U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Old 05-14-2013, 10:35 PM
Location: Pennsylvania
1,699 posts, read 1,833,815 times
Reputation: 1125


Charlemagne’s DNA and Our Universal Royalty – Phenomena: The Loom

I think that the national geographic author's use of "ancestor" in regard to Charlemagne specifically may be a little loose and ‘relative’ would be a better word when throwing out specific names like Charlemagne (less sensational, though!), but the actual idea behind the research is interesting.

My non-expert/casual observer reading of the study is that if I, a random Euro guy, met a nice random European gal (hypothetically of course since I’m already married) and we wanted to make sure our kids wouldn’t be ‘inbred’, and we went about tracing our paternal/maternal family trees (so to speak) to make sure we didn’t share a “dad” or “mom” (and we’d have to trace each parents’ parent, thus quickly branching outward), we’d, sooner or later, find a person we could *both* call a father or mother in some respect to a mother or father of another mother or father, etc., and that person will have lived no more than 1,000 years ago (and if I met Euro gal B and did the same detective work we’d hit on a common ancestor, too, although the first hit might be a different ancestor than gal A, and then maybe only 400 years ago instead of 900, or whatever). Of course, *that* shred ancestral father or mother and his or her mate probably wouldn’t call the same person “mom” – they’d have to trace *their* ancestors back some indeterminate length of time before hitting on another common ancestor, etc., etc.

At least, that’s what I’m taking away from skimming the actual research report and reading the article linked to above. I’m still a little confused and trying to come to process the idea because, although I know all humans are related (and really we’re related to cats and dogs, etc. – and didn’t we all come from an explosion of energy from the big bang?…all are one!), the relatively short time spans of 1,000 or 3,500 years is on the face of it hard to believe when thinking of "ancestor" rather than just "relative".

Any thoughts from others?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 05-15-2013, 12:28 AM
Location: Georgia, USA
21,627 posts, read 26,346,709 times
Reputation: 26766
Since cousin marriages were not uncommon not so many years ago, you do not have to go very far back to find areas in your own family tree where you yourself have the same set of "parents" in two lines. I only have to go back to 1750, a set of fifth great grandparents. That is the only set I've found, so far.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 05-16-2013, 08:04 PM
Location: Little Rock AR USA
2,457 posts, read 6,120,245 times
Reputation: 1864
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.

Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Genealogy
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top