "both paper and DNA" TMRCA ancestor.
This has been discussed here and need not be repeated.
Doug
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
Interesting...
But not relevant to the question.
And OLD NEWS....
First Rule Of USENET:
1. Read incoming posts CAREFULLY -- and only after careful
consideration and complete understanding RESPOND.
Here we go again:
I realize there is no logical connection _per se_.
But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many people
total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne -- or speculate
intelligently on same?
Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I might
have some insights into that issue.
Intelligent, Relevant, Informed Answers Only Please.
Thank You,
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ctecri$641$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > Obtuse....
| >
|
| Do you mean the paper or my citation of it?
|
| If you mean the latter, it is in the journal "Nature",
| vol. 431, pp. 562-566. I may have had my mind stuck
| on the genealogy-DNA mailing list, where everybody and his
| brother and cousin reads the original scientific literature
| and knows the citation format.
|
| This paper tries to calculate the TMRCA for all mankind.
| TMRCA means "time [to] most recent common ancestor". It gets
| a surprisingly recent answer, based on what is to most
| people's minds a too-facile migration of genes from Tierra del
| Fuego back to Siberia.
|
| DNA studies are just beginning to truly impinge on-topic to
| s.g.m. Currently I and my "family" are the champions of
| DNA, since we have the earliest "both paper and DNA" TMRCA ancestor.
| This has been discussed here and need not be repeated.
|
| Doug
But not relevant to the question.
And OLD NEWS....
First Rule Of USENET:
1. Read incoming posts CAREFULLY -- and only after careful
consideration and complete understanding RESPOND.
Here we go again:
I realize there is no logical connection _per se_.
But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many people
total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne -- or speculate
intelligently on same?
Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I might
have some insights into that issue.
Intelligent, Relevant, Informed Answers Only Please.
Thank You,
'Nuff Said.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ctecri$641$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
|
| > Obtuse....
| >
|
| Do you mean the paper or my citation of it?
|
| If you mean the latter, it is in the journal "Nature",
| vol. 431, pp. 562-566. I may have had my mind stuck
| on the genealogy-DNA mailing list, where everybody and his
| brother and cousin reads the original scientific literature
| and knows the citation format.
|
| This paper tries to calculate the TMRCA for all mankind.
| TMRCA means "time [to] most recent common ancestor". It gets
| a surprisingly recent answer, based on what is to most
| people's minds a too-facile migration of genes from Tierra del
| Fuego back to Siberia.
|
| DNA studies are just beginning to truly impinge on-topic to
| s.g.m. Currently I and my "family" are the champions of
| DNA, since we have the earliest "both paper and DNA" TMRCA ancestor.
| This has been discussed here and need not be repeated.
|
| Doug
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
D. Spencer Hines wrote:
I am sufficiently informed to say that mathematics is not the problem.
The problem, of course, is connectivity ... that is, how well and
how fast the descendancy tree of Charlemagne spread from the nobility
to everyday folks, and spread around the world. This is a modelling
problem. The math is easy. Getting the correct parameters is hard.
Rhode's paper does the math right. The parameters are an ON-TOPIC issue
for this newsgroup, and indeed the subject has come up before.
Doug McDonald
Interesting...
But not relevant to the question.
And OLD NEWS....
First Rule Of USENET:
1. Read incoming posts CAREFULLY -- and only after careful
consideration and complete understanding RESPOND.
Here we go again:
I realize there is no logical connection _per se_.
But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many people
total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne -- or speculate
intelligently on same?
Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I might
have some insights into that issue.
Intelligent, Relevant, Informed Answers Only Please.
I am sufficiently informed to say that mathematics is not the problem.
The problem, of course, is connectivity ... that is, how well and
how fast the descendancy tree of Charlemagne spread from the nobility
to everyday folks, and spread around the world. This is a modelling
problem. The math is easy. Getting the correct parameters is hard.
Rhode's paper does the math right. The parameters are an ON-TOPIC issue
for this newsgroup, and indeed the subject has come up before.
Doug McDonald
-
D. Spencer Hines
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
The central issue here has to do with:
1. The figure 1,452,771,810 -- Prince William's unique descents from
Charlemagne.
2. The number of folks WORLDWIDE who are descended from Charlemagne.
3. The World Population, circa 6,415,398,374.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html
If anyone can show any plausible or valid relationships between and
among those three numbers, please fire away.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ctegj1$792$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| > Interesting...
| >
| > But not relevant to the question.
| >
| > And OLD NEWS....
| >
| > First Rule Of USENET:
| >
| > 1. Read incoming posts CAREFULLY -- and only after careful
| > consideration and complete understanding RESPOND.
| >
| > Here we go again:
| >
| > I realize there is no logical connection _per se_.
| >
| > But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
| > descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many
people
| > total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne -- or speculate
| > intelligently on same?
| >
| > Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I
might
| > have some insights into that issue.
| >
| > Intelligent, Relevant, Informed Answers Only Please.
| >
|
| I am sufficiently informed to say that mathematics is not the problem.
|
| The problem, of course, is connectivity ... that is, how well and
| how fast the descendancy tree of Charlemagne spread from the nobility
| to everyday folks, and spread around the world. This is a modelling
| problem. The math is easy. Getting the correct parameters is hard.
| Rhode's paper does the math right. The parameters are an ON-TOPIC
issue
| for this newsgroup, and indeed the subject has come up before.
|
| Doug McDonald
1. The figure 1,452,771,810 -- Prince William's unique descents from
Charlemagne.
2. The number of folks WORLDWIDE who are descended from Charlemagne.
3. The World Population, circa 6,415,398,374.
http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html
If anyone can show any plausible or valid relationships between and
among those three numbers, please fire away.
D. Spencer Hines
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:ctegj1$792$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
| D. Spencer Hines wrote:
| > Interesting...
| >
| > But not relevant to the question.
| >
| > And OLD NEWS....
| >
| > First Rule Of USENET:
| >
| > 1. Read incoming posts CAREFULLY -- and only after careful
| > consideration and complete understanding RESPOND.
| >
| > Here we go again:
| >
| > I realize there is no logical connection _per se_.
| >
| > But, given the fact that Prince William has 1,452,771,810 unique
| > descents from Charlemagne -- can we say anything about how many
people
| > total Worldwide TODAY are descended from Charlemagne -- or speculate
| > intelligently on same?
| >
| > Someone who is a better mathematician or computer scientist than I
might
| > have some insights into that issue.
| >
| > Intelligent, Relevant, Informed Answers Only Please.
| >
|
| I am sufficiently informed to say that mathematics is not the problem.
|
| The problem, of course, is connectivity ... that is, how well and
| how fast the descendancy tree of Charlemagne spread from the nobility
| to everyday folks, and spread around the world. This is a modelling
| problem. The math is easy. Getting the correct parameters is hard.
| Rhode's paper does the math right. The parameters are an ON-TOPIC
issue
| for this newsgroup, and indeed the subject has come up before.
|
| Doug McDonald
-
Matthew Rockefeller
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
Interesting figures. I always hate how the naive starting calculating
well we've got 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and so on. They end up with
millions of ancestors, which is ridiculous. Before the last century
almost everyone was so inbreed it wasn't even funny. Most people lived
in villages and always married in that village to probably a fourth or
fifth cousin and so on with their children. Not to mention with
royalty, it's an entirely different ballgame with even uncle/niece
marriages and the marriages of first cousins. Maybe, one day they'll
learn to stop calculating ancestors and start tracing them.
Matthew
well we've got 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and so on. They end up with
millions of ancestors, which is ridiculous. Before the last century
almost everyone was so inbreed it wasn't even funny. Most people lived
in villages and always married in that village to probably a fourth or
fifth cousin and so on with their children. Not to mention with
royalty, it's an entirely different ballgame with even uncle/niece
marriages and the marriages of first cousins. Maybe, one day they'll
learn to stop calculating ancestors and start tracing them.
Matthew
-
Julian Richards
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
On 3 Feb 2005 00:32:33 -0800, "Matthew Rockefeller"
<matthew_rockefeller@yahoo.com> wrote:
I've been having a go at that. The best Web site for those of UK
descent in http://www.ancestry.co.uk which includes the 1901, 1891, 1881 and
1871 censuses. http://www.familysearch.org is completely free for just 1881.
In my pretty limited go (soc.gen.med will despair at my minor
attempt), I've gone back as far as a lady born in 1798. I wondered if
the rather posh side of the family would ruin my working class
credentials. For all their pretentiousness, they were as common as
muck, giving up coal mining a generation before the other side gave up
slate quarrying.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
<matthew_rockefeller@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe, one day they'll
learn to stop calculating ancestors and start tracing them.
I've been having a go at that. The best Web site for those of UK
descent in http://www.ancestry.co.uk which includes the 1901, 1891, 1881 and
1871 censuses. http://www.familysearch.org is completely free for just 1881.
In my pretty limited go (soc.gen.med will despair at my minor
attempt), I've gone back as far as a lady born in 1798. I wondered if
the rather posh side of the family would ruin my working class
credentials. For all their pretentiousness, they were as common as
muck, giving up coal mining a generation before the other side gave up
slate quarrying.
--
Julian Richards
medieval "at" richardsuk.f9.co.uk
Usenet is how from the comfort of your own living room, you can converse
with people that you would never want in your house.
THIS MESSAGE WAS POSTED FROM SOC.HISTORY.MEDIEVAL
-
Leo van de Pas
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
Matthew,
The accounting of 2,4,8,16 etc is perfectly correct. Once you start reaching
the 15th generation or more, of course, through intermarrying one ancestor
may take many of the numbers in one ancestorlist, and each one of those
numbers is needed to make a nr.1 of an ancestor list. To be able to do the
apparently according to you useless calculating, they have to have traced
them to be able to do such a "useless" calculation. You cannot do one
without the other.
Also you say that "before the last century everyone was so inbred" have you
seen the method how "inbreeding" is calculated? If you apply that, not many
are regarded as "inbred". Otherwise, why stick to "before last century"? It
should have continued to the present, when inbred people marry inbred people
you get even more inbred people.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Rockefeller" <matthew_rockefeller@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
The accounting of 2,4,8,16 etc is perfectly correct. Once you start reaching
the 15th generation or more, of course, through intermarrying one ancestor
may take many of the numbers in one ancestorlist, and each one of those
numbers is needed to make a nr.1 of an ancestor list. To be able to do the
apparently according to you useless calculating, they have to have traced
them to be able to do such a "useless" calculation. You cannot do one
without the other.
Also you say that "before the last century everyone was so inbred" have you
seen the method how "inbreeding" is calculated? If you apply that, not many
are regarded as "inbred". Otherwise, why stick to "before last century"? It
should have continued to the present, when inbred people marry inbred people
you get even more inbred people.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Rockefeller" <matthew_rockefeller@yahoo.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2005 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
Interesting figures. I always hate how the naive starting calculating
well we've got 2 parents, 4 grandparents, and so on. They end up with
millions of ancestors, which is ridiculous. Before the last century
almost everyone was so inbreed it wasn't even funny. Most people lived
in villages and always married in that village to probably a fourth or
fifth cousin and so on with their children. Not to mention with
royalty, it's an entirely different ballgame with even uncle/niece
marriages and the marriages of first cousins. Maybe, one day they'll
learn to stop calculating ancestors and start tracing them.
Matthew
______________________________
-
Gjest
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
In a message dated 03/02/2005 11:42:44 GMT Standard Time,
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
millions of ancestors, which is ridiculous. Before the last century
who had 4 degrees of consanguinity. It is generally thought that people in a
village interbred like rabbits, but again statistics prove a different story,
especially in the Catholic countries.
A social grouping may well intermarry and form a tight knit group, but it is
not generally known that so and so is a 3rd or 4th cousin. I was the one who
discovered that both my aunts and auncles were 3rd cousins once removed,
otherwise it was not known, except that both families seemed to be related to
distant kin.
regards
peter (de loriol)
Maybe, one day they'll
> learn to stop calculating ancestors and start tracing them.
leovdpas@netspeed.com.au writes:
millions of ancestors, which is ridiculous. Before the last century
almost everyone was so inbreed it wasn't even funny. Most people lived
in villages and always married in that village to probably a fourth or
fifth cousin and so on with their children. Not to mention with
royalty, it's an entirely different ballgame with even uncle/niece
marriages and the marriages of first cousins.
Not quite true Mathew, Roman Law strictly forbade marriages between people
who had 4 degrees of consanguinity. It is generally thought that people in a
village interbred like rabbits, but again statistics prove a different story,
especially in the Catholic countries.
A social grouping may well intermarry and form a tight knit group, but it is
not generally known that so and so is a 3rd or 4th cousin. I was the one who
discovered that both my aunts and auncles were 3rd cousins once removed,
otherwise it was not known, except that both families seemed to be related to
distant kin.
regards
peter (de loriol)
Maybe, one day they'll
> learn to stop calculating ancestors and start tracing them.
-
Gjest
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
Doug McDonald wrote:
I wonder how the 'champions' would do, if they went against
the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Royal Family of Japan
or the descendants of Confucius.
Leslie
Do you mean the paper or my citation of it?
If you mean the latter, it is in the journal "Nature",
vol. 431, pp. 562-566. I may have had my mind stuck
on the genealogy-DNA mailing list, where everybody and his
brother and cousin reads the original scientific literature
and knows the citation format.
This paper tries to calculate the TMRCA for all mankind.
TMRCA means "time [to] most recent common ancestor". It gets
a surprisingly recent answer, based on what is to most
people's minds a too-facile migration of genes from Tierra del
Fuego back to Siberia.
DNA studies are just beginning to truly impinge on-topic to
s.g.m. Currently I and my "family" are the champions of
DNA, since we have the earliest "both paper and DNA" TMRCA ancestor.
This has been discussed here and need not be repeated.
Doug
I wonder how the 'champions' would do, if they went against
the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Royal Family of Japan
or the descendants of Confucius.
Leslie
-
Doug McDonald
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
lmahler@att.net wrote:
I really don't know. This is s.g.m. .... and those
families would have to pass through the Middle Ages.
How good are their pedigrees? How far back can you
go and find two different all-male lines that start
from one person? They key is the word "different".
Does anybody here know?
There exist at least two lines in Western Europe that
would beat my ancestor Donald, grandson of Somerled,
should they be correct but they have not yet been DNA tested.
Doug McDonald
Doug McDonald wrote:
DNA studies are just beginning to truly impinge on-topic to
s.g.m. Currently I and my "family" are the champions of
DNA, since we have the earliest "both paper and DNA" TMRCA ancestor.
This has been discussed here and need not be repeated.
Doug
I wonder how the 'champions' would do, if they went against
the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Royal Family of Japan
or the descendants of Confucius.
I really don't know. This is s.g.m. .... and those
families would have to pass through the Middle Ages.
How good are their pedigrees? How far back can you
go and find two different all-male lines that start
from one person? They key is the word "different".
Does anybody here know?
There exist at least two lines in Western Europe that
would beat my ancestor Donald, grandson of Somerled,
should they be correct but they have not yet been DNA tested.
Doug McDonald
-
Steven C. Perkins
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
At 09:35 AM 2/3/2005 -0800, you wrote:
Leslie:
If we can identify the various branches of each group and get some
descendants together, we could do the necessary DNA tests to
confirm their descent. I know the Confucius group has several adopted
lines. I don't know their antiquity vis-a-vis Confucius. That would be an
interesting research protocol.
Steven C. Perkins
(another Somerled genetic match)
I wonder how the 'champions' would do, if they went against
the Quraysh tribe of Mecca, the Royal Family of Japan
or the descendants of Confucius.
Leslie
Leslie:
If we can identify the various branches of each group and get some
descendants together, we could do the necessary DNA tests to
confirm their descent. I know the Confucius group has several adopted
lines. I don't know their antiquity vis-a-vis Confucius. That would be an
interesting research protocol.
Steven C. Perkins
(another Somerled genetic match)
-
Renia
Re: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents
Julian Richards wrote:
Not bad, but the best web site for starting out on British genealogy is:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/
Renia
On 3 Feb 2005 00:32:33 -0800, "Matthew Rockefeller"
matthew_rockefeller@yahoo.com> wrote:
Maybe, one day they'll
learn to stop calculating ancestors and start tracing them.
I've been having a go at that. The best Web site for those of UK
descent in http://www.ancestry.co.uk which includes the 1901, 1891, 1881 and
1871 censuses. http://www.familysearch.org is completely free for just 1881.
Not bad, but the best web site for starting out on British genealogy is:
http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/
Renia