View Single Post
Old 15th May 2019, 04:44 AM   #256
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,010
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
On a television programme recently, about DNA, Justin Berkmann (of MInistry of Sound fame) said he was related to royalty. When asked who, he replied, Edward I, and that he went back to William the Conqueror.

How meaningful is being a 'fourth cousin once removed'?

Is 'going back to William the Conqueror' anything exceptional?

If you have a European noble somewhere in your ancestry in the past 300 years (~10 generations) you're almost certainly descended from John I Lackland, because he had five quite fertile kids who lived in five distinct areas of Europe and their children were prize catches for noble houses throughout the continent. John Lackland was a great-great-grandson of William the Conqueror.

Statistically you'd expect this to be true for any European or American by now. If not it will be within a generation or so.

Here's another thought experiment: suppose every descendant of William the Conqueror had 2 children who lived to procreate, and had them at an average age of 30 years. Rounding down that makes 31 generations, a theoretical total of over 2 billion people. There would be some imbreeding, but the average was certainly above 2 children too. William the Conqueror had seven children, one of his daughters gave birth to 11 children, five of whom ruled various fiefs in Europe. His other children procreated too, this was just the most impressive one of them.

Find me someone of European ancestry who can prove he's not related to William the Conqueror and we can talk.

لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه

Last edited by McHrozni; 15th May 2019 at 04:53 AM.
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top