Man says he goes back to William the Conqueror

[lionking]

Hahahahahaha!

Excuse me one moment while I choose

1) the combination of a) an actual understanding of the underlying statistics involved here, b) an actual understanding how genetic analysis can effectively prove descendency, and c) the entire weight of (very serious) academic understanding and literature in this area

over

2) Your entirely reflexive, plucked-from-thin-air, argued-from-incredulity, wholly-unsupported, intellectually-deficient opinion that it's "patronising garbage, best reserved for impressionable schoolkids".


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! (But do carry on with this embarrassing cavalcade of bat poo if that's what floats your boat!)

You forgot to add “it’s just common sense”.

I’m enjoying the laughs as well.

 

[MikeG]

.........All Europeans do not have the same genes as each other.........

I'll give you a clue, Vixen. Other than identical twins, no-one has the same genes as each other.

 

[Roboramma]

Because it is obvious to me that 'all Europeans are direct descendants of Charlemagne' is patently false. You would need to go back to say circa 300AD, and that person is more than likely to not be anyone particularly famous at all.

Why? Because for every 'king', 'royal' or 'noble', there are several million 'ordinary' folk. By those odds, 1/>1m, your chances of being royal are actually low probability, not high.

You aren't making sense. All Europeans are also descendants of most ordinary folk living at the same time as Charlemagne.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

And again, being descendent from someone genetically is not the same as being able to trace your ancestry in such a specific way that you could be considered 'a noble'.

So don't worry Vixen, admitting that you only have an argument from incredulity won't affect your super special status

 

[Vixen]

Possibly not, based on precedent. So, what is 0.5^10?

Seriously? You think basic maths presents a difficulty to an accountant..?

(I understand that for you this appears advanced.)

 

[Vixen]

Vixen,

I have to ask, what's your desired end-state here? You've brought stuff like this up before in relationship to other royal families, some installed in modern monarchies and some now deposed. Should any of this have some impact in how Europe (as an American, the winners of the luck sperm club have no impact on our governance, as flawed as that arrangement may be right now) govern themselves? Do you think some families should be deposed and other granted the "crown" however that is defined? I understand people having an interest in where they come from but you interest in royalty seems beyond that. Should the current royals in the UK be deposed and replaced based on this research? If so, why?

I am just chatting. Class is something that obsesses the British mind. Hence, the tv programme in which a guy bragged he was related to royalty. (Edward I.)

I was just wondering if others thought this was anything even worth mentioning.

I have an interest in sociology and have been puzzling what drives this fetish for royalty and nobility. We are a class-ridden society here in the UK, so it's not a big surprise. People love programmes such as 'Keeping Up Appearances'* and 'To the Manor Born' (neither of which I have watched, beyond ten minutes) so it obviously means something to the average Brit**.

Depose the monarchy? It's a sixteenth century anachronism, but then I quite like the medieval ages, so I'm OK with it.

*Popular even in Finland.

**I had a mother-in-law who was exactly like Hyacinth Bucket.

 

[Vixen]

And again, being descendent from someone genetically is not the same as being able to trace your ancestry in such a specific way that you could be considered 'a noble'.

So don't worry Vixen, admitting that you only have an argument from incredulity won't affect your super special status

Va-voom! Let's shake hands...er...cousin...?

 

[Belz...]

Commonsense tells you.

BWA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

Common sense. Oh, you're hilarious. 'Common sense' is used to justify all sorts of crap, pseudoscience and woo. You need to do better than that.

Just because as a male you have a near 50% chance of being an 'R' haplotype, it doesn't necessarily follow the guy sitting next to you is a near cousin even if he does have the same haplotype. R goes back about eight thousand years. A fourth or fifth cousin by definition only goes back four or five generations. It's crap logic.

No, it isn't. Not based on what you just said.

 

[LondonJohn]

Seriously? You think basic maths presents a difficulty to an accountant..?

(I understand that for you this appears advanced.)

See, this now appears to me like an ongoing attempt at obfuscation and bluster.

What is 0.5^10, Vixen? Simple question.

 

[Myriad]

Because it is obvious to me that 'all Europeans are direct descendants of Charlemagne' is patently false. You would need to go back to say circa 300AD, and that person is more than likely to not be anyone particularly famous at all.

Why? Because for every 'king', 'royal' or 'noble', there are several million 'ordinary' folk. By those odds, 1/>1m, your chances of being royal are actually low probability, not high.

Spectacular example of "thinking in polarities" exhibited here. Despite the accepted fact that every person has a huge number of ancestors if you go back many generations, somehow it must remain the case that some people are descended from royalty while most are descended from commoners. Thinking in polarities blinds Vixen to the obvious conclusion that everyone is descended from both.

 

[Vixen]

See, this now appears to me like an ongoing attempt at obfuscation and bluster.

What is 0.5^10, Vixen? Simple question.

Oh please. Look it up on google, if you can't do in your head, on the spot.

What does this have to do with anything any way?

 

[Vixen]

Spectacular example of "thinking in polarities" exhibited here. Despite the accepted fact that every person has a huge number of ancestors if you go back many generations, somehow it must remain the case that some people are descended from royalty while most are descended from commoners. Thinking in polarities blinds Vixen to the obvious conclusion that everyone is descended from both.

No ****, Sherlock?

 

[Belz...]

Seriously? You think basic maths presents a difficulty to an accountant..?

(I understand that for you this appears advanced.)

And yet you couldn't answer the question.

 

[Myriad]

No ****, Sherlock?

Q.E.D.

 

[Belz...]

No ****, Sherlock?

Is that more of your 'common' sense?

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh please. Look it up on google, if you can't do in your head, on the spot.

What does this have to do with anything any way?

So no, you don't know.

What it has to do with anything, Vixen, is that it's just one simple manifestation of the statistical understanding required to be able to figure all of this out properly. If you did that calculation, you'd realise that even only 10 generations removed, any one of those 10th-gen ancestors only contributes to less than 1/1000 of your own genome. So even for someone who, say, brags that he/she is a descendant of someone famous/powerful from the 18th Century, the reality (genetically speaking) is that less than 1/1000 of that person was contributed by said famous/powerful ancestor.

And when you understand that, it makes it (perhaps....) easier to understand how when one goes back 30 or 40 generations, the genetic dilution becomes truly immense. And when the dilution effect is overlayed onto the network effect of the coupling permutations of societies, it's easy to arrive at the rational - and entirely correct - conclusion that, for example, everyone with European ancestry is directly related to every European who a) was alive in (say) 850AD, and b) has a descendency line reaching to the present day. Someone such as Charlemagne clearly meets both those criteria (as, of course, do millions of other Europeans alive at the same time....). And therefore every European alive today (i.e. with European ancestry) is a direct descendent of Charlemagne. (As indeed they are also a direct descendent of every other one of those millions of Europeans alive in 850AD who have a descendency line reaching to the present day).

 

[LondonJohn]

No ****, Sherlock?

Read Myriad's post again. Very carefully.

 

[MikeG]

Time to take a deep breath, Vixen, then admit you've got this one completely wrong. For a person with a supposed career in numbers, you don't seem to have grasped some really simple number concepts here.

 

[Vixen]

So no, you don't know.

What it has to do with anything, Vixen, is that it's just one simple manifestation of the statistical understanding required to be able to figure all of this out properly. If you did that calculation, you'd realise that even only 10 generations removed, any one of those 10th-gen ancestors only contributes to less than 1/1000 of your own genome. So even for someone who, say, brags that he/she is a descendant of someone famous/powerful from the 18th Century, the reality (genetically speaking) is that less than 1/1000 of that person was contributed by said famous/powerful ancestor.

And when you understand that, it makes it (perhaps....) easier to understand how when one goes back 30 or 40 generations, the genetic dilution becomes truly immense. And when the dilution effect is overlayed onto the network effect of the coupling permutations of societies, it's easy to arrive at the rational - and entirely correct - conclusion that, for example, everyone with European ancestry is directly related to every European who a) was alive in (say) 850AD, and b) has a descendency line reaching to the present day. Someone such as Charlemagne clearly meets both those criteria (as, of course, do millions of other Europeans alive at the same time....). And therefore every European alive today (i.e. with European ancestry) is a direct descendent of Charlemagne. (As indeed they are also a direct descendent of every other one of those millions of Europeans alive in 850AD who have a descendency line reaching to the present day).

Oh dear. I really could not care less about a supposed connection to Charlemagne (what is YOUR connection to him, anyway, other than a tree-hugging patronising, "we are all humans related to all other humans"). I have never been the slightest interested in French or German history, so only you are upset by it (and Rutherford seems to be upset about Christopher Lee's professed descent).

OK, so you managed to calculate that one has circa 1,000 grandparents from
ten generations ago. However, I have identified literally dozens of direct grandparents from ten and beyond generations ago, not just one. These would be XXXX which you would never have heard of and would have no interest in. Remember, they all married into each other's families, so this went on for generations, not just one. Meaningless to you, and unsurprising, given the geography and history, but for me, yes, there is pride. For example, I was reading a book this evening by an eminent historian, Michael Roberts, who sadly, is deceased - otherwise I would want to write to him praising his dry ascerbic wit and sharp insights - titled, The Early Vasas - A history of Sweden, 1523 - 1611, Cambridge University Press, 1968 wherein he says of XXXX:

"But in 1565 began a series of brilliant naval victories by a great Admiral, XXXX'... p. 217

Roberts was 'Professor of Modern History, The Queens University , Belfast'. So that is discerning praise indeed.


Do you think people really are so thick they don't understand how progeny works, and they need patronising smiley gits like Brian Cox giving us condescending soundbites, like a Blue Peter presenter, as if only their minds are bright enough to grasp, "you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc., etc" Really? You don't say!

 

[LondonJohn]

Oh dear. I really could not care less about a supposed connection to Charlemagne (what is YOUR connection to him, anyway, other than a tree-hugging patronising, "we are all humans related to all other humans"). I have never been the slightest interested in French or German history, so only you are upset by it (and Rutherford seems to be upset about Christopher Lee's professed descent).

Uhhhh say what now? Did you actually read my post properly? What on Earth has "French and German history" got to do with the actual point of my post? And where the heck did you get the notion that I'm "upset by it"?!

OK, so you managed to calculate that one has circa 1,000 grandparents from ten generations ago.

Not a difficult calculation. But one which seems to have eluded you.....

However, I have identified literally dozens of direct grandparents from ten and beyond generations ago, not just one.

Yes. Well you would have had thousands of "direct grandparents" from that number of generations back (why are you using "grandparents"??)

These would be XXXX which you would never have heard of and would have no interest in. Remember, they all married into each other's families, so this went on for generations, not just one. Meaningless to you, and unsurprising, given the geography and history,

Again, my post had nothing to do with the "meaningless" nature (or otherwise) of any given person's ancestors. It had a lot more to do with the fact that when one has, say, 10,000 direct ancestors to choose from (as indeed one would when going back 14-15 generations), there always exists a significant likelihood that one will discover that a few of those 10,000 were notable figures of some sort.

but for me, yes, there is pride.

That's marvellous. What of the other 9,997 of your direct ancestors from that era?

For example, I was reading a book this evening by an eminent historian, Michael Roberts, who sadly, is deceased - otherwise I would want to write to him praising his dry ascerbic wit and sharp insights - titled, The Early Vasas - A history of Sweden, 1523 - 1611, Cambridge University Press, 1968 wherein he says of XXXX:

"But in 1565 began a series of brilliant naval victories by a great Admiral, XXXX'... p. 217

Roberts was 'Professor of Modern History, The Queens University , Belfast'. So that is discerning praise indeed.

But yet you strangely choose to belittle or disregard the academic standing of all those eminent geneticists and statisticians who support the conclusion that you "argue" against (seemingly on the basis of nothing more than your own personal hunch).

Do you think people really are so thick they don't understand how progeny works, and they need patronising smiley gits like Brian Cox giving us condescending soundbites, like a Blue Peter presenter, as if only their minds are bright enough to grasp, "you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc., etc" Really? You don't say!

Oh I think it's abundantly clear from this thread alone that some people "really are so thick that they don't understand how progeny works", especially when dealing with the exponentially increasing numbers of direct ancestors one has when going back multiple generations, and how this must necessarily lead to convergence of ancestors.