Man says he goes back to William the Conqueror

[Minoosh]

Almost: she gave birth suspiciously shortly after he got her back from that rival Khan.

And the 2 Khans undoubtedly had a common ancestor. Plus, the descendants of cuckoo in Genghis Khan's nest probably had descendants who married into the line of descendants of Genghis Khan, meaning the cuckoo's descendants may well be direct descendants of Genghis Khan.

I'm not sure what that proves.

Here is something kind of off-topic but you may well know: How is it that 2 major conquerors of China ended up becoming Chinese? Mongols and Manchus were just subsumed into the Chinese population, it seems.

 

[Vixen]

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"?!





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






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






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.






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







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).







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.

Why ten generations? What is it about this number that catches your imagination?

 

[MikeG]

......... their minds are bright enough to grasp, "you have two parents, four grandparents, eight great grandparents, etc., etc" Really? You don't say!

How is it then that everyone else has grasped this, and you haven't? Keep going with that sequence. Keep going until there are more ancestors than there are people in Europe at the time. I really don't understand how anyone struggles with such a simple concept.

 

[MikeG]

Why ten generations? What is it about this number that catches your imagination?

Classic! Avoid the point entirely, and make a spurious comment about something that isn't even in the quote.

 

[Tolls]

How is it then that everyone else has grasped this, and you haven't? Keep going with that sequence. Keep going until there are more ancestors than there are people in Europe at the time. I really don't understand how anyone struggles with such a simple concept.

But royalty wouldn't lower itself to have children with the hoi polloi!
That seems to be the limit of Vixens argument.

 

[Belz...]

Why ten generations? What is it about this number that catches your imagination?

Wow that is a pretty fantastic dodge.

Why do you even post here if you're not going to address people's points and just post nonsense instead?

 

[Porpoise of Life]

But royalty wouldn't lower itself to have children with the hoi polloi!
That seems to be the limit of Vixens argument.

And she seems to miss that even if kings and queens would exclusively marry other royalty, it only takes one cousin, nephew, bastard or whatever marrying lower nobility (or a commoner) or one rape of a miller's daughter for tens of thousands of commoners to be able to trace their ancestry to an earlier king in the line, after only a few generations.

And after enough generations, even without assuming some weird randomised mating system, the entirety of a population will be descents of every single individual from an earlier generation that still has living descendants.

 

[zooterkin]

And she seems to miss that even if kings and queens would exclusively marry other royalty, it only takes one cousin, nephew, bastard or whatever

Not to mention sister or younger brother.

There's also the existence of the concept of morganatic marriage, which demonstrates that marriage with commoners was not unknown in Continental Europe (leaving aside the fact that marriage is not a requirement for procreation). In the UK, there's never been any legal restriction on royalty marrying commoners, and it's happened many times over the centuries.

 

[Vixen]

It simply doesn't work that way. For example, I am related to every single member of the Swedish nobility of C16. All of them seemed to have had concubines. Take King John III of Sweden (who of course, is a distant cousin). He had a concubine called Karin Hansdottir, with whom he had three illegitimate children who survived infancy. He was unable to marry her, as she was not of the nobility. His brother, Erik XIV likewise had three illegitimate daughters with Agda Persdottir (a commoner). Like King Gustav (Erik and John's father) they could only marry other nobles (or lose their own nobility or royalty). They also need to have a male heir-apparent. So they paid off their mistresses. Agda got a castle in Kalmar and arranged marriage to one of Erik's courtiers. Karin likewise, was given some grand estates by John (when he dumped her to marry Princess Katarina Jagonellica) and an arranged marriage with first his chamberlain who sadly got executed, and then the castellan of one of his castles.

Rogue King Erik XIV did get his way and married a commoner who became Queen Consort (if only for two months before Erik was deposed) Karina Månsdottir, whose father was a tavern keeper. Erik is a cousin (less so than John III who was a full-blooded Leijonhufvud/Lowenhaupt) despite having a mother from Saxony. I show zero relationship to Karina Månsdottir, although I am related to her children because of Erik, and because she later married a Tott (noble)


I am a cousin (11th) of Karin Hansdotter, but not at all to the two men she was married to after being pensioned off by John. The second one, Lars Hordeel, was ennobled afer their marriage. He was made a knight (Boije) being a rare case of a commoner given this honour. He became a district judge of an entire region. I am not related to him at all (apart from by marriage). Karin was the illegitimate daughter of a noble woman named Ingeborg Tott (which explains her being a cousin).

I have zilch relationship to Agda Persdottir, but I do to her children with Erik and also her children with her arranged husband, a Swedish nobleman named Fleming.

My relationship to John III and Charles IX (brothers) is stronger than that of Erik's (different mother). This is because King Gustav (Vasa) was a minor noble from a couple of generations prior and married into the powerful Stures and Leijonhufvuds. The stronger relationship comes with John and Charles because the Leijonhufvuds are an ancient noble Swedish family, which of course, I am connected to, and less so to the Saxony bunch (Erik's maternal nobility).

This was C16. Now here is the thing. If I am a cousin or whatever of the aforementioned Swedish nobles and royals and this has happened purely because everybody from that part of the world is related, how come I have zero relationship to the ones who were not nobles (e.g., Karin's first and second husbands) as after all, they go back to C16 and have had plenty of time to mix? I should show cousinship to all of them, not just the nobles and the royals. It cannot be said their family tree is unknown.

 

[Vixen]

Wow that is a pretty fantastic dodge.

Why do you even post here if you're not going to address people's points and just post nonsense instead?

You mean, London John has no answer.

 

[erwinl]

It simply doesn't work that way. For example, I am related to every single member of the Swedish nobility of C16. All of them seemed to have had concubines. Take King John III of Sweden (who of course, is a distant cousin). He had a concubine called Karin Hansdottir, with whom he had three illegitimate children who survived infancy. He was unable to marry her, as she was not of the nobility. His brother, Erik XIV likewise had three illegitimate daughters with Agda Persdottir (a commoner). Like King Gustav (Erik and John's father) they could only marry other nobles (or lose their own nobility or royalty). They also need to have a male heir-apparent. So they paid off their mistresses. Agda got a castle in Kalmar and arranged marriage to one of Erik's courtiers. Karin likewise, was given some grand estates by John (when he dumped her to marry Princess Katarina Jagonellica) and an arranged marriage with first his chamberlain who sadly got executed, and then the castellan of one of his castles.

Rogue King Erik XIV did get his way and married a commoner who became Queen Consort (if only for two months before Erik was deposed) Karina Månsdottir, whose father was a tavern keeper. Erik is a cousin (less so than John III who was a full-blooded Leijonhufvud/Lowenhaupt) despite having a mother from Saxony. I show zero relationship to Karina Månsdottir, although I am related to her children because of Erik, and because she later married a Tott (noble)


I am a cousin (11th) of Karin Hansdotter, but not at all to the two men she was married to after being pensioned off by John. The second one, Lars Hordeel, was ennobled afer their marriage. He was made a knight (Boije) being a rare case of a commoner given this honour. He became a district judge of an entire region. I am not related to him at all (apart from by marriage). Karin was the illegitimate daughter of a noble woman named Ingeborg Tott (which explains her being a cousin).

I have zilch relationship to Agda Persdottir, but I do to her children with Erik and also her children with her arranged husband, a Swedish nobleman named Fleming.

My relationship to John III and Charles IX (brothers) is stronger than that of Erik's (different mother). This is because King Gustav (Vasa) was a minor noble from a couple of generations prior and married into the powerful Stures and Leijonhufvuds. The stronger relationship comes with John and Charles because the Leijonhufvuds are an ancient noble Swedish family, which of course, I am connected to, and less so to the Saxony bunch (Erik's maternal nobility).

This was C16. Now here is the thing. If I am a cousin or whatever of the aforementioned Swedish nobles and royals and this has happened purely because everybody from that part of the world is related, how come I have zero relationship to the ones who were not nobles (e.g., Karin's first and second husbands) as after all, they go back to C16 and have had plenty of time to mix? I should show cousinship to all of them, not just the nobles and the royals. It cannot be said their family tree is unknown.

You have a relationship to the children, but not to the mother of said children?
How does that work?

 

[Roboramma]

EDIT: Porpoise of Life just made clear that I'd missed something obvious, so I'll just delete that poorly thought out post...

 

[Porpoise of Life]

It works if you're related to the father instead.

But Vixen again mixes up not being able to trace your ancestry to a certain individual, and the certainty of not being related.
Also, Charlemagne lived in the 8th century. That's 800 additional years of exponential growth of the number of ancestors.
So not being related to everyone alive in the 16th century doesn't refute the argument about how we're related to everyone from the 8th century.

 

[LondonJohn]

It works if you're related to the father instead.

But Vixen again mixes up not being able to trace your ancestry to a certain individual, and the certainty of not being related.
Also, Charlemagne lived in the 8th century. That's 800 additional years of exponential growth of the number of ancestors.
So not being related to everyone alive in the 16th century doesn't refute the argument about how we're related to everyone from the 8th century.

It's amusing, isn't it, to observe someone who doesn't know what they're talking about pronouncing with certitude - based on, it would appear, nothing more than the combination of a (bogus) argument from incredulity and a profound lack of understanding of statistics and genetics

 

[MikeG]

It simply doesn't work that way. For example, I........

Nothing after that point is worth reading. You don't understand the principles, have no grasp of maths or statistics, and eschew logical argument. Blather away with your family stories. They just demonstrate your lack of understanding.

 

[jimbob]

It simply doesn't work that way. For example, I am related to every single member of the Swedish nobility of C16. All of them seemed to have had concubines.

True and not surprising

Take King John III of Sweden (who of course, is a distant cousin). He had a concubine called Karin Hansdottir, with whom he had three illegitimate children who survived infancy. He was unable to marry her, as she was not of the nobility. His brother, Erik XIV likewise had three illegitimate daughters with Agda Persdottir (a commoner). Like King Gustav (Erik and John's father) they could only marry other nobles (or lose their own nobility or royalty).

Not surprising - but think through the consequences. How many of these illegitimate children had children and how many of these there are good records for their great grandchildren

They also need to have a male heir-apparent. So they paid off their mistresses. Agda got a castle in Kalmar and arranged marriage to one of Erik's courtiers. Karin likewise, was given some grand estates by John (when he dumped her to marry Princess Katarina Jagonellica) and an arranged marriage with first his chamberlain who sadly got executed, and then the castellan of one of his castles.

Not sure where this is going, but still...

Rogue King Erik XIV did get his way and married a commoner who became Queen Consort (if only for two months before Erik was deposed) Karina Månsdottir, whose father was a tavern keeper. Erik is a cousin (less so than John III who was a full-blooded Leijonhufvud/Lowenhaupt) despite having a mother from Saxony.

You are starting to confuse documented lineage with actual kinship here

I show zero relationship to Karina Månsdottir, although I am related to her children because of Erik, and because she later married a Tott (noble)

And here is where you fall over. On many levels

You are in effect claiming that you and her husband share a common ancestor. That is almost certainly true.

However I *really* doubt that you can trace all your ancestors to the 16th Century - and even if the spouses of the mothers were documented, in that time, there is probably some bastardy.

I am a cousin (11th) of Karin Hansdotter, but not at all to the two men she was married to after being pensioned off by John. The second one, Lars Hordeel, was ennobled afer their marriage. He was made a knight (Boije) being a rare case of a commoner given this honour. He became a district judge of an entire region. I am not related to him at all (apart from by marriage). Karin was the illegitimate daughter of a noble woman named Ingeborg Tott (which explains her being a cousin).

I have zilch relationship to Agda Persdottir, but I do to her children with Erik and also her children with her arranged husband, a Swedish nobleman named Fleming.

My relationship to John III and Charles IX (brothers) is stronger than that of Erik's (different mother). This is because King Gustav (Vasa) was a minor noble from a couple of generations prior and married into the powerful Stures and Leijonhufvuds. The stronger relationship comes with John and Charles because the Leijonhufvuds are an ancient noble Swedish family, which of course, I am connected to, and less so to the Saxony bunch (Erik's maternal nobility).

This was C16. Now here is the thing. If I am a cousin or whatever of the aforementioned Swedish nobles and royals and this has happened purely because everybody from that part of the world is related, how come I have zero relationship to the ones who were not nobles (e.g., Karin's first and second husbands) as after all, they go back to C16 and have had plenty of time to mix? I should show cousinship to all of them, not just the nobles and the royals. It cannot be said their family tree is unknown.

The two highlighted parts are wrong.

The first because of the second. You don't know all your ancestors to the 16th Century. If you did, you'd probably have to be even more inbred than the Hasburgs.

Or these

It works if you're related to the father instead.

But Vixen again mixes up not being able to trace your ancestry to a certain individual, and the certainty of not being related.
Also, Charlemagne lived in the 8th century. That's 800 additional years of exponential growth of the number of ancestors.
So not being related to everyone alive in the 16th century doesn't refute the argument about how we're related to everyone from the 8th century.

It's amusing, isn't it, to observe someone who doesn't know what they're talking about pronouncing with certitude - based on, it would appear, nothing more than the combination of a (bogus) argument from incredulity and a profound lack of understanding of statistics and genetics

Nothing after that point is worth reading. You don't understand the principles, have no grasp of maths or statistics, and eschew logical argument. Blather away with your family stories. They just demonstrate your lack of understanding.

 

[Vixen]

You have a relationship to the children, but not to the mother of said children?
How does that work?

Through King John III, hello? Their father.

 

[Vixen]

Danny Dyer descendant of William the Conqueror is hired by BBC history department.

The ancestry show Who Do You Think You Are? revealed last year that Dyer was a descendant of William the Conqueror and Thomas Cromwell.

In his new show the actor will explore 800 years of history by living in the style of some of his forebears. He will be seen eating sheep’s tongue as the Vikings did, donning a ruff for an Elizabethan banquet and learning how to hunt.


He said: “I’m still in shock at the fact that I’m related to such important people. I’ve had a ball getting to know them. It was a nutty experience.”

 

[apollo16uvc]

I dont really care, how much does lineage matter? Its what you do, not where you came from.

 

[Woolgatherer]

I'm a descendant of Christian Viking Gamel or so I've been told.