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.
A Yale Statistician, Dr. Joseph Chang, claims that everyone with a European ancestor is related to English Royalty, each having a common ancestor who lived about 1400 A.D.
And that the most recent common ancestor of all six billion people on earth today probably lived about the time of Christ.
Apparently it's mathematically certain, but where's the common sense? Can you believe it?
Can anyone explain the math in grassroots English? What's the probability that everyone reading this will believe it?
Comments invited.
"The idea that virtually anyone with a European ancestor descends from English royalty seems bizarre, but it accords perfectly with some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations—two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents—but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors—a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived...
MOD EDIT: C-D Members may only quote two sentences from any source. The first paragraph was allowed to stand in this case ONLY - as it completes a thought...
"The idea that virtually anyone with a European ancestor descends from English royalty seems bizarre, but it accords perfectly with some recent research done by Joseph Chang, a statistician at Yale University. The mathematics of our ancestry is exceedingly complex, because the number of our ancestors increases exponentially, not linearly. These numbers are manageable in the first few generations—two parents, four grandparents, eight great-grandparents, sixteen great-great-grandparents—but they quickly spiral out of control. Go back forty generations, or about a thousand years, and each of us theoretically has more than a trillion direct ancestors—a figure that far exceeds the total number of human beings who have ever lived...
Makes sense to me. According to genealogy, I'm connected to a King in England...and when you think about the 'trillion' direct ancestors that you had 1,000 years ago, makes complete sense.
Although, I'm sure there are people who don't have it either.
I don't buy this. There are a lot of people who want to claim some sort of royal lineage. Far more people have to be descended from the much more numerous peasants.
I don't believe in what I call "goal-oriented genealogy." That is trying to connect one's family to royalty or anyone famous or noteworthy.
A true genealogist looks for what ever is actually THERE and accepts who he finds.
I don't buy this. There are a lot of people who want to claim some sort of royal lineage. Far more people have to be descended from the much more numerous peasants.
I don't believe in what I call "goal-oriented genealogy." That is trying to connect one's family to royalty or anyone famous or noteworthy.
A true genealogist looks for what ever is actually THERE and accepts who he finds.
Nicely stated!
Not to mention that those Royals had many relations that were never confirmed OUTSIDE the castle!
people's ancestors were saints, sinners, stupid, intelligent, royalty, and peasants. there are so many ancestors that it doesn't really make much practical sense to even make that point unless they were just stating that humans are related.
I think most genealogists have family stories of royal ancestors. Sourcing that is usually hopeless. Always an interesting tidbit to include under family stories, but since I try to find good sources for my research, and most serious researchers do, they usually have to remain just that: stories.
I think most genealogists have family stories of royal ancestors. Sourcing that is usually hopeless. Always an interesting tidbit to include under family stories, but since I try to find good sources for my research, and most serious researchers do, they usually have to remain just that: stories.
With the people I've found on my search, and some of the stories I've heard -- I'd guess if I was related to Royalty, it would have to be King George III..... you know -- the Mad King George....
If you just work the math out, virtually everybody in a population that interbreeds is related within about 20-30 generations. Your family tree 20 generations back has one million people in it. Back 30 generations it has one trillion people in it. Assuming 20 years per generation, 30 generations is 600 years. The estimates that I've seen are that the population of Europe was about 60 million after the plague years in the mid 1300s.
If you're from Europe, you're ultimately related to all other Europeans. Probably multiple times.
Fifty years ago a cousin on my fathers side compiles a glowind account of the family history that allegedly is traced back to Eric the Red. There are no sources and virually no way to verify any information before 1633 when the first Russell arrived at Boston allegedly from England. No town, no ships name mentioned. .
I did extensive research in the British Isles. What the experts say today is the English scribes of old who were paid to compile the family history lied. If a man thought his famiy descended from James V, it is exactly what the scribes prepared for him. Me thinks if my ancestry could be proven without doubt to Charles II, it would never be acknowledged by the royals.
Before I was ever able to understand my earliest European ancestry, it was necessary for me to understand the movement of civilization and how invasions and land grabs between cousins, combined with a heavy church influence shaped history beginning about 300 AD to the present. It really didn't come together until I studied the history of the Catholic Church and read a novel by Sir Walter Scott called Quentin Durward (short title) written in 1823 that I was able to undesrtand how some of the great historical events - like the Golden Bull - quietly and without fanfare changed the course of history. I was actually surprised to learn how much the German Empire influenced Western Europe in the Middle-Ages and earlier.
Americans have strange notions about royalty. Some get giddy when they find it in their lineage and some do go out intentionally looking for it. Others are shocked as if they may have to sit on a throne someday or they act like they might receive a call any minute from cousin Liz to come spend the weekend at Buckingham. Still others discount it completely. I think it has to do with the fact that the concept of royalty itself is so foreign to us and most Americans don't comprehend it fully, esp. the historical aspects.
Royal descent really is not all that bizarre. I would say that most Americans who had English or Scotch ancestors in the US prior to 1800 would probably have multiple royal descents. The fact is, kings had children, like any other person. Those children had children and so on. By the third generation or so, those second and third and fourth sons were marrying into local families. They formed the upper and middle classes. True, because of that, their heritage was usually much better recorded than those of the masses who may not have had access to scribes and clergy on a level that the middle and upper classes did. That's why its a boon to a genealogist when he stumbles across a royal line--it is usually well-documented for many generations back and saves you the work. That does not make one royal--LOL!
Because of the male primogeniture inheritance laws in England and Scotland, this class who were descendants of kings but no longer royal or even noble made up a large part of the first wave of immigrants to the US. They had the money and/or means to do so and there was nothing to keep them in the old countries. They came here like everyone else--to start a new life. "Peasants" did not start arriving in the US en masse until later, although that does not mean that the "royal" descendants who arrived early did not have "peasant" descents as well, because they did have those too. This group was already a very mixed lot and formed part of the original base of the human melting pot that is the United States.
I think that when genealogists talk about their royal lines some people think they are being snooty or something but to most genealogists I know it is just another interesting facet of something that does balloon exponentially. Just names. Names you know a little more about than others, but just another name to add to the chart.
I have many royal descents but really I couldn't care less. I am more proud of my ancestors who endured slavery and poverty in this country, those who worked their entire lives to carve out and build this country from the wilderness it was; and on the other hand, those who had this country ripped from them and were forced to become something they weren't. Genealogy is often bitter and ironic and shows us what a small world it really is.
So, if you had English or Scotch ancestors in the US pre-1800, I would bet money that you will find a king if you dig deep enough--probably Edward I, II, or III in England or else one of the Scotch kings--they were much more willing to marry among the local nobility than were the English.
Happy digging!
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 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.
