Well, I’m the great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great nephew of Jesus Himself.
Which of course means I’m part black.
How would that make you part black?
Have you documentary proof of every link in that chain? Just having the same name does not mean you are a direct descendant of someone. During the time of serfdom in the middle ages, as the time when surnames were first coming into regular usage in Britain, serfs sometimes were given the same surnames as their lords.
To give modern examples, African Americans with the surnames Washington, Jackson, and Lincoln are probably not descended from the presidents of the same names.
Well, because Jesus was black. He was descended from Africans like Cleopatra.
I was referencing the movie DOGMA- Linda Fiorentino’s character Bethany is told that she’s the greatX20 niece of Jesus. Earlier Chris Rock, as the Apostle Rufus, claimed that Jesus was black. So chronic stoner Jay (buddy of Silent Bob) only comprehends this as meaning “So that means Bethany is part black?”
No documentary proof. I’m aware that stuff like that happens, and can make family trees very difficult to trace, but in my case circumstantial evidence makes descendancy seem pretty likely.
At any rate, I just think it’s neat that there was somebody living in 1000AD who has recognizably the same last name as me. I’m sure it doesn’t mean anything–there are probably millions of people with that guy somewhere in their family tree.
It’s been done:
From Gilbert & Sullivan’s The Mikado:
Nanki-Poo
But how good of you (for I see that you are a nobleman of the highest rank) to condescend to tell all this to me, a mere strolling minstrel!
Pooh-Bah
Don't mention it. I am, in point of fact, a particularly haughty and exclusive person, of pre-Adamite ancestral descent. You will understand this when I tell you that I can trace my ancestry back to a protoplasmal primordial atomic globule. Consequently, my family pride is something inconceivable. I can't help it. I was born sneering. But I struggle hard to overcome this defect. I mortify my pride continually. When all the great Officers of State resigned in a body because they were too proud to serve under an ex-tailor, did I not unhesitatingly accept all their posts at once?
Pish-Tush
And the salaries attached to them? You did.
Pooh-Bah
It is consequently my degrading duty to serve this upstart as First Lord of the Treasury, Lord Chief Justice, Commander-in-Chief, Lord High Admiral, Master of the Buckhounds, Groom of the Backstairs, Archbishop of Titipu, and Lord Mayor, both acting and elect, all rolled into one. And at a salary! A Pooh-Bah paid for his services! I a salaried minion! But I do it! It revolts me, but I do it.Oh, and I have traced one branch of my family (documented by church records, mostly) 22 generations to the year 1250, in Worstershire. The church where most of them are buried still exists, and on their Web site it shows that my the oldest grave in their cemetary belongs to my 14th-great-grandparents.
ftg - how strict is the definition of “direct descendent”? In the strictest sense, I suppose it can only mean paternal or maternal progression, so the person today is a grand*child**x.
But for the purposes of anthropology and genetic research, can’t just being demonstrably part of the same family line constitute being a descendant? IANAGeneticist, so don’t know what is commonly accepted here - having said that, there is a geneticist, Bryan Sykes, who wrote a book The Seven Daughters of Eve that shows, through analysis of mitochondrial DNA - that most of the world’s population descends from 7 women who lived at different times throughout the world. He doesn’t strictly define descent as “grandchild*X” but as sharing the same DNA signature…
Hmmm… I know Japan has had a continuous hereditary monarchy for ~125 generations.
I believe that this thread could be misleading since by reading it people could believe it’s easy to trace one’s ancestry to very early times. Several posters have mentionned they could trace back their ancestors to the middle-ages, for instance. They might be mistaken, and making assumptions without real evidences, or they could be amongst the very rare people who can actually do such a thing, and it’s the reason why they posted.
It’s essentially impossible, for the overwhelming majority of the population, to trace back his ancestry to the middle-ages, due to the lack of documents. AFAIK, the family with the oldest proven ancestry are the french capetians (circa 850 AD, I believe). The family with the oldest likely ancestry are the Georgian Bagration. And the family with the oldest legendary ancestry is the Japanese imperial family.
Only very few noble european families (perhaps one hundred or so, exactly 11 in France) can trace back their ancestry to the XI° century. One should understand that concerning such times, we generally don’t know who was the great-father or who were the great sons of the most famous people, like the major noble families. Let alone who could be their descendants 1000 years later.
And for ordinary people, not belonging to such families, tracing back ancestry to the renaissance, for instance, is already a great feat, and a rare thing. Once again, documents will be lacking at some point (church logs which rotted away or dissapeared, people who changed names, or simply moved from one place to another, etc…). If the family happened to be noble or well-off for a relatively long time, chances could be better, because they could have left various written documents, like, say, wills, notarized documents, etc…
But for the wide majority of people, you won’t ever know who were your ancestors 400 years ago. And to answer the OP, absolutely nobody can trace back his ancestry to ancient greece. Once again, to date, the oldest proven ancestry dates back to the IX° century, nothing more.
clairobscur, we’ve done this before in other threads. It really is easy to find a royal ancestor for most people with identifiable European heritage. If you only look at one branch, then the chances are small. But since ancestry grows exponentially, then the odds get good very, very quickly.
For most people, if you can find a few ancestors going back to around 1800, there’s a very good chance that at least one of them was important enough to have appeared in a good genealogical reference*. Among that person’s ancestors going back another 100-200 years, there’s at least one that’s likely to have some royal blood, and from there getting to Charlemagne or some such is easy.
And since there’s been a lot of genealogical research over the years, once you hit a notable ancestor, someone else has already done the hard work. But make sure the research is well annotated with citations of sources.
I repeat, it isn’t that hard.
Too many people have this weird notion that Over Here are the Common People and Over There are the Important People and the two magically never mix. Not all the 6*great granchildren of kings can be kings. Most of them are fairly ordinary shlubs.
And vice-versa. For us ordinary shlubs, most of our 6*great grandparents were shlubs too, but a few of them probably weren’t completely ordinary.
*Which automatically excludes the stuff in the LDS family ancestry databases. Check the original records folks, don’t rely on an amateur’s research.
WordMan “Direct descendant” means the other person is your ancestor. “Descendant” should mean the same thing except it has been hijacked by people who want to claim a famous person as a relative. E.g., “I am a descendant of famous person X.” Which all too often can’t possibly be true since X had no kids. So they are fudging things by claiming “descent” via a sibling or cousin of X.
So when the quote says “direct descendant”, I take them at their word. I am closely related to my siblings. But I am not their descendant. So being in the same biologically related group doesn’t of itself establish a particular ancestry.
But if you share the same biological ancestry - the same DNA, using Bryan Sykes research - you aren’t related? That doesn’t seem right.
I know there is a distinction between “I am a descendent of X” meaning a straight path traceable by human ephemera like documents, birth accounts, etc., and “I am related to X” because of shared DNA. But that is more of a word-choice issue - someone who is merely “related” should state it that way, not claim to be a “descendent of.”
Is that a reasonable distinction in your mind, ftg?
The odds that you have a royal ancestor grew exponentially, but the odds that you’ll be able to find him/her are teneous.
Many people won’t find anybody important in their family tree 200 years ago.
That’s assuming that you can find the ancestors of this “important” person. The earlier you go, the mode difficult it is to find informations. And the fact that this person was important doesn’t mean that his own parents, grand-parents, ancestors, etc…, were, and that they left some records too. You need an unbroken line of important people. And these unbroken lines rarely exist. Except precisely in the nobility where people usually tried to keep clear records of their ancestry.
What do you mean by “some” royal blood? enough to be recognized as such during his life? Then, I strongly doubt that most people will find such a person by going back 300-400 years. 300 years means roughly 12 generations, or theorically 4096 ancestors. Since there’s already a lot of interbreeding at this stage, especially since people didn’t use to move a lot in past times, there’s much less actually different ancestors than that. Let’s say there are 3 000 of them (and I actually think it’s probably way less, like 1500, perhaps). 3000 thousand people out of the population of a random country which has millions of residents. What are the odds that one of them was known to belong to a royal lineage?
And of course, people who were member of such lineage didn’t marry random people. They would marry other nobles, etc…So, If you don’t have already found a fair number of people belonging to the high nobility amongst your ancestors, the chance that someone from a royal lineage will pop up in your family tree will be virtualy nil. All of these 3000 ancestors can very well be little people, most of them actually living in the same area, even the same town.
Of course, that’s assuming that you could identify all of the 3000, and here also the chances are virtually nil.
Not only it’s not easy, but it’s even impossible since no proven descendant of Charlemagne is known.
You’re mistakingly assuming that there’s a clear record of the ancestry of the most important people who were living in early periods. But even the origin of royal houses is unknown for the high middle-ages. I gave you the exact number of noble families in the whole france who can trace back their ancestry to the XI° century or earlier : there are 11 of them. That would be eleven.
And these are the people who are the most likely to find records of their ancestors, belonging to an unbroken chain of high and old nobility. Mr Smith chances of findind the name of even one of his ancestors during the XI° century are essentially zero.
There are excedeelingly few written documents from this period. I’ve a book around here about feodalism in a french region roughly at these times. The author is mightily pleased when he had found a couple flimpsy indications that some important person of the time might be closely related to some other important person, on the basis, for instance, that a not very common christian name has been used in both families and that some land was granted by one family to a monastery where a member of the other was abbot. That’s the kind of “evidences” they find about important people of this era. What kind of evidences can be found about the ancestry of a common (or actually not even that common) Joe at these times? You can guess…
The great grandchildrens are unlikely to be already “ordinary people”, but in the long run it’s true. But it means also that once they become “ordinary shlubs”, there isn’t anymore records about them available. They dissapear from the radar. You won’t find anything more about them than about any other “ordinary shlubs”. Which means for earlier periods : nothing. So you certainly might be one of their descendants, but you won’t be able find it out.
Huh? There’s literally thousands upon thousands of verified descendants of Charlemagne, including but hardly limited to, the current British royal family. The man left mad scads of descendants. Here’s a few lines for you to peruse:
Charlemagne
Louis the Pious
Charles the Bald
Judith
Baldwin II, Count of Flanders
Arnulf I, Count of Flanders
Baldwin III, Count of Flanders
Arnulf II, Count of Flanders
Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders
Baldwin V, Count of Flanders
Matilda of Flanders (m. William the Conqueror)
Henry I Beauclerc, King of England
Empress Maud (m. Geoffrey Plantagenet)
Henry II, King of England
John, King of England
Henry III, King of England
Edward I, King of England
Edward II, King of England
Edward III, King of England
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster
John Beaufort, Earl of Somerset
John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset
Margaret Beaufort (m. Edmund Tudor)
Henry VII, King of England
Margaret Tudor
James V, King of Scotland
Mary, Queen of Scots
James VI & I, King of Britain
Charles I, King of Britain
Elizabeth the Winter Queen
Sophia of Bohemia
George I, King of Britain
George II, King of Britain
Frederick, Prince of Wales
George III, King of Britain
Edward, Duke of Kent
Queen Victoria
Edward VI, King of Britain
George V, King of Britain
George VI, King of Britain
Queen Elizabeth II
Also…
Charlemagne
Louis the Pious
Charles the Bald
Judith
Baldwin II, Count of Flanders
Arnulf I, Count of Flanders
Baldwin III, Count of Flanders
Arnulf II, Count of Flanders
Baldwin IV, Count of Flanders
Baldwin V, Count of Flanders
Matilda of Flanders (m. William the Conqueror)
Adela (m. Étienne de Blois)
Stephen, King of England
Princess Mary of England
Matilde de Boulogne
Hendrik II, Duke of Brabant
Mathilde of Brabant
Jacques I de Chatillon
Beatrix de Chatillon
Marguerite de Dampierre
Guillaume II, Baron de Craon
Marguerite de Craon
Catherine de La Rochefoucauld
Anne de Chaunay
Francois de Rochechouart
Antoine de Rochechouart
Francoise de Rochechouart
Armand Jean du Plessis, Cardinal Richelieu
Charlemagne
Louis the Pious
Charles the Bald
Judith
Baldwin II, Count of Flanders
Arnulf I, Count of Flanders
Hildegarde
Arnulf II, Count of Holland
Thierry III, Count of Holland
Florent I, Count of Holland
Berthe de Holland
Louis VI “Le Gros”, King of France
Constance de France
Baudouin de Toulouse
Sicard de Toulouse
Isarn de Toulouse
Pierre de Toulouse
Amaury de Toulouse
Pierre de Toulouse
Pierre de Toulouse
Pierre de Toulouse
Antoine de Toulouse
Antoine de Toulouse
Jean-Francois de Toulouse
Pierre de Toulouse
Bernard de Toulouse
Alexandre de Toulouse
Bernard de Toulouse
Alexandre de Toulouse-Lautrec
Charles de Toulouse-Lautrec
Jean de Toulouse-Lautrec
Raymond de Toulouse-Lautrec
Alphonse de Toulouse-Lautrec
Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec, the famous artist.
Other Charlemagne descendants include Clive of India, the Red Baron, Duke Wellington, Lord Byron, Charles Darwin, Tennyson, the Aga Khan, Brooke Shields, Winston Churchill, Orson Welles, Bertrand Russell, Hermann Goering, and actor Ralph Fiennes and his brother, Joseph Fiennes. Among many others.
clairobscur. Your post is so incredibly full of mistatements and such that I cannot possibly reply to even a fraction of them. This one quote alone:
“Not only it’s not easy, but it’s even impossible since no proven descendant of Charlemagne is known.”
is quite telling.
I will no longer respond to any more of your posts in this matter.
On a more friendly note:
WordMan: Note that I was only questioning people who, based on DNA tests, claim direct descent from a particular individual who live a long time ago, e.g., Cheddar Man or Otzi. Claiming relatedness is virtually a tautology in these cases. Saying “descended from” is wrong depending on either use of the term: Meaning direct, then that’s completely unprovable. Meaning indirect, then they’re doing wordplay.