Numbers and Charlemagne

[Leo van de Pas]

Apparently (someone else's educated guess) there are about 43 generations of descendants. In my system I can only display and count 26 generations. At this moment I have recorded 20,374 descendants over those 26 generations. I made a temporary file for these 26 generations and I came to 8,461 pages. Which is pretty horrendous.

I am still adding information to the earlier generations and intend to make a file again of 15 generations, which is one more than what Brandenburg has.
Then if anyone is interested I will make it available again.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia

[Denis Beauregard]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2007 11:57:37 +1100, "Leo van de Pas"
<[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.medieval:

Apparently (someone else's educated guess) there are about 43 generations of descendants. In my system I can only display and count 26 generations. At this moment I have recorded 20,374 descendants over those 26 generations. I made a temporary file for these 26 generations and I came to 8,461 pages. Which is pretty horrendous.

I think Le Sang de Charlemagne has more than that but I have
no figure. It is using a Henry-style numbering so I can't
count the number of descendants on each generations. But from
the average number of people on each page and the number of
pages, one could make this estimate.


Denis

--
0 Denis Beauregard -
/\/ Les Français d'Amérique du Nord - http://www.francogene.com/genealogie--quebec/
|\ French in North America before 1722 - http://www.francogene.com/quebec--genealogy/
/ | Maintenant sur cédérom, début à 1770 (Version 2008)
oo oo Now on CD-ROM, beginnings to 1770 (2008 Release)

[Gjest]

If you call Charlemagne himself generation #1, the current generation
is #43. I get this from my adopted daughter's well documented descent
from Charlemagne. She was born 1972 and was in #42, so most of the
members of #43 are in their teens.

[Monica Kanellis]

Hi Rob,

I just counted one of mine and make it 36. Does that make me really old?
Wonder if something got muddled up.

MK

On Dec 20, 2007 4:02 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

If you call Charlemagne himself generation #1, the current generation
is #43. I get this from my adopted daughter's well documented descent
from Charlemagne. She was born 1972 and was in #42, so most of the
members of #43 are in their teens.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Leo van de Pas]

Dear Monica,

This Rob had figured it out correctly, in the record I found Charlemagne was
shown as generation 1.

Whatever generation you belong to has nothing to do with whether you are old
or young, as desecendants of eldest and youngest siblings will confuse the
numbering of later generations.

For instance Queen Elizabeth II's eldest grandchild Peter Phillips is 30
years old (not yet a father, a slow learner but only this week another
grandson of the Queen was born and by the time this new grandson has a
child, Peter Phillips could be a grandfather.

It happens that someone, already a grandfather, is producing more children,
and grandchildren are older than children......

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Monica Kanellis" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Numbers and Charlemagne

Hi Rob,

I just counted one of mine and make it 36. Does that make me really old?
Wonder if something got muddled up.

MK

On Dec 20, 2007 4:02 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

If you call Charlemagne himself generation #1, the current generation
is #43. I get this from my adopted daughter's well documented descent
from Charlemagne. She was born 1972 and was in #42, so most of the
members of #43 are in their teens.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Monica Kanellis]

Thanks Leo,

I was wondering if it might be off, but I looked for the shortest one, so
perhaps it is not unusual.

best,

MK

On Dec 20, 2007 6:41 PM, Leo van de Pas <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Monica,

This Rob had figured it out correctly, in the record I found Charlemagne
was
shown as generation 1.

Whatever generation you belong to has nothing to do with whether you are
old
or young, as desecendants of eldest and youngest siblings will confuse the
numbering of later generations.

For instance Queen Elizabeth II's eldest grandchild Peter Phillips is 30
years old (not yet a father, a slow learner but only this week another
grandson of the Queen was born and by the time this new grandson has a
child, Peter Phillips could be a grandfather.

It happens that someone, already a grandfather, is producing more
children,
and grandchildren are older than children......

With best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Monica Kanellis" <[email protected]
To: <[email protected]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Numbers and Charlemagne


Hi Rob,

I just counted one of mine and make it 36. Does that make me really old?
Wonder if something got muddled up.

MK

On Dec 20, 2007 4:02 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:

If you call Charlemagne himself generation #1, the current generation
is #43. I get this from my adopted daughter's well documented descent
from Charlemagne. She was born 1972 and was in #42, so most of the
members of #43 are in their teens.

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
[email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message

[Gjest]

On Dec 20, 3:41 pm, "Leo van de Pas" <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Monica,

This Rob had figured it out correctly, in the record I found Charlemagne was
shown as generation 1.

Whatever generation you belong to has nothing to do with whether you are old
or young, as desecendants of eldest and youngest siblings will confuse the
numbering of later generations.

For instance Queen Elizabeth II's eldest grandchild Peter Phillips is 30
years old (not yet a father, a slow learner but only this week another
grandson of the Queen was born and by the time this new grandson has a
child, Peter Phillips could be a grandfather.

It happens that someone, already a grandfather, is producing more children,
and grandchildren are older than children......

I have an ancestor (b. 1801) with a son born in 1871, a grandson born
in 1873, and a great-grandson born in 1875. You can get generation
offsets in very short amounts of time.

taf