William I the Conqueror > Kevin Bacon?
Thanks Polycarp. I was going to give the details of Elizabeth II’s direct descent from William the Conqueror to correct **Can Handle the Truth’s ** incorrect assertion, but you beat me to it. I’d have done it slightly differently, with the link between Edward III and Margaret Queen of Scotland thus:
Edward III > Edmund, Duke of York > Richard, Earl of Cambridge > Richard, Duke of York > Edward IV > Elizabeth of York > Margaret Tudor, Queen of Scotland
It’s one generation longer than yours, but avoids the Beaufort legitimacy issues.
I’m half Icelandic, and a handful of the relatives on my mother’s side actually have published books that record the geneaology, pictures of my family included. I must admit, though, that I don’t recall exactly how far it goes back, but, as with most Icelandic geneaologies, the likelihood is that it goes back to at least 900 CE.
Unfortunately, the geneaological records on my father’s side are pretty sketchy. We’ve got some record of the Finnish part, and a little less on the Russian-Jewish part. It doesn’t help when you’ve got no record of what the surname was and no existing relatives back in the old country.
As a Yorkist from waaaaay back (there’s a tradition in my male line of illegitimate descent from Richard III, which would make me a Plantagenet if it were true, albeit on the wrong side of the coverlet), I probably should have done that.
Dude that’s really cool. I am impressed. Richard III was an interesting man, although Edward IV was better-looking. 
My mother is from Goa, a region of India that was a Portuguese colony until recently. The Basilica Museum in Panjim, Goa, has a gallery that displays portraits of all the Portuguese governors of Goa from the 16th century onwards. Apparently I’m descended from a few of them; the surnames certainly crop up in family records, and we do have Portuguese ancestry as well as Indian ancestry.
10th-generation Californian. Woo! West-side represent! Just thought Id continue the pattern here of posting our own genealogy instead of answering the OP.
Phlosphr, according to this and others I’ve seen, Robert the Bruce was descended from King David I of Scotland. That site will give you a little more information. Other sites should provide you with more.
His heart is buried in Melrose Abbey.
Walloon, Polycarp, Cunctator, and Can Handle the Truth: I remember reading at the time of the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Lady Diana Spencer that she filled in missing gaps in direct descendency. Should Prince William become king someday, that would make him the first monarch to be descended from all of the kings and queens of England. Is this true to the best of your knowledge?
Beats me. I do genealogy for people who hire me.
What do you usually charge?
As I recall, mitochondrial DNA would indicate that they go back QUITE A WAYS, but to accept the results from mitochondrial DNA tests would require I accept the results for the no particular relationship between Neaderthals and Modern humans so I can’t accept it. 
The Japanese imperial family officially traces its lineage back from the Emperor Jimmu, a mythical emperor descended from the sun goddess Amaterasu. His birth is usually given as 660 BC. The first “historical” emperor was Emperor Oujin. Wikipedia gives 200 - 310 AD as his life, but my Japanese dictionary just gives a rough date of the 5th century. Some Korean scholars claim (without, IMO, much of an argument) that Emperor Oujin was really an aristocrat of Paekche with ties to the throne. If you buy that, you could possibly trace the emperor all the way back to the rulers of Puyo back in the 3rd of 4th centuries BC.
Ok, I spent 12 hours with the Encyclopaedia Britannica and I drew up this genealogical chart which shows all the kings and queens of England from William the Conqueror to Elizabeth II.
Yes, I have to admit, Elizabeth is a descendant of William I. So I must apologize for posting wrong information. At the same time, IMHO, Elizabeth is still not what I would call a direct descendant; in fact, I think her claim to the crown is pretty lame. In the case of some of her ancestors – Henry VII, James I and George I for instance – it seems like the English were grasping at straws trying to find somebody with a connection. Sophia of the Palatinate was the 12th child of Frederick V, for God’s sake!
On another note, I am well on the way to debunking the idea that Elizabeth II is descended from Hatshepsut, Cleopatra, Cyrus the Great, Alexander, etc. that was posted previously. I have worked my way thru Egyptian Dynasties 18 thru 27 (roughly 1000 years from Thutmose I to the Persian conquest of Cambyses) and it’s as full of holes and dead ends as… I don’t know what! I’ll keep you posted.
According to Shoumatoff (The Mountain of Names), only one Western royal lineage crosses the “gap” between classical and mediaeval times: that of the Bagratid kings of Georgia. This dates from a King Pharnabazus of Iberia (not Spain and Portugal, a different Iberia) in 326 BC, with the line broken or conjectural in only three places and the whole considered “probable”. Marriages with other Near Eastern royal families created traceable connections with the Ptolemaic kings of Egypt, Herod of Judaea, and other well-known fiigures of antiquity. Queen Elizabeth II’s ancestry ties into this line through a marriage between the Royal family of Cyprus and the House of Savoy.
[QUOTE=Can Handle the Truth]
At the same time, IMHO, Elizabeth is still not what I would call a direct descendant; in fact, I think her claim to the crown is pretty lame. In the case of some of her ancestors – Henry VII, James I and George I for instance – it seems like the English were grasping at straws trying to find somebody with a connection. Sophia of the Palatinate was the 12th child of Frederick V, for God’s sake!
[QUOTE]
? One is no less directly descended for being the 12th child or the 112th. You may be a fierce partisan of primogeniture but that is a different issue.
At most of the dynasty changes, there were other considerations than lineal succession – it was pretty much of an excuse.
Henry VII, for example, got the throne by right of conquest, killing Richard III at Bosworth Field after rallying the Lancastrians, most of the Welsh, and some of the Yorkists behind him. His claim was being the only son of the only daughter of the eldest illegitimate-but-legitimated-save-for-right-of-succession son of Edward III’s fourth son, by his third wife. Me quickly married Edward IV’s daughter to secure Yorkist support and bolster his shaky dynastic claim, and then got Parliament to recognize his right to the throne by law.
James I was heir of line, heir by primogeniture of Henry VII’s elder daughter, after Henry VIII’s three children all died childless. He was reasonably close, being Elizabeth’s first cousin once removed. And there was quite literally nobody with a better claim.
George I got it by being the person in line by primogeniture with royal descent who was Protestant – there were tons of people closer, but all Catholic. And at that point, there was a sincere effort on the part of some to bring Britain back into the Catholic fold, which was resisted by most of the common people and nobility alike.
I am available – if people agree to disregard a couple of bastardies and a long unproven line, I have direct male descent from Henry II!
Claims of this ilk are made on the basis of rather specious lineages, like the one that traces the Princes of Powys back to one of Jesus’s aunts, or the infamous Irish lineage that goes back to “Caesair, Pharaoh’s daughter, who married Milesius.” In other words, the documentation “proving” them leaves a whole lot to be desired – using stuff as reliable, I can prove that Michael Jackson is Jackie Onassis’s son by Bigfoot! 
My great aunt (dad’s side) is big into this stuff. She’s traced us back to James Madison, and I guess you could probably get a lot farther than that.
On my mom’s side, the family comes from Poland only a few generations back. Unfortunately for me, no one has picked up the researching slack.
~S&S
I don’t understand the distinction between these two concepts. How does a *descendant * differ from a direct descendant?
Decendant + Direct decendant - your ggggg grandpap - but you have thousands of ‘collateral ancestors" your ggg fathers’ & mothers’ siblings. You’re still decended from that family line, but not directly.
Thanks. I’ll pass that along to my brother, who’s the researcher after G-uncle Owen passed in '79 (90+ y/o). I find it fairly interesting, but not enough to do the homework.
I ran out of steam and interest after trying to track down the El Paso Sutton’s back in '94.
Descendants of Aaron are kohanim, “priests” (i.e., the guys who would have hereditary duties in the Jerusalem Temple if there were one). They’re a subset of Levites, who are supposed to be students of the Law, and who are descended from Aaron and Moses’s great-grandfather Levi.
Cunctator/violet9: The term we’re missing here is “collateral descent.” E.g., You’re a direct descendant of your grandfather. You’re a collateral descendant of your great-aunt.
It’s not strict denotative usage – you’re properly a descendant only of your direct ancestors, the ones whose sex lives resulted in conceiving a child which became another of your ancestors. However, it’s a part of human nature to want to show a connection to “the man who invented the steam-powered widget, who was my great-great-grandfather’s brother.”