ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts
 


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.
Reply
Old 23rd October 2018, 05:04 PM   #201
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 62,037
Originally Posted by apollo16uvc View Post
I dont really care, how much does lineage matter? Its what you do, not where you came from.
It's much less important now in the post-aristocracy era, but it used to be a lot more important. It's still fascinating now, as evidenced by popular TV shows like Who Do You Think You Are.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiarii?
arthwollipot 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
Old 8th May 2019, 06:30 AM   #202
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,280
Yes, I know this is a necrothread.

Inspired by the new Royal baby, Dr. james Grime, calculated that the 'Identical Ancestors Generation' in Europe lived about 1300 years ago.
That means, that every single person alive in Europe at that time and whose line did not die out in the mean time is a direct ancestor to every single European alive today.

And since we know that Royalty can all trace their roots back to Charlemagne and his line thus didn't die out, this means that we are all related to that great man.

It's nice to have it explained this clearly.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl 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
Old 8th May 2019, 09:16 AM   #203
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,662
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Yes, I know this is a necrothread.

Inspired by the new Royal baby, Dr. james Grime, calculated that the 'Identical Ancestors Generation' in Europe lived about 1300 years ago.
That means, that every single person alive in Europe at that time and whose line did not die out in the mean time is a direct ancestor to every single European alive today.

And since we know that Royalty can all trace their roots back to Charlemagne and his line thus didn't die out, this means that we are all related to that great man.

It's nice to have it explained this clearly.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Exactly, it really isn't rocket science
__________________
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
jimbob is online now   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
Old 9th May 2019, 01:07 AM   #204
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,607
But, but, but...nobility wouldn't shag commoners!
(Or somesuch nonsense)
Tolls is online now   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
Old 9th May 2019, 02:57 AM   #205
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,999
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
It's much less important now in the post-aristocracy era, but it used to be a lot more important. It's still fascinating now, as evidenced by popular TV shows like Who Do You Think You Are.
Indeed, obviously all of our ancestors lived through interesting times at various points, but when you suddenly find a picture of your German-born great-grandmother with her two brothers, one in Wehrmacht uniform, the other in Kriegsmarine uniform, complete with swastika armband, it does tend to bring the history a bit closer to home.
KDLarsen 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
Old 9th May 2019, 10:56 AM   #206
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,488
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Yes, I know this is a necrothread.

Inspired by the new Royal baby, Dr. james Grime, calculated that the 'Identical Ancestors Generation' in Europe lived about 1300 years ago.
That means, that every single person alive in Europe at that time and whose line did not die out in the mean time is a direct ancestor to every single European alive today.

And since we know that Royalty can all trace their roots back to Charlemagne and his line thus didn't die out, this means that we are all related to that great man.

It's nice to have it explained this clearly.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
He uses a simple formula:

The number of generations to go back to where everybody is either an ancestor of everybody today, or of no one, is

Un = 1.77 * ln2n, where n is the population at the time of our most recent ancestor, ln2n generations ago (yes, this is slightly recursive)

He uses n = 65,000,000 as the population of Europe about 800, 900 years ago.

But that simple formula assumes that every child has parents picked at random from the entire land mass of Europe - which is FAR from realistic. Even if people can move physically across Europe without much trouble, most people in fact never do. Most parents are from geographically close birth places. This was even more the case in centuries past.

A more accurate model would model geographical distribution of populations, the relative separation between social classes (farmers would mostly marry farmers, or at most people with occupations common in villages, but hardly ever city merchants, officers, or indeed nobility). The separations between people are numerous - for any man in Europe 800 years ago, the number of available brides was not one half of 65,000,000, it was rather in the vicinity of, say, 65: Suitable age, suitable class, suitable closeness, and of course not already married.


I have done extensive family tree research on my father's family (while standing on the shoulders of industrious genealogists before me). I have gone through rather complete civil records from about 1814 to 1910. Here a few things I noticed:
  • I am missing very few people born before 1840, most of whom I could expect to die by 1910: Almost everybody stayed in a very closely circumscribed local region - the farm house of my Great-great-great-great-Grandfather, +/- 30 km, they married there, had children, and died there. Before WW1, almost nobody moved away from that area
  • Almost nobody married a person born from outside of that local region
  • The members of my family often married members of about a dozend other families (as identified by last name) - but in the same villages and towns, there were also other extended families that my family never married into!
  • The proportion of farmers is absolutely staggering.
  • In 80% of married couples, the husband was between abou 8 years older and 2 years younger than the wife.

These observation would, I think, typically hold in this form or some equivalent form for most populations everywhere. And each describes one way in which choosing a partner to have children with was extremely constraint and in stark contrast to the simple ln2n model the video describes.

I would not dare a guess as to how much these constraints delay the emergence (when going backwards in time) of the most recent ancestor, and then the generation of identical ancestors, but I think we can safely dismiss "1,300" years as a plausible estimate for the latter. At best, it illustrates the concept, and that these generations may be more recent than intuition would initially tell us. Just not that recent.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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
Old 9th May 2019, 12:13 PM   #207
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,488
I mentioned my Great-great-great-great-Grandfather in my previous post. His name was Gottfried (in German; Godfried, or Godfroid, depending on how French you speak).

He was born in 1752 in a village in what is now eastern Belgium, province of Liège, where French is the predominant language. His father was born near Malmedy, a bit to the north, and a village just south of Malmedy is in fact the place where my family name was generated. More on that later.

Back now to Gottfried: He married a woman, Maria Susanna, from a village not very far to the east, but already across a lingual border: German was (and still is) spoken there, predominantly. This was all before the French Revolution; the area was some part of the remnants of the Habsburg Reich - since the early 1700s "Austrian Netherlands", and within that part of the Duchy of Luxembourg - although I am having trouble figuring out the borders of that ... thing.

Anyway, Gottfried had 6 children that reached adult age, 4 boys (1 remained unmarried) and 2 girls. He was the first bearer of my family name in that German-speaking part of the area. He was mayor of the commune during the Napoleonic occupation, I suppose because he was fluent in French, the official language for acts the state. His oldest son also became mayor, later, after the Congress of Vienna had given the area to Prussia, and that oldest son had himself 10 sons in row, 8 of whom fathered children of their own. And thus, my family name spread rapidly in the villages around. I know of no less than 270 descendants of Gottfried who were alive in the year 1900, 63 years after Gottfried's death. 116 of those had my family name!

My own family tree currently has 1620 persons, 302 of those have my family name.

I owe great debt to another researcher, who is married to a woman with of family, with whom I share as most recent common patrilinear ancestor Gottfried's grandfather. The other researcher has almost 800 persons with my family name in his database.

I don't recall where I got that information from, but "it is estimated" that today there are about 1,000 persons with my family name.

And here I'll come back to where and how my family name came about, for all evidence indicates that it has been "invented" only once in the history of Europe, and all people with that name go back to a single person - 12 or 13 generations before me: A woman named Marie (French), or perhaps Maréie (Walloon).

I have no information on her life dates, but her husband is said do have died in 1550 or thereabouts, and to have been born before 1500. At that time, inherited, fixed family names were only starting to appear, and people were usually referred to by a christian name, followed by a reference to their father and/or a place name associated with them. So the husband was known as "Paul du Domos de Hedomont" (Paul of Thomas from Hédomont). It appears that Marie became a widow before (some of) her children were out of the house - perhaps she married a much older Paul? At any rate, her children were referred to as "... Marée de Hedomont", and soon after that, "de Hedomont" was dropped, "Marée", or "Mareis" morphed into "Marette" or "Maraite", and it's been the latter form for a long time now.

So, I know where and when my family name originated:
  • Where: In Hédomont, a village just south of Malmedy proper.
  • When: The seed was layed soon after 1550, the form was found soon after 1600 - about 400 years ago
Now, the thing is, in those ca. 400 years / 12 generaions that this name has existed, it hardly spread beyond the old Duchy of Luxemburg / modern province of Liège.

For more than a century, from 1815 to 1920, Malmedy and most of the other nearby places were Maraites had settled, belonged to Prussia. But this didn't lead to much migration from that area into the rest of Prussia. Only when this area became part of Belgium, there was some migration into Germany (that's how my grandfather moved away from his birth place, and my father was born in Germany): You see, Grandpa was one of six brothers (only sister died as an infant). Three of them were employed by the German railways, and they elected to stick with their employer and be German citizens - so they had to leave Belgium; and the other three were locally employed, and elected to stay and become Belgian citizens.

Another century has passed, and again, if you google heatmaps of my family name, you will find a massive amount in eastern Belgium, and only small sprinkles elsewhere.

I looked up my family name in the phone directories of Paris and Lyon - surely, some of the many members of my family who speak French might at long last trickle into neighboring France and and gravitate to the big cities? But I found none.

It's possible that the east end of Belgium - Malmedy, St. Vith, Burg Reuland - is pretty saturated with people descended from poor widow Maréie. But outside of that, our reach disappears. I doubt that in another 400 or 600 years, every person living in Romania, Sweden or Portugal will be a descendant of Maréie, even though Europe today is a lot more mobile than it was until the 19th century.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)

Last edited by Oystein; 9th May 2019 at 12:15 PM.
Oystein 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
Old 9th May 2019, 05:00 PM   #208
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
Yes, I know this is a necrothread.

Inspired by the new Royal baby, Dr. james Grime, calculated that the 'Identical Ancestors Generation' in Europe lived about 1300 years ago.
That means, that every single person alive in Europe at that time and whose line did not die out in the mean time is a direct ancestor to every single European alive today.

And since we know that Royalty can all trace their roots back to Charlemagne and his line thus didn't die out, this means that we are all related to that great man.

It's nice to have it explained this clearly.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
As the narrator says, the only royal connection they could find for commoners Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle was King Edward III.

Er...King Edward III goes right back to 1327. LOL. Even I have a connection to him:

Quote:
Edward III of England is your 8th cousin 16 times removed.
The common grandparent being:

Quote:
Richardis von Sponheim is your 22nd great grandmother.
She was born c.1063.

If that is the sole connection then that is pretty tenuous.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 9th May 2019 at 05:14 PM.
Vixen 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
Old 9th May 2019, 05:02 PM   #209
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by KDLarsen View Post
Indeed, obviously all of our ancestors lived through interesting times at various points, but when you suddenly find a picture of your German-born great-grandmother with her two brothers, one in Wehrmacht uniform, the other in Kriegsmarine uniform, complete with swastika armband, it does tend to bring the history a bit closer to home.
Yes, it hits home the different social mores.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 9th May 2019, 05:08 PM   #210
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
He uses a simple formula:

The number of generations to go back to where everybody is either an ancestor of everybody today, or of no one, is

Un = 1.77 * ln2n, where n is the population at the time of our most recent ancestor, ln2n generations ago (yes, this is slightly recursive)

He uses n = 65,000,000 as the population of Europe about 800, 900 years ago.

But that simple formula assumes that every child has parents picked at random from the entire land mass of Europe - which is FAR from realistic. Even if people can move physically across Europe without much trouble, most people in fact never do. Most parents are from geographically close birth places. This was even more the case in centuries past.

A more accurate model would model geographical distribution of populations, the relative separation between social classes (farmers would mostly marry farmers, or at most people with occupations common in villages, but hardly ever city merchants, officers, or indeed nobility). The separations between people are numerous - for any man in Europe 800 years ago, the number of available brides was not one half of 65,000,000, it was rather in the vicinity of, say, 65: Suitable age, suitable class, suitable closeness, and of course not already married.


I have done extensive family tree research on my father's family (while standing on the shoulders of industrious genealogists before me). I have gone through rather complete civil records from about 1814 to 1910. Here a few things I noticed:
  • I am missing very few people born before 1840, most of whom I could expect to die by 1910: Almost everybody stayed in a very closely circumscribed local region - the farm house of my Great-great-great-great-Grandfather, +/- 30 km, they married there, had children, and died there. Before WW1, almost nobody moved away from that area
  • Almost nobody married a person born from outside of that local region
  • The members of my family often married members of about a dozend other families (as identified by last name) - but in the same villages and towns, there were also other extended families that my family never married into!
  • The proportion of farmers is absolutely staggering.
  • In 80% of married couples, the husband was between abou 8 years older and 2 years younger than the wife.

These observation would, I think, typically hold in this form or some equivalent form for most populations everywhere. And each describes one way in which choosing a partner to have children with was extremely constraint and in stark contrast to the simple ln2n model the video describes.

I would not dare a guess as to how much these constraints delay the emergence (when going backwards in time) of the most recent ancestor, and then the generation of identical ancestors, but I think we can safely dismiss "1,300" years as a plausible estimate for the latter. At best, it illustrates the concept, and that these generations may be more recent than intuition would initially tell us. Just not that recent.
Good point. I have dozens and dozens of g^n grandparents who all seem to have been born and died within one particular area. The earliest all seem to be Swedish nobles (the military type) who established the estates and handed them down generation after generation. Despite being military, they were obliged by the King to cultivate the lands on their estates. Taxes were paid in the form of barrels of grain, tar and meat. (The nobles being tax-exempt but it was their job to collect them.)
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 9th May 2019 at 05:15 PM.
Vixen 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
Old 10th May 2019, 12:53 AM   #211
erwinl
Master Poster
 
erwinl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,280
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As the narrator says, the only royal connection they could find for commoners Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle was King Edward III.

Er...King Edward III goes right back to 1327. LOL. Even I have a connection to him:



The common grandparent being:



She was born c.1063.

If that is the sole connection then that is pretty tenuous.
But that's the entire point.
It only takes one person for there to be a link and thus be a descendant.

And yes. The link is tenous. But that is with every single person in your family tree, when more than, say, ten generations ago.
__________________
Bow before your king
Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"
erwinl 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
Old 10th May 2019, 01:24 AM   #212
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,607
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
  • I am missing very few people born before 1840, most of whom I could expect to die by 1910: Almost everybody stayed in a very closely circumscribed local region - the farm house of my Great-great-great-great-Grandfather, +/- 30 km, they married there, had children, and died there. Before WW1, almost nobody moved away from that area
  • Almost nobody married a person born from outside of that local region
Those almosts are the point.
Maybe not with this chaps formula, but the other research I've seen.
All you need is some "cross pollination" and bingo, you have genes spread across the continent.

Wars (especially the likes of the Thirty Years War) spread this stuff around quite nicely. Trade too. Most of it is not something you'd spot in a family tree either.
Tolls is online now   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
Old 10th May 2019, 02:33 AM   #213
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,488
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Those almosts are the point.
Maybe not with this chaps formula, but the other research I've seen.
All you need is some "cross pollination" and bingo, you have genes spread across the continent.

Wars (especially the likes of the Thirty Years War) spread this stuff around quite nicely. Trade too. Most of it is not something you'd spot in a family tree either.
All true, and I said I would not dare to venture a guess about how much the constraints delay the spread relativ to "this chap's formula".

I wrote on page 1 already that I remember having read a study - and perhaps it has even been referenced in this thread somewhere - that puts the last common ancestor of all humans back something like 5000 years - or 5000 BC? They modelled the rate of migration - with particular focus on the bottlenecks that geography provides (Australia! Americas!), but also within continents iirc, so I took that value as reasobly well founded. 5000 years is surprisngly recent, but still a lot more than what "this chap's formula" gives. Surely his formula is closer to reality within Europe than for the world, on account of most of the continent having been accessible most of the time for most who wanted to. But still ... constraints delay the process.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein 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
Old 10th May 2019, 02:54 AM   #214
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,662
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
All true, and I said I would not dare to venture a guess about how much the constraints delay the spread relativ to "this chap's formula".

I wrote on page 1 already that I remember having read a study - and perhaps it has even been referenced in this thread somewhere - that puts the last common ancestor of all humans back something like 5000 years - or 5000 BC? They modelled the rate of migration - with particular focus on the bottlenecks that geography provides (Australia! Americas!), but also within continents iirc, so I took that value as reasobly well founded. 5000 years is surprisngly recent, but still a lot more than what "this chap's formula" gives. Surely his formula is closer to reality within Europe than for the world, on account of most of the continent having been accessible most of the time for most who wanted to. But still ... constraints delay the process.
Yes, even from Tasmania to be ancestors of Amazonian rainforest dwellers and Kalahari bushmen.
__________________
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
jimbob is online now   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
Old 10th May 2019, 10:45 AM   #215
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
But that's the entire point.
It only takes one person for there to be a link and thus be a descendant.

And yes. The link is tenous. But that is with every single person in your family tree, when more than, say, ten generations ago.
Note the salient word 'link'. Grimes and Chang seem unable to tell us exactly what 'relationship' Kate and Meghan have with King Edward III.

Put it this way, a 'link' was found which dated back to circa 1327. No relationship has been found to any of today's Royal Families, aside from a vague 'link' to Eddie the third way back in 1327.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 10th May 2019, 10:55 AM   #216
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by Tolls View Post
Those almosts are the point.
Maybe not with this chaps formula, but the other research I've seen.
All you need is some "cross pollination" and bingo, you have genes spread across the continent.

Wars (especially the likes of the Thirty Years War) spread this stuff around quite nicely. Trade too. Most of it is not something you'd spot in a family tree either.
A typical size population in the Thirty Years War in northern Europe in the seventeenth century would be no more than circa two million. OK, so you have a nobleman, aristocrat or even a King or Prince (Princess, Queen?) fornicating with a local peasant outside of wedlock (as it was vanishingly rare they were allowed to marry). So we have one base child, or maybe even three, four, five, maybe even two dozen. 24 / 2,000,000 should tell you the probability the descendants of the remaining 1,999,976 people does not equate to 'everybody in Europe today is a Royal'.

Quite the reverse. The 24 base children will reproduce amongst their own classes and the aristocratic element is diluted significantly within three or four generations as to be vanishingly minute.

OTOH the offspring of the nobility, aristocracy and royalty marrying traditionally amongst themselves keep the so-called royal bloodline going.

Therefore, if royalty is predicated in keeping the bloodline regal, then it makes no sense to marry a commoner, as ipso facto it no longer remains royal.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 10th May 2019, 11:58 AM   #217
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
As to the OP, I suspect that boat has sailed away a goodly time ago!!!!!
fuelair 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
Old 10th May 2019, 06:45 PM   #218
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,000
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I have done extensive family tree research on my father's family (while standing on the shoulders of industrious genealogists before me). I have gone through rather complete civil records from about 1814 to 1910. Here a few things I noticed:
  • I am missing very few people born before 1840, most of whom I could expect to die by 1910: Almost everybody stayed in a very closely circumscribed local region - the farm house of my Great-great-great-great-Grandfather, +/- 30 km, they married there, had children, and died there. Before WW1, almost nobody moved away from that area
  • Almost nobody married a person born from outside of that local region
  • The members of my family often married members of about a dozend other families (as identified by last name) - but in the same villages and towns, there were also other extended families that my family never married into!
  • The proportion of farmers is absolutely staggering.
  • In 80% of married couples, the husband was between abou 8 years older and 2 years younger than the wife.

These observation would, I think, typically hold in this form or some equivalent form for most populations everywhere. And each describes one way in which choosing a partner to have children with was extremely constraint and in stark contrast to the simple ln2n model the video describes.
Interesting. We've traced my family back to the mid-1700s, and there was a lot of movement. They seem to have (maybe) been Huguenots, who moved from France to the Rhineland maybe in the early 1600's. They settled in and adopted German culture and language but kept the French name. My wife and I visited the ancestral German village a few years ago, there's a pair of wineries with our family name there. There still also seem to be people with the family name in France as well, although the name is a pretty common French word so it may have also been adopted by people not related to us.

Then off to Ukraine/Russian Empire in the late 1700's during the reign of Catherine the Great, along with many German people. They retained German language and culture there. Our family name shows up in cemeteries and parish baptism records there until the Russian revolution caused disruption.

So that's two big, long distance migrations in my early family tree, yet they were not royalty.

Then of course in the 20th century everybody went everywhere. My direct ancestors moved to Colorado from Ukraine, as did many German Russians. Others went to Germany prior to the first World War. The second World War saw many of the remaining German Russians sent off to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, while others went with the Nazis back to Germany. The remaining German Russians in the USSR finally abandoned the German heritage and adopted more Russian-sounding variations of the family names. Then more movement after the fall of the USSR, back to Ukraine or Germany.



Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
....does not equate to 'everybody in Europe today is a Royal'.
Is anybody arguing that? The point of contention seems to be that everybody has some royal ancestry, some common ancestry.
crescent 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
Old 10th May 2019, 11:37 PM   #219
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,324
Originally Posted by Oystein View Post
I would not dare a guess as to how much these constraints delay the emergence (when going backwards in time) of the most recent ancestor, and then the generation of identical ancestors, but I think we can safely dismiss "1,300" years as a plausible estimate for the latter. At best, it illustrates the concept, and that these generations may be more recent than intuition would initially tell us. Just not that recent.
The issues you bring up with the simplicity of the model are certainly valid, but I suspect that a more accurate model would give numbers much closer to his values than you would guess.

The reason is that there's a very counter-intuitive thing about networks that you don't need so many nodes or long distance connections to make them so called "small world" networks. The classic example is the 7 billion people on earth being connected through only six degrees of separation (actually apparently it's less than that now), in spite of most people's friends living in close proximity to them. Just as it only takes one acquaintance of a friend of mine who lives on the other side of the country to extend my network to that region, it only takes one pairing from different social classes to link those two branches of the network of ancestors.
__________________
"... 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
Roboramma 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
Old 11th May 2019, 08:44 AM   #220
Alice Shortcake
Graduate Poster
 
Alice Shortcake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,131
The "six degrees of separation" thing is fascinating, even if there's no blood relationship between you and a famous/notorious person. The good news is that thanks to my Great-great-aunt Amelia's mother-in-law Rosamond Dilke (nee Dixie) I have a connection to Oscar Wilde - Rosamond's brother Sir Alexander Dixie was married to Lady Florence Douglas, sister of the Marquess of Queensberry and aunt of Lord Alfred "Bosie" Douglas. The bad news is that someone who married into the Douglas family was previously married to Osama bin Laden's half-brother/cousin!
__________________
Proud member of the Debunkly Skerricks Pack
Alice Shortcake 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
Old 11th May 2019, 08:50 AM   #221
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,426
I'm distantly related to two US Presidents, one of whom is Richard M Nixon.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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
Old 11th May 2019, 04:13 PM   #222
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I'm distantly related to two US Presidents, one of whom is Richard M Nixon.
Oh my goodness! Me, too:

Quote:
Richard Nixon, 37th President of the United States is your 22nd cousin thrice removed.
The common grandparent shared appears to be 'Henry of Scotland'.

Quote:
Henry, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon is your 24th great grandfather.
Oh good grief!

Quote:
William J. Clinton, 42nd President of the USA is your 22nd cousin once removed
Common grandparent here is:

Quote:
Henry III, duke of Limburg is your 23rd great grandfather.
Then there's:

Quote:
George W. Bush, 43rd President of the United States is your 13th cousin twice removed.
More closely related than the others, and with a Swedish link. Who would have thought it? The Stiernskölds are strong in my family tree.

Quote:
Göran Hansson Stiernsköld is your 12th great grandfather.
Then there's:

Quote:
Ronald W. Reagan, 40th President of the USA is your 20th cousin.
Common grandparent:

Quote:
Johann I, Graf von Isenburg-Limburg is your 20th great grandfather.
Wow, how about this?

Quote:
Barack H. Obama, 44th President of the USA is your 23rd cousin once removed.
Common link:

Quote:
Henry III, duke of Limburg is your 23rd great grandfather.
Same relative as Clinton.

Trump:

Quote:
Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the USA is your 21st cousin twice removed.
Common link:

Quote:
Henry III, duke of Limburg is your 23rd great grandfather.
, that guy again.

Best of all IMV is:

Quote:
Elizabeth II, Queen of the United Kingdom is your 14th cousin.
Yay! Common link is:

Quote:
Herman von Dönhoff is your 13th great grandfather.
A much closer relationship than any of the others, above.

Quote:
Meghan, Duchess of Sussex is your 14th cousin twice removed's wife
That'll be referring to Prince Harry being the Queen's grandson.

Quote:
Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge is your 23rd cousin.
That's interesting. Common link:

Quote:
Henry III, duke of Limburg is your 23rd great grandfather.
Who is this guy??? Pops up everywhere! More prolific than Edward III.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 11th May 2019, 05:57 PM   #223
p0lka
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,471
Well, my ancestry goes all the way back to the first ever person ever, so there

Also have our own family tartan, but thats a scot thing.
p0lka 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
Old 11th May 2019, 09:20 PM   #224
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I'm distantly related to two US Presidents, one of whom is Richard M Nixon.
Oh my, what a huge blot on the Olde escutcheon that is!!!
fuelair 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
Old 12th May 2019, 06:26 AM   #225
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by p0lka View Post
Well, my ancestry goes all the way back to the first ever person ever, so there

Also have our own family tartan, but thats a scot thing.
You do know tartan is a relatively recent invention?
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 12th May 2019, 06:27 AM   #226
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Oh my, what a huge blot on the Olde escutcheon that is!!!
'Tricky Trebby'?
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 12th May 2019, 07:17 AM   #227
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,426
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Oh my goodness! Me, too:



The common grandparent shared appears to be 'Henry of Scotland'.



Oh good grief!



Common grandparent here is:



Then there's:



More closely related than the others, and with a Swedish link. Who would have thought it? The Stiernskölds are strong in my family tree.



Then there's:



Common grandparent:



Wow, how about this?



Common link:



Same relative as Clinton.

Trump:



Common link:

, that guy again.

Best of all IMV is:



Yay! Common link is:



A much closer relationship than any of the others, above.



That'll be referring to Prince Harry being the Queen's grandson.



That's interesting. Common link:



Who is this guy??? Pops up everywhere! More prolific than Edward III.
I take it those may have come from some sort of DNA test? I'm actually a lot closer to Nixon than any of those. I had a lot of Quakers in my ancestry. My other president is Herbert Hoover. And then there's my xth cousin x times removed George Armstrong Custer.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet 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
Old 12th May 2019, 07:41 AM   #228
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I take it those may have come from some sort of DNA test? I'm actually a lot closer to Nixon than any of those. I had a lot of Quakers in my ancestry. My other president is Herbert Hoover. And then there's my xth cousin x times removed George Armstrong Custer.
No, it comes from my 6th great grandmother being a listed noblewoman in the Swedish nobilty. (= "Catharina Elisabet Magnusdotter Jordan is your 6th great grandmother") In effect, meticulous records have been kept about her lineage. The link with George W Bush comes through her third great grandmother, Märta Göransdotter Stiernsköld, sharing the same parents as George W Bush's Stiernsköld g^n lineage.

Quote:
Catharina Elisabet Magnusdotter Jordan
his mother [my fifth grandfather's]→ Catharina Engelbrektsdotter Eneskjöld
her mother → Elisabet Ottosdotter von Grothusen
her mother → Elin Hansdotter till Lepas (Lejon)
her mother → Hans Björnsson Lepas (Lejon)
her father → Catharina Göransdotter Stiernsköld
his mother → Märta Göransdotter Stiernsköld
her sister → Agneta Knutsdotter Lillie (af Ökna)
her daughter → Elin Ulfsdotter Snakenborg, Marchioness of Northampton
her daughter → Sir Edward Gorges, 1st Baron Gorges of Dundalk
her son → Marie Newcomb
his daughter → Lt. Andrew Newcomb
her son → Simeon Newcomb
his son → Obadiah Newcomb
his son → Daniel Newcomb
his son → Lydia Bush
his daughter → Obadiah Newcomb Bush
her son → Rev. James Smith Bush
his son → Samuel Prescott Bush
his son → Senator Prescott Sheldon Bush, Sr.
his son → George H. W. Bush, 41st President of the USA
his son
It was meaningless fun to discover this. According to Wikipedia:

Quote:
Bush has English and some German ancestry, along with more distant Dutch, Welsh, Irish, French, and Scottish roots.[
and they could add, Swedish, as recently as mid-16th century.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 13th May 2019, 03:49 AM   #229
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,607
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A typical size population in the Thirty Years War in northern Europe in the seventeenth century would be no more than circa two million.
Not too sure what you mean by "(a) typical population size"? A typical population size of what?

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Quite the reverse. The 24 base children will reproduce amongst their own classes and the aristocratic element is diluted significantly within three or four generations as to be vanishingly minute.
And?
What does that have to do with everyone in Europe in all likelihood being descended from Charlemagne (or whoever)?

You'll be going on about precious bodily fluids next...
Tolls is online now   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
Old 13th May 2019, 03:54 AM   #230
zooterkin
Nitpicking dilettante
Deputy Admin
 
zooterkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 42,649
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post

OTOH the offspring of the nobility, aristocracy and royalty marrying traditionally amongst themselves keep the so-called royal bloodline going.

Therefore, if royalty is predicated in keeping the bloodline regal, then it makes no sense to marry a commoner, as ipso facto it no longer remains royal.
How are you defining, for example, royal blood?
__________________
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
zooterkin 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
Old 13th May 2019, 04:08 AM   #231
Tolls
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,607
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
How are you defining, for example, royal blood?
It's this, like, dead magical stuff...different to all other blood in its magicalness.
Tolls is online now   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
Old 13th May 2019, 11:47 AM   #232
SpitfireIX
Illuminator
 
SpitfireIX's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana, USA
Posts: 4,575
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You do know tartan is a relatively recent invention?

Oh, come on. Next you'll be telling us William Wallace didn't wear a kilt.
__________________
Handy responses to conspiracy theorists' claims:
1) "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." --Charles Babbage
2) "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong." --Wolfgang Pauli
3) "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya
SpitfireIX 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
Old 13th May 2019, 01:23 PM   #233
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,662
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
A typical size population in the Thirty Years War in northern Europe in the seventeenth century would be no more than circa two million. OK, so you have a nobleman, aristocrat or even a King or Prince (Princess, Queen?) fornicating with a local peasant outside of wedlock (as it was vanishingly rare they were allowed to marry). So we have one base child, or maybe even three, four, five, maybe even two dozen. 24 / 2,000,000 should tell you the probability the descendants of the remaining 1,999,976 people does not equate to 'everybody in Europe today is a Royal'.

Quite the reverse. The 24 base children will reproduce amongst their own classes and the aristocratic element is diluted significantly within three or four generations as to be vanishingly minute.

OTOH the offspring of the nobility, aristocracy and royalty marrying traditionally amongst themselves keep the so-called royal bloodline going.

Therefore, if royalty is predicated in keeping the bloodline regal, then it makes no sense to marry a commoner, as ipso facto it no longer remains royal.
The highlighted is where you are making a key mistake.

For the purposes of dynastic marriage, the royals might indeed tend to marry other royals or powerful nobles. The sons in particular of rich and powerful families tended to have lots of bastard offspring - after all, that's where the surname, "Fitzroy" comes from. And the fact that it is a surname shows that there was some pride and acknowledgement in the ancestry, even though it was often bastardy. Similarly, although the opportunities were lower, women also had affairs and illegitimate offspring.

Regardless of that, one can work out that there had to be movement from royalty to the nobles and from them to the richer commoners. In England, for example, the eldest son tended to inherit the title and estate. However with more than one son, the fourth son of a fourth son of a fourth son would have precious little of the great grandfather's wealth unless his grandfather and father had independently regained their wealth. Downward mobility is inherent in such a system. In France, the inheritance laws were different, and as a result estates got split many ways, but the peasants had to support a far larger population of aristocracy. Even so, that just means that entire estates would fall into relative poverty and end up being rescued by wealthy merchants who might have started as wealthy peasants or yeomanry.

That's the downward mobility - there was also upward mobility for example in a church near to me, there is a memorial to William Jauderell, who was one of the king's archers. A successful soldier might get wealth and influence and their son, if he followed the same path, could end up in the nobility.

Also this article showing how it took only about three or four generations to go from peasant to noble or vice versa.
__________________
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
jimbob is online now   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
Old 13th May 2019, 01:44 PM   #234
jimbob
Uncritical "thinker"
 
jimbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 20,662
Originally Posted by erwinl View Post
But that's the entire point.
It only takes one person for there to be a link and thus be a descendant.

And yes. The link is tenous. But that is with every single person in your family tree, when more than, say, ten generations ago.
And that's assuming what the records say is accurate about the father. Given other animals that are supposedly monogamous, that might be an invalid assumption.

I have even seen people claiming that the current sixth in line to the throne might not be the grandson of the Queen.

Personally, I don't see why they'd think that

But this also indicates how easy it is for younger sons to get out of the nobility. Prince Harry is nominally the second son of the heir to the throne, yet he is already only sixth in line of succession
__________________
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
jimbob is online now   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
Old 13th May 2019, 03:53 PM   #235
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
The highlighted is where you are making a key mistake.

For the purposes of dynastic marriage, the royals might indeed tend to marry other royals or powerful nobles. The sons in particular of rich and powerful families tended to have lots of bastard offspring - after all, that's where the surname, "Fitzroy" comes from. And the fact that it is a surname shows that there was some pride and acknowledgement in the ancestry, even though it was often bastardy. Similarly, although the opportunities were lower, women also had affairs and illegitimate offspring.

Regardless of that, one can work out that there had to be movement from royalty to the nobles and from them to the richer commoners. In England, for example, the eldest son tended to inherit the title and estate. However with more than one son, the fourth son of a fourth son of a fourth son would have precious little of the great grandfather's wealth unless his grandfather and father had independently regained their wealth. Downward mobility is inherent in such a system. In France, the inheritance laws were different, and as a result estates got split many ways, but the peasants had to support a far larger population of aristocracy. Even so, that just means that entire estates would fall into relative poverty and end up being rescued by wealthy merchants who might have started as wealthy peasants or yeomanry.

That's the downward mobility - there was also upward mobility for example in a church near to me, there is a memorial to William Jauderell, who was one of the king's archers. A successful soldier might get wealth and influence and their son, if he followed the same path, could end up in the nobility.

Also this article showing how it took only about three or four generations to go from peasant to noble or vice versa.

I agree there is some fascinating downward mobility research. Families wealthy today, may see all their wealth dissipated within two or three generations. This could because say you have a wealthy landed gentry couple (or even an industrialist at the top of the TIMES rich list). They have three of four children. Thus, often they will inherit a quarter each, typically. Deduct Inheritance Tax on estates > circa £329K which can be quite hefty over this sum. Say each on the beneficiaries marries, has thee or four children each, you can see how the wealth dilutes. In addition, the massive country estates, as exemplified by Downton Abbey or Brideshead Revisited, whilst extremely popular and prolific up to the early 1920's soon became derelict and abandoned after WWI when people moved away from 'upstairs, downstairs'. People stopped going 'into service' and into 'jobs' as we know them today, buying their own property or renting, but moving away from being tied to the manor. Also, industries become obsolete. What's hugely wealth producing then (such as Nottingham lace, Harris tweeds, coalfaces, cotton mills) are now mass produced in Taiwan instead or replaced by other forms of raw material.

I think the fact of generations of inbreeding in the case of the aristocracy means Royalty are more open to marriage with commoners to strengthen the gene pool (there have been no end of mad Kings and Queens and genetic illnesses such haemophilia and phenyketineura [_sp???] syndrome, etc) these days the genetics behind inbreeding is known. I am sure this is the reason European royalty today is choc full of Australians, Maoris, African-Americans and coalminers' descendants from Durham.

ETA Just to add: being the bastard son/daughter of a King or Queen means you are ipso facto not royalty as you have no inheritance rights and by extension no royal heirs, even if you are the eldest son.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 13th May 2019 at 04:16 PM.
Vixen 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
Old 13th May 2019, 04:00 PM   #236
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
How are you defining, for example, royal blood?
The medieval definition as it was in this era. The laws of inheritance, which we take for granted, was set down in the Middle Ages. This meant aristocrats and nobles ensured their land, estates and property was kept in their family. The reason the Royal Family is so incredibly wealthy is for this very reason.

If they married amongst themselves, and it was the tradition for royal families and nobles to only marry other royalty and nobles, thus keeping scarce land and assets 'within the family' as it were as they were all related after generations of breeding amongst themselves.

Many of the early Kings and knights were individuals who had shown exceptional leadership skills, either politically or on the battlefield so there arose an idea that anyone who was royal or noble was somehow of superior mettle than the serf in the field asleep in the haystack.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 13th May 2019 at 04:01 PM.
Vixen 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
Old 13th May 2019, 04:03 PM   #237
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by SpitfireIX View Post
Oh, come on. Next you'll be telling us William Wallace didn't wear a kilt.
I'll grant that being a Scot, he will have had a sporran to keep his money in.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 13th May 2019, 04:08 PM   #238
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 15,439
Originally Posted by jimbob View Post
And that's assuming what the records say is accurate about the father. Given other animals that are supposedly monogamous, that might be an invalid assumption.

I have even seen people claiming that the current sixth in line to the throne might not be the grandson of the Queen.

Personally, I don't see why they'd think that

But this also indicates how easy it is for younger sons to get out of the nobility. Prince Harry is nominally the second son of the heir to the throne, yet he is already only sixth in line of succession

The USA is pretty much founded on the younger sons, liberals (levellers), Catholic defectors and/or supporters of Charles II and Quakers (Pilgrim Fathers) supporters of William Penn, who will have been sentenced to transportation or the gallows. So of course being venturers ('companies' - early businessmen) they soon thrived with the younger sons lording it over everybody (look at the place names Carolina named after Charles, there's Georgia and Jamestown, not to mention Pennsylvania).
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb
Vixen 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
Old 13th May 2019, 09:58 PM   #239
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Wonder what he keeps going back to WtC for?????
fuelair 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
Old 14th May 2019, 05:27 AM   #240
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 34,723
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Wonder what he keeps going back to WtC for?????
Probably because he didn't notice everyone else had already gone there.
theprestige is online now   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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » History, Literature, and the Arts

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:17 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.