Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum Man says he goes back to William the Conqueror

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 9th September 2018, 09:54 PM #81 arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,381 Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Well, the math required to get to a trillion is seriously flawed, obviously. With William as Gen Zero, by about the sixth or seventh generation we'd be in the tens of thousands.... if they exclusively out-bred. They didn't. By that generation they were boinking distant cousins so many many of those pairs were "ones" and not "twos". The multiplicand is reduced exponentially, I'm sure. Right, but it still shows the exponential disaster in doing a naive calculation like that.
 9th September 2018, 11:26 PM #82 Roboramma Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 11,773 Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Well, the math required to get to a trillion is seriously flawed, obviously. With William as Gen Zero, by about the sixth or seventh generation we'd be in the tens of thousands.... if they exclusively out-bred. They didn't. By that generation they were boinking distant cousins so many many of those pairs were "ones" and not "twos". The multiplicand is reduced exponentially, I'm sure. The math is valid, it's just that many of those trillion people are the same person. As you say it's the fact that cousins mate that brings the total down, but you can also think of it as an individual being another person's descendant twice over if, for instance, he's related once through the maternal and once through the paternal line. The very fact that there aren't a trillion people just shows that everyone is related. __________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov
 10th September 2018, 12:28 AM #83 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 41,753 Originally Posted by Vixen What does Rutherford have to do with Berkmann's family tree? He is a geneticist, not a genealogist. And? No-one’s disputing that some people can trace their ancestry back to distant historic figures (leaving aside the lack of certainty regarding paternity). The question you asked was, is this unusual? That question was answered, but you don’t seem to grasp the fact that the answers given are based on research, not just a random guess. __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 Last edited by zooterkin; 10th September 2018 at 12:31 AM.
 10th September 2018, 01:18 AM #84 Lothian should be banned     Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: on the edge Posts: 14,152 Originally Posted by Roboramma The math is valid, it's just that many of those trillion people are the same person. As you say it's the fact that cousins mate that brings the total down, but you can also think of it as an individual being another person's descendant twice over if, for instance, he's related once through the maternal and once through the paternal line. The very fact that there aren't a trillion people just shows that everyone is related. Thinking about yourself is the easier way to understand it. Everyone* has 2 parents, each of them has 2 parents (making 4) they each have 2 parents (total 8). Each generation the number of ancestors doubles. Go back 5 Centuries (20 generations) and you have a million ancestors. 10 centuries (40) generations and you are up to a trillion. 40 generations to around 1000 CE and you have 2 to the power 40, 10 Duodecillion 0CE and you are up to 1 septillion (1 with 24 zeros) ancestors. at the start of the bronze age you had 10 Quattuordecillion (45 zeros) running around or given that is about 3 nonillion people per square meter of the earth perhaps running around is the wrong term. Clearly there needs to be some doubling up of branches on the ancestral tree. * except Norfolk. Last edited by Lothian; 10th September 2018 at 01:20 AM.
 10th September 2018, 03:49 PM #85 rjh01 Gentleman of leisure Tagger     Join Date: May 2005 Location: Flying around in the sky Posts: 24,325 I was thinking how we can make it so that someone can say he is descendant of someone like King William and be one of only a handful of people who can claim that. The answer is that if all of his ancestors, going back to that person, are male. __________________ This signature is for rent.
 10th September 2018, 05:00 PM #86 arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,381 Originally Posted by rjh01 I was thinking how we can make it so that someone can say he is descendant of someone like King William and be one of only a handful of people who can claim that. The answer is that if all of his ancestors, going back to that person, are male. That's the "traditional" way of doing it.
 10th September 2018, 07:25 PM #87 Myles Scholar   Join Date: Mar 2018 Location: from Nowhere Posts: 92 Originally Posted by Vixen Is 'going back to William the Conqueror' anything exceptional? If someone said they are distantly related to former president Jimmy Carter, of course it also means they are equally related to Billy and their crazy-ass sister as well, so there is always a neutralization factor to be considered.
 11th September 2018, 05:10 AM #88 GnaGnaMan Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,410 Originally Posted by Vixen Hmm, no. Brian Sykes did a demographical study of British genes (some years ago, so his study is archaic, given the advance in DNA studies since then). The expectation was that Brits would no longer have the original Briton gene, because of all the invasions over the centuries (Romans, Saxons, Normans, Danes, some Vikings, etc), so the surprise was, this was still a dominant gene, especially in the peripheries, such as Wales, Scotland and Norn Iron. The revised theory was that the invaders were predominantly male, so thus had to procreate with the indigneous population, who were female, and thus, that line remained relatively pure. There is no such thing as a Briton gene. This doesn't make sense at all. __________________ It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
 11th September 2018, 05:29 AM #89 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 78,650 Originally Posted by Vixen Oh dear. Your knowledge of the world hangs on the words of a populist scientist who churns out mass produced paperbacks patronising people and believes his own opinion as fact. Here's what is said about 'world leading expert' Rutherford: The fact he writes columns for the GRAUNIAD claiming 'everybody is descended from Charlemagne', one begins to suspect he's another quasi-communist spreading the news of 'egalitarianism for all'. We are all part banana and part bonobo, goes this argument. That is literally one of the weakest arguments I've ever read. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 11th September 2018, 05:31 AM #90 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 78,650 Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life Yes, I think I'll believe the person who thinks mermaids are real over the one with the PhD in genetics on this one. Wait, mermaids? __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 11th September 2018, 08:20 AM #92 porch Muse     Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 575 i have often noticed that ancestors never boast of the descendants who boast of ancestors i would rather start a family than finish one blood will tell but often it tells too much archy
 11th September 2018, 08:33 AM #93 jimbob Uncritical "thinker"     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 20,024 Originally Posted by Belz... That is literally one of the weakest arguments I've ever read. Originally Posted by Belz... Wait, mermaids? Yes, and you can now recalibrate your "weakest argument you have ever seen" meter __________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
 11th September 2018, 09:07 AM #94 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 78,650 Sorry, I can't set it that low. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 11th September 2018, 04:57 PM #95 Vixen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 14,924 Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Oh stop! Do the math. Let Wm the Conjurer be generation 0. Or Charlemagne. Or Julius Caesar. See Lothian's calculations above and do the math. He's allowed for a very conservative 2 offspring per "issue". In the case of Willie the C, that's rather conservative. While they locked away most of the girl children one of them had 8 kids and one of Williams king-children had 11. Ergo Wm. the Conqueror had 19 grandchildren, not the 4 Lothian is allowing! Add two offspring every 25 years for the number of the previous generation that are still of breeding age. You can make a spreadsheet for it. Even reducing the population of England by half (which it wasn't) for the Black Death, Bubonic Plague, WWI+Spanish Flu, WWII..... There would be 100 billion distant relatives of The Conqueror in the current generation. @Lothian - if you take the numbers we can verify in those first couple of generations after Hastings, the figure is more like a trillion!!! No, you do the maths. If nobles bred with the hoi-polloi, those offspring did not get the royal name, ie., it was not handed down. Don't believe me? Take a look at the Swedish royal family. Sweden's King Erik XIV at war with Frederick II of Denmark in C16 and Ivan IV 'the Terrible' are all cousins of each other. King Karl IX who succeeded brother John III was the UNCLE of King Sigismund III whom he deposed as heir to the Swedish trone. Now, Erik had at least four illegitimate children (maybe many more), as did his brothers and cousins. They all had concubines whom they had children with, who were then pensioned off as soon as they married 'proper' royalty. These children were not entitled to the name 'Vasa', or 'Leijonhufvud' or whatever, they were simply known as 'Eriksson', or 'Erikksdotter', etc. __________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
 11th September 2018, 05:02 PM #96 Vixen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 14,924 Originally Posted by Foolmewunz Well, the math required to get to a trillion is seriously flawed, obviously. With William as Gen Zero, by about the sixth or seventh generation we'd be in the tens of thousands.... if they exclusively out-bred. They didn't. By that generation they were boinking distant cousins so many many of those pairs were "ones" and not "twos". The multiplicand is reduced exponentially, I'm sure. I am sure there are a few million descendants of Charlemagne kicking around. However, I am sceptical that 720 million Europeans (the population of Europe today) are 'all descended from Charlemagne'. __________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb Last edited by Vixen; 11th September 2018 at 05:34 PM.
 11th September 2018, 05:07 PM #97 Vixen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 14,924 Originally Posted by zooterkin And? No-one’s disputing that some people can trace their ancestry back to distant historic figures (leaving aside the lack of certainty regarding paternity). The question you asked was, is this unusual? That question was answered, but you don’t seem to grasp the fact that the answers given are based on research, not just a random guess. Disagree. Anyone who has ever looked at lineages knows that many lines become extinct, so there are many people who once lived who left NO descendants. Even if a guy in Charlemagne's age had ten or twelve children, it still would not be unusual for that line to die out completely if, say (a) several never procreate each generation (b) the descendants are wiped out by something like the plague or syphilis or (c) by war. It was quite usual for the victorious army to completely massacre any remaining population when invading. You can't assume that people mate randomly, as there are all sorts of social factors that limit selection. __________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
 11th September 2018, 05:09 PM #98 Vixen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 14,924 Originally Posted by Lothian Thinking about yourself is the easier way to understand it. Everyone* has 2 parents, each of them has 2 parents (making 4) they each have 2 parents (total 8). Each generation the number of ancestors doubles. Go back 5 Centuries (20 generations) and you have a million ancestors. 10 centuries (40) generations and you are up to a trillion. 40 generations to around 1000 CE and you have 2 to the power 40, 10 Duodecillion 0CE and you are up to 1 septillion (1 with 24 zeros) ancestors. at the start of the bronze age you had 10 Quattuordecillion (45 zeros) running around or given that is about 3 nonillion people per square meter of the earth perhaps running around is the wrong term. Clearly there needs to be some doubling up of branches on the ancestral tree. * except Norfolk. A million ancestors hardly accounts for 721 million Europeans today. __________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
 11th September 2018, 05:12 PM #99 Vixen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 14,924 Originally Posted by rjh01 I was thinking how we can make it so that someone can say he is descendant of someone like King William and be one of only a handful of people who can claim that. The answer is that if all of his ancestors, going back to that person, are male. So you are referring to primogeniture inheritance laws? Truth is, no matter how many sons a man might have, only one could be heir to the throne, and only one could inherit the principal estate. It is erroneous thinking anyway, because everybody has two parents, not one. __________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
 11th September 2018, 05:13 PM #100 Vixen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 14,924 Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan There is no such thing as a Briton gene. This doesn't make sense at all. Take it up with Brian Sykes. __________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
 11th September 2018, 05:17 PM #101 Vixen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 14,924 Originally Posted by Belz... Again, NONE OF THIS disproves their claims. You're doing nothing but throwing ad hominems, except that they're so poorly constructed that you end up owning yourself. How about you try to produce ONE argument, one time? ETA: In fact, having now read the article in question, it seems that your objections can only stem from the fact that you haven't read it. The man is an EXPERT in the relevant field! It's only a fallacy if you appeal to an expert in an unrelated field. ****, you can't even get your fallacies straight. Here. Let me help you: That is a non sequitur. The claim 'shake hands with the person next to you because there is a 50% chance they are your cousin' is goobledgook rubbish. I know how the sleight of hand happens. The fact is there is a majority haplotype (I or R for men) and H for women. Thus by looking at haplotypes, people like Rutherford can make smart alec statements such as the above, as haplotypes originate from one common ancestor (or that's the theory). Problem is, these haplotypes go back eight to ten THOUSAND years, not 'to Charlemagne'. __________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
 11th September 2018, 05:19 PM #102 Vixen Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 14,924 Originally Posted by porch i have often noticed that ancestors never boast of the descendants who boast of ancestors i would rather start a family than finish one blood will tell but often it tells too much archy I have noticed that Abraham, David and Solomon boast of predicting as many descendants as stars in the sky. So modest. __________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
 11th September 2018, 07:55 PM #103 Retrograde Muse   Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Just downstream from the Big Tree Posts: 648 Quote: No, you do the maths. If nobles bred with the hoi-polloi, those offspring did not get the royal name, ie., it was not handed down. Quote: Truth is, no matter how many sons a man might have, only one could be heir to the throne, and only one could inherit the principal estate. It is erroneous thinking anyway, because everybody has two parents, not one. Quote: You can't assume that people mate randomly, as there are all sorts of social factors that limit selection. Didn't we have this discussion recently in another thread (or three)? And wasn't it pointed out repeatedly that chromosomes don't care about human inheritance laws - i.e., people inherit their genetic makeup from their parents, whether they're in a legally recognized union or not?
 11th September 2018, 08:47 PM #104 arthwollipot Observer of Phenomena     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Location, Location Posts: 60,381 Originally Posted by Retrograde Didn't we have this discussion recently in another thread (or three)? And wasn't it pointed out repeatedly that chromosomes don't care about human inheritance laws - i.e., people inherit their genetic makeup from their parents, whether they're in a legally recognized union or not? Right, and familial and legal inheritance cares not one whit for genetics.
 11th September 2018, 09:30 PM #105 jimbob Uncritical "thinker"     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 20,024 Originally Posted by Vixen A million ancestors hardly accounts for 721 million Europeans today. Yes, and then go back a further five centuries, and you are still not in the eighth century. __________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending
 11th September 2018, 11:27 PM #106 Porpoise of Life Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 4,740 Originally Posted by Vixen Take it up with Brian Sykes. See, now that's what an argument from authority looks like. 'I'm right because authority X says so too'. It's probably also a strawman because I don't believe that Dr. Sykes said there's something like 'the original Briton gene'
 12th September 2018, 12:31 AM #107 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 41,753 Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life See, now that's what an argument from authority looks like. 'I'm right because authority X says so too'. It's probably also a strawman because I don't believe that Dr. Sykes said there's something like 'the original Briton gene' And whatever he said, it was about a decade ago, which is a long time in the very fast-moving area of genetic research. __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20
 12th September 2018, 12:32 AM #108 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 41,753 Originally Posted by Vixen Disagree. Anyone who has ever looked at lineages knows that many lines become extinct, so there are many people who once lived who left NO descendants. Even if a guy in Charlemagne's age had ten or twelve children, it still would not be unusual for that line to die out completely if, say (a) several never procreate each generation (b) the descendants are wiped out by something like the plague or syphilis or (c) by war. It was quite usual for the victorious army to completely massacre any remaining population when invading. You can't assume that people mate randomly, as there are all sorts of social factors that limit selection. None of which has any bearing on the claims under discussion. __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20
 12th September 2018, 02:04 AM #109 Roboramma Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shanghai Posts: 11,773 Originally Posted by Vixen I am sure there are a few million descendants of Charlemagne kicking around. However, I am sceptical that 720 million Europeans (the population of Europe today) are 'all descended from Charlemagne'. Can you give a reason for your skepticism? __________________ "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." Isaac Asimov
 12th September 2018, 02:54 AM #110 Tolls Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 4,384 Originally Posted by Retrograde Didn't we have this discussion recently in another thread (or three)? And wasn't it pointed out repeatedly that chromosomes don't care about human inheritance laws - i.e., people inherit their genetic makeup from their parents, whether they're in a legally recognized union or not? Indeed we did. Vixen seems to have some issue with the whole nobility thing, considering the other thread all about Estonia or Latvia or whoever handing land back to the descendants of the former Prussian ruling class.
 12th September 2018, 04:03 AM #111 GnaGnaMan Graduate Poster   Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 1,410 Originally Posted by Vixen Take it up with Brian Sykes. I google (Bryan Sykes "briton gene") and this thread is the first hit. I don't think Sykes can be held responsible. __________________ It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
 12th September 2018, 04:42 AM #112 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 78,650 Originally Posted by Vixen The claim 'shake hands with the person next to you because there is a 50% chance they are your cousin' is goobledgook Why? Quote: Problem is, these haplotypes go back eight to ten THOUSAND years, not 'to Charlemagne'. And? __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 12th September 2018, 06:16 AM #113 Foolmewunz Grammar Resistance LeaderTLA Dictator     Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Pattaya, Thailand Posts: 39,911 I've traced my family back to Piltdown Man. __________________ Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele It's not that liberals have become less tolerant. It's that conservatives have become more intolerable.
 12th September 2018, 06:37 AM #114 Belz... Fiend God     Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: In the details Posts: 78,650 Originally Posted by Foolmewunz I've traced my family back to Piltdown Man. Pfft. That's nothing. I can trace mine right up to the earliest life forms on this planet. __________________ Master of the Shining Darkness "My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward
 12th September 2018, 06:39 AM #115 zooterkin Nitpicking dilettanteDeputy Admin     Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Berkshire, mostly Posts: 41,753 Originally Posted by Belz... Pfft. That's nothing. I can trace mine right up to the earliest life forms on this planet. I think FMW’s is the more extraordinary claim. __________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20
 12th September 2018, 06:40 AM #116 theprestige Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 31,739 Originally Posted by Belz... Pfft. That's nothing. I can trace mine right up to the earliest life forms on this planet. I go to back to the simplest life forms on the planet.
 12th September 2018, 06:49 AM #117 erwinl Master Poster     Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,181 Originally Posted by theprestige I go to back to the simplest life forms on the planet. I stayed there. Beat that! __________________ Bow before your king Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
 12th September 2018, 07:04 AM #118 crescent Master Poster     Join Date: Jul 2011 Posts: 2,896 Originally Posted by Vixen Disagree. Anyone who has ever looked at lineages knows that many lines become extinct, so there are many people who once lived who left NO descendants. Many of those "extinct" lines left a number of descendants through out of wedlock births, adultery, or morganatic marriages. Those decedents were ineligible to inherit much of anything or rule, but if we are discussing genetic lineages, they are still there.
 12th September 2018, 07:16 AM #119 Porpoise of Life Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 4,740 And even if there are currently no living descentants of those lineages (it happens), that doesn't apply to Charlemagne, because there are families who can trace their family tree back to him. So by Rutherford's calculations, everyone with Western European ancestry alive today is directly related to Charlemagne. And to every other person alive in Europe at that time (provided their lineage hasn't completely died out). And no, that does not mean a direct unbroken line of patrilineal descent. But it does mean that every one of us has as much of Charlemagne's genes in us as some German count who can trace his family tree all the way back to the Carolingians.
 12th September 2018, 07:53 AM #120 jimbob Uncritical "thinker"     Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 20,024 Originally Posted by Porpoise of Life And even if there are currently no living descentants of those lineages (it happens), that doesn't apply to Charlemagne, because there are families who can trace their family tree back to him. So by Rutherford's calculations, everyone with Western European ancestry alive today is directly related to Charlemagne. And to every other person alive in Europe at that time (provided their lineage hasn't completely died out). And no, that does not mean a direct unbroken line of patrilineal descent. But it does mean that every one of us has as much of Charlemagne's genes in us as some German count who can trace his family tree all the way back to the Carolingians. No it doesn't necessarily. Royal families tend to have family nets rather than family trees. Of course, so does everyone in this situation, but the mesh is pretty fine in European Royal families. That would mean that more of the ancestors (say by the fourth generation from Charlemagne) are direct descendants of Charlemagne than the average European. __________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

International Skeptics Forum