My Father's ancestors were the Clifton Knights from Clifton, Nottingham. I have traced my family tree back to my 28th Great Grandfather, William the Conqueror, through the records of the Clifton family, and from him to Rollo Gange Rolf, who is my 33rd Great Grandfather.
@ That’s super cool! How did you discover that? It would still be true that you descend from Charlemagne, it would just be another line (pedigree collapse).
@@markmark63 Are you American by any chance? I only ask as it tends to be Americans that make claims of ancestry going that far back. Only the royal and noble families of Europe can trace their lineage back that far. For normal people the records simply do not go far enough back to be able to conclusively say that is the case. It is more likely a family legend.
@@maxhall2086 No English, and all of my direct ancestors are also English back to the early 1700's. I have been studying my family history for about 20 years now and have proven ancestry back to a couple of notable "Noble" families in the 16th and 17th centuries. Then as you say, their ancestry is well recorded back to John of Gaunt on one side and Charlemagne's brother on another side.
It's my understamding that the average distance between generations is about 30 years. Wbile I understands the numbers over hundreds and thousands of years, it is hard to believe tha/ no other bloodlibes have survived than those of Charlemagne or Edward III.
I just assume I'm descended from William the Conqueror through William II, which would include the Edwards, multiple times over, because statistically it's extremely likely.
Unlikely William Rufus as he has no known children. Henry I, far more likely. He had an abundance of acknowledged bastards- and probably more that went unrecorded!
You are probably not genetically related to Edward III. Adam Rutherford , author of 'How to Argue With a Racist' says 'Over time, descendants start to shed the DNA of their actual ancestors, and the amount that vanishes builds up over the generations to be huge.. You carry DNA from only half of your ancestors dating eleven generations back. So it is possible that you are genetically unrelated to people you are actually descended from as recently as the 18th Century.' And if you go back to Edward III, the chance of his DNA being passed to you is very small indeed.
Wow, very refreshing to hear someone say "viking is not a nationality, its an occupation". Thank you for that - it gets tedious arguing with people who want to believe its a race. By the way, genetic research in Normandy has consistently failed to find evidence of Norse immigration. Even if you could find Rollo's body and examine his DNA you would probably find he was a mongrel because all the chiefs and nobles in ancient Europe belonged to an international class. It was their international links that made them important to their followers and supporters in the first place (and that had been true for thousands of years). One more annoying fact for the many racists that come to these videos looking for the wrong things - did you know you are not even genetically related to many of your own ancestors? Because of the random nature of inheritance, the huge number of genes and their bundling into chromosomes by the time you get to 1650 I believe less than 3% of your ancestors have donated genes to you. By the time you reach 1066, forget it! The chances of your being related to any given ancestor is effectively zero.
I read into the latter recently, though I am still far from well-versed in the subject. I believe what I read suggested we had no or little genetic relationship with our 12th ancestors. Which make sense! DNA wise, we do not recieve 100% of our parents DNA. It's all very fascinating and I hope to find time to learn more
@@raynarks I'm inclined to say its a language family and nothing more. Archaeologists seem inclined to believe that if they find a knot pattern on a pot the people in that area must have been "celts". How the hell can you assume that? I have an Italian shirt it doesn't make me Italian.
@@Historyoc 12th ancestors would be 2^12 ancestors which is 4096. We only have 46 chromosomes , not 4096! Additionally, chromosomes are not passed on unchanged from parent to child. A process called meiosis occurs. This means that while you inherit one chromosome of each pair from each parent, it's not an exact copy of either of their chromosomes.
This is historically, if not mathematically, questionable. Most of us are descended from peasant stock. During the bulk of time, the classes did not mingle and certainly rarely married out of class. Right up to the Industrial Revolution, the average person lived and worked in the countryside. The majority would have what we would consider a restricted life. A few miles travel in any direction, and they would be entering foreign territory. It is said that the bicycle is the most important invention for ending inbreeding. As for a king's descendants, inbreeding was a way to preserve the Blood Royal. They married other nobles, which, being a small group, meant that even international marriages were consanguinious. Royalty especially would have brought wives from abroad and sent their daughters to marry forein royalty. Marriages were politcal, not love matches. I question, therefore, how so many people could be descended from a king, when many if his descendants were marrying each other. Very few would even consider someone from outside their class so the blood royal would not get into the general population. There was a time when it was said that Gengis Khan was an ancester to a large part of the Eur-Asian population. However, many historians questioned this. Today, it is accepted by many that it's not The Great Khan's genes, but those of his army.
My Father's ancestors were the Clifton Knights from Clifton, Nottingham. I have traced my family tree back to my 28th Great Grandfather, William the Conqueror, through the records of the Clifton family, and from him to Rollo Gange Rolf, who is my 33rd Great Grandfather.
You can add me a few times to most kings and William Marshal 4 times
Edward III was my 18th great-grandfather.
great video love the disclaimer it was a job
My 15th Great Grandfather was Edward 3rd Duke of Buckingham, who was executed for treason against Henry VIII
If you have any European ancestry, you descend from Charlemagne.
Almost true for me. Charlemagne's father, Pepin the Short - King of the Franks was my direct ancestor.
@ That’s super cool! How did you discover that? It would still be true that you descend from Charlemagne, it would just be another line (pedigree collapse).
@@markmark63 Are you American by any chance? I only ask as it tends to be Americans that make claims of ancestry going that far back. Only the royal and noble families of Europe can trace their lineage back that far. For normal people the records simply do not go far enough back to be able to conclusively say that is the case. It is more likely a family legend.
@@maxhall2086 No English, and all of my direct ancestors are also English back to the early 1700's. I have been studying my family history for about 20 years now and have proven ancestry back to a couple of notable "Noble" families in the 16th and 17th centuries. Then as you say, their ancestry is well recorded back to John of Gaunt on one side and Charlemagne's brother on another side.
My ancestry was traced back to Robert the Bruce
Same.
@@sparkleypegs8350 Bruce a Norman born in Essex.
I traced my ancestry back to Robert the Bruce too.
Me too!!
I trace my family tree back to Charlemagne 😊
100% I'm descended from wrong uns an ne'er do wells.
It's my understamding that the average distance between generations is about 30 years.
Wbile I understands the numbers over hundreds and thousands of years, it is hard to believe tha/ no other bloodlibes have survived than those of Charlemagne or Edward III.
I just assume I'm descended from William the Conqueror through William II, which would include the Edwards, multiple times over, because statistically it's extremely likely.
Unlikely William Rufus as he has no known children. Henry I, far more likely. He had an abundance of acknowledged bastards- and probably more that went unrecorded!
@ That’s who I meant, Henry I, the one with all the kids. Sorry. 🤦♀️
@kate_cooper Happens to the best of us!
You are probably not genetically related to Edward III.
Adam Rutherford , author of 'How to Argue With a Racist' says 'Over time, descendants start to shed the DNA of their actual ancestors, and the amount that vanishes builds up over the generations to be huge..
You carry DNA from only half of your ancestors dating eleven generations back. So it is possible that you are genetically unrelated to people you are actually descended from as recently as the 18th Century.'
And if you go back to Edward III, the chance of his DNA being passed to you is very small indeed.
we got back to Charles II and gave up.
I am 7% French 91% English
Wow, very refreshing to hear someone say "viking is not a nationality, its an occupation". Thank you for that - it gets tedious arguing with people who want to believe its a race. By the way, genetic research in Normandy has consistently failed to find evidence of Norse immigration. Even if you could find Rollo's body and examine his DNA you would probably find he was a mongrel because all the chiefs and nobles in ancient Europe belonged to an international class. It was their international links that made them important to their followers and supporters in the first place (and that had been true for thousands of years). One more annoying fact for the many racists that come to these videos looking for the wrong things - did you know you are not even genetically related to many of your own ancestors? Because of the random nature of inheritance, the huge number of genes and their bundling into chromosomes by the time you get to 1650 I believe less than 3% of your ancestors have donated genes to you. By the time you reach 1066, forget it! The chances of your being related to any given ancestor is effectively zero.
I read into the latter recently, though I am still far from well-versed in the subject. I believe what I read suggested we had no or little genetic relationship with our 12th ancestors. Which make sense! DNA wise, we do not recieve 100% of our parents DNA. It's all very fascinating and I hope to find time to learn more
And thank you for the details on Norse Immigration. That had completely gone under my radar.
The same with Celtic. It’s a culture, not a race. There’s no such thing as Celtic genes.
@@raynarks I'm inclined to say its a language family and nothing more. Archaeologists seem inclined to believe that if they find a knot pattern on a pot the people in that area must have been "celts". How the hell can you assume that? I have an Italian shirt it doesn't make me Italian.
@@Historyoc 12th ancestors would be 2^12 ancestors which is 4096. We only have 46 chromosomes , not 4096!
Additionally, chromosomes are not passed on unchanged from parent to child.
A process called meiosis occurs. This means that while you inherit one chromosome of each pair from each parent, it's not an exact copy of either of their chromosomes.
This is historically, if not mathematically, questionable. Most of us are descended from peasant stock. During the bulk of time, the classes did not mingle and certainly rarely married out of class.
Right up to the Industrial Revolution, the average person lived and worked in the countryside. The majority would have what we would consider a restricted life. A few miles travel in any direction, and they would be entering foreign territory. It is said that the bicycle is the most important invention for ending inbreeding.
As for a king's descendants, inbreeding was a way to preserve the Blood Royal. They married other nobles, which, being a small group, meant that even international marriages were consanguinious. Royalty especially would have brought wives from abroad and sent their daughters to marry forein royalty. Marriages were politcal, not love matches.
I question, therefore, how so many people could be descended from a king, when many if his descendants were marrying each other. Very few would even consider someone from outside their class so the blood royal would not get into the general population.
There was a time when it was said that Gengis Khan was an ancester to a large part of the Eur-Asian population. However, many historians questioned this. Today, it is accepted by many that it's not The Great Khan's genes, but those of his army.
I agree with you. Maybe illegitimate descendents ended up mixing... But otherwise I think not.
No unfortunately I'm defended from french mother side I hate it but meh