Descents From Charlemange

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John Watson

Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av John Watson » 30 nov 2007 09:16:03

Old Charles is said to have had at least 18 children by various wives
and concubines, so a lot of his descendants may still be around today.

Exactly how many descendants are alive today is purely a matter of
conjecture, but we could make a guess at it mathematically, after
making a few assumptions.

Now suppose (for the sake of argument) that Charlemange had two
children and they each had two children, and each of those had two
children, etc. and there were three generations per century since
Charles died (an extremely conservative approach). How many living
descendants would he have today?

Charles died in 814, so give or take a couple of years, 1,200 years
ago. Our number of generations is therefore 12 x 3 = 36.

So in the first generation, he would have 2 descendants, in the next,
4, in the next 8, in the next 16, in the next 32, ... and so on. What
number would you expect to reach after 36 generations?

The answer is more than 68 billion. (The population of the world today
is around 6 billion) So mathematically (rather than genealogically),
everyone on earth is descended from Charlemange (more than once).

It isn't a big deal.

Regards,

John

Renia

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av Renia » 30 nov 2007 09:35:24

John Watson wrote:
Old Charles is said to have had at least 18 children by various wives
and concubines, so a lot of his descendants may still be around today.

We could ask Leo van de Pas the names of as many of these wives,
concubines and children as he has on his database but as he has decided
he no longer wants to subscribe to this group, he won't hear our
question, unfortunately.

Another valuable contributor bites the dust.

James Dow Allen

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av James Dow Allen » 30 nov 2007 09:53:03

On Nov 30, 3:13 pm, John Watson <WatsonJo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Exactly how many descendants are alive today is purely a matter of
conjecture, but we could make a guess at it mathematically, after
making a few assumptions.

If we're to guess with assumptions we should use good assumptions.
Very crude, OK. Deliberately wrong, why?

... there were three generations per century since

Four (or more!) generations per century is a better assumption.
Average age of parenting is higher than 25 years, but the earlier
births lead to faster growth in descendants.

Charles died in 814, so give or take a couple of years, 1,200 years
ago. Our number of generations is therefore 12 x 3 = 36.

1250 years makes more sense unless you're only interested in
descendants who are now very old. Number of generations is
therefore 12.5 * 4 = 50. Multiply by six, finally, to accomodate
population growth.

The answer is more than 68 billion. (The population of the world today
is around 6 billion) So mathematically (rather than genealogically),
everyone on earth is descended from Charlemange (more than once).

With better assumptions, the answer is about six million billion.
On average each living human is descended from Charlemagne
in about 1 million ways!

That doesn't imply *every* human is Charlemagne's descendants.
Some peoples of Oceania have *very* little European blood.

It isn't a big deal.

Stating Fermat's last theorem isn't a big deal either.
Proving it is.

James

John Watson

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av John Watson » 30 nov 2007 11:25:04

On Nov 30, 4:50 pm, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Stating Fermat's last theorem isn't a big deal either.
Proving it is.

James

I have a truly marvelous proof of Fermat's last proposition but there
isn't enough space here to write it all down.

Regards,

John

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 30 nov 2007 12:47:40

When did Leo The Wounded Lion say that?

DSH

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fioi0b$8mi$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

John Watson wrote:

Old Charles is said to have had at least 18 children by various wives
and concubines, so a lot of his descendants may still be around today.

We could ask Leo van de Pas the names of as many of these wives,
concubines and children as he has on his database but as he has decided he
no longer wants to subscribe to this group, he won't hear our question,
unfortunately.

Another valuable contributor bites the dust.

Doug McDonald

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 30 nov 2007 16:26:40

Renia wrote:
John Watson wrote:
Old Charles is said to have had at least 18 children by various wives
and concubines, so a lot of his descendants may still be around today.

We could ask Leo van de Pas the names of as many of these wives,
concubines and children as he has on his database but as he has decided
he no longer wants to subscribe to this group, he won't hear our
question, unfortunately.

Another valuable contributor bites the dust.

Oh poppycock.

You can "ask Leo" that question by asking it of his database directly.
I have, and the results are there for everybody to see, so I shall not quote them.

Or you can ask it of him personally, which is silly,
by email.

Doug McDonald

wjhonson

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av wjhonson » 30 nov 2007 23:28:03

All your maths are faulty, for the following reason.

You state the number of children in each generation without
recognizing the many many many times that an entire family died out
s.p. There are so many examples, that certain persons like John Burke
felt inclined to compose a book pointing all these out because the
descents of titles and manors was so confusing !

If every manor went parent to child, we'd really only need a list of
the names of the married daughters once in a while.

A mathematical study starting now and going backward, has the same
problem. A simple approach doesn't come close to the reality of the
situation.

Another issue is the approach given does not include cousin-marriage
which obviously takes place in at the most the 20th generatioon or so
simply because *there were NOT enough people in the western world* to
account for all the necessary brides and grooms. And I'm fairly sure
you all will acknowledge that its much more likely high-born men and
women entered convents or died early, rather than marry the guy who
tends the pig sty.

Will Johnson

John Watson

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av John Watson » 01 des 2007 05:25:05

On Dec 1, 6:27 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
All your maths are faulty, for the following reason.

You state the number of children in each generation without
recognizing the many many many times that an entire family died out
s.p. There are so many examples, that certain persons like John Burke
felt inclined to compose a book pointing all these out because the
descents of titles and manors was so confusing !

If every manor went parent to child, we'd really only need a list of
the names of the married daughters once in a while.

A mathematical study starting now and going backward, has the same
problem. A simple approach doesn't come close to the reality of the
situation.

Another issue is the approach given does not include cousin-marriage
which obviously takes place in at the most the 20th generatioon or so
simply because *there were NOT enough people in the western world* to
account for all the necessary brides and grooms. And I'm fairly sure
you all will acknowledge that its much more likely high-born men and
women entered convents or died early, rather than marry the guy who
tends the pig sty.

Will Johnson

Will,

The exact numbers are not important - the point is that just about
everyone with Western European ancestors is descended from
Charlemange.

Regards,

John

James Dow Allen

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av James Dow Allen » 02 des 2007 08:45:04

On Dec 1, 5:27 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
All your maths are faulty, for the following reason.

No, the math is right for a "first-order" approximation.
That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
(Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
Charlemagne, not a million!)

Perhaps the easiest way to confirm the result is
to work the other way. Not everyone has descendants
but we all have ancestors! It may not be obvious
that, assuming no population growth, 2 is the average
number of children, but 2.00 is an excellent estimate
of one's number of parents. :-)

Instead of 50 generations between us and Charlemagne,
use 45. (This is because the need, alluded to in the
earlier post, to weight short generations higher
doesn't operate in the other direction.)

2^45 = 35 million million

That's how many ancestor *slots* one of us has in Charles'
generation. Now estimate how many of those were Europeans;
what the population of Europe was in Charlemagne's time;
restrict that to one generation (e.g. a 28-year age bracket);
exclude people who have zero present-day descendants (Charles
the Great was *not* one of these!); perform division.
Very roughly, you finish with 1 million descents from
Charlemagne just as before.

My own database -- in which of course a huge percentage of
distant ancestor slots will be missing -- shows 8.8 *billion*
descents from Charlemagne to England's future King William V,
or "only" 188 million when I tell the software to ignore the
more improbable connections.

(If such numbers seem bizarrely large for software to even
calculate, read http://james.fabpedigree.com/agggraph.htm )

A mathematical study starting now and going backward, has the same
problem. A simple approach doesn't come close to the reality of the
situation.

"Second"-order effects can be *very* important depending on
what question is posed. Nobles will have far more than the
average number of Charlemagne descents; peasants far less.

I assume nobles are much more productive, procreatively, than
peasants -- even ignoring undocumented bastards -- so the true
number of average descents from Charlemagne is probably much
more than a million. Whaever the flaws in my data, the number of
such descents for future William V is surely in the billions, or
probably even much more than that. (Remember, we deal
with the *fully* expanded ancestor table.)

James

Doug McDonald

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 02 des 2007 16:49:56

James Dow Allen wrote:

Instead of 50 generations between us and Charlemagne,
use 45.

This is way too high. Prince William is Charlemagne's
31st great grandson, by the shortest path I have.
That's 33 generations. The number on average probably clusters
around 36 or 37. For me the average is about 38 or 39.

Doug McDonald

D. Spencer Hines

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av D. Spencer Hines » 02 des 2007 17:36:29

Yes, 37 generations, on average, for me.

1 x 10^9 or so people living today have descents from Charlemagne.

DSH

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:fiukho$gfa$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu...
James Dow Allen wrote:


Instead of 50 generations between us and Charlemagne,
use 45.

This is way too high. Prince William is Charlemagne's
31st great grandson, by the shortest path I have.

That's 33 generations. The number on average probably clusters
around 36 or 37. For me the average is about 38 or 39.

Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av Gjest » 02 des 2007 22:00:06

On Dec 1, 11:43 pm, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 1, 5:27 am, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:

All your maths are faulty, for the following reason.

No, the math is right for a "first-order" approximation.
That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
(Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
Charlemagne, not a million!)

Perhaps the easiest way to confirm the result is
to work the other way. Not everyone has descendants
but we all have ancestors! It may not be obvious
that, assuming no population growth, 2 is the average
number of children, but 2.00 is an excellent estimate
of one's number of parents. :-)

Instead of 50 generations between us and Charlemagne,
use 45. (This is because the need, alluded to in the
earlier post, to weight short generations higher
doesn't operate in the other direction.)

2^45 = 35 million million

That's how many ancestor *slots* one of us has in Charles'
generation. Now estimate how many of those were Europeans;
what the population of Europe was in Charlemagne's time;
restrict that to one generation (e.g. a 28-year age bracket);
exclude people who have zero present-day descendants (Charles
the Great was *not* one of these!); perform division.
Very roughly, you finish with 1 million descents from
Charlemagne just as before.

My own database -- in which of course a huge percentage of
distant ancestor slots will be missing -- shows 8.8 *billion*
descents from Charlemagne to England's future King William V,
or "only" 188 million when I tell the software to ignore the
more improbable connections.

(If such numbers seem bizarrely large for software to even
calculate, readhttp://james.fabpedigree.com/agggraph.htm)

A mathematical study starting now and going backward, has the same
problem. A simple approach doesn't come close to the reality of the
situation.

"Second"-order effects can be *very* important depending on
what question is posed. Nobles will have far more than the
average number of Charlemagne descents; peasants far less.

I assume nobles are much more productive, procreatively, than
peasants -- even ignoring undocumented bastards -- so the true
number of average descents from Charlemagne is probably much
more than a million. Whaever the flaws in my data, the number of
such descents for future William V is surely in the billions, or
probably even much more than that. (Remember, we deal
with the *fully* expanded ancestor table.)

James

One also cannot ignore the abrupt population declines due to the
various plagues, especially around the early to mid 15th C.

James Dow Allen

Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlemagne)

Legg inn av James Dow Allen » 09 des 2007 06:35:04

A recent thread involved estimating the number of
generations between future King William V (b. 1982)
and Charlemagne (born 1240 years earlier). My
own data show mode, median *and* mean of path length
as 44 generations, but others thought this was high.

For example:
On Dec 2, 3:49 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
James Dow Allen wrote:
Instead of 50 generations between us and Charlemagne,
use 45.
This is way too high. Prince William is Charlemagne's
31st great grandson, by the shortest path I have.
That's 33 generations. The number on average probably clusters
around 36 or 37. For me the average is about 38 or 39.

In these paths, what portion of links are male?

I estimate average parent-to-child age
gap as about 28 years (perhaps 26 for mother, 30 for
father) and others imply this is too low.

I'd like to mention some of the statistical biases
that can affect such estimates. I'm sure s.g.m'ers
can offer better information here than I.

The following are all reasons to expect a *true*
average path to Charlemagne to be longer (shorter
average generation) than shown in a genealogical database.

(1) Since missing mothers are more common than missing
fathers in all "old" pedigrees, the higher age of
fathers biases any database (producing, e.g. shorter
average paths to Charlemagne).

Taking the purely agnatic line of Victoria's Albert
back 25 generations, I see father's mean age at birth
as 35 years. The purely uterine line shows mother's
mean age at birth as 23 years! (Do *not* use this data
as a general estimate: Albert's pedigree is likely an
extreme case, even though both paths are mostly German.)

(2) Longer paths have more links, so more chance for
data to be missing or controversial. This effect will
bias any database (especially those omitting controversial
connections) toward shorter path lengths.

(3) One might surmise that young nobles may sow undocumented
wild oats, while older nobles might suffer undocumented
cuckolding. Either effect would, again, cause databases
to show shorter path lengths than a true picture.

(4) While the discussion focused on descents through nobility
from Charlemagne, population analysis would also be concerned
with descent through peasants from peasants. I'd assume
such paths would be longer than those from Charlemagne, due
to shorter life expectancies, right?

There are two possible biases that would operate the
other way, but I'm not sure either is significant.

(1) Descent from an heir (oldest son) might be more
likely to be recorded than descent from a younger son.

(2) Speculative and mistaken lineages may tend to have
younger parents, so longer path lengths.

The ancestry of Queen Victoria or her husband are good
places to search for long paths from Charlemagne to William:
I suppose this is because the path from Victoria to the
Heir Apparent is mostly of first-borns.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The pure-agnatic and pure-uterine ancestors of
Prince Consort Albert show a male-female age gap that
is surprisingly large. I'll show them with normal
"ancestor numbers" but remember that, these are *not*
father-mother pairs (except Albert's own parents) and
that, for example 4095 is a generation *earlier* than 4096.

CORRECTIONS WELCOME.

1 Albert Augustus Charles of SAXE-COBURG-GOTHA 1819 - 1861
2 Ernst I (Duke) of SAXE-SAALFELD-COBURG 1784 - 1844
3 Luise Dorothea of SAXE-GOTHA 1800 - 1831

4 Francis Frederick (Duke) of SAXE-COBURG 1750 - 1806
7 Louise Charlotte of MECKLENBURG-SCHWERIN 1779 - 1801
8 Ernest Frederick (Duke) of SAXE-COBURG 1724 - 1800
15 Luise (Princess) of SACHSEN-GOTHA 1756 - 1808
16 Franz Josias (Duke) of SACHSEN-COBURG 1697 - 1764
31 Louise (Princess) of REUSS-SCHLEIZ 1726 - 1773

32 Johann Ernst (Duke) of SACHSEN-SAALFELD 1658 - 1729
63 Juliana Dorothea zu LOWENSTEIN-WERTHEIM 1694 - 1734
64 Ernst I `the Pious' (Duke) of SACHSEN-GOTHA 1601 - 1675
127 Juliana (Juliana-Dorothee) de LIMPURG-GAILDORF 1677 - 1734
128 Johann (Duke) of SAXE-WEIMAR 1570 - 1605
255 Elisabetha Dorothea of LIMPURG-GAILDORF 1656 - 1712

256 Johann Wilhelm (Duke) of SAXE-WEIMAR 1530 - 1573
511 Elisabeth-Dorothee de LIMPURG-SONTHEIM 1639 - 1691
512 Johann Friedrich I (Elector) of SAXONY 1503 - 1554
1023 Dorothea Maria zu HOHENLOHE-WALDENBURG 1618 - 1695
1024 Johann (Elector) of SAXONY 1468 - 1532
2047 Dorothea von ERBACH 1593 - 1643

2048 Ernst de WETTIN (Elector) of SAXONY 1441 - 1486
4095 Marie von BARBY 1563 - 1619
4096 Frederick II Ernest (Elector) of SAXONY 1412 - 1464
8191 Maria von ANHALT 1538 - 1563
8192 Frederick I/IV de WETTIN (Elector) of SAXONY 1370 - 1428
16383 Margarethe of BRANDENBURG 1511 - 1551?

16384 Frederick III `Strenge' of SAXONY 1333 - 1381
32767 Elisabeth OLDENBURG 1485? - 1555
32768 Frederick II de WETTIN (Landgrave THURINGIA) 1310 - 1349
65535 Christina (of SAXONY) WETTIN 1461 - 1521
65536 Friedrich I (Landgrave) von THURINGIA 1257 - 1323
131071 Elizabeth von WITTELSBACH of BAVARIA-MUNCHEN 1443 - 1484

131072 Albrecht II (Margrave) von THURINGIA 1240? - 1315
262143 Anna WELF of BRUNSWICK-GRUBENHAGEN 1415? - 1474
262144 Heinrich III MEISSEN of THURINGIA 1215? - 1288
524287 Elisabeth of BRUNSWICK-GOTTINGEN ? - 1444
524288 Dietrich (Margrave) of MEISSEN 1162? - 1221
1048575 Marguerite de BERG 1364? - 1442?

1048576 Otto `the Rich' (Margrave) of MEISSEN 1125? - 1190
2097151 Anne von WITTELSBACH 1346? - 1415
2097152 Konrad `the Great' von GROITZSCH-ROCHLITZ 1098? - 1157
4194303 Beatrice of SICILY (& ARAGON) 1326? - 1365
4194304 Thiemo I/II (Count) von WETTIN
8388607 Elizabeth von KAERNTEN ? - 1352+

8388608 Thimo I von WETTIN ? - 1076+
16777215 Eufemia of SILESIA-LIEGNITZ ? - 1347
16777216 Dietrich II im HASSEGAU 991? - 1034
33554431 Elzbieta PIAST von POLEN-KALISCH 1263? - 1304
33554432 Dedi I Count in North HESSEGAU 946? - 1009
67108863 Jolan/Ilona/Helen ARPAD of HUNGARY 1241? - 1298?

Next we see that Albert's 24-great agnatic grandfather
died 290 years ("10 generations") before Albert's 24-great
uterine grandmother!

67108864 Dietrich I im HESSEGAU ? - ca 976
134217727 Maria LASKARINA (-NIKAIA) 1206? - 1270?
134217728 poss. Volkmar in HARZGAU
268435455 Anna ANGELINA KOMNENE 1176? - 1212?
268435456 Frederick II in HARZGAU ? - ca 945
536870911 Euphrosyne KAMATERINA DOUKANIA 1143? - 1211?

By the way, I have Maria LASKARINA as 15-g granddaughter
of Charlemagne. Is this correct? If so, it provides a
49-link path from Charlemagne to future William V.
(There are longer paths than this, but it would be an
effort to find one that passes 100% expert scrutiny.)

James Dow Allen

PS: In another message wjhonson wrote:
James wrote:
That a mother and father may be related is implicit.
(Otherwise you'd have a *maximum* of one descent from
Charlemagne, not a million!)
That makes no sense.
That *a* mother and father may be related, does not say you'd have one
descent.

You somehow flipped my meaning. "Otherwise" means "if not";
i.e. if mother and father are always completely unrelated, there'd
be a maximum of one descent. Trivially true, but absurd since
everyone's related. (Mine was a reduction ad absurdem to refute
someone who seemed unclear about this.)

Doug McDonald

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 09 des 2007 15:40:40

James Dow Allen wrote:
A recent thread involved estimating the number of
generations between future King William V (b. 1982)
and Charlemagne (born 1240 years earlier). My
own data show mode, median *and* mean of path length
as 44 generations, but others thought this was high.

I have a computer program that can give an exact answer,
that is, exact assuming that my GEDCOM for the prince
us complete, which it isn't, but its huge.


I will try it, and report back. The report may be, however,
"out of memory", or may be not in for days.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 09 des 2007 16:08:05

Doug McDonald wrote:
James Dow Allen wrote:
A recent thread involved estimating the number of
generations between future King William V (b. 1982)
and Charlemagne (born 1240 years earlier). My
own data show mode, median *and* mean of path length
as 44 generations, but others thought this was high.

I have a computer program that can give an exact answer,
that is, exact assuming that my GEDCOM for the prince
us complete, which it isn't, but its huge.


I will try it, and report back. The report may be, however,
"out of memory", or may be not in for days.



So far, its "out of memory". The first
occurrence of Charlemagne is in the 33rd generation
from Prince William. It died at 16 million paths.

I will increase my swap space. This may fail. We do have
a computer with a terabyte of real memory, however (and
are getting the largest and fastest computer in the world,
"real soon" now that Blogo and enemies agreed to build
a home for it.)

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 09 des 2007 17:02:18

Doug McDonald wrote:

So far, its "out of memory".

I tried. It needs either a 64 bit compiler or a complete rewrite to
use a local swap file larger than 4 gigabytes. The latter I'm
not going to do.


Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 09 des 2007 19:01:41

Doug McDonald wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:


So far, its "out of memory".

I tried. It needs either a 64 bit compiler or a complete rewrite to
use a local swap file larger than 4 gigabytes. The latter I'm
not going to do.



I did a spot check from several generation back, and
got a range of 33-40 for the number of generations
back Charlemagne was from Prince William. The numbers cluster
around 34-36. Only one of Princess Di's mostly female line
recent ancestors had 38, 39, or 40.


Doug McDonald

Gjest

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2007 20:41:02

On Dec 9, 7:08 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
The first
occurrence of Charlemagne is in the 33rd generation
from Prince William. It died at 16 million paths.


Doug McDonald

The Roglo database (http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo) currently shows
roughly 1.1 billion paths from Charlemagne to Prince William. As
would be expected, over 95% of these are through Prince Charles -
although this is partially because Diana's ancestry is far less
complete on this database.

The length of the paths breaks down as follows:
33: 1
34: 90
35: 3,150
36: 53,016
37: 517,931
38: 3,388,542
39: 15,191,775
40: 47,902,310
41: 109,399,668
42: 184,704,696
43: 233,162,132
44: 220,811,155
45. 157,275,499
46: 84,779,102
47: 34,861,965
48: 11,107,358
49: 2,690,514
50: 590,260
51: 78,390
52: 10,333
53: 1,079
54: 76

There are undoubtedly some inaccuracies and (more likely) omissions in
the data which underlie these figures, but as an "order of magnitude"
figure it's probably in the ballpark.

Gjest

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2007 21:00:06

On Dec 9, 11:37 am, jhiggins...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 9, 7:08 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

The first
occurrence of Charlemagne is in the 33rd generation
from Prince William. It died at 16 million paths.

Doug McDonald

The Roglo database (http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo) currently shows
roughly 1.1 billion paths from Charlemagne to Prince William. As
would be expected, over 95% of these are through Prince Charles -
although this is partially because Diana's ancestry is far less
complete on this database.


Actually, Roglo's count of 1.1 billion paths from Charlemagne from
Prince William may be understated by as much as 50%. Roglo shows 18
paths from Charlemagne to Geoffrey Plantagenet, and I can identify
over 880,000 possible paths from Geoffrey to Prince William.
Combining these two figures would indicate that there could be as many
as roughly 1.6 billion paths from Charlemagne to William.

Gjest

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 des 2007 22:10:04

On Dec 9, 11:55 am, jhiggins...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Dec 9, 11:37 am, jhiggins...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 9, 7:08 am, Doug McDonald <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:

The first
occurrence of Charlemagne is in the 33rd generation
from Prince William. It died at 16 million paths.

Doug McDonald

The Roglo database (http://geneweb.inria.fr/roglo) currently shows
roughly 1.1 billion paths from Charlemagne to Prince William. As
would be expected, over 95% of these are through Prince Charles -
although this is partially because Diana's ancestry is far less
complete on this database.

Actually, Roglo's count of 1.1 billion paths from Charlemagne from
Prince William may be understated by as much as 50%. Roglo shows 18
paths from Charlemagne to Geoffrey Plantagenet, and I can identify
over 880,000 possible paths from Geoffrey to Prince William.
Combining these two figures would indicate that there could be as many
as roughly 1.6 billion paths from Charlemagne to William.

Oops...kindly ignore the conclusion of 1.6 billion in the preceding
post. Obviously my math was faulty (to say the least). Roglo is
definitely understated but not necessarily by half a billion.

Doug McDonald

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Doug McDonald » 09 des 2007 23:21:07

Doug McDonald wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:


So far, its "out of memory".

I tried. It needs either a 64 bit compiler or a complete rewrite to
use a local swap file larger than 4 gigabytes. The latter I'm
not going to do.



I did a spot check from several generation back, and
got a range of 33-40 for the number of generations
back Charlemagne was from Prince William. The numbers cluster
around 34-36. Only one of Princess Di's mostly female line
recent ancestors had 38, 39, or 40.


I managed to figure out how to do the whole thing.

I got, strangely, 191,445,232 paths averaging 42.86
generations. The sampling must have sampled only the shortest
number of generation paths in each subset.

I personally have 5682 lines averaging 39.2 generations


Doug McDonald

Ian Fettes

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Ian Fettes » 10 des 2007 09:28:00

Hi All,

From earlier exercises I did using my database on Prince William, I have a
range of 33 to 66 generations accounting for 1,497,531,829 links through

20,765 common family members.

The program I use to analyse runs very quickly (one minute), giving the
following results

Generation Number paths Total paths
33 5 5
34 168 173
35 2403 2576
36 23123 25699
37 167554 193253
38 1111043 1304296
39 5950212 7254508
40 23099149 30353657
41 64996959 95350616
42 136609563 231960179
43 220219948 452180127
44 277293189 729473316
45 275327280 1004800596
46 217872580 1222673176
47 139844864 1362518040
48 74962412 1437480452
49 34964677 1472445129
50 15031078 1487476207
51 6216119 1493692326
52 2461481 1496153807
53 922626 1497076433
54 323358 1497399791
55 97775 1497497566
56 25393 1497522959
57 5509 1497528468
58 1700 1497530168
59 732 1497530900
60 422 1497531322
61 260 1497531582
62 135 1497531717
63 83 1497531800
64 21 1497531821
65 6 1497531827
66 2 1497531829

While I may still have some invalid links in the database, the result gives
an indication pof the order of magnitude of the relationships.

Cheers,

Ian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 4:01 AM
Subject: Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlemagne)


Doug McDonald wrote:
Doug McDonald wrote:


So far, its "out of memory".

I tried. It needs either a 64 bit compiler or a complete rewrite to
use a local swap file larger than 4 gigabytes. The latter I'm
not going to do.



I did a spot check from several generation back, and
got a range of 33-40 for the number of generations
back Charlemagne was from Prince William. The numbers cluster
around 34-36. Only one of Princess Di's mostly female line
recent ancestors had 38, 39, or 40.


Doug McDonald


James Dow Allen

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av James Dow Allen » 11 des 2007 06:25:04

On Dec 10, 3:28 pm, "Ian Fettes" <fett...@st.net.au> wrote:
Generation Number paths
33 5
...
43 220219948
44 277293189
45 275327280
...

I'm glad to see my earlier estimates "vindicated". Although
I'm sure the details of our databases are quite different,
the "shape" of your results with median/mode near 44.4
duplicates mine remarkably. In my earlier list of reasons why
others produced lower estimates, I probably omitted an
important reason: the shorter paths are easier to find.

What are the 33-link paths? I have shorter "improbable"
paths, but when I tell the software to show only "probable"
paths, the shortest I see are some 34-link paths.
Here they are. (Please tell me of any mistakes!)

(Spouses are mentioned when they are also short-pathed
descendants of Charlemagne.)

1. Charles Great of Franks d. 814
2. Pepin King of Italy d. 810
3. Bernard King of Italy 797-818
4. Pepin II de Peronne
5. Herbert I de Vermandois d. 902
6. Kunigunde de Vermandois
7. Herbert Gleiberg in Kinzigau d. 992
8. Ermentrude von Gleiberg d. 1024?
9. Giselbert I of Luxemburg d. 1059
10. Hermann I of Luxemburg d. 1088
11. Otto I of Luxemburg d. 1154+
12. Beatrix von Salm-RheinecK d. 1140+
13. Beatrix von Hallermund d. 1221?
14. Burchard von Oldenburg d. 1233
15. Heinrich VI von Oldenburg d. 1270+
16. Hedwig von Oldenburg
m. Christian III von Oldenburg d. 1323+
17. Johann II von Oldenburg d. 1316+
18. Konrad I von Oldenburg d. 1347
m. Ingeborg Holstein
19. Christian V von Oldenburg-Welsburg
m. Agnes Honstein
20. Dietrich II von Oldenburg-Welsburg d. 1440
m. Hedwig Honstein
21. Christian I King of Denmark 1426-1481
m. Dorothea Hohenzollern, q.v.
22. Fredrik I King of Denmark 1471-1533
m. Sophia of Pomerania, q.v., b. 1498
23. Adolph of Denmark b. 1526
24. Sophie Schleswig-Holstein b. 1559
m. Johann Mecklenburg b. 1558 (2g-gson of Casimir IV)
25. Adolphus Mecklenburg b. 1588
26. Adolphus Mecklenburg b. 1658
m. Christiane Schwarzburg, q.v.
27. Karl Mecklenburg b. 1707
28. Sophia Mecklenburg b. 1733
29. Adolphus of Cambridge b. 1774
30. Mary of Cambridge b. 1833
31. Mary of Teck b. 1867
32. King George VI
33. Queen Elizabeth I
34. Charles of Wales
35. William Arthur Philip Louis b. 1982


Following are paths to the wives of Kings Christian I
and Fredrik I. The path to Dorothea Hohenzollern is
just as short as to her husband; the path to
Sophia of Pomerania slightly longer.

1. Charles Great of Franks d. 814
2. Louis I the Pious d. 840
3. Lothar I of Lotharingia d. 855
4. Ermengarde of Lorraine
5. Reginar I de Hainault d. 916
6. Reginar II de Hainault d. 932+
7. Reginar III de Hainault d. 973
8. Lambert I of Brabant d. 1015
9. Lambert II of Brabant d. 1062
10, Adelheid of Louvain d. ca 1083
11. Adelheid of Weimar d. ca 1100
m. Albrecht of Ballenstedt
12. Otto Ballenstedt Duke of Anhalt d. 1123
13. Albrecht I von Brandenburg d. 1170
14. Bernhard III d'Ascanie of Sacony d. 1212
15. Albrecht I d'Ascanie of Sacony d. 1261
16. Albrecht II of Saxe-Wittenburg d. 1298
m. Agnes Gertrude Habsburg
17. Rudolf I of Saxe-Wittenburg d. 1356
18. Wenceslas Elector of Saxony d. 1388
19. Rudolf III Elector of Saxony d. 1419
20. Barbara d' Ascanie d. 1465
m. John `the Alchemist' Hohenzollern d. 1464
21. Dorothea Hohenzollern d. 1495
m. Christian I King of Denmark, q.v.

16. Albrecht II of Saxe-Wittenburg d. 1298
17. Anne of Saxe-Wittenburg 1282-1327
18. Johann I/IV von Mecklenburg-Stargard d. 1392
19. Ulrich I von Mecklenburg-Stargard d. 1417
20. Heinrich von Mecklenburg-Stargard d. 1466
21. Madeleine von Mecklenburg-Stargard d. 1532
22. Wolfgang I of Barby 1502-1565
23. Jobst III of Barby 1544-1609
24. Albrecht Friedrich of Barby 1597-1641
25. Antonie Sibylle of Barby 1641-1684
26. Christiane Schwarzburg-Sondershausen 1681-1751
m. Adolphus Mecklenburg, q.v., b. 1658

3. dau of Louis I the Pious d. aft 841
4. Ranulf I of Aquitaine d. 866?
5. Ranulf II of Aquitaine d. 890
6. Ebles Manzer of Aquitaine d. ca 933
7. William III of Aquitaine d. 963
8. William IV of Aquitaine d. 995
9. William of Poitou & Aquitaine d. 1030
m. Emma of Blois (gdau of Heribert II d. 943)
10. Agnes of Poitou d. 1077
11. Judith(?) of Swabia
12. Sophia of Hungary
13. Heinrich I of Berg-Schelklingen d. 1132
14. Salome of Berg-Schelklingen d. 1144
m. Boleslaw III of Poland
(g-gson of Richeza of Pfalz-Lorraine, q.v.)
15. Kasimir II King of Poland d. 1194
16. Konrad I Piast Duke of Masowski d. 1247
17. Kasimir I of Kujavia d. 1267
18. Euphemia Piast d. ca 1307
19. Anastasia of Halicz d. 1365?
20. Juliana de Tver d. 1392
21. Wladislaw II of Poland d. 1434
22. King Casimir IV of Poland 1427-1492
23. Anne of Poland b. 1476
24. Sophia of Pomerania b. 1498
m. Fredrik I of Denmark, q.v.


James Dow Allen

Ian Fettes

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Ian Fettes » 11 des 2007 09:45:05

Hi James,

I think some confusion has occurred due to generation numbering. Mine
starts at 0 and yours from 1. Hence my 33 and your 34 will be the same.

I have compared the details you listed against my data and am OK with all
except the link between 11 and 12 in the last section. I have nothing to
validate that link.

Cheers,

Ian


----- Original Message -----
From: "James Dow Allen" <jdallen2000@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 3:20 PM
Subject: Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlemagne)


On Dec 10, 3:28 pm, "Ian Fettes" <fett...@st.net.au> wrote:
Generation Number paths
33 5
...
43 220219948
44 277293189
45 275327280
...

I'm glad to see my earlier estimates "vindicated". Although
I'm sure the details of our databases are quite different,
the "shape" of your results with median/mode near 44.4
duplicates mine remarkably. In my earlier list of reasons why
others produced lower estimates, I probably omitted an
important reason: the shorter paths are easier to find.

What are the 33-link paths? I have shorter "improbable"
paths, but when I tell the software to show only "probable"
paths, the shortest I see are some 34-link paths.
Here they are. (Please tell me of any mistakes!)

snip

3. dau of Louis I the Pious d. aft 841
4. Ranulf I of Aquitaine d. 866?
5. Ranulf II of Aquitaine d. 890
6. Ebles Manzer of Aquitaine d. ca 933
7. William III of Aquitaine d. 963
8. William IV of Aquitaine d. 995
9. William of Poitou & Aquitaine d. 1030
m. Emma of Blois (gdau of Heribert II d. 943)
10. Agnes of Poitou d. 1077
11. Judith(?) of Swabia
12. Sophia of Hungary
13. Heinrich I of Berg-Schelklingen d. 1132
14. Salome of Berg-Schelklingen d. 1144
m. Boleslaw III of Poland
(g-gson of Richeza of Pfalz-Lorraine, q.v.)
15. Kasimir II King of Poland d. 1194
16. Konrad I Piast Duke of Masowski d. 1247
17. Kasimir I of Kujavia d. 1267
18. Euphemia Piast d. ca 1307
19. Anastasia of Halicz d. 1365?
20. Juliana de Tver d. 1392
21. Wladislaw II of Poland d. 1434
22. King Casimir IV of Poland 1427-1492
23. Anne of Poland b. 1476
24. Sophia of Pomerania b. 1498
m. Fredrik I of Denmark, q.v.


James Dow Allen


Marcus Aurelius

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av Marcus Aurelius » 12 des 2007 20:41:02

I belong to the Colonial Order of the Crown (descendants of the
Emperor Charlemagne).
I, also, belong to the Somerset Chapter Magna Charta barons based upon
descent from the Magna Charta barons (father and son) who had the last
name of Bigod. The same were descendants of the Emperor Charlemagne.
I've seen the genealogy proving the same.

wjhonson

Re: Descents From Charlemange

Legg inn av wjhonson » 12 des 2007 22:55:05

On Dec 12, 11:35 am, Marcus Aurelius <alexander...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I belong to the Colonial Order of the Crown (descendants of the
Emperor Charlemagne).
I, also, belong to the Somerset Chapter Magna Charta barons based upon
descent from the Magna Charta barons (father and son) who had the last
name of Bigod. The same were descendants of the Emperor Charlemagne.
I've seen the genealogy proving the same.

------------------------------
You mean this descent?
http://www.countyhistorian.com/cecilweb ... of_Norfolk

Will Johnson

wjhonson

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av wjhonson » 13 des 2007 22:16:04

On Dec 10, 9:20 pm, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
1. Charles Great of Franks d. 814
2. Pepin King of Italy d. 810
3. Bernard King of Italy 797-818
4. Pepin II de Peronne
5. Herbert I de Vermandois d. 902
6. Kunigunde de Vermandois

James Dow Allen

What is the source for A) stating that Herbert had a daughter named
Cunigunde; B) stating that some woman named Cunigunde married Udo
Count of Wetterau (Welterau); C) stating that some woman Cunigunde was
the mother of Herbert the son ?

I believe all three of these seperate statements lack proof, but I'm
willing to be corrected without too much complaint.

Will Johnson

Peter Stewart

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av Peter Stewart » 13 des 2007 22:27:40

"wjhonson" <wjhonson@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7ffe7e4d-61dd-43bf-98d8-df2ee7d37c2d@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 10, 9:20 pm, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

1. Charles Great of Franks d. 814
2. Pepin King of Italy d. 810
3. Bernard King of Italy 797-818
4. Pepin II de Peronne
5. Herbert I de Vermandois d. 902
6. Kunigunde de Vermandois

James Dow Allen

What is the source for A) stating that Herbert had a daughter named
Cunigunde; B) stating that some woman named Cunigunde married Udo
Count of Wetterau (Welterau); C) stating that some woman Cunigunde was
the mother of Herbert the son ?

I believe all three of these seperate statements lack proof, but I'm
willing to be corrected without too much complaint.

You are correct, all three statements lack proof. We are told by Flodoard
that Udo was married to a paternal aunt of Hugo, archbishop of Rheims, whose
father Heribert II of Vermandois was most probably son of Heribert I.

However, we don't know for certain this lady's name was Cunegunde, or that
she and Udo were parents of the other Heribert, count palatine.

Peter Stewart

wjhonson

Re: Albert's agnatic and uterine ancestry (Paths to Charlema

Legg inn av wjhonson » 13 des 2007 22:30:04

On Dec 10, 9:20 pm, James Dow Allen <jdallen2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
13. Beatrix von Hallermund d. 1221?
14. Burchard von Oldenburg d. 1233
15. Heinrich VI von Oldenburg d. 1270+
16. Hedwig von Oldenburg
m. Christian III von Oldenburg d. 1323+
17. Johann II von Oldenburg d. 1316+
18. Konrad I von Oldenburg d. 1347
m. Ingeborg Holstein


Rather than Konrad dying *in* 1347, I believe he was living in 1347.
Which of course is a bit anti-climatic as his son Christian V was
"born about 1360"

CF http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.ph ... 9&tree=LEO


Will Johnson

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»