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.
Tags Russia history , Russia issues , Russia politics

Reply
Old 21st June 2018, 12:12 PM   #281
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,817
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Thus, the noble line of Windsor will die out as it becomes mostly "common".
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 21st June 2018, 12:22 PM   #282
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Why don't you consult a dictionary? The relationship from parent to parent is called marriage, or affair, or dalliance.


You only "know" that you're a distant cousin, "knowing" in this case meaning: trusting geni.com. But they only have ca. 100 million profiles, so they're far from complete. Have you drawn up your complete family tree going back 21 to 24 generations? Hint: going back 19 generations, you already have over 1 million ancestors (not necessarily different; the same person can appear at multiple places in your family tree).
It told me I was a cousin x several and 'thrice removed'. I showed you the names of each verified person step by step. It doesn't matter if it skips from 'mother' to 'father' as both are direct ancestors.

To know that someone is your grandfather, does not require 'drawing up your complete family tree going back 24 generations'. No, it does not follow there are over one million ancestors. If you cannot immediately see the flaw in that argument, you are no mathematician.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 12:27 PM   #283
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Therefore they are not descendants?

You may also wish to look up "bastards" and "legitimization". I hear there was some pretty well-known guy who invaded England once who was born out of wedlock.

Indeed, William was the rightful heir of his father despite being a bastard. Turns out inheritance law isn't so simple.
Of course they are descendants. However, they are not going to show up on geni com unless they can verify it. William is a verified offspring.

As for him, he soon married back into the nobility.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 12:31 PM   #284
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by Cleon View Post
Genetics doesn't give a **** about documentation or records.
Genetics is an abstract noun so is not capable of giving a **** about anything.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 12:38 PM   #285
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,817
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Of course they are descendants. However, they are not going to show up on geni com unless they can verify it. William is a verified offspring.

As for him, he soon married back into the nobility.
What does it matter for the purpose of anything whether someone shows up on geni.com or not?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 21st June 2018, 12:48 PM   #286
Retrograde
Muse
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Just downstream from the Big Tree
Posts: 635
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
That might be true, but how do you prove a person born of a serf is actually the issue of the King who laid with its mother.

The same way you prove a person born of a queen is actually the issue of the king - ask the mother and assume she's telling the truth. Before blood tests and DNA analyses that was the only way -barring keeping women of childbearing age locked up and constantly monitored. (realistically, the penalties for women in the upper tiers of society sleeping around were pretty drastic so that was a big deterrent, but it did happen on occasion)



Quote:

Of course people sleep around, but when it comes to marriage, people do tend to marry others similar to themselves. Looking at the UK, for example, we can see many homogenous groups: Greek Cypriots marry other Greek Cypriots, Italians marry Italians, Poles marry Poles, Jews marry Jews, etc. Sure, there are some who marry outside.
How much of that was due to limited opportunity? Prior to the 19th century and the invention of railroads one's potential dating circle tended to be limited to those in the immediate environs. Once people had the means to travel beyond their birth village they marrying out of their little groups more frequently. I live in California, home to a very large number of people who settled here from all over the world in the past couple of generations: mixed ethnicity is becoming more the norm than not.



Quote:
Of course they are descendants. However, they are not going to show up on geni com unless they can verify it. William is a verified offspring.
People are not going to show up on geni.com or other on-line ancestry sites unless someone enters the data - which often means copying it from some other sources. Those sources may be reliable, they may have been the best effort of the time they were created, they may be family tales handed down by grandmothers who were more interested in a good story, they may have been embellished to make a family look better. And once errors creep in, they're pretty hard to get out again.

Last edited by Retrograde; 21st June 2018 at 12:54 PM.
Retrograde 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 21st June 2018, 12:59 PM   #287
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,434
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
There have been a couple of examples of Kings marrying peasants (such as Eric of Sweden marrying Karin Månsdotter, who worked in a market).

However, morganitic marriages were rare, although more common nowadays.
Plenty of nobles have married unfree partners.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 21st June 2018, 01:09 PM   #288
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,434
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It told me I was a cousin x several and 'thrice removed'. I showed you the names of each verified person step by step. It doesn't matter if it skips from 'mother' to 'father' as both are direct ancestors.

To know that someone is your grandfather, does not require 'drawing up your complete family tree going back 24 generations'. No, it does not follow there are over one million ancestors. If you cannot immediately see the flaw in that argument, you are no mathematician.
Sigh.

What is your obsession with, specifically, a grandfather, i.e., a male ancestor going back precisely 2 generations?

You know, you can have more than one family relation with another person. For instance, Anton Mussert's sister-in-law was also his mother. It is quite possible that geni.com throws up that Edward III is the cousin thrice removed of a 21st generation ancestor of yours while he is, in fact, also a direct ancestor - but that geni.com doesn't know that. You can only disprove that he is your ancestor by drawing up your complete family tree going back, in all branches, to the times before Edward III.

And yes, when you draw up your ahnentafel 19 generations back, you've listed over a million entries (possibly, no, quite likely, containing doubles).
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 21st June 2018, 01:14 PM   #289
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,434
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Of course they are descendants. However, they are not going to show up on geni com unless they can verify it. William is a verified offspring.

As for him, he soon married back into the nobility.
Whence comes your trust in geni.com? They rely on what people enter as their little family tree, without documentation AFAIK. I'd rather trust the Mormons, as they've gone around town halls and churches and what not to copy the birth and marriage and death registers, i.e., the official documentation.

(and of course, you still have the problem that the biological father may not be the spouse of the mother).
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 21st June 2018, 01:27 PM   #290
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Sigh.

What is your obsession with, specifically, a grandfather, i.e., a male ancestor going back precisely 2 generations?

You know, you can have more than one family relation with another person. For instance, Anton Mussert's sister-in-law was also his mother. It is quite possible that geni.com throws up that Edward III is the cousin thrice removed of a 21st generation ancestor of yours while he is, in fact, also a direct ancestor - but that geni.com doesn't know that. You can only disprove that he is your ancestor by drawing up your complete family tree going back, in all branches, to the times before Edward III.

And yes, when you draw up your ahnentafel 19 generations back, you've listed over a million entries (possibly, no, quite likely, containing doubles).
Not really as there is a lot of distant cousin stuff going on. Take Finland. After the ravages of war, plague and famine, it had a tiny population. Today it is 5.5 million. It has had some injection from the Swedish rulers in the West, and some from the Slavs in the East. However, on the whole, it has been pretty homogenous (one of the most homogenous in Europe). They have been marrying amongst themselves.

300K people marrying and then their offspring marrying distant cousins they are not even aware are cousins.

Obviously, if someone is a cousin then somewhere way back when, there were common grandparents between the two of you.

What I object to is the ridiculous claim 'everybody is a direct descendant of Edward III'. In any case, in Danny Dyer's case, I am sure the producers of 'Who do you think you are' thought it would be cute to reveal that a common-as-muck cockney had posh blood. However, Danny's first contact with a noble in his lineage is actually Thomas Cromwell, not Edward III, who goes back to the 1500's.

Do the maths. No, not everybody is a great grandchild of a specific aristocrat born in the 1500's. There may be many who are. There may be very many. But it is not by any stretch 'everybody', as claimed. It is of genuine interest from an historical POV that Danny Dyer has that connection.

It is neither good nor bad, but thinking makes it so.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 01:43 PM   #291
Zivan
Muse
 
Zivan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 777
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
It told me I was a cousin x several and 'thrice removed'. I showed you the names of each verified person step by step. It doesn't matter if it skips from 'mother' to 'father' as both are direct ancestors.

To know that someone is your grandfather, does not require 'drawing up your complete family tree going back 24 generations'. No, it does not follow there are over one million ancestors. If you cannot immediately see the flaw in that argument, you are no mathematician.
This blog, explaining #/generation, is in the most simple language I could find, so you may be able to understand it. Maybe.

http://ronsnews.blogspot.com/2015/12...th-is.html?m=1

Quote:
The 4096 human beings in the top section are your great x10 grandparents. Most of them were your age in the second half of the 1600s, just as the Enlightenment was getting going in Europe.

You can see why it’s not really that impressive when someone tells you they are descended from famous royalty who lived a few hundred years ago. Look how many people you’re descended from only about 300 years back! Within that top section, there’s probably some royalty, in addition to some peasants, scholars, warriors, painters, prostitutes, murderers, lunatics, and any other kind of person who existed back then.
Quote:
You may also be noticing that there’s something that doesn’t make sense about the way these numbers are zooming up exponentially—we’re at 4096 going back three centuries, and continuing at that rate, our ancestor number goes like this:


That puts you at 68 billion ancestors around 1100 AD. The reason that’s problematic is that the world population goes like this:


So how do we explain this?

With a concept called pedigree collapse, which is what happens when people end up with a mate who is somewhat or very closely related to them.
__________________
"Zivan" = "Ziva N" = I am a female, but keep being mistaken as a male on the forum. My mistake for using an "n" instead of "N" on my forum name.
Zivan 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 21st June 2018, 01:47 PM   #292
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
Whence comes your trust in geni.com? They rely on what people enter as their little family tree, without documentation AFAIK. I'd rather trust the Mormons, as they've gone around town halls and churches and what not to copy the birth and marriage and death registers, i.e., the official documentation.

(and of course, you still have the problem that the biological father may not be the spouse of the mother).
That's true, but if that is the name on the birth certificate, he is officially your dad.

You can input false details onto geni.com but it would be pretty meaningless. RIRO. My details are verified. The dates of birth and death for grandparents, great grandparents and g-g grandparents were verified by my great aunt, a university historian, who did a great deal of research into the life and times: their buildings, fields, animals, what they wore, copies of their runic signatures on land registers, etc.etc. Because she lived in the kartano (manor house) which she planned to donate as a museum, she focussed on the male line, as the landowner line, who had been on the same estate since the mid 1600's.

Someone contacted me on 23+me who was a third cousin. I eventually responded and it turned out she was from the my grandfather's branch (as opposed to my great aunt's parents of whom my grandmother was her aunt, who too, had grown up there).

It was historically fascinating to find out more about his line. So I looked up some of the names supplied me by my 23+me contact on google and that's when I entered my very basic details on the geni pages that came up.

It seemed that some Finnish historian had already carefully catalogued verified lists from every parish record of that region (maybe he has done other regions). I looked him up and he turned out to be quite an eminent academic with historical tomes behind him. On all of the records he uploaded, he has included a link or jpeg of the original official record.

That's how i discovered hitherto unknown ancestors. I checked, double checked and checked again that this was indeed my direct ancestor and also double checked the links. There was just no two ways about it. I knew this guy was accurate because his dates matched exactly my great aunt's. In addition, he backed it up with documentation.

I am not going to believe something that is not true. There is no point in it.

It doesn't really matter if someone has thousands of descendants or ancestors. All the more rich history.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 01:56 PM   #293
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,467
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am not going to believe something that is not true. There is no point in it.

I mean, I know the word "irony" has been used all-too-frequently in respect of Vixen's claims/opinions, but still...........
LondonJohn 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 21st June 2018, 01:58 PM   #294
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by Zivan View Post
This blog, explaining #/generation, is in the most simple language I could find, so you may be able to understand it. Maybe.

http://ronsnews.blogspot.com/2015/12...th-is.html?m=1
As I said. We do not have millions and trillions of ancestors dating back to AD800 as has been claimed.

What you don't seem to understand is that people do not procreate randomly, thus giving rise to the erroneous claim, we are all cousins together.

If 4/5ths of a population are serfs, as in feudal Russia, that means 1/5 are the nobles. Sure there might be rumpy-pumpy going on in the fields behind the milk shed, but the Russian aristocrats did not marry their serfs they married other aristocratic families.

Thus exponentially, the serf population gets bigger and bigger without necessarily getting any injection of aristocratic blood at all (except maybe that busty milkmaid).
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 02:05 PM   #295
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,467
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Do the maths. No, not everybody is a great grandchild of a specific aristocrat born in the 1500's. There may be many who are. There may be very many. But it is not by any stretch 'everybody', as claimed.

No, that's the thing Vixen. If you DO do the maths, you DO reach the conclusion that effectively everybody (everybody with Western/Central European lineage, that is) IS a direct descendent (enough of this infantile "great grandchild") of a specific aristocrat born in the 1500*s. JUST AS they are indeed a direct descendent of every single other person who was alive in the 1500s (who has any line of descent reaching as far as today).

But why don't you write to Dr Adam Rutherford - a World expert in this field - and inform him that you are right and he is wrong? I'm sure he'd be more than delighted to hear from you, and to hear your detailed rationale as to your correctness!


* ETA, actually, the 1300s. A further 8-10 generations are needed back from the 1500s to ensure that virtually everybody alive today with Western/Central European ancestry is directly related to everyone who was alive then (who has any line of descendants reaching forward to today). Most people will be a direct descendant of everyone alive in the 1500s, but not all.

Last edited by LondonJohn; 21st June 2018 at 02:13 PM.
LondonJohn 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 21st June 2018, 02:37 PM   #296
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
What does it matter for the purpose of anything whether someone shows up on geni.com or not?
I can honestly say that every historical figure I have been interested in has shown up on geni,com. The people who use geni com are mainly (a) people looking up their relatives, especially in the past, and (b) people interested in history.

I didn't even know it had a 'relationship' software until I saw a notification that someone was a cousin of Van Gogh. I searched Van Gogh and it told me I was a cousin too, twice removed. I was blown away. The link? His mother was of noble birth and thus was linked to all the other North European nobility.

The interesting thing is, when I enter a celebrity's name it comes up 'zilch', or something crazy like 'twentieth cousin's five time removed's wife's brother of his grandfather's wife's sister-in-law's second cousin fifteen times removed. (IOW, no.)

However, I entered Audrey Hepburn, just now, as her dad was a baron. Sure enough, it came up:

"Audrey Hepburn is your 17th cousin." The link being
Catharina von Hatzfeld zu Wildenburg
his mother → Gottfried VII von Hatzfeld, der Rauhe
her brother b. 1366

Catharina being: Catharina von Hatzfeld zu Wildenburg is your 15th great grandmother.

It illustrates that this class kept intricate records. There is nothing strange about it.

Were her dad a road sweeper from the Hague, from a long line of people of similar occupation, there probably would not be a record, because those classes often did not even marry, nor register a birth or get their kid baptised.

It would be just as historically fascinating to have those records.

For a historian, intricate records are wonderful.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 02:43 PM   #297
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,817
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
For a historian, intricate records are wonderful.
Do you really think of yourself as a "historian"?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 21st June 2018, 02:44 PM   #298
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
No, that's the thing Vixen. If you DO do the maths, you DO reach the conclusion that effectively everybody (everybody with Western/Central European lineage, that is) IS a direct descendent (enough of this infantile "great grandchild") of a specific aristocrat born in the 1500*s. JUST AS they are indeed a direct descendent of every single other person who was alive in the 1500s (who has any line of descent reaching as far as today).

But why don't you write to Dr Adam Rutherford - a World expert in this field - and inform him that you are right and he is wrong? I'm sure he'd be more than delighted to hear from you, and to hear your detailed rationale as to your correctness!


* ETA, actually, the 1300s. A further 8-10 generations are needed back from the 1500s to ensure that virtually everybody alive today with Western/Central European ancestry is directly related to everyone who was alive then (who has any line of descendants reaching forward to today). Most people will be a direct descendant of everyone alive in the 1500s, but not all.
Only if they procreated indiscriminately. Maybe 9/10's of a population does, but the insular homogenous groups do not. This includes the nobility, Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazi Jews and all sorts of ethnic cultures who keep themselves to themselves, such as Irish travellers, Hassidic Jews, et al.

Had you any flair for statistics, you would have seen the flaw straight away in making an unwarranted assumption that people are not selective when choosing a partner, as though talking about a herd of cattle.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 02:47 PM   #299
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Do you really think of yourself as a "historian"?
No but when I research something it is great to find proper historical records
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 02:54 PM   #300
crescent
Master Poster
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 2,365
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Sure there might be rumpy-pumpy going on in the fields behind the milk shed, but the Russian aristocrats did not marry their serfs they married other aristocratic families.
I think you've shifted the goalposts from genetic relationships to more legally recognized relationships.

If the Russian noblemen got that cute milkmaid pregnant, it does not matter that they never married, that the noble person never claimed the child. They are still related. The noble bloodline is now mixed with the serf bloodline. The milkmaids 8x grandchild will still be a descendant of the nobility.
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 21st June 2018, 03:00 PM   #301
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,434
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Only if they procreated indiscriminately. Maybe 9/10's of a population does, but the insular homogenous groups do not. This includes the nobility, Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazi Jews and all sorts of ethnic cultures who keep themselves to themselves, such as Irish travellers, Hassidic Jews, et al.

Had you any flair for statistics, you would have seen the flaw straight away in making an unwarranted assumption that people are not selective when choosing a partner, as though talking about a herd of cattle.
You're making the unwarranted assumption that "nobility" is a closed class and that there's no social mobility. That's not the case. Plenty of people have been elevated to nobility status, and a lot of noble families in fact go back to serfs. Likewise, noble people or even noble families have been stripped of that rank.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 21st June 2018, 03:02 PM   #302
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,434
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
For a historian, intricate records are wonderful.
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Do you really think of yourself as a "historian"?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
No but when I research something it is great to find proper historical records


And then to completely misrepresent them. Every time you've claimed you "researched" something, you were completely off the mark.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 21st June 2018, 03:07 PM   #303
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,467
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Only if they procreated indiscriminately. Maybe 9/10's of a population does, but the insular homogenous groups do not. This includes the nobility, Sephardic Jews, Ashkenazi Jews and all sorts of ethnic cultures who keep themselves to themselves, such as Irish travellers, Hassidic Jews, et al.

Had you any flair for statistics, you would have seen the flaw straight away in making an unwarranted assumption that people are not selective when choosing a partner, as though talking about a herd of cattle.


Like I said, please feel free to write to Dr Adam Rutherford - who's an acknowledged expert in this - and tell him that he (and I) is wrong, and that you are right. I'm sure he'll give your correspondence exactly the recognition and deference it deserves....
LondonJohn 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 21st June 2018, 03:11 PM   #304
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,434
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The offspring would not turn up on the records as a legitimate heir. It's only in modern times children born out of wedlock or adopted were recognised as having statutory hereditary rights (at least in Europe, UK excepted [where people do not have to leave anything to their offspring]).
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
Therefore they are not descendants?

You may also wish to look up "bastards" and "legitimization". I hear there was some pretty well-known guy who invaded England once who was born out of wedlock.

Indeed, William was the rightful heir of his father despite being a bastard. Turns out inheritance law isn't so simple.
And even when they were not the outright heir, nobles would take care of their bastard children. For instance, Prince Maurice of Orange had no legitimate children (he never married) and the bulk of his inheritance passed to his half-brother Frederick Henry, but he gave part of it to, e.g., his eldest bastard son William:
Quote:
Willem van Nassau, Lord of De Lek (also Willem van Nassau-LaLecq, or in French Willem LaLecq; 18 August 1601 – 18 August 1627) was a Dutch soldier from 1620 until 1627. He was the illegitimate son of stadholder Maurice of Nassau, Prince of Orange and his mistress Margaretha van Mechelen.[1] Like their other illegitimate children, he was recognized with the surname Nassau-LaLecq. He went by the title Rijksgraaf (Count of the Holy Roman Empire) van Nassau-LaLecq" and was also popularly known in French as the "Chevalier de Nassau". After 1625 he was granted lands and the title Lord of De Lek. He received his heerlijkheid of De Lek as a bequest from his father to him and his descendants. His brother Lodewijk van Nassau had the title "Lord of Beverweerd and Odijk".
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 21st June 2018, 03:15 PM   #305
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by crescent View Post
I think you've shifted the goalposts from genetic relationships to more legally recognized relationships.

If the Russian noblemen got that cute milkmaid pregnant, it does not matter that they never married, that the noble person never claimed the child. They are still related. The noble bloodline is now mixed with the serf bloodline. The milkmaids 8x grandchild will still be a descendant of the nobility.
Absolutely. But that wouldn't apply to all Russian serfs.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 03:18 PM   #306
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,434
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
You can input false details onto geni.com but it would be pretty meaningless. RIRO.
I suppose you mean GIGO?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
My details are verified.
By whom? Did geni.com go to town halls and churches to verify?
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The dates of birth and death for grandparents, great grandparents and g-g grandparents were verified by my great aunt, a university historian, who did a great deal of research into the life and times: their buildings, fields, animals, what they wore, copies of their runic signatures on land registers, etc.etc. Because she lived in the kartano (manor house) which she planned to donate as a museum, she focussed on the male line, as the landowner line, who had been on the same estate since the mid 1600's.
So she didn't pursue the whole family tree. Right.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 21st June 2018, 03:29 PM   #307
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by ddt View Post
I suppose you mean GIGO?

By whom? Did geni.com go to town halls and churches to verify?

So she didn't pursue the whole family tree. Right.
Why would she? So she is supposed to go back to Adam and Eve?


With her research and the more recent help of geni, a riddle was solved.

ETA when you click on a link, check the area below to see what the evidence is. Quite often, someone has uploaded the original marriage record or other interesting stuff.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 21st June 2018 at 04:07 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 21st June 2018, 03:33 PM   #308
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
Like I said, please feel free to write to Dr Adam Rutherford - who's an acknowledged expert in this - and tell him that he (and I) is wrong, and that you are right. I'm sure he'll give your correspondence exactly the recognition and deference it deserves....
I am quite sure it is not Dr Adam Rutherford who is wrong.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 03:40 PM   #309
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,467
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I am quite sure it is not Dr Adam Rutherford who is wrong.

You're referring to the Dr Adam Rutherford who's directly quoted (within quotation marks) in that article as saying:

"Looking around this room, every single one of you is a direct descendant of Edward III. Everyone from this room is directly descended between 21 and 24 generations from Edward III."


That Dr Adam Rutherford?

Or were you thinking about another Dr Adam Rutherford entirely of your own construct?

(I suggest, once again, that you re-read the article, very slowly and carefully this time):

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...neticist-says/
LondonJohn 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 21st June 2018, 04:14 PM   #310
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by LondonJohn View Post
You're referring to the Dr Adam Rutherford who's directly quoted (within quotation marks) in that article as saying:

"Looking around this room, every single one of you is a direct descendant of Edward III. Everyone from this room is directly descended between 21 and 24 generations from Edward III."


That Dr Adam Rutherford?

Or were you thinking about another Dr Adam Rutherford entirely of your own construct?

(I suggest, once again, that you re-read the article, very slowly and carefully this time):

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...neticist-says/

Well, he's been misquoted as it is a stupid thing to say.

He obviously meant related not 'directly descended'.

I disproved it at a stroke as:

Edward III of England is your 8th cousin 16 times removed.

The link being:
→ Richardis von Sponheim
her mother → Engelbert II, Herzog von Kärnten
her brother

Richardis von Sponheim is your 22nd great grandmother.

So not everyone is a direct descendant of 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 21st June 2018, 04:37 PM   #311
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,817
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Well, he's been misquoted as it is a stupid thing to say.

He obviously meant related not 'directly descended'.

I disproved it at a stroke as:

Edward III of England is your 8th cousin 16 times removed.

The link being:
→ Richardis von Sponheim
her mother → Engelbert II, Herzog von Kärnten
her brother

Richardis von Sponheim is your 22nd great grandmother.

So not everyone is a direct descendant of Edward III.
8th cousin 16th and direct ancestor are not mutually exclusive.
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 21st June 2018, 04:42 PM   #312
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
8th cousin 16th and direct ancestor are not mutually exclusive.
If he was a direct grandfather it would have said so, as the alogrithm is primed to give you closest relations as the default, not the distant ones.

So if someone was your sister in law and also your mother, your mother will be the link that comes up.

After all, it said Rurik was a direct grandfather.

I think you need to go back further than year AD800 to claim 'everybody is a direct descendant'. Probably more like AD300, except we have scant records between then and AD800.
__________________
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 21st June 2018, 05:12 PM   #313
TubbaBlubba
Knave of the Dudes
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,817
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If he was a direct grandfather it would have said so, as the alogrithm is primed to give you closest relations as the default, not the distant ones.
You think every single relation is documented, including all illegitimate and unknown ones?
__________________
"The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
TubbaBlubba 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 21st June 2018, 05:17 PM   #314
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,467
Originally Posted by TubbaBlubba View Post
You think every single relation is documented, including all illegitimate and unknown ones?

We're dealing with a....uhhh...... sub-optimal educational/intellectual position here, unfortunately. And it's a prime characteristic of such a position that those who hold it are forever unable to see/understand how or why they are wrong, regardless of how patiently or repeatedly it's explained to them.
LondonJohn 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 21st June 2018, 05:25 PM   #315
LondonJohn
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 13,467
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Well, he's been misquoted as it is a stupid thing to say.

He obviously meant related not 'directly descended'.

Yes. I can see how easy it would have been to misquote him so badly. Twice.

He obviously meant "related" and not "directly descended". THAT'S why he said "directly descended". Got it.



Quote:
I disproved it at a stroke as:

Edward III of England is your 8th cousin 16 times removed.

The link being:
→ Richardis von Sponheim
her mother → Engelbert II, Herzog von Kärnten
her brother

Richardis von Sponheim is your 22nd great grandmother.

So not everyone is a direct descendant of Edward III.

And here is (yet) another example of your weak grasp on the subject. Others have already pointed out to you the problem underpinning your (lack of) logic here.
LondonJohn 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 21st June 2018, 05:42 PM   #316
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,434
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
Well, he's been misquoted as it is a stupid thing to say.

He obviously meant related not 'directly descended'.


Really? The Telegraph misquoted him? As long as Vixen doesn't have to admit she's wrong. What about this article he wrote himself in the Guardian in 2015:
Quote:
I’m not related to him. I can reveal however that I am a direct descendent of someone of similar greatness: Charlemagne, Carolingian King of the Franks, Holy Roman Emperor, the great European conciliator. Quelle surprise!

But we are all special, which means none of us are. If you’re vaguely of European extraction, you are also the fruits of Charlemagne’s prodigious loins. A fecund ruler, he sired at least 18 children by motley wives and concubines, including Charles the Younger, Pippin the Hunchback, Drogo of Metz, Hruodrud, Ruodhaid, and not forgetting Hugh.
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
I disproved it at a stroke as:

Edward III of England is your 8th cousin 16 times removed.

The link being:
→ Richardis von Sponheim
her mother → Engelbert II, Herzog von Kärnten
her brother

Richardis von Sponheim is your 22nd great grandmother.

So not everyone is a direct descendant of Edward III.
As I've argued before, the genealogy tree in geni.com is not complete. You admitted yourself that your great aunt only researched part of the family tree. Unless and until you have listed all your ancestors back to ca. 1300, you can't disprove that you don't descend from Edward III.

That is basic logic. But you don't do logic, you have no idea of statistics, you can't even do basic arithmetic, it seems.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen

Last edited by ddt; 21st June 2018 at 05:45 PM.
ddt 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 21st June 2018, 06:05 PM   #317
ddt
Mafia Penguin
 
ddt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 19,434
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
As I said. We do not have millions and trillions of ancestors dating back to AD800 as has been claimed.
No-one claimed so. But if you trace your family tree and compile them in an ahnentafel, you get more than 1 billion entries.

Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
If 4/5ths of a population are serfs, as in feudal Russia, that means 1/5 are the nobles.
You're making (only) two mistakes here. First of all, you're forgetting that there were also commoners. Second, you're mixing two categories.

I don't know about feudal Russia, but in the HRE, nobles did marry serfs. For instance, ca. 1140, Badeloch, the daughter of Gijsbrecht Bothensone, Lord of Muiden - so clearly a noblewoman - married a serf named Egbert.
__________________
"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." - "Saint" Teresa, the lying thieving Albanian dwarf

"I think accuracy is important" - Vixen
ddt 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 22nd June 2018, 09:57 AM   #318
Craig B
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 22,443
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
The offspring would not turn up on the records as a legitimate heir. It's only in modern times children born out of wedlock or adopted were recognised as having statutory hereditary rights (at least in Europe, UK excepted [where people do not have to leave anything to their offspring]).
it is as well to note that there is more than one legal system in the U.K., and they differ in this point.
The English law of succession is based on the principle of “testamentary freedom”. Put simply, this means that you can choose to leave your estate to anyone you like. This position contrasts with succession law throughout much of the world. In Scotland ... a surviving spouse, civil partner or child is entitled to a portion of the deceased’s moveable estate (which does not include land or buildings), whether or not the deceased left a Will.
See here.
Craig B 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 22nd June 2018, 12:22 PM   #319
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Moomin Valley
Posts: 13,591
Originally Posted by ddt View Post


Really? The Telegraph misquoted him? As long as Vixen doesn't have to admit she's wrong. What about this article he wrote himself in the Guardian in 2015:



As I've argued before, the genealogy tree in geni.com is not complete. You admitted yourself that your great aunt only researched part of the family tree. Unless and until you have listed all your ancestors back to ca. 1300, you can't disprove that you don't descend from Edward III.

That is basic logic. But you don't do logic, you have no idea of statistics, you can't even do basic arithmetic, it seems.
Rutherford is employing purple prose in order to make a point. He thinks people are so thick, he has to hammer his point home.

He wants to convey that it is not particularly unusual to have a direct link to a distant monarch or famous historical figure. However, in so doing he overarches and overstates his case, with his overweening patronising tone.

Yes, maybe some four million people are directly related to King Malcolm. So what? For those four million people, that is intriguing to them.

Danny Dyer is rightly chuffed to be unexpectedly connected to Cromwell and a direct descendant of Edward III. I don't care what LondonJohn says.

It is absolute rubbish to say 66m Brits are also directly descended from this one man who lived in the 1500's.

I for one, am not. NB your cousin - however many times removed - can never be your direct descendant or ancestor.

I should have thought that was glaringly obvious, yet the sheeple who read the tabloids cling on for dear life to an urban myth uttered by someone claiming his title of geneticist means everything he says is deadly correct, when anyone can see this cannot be so.

You would have to go back far further for there to be a common grandparent for all of us.

For example, I only have ten generations (just checked my aunt's book) going back to the mid 1600's. There is no way a population of 66m is going to also be directly descended from my seven-times great grandfather.

Please think.
__________________
If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

Last edited by Vixen; 22nd June 2018 at 12:37 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 22nd June 2018, 12:46 PM   #320
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 26,889
Originally Posted by Vixen View Post
NB your cousin - however many times removed - can never be your direct descendant or ancestor.
Your second cousin once removed, by definition, is your parent's cousin. If first cousins marry (which is, of course, not at all uncommon in royal families), they are therefore both second cousins once removed and direct ancestors of their own children. The said children, of course, are also both second cousins once removed and direct descendants of their own parents.

Your claim is trivially disproven.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers 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
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 06:23 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, 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.