Fw: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Leo van de Pas

Fw: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents

Legg inn av Leo van de Pas » 03 feb 2005 20:31:02

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


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

______________________________

starbuck95

Re: Fw: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents

Legg inn av starbuck95 » 03 feb 2005 20:46:35

Is it true that one is not inbred unless one's parents are related? I
thought I read something that stated that.

One of my great-great grandfathers, John Gardner Macy (1813-67) was
spectacularly inbred by that standard. Both his parents were Macys,
and three of his four grandparents were also Macys. He had 9 lines
from the Coffin family, 8 from the Starbuck, and 6 each from Macy and
Gardner.

But my understanding is that *I'm* not inbred, as my parents are not
related to each other in any way.

Is that correct?

Peter Stewart

Re: Fw: Prince William -- His Unique Royal Descents

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 03 feb 2005 22:26:15

"starbuck95" <starbuck95@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1107459995.758525.286050@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Is it true that one is not inbred unless one's parents are related? I
thought I read something that stated that.

One of my great-great grandfathers, John Gardner Macy (1813-67) was
spectacularly inbred by that standard. Both his parents were Macys,
and three of his four grandparents were also Macys. He had 9 lines
from the Coffin family, 8 from the Starbuck, and 6 each from Macy and
Gardner.

But my understanding is that *I'm* not inbred, as my parents are not
related to each other in any way.

Is that correct?

I have no idea of the technical terms used for this in human studies, but if
you were a hosre with such a pedigree you would be from an outcross
breeding, expected perhaps to gain some advantage of "hybrid vigour" to
complement whatever had been achieved from the previous line-breeding on one
side.

Have you ever thought of entering the Kentucky Derby? There's more money in
it than genealogy.

Peter Stewart

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»