This story about a 12yo girl who traced 43 (of 44) US presidents back to the same King of England really intrigues me. What are the changes this is a "6 Degrees of Separation" issue? Or do you think that things like power-hunger and leadership abilities are genetic? I'd love to hear some theories about this.
If you go back far enough we all have a common ancestor. The presidents are men of Anglo-Saxon ancestry. Each generation you go back you double the amount of ancestors. Presidents have better genealogical records as well. I don't think it has anything to do with power, but where in the world their ancestors came from. My parents are related too. I think I only had to go back a couple hundred years to find that link.
I agree that "if you go back far enough" we would find a common relation almost everywhere, but I do find it interesting that this girl was able to find this connection. I'm not sure if it speaks to a genetic disposition or not; there are many spiritual indications here that I'm not even going to get into it, but they are definitely there. I find it very interesting that this "far enough back" connection was, first of all, within modern historical time. I mean, we can trace us all back to Noah, but 4,000 years is a long geneological study. I also find it interesting that when this connection was discovered, the person was also found to be royalty. And, as a total side-bar, I think it's fantastic and *historical* that this girl was able to do this. The video and article state that geneologies are usually done by male lineage alone, and this girl also utilized female lineage to find this connection. And honestly, I kind of assumed when there was one president not related, that it would be our current president - the only black president in history thus far. Not so! Interesting. And it makes me wonder about that one guy who wasn't related. LOL Makes President McKinley much more interesting, I think.
The fact that this little girl did this is so cool! Very interesting. I have nothing to contribute to this topic due to total ignorance on my part. I just want to add that one of the people in my family line was a member of The House of Burgess (the first organized governing body of America, as many of you know). Also, my family decends from William Wallace. My grandma worked on an extensive family tree for decades before she died. It is amazing what she uncovered.
This connection was 800+ years ago. If our ancestors double every generation and you continue that back 800 years a good percentage of people of Anglo-Saxon decent would find a connection. You would have over 4 million+ different ancestors if you go back that far. See this site.
Hmmm...sounds very intriguing. I dont know anything about the subject, but according to some of you guys, it must not be very spectacular because of reasons already mentioned. Now I'm wondering, even with that fact, is it still to be expected that they are all related to one king? So if all of us here on the board with any anglo-saxon ancestry went back far enough, would we all also be related to that king? I mean, what are the odds?? What if this is a grand conspiracy....imagine that...what if...!!!
Quite possibly. There were probably only 4-5 million people in England back at that time. If you are of Anglo-Saxon ancestry and have over 4 million ancestors there is a good chance you are related to that king too.
It would be quite some feat for every anglo-saxon alive today to be related to the same king, seeing as how everyone alive at the time was not necessarily related to him. I understand the odds thing, really I do. I'm not related to this king, as my mother's history goes back into Germany over 1000 years, and my father's history comes from Scotland for I don't know how far back. So, anyone above me isn't in this line either. I think it's interesting that all of the presidents were. Except one. Why one? It's just cool.
Yes, that would be quite the feat if the requirements were for everyone alive at the time being related to the king. A peasant and the king wouldn't have to be related, but it doesn't prevent their g-g-g-g-g-grandchildren from marrying and having children several hundred years later. So the king and the countrymen may not be related, but they can have some of the same descendents because each generation combines two family lines.
My gut reaction was the "six degrees" idea, so I'm glad that I was probably right (or at least that's what most of you think, too). It's still interesting. But I wonder how many OTHER common ancestors they also have. I mean, why THIS king? Is he the only common link, or just the most interesting?
I traced my family tree (maternal grandmother's) back to Rhys ap Tewdwr and "Roderick the Great", Gwriad ap Elidir Prince of Deheubarth King of Manaw, Brutus of Troy (some family even claimed to have traced it all the way back to Seth!) While it's cool to know, I honestly don't think it means anything. But, I do think it's cool when we study history in homeschool now I can tell my kids "That's your great x(#) grandfather" People seriously into genology will tell you, yes, we are all related to royalty! LOL Ask anyone who's traced back far enough and they will tell you there is a price or king somewhere in their family! I think how much money you have and who you know is much more influential than your family tree. (Though those things might be slightly related to your heritage, not always.) I think if it really meant anything someone would have discovered it before now. I started doing my family tree for my grandmother, because it was important to her. But I recently started back up, digging deeper into the past, because when I started the family tree years ago the internet was not what it is today. I was only able to get back to the 1400's when I hit a road block 15 years ago. With the internet being what it is today I've now been able to solidly trace back to the mid 500's and do have some info (though I'm still working on verifying how reliable it is) back to BC. Though it's tricky the further back you go because people didn't always have last names you know and they often used the same names over and over in the family. Many names were common also so that spouses might have moms or dads with very similar names, I have one ancestor that had two sons who had the same name AND two daughters who shared the same name! Talk about confusing! Plus reading and writing was as commonplace as it is today and the people who recorded things spelled by guessing based on what the name sounded like (such as Tewdwr can be translated to Tudor, Tudur or Theodore. David was likely to be seen as Dafydd. Then somewhere spelling slowly starts to change, from Rhys to Rhes to Rees to Reese to Reece, which can also cause confusion.) So, I say all this to question how a 12 year old had time to trace 44 family trees back that far, with any accuracy?
WOW, JosieB! That's amazing! And it's nice to "meet" another Welshman! I can't seem to get any further back than my paternal great-grandparents, and the boat they came over on...
Yes, I agree everyone is related to royalty somewhere. I have the line to Brutus as well so I guess we are very distant cousins. Apparently, he might have not been a historical figure, but one of legend. Funny this post came up today. I've been putting together my son's history for next year today and I'll be incorporating genealogy for the first time. He gets to do research and fill out pedigree charts and family group sheets for some select lines from early Celtic and Roman times. I was very happy to find three Shakespeare stories related to people in our genealogy from that time period. The Aeneid and Brutus would fit together well too, I believe.
I got stuck there for a while too. I've found once you get past a hump though you usually sail through a few generations I got stuck in the 1400's and gave up for about 10-15 years. In the few months I've made it from the 1400's to the mid 500's though. So don't give up. I'm to the point now where I want to stop and dig for those juicy details in the lineage I know about before digger deeper into the past. Like in 962 my ancestor was "compelled to pay tribute to Edgar, king of England. This tribute consisted of 300 wolves' heads"
I believe all presidents have their genealogy done by professionals so she probably only needed to plug in information and compare the charts to find the connection.
If that were the case it wouldn't be 'news' would it? Plus there was also mention of women in the family tree, which isn't standard practice, usually...
I think that is why she found something that others didn't. She looked at male and female lines to find a connection.
What I'd like to know is if this king is descendant of King David. It's the first thing about this whole line of thought that dawned on me. Interesting it is, that it's the first time it's been done. Now, of all times. JS.
