I am descended from royalty and so are you...

SnakHistory at 30,000 feet: The Big Picture

Bliv bruger af LibraryThing, hvis du vil skrive et indlæg

I am descended from royalty and so are you...

Dette emne er markeret som "i hvile"—det seneste indlæg er mere end 90 dage gammel. Du kan vække emnet til live ved at poste et indlæg.

jan 11, 2018, 3:52am

Strikingly counterintuitive that even the most remote tribesman of the Amazon rainforest or Australian aborigine had an ancestor in common with all living humans a mere 3600 years ago.

jan 11, 2018, 5:55am

I still can't quite get my head around the concept of mitochondrial Eve - every human alive today has a common ancestor of just one single woman alive 200k years ago.

But yes finding a royal ancestor in a family tree is remarkably easy if you can find records that go back a few hundred years.

jan 11, 2018, 11:01am

I must be the one person that can't. I can follow different branches of my genealogy back to 1600 and no kings or queens. My wife is, distantly of course, and that's her basis for the requirement I genuflect when I enter her presence. And she is, "She who must be obeyed", so that makes sense.

jan 11, 2018, 12:38pm

>4 pmackey: You are descended from royalty. You just don’t have the data to know from which or to prove it.

jan 11, 2018, 12:44pm

>3 reading_fox: As long as you understand that she was not the progenitor of all humans, just the most recent ancestor of all females. And that who that individual was changes over time as lines die out. And that there where many other women alive at the time who have contributed genetically to living people today. So the concept has its limitations as far as interpretation.

jan 11, 2018, 2:44pm

>6 stellarexplorer: Can we correct that to the most recent matrilinial ancestor of all females? Otherwise at some point you may be talking about someone's paternal grandmother, and you get your mitochondria from your mother's mother's mother's ... ad infinitum.

jan 11, 2018, 3:15pm

>7 Cynfelyn: Thank you. Clarification appreciated!

jan 11, 2018, 3:40pm

>4 pmackey: Are you really sure every father of record was really the person who impregnated the mother?

jan 11, 2018, 10:57pm

Relatives on several continents organize and research our "tree" at geni.com, and though I only dabble in such things ... I have been amazed at the number of "Royals" who are listed as distant relatives: Charlemagne being only one. What is confusing, however, is that coming at the same person from different angles occasionally reveals strange peculiarities. Thus it's only natural to roll your eyes, a bit, when a computer suggests Queen Elizabeth is a long, lost, distant cousin.

For instance ... one source lists Charlemagne as my first cousin 37 times removed, but while checking just now ... geni also claims he's my 33rd Great Grandfather. Can he be both, are geni's computers hopelessly confused, or is the whole field a scam.

Two days ago, while researching Duke (and once nominal King of Norway), Skule Bardsson of Rein, Geni's computer strongly suggested he's my 20th Great Grandfather. However, his sister is listed as a Great-Grandmother, and not through incest, either.

So don't believe everything you read.

jan 16, 2018, 11:53am

>9 MarthaJeanne: Absolutely! None of my ancestors would do anything unsavory or disreputable. LOL.

I can only trace my father's ancestry by name (Mackey) to the mid-1800s. One branch of my father's family (my great grandmother Gibbs has traced the lineage back to Germany in the 1600s. Intriguing to think what an English family was doing in Germany at that time. I think most likely because they were merchants, dissenters, or English Civil War related... but it's all speculation.

Still, while I'm confident Charlemagne is in there somewhere, no one of note has turned up in either my father or mother's families that I can find. No known kings, queens.... Sigh.

jan 19, 2018, 9:25pm

PMackey ...Just as some of the present British Royal Dynasty's roots lie solidly in German territory, perhaps your German ancestors emigrated to Britain.

Redigeret: jan 29, 2018, 6:04am

>12 Rood: Yes, I can see a credible thread in Ancestry.com that a branch of the family was in Germany, just not why. Imagination fills in blanks. :)

Redigeret: jan 29, 2018, 2:10pm

My family has a family tree right back to Charlemagne. The trick is that it's two frames on top of each other. The top one goes from Charlemagne to two dozen people. The bottom one--of which there are two dozen versions--goes from one of those to your ancestor. Ta-da!

That said, my father traced us back, and Anna Comnena is my 30X aunt. I find that pretty fun.

Redigeret: jan 30, 2018, 6:22pm

Tim ... According to Geni.com, Theodora, Anna Komnene's sister, is my 24th Great Grandmother. Might she also be your GGMother? Anna is listed as my 25th Great Aunt.

A year ago I followed another famiily line from Norway through Kiev and Constantinople to the last Persian Dynasty, prior to the invasion of Persia by Mohammed's grandson, Husayn Ibn Talib, who is said to have taken the late Shah's daughter (Auletena Shahrbanu Binte Yazdegird) as one of his (many?) wives. It was the death of Huysayn at Karbala on 10 October 680 which split the Mohammedan world into two warring factions: the Sunni and the Shia. Geni suggests the Shah's daughter is my third cousin, 46 times removed.

Don't know what others might think but I find being distantly related to Mohammed to be both unbelievably improbable and wildly hilarious. The thing is ... it puts an entirely new light on history, and on Mohammedanism.

jan 31, 2018, 12:55am

Is this a comedy thread?

Redigeret: jan 31, 2018, 7:21am

Yeah, okay.

If my family is to be believed, we go back to Jonathan Edwards (the preacher), Aaron Burr (yes, that one), and Sir Francis Drake.

Difficulty on the last one is he was a Lothario with kids in every port he stopped, with no proof of paternity...

Also of difficulty, my family research ends about the 1300s because the records burned in unexplained fires and other occurrences.

mar 5, 2018, 6:07pm

>16 LolaWalser: Is this a comedy thread?

You might think so, Lola, when you take the opportunity to follow the complicated royal lines through history, as demonstrated by the thoroughly documented diagrams painstakingly illustrated at this fellow's fascinating link: